Hubac's Historian

These window banks are incredibly labor-intensive, but the process of making them has been very enjoyable for me.  What I am doing, here, essentially mirrors what Tanneron did for the sterns of his models.  The damaged stern of L’Agreable illustrates how his windows are all pierced into one plate, as seen with the lower bank of windows:

Considering the density of detail in such a small space, this method seems far easier than framing each individual window.  Getting all of the elements (window frames and pilasters to flow harmoniously would, otherwise be quite difficult.

As I have done previously, I add window backstops to the bulkheads as added insurance that the windows can’t drop out of their frames, if the CA bonds should ever fail:

I remain indebted to Druxey for showing me how to make really good acetate windows by simply scribing the mullions into the acetate, and then filling those engravings with medium grey acrylic paint:

It really is simple and it just looks so much better than anything else, at scale.

Of course, I will next plank-in beneath the windows, but I am pleased with how the stern is rising:

One detail that isn’t so apparent now, but will become so after planking, is the chamfer I filed into the door sides; this chamfer will create a shadow relief that will more clearly delineate the door opening.  For the door handles, I recycled a pair of my frieze scrolls, which had the right shape and were sized closely enough.

The round-up really helps to minimize the warped geometry of my stern:

At this stage, it is becoming more apparent how the increase in hull-width has established a more ship-like impression of a stable gun platform:

This is quite a difference from the stock kit.

So, I will plank and paint beneath the windows, install the balcony bulwark, and create the cap-rail for the balcony bulwarks. I will then take a break from the stern so that I can focus on finishing certain details.

I need to paint and install the starboard spirketting on the main deck.  The f’ocsle beam needs re-touching, where I installed the moulding.  The starboard bulwark joint needs to be puttied and painted.  I need to fit, paint and install the quarter deck beam.  Then, I need to retouch the exterior joint for the starboard aft bulwark.  Finally, I need to install the starboard channels and fit all of the buttressing knees.

When all of that is ship-shape, I will return to the stern.  One fun thing to make are the pass-through archways that support the figures of Africa and the Americas:

On the back-burner of my mind, I’ve been thinking about how best to make up this piece so that I can represent the delicate acanthus carvings.  I think I know what to do now.  The most important thing is getting the scale and shape of the opening right.

Following that, I’ll tackle the third level of stern lights.

Thank you for your interest, your likes and comments, and for looking in!

Your resolve is admirable, but I will tell you that I have watched many accomplished modelers who don’t come close to the fair run of your ceiling planking.  Having never done it, myself, I can only guess at the difficulty of it.

A better example of the shipwright’s art, there is not.

Super precise work, Ondras!

What the French have to offer, in the way of primary sources of 17th C. French practice is unique among European nations of the time.

First, there is the pictographically complete Album de Colbert, which illustrates the complete timbering and process of constructing an 80-gun, three-deck ship.  As I understand it, there are a few small anachronisms between what the artist drew and what actual practice would have been in 1670, but the liner notes clarify these discrepancies.

Then, there is the Chevalier de Tourville, 1680, which is a distillation of Colbert’s son Seignelay, and Hubac’s son Etienne’s study of the English and Dutch construction practices, combined with Tourville’s conception of the ideal three-deck ship.  The resulting plans are what Frolich used to create his model of L’Ambiteaux.

So, while complete sets of plans for actual ships in this period do not exist, it is possible to draft a credible reconstruction with accurate timbering, and in accordance with the known dimensions and armament of any given ship;  this is the best educated guess that is possible.

It is not even a contest, Gaetan.

Also, would it be fair to say that the collection of Tanneron models were commissioned, in the first place, to be the visual expression of the more evolved and codified Second Marine of the 1690’s?

I don’t have good pictures of L’Agreable’s stern, so I can’t tell whether he modeled her with the pre or post 1673 stern:

Like SR, though,  her 1697 refit drawing shows the early stern:

As you know - notwithstanding all of the problems you mentioned - I also agree with your basic premise that the Berain/Vary drawing must exist for a reason.  From an evolutionary standpoint, this particular arrangement of the quarters is consistent with other examples that are better understood from the late 1680s/90s; lower gallery closed, middle gallery open and walkable, upper gallery a trompe l’oeil amortisement. 

Well explained, Marc!  Do you hold a position on the pinrail debate?

I dunno’ Bill - relative to the men sitting on the poop deck, those pins don’t seem too impractical to my eye.

They also appear on the contemporary-build Louis Quinze model:

And actual pinrails on Frolich’s L’Ambiteaux:

Look at the area referenced by the red arrow;  there are pins between the sheer railing and the top fighting cloth rail.

One last reference - the poop sheer of the Monarque appears to have pins:

Respectfully, I am more inclined to believe that the simple utility of belaying pins would have been universally understood much earlier than that.  They show up in this Van de Velde sketch of a Dutch warship, following a battle:

And another ship, where they are evident along the forecastle sheer rail.

I am glad to hear you are still modeling, Vic!

To be honest, I’m not sure about the question of belaying pins.  I don’t think the French employed pin rails, at this time (1670-1700), but I do think it likely that pins were used along the sheer rail, as Heller shows.  Then again, for his SP monograph, Lemineur does show pinrails.

He also shows them for his Le Francois of 1683, monograph:

2 minutes ago, yancovitch said:

sorry to interrupt...artesania latina S/R ?..........wish ''they'' had checked with you or hubac before creating it....so sad.....

I know of one English modeler who has purchased this kit and plans to correct the length of the hull, the spacing of the guns, the sheer-line, deck furniture, etc.

He’s quite talented, so I am sure he will make excellent work of it.  I also believe that there is solid potential in that kit to produce a fairly representative ship, but it would require a tremendous degree of reverse engineering.

Simply one of the best resources on the subject.

SR1’s armament fluctuated over her 22 year life span:

Agreed.  I can only guess at what some of Tanneron’s original sources were.  I strongly suspect, though, that SR 1670 was very similar in structure to the Monarque of 1668:

Perhaps this is SR, 1670:

Or, perhaps this is SR 1670:

There is no way of knowing until I can obtain better images of these portraits.

Overall, Bill, I agree with you that Tanneron’s model is more representative of SR2, however, it seems to me that Tanneron was attempting a composite of SR1 and SR2; the most notable features of 1669/70 are three open stern balconies, and fully open quarter galleries.  Stylistically, the shape of the QGs is more directly connected to what the shipyards were producing from the 1690s, onward.

Nice work!  Revenue cutters have sweet lines, and you did her justice.

Alright, I am in!  This looks like it will be a fun project, and your painting skills are evidence of a thoughtful, meticulous approach.

The winch looks spectacular!

I love the progress, Radek - very fine work!

My method for making the window plates is well-documented, earlier in the log, so I won’t go into great detail.  Some pictures:

I found it best to fit the rough blanks between the pilasters, first, before relieving the negative space panels.  This way, I could trace on the backside, the top and bottom edges of the top rail, thereby knowing just how thin to make the reliefs.

Once all of the panels were in, and I had also glued-in the central bell-flower ornament, I could begin modeling these reliefs:

It really doesn’t take much to give them a little shape and dimension.

I began framing in the bulkheads:

I like to glue-in positive stops, top and bottom, so that it is easier to glue-in the bulkheads and get them aligned exactly where they need to be.

Keen observers will note that the bulkheads do not align, neatly with the tops of the pilasters beneath them.  Instead, they fan out more towards the sides:

I considered whether to re-draw the plate, but determined that this would result in less pleasingly shaped and proportioned windows:

The discrepancy is a result of my decision to revise the tumblehome of the upper bulwarks.  The lower tier is based upon the more vertical tumblehome of my original drawing, so the pitch of the window stiles is less severe.

This middle tier simply follows the more pronounced pitch of the accentuated tumblehome.  In the end, the lower balcony railing will serve as a visual interrupter that minimizes this discrepancy.

I point all of this out to highlight just one of many imperfect compromises I have made, where I have deemed one aspect of the construction to carry more visual importance over another.  In this instance, the whole model is more ship-like with a more pinched tumblehome, and the windows have a pleasant shape and arc of camber.

Thank you for your likes and comments and continued interest in this project.  More to follow.

I agree with Mark - it’s been a long while since I’ve seen your beautiful model.  I look forward to updates whenever you are ready.

Thank you, Marc!

My color choices come, in part, from Lemineur’s discussion in the St. Philippe monograph, where he discusses the likelihood that yellow ocher and red vermillion were much more likely paint choices for the deadworks.  Given the exorbitant cost associated with true ultra-marine, it would only have been used as a backdrop to ornament that makes specific reference to the crown.  I have been slightly more indulgent than that, but mostly, I have stuck to that premise.

It also seemed likely to me that the extensive use of gold leaf, that may have been used on the ship as she was launched in 1670, would have been severely reduced by the time of her refit - especially considering they were preparing the ship for war.

My lighter blue should probably be lighter still, and with a slightly greenish cast, in order to be fully faithful to the times, but I liked the way this cerulean blue relates to both the yellow and red ochers.

Also, and I may be mis-interpreting the faded color, but Berain’s stern drawing appears to be shaded in a faded red color.

As I had grown a little bored with always seeing SR as being tan, blue and gold, I wanted to present the possibility that a ship of SR’s importance would have used a polychromatic scheme to accentuate all of the ornamental work; this, much like the Vasa some 50 years earlier, would be an exuberant artistic expression in form, ornament and color.

Here is a contemporary watercolor of a ship that I have yet to identify:

My idea was to unify the red of the beakhead bulkhead to the stern, by painting the plank of the main deck battery in this same color.

All of this may not be exactly historically correct for SR at this time in her career, but I do believe these colors are historically plausible.