Hubac's Historian

Chapman, thank you for that super clear image of the Grand Monarque’s bow. I see your point about the relative scantling of timber that the gammoning passes through, in these early First Marine vessels. Twenty years later, though, the head structure of French ships had changed significantly, and the cutwater was significantly more “meaty” in the area of the gammoning. There was a transition from the beakhead style (more characteristically Dutch) to this later style, which is more like the English head structure - excepting the headrails, themselves, which are characteristically French.

For reasons I point out in prior posts, doing so creates unnecessary weak points in the structure. These ships were massive, with tremendous dynamic forces working against them all the time; the gammoning really needs to be secured by the heavy timbering of the cutwater. Anyone, of course, is free to do as they wish. However, if they want to represent authentic reality, then there are some rules of construction that shouldn’t be violated for the sake of aesthetics.

I agree. I recently spent too many hours to count, carving a lovely trailboard for my model. It is annoying that it will be partially covered, but the necessity of this can’t reasonably be avoided, IMO.

Nice to hear from you Vic! I’m glad you are still here 😀 I’ve been slowly working through the problems of this one, small, critical piece. I’ve reached the transition from the lower hull to the upper bulwarks. The railing of the open walk is that transition line, and the forward terminus of that railing has some tricky navigation to plot, in order to avoid interference with the aft-most main deck gun. Here is the problematic rendering by Berain: What I drew, in my revision drawing, doesn’t exactly match the reality of my build, and so, it became necessary to design on the fly. This turned out to be one of the more complicated parts to work out its shape; it has to extend far enough aft to clear the gunport, but still fay forward into the hull with something of a sweeping arc, so that the cap rail doesn’t return to the hull at an awkward right angle, while also not encroaching on the port opening. Here is the basic shape that I arrived at, complete with compound angles: The material for this part is the off-cut of the return just below. This was handy because the compound angle was already approximately sawn, and it only took a little sanding to fair the surfaces: It occurred to me that I would be better served to not try and let this part into the wales. Instead, I faired a styrene filler that keys-in between the wales. The awkward bit is the weird triangular flat that you see just aft of the forward rounding. I was highly skeptical about how this would resolve, on the model, but I knew that there had to be a smooth continuous surface, on which to mount the carving. In the end, the carving draws your eye, and the remainder of the lower port enhancement partially overshadows this weird triangle: Ultimately, I will probably blacken the interspace between the hull and the carving, in a little bit of theater carpentry, aka Trompe Loiel. A brief montage that shows how all the parts fit together: The gap between the block and the upper bulwarks will be filled by the caprail. Next, I will complete the starboard side block, and then I can begin designing the railing upright, itself. After I make the starboard block, though, It may make more sense to focus on editing the Four Seasons figures, so that I can mask their mounting places and bring the paint fully up to the gallery level. I am reminded of SJSoane, right now, and the order of operations problems that he is currently dealing with on his magnificent Bellona. I will say that I am really happy that I resisted the temptation to mount the beakhead bulkhead, way back when. If I had done so, I would have had tremendous difficulty painting as I go. Thanks for the likes, your comments and for stopping by!

Paint looks really good!

Kirill - when there is a lack of any clear evidence pointing you in the right direction, I like to think about what makes the most practical sense; given the rudder’s importance to the ship, it makes sense that it would be secured from both sides for added insurance. It is another curious thing that - despite the super detailed drawings of the Elder VDV - he never seemed to draw the rudder pendants. And the ships are always depicted in the heat of action, or the immediate aftermath when the pendants would surely have been in place. Shoutout to Arsenio Hall: things that make you go “HMMMM”!

For what it’s worth, though, the mizzen mast of square riggers, right up to the mid 18-hundreds, carried a lateen sail, and the mast was rigged for shrouds and ratlines. Mind you - I’m not disagreeing with you. It’s just a curious thing.

This model you are showing seems like a reasonable compromise.

I see your point Kirill, but I think the ability to get up the mast would still be important in certain sail handling situations, or Jerry-rig repairs.

One point of curiosity about this model, and this type of ship, in general; every Reale model I’ve looked at has shrouds, but no ratlines. Even the prototype in the Musee de la Marine is without ratlines. Why is that?

A thoughtful tip, Druxey.

Ah, okay - I see now. Thank you.

I posted a test message because your previous post - for which I received an email notification did not appear, when I went to your page. No number of refreshes brought it to light. So, I posted a test message to see whether the page would refresh that way. Whatever you wrote this morning still isn’t visible to me. I deleted the test message, though.

With a hundred years separation between them, I am curious as to how the Confederacy will inform your SP build; the head structure is completely different.

What do you mean by a “furring deck”? Do you mean the beakhead grating?

Your last edited photo with the gammoning going through the trailboard is even less structurally sound. All I’m trying to advise, here, is that if you are going to go to the trouble of making something immensely complex, like the SP, then try to avoid glaringly wrong work arounds. If it were me, I might redraw the timbering, so that the gammoning didn’t pierce at an awkward place below the lower cheek, and I would probably cheat the waterline down by a 1/16” - 1/8”. It may not be exactly right, but it is more correct LOOKING than what Lemineur provides for.

As you are still in a conjectural planning/spitballing phase, I would like to chime-in on your proposed re-gammoning location. From a timbering standpoint, running the gammoning above the trailboard creates a vulnerable weak spot that jeopardizes the bowsprit. Also, it just wasn’t done, so the wrongness of its appearance, here, would look even more wrong than the gammoning soaking beneath the waterline. It seems to me that, while you may have to re-think the timber joinery beneath the trailbord, there is ample space to locate the gammoning above the waterline, but below the lower cheek.

Nice paint work! The globe is the lantern.

Good lookin’ out, Dan!

The rig looks really crisp, J11!

That is also an interesting idea, Mark. Future Floor Finish sounds like something I could easily find at the hardware store. Thanks for the tip!

Michael and Dan - thank you for the suggestions. I’m going to order a bottle of this BSI release agent. If it doesn’t work, I’ll experiment with your ideas. In the end, the best thing may be to leave it alone. Thanks for weighing-in guys!

Not to derail your log, Michael, but this is really worth a look for anyone who hasn’t seen it:

The Blue Ensign log us a now completed build of a Heller kitbash into La Superbe. It is a spectacular piece of work, and his tutorial on sailmaking is very thorough.

In my SR log, I asked Micheal to post links to pics of his 1765 Victory build. It was there that I first noticed his sail furling technique and asked him to describe it. Between Michael and Blue Ensign’s methods, I should eventually arrive at a dynamite suite of sails!