Hubac's Historian

So, am I correct that you will give the interior the full Dafi treatment?

Hello, Chris! As Berain originally drew the QG, the five windows of the lower tier appear to be a kind of artifact of the First Marine design conventions. Following the early freedom and exuberance of Puget’s early work on the Monarque, the Paris, the Scepter, and other early ships, Colbert and the crown decide that they must reign all of this in, so as not to literally embarrass themselves on the world stage. Louis and Colbert are particularly concerned with how the new French fleet will be perceived by the English. By the time, the Van de Veldes are making the following portraits in English waters, in 1672, many of these ships had been cut down, their ornament reduced and their names changed. The Paris becomes the Royal Therese: Le Royal Duc becomes La Reyne: Who knows what Le Royal Duc looked like in 1668, but by 1672 La Reyne is a fairly sober looking vessel that is mainly notable for her impressive size and armament. Here, the lower quarter of a large second rate: By 1672, the open walkable quarters, on this lower tier of the QGs are now closed in. Gone, are the massive split-tail tritons supporting the open walk, above. By 1672, most French ships display this multiplicity of “windows” on the lower level. Their number varies from ship to ship, but it hardly matters from an architectural standpoint, because it is all a facade. On the other hand, as French design approaches the dawn of the second marine, there is a shift toward a more orderly and balanced presentation of the QGs. This is what we see, manifest in the QGs of the St. Philippe of 1693, for example. That Berain, apparently, chose to draw this earlier structure, in 1688/89, muddles their credibility for this later time period. This is but one example of why scholars of the period do not believe that these QGs belong to this period. It is hard not to sympathize with that point of view, however, I see too much corollary - even where others do not - with the stern ornamentation to conclude that these quarters are anything but the rightful companion to Berain’s stern. That being said, the original drawing - even if it is a facade - is cluttered and problematic. I chose to de-clutter and reinforce harmonies with the stern ornament. As for the guns, I designed this build to make it easy to install the guns after the model is complete. On the lower decks, I have installed dummy carriages that are pre-drilled and positioned to point the guns in the desired attitude: I found with my Airfix Vasa that I was constantly breaking off the gun barrels as the build progressed, which really annoyed me. Unfortunately, I will have no choice but to mount the upper deck(s) guns, as the build progresses, but there will be less to break away. For the same reason, I won’t put the port lids on until the end of the build. The model will be displayed with all guns out, and ready for action. My nod to historic reality will be that there are no bow or stern chase guns mounted.

Excellent! I just love the wood effects.

Thank you for these highly detailed descriptions, Michael. Is the tissue you used the same as Modelspan?

WOW, Michael - that was absolutely worth the visit! Your 1765 Victory is a remarkable achievement! Everything from the quarters to the figurehead to the masting and rigging is just extremely well done. I love your natural wood tones. This is just an excellent example of how much more dynamic and interesting the hobby becomes, when you incorporate some scratch-work into the build. I am curious to know what material you used for your sails, and what technique you employed for such realistic furls. Please feel free to post within this log. This was your first foray into that kind of build, and it came out so well because you took your time. I think, sometimes builders become intimidated by the scratch work, but there are a handful of easy to acquire skills, like scribing for example, that make anything possible. I heartily encourage everyone here to check out Michael’s Victory (see the links at the bottom of the prior page), and don’t miss out on his Heller Reale: Of course, there is immense talent, technique and skill involved, but mostly - this kind of work is the product of patience and time. Thanks for sharing, Michael!

Thanks, Michael! I am likewise enjoying your Reale; your paint effects and build-quality are outstanding. I am in the intensive phase of it, right now. Total commitment is the truth! Did you do a build log for that 1765 Victory? I have that kit in my stash and had the same idea - that it would not be crazy difficult to convert her to this earlier appearance. If no build log, can you PM me some pics, please? I would love to see that.

As for forecastle deck integrity on the Quinze model, there would be full scantling beams, fore and aft of the capstan drum. I would also think there would be at least a boxing between those beams, and more likely a solid blocking, in order to provide a secure mount for the drum axle.

I just did a search and found picture of the 1758 model of the RL, at the Musee de la Marine: Stove pipes don’t appear to be addressed here, either, but forecastle-mounted capstans do appear to be a practice that continued into the 18th Century.

Hello, EJ! Your stern carvings look wonderful; your carving skills are improving with every piece. Like you, I am also grappling with this question of a forecastle deck-mounted capstan. The time period is earlier, but the Louis Quinze model shows the capstan pawls on the deck, even though the drum is absent: On the other hand, there is no apparent accommodation for the galley stove pipes, nor the galley stoves. The main deck gratings continue under the forecastle deck, and the heavy stove would not be built over gratings: photos courtesy of Marc Yeu So, I’m not sure what to make of all of that. At the moment, I favor the notion of a capstan on the forecastle deck, as there’d be more free space to operate the capstan bars between the foremast and the galley stove pipes. The stoves, themselves, take up considerable space. I haven’t scaled any of this out yet, so it remains an open question for me. A part of me wants to include it as a visible detail simply because a capstan would be a fun thing to make.

Indeed, Chris, the Tanneron tafferal appears much more rounded than Heller’s version. I like your idea to add an additional layer for the two forward-most horses. That will probably create the illusion of depth that I am after. It was a good week, tying up loose ends on the starboard side QG. The windows are tacked in place with a little cyano before gluing-in the window plate. As I did for the stern lights, I took a little extra care to back the window panes with stops; in the event that the cyano fails, at some point in the future, at least the stops will keep the windows in place, mechanically. Empty eye-sockets are daunting repairs. This overhead shot gives a sense for the multiplicity of rebates that were cut into the aft blocks - particularly, clearance had to be cut for the aft window pane, itself, effectively making a window stop of the block. One can also get a sense for the asymmetry of the transom, which I described in earlier posts; this reality has made coping the whole thing together more challenging, but the variance is not apparent from the outside. It is fortunate that the wrapping stern balcony happens at this level, rather than above, where this variance will increase, somewhat. Having learned my lesson, I pre-painted the window plate, off the model. The reality of what ends up being constructed is sometimes at odds with the one-dimensional plan I drew. Initially, I thought I would book-end the three windows with these diamond-hatch motifs: It looks well on paper, but in reality - the coved forward block feels too expansive for this to look good, while the space between pilasters, on the aft block, turned out to be much more narrow than I expected: I’ll mock up the aft diamond-hatch in card, just to be sure, but I think it will look too cramped. For the forward block, I decided to extract the radiant fleurs from the upper finishing of the stock QG plate: I had to make these a little more oval, than round, to fit the available space. When I paint these, I will pick out the rays in gold, silver and white, which I think will create the right impression, while mirroring a similar treatment to the backdrop of Apollo’s horse-drawn chariot on the tafferal. Having worked out all of the problems on the starboard side, the port side is moving along much more quickly: Soon, I’ll be coping together the base walkways of the wrapping balcony, which will then enable me to pattern and make all the pieces of the balcony railings. At this level, these are very involved and will be time-consuming to make well. So far, so good - a reasonable facsimile, up to this point: Thank you all for the likes, and your gracious comments!

Wow - well, that is impressive indeed! How do you brush the varnish onto these complicated shapes - without bleeding onto the carving ground - and still have enough open time to apply the leaf? In other words, how much open time do you have before the varnish won’t still be tacky enough to hold the leaf? Or, do you simply blanket the part in leaf and then go back and carefully - ever so carefully - paint the ground?

You are doing a fabulous job, Michael. Is that real gold leaf, or a really good facsimile?

The 1:10 museum model at Vasa Museet remained unpainted for many years. Eventually, micro-analysis of paint remaining in the ship’s timbers revealed her true colors. You can not hope for a more historically accurate guide to painting the Vasa than the museum model, itself. Fortunately, the AIRFIX kit is among the most finely detailed of all plastic sailing ship kits - at least, with regard to the sculpture work. Although Rex chose to do her topsides in blue, he is a true professional who achieved remarkable results with detailing this kit: https://shipsofscale.com/sosforums/threads/modified-airfix-1-144-scale-classic-series-wasa-c-1628.5559/ This is an indication of what is possible with some research and extra effort. I wish you luck on your build, and look forward to watching it unfold.

Congratulations on a job well done!

Well, Chris, I think this all sounds like a reasonable plan. The colors that Lemineur arrived at seem to change, a bit, depending upon the conditions the model was photographed in. Here, the colors seem a little too bright: Yet, here, the red seems to take on just slightly more of the orangey cast of the dry pigment you have pictured above: Neither representation is displeasing, or fails to represent the period, IMO. It is unclear to me whether you plan to purchase raw pigment powders and bind them in linseed oil. I will advise against doing that on a plastic model. Without driers, the oil will remain tacky for an inordinate time, and in any case - you are sure to obscure whatever fine detail you want to represent. This is also the reason that I don’t like enamel paints for wooden ship models. They are too heavy bodied. For plastic ship models, acrylics are the way to go - even if you find you must mix several colors to arrive at the shade you want. I like Testors Model Master for my red, random tan, black and white. I can modulate these colors with my wash coats, and their ease of application can’t be beat. Vallejo acrylics are also excellent and come in a broad spectrum of colors. Lastly, I like Citadel for their metallics and ver-de-gris, and other wash coats. I think, with these French Baroque warships there can be a tendency to become overwhelmed by the sheer volume of details that exist for consideration. I encourage you to NOT try and figure out every last thing, right at the start. This was advice given to me by Herbert Thomesan, of Artitec renown. You have a solid foundational plan. You have made a good start of it. Just keep going. So many of these questions and considerations become clearer as you build. In the end, our models are an amalgamation of detail that - considered as a whole - strikes an impression of mostly correctness, or some lesser variation. If you consider the two models that were constructed for the SP monograph, Jose Tusset’s fully-rigged version is vastly superior in the overall standard of execution. Nevertheless, the impression cast by the admiralty version (pictured above) is highly representative of the period. Don’t sweat it too much. If you break it down into manageable chunks, and take your time, the results will be very good. Trust your sub-conscious to incubate the nitty gritty, while your hands are busy with the broad strokes. This has been my guiding philosophy with woodworking, and it applies equally well to ship modeling.

If you look at Lemineur’s overhead plan view of the QG, in fact, you can see that he has pierced the ship side - just forward of the entry to the QG - with a gun port. It seems that stowage of the gun would not present any issue in peace times because it would not be present. In war times, though, if the navy were willing to subject all of their beautiful ornament to cannon shot, I don’t think they would worry too much about the truck wheels scuffing the parquet.

I think it is quite possible that the central false window of the quarter gallery, on the middle deck tier, would have had a port piercing through the hull for an additional pair of guns. This would be just forward of the functional toilet. I believe these false windows were actually partially or wholly removable panels. I doubt that they were continuously armed, though.

That is such a strange thing about the replica - the stem running perpendicular to the keel. If that is the case, though, your keel length wouldn’t seem so out of line with actual practice.

If I can offer one small critique - ships of the 1670’s would still be steered by tiller and whipstaff. Wheel and drum steerage does not emerge until a little later in the 1700’s. I realize this is a fantasy ship, to some degree, and perhaps not intended to be a strict adherent to historical accuracy. If I remember, the movie ship also has a wheel. Anyway, it is something to consider or ignore, as you wish.

If the Concepcion is your basis, I don’t think you can go wrong - your lines look very good, Radek, and convey the fullness of the hull, at midships, that is so apparent in good period portraits of Spanish galleons. This is a very exciting project! It will be fun to see the Neptune round into a realistic form.

I have always found this replica movie ship to be fascinating. The set designers seem to have drawn much inspiration from early French design from around the time of the First Marine, 1666-1670. The structure of the quarter galleries, in particular, is quite similar to what the French were constructing, at this time. I don't know that the ship is particularly Spanish or French, but it is impressive! I will enjoy watching your progress on this project. If I may encourage you to do one thing, that would be to more correctly scale the figurehead. The movie ship's Neptune figure is so huge, I am surprised she doesn't go down, bow first, under the weight of him.

Exactly, EJ - these quarter galleries are quite a challenge with so much happening in a small space. Work on the grand chaloupe continues: Above and below, I’m laying out the floor on a 1/2” grid. I simply took measurements to one side of the centerline, so that ultimately, the doubling of frames would still be visible: I laid out tapering planks: Although the chaloupe is some 30’ in length, I am not going to show any butt joints in the planking. Below shows the series of shaping steps for making the bench corner braces: From lower right to left: the glued-in blocks; angled waste cut made with a triangular file; and final shaping with rounded files. These pieces are too small to work without them being attached, so it is just easier to shape them, in place. Note, also, the oar-lock blocks that have been added. I added a mast step: Note, also, the rub-rail that I added below the sheer. French chaloupes always seem to have an elegantly tapered sheer step at the stern, so I patterned that, and gave the transom a nice rounded top profile: As it stands, this is quite a lot of nice additional detail. After finishing up the other sheer step, I will probably add a metal mast collar, at the bench level, as well as a bowsprit collar next to the stem. The stem top will also be replaced so that it might more realistically buttress the sprit mast running right beside it; the little nub that the kit provides is not sufficient. Work on the starboard QG continues. I made and fit the forward block, and also attached the outer pilasters to these fore and aft blocks: With all of this structure in place, I could begin leveling all of the tops. One really fortunate bit of news: I realized that I could remove a 1/16” from each side of the window panel. Even that small difference significantly reduced the amount of material I would need to remove from the bottom corners and top middle, in order to get the window plate to fit within this parallel space. The pilasters will overlay and cover this join between the window plate and the end blocks. I still have to fair the top edge, but even if I dip into the ornament topping the central window frame, I will probably be able to alter the carving a little to make it work. The gap remaining at the bottom can be filled and faired with a strip of styrene, and the pilaster bottoms can also be filled-in and faired. The bottom gap is only a heavy 1/64”. Here’s the plate, resting in place, to give an impression of what it will look like: Earlier, I made the transitional top mouldings that serve as the base of the walkable, wrapping stern balcony. It has yet to be reduced, in depth (from hull), or scribed to the hull side. The extension, off the stern, is also over-length. I am relieved that it now seems likely that I can use my window plates, after all. Little by little, we are getting there!

Whether it’s handwork with traditional tools, or working with technology - engineering the process for producing the results is always the greatest challenge, IMO. The results you are getting with CNC are superb, but the machines will only do what you tell them to. Your talent as a maker of fine things is abundantly clear, even if the means of expressing it is less familiar to most, including myself.

Beautiful, clean work, as always, Ondras. It is a real pleasure to watch her come together.

One of my first revelations was that the aft-facing window must also follow the continuation of the stern round-up. If I were to position that window square with the ship’s side, then it would create an awkward angle along where the window bottom edge meets the transitional moulding that it sits upon. The other thing that quickly crystallized in my mind is the difference between drawing something in the one-dimensional plane and the practical application of that drawing to a space that requires compound angles and elegant transitions between curved and flat surfaces. To begin with, the outboard edge of this aft-facing QG window has a subtle curved profile: I very much wanted to include this detail because it is one of the many small details that would be glaring, in its absence. The difficulty is that the three windows of the side QG exist in a flat vertical plane, angled-in towards the ship side, while also conforming to a elegantly bowed horizontal plane (more on that later!😤). First, I decided to provide myself with a pair of glue cleats that would help position these aft windows on their back-raking angle, while also conforming to the round-up: Forward of those cleats are a series of reference lines drawn at a right angle to the ship sides. These lines delineate the aft window backing-block and the window pilaster framing gussets. Next, I needed to make the backing-block. I had some 3/8 stock left over from the making of the lower finishing. This was exactly the right width (according to my flat 1-D drawing that neither accounted for round-up or outboard bowing 😭), to provide room for the aft-most pilaster, the crossed diamond ornament, as well as a 1/16” landing ledge for the aft edge of the window plate to recess into. So, I first cut the back-raking angle onto a piece of this 3/8” stock, and then I scribed it to the tumblehome. With that much established, I could then lay-out the outboard angles and profiles. A photo montage that I hope will explain this better than I can: Here is the fore-face of the block. That shadow-line on the side is the transition from the flat vertical plane of the side windows to the curved pilaster of the stern profile. The aft face of the block has a small styrene spacer strip that abuts the aft-window glue cleat: The aft-window held in place - I am riding pretty high and feeling really good about myself, at this point. I had established the interior depth of the pilaster gussets and made the first of those: Initially, I had cut the height of this gusset too short because I was foolishly thinking that it sat perpendicular to the transitional moulding: it does not, obviously (after finally seeing the reality of it), because the windows have a back-raking angle. No biggie! I simply glued strips of styrene to the top and bottom edges of the gusset, and then beveled them, accordingly. I went to bed feeling accomplished - like “a million bucks!” I woke up, though, to a horrible realization. My window plate - drawn in a flat, one-dimensional plane - has straight and parallel top and bottom edges: In order to conform to this space, that billows outward in a gentle curve, while tipping in, toward the hull, this window plate must actually be shaped like this: Well, that is a bit of a set-back! There remains the small possibility that I may be able to extract and still use the frames that I spent so many hours making. I won’t really know, however, until I complete the underlying framing, as well as the forward block, and can make a cardboard template that fits this space. Maybe the plate I made can be scribed without losing detail. I sincerely doubt it though. My preliminary quick test on a flat surface looks as though I’ll lose about a tapering 1/32” at the bottom ends - which might be doable - but, also, a probable 1/16” at the top middle, which is not doable. I have zero margin at the top, or bottom, for that matter. If that weren’t enough to chew on, I probably made the windows too tall, in the first place, which means that my window panes are probably also un-salvageable. I won’t know for sure, though, until I have a working template to compare against. And things were moving along so nicely😖 More to follow...