Hubac's Historian

Thanks for weighing in EJ! That all makes perfect sense to me.

Also, Chris, to answer your question about swivel guns: They certainly played a huge role in the light armament of ships in the 16th Century, but I have not seen or read of any evidence of their presence (among any of the great seafaring nations) on the first or second-rate ships of the 17th Century. That, of course, is not irrefutable fact, but merely the sum of my understanding and observations.

Hello, Chris! I am glad to hear that you are recovering your strength. Thank you for your thoughts, and thanks to all for your thoughts, comments and following along with the project. In the 2 1/2 years that I’ve been chipping away at this project, I have found that nothing arouses as much debate and difference of opinion as the question of Soleil Royal’s armament. I suppose this owes to the fact that her armament is one of the few things about her original makeup for which there is any substantive documentation. But what was the composition of her armament, in terms of caliber, metallurgy, and placement on each deck, in any given year? For these questions, I have chosen Winfield and Roberts, French Warships in the Age of Sail, 1626-1786, as my default reference to these questions. It is, in my opinion, the most detailed and scrupulously researched secondary source that I have found, so far. Their work was the first to introduce to me the concept of a “notional” rating (120 guns - not likely) vs. intended, and finally, actual armaments. They clearly explain that much of that discrepancy has to do with the convention of not arming any of the forward or aft chase ports. They discuss the limitations of iron casting in the early and mid-point of the 17th Century, and that the two great prestige ships - SR and the RL - were to be armed entirely with bronze. Here are a few photographed excerpts as they relate to SR, specifically: Now, I have said before that the question of SR’s armament is not one that I intend to get “right” on this particular model. I have scribed in a representational 15th “hunting” port on the lower battery, beside the hawsers. As good fortune would have it, my model now correctly (at least according to W&R) depicts the piercing of the lower battery, for 30 broadside ports/28 armed. Deducting armament from the four beakhead bulkhead chase ports, the four lower transom ports, and the two representational hunting ports - my model is currently set to display 100 guns. While in 1692, the lower battery was adjusted to contain only 36 pounders, my model will carry a total of four lighter 18 pounders (as classified by Heller) because I don’t have enough of the lower battery guns for them all to be the same caliber. This does not bother me in the least. Now, for the sake of just getting the number of guns right (104 in 1692, at Barfleur), if not their actual distribution, I could, without too much extra effort do the following I could arm the first octagonal port, aft of the single round poop port that the Heller kit provides for, so that my poop deck carries four guns - as almost all credible sources seem to agree on: In the above picture, that will be the port to the right. The second octagonal port will be pierced and not armed. There is an opportunity, though, to do something interesting, in an attempt to add back another two guns to my model. Winfield and Roberts indicate thirty guns on both the middle and upper decks. My model is pierced for 28 on all three of the main battery decks. I believe there is an opportunity to place an extra pair of guns, on the main deck level, by piercing through the large (likely false and merely decorative) first forward window of the quarter gallery, on this level: Six central panes of “glass” could be cut away for an open port that would otherwise be covered with a removable panel. I have had a number of discussions with people about the un-realistic scaling of these windows, as they were drawn: If they were merely decorative stagecraft, as opposed to fully glazed windows, then their size would not matter. The following picture of Frolich’s L’Ambiteaux, courtesy of Marc Yeu’s (AKA: Nek0) personal photo collection, illustrates quite well what one of these removable panels might look like. Look closely at the lower window of the QG. Sensibly, it appears to be a panel that pulls inboard: For my purposes - even if I don’t literally poke a gun through this new opening, it would add historic interest to the model to at least represent this removable port cover. If I had not already completed the bulwark frieze, I might have converted the oversized coach window into the missing fifth quarter deck port. At this stage, though, I like what I came up with to dress that window, and I am not about to go monkeying about with the frieze: Finally, there may also be an opportunity to add that second pair of guns, on the middle deck level, by piercing through what’s shown as the fifth, and most forward false window of the lowest quarter gallery tier. Because I have yet to draw it, I’m not sure how the spacing would work out, relative to the next actual gun port, forward, on the middle deck battery. I’ve already discussed altering the window representation from four main windows to three, while eliminating the representation of a window in this forward fifth panel. Piercing a gun through this spot is one means of making better sense of the overall shape of the QGs as drawn. We will soon see, I suppose, when I make my way to the drawing board.

We are all works in progress all of the time. Good lesson to learn for us all. I appreciate the intent of research and the willingness to share what you have learned. Great build, and I am enjoying your progress very much.

Wonderful tutorial on shaping the galleries, Drazen! The material is pine?

Because of the short grain issue and the difficulty of finding enough natural growth stock to satisfy the sheer number of knees, with these compound curves, it only seems logical to me that they would have scarfed these things together, in full size. Does anyone know what was done in actual practice?

I was wondering why we had not heard from you in some time. I hope that your recovery will be quick and complete. Take care of yourself, Heinrich.

Beautiful detailing at the head, Dan. It’s useful to have a good bit of inspired work, just behind you, before embarking on the tedium of the boats. Well done!

It is true, yes, that many ships were reduced in armament. And, certainly, for Soleil Royal there is a huge difference between her “notional” early rating of 120 guns, and the actual number she carried at any given time. It seems pretty certain, though, that she was always equipped with a forecastle. In any case, Chapman, I hope your experiments with La Reyne work out. I would love to see that. As for my gun experiments: I am delighted with the mild ver-de-gris patina I have achieved over a very realistic dark bronze. The patination does, in fact, pick up the extremely low-relief fleur-de-lis, and emblems that are cast into the barrels. Pictures of this to follow. I am much less delighted with my attempts to cast beefed-up versions of the middle battery, so that I could take the stock middle battery and place it on the upper main deck. I can’t make these work, and there were many failed moulds that produced deformed castings: So, I will abandon this casting experiment in favor of the infinitely more tedious process of placing inserts in every barrel blank and then fairing out the bores as concentrically as I can. This morning I did a quick napkin sketch of the simplified quarter galleries that I am proposing: Obviously, this is a terrible drawing, but such as it is - you can see a much less cluttered 3-2-1 window arrangement that is much more sensible, in my view. So, after I get my lower hull painted, I will focus on doing a really good and fully detailed drawing of this QG, so that I can pattern them, and begin to shape them.

Beautiful, clean work - all of it!

Hello, Kudin. You’re Fleuron looks truly outstanding. I will gladly follow along on this one!

Maybe, Chapman. If so, that would be a wrinkle that I haven’t read about. Is that a theory of yours, or something that you have read about; that SR was under consideration, at one time, to be cut down to a second rate? How is your La Reyne conversion project going?

Painting the port lids has been a process, but it has yielded some pretty good results: I used a translucent red/brown wash from War Hammer to get into the creases and the lows of the gilded ornaments for better contrast. The difference is subtle, but worthwhile: Here are a few shots of them placed, to get a sense for what that will look like. When it actually comes time to install them, I will make up lanyard rings: While I was at my father’s, this past weekend, I picked up the gun barrels for the middle battery. Previously, I was puzzled as to why I only had 24 out of what Should have been 32 lower battery guns - what Heller is designating as 24 pounders. Well, it turns out that the kit researchers were also aware of the practice of a mixed armament on the lower deck; for the kit, the aft four guns on each broadside, as well as the four stern chase ports are designated for 18 pound guns. The middle battery are all 18 pounders. For the record, Heller’s classification and distribution of the armament is lighter, overall, than what the ship carried in reality; for example, the lower battery was a mixture of 36 and 24 pound guns, with - if I remember correctly - the majority being the lighter 24s. This discrepancy between the model and the reality bolsters my decision to beef up the gun barrels from the lower deck, on up. Right now, I am replicating the same process of adding an insert for 6 of the 18 pound guns; I may leave all four of the stern chase ports empty, or I may arm the two closest to the rudder. I haven’t yet decided. I will take one 18 pound gun barrel, and attempt to make castings for the entire middle battery. For my casting blanks, one half will already have the insert glued and faired, in place. To facilitate casting, I will cut away the dolphin “handles”, which wouldn’t be visible, anyway. I had remained hopeful that maybe I saved the 24-pounders from my first build of this kit, but I couldn’t find them anywhere. They must have been a casualty of several purges. One thing that I have begun to ponder more seriously is what, exactly, I will do about the quarter galleries. Although, I still think that the following drawing originated from the hand of Jean Berain, there are certain problems in its presentation that need to be resolved: The biggest issue has to do with the five windows shown in the closed middle deck tier - the functional toilet of the officers’ quarters; first of all, the windows taper down in size from aft, moving forward. Second, of all, this profusion of glass (whether dummy windows or actual glass) clutters the design. Thirdly, the diamond-hatch webbing does not correspond to their corollary on the stern. Resolving these issues will necessitate sketching them out. I started to do this on the computer, a couple of years ago. I managed to get the amortisement mostly done, before the software locked up: So, I will sketch out the lower section of the QG by hand. I have this idea that I can take cues from the following Berain scheme for the Formidable to help simplify and de-clutter my new quarter galleries. The Formidable was an Etienne Hubac built ship from 1691, and as such, a very near contemporary of the re-built (also by E. Hubac) Soleil Royal: There is nothing, in my view, about this scheme that seems out of place or proportion. My main approach, here, would be to reduce the four primary windows down to three, with better spacing and more consistent scale. This will also simplify all of the fleur-de-lis paneling, beneath that. I may, also, eliminate the smallest fifth window, replacing it with a simple panel, and perhaps an appropriate ornament - the criss-crossed L monogram, for example. My first attempt at making this lower section will probably involve carving the complex, faceted form from close-grained solid wood, to which will be added moulding and paneling and carvings. I had tried to do some experiments with polymerized clay, but I’m a long ways off from Doris. I at least understand how wood behaves and how to shape it. In other research news, I have struck up a very interesting and informative correspondence with Montreal native Guy Maher. Guy is another SR obsessive, like myself, who has assembled a really impressive body of research into Soleil Royal’s early appearance. There is much that he and I agree on, but naturally we have our different views about certain things. At the moment, I am reading through one of his primary sources: Mr. Dessert is a modern historian with a particular interest in the life and times of Louis XIV, and the ministers of his empire. He has a number of titles to his credit, concerning this epoch. This book, so far, is an excellent overview of all of the individual strata of Human Resources that made Colbert’s navy possible. There promise to be a few golden nuggets about SR that may corroborate or refute some of what I’ve presented here, so far. Either way, I remain open to the possibilities. One fascinating observation from Mr. Maher, so far, is that the following drawing of the head (which also clearly appears to be Berain’s hand) makes no allowance for the actual structure of the forecastle deck. There is only a forward sheer railing, just over the main deck ports, but no additional “step” above them to include the structure of the forecastle deck: I am almost absolutely certain this is Berain’s hand because on the French modeling site, where Michel Saunier primarily posts his SR build, Gerard Delacroix posted very clear close-ups of this drawing. Their style of line and shade exactly matches that of the Berain stern drawing. We know, absolutely, that SR always had a forecastle. Are we to believe that Jean Berain “forgot” to include this detail? As many times as I have looked at this drawing, I have never noticed this discrepancy. But, there it is! I have no theories or explanations for that one. Tanneron did not forget to include this step-up to the forecastle deck: As it was drawn, though, it would be as though the waist rail merely continued all the way to the headrails. Perplexing!

I like the scarfed lower wales, EJ - very clean and neat looking. Did the stock come pre-cut, or dis you make a jig?

I bought walnut ink from a local art supply, and I use it as a light distress wash over acrylic paint. Even after it dries, I can wash the color back with a wet brush, if it’s too intense. Once I’m happy with it, I seal it in under clearcoat. I imagine you could accomplish the same staining/dying effects with cotton thread.

I decided that I wanted to give the starboard side a good long drying time for the Van Dyke Brown Oil wash to cure. Although, I suspect it has more to do with using an artist’s acrylic, as opposed to a purpose-made model acrylic, it was bothering me that my blacking scuffed so easily away from the edges of the wales, and such. Perhaps, I surmised, the residual oil under the black makes it easier to wipe it away. This did not seem to be a problem on my test samples; same paint, same application, but no scuff. I bought some Tamya flat black acrylic, and as expected, these paints are much less fussy to use. And they seem more durable. I’m testing on my scrap hulls, but as long as the surface sheen matches what I have on the port side - after spraying with matte latex clear coat - I will go ahead and just use the Tamya. This experiment of mine, in the use of artist acrylic was instructive, if not effective, I suppose. While waiting for my hull to cure, I decided to go ahead and paint my gun port lids. This was all going along well, until - again - I tried to use artist acrylic for the gold. I love the metallic luster of this gold, but it takes three applications before the color is consistent, and by then, you have muddied up your fine detail. The top row, here, is the artist acrylic. The second row is one of Warhammer’s gold paints: Right fleur, artist acrylic / left fleur War Hammer I’m really not here to endorse WarHammer paints, but the color and ease of application are second to none. One application and you are done. I bought a translucent red wash that will really accentuate the detail. I am happy with this. I will try to rub away the other paint with an eraser, first, or a red ScotchBright pad, if that doesn’t work. Then, I’ll go over that first row again. I just couldn’t tolerate the idea of all that work to make nice sculptures, and then the detail gets filled in with gloppy paint. Nuh-Uh!

Your guy-wires are not simplistic-seeming at all. They look great! Hard to say from the pics, whether the silver line is too bright. Maybe clear dull-coat, brushed on will dull the brightness? I’m looking forward to pics of your trip. ‘Sounds like an amazing adventure.

WOW! We don’t often see pictures of the exterior of your ship. Her lines could not be more sweet! On the port side, will you leave off a few strakes of planking, closest to the waterway, so that all of that beautiful structure will remain as testament to your efforts?

The hull looks like it faired out nicely, EJ!

Thank you very much Beare and Backer!

The tops all came out really nicely, EJ!

Hello Heinrich, The S-curve anchor lining is an elegant detail, but not one that I think was in use until a little later in the 18th century. Right here, on MSW, Patrick Jouff renders the detail beautifully on his Renomee, and you also see it on Le Fleuron. For the late 17th century, the plain sweeping curved anchor lining is more appropriate. Interestingly it is not always documented on period models, or in period portraits, but it served a necessary purpose, and must always have been incorporated. Following, are a few pictures from Mark Yeu’s (aka, NekO) collection, which I am posting here with his permission: The Royal Louis shows a vestigial lining between the wale and the fore channel, as well as some stylized painting around the hawsers. The modern Frolich model of L’Ambiteaux shows the conventional anchor sweep. Interestingly, despite showing two different representations of the lining in the plans for the St. Philippe, neither of the two models made from the plans has any kind of anchor lining: At the end of the day, it seems to me that the simple sweep is both functional and appropriate for the time period, even if the S-curve would be more attractive.

Hi Mark - thank you for the kind words and for weighing in. To answer your question, I am not positive, but I am pretty sure. Unfortunately, there’s very little one can be certain about, in this time frame. On the one hand, there are the Van de Veldes, whom we know would row up in their chaloupe to where the ships were moored, and sketch them in exacting detail. These studies would, then, later be used as guides when painting portraits of battle engagements, where even at a much smaller scale - individual ships are still recognizable. Even in the midst of battle, the VDVs are on the water, rough sketching the engagement so that they could accurately portray the line of battle as it was. They even, often painted themselves into the finished portrait - their small boat off in the periphery of tHe engagement. They are unique in this regard. Bakhuizen is a fabulous portrait artist, however, the fidelity of his ship representations varies tremendously, I suspect, according to how familiar he was with the ship he was painting. Generally, his Dutch ships look amazing, while his English and French ships tend to be more approximate amalgamations of details - some of which make sense together, others of which do not. Puget is interesting to me because, unlike Bakhuizen and the VDVs, he was making design drawings for the ships themselves, but then he was also making highly detailed (photographic quality, even) pen and wash drawings of the finished ships, either at anchor or under sail. He must, occasionally have done a portrait in colors. I believe my ghost portrait of SR is one such example, by his hand. I am working to find confirmation of what, exactly, that portrait represents and by whom. As the article from the Musee that I linked to explains, the proposal drawings did have a format; straight-on perspective drawings of the stern, quarters and bow. From these drawings, the wax models would be made, in order to translate the ornament into three dimensions, which would illuminate any inherent design conflicts. So, again, I can’t say definitively, but I think Puget drawings, on the water and in three dimensions with a full perspective of the ship, and often with background details, are portraits of the vessel after launching. Perhaps he preferred pen and wash because it allowed him to meticulously render all of the beautiful details that he labored to create. A person of the creative talent and ego of Puget would not have been satisfied with an approximate depiction of these details in oil paint. Or, so I suspect.

Thank you, EJ! That was my thinking, yes. When I lived outside the city, I used to be pretty active with blackpowder rifles, and the fouling that even that small amount of powder produces is pretty amazing.

Thanks, Vic! I will be using a spray medium to knock that back a bit and to fix everything under a topcoat. The walnut ink dissolves in water, so it needs a topcoat.