Hubac's Historian

2nd that! This is really well done!

I present to you the Soleil Royal memorial entryway!! Wonderful colors in both portraits. These prints were Christmas presents from many years past. I finally got around to framing them. BLICK did an amazing job.

In designing the upper counter moulding/shelf, I began by scribing a piece of styrene to neatly fit the round-up, against the window plate, and I then traced the outline of the counter onto the bottom of this blank. Ultimately, I settled on an overhang of a light 3/32”, all around. At first, I thought the outline of the shelf should follow the ins and outs of the pilaster bases: But this seemed rather busy, the negative spaces between projections too small, and the overall design seemed to betray Berain’s intent. So, for the outline, I settled upon this: After trimming to my lines, I made sure to make a duplicate tracing - just in case I screwed up the moulding process: I made a pair of hacksaw profile scrapers; one for the shelf, and one for the secondary lamination, beneath the shelf: My first attempt for the shelf scraper produced a profile that was too deep and too flat looking, as seen on this piece of scrap: So, I reground the profile, and ended up with this: The scraper gets pretty close into the corners, but you still need to define them with a chisel, afterwards. The under-moulding is very narrow, so I first scraped the cove into the straight edge of a larger sheet, and then I “ripped” off the 1/16” that I needed. Just as I would with full-scale trim, everything is mitered. When dealing with parts so small, I find it easier to tack in the short pieces, over-long, and then fit the long pieces to them. Miters are first cut into the long pieces and then traced directly onto the shorts for perfectly mating joints: Here is how that looks on the model, from a variety of angles: To answer EJ’s question from an earlier post, I can now see that there will be ample air space behind even the side figures, so I will definitely be including the pilasters. At the moment, I am working out the fixation of the window panes, so that I can paint the window openings yellow ocher, and then secure the window plate and upper transom moulding in place. Thank you all for your interest!

Thank, you Mark for the kind compliment, and thank you Chris for the tip on enlarged prints. Chapman, I can see what I think you are referring to in this enlargement of the bow: There appear to be two forward facing chase guns on the forecastle deck. This portrait, together with the other Vienna portrait: ... are clearly of the same ship. Perhaps, there are forecastle guns shown along the broadside, as well. If I enlarge this image, this is what I see: Are there gun barrels peaking between the shrouds, from the forecastle deck? Maybe. Let’s count visible artillery: LD: 14 + 1 un-armed chase port MD: 14 MD: 12 - mysteriously, there appears to be one gun missing in the fore chains area, just aft of the anchor QD: 5 FC: 2 visible in this portrait Add all this up, and you have a broadside of 45 X 2 = 90 + 2 chase guns, for a total of 92. If one wants to be generous and add in the six other missing FC guns, that still only brings you to 98, as opposed to Royal Louis’s 104. Add-in the two guns missing on the main deck and you’re up to 100. If you were to add-in 4 guns on the poop, you’d be at the RL’s armament, but they are clearly not visible in the portrait. Neither is the known lower deck piercing for the Royal Louis of 1668: 15 + 1 unarmed chase port. All of this adds up to a lot of addition of conjectural artillery, and I might add that the RL’s forecastle was never not armed. And, then, there are a number of ornamental differences between this: and this: ... the latter, of which, I believe to be the hand of either LeBrun or Girardon, as it is known that Puget was not permitted to work on the ornamental scheme for the RL. Chief among these differences is the reversal of Neptune and Thetis, between the two ships, and the RL has much more going on from the stern counter, down to the waterline. Also, the structure and support of the quarter deck stern balcony is markedly different between the two ships. And, I always return to the signature inscribed on the Vienna drawing of the Monarque’s starboard quarter: I believe these two ships were quite similar in appearance, but the RL was larger, more heavily armed and more ornate. I also believe that Puget made these two excellent portraits of the Monarque because that was his crowning achievement, at Toulon. The Monarque, and not the RL was his baby. For anyone interested, the following link will take you to a truly excellent review of Puget’s work at Toulon, and it makes mention of the hasty grafting of the RL’s ornamental works onto the Monarque, in order to satisfy Beaufort. It is an excellent read and a much clearer distillation of other Puget biographies that precede it: https://www.academia.edu/41636304/La_bonne_fabrique_et_le_superbe_ornement_Pierre_Puget_s_ship_decoration I know that the academic community all say that these portraits all represent the RL, but I respectfully disagree. Nobody that I have read, to date, can definitively tie the Vienna portraits to the RL; they all simply say that it is so, while vaguely acknowledging that there are some ambiguities, there. For his part, the author of Uber Den Wellen bases his analysis of the RL’s stern allegory almost entirely on the LeBrun drawing, which corresponds very closely with Hayett’s description. Even the biographer I just referenced does not think there are any extant portraits of the Monarque. I, however, think they are hiding in plain sight.

I think the black board could use a surface film - even if you prefer to stay away from gloss/semi-gloss, at least matte will give it a kore finished appearance. I do like the contrast, though.

Which drawing is that? Can you please post that drawing?

Post, and post again - it is all interesting!

Thank you so much, Kurt and Marc! I am obsessed(sive) so I will just pour endless (almost) amounts of time into the project, trying to get it right. ‘Still married, though, and my wife still seems to like me😆 It is certainly a huge motivation, though, that people take an interest in the project, and cheer me on. I have found that certain aspects of the build are really intense, and I need to take breaks to focus on some other less demanding aspect of the project. Once the window panel is glued in, and all the other niggling little details of the lower stern are set, I’ll move back to the ship interior; cut down and step the lower masts; lay the lower gun deck, fit the dummy carriages, etc. Marc, I sing praises to all the world about your model. I can’t wait to see where the Royal Balsa is at, these days! Kurt - if you haven’t seen Marc Yeu’s Soleil Royal, well then, you haven’t seen anything yet! Truly magnificent in every way! All the best, M

Thank you, EJ! You raise a very good question, there. Certainly, behind the center two figures there will be some space, and all of the figures will soon have an outward leaning posture. At the sides, there should still be air space behind the figures, and I think that when viewed from an angle, it would look strange for there to not be pilasters - particularly behind the upper torso and heads. Tonight, I plan to layout the upper counter moulding, thus establishing depth all across the counter. It will be easier to visualize, then, whether the pilasters look cramped behind the figures.

Thank you kindly, gentlemen! Druxey, I like your wedding cake analogy. I’ll bet Louis’s mouth was rotten with the sweets! If Marc Yeu’s model is affectionately nicknamed The Royal Balsa, maybe this project should be The Royal Trifle🙃😆

When considering something as complicated as Soleil Royal’s stern; that is, while trying to figure out how, exactly, to get from here (sheet plastic) to there, I have found it useful to consider the ensemble as a series of layers. There is a base layer of detail, a middle layer of detail, and a final fine layer of detail. And, in certain instances, there may even be a few additional, even finer layers. In order to illustrate this build-up of layers, here is a more or less sequential montage of the process as it relates to the stern counter: After each layer is set, be it planking or paneling, the surface is sanded fair and smooth, in order to eliminate any surface irregularities. Here and there a touch of squadron white was necessary to level surfaces - particularly, on the side sections where any unevenness in the ground would be glaring, as seen through the panel reveals. The edges of all the panel reveals are micro-beveled, in order to give them a more finished appearance. I mentioned before that I would wait to define the concave bevel around the crown of the rudder head ornament. I was waiting until after this bottom moulding of the central panel was installed. Making this moulding, as well as the blank for the lambrequin carving, was accomplished by pressing blue tape across the span and into the joints of the central pedestals so that I could highlight these parameters with graphite. This process doesn’t always produce absolutely perfect patterns - it is sometimes difficult to tell whether the tape is absolutely all the way into the crease - but they are close enough, so that you can fine-tune the fit of parts, after leaving yourself a little margin around your pencil lines - say the additional thickness of a pencil line. In the end, I am very satisfied with the impression that the crown is recessed into the counter. When I started this whole process, I really wasn’t sure how it was going to come out. This gives me renewed hope that the surgery I will attempt on the Four Seasons figures will work. Despite the challenges these plastic surgeries present, they are still an enormous time-savings, over making the carvings from scratch. Hopefully, these pictures provide a sense of the many layers involved in constructing this stern counter area. There is a lot going on, here, in a very limited space. In recognition of that fact, one must consider just how nitty into the gritty they are willing, or is even sensible for them to delve. At some point, there is an intersection of will and reason, and that is the place you are aiming for. Take, for instance, the lambrequin carving, as it was drawn by Berain. He shows 15 full “petals” with half-petals at the ends. Each petal is adorned with a fleur-de-lis, and three pendant tassels hanging from their bottom edge. Thinking back to my experience of carving mould-masters for the frieze fleurs, I estimate that it would be damn-near impossible to carve lambrequin fleurs in this scale. Theoretically, I could use something like Liquitex gel medium to paint on the fleurs, thus producing a light relief. I am not yet confident, though, that I could do this with any semblance of consistency. I will try to incorporate this technique a little later, when I represent the tasseling. There is, on the other hand, at least one ready-made source of fleurs that would be perfect for this application; the stock fleurs that are moulded into the kit upper bulwarks! With these ornaments in mind, the lambrequin petals were scaled, accordingly, and I ended up with 10 full petals, bookended by half-petals. Here is a brief montage showing the steps for creating the lambrequin carving: Using two-part latex mould medium, I made moulds directly from my spare upper bulwark pieces, and then cast the blanks in white resin. As opposed to the larger ornaments, for which you must laboriously grind away the excess backing material, these fleurs are so shallow that I could simply shave them off with a honed single edge razor. With just a little extra cleanup, using a #11 blade, they were ready for mounting. Once tacked in place with liquid cyano, I brushed the whole lambrequin carving with liquid cyano to ensure total adhesion and to smooth over any surface irregularities of the carving. The back of the lambrequin carving had to be coved with a rubber profile sanding block so that it would cup neatly to the counter. I think the scale and overall aspect of the carving harmonizes nicely with the rest of the counter. Now that I know the full projection of all of these layers, I could begin to make the bottom and top mouldings that frame-in the counter. I had great success with constructing a stacked moulding for the transom moulding, so I decided to take the same approach for the bottom counter moulding. First, I pared away enough of the pedestals, at their base, so that I could pass the first layer of the moulding behind them. This layer has a tiny coved reveal, and it’s primary purpose is to conceal the inletting of the acanthus bases of the jaumier ornament: The overhang, at the ship’s sides is exaggerated, for now, but it will soon be backed with a thicker piece of styrene sheet (for a better sense of depth), and then trimmed to the pencil line. This way, the outboard profile of the counter won’t interfere with the paneling of the quarter gallery, but will instead, help to define it. The next layer of moulding is a heavier piece with a more pronounced cove moulding. This is fitted between the pedestals: The trick, with the above layer of moulding was to fair back it’s bottom edge, in order to create an even reveal for the final component of this triple-stack moulding. I was hoping to preserve the tiny cove reveal at the bottom of this assembly; as you will see, the results aren’t absolutely perfect, but it still looks good, IMO. So, finally, pre-shaped ¼-round Evergreen moulding runs straight across all of the pedestal base bottoms, leaving just enough space for the scrolled foot appliques that are shaped from half-round Evergreen moulding: Now that the pedestals are located and the bottom counter moulding is in place, I could finally place the caryatid carvings, which I had previously separated from their base: Next, I will lay out and fabricate the top counter moulding. You can see that the projection of the counter/false gallery is quite significant. This is actually a good thing, as it creates a deep enough shelf for the four seasons figures to sit upon: Lastly, early in my conversations with various scholars of the epoch, almost all of them commented on the apparent exaggerated projection of the pedestal that supports the figure of Autumn: Now, granted, as it’s drawn the pedestal only appears to be supporting Autumn, without any indication that you might also be seeing a portion of the inner pedestal that supports Summer. Nevertheless, an interesting thing happened, once all pedestals were in place, at their full projection: While I’m more or less eyeballing all of this, in terms of how thick the layers should be and how that might impact the final depth of the counter, I do think it is reasonable to say that the central projection of the counter would likely produce a similar side view, in full-scale practice. I’m not positive whether this is architecturally right or wrong, but it is interesting, nonetheless. In closing, just a few perspective shots showing all of the work on the stern, to date: This is not a perfect, or exact recreation. The execution is not flawless. Overall, though, the impression and resemblance is quite good. That is what all of these successive layers of detail make possible, and there remain a few small details (rudder hinges, lambrequin tassels, etc), before this section of the model is complete. More to come…. Thank you for your likes, your comments and for looking in!

Chapman, do you have an even clearer image of this portrait, or do you know where it resides? Maybe I’m seeing things - it is extremely faint - but there appears to be an inscription along the bottom left edge: It was common practice for the VdVeldes to inscribe the portraits with the ship name - often in their own creative Dutch spelling. If you enlarge your screen, you can maybe see what I mean: a script inscription.

Interestingly, I thought I was going to launch into an over/under comparison of these two images, however, they are pretty clearly distinctly different portraits. Very similar, but different. I still think the top image may be the Terrible, but that is only based upon the sketchiest similarities to this portrait, identified by Winfield and Roberts as the Terrible (and not the Royal Therese, as it is often ascribed): There is also this portrait, which shares a number of attributes: So, I have no conclusions I can draw from this, but I am very happy to add this ship to my image files. Anyone else, out there, who might have similar portraits hiding in their libraries - please feel free to post them here. The Terrible, as another Hubac-built ship, is an important reference for my forensic reconstruction efforts. Good images, like the one Chapman posted, provide a wealth of interesting details. Most VdV drawings of the French fleet do not show drift rails along the upper bulwarks, but this one does. Similarly, details of the amortisement are rarely present, yet here is a pretty good indication of this ship’s entire quarter gallery. La Reine, for example, is not drawn with a quarter gallery amortisement, yet it seems likely that such an important ship would have had an ornamental upper finishing to the QG. In my image files, I found this clearer image of L’Orgieullieux from her port quarter:

Aha!! Finally a better image of this other mystery ship. I’ve been guessing that this is Le Terrible. Maybe now that I can see some detail, we can draw some conclusions about this beauty!! Thank you for posting this, Chapman!

Glad to see you back in the shipyard, Chris!

Chapman, I’m inclined to agree with you, that the Knyff portrait is probably La Superbe. I was not aware that she and her sister Orgieullieux were up-graded to three-deckers. I have to say that cross-referencing Winfield and Roberts with portraits of both Superbe and Orgieullieux by VdV, only seems to add to the confusion. Here is what W&R have to say about how the armament of these two ships evolved: As you say, Chapman, Superbe was the first to be modified, in 1673. From 1674, presumably after upgrades had also been completed for Orgielliuex, the maximum armament both ships carried was 76 guns. All well and good. It becomes a bit more confusing when you count guns in each respective portrait. The foreshortened view of Superbe’s starboard bow makes it difficult to count cannon barrels reliably, so I prefer to count port lids. On the lower battery, excluding the forward-most chase port, VdV actually has drawn 15 port lids. The upper battery shows 13 definite ports, and one mostly erased port, just behind the cathead knee. The QD shows six ports and the FC, 3. Two ports are shown on the poop. Add up what can be seen, and excluding the lower battery hunting port, that amounts to a broadside of 39 (15+13+9+2), or an armament of 78. Now, given her listed length between perpendiculars of 151 French feet, I find it highly improbable that she was pierced for sixteen (including the hunting port), on the lower battery. Chalk that extra fifteenth armed port per side to a drawing error, reduce the armament by two guns, accordingly, and then you arrive at 76. This, at least corresponds to W&R. Now, let’s take a look at Orgieullieux, from her starboard stern quarter. Here, VDV shows 14 definite lids on the low battery, but an extra two barrels, peaking beyond that, from the starboard bow. Considering the foreshortened view, and assuming that VDV is also taking artistic license, in showing an armed hunting port (as he did with Superbe), that would amount to 15+1. Again, given the L.O.D., I find this improbable. With less ambiguity, he also shows 14 port lids on the upper battery. Presumably, there are 3 FC guns, and definitely there are six QD guns shown. But then, VDV shows three poop deck guns, as opposed to Superbe’s 2. So, deduct the hunting port, as well as the improbable 15th lower battery gun, and add up everything else that’s visible: 14+14+9+3, for a broadside of 40, and a total armament of 80 guns. Even if you take away two of those poop deck guns in 1685, that still only brings you down to an armament of 78 which is, yet, two more than the maximum armament listed by W&R. All of this is to say - if your head isn’t spinning by now, then you are a special individual! What is interesting to me is that both of these portraits must represent these ships after they were up-graded to three-deckers in 1673/74, and yet the waist is not built up, in any way, nor armed to reflect a continuous third deck battery. The only conclusion that I can draw from this is that the deck between the former quarter deck and forecastle was made whole, thus bridging the structure into one continuous deck, even if the waist was not also subsequently built up and armed. Despite the discrepancies in what is portrayed in these VdV portraits, vs. W&R’s research, it seems that the armament upgrades, post 1673/74, were to the poop deck, alone. Had the waist also been armed, as seems apparent in the Knyff portrait, an additional three guns, per side, would have been plausible, but that is way more than what is either shown or listed. So, returning to what can be seen of the armament in the Knyff portrait, I count the following: Excluding the lower battery hunting port, I clearly see 15 guns; including a gun barrel that is just visible behind the cathead knee, and including the apparent entry port, I count 12 middle battery guns; on the main deck battery, including the bridged waist guns, I count 11 definite guns, and perhaps one more hidden behind the cathead for 12; the poop deck is especially hard to read - I think I see at least one gun, and maybe two. For this tabulation, I am not including any of the guns shown protruding from the beakhead bulkhead. So, what do we have? 15+12+12+2=41, or a total armament of 82. Now, if you reduce the lower battery by at least two, that brings you down to 80, although a reduction of four, on the lower battery, would make better sense of the arrangement of guns on the above decks. In any case, whether the truth of this Knyff ship was actually 78, or 80 or 82 guns, that falls far short of the known armament of La Reine, at 102-104 guns. So, although the numbers don’t exactly correspond with the lists, I will have to agree with you that the apparent artillery is much more in line with that of Superbe, than La Reine - even if the waist is shown as armed. When we get into these ambiguities of ship identification, I personally like to fall back on apparent artillery as a more reliable gauge of ship identity. That is why I persistently argue that the following portrait (as well as the starboard quarter portrait that is actually inscribed the Grand Monarque) is actually of the Monarque, and not the Royal Louis: There is no armed forecastle, here, and even if there was, the total armament would fall far short of RL’s 104. There is no armed poop deck in these portraits, either. Add to that a number of ornamental inconsistencies, and the distinction between these two ships becomes even clearer. Anyway, please forgive my digression. While the Van de Veldes And Puget are the best documentarians of what these ships really looked like, even they were likely to have introduced errors and inconsistencies into their drawings, or so it seems to me.

Is it possible that the aft-most QG window is merely a vestigial, or dummy window, so that it doesn’t matter where the channel wale lands, inside the QG, because you wouldn’t be able to see it?

Lovely clean work, Avi!

Jose, I am reluctant to do so, but I am going to make a rather painful suggestion, as I feel it would be negligent of me not to. you have done such a wonderful job of framing the model and compartmentalizing the hold, and building up your interior - this is all excellent work... But, the run of your wales are not fair lines, and this will make planking infinitely more difficult, and at the end of it, you will never be satisfied with your plank seams. I know how expensive ebony is, and that you have expended considerable labor in making them, but I would suggest that you pull these wales and lay out more fair reference lines to guide you. I only say this out of respect for your project and the hope that this short-term correction will save you much long-term aggravation, while keeping your model up to the impeccable standard you have set for yourself.

I appreciate that, Druxey. In many ways this stern has been the most challenging thing that I have ever tried to make. Within the next few days, I’ll have an update showing the completed stern counter and the many steps in its evolution. The lambrequin carving came out particularly well, and the whole assemblage is pleasing. As always, I appreciate your support and insight through this process. Well, Chapman, I found this: https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/11811.html While the portrait description is quite detailed, it does not make specific mention of the French flagship, to the left: Given that this portrait is the work of Jacob Knyff, it can be reasonably relied upon for accuracy in representation of the general aspect of the vessel. After several attempts, I was able to zoom-in: Despite the fuzziness, a few things are apparent. The lower battery is pierced for 15. The main deck battery does appear to be continuous through the waist. Finally, the presence of the three large stern lanterns and the Royal standard signify a flagship. I scanned through a journal of Mary of Modena, from this time, and could find no specific mention of the French ships, except to say that it was a squadron of four. Similarly, I struck out when consulting Winfield and Roberts, as none of the Premier Rang Extraordinaire vessels from this time have any annotation in their service notes for the transport of Mary of Modena. Based on what is known about the Dauphin Royal, both in her original and revised ornamental schemes, the quarter gallery shown above does not seem to correspond. So far as I know - beyond her sea trials, Soleil Royal did not serve in any official capacity until after her refit. The vessel pictured above seems to have little in common with either the Monarque or the Royal Louis. The fighting cloths obscure whether the forecastle is armed, as well as how many guns are carried on the quarter deck. In fact, it’s really difficult to ascertain how many guns there really are. My best guess, however, is that this ship may be La Reyne: The figureheads don’t match, nor does any of the other beakhead detail, exactly, but the general aspect is very similar. The main deck ports for both portraits are shown with port lids. Lastly, there appear to be two small main deck windows, just above what may be the enclosed lower section of the quarter gallery. And there appears to be an open archway at the point where a walkable quarter gallery would wrap to the stern. Also, the large “onion” lanterns seem similar, and the shape of the tafferal could be read as compatible with each other. One unusual feature is the apparent inclusion of an entry port/larger gunport, on the middle deck level, where one is accustomed to seeing that feature on English ships. Anyway, this is my best guess. I hope that is helpful.

I’m glad to know you’re still here, Victor!

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: exquisite!

Designing of these reverse-curve pedestals and the paneling, in-between, has been giving me fits. As a reminder of Berain’s layout: This is a challenging thing to approximate onto the Heller architecture. My first break in drawing came after much erasing and re-drawing, and I still wasn’t happy with the result: I liked the in-board pedestal shape, but I didn’t like the relationship of rake, relative to the outboard pedestal. I also wasn’t quite sure that the circle was the right diameter. After allowing it to sit for a few days, I came to a realization about Berain’s drawing. Although he does indicate balcony overhangs with shadowing, the drawing is, otherwise, presented as thoroughly one-dimensional, without any foreshortening of perspective for the rake of the stern. In other words, in order to arrive at a closer impression of what he drew, one must design with the more likely vantage point in mind; as though you were looking at it straight-on, but from a level plane or above. After much re-drawing, here is how the shapes change when viewed from below: And then, above: Now, the layout looked right to me, or at least as close to right as the Heller architecture will allow. Once I was sure that I liked my shapes, I double stuck a scrap of vellum to just beneath the crease of the stern counter. I, then used my finger nail to sharpen that crease into the vellum. Then, very carefully, I mapped the reverse curves and paneling onto the vellum with a series of dots that were close enough to accurately fair them, once the paper was removed. After glue-sticking the paper to a scrap of oaktag, I faired and darkened all of my lines, and finally cut out the three main elements with a sharp matte-knife: It may appear that the top reveal above the panel is too large, however, there will be a small cove moulding beneath the overhang of the top transitional moulding, and this will balance out the weight of the reveals. As for the bottom reveal, the aforementioned foreshortening of perspective takes care of that issue. Next, I could use the inner pedestal patterns to demarcate the central raised panel, for planking. I also traced the outer pedestal profiles, though, to be sure that I liked the layout. I made one last check with old man winter (the widest of the four seasons figures) to make sure that I was happy with this: As a side note - the transitional top moulding will run between the Four Seasons figures and the pedestal bases. Both Berain and Tanneron present this as a seamless transition. I, however, do not have enough space to make wider pedestals AND present the more elaborated lambrequin carving. Allowing the top moulding to run between them will nullify their difference in width, as the figures will be fully supported by the moulding. Or, so I think... As I often say, this build is a reconciliation of sources and a compromise in execution. Finally, I got to planking the next layer. This time, I created a neat radius around the head and crown. I won’t bevel that radius, though, until the final framing layer of moulding, between the inner pedestals, is applied. I nipped the outboard profile of this second planking just a little past my lines; that way I can trim everything flush with the pedestal appliques, after they are applied. One of the trickier things to keep in mind is that the bottom course, of this second layer, has to be beveled so that it does not interfere with the bottom moulding that helps frame the stern counter, and which I will make, once all the layers and pedestals are in place. The reason for that sequencing is that the top and bottom transitional mouldings have to overhang everything in-between, and I don’t want to guess where all of that may end up. The port side course was beveled flush, after being set in place. The starboard course has only been pre-beveled, so far. One last consideration is that the counter profile actually extends beyond the tumblehome profile of the stern: I’m not 100% sure how I will resolve this, just yet, but my inclination is to leave an overhang on the outboard paneling layer (with the circle, and to which the outboard pedestals are mounted, and allow the counter level of the quarter gallery to butt up behind it. This will create the small step that seems to be implied in Berain’s drawing. So, that’s where things stand, so far. I hope all is well with you all, and thank you for looking in.

This is very nice, I’m just not sure what it represents, exactly. I mean, I know it’s the Vasa, but is this a kit that you are prototyping to eventually market and produce, in the same way that Syren Models offers much better offerings than conventional kit manufacturers?

Believe it or not, aside from heat-bending the bow extension pieces, the aspect of this whole project that has given me the most trepidation is the planking of the stern counter/false balcony. The reason being that this feature of stern architecture took me the longest time to even understand. Initially, I thought this reverse curve was a seamless transition into the lower tier of lights. The St. Philippe monograph, on the other hand, illustrated that, no, there needs to be a slight projection away from the plane of lights; a sort of shelf, if you will, that ultimately supports a fairly substantial transitional moulding. This transitional moulding/shelf supports the four seasons figures that support the walkable balcony above. Not only that, but the run of the counter must smoothly accommodate the compound curves of camber and round-up, around one particularly tight bulkhead radius. Taking a look back, before paint, and in relation to Mr. Lemineur’s drawing of the stern, you can see that my extension piece is absent of this ledge: Once I realized this mistake, I grafted a ledge extension into the existing plank rebate of my first extension, and then recut that planking rebate into the shelf extension; all very fiddly business, and in the absence of a comprehensive plan to work from, the shape I patterned for this shelf was something of an aesthetic approximation. As the build has progressed through the fairing of these bulkheads, these extensions have been pared down to their final shape. As a side note, it is kind of hilarious to me that I took such pains to cut this plank rebate into the ends of the lower hull and upper bulwarks - both to provide a glue ledge for the plank ends, and also to bring the side plank butt ends down to scale - only to realize that in the end, they will mostly be covered. Except for the area between the waterline and the transom moulding, everything above gets covered; first by the wrap-around of the quarter gallery lower finishing, and then, by pilaster mouldings, all above. At least the beakhead bulkhead will still show this detail 😕 Digressions aside - one must finally add to this equation the fact that I want to seamlessly incorporate Louis’ angelic little head into the run of the counter, and all of that becomes quite challenging to make look right. While laying the lowest, first course of counter planking, I realized that I would be better served by simply butting the planks flush with the edges of the head ornament, and not adding that slight bevel to the plank edges around the head. The reason for this is that the border that the head creates is kind of irregular and a little jagged. Following all of that closely with a bevel - no matter how carefully done - would look jagged and horrible. Because there will be at least another two planking layers around the head, I can create a smooth radius around the head, with those layers, and then bevel them, inward toward the head, in order to give it a sense of concavity. With that all settled, the first two courses went down smoothly. The run, along the bulkheads, there, is fairly flat. I was very careful to let-in as closely as I could around the crown. For the third, and top-most course, around the tight radius of the bulkhead frames, I discovered that I needed a plank just a little bit wider than the 5/32” that I used for the two coarses above. I was hoping to avoid laying two very narrow planks, so instead I ripped one plank to 3/16”+, and then engraved a line down it’s center, on the plank backside. This effectively created a bending crease that eased the transition around this tight radius, while eliminating any possibility of plank gaps. So, the rough, before fairing, was looking pretty promising: After fairing, things were looking a lot better. I sanded the top edge of the counter planking so that I would have an even 1/16” space, beneath the window frames, for the transitional moulding. This enabled me to fit and glue-in the pilasters between windows. I will be trimming the tops of these pilasters flush with the window plate, before glueing, and the outer pilasters will be glued in after the plate is installed, because they overlay the ship’s side planking: I can now go ahead and spray-prime the window plate, so that I can paint-in the inner edges of the window frames with yellow ocher, before installing the glass panes. So, now that we have a good and fair foundation to work from, I can begin playing with the artistic layout of the counter. Here is what Berain drew: The layout revolves around this central panel, spanning the middle four windows, which projects further outboard than the paneled sides. Interspersed along the counter, are the four pedestal bases that visually support the Four Seasons figures. These pedestals will stand proud of their respective backing surfaces, and the central two must project far enough that they are just proud of the lambrequin carving that bridges between them. If I get the proportions of all of this right, and the shape and raking angles of the pedestal bases aesthetically right, then the entire ensemble will convey a similar sense of elegant proportion, even though the profile of my stern is more vertically oriented, and less sloping than what Berain drew. This is an artistic process that begins, simply by sketching a few primary parameters directly onto the model; in this case, the outside edges of the central panel, as well as the circular framework of the paneled sides: It is the pilasters between the 1st and 2nd/5th and 6th windows that mark the location for the figures of Spring and Summer, and thus delineate the outside breadth of the central panel. In the Tanneron version, there is no circular paneling to the sides of the central panel. He seems, instead, to have created these circular medallions: To include this detail on my model, I will have to strike a delicate balance between the diameter of those circles, so that there is enough space left over for the paneled sections to either side of the circles. This may mean reducing the outer breadth of the central section, and simplifying the design to only include the raised cyma projection of the pedestals, themselves. In my rough sketching, above, I’ve drawn two dotted lines. The outer line represents the raised ground to which the pedestal is mounted, as Berain designed it. If I eliminate that line, I’ll have a little extra room for the side panels. Tonight, I’ll make better sketches and see where I end up. Once I like the spacing of all the various elements, I’ll make an oak tag tracing pattern for the center pedestals, and a pattern for the outer pedestals, which are raked at a different angle. I can then use the middle pedestal pattern to draw the outer breadth of the center section, so that I can begin planking that section. The oak tag patterns, together, can then be used to frame-in the side panel shapes onto slightly thinner styrene sheet. All will become clearer, as I go. As ever, thank you for your likes, comments and looking in. -HH