Hubac's Historian

This gauzy image of a French first-rate has really captured my imagination. Previously, I scanned through a Wikipedia listing of French first-rates during the time of Louis XIV, however, one must consider their source, and Wikipedia is not always complete or accurate. So, I decided to scour through the lists printed in the back of J.C. Lemineur’s book Les Vaisseaux du Roi Soleil. My search parameters were as follows: First-rates, only, carrying 94 guns, or more, and constructed between 1666 and 1690. I chose those criteria because, if one were to count only the visible (barely) guns in this portrait, then you arrive at 82 guns total, among the lower, middle and main deck batteries (28/26/28). Then, if one were to make a reasonable assumption of at least 8 more guns on the quarter deck, 6 more on the forecastle deck, and 4 more at the stern chase ports - then you are up to 100 guns, minimum. Add another 2-4 bow chase guns, and you arrive at the reduced armament often cited for Soleil Royal - 104. With that in mind, the lists become much shorter, when searching for vessels that even come close to this armament. Here is what I found: Le Dauphin Royal - 1669 Toulon by G. Rodolph, 100/104/100 As she appears in 1669: As she may have appeared after 1671: Le Monarque - 1667 Toulon by L. Coulomb 94/84/80 As she appeared around the time of launching: The Monarque is equiped with a forecastle, however, at less than 100 guns she would be classed among the Premier Rang Ordinaire. Le Orgueilleux 1670 Brest by L. Hubac 88/90/88/90 I have no visual record of what this ship looked like, and it’s a shame; she’s a Hubac-built ship that is a very near contemporary of SR. Despite that fact, though, her listed armament falls pretty far short. La Reyne -1668 Brest by L. Hubac 104/100 As she appeared in 1673: I have said many times that I consider La Reyne a near sister to SR. Le Royal Louis - 1668 Toulon by G. Rodolphe 120/104 While I am unsure of the ship this degraded photo represents, it is heavily armed with well over 100 guns visible, and 16 guns on the first battery, and a forecastle - which only SR and RL (within the Premier Rang Extraordinaire) were said to be equipped with. The open balustraded quarter galleries mark this as an early ship of the First Marine. This second portrait, which is often listed as the RL of 1668, instead and in my view, must actually represent the RL of 1692. The gun count of 110-112, depending upon the number of bow chase guns, as well as the partially closed QGs, and the triple-arched style of the headrails seems to confirm this. Le Victorieux - 1675 Rochefort by F. Pomet 108/100 We also have some sense for this ship as she may have first appeared: So, with the exception of Le Orgueilleux (which is too lightly armed, anyway) and Le Royal Louis of 1668, we have a pretty solid idea what these ships all looked like. And that leaves us with SR. Le Soleil Royal Brest by L. Hubac 120/104 If what we are really talking about, here, is a 50/50 chance that my mystery ship is either SR or RL; and if we acknowledge that, in both cases, the armament may have been greatly reduced shortly after 1671, then I am going to bet that my mystery ship actually represents SR sometime between 1670 and 1689. What tips the scales for me is the seeming reverse-cyma curve of the tafferal and what appear to be large figures between the stern lanterns. Without a better image, it is impossible to definitively say, but the architecture, there, seems to correspond with Berain’s drawing of the stern. As I have said earlier, it is not hard for me to imagine what might be LeBrun/Puget carvings being preserved and incorporated into Berain’s refit ornamental tableaux. I have sent these images to the archival department of the Musee. We’ll see whether they have anything to say about it. I have also contacted Nicolas Mioque of the excellent weblog Des Trois Ponts, to see whether he has any familiarity with the painting. Of course, I don’t know if what I am saying, here, is actually the case, but I do think this is a reasonable argument. Without any professional reputation to uphold, I'm just going to go out on a limb and say that I think this may, indeed, be Soleil Royal as she appeared some time between 1670 and 1688. I invite the blogosphere to weigh in, if they can make a sound argument to the contrary; by all means - fire away! Sometimes, though, life’s great mysteries really are hiding in plain sight. We shall see.

Yes, I noticed this detail in another closeup of the Vale painting. It appears to be placed a cannon port further aft than is customarily depicted (on other ships), but then the anchor shank is shown to be correspondingly long. The sweep of this anchor and the placement of the lining in the Vale painting correspond nicely in the Vale painting. I am not sure what the correct answer is, there, but I suspect it can be seen more clearly in one of the Van de Velde sketches of the ship. Having just done that - at least one VDV portrait (which doesn’t actually show the lining) shows an anchor being raised (or lowered?) along the side of the ship, in the same location. Perhaps there are other, more detailed portraits, but it would seem Vale and VDV agree with each other.

Will you represent the anchor linings, beneath the fore chanels?

In English, those pieces are known as skids.

Excellent info, EJ. Thanks for taking the time to explain all of that. And, yeah, I was thinking about a serving machine.

What are your impressions of the Syren line, EJ? I've read nothing but good things about it. In my living situation, space comes at a premium, so I'm less inclined to build a rope walk and make my own line, but maybe... I was thinking Syren's line would be my big splurge.

Doris - have you ever considered applying your ornamental talents to a French ship? Any projects you are kicking around for the future?

Now, I really have to wonder whether this relatively primitive portrait of Soleil Royal (please follow link below) isn’t the same ship portrayed above. There is some similarity in their aspect and bearing. https://goo.gl/images/yXgoXi While we are at it, why not re-visit the following imagery, which was previously identified as, perhaps, the Royal Louis of 1668. She is depicted as carrying 16 guns on her lower battery. Are these all the same ship? The quarter galleries, however fuzzy, do seem to bear some resemblance to those in the prior post. Hmmmmm...

I stopped by The STRAND bookstore, today, hoping for a little bit of treasure, and I was not disappointed! Now, I really can’t say WHAT this is, but it IS interesting, and I can say where I found it. Here is the title and accompanying copywrite page: Hmmmm... R.C. Anderson. He might have known a thing or two about these old ships, from the days of the spritsail topmast. And look here, on page 156(?) of this unabridged reprint: Wow! That looks like an important three-decker of the first marine!! But, which important three decker could it be? The caption only says “French Three Decker, 1680” Well, it isn’t the Monarque because we know what she looked like. Also, as becomes more clear in the Wikipedia explaination below, the Monarque would have been classed as a ship in the Premier Rang Ordinaire, with less than 100 guns. The ship pictured almost certainly carries somewhere between 100 and 106 guns. In addition to all of that, we know that the stern of the Royal Louis of 1668 appears to have more in common with the large figurative carvings of the Monarque. The stern of this vessel does not appear to be teeming with huge figurative carvings. We know what La Reyne looked like from the Van de Velde sketch of 167(3)? - which may have been an altered appearance, following the reglement of 167(1?). We know what the Dauphin Royal of 1668 looked like. We also have an idea of what she might have looked like after 1671. So what does that leave us with - of the remaining six first-rates from the initial building program in 1670? Only Le Soleil Royal and La Couronne. However, Couronne - while having three flush decks, would not have carried guns in the waist, on her main deck. Though she was constructed at Brest by Laurent Hubac, she only carried between 80 and 82 guns. The ship pictured carries many more than that. I have no idea what this 1669 version of La Couronne looked like, though. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia explaining the principal differences between ships of Le Premier Rang Extraordinaire, and Le Premier Rang Ordinaire: Vaisseaux de Premier Rang ExtraordinaireEdit The largest and most heavily armed First Rank ships, effectively those carrying 100 carriage guns or more, were placed in a sub-category of Vaisseaux de Premier Rang Extraordinaire. Only a few of these were built, but they always provided the flagships of the two Fleets - the Flotte du Levant (on the Mediterranean coast of France) and the Flotte du Ponant (on the Atlantic and Channel coasts). They were all full three-deckers, i.e. with three full-length gun decks, with the uppermost of these surmounted by an armed forecastle, quarterdeck and poop. Royal Louis 104 guns (designed and built by Rodolphe Gédéon, launched 1 February 1668 at Toulon) – renamed Royal Louis Vieux1692 and broken up 1697. Nominally assigned 120 guns, but never carried more than 104. Dauphin Royal 100, later 104 guns (designed and built by François Pomet, launched 29 March 1668 at Toulon) – broken up 1700 Royal Duc 104 guns (designed and built by Laurent Hubac, launched December 1668 at Brest) – renamed Reine in June 1671 and broken up 1688 Soleil Royal 106, later 110 guns (designed and built by Laurent Hubac, launched 13 December 1669 at Brest) – burnt by the English in an action at Cherbourg in June 1692 Victorieux 108 guns (designed and built by François Pomet, probably launched in late 1675 at Rochefort) – broken up 1685 (badly built and never brought into service) Royal Louis 110 guns (designed and built by François Coulomb snr, launched 22 September 1692 at Toulon) – broken up 1727 Foudroyant 104 guns (designed and built by Étienne Hubac, launched 24 December 1692 at Brest) – exchanged names with Soleil Royal in March 1693 (see below), broken up 1714 Terrible 100/104 guns (designed and built by Blaise Pangalo, launched 21 February 1693 at Brest) – broken up 1714 Foudroyant 104 guns (designed and built by Blaise Pangalo, launched 14 November 1693 at Brest) – originally to have been named Soleil Royal, but exchanged names with Foudroyant in March 1693 (before work on her began), and broken up 1714 Vaisseaux de Premier Rang OrdinaireEdit While the smaller First Rank ships also had three full-length gun decks, the uppermost of these before 1690 generally carried carriage guns only on the forward section and on the after section of that deck, with a section between them in the waist of the ship where no guns were mounted (and no gunports fitted). These ships had no forecastle or poop, so that the two sections of the upper gun deck served the function of forecastle and quarterdeck, while the nominal quarterdeck was short and served in effect the function of a poop. All First Rank ships built from 1689 (until 1740) had three full-length gun decks, usually plus a number of smaller carriage guns mounted on the gaillards(i.e. the quarterdeck, forecastle and possibly a poop deck). Some of the earlier ships built before 1689 received extra guns and gunports fitted in the waist section of their upper deck around 1689, to bring them up to 80 guns or more. Vendôme 72, later 66 guns (designed and built by Laurent Hubac, launched Spring 1651 at Brest) – classed as First Rank in 1669; renamed Victorieux in June 1671 but hulked in the following month and taken to pieces in 1679. In 1660 the 72-gun Vendôme was the sole ship which met the criteria of carrying more than 70 guns, and she retained this First Rank status in spite of being later reduced to fewer than 70 guns. Saint Philippe 78, later 84 guns (designed and built by Rodolphe Gédéon, launched 3 February 1663 at Toulon) – classed as 1st Rank in 1669; burnt by the English in the Battle of La Hogue in June 1692 Monarque 84 guns (designed and built by Laurent Coulomb, launched 28 April 1668 at Toulon) – broken up 1700 Île de France 74/80 guns (designed and built by Louis Audibert, launched 16 February 1669 at Toulon) – renamed Lys in June 1671 and broken up 1691 Couronne 80/82 guns (designed and built by Laurent Hubac, launched 18 February 1669 at Brest) – broken up in 1712 Paris 72/80 guns (designed and built by Jean Serrin, launched 13 March 1669 at Toulon) – renamed Royale Thérèse in June 1671 and broken up in 1692 Henri 80 guns (designed and built by Jean-Pierre Brun, launched April 1669 at Tonnay-Charente) – renamed Souverain in June 1671, then renamed Admirable in June 1678 Sceptre 80, later 84 guns (designed and built by Laurent Coulomb, launched 11 February 1670 at Toulon) – broken up 1692 _____ So, in summary, I’m not saying this is a portrait of Soleil Royal, in her first incarnation. What I am saying, though, is that the portrait warrants further investigation. Sure, if one were to count the visible gunports of the first battery, they will come up short of 16. There appear to only be 14 visible, with a possible hunting port, out of view. These kinds of discrepancies, however, were not un-common among even the best artistic depictions of the day. I have read, on several occasions, that some of the sculpture of the first Soleil Royal (Puget) was re-incorporated into Berain’s refit ornamentation of 1689. To what degree, or even if that is so, I cannot say with any certainty. A little closer now: A little closer, still, before the image breaks into pixels: Are those Puget’s signature horsehead figures supporting an open stern balcony above the stern counter? Maybe. Are those the Four Seasons busts supporting the main deck balcony? Too fuzzy to say. Isn’t the shape of the tafferal, itself, interesting; is that a reverse-cyma curve? Absolutely too fuzzy to say. I can say, though, that the style of the quarter galleries is definitely consistent with the ballustraded open walks of the first marine. Whatever the truth may be - looking at this portrait - it is not difficult for me to imagine Berain’s scheme translating well to the underlying structure shown here. A good starting point to begin answering these questions might be with the original edition of this book from 1926, which I would guess has much larger and clearer pictures. Does anyone out there have that edition? Can you find this plate? For my part, I will contact the publisher and see whether they have any better images of the painting, or any additional information about its origins and provenance. Who is this fuzzy ghost? I have no idea, but I will try to figure it out. After all - having spent the first 20 years of her life waiting for the big dance - wouldn’t it make sense that there would have been a number of original portraits of Soleil Royal? Certainly, the mercilous ravages of history and the closed curtains of private collections have done their part to obscure the truth about these great ships. I am aware, of course, that not all that glints is Soleil Royal gold. It never hurts to ask the question, though. Could that be Soleil Royal?

Thank you everyone for your likes and looking in, and for your thoughts and suggestions as to whether to mask, with what, or not at all. Last week, I rather casually cut in the starboard side wales by hand. I didn’t take as much care as I should have, and the results were decent, but not great. Tonight, for the port side, I committed to taking my time and to trying a little masking experiment. STARBOARD SIDE OVERALL IMPRESSIONS (fore to aft) You can definitely see some wobble, here and there, over the crease line. PORT SIDE OVERALL IMPRESSIONS: I burnished and cut in a mask for the flat between the top wales. Then I brushed a thin coat of dullcoat along the tape crease for the forward half of the wale. I decided to see whether burnished tape would be enough for the aft half of the wale. Overall, the hand cut-ins were much cleaner when I took my time. No surprise there. I had one wobble over, that isn’t terribly noticeable: And as for the taped wale, the dullcoat side came out without a single blemish: The aft side had two bleeds: Multiply that by a lot more, if I tape the whole thing, and I think the better approach is just to do what Henry suggests, and trust my hand and eye. Also, then I don’t have to be concerned with the tape pulling away any of my acrylic base color, or any of the simulated bolting that covers the wales. If not for those additional factors, I suppose I would go the dullcoat/sealer route. Here are a few side by sides: This picture, above, reminds me of a famous print advertisement that Plymouth developed for the 1970 Barracuda, which was painted in vertical stripes with every factory color option. I don’t think the car actually existed, at the time, however someone after my own heart has gone ahead and recreated that car with one half of the car a stock green and the other striped from bumper to bumper. Awesome, but I digress... This one shows the difference in crispness better: I have to say that I really like these Grumbacher acrylics. I thin them just a little bit with distilled water, and they go on and get into detail like a dream. There’s a good art supply store out near where I’m working in Brooklyn. Tomorrow, I’ll see if I can find a good color for the port lids and linings. I’ve been hunting for it, but most of what I’ve found is either too vivid/scarlet, or too drab/maroon.

Thank you, Druxey! I really wanted to explore a less pristine model, for a change, and now I feel liberated by the discovery of just how easy it is. And it is really helpful to be able to paint spare parts, in order to get a really good idea of what things are going to look like, without sweating the application too much. I cut in the wales on one of the sample pieces, and though I worked pretty quickly, the top edge was a pretty clean line. Nevertheless, even tiny blurps onto the flat between wales can quickly spoil the effect. On the next sample piece, I’ll pull those strokes a little more slowly and deliberately, and see how that goes. But I’ll also try masking with this FROG tape that Dan has had success with. Maybe cut in the mask with a knife, burnish with a Q-tip as another poster cleverly noted on Dan’s Leviathan log, brush on a clear seal coat (Dullcoat) along the tape seam, and then brush in the black. I will prolly have a go at that later tonight.

Thank you very much Dan and Henry! Hopefully, it won’t take as long to paint as it did to make. But, we’ll see. And, really, if it weren’t for your donating your old kit parts, Henry, this build would not be possible. The stern extensions buy me the extra real estate I need for the frieze and the new quarter galleries.

I wonder what Jimmy Hendrix would have thought of that, if he could see it through his purple haze periscope. What a learning experience, and effort well expended. The dazzle really came out beautifully. Interesting period pics, as well. It really is confusing to make out the shape of the bow on that pic of the ship in port.

I am usually overly verbose, but this time I will let the pictures do most of the talking. Following are a series of pictures for the cabin windows beneath the poop-royal deck. I tried several approaches - at first attempting to cut a loose framework of half-round moulding that I would assemble directly onto the bulwark pieces. I scrapped this plan because I found it extremely difficult to reliably cut 22.5 degree angles every time on such tiny stock. Instead, it was much easier to cut a tracing template for a backing plate onto which I could glue thinner segments of styrene rod, which I sanded a back facet onto the extrusion, with an emory board, before cutting my moulding segments. It was fiddly work, but the joints are actually tight and cyano filled any remaining discrepancies. It proved easiest to cut oversize segments, at the corners, and then miter them back to the corners of the back plate with a chisel. I made more openings than I needed, and it took some doing to create these tiny little facets into the inside corners. The halo effect around the frames is the coat of cyano that I brushed over each assembled frame, but then scraped into the corners, around the perimeter, with a chisel. If you don’t scrape into the corner, the buildup of cyano will prevent a crisp demarcation of the moulding after paint is applied. For now, I will hold off on actually piercing these openings. While I like their scale (relative to the nearest round gunport) and placement within the frieze, their location would technically interfere with the placement of the poop-royal deck beams and beam clamp. I may decide to ignore this fact and simply represent some form of glazing on the ship exterior, or I may decide to shorten the poop-royal deck so that it begins aft of these ports. The ports would then become auxilliary gun ports. In either case, I will set these parts aside, for now, so I can focus on painting and assembling the lower hull. Later in the project, when I’m feeling more refreshed and confident, I’ll pierce for the QG openings and figure out what to do with the amortisement and all of the accompanying figures. Damn - still verbose!

Things get interestinger and interestinger. Tonight, I painted the grey enamel wash over the entire lower tier of gunports. The wash dries quickly, so I then went over the bottom two strakes with the brown enamel wash. Here are the results: Again, the effect of these washes on the Raw Sienna is negligible. Both the grey and brown wash over the VDB, over the random tan (lower tier, lower two strakes of planking, second sample stripe from the stern) would make a really great paint protocol for decking, me thinks.

Thanks for the links, Doris. I will definitely be checking those out!

Hey EJ! Always in the past, I had been intimidated by this sort of thing, but the paint application is incredibly easy. You could almost be careless with a blotchy base coat, and that might yield an even better result after the washcoat(s). It seems that the key to these finishing techniques is that your surface prep has to be on-point. It will be a pain to go back, now, and carefully scrape and sand around my gun carriage through-bolts, but I know that the effort will be worth it.

Hello Doris, As ever, Katherine is a dazzling display of ornamental wizardry; a true feast for the eyes! I notice your tree-nailing pattern alternates every other frame. This is something that Dan Pariser had researched for his Queen Ann’s Revenge build, and a pattern that I adopted for my build. I wasn’t sure whether it was necessarily correct for Soleil Royal in 1689, but In the absence of more concrete information, I went with it because I like it. Do you have other more specific information about this nailing pattern? Whether it is specifically English, or more broadly in use throughout Europe? Just curious.

Thanks, Dan! You are right that the ship would not have been overly distressed. The diorama will show her a couple of years after the Battle of Beveziers and just before her unfortunate demise at Barfleur. She’ll be provisioning, at Brest, with the arsenal walls, off in the background. I’m pretty sure I’m going to go with this: I will still do a strip of grey wash, just to see, and then I’ll do the brown enamel wash over the grey to see what THAT looks like. There may be an application for some or all of that down the road. Anyway, I appreciate your looking in.

So, tonight, I brushed the enamel stain over the entire upper tier of one of the samples, and the results were interesting. At first, out of concern that the solvents would soften the acrylic, I wiped away the excess after allowing it to sit for about 30 seconds. This imparted some color - most obviously to the previously un-treated Random Tan - but the results were’t dramatic. The acrylic didn’t smudge or seem to soften. Next, I brushed on a liberal coat of enamel stain, and then spread away the excess with brushing strokes in the same direction. Here are the results: The effect is more subtle, over the Raw Sienna, but a difference is apparent when you compare the top and bottom swatches. This stain pretty effectively adds an additional layer of grime. I’m not sure I necessarily want that, but then I’m not sure I don’t. It also imparts a semi-gloss sheen, bit the clear seal-coat will reduce everything to the same sheen. I also have a grey wash of this type. Maybe tomorrow I’ll coat the lower tier with that and see what it looks like.

Welcome to MSW, Mark! I'm looking forward to seeing what you are up to - Marc

Excellent research and execution, Dan. Also, good catch on the stanchion askew - otherwise, I was gonna have to be the jerk to point it out to you 😉 ”Hey guys, check out all the progress I’ve made! ... yeah, yeah but that single stanchion!” This is a remarkable model, Dan. I’m really enjoying the build.

Hey Mike! Thanks for dropping in and for commenting. As always, thank you to everyone else for your likes and comments. I hear what you’re saying. I will definitely do the masts and spars out of wood for tensile strength, and the fact that the kit supplied parts are out of proportion with period practice. Everything else, though, is just easier to make from plastic. Acrylic paints make it easy to get a level finish and these distress washes are super easy, and add a ton of life to the model. I think I will do the decks in plastic because I want to mimic the tapering of deck planks, fore and aft, and it would just be easier to lay this out and scribe it in. A little texture with sandpaper; paint; distress wash with maybe something in the grey scale, and you’re done! I’m also not in love with the idea of marrying plastic-made fittings like deck railings to wooden decks. I want the model to hold up for as long as possible, so mechanical bonds are less than ideal.

These cathead supports reslly came out nicely, EJ. The head is really coming together now. Great work!

Why not reduce the inboard faces of the bulkhead extensions by a uniform dimension, using a rotary tool to waste and a flexible sanding stock to fair the bulkhead extensions to each other? My concern is that planking between bulkhead extensions will always look like a workaround, and that it will be distracting on the finished model.