Hubac's Historian

I think not !
Design sense as "common sense" was clearly not a way of thinking then.
 
Your best reference in this case is the model of the so called "Louis XV" in Le Musée de la Marine. It exactly depict the arrangement of the side structure you are in plan to do.
 
I do not know if you know that fact, but I found a old source (just have to remember wich one) who said that le Soleil Royal rebuild was not finished when she leaved Brest with Tourville on board for the battle of Beveziers. The vessel was simply painted with a pearl grey (gris perle) and carvings of the poop were even not completed.
And Tourville absolutely needed some assistants and domestics for his service, a "common sense" who added more or less 100 people more on board !!
I will try to find this source in my souk.
 
To answer your other question, I work with Autocad.
 
Have a nice day (full sunny here in Brussels).

One question I have about the amortissement: your drawing shows the detail starting at the level of those middle deck windows, in line with the open gallery rail and rising up to the sheer line.  This is often how I have seen it modeled (Royal Louis 1692, the Tanneron models of L'Agreable and Le Brilliant).  However, would it not make design sense - for the sake of continuity - for the amortissement to continue down to the open gallery decking?  Even if only as a framework of ornamental rails and stiles?

Oh, and concerning the main deck ports and their lack of verticality.  I agree with both you and Michel about this.  Dan noticed the error as well.  This is one of those things that I'm not willing to correct on this plastic model because it would necessitate re-cutting and re-framing the ports, and completely re-creating the acanthus escutcheon carvings between ports.  When I eventually do a full scratch-build, I will address that issue then.
 
 

Hi Cedric,
 
Thank you for the excellent advice.
 
Co-incidentally, I had been thinking about adding that second port on the poop.  The issue will be shortening the secondary poop deck (poop royal deck?), but this was a necessary accomodation, anyway, as a result of lowering the sheer line.  So, last night I drew in the port.  Rather than  a circular port to match, though, I chose the octagonal profile, seen in the Berain/Compardel portraits. Perhaps they should match, but for now, I think it still looks good.  I will post a picture update after I place all of the ornaments on the frieze.
 
Your plan for the quarter gallery looks right on-point to me.  A four foot projection from the hull scales out to just a hare less than 1/2", which matches the width of the stern windows.
 
I think you are right about the degree of bulwark ornamentation in 1669.  In addition to the examples you cited, there are several others that show only a simple field of fleur-de-lis.  However, what I think I am trying to re-create is the re-fit ornament of 1689, which would represent the full development and expression of the French baroque style.  Afterwards, the crown would become increasingly interested in paring down these excesses.
 
Cedric, are you using GIMP for your drafting, or some other program?

The rig is really shaping up beautifully, EJ - all obsessive hours well spent!

Hello Marc,
 
Well, you are miles away from me with your plans.
 
Hereby my two cents about your last drawing:
 
Hope it will helps.
 
Ave a nice day.
 
Cédric

That's the "good sense" of a XXIth century citizen, note of the common people of the XVIIth.
I never found any indication that those side windows could be open or removed.
 
Just to give an idea, after the 1673 campaign, the intendant of Brest wrote to Colbert that some captains did not make their ships "clear". In one case (if I remember, it was Le Tonnant), the lower decks were found full of animals déjections...(animals wich served for the food of the officers).
 
Also, King Louis XIV in a decree expressly ordered to the captains not to remove anything ont their ships (carvings and so on...).
 
If you need some help for traduction, you know you can aske me, just send me a PM because yahoo.com is now banned from my mail server (décision of the IT direction following last cyberattack).
 
Have a nice day.

Why I prefer to focuse on La Reine ! At least I have one definitive start point. That doesn't mean that my problems are solved, but it's another story.

The rig is really shaping up beautifully, EJ - all obsessive hours well spent!

Hey Dan - that is certainly an intriguing thought.  Much as fhe superficial interior bulkheads would be struck as the crew beat to quarters, it would make sense to have removable quarter panels to both preserve these expensive decorative works and reduce the carnage causing splinter potential of wood flying through the air, during battle.
 
But, I don't know whether that was a thing or not.  All the best source material is written in French, and I could very likely have skimmed past that detail in deciding what passages to translate more thoroughly.
 

Why couldn't the marine "photographers" of that time, the Van de Veldes, have drawn more of the important French ships?
 
When it comes to stern architecture, little is more confusing than French practice.  Ships of a similar size to SR, but still slightly smaller across the main beam, nevertheless, often had more than SR's six stern windows; as shown, the Monarch had seven and I believe La Reyne carried eight (not including the quarter galleries).  This seems to have been a matter of scale and builder's preference, although certainly in many cases, the number of stern windows would be inextricably tied to the layout of the proposed decoration.
 
When it comes to the question of open or closed, or partially open quarter galleries - generally speaking, the quarters before the Reglement of 1671 (or is it 1673?) are largely open.  Thereafter, increasingly, there is a shift toward closing the quarter galleries, as the English had long been doing, by this point.  Yet, there was little enforcement of any of these early regulations, which were early attempts to standardize construction practices, so there remained a great deal of variation on the subject right up to and into the construction of the Second Marine, following the La Hogue disaster in 1692.
 
That is why, in the absence of credible drawings from the period, it really is anyone's educated guess as to the actual or intended arrangement of the stern for any of these great ships.  In the case of La Reyne, though, the arrangement is really pretty clear.  All of the important information is laid out in those two VDV drawings.

The rig is really shaping up beautifully, EJ - all obsessive hours well spent!

La Couronne's ship yard is open again this weekend. Didn't get as much build time in as I was planning but I still managed to get the main course yard bent to the main mast and all the associated rigging in place. With that yard, she has reached her widest dimension at 13". What is nice about that milestone is now that I now have verified all three dimensions that I need to accurately design her display.
 
Next up will of course be the main top and main top gallant yards. Rigging the main top yard is fairly straight forward and as I already have it shaped and blocks attached, it won't take much to finish. the top gallant though has another crows foot rig which have been equaling a full days worth of work by themselves. Maybe next weekend....
 
Enjoy the update!

 

 

 

Awesome milestone EJ! Just imagine crawling out to the end of that yard without foot ropes in a gale! 

Hi Marc, E.J. - 
 
I am highly enjoying your discussions about the interpretations of these artworks as research tools.   I am learning a great deal from your thoughts and M. Saunier's as well.
 
Thinking about the question of open or closed galleries, it occurred to me that perhaps there could have been removable shutters to protect against sun, wind and elements.  Then when the 'photographs' were taken, sometimes they were on, and sometimes not.  
 
It makes sense from a practical point of view, but is that something that has ever come up in your readings?
 
Dan
 

Why couldn't the marine "photographers" of that time, the Van de Veldes, have drawn more of the important French ships?
 
When it comes to stern architecture, little is more confusing than French practice.  Ships of a similar size to SR, but still slightly smaller across the main beam, nevertheless, often had more than SR's six stern windows; as shown, the Monarch had seven and I believe La Reyne carried eight (not including the quarter galleries).  This seems to have been a matter of scale and builder's preference, although certainly in many cases, the number of stern windows would be inextricably tied to the layout of the proposed decoration.
 
When it comes to the question of open or closed, or partially open quarter galleries - generally speaking, the quarters before the Reglement of 1671 (or is it 1673?) are largely open.  Thereafter, increasingly, there is a shift toward closing the quarter galleries, as the English had long been doing, by this point.  Yet, there was little enforcement of any of these early regulations, which were early attempts to standardize construction practices, so there remained a great deal of variation on the subject right up to and into the construction of the Second Marine, following the La Hogue disaster in 1692.
 
That is why, in the absence of credible drawings from the period, it really is anyone's educated guess as to the actual or intended arrangement of the stern for any of these great ships.  In the case of La Reyne, though, the arrangement is really pretty clear.  All of the important information is laid out in those two VDV drawings.

I had not seen those drawings before or if I had, I did not realize they were of the same ship! While the overall shape and size is the same, the decorations, windows, balconies, quarter galleys, gun ports and more have so many variances between renderings that with out having the drawings labeled, verifying that they are of the same ship would be nearly impossible. I can now understand where some of the conflicting elements on my plans have come from. For instance the 5 window stern lights looks to be a variation of the 7 window configuration. Same with the confusion on the quarter galleys being open or closed and even how many there were. I can now definitively see arguments for a few ways just depending upon what year the ship is being modeled and which drawing the modeler uses.
 
Why couldn't photography have been invented a few hundred years earlier....

Hi Cedric,
 
Yes, at best, I think these images are vaguely impressionistic; somewhere, in there, is some truth about SR's appearance.
 
If anyone does know, it is likely to be Michel.  As always, I welcome anyone to come forward with their insight and opinions.
 
I believe Michel had mentioned, once, that the Puget drawings for SR's ornamentation exist somewhere in the Louvre.  My understanding is that Berain re-interpreted these drawings (and presumably, elements of the ships first ornamentation) to create a new decor, at the time of her refit.  Has anyone out there ever seen these first Puget drawings?

Hello Marc,
 
I have also found some month ago this picture of the "Soleil Royal" . I also remember me reading that the first figurehead of this ship was a mermaid, holding on her hands a terrestrial globe surmounted by a cross.
That figurehead could have been carved by Antoine Coysevox, but I'm not sure about this. Sure Michel Saunier will know that better than me.
 
On the other hand, there is only 15 guns on the lower row; and the SR had 16 of them... and I count only 49 guns per side, (3x15 +4 on the poopdeck, being unable to determine if some are present on the forecastle).
 
At least, this picture can give us a good idea about the figurehead of the ship before reconstruction.
 
Have a nice day.
 
 

Not because it particularly informs this build, but simply because I happened upon these images in my recent internet searches - I would like to point out a few things regarding the early appearance of SR.
 
It would be difficult to argue that the following two images are of any significant value as historical references, other than as folk-art, but nevertheless they seem to be the only two images that represent the very first incarnation of Soleil Royal, before her re-fit:
 


 
While these two images seem to differ more than they agree (the presence of a middle-deck entry port on one, the relative profussion of upper bulwark ornamentation on the first image, the location of the main and fore channels), it is interesting to note where there is agreement.
 
In particular, the arrangement of the headrails and the figurehead are very similar.  And while the depiction of these details is crude, I will say that they seem to mimic what we can see of La Reyne's headrail arrangement.  This is the main reason why I believe these images to be representative of SR, after her launching.
 
What's really interesting to me is what little we can see of the stern ornamentation.  It is known that Peter Puget designed the original ornamentation and he is well known, and often maligned, for his large figurative works.  What I find interesting about the first drawing is the large nereid figure between the middle and quarter deck levels of the stern.  A similar figure appears in the more realistic second drawing.  Likewise, at the lower deck level, where the stern evolves into the counter timber, the first drawing shows a horse figure, which may also exist in the second drawing.
 
It seems to me that, in actuality, these figures probably looked very much like the proposed and actual ornament for The Monarch of 1668 - another of the vessels that Puget designed ornamentation for.
 
I don't think it is too far a leap of faith to say that, in her original appearance, Soleil Royal was probably architecturally and ornamentally a very similar ship to the Monarch.  The particular motifs would have been different, but the probable arrangement of her quarter galleries - all open walks - would probably have been  very similar.  Also, the Monarch being a heavily decorated ship, was probably almost on a par with SR's level of ornamentation.
 
I don't think there are any hard conclusions to be drawn here; just interesting possibilities of what might have been.
 
Interestingly, both drawings of SR only show 15 gun pory opennings on the first deck.
 
 

Hello, Model Ship World!  My name is Marc and I hail from NYC.  While I am new to the site, I am not a novice to the hobby.  Owing to the early growth of my two children, and the development of my career in woodworking, it has been some time since I built a ship model.  About sixteen years, in fact!
 
Most of my hobby time, in the evenings, has been devoted to a series of woodworking and furniture projects, which fall under the umbrella of something I refer to as the Heirloom Furniture Project - a legacy project for my kids to inherit sometime far down the road, I hope!  Despite my interest in that, and my role as an active and involved Dad, I never stopped reading and acquiring books about my particular interest in ships and ship modeling: the 17th C. ship-of-the-line, and particularly French naval architecture of that period.
 
My recent discovery of Pinterest has really accelerated my understanding of the unique design differences in the stern architecture of the French first and second rates.  For anyone who's curious, my Pinterest page titled French Vaisseaus can be found under my member name Tafferal.  The imagery I have been able to compile, there, has made it possible for me to begin designing a build that I have long been grappling with.  Here's the link:
 
https://www.pinterest.com/tafferal/french-vaisseaus/
 
This will not be a fully-framed scratch build, but rather an extensive modification of Heller's Soleil Royal.  I plan to test out my "Theory of the Ship," in plastic, so that I might re-create the ship, in wood, with all the scratch-built bells and whistles, when I eventually retire.  This will be my second build of the Heller kit.
 
The first was begun at the age of eight; very cautiously, I proceeded to the main deck level where I stopped the build, understandably, until I had developed enough skill to competently complete the upper works.  As a teenager, I completed everything up to the masting and rigging.  After college, I finally finished the model and had a very nice case made to house it.  I have been transporting it from apartment to apartment for the past twenty years.
 
It is, in my opinion, a very carefully fit and assembled model (no injection marks, gaps or flash lines) that is impeccably painted.  It is not, however, a realistic depiction of the ship, or of a sailing ship, in general.  That notwithstanding, I, like many others before me have become completely captivated by the conjectural splendor of what the actual vessel must have been like.
 
The short-comings of the Heller kit have been thoroughly documented on a number of forums.  I'm assuming that most who come to read this thread are already well acquainted with the inherent omissions and short-comings of the plastic kit.  Unlike so many others, though, I believe that there lies within the kit, great potential to build an accurate scale model of a French first-rate ship from the 1660s.
 
Now, it bears mentioning that I have read the forum moderator's post on overly ambitious build threads,  and I can certainly appreciate and agree with the thinking, there.  This is going to be an ambitious build!  I expect it to go on for quite a number of years.  This is not, however, a passing fancy.  I am a devotee of incremental progress:  whatever little can be accomplished, most evenings of the week, gradually adds up to a thing taking shape.
 
My main obstacle, until now, had been the difficulty in fully visualizing what I believe the original intent of Jean Berain's well known drafts of the SR's stern and quarter galleries to be.
 


 
I will expound on my theory of the ship in a moment, however, I'd like to say a word or two about why this project has legs for me.
 
The kit I am using for this build is one of the early pressings from the 70's, by Heller.  It, initially, belonged to my next door neighbor who was a kind of mentor to me when I was young.  Mark Hansen was an outstanding modeler of all kinds of military craft, but he especially loved the sailing ships.  He gave me a pretty solid foundation on what was and was not appropriate to incorporate on a sailing ship model.
 
It was his SR that I first spied on the top shelf of his hobby room.  I was instantly captivated, and from that point forward perennially obsessed with this single vessel, in a way that I still don't fully comprehend.  Mark helped me build my first SR.  He intended to tackle the kit in his retirement, but he never made it.  Cancer took him in his late 50s.  I have never known a person to be more generous with his time, and his memory remains dear.  I'm dedicating this build to him, as it is quite possible I would never have found fulfillment in the trades, if not for his influence.
 
MY THEORY OF THE SHIP
 
Soleil Royal's keel was laid down at Brest shipyards in 1666, as part of Minister to the Navy, Colbert's, aggressive reconstruction and restructuring of Louis XIV's navy.  She was launched in 1668, and completed a year later in 1669.  Her length on deck is listed as 164.5 antiquated French pieds, with a breadth of 44.5 FP.  Using a conversion factor of 1.066, this translates to 175 modern, English feet by 47' 5" in breadth, at the main beam.  She displaced 2,400 tons, and her draft measured 23.5 FP, or 25 EF.
 
As a side note, I must mention that I am in the process of establishing a point person at the Musee de la Marine, so that I might ask specific questions about my source material.  So far, I have not received any reply to my inquiries.  For the moment, though, I'm assuming that these L.O.D. dimensions I am giving are, indeed, the L.O.D., and not some other specific measurement.  This will, for the sake of scholarship and my future build in wood, be clarified.  However, for the purpose of this build, it doesn't really matter;  the kit hull halves are what they are, and in fact, the kit L.O.D. pretty exactly corresponds with 175 EF.  In the end, though, the requirements of this particular build will necessitate a certain degree of fudgery to create the impression I am after.  There will be small additions and subtractions - all to be explained in the next few posts.
 
Her designer and builder was Laurent Hubac, and her initial armament is listed as 120 guns.  As a shipwright, Monsieur Hubac was noted for building warships that were considerably wider than those of his contemporaries.  This owed to his belief that the added width improved the handling characteristics of these large ships.  Soleil Royal was, indeed, said to he a good sailing ship. 
 
One year earlier, another ship by M. Hubac was launched at Brest, and initially christened Le Royal Duc.  With the establishment of the French rating system, in 1671, the ship was re-named La Reyne.  Her listed dimensions are as follows:  L.O.D., 155 FP, by 42 FP on the main beam.  Using the above metric, this translates to a L.O.D. of 165' 3" in English feet and a maximum beam of a hair under 44' 9".  She displaced 2,000 tons and her draft is listed as 22' 10" FP, or 24' 4" EF.  Her initial armament was listed as 104 guns.
 
The two ships are of a similar size, displacement and rating.  However, unlike SR, there exist two highly detailed Van De Velde portraits of La Reyne, showing her from the starboard stern quarter, as well as, the port bow, broadside.  It is immediately apparent that the design of La Reyne's stern and quarter galleries is markedly different from SR.  Also, as is to be expected, the arrangement of her gunports is significantly different from what is known about SR, and the arrangement of her guns.
 


 
The value of these Van De Velde portraits, for me, has to do with the wealth of hull detail that is apparent (and glaringly omitted in the Heller, and vis-a-vis, the incomplete Tanneron model upon which it is directly based), as well as the ship's sheer line and presence on the water.  In pen and wash, one can see a significantly more stout vessel, in La Reyne, with a notably lower sheer line, as compared to Tanneron's interpretation of Berain's designs for SR.
 
As a side note, there is a Belgian on another site who has outlined his build plans for converting Heller's SR into La Reyne of 1671.  What he is proposing is absolutely attainable, as the VDV drawings are remarkably clear, especially when combined with another period drawing of La Reyne's stern that shows the ornament for what it is - if not, remotely, to scale.  Like me, this gentleman sees the potential in Heller's kit for a sound scale model, although his build will necessitate re-configuring the armament.  As am I, he is still in the research stage, but I will be following his build and posting links, as appropriate.
 
I want to say, from the outset, that the question of SR's armament - whether 120 guns upon launching, or 104 at the time of her demise - is not one that I plan to resolve with this build.  I will be using the moulded kit hull halves and upper bulwarks.  I will be making extensive modifications to those parts, and completely scratch-building the entire stern and beakhead bulkhead.  Heller's kit, like Tanneron's model, is pierced for 110 guns.  I suppose I could omit the two lower bow chase ports, but that would only bring me down to 108.  Leaving them out would be a largely arbitrary decision without any clear basis in fact.  In the end, my ship will carry 110 guns.
 
There are just certain constraints of working with the pre-established port locations of the plastic hull that I am not willing to overcome.  This is the first and most glaring.  I am recycling what I can of the kit because the essential lines of the hull and tumblehome are fairly representative of period practice, and of course, it is an enormous time saver to avoid the complete scratch-building of a hull.
 
Ultimately, what I am aiming to achieve, is what I believe to be the correct interpretation of Berain's stern and quarter galleries, as well as the decorative frieze of the upper bulwarks.  In the course of the build, I will also add correct period detail - correctly scaled - to the hull, head, decks and guns, while completely re-masting and rigging the ship, according to the guidance of Lees and Anderson.
 
A few gunports, give or take, will not detract from the impression of a ship that sits slightly lower in the water, on a notably broader beam, with noticeably lower sheer;  in other words, a ship that won't capsize from the recoil of her own broadside.  My ship model will bear a resemblance to the Heller kit, but I hope to far exceed it in ornamental magnificence and correct period detail.
 
What I'm going for is essentially this:
 

 
This is a work from a twentieth century artist, I believe from the 1950's, who must have been similarly infatuated with SR.  I believe that he correctly depicts the configuration of SR's stern.  Although, I must say that even if it were the case that she were almost completely painted blue above the lower, main wales - I will not be depicting her, as such.  More on that later.
 
In future posts, I will outline what exactly my theory of the ship entails, as well as, my supporting documentary evidence.  I will then discuss exactly what I intend to do with the Heller kit, in order to bring all of this about, and then I will share with you the drawings that I have been working on, that will serve as the basis of my modification plan.  I've been corresponding with Dan Pariser quite a bit lately, and he has prevailed upon me that I would be much better served digitizing my hand-drawn images so that I could more easily develop them in Corel Draw, for example.  He is right, and I will.  After not hearing from me for such a long time, I have to credit Dan for being so generous with his knowledge and resources.  He and Mark Hansen are two of a kind!
 
So, I must first create a scale "field" - as opposed to a line and body plan (not necessary because I'm not framing) - upon which I can layer all of the new detail.  There will be some learning there, naturally, but I will share what I've arrived at, so far, in future posts.
 
Thank you all for taking an interest in this thread and I look forward to hearing whatever you might have to say on the subject.  I have also read the moderator's post on forum etiquette, when commenting on a thread or post;  I am not nearly as brittle as the plastic I will be working with, so please don't labor too much in your replies.  Just tell me what's on your mind.
 
All the best,
 
Marc

We'll look a little bit at the accessories. Many are repetitive and represent a work almost to the chain. Hints or tips to avoid this hassle.

The 16 upper and lower hats of the portholes of the fellows. They are the result of milling of a bar in general shape, then at the end sculpture with the scalpel and needle files, finally sawing, thickness by sanding back, and we start again.

The 15 sets of the third battery ports. Getting quasi perfect circles would be very long, and as I am old and slow then let's be crazy, work with the techniques of our time. So a draft in CNC milling machine (a friend of mine knows how to do this, thank you Luc) and pick up the scenery and needle files.

For the nailing of the pre-pleats on each chord, like the finer one of the vertical wall above, there is no way to do otherwise by working by hand. 2000 nails with orange head in three dimensions on the three pairs of pre-wires, one pierces, one sticks, next! ! !
And for the nails of 0.6 without brass head hardens, more than 3000, one drills, one engages the clamp that cuts flush. Needless to say, we have to do this on a virgin wall of all scenery and then sanding the whole.
I do not show the wall studded because one sees almost the nails that the nose on it.
 
But the result of these punishments is there too.
 
For the portholes is another story
See you soon

In fact I wanted, challenged by my MMB forum friends, to create a quet that approximates that of the SR. These parquet floors are called "Versailles". So I created a block of alternate wood slats and then grinded into the milling machine, in several layers to get what you see. Then sawing of lamellae of this block, finishing each one (thickness 5 / 0th of mm), assembly and gluing on a thick paper to the dimensions of the piece, finally the assembly glued on the bridge.
 
I am quite satisfied with the result that, alas, we will not see any more because the aft fellow comes to hide everything.

Let us now turn to the second and third bridges. We will always find the same basic structure of the framework. The arrangements differ as we shall see by their wealth.
The third bridge will be visible in part because it is masked by the front and back fellows.
It has a peculiarity that are the flats of the Admiral. The latter contained an unprecedented luxury for the period of painted decors, precious furniture, carpets and a parquet flooring plated on the edges of the bridge.
The structure includes a series of gratings to allow ventilation of previous bridges (such as the second bridge). Indeed during the battles, the firing of the guns emitted an intense smoke that it was necessary to be able to evacuate.
The leases you see above this bridge are those sketched out by the fellows and the poop.
The guns are set up and equipped with their hoists, tacks, braches. Through the partial opening of the bridge one can see the arms of the great capstan. The masts are fictitious at the moment.
Photos of details show these guns to post.
 
Here are the amenities of the Admiral's apartments on starboard
Entrance wall from the bridge with its wrought doors
Front view
Rear top view
The large room (14m x 9m) with its walls worked, the chests, the paintings (I did not reproduce those original!)

Hello Marc,
 
As soon as possible !
 
I must admit I'm quite too busy: it's nearly the end of the schoolyear and my childrens are quite under pressure ! That doesn't help.
 
It's really nice to see here the first steps of Mr Saunier's Soleil Royal, I deeply regret that first part of his project is now unreadable for non-membres of Mr Delacroix's forum. It's clearly a masterpiece (in french: chef d'œuvre") !
 
Yes, indeed we will have things to discuss about La Reine; among others the proportions of first rate ships given in L'Anonyme du Havre de Grâce manuscript.
 
Have a nice day.