Hubac's Historian

I've recommended this to a builder on a separate thread, but have you picked up the book Vasa by Fred Hocker?  This is an invaluable resource for anyone modeling the ship.  She is beautifully photographed and her entire origin story, loss, recovery, restoration, structure and iconography is described with amazing clarity.

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

Well, I have established a point of contact at the Musee de la Marine.  They requested that I assemble a list of specific questions, and I was more than happy to oblige.  Although I stated earlier that I am not interested in resolving the question of SR's armament for the purposes of this build, I would like to at least know what I should be aiming for on any future full scratch-build.
 
I'm going to post the Word document of my letter to the museum.  I'm not sure why, but none of the pictures that accompany the body of my text are showing here.  Some of these pictures appear to have permission restrictions.  I will post the others at the bottom of this entry, in the order in which they appeared.
 
There were three images I could not post.  One was a side by side comparison of the model of Royal Louis of 1692's quarter gallery, with a 17th Century line drawing of a quarter gallery that is closed, but that seems to closely resemble, in outline at least, what Tanneron created on his model of SR.  This drawing shows three open galleries with walkways, off the stern.  The other two images were also 17th C. in origin.  They are color proposals for the stern and quarter galleries of what I suspect was Soleil Royal, number two, in 1692.  There is still Apollo and his horse-drawn chariot, on the tafferal, but the ornamentation is drastically more restrained, and the background for all the carved work, as well as the hull above the waterline is blue.
 
Here is my letter to the Musee:
 
November 25, 2016
 
Hello Karine,
 
Following are the questions that I am hopeful Mr. Rieth can assist me with.
 
What I am trying to accomplish with my project is an accurate scale model of Soleil Royal from 1669, which correctly interprets the ornamental designs of Jean Berain.  The difficulty I have run into, so far, is that when you query the internet for information on “Soleil Royal,” “1669,” “Jean Berain,” what comes back to you is often fascinating, but without any context as to whether the imagery actually pertains to this, the first Soleil Royal, or another of the three ships that followed her.  Sometimes, if the findings clearly are a reference to the first SR, then they often lack reference to any specific time period in her career.
 
So much of what captivates the imagination with this ship is that she is a sort of puzzle to be solved.  There is information out there, but no clear narrative from which to draw definitive conclusions about her history and appearance.
 
I have quite a number of questions, and certainly don’t expect that there are clear answers to all of them, however, it never hurts to ask.  To simplify, somewhat, I have grouped questions according to specific areas of interest.
 
To begin with, because I am building a scale model, I would like some clarification on the listed measurements of the vessel.  From the lists published in J.C. Lemineur’s book Les Vaisseaus du Roi Soleil (pg, 206), I have the following:
 
164.5 feet Length, by 44.5 feed breadth at the main beam, a draft of 23.5 feet, and a displacement of 2,400 tons
 
QUESTIONS ABOUT DIMENSIONS
 
My first questions have to do with the above listed dimensions.  My assumption is that all of the listed measurements are the antiquated French pied, or foot.  Is that correct?
 
Also, regarding the length measurement of 164.5 feet; is that a measurement of Length on Deck, from the aft edge of the sternpost to the fore edge of the stem piece, at the main deck level?  Or, does that 164.5 foot measurement extend from the aft edge of the sternpost to the inside face of the beakhead bulkhead?  What exactly does that 164.5’ measurement signify?
 
I would also like to know whether there is any record of the full length of the ship, overall, from the aft-most balcony to the foremost edge of the spritsail top.
 
With regard to the listed breadth, at the main beam: is this a measurement that includes the exterior planking, or is it only a measure from the outside faces of the moulded framing?  In other words, a measurement across the widest frame, but inside of the exterior planking?
 
QUESTIONS ABOUT ARMAMENT
 
Is it so that SR’s listed armament, upon launch, was 120 guns?  Are there any schematics at the Musee that show the distribution of those 120 guns across her hull, circa 1669?
 
I would also like to know, if possible, what the distribution of different calibers are for those 120 guns.  For example, sixteen 36-pound guns on each side of the first battery, fifteen 18-pound guns on each side of the second battery, etc, etc.
 
Is it true that before her demise in 1692, her armament had been cut down to 104 guns?
 
If so, what was the new distribution of calibers across each deck?
 
The Tanneron model at the Musee is pierced for 110 guns.  Does anyone know the basis for that choice by Mr. Tanneron?
 
Mr. Lemineur provides a breakdown of armament by caliber for first rate ships, prior to 1671, which includes Soleil Royal, Le Royal Duc, Le Dauphin Royal, and Le Royal Louis.  This seems a more general distribution for these four ships, totaling 110 guns (Vaisseaus Du Roi Soleil, pg 190).  But, then, on page 206 he specifies a beginning and final armaments of 120/104 for SR.  This is just very confusing.  Any specifics you can proved about SR’s total number of guns and their distribution would be enormously helpful.
 
QUESTIONS ABOUT SR’s REFIT HISTORY
 
I cannot find any reliable information about the refit history of SR.  After her launch, I know she remained largely idle until a refit in 1688 to prepare her for action under Tourville’s command.  What specifically is known about the refit?
 
Presumably, this would have been the time at which her armament was reduced.  Was there a corresponding reduction in the top-hamper of her sheer line?  In other words, did the engineers cut down a deck to reduce her top hamper?  Mr. Tanneron’s model of SR is equipped with a quarter deck, a poop deck, and a poop-royal deck; this top-most deck does not seem to appear in any other drawings of SR’s first and second-rate contemporaries.  The one exception I have found, perhaps, being Le Royal Louis of 1668 (see pic below) where figures can be seen standing just forward of the flagstaff.  Was this extra deck actually a feature of the ship?
 
Would this re-fit in1688 have altered the three-tiered orientation of her stern windows?  In other words, were there now only two tiers of gallery lights in the stern?  I ask because there are contradictory depictions of SR, from late in her career, by well-known and respected marine artists of her time.  In Destruction of Soleil Royal, Peter Monomy shows her aft quarters as being closed and still with three tiers of gallery windows.  However, Ludolf Bakhuizen in his Battle of Barfleur depicts her as only having two tiers of gallery windows.  At that stage in her career, only one could be right, no?
 
 
 
 
Lastly, If they did cut the hull down, somewhat, is this also a time when the entire decorative scheme of the ship would have been altered?  If so, how exactly?  I would like to be able to say that I am definitively depicting my model of the ship at a specific time in her history.
 
QUESTIONS ABOUT SR’s SCULPTURE AND ORNAMENTATION
 
My operating assumption is that SR’s design and ornamentation, upon launching in 1669, closely followed the designs of Jean Berain, as seen here:
 
 
 
 
 
Do these particular quarter galleries, which are significantly more ornate than those depicted on the Tanneron model at the Musee, represent the earliest form for the ship?  Also, who is responsible for the middle and right, color drawings of the ship?  I know that Jean Berain is credited for the drawing on the far left.
 
Also, was the ship actually painted entirely blue above the blackened main wales of the first gun deck?
 
Given the ship’s special role in the fleet, it seems plausible that all or most of her ornament would have been gold leafed, as at Versailles.  However, given the wealth of carved decoration on the ship, I wonder whether some of the ornament might simply have been painted yellow, as was common on the rest of the continent and England, in the 17th Century.  Were there even more colors involved in bringing her ornamentation to life, as seen for example, at the Vasa museum, where the 1:10 scale model is a riot of colors?  Is there any truth to these possibilities, or was it more likely that all of SR’s ornamentation was entirely covered in gold leaf?
 
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TANNERON MODEL
 
Mr. Tanneron’s model from 1836 clearly seems to draw pretty heavily upon the Berain drawing, but it differs in several significant ways, and forward of the stern, the model is largely incomplete.
 
 
 
 
I am curious to know what is known about Mr. Tanneron’s sources for constructing this model.  Was he working from no longer extant drawings and paintings that were from SR’s active service life, or is much of what he created a conjectural combination of Berain’s work and the model in the Musee of Le Royal Louis, of 1692 – with which it shares a number of similarities?
 
What is known about this drawing on the far right?  Was this a proposal for the re-decoration of the first SR, at the time of her refit in 1688?  This drawing seems to bear a fairly close resemblance to what Mr. Tanneron chose for the structure and decoration of his model’s stern.
 
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VAN DE VELDES
 
I have seen the Van De Velde portraits of La Reyne from 1671 and am using these portraits as a source for filling in various hull details that are missing from SR, as La Reyne is probably the closest thing, architecturally speaking, that could be considered a “sister” ship to SR; same designer, same shipyard, same rate, similarly sized, and built within a year of each other.  These portraits of La Reyne are especially informative with regard to understanding the transition above the stern counter, into the lowest gallery of windows.
 
I wonder, though, whether a similar Van de Velde portrait of SR has ever come to light, and whether the Musee has any copy or record of it.  Obviously, that one source, if it exists, would answer so many of my questions.
 
 
 
 
QUESTION ABOUT MAST AND SPAR DIMENSIONS
 
While I do have several good sources, concerning the masting and rigging of 17th Century ships of war (R.C. Anderson and James Lees), I was wondering whether the Musee has a listing of appropriate mast and spar dimensions for a French first-rate ship of the line.
 
QUESTIONS ABOUT VARIOUS THINGS FLOATING AROUND THE INTERNET
 
The following two pictures seem directly related to SR, but would appear to represent the more restrained classism of later building programs.  Were these drawings a proposal for the decoration of the second SR, constructed in 1692, following the loss of the fist SR?
 
 
 
 
Is the picture below left, indeed, the Royal Louis of 1668?  Who is responsible for creating the drawing, Mr. Puget?
 
 
 
 
Above right, is this the Monarque of 1667?  Was this drawing created by Mr. Puget, or someone else?
 
 
 
Final question: Can you identify this vessel from a painting of The Battle of Lizard Point, 1707?
 

I've recommended this to a builder on a separate thread, but have you picked up the book Vasa by Fred Hocker?  This is an invaluable resource for anyone modeling the ship.  She is beautifully photographed and her entire origin story, loss, recovery, restoration, structure and iconography is described with amazing clarity.

Passer, I can see with your willingness to re-work your frames until they are right, and the care and attention with which you are doing your paint work that this is going to be a really good model.  I'm really excited to see this one through!

That's the greatest feeling - to see this thing you've been working on really take shape.  Congrats, Dude, she looks incredible!

That's the greatest feeling - to see this thing you've been working on really take shape.  Congrats, Dude, she looks incredible!

Ratlines and stays on the main top mast have been completed! This finishes the last of the large mast sections. I plan on working on S.R. for a while and advance the planking some more on it but, when I return I think a bigger push will be in order. I plan on building the mizzen top mast as well as the fore and main top gallants and all the flag staffs. There is not much rigging needed for them and as there are no more platforms to build the construction of those masts should be relatively simple. Plus, that will finish up mast construction and then I can start on the yards!
 
I must admit that with every new line I rig I tend to spend more and more time just sitting back and looking at her and I am getting more and more excited about seeing the finished ship. Still months away but it is much closer to the finish than the start!

Today I built the first of la Couronne's canon. I needed one that I could use for laying out the main decks gun ports. I did not care for the kits supplied carriages so I ended up building my own that I am much happier with.

The encoding from MSW may be causing an issue. However that's hardly a mainstream file type regularly used, so I'd be happy I was getting it to work at all. 

Well, that's the weird thing; I work on a Mac and the operating system is current.  When I open the files directly from my email, it isn't a problem.  They show up.  However, when I try to click the link from within the MSW site (just to make sure it was a working link), I get that message.  Weird.  As long as everyone else can access the information, then I am happy.

Well, that's the weird thing; I work on a Mac and the operating system is current.  When I open the files directly from my email, it isn't a problem.  They show up.  However, when I try to click the link from within the MSW site (just to make sure it was a working link), I get that message.  Weird.  As long as everyone else can access the information, then I am happy.

I appreciate the fatigue factor, but you are getting really good at them.  Ratlines look amazing, dude!

I will definitely pass along everyone's thanks and appreciation to Mr. Saunier.  I would totally understand if someone had spent years of their life trying to track down information on a subject - I would totally get it, if they didn't feel like just handing over that information to whomever.  It only reflects brilliantly upon the generosity of Mr. Saunier's spirit and his desire for the subject to be treated with respect.
 
Vossie, I appreciate what you are saying, although I don't fully understand what you are saying yet.  I'll have to consult my old pal YouTube, and then I'll probably private message you wih some specific questions.  Computer-ese is not my first language, unfortunately.  But, thank you for weighing in.

I will definitely pass along everyone's thanks and appreciation to Mr. Saunier.  I would totally understand if someone had spent years of their life trying to track down information on a subject - I would totally get it, if they didn't feel like just handing over that information to whomever.  It only reflects brilliantly upon the generosity of Mr. Saunier's spirit and his desire for the subject to be treated with respect.
 
Vossie, I appreciate what you are saying, although I don't fully understand what you are saying yet.  I'll have to consult my old pal YouTube, and then I'll probably private message you wih some specific questions.  Computer-ese is not my first language, unfortunately.  But, thank you for weighing in.

I appreciate the fatigue factor, but you are getting really good at them.  Ratlines look amazing, dude!

Alright, so I couldn't stop myself and I sketched in the dolphins to either side of the main deck windows.  Again, it seemed that these were elements that I couldn't simply scan in artwork, trace and scale to fit.  Maybe it really is as easy as that, but I wanted to sketch them to scale.  I also filled in the panel stiles of the middle deck level and settled on a new transitional line from the stern counter, just below the middle deck windows of the stern, and the upper stern; this would be the middle line, which I think strikes a nice balance and makes for a reasonably elegant transition.  But the paper really is starting to disintegrate on the crease.  So, this time I mean it;  digitize or bust!
 

I will definitely pass along everyone's thanks and appreciation to Mr. Saunier.  I would totally understand if someone had spent years of their life trying to track down information on a subject - I would totally get it, if they didn't feel like just handing over that information to whomever.  It only reflects brilliantly upon the generosity of Mr. Saunier's spirit and his desire for the subject to be treated with respect.
 
Vossie, I appreciate what you are saying, although I don't fully understand what you are saying yet.  I'll have to consult my old pal YouTube, and then I'll probably private message you wih some specific questions.  Computer-ese is not my first language, unfortunately.  But, thank you for weighing in.

I appreciate the fatigue factor, but you are getting really good at them.  Ratlines look amazing, dude!

Great information Marc! Be sure to thank Michel Saunier for me and all of us in your next correspondence. I do hope that one day all of this research gets published in a book for the benefit of us all. These 17th century ships while famous and admired by all really do lack a lot of information. Even the Vasa being physically present where she can be studied still leaves a lot of blanks to be guessed in. I do hope that more people with the knowledge and expertise to do so, find a way to discover and publish their findings so we can learn more about these great ships. 

I will definitely pass along everyone's thanks and appreciation to Mr. Saunier.  I would totally understand if someone had spent years of their life trying to track down information on a subject - I would totally get it, if they didn't feel like just handing over that information to whomever.  It only reflects brilliantly upon the generosity of Mr. Saunier's spirit and his desire for the subject to be treated with respect.
 
Vossie, I appreciate what you are saying, although I don't fully understand what you are saying yet.  I'll have to consult my old pal YouTube, and then I'll probably private message you wih some specific questions.  Computer-ese is not my first language, unfortunately.  But, thank you for weighing in.

Shrouds and ratlines have taken over this weekend! While I didn't quite get them all done, I made a very good dent and should probably be done with one or two more hours of work. I am also rather please to say that I even built the shroud pairs correctly this time! So, I hope to finish up the ratlines later this week and then rig the stays. I am ready to be done with ratlines!!!!

Main top mast is built and in place! With that I have also completed the last top for this ship. As neat as those round tops are in appearance, they are a pain to make. Next build session will start the shroud rigging which means that nothing exciting will be seen for a few days but with the weekend coming up I may get lucky and get in some longer build hours and get it done.
 
Afterwards the stays will go up and surprisingly the stays for the main top mast are quite simple when compared to the ones on the fore top mast. In looking ahead the rigging is fairly straight forward for a while until I get to the top gallants and the lifts for some of the yards. Then the crows feet come back. The more I read about them and experience trying to rig them, the more I understand why they vanished relatively fast in favor of much simpler rigging. I would not have wanted to be the sailors tasked with trying to repair one of them while at sea.
 
Ok, enough chat for now, enjoy the pictures! 

Webarchive is an archive type exclusive to Safari, won't be able to read them without installing and using it.

Chrome automagically downloaded them but they have an extension of .webarchive  Not sure what that is.  Maybe you need to open and then save them as a PDF or some other file type?
 
And thank Michel Saunier for all of us.