Hubac's Historian

Given the crowded and complicated nature of the ornament surounding the quarter galleries, I wanted to sketch in the various elements (the mermaids, the figure if Africa sitting on her caryatid archway, the quarter piece supporting the side lantern, and the crown and flames), in order to get a sense for their relative proportions and whether I could make it all work in the space available to me.
 

 
What I found was that the 1/4" extension I was adding to the stern was not going to be sufficient, however, if I added an extra 1/8" (the dotted, parallel line that previously represented the round-up of the upper stern) - then I had enough room to make it work.
 
once all of those elements were sketched in place, and relatively close to their ideal shape and size, I was able to complete the freize layout around them.  I think that when I digitize this image, I'll be able to shorten Africa a bit, and lengthen the quarter piece just enough to seem right.  Anyway, now that I can see where the frieze falls, in the midst of it all, I am now fully confident that I can pull this project off and produce something good.
 
I can't really continue to fill in detail on this sheet of regular bond paper because the surface integrity of the paper is failing with all of the erasures and re-working of the design.  As tends to happen with this approach - the surface is also becoming too muddy with loose graphite.  I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't going to commit all of this time to learning software, only to discover that there are layout problems that I couldn't overcome.  An astute eye will notice discrepancies between what I am drawing and what is shown in either the black and white stern drawing or the Compardel interpretation of the same, however, there are a few small choices that were necessary for me to either include certain important detail, or omit less critical detail that overly clutters the design.  Again, the proportions of all of this are not yet ideal, but workable now, with the software.
 
here is how the frieze layout translates to the f'ocsle:
 

Fascinating research and work, Marc.   I'm looking forward to your progress in the design/reconstruction.

Given the crowded and complicated nature of the ornament surounding the quarter galleries, I wanted to sketch in the various elements (the mermaids, the figure if Africa sitting on her caryatid archway, the quarter piece supporting the side lantern, and the crown and flames), in order to get a sense for their relative proportions and whether I could make it all work in the space available to me.
 

 
What I found was that the 1/4" extension I was adding to the stern was not going to be sufficient, however, if I added an extra 1/8" (the dotted, parallel line that previously represented the round-up of the upper stern) - then I had enough room to make it work.
 
once all of those elements were sketched in place, and relatively close to their ideal shape and size, I was able to complete the freize layout around them.  I think that when I digitize this image, I'll be able to shorten Africa a bit, and lengthen the quarter piece just enough to seem right.  Anyway, now that I can see where the frieze falls, in the midst of it all, I am now fully confident that I can pull this project off and produce something good.
 
I can't really continue to fill in detail on this sheet of regular bond paper because the surface integrity of the paper is failing with all of the erasures and re-working of the design.  As tends to happen with this approach - the surface is also becoming too muddy with loose graphite.  I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't going to commit all of this time to learning software, only to discover that there are layout problems that I couldn't overcome.  An astute eye will notice discrepancies between what I am drawing and what is shown in either the black and white stern drawing or the Compardel interpretation of the same, however, there are a few small choices that were necessary for me to either include certain important detail, or omit less critical detail that overly clutters the design.  Again, the proportions of all of this are not yet ideal, but workable now, with the software.
 
here is how the frieze layout translates to the f'ocsle:
 

Given the crowded and complicated nature of the ornament surounding the quarter galleries, I wanted to sketch in the various elements (the mermaids, the figure if Africa sitting on her caryatid archway, the quarter piece supporting the side lantern, and the crown and flames), in order to get a sense for their relative proportions and whether I could make it all work in the space available to me.
 

 
What I found was that the 1/4" extension I was adding to the stern was not going to be sufficient, however, if I added an extra 1/8" (the dotted, parallel line that previously represented the round-up of the upper stern) - then I had enough room to make it work.
 
once all of those elements were sketched in place, and relatively close to their ideal shape and size, I was able to complete the freize layout around them.  I think that when I digitize this image, I'll be able to shorten Africa a bit, and lengthen the quarter piece just enough to seem right.  Anyway, now that I can see where the frieze falls, in the midst of it all, I am now fully confident that I can pull this project off and produce something good.
 
I can't really continue to fill in detail on this sheet of regular bond paper because the surface integrity of the paper is failing with all of the erasures and re-working of the design.  As tends to happen with this approach - the surface is also becoming too muddy with loose graphite.  I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't going to commit all of this time to learning software, only to discover that there are layout problems that I couldn't overcome.  An astute eye will notice discrepancies between what I am drawing and what is shown in either the black and white stern drawing or the Compardel interpretation of the same, however, there are a few small choices that were necessary for me to either include certain important detail, or omit less critical detail that overly clutters the design.  Again, the proportions of all of this are not yet ideal, but workable now, with the software.
 
here is how the frieze layout translates to the f'ocsle:
 

Given the crowded and complicated nature of the ornament surounding the quarter galleries, I wanted to sketch in the various elements (the mermaids, the figure if Africa sitting on her caryatid archway, the quarter piece supporting the side lantern, and the crown and flames), in order to get a sense for their relative proportions and whether I could make it all work in the space available to me.
 

 
What I found was that the 1/4" extension I was adding to the stern was not going to be sufficient, however, if I added an extra 1/8" (the dotted, parallel line that previously represented the round-up of the upper stern) - then I had enough room to make it work.
 
once all of those elements were sketched in place, and relatively close to their ideal shape and size, I was able to complete the freize layout around them.  I think that when I digitize this image, I'll be able to shorten Africa a bit, and lengthen the quarter piece just enough to seem right.  Anyway, now that I can see where the frieze falls, in the midst of it all, I am now fully confident that I can pull this project off and produce something good.
 
I can't really continue to fill in detail on this sheet of regular bond paper because the surface integrity of the paper is failing with all of the erasures and re-working of the design.  As tends to happen with this approach - the surface is also becoming too muddy with loose graphite.  I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't going to commit all of this time to learning software, only to discover that there are layout problems that I couldn't overcome.  An astute eye will notice discrepancies between what I am drawing and what is shown in either the black and white stern drawing or the Compardel interpretation of the same, however, there are a few small choices that were necessary for me to either include certain important detail, or omit less critical detail that overly clutters the design.  Again, the proportions of all of this are not yet ideal, but workable now, with the software.
 
here is how the frieze layout translates to the f'ocsle:
 

In my on-going conversations with Mr. Saunier, it was brought to my attention how unlikely it would be that a short open walkway would exist on the main deck level of the quarter gallery without there being any connection to an open walk on the stern.  Having taken a closer look, I can now see that the figure of Autumn is visibly supporting a projecting gallery on the main deck level.  Given Autumn's position at the far, starboard edge of the stern, he must be supporting a gallery that extends to the edge, and in all likelihood wraps beneath the arch supporting the figure of Africa, and connects with the short open walk of the quarter gallery.  Access to the walk would, then, naturally be from the stern.  I am amending my theory to include this wrapping walk, on the main deck level.  For the time being, I am not sure whether I am going to change my opinion of the quarter deck stern walk above it, which I currently believe to be a very abbreviated walk that only spans the central two windows of the stern.  Perhaps, it too, extends at least to the quarter figures, but I am inclined to read the shadows of Berain's black and white image of the stern as flat.  I have no doubt, though, that the lowest tier of lights is not a projecting gallery at all.
 

 

Given this new realization, my new conception of SR's stern now more closely matches the arrangement of La Reyne's stern, on the middle and main deck levels.  For the record, while Mr. Saunier has been extremely helpful to me, and generous in sharing his research, he does not share my theory of the ship.  Like Mr. Lemineur, he sees too many inconsistencies between my choice of quarter gallery and Berain's stern.  He, too, is bothered by the use of the Heller kit for the basis of a more serious exploration of what the ship may have been.  I respect his scholarship and his opinion.
 

I have also said, previously, that I did not think the officers' waste pipe was present in Berain's stern drawing.  After really examining this black and white image, however, it now seems that the waste pipe is the primary element of the lower finishing that can be seen here.  One thing that I cannot reconcile, between the stern and quarter views, is why the stern doesn't also show the rest of the lower finishing which should appear to drop down to the level of the lower main wale.  It is not there, though.  In it's place there only appears to be a fuzzy detail of indeterminable form.
 
For my part, though, I maintain that these portraits were produced for a reason.  They must correspond with a specific period in the ship's history, and I believe that there is much evidence of Berain's hand in the design of these quarter galleries.  Therefore, it seems reasonable to me that this appearance of the ship would originate around the time of her re-fit.
 
The other thing that occurred to me is that the particular triple-tiered arrangement of the headrails, in the Compardel portrait of the bow is significantly different from the headrail arrangement of La Reyne in the VDV portrait of her port bow.  The figurehead is the same, but the headrails are different.  To my thinking it seems reasonable that two first rank ships built by the same man, in the same yard, within a year of each other would - upon launching - quite reasonably share the same headrail arrangement.  Yet, the Compardel headrails are distinctly different.  While this is not signed and dated hard proof, this does, for me, signify the strong possibility that the Compardel headrails are also the work of Berain - thus this seems to re-enforce the notion that these bow, quarter and stern views are one continuous tableau.
 


This is my reasoned opinion.  It may, in fact, be historically inaccurate.  However, I have yet to find any signed and dated proof to absolutely say that it is not, at least, plausible.  I welcome anyone in possession of that kind of evidence to come forward and change my mind.

After frittering away a few weeks trying to find Adobe disc software that is compatible with my operating system, and failing miserably, I have conceded that I will have to subscribe to the creative cloud on a monthly basis, which should provide ample incentive to get the drawing done.
 
In the meantime, though, I was playing around with layouts for the upper bulwark frieze and have settled for spacing that I think works really well, with the existing architecture.  Bear in mind, of course, that I haven't yet drawn in the other quarter deck ports, the railings, or the ribbon strakes in their entirety.  This is just a line drawing to see how a pattern repeating every 3/4" spaced out.  I haven't extended the pattern further aft, just yet, because much of this space is filled with mermaids, the figure of Africa and the quarter piece supporting the side lantern.
 

 
I think this arrangement gives me reasonable space for all of the alternating shells, fleur-de-lis, scrolls and diamonds that accent the frieze to co-exist without seeming too cluttered.  I had hoped that I wouldn't have to entirely scrape away the ribbon strakes that delineate each level, but with the exception of where they frame a railing - I will have to scrape away the rest and use their ghost footprint as my guide for laying down the new pattern.  The frieze will be made up from fairly thin sheet styrene that I can cut easily with an Exacto blade, and build up a little bit with fine styrene rod, or half-round running the center line of each lattice segment.
 
One thing that is apparent to me now, is that I will have to simplify my quarter deck window embelishments; excising the side details, but perhaps leaving the coved arch and the fid beneath the sill.  At the aft end of each railing, I am experimenting with a small scallop cut-out into the planking which does not match the placement of the detail, beneath the sea serpent rail cap, but nonetheless echos the detail and might add something of value to the design.  Maybe not, though.
 
That's the thing about this sort of interpretation; out of necessity, I will not be able to copy exactly what is pictured in the Compardel portrait, but I should come pretty close and create a pretty strong impression of the original idea.

Hi Dan!  Thanks for that.
 
No, I haven't yet drawn a top plan view, but I was thinking about doing that because I will need to layout some form of ladder between the quarter and poop decks, and certainly, that view would help resolve the depth of the galleries at the main and middle deck levels.
 
I think what you are referring to is the hash line that runs vertically and parallel with the hard line of the stern.  This is intended to represent the round-up of the stern, above the stern counter.  It may be a little bit exaggerated, but the detail seems consistent with all the good models of French ships that I've seen, from the period.
 
Over the weekend, I've been fiddling with my sketch-in of the quarter galleries.  I went ahead and filled in the aft-edge of the lower finishing, as well as an outline for the officers' waste pipe.  In the drawing from the post above, I had been trying to cheat the lower finishing a little further aft, so that I could clear the last gun port on the lower deck.  I realized, when I sketched in the lower finishing, that the sense of balance of the lower finishing was totally distorted because the carved detail of the lower finishing must be centered on the axis that runs the length of the quarter gallery.
 
So, in this next revision, I centered the LF on this axis and redrew the forward edge of the LF, which will necessitate filling and moving this gun port 1/4" forward.  I wasn't too enthusiastic about this, at first, but then I measured the distance of the middle deck port, just forward and above it, to the next port on that middle deck level.  The distance between those ports is 25/32".  If I move the lower deck port forward that 1/4", the new distance to the next port will be...
 
25/32"
 

 
This is an alteration, that isn't a perfect solution, but one that I can live with.  I think when this whole thing is layed out in the digital realm, the layout will not be jarring.  Moving the port, however, very much improves the sense of balance to the quarter gallery, and that - in my opinion - is the larger issue.
 
I've also settled upon the size of the five lower gallery windows and the extra ornamental details to fill in the extra space above and below.  The top detail, is taken directly from the upper bulwark frieze, where the frieze becomes most narrow, on the quarter deck level.  Again, I expect purists to take issue with all of this, but that is the nature of this build; additions, subtractions - filling in the gaps.

So, my excitement over Adobe Illustrator 7 was short-lived.  Once I tried to install it on my Mac - on which I had recently updated the operating system to El Capitan - I discovered that the Old Salt no longer supports the "classic environment" of this older software, with a copyright dating back to 1997.

 

In lieu of that, I have downloaded a 7-day trial of Adobe's current software from their Creative Cloud suite.  I had been cautioned on a separate thread (What To Do About Poorly Drawn Plans), by Chuck Passaro, not to get my hopes up with regard to the Autotrace function.  He (and others) certainly proved to be right, as the resulting scans of my pencil drawing - no matter the format or level of saturation (?, image density?) - proved to be full of nubby nodes and missing detail and generally useless.

 

As Chuck explained to me, the only remedy to this problem is to learn how to manually trace over the imported image using the pen tool; one small line segment at a time.  He gave solid advice on how to effectively go about doing this, and as I always find in situations like this, YouTube is your best friend for figuring out the small stuff.

 

Like anything else, though, manual tracing is a skill that takes practice to acquire.  At the moment, I can hand-draw somewhat faster than I can trace, but tracing affords you many advantages, such as the abilities to rescale and work in layers.  The daunting aspect of all of this is that Jean Berain's stylings are replete with complex, interlacing bandwork that is remarkably tedious to trace digitally, but even more-so to capture by hand; by capture, I mean to approximate the artistry of the thing, which usually means drawing and erasing one small line over and over again.  At the moment, I'm not sure what the best approach is.  I'm going to keep at it, though, and see how it goes.  At the very least, I'm acquiring a new skill. 

 

During "arts and crafts time" with my daughter, recently, I decided to start laying out the quarter galleries, in pencil, onto a printed copy of my drawing.  It seemed to me that the reasonable place to start this task was with laying out the tree tiers of lights; five middle deck windows, two main deck windows, and one quarter deck window.  The windows of the quarter galleries must, within reason, align with the windows of the stern;  I say "within reason" because the Heller kit as it is moulded and intended to be assembled does not have "windows in the middle and main deck levels, but rather, relief panels that do not have to neatly correspond with the stern - with the single exception, of course, of the quarter deck window.  My choice to add a 1/4" extension piece to the hull, above the stern counter, only complicates this alignment issue - however, not so much that I don't think the problem can't be overcome with some judicious use of space management.

 

Ergo, this drafting exercise yielded the first of several stumbling blocks to re-scaling an artist's rendering to the established architecture of the plastic hull and upper bulwark pressings.  The available space between gallery levels for those five middle deck windows is significantly taller, and consequently more narrow seeming, than rendered in the color portrait.

 



 

My instinct, at the moment, is to maintain a window opening that is closer to square than rectangular and then design an appropriate ornamental detail to bracket the top and bottom edges of each window.  Alternating shells and fleur-de-lis, for example, could be one approach to balancing the available space in a way that seems deliberate, and helps to unify the composition - even if this, in fact, amounts to an artistic deviation born of necessity.  Another possibility would be some form of tracery banding that takes its design cues from the walks between galleries.  Here are two slightly different examples of a light, filagree addition to the top and and bottom edges of two of the middle deck windows:

 



 

This design is actually a horizontal bisection of a detail that is expressed in the center of the shield of each antler escutcheon carving, on the main deck level.  To the right of these two windows are two more window spaces that illustrate how tall and narrow the openings would appear if they weren't shortened.  I believe that maintaining something closer tothe appropriately sized window opening, as seen in the color rendering, is more conducive to replicating the feeling of the original decor, than any small artistic liberties taken, will detract from the effect.

 

I should mention that I have not bothered (at this early stage) to draw in the overlay of the lower finishing to the quarter gallery, where it crosses the edge of the transom, on the lower deck level.  If I had, the sense of balance of the quarter gallery would be much improved.  One might also notice that it was necessary to scallop, aftwards, the lower finishing so that I could clear the aft-most, lower deck gun.  I'm not entirely happy with this, but I don't find it terribly jarring either.  The line can be improved - as could all of these hand sketch lines with the curve-smoothing capabilities of Illustrator.

 

One last thing, though:  I sometimes find it useful to crosscheck a design by looking at it upside down:

 



 

The perspective of this picture doesn't perfectly capture the effect, however, viewing something upside down often reveals glaring dissimilarities, when what you are after is reasonable agreement.  Again, what is shown here is not an exact replica of the portrait, but I think, a reasonable facsimile that takes into account certain immovable features of the kit architecture.  In the end, I think I will probably have to draw the quarter galleries entirely by hand.  while I could import a scan into illustrator, trace it and corner-drag it to fit the three levels of the stern approximately well, my gut tells me that I will run too far afoul of the aft-most guns of her broadside.

After frittering away a few weeks trying to find Adobe disc software that is compatible with my operating system, and failing miserably, I have conceded that I will have to subscribe to the creative cloud on a monthly basis, which should provide ample incentive to get the drawing done.
 
In the meantime, though, I was playing around with layouts for the upper bulwark frieze and have settled for spacing that I think works really well, with the existing architecture.  Bear in mind, of course, that I haven't yet drawn in the other quarter deck ports, the railings, or the ribbon strakes in their entirety.  This is just a line drawing to see how a pattern repeating every 3/4" spaced out.  I haven't extended the pattern further aft, just yet, because much of this space is filled with mermaids, the figure of Africa and the quarter piece supporting the side lantern.
 

 
I think this arrangement gives me reasonable space for all of the alternating shells, fleur-de-lis, scrolls and diamonds that accent the frieze to co-exist without seeming too cluttered.  I had hoped that I wouldn't have to entirely scrape away the ribbon strakes that delineate each level, but with the exception of where they frame a railing - I will have to scrape away the rest and use their ghost footprint as my guide for laying down the new pattern.  The frieze will be made up from fairly thin sheet styrene that I can cut easily with an Exacto blade, and build up a little bit with fine styrene rod, or half-round running the center line of each lattice segment.
 
One thing that is apparent to me now, is that I will have to simplify my quarter deck window embelishments; excising the side details, but perhaps leaving the coved arch and the fid beneath the sill.  At the aft end of each railing, I am experimenting with a small scallop cut-out into the planking which does not match the placement of the detail, beneath the sea serpent rail cap, but nonetheless echos the detail and might add something of value to the design.  Maybe not, though.
 
That's the thing about this sort of interpretation; out of necessity, I will not be able to copy exactly what is pictured in the Compardel portrait, but I should come pretty close and create a pretty strong impression of the original idea.

So, my excitement over Adobe Illustrator 7 was short-lived.  Once I tried to install it on my Mac - on which I had recently updated the operating system to El Capitan - I discovered that the Old Salt no longer supports the "classic environment" of this older software, with a copyright dating back to 1997.

 

In lieu of that, I have downloaded a 7-day trial of Adobe's current software from their Creative Cloud suite.  I had been cautioned on a separate thread (What To Do About Poorly Drawn Plans), by Chuck Passaro, not to get my hopes up with regard to the Autotrace function.  He (and others) certainly proved to be right, as the resulting scans of my pencil drawing - no matter the format or level of saturation (?, image density?) - proved to be full of nubby nodes and missing detail and generally useless.

 

As Chuck explained to me, the only remedy to this problem is to learn how to manually trace over the imported image using the pen tool; one small line segment at a time.  He gave solid advice on how to effectively go about doing this, and as I always find in situations like this, YouTube is your best friend for figuring out the small stuff.

 

Like anything else, though, manual tracing is a skill that takes practice to acquire.  At the moment, I can hand-draw somewhat faster than I can trace, but tracing affords you many advantages, such as the abilities to rescale and work in layers.  The daunting aspect of all of this is that Jean Berain's stylings are replete with complex, interlacing bandwork that is remarkably tedious to trace digitally, but even more-so to capture by hand; by capture, I mean to approximate the artistry of the thing, which usually means drawing and erasing one small line over and over again.  At the moment, I'm not sure what the best approach is.  I'm going to keep at it, though, and see how it goes.  At the very least, I'm acquiring a new skill. 

 

During "arts and crafts time" with my daughter, recently, I decided to start laying out the quarter galleries, in pencil, onto a printed copy of my drawing.  It seemed to me that the reasonable place to start this task was with laying out the tree tiers of lights; five middle deck windows, two main deck windows, and one quarter deck window.  The windows of the quarter galleries must, within reason, align with the windows of the stern;  I say "within reason" because the Heller kit as it is moulded and intended to be assembled does not have "windows in the middle and main deck levels, but rather, relief panels that do not have to neatly correspond with the stern - with the single exception, of course, of the quarter deck window.  My choice to add a 1/4" extension piece to the hull, above the stern counter, only complicates this alignment issue - however, not so much that I don't think the problem can't be overcome with some judicious use of space management.

 

Ergo, this drafting exercise yielded the first of several stumbling blocks to re-scaling an artist's rendering to the established architecture of the plastic hull and upper bulwark pressings.  The available space between gallery levels for those five middle deck windows is significantly taller, and consequently more narrow seeming, than rendered in the color portrait.

 



 

My instinct, at the moment, is to maintain a window opening that is closer to square than rectangular and then design an appropriate ornamental detail to bracket the top and bottom edges of each window.  Alternating shells and fleur-de-lis, for example, could be one approach to balancing the available space in a way that seems deliberate, and helps to unify the composition - even if this, in fact, amounts to an artistic deviation born of necessity.  Another possibility would be some form of tracery banding that takes its design cues from the walks between galleries.  Here are two slightly different examples of a light, filagree addition to the top and and bottom edges of two of the middle deck windows:

 



 

This design is actually a horizontal bisection of a detail that is expressed in the center of the shield of each antler escutcheon carving, on the main deck level.  To the right of these two windows are two more window spaces that illustrate how tall and narrow the openings would appear if they weren't shortened.  I believe that maintaining something closer tothe appropriately sized window opening, as seen in the color rendering, is more conducive to replicating the feeling of the original decor, than any small artistic liberties taken, will detract from the effect.

 

I should mention that I have not bothered (at this early stage) to draw in the overlay of the lower finishing to the quarter gallery, where it crosses the edge of the transom, on the lower deck level.  If I had, the sense of balance of the quarter gallery would be much improved.  One might also notice that it was necessary to scallop, aftwards, the lower finishing so that I could clear the aft-most, lower deck gun.  I'm not entirely happy with this, but I don't find it terribly jarring either.  The line can be improved - as could all of these hand sketch lines with the curve-smoothing capabilities of Illustrator.

 

One last thing, though:  I sometimes find it useful to crosscheck a design by looking at it upside down:

 



 

The perspective of this picture doesn't perfectly capture the effect, however, viewing something upside down often reveals glaring dissimilarities, when what you are after is reasonable agreement.  Again, what is shown here is not an exact replica of the portrait, but I think, a reasonable facsimile that takes into account certain immovable features of the kit architecture.  In the end, I think I will probably have to draw the quarter galleries entirely by hand.  while I could import a scan into illustrator, trace it and corner-drag it to fit the three levels of the stern approximately well, my gut tells me that I will run too far afoul of the aft-most guns of her broadside.

Hello Everyone!
 
Life has continued to keep me busy, so there hasn't been much build progress (expected, by now, I know ), but I did manage to finish the port framing.  While it isn't as clear in these pictures as it is in person, there is some nice graduation in frame thickness from the lower to middle deck.
 

 

 
As far as added detail goes, this is just the tip of the iceberg for what I'm going to do.  I've been spending quite a lot of time at my father's house, lately, and I dug up a souvenir from my time at the Batavia Werf shipyard, back in 2003.  As I mentioned in an earlier post, Mr. Herbert Tomesan had a profound influence on my perspective of plastic, scratch-build modeling.  Below is a defective cast-off that Mr. Tomesan sent me home with.  I forget which Dutch ship this represents; I'm not even sure whether it is a model of a specific vessel, or more generally, a type he was using to fill-out the scenery of his Texel Roads diorama.
 
All of the detail that eventually becomes a resin-casting like this, starts out as various strip and extrusion styrene that he applies to a vacuum-formed hull shell, in order to produce a mould master.
 
These are some of the missing details that I will be applying, in the same fashion, to SR.  It's really easy to do, and as I think you can see, the execution - although rendered to excellent effect, here - doesn't have to be flawless to be really really convincing, even in the absence of paint and weathering:
 

 
I'll be adding this protective sweep of timbers that nestles between and around the wales, in order to protect them from raising anchor.  While examining this model, I was reminded of the clever tricks Mr. Tomesan had devised for simulating certain details.  The tree-nailing in these protective timbers is actually the impression of a hypodermic syringe needle.  Most of the simulated tree-nailing, on the rest of the model, is a simple pin prick.
 


 
I'll need to add chesstrees, scuppers (which, here, are simply very light gauge styrene strip that he's cut into rectangles and then Exacto'd out the centers), the washer and through-bolting to the sides of the gunports for the carriage tackles, and the bolted fasteners at the wale scarfs.  I will, incidentally, be filling in the Heller butt-joints on the wales and scribing in scarfs at appropriate intervals.  His grain detail is simply course sand paper scratches that follow the run of the planking.  While this type of grain simulation won't perfectly match the moulded grain detail in the Heller kit, I suspect that experimenting with various grits and adding just the slightest bit of variation in the run of scratches should blend in well enough to not be glaring.
 
On the research end, I am happy to say that I now have what I feel is an arguable, or reasonably debatable context for the model that I am building.  While a number of my prior assumptions about the Heller kit, and the Tanneron model upon which it is based, have been demonstrated to me to be false, I have at least come to understand what the specific errors in kit architecture are, and how those errors create a false impression of a ship from the First Marine of Louis XIV.  Some of these errors will be corrected, or at least mitigated with my build (i.e., the beam, draft and sheer), others relating to the number and arrangement of guns (particularly, the spacing between gunports), and the specific architecture of the post-1673 stern are not possible to kit-bash away on a pre-moulded hull.  I am, however, at peace with this reality as I view the entire project as an effort to create a reasonable impression of what Soleil Royal may have looked like, on the whole, following her refit in 1689.
 
My correspondence with Mr. Lemineur (Les Vaisseaux Du Roi Soleil), and Andrew Peters (Ship Decoration 1630-1780) has been in-valuable in coming to understand the origin and context of much of the imagery I have been posting here.  I have asked each of them permission to share with the forum what they have so graciously endeavored to explain to me, and I will wait to hear from them before doing so.
 
I feel for the sake of Mr. Lemineur, in particular, who has spent so much of his life researching the archives in an effort to discern truth from fiction, that I must be very clear about what I am doing, so as not to mislead anyone into believing that this project is in any way a definitive representation of the ship's known appearance.  It is largely a work of conjecture, on my part, but one that at least draws reasonable inferences from better understood, contemporary sources.  I respect Mr. Lemineur's dislike for the Heller kit's in-accurate architecture and will take some time, in my next post, to discuss what those issues are.
 
If, after a reasonable time, I do not hear from either of these men, I will at least post my opinion of why Berain's stern drawing reasonably corresponds with the color drafts of SR's quarter gallery and bow.  These three views, it seems to me, may very likely have represented her post-refit appearance.

After frittering away a few weeks trying to find Adobe disc software that is compatible with my operating system, and failing miserably, I have conceded that I will have to subscribe to the creative cloud on a monthly basis, which should provide ample incentive to get the drawing done.
 
In the meantime, though, I was playing around with layouts for the upper bulwark frieze and have settled for spacing that I think works really well, with the existing architecture.  Bear in mind, of course, that I haven't yet drawn in the other quarter deck ports, the railings, or the ribbon strakes in their entirety.  This is just a line drawing to see how a pattern repeating every 3/4" spaced out.  I haven't extended the pattern further aft, just yet, because much of this space is filled with mermaids, the figure of Africa and the quarter piece supporting the side lantern.
 

 
I think this arrangement gives me reasonable space for all of the alternating shells, fleur-de-lis, scrolls and diamonds that accent the frieze to co-exist without seeming too cluttered.  I had hoped that I wouldn't have to entirely scrape away the ribbon strakes that delineate each level, but with the exception of where they frame a railing - I will have to scrape away the rest and use their ghost footprint as my guide for laying down the new pattern.  The frieze will be made up from fairly thin sheet styrene that I can cut easily with an Exacto blade, and build up a little bit with fine styrene rod, or half-round running the center line of each lattice segment.
 
One thing that is apparent to me now, is that I will have to simplify my quarter deck window embelishments; excising the side details, but perhaps leaving the coved arch and the fid beneath the sill.  At the aft end of each railing, I am experimenting with a small scallop cut-out into the planking which does not match the placement of the detail, beneath the sea serpent rail cap, but nonetheless echos the detail and might add something of value to the design.  Maybe not, though.
 
That's the thing about this sort of interpretation; out of necessity, I will not be able to copy exactly what is pictured in the Compardel portrait, but I should come pretty close and create a pretty strong impression of the original idea.

After frittering away a few weeks trying to find Adobe disc software that is compatible with my operating system, and failing miserably, I have conceded that I will have to subscribe to the creative cloud on a monthly basis, which should provide ample incentive to get the drawing done.
 
In the meantime, though, I was playing around with layouts for the upper bulwark frieze and have settled for spacing that I think works really well, with the existing architecture.  Bear in mind, of course, that I haven't yet drawn in the other quarter deck ports, the railings, or the ribbon strakes in their entirety.  This is just a line drawing to see how a pattern repeating every 3/4" spaced out.  I haven't extended the pattern further aft, just yet, because much of this space is filled with mermaids, the figure of Africa and the quarter piece supporting the side lantern.
 

 
I think this arrangement gives me reasonable space for all of the alternating shells, fleur-de-lis, scrolls and diamonds that accent the frieze to co-exist without seeming too cluttered.  I had hoped that I wouldn't have to entirely scrape away the ribbon strakes that delineate each level, but with the exception of where they frame a railing - I will have to scrape away the rest and use their ghost footprint as my guide for laying down the new pattern.  The frieze will be made up from fairly thin sheet styrene that I can cut easily with an Exacto blade, and build up a little bit with fine styrene rod, or half-round running the center line of each lattice segment.
 
One thing that is apparent to me now, is that I will have to simplify my quarter deck window embelishments; excising the side details, but perhaps leaving the coved arch and the fid beneath the sill.  At the aft end of each railing, I am experimenting with a small scallop cut-out into the planking which does not match the placement of the detail, beneath the sea serpent rail cap, but nonetheless echos the detail and might add something of value to the design.  Maybe not, though.
 
That's the thing about this sort of interpretation; out of necessity, I will not be able to copy exactly what is pictured in the Compardel portrait, but I should come pretty close and create a pretty strong impression of the original idea.

After frittering away a few weeks trying to find Adobe disc software that is compatible with my operating system, and failing miserably, I have conceded that I will have to subscribe to the creative cloud on a monthly basis, which should provide ample incentive to get the drawing done.
 
In the meantime, though, I was playing around with layouts for the upper bulwark frieze and have settled for spacing that I think works really well, with the existing architecture.  Bear in mind, of course, that I haven't yet drawn in the other quarter deck ports, the railings, or the ribbon strakes in their entirety.  This is just a line drawing to see how a pattern repeating every 3/4" spaced out.  I haven't extended the pattern further aft, just yet, because much of this space is filled with mermaids, the figure of Africa and the quarter piece supporting the side lantern.
 

 
I think this arrangement gives me reasonable space for all of the alternating shells, fleur-de-lis, scrolls and diamonds that accent the frieze to co-exist without seeming too cluttered.  I had hoped that I wouldn't have to entirely scrape away the ribbon strakes that delineate each level, but with the exception of where they frame a railing - I will have to scrape away the rest and use their ghost footprint as my guide for laying down the new pattern.  The frieze will be made up from fairly thin sheet styrene that I can cut easily with an Exacto blade, and build up a little bit with fine styrene rod, or half-round running the center line of each lattice segment.
 
One thing that is apparent to me now, is that I will have to simplify my quarter deck window embelishments; excising the side details, but perhaps leaving the coved arch and the fid beneath the sill.  At the aft end of each railing, I am experimenting with a small scallop cut-out into the planking which does not match the placement of the detail, beneath the sea serpent rail cap, but nonetheless echos the detail and might add something of value to the design.  Maybe not, though.
 
That's the thing about this sort of interpretation; out of necessity, I will not be able to copy exactly what is pictured in the Compardel portrait, but I should come pretty close and create a pretty strong impression of the original idea.

In my on-going conversations with Mr. Saunier, it was brought to my attention how unlikely it would be that a short open walkway would exist on the main deck level of the quarter gallery without there being any connection to an open walk on the stern.  Having taken a closer look, I can now see that the figure of Autumn is visibly supporting a projecting gallery on the main deck level.  Given Autumn's position at the far, starboard edge of the stern, he must be supporting a gallery that extends to the edge, and in all likelihood wraps beneath the arch supporting the figure of Africa, and connects with the short open walk of the quarter gallery.  Access to the walk would, then, naturally be from the stern.  I am amending my theory to include this wrapping walk, on the main deck level.  For the time being, I am not sure whether I am going to change my opinion of the quarter deck stern walk above it, which I currently believe to be a very abbreviated walk that only spans the central two windows of the stern.  Perhaps, it too, extends at least to the quarter figures, but I am inclined to read the shadows of Berain's black and white image of the stern as flat.  I have no doubt, though, that the lowest tier of lights is not a projecting gallery at all.
 

 

Given this new realization, my new conception of SR's stern now more closely matches the arrangement of La Reyne's stern, on the middle and main deck levels.  For the record, while Mr. Saunier has been extremely helpful to me, and generous in sharing his research, he does not share my theory of the ship.  Like Mr. Lemineur, he sees too many inconsistencies between my choice of quarter gallery and Berain's stern.  He, too, is bothered by the use of the Heller kit for the basis of a more serious exploration of what the ship may have been.  I respect his scholarship and his opinion.
 

I have also said, previously, that I did not think the officers' waste pipe was present in Berain's stern drawing.  After really examining this black and white image, however, it now seems that the waste pipe is the primary element of the lower finishing that can be seen here.  One thing that I cannot reconcile, between the stern and quarter views, is why the stern doesn't also show the rest of the lower finishing which should appear to drop down to the level of the lower main wale.  It is not there, though.  In it's place there only appears to be a fuzzy detail of indeterminable form.
 
For my part, though, I maintain that these portraits were produced for a reason.  They must correspond with a specific period in the ship's history, and I believe that there is much evidence of Berain's hand in the design of these quarter galleries.  Therefore, it seems reasonable to me that this appearance of the ship would originate around the time of her re-fit.
 
The other thing that occurred to me is that the particular triple-tiered arrangement of the headrails, in the Compardel portrait of the bow is significantly different from the headrail arrangement of La Reyne in the VDV portrait of her port bow.  The figurehead is the same, but the headrails are different.  To my thinking it seems reasonable that two first rank ships built by the same man, in the same yard, within a year of each other would - upon launching - quite reasonably share the same headrail arrangement.  Yet, the Compardel headrails are distinctly different.  While this is not signed and dated hard proof, this does, for me, signify the strong possibility that the Compardel headrails are also the work of Berain - thus this seems to re-enforce the notion that these bow, quarter and stern views are one continuous tableau.
 


This is my reasoned opinion.  It may, in fact, be historically inaccurate.  However, I have yet to find any signed and dated proof to absolutely say that it is not, at least, plausible.  I welcome anyone in possession of that kind of evidence to come forward and change my mind.

In my on-going conversations with Mr. Saunier, it was brought to my attention how unlikely it would be that a short open walkway would exist on the main deck level of the quarter gallery without there being any connection to an open walk on the stern.  Having taken a closer look, I can now see that the figure of Autumn is visibly supporting a projecting gallery on the main deck level.  Given Autumn's position at the far, starboard edge of the stern, he must be supporting a gallery that extends to the edge, and in all likelihood wraps beneath the arch supporting the figure of Africa, and connects with the short open walk of the quarter gallery.  Access to the walk would, then, naturally be from the stern.  I am amending my theory to include this wrapping walk, on the main deck level.  For the time being, I am not sure whether I am going to change my opinion of the quarter deck stern walk above it, which I currently believe to be a very abbreviated walk that only spans the central two windows of the stern.  Perhaps, it too, extends at least to the quarter figures, but I am inclined to read the shadows of Berain's black and white image of the stern as flat.  I have no doubt, though, that the lowest tier of lights is not a projecting gallery at all.
 

 

Given this new realization, my new conception of SR's stern now more closely matches the arrangement of La Reyne's stern, on the middle and main deck levels.  For the record, while Mr. Saunier has been extremely helpful to me, and generous in sharing his research, he does not share my theory of the ship.  Like Mr. Lemineur, he sees too many inconsistencies between my choice of quarter gallery and Berain's stern.  He, too, is bothered by the use of the Heller kit for the basis of a more serious exploration of what the ship may have been.  I respect his scholarship and his opinion.
 

I have also said, previously, that I did not think the officers' waste pipe was present in Berain's stern drawing.  After really examining this black and white image, however, it now seems that the waste pipe is the primary element of the lower finishing that can be seen here.  One thing that I cannot reconcile, between the stern and quarter views, is why the stern doesn't also show the rest of the lower finishing which should appear to drop down to the level of the lower main wale.  It is not there, though.  In it's place there only appears to be a fuzzy detail of indeterminable form.
 
For my part, though, I maintain that these portraits were produced for a reason.  They must correspond with a specific period in the ship's history, and I believe that there is much evidence of Berain's hand in the design of these quarter galleries.  Therefore, it seems reasonable to me that this appearance of the ship would originate around the time of her re-fit.
 
The other thing that occurred to me is that the particular triple-tiered arrangement of the headrails, in the Compardel portrait of the bow is significantly different from the headrail arrangement of La Reyne in the VDV portrait of her port bow.  The figurehead is the same, but the headrails are different.  To my thinking it seems reasonable that two first rank ships built by the same man, in the same yard, within a year of each other would - upon launching - quite reasonably share the same headrail arrangement.  Yet, the Compardel headrails are distinctly different.  While this is not signed and dated hard proof, this does, for me, signify the strong possibility that the Compardel headrails are also the work of Berain - thus this seems to re-enforce the notion that these bow, quarter and stern views are one continuous tableau.
 


This is my reasoned opinion.  It may, in fact, be historically inaccurate.  However, I have yet to find any signed and dated proof to absolutely say that it is not, at least, plausible.  I welcome anyone in possession of that kind of evidence to come forward and change my mind.

In my on-going conversations with Mr. Saunier, it was brought to my attention how unlikely it would be that a short open walkway would exist on the main deck level of the quarter gallery without there being any connection to an open walk on the stern.  Having taken a closer look, I can now see that the figure of Autumn is visibly supporting a projecting gallery on the main deck level.  Given Autumn's position at the far, starboard edge of the stern, he must be supporting a gallery that extends to the edge, and in all likelihood wraps beneath the arch supporting the figure of Africa, and connects with the short open walk of the quarter gallery.  Access to the walk would, then, naturally be from the stern.  I am amending my theory to include this wrapping walk, on the main deck level.  For the time being, I am not sure whether I am going to change my opinion of the quarter deck stern walk above it, which I currently believe to be a very abbreviated walk that only spans the central two windows of the stern.  Perhaps, it too, extends at least to the quarter figures, but I am inclined to read the shadows of Berain's black and white image of the stern as flat.  I have no doubt, though, that the lowest tier of lights is not a projecting gallery at all.
 

 

Given this new realization, my new conception of SR's stern now more closely matches the arrangement of La Reyne's stern, on the middle and main deck levels.  For the record, while Mr. Saunier has been extremely helpful to me, and generous in sharing his research, he does not share my theory of the ship.  Like Mr. Lemineur, he sees too many inconsistencies between my choice of quarter gallery and Berain's stern.  He, too, is bothered by the use of the Heller kit for the basis of a more serious exploration of what the ship may have been.  I respect his scholarship and his opinion.
 

I have also said, previously, that I did not think the officers' waste pipe was present in Berain's stern drawing.  After really examining this black and white image, however, it now seems that the waste pipe is the primary element of the lower finishing that can be seen here.  One thing that I cannot reconcile, between the stern and quarter views, is why the stern doesn't also show the rest of the lower finishing which should appear to drop down to the level of the lower main wale.  It is not there, though.  In it's place there only appears to be a fuzzy detail of indeterminable form.
 
For my part, though, I maintain that these portraits were produced for a reason.  They must correspond with a specific period in the ship's history, and I believe that there is much evidence of Berain's hand in the design of these quarter galleries.  Therefore, it seems reasonable to me that this appearance of the ship would originate around the time of her re-fit.
 
The other thing that occurred to me is that the particular triple-tiered arrangement of the headrails, in the Compardel portrait of the bow is significantly different from the headrail arrangement of La Reyne in the VDV portrait of her port bow.  The figurehead is the same, but the headrails are different.  To my thinking it seems reasonable that two first rank ships built by the same man, in the same yard, within a year of each other would - upon launching - quite reasonably share the same headrail arrangement.  Yet, the Compardel headrails are distinctly different.  While this is not signed and dated hard proof, this does, for me, signify the strong possibility that the Compardel headrails are also the work of Berain - thus this seems to re-enforce the notion that these bow, quarter and stern views are one continuous tableau.
 


This is my reasoned opinion.  It may, in fact, be historically inaccurate.  However, I have yet to find any signed and dated proof to absolutely say that it is not, at least, plausible.  I welcome anyone in possession of that kind of evidence to come forward and change my mind.

In my on-going conversations with Mr. Saunier, it was brought to my attention how unlikely it would be that a short open walkway would exist on the main deck level of the quarter gallery without there being any connection to an open walk on the stern.  Having taken a closer look, I can now see that the figure of Autumn is visibly supporting a projecting gallery on the main deck level.  Given Autumn's position at the far, starboard edge of the stern, he must be supporting a gallery that extends to the edge, and in all likelihood wraps beneath the arch supporting the figure of Africa, and connects with the short open walk of the quarter gallery.  Access to the walk would, then, naturally be from the stern.  I am amending my theory to include this wrapping walk, on the main deck level.  For the time being, I am not sure whether I am going to change my opinion of the quarter deck stern walk above it, which I currently believe to be a very abbreviated walk that only spans the central two windows of the stern.  Perhaps, it too, extends at least to the quarter figures, but I am inclined to read the shadows of Berain's black and white image of the stern as flat.  I have no doubt, though, that the lowest tier of lights is not a projecting gallery at all.
 

 

Given this new realization, my new conception of SR's stern now more closely matches the arrangement of La Reyne's stern, on the middle and main deck levels.  For the record, while Mr. Saunier has been extremely helpful to me, and generous in sharing his research, he does not share my theory of the ship.  Like Mr. Lemineur, he sees too many inconsistencies between my choice of quarter gallery and Berain's stern.  He, too, is bothered by the use of the Heller kit for the basis of a more serious exploration of what the ship may have been.  I respect his scholarship and his opinion.
 

I have also said, previously, that I did not think the officers' waste pipe was present in Berain's stern drawing.  After really examining this black and white image, however, it now seems that the waste pipe is the primary element of the lower finishing that can be seen here.  One thing that I cannot reconcile, between the stern and quarter views, is why the stern doesn't also show the rest of the lower finishing which should appear to drop down to the level of the lower main wale.  It is not there, though.  In it's place there only appears to be a fuzzy detail of indeterminable form.
 
For my part, though, I maintain that these portraits were produced for a reason.  They must correspond with a specific period in the ship's history, and I believe that there is much evidence of Berain's hand in the design of these quarter galleries.  Therefore, it seems reasonable to me that this appearance of the ship would originate around the time of her re-fit.
 
The other thing that occurred to me is that the particular triple-tiered arrangement of the headrails, in the Compardel portrait of the bow is significantly different from the headrail arrangement of La Reyne in the VDV portrait of her port bow.  The figurehead is the same, but the headrails are different.  To my thinking it seems reasonable that two first rank ships built by the same man, in the same yard, within a year of each other would - upon launching - quite reasonably share the same headrail arrangement.  Yet, the Compardel headrails are distinctly different.  While this is not signed and dated hard proof, this does, for me, signify the strong possibility that the Compardel headrails are also the work of Berain - thus this seems to re-enforce the notion that these bow, quarter and stern views are one continuous tableau.
 


This is my reasoned opinion.  It may, in fact, be historically inaccurate.  However, I have yet to find any signed and dated proof to absolutely say that it is not, at least, plausible.  I welcome anyone in possession of that kind of evidence to come forward and change my mind.

Yeah - I think your hull work on Couronne is nicely faired. Having never done a plank-on-bulkhead kit myself, I csn only imagine the challenges it presents. I appreciate what you are saying about laying out all your plank butts - even on the first layer - for the practice.

As a matter of fact, EJ, I just read in the Vasa book that over 1,000 oak trees went into her construction, and as many more into the forges that produced her hardware and cannon. And that doesn't even account for the other lighter species that would have planked her decks and upper works. Consider, then, the massive increase in size from Vasa to Soleil Royal!

Hi Dan!  Thanks for that.
 
No, I haven't yet drawn a top plan view, but I was thinking about doing that because I will need to layout some form of ladder between the quarter and poop decks, and certainly, that view would help resolve the depth of the galleries at the main and middle deck levels.
 
I think what you are referring to is the hash line that runs vertically and parallel with the hard line of the stern.  This is intended to represent the round-up of the stern, above the stern counter.  It may be a little bit exaggerated, but the detail seems consistent with all the good models of French ships that I've seen, from the period.
 
Over the weekend, I've been fiddling with my sketch-in of the quarter galleries.  I went ahead and filled in the aft-edge of the lower finishing, as well as an outline for the officers' waste pipe.  In the drawing from the post above, I had been trying to cheat the lower finishing a little further aft, so that I could clear the last gun port on the lower deck.  I realized, when I sketched in the lower finishing, that the sense of balance of the lower finishing was totally distorted because the carved detail of the lower finishing must be centered on the axis that runs the length of the quarter gallery.
 
So, in this next revision, I centered the LF on this axis and redrew the forward edge of the LF, which will necessitate filling and moving this gun port 1/4" forward.  I wasn't too enthusiastic about this, at first, but then I measured the distance of the middle deck port, just forward and above it, to the next port on that middle deck level.  The distance between those ports is 25/32".  If I move the lower deck port forward that 1/4", the new distance to the next port will be...
 
25/32"
 

 
This is an alteration, that isn't a perfect solution, but one that I can live with.  I think when this whole thing is layed out in the digital realm, the layout will not be jarring.  Moving the port, however, very much improves the sense of balance to the quarter gallery, and that - in my opinion - is the larger issue.
 
I've also settled upon the size of the five lower gallery windows and the extra ornamental details to fill in the extra space above and below.  The top detail, is taken directly from the upper bulwark frieze, where the frieze becomes most narrow, on the quarter deck level.  Again, I expect purists to take issue with all of this, but that is the nature of this build; additions, subtractions - filling in the gaps.

Yeah - I think your hull work on Couronne is nicely faired. Having never done a plank-on-bulkhead kit myself, I csn only imagine the challenges it presents. I appreciate what you are saying about laying out all your plank butts - even on the first layer - for the practice.

Your planking, EJ, is coming along really nicely. I wonder, though, as I look at the aft two bulkheads, whether you are planning to fill and fair the dip that seems to be there before the finish layer of planking.

As a matter of fact, EJ, I just read in the Vasa book that over 1,000 oak trees went into her construction, and as many more into the forges that produced her hardware and cannon. And that doesn't even account for the other lighter species that would have planked her decks and upper works. Consider, then, the massive increase in size from Vasa to Soleil Royal!