Hubac's Historian

Gemma,
 
To get you started..  have a look at the database of articles here:  http://modelshipworldforum.com/ship-modeling-articles-and-downloads.php   The Plans and Research area has articles on lines drawings (and how to read them) and some CAD tutorials.

In my experience (limited, but extending to ships, horse-drawn vehicles, boxes and doll's houses) it is rare to find a set of plans that are 100% accurate.
To avoid frustration in the workshop (and the creation of large amounts of interestingly-shaped but expensive firewood) I "build" the model in 3D CAD in advance. This is not devoid of problems. CAD can be too accurate! That irritating gap that you have spotted and zoomed in to inspect is 1/512 of an inch wide, glue will fill that. Using the array function to place three portholes equally across a ten inch bulkhead creates an issue. Mixing units is possible and may be of use - buying rather than turning two hundred stanchions is a good notion, but if they are sold in mm and you are working in inches.......
To overcome this, I set the precision in CAD to that which I might reasonably attain in the workshop- for wood 1/64".
Even using this method, and checking wood dimensions as I go, planked hulls always require a final sanding to look "right".
I appreciate the dilemma when plans appear way off but many are xth generation copies of hand-drawn lines.
Imagine the problem of lifting lines from a 1:48 paper plan to create a full-size vessel with a keel in excess of one hundred feet.
CAD is an increasingly useful tool, fairing is still essential.

Hello All,
 
I am having a different problem.  For my current build - an extensive modification of Heller's Soleil Royal - I have been hand-drawing a scale field, or outline that matches the moulded profile of the kit's lower hull and upper bulwarks, which I will be using to save the time of a full scratch-build.
 
I sketched in one, each, of various repeating elements and a few specific ornamental details that were easier to draw by hand, in order to match the kit parameters.  On the advice of several members, here, I intended to digitize the pencil drawing and import it into Corel Draw, where I could trace over what was there, and add in all of the other missing details.  Ultimately, the objective is just to see what all of my additions and subtractions will look like in relation to each other, and to make it easier to layout the complicated frieze of the upper bulwarks, which would be a nightmare to do by hand.
 
Today, I digitized the paper drawing onto a flash drive in JPEG, PDF and PNG file formats.  Here is my hand-drawn plan in PDF format. For whatever reason, the site would not allow me to upload the JPEG drawing, here, and I don't even know what a PNG file is, but I was able to upload the PDF:
 
20170102130746616.pdf
 
Everything was going perfectly well until I came home tonight, ready to download Corel 7, only to realize that most early versions of Corel are not compatible with Mac computers.  Corel makes a very current CAD software that is Mac compatibile, but I'm not sure I need CAD software for what I'm doing.  I'm not lofting frames, or in any way trying to create a three-dimensional hull shape.  I just need a compatible 2D drawing software that will allow me to import, re-trace and manipulate the various ornamental elements that make up the ship's decoration.  I'll also be dropping the main and fore channels down to the upper, or main deck and will need to draw in the mast locations and layout the shrouds, so as not to interfere with the guns.  This drafting exercise is really just about laying things out so that I can be sure that everything lines up nicely before I start cutting things away.
 
Not long ago, I updated my OS to 10.11.6, El Capitan.  I'm a complete novice to computer drafting of any kind and am looking for something that is relatively easy to learn and use.  I'm frankly overwhelmed by the volume of drafting software, which seems more sophisticated than what I need.  All suggestions are welcome.
 
Thanks,
 
Marc

Hi Matt! I'm new to the site, but I've been perusing build logs and your work here on the Latham is truly stunning. The treenailing really came off well without appearing over-wrought. And your deck furniture is wonderfully detailed but just softened enough to look like a real work boat. Very impressed!

Alright, so I spent the evening initiating myself into the world of bitmap conversions into vector drawings, via line tracing function of various software packages, as demonstrated in a number of tutorial videos on Youtube.
 
Most software packages I looked at are Windows based, however, Adobe Illustrator is Mac compatible and disc software for Illustrator 9 is still available on Amazon for about $70, used, plus shipping.  My layman's understanding of this is that I could use something like Adobe Illustrator (largely ignoring 90%, or likely more, of the software's capability), to import my JPEG, or my PDF file format, into a new document.  From there, I can apply specific formats within the Image Trace tool bar, perhaps "line art," to automatically trace my ship image into a vector based, and grouped image.  From there, I can ungroup the image, and select specific groups for copy and paste, such as my various gun port sizes/styles, and then place them where I want them.  I can then import artwork for the quarter galleries, and various elements of the stern, and repeat the image tracing procedure.  Also, by unlocking the image, I can manipulate lines within a grouping to better suit my purposes and design intent.
 
So, assuming that's the basic gist of what I need to do, here, is Adobe a workable platform for the complete novice, or would I be better served finding something more basic?
 
I am still very uncertain, for example, how importing what is a relatively large drawing will appear in the Adobe active screen.  In all of the tutorials of various imported imagery and artwork, the graphic artist is shown corner dragging the image after import, generally, to increase it's size. However, for something large, would I first have to reduce it's scale to, say, 50% just so that I could work on large continuous details, like the wales, without having to break the image into a series of tiles that are then stitched back together later?  Does anyone use Adobe for their ship modeling design purposes?
 
I'm also curious as to how detailed the auto line-tracing functions are, with consideration to the many intricate filigree details of a baroque warship like SR.  If it is going to be necessary for me to go in and hand trace the stern gallery railings, for example, with a pen feature - with all of the attendant curves and reverse curves and mouldings, and etc - then it seems like hand-drawing and scaling would actually be faster, if equally frustrating.  Or, perhaps it's easy to do that, once you get the hang of it.  Is the trick to increase the scale and select, say a stern railing, from within the larger scan of Berain's stern schematic, for example, so that the railing is large enough for the auto-trace feature to pick out the intricacies of the design?  No experience = no clue.
 
Any input into these matters is greatly appreciated.
 
All the best,
 
Marc

Hello All,
 
I am having a different problem.  For my current build - an extensive modification of Heller's Soleil Royal - I have been hand-drawing a scale field, or outline that matches the moulded profile of the kit's lower hull and upper bulwarks, which I will be using to save the time of a full scratch-build.
 
I sketched in one, each, of various repeating elements and a few specific ornamental details that were easier to draw by hand, in order to match the kit parameters.  On the advice of several members, here, I intended to digitize the pencil drawing and import it into Corel Draw, where I could trace over what was there, and add in all of the other missing details.  Ultimately, the objective is just to see what all of my additions and subtractions will look like in relation to each other, and to make it easier to layout the complicated frieze of the upper bulwarks, which would be a nightmare to do by hand.
 
Today, I digitized the paper drawing onto a flash drive in JPEG, PDF and PNG file formats.  Here is my hand-drawn plan in PDF format. For whatever reason, the site would not allow me to upload the JPEG drawing, here, and I don't even know what a PNG file is, but I was able to upload the PDF:
 
20170102130746616.pdf
 
Everything was going perfectly well until I came home tonight, ready to download Corel 7, only to realize that most early versions of Corel are not compatible with Mac computers.  Corel makes a very current CAD software that is Mac compatibile, but I'm not sure I need CAD software for what I'm doing.  I'm not lofting frames, or in any way trying to create a three-dimensional hull shape.  I just need a compatible 2D drawing software that will allow me to import, re-trace and manipulate the various ornamental elements that make up the ship's decoration.  I'll also be dropping the main and fore channels down to the upper, or main deck and will need to draw in the mast locations and layout the shrouds, so as not to interfere with the guns.  This drafting exercise is really just about laying things out so that I can be sure that everything lines up nicely before I start cutting things away.
 
Not long ago, I updated my OS to 10.11.6, El Capitan.  I'm a complete novice to computer drafting of any kind and am looking for something that is relatively easy to learn and use.  I'm frankly overwhelmed by the volume of drafting software, which seems more sophisticated than what I need.  All suggestions are welcome.
 
Thanks,
 
Marc

Alright, so I spent the evening initiating myself into the world of bitmap conversions into vector drawings, via line tracing function of various software packages, as demonstrated in a number of tutorial videos on Youtube.
 
Most software packages I looked at are Windows based, however, Adobe Illustrator is Mac compatible and disc software for Illustrator 9 is still available on Amazon for about $70, used, plus shipping.  My layman's understanding of this is that I could use something like Adobe Illustrator (largely ignoring 90%, or likely more, of the software's capability), to import my JPEG, or my PDF file format, into a new document.  From there, I can apply specific formats within the Image Trace tool bar, perhaps "line art," to automatically trace my ship image into a vector based, and grouped image.  From there, I can ungroup the image, and select specific groups for copy and paste, such as my various gun port sizes/styles, and then place them where I want them.  I can then import artwork for the quarter galleries, and various elements of the stern, and repeat the image tracing procedure.  Also, by unlocking the image, I can manipulate lines within a grouping to better suit my purposes and design intent.
 
So, assuming that's the basic gist of what I need to do, here, is Adobe a workable platform for the complete novice, or would I be better served finding something more basic?
 
I am still very uncertain, for example, how importing what is a relatively large drawing will appear in the Adobe active screen.  In all of the tutorials of various imported imagery and artwork, the graphic artist is shown corner dragging the image after import, generally, to increase it's size. However, for something large, would I first have to reduce it's scale to, say, 50% just so that I could work on large continuous details, like the wales, without having to break the image into a series of tiles that are then stitched back together later?  Does anyone use Adobe for their ship modeling design purposes?
 
I'm also curious as to how detailed the auto line-tracing functions are, with consideration to the many intricate filigree details of a baroque warship like SR.  If it is going to be necessary for me to go in and hand trace the stern gallery railings, for example, with a pen feature - with all of the attendant curves and reverse curves and mouldings, and etc - then it seems like hand-drawing and scaling would actually be faster, if equally frustrating.  Or, perhaps it's easy to do that, once you get the hang of it.  Is the trick to increase the scale and select, say a stern railing, from within the larger scan of Berain's stern schematic, for example, so that the railing is large enough for the auto-trace feature to pick out the intricacies of the design?  No experience = no clue.
 
Any input into these matters is greatly appreciated.
 
All the best,
 
Marc

Wow Dan - another great find! Your parsing sounds much more appropriate than Google Translate, which offers the following: "or an odd number". The layout of the inscription on the cannon is even a nice suggestion for the design of the scroll, although, that particular design would place the ornament even closer to the waterline. I hear what you are saying about the following sea. Perhaps, if I do include this detail, whichever way I choose to simulate the tree-nailing, well, I could really emphasize the fastening of the banner to the hull.
 
There is a small flat, along the bottom edge of the lower gallery where this inscription could go, sans scroll. That space works out to just shy of an 1/8". Not impossible, but a daunting challenge. My inspiration for the banner below the chase ports comes from a fuzzy detail in Ludolf Bakhuizen's battle of Barfleur, where you can just make out a rolling something below the chase ports. Could simply be a representation of the rudder chains, but it got me thinking. The only other example I can think of, with a banner inscription anywhere near where I am proposing is the Provincien. She has her name inscribed upon a similar banner, just above the chase ports, but below the lowest gallery.
 
Another possibility, since I will eventually be designing new deck railings for the f'ocsle, quarter and poop decks, would be to incorporate this inscription into the forward face of the poop deck railing. For the time being, I will layout the new inscription and worry about where it goes later. In Corel, it will be easier to reduce the width of the banner because, as I mentioned, the whole affair is a little too heavy looking, but the shape and intent of it seem right to me.
 
I am continually impressed, Dan, by the breadth of your knowledge. Thank you, once again!

One other observation about the article about SR from the troisponts.net site:
 
The article opens with a brief discussion about the Reglement of 1670, which specified that only two ships - SR and the Royal Louis, both of 1668 - would be fitted out with a distinct forecastle, thus marking their special place as prestige ships.  All well and good.
 
But then, this Van De Velde portrait of La Reyne is dated at 1673, five years after her construction, and clearly shows her as having a distinct forecastle:
 

 
I only raise the issue to point out the difficulty in weighing too heavily on one source of information over another; in this case, as seems to be the case with many of the Reglements leading up to the Second Marine, what was mandated was not necessarily what was followed.  Otherwise, La Reyne would have been cut down to conform, no?

I am now in the process of composing a letter to Mr. Lemineur, in which I debate the possibility that Berain's stern drawing (known to be from 1689), corresponds directly with the color drafts of SR's bow and stern.  There are some inconsistencies between the drawings, to be sure, but a wealth of correlation.  Although I have not absolutely convinced myself, just yet, I strongly suspect that these images, combined, provide a fairly solid representation of the ship, post re-fit, in 1689.  I will include my analysis, sometime in the near future, after sending this letter off and giving Mr. Lemineur some time to respond.  It only matters in so far as I hope to place this build within some context, i.e., here is an arguable representation of the ship from 1689.
 
One of the more interesting and debatable aspects of SR's popularized appearance, for example, is whether the ship's topsides were as thoroughly cloaked in blue as is almost always depicted.  Mr. Lemineur maintains that the expense of producing the rich, ultra-marine blue (which would, at the time, have been costly to extract from the stone, lapis) would be prohibitive, and that instead, much of the ship was probably painted red;  exceptions being made around the tafferal frieze of Apollo.  That is all fascinating to consider, especially so when one considers that popular conceptions of the Vasa painted Royal Blue were completely turned on their ear, when the microscopic analysis of the ship's timbers revealed that she was mostly painted red above the main deck and that her sculptures were a riot of many colors.
 
Is it conceivable, given the excesses of Louis XIV's reign, that the upper bulwarks were painted in true ultra-marine?  I would say that it seems plausible and worth investigating further.  That does seem to be the opinion of the historian François Bluche, who is a specialist on the reign of Louis XIV, and is cited in the article above.  What might be a better avenue to explore is whether anyone at this time in the late 17th century was creating deep blues from the copper oxides of Azurite.  Those are all questions I am exploring and welcome any insight any of you might have to period colors for French ships of the line.
 
In build news, I have almost completed "framing" out the gunports and am satisfied with the effect.  The lower gun deck walls seem sufficiently thick to put up a fight against incoming 36 lb shot, and the middle deck ports show a noticeable and reasonable graduation in thickness, as they would be slightly thinner in full practice.  I will post a few pics, once this is complete.
 
My Adobe Illustrator software has arrived and I will soon turn my focus to learning how to use it, so that I can complete my drawing of the ship.  This drawing will enable me to layout the fretwork frieze of the upper bulwarks, re-locate the channels and reconcile any conflict of the shrouds, relative to the guns.

One other observation about the article about SR from the troisponts.net site:
 
The article opens with a brief discussion about the Reglement of 1670, which specified that only two ships - SR and the Royal Louis, both of 1668 - would be fitted out with a distinct forecastle, thus marking their special place as prestige ships.  All well and good.
 
But then, this Van De Velde portrait of La Reyne is dated at 1673, five years after her construction, and clearly shows her as having a distinct forecastle:
 

 
I only raise the issue to point out the difficulty in weighing too heavily on one source of information over another; in this case, as seems to be the case with many of the Reglements leading up to the Second Marine, what was mandated was not necessarily what was followed.  Otherwise, La Reyne would have been cut down to conform, no?

One other observation about the article about SR from the troisponts.net site:
 
The article opens with a brief discussion about the Reglement of 1670, which specified that only two ships - SR and the Royal Louis, both of 1668 - would be fitted out with a distinct forecastle, thus marking their special place as prestige ships.  All well and good.
 
But then, this Van De Velde portrait of La Reyne is dated at 1673, five years after her construction, and clearly shows her as having a distinct forecastle:
 

 
I only raise the issue to point out the difficulty in weighing too heavily on one source of information over another; in this case, as seems to be the case with many of the Reglements leading up to the Second Marine, what was mandated was not necessarily what was followed.  Otherwise, La Reyne would have been cut down to conform, no?

I am now in the process of composing a letter to Mr. Lemineur, in which I debate the possibility that Berain's stern drawing (known to be from 1689), corresponds directly with the color drafts of SR's bow and stern.  There are some inconsistencies between the drawings, to be sure, but a wealth of correlation.  Although I have not absolutely convinced myself, just yet, I strongly suspect that these images, combined, provide a fairly solid representation of the ship, post re-fit, in 1689.  I will include my analysis, sometime in the near future, after sending this letter off and giving Mr. Lemineur some time to respond.  It only matters in so far as I hope to place this build within some context, i.e., here is an arguable representation of the ship from 1689.
 
One of the more interesting and debatable aspects of SR's popularized appearance, for example, is whether the ship's topsides were as thoroughly cloaked in blue as is almost always depicted.  Mr. Lemineur maintains that the expense of producing the rich, ultra-marine blue (which would, at the time, have been costly to extract from the stone, lapis) would be prohibitive, and that instead, much of the ship was probably painted red;  exceptions being made around the tafferal frieze of Apollo.  That is all fascinating to consider, especially so when one considers that popular conceptions of the Vasa painted Royal Blue were completely turned on their ear, when the microscopic analysis of the ship's timbers revealed that she was mostly painted red above the main deck and that her sculptures were a riot of many colors.
 
Is it conceivable, given the excesses of Louis XIV's reign, that the upper bulwarks were painted in true ultra-marine?  I would say that it seems plausible and worth investigating further.  That does seem to be the opinion of the historian François Bluche, who is a specialist on the reign of Louis XIV, and is cited in the article above.  What might be a better avenue to explore is whether anyone at this time in the late 17th century was creating deep blues from the copper oxides of Azurite.  Those are all questions I am exploring and welcome any insight any of you might have to period colors for French ships of the line.
 
In build news, I have almost completed "framing" out the gunports and am satisfied with the effect.  The lower gun deck walls seem sufficiently thick to put up a fight against incoming 36 lb shot, and the middle deck ports show a noticeable and reasonable graduation in thickness, as they would be slightly thinner in full practice.  I will post a few pics, once this is complete.
 
My Adobe Illustrator software has arrived and I will soon turn my focus to learning how to use it, so that I can complete my drawing of the ship.  This drawing will enable me to layout the fretwork frieze of the upper bulwarks, re-locate the channels and reconcile any conflict of the shrouds, relative to the guns.

Dig and ye shall find!
 
The following is an article that can be found on the following website, which is devoted to recording the history and development of the French Navy.  Here is the web address where the article can be found:
 
https://troisponts.net/2013/10/18/les-soleil-royal-de-la-marine-de-lancien-regime/#more-5495
 
This article is the work of Nicolas Mioque and draws upon the research of the following three men:
 
– Demerliac, Alain. Nomenclature des navires français.
– Lemineur, Jean-Claude. Les vaisseaux du Roi Soleil.
– Roche, Jean-Michel. Dictionnaire des bâtiments de la flotte de guerre française de Colbert à nos jours.
 
Much of what is explained, here, has been laid out for me by Mr. Lemineur, with whom I am having a separate conversation about the decoration of the first Soleil Royal.  As I think this concise article provides a useful understanding of the history of the four ships (but really three, as the article explains) to bear the Soleil Royal name, I recommend that anyone interested visit the web address above.  I would copy and paste it here, both in French and translated (adequately enough) by Google Translate, however, I am uncertain of the possibility of copyright infringement, without express permission to reproduce the article in a separate forum.  I want to be clear, though, that none of this research is my own.

One other observation about the article about SR from the troisponts.net site:
 
The article opens with a brief discussion about the Reglement of 1670, which specified that only two ships - SR and the Royal Louis, both of 1668 - would be fitted out with a distinct forecastle, thus marking their special place as prestige ships.  All well and good.
 
But then, this Van De Velde portrait of La Reyne is dated at 1673, five years after her construction, and clearly shows her as having a distinct forecastle:
 

 
I only raise the issue to point out the difficulty in weighing too heavily on one source of information over another; in this case, as seems to be the case with many of the Reglements leading up to the Second Marine, what was mandated was not necessarily what was followed.  Otherwise, La Reyne would have been cut down to conform, no?

I am now in the process of composing a letter to Mr. Lemineur, in which I debate the possibility that Berain's stern drawing (known to be from 1689), corresponds directly with the color drafts of SR's bow and stern.  There are some inconsistencies between the drawings, to be sure, but a wealth of correlation.  Although I have not absolutely convinced myself, just yet, I strongly suspect that these images, combined, provide a fairly solid representation of the ship, post re-fit, in 1689.  I will include my analysis, sometime in the near future, after sending this letter off and giving Mr. Lemineur some time to respond.  It only matters in so far as I hope to place this build within some context, i.e., here is an arguable representation of the ship from 1689.
 
One of the more interesting and debatable aspects of SR's popularized appearance, for example, is whether the ship's topsides were as thoroughly cloaked in blue as is almost always depicted.  Mr. Lemineur maintains that the expense of producing the rich, ultra-marine blue (which would, at the time, have been costly to extract from the stone, lapis) would be prohibitive, and that instead, much of the ship was probably painted red;  exceptions being made around the tafferal frieze of Apollo.  That is all fascinating to consider, especially so when one considers that popular conceptions of the Vasa painted Royal Blue were completely turned on their ear, when the microscopic analysis of the ship's timbers revealed that she was mostly painted red above the main deck and that her sculptures were a riot of many colors.
 
Is it conceivable, given the excesses of Louis XIV's reign, that the upper bulwarks were painted in true ultra-marine?  I would say that it seems plausible and worth investigating further.  That does seem to be the opinion of the historian François Bluche, who is a specialist on the reign of Louis XIV, and is cited in the article above.  What might be a better avenue to explore is whether anyone at this time in the late 17th century was creating deep blues from the copper oxides of Azurite.  Those are all questions I am exploring and welcome any insight any of you might have to period colors for French ships of the line.
 
In build news, I have almost completed "framing" out the gunports and am satisfied with the effect.  The lower gun deck walls seem sufficiently thick to put up a fight against incoming 36 lb shot, and the middle deck ports show a noticeable and reasonable graduation in thickness, as they would be slightly thinner in full practice.  I will post a few pics, once this is complete.
 
My Adobe Illustrator software has arrived and I will soon turn my focus to learning how to use it, so that I can complete my drawing of the ship.  This drawing will enable me to layout the fretwork frieze of the upper bulwarks, re-locate the channels and reconcile any conflict of the shrouds, relative to the guns.

Dig and ye shall find!
 
The following is an article that can be found on the following website, which is devoted to recording the history and development of the French Navy.  Here is the web address where the article can be found:
 
https://troisponts.net/2013/10/18/les-soleil-royal-de-la-marine-de-lancien-regime/#more-5495
 
This article is the work of Nicolas Mioque and draws upon the research of the following three men:
 
– Demerliac, Alain. Nomenclature des navires français.
– Lemineur, Jean-Claude. Les vaisseaux du Roi Soleil.
– Roche, Jean-Michel. Dictionnaire des bâtiments de la flotte de guerre française de Colbert à nos jours.
 
Much of what is explained, here, has been laid out for me by Mr. Lemineur, with whom I am having a separate conversation about the decoration of the first Soleil Royal.  As I think this concise article provides a useful understanding of the history of the four ships (but really three, as the article explains) to bear the Soleil Royal name, I recommend that anyone interested visit the web address above.  I would copy and paste it here, both in French and translated (adequately enough) by Google Translate, however, I am uncertain of the possibility of copyright infringement, without express permission to reproduce the article in a separate forum.  I want to be clear, though, that none of this research is my own.

Dig and ye shall find!
 
The following is an article that can be found on the following website, which is devoted to recording the history and development of the French Navy.  Here is the web address where the article can be found:
 
https://troisponts.net/2013/10/18/les-soleil-royal-de-la-marine-de-lancien-regime/#more-5495
 
This article is the work of Nicolas Mioque and draws upon the research of the following three men:
 
– Demerliac, Alain. Nomenclature des navires français.
– Lemineur, Jean-Claude. Les vaisseaux du Roi Soleil.
– Roche, Jean-Michel. Dictionnaire des bâtiments de la flotte de guerre française de Colbert à nos jours.
 
Much of what is explained, here, has been laid out for me by Mr. Lemineur, with whom I am having a separate conversation about the decoration of the first Soleil Royal.  As I think this concise article provides a useful understanding of the history of the four ships (but really three, as the article explains) to bear the Soleil Royal name, I recommend that anyone interested visit the web address above.  I would copy and paste it here, both in French and translated (adequately enough) by Google Translate, however, I am uncertain of the possibility of copyright infringement, without express permission to reproduce the article in a separate forum.  I want to be clear, though, that none of this research is my own.

Hello Mr. Delacroix,
 
Thank you for relating Mr. Lemineur's thoughts, which are particularly helpful, as they answer a number of the questions I posed to the Musee.  One question for Mr. Lemineur that is of particular interest to me concerns the dust jacket artwork for his book, Les Vaisseaux Du Roi Soleil.  My operating assumption, so far, has been that this artwork represents the original decor for the SR of 1668, and that it corresponds, directly, with the black and white stern schematic that is attributed to Berain.  Is that, indeed, so?  Also, I wonder who is responsible for creating these color draughts of the bow and stern.  Were they simply proposals for the decor, created by Puget, perhaps, and refined by Berain?  Or do they represent an actual contemporary portrait of the ship, after she was built?  Is the artist known?
 
I'm aware, from my meager efforts at translating his book, that there are wide discrepancies in the arrangement of the guns between the first and second SR.  As I mention, earlier in this thread though, this problem of the number and arrangement of guns is not one that I intend to tackle with this build.  I am also mindful of the problem of draught with this Heller kit, which is why I have decided to dispense with the lower hull, altogether, and make it a waterline model.
 
What I'm after is an impression of period correctness.  Will my model be an academically rigorous and faithful recreation?  Unfortunately, that is not possible at this time.  As a side note, I should mention that I chose the screen name "Hubac's Historian" because I was an English major and am fond of alliteration.  It just sounds good, doesn't it?  I am not so proud to think, though, that I can unlock the mysteries of early French naval architecture.  Nevertheless, I can appreciate Mr. Lemineur's frustration with the Heller kit.
 
I just want to see whether I can turn it into something that resembles his dust jacket artwork, because whatever version of the ship that represents - it is a remarkable work of art, in itself.  It is grand, and completely over the top and awe inspiring!  I only hope to understand what it is that I'm looking at.  For me, the fun is in attempting to reconcile everything that isn't shown between those two bow and stern drawings.
 
In an effort to relieve you, Mr. Delacroix, of your role as intermediary, you can forward my email address to Mr. Lemineur:
 
benchmarc_woodworking@yahoo.com
 
I appreciate, very much, the time you have taken to explain these things.  As always, I'm very appreciative of everyone who visits this thread, weighs in, or takes any interest in this project, whatsoever.

Hi Mike - I was blog surfing and stumbled upon your build. This looks like a very gratifying subject for a model and I look forward to following along. In these Swedish models that you have posted pictures of, it looks as though you have a few striking examples from which to draw upon. I wish you luck and look forward to future installments.
 
All the best,
Marc

Although I haven't been busy on here, I have been busy.  On the software front, I was initially dismayed to realize that older versions of Corel Draw are not compatible with MACs, and I didn't feel like spending big bucks for the most current CAD version of Corel, which is compatible.  However, on Amazon I found a NIB edition of Adobe Illustrator 7, complete with discs!  Non-software person that I am, it was a revelation to me that you generally no longer get discs with your latest and greatest software upgrades.  So, that's on its way, and should be here in a week, or so.  In the meantime, I've been watching YouTube videos to figure out how, exactly, to use the AutoTrace tool bar.  All good.
 
I found out, through sources in direct contact with J.C. Lemineur that the photos of the 90-gun first rate ship that I posted earlier, from NAVEXPO 2012, are indeed the subject of a new monographie that should be released some time toward the end of 2017.  The ship is Le Saint Philippe, of 1693.  While her construction corresponds more directly with the second construction of Soleil Royal (following the loss of the first at La Hogue), I believe there is much to be gained, architecturally, from a close study of Le Saint Philippe.  I look forward to adding that to my collection, once it is available.
 

 
I've poked the Musee to see whether they had made any headway on my questions, but so far, I have not heard back from them.  Perhaps they feel that I am wasting my (and their) time even bothering to ask about the first SR.  However, as they say, it never hurts to ask.  I will continue to prod, gently, until I hear something.
 
Having fulfilled my Brother-in-Law's Secret Santa wish for the cordless micro Dremel, I was delighted to discover that this - as opposed to the flexi-shaft - is light in the hand and small enough at the finger grip to allow your full range of fine motor skills.  So, I'll have to place an order for that sometime in the coming weeks.
 
Yet, I still have time on my hands, so I decided it was time to jump in and get started with the hull detailing!
 
One of the things that always bothers me about plastic ship kits is that when you look through the gun port openings, the hull looks exactly like what it is:  a boat-shaped shell that lacks the sort of wall thickness that can stand up to a 36-pound shot.  In pursuit of realism, in this build, one of the first things I wanted to tackle was adding the appearance of frame thickness to the gun port openings.
 
On the first gun deck, I'm using .125 x .125 styrene strip to frame the sills and stiles of each opening, flush with the inner lip of the gun port opening.  On the middle deck ports, I'll use .100 x .100 strip to simulate what would be a slight narrowing of the framing on this higher deck.  I also feel that the upper bulwark rail thicknesses are too thin, but I'm not sure whether I will go so far as to plank, and thus thicken, the inner walls of these bulwarks. 
 
The first step was to level the inside faces of each opening with a 100-grit rubber block (an eraser with sanding paper double stuck to it, actually) because the hull pressing left a crown around each opening that would make it more tedious than necessary to close the joints between my sill and stiles.  One of the nice things about this build is that, for quite a while, there will be a nice contrast between the black pressings of the kit and the white styrene add-ons, as much of my modification will happen before I get anywhere near the first spray of paint.  Here are the early returns:
 

 

 

 
Whether or not the dimensions of the added stock exactly scale out to the real thickness of the full-size hull at corresponding locations, is not of so much importance to me.  The graduation in thickness and the appearance of depth more than make up for whatever scale discrepancies may exist in my approach.  Once they're painted that deep matte red that we associate with port openings, this small addition will seem well worth the effort.  At least - that's what I'm telling myself.
 
Finally, I found a close-up of SR's stern, from the 20th Century painting that I posted earlier:
 

 
This image, more than anything, re-affirms my idea about the arrangement of SR1's stern balconies.  Yes, the artist is modern, but as I stated earlier, I believe the clues to SR's stern are to be interpreted from the subtle shadow clues in the Berain drawing.
 
It has also, lately, been helpful to me in deciding how I will portray the quarter galleries.  The enlarged photo, above, illustrates one possible reconciliation from the stern to the quarter galleries, which interestingly, is supported by Tanneron's damaged model of the smaller rated L'Agreable and also, in other small ways, by Le Brilliant.
 

 

 
I will devote a separate post to this when I get closer to drawing it in Adobe

Hi Mike - I was blog surfing and stumbled upon your build. This looks like a very gratifying subject for a model and I look forward to following along. In these Swedish models that you have posted pictures of, it looks as though you have a few striking examples from which to draw upon. I wish you luck and look forward to future installments.
 
All the best,
Marc

A few more planks have been laid down though I am still not very far. To get to the first false gun deck I will need 26 strakes and I now have 5 completed with the 6th started. I thought I would take a few pictures to show a little more detail on how I am planking this ship. Also I included some pictures of the tools I use. Simple ones are really all you need: ruler, sanding block, electric plank bender, paper clips, hobby knife, miter saw and box, glue and a pencil. I also use because I have it, a small plane, and needle files. Of course you will need plenty of sandpaper when the planking is done.
 
Note, this is a double planked hull and it is a plank on bulkhead build. Therefore, this first layer of planking will not done in the exact way you should do an exposed planking. The overall techniques are the same but there are a couple of differences I will note. Plus you can cover the imperfections with filler later.
 
So in an earlier post I talked about finding the widths of the planks, number of planks and then laying that information out on the edges of the frames to act as guidelines. Now I can start fitting my planks. I do not lay one solid strip of wood from bow to stern but instead I cut individual plank lengths and install them that way. Why? First, it is more true to actual ship construction. On a large vessel like S.R., there would not have been lumber available in the length required to span her entire length. Second, I personally find dealing with shorter pieces easier. Less material to have to fit especially around the sharper bends in the hull. 
 
To get my lengths I start in the middle of the hull and lay a strip of wood across four frames splitting the first and last in half so another plank can share the frame. Once cut to length I will then use my guidelines and established widths to draw my taper across the plank. Cut and sand smooth the plank and I always taper the bottom (side against the frame) edges inward so the top is slightly wider. This allows for a tighter fit edge to edge. Once cut and tapered, now you can bend it to shape. There are many ways you can bend wood. Typically I just use heat from my plank bender but if the curve is going to be sharp, I will soak it in some water first and then use the heat to bend. This is basically trial and error of the various ways until you find a method that works for you. Just keep in mind when sing water that the wood expands when wet and shrinks when dry. If you install wet wood, when it dries you will have gaps. Once the plank has been shaped glue in place. I use a combination of wood and CA glues and a lot of modified paper clamps to hold the wood in place till dry.
 
The rest of the planking is basically a repeating of the above steps. Remember that you should not have to force the wood into place. If tapered, sanded and bent properly, the plank should just lay in place with the only pressure just being that to keep it from slipping as the glue dries.
 
The pattern in the joints is one of the deviations from the finish planking I will address. The pattern itself of a joint, two solid boards and a joint is correct however, due to the bulkhead spacing, the pattern is not even and the lack of uniform plank lengths is wrong. If all of the actual frames were in place then I could run all the planks the same length as they would have equally spaced frames to attach to the entire length of the ship. On a P.O.B. model, you are restricted to the few bulkhead frames that are there. The second layer of planking will be done correctly as then it will be similar to planking a solid hull ship.
 
To achieve the pattern know that all your planks will stretch across 4 frames.
1st frame split in half.
2nd frame cross completely.
3rd frame cross completely.
4th frame split in half.
As you move on to the adjacent strake, start the first plank one frame to either the bow or the stern. Which way you pick does not greatly matter, just be sure to keep going the same direction. I always set one frame to the stern. Each following strake should always start it's first plank one frame back. Every 4th strake should see the joints line back up to create a pattern of joint, solid, solid, joint. (If you are looking to be historically accurate, you will need to do some research on the ship, era and countries practices as they varied in all those categories.) When I plank the 2nd layer I will explain how I create the pattern then.
 
On a final note, be sure to pay attention to your guidelines. They will help keep you on track with your planking so that they all fit correctly and evenly. However, do not assume that you did everything right. Periodically double check the remaining space available and make sure the planking layout is still accurate. It is easier and better to adjust in small increments over the entire hull than end up with one or two planks at the end that are extremely wider or smaller than the rest.
 
More to come!

E J,
There is always an option of making additional bulkheads using the adjacent as a pattern. You can still  do this by gluing the additional bulkhead(s) to the center keel and the subdeck which I believe is the white sheet perpendicular to the center  keel in the picture. You really don't need a slot for this and may be a easier solution than filler blocks.
 
Regards

The spacing is truly horrible and yes very irregular. Fortunately this is a double planked hull so while I am attempting to stay true to proper planking, the spacing is presenting a challenge. I thought about adding more filler blocks but my first layer of planking is on the thicker side between 1-1/2 and 2mm thick. I think that once I have them glued in place, they will be stiff enough to provide a solid base for the second layer. The second layer is only .5mm thick. I am going to keep a close eye on spacing as I get further alone g. If it does not look like the planks will be stiff enough I will get some extra supports in there.
 
The bulkhead spacing has always frustrated me. I always have to modify, adjust and add to them so much that I am really thinking more and more about trying to do a fully framed ship.
 
That mite box has been around for a long time. Dad bought that for me over 20 years ago and it has served me well since. Not bad for a cheap miter box. Been through a few saws though over that same time. I have learned a lot about what materials can and cannot be cut well with them...