Hubac's Historian

Now things start to get interesting. The plug was repeatedly gessoed and rubbed down to a smooth surface. The next step is to line out the planking. There are two stages to this process. The first is mechanical: dividing the surface into equal parts at various points along the hull. In this case the draught showed eight strakes. The distance around half the hull at the dead flat was exactly 4' 0", so each stroke is 6" wide at that point. 
 
Once the hull has been divided into 8 bands or strakes, these need to be finessed so that, no matter from which direction you look at it, the planking runs smoothly to the eye. The bow-most third of the hull gave the most difficulty, as there is a pronounced hollow to the form. In some cases the variation of the thickness of the pencil line (very thin) was enough to make the difference. In others the line had to be moved by as much as 1/32". I may still play with the layout a little more before I'm completely satisfied.
 
The layout at present makes no allowance for overlaps of the clinker planks - that will come later, as will the shift of plank butts.

I hear what you're saying about the full scratch-build Druxey. I do.

From my perspective, though, that seems like infinitely more work just to produce a hull form.

Let's assume, for a moment, that it's still a waterline build, but that I'm going to do the least involved hull construction: bread and butter lifts.

I first have to come up with a suitable lines plan because, currently, nothing verifiable exists for French naval architecture, circa 1669. Let's say I adapt the lines for L'Ambiteaux. I still have to configure the guns, which likely means lengthening the hull in the waist. I would, then, have to draft a full set of plans. Finally, it's a whole lot of wasting, shaping and fairing before I can even think about mortising for the ports and planking and setting the main wale.
Lastly, I would have to re-create all of the ornamentation.

What I'm proposing involves a certain amount of hull modification, however - even accounting for the fact that I've never attempted anything like what I've laid forth here - it is still a lot less work because I'm starting with 99% of the hull shell, right away. Ports all located. The largest carvings - good, as is; head rails, figurehead - all perfectly useable.

Also, this is a sort of mock-up for my concept, so that I can do a fully designed scratch-build in wood. When your framing, in wood, is wrong - backtracking is significantly more laborious. If I don't like what's happening in styrene, i can just cut it out and try something different. The process is literally more malleable.

Your sentiment, though, is one that any reasonable person must consider.

My guess is that it should be workable after the lower hull and stem have been cut away, and the 5/16" addition I need in the bow should be obtainable from the first 1/2 of the hull because it is essentially a flat piece there. I may have to do some fairing in around the stem, or possibly some heating of the casting to re-shape it a little. Any which way, it should be easier than building up and bending in these additions out of sheet styrene, which was my original intent.

I've been reading around and watching YouTube videos on how to cast resin parts. Eureka! This morning it dawned on me that I can make perfectly mating bow extension pieces, with perfectly matching plank lines and grain detail by casting the first half inch of the hull, at the bow. Theoretically, that should work perfectly without any problems or difficulties, at all, because that's just how life works. Easy button!
 
I could apply the same technique to the stern for my 1/4" add-on piece, and then i'll have the added benefit of perfectly matching tumblehome. Awesome! I'll have to do two castings for the upper and lower stern. I'll also have to rig up a means of holding the hull half and upper stern plate vertically, so that I can dip their ends - again, about a 1/2" into a mould box. A long cardboard box with one short end cut out, and a dowel through a gunport opening should do the trick.
 
Geez - I wonder what could possibly go wrong. Thoughts?

Tonight, I drew the Antler escutcheon carving that goes between the main deck guns.  This is one aspect of the kit that I will not be altering.  It was a witch to draw, and it is still only a reasonable facsimile, but I only need it as a spacer for the full rendering.  Having it in place will give me a better sense for the entire composition of added details.
 

 
What I find interesting about this process of first renderings for repeated details is that now, with an example of the Antler carving and the sheer cap carving in position, relative to each other - it seems as though maybe the scale of the sheer cap is too big.  Considered on it's own, though, it seems just right.  The truth is, I probably won't really know until all of the detail is filled in around it, with Corel Draw.  The program will allow me to make minute changes in scale, after first tracing my renderings in a larger, workable scale.
 
Towards that end, I've begun listing a legend of the small carving details that make up the frieze.  The first is this leafy scroll that is placed on all of the transitional corners of the frieze.  In actuality, it will be quite small.  But after fiddling with it for a while, I like this shape:
 

 
There are a number of other small details that I will add to this legend:  a diamond cartouche thing, a shell, and a fleur-de-lis that can be re-sized for the three different applications where it is needed.  The real value of Corel will be in layout out the arc-ed grid of the frieze because the sections of the grid will vary, in length, according to whatever is going on around them, in the way of fixed detail.  By hand, this would be a nightmare of messy erasures.

Hey Dan,

I will definitely look into Alumilite - thanks for the tip.

As for stamping into clay moulds, my thought was to use regular earthenware clay - and not the polymerized stuff - and maybe some kind of light release agent that wouldn't interfere with the curing and detail of a product like Alumilite. I figure that, in the worst case scenario, if the castings don't come cleanly from the clay, you could just scrub them clean and stamp a new mould. Worth an experiment, anyway.

Where the Fimo/Sculpy will come in really handy is for the large, one-off carvings like Apollo and his horse-drawn charriot.

Failing that, I know the RTV will work, just a little more slowly.

A few more renderings, tonight.  I was having a hard time getting the scale of the bell flower additions right for the round ports.  This revision makes the ports seem a little over-wide, but I can scale this more easily in Corel Draw.  I just wanted to get the shape of the thing right.  I like the shape of the sheer rail caps, though.  Because of the positioning of the Heller kit's round ports, I don't think I will be able to do the small scalloped cutout into the planking, just inside the sheer cap, nonetheless, these pieces will go a long way toward providing a more elegant transition from one sheer step to the next.  As it is, on at least one step of the stern sheer, I'll have to inlet this cap, partially, into the rounded framing of one port.  If it's done with care, it should still look good and intentional.
 

I was able to put in some more time on carving and refining the plug. The initial shaping was done with chisel and gouges, then smoothed with various grades of sandpaper. The sleek and streamlined form, dimensioned to the inside of the planking is almost complete. The form at the stern up to the transom was the trickiest part of the shaping. At both bow and stern, the plug is paper thin. Later this will be cut away to prevent the planks from adhering.
 
Next, when time allows, will be further sanding and smoothing of the plug's surface with gesso.

So, tonight, I drew in the sheer line and sheer strakes.  I also did a simplified embellishment of the square domed ports of the main deck guns.  There isn't enough room to do the double scroll acanthus carvings, below the port, and there's barely enough room to do a simplified fleur-de-lis at the center, top of the port.  Although it probably won't show that well in this picture, I think it looks nice.  Tomorrow, I'll experiment with a bell-flower accent to both sides of the round ports, but the stern drawing is just about ready to digitize.
 

 
The more I think about it, the full 1/4" extension to the stern will buy me some much needed space for laying out these quarter galleries:
 

 
Maybe that main deck port right next to the quarters won't look so cramped now.
 
With your cursor, drag the waterline down to the edge of your screen, so that you can get a sense for the reduced sheer.  To my eye, this is more ship-like.

This is where I wish I were building at a larger scale!
 
First the central spine elements were cut from 3" thick stock, with the exception of the stern post. This was cut from 4½" wood. The keel is very light at only 3" square and has a 1" rabbet cut into it. To prevent total insanity, I cut a scratch moulding contour into a piece of hacksaw blade. By rubber cementing the blank to some scrap board, this held it firmly. I cut the rabbet in for most of its length. To prevent an uneven rabbet, I cut the steel profile so that it bottomed out on the board at the correct depth.
 
The stern post was tapered from its full thickness at the top to 3" at the foot. All the various scarph joints were then fitted using - believe it or not - a ½" chisel. When I was satisfied with them, I glued up stem, keel, stern post and stern standard or deadwood. The rest of the rabbet was carefully cut using a scalpel blade and very well-honed chisels. The bow was especially challenging at this scale, as the planks come in almost parallel to the stem.
 
There may be a hiatus before the next instalment as I now have restoration work in the studio, and that has to take precedence.

Well, some progress. The first photo looks confusing, but what i've done is rubber cement on the offcuts to the assembled lifts in order to be able to scroll-saw the profile of the boat. The second photo shows the profile cut into the starboard half-hull. The third shows both half-hulls cut and ready to shape. The last photo shows the central spine elements laid out for cutting. (The elements of this were not delineated on the original draught, so I had to be my own master shipwright.)
 
More anon. Thanks for the 'likes' and comments.

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!

I hear what you're saying about the full scratch-build Druxey. I do.

From my perspective, though, that seems like infinitely more work just to produce a hull form.

Let's assume, for a moment, that it's still a waterline build, but that I'm going to do the least involved hull construction: bread and butter lifts.

I first have to come up with a suitable lines plan because, currently, nothing verifiable exists for French naval architecture, circa 1669. Let's say I adapt the lines for L'Ambiteaux. I still have to configure the guns, which likely means lengthening the hull in the waist. I would, then, have to draft a full set of plans. Finally, it's a whole lot of wasting, shaping and fairing before I can even think about mortising for the ports and planking and setting the main wale.
Lastly, I would have to re-create all of the ornamentation.

What I'm proposing involves a certain amount of hull modification, however - even accounting for the fact that I've never attempted anything like what I've laid forth here - it is still a lot less work because I'm starting with 99% of the hull shell, right away. Ports all located. The largest carvings - good, as is; head rails, figurehead - all perfectly useable.

Also, this is a sort of mock-up for my concept, so that I can do a fully designed scratch-build in wood. When your framing, in wood, is wrong - backtracking is significantly more laborious. If I don't like what's happening in styrene, i can just cut it out and try something different. The process is literally more malleable.

Your sentiment, though, is one that any reasonable person must consider.

I hear what you're saying about the full scratch-build Druxey. I do.

From my perspective, though, that seems like infinitely more work just to produce a hull form.

Let's assume, for a moment, that it's still a waterline build, but that I'm going to do the least involved hull construction: bread and butter lifts.

I first have to come up with a suitable lines plan because, currently, nothing verifiable exists for French naval architecture, circa 1669. Let's say I adapt the lines for L'Ambiteaux. I still have to configure the guns, which likely means lengthening the hull in the waist. I would, then, have to draft a full set of plans. Finally, it's a whole lot of wasting, shaping and fairing before I can even think about mortising for the ports and planking and setting the main wale.
Lastly, I would have to re-create all of the ornamentation.

What I'm proposing involves a certain amount of hull modification, however - even accounting for the fact that I've never attempted anything like what I've laid forth here - it is still a lot less work because I'm starting with 99% of the hull shell, right away. Ports all located. The largest carvings - good, as is; head rails, figurehead - all perfectly useable.

Also, this is a sort of mock-up for my concept, so that I can do a fully designed scratch-build in wood. When your framing, in wood, is wrong - backtracking is significantly more laborious. If I don't like what's happening in styrene, i can just cut it out and try something different. The process is literally more malleable.

Your sentiment, though, is one that any reasonable person must consider.

I've been reading around and watching YouTube videos on how to cast resin parts. Eureka! This morning it dawned on me that I can make perfectly mating bow extension pieces, with perfectly matching plank lines and grain detail by casting the first half inch of the hull, at the bow. Theoretically, that should work perfectly without any problems or difficulties, at all, because that's just how life works. Easy button!
 
I could apply the same technique to the stern for my 1/4" add-on piece, and then i'll have the added benefit of perfectly matching tumblehome. Awesome! I'll have to do two castings for the upper and lower stern. I'll also have to rig up a means of holding the hull half and upper stern plate vertically, so that I can dip their ends - again, about a 1/2" into a mould box. A long cardboard box with one short end cut out, and a dowel through a gunport opening should do the trick.
 
Geez - I wonder what could possibly go wrong. Thoughts?

Tonight, I drew the Antler escutcheon carving that goes between the main deck guns.  This is one aspect of the kit that I will not be altering.  It was a witch to draw, and it is still only a reasonable facsimile, but I only need it as a spacer for the full rendering.  Having it in place will give me a better sense for the entire composition of added details.
 

 
What I find interesting about this process of first renderings for repeated details is that now, with an example of the Antler carving and the sheer cap carving in position, relative to each other - it seems as though maybe the scale of the sheer cap is too big.  Considered on it's own, though, it seems just right.  The truth is, I probably won't really know until all of the detail is filled in around it, with Corel Draw.  The program will allow me to make minute changes in scale, after first tracing my renderings in a larger, workable scale.
 
Towards that end, I've begun listing a legend of the small carving details that make up the frieze.  The first is this leafy scroll that is placed on all of the transitional corners of the frieze.  In actuality, it will be quite small.  But after fiddling with it for a while, I like this shape:
 

 
There are a number of other small details that I will add to this legend:  a diamond cartouche thing, a shell, and a fleur-de-lis that can be re-sized for the three different applications where it is needed.  The real value of Corel will be in layout out the arc-ed grid of the frieze because the sections of the grid will vary, in length, according to whatever is going on around them, in the way of fixed detail.  By hand, this would be a nightmare of messy erasures.

So, tonight, I drew in the sheer line and sheer strakes.  I also did a simplified embellishment of the square domed ports of the main deck guns.  There isn't enough room to do the double scroll acanthus carvings, below the port, and there's barely enough room to do a simplified fleur-de-lis at the center, top of the port.  Although it probably won't show that well in this picture, I think it looks nice.  Tomorrow, I'll experiment with a bell-flower accent to both sides of the round ports, but the stern drawing is just about ready to digitize.
 

 
The more I think about it, the full 1/4" extension to the stern will buy me some much needed space for laying out these quarter galleries:
 

 
Maybe that main deck port right next to the quarters won't look so cramped now.
 
With your cursor, drag the waterline down to the edge of your screen, so that you can get a sense for the reduced sheer.  To my eye, this is more ship-like.

I've been reading around and watching YouTube videos on how to cast resin parts. Eureka! This morning it dawned on me that I can make perfectly mating bow extension pieces, with perfectly matching plank lines and grain detail by casting the first half inch of the hull, at the bow. Theoretically, that should work perfectly without any problems or difficulties, at all, because that's just how life works. Easy button!
 
I could apply the same technique to the stern for my 1/4" add-on piece, and then i'll have the added benefit of perfectly matching tumblehome. Awesome! I'll have to do two castings for the upper and lower stern. I'll also have to rig up a means of holding the hull half and upper stern plate vertically, so that I can dip their ends - again, about a 1/2" into a mould box. A long cardboard box with one short end cut out, and a dowel through a gunport opening should do the trick.
 
Geez - I wonder what could possibly go wrong. Thoughts?

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

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


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


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

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

Tonight, I drew the Antler escutcheon carving that goes between the main deck guns.  This is one aspect of the kit that I will not be altering.  It was a witch to draw, and it is still only a reasonable facsimile, but I only need it as a spacer for the full rendering.  Having it in place will give me a better sense for the entire composition of added details.
 

 
What I find interesting about this process of first renderings for repeated details is that now, with an example of the Antler carving and the sheer cap carving in position, relative to each other - it seems as though maybe the scale of the sheer cap is too big.  Considered on it's own, though, it seems just right.  The truth is, I probably won't really know until all of the detail is filled in around it, with Corel Draw.  The program will allow me to make minute changes in scale, after first tracing my renderings in a larger, workable scale.
 
Towards that end, I've begun listing a legend of the small carving details that make up the frieze.  The first is this leafy scroll that is placed on all of the transitional corners of the frieze.  In actuality, it will be quite small.  But after fiddling with it for a while, I like this shape:
 

 
There are a number of other small details that I will add to this legend:  a diamond cartouche thing, a shell, and a fleur-de-lis that can be re-sized for the three different applications where it is needed.  The real value of Corel will be in layout out the arc-ed grid of the frieze because the sections of the grid will vary, in length, according to whatever is going on around them, in the way of fixed detail.  By hand, this would be a nightmare of messy erasures.

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!

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!

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!

Hey Dan,

I will definitely look into Alumilite - thanks for the tip.

As for stamping into clay moulds, my thought was to use regular earthenware clay - and not the polymerized stuff - and maybe some kind of light release agent that wouldn't interfere with the curing and detail of a product like Alumilite. I figure that, in the worst case scenario, if the castings don't come cleanly from the clay, you could just scrub them clean and stamp a new mould. Worth an experiment, anyway.

Where the Fimo/Sculpy will come in really handy is for the large, one-off carvings like Apollo and his horse-drawn charriot.

Failing that, I know the RTV will work, just a little more slowly.