Richard Endsor

I agree with Shipman to a point. Waldermar is obviously a bright guy who has an astonishing grasp of the English language. He knows the meaning of big words but has difficulty in how to use them in the manner of a native English speaker. I agree his tenacity is to be admired and if we were in a war then I would like to be next to him, as long as we are on the same side. He must know the truth of the arguments made but is sadly unable to accept them. I am happy with our findings and have no need to pursue the subject any longer. I really do appreciate the points made, have learned something, and am grateful for it. Thank you all. I do hope no one bears a grudge, I don't, I respect the other contributors and hope to join conversations in the future. Perhaps this one, but only in a genuinely friendly manner.

The absence of early ship plans is believed to be due to the Navy Office burning down in 1674, I think it was. Wouldn't it have saved us a lot of effort if they had survived. Even so, our early Navy records are incredibly intact compared with others, such as the Dutch.

Dear Waldemar, I am so glad you decided to remain in the debate and not find other things to do. As regards the 1620 treatise which you seem fixed on, we should disregard it as the fixed sweep radii method described does not apply to the London. Again, the treatise says quite clearly "We may now proceed to the drawing of the plot... in 3 several planes" (84v)". The third plane is the end view or body plan. That is very clear and it appears you keep mention of it as a diversion from explaining how the London plan was derived if it was not copied from a draught using the method described by Deane with fixed radius sweeps at the floor and futtocks and with varying radii at the breadth. You also asked what else would I like to know. I wish you would be so kind as to answer the question previously put to you. Please reconcile your statement that the London plan has "obvious inaccuracies" which means it can't be a true body plan but then managed to analyze and interpret it as a body plan made to a method we know appeared in 1765. It sounds crazy and if it is a mistake then please say so. We will not fall over laughing at your embarrassment but have the deepest sympathy and understanding.

So, in view of Waldemar not finding any reason to the contrary, it is safe to say the London's body plan must have come from somewhere and that it was copied from an original draught that the draughtsman has added detail to make decorative. The body plan lines have minor discrepancies but are exactly what one would expect for the draughting method using fixed radius sweeps at the floor and futtocks and with varying radii at the breadth as described by Deane's treatise. I have mentioned many other plans in this thread of a similar nature. I am sorry that Waldemar is too busy to continue and reconcile his statement that the London plan has "obvious inaccuracies" which means it can't be a true body plan but then managed to analyze and interpret it as a body plan made to a method we know appeared in 1765? With the deepest empathy, it appears Waldmar made a mistake and wishes not to address the problem. That is absolutely fine and I would not criticize him for that. As said earlier, I am only too ready to be a student and learn new things when persuaded by convincing argument. Live, learn and enjoy the pleasure of debate, I have.

Thank God I ain't a scholar. Me bottom of the class at school in Maths and English. School reports "must try harder" "more work, less chatter" a naughty boy, still am I hope. Bit knackered at the moment, done about 10 miles over the hills and through the woods to end up getting stuffed with food and filled with well-earned drink. And so to bed, as my hero would say.

Dear Waldemar, I quote you "The London 1656 body plan is by no means a copy of some other, e.g. builder's plans, as body plans on paper were not yet made at that time". Although not applicable to London, the 1620 treatise has a body plan on paper, it really does, as plain as the nose on your face, even if it is interpreted as showing only one. As Brian Lavery said, Deane's work gives us the earliest complete plan of an English ship so it is unlikely any other plans survive from before that to present to you as evidence for your judgment. However, the London was designed in the method described by Deane and the London drawing has body plans made in the same manner. I deferentially ask you again, how else was it made? As the acknowledged best expert around, you say its "obvious inaccuracies" mean it can't be a true body plan. If it's so inaccurate then pray tell us, how did you manage to analyze and interpret it as a body plan made to a method we know appeared in 1765? Just remembered, I think one of the Keltridge draughts is of an early fourth rate, another which will undoubtedly satisfy your curiosity is the very clear and precise body plans of a 1677 ship complete with timber heads and sirmarks by Thomas Fagge and reproduced in Master Shipwright's Secrets, page 194. I really hope this helps answer your questions and eagerly look forward to your reply. Great debate init.

Waldermare appears to agree with my note (I think) he even repeats what I said. I would point out that a mould is the same as a template and if you are drawing lots of equally sized radii then using such a device saves time over using compasses whether on paper or in the mould loft. We should ignore the 1620 method in this debate with 3 fixed radii sweeps as it was not the method used on the London, but even in 1620, body plans were drawn as the author described. As mentioned earlier, actual plans from the period are as rare as hens teeth. However, there is plenty of evidence to show they did use body plans. The Keltridge plans, Wilton House plan and London plan, among others, all show body plans that must have been developed from rising and narrowing lines somewhere. Not only that but Deane describes drawing on paper the rising and narrowing lines and the body plans. They are instructional indeed, to be used and follow the actual practice, brilliantly simplified in Deane's case. Why would he have described body plans if they were not used? Please explain to this poor unfortunate student how the body plans mentioned above were produced if not by Deane's method.

Intrigued by the 1620 comments I had a quick browse over breakfast this morning. As suspected, the author not only includes the side and top views but also the body plans. In drawing the plot he mentions the 3 views and says the vertical plane of the depth and breadth is the plane of the bends (84v). Then "we must begin with the midship bend...out of which all the rest are drawn" (85v). However, and I guess this is the cause of a Eureka moment, the design method should not be applied to the London's body plans as it relates to the earlier method of whole moulding where all three sweeps forming the bends are of fixed radius. The London having varying sweeps at the breadth. He then describes the rest of the plot and says the plot is finished, but then goes on to say "To draw therefore out of the midship bends all the rest according to the true draught of the plot" he then mentions using the arithmetic data from the rising and narrowing lines (93v). This could be interpreted as meaning the rest of the bends were marked out in a mould loft but I didn't notice or see if he says that in the text. Be that as it may, the ealy designers used a body plan although this method was not used to produce the London's body plan. So back in the real world I am just off with some mates for a walk in the Chiltern hills starting and ending at the Black Lion pub in Naphill, Buckinghamshire. I will be in there about 1.30 and if any of you are around I will buy you a drink.

I agree we need some time off to get some stuff done. I read the 1620 treatise a while ago but don't recall any amazing revelations and I don't feel like getting into it in a big way right now and reading the whole thing again. Please give us a page number as a clue. The London book was being written by a group of us including archaeologists and historians while Frank Fox was writing a chapter about the guns. We were all doing our bit with proceeds going to the London Trust. Unfortunately poor Frank died rather suddenly and we are in bit of a hiatus at the moment. Waldemar, there is no need to call me "Mr Endsor", as a valued colleague please call me Richard.

I must say I have enjoyed our conversations and indeed find Waldemars contribution important and interesting. He has stimulated us all into forming our own opinions. When I write about the London I think it best not to mention the drafting process that may have created the lines. Just mention they look genuine but have irregularities that are difficult to interpret. This thread continues as some of us think they didn't use body plans in the seventeenth century. As this point in time I think they did, but I won't be putting a tin hat on and jumping in a bunker to defend the position to the last. Unfortunately, actual plans from the period are as rare as hens teeth. However, there is plenty of evidence to show they did use body plans. The Keltridge plans, Wilton House plan and London plan, among others, all show body plans that must have been developed from rising and narrowing lines somewhere. When the Admiralty wanted the shape of the new ships recorded in 1678 they took the body plans off the ships. Not only that but Deane and the 1620 period treatise (PRO ADM7/827) both describe drawing on paper the rising and narrowing lines and the body plans. They are instructional indeed, to be used and follow actual practice, brilliantly simplified in Deane's case. Why would they have described body plans if they were not used? You could argue that no plan was necessary at all as the results of the calculated rising and narrowing lines are all you need together with a list of overall dimensions. This is all John Shish's paper(Bodleian Library, Oxford, Rawlinson MSS,A185,f325) has describing a fourth rate. But you have no idea what the ship looked like from that until its developed and drawn out on paper. Even if the side and top view were drawn then it's almost impossible to judge what the ships form looked like. It's very difficult without water lines, which are not mentioned in the treatise. Just about impossible without a body plan. The plans were approved by Kings, and King Charles was a know authority who studied the ships draughts. Not only that but the body plans are necessary to know where the heads and heels of the frame timbers would go. You could argue body plans were only drawn in the mould loft, in spite of the treatise saying they are drawn plots, but by then it's a bit late to study the hull form. In any case it would be the same as studying a 1/48 plan with your eye only 1 1/2 inches from it. Almost impossible. There we are Chaps, opinions welcome.

No body plans until 1700? take a look at Anthony Deane 1670 p67. The London drawing itself is a body plan. Or have I missed something? There are body Plans in Fragments of Ancient Shipwrightry. Below is our friend Mungo Murray's 1754 body plan of 100 years after the London. Just had a quick look but I couldn't find any mention of the sweep centre point method although he does have a chapter on whole moulding associated with using rising and narrowing lines.

The early NMM model mentioned by Martes could indeed be the 1651 Antelope. I will have a trawl through Van de Velde drawings in the hope or has anyone done that already. I am working on the end views (body plans) but for info the model measured 34' 0" outside the frames and 35' 6" outside the wales, the plank not being there to measure. Keel touch 119' 6", tread 130' 4", Gundeck outside the rabbets 147' 7". Very close to dear old John Franklin's measurements taken many years ago published in Navy Board Ship Models.

Thank you for the link DonatasBruzas, Interesting, but as you say, it looks very round. I wonder what Kroum has to say.

Dear Waldemar, I think we were beginning to entertain readers of this forum with some amusing confrontation. Let me say, I am truly mortified if I have offended you. You are a colleague who makes very good points, you are not an opponent. Before getting on to the London, let me say, I bought Brian's Ship of the Line and Frank Fox's book Great Ships in 1985 to take with me when I was going abroad to work in the aerospace industry. They got me interested in making a model of Lenox and one thing led to another. They both have little mistakes, Brian's caption on page 19 does not agree with the image. I would love your opinion on this as its out of my period of interest. This may not be Brain's fault as publishers make more errors than the author. Both these wonderful books are outdated in being published in black and white and if new editions were made today they would be brought up to date. I originally said in this forum that Brian's book was a trail blazer and stand by that and hope you agree. Your Item 3 of my misdemeanors misquote me and reckon I changed from "surely" to "usually". It was Mungo Murray (what a great name) who said "usually" in 1754, I quoted him. I honestly have no intention of using what you say are "eristic tricks", mainly because I don't know what the word means. I try to tell it as it is. Which brings us to the most enjoyable purpose of our lively debate, the London. I think we are making progress and I agree with Martes, it seems most probable that the creator of the surviving drawing copied the original draught after the Restoration in 1660. His work on the end views (I have never seen the term "body plan" used in the 17th C) was far from perfect and he drew inconsistent lines. He then embellished his work by adding decoration without actually seeing the ship. So the general structural layout is correct but imaginative in detail. He also appears to have added his own idea of cross pillars and oversize guns etc. When analysing the sweeps of the of the floors they are found to vary in radius in an apparent method known to have been introduced c1765 and completely different from seventeenth century practice, which used a fixed radius sweep. The varying radius sweeps may well be coincidence as other known seventeenth century sources do not describe this later method. I hope this summary sums up our debate. I have found it valuable as being a trustee of The London Shipwreck Trust I try my best to help them. If a model maker wishes to make a model that can be shown at Southend I will help all I can. I have to confess to working on what the ship looked like for some time which will go into a book about the London. The other wreck of interest is the Gloucester, a third rate of the same type as the early NMM model referred to by Martes, which he says should be recorded. Guess where I was last week with the device shown on page 125 of Master Shipwright's Secrets. Although models are far from ideal as reference, the model is the nearest we are likely to get for the Gloucester. I hope this forum and the expertise in it will enjoy helping with this. By the way, I am interested to know why Martens calls her the Antelope?

Dear Waldemar, You are a tease who can cheerfully ignore admitting the floor sweeps of Bellona 1754 on image 2 in Brian Lavery's book are all the same radii. They clearly are the same radius and follow seventeenth century practice. What you are describing is mentioned by Brian Lavery, Ship of the Line II, Page 21, first column "Around 1765 a new line, known as the centres of the floor sweep, begins to appear on draughts". That's over a 100 years after the London was built. She surely would have been built according to the fixed radius floor sweep method, as Brian further records on page 19 "It is usual for all the floors sweeps to be of one radius, (ref25 Mungo Murray 1754)". Come on Waldermar, put a smile on your face, be friends and please agree the London must have had a fixed floor sweep radius. I am happy to admit my ignorance in that I never knew about this 1765 practice as I stick firmly in the seventeenth century and never stray out of period or country as its so very, very easy to be misled, as you have here. As for the differences between English and foreign practices, take a look at 18th Century Shipbuilding by Blaise Ollivier ed David Roberts. A bookful of differences between English, Dutch and French practice. I am also sorry for appearing to indicate the London drawings are not authentic. What I meant to say, they definitely date from the seventeenth century but as the late, great Frank Fox said, they may not be be an accurate copy of the original ships plans. I really appreciate our dialogue as I have learnt something today, even if its out of my period. Stay happy, and remember we study ship building for pleasure.