DARIVS ARCHITECTVS

I'm confused why Don states that bowsprit shrouds and bobstays were not used on SotS. Bowsprit shrouds are not to be confused with the shrouds for the bowsprit topmast. Bowsprit shrouds on modern yachts run from the bowsprit to the hull on either side of the vessel, and prevent the bowsprit from bending to port or starboard. Typically the aft end of the shroud is attached to the hull using a thimble and shackle to an eye bolt which goes through a chain plate that is bolted to the hull. Take a look at my model of the Halcon of 1840. There are two bowsprit supports on each side of the bowsprit. One "guy" line starts at the tip of the bowsprit and runs to the dolphin striker where it splits into two guys which have tackles attached in turn to the hull (large arrow). The other is a bowsprit shroud that runs from a collar at the base of the dolphin striker and runs to a tackle on either side of the hull, near the guy tackle (small arrow). So, yes, SotS did not have bowsprit stays. As to where the bowsprit running rigging was belayed, that is unknown. Doris Obručová's model has a belaying pin rack located on either side of the beakhead (below). Perhaps there were cleats on the deck or railings or kevels on the inboard sides of the beak. We don't know. Vasa had a pinrail on the beakhead deck. Don Dressel rove running rigging lines through blocks fastened to the gammoning, and then up to the forward railing on the forecastle on his model, or directly from the blocks attached to the bowsprit, located foward of the spritsail yard but behind the bowsprit top, rearward to the forecastle railing.

SotS had old style rigging. Don Dressel stated that SotS had both jeers AND ties and halliards, which is unusual. It is not stated whether jeers and ties/halliards were both used on the same yardarm, which seems redundant to me, but a single yard would have jeers OR ties/halliards. James Sephton also believes both jeers and ties/halliards were probably used on SotS. The fact that other aspects of the rigging were old lends weight to the conclusion that ties and halliards were used for at least some yard rigging of the yards on SotS, instead of heers for all yards. Perhaps jeers were only used on the lighter yards. I do not know, but this seems logical. Payne's engraving shows ties and lanniards being used for the fore and main course sails. Sometimes a ship's features can only be determined by context clues. Some older style rigging arrangements used on SotS are shown below. Which lines were belayed to where is lost to history fort this ship, however there are clues in Payne's engraving, which shows the typical rigging for a large ship at the time, but does not depict the actual rigging used on SotS because it was engraved before the actual ship was rigged. It's all the info we have. Some belaying points may be deduced from the engraving. Payne's engraving has several shortcomings, including the fact that it does not show parrels for the heaviest yards and lateen yard on the mizzenmast. We have to take our clues were we find them and let them guide our guesses. Shroud cleats Hitched to railings at the timberheads Fore course yard tie is looped from yard to block to yard, with halliard rove through the block This sketch from Robert C. Anderson suggests that jeers using single sheave blocks would have been used on lighter yards higher up than the course yards, and evidenced by his drawing of the crosstrees. So, perhaps ties and halliards were reserved for the heaviest yards, pehaps including the topsail yards. SotS may not have employed belaying pins, but lines were belayed to deck rings, railings, and kevels. Rigging_Techniques HMS SotS.pdf

I like to leave the model in the home made keel vice, because mine tilts to the side 45 degrees, making rigging some lines much easier than when in vertical position. Ratlining is easier too, especially for the topgallant masts.

Forum build logs are a good source and the least expensive (free) for details such as knots, splices, worming, and other techniques. When ask a general question about rigging, it is hard to answer without more specifics. First, what time period are you asking about, and what nationality is the vessel? This narrows things down a bit. Some books focus on rigging styles from certain eras, most commonly the 18th century. Using a source out of time period or nationality will steer you in he wrong direction. English and European continental styles of rigging are the two largest classifications for rigging style by region. For the 17th century, The Rigging of Ships: in the Days of the Spritsail Topmast, 1600-1720 by R.C. Anderson covers multiple nationalities. For the 18th century, The Art of Rigging by George Biddlecombe has lots of detail on knots, splices, seizes, and other methods of tying, hitching, and binding. As previously mentioned, The Rigging of Period Ship Models : A Step-By-Step Guide to the Intricacies of Square-Rig and Rigging Period-Fore-and-Aft Craft by Lennarth Petersson offer a pictorial way of showing you how lines are routed on specific 18th century vessels which provide example of how lines are routed and belayed. You want to shop for books that cover your vessel of interest as close as possible in order to rig your model as historically accurate as possible, using educated guesses where required instead of wild guesses. The shotgun approach of buying books is wastefully expensive. If you need to know what a particular book contains as far as information, it costs nothing to ask other forum members who own such books what is in them. When buying books, shop around. The kindle electronic versions are very inexpensive if you don't mind reading off your computer or cell phone, but the photographs suffer detail and quality significantly. Books specific to certain classes of vessels like the ones available from SeaWatch are very expensive, but if your model falls within their scope and you want the most and best information on a vessel, they are worth the money. I hope you find that there are few pieces of useful information in my ramblings.

I don't know. Found them in the bowels of the internet.

Hi Allen! Only two single blocks? Oh well. I just rigged almost 100 of the guns on three decks with a single and double blocks for the gun tackles. Knowing that earlier would have save me a lot of work! A fellow ship modeler (Szkutnik on the SoS forum) made 3-D models of the barrels and printed them out for me. They are detailed enough to have the touch hole and emblem on top recognizable as John Browne's work specific to the Sovereign of the Seas.

Augezeichnet!!!

Washing the gold castings with black or dark brown thinned paint toned down the brightness of the recesses and brings out some details.

Absolutely beautiful, Jan!

I can provide the ship's boat and several other parts leftover from my La Couronne build. In a couple days, I can dig around in the parts box and provide a list of the Corel parts. I did not use them, since my build was heavily modified. I have most of the pressed fiber window frames, the ship's boat, the figurehead, the stern lanterns, some of the fleur-de-lis other decorations, all of the false cannon barrels and more. I can provide pictures later.

Unfortunately, there are NO kits which do not need some parts and materials upgrades such as the ones I mentioned earlier. Even the Caldercraft HMS Victory has crappy blocks. Kit bashing allows you to add better parts and details to make an exceptionally nice model with reaserach work only focusing on those details, so you don't have to research and develop the whole model from scratch. It's the fastest way to achieve exceptionally great results. When you get more experience from a few models, try your hand at scratch building if you have the tools, materials, and skills to do that. I am still in the kits bashing phase of learning this hobby. You have to choose how much more money in replacements to dump into a model, whatever you are most comfortable with. The more you build, the better the results. It's a journey.

Very nice. I had to veneer over my keel too, similar to what you did, since I didn't know the pattern of stem assembly parts at the time. My next ship has a keel cut from maple hardwood. It's easy to trace the plywood parts onto good hardwood, or better yet, make a custom stem made with typical parts that make up the stem (apron, stemson, gripe, etc.) and keel parts. The keel is made up of three to five segments, stretching from the stem assembly all the way back to the rudder. For La Couronne, the seams between the veneer overlays can make a reasonable simulation of the multiple parts that make up the stem, keel and sternpost. Since you already used the veneer method on your keel, you can opt to make hardwood replacement parts of the keel on your next model as a future upgrade. You'll need a bandsaw and will have to sand and file the parts so the edges at the seams fit nicely, then stain or paint them before or after they are attached to the hull. Typical parts for an 18th century English stem assembly: My current model of HMS Sovereign ofr the Seas under construction: The original plywood stem with penciled seams on top, and the maple hardwood replacement parts cut and fitted below. Stained and assembled stem and keel. The final planking has not yet been applied. This gives you some idea what a stained hardwood stem assembly looks like with one coat of stain. Bow after painting and weathering the hull bottom's white stuff. The final planking seams can still be seen, which was the desired effect. Another modeler's stem assembly. The pattern of the parts varies between each ship.

...because plywood is CHEAP. That's it. It's the same reason kit blocks look like cubes with two holes in them. It's all about keeping the price down as far as possible to encourage sales. Blocks, rigging line, and sometimes the final planking wood are typically replaced when building a kit in order to correct for lack of details, and when these parts are replaced, it definitely shows.

Splendid sister blocks!

Here are a few clear pictures of the Navire Royale from Fornier's Hydrographie. You can translate the French, which provides some basic information about the features. It depicts a typical warship commissioned by the French, built by the Dutch. Many aspects of La Couronne are found in this design, however La Couronne was built by the French, and was larger than those bought from the Dutch. La Couronne only saw eight years of service, and despite no complaints about her capability at sea, she was stripped of her guns and later scrapped, the reasons why are lost to history. Her construction was known to the English, and provided some of the basis for their King Charles I to build HMS Sovereign of the Seas. There was an arms race of a sort going on among the European and English monarchs to each create a "great ship" as a royal prestige symbol, even at the cost of almost bankrupting a nation and making a vessel which was overly gunned and heavy to the point of being impractical for the tactics of the time. These great ships were experimental to a certain degree. The model I built (below) departed from the Corel plans to a large degree, and incorporated elements from Fornier and the P. Pett sketch I posted earlier, most notably the location of the channels to the correct vertical position, number and location of gun ports, and redesign of the beakhead. Choosing this ship as my first wooden ship model was inspired by another member on this forum, EJ, whose build log is here. Many other smaller details were added including internal lighting and LED's in the stern lanterns. If you want to know any details, I have a complete build log on Ships of Scale forum. I can also provide rigging diagrams and other research sources on La Couronne. R.C. Anderson is your bible for rigging this vessel. I must have read it a dozen times and referred to it many more. It would be my esteemed pleasure to assist anyone who is building a model of this elegant vessel. Link to Build Log Photos: La Couronne by DARIVS ARCHITECTVS For comparison, this engraving is believed by some to be the St. Louis, particularly because of the figurehead: