JerseyCity Frankie

I second the above. And I second the above the above, the part about not having eyebolts on the the yards on a wood spar. But if you have to have them, and your going to use the blocks as configured in the photo you provided, I would use a large package needle and sew the end back through the seizing, after you passed the "tail" through the eye of the eyebolt.. If this wont work (thread too thick?) You could be sneaky and unlay the strands of the "tail" of your block and cut two off as close to your seizing as possible then use that packing needle to sew the remaining single strand back under your seizing after you pass it through the eyebolt. If you ditch the eyebolts (which I would encourage you to do) you could pass the unclipped tail around the spar and THEN do the "sew it under" trick. This would mimic actual practice to some degree and keep unwanted bulk out of the overall rigging appearance.

If it was me I would try to find a brig drawing from a similar time frame and glean what I could from that. I had a look at the model in the Royal Museums Grenwich page ( http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/66562.html) and she looks kinda small, so the forces involved in managing her running rigging should not be outrageous. Anyway its a small vessel and I THINK the forces involved in the lines you mention would not necessitate taking the lines down to the deck then back up to cleats or pins above, I imagine they could all simply be hauled straight down from the deck then belayed on whatever they belay to. The idea of having a lead block at deck level is to get the line horizontal so more guys could get their hands on it to haul on it- when it leads straight down you can never get more than five or six people on the line, there is not room for more to stand together and haul the same line. But my guess is the rig is small enough that six people hauling would be enough for any of the lines. MAYBE a halyard for a square yard would take some more oomph and require a deck located lead block?

I'm such a big fan of the Constrictor knot I put up a tutorial on it a while ago: http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/4029-the-constrictor-knot/?hl=constrictor Its a great knot to have in your bag of tricks. Its only drawback- if it is a drawback- is that once it is tied and pulled tight it is extraordinarily hard to untie, the smaller the line its tied in, the harder it is to untie. Its a tiny bit bulkier than the near cousin knot the Clove Hitch and this would give it a bigger lump if you were to use it to terminate a ratline.

I would go with a sheer pole bored for pins, lashed above the upper deadeyes.

I did not actually address the question which was "What would you like to see developed for the hobby?". My dream kit would reflect the fact that I do not have much space where I live for the display of a large model, but that I love a good square rigged ship in a large scale. If its armed with cannon all the better, but the lack of armament would not be a dealbreaker. I would like it to be 1:48 scale for the sake of the culture of our hobby and the freedom to include detail the scale affords, but am wiling to go for a smaller scale for the sake of matching the other parameters I have, which are about the kits size. I would like the model to be as small as possible while still being of a lergish scale, I would want the criteria for the selection of subject to be driven first and foremost by its being the smallest possible overall length of the completed kit. So it looks like we are talking about brigs and topsail schooners. There are many exotic coasting vessels that could fill the bill too I am sure. A brig with only four cannon and a short headrig, is that a thing? The printmaker Baugean made a lot of nice engravings of vessels that appeal to me and you can see them in the book Ships and Seamanship by John Harland. Just about any vessel depicted in the last three quarters of this book would be a great subject in my opinion.

This discussion is great, its a peek under the hood of what people think about the hobby and I would like to see it worked up into a survey with 100 questions. Then EVERYONE on MSW could be invited to take the survey. Questions could start with ascertaining demographics of the users and then move on to the nuts and bolts of the hobby. Not sure what all the questions would be, a lot of "Have you ever built a Plank on Frame model?" or "do you use paint on your models?" with some more esoteric questions like "have you ever built the same kit twice?" or " what is the most money you ever spent on the construction of one model?". these questions, if answered by enough people, would provide a fascinating set of pie graphs that would represent the nature of the typical builder. I am sure manufacturers would agree that having this information would be helpful. On the other side of the coin, I would LOVE to see some analysis of the business side of the hobby. For instance I would like to see a list of all past and present ship kit manufacturers, something I have never seen put together before. Then I would like to see this list broken down in various ways: List ranked according to date of the company founding, list ranked according to number of kits sold by each manufacturer, then this same list expanded to show performance figures by year. I would be interested in seeing a breakdown of the cost of the materials that go into a kit- on a pie graph, a slice for photo etched parts, a slice for wood sourcing acquisition and milling, a slice for R&D, a slice for cost of writing illustrating and printing the plans and guidebook, A slice for the rigging line, a slice for the blocks, a slice for the white metal, a slice for the cost of the box the kit comes in. In short, everything. I think such kit information would hold some surprises for those of us who have never been involved with product manufacturing and distribution. Speaking of which lets have a pie graph for that too! I'm sure a lot of us take production of kits for granted and would be willing to part with money for kits that clearly cost a lot more to produce than others. Somewhere in the hobby there is one kit that cost more to produce and distribute than any other- I wonder which one it was? Elsewhere in the hobby there is a kit that became the most profitable kit in the entire hobby- I wonder which one it was! And sadly there must have been a kit somewhere that sold fewer units than any other kit, I wonder which one it was, and how many were sold.

I would like to suggest a group build log for making Sails for Models. I think it would be great to have a lot of sail making projects available for perusal all under one heading. But maybe this topic is not specific enough for a group build log? Or maybe it would be felt that there is already a place for sailmaking discussion under the Masting Rigging and Sails heading? It could be regarded as too wide a net and the group would be unable to focus on one method of making sails? On the other hand there are a lot of people that are daunted by the prospect of making realistic sails for their models and there is a LOT of information that could be discussed and disseminated. The subject of sails is controversial though and there would be a lot of different methods being discussed and the group build log would become chaotic. Whereas by contrast the group build log for Capstans would likely fall into maybe three schools of thought and could stay on track better? All these are guesses on my part, but I do think the idea of a sail building discussion group has merit.

Chuck has opened the door to the idea of group build logs for things like Capstans and Galley Stoves. This raises a general question about group build logs that are not of entire ships but of COMPONENTS of ships: Lets say you have a group build log for capstans. People will be building capstans for their ships and their ships will have individual build logs for them that will already include the capstan portion of the build, then they will ALSO be using the capstan portion of their build logs in the Capstan Group Build Log. So there will be duplication of effort with wholesale cutting and pasting of capstan building photos and text from the build logs they originated from into the Group Build Logs. This wouldn't bother me since it will allow a lot of capstan building information to be located all in one place. but would it be placing a burden on the websites servers and other resources?

Lanyards are nominally the color of the running rigging but in actual practice they are very dark. They get dirty and greasy right away and stay that way. In fact they often are greased the day they are installed so they will render around the holes in the deadeyes when the rigging is tightened and tuned. They don't get tarred, as the standing rigging will, but trust me when I say they are very dark in color, never white.

I think its fascinating that this discussion has been prompted by the mysterious arc shown on one of the drawings of the ship. As I have said in a couple of different ways in my above statements, I do not think there is enough evidence in this arc drawn on the plan to be interpolated into a plausible structure an historian could make a claim for, it is only a simple line on a drawing, a line not found on other drawings. You would need more evidence to make a strong case that this line represents the structure you are proposing. I don't think you can infer the existence of this object on the outside of the ship based on the tiller arcs found on the inside of other ships. The rest of the factors offered as indicators of the existence of the arc shaped support are only guesswork. For instance I don't think you can make a case that when Cook uses the word "transom", that he is indicating anything other than the after timbers of the ship. I will grant you that in the quoted text from his log, the language is ambiguous about WHAT EXACTLY is the nature of the iron work and transom work being described. Clearly there was recurring trouble with the steering gear, but you should resist the urge to exploit the ambiguity of the log and change the definition of the word "transom" into evidence of your theory. In other words, don't put words in Cooks mouth. I firmly believe that if he and his crew had invented and installed a large new tiller support structure, one never seen or used before, he would have clearly described its design construction and installation in the log entry. Moving on, I don't think you can infer the need for a supporting apparatus simply by saying "I think the tiller is too long so they must have done ______" -or- "I think the tiller is too heavy so they must have done _____". Simply saying that you THINK a thing should be so is not solid evidence that a thing is so. Maybe its an indicator that there needs to be further investigation, but it is NOT the end of the process of understanding. You have to accept the drawings of the tiller that do exist, which do indeed show a long tiller but do NOT show a supporting structure. Lest I come off sounding too negative I will say you do have an interesting mystery that is worth pursuing. That arc shaped mark on the drawing likely IS something having to do with the tiller. But we do not know what it is. I think it would be valuable to compare tiller lengths on as many ships as you can find records for, while at the same time searching ship drawings for any other appearance of the curious arc shaped notation found on the drawing that got this discussion going. Lastly lets all agree that we all make our models any way we please. I'm free to put whatever I want on a model and be happy with it. But lets keep an eye on the historical research aspect of the hobby and respect that too. If you insist a thing is so, you will have to be able to show a clear logical path that took you to that conclusion if you want other people to sign off on it too.

I have heard of the "Fish Davit" but in my minds eye its just a piece of wood with no sheves in the end. I just did a web search and see one with iron eyes at the end for tackle) Fish davits I have seen are depicted as laying on the deck athwartship forward of the Fore mast when not in use, near where they would be operated from. My understanding is that they were used like a derrick, one end inboard upon the edge of the deck with the other end held in space outboard of the ship with tackle to control the position of the davit and to raise the anchor.

Most of us view plastic kits as being crude in terms of quality. The company Heller makes some very good plastic sailing ship kits -I'm building their HMS Victory- but even these nicer kits have shortcomings. The nice thing about even a very poor plastic kit is that you can throw away everything but the hull and build your own version on top, using the hull as a foundation. You have saved a lot of time not having to build the hull from scratch and can go right into masting and rigging. Another nice thing about using a plastic kit is that you can decide for yourself at which points to step in a manufacture your own components. Most people are going to agree that the molded-in-one-piece shrouds and ratlines should be tossed no matter what else you plan on doing. Those things are always ugly simplistic and out of scale.

The definition of a Transom is unambiguous, it is the surface that makes up the stern of the vessel. I know of no other use of the word and have never understood a "transom" to be anything other than an element of the construction of the stern of a vessel. The Oxford Companion to the Sea lists a transom as "The athwartship timbers bolted to the sternpost of a ship....they were usually rather heavier than other timbers in order to support the overhang of the stern and quarter..." which overhand is what the rudder head is coming up through. THIS is what Cook is most likely discussing in the quote above. The "reference note" that you quote above was written by whoever was annotating the book you are quoting from, not Cook, and in fact is not necessarily describing anything other than a conventional transom- which is to be found at the AFTER end of the tiller. I'm going to have to remain highly skeptical of any arc shaped equipment fixed to the poopdeck that the the tiller rides in until I see clear unambiguous reference to something like it. No tiller I have ever seen on any wooden sailing vessel has anything like this object. This is my personal view, there is certainly a chance I could be proven wrong, it would not be the first time! But I still think this arc shaped object is in the realm of the highly conjectural. Yes there is an arc drawn on that plan of the deck, but I do not think this is proof of the object you imagine is supporting the tiller.

The fictional sophie, of the Patrick O'Brien novels, was a fourteen gun brig and had a break in the deck aft, providing an "odd little poopdeck". Also the guns were on the uppermost deck, exposed to the elements.

I would like to see the amount of documentation in the kits greatly expanded. Of course I would like a lot of full scale plan sheets but there could be a lot more information in each kit. I could imagine a thick well produced booklet containing detailed drawings of specific areas of the rig done in perspective drawings - much like the excellent G F Campbell drawings found in Longridge's Anatomy of Nelson's Ships. Illustrations that are well done and show every detail in the context of where it will be on the ship.- this is not rocket science this is simply a mater of paying a good illustrator. It will add to the cost of the kit but it would remove a lot of the frustration from the project while at the same time adding to the value of the kit. Since you are printing a booklet you may as well hire a historian to write a decent history and illustrate that too, with whatever contemporary prints paintings or drawings which can be obtained. Yes this adds a lot to the production cost but it also lends credibility to the project. Too many kits of the past made do with minimal plan sheets with lousy drawing and poor printing. Note that little of this makes sense unless the money is spent to create a quality product. Putting together a ho-hum booklet with lousy drawings is just going to make your product line look bad.

So why couldn't the South Street Seaport Museum simply keep the Peking and expend whatever resources were needed to keep her sound? The short answer is they did not have the money. The longer answer is that back in the late 60's when the Museum was formed and the Peking acquired, the land it was set up on was literally an unpleasant stinky backwater. The famous wholesale Fulton Fish Market operated all night every night with hundreds of 18 wheeler trucks loading and unloading fish in the open air, the nearby 19th century buildings had been continually used as smoke houses and fish processing businesses since before electricity. The entire district was greasy and stank of fish. With the closing of the fish market those 19th century buildings were all rehabbed and quickly became some of the most sought after real estate in Manhattan. This drove the gentrification of the waterfront and new public parks were built directly adjacent to pier 15 and 16, the longtime home of the Peking the Wavertree the Pioneer and the Lettie G Howard and the Lightship Ambrose. All this took place over the last five years, changing every dynamic in the area. City agencies scrutinized the situation and found that the Museum had spread its fleet over an area larger than had been originally allocated to it. Back in the old days nobody cared, but now there was a lot at stake. The city completely tore down pier 15 and built from scratch a beautiful public park pier, and Wavertree was tied up there while the Museum and the city tried to sort out the issue. The upshot was that the Museum was told it could no longer tie up historic vessels on pier 15. Since the Museum had prioritized Wavertree as the ship they wanted to save, the difficult decision was taken to let go of the Peking. Wavertree went to Staten Island for her comprehensive hull restoration work but when she returns the city will expect the Peking to be gone. The portion of pier 15 the Wavertree was on will be rented to for-profit excursion ferry companies. . I think we all took Peking for granted over the years. I never saw a model built of her in recent memory, although the Museum has one or two in their collection. Consider that there are a lot of model builders in the NYC area and I find it odd that she was always overlooked as a subject, Model builders always want clear unambiguous data and here the actual ship has been sitting right here all this time. I built a ship in a bottle of her but that hardly counts. When she goes away I am going to feel guilty that I never took the time to build a big model of her.

The departure of Peking for Germany is going to come as a big surprise to many. News about the planing of her move has not been widely disseminated and one day the ship will be gone and people are going to be shocked. In New York City she is the most visible tall ship simply because she is so huge. Her masts are visible from blocks away, poking above the lower buildings of the downtown skyline. Its a view new Yorkers have gotten used to since the 70's. But the ship is simply too big for the South Street Seaport Museum. Shes 377' long and 170' high. When the Museum decided they couldn't keep her, they started looking around to see if any other U.S. cities could take her, free of charge. Many would have, but no city with a waterfront has a spot long enough to accommodate the addition of a 377' historic ship. Since the 70's, urban waterfront development has (rightly) returned what were once industrial zones to public leisure areas where the citizens can enjoy the water. The city of Hamburg, in Germany, has a very long industrial waterfront history and this is the city where she was built and which was her home port during her working life, AND they had room for her. A German Non-Profit was formed to raise funds to get Peking to Germany ( even as a free gift, money would have to be found to pay for the trip across the Atlantic on a heavy lift ship) and this effort failed. At this time two years ago it looked as if the Peking would have to be melted down for scrap! Last year the German Federal Government stepped in and announced that they would pay for the transfer of the Peking and for a Museum complex at the Hamburg waterfront. A multi million Euro proposition. The last I heard there was still some trouble on the German end concerning where this new Museum will be located.

You could always just list off the lines in question, here, and people could weigh in on them one line at a time. There were conventions in doing these things and often things were done in a similar way from ship to ship. Give the name of the ship and the historical time frame and I am sure someone here has some info for you.

Its possible, in the strictest sense, to belay to a ring, but this is not common practice. You could tie a clove hitch with a bight of the line to the ring and this would be an acceptable but clumsy way to belay to a ringbolt. But in any situation other than some temporary lash-up, a proper belaying point of either a pin or a cleat will be provided. As to your plans not having enough pins for the lines that are on your ship, I have heard this lament before. I know in some cases two buntlines can belay together to the same pin- they will always be cast off or belayed together and are never under too much strain so keeping them on the same pin is fine. This would free up one of your pins for another line. In other cases its not at all uncommon to have cleats lashed to the shrouds above the pins. HMS Victory has many of these shroud cleats and they may not be drawn on the plan since they are independent of the deck fixtures.

I am a huge knot nerd, I can't get enough knots. But, in ship modeling you do not need to have encyclopedic knot knowledge. The simple Overhand Knot - the one you use to begin tying your shoes, the one that goes on before the two "bows", -will get you through nearly every model rigging job. Very few knots on a ship are large enough to be discernible at any scale so it won't matter if you use the Overhand Knot to represent ALL the specialty knots found on an actual ship. Possible exceptions would be the Fishermans Bend (and near cousins) and Clove Hitch often found on the anchor. And this only because the anchor cable is so thick. Some knots are have properties that make them superior for certain tasks at any scale and the Clove Hitch is probably the second knot you should use on a model, after the Overhand Knot. Clove Hitches are easy to tie and are used on the ratlines on the shrouds ( so you may wind up tying hundreds of them on your model) but they are also THE BEST knot for tying a line to any cylindrical object, at any scale. Finally I will put in a plug for the Constrictor Knot, which I think is the third indispensable knot to know. Its very similar to the Clove Hitch but holds so tight it never loosens once tightened. This becomes very useful in ship model building.

I never got the memo the skylight on the Heller Victory was situated wrong. Sigh. Oh well, one more thing I will have to live with. Because I am NOT pulling the poop deck apart at this point!. Is there a list somewhere of all the things contested or controversial about the Heller Victory? I know already about the entry port and the stern davits. What else is considered wrong? ( aside from the kit supplied blocks and deadeys, and perhaps the thickness of the hull at the gunport openings.)

If there are exterior sliding doors on wood ships I am sure there will be some documentation somewhere and it is only a matter of time before someone here posts a drawing or a photo. I still think they would be more trouble than they would be worth. A swinging door opening onto the deck would not be impeding anything, a sliding door would not be an advantage while also being more difficult to build and maintain.

The photo looks a lot like a sliding door, but I can't rationalize a need for one aboard. Why not just an ordinary hung door? But as I said, it does look like it slides. I can't rationalize making the door watertight or excessively weatherproof either, and there are many accounts of water sloshing around within deckhouses. The crew were used to it, complained about it, but endured it. I can imagine a tight fitting sliding door becoming stuck with the working of the ship and the warping of the framework. But a regular hung door is robust and simple.

Depending on the scale of your model, adding actual serving will bulk up the rigging and if your serving thread is too thick, its going to be unrealistic. Actual serving stuff on a real ship is about as thick as a bootlace for most applications, with stuff as thick as 1/4" for the largest of the stays. Sometimes a coat of paint is going to be just as thick as an in-scale serving job on the lighter lines. Consider that a real serving will not transform the corkscrew shape of the line into a perfect cylinder, the peaks and valleys of the strands and scores will be smoothed over somewhat, but there is still a discernible corkscrew or helical shape to a line that has been served. But do by all means serve some of the rigging! It takes the detail on your model to a better level of accuracy and it adds another level of texture to the whole impression of the ship.

Take the perspective that serving was put on to protect the line beneath it from chafe and weather. I doubt you will ever find a definitive list of "what got served and what did not on this vessel at this date", but you can see there is consensus that the forwardmost shroud on every mast with a square yard on it will be served over its entire length- this because the sail would abrade it routinely. Also the portion of every shroud that encircles the masthead is served, and served for several feet below the tops too. The larger stays are often served over their entire length. nearly every splice on every stay will be served and nearly every eye thus formed. You COULD go ahead and serve every bit of all the standing rigging and I doubt anyone could say you were being inaccurate since its plausible this was sometimes done. My personal theory is that every boatswain on every ship would prefer to have everything served, but there would never be enough resources at hand to do it all so the serving would go onto the places that needed it most before other concerns aboard would necessitate spending the resources in material and manpower on other projects.