Tony Hunt

Awesome!  Thanks for showing them, they're great. And quite beautiful, too.

You're a precision factory in human form, Bitao! ☺️

2 hours ago, bitao7697 said:

 

I like these clamps, they're perfect for this application.  Did you make them yourself?  I'd be interested to see what the other (outside) end looks like, too.

Wow.

Another source that might be useful is the work of Joseph Needham, a Cambridge scholar who devoted most of his life to studying the development of technology in China. It turns out most of everything was first invented in China.  His monumental life work is documented in 27 volumes of Science and Civilisation in China, published by Cambridge University.  I recall from reading his biography (The man who loved China) that one of the fundamental technologies invented in China was the rudder.

The synopsis below is from Wikipedia:

Science and Civilisation in China

In 1948, Needham proposed a project to the Cambridge University Press for a book on Science and Civilisation in China. Within weeks of being accepted, the project had grown to seven volumes, and it has expanded ever since. His initial collaborator was the historian Wang Ling (王玲), whom he had met in Lizhuang and obtained a position for at Trinity. The first years were devoted to compiling a list of every mechanical invention and abstract idea that had been made and conceived in China. These included cast iron, the ploughshare, the stirrup, gunpowder, printing, the magnetic compass and clockwork escapements, most of which were thought at the time to be western inventions. The first volume eventually appeared in 1954.

The publication received widespread acclaim, which intensified to lyricism as the further volumes appeared. He wrote fifteen volumes himself, and the regular production of further volumes continued after his death in 1995. Later, Volume III was divided, so that 27 volumes have now been published. Successive volumes are published as they are completed, which means that they do not appear in the order originally contemplated in the project's prospectus.

Needham's final organizing schema was:

• Vol. I. Introductory Orientations
• Vol. II. History of Scientific Thought
• Vol. III. Mathematics and the Sciences of the Heavens and Earth
• Vol. IV. Physics and Physical Technology
• Vol. V. Chemistry and Chemical Technology
• Vol. VI. Biology and Biological Technology
• Vol. VII. The Social Background

See Science and Civilisation in China for a full list.

The project is still proceeding under the guidance of the Publications Board of the Needham Research Institute, directed by Professor Mei Jianjun.

What an interesting discussion - especially as an Australian, for whom most of these timbers are exotic and/or unobtainable except from specialist suppliers (at correspondingly high cost).  I was surprised Holly wasn't mentioned until Bob brought it up, I understand it has been used as an alternative to boxwood in the UK.

Privet (also mentioned by Bob) is quite nice to work, close grained, although the colour is a bit ordinary, a sort of dirty greyish-white in my experience.

I know chestnuts have disappeared from America, but I wonder if it is still available from timber recyclers?  Here in Australia, timber recyclers are a good source of some of the finest local timbers, especially New Zealand Kauri, which was widely used in floorboards about 100 years ago, so is readily available in boards 6" wide and 3/4" thick, in long lengths. Perhaps there is an equivalent in North America?

1 hour ago, GuntherMT said:

I've always thought these ships were lookers.

I totally agree.  Along with the WW2 Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, I think the Alaska-class battlecruisers were just about the best looking modern warships.  Pity about that gun tub perched right on the bows though!

It is looking fantastic Alex. Lovely, clean, crisp work.

The work begins. Exciting!

That said, if there were three blocks on the mast it would allow both ends of the tackle to be running. If this was set up as Rich has shown on the Kate Cory, with the fall from the upper block running down the starboard side and kept belayed (so in effect a standing end, but adjustable) while the fall from the lower block runs down the port side to the purchase tackle, that arrangement would allow the upper block of the purchase tackle to be kept from jamming against the lower masthead block when lowering the boom (by letting out more line from the belayed end).  I suspect that the purchase tackle will have enough length to allow the inboard end of the gaff to be lowered to the boom, it will presumably just be kissing the lower masthead block at that point. It would then be belayed, and the peak of the gaff could then be lowered using the other (starboard) running end of the tackle, which could then be cast off to trim the gaff down onto the boom.  I can't imagine you would have two running ends in play at the same time, too much to go wrong, even with an experienced crew.  In this setup the heavy work of hoisting the gaff and it's sail from the stowed position on the boom up to the sailing position would be done by the purchase tackles on the throat halliard and (to a lesser extent) the peak halliard. The relatively lighter work of trimming the peak of the sail would be done by the tackles between the gaff and the mast.

So perhaps there is a third block on the doublings but it is lower down and so isn't visible in the photo.

Hi Pat

I took a look at the two lithographs of Victoria, and as I'm sure you know they are both very consistent in how they depict the rigging of the peak halliard - two blocks on the fore and main gaffs and three on the mast, plus presumably a purchase on the fall running down toward the deck.  However, this doesn't seem to be consistent with what can be seen in the broadside photo at the SLV - only two peak halyard blocks are visible on the aft side of the doublings of the fore and main lower masts, just below the cap.  Unfortunately I can't clearly see the lines leading to the block(s) on the boom, which is lowered, but the lines running up from the innermost block on the foremast gaff appear to be running as a parallel pair, implying that the standing end of the halliard is attached to the lower of the two blocks on the mast.  This would be consistent with the normal arrangement which would see the running end of the halliard pass through the uppermost block on the masthead and then head down beside the mast to the deck (or the to the upper end of the purchase tackle).

Annoyingly, the photo of the officers on the quarterdeck (also in the SLV) just clips off the main boom short of where the view would get interesting, although it does clearly show there is only one peak halliard block on the mizzen gaff, which is consistent with what is shown in the lithographs.

So the lithographs do seem to have a rig using 5+2 blocks, but the photo only shows a 4+2 arrangement.

Do you know how good the resolution is on the original photo plate?  They're often pretty good.... It would be nice to get a sharper view.

On the subject of the rigging on the course, the painting in the NGV showing the ship with the sails partly hauled up pretty clearly shows the forecourse has two buntlines and what could easily be a slabline in the middle.

Sensational!  (sorry - I was trying to avoid re-using everyone else's superlatives). The model is just so interesting to look at, the case with the backdrop really adds to the whole and brings it even more to life.  The research behind the build has been fascinating.  I can't blame the fly for wanting to get in on the act. 😁

Hi Pat

Interesting questions - I'll have to think about this!  Gut feeling is I don't think the peak halliard would work with two running ends.  Perhaps the the arrangement of the blocks should be reconsidered (although the way you've done it does seem logical). Three on the gaff and two on the mast perhaps?  It  is interesting that they have specified 3 x 10" blocks and 2 x 9" blocks, it's very specific and implies a difference in loadings at various points in the set up.

I also think that surely the purchase using the 2 x 7" blocks would be for the throat halliard?  In my experience of sailing on gaffers (small ones!) the throat halliard is the tackle that does the real lifting, the peak halliard mainly just trims the spar to the right angle to get the sail setting nicely.  It's the fine adjustment, not the brute force.

Re the buntlines and slab line, an arrangement with two buntlines and a slabline in the middle seems quite practical to me.  My understanding of a slabline is that it is afixed to the front of the yard, runs loose under the foot of the sail and up the rear of the sail to a block on the yard. So it doesn't really pull the foot of the sail up to the rear of the yard, it just gathers up the foot of the sail evenly.

This is all said from memory - I'll reread Underhill and Harland this evening!

Cheers

Tony

Hi Grant

I guess the link timed out. Never mind, you shouldn't need a membership - I don't have one! 😁

I got there simply by typing "A Staunch Ship's Sea Story" into the Google search bar. The first link that came up took me straight to the SLV on-line version of the book.

Don't get too excited though, it's a pretty "old school" volume, typical of its time. Interesting, but I doubt it will help much with the model.

Cheers

Tony

Thank you Thanasis, that's very interesting.  For sure, the naming conventions for sailing vessels (especially small craft) are rocky waters to navigate. 🙂

I get the impression that this is particularly true in the Mediterranean region.  The maritime history goes back thousands of years, there are so many different countries and languages involved, and numerous different shipbuilding and rigging traditions, all of which has led to an amazing number of different types of vessels that have mixed and evolved over the centuries.

Adding to this confusion, at least for English-speaking people, is the strong habit in the English language of co-opting useful words from other languages, often changing their spelling (and sometimes their meaning!) in the process.  Across several hundred years of English mariners sailing the waters of the Med, I have little doubt that there has been a great deal of such cultural appropriation of nautical terms.  From the discussion above, this certainly seems to be the case with the term "Polacca" as an excellent example.  I've no doubt that Bob Cleek has the origin of the term correct with respect to the corsair ships of Murat Reis around 1600 or thereabouts.  However, by the early 1800s it looks like the term was being applied to an entirely different type of vessel with little regard for its original derivation, and by the 1840s it was even being used in the official registers of British shipping.

All of which suggests that the only really correct answer would be to find out what the locals named these vessels.  Which leads me to ask where these photographs come from - are they Greek in origin?  

Yes, I think we're making progress here.  I suspect that, just like the "Galiot", the term polacca (in it's various spellings) was applied to some quite different rigs.  The ships of Murat Reis the younger may have been the origin of the name but he sailed a long time ago (1570-1641) so that usage has about a much currency as the Galiots! I think the term was applied much more widely over the following centuries.

It's worth noting that David R MacGregor also provides a detailed review of the rig (he refers to it as a Poleacre) in pages 130-134 of Merchant Sailing Ships 1815-1850. In the early decades of the 19th century this rig was familiar (if not common) in England, presumably as a result of prizes being bought into the British mercantile fleet during the Napleonic wars.  The piece includes a photo of "Peter and Sarah" taken at Padstow in the 1850s, that appears to be the basis of the model pictured above.  It's clear from what he writes that poleacres, or polaccas, came as both brigs and brigantines, and these terms were for a time used somewhat interchangeably, at least in the official shipping records.

Apparently the original research on these ships in English waters was done by Vernon Boyle and published in Vol 18 of the Mariners Mirror under the wonderful title "The Bideford Polackers".  So another spelling appears! 

Well, I'll again refer to Underhill. Pages 70-72 of Deepwater Sail describes a Mediterranean rig he refers to as a Polacca brigantine, a distinguishing feature of which was that it the square rig was carried on a pole mast (hence the name) with no tops or cross trees.  There is a model of one in the Royal (National) Maritime Museum at Greenwich, see below, interesting that it is a British-registered vessel. 

Doesn't look like a stretch to me. 😀

The resemblance to Thanasis's lovely model of a "Polacra" is striking, too.

Aldo Cherini's website looks wonderful, thanks for the link. Hours of detour coming up!

For sure, galiot is a term that was applied to many ship types, not an uncommon thing.  However, I'm not convinced that the term jackass-rig is really applicable - as John notes, these are Mediterranean rigs and therefore may well have their own, quite specific names.

Re #2, unfortunately the foresail is masking the transition from lower mast to topmast. In the photo it looks like they don't quite align implying the topmast is fidded, but that may just be an optical illusion.  My point being, that if it is a pole mast then perhaps this is an example of the rig referred to in the Med as a polacre (or polacca) - a bit like the lovely model of Bombarda Sabatiera by Thanasis?  Intriguingly, it looks like there is another example in the left background of picture #3, which to be fair looks more brigantine-like to me. At the very least it appears to have a topgallant!

It's a poor form of discussion when the first resort is to denigrate anyone who disagrees with you. Poorer still to double down on that. And just for the record, I've done many thousands of miles at sea, under sail. 😀 

Anyway, jackasses aside 😁, back to rig #2.  On further reflection, it rather resembles a Galiot (per the model below), although the hull looks much more Mediterranean than North Sea, and I think the Galiot was very much a rig of the North Sea and the Baltic.  I am sure that all these rigs had local names, it would be interesting to know if there was a formal nomenclature for them.

The USN Boxer is most undoubtedly a brigantine, no debate there.  It has a fully square-rigged foremast, not a schooners foremast with a couple of square topsails.  The lower mast is short - barely half the height of the lower mainmast, so it sets a forecourse, much wider than it is deep, rather than a square foresail, much deeper than it is wide.  This is topped by a single topsail, a single topgallant and a royal.   In all of that it bears very little resemblance to the rig in #2.

Ketches commonly carried square sails on the foremast in older times.  There are a number of well-known model subjects of such vessels - Speedwell, Granado etc. It's only in more recent times that the ketch rig became a purely fore-and-aft rig.

As DrPR notes, there are many variations on all of these rigs, some of which defy the most fervent taxonomist.  

57 minutes ago, Bob Cleek said:

 

Harold Underhill was British, so we have to keep that in mind. He uses European nomenclature. There's no such thing as a "topsail ketch." It is, or once was, common to see a cruising ketch flying a square sail or two downwind in the trades, often from a yard sent aloft for the occasion rather than permanently rigged to the mast. This arrangement frequently would include a single boom with a rafee (triangular) topsail and a square course. Vessels employing that rig were still ketches. What is distinctive is indeed the absence of a gaff-rigged sail on the foremast. If there isn't a boomed sail on the foremast, it's a brigantine or "hermaphrodite brig." Not a ketch. A ketch must have two fore and aft boomed sails. The staysails instead of the boomed sail are what make it a brigantine (or an hermaphrodite brig in European nomenclature."

 

"Fully-square rigged" is really a meaningless lubbers' term, like "tall ship." (Which is actually a marketing term invented by the advertising agency for the Sail Training Association.) There's no such thing as a "partial square rig." If a vessel carries square sails, those sails are "square-rigged." Simple as that. It isn't the presence of a certain number of square sails, but rather the absence of boomed fore an aft sails that determines the difference between a brigantine and a square topsail schooner.

 

Having a "fairly short fore (lower) mast" doesn't enter into it. Look at the pictures I posted of USS Boxer. She was classified by the United States Navy as a brigantine and I'm betting they knew what the proper names for the rigs on their ships were, no?  

 

At least, that's my story and I'm sticking to it!  

A lubber?

Good day to you, sir.  

Happy New Year Grant. I've long admired Underhill's plans for the Harriet McGregor, so it's great to see a model of her being built. Particularly as it is such a lovely piece of craftsmanship, too!

By the way, the book about the Harriet that was briefly referred to is available on-line thanks to the Sate Library of Victoria - see http://digital.slv.vic.gov.au/view/action/singleViewer.do?dvs=1609571372804~241&locale=en_US&metadata_object_ratio=10&show_metadata=true&VIEWER_URL=/view/action/singleViewer.do?&preferred_usage_type=VIEW_MAIN&DELIVERY_RULE_ID=10&frameId=1&usePid1=true&usePid2=true

Cheers

Tony

Fabulous detail. Wow.

I follow Harold Underhill's guidance when it comes to naming rigs.  I therefore agree with Mark P, I don't think #2 is a brigantine either. More like a topsail ketch, a rare rig but certainly one that existed, although it is strange that it has staysails between the masts rather than a gaff foresail on the foremast.

To be a brigantine it needs to have a fully square-rigged foremast, which typically includes having a fairly short fore (lower) mast. The mast on #2 is more like the foremast of a topsail schooner (except that as the mainmast is shorter than the foremast it can't be a schooner). It's an unusual rig, for sure.  A bit of a dog's breakfast!

Thanasis, nice work on identifying #3. The sketches from the ANZAC soldier nail it, don't they?  I assume this rig must have had a local name, but I'm no expert on naming conventions for Mediterranean rigs so I'll abstain on that one.

I agree that #1 and #4 are fore and aft staysail schooners.

14 hours ago, Jaager said:

Would it be possible that the link be provided?

Apologies!

http://www.veniceboats.com/it-pubblicazioni-catalogo-libri.htm

Only 32 Euro from the author' website - a bargain!

It sounds like it might be a business opportunity! ☺️