Tony Hunt

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. SLR 0662 Scale: 1:48? A modern exhibition style waterline model of the merchant brig ‘Peter & Sarah’ (circa 1809) built plank on frame and fully rigged with sails set. This model is complete with scale figures and represents a typical merchant trading brig of the early nineteenth century of about 47 tons gross. The rig is known as a ‘polacca’ where the foremast is a single ‘pole’ spar as opposed the traditional two part upper and lower sectioned type, and the fore course is rigged to a boom rather than loose footed. The ‘Peter & Sarah’ was registered at Bideford, Devon and traded in general cargo around most of the major ports in the British Isles, including pilchards from Newquay to the Mediterranean. 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.

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

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.

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! ☺️

It's looking great Ilhan. This is going to be a very beautiful model when it's finished.

I'm glad to hear you're already in touch with Nick B, he's a great guy and a goldmine of scholarly knowledge about early ships. He's also a builder of extraordinarily good ship models.

That's a very charming model. Are you restoring it? Like Louie, Junks aren't aren't something I know much about, but I'll be fascinated to see what answers come back.

Great to see you back Hyw.

Yes, please keep posting, I'm can't wait to see how this model looks when it's finished.

Looking good. It's a very handsome ship, should make a great looking model. I'm looking forward to seeing it progress!

Awesome! Nick Burningham is a friend of mine, if you have any questions about the Nautical Archaeology article you've referenced I'm happy to pass them on to him.

I agree with LdeF. This is an exercise in practical archaeology, and it is not only fascinating but has real academic value. In my opinion, anyway! Keep up the good work, I love it.