BANYAN

Sorry to hear, its bad enough having the back pain yet alone not being able to do much modelling Hope things improve rapidly for you Pat

Great progress, and a major milestone achieved John. Those sails are looking good. cheers Pat

What a stunning finish Keith, worth every one of those 14 coats. cheers Pat

What a great touch; some very 'noice' detail you are adding to this model Greg. cheers Pat

She looking great Keith, some lovely detailing there. I am enjoying watching her progress - the yard supervisor must be happy with the build cheers Pat

It's always good to take a break and simply soak in your accomplishments. You've done a grand job with her so ENJOY cheers Pat

Hi, I am researching a ship built in 1855, and by her contract, and the discussions/descriptions provided by the contemporary and latter 19th century authors, the false keel was put on last and was NOT sheathed, as it was 'sacrificial'. What happened in earlier ships I am not familiar with. Also, in a letter from the ship's build superintendent to the Governor of the Colony of Victoria, reporting the progress of the vessel's build, he states: … About two thirds of the False Keel is on, the main Keel having been first coppered on the underside, and: … cheers Pat

Stunning work Ilhan, that looks terrific. cheers Pat

A bit of both is my guess Haiko. I have seen/heard pictures and discussions where the decks were put in and the hatches cut in later (with the deck fully planked or roughly left vacant in the hatch area but still needing to be cut to size if that makes sense), and where the deck plank were put in around the hatch coaming. cheers Pat

Nice work on the jibs John, she will be a great looking model when you finish your restoration. cheers Pat

A very effective outcome Greg; looks great - a top-notch diorama. cheers Pat

You're doing a great job with that rigging Bob, coming along very nicely. The supervisors must be happy? My biggest issue with tools is that 'I am a neat freak' and I store everything away as soon as I finish with it, often forgetting just where . It sometimes takes me longer to find 'that' tool than doing the job. cheers Pat

Sorry to hear about your back problems Vossie, best wishes for a full and speedy recovery. Makes you wonder why some of these companies do not pack their items better. I understanding making savings where possible, but packaging is one area that proper packing would negate the costs of replacements etc. Hope it all is still in alignment? cheers Pat

Best wishes for a quick recovery Keith, sorry to hear about the bung wing. cheers Pat

Hi Haiko, I'm a bit of a late comer to your build party, apologies mate. Your build to date looks great, a nicely aligned skeleton and the planking is going on very well. Look forward to seeing you progress. cheers Pat

That is looking really good Keith; just the right amount of grime. cheers Pat

Hi Eberhard, this may be excuse you need to get that 3D printer you have hinted at cheers Pat

That is some excellent work mate. Those thimble are just the right size, look good and the served line looks very realistic for a newly served line/rope. cheers Pat

Thanks @wefalck and @Jim Lad, appreciate the feedback and information. Just to clarify/add to my initial info. I should have provided all of this yesterday - sorry): 1. The lithographs show the main fore-and-aft sails laced to the boom (In the rigging warrant these are termed the foresail, mainsail and the spanker). 2. All masts were fitted with a single boom and two different gaffs (one for main sails, and one for the trysail) - all were lifting gaffs with the luff seized to sliding hoops. 3. Being a Barque and a steamer, the contemporary authors advise that the trysail was not triangular, but rather a smaller version of the main sails (quadrangular) and were laced to a wire (vertical) jackstay, but used a shorter gaff. 4. As best I can determine the storm sails were the same quadrilateral rather than triangular (staysail) shape. These also used the trysail gaff, but were laced to a wire (vertical) jackstay. 5. A sheet pendant associated with a sheet tackle is listed against the fore and main booms only (not for the spanker). 6. Boom sheets (guys) are listed against all booms. 7. Brails are listed against the fore and main sails (NOT the spanker). 8. The lithographs show that all of the main fore-and-aft sails had reefing nettles (3 bands) and the rigging warrant lists reefing pendants with reefing tackles. These were worked using reefing combs fitted aft, on either side of each boom. Notes: The above sail outfit is confirmed by their listing in two stores survey reports reported in December of 1858 and 1860. The advice about sail shape is from Nares, Burney and Kipping all writing in the mid to late 1850s and early 1860s. From your advice and the above, I have deduced (assumed) that: A. The primary fore-and-aft sails were used in fair weather and all were laced at both the foot and the head. B. The correspondence from the ship's designer informs that the primary fore-and-aft sails were intended to be used in conjunction with light courses (these were slightly smaller than typical square lower sails, and used No.2 canvass). Sometimes only the fore course was used (based on the imagery, log entries etc.) C. The trysails were for moderate to heavy weather/winds (heavier canvass) and were loose footed. Brails used with these. D. The storm sails were for very bad weather/storms (heaviest canvass) and were also loose footed. Brails were also used with these. E. As there is NO sheet pendant/tackle (only boom sheets/guys), I am assuming that the spanker, trysail and storm sail for the mizen were all laced and did not require brails.

Hi all, I am trying to ascertain why Brails are listed in HMCSS Victoria's Rigging Warrant against the fore-and-aft sails. Based on the imagery (2 x lithographs which have proven very accurate) the foresail, mainsail and spanker were all laced to both the boom and the gaff. These sails were also gaff hoisted and lowered (worked). However the Rigging Warrant lists peak, throat and foot brails against that mast for the fore-and-aft sails. Additionally, she was outfitted with trysails and separate storm sails. The authors writing in this era (mostly Nares, Lever, Luce and Burney) suggest that these latter sails were loose footed. One last point, no sheet pendant or sheet tackle is listed against the spanker. I am therefore assuming that all sails on the mizen mast were laced to both the gaff and boom (no square sails as she was Barque rigged). Having no experience with sailing larger vessels (bigger than a whaler ) I hope some of you more experienced people may offer a little advice. Would a sail laced to both the gaff and the boom need brails, especially noting the lifting gaff? If the trysail and storm sail were both loose footed, but laced to the gaff (a different slightly smaller gaff than used with the fore/main sails etc.), do they require brails to control it, especially when tacking? I am assuming that with a loose footed sail, along with the sheet, these will have helped shape the sail, but I am confused with a stated purpose (by the above authors) that they were also used for furling. As the gaff will have been lowered, and the sail gathered in and furled by men on the deck (at the boom) when furling, how would these assist furling? Am I correct in assuming that if no sheet is provided for the spanker boom/gaff, the trysail and storm sail will also have been laced to the boom on the mizen? I have established how they were rigged, so I am basically trying to determine which fore-and-aft sails required brails, and how they work for those sails if required. many thanks Pat

Hi Marcus, that looks suspiciously like a 'leadsman platform' to me. cheers Pat

Your sternwheeler machinery is coming along really well Keith, great detail to add a lot interest. cheers Pat

That is a masterpiece of SIB modelling Glen. Love your explanation and execution of the weathering; those pieces of wood and the rusty chain look the 'real' deal mate. cheers Pat

Hi again Haiko, I don't think the following is where I read this, so will keep looking on an opportunity basis. Falconer page 136 under his long description about 'Engagement" (in the New Universal Dictionary of the Marine - 1856 Edition) offers the following at the order "Up all hammocks" - this is a short excerpt only - As each side of the quarter-deck and poop is furnished, generally, with a double net-work, supported by iron cranes fixed immediately above the gunwale, or top of the ship's side, the hammocks, thus corded, are firmly stowed by the quarter-masters between the two parts of the netting, so as to form an excellent barrier. The tops, waist and the forecastle are then fenced in the same manner." Unfortunately, I think the use of 'tops' in this instance may refer to the 'part of ship' but I am not fully convinced of this. In my Navy days, we stilled called the central part of the ship the 'tops'. It may be that the reference you found could be referring to the same thing? However, most literature and texts that I have read refer to the central part of the ship as the 'waist'. We may need further input on this. As I said, this is probably not the article I had read previously. My recall was that the hammocks were deliberately placed in the 'fighting tops' to protect the marksmen. As most of the marksmen were probably drawn from the Marines, it is possible that it was their hammocks that were used? I'll keep looking. cheers Pat

Braver man than m e John, all that extra rigging to put in place (sail control/handling lines) She's comiing along really nicely; I'll bet the museum staff are chuffed with it. cheers Pat