shipman

Boxwood rulers! Boot sales and jumbles are a good source. The older the better. If you can find old printers blocks, great stuff. It's surprising what's lurking about. A simple plane can cut lovely planks from the edge of a ruler. Sharp tools or none at all. Looking at period models in museums made of Box and comparing the rubbish kit supplied open grain hardwoods.....I rest my case. Of course other woods have their uses but Box is surely the 'King' in this hobby.

Hi Lou, Davis no doubt was quoting some original source, I can only assume some Admiralty dictat. But I imagine that's a good rule of thumb for 'new build' ships as we can get now. As for wanting a simpler formula, remember things were done very differently back then. I accept there must have been considerable variations, especially when ships were adapted from their original use and/or when guns were uprated or down-rated. I do enjoy these opportunities for debate on the forum. Thank you for your welcome contribution. That's why I try to broaden my outlook on these subjects and sometimes ask challenging questions. At no time have I any wish to be abrasive or rude to anyone. It's a joy to be here.

Greetings John. I have no doubt you are correct. However, restoring a house today, that may have been restored umpteen times over 250 years, how do you judge from what period the glass was made? Having the misfortune to be living in England I have the delight of being able to see plenty of buildings, some of which can be up to a thousand years old. I can't remember seeing one that had anything other than clear glass. That doesn't mean any of it is original. Certainly during the Georgian period, posh Palladian houses would have nothing but the best. Look up Walter Wilkinson's 'Puppet' books; between the wars, each summer, he dragged a wheelbarrow, upon which was his 'Punch and Judy' show, all over the British Isles; an itinerant entertainer of sorts (no tv then). One of his journeys took him within 10 miles of where I am now. He describes accepting the hospitality of a family living in an old cottage on the 'Great North Road'. He points out that none of the windows had any glass fitted. Instead they were fitted with oiled heavy paper. That was about 20 years before I was born, so not long ago it could confidently be said to be within living memory. The cottages made way for a road widening scheme post war. Walt, having recently been mislead myself by dubious 'facts' gleaned from Wikipedia I would suggest anything there should be cross referenced with more 'reliable' sources. Dafi, how's my order for your etch ringbolts and hooks coming along? (sent you ANOTHER e-mail earlier today).

Victory at Traffalgar: I've read several contemporary accounts that the inside of the bulwarks were painted yellow. Bellow decks being whitewashed. I understand, once out of the dockyard, the cost of painting , or any other aspect of the ship's 'decoration' came out of the captains pocket. The more pigment, the dearer the paint. Of course, some officers weren't short of a bob or two, and as always, to some, Bling is paramount. It makes sense to me at least, that timbers had a regular coat of linseed oil. Ships manifest included a considerable volume of the stuff. I think the tar was used on the rigging, tops and spars and probably on the wales. Sunlight, weather and repeated coatings would make this treated wood progressively darker over time. Can't remember where I read this, but the colours of the ships boats were painted with virtual washes of muted earth colours. The hull below the waterline being tallowed, presumably looking yellowish white, not pure white. I've often wondered if each boat had its own colour, including oars, masts, thwarts etc. as an aid to identifying what goes where. Again, dedicated officers boats could be embellished with Bling also. I think it would make sense that wood treatments would be more of a practical nature, with no consideration for future modellers desire to (understandably?) make there work ornamental, to some degree, to keep the wife happy!

Distasteful as it may seem, it's no coincidence that the Marine's Walk was directly above the crew's latrines. The heads were out of sight from the rest of the ship, considering the size of the crew, there weren't many to go round. Presumably a duty Marine was there to monitor aspects of discipline. Doesn't take a lot of imagining. As for the quarter galleries; I'd be surprised if any meaningful view of anything shipboard was visible, let alone the set of the sails. What we accept as glass today as probably very different back then. I have read it was quite opaque, similar to lightly sand-blasted glass. Few if any modern models reflect this, if you'll pardon the pun.

Came across this relevant info in my library today. The Ship Model Builders Assistant by Charles Davis. Pages 229 and 230. States that port dimensions are indeed related to gun calibre/diameter (c1750). He also includes American Navy gun ports (c1850), which are somewhat larger. Also included is a formula to calculate the diameter of shot from its weight. Useful stuff, I hope.

Guy's, dafi sells a big sheet of etch brass with thousands of eye-bolts and hooks and appears to be tremendous value. However, according to his website you select the option to send the required e-mail. This I've done several times to no avail. In fact I've just had a final attempt. If my experience is anything to go by, then dafi is losing a lot of custom. It done my brain in.

mtaylor, thanks for the quick heads up response. Followed it through and found the useful pdf file. Grateful for that. However, my original post was about my frustration with trying to follow up items within the forum. Again, if I wasn't aware of 'Model Expo' it's the same issue. Call me old fashioned, but if I was looking at a book, it is often a simple matter to look at the index and find what I'm looking for. I'm all in favour of progress. Couldn't there be a proper alphabetical index on the forum, which would make life a lot easier. That would bring this modern tech back into the 18th century! Please forgive me, I suppose this is really a matter for the moderators to address. But thanks for your kind reply.

Hi, Maury S, I'm new to this forum and have a lot to learn and am probably dumber than most. Above, you say, 'The instructions / illustrations for Chuck's.....'. Without a hot link how the heck do you find those instructions if you don't know exactly where they are. Entering the details into the search box just brings up posts that make a similar referral. The only other thing I can try is to spend hours trawling through all the listings of 'masting and rigging etc'. which is laborious and frustrating. It's not just your post, this occurs all the time. And like anyone else; I've only got so much time. Please tell me, is there a better way? Thank you and my best wishes.

Just read 'A Frigate of King George' by Brian Vale. Based on the ships logs HMS Doris 42 guns. Page 78; 'to keep out the cold, the lower halves of the gun ports were caulked.....' I assume if the wind could get in, so could the sea. On a slightly different tack.......pre WW1, an Admiralty study of average wave height in different sea states. at the lower end of the scale 0-5, waves could be expected up to 8 feet high. No matter the era, the sea is the sea, which sheds a little light on how vulnerable gun ports could be to water exposure.

Hi LOU, Another factor I've read in several sources:- if battle was expected (like Trafalgar) ships would take down their best sails and use older well used sails, knowing damage was inevitable, knowing the French tactics were to disable an opponent by destroying his motive power. Those top-men must have been busy chaps!

Hello there, I have a query:- often it is said, 'add a tiny drop of 2-part epoxy'. This part of the planet that means Araldite. Well, if you have just a couple or three eye-bolts to attach, my experience with the stuff tells me you're going to waste a lot of it, even if you just dispense the smallest blob. Then there's the problem with the screw caps locking up. Araldite has a lot of usefulness, but for ring-bolts etc., surely there's a better product. Has anyone tried what could be a suitable 'Locktight' product?

Hi guy's, I've enjoyed your perceptive comments and observations, some rather thrilling. Just a thought to put my ha'perth in; as I understand it, a ship would only go to a full spread of canvas (including stunsails) during and to maximise from a period of light winds. Presumably in such conditions the sea would be relatively smooth. Surely it would be folly to be crashing through a heavy sea with all sails set. The entire plot would be ripped apart! Heave Ho, lads!

Hi, forgive me if this is the wrong area to ask this question. Perhaps it's been covered in the past, however, it's occurred to me, for extreme miniatures, has anyone any experience using human hair for rigging? Judging by the age of Victorian 'momento moiry', hair lasts forever and surely would be a better substitute than nylon mono-filament, very thin wire or stretched plastic sprue which are commonly used. And at these scales hair is a lot stronger and comes in a variety of colours. I'd appreciate feedback on the topic, thank you.

While being laudable, the book on ships boats by May is unique, sadly all the plans are poor reproductions of draughts from the NMM. Like many other maritime books, I think I've seen enough of this cheap and grubby practice of raiding the archives and cheaply reproducing far too small facsimilie of much larger source material. I'm old enough to remember that the only way to see these drawings, once upon a time, was an expensive trip to Greenwich. Perhaps we're living in an age where there's too much of a good thing! Surely there is room to produced a good book of clean common (1:48?) scale drawings in the style of the 'Anatomy of the ship' series. In fact the publishers have all the artwork necessary to put together a comprehensive compendium. That would be a true service to the ship model community. Put my name first on the delivery list.

Guy's, I surrender my sword. It just goes to show how easy it can be to be mislead by unreliable sources. my original figures came from a quick Google search. Your collective responses have driven me to my dusty bookshelves (really must organise them better). The first tomes to hand, AOTS Victory and the Ballantyne/Eastland book of the ship both refer to Slades original intention that the gun port sills should ride 5'3'' fully laden, however, at launch it was this was 9'' lower than expected, giving 4'6''. Google give this figure at launch! There was concern the ports would have to remain closed in action if a sea was running. Fortunately, Victory never went into combat in anything other than calm water. Eventually I will unearth the information about caulking port lids in rough weather being common practice. It would seem Victory was a prime candidate for this, but the information didn't refer to this specific ship. As for water coming on-board, ships weren't always driven into a head sea, big waves came in all directions. Catch a look at the old films of clippers in storms on youtube with decks seriously awash, some of which may have been shot by that doyen Alan Villiers. My respects, Gentlemen.

Hi Talos, I admit I was wrong in my assumption as to how low Victories' gun-port sills were. At launch they were 4'6'' above the water. However, at launch the ship wasn't complete by a long way. No guns, many fixtures and fitting absent, no masts or cordage, minimal ballast, no stores or crew. All of which adds up to a not inconsiderable tonnage. Without ploughing through a heap of books, I would suggest the lower gun deck must have been pretty close to the waterline at full load; the sills being only 2 feet above the deck, so that is only 6 inches above my original assumption of perhaps 1'6'' above water. The sea is rarely flat. I will attempt to find the actual figures. Thanks for the illustration showing hammocks stowed in the waist, a familiar feature. When did this practice originate? A single decker such as this would have been even more prone to having heavy seas coming over the bulwarks. Once aboard the biggest and most obvious drainage rout would have been straight through the proportionally massive open waist and directly into the rest of the ship. Bearing in mind the British spent prolonged periods in all weathers blockading French ports and were rarely and reluctantly forced to abandon their duty on station, surely there must have been provision to minimise incoming water, otherwise a ship would surely and rapidly become awash. I'm enjoying the opportunity for this discourse, and am keen to hear from members with actual deep sea sailing experience on this matter. Thanks to you and everyone else for humouring my curiosity. To be here is my privilege and pleasure.

Har Har, uss frolick. I did read somewhere sometime, that it was common practice to caulk gun port lids shut in heavy weather, which if you look at these lids they often have a small 'port' lid in the middle with that distinctive horseshoe hinge, presumably to gain a little ventilation. It's hard to imagine, but all these sailing ships were relatively small compared to ships these days and you know how even large modern ships can be thrown about like the proverbial cork in a big storm. Can't remember how near the water 'Victory's' lower gun ports were, but it could have been only about foot or so when fully loaded. Crikey! Had another thought today....when did hammock nettings/cradles come into common use? And is there any evidence to suggest the open waists had some sort of canvass covering during heavy weather. Again, in a storm, they must have taken regular green seas over the bulwarks. Sailors were seriously tough then, and there was a significant number discharged with insanity. Truly a different world. I also believe it was common to rig nets over the open decks, to catch any falling tackle/debris, especially during combat. When was the last time that you saw that feature on a model? Thanks again to everyone who has contributed to this post. Much appreciated.

Thanks for the heads up guys, I'll be delving into your suggestions. dafi !!! I'm honoured with this tenuous contact. I've sent you a couple of e-mails recently; wishing to order your sheet of brass ringbolts and hooks. Unfortunately I've had no response. Must be doing something wrong (wouldn't surprise me).

Thanks for a quick response Mark, I'll check that out. I am aware of museum models as a 3 decker, you've surprised me. My best to you

I'm curious; was there a set convention regulating the size of gun ports relating to different size guns carried on different rated ships (ie. does a 12 pound gun have a smaller port compared to that of a 32 pounder) ? Common sense tells me there must be differences, but what are they?

Hi, I'd be interested to find out which 90/100 gun ships were cut down from 3 to 2 gun decks and if there are any decent illustrations and or models to be found. If this appeal turns anything useful I'd consider letting my curiosity run over onto the work bench. Searching the forums hasn't been successful.