Waldemar

This is the best explanation so far, Alex. Are you going to make these fixings?

Ab, if you are on-line still, could you help in interpreting these small, rectangular holes on the ship’s sides in the waist? They are a complete mystery even to the best experts describing this model. Perhaps you know something similar or understand their purpose? Thank you.

Many thanks, Ab. And that is what we are actually trying to do here, only by a different, „virtual” approach – conlusions are rather drawn from the real-size practices (shipwrecks, contemporary shipbuilding treatises, period iconography). And only then, if practical, applied to this lovely „caricature”.

Ab: Right, I see your point. I would only add, that some of us simply love caricatural shape of this iconic model just as it is, and wish to model it without any attempt to make any corrections to its erratic proportions. To make model of a model. Just small corrections or some additions, based – if possible – on contemporary sources.

Ab, you are perfectly right, and we are well aware that Mataro model proportions are much distorted to the point it could not properly sail if built real-size, and now it is still better to know that precise calculations have it confirmed. Yet, this very model has solved some constructional mysteries, which could not be unravelled using other, notably graphic sources, and this despite its ridiculous proportions. Many shipwrecks are even more distorted and/or consisting of a few shabby timbers, and we are still trying to reconstruct whole vessels from them, down to their belaying points. Why should Mataro model be excluded from such research, I would not understand.

Well then. Not wishing to disturb your excellent „shipyard” job. Alex, please make your choices and test them in practice on your fine model. Would eagerly wait for the outcome. And if practical, I would certainly mimic them in my „copy” of this magic ship.

Many thanks, Alex! Then, if you are interested, please take a look at some suggestions made by well known experts in this field, which for some reason are so notoriously ignored by most popular kit manufacturers. Layout of a large Mediterranean carrack by R. Morton Nance (captions in red are mine). There are small breaks in both „continous” decks, which delightfully explain a slight off-center of the capstans seen on Boticelli paintings (see post #12). Mataro model, being rather a miniature of a smaller ship, has no such break. The capstan is mounted abaft the main mast, and at one level with hawse holes, so that the anchor cable/viol/mesenger (dashed line) is horizontal, which is necessary for the correct operation of a capstan. Layout of the „Santa Maria” by Jose Serrano. This is perhaps a better proposition, with a windlass instead of a capstan, which much simplifies running rigging configuration, ie. that cargo or yard lifting ropes, and anchor cables (viols, messengers) as well, can all be attached to windlass at different angles, at least in the vertical plane. Large carrack from Venetian manuscript of 1445. Note the main deck (in red), sporting a break close to the position of the main mast. Running rigging of the main mast after Venetian manuscript of 1445 by Sergio Bellabarba. No halyard! The double main yard tie, recorded in the manuscript as twice the length of the mast (led through a knighthead or a block) is attached directly to the windlass (or capstan)! This would all perfectly work on a small ship depicted by the Mataro model, except one thing. If the main yard tie was constantly coiled around the windlass, then how could the same windlass serve other needs, say – anchor weighing? I suspect a kind of main yard fixing at the top, so that the double tie could be uncoiled from the windlass, but maybe some more specific ideas? Thank you in advance.

Well, I have promised myself to not make too much mess in the Alex’s log, but I can not resist, as the „winding gear” issue is simply not yet satisfactorily solved for the Mediterranean vessels of the Mataro model age (perhaps I should create another log for such discussion, Alex?). Ab, it is a very happy circumstance you have entered here. Please take a look at another picture (below), taken from a different angle at the Mataro model halfdeck. It is quite possible indeed, that originally there was a block (serving as knighthead) fixed to a halfdeck beam, but now the main yard tie is simply lashed to the railing close to the mast. All extant blocks/tackles (perhaps for shrouds only) are fixed at the ship’s sides. There is no doubt that light-duty capstans could be constructed without long spindle underneath, which is known also from your fantastic books, articles and plans (BTW – many, many thanks for all of them, for their highest quality, attractiveness, data and ideas they contain). The real challenge here is to answer the following questions: How many winding devices could (or should) the Mataro model actually have? Of what type – capstan(s) or windlass(es)? In what place – forecastle, waist, sterncastle, halfdeck? Should a second device, mounted on the halfdeck, be really needed? Maybe Bremen Cog is the exception in this aspect, not the rule? Or, why should we look at the then less advanced Northern shipbuilding practices at all? Is it possible to correctly arrange winding gear, both structurally and geometrically, with just one device, called sguindazo or guindazo in the XV-century Venetian manuscript? Well, enough for now, thanks for looking, if some of you have reached so far…

Alex, I must confess that the solution you have described above is my favourite: a) it is compatible with the KISS principle (Keep It SSimple) and b) contemporary evidence, c) seems to be geometrically practical, d) still leaves enough space for possible companionways, cabins or cooking facilities in the sterncastle at the ship's sides and e) may be quite comfortably applied to the actual model as well – it requires only a small hole in the halfdeck for passing the main halyard, close to its forward edge, and possibly shortening the rudder’s tiller. More, it gives the freedom to make another important choice: namely, to install a mizzenmast on the halfdeck or – alternatively – a small capstan in its place, just for light-duty tasks such as bracing the (main)yard or cargo lifting. And I am very curious about your preferences in this matter too.

True. And, as so many Mataro model researchers unfortunately have not convincingly resolved these issues so far, now it is your turn to make it right, maybe for the first time. Please go ahead with your concepts.

Many thanks for your explanations. Alex, the part you have encircled in red – knighthead, was drawn indeed by Heinrich Winter in his plans of the Mataro model. It was also drawn by Björn Landström in his reconstruction drawing, as can be seen below. Yet – strangely enough – there is no such element on the photographs of the original model. A lost part? Or maybe just over-interpretation? I do not know. Perhaps some of you can resolve this issue. (Coloured) reconstruction drawing of the Mataro model by Björn Landström A photograph taken lately by MSW member. No knighthead visible. One more point. If it is assumed that the proportions of the model (and some of its fittings) are not quite to scale, the same may be true for the length of the tiller. In other words, it may be simply oversized (or not proportionately scaled to the model's length). Also, the very lack of many vital devices (such as pumps, winding gear, cooking facilities) suggests that the builder was not aiming at the perfect accuracy or realism. Alex, I can only hope that all these questions do not bother you. Just looking for a solution, both workable in practice and conforming to contemporary evidence. And that’s why your log may be of great help. P.S. Although the term „coca” is very similar to „cog”, it is also regarded by many as an equivalent of „carrack”.

Agree. This model's extreme proportions are certainly the source of such constraints and hence – difficult choices. This is why I am trying to consult these matters with other builders of this very ship and to see their effort's results as well (I am building my „copy” of the Mataro model too, plank-on-frame fashion, somewhat stylized, hull already accomplished). Eventually it is quite probable that I will apply your solutions to these baffling dilemmas...

As to the winding gear, there are also some other, tempting possibilities: mounting a capstan or a windlass on the main deck behind the mast, ie. at one level with hawse holes and the forecastle crossbeam (riding bitts). These are shown below on the attached pictures. This way just one device could serve all needs. What do you think of it? Sandro Botticelli, The Punishment of Korah and the Stoning of Moses Part of the reconstruction drawing of the Santa Maria by J. Serrano (note also a pump close to the mainmast)

I like your solution of a windlass in the forecastle. This is not in accord with its placement in the Bremen Cog (and some other contemporary cog finds), but – on the other hand – it seems very typical for the most, if not all, „slightly” later ships. This way, the windlass on your model would operate the anchors only, and the capstan mounted on halfdeck behind the mast would be dedicated to lifting cargo, hoisting the yard and perhaps to bracing this yard too. Is this correct? Logical I would say.

Your ship’s getting cool with the new planking. Nice effect of the „Catalan national” wood colours. Most eagerly waiting for your choices regarding the internal fitting’s layout: position, shape and number of windlass(es), capstan(s), pump(s), companionway(s), stairway(s)/ladder(s), anchor(s) and its handling/fastening, mast(s), all the Mediterranean rigging, perhaps some invigorating flags here and there. Are you going to make lavatory holes in the sterncastle overhang, as can be seen on the Bremen Cog?

Lovely hull shape, almost sexy… Perhaps you know, but just in case – besides Heinrich Winter’s very close plans of the real model-ship, there is also an interesting attempt at its reconstruction by Portia Takakjian (Model Shipwright 72, 1990, pp. 4–14). Maybe worth a look too. Looking forward for the next stages…

Thank you for this log. I love this ship. Go on... Especially curious of your planned improvement to the ship's construction and layout.

Thank you for this log and go on... Especially curious of your planned improvement to the ship's construction and layout.