Thukydides

I have been doing some research on the construction of the knee of the head and I was wondering where exactly you got this particular plan from. The only stuff I could find on Constitution is in the modeler resources (https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/discover-learn/modeler-resources/) and it didn't show the various pieces. You are correct in assuming that many of these ships likely used more pieces than is typically depicted on models. In my build log I go through the history of English construction of the knee of the head and list all the contemporary examples I could find. I would like to add Constitution to the list if you can point me in the direction of the original source for the above picture.

Nice work Mustafa, your are making good progress.

I will attempt to elaborate, but up front I should say that I think “incorrect” is a strong term. There are very few examples of how the knee of the head was constructed and lots of evidence that the shipwrights had broad latitude in the specific pieces that were used to construct them. This means that we can make our models consistent or not consistent with the examples that do exist, but there is no way to say definitively a particular arrangement is wrong. One could plausibly argue any given arrangement could plausibly have been used. I should also clarify that yes I am referring to the pieces that make up the knee of the head. The overall shape of the knee of the head is laid out in the draught and it appears to match the one held at the NMM. One small note here, I think your stem should probably be a simple scarf (same joint as you have for connecting the gripe to the main piece). If you look closely at the original draught this appears to be what they did and this is the joint I have seen on every stem I have looked at from the period. (see the bottom picture ‘C’) Also I just noticed that you have a scarf joint for the false keel. Again I am no expert, but I think that they were just diagonal connections as they were designed to come off easily if the ship ran aground. The gripe as you have shown it looks fine and matches most historical examples I have seen. The part I am less sure about is the pieces above the gripe (broadly the main piece, lacing and chock). With regard to why I question the Pandora book arrangement it basically comes down to two factors: The arrangement does not look like any of the historical examples I have found. If you have not already then please read through my two posts on the subject in my Perseus log. Every example I have found tends to use roughly parallel (or of a common curve) pieces which are more numerous than one might at first expect. It was much more economical to use more smaller pieces and there is lots of evidence to suggest that English shipwrights did this. A lessor point with regard to this is the Pandora book example is missing a cutwater (a small thin piece that ran along the leading edge of the knee of the head where it hit the water). There are also a number of practical issues / questions that I have regarding the arrangement that make me distrust the arrangement as described in the Pandora book: The shape of part A looks suspiciously like the shape laid out in the draught for the same area. The problem with this is that area on the draught is not laying out the shape of a piece of the knee of the head, it is just marking out where the figurehead would go. Part B is very thin at the top and is a very large complex shape. All examples I have seen for these pieces is they used simple shapes and I question if it makes structural sense to have such a thin piece at the front of it. It would make much more sense for the thin part of B to just be made part of A. My understanding of the standard (part D) is that it ran all the way up to the back of the figure (see the examples of the Swan class or Winchelsea models. The cheeks start out against the knee of the head, but at the tope they but against the upper piece of the standard (I can’t remember the name of that piece). This all being said it is your model and you are free to do what you want with it. As I said in the beginning this is not a question of right or wrong, rather consistent with historical examples or not. As I said previously, if you have any contemporary examples showing an arrangement similar to the Pandora books I would be happy to be proved wrong on this. The model is looking very nice. Good luck with it.

My understanding is that the garboard was just like any other plank, it was just wider. Steel does not mention anything in particular about them. Also most planking expansions I have seen, the garboard looks much like the other planks following the usual shift.

Yes Dacres was not the most handsome of men. The unibrow is quite impressive though I had not meant to imply that it was a Swan class vessel, I was just using them as an example. On reflection I have edited my internal version to remove the reference to the Swan class as it didn’t really add anything to the discussion in any case. Thanks for the suggestion.

I am pretty sure I found all of the contemporary examples that have been published online or in print. That being said if you find any others please let me know as I would like to include them in my research. One thing I will note with regard to the Pandora drawings in the McKay book. I have found no historical examples of the construction of the knee of the head that look like their depiction. I suspect what happened is they mistook the lines on the draught showing the location of the figure as marking off one of the joints. A more historically consistent (I say consistent instead of accurate as there are so few examples and so we don't really know the breadth of methods used) would be to do something similar to what I propose for Perseus (either with or without the scarphs) or to use an arrangement similar to that used in the swan class books sold by seawatch (there are lots of builds of the ship on the site you can see the arrangement).

Log #12: First Draft of the Research Document Thank you to everyone who has stopped by even though construction on the model hasn't started yet :). I have finalized the design and the first batch of materials have been ordered. Only issue is Canada Post decided to go on strike so it may be a while before I get the stuff. So in the meantime work has continued on designing things such as the carriages for the guns (see below for the current state of affairs on these) and ongoing research into aspects such as the figurehead and other details of Perseus' appearance. As I have hinted a number of times, in the background I have been working on a research document to keep track of my thoughts. There are two parts of this document which I suspect will be of most use to the community as a whole and Sphinx class builders in particular: Chapter 1, in which I review all of the plans and art available for the Sphinx class ships in detail. The appendices, which contain numerous relevant primary source documents I have compiled and transcribed. As the full document will likely not be completed until shortly before I complete the model I have decided to release it in parts. So attached to this post are chapters 1 and 2 along with the current version of the Appendices and Bibliography. For those who have been following along with my log, much of it may be familiar as I frequently copy sections from the document for my log posts. However, the document contains significantly more detail as well as extensive documentation of the sources used to justify the assertions I have made. If you have any questions, disagreements or find any typos then please feel free to get in contact with me. I would love to hear from you. Please note the following: This is very much a draft (I have only made one proofing pass through it) and so there may very well be errors. I will continue to be editing it in the background and at some point I will post revisions along with future chapters as they are completed. Because this is a draft, I have not yet gone through and adjusted the location of the figures to make sure they are spaced properly. As such I am aware that there are occasionally blank sections, but am not going to address these issues until I am much closer to the final version. This document is being released to benefit the modelling community so please feel free to use it to assist with your personal research and modelling endeavors. However, this represents a significant amount of work (I have been working on this for over a year at this point) so if you do use my material please make sure you credit the original author (either me or the other references as cited in the document). HM 20-Gun Ship Perseus Chapters 1-2 & Appendixes DRAFT.pdf

My interpretation of the statement was that every alternating timber gets a single treenail and the others double treenails. See below I added the number of treenails on each frame as well as a potential arrangement in red. That being said it is possible that the double futtocks were treated as one timber. I think an equally justifiable option would be to have two in each timber as per Ollivier. Ultimately up to you as I don't think there are clear answers here.

If I had to guess I would say that this is referring to the new steppings bracing system that came about around this time. I believe that Steel refers to to this elsewhere in the document. The key point in the quote above is not what they do currently, but what he says they used to do (2 treenails in one frame and 1 in the next).

This is what Ollivier had to say in 1737: Note: he previously notes that there were three ships being constructed in the dock at the time he was there, an 80, 70 and 60 guns respectively. I am not sure which two of these he is referring to in this quote.

In Steel's naval architecture (1822, so a bit of a later period) there is a section near the end where he describes the process of making ships. https://archive.org/details/elementspractice00stee/page/167/mode/2up On page 37 of this section he says the following: What is interesting is what he has to say after talking about what is done currently. He says that alternating single and double treenails were used. Maybe something like this: I will take a look at my copy of Ollivier when I get home. That dates from 1737, but many of the techniques he describes changed very little over the course of the 18th century. He has a surprising amount of detail and maybe commented on the number of treenails used. I know he did mention the fact that the English used treenails much more than the French, but off the top of my head can't remember what else he said.

I am wondering if anyone is able to help me in interpreting the following lines in a contract. In particular I am confused as to what “live shivers mean.” I have included both the original text as well as my transcription. Mainsheet Blocks To have blocks with live shivers, let through the side against the mizzen mast on the upper deck for the mizzen sheets, or otherwise as shall be directed.

She is a really lovely model. If I wasn’t already committed to another project for the foreseeable future I would be sorely tempted by her.

That looks really nice. Great job.

I like it. Very nice.

It might be the coppering that made Christ move it to a 3, I would trust Chris' rating better than my very uninformed gut feeling :). That being said difficulty is not a one size fits all problem. You may excel at a task I struggle at. Some models have more complex rigging, others harder planking, others tedious copper plates:). So a clear eyed view of your own abilities plus reading lots of build logs is probably the best way to know if you are capable of completing the model.

My best advice would be to wait until you are closer to being done. What you want to do next may change and also your assessment of your skill level based on how the rest of your current model progresses. That being said Speedy would probably be the easier of the three examples you gave. Adder's planking at the bow is a bit more difficult and Granado is an older kit so more adjustments / interpreting of the instructions will be required. Read some build logs of your potential choices and then assess if you think you have the skills to do the build. Apart from that is really up to what subject inspires you.

Very nice Chris. These are a great addition to your line of boats.

I did a lot of very fine serving for my Alert build including serving eyes for 0.25mm rope. I used the syren serving machine for all of this. See below for a picture of a served 0.35mm rope used for the anchor buoy. Personally I am of the opinion that as much as possible you should try to replicate the full sized practice. I do notice the difference (not just in zoomed photos). That being said everything is a tradeoff between how much time you are willing to put in and what you are capable (e.g. how good is your eyesight). I detail some of the process in my log, but her are some things I learned: Scale matters - You need to make sure you are serving with an appropriate sized thread. For the above example I was using 10/0 fly tying thread for the serving. Magnification is essential - Without good lighting and some form of magnification (I use 3.5x glasses), it is impossible to be consistent and get a good result. By the time you notice there is a problem you are long past the point at which it occurred. Patience - For small examples such as the above I would say I made twice as many attempts as I got acceptable results. Mistakes happen, measurements on length are 1mm off and at this scale that stuff can make a noticeable difference. Get comfortable with doing things over until they are done right. Twist - Some thread (fly tying thread in particular) needs to have its twist tightened or it lies too flat. As I serve it onto the rope I twist it in the direction of the original twist. This is hard to describe, but when you do it right you can see the individual loops of the serving as opposed to a smooth layer of fibers. This obviously untwists the thread below where I am twisting so when done I just get rid of the fly tying thread I have untwisted. Thread is cheap so this is not really a problem. Knowing how much twist to add just requires practice. Tension - There is no way to show this, but an important part of serving properly is maintaining the correct tension and spacing (no gaps). This is much easier to do with larger ropes and much harder in miniature. This just requires practice. Limit glue use - I found glue at small scales is really noticeable. So as much as possible I would use tricks where I pulled the ends under the serving. This is a bit hard to describe, but essentially I was using the common whipping at both ends of the serve. Problems with securing the two ends of the serve were the most common reasons for having to redo things. EDIT: added a note on glue which I forgot to mention

Fantastic work. It holds up so well in those up close photos.

I will just add on the acrylic question, if you are using an oil based sealer you can paint acrylic over it, but you probably need to abrade the surface a bit and use some sort of miniature painting primer (e.g. Vallejo) or it will flake off.

Welcome to MSW. The advice everyone else has given you is great and I would heartily endorse it. Tweezers, sheers and maybe a small sewing needle are all you really need for sure. The only addition I would make is some sort of serving machine if you plan to serve some of the lines (e.g. the syren one). I will just add a few things that I learned rigging my first model: The hull will take a while so there will be plenty of time to consider the rigging as you get closer to it. I changed my mind so much on things over the course of the build that I think it is best to wait till you are much closer to actually doing the task before purchasing things. In general I have found a good rule of thumb is not to buy a tool until I have a task I am working on that I need it for. Don't buy tools to solve hypothetical problems. Everyone goes about rigging a little differently. There are lots of tips and tricks you can pick up from others, but some of the tools are a function of what you are trying to do. Fore example, I was doing a lot of false splicing and so created a small hand tool using machine sewing needles to help me do this. For me it was one of my most used tools for rigging (along with the serving machine), but if you are not interested in doing that sort of detail then it would be useless to you.

As others have said I would guess the tops as they could easily be replaced and thus the barrels reused. There are lots of references in the captains logs I have been reading to empty barrels being returned to the victualling ship. In terms of what was on the label again I can only speculate, but there are some clues in the logs. Take for example the following entry: It appears to me that captains were held responsible for the amount of stores they consumed as a significant portion of the logs are spent detailing what was opened when and how much it contained. From the above example we can see that here was likely some sort of reference number on the barrel (in this case N 212). I assume N refers to No or Number, but it is not clear if the N would have been included or just the number. Also it seems likely to me that there was some indication of much the barrel contained (in this case pork). The reason I suspect this is pretty much every time a food barrel was opened, he details how much was in it. I have tonnes of examples like these I could show you if you wanted to see them. In summary I would say if the barrel in question contained food, I would expect a label on the lid with a number (e.g. N212), the product in question (e.g. salt pork), and the amount of the product contained within. One final note is that it only seems to be the meat that was catalogued in such detail. The logs are much more vague with regard to other commodities being consumed though they do carefully not the number and types of barrels brought on board.

That is rough Alan, I feel your pain. That being said I bet the decks will look much better now you have learned all the mistakes the first go round.

Some of the fly tying thread is polyester, just much thinner than any guterman thread. I used it for serving smaller lines as any other thread was oversized. Probably overkill in the case of ratlines as you can get a properly scaled guterman thread, but for the seizing you need something smaller.