allanyed

Hi Ted, In The Anatomy of Nelson's Ships by C.N. Longridge, he points out that the book is based on authentic and accurate drawings. Going with that supposition, you can use pages 264-272 which describe and/or show the belaying points for Victory. He does state that he did not rig every line on his own model, which I believe is still at RMG or another British museum, but he does give what seems to be most, if not all, belaying points. Note that there is not always just one line on a single belaying point. As an example he points out that the Admiralty drawings show the eight timberheads on the rail at the beakhead receiving about three lines on each timberhead. The book has several diagrams and several lists with the names of each line and their belaying points. Can't copy these diagrams and lists here due to copyright issues, but the information should be extremely useful to you. There are used copies of this book for less than $25. https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/the-anatomy-of-nelsons-ships_c-nepean-longridge/502417/item/13222021/?gclid=CjwKCAjwmqKJBhAWEiwAMvGt6GJSVfkrD7oa0AsbylrQC9zqMPBbeoxaxxJ6ElXA-cyGJDaZ_9zWrxoCg-gQAvD_BwE#idiq=13222021&edition=3404533 is one example. Looking at contemporary drawings circa 1765 and a model of Victory from the early 19th century at RMG Collections, there are indeed 11 timberheads on each side of the forecastle. https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/79912.html Anyone building Victory would be well served to have the Longridge book as a reference. You mention lines being tied to the rails themselves. This was common on 17th century ships and into the early 18th century as there were few if any timberheads like those found later on. I do not recall seeing this practice in later years either on contemporary drawings or models. Hope this helps!! Allan

Well said Phil!!!! Much more astute and mature than the sarcasm and name calling (rivet counters) others have shared with us. Allan (A happy rivet counter)

The era matters and the scantlings from The Elements and Practice of Rigging and Seamanship by Steel (London 1794) may not be apropos, but lacking other information more contemporary to 1742, these may be at least a little bit useful. These scantlings and tackle descriptions, including if there is a hook and eye, single, double or other type block, traveler, heart and thimble, &c. can also be found on pages 98-101 of W.E. Mays' book Boats of Men of War which he acknowledges came from Steel. Looking for earlier similarly detailed sources, but not coming up with anything so far. Allan

Just a thought here, not looking to poke or provoke anyone. Love the boat picture from RMG that was posted above which I think comes from (https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/66291.html) But, while it is contemporary, has it gone through modern renovation like many models that old. RMG does not usually give those details, only the original date a model was probably built. Rigging for example on a 260 year old model may not be original. If it is original , I would love to learn more about what material was used and how it has been preserved for nearly three centuries. Cheers guys, Allan

Laggard Wefalck makes some excellent points and is giving good advice. As to making hooks, they are not that hard to make. Do a search here at MSW. One example is below which references tutorials as well. Allan

Thanks for the link Rich!!! I checked out the website but could not find many of the tight grained woods popular for ship models such as pear, castello, European box, holly, apple, and Alaskan cedar. Do you know if they have these species? (They do have paper backed pear veneer at $705 plus shipping for a 4X8 rolled up sheet) Also the search function does not work. I typed in apple and the results were lots of species from alder to white oak but no apple. Allan

These erasers may work, but personally I have never found a better system than the one described by Greg at https://modelshipworld.com/topic/21710-blackening-revisited/?tab=comments#comment-651453 It is a fail safe method. The pickling will give you the "rough" clean surface. An eraser like you describe by itself probably will not work without pickling so may as well skip the eraser as it will not add any advantage to this system. The only problem in the write up is I that I have not been able to find Blacken It for a couple years as I am pretty sure it is no longer available. Birchwood Casey is probably the next best solution to use, although I find a dilution of about 3 or 4 to 1 works better than 7 to 1 for this particular product. Allan

If you are speaking about the single pendant and falls shown in the Peterssen drawing for the crossjack, from what I could find there should only be one fall as shown, not a pair of them. The Monfeld drawing for the lower yards (not the crossjack) matches Lees. From about 1806 to the end of the sail period, the topsail yards and the topgallant yards truss parrels were set up differently and had no falls at all. The topgallant truss parrel was sometimes set up the same as the topsail yard truss parrel, or sometimes with two strops, but again, there were no falls. Detailed drawings and written descriptions can be found on pages 84 and 95 in Lees' Masting and Rigging. Too much to copy here without violating copyrights, but perhaps someone has redrawn these and can post. Allan

Phil, I took a look at MM as I was curious about these. Thanks for posting this. I am sure they would look great for a house or a building which had stairs instead of ladders. I think wooden ships always had ladders with side rails rather than stairs with stringers. I may very well be dead wrong, but I have not been able to find stairs on any contemporary ship drawings or models, just ladders. Allan

Hi Lucien, Truss pendants and falls replaced parrels and sometimes were actually called truss parrels. It holds the yard to the mast just as the parrels did. They moved up and down when the yards were moved up and down. I THINK the falls of the truss pendants were to move the truss with the yard more than to lift or lower the yard itself which I believe was the job of jeers or ties. The Zu Monfeld drawing shows pendants as they were from 1760 to 1810. From 1810 to 1850, (according to Lees) the pendants rove UP towards the after end of the trestle trees where there were a series of block connected to eyebolts hanging from the trestle trees. The Peterssen drawing matches that of Lees for the Cro'jack. The falls in the Monfeld drawing are not dangling, they just don't show the series of blocks that were part of the falls rigging. Allan

Bronko Welcome to MSW. You posted the second video here but it shows this is your first post so the first video is missing.

Eberhard, I found this website. https://www.turbocarver.com/ Looks like a compressed air driven version of a Foredom et al. Allan

The techniques in the video of setting up the breeching rope rings and eyebolts look to be very useful. At these small scales the loop for the cascabel is not unreasonable as making a proper cont splice is not so easy at the smaller scales. Unfortunately the running out and training tackle is wrong as she neglected to include the hooks on the ends that go into the eyes. I am not so sure her methods would work if she included the missing hooks. We see Flemish coils on a lot of models modern as they are so visible, but I wonder as to the accuracy of using them. I have searched, without success so far, for contemporary evidence that Flemish coils were used in place of frapped lines. If anyone can share any information based on contemporary sources about the use of these coils that would be great. I have seen stacked rope coils for other running rigging, but no Flemish coils for the 17th-19th centuries so far. Allan

This build is a joy to follow! I am watching your setups on the mill as I am in the very beginnings of learning how to make the most of using one. In addition your setups on the building board are well thought out. Lots of gizmos that should be on my Christmas list!!!! Allan

A good day as I learned something new in that I never knew yards were stored on the channels and I would like to learn more about this. AH, can you share any contemporary information about this stowage on the channels, how they were secured, etc. I am having a hard time picturing this as the lower yards on the USS Constitution were nearly triple the length of the channels. I did some searching on my own but could not find anything contemporary. I did find a very nice, well detailed, set of free plans at https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/discover-learn/modeler-resources/ The ship's boats drawings are especially well done. Jackstays were introduced in the Royal Navy in 1811 so if the US was copying the idea, makes sense that they probably had not knocked off the idea by 1812. Do you know when jackstays came into use in the US? TIA Allan

Kirby, After looking at your progress, for a first build, or even had this been a third or fourth, you should be proud of how good she looks. This is not on you, but it is such a shame that so many kits supply wood like walnut that looks totally unrealistic due to the huge grain. In one of your April posts, you wetted and sorted the walnut planking by color and grain which is a great idea, especially for the colors. But at our scales there should be no visible grain at all. If you go with another kit after this build, vet the kits you are considering, BUT.... you sure appear to have the skills, so maybe a scratch build is in your future!! It opens a whole world of choices with many hundreds of detailed contemporary plans available from which to choose. Allan

For only your third ship, heck, even if this was your 10th, the hull planking looks quite nice! MAYBE the planking and wales should not rise at the bow as much as in the photo ala Viking ship style. I am not sure on this as I am not very familiar with planking techniques prior to the mid 17th century. If the wales are glued on top of the planking rather than being an actual strake of planking, this would not be terribly difficult to adjust if you wish. You can see the run of the wales on the model of Mary Rose at RMG. There are photos in several views. https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/68966.html As this is a modern model, the interpretation may well be inaccurate to some degree, but hopefully, RMG gave some guidance to assure as much accuracy as possible based on the available information at the time. Not everyone thinks being as accurate as possible/practical is nit picking, so in the end, it should be what makes you happy and that the hobby is a joy, not a chore. Hope to see more pics as you make progress, thanks for sharing with us. Allan

Hopefully this will be seen as a calming reply rather than a smart aleck comment which has no place here at MSW. This is more of a food for thought response, not a dyed in the wool absolute final answer. Yes there were sometimes lines secured in the tops. Yes they were secured to cleats or directly to the deadeyes in some cases. Yes, rigging varied over time periods, some shorter, some longer. Yes captains sometimes changed belay points to their own liking. The drawing from AOS shows what may be tiny cleats but I THINK more likely these are eyebolts. Based on Lees' formulas for dimensions of the tops and a beam of the RC at 24' 7", the top of the main mast should be athwartships 10' 9 1/2" or so. IF these were cleats, they would be only about 3.5" long so pretty much useless. IF they are eyebolts, to what purpose? Perhaps they were for lead blocks such as those on the sketches H30/1 and H30/2 at the deck but it does answer where the lines were belayed. I considered that maybe they were supposed to be the clevis pins for lead blocks that hang below the tops but the lines that are in question would not have lead blocks below the tops. Cheers everybody. Allan

Hi Azoun I checked with the few sources and found two detailed belaying point drawings and text descriptions, including one for 1742 which may be somewhat appropriate for Royal Caroline 1750. I cannot post these due to copyrights but they are in the book Masting and Rigging by Lees. None of the lines you name terminate in the tops in his description of the belaying points of every line. Looking at close ups of a number of photos of the tops of several contemporary models I could find only one line secured in the tops on one model, and it was secured to a topmast shroud deadeye. I could not tell what line this was though. This is not to say this is absolute for RC 1750. The Anatomy of the Ship series is terrific in many ways, but as with any modern source, specific items should be checked against contemporary sources whenever possible. For example, looking at the deck plans the cross pieces of the jeer bitts seem to be too long when checked against one of the contemporary drawings at RMG and there may not have been belaying pins in the cross pieces in 1750 as these came into more common use closer to the end of the century. There is no indication on the contemporary drawings that there were pin rails on the bulwarks on the RC. There were a total of six timberheads and no pins on the rail at the break of the forecastle on the contemporary drawing, but only four timberheads on the drawing you posted. Of course it is possible there were pins that were not shown on the contemporary drawings, but I THINK pins on this rail would be unusual before about 1785. Regarding the topgallant yard parrel, it was fitted the same way as the topsail yard parrel until about 1805. Unlike the lower yard parrels which had the lines leading to the deck, these had two eyes which were seized together on the foreside of the yard. From Lees' Masting and Rigging, page 84 The parrel ropes, after reeving through the ribs and trucks, were taken round abaft the mast and from there, one was taken over the top of the yard, the other below; they were then both taken round the yard and lead over the ribs in the grooves provided, round the yard by the ends with eyes spliced in, and so on until the ropes were used up; and the ropes frapped together. He makes no mention of the ropes leading to the tops or anywhere else. Again, this may not be appropriate in every case, including RC1750. RC drawing from 1749: https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/459288.html Four high definition RC drawings after she was renamed Royal Charlotte in 1761 can be found on page 2 of the Wikicommons site https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ship_plans_of_the_Royal_Museums_Greenwich There are differences in the contemporary deck drawings and the drawing you show from the AOS book. Note the hatches on the main deck and the stairs to the QD as examples. I would trust the contemporary sources before AOS, but Bellabarba and Osculati may have had other contemporary sources. Out of curiosity, does the AOS book reference any of these drawings or other contemporary sources? Just wondering if one or more of these drawings were used and if they were, why the AOS drawings did not necessarily follow them. Allan

Welcome to MSW Glenn!!! What vessel, year, nationality? The short answer, according to Lees' Masting and Rigging, on page 164 the circumference of a rope strap on a common block is 1/4 the length of the block. Sorry to throw all of this other stuff out but you expressed a desire to show accurate detail. At your scale of 1:24, you may want more detail than just the circumference of the strop. A couple examples ...... some had single strops, some had double strops. Some of the strops were seized some were not not, it depends on where the block is located. Pin materials varied with block size. Blocks on pendants did not have strops, but rather the pendant had a long eye spliced in the end and the block seized in the eye with a racking seizing. Eyes on the ends of a strop varied in location, (the ends of stropping on blocks on spars had a short tail and a long tail for example). There are three pages of drawings and text in Lees' book, probably more information than you need or want, but know that it is available if you want to go all out. At 1:24 you have an opportunity to have blocks with actual sheaves, pins, &c. Allan

Welcome to MSW Chris. Thank you very much for your service!! San Diego....... Navy, Coast Guard or Marines? I know the other branches are there but these were always predominant in that area when we lived in out there. Loved going out of H&M landing for albacore or fresh water fishing at Miramar and San Vincente reservoirs. Hope to see some of your upcoming work on a build log! Allan

Lucien, FWIW, according to David Lees in The Masting and Rigging, on page 67 chain pendants were not used until 1850. As Beagle was already de-masted and set in a marsh by 1845 and later renamed Watch Vessel Number 7 it may be the plans you have are not accurate. It would be a good idea to look for contemporary information to confirm information given with most any kit. The Anatomy of a Ship series is great, but again, it is wise to check contemporary sources or "modern" sources based on contemporary information before cutting wood or metal. It may be that Beagle was 30 years ahead of her time and had chain pendants when built but I would not think so. Hopefully if you do some research it will turn up accurate information. There are very detailed descriptions of both mast tackles and burton tackles in The Masting and Rigging on pages 42 and 66-67. Far too much to copy here without violating copyrights. In short though I believe the two are very similar with the mast tackle on the lower masts and the burton tackle on the topmasts but keep in mind that at least the burton tackle was rigged differently depending on if it was actually in use or not. Hopefully some member can give you more information. Allan

Grant, Contemporary drawing from 1839 below but might be appropriate for your year. I do not have a high resolution copy but you can buy this image in high res from RMG if you need something better than this resolution. The high res version will be easier to see the ratio of dimensions as well as the dimension table for various size ships' topmasts and topgallant masts.. Allan

I just noticed that Lees' sets of ratios that start with the lengths of main mast in the 17th century up to 1670 as 2.4 times the ship's beam. The Complete Modellist published in 1667, gives the length of the main mast as 2.5 times the length of the beam on page 2. While this appears to be a small difference, for a ship with a 30 foot beam this is a three foot difference. For a model of 1:48, this is a 3/4" difference, thus noticeable. The difference will then follow for all other masts, spars, and rigging. On the first page cover sheet it shows this copy is from of all places the Bibiloteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze (Florence, Italy). This was first posted in the Nautical History section last year but some folks here may have missed it. https://books.google.com/books?id=_FCdAgS7HUoC&pg=PA2&dq=modeling+Thomas+miller+1667&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAWoVChMIqqzW1NS6yAIVRPJjCh2NRgXP#v=onepage&q=modeling Thomas miller 1667&f=false Anyone building a 17th century ship from before 1670 should find this work of help in scaling their rigging accurately. Allan

Incredible workmanship that should be an inspiration to others, (including me!!!) Allan