allanyed

Rick, Where the lines terminate is always troublesome as there is virtually no contemporary information on this, at least that I could ever find, other than contemporary models. From what I understand, this varied quite a bit from ship to ship, captain to captain. Lees does show belaying points of several vessels and often describes this in the writing but otherwise I have not seen much for the 18th century or early 19th century that would apply to Victory. This includes Petersson's book which, again, does not necessarily work for Victory but would probably be OK for most fifth rates of the late 18th century.

Rick, Peterson's book is based on one contemporary model of a specific ship/rate/era (36 gun frigate late 18th century) and will not always be accurate for Victory compared to other books. Petersson's sketches are good and pretty easy to follow if you are building a fifth rate from that time frame.

A couple posts were written regarding painting frieze work on paper versus directly on the model on Siggi's fantastic Tiger 1747 build log. Posting the subject here rather than bog down his log. I have painted mainly directly on the model at times, but on paper at times as well. Recently painted small fleur de lis directly on the model and was not happy at all so did them again on paper. Based on anyone's experience or knowledge on this, what is the best paper to use? I presume thinner is better so it is not as noticeable when applied to the model. Also, concerns about what will hold acrylic artist paint best without degrading quickly. I have at least one example where painting on bonded paper then finished with a poly coat has shown no signs of degradation for just over 15 years so far. The reason I originally chose bonded paper was that it is commonly used in art work involving pen and ink and/or ink markers due to its strength as it is made of at least some rag fiber. A former art teacher gave me that advice but I am open to other proven ideas. Also, in place of India Ink or paint for black strakes, does anyone have any plus or minus experience/comments on using permanent marker pens to stain the strake before it is set on the hull?

Thanks Jaager, I agree as I don't believe there are any 17th century ship models with cant frames as they did not come into general use until the 18th century (about 1715, according to Goodwin)

DSmith, Petrejus' book has always come with high regards, but as it is about a brig of war it may not be appropriate for the Bounty which Dave is building, or other ships of various sizes or eras. Still, it is my understanding that it would be a good book to have if building a Cruizer class brig of the early 19th century such as Irene.

Dave, Yes the book is LEES, J. (1979): The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War 1625-1860.- 196 p., London (Conway Maritime Press). Eberhard, kudos on your extensive list! Considering English ships in the 18th century, as there were a lot of changes in the first decade or so, of all of those on your items on your list, if you could only pick two, which would they be? Thanks

Dave, Taking information from Lees' Masting and Rigging, main stays and main preventer stays, fore and fore preventer stays, and mizen stays of course were commonly rigged with a mouse. The main and fore stays and preventer stays were wormed, but not served from abut six feet below the mouse downward before being snaked together. Note that the snaking of the stays came into use about 1700, and then mainly during war time. I have never seen backstays with a mouse, perhaps others here have. The back stays were rigged around the masts similarly to the way the shrouds were rigged to the masts normally having matching back stays port and starboard. I cannot find any information that the back stays were wormed but they would have been wormed, parceled and served where they went round the mast and running a short distance below where they go round the mast. I know everyone has a budget, myself included, but Lees Masting and Rigging would be my choice for rigging if I could only have one book on rigging English vessels.

Dave, I went through a lot of photos of contemporary models and cannot find even one with served backstays. Then again, a lot of these may have been re-rigged over the past few hundred years. They do mostly, if not all, have the foremost shrouds served their length so attention was paid to such serving. Again, is this absolute? Probably not, but without contemporary information indicating otherwise, I would not serve the back stays.

Dave, Not sure this helps, but in Lees' Masting and Rigging, he makes no mention of serving standing backstays, breast backstays or running breast backstays. By the same token he details the worming and serving of the foremost shrouds and other parts of other lines so MAYBE, the serving or not serving of the backstays was not an absolute. Assuming (not usually a good thing) the purpose of the serving was to protect the lines from chaffing from the sails, serving backstays does not make sense. If they were served and If not for chaffing protection, what would be the purpose of serving the backstays? Curious minds, etc. 😀

Don, simply put the station lines that you see in the body plan are not the shape/size of any frame except for those square frames that happen to fall on a station line. For the cant frames, none of the station lines are the shape of a cant frame as the cant frames are, well ...... canted..... and the station lines are not. If you read Wayne Kempson's article in the Articles Data Base here at MSW, he explains in more detail on pages 74-79 how to draw the cant frames.

Thanks guys. Yep Ed, she went to Bristol Marine in Maine who is rebuilding the Ernestina and who also got the Boothbay 65 a few months earlier for their investor presentations. Great client!

I agree with Piet and would say do not apply any type of finish until all parts are removed from the sheet, the char from the laser is removed and it is glued in place. For just one example, the cheeks of the gun carriages have axles glued to the bottoms. If you apply a finish, it will go in the cut slots of each piece and have to be removed before gluing. Also, some parts will be painted. Same problem, it will get in the cut slots and have to be removed. I just don't see how applying a finish before hand will have any benefit, and it definitely could cause problems.

Jaager When you say no butt joints, do you mean they were made of a single piece of timber or with futtocks but with chocks or scarphs? Would love to see more contemporary information on this, especially for the earlier part of the18th century when cants first came into use. Thanks

Hubac Thank you! I used Fimo for the originals and now that I am used to it, may go to a harder clay as it is a bit sticky and hard to handle. I find Sculpy much too soft and sticky expect for the production pieces made with the silicone mold as it is easy to squeeze into the molds and easier to work after hardening. Overall the stickiness of both is a huge pain in the neck but I found if I continually wet the tools I made and my finger tips, not nearly as much of a problem. The silicone mold is good for 500 degrees so not an issue in the baking process in case anyone was wondering. As to sizing, the figures tend to grow as it is worked from squeezing and working. I mark a piece of wood with the size limits and continually resize with light squeezing in both the X an Y axes as the details are cut into the clay. As I write this I think maybe a tiny shallow box the size of the piece would be a good way to keep things to size and may give it a try on the next pieces to be made. Druxey, Thank you! I am still torn between clay sculpting and wood carving. If the deco did not call for a gold color in the end I think I would have stayed with wood and my trusty Russian chisels. Regarding the light grey, at this point it might be a tough one but will give it a go. Thank you very much for the tip.

I took a week and a half break from the hull "framing" and worked on the stern before erecting it and working on it in situ as it was MUCH easier doing so while laying flat on the bench. Once the stern timbers were assembled to the wing transom the planking was laid in and sanded. The planking all curves slightly downward from the center line. Rather than cut these to shape, as this is a small scale and the bend not too severe, I soaked the planks and edge bent them around a form as described by Chuck Passaro in some detail here at MSW. (Don't remember where he posted this, sorry) The basic set up is a form clamped to the edge of the work table and the plank gently bent and help down on the ends and in the center to prevent it from buckling. Once clamped in place I "ironed" the plank with a flat head on my soldering gun. Took a few minutes on a test piece to get the hang it so as to not scorch the wood. The heat is an important factory in getting the pieces to remain in the new shape once released from the clamps. I suppose this is akin to steaming and then bending to shape. The same was done for the moldings. These were made of castello and shaped with various scrapers made from stiff backed razor blades. Hack saw blades also work well. Once the planking was done the locations of the molding and various figures was marked and the blue background was painted, leaving bare wood where necessary for gluing the decorations. Artist tubed acrylic paint was my choice as it is superior to craft bottled acrylics. It is pricy by comparison, but a tube goes a LONG way considering the amount of paint that we use on a model. Munion base pieces were made and glued in place. I took a page (or several) from Doris' Royal Katherine build for the decorations. At larger scales, I am a fan of wood carvings, but as the scale is small and the 17th century calls for a lot of carvings I thought to give baked clay a try. I am a fan of this techinique now that I have tried it. I will probably go with wood for the figurehead, but that is to be seen. Mullion figures are needed across the stern and in several other places so I made two pieces facing opposite each other then baked them. Once hard, I made a mold of silicone. Once the mold was done, it was only a matter of squeezing unbaked clay into the mold them baking the entire thing at 275F for 30 minutes. The pieces were then removed from the mold and trimmed. The trimming, scraping and sanding gave each a slightly different appearance, as if each was sculpted individually. The finished pieces were painted with a gold tube acrylic. I first tried a gold that was recommended in a sculpting forum on a test piece. I had a hard time finding it and then waited over two weeks to get it. In the end, I did not like the finish at all as it had rather large glitter and looked nothing like gold leaf. Went to a plainer gold from Liquitex and am quite happy with the look. Finding a glue that holds baked clay to wood was a search in itself. I first read that E6000 was the way to go so bought some. It is stringy, stinks, and takes 24 to 72 hours to cure. I then spent an hour reading additional comments on various sculpting forums and the consensus seemed to be gel CA. I was not happy as I do not like to use CA on models and I had none in the shop. I bit the bullet and bought Gorilla gel CA per the various recommendations and I must say, it works. If Doris is a PhD sculptor, I am still in primary school, but the stuff is forgiving in that you can work with the hardened figures with needles and such for missing details and it sands quickly where necessary. The photo below is my first foray into this medium and I hope not too bad. The stern lights (windows) were leaded glass panels. I took a lesson from a post elsewhere here at MSW and scribed a piece of plastic. This was then cut to fit in the seven light openings and the round openings nearer the top of the stern. The scribed material can be rubbed with a grey paint which will sort of fill the scribed lines to give a lead look, but I found it to be too much of a contrast and prefer the more subtle look of the plain scribe lines.

Marcus, I hope you report back with your findings regarding comparison of English and Dutch rigging sizes. From a practical standpoint, I would think they will be similar even if not exactly the same. Thanks in advance......

Bonjour Casi and welcome to MSW. I had a set of the CdeM plans from Ancre years ago I was afraid it was too big a project for me. I look forward to seeing your build log.

Craig, you are correct for most of the 19th century as a lot changed when the Seppings system came into use common use about 1820 based on what I read in Goodwin, page 18. "The use of scarphs or anchor pieces was done away with, and the joints were made by means of dowels pinning both butts of the futtocks together " which seems to be as you describe, but not until about 1820.

Also consider purchasing a copy of Lees' Masting and Rigging which will give you a lot of information. For your time period I rely mostly on both Lees' and Anderson's books. Lees gives a lot of detailed illustrations compared to Anderson, but both are extremely useful. Closest I ever got to a carrier was when I was stuck on an AO for a few days tp run casualty drills in the engine room while doing Navy Reserve duty and we spent a day refueling Saratoga in 1971. She was small compared to new carriers but it was awesome, especially watching flight ops when they were landing aircraft . Submarines, ohhhh the claustrophobia would be a killer compared to the surface merchant vessels I had the good fortune to sail aboard. Thank you very much for your service Cliff.

Marcus, Similar to Monfeld's formulas, and lacking other information, the formulas in Lees Masting and Rigging will give you every mast and spar dimension, and rope circumference from 1625 to 1860. He starts with formulas for various time periods to find the main mast length, then all mast and spar dimensions as well as all rope circumferences can be found easily. As has been reviewed here at MSW recently, go to the Articles Data base here at MSW and bring up Danny Vadas' spread sheet. It appears to be the same information that Lees gives with one exception. The Vadas spread sheet cannot be used for the period from 1670-1711 as his base formula was not done correctly so all dimensions that follow are wrong as well for this time period. If you have a vessel in that time period, Lees formulas work.

Don, The grain is important but keep in mind there are only several pieces for each frame. One has a floor, second futtock on each side, and fourth futtock and/or top timber on each side depending on the size of the ship. Look at the drawing below which was posted earlier in response to another question you had to get an idea. These are from a 50 gun ship of 1695, but will give you an idea on the size of each piece. In the case of the first futtocks, the contract for this ship stated that the futtocks should reach to 20 inches from the keel and each to be 12 feet to the where they meet the respective third futtocks. The floors would be even longer. Druxey gave you the information you need for the size of the chocks themselves. Use of chocks versus scarphs, depends in part on when the ship was built. For Discovery, chocks would be likely for each joint, except, possibly, for the top timbers which may have been scarphed to the futtock below. Hopefully others will have more definitive contemporary information. Goodwin shows only scarphs for 1650 to 1710 in The Construction and Fitting of English Man of War, page 14, then chocks (and scarph at the top timber) from 1710 to 1811. In The Restoration Warship, page 44, Endsor shows chocks being used based on The Bends of a Ship by Thomas Gagge, c. 1680. Goodwin goes on to explain that things changed with the Seppings system about 1811 but this is far past Resolution so no need to get into it here. Cheers

Don, Take note of the depth as well as the length of the chocks. How did you come up with the length of the floor and each of futtocks? They seem to be very short or it may be that the chocks are so long. Lacking other contemporary information such as a contract or drawing specific to your project, you could use the drawing that Craig posted as a guide. You can also get a lot of useful information from Kroum Batchvarov's doctoral thesis on framing. If you have problems finding and downloading it on the internet send me your email address on a PM and I can forward the pdf to you.

Hi Cliff, Welcome to MSW. it would be great if you posted a little intro about yourself on the new members forum. 😀 Have you looked at all the build logs of the Sovereign of the Seas in the build log sections? There are quite a few and may help you in your journey. Also, you should consider starting a build log once you get rolling. Sounds like you may already have a kit on the project you are working. Which brand of kit is it and does it have rigging plans included? If you have not yet purchased the kit, the logs may help you decide. With such a huge project, is it safe to assume you have built other ships already as SotS would be a frustrating first project. Again, welcome to MSW

Arnold, CA gluing the end of the line to be used as you mentioned above is a good thing to do, more so than using a wire threader. Once the CA has dried, use a scalpel to slice it to create a sharp point. I like the Swann Morton blades and holders, but there are others from which to choose as well. Even the smallest line can be treated this way, yielding a needle point to push through the hole in the block.

Either way is not so bad. I have often done the same thing. I have not seen any posts on your log for the past two weeks though. Maybe give it a another try. Better to ask twice and get a response from one forum than post on one forum and get no responses 😁