Stockholm tar

Patrick, You're more than welcome, and I'm sure we'll all help out where we can. I'm sure you'll have many questions along the way, but on MSW, any solution to a problem is usually but a question away. Be prepared though to get inundated with replies! Don't worry either about not knowing much now, we were all novices once (and we're still learning) – and even the expert scratch builders had to begin somewhere. By the way, I've just noticed your address. Small world, as I know Poole well – or I did, before I moved to Sweden 20 years ago. I worked in the Maritime Museum, later the Waterfront, and lived in Parkstone. Perhaps our paths crossed, without our knowing it! Look forward to you beginning your build log, and our first, er, – 'ballahooligan'!

Patrick, It might just be that many modellers don't think she looks interesting enough, although she would seem to be on a par with their other smaller kits. That shouldn't put you off however, and if you want to have a go at it, why not? Perhaps you can be the first on MSW with a build log, and perhaps start a trend? After all, the Sherbourne now has a dedicated following. If you have look at Jotika's website you'll see that there are couple of favourable reviews from people who have built it, along with a few pics. Don't get too hung up on the phrase 'Nelson's Navy'. It's a catch-all expression which is designed to appeal to prospective purchasers, etc. Nelson probably never saw some of the ships themselves. I am a member of a dedicated Nelson website, where one of the other members is heartily sick of the term!

Mike, I'd just like to add to what's already been said, and say – very well done! It's good too that you're taking your time over each part, and your log is very well written and clear. A joy to read. As for those sails, well what can I say, other than they look spot on, and so real. It feels as though you could let off the lashings and set them! That's going to be one very good model when finished.

Dragzz, Agreed, I'd keep hold of it if I were you, written as it was by an expert in the knowledge of late nineteenth/early twentieth century sail. Yes, it was written that long ago and it might be looked upon as old fashioned by some but, as had been said – isn't that what you're looking for? I don't think there's much that's been written better since. A mine of information, as are all Underhill's books.

Jay, Thanks, I'm more-or-less back in the land of the living, and hoping to get back to my Sherbourne soon, other things – wife, cats, Christmas, etc., permitting! Glad you liked my log on the rigging, and as said another should be up soon. Just finishing it off and a couple of pics to take. It will be interesting to see to see how your draughts turn out, with the help of the drawings from the NMM. I'll bet it's quite a bit different from the kit – and I'll probably be continually saying, 'Now why didn't think of that?'

Gregor, Really good work on your Sherbourne, she looks magnificent. Nice job on the research front too, and I especially like your windlass. I went with the original idea, but made my own better-shaped one. Yes, you're right, it is rather quiet on the Sherbourne yards at the moment. I'm afraid work on mine has come to a temporary halt, as I'm just getting over a rather bad cold. I'm feeling better now, and hope to be making another post soon. Looking forward to seeing more.

Jan, Sorry to hear of your misfortunes with obtaining the Sherbourne kit. You shouldn't have any problems with the Model Dockyard, as I have dealt with then in the past and they have always been reliable. They were also quite prompt, so I would be surprised if you don't get the kit soon. Looking forward to seeing you start your build log – and your Sherbourne of course!

Hi Jeff, Nice job on your gunports. As for the stem, I agree, ignore the instructions (again) and go with the plank pattern on the ship, and as Longridge has done. You can see the diagonal planking in various close-up shots – and this will probably show on the finished model, whether you intend to leave her natural or paint the model.

Puckotred, 'All of a sudden the parts just seemed to glue themselves together' huh? I would love to have seen that. Well, you've made a start, although the construction process does seem a bit odd, and the keel is rather flimsy looking. I'm not surprised that you had to firm it up a little, but I imagine the more you do the more rigid it will become. I trust that in sanding away the burnt wood you're not taking off too much.

Frankie, John, Yes, you're right, they're chafing mats. Enlarging a picture works wonders!

Frankie, Interesting photo, but I'm guessing the sail seams might perhaps be indistinct due the age and angle of the picture – or they had an exceptionally neat sailmaker! I think, however, if you look closely you can pick out a few seams. By the early 1900's, which was towards the end of commercail sail, ships were being run on a shoestring with minimal crews, and had to make do, hence presumably the large patches in the mainsail. I'm just wondering what those three large dark patches are on the sail at yard level.

From experience of the ships I've sailed in, all the yards on a mast were usually braced in the same direction – whether they had sails set on them or not. The yards on a mast are all connected, by sheets through the yardarms below, downhauls etc. So even if the furled yards weren't moved, you'd still have to ease off some of the rigging to enable the others to be braced, or risk strain and perhaps damage. In addition to Welfack's description of the twist of the yards, bracing those with furled sails also reduces wind resistance, especially in strong winds. I agree, it's nice to see a models with the yards braced.

Puckotred, I have seen this kit in the model shop in Stockholm and thought she looked interesting – and quite large at 95cm in length. It's intrigueing that she has lights, as I don't know of any other kit that includes this feature. I saw the real thing a few years ago when she was in Stockholm for a steam boat rally. I would think you could quite easily scratch various items, by ditching the plastic parts and substituting wooden ones. I agree it seems rather strange that the instructions are in bad English, after all many Swedes understand the language very well, and I would have thought they could have provided both. As has been mentioned, do start a build log. I'll be following this one. Brian, Actually there are a few Swedish kits. The same manufacturer makes a kit of another steamer, the Mariefred, and there are kits of the Swedish brig Gerda, and I think the Tre Kronor.

Gary, Exactly so, and it could cause other problems. This arrangement, like many used at sea, came through years of practical experience. Back in the seventeenth century and before, the halyards were indeed located to one side - although I believe this alternated between yards on the same mast. Over the course of time, this was seen as a source of strain aloft, and the later method was devised. Seamen are nothing if not practical.

Pawel, Your guess is as good as mine!

Pawel, Sorry for not replying earlier but, as with Jay, I couldn't see a 21! Ok, what I think you have here are the lifts for the spritsail yard, and the foreyard? As you say both have the same arrangement. To take the spritsail, the upper single block is joined to the bowsprit by a short span, or pendant, which is seized round both the bowsprit and the groove in the block. This is standing rigging, so would be dark in colour (black, grey or whatever). The end of the running part (tan thread) is also fixed to the tail of the block, and I think you want to know how was it done? I believe the usual method was to form a small loop, which was seized, in the span at the base of the block – but which is not shown on the drawing. This would probably be just large enough to take the tail of the running part, which was doubled back and either seized or spliced to itself. The running part then runs through the block on the end of the spritsail, back through the sheave in the first block and in over the ship's bow to one of the belaying pins there. (I can't quite make out the numbers in the drawing.) The same arrangement goes for the yard lifts, and the running part is probably made fast at the foot of the mast although, seeing that the yard is much heavier, there would most likely have been a purchase of some sort on deck.

Ulises, You're positioning your yards correctly. I'm not sure there was any particular 'rule' but this practice, like many things at sea, would have come through experience. The hoisting yards, when sail was furled, were lowered down their particular masts to the doublings. This would have been the practice in port or, more especially at sea in rough weather, the idea being to reduce the weight aloft on the masts as far as possible. It was a stability factor. You can get an idea of this if you study paintings, where even if say the royals only are furled, they will be down on the doublings. As has been said, the upper yards and sails would have been brought down on deck in extreme wether. I believe the only time yards with furled sails were hoisted in port, was probably in the days of the clippers for effect. (There are photos of the Cutty Sark like this.) This again is one area where kit manufacturers (except the better ones) usually err, and they probably think that a ship doesn't look like a ship unless all the yards are at full hoist, whether the ship has sails or not. When a model doesn't have sails, it makes it look even more ridiculous. As regards the Vasa, she probably only had her yards in the lowered position once – just before leaving the quay on her maiden voyage! She of course has a lateen yard, and it's debatable how that was handled – whether it was left hoisted, or lowered with the spar resting on the deck and overhanging the taffrail. It may have been more trouble than it was worth to lower it, except in exceptional weather, and I note that the present day Gothenburg normally keeps hers aloft in port.

Anthony, Absolutely beautiful workmanship! This is going to be one tremendous cross section.

Duff, I think you're probably right concerning the double sheet for the spritsail. Björn Landström a noted authority, in his book 'The Ship', shows a drawing of the Santa Maria which only has single sheets. However, it would seem that double sheets were introduced soon after 1492 when spritsails had become much larger. You're very likely right too regarding the gore on sails.

Spencer, Your CS is looking good. I take it you are going to put stealers into the gaps in the stern planking, as it looks as though this is a single planked kit? Even if its double planked you should really do that. I was also a little surprised that your deck planks are in one continuous length. If I can offer a small word of advice, you seem to be going at some speed. As Nenad has said patience is the key, and the model will be all the better for it. It might also help us if you could post all of your pictures the right way up.

Pawel, I'm afraid Mantua aren't the only ones, many kit instructions are similar – often leaving the builder in mid-air. You'll find much better instructions on MSW! I'm sure we'll be looking out for your next posting.

Pawel, Ok, glad you understood, and I'm sure we can help out again.

Jastrzab?, I don't know the model, Santa Maria or Pinta perhaps, but the lines you are referring to are the spritsail sheets. These are normally doubled because they run through a single block at the clews (lower corners) of the sail. One end of the sheet is probably made fast to an eyebolt on the bow of the ship, and from there runs out through the block on the sail and returns, being made fast to a belaying pin (62?) in the pinrail in the bows. The usual method of fastening it off, is to pass it around the bottom of the pin under the rail (from the side of the strain), run it vertically up over the rail and around the top of the pin. From there you run it down again, this time passing it across the pin to its other side, round behind the pin under the rail to the other side. You will see that a figure of eight pattern is beginning to emerge. Continue in this way for three or four turns, finishing off round the top of the pin. You can cut off the line here and hold it with a spot of glue, but leave a little end for fastening the separate coil. Hope this helps.

Anthony, Yes, you're right, the central section has removable boards, to make it easier to get to the stores anywhere below in the hold. The forward and after sections both have decked platforms, for various cabins and storerooms. As Alexandru implies, the the orlop was surrounded by the carpenter's walk, a passageway to enable the carpenter and his mates access to plug any leaks on the waterline during battle. Btw, you're making a splendid job on your cross section.

Jeff, Your first gunport lining looks great, and a great improvement on the metal one, I think you'll agree! Very nice work too on the continuation of your planking. I can see this is going to be an impressive build!