Stockholm tar

Most rope was 'laid up' or made right handed, that is the twist went from bottom left to top right. Coiling clockwise was thus both kinder to the rope and the coils formed more easily. Incidentally, most coiled lines were normally hung off the deck from belaying pins, which kept them out of any water that led to rot.

Yes, but Danmark is a 'ship' in the real sense of the term (which means three masts). This vessel is a barquentine.

Micklen, Even if it is your forte, painting is probably not the best way to do it – and you can end up with as much paint on the barrel as on the hoops! I think Thom has perhaps the best solution, which is one I've also used – thin black paper. Cut this into scale strips, using a sharp knife and metal rule, and then glue suitable lengths on in the appropriate places. As he suggests, sand down the overscale hoops on the barrel first. You'll find this works quite well, and is also reasonably quick. Make sure though that the strips are level and parallel to each other, and be sparing with the glue.

Sara, I rather thought that was the case. It seems, yet again, that kit instructions are at fault and have used the incorrect term. I can't really understand this, as with a little more thought they could use the right one. Btw, you're doing well with your HL. I think it's going to be a very good model.

Sara, Apologies, but I think Popeye has it right. That is a picture of a hand operated windlass, rather than a capstan, and was used on both sail and steam vessels. A windlass, which has a horizontal barrel, basically had one job – to bring in the anchor, and hence was situated in the bows. Capstans, with a vertical barrel, could be used for a variety of tasks and might be situated in various positions. There could be several smaller deck capstans on the one ship – especially in the later days of sail, and used for hoisting yards, adjusting sheets, hoisting cargo, etc. The rope, halliard, etc., was usually led to it through a suitably placed block. Rebecca, Yes, they sound like foot treads, for purchase, to me.

In my experience, all staysails and headsails have double sheets. I think you'd have a problem belaying, when the vessel went about otherwise – the clews of those sails also tend to get caught on the stays below when going through that manouver.

Jay, By the time of the Constitution, all flags were belayed on deck, and that was probably so in most navies. I seem to remember reading that flag halliards were originally only long enough to belay in the tops, but that by the mid seventeenth century long halliards down to the deck had been introduced. Mention of flag lockers, which were primarily for signalling flags and which were usually situated on the poop deck, were probably the instigator of halliards being belayed on deck. Signalling developed significantly from the seventeenth century onwards, so it was obviously easier and quicker to carry this out from the deck. The mast trucks usually had two halliard sheaves, one on each side. As has been said, there is always the possibility of flags getting caught on part of the rigging, and so were belayed as far aft as possible on the shrouds of a particular mast. Another problem is of course, that flags can get wrapped around masts, staffs, rigging, etc, due to a change in the wind direction, or a change in the ship's course, and I think someone was detailed to watch for this, so that the flags were flying freely as much as possible.

Especially if they had reconnoitered the town beforehand, which I would imagine they would have done.

Yes, I agree, too. I think it's the Queen Mary, with the third funnel missing. Interesting object, I have never seen one of those before.

Daniel, I would agree with BE here, in that I have never heard or read of this arrangement for going aloft, at least not on British ships. I have only heard of them being used for climbing up from the boats under certain conditions. Climbing a rope ladder is not easy, even if you are not being followed by twenty or more men behind you, all in something of a hurry! I would also imagine they would have created something of a bottleneck. Given those circumstances, I would think they were out of the question and would certainly have hamperered the men's getting aloft. Don't forget too that the majority of seamen, certainly the topmen, were young and fit and performed feats which would leave the majority of us standing today. Therefore, I think they would have considered clambering over the bulwarks, pinrails, hammock nettings, etc, to get to the shrouds as child's play. Once the gang of shrouds was reached, they would probably then have made their way to either the fore end, or the after end of the gang, swing round to the outside of the shrouds and then ascend, holding the shrouds not the ratlines. This is always drummed into you on the training ships today, as is also ascending the windward side in anything of a blow for safety reasons, but I would think much of it held true in Nelson's day. So, since I have not read about such ladders, and they seem not to be mentioned by such an authority as Steel, I would hazard a guess and say they weren't used for ascending the rigging – at least in British ships. I stand to be corrected of course!

I am? I didn't know I'd said anything. (Re. clicking on the picture. I think I would have realised that, if my cursor had passed over it, which it didn't.)

Ok, so now we have to include the name of the ship – but doesn't that take some of the fun away? However, Anja, I have to say I don't see it, where the name? Crackers, I take it the naval battle was Tsoushima in 1905, against the Japanese?

George, This of course would have applied to all British ships, not only the Victory. In addition to what BE has said, I think there may also have been another practical reason – the sail itself would have been in the way. Due to its position, the foot of the sail would very likely have also interfered with all the other activities going on on both the quarterdeck and poop. The quarter deck was the 18th/19th century equivalent of the modern warship's 'nerve centre', and there were also the 12pdrs situated on that deck, to be served in battle. The poop was the deck from where signals were made and hoisted at the mizzen mast, so there was likely to be a lot of coming and going between the two. An additional sail there would only have increased the problems, when the ship was tacked, etc., with increased numbers of men. Therefore, any little advantage it might have afforded, would probably have been more than outweighed by the disadvantages. Another reason also springs to mind in that, when a ship was running with the wind aft or over the quarter, it may have been found that to have a sail set on the crossjack yard effectively blanketted the wind from reaching the sails on the main and fore masts. It was quite usual to furl sails on the mizzen in any case, under those conditions.

Kevin, Whoa! Perhaps we should just get this one out of the way first, since there would appear to be some demand – then I might think about it.

Well, ok – or at least I think so. I've just been having a look around my files and find that for some weird reason I seem to have kept some of it, but not all! However, all is not lost (well actually, some of it seems to be) as I have it printed out and can probably resurrect the missing parts again – given a few cups of coffee and infinite will power, deep into the night. You'll have to bear with me. Actually, perhaps we should first ask Admin and the Mods what they think of the idea of me taking up screeds of the site capacity? If they agree then fair enough. On thinking more about this, perhaps there might be a dedicated thread for such offerings from members, if they feel so inclined, perhaps to include short stories, articles, or even poems about the sea, rather than put in on the General Discussion thread. Would this be a good suggestion? In the meantime, I would be interested in the number of those who want to read my story again.

Wayne, I had just the smallest sliver of a suspicion that's what Andy had in mind. Andy?

Andy, I believe I did. Er, why?

'You can fool some of the people some of the time...'

I must agree with the previous posts – an absolutely first class build BE, with good solutions for the many improvements. Your log was a joy to read.

Jason, This would seem to be the fault of the kit instructions. Crowsfeet were designed to prevent the foot of the fore and main topsails from getting caught under the tops. Since the Snake was square rigged, I think she would have been fitted with them.

As another Sherbourne builder, I'm looking forward to seeing your progress. Btw, I clinker planked mine as well.

Steve, I think we'd all like to see your model, so do post your pictures.

Steve, Great. I look forward to seeing what arangement you come up with.

Steve, I fully expect to get shot down here but personally, I don't particularly like ship's on stands under full sail. That view probably stems from my museum background and the fact that the model is not 'afloat'. If it's a waterline model, then you might either have the ship under full sail or perhaps, rather more interestingly, with reduced canvas, or all sail furled with the ship at anchor. However, I do like some sail on a model, thus I usually opt for furled or 'clewed up' canvas. On my present model, the Sherbourne, I am thinking of having one of the sails – probably a square topsail – set, but not drawing and with some crew figures working on it. That, I think, would add a little more interest to the overall model. As you say, sails can hide much of the rigging that you spent such a lot of time working on, which is a valid point. That you have mentioned this 'problem' perhaps means that you perhaps wouldn't be satisfied with the full sail option? Do think about the alternatives. I'm sure you'll hit on the right solution, but which it will be is of course entirely up to you.

Pavol, So far as I can see from the Modelspace site, Tomick appears to give no indication that there is anything wrong with frame 15 – at least not in the kit he used! In issue 3 he says – 'set frame fifteen aside for use later in the series, you should not glue the frame into the keel'. Presumably this has something to do with fitting the forward the keel bracing piece, which is adjacent to frame 15, and which I imagine should be done first. Why Tomick doesn't seem to have had any problems with his frame 15 I have no idea, but maybe it was from a different batch to yours (although I can't see why this should make a difference.) Have you contacted DeAgostini to see what they say? If this is an issue with many Victory builders, they might be considering replacing that part. One final thought, and not that you have done this, but it is easy enough to get the frames in the wrong order on the keel. Are you sure they are in the right places? Re. the cost, it sounds like you had a good deal. Under those circumstances, it doesn't sound that expensive.