Stockholm tar

High Jonny, Good to see another 'Sherbourner'. My log won't help you much, I'm afraid, with the early stages of the build – since I didn't begin it until after the hull was finished. As regards the clinker v. carvel question Chris Watton, the kit's designer, has stated that she was carvel built, which may have been true since she was designed and built for the navy, where carvel building was the norm. She was actually designed by Sir Thomas Slade – who had, just a few years earlier, designed the Victory no less. You may have noticed however, that I decided to go with clinker planking and of which there are a few shots in my log. I did this since that was the way most cutters were apparently built, albeit in civilian yards, until around the early 1800's – and I was also curious as to how it would work out. It is actually nowhere as difficult as it looks, if you want to go that route, and looks really good when done. Basically, I used the walnut planking supplied (although I guess you might want to change it for something else) and starting at the keel overlapped the planks by about a third, working up the model to the wale. You'll have to taper the planks of course, particularly at the bow, and I sanded the inner lower edge of each to make a good fit with the plank beneath. I also used scale plank lengths, which would be about twenty five feet on the actual vessel, and staggered the joints for historical accuracy. The shorter lengths were also easier to handle and keep straight. A reasonable amount of glue was used in the gap behind the overlapping planks, making sure of course that it didn't leak out onto the outer surface. You may have to use a few 'stealers' at the stern end – and you certainly won't need any power tools! Historically, the topmast being aft of the lower mast is correct for the period, and I believe it was not until the 1780's that it was fitted on the fore side. Being aft of it apparently obviated the need for backstays. There were differences with the yards too, there being four, and their hoisting methods were different. Chris Coyle has already pointed to the Anatomy of the Ship series book on the cutter Alert of 1777, which I also found of great use, and which contains info on these differences. Of course what you decide to do, fitting wise, is up to you. Eamonn has alredy mentioned the neccessity in getting the gunport strip dead straight, and making up one of the guns. My larboard side one was slightly too low at the aft end, and I had the devil of a job to get the two aftermost guns to fit through the ports! One other thing I would mention, is that it's a good tip to cut through the frame tops at deck level, by about a third, before you plank the bulwarks. These are supposed to be removed later using pliers (ouch!) and this operation will make it that much easier – besides being a lot less stressful on the nerves! Anyway good luck – and I'm sure we'll all help where we can.

Hi Guys, Sorry I missed this, I've been on my hols (a few days in Dubrovnik actually ). Beautiful medieaval walled city, with lots of history – and lots of lovely restaurants! After a few days however, and after you've walked the walls and seen many of the other sights, the sheer number of tourists tend to make it rather tiring. They have a rather good maritime museum with a number of excellent models – but I'm afraid photography was not permissable. I can only apologise. However I partly wanted to research the part played by Captain William Hoste, one of Nelson's proteges, and his defeat of the French who held the then Ragusa (now Dubrovnic). This was in 1814, three years after his victory of the small French frigate squadron at the Battle of Lissa. Being unable to assault the French-held city from the sea, due to it's being more or less impregnable from there, he hauled eighteen pounders from his ship, the Baccante, to the heights behind the city. His second shot hit one of the columns beside the main door of the Church of St Ignatio, leaving a gash that is still visible today. I particularly wanted to see if I could possibly find the spot it was fired from, and where he might possibly have set up his battery. It was to the east of the French built Fort Imperial, and just below a ridge which shielded his gun position from the fort. My wife and I went the easy way up, by cable car – and one can only admire the guts and determination shown by Hoste and his men to get the guns, plus ammunition and powder to the top. Anyway we think we might have found the reasonably flat spot, triangulating it with the column of the church visible though a zoom lens, although of course there is no marker or other indication of where it might have been sighted. The result of all of this of course was that the French, who had previously thought themselves secure behind the impregnable walls, now found that they were not. Within a very short time they surrendered! Anyway, I digress. Sorry Paul, yes it's one of Eamonn's jokes I'm afraid, which I fell in with – or was I misled?

Eamonn, Right. So the upgrade, is a sort of downgrade then... ... ...

Tony, I agree, it's a little difficult to understand, and I haven't read anything about it anywhere, as to why it was done that way – only that it was! It seems to have been quite common. The only reason I can think of, is that the pressure from the sails would be against the lower masthead, rather than trying to pull away from it, were the topmast on the fore side. I hope you can understand that! Perhaps they also thought that less rigging would be preferable on a vessel that already had quite a lot! To be honest though, I don't really know – but it would be good to have an explanation!

Eamonn, She's looking tremendous – some sort of Ballahoo benchmark, I would think! I imagine it'll be a little while before you get to the masts and rigging, though, with the guns etc? I'm still somewhat intrigued by the different sized gunports – and what goes through them!

Eamonn, I'm not sure John knows what you are talking about – and wouldn't you think an introductory copy might be in order? John, Very nice first planking! As has been said, Sherbourne is a very good kit – either for a beginner, or a more advanced builder, since you can add as much detail as you like. Don't worry too much about the instructions, they leave a lot to be desired in most kits, but that's where MSW comes in useful – especially with the 'Sherbournites' and cutter builders among us. We're a growing breed! It's worth mentioning at this stage, since you're up almost to that point, the removal of the frame tops – which are supposed to be twisted off with pliers. I almost had kittens when I read that (oh, the damage!) so I decided to partially cut through the frame tops (about half-way) beforehand, both to make the job easier – and less stressful! It made tidying up the remainder easier too. It doesn't look as though you have done that (unless I am mistaken) but if you have a Dremel you can still partially cut through the tops (using the rotary cutter) from the inside, lying the model on its side. I also hope you didn't use too much glue when fixing the gunport strip. A good tip is to always look ahead of where you are, and to foresee any problems that might arise.

Tony, As far as I understand it the topmast, or topgallant mast, was on the after side of the lower masthead on the early cutters, due to it being self supporting. It obviated the need for backstays, hence there is little rigging, apart from the topgallant forestay. This changed to the rig we know today, when it became more complicated. Like you, I'm mot sure about the braces yet!

Tony, Thanks for posting these great photos. I thought you would have good time there, especially with two of the staff to answer your questions. Like you, I was rather interested in the belaying pin solution in the bow, although I think I will have to stick with mine now! Braces, both fore and aft, I will have to give some thought to but it does make sense, since the ones running aft might be hampered by the square sails – particularly in Shebourne's case, that on the square sail yard. I was somewhat surprised when you say that only the Hawke had her topmast abaft the lower masthead, as this is not what I've read about early cutters. I'm not sure this mean that Sherbourne's mast is incorrect, though. Anyway, much food for thought there. Thanks once again.

Eamonn, I would think so, but you'd have to check with the, er, steering committee! :D

Eamonn, Crochet, huh? I was thinking more quilt making, but there you go... Anyway, a very nice rudder and tiller – and I'm sure much better than the 'thing' they supplied. If it was a round fitting that went over the rudder head, as on the Sherbourne, I'm not surprised you changed it. You are now eligable to enroll in the Venerable Order of Rudder Changers. As I said before it looks like you've been busy and I'm sure we look forward to seeing everything in place. So, on to the deck fittings...

Philo, Regarding the colouring for the Thermopylae, this is historically correct. Built by Hood of Aberdeen in 1868, she certainly had a green hull as did all of their ships, and as painted by many artists. You might be interested in the following, especially the third paragraph: http://www.aberdeenships.com/single.asp?index=99403 You are making a fine job of her, but I would agree with Popeye, that it is probably best to finish off the masting and rigging, before continuing with the sails. In passing, have you ever thought of ditching the plastic sails for a thin material such as silkspan?

Eamonn, My, you have been busy! Can't wait for the pics! I agree about the boom rest for the foremast – it's like wot he (Bill) said! I can quite see though you'd need a (technical term) 'mast hoop falling-downer-preventer'. I take it from that you won't be having sails?

Is that a cutter under construction – or a colourful hedgehog? Looking good although, in the second photo, the aftermost bulkhead looks as though it might be a bit high in the area of the lower (or upper) of the planking strips, judging by the bend in the plank at that point. However, that might just be the angle of the photo. I hope none of your planks split, with the pins through them rather than beside them in the bulkhead. I think I might have changed the guns, had I known then, etc, etc.... However, as you say, they don't look too bad and I think I made a reasonable job of mine. That's my story anyway!

Hi Andreas, Don't worry about the time scale, life always has a habit of getting in the way of modelmaking – and actually, taking your time means you can think about problem solving for longer. That's the theory, anyway... She's looking good at this point. Re. the guns, to be honest I don't now remember much about that stage, but seem to think there was an issue with the quoins and I made my own. Like you, I didn't use the wire at all. A couple of points about the carriages: It's probably advisable for them to be pinned (and glued) to the deck, when you get to that point, so that they don't come loose at a later stage. I drilled two small holes near to the axles to take the pins, and so that they can't be seen. (I actually painted the pins black, so there was no shine.) You might also want to think about fixing two ringbolts, one on either side of the carriage, through which the breech rope passes. Pity about the stem, but never mind, you can always fix wood. I think you'd have to fit the stem in any case to fix the gunport strips, since there is a slot for them. Btw you seem to have the strips nice and level, which will probably save you a few headaches down the line. It's a good idea to have painted the bulkheads black, where they might be visible through the hatches. So, now on with the planking. Have a look at the planking guide, if you haven't already done so.

Robin, Thanks for that. I am hoping to reproduce this earlier method of hoisting the yards on my Sherbourne, when I get to that point. Anton, Yes, of course, but I was really surmising that the helmsman and perhaps the officers aft, would get a better view of the sails on main and fore masts if the crossjack sail were not bent – as per your latter point. I knew I might get shot down in flames for promoting the 'romantic' view!

Tony, I think this quandery is a case of different terms being used at different periods. I believe the yard was normally called the spread yard in our period, because it didn't normally carry a sail and merely 'spread' the foot of the topsail. As has been mentioned, the crossjack was traditionally the name for the lowest yard on the mizzen mast of a square-rigged ship. Often it didn't usually have a sail bent to it, but served to extend the clews of the topsail above it, its sheets passing through sheaves in the yard arms and thence to the deck. In Falconer's Marine Dictionary (1780) it is mentioned only with relation to square-rigged ships, although he does say that the yard did have a sail but that it was little used. However, according to the Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea (1979), the term could refer to the lowest yard below the crosstrees, on a fore-and-aft rigged vessel. I imagine, though, that might be later terminology. I have been speculating on how the name might have come about, for want of any written definition, and which might have a bearing on the sail's subsequent disappearance. My theory is that the sail obscured the view of the helmsman, ie. it was a'cross jack's (ie. the seaman's) line of sight, and so was later discontinued. I stand to be corrected however! I'm sure we'd be interested in what you discover in your visit to the NMM.

Izzy, The number of yarns actually varies according to the size of rope, so I don't think there is a set number, although there probably is for each size of rope. Three stranded, or hawser-laid rope, is the most common although there is also five stranded and I think, seven. Apparently the number of strands is odd-numbered. As said, three strands are the most common in normal rope and it might simply be, that it is both the the easiest to make on a ropewalk, and the easiest to splice.

Hi John, Don't worry about the lack of progress, something called life tends to get in the way – and I've been working on mine for longer than I care to mention! It's better you take your time and do as good a job as you can, and you'll end up with a far better model. Good though, to hear you've progressed with the second planking and we look forward to seeing pics in due course.

Puckotred, You're doing a very good job on her, and I didn't quite realise how big she is. Re. the wallpaper. If that's what the wallpaper is, then... I can also see that re-working the interior must be a pain, but then what a joy to get it correct! Yours could be the only model Bohuslan like that. Btw, re. the hull. Good idea about the lips over the windows, but have you ever thought about adding the rivets? I believe you can buy packs of rivet heads.

Jbwok, 140mm is quite a gap, and I rather thought you might have had a problem, both there and in other places. You seem to have thought of an answer but, as you say, additional frames might have been better.

jbwok, Although I'm not a great fan of Billings, Warrior looks an interesting build. It looks like there's a lot of forward thinking to do! I did wonder if the rather wide spacing between the frames has led to problems when it comes to the planking, especially at the mid point between them, but you seem to have managed. As to you're being left in the dark, as it were, by the instructions, don't forget the clientele at MSW!

Mike, Sorry, but you left the ensign off, and there are none of your super-furled sails in sight. I'm afraid there's nothing for it but to take it out, and do it all over again! Only kidding, she looks great. Very well done and certainly an improvement on the Amati version.

Frankie, Yes, I'm sure they would brace them as far as they could, but I'm somewhat doubtful that would be as much as on fully square-rigged vessels. The mainsail itself was also quite a large and efficient sail. There is also the possibility that with the square topsail and topgallant sails set and with, say, a wind on the beam, the cutter (which is quite a small vessel) would heel over a considerable way, and that would surely effect her speed.

As Joel said, check out Caldercraft/Jotika: http://www.jotika-ltd.com/ They are certainly worth considering, and have found that the kit I am working on, Sherbourne, builds up into a nice model. It is also good for a beginner, or a more advanced modeller who wishes to add more detail – although the instructions might need a little explanation. There is however MSW!

Frankie, There are a few points here: 1. The topsails of most cutters had a deep 'roach' cut in them, ie., there was a distinct upward curve of the foot at the centre, so that it cleared the forestay, with the clews coming down to the spread yard on either side. I surmise it may just have been possible to flick the lee side clew over the end of the spreader, depending on where the two were situated. 2. Cutters, of course, were predominatly fore-and-aft vessels, so I think the square sails were probably only set when they were running before the wind. I'm not sure either that they were braced very far round and I doubt they were ever 'braced up sharp', as in a square rigger. 3. As you imply, the lee side topmast stays could have been slackened off, giving the yard more 'play'. 4. Cutters did have crosstrees, but they they seem to have been very small and didn't reach much past the mast, athwartships. Hence, probably, the spreader for the topmast stay. 5. Yes, chafe was always looked for, so I would think that, as with modern yachts, the bare spar would have been covered at stategic points to prevent this and perhaps leather was used on the ends. The stay itself most likely also had baggywrinkles. 6. It would seem as though athwartship spreaders were used mainly on small fore-and-aft craft, such as cutters, and you often see them in 19th cent photos of ketches, etc. I don't think they were used on period square riggers, but they were introduced on the later clippers and cargo carriers. In the latter, however, they were at a roughly forty five degree angle, sweeping aft, to spread the number of backstays on those vessels. This position, of course, allowed for the tighter bracing of the yards. Right, that's me done.