Stockholm tar

Henrik,
 
You might get some idea from reading the few build logs of Gorch Fock. As far as I can see there are three under kit builds, one Mantua and two Occre, and one scatch build (Nils). The latter probably won't help you much in deciding which kit, but might be useful later with whichever kit you have decided on!

Alexandru,
 
Absolutely beautiful work! She must be one of the best Victory's I have seen.
 
I do have one comment however. Your photo of the forward bitts shows the same number of holes in the both pinrails, fore and aft. I seem to remember that there are rather more than that in the forward rail, according to the diagram in Longridge's 'Anatomy of Nelson's Ships.'
 
You might want to check that, as I wouldn't want you to get to the rigging stage (if you intend to rig her) and not have enough belaying points.
 
 

Mike,
 
Good choice of kit and, as I mentioned on the Unicorn thread, it should help with that model. This will be one to watch, I think.
 
I was going to mention the flags, but I see Ian has beaten me to it!

'... they succeeded in again getting alongside, but not in the positions intended; their failure therefore is to be ascribed in the first instant to the velocity off the tide, the height of the vessel's side, not having channel plates to assist the men in getting on her deck and her very superior force.'
 
The boat action would seem to have been very well planned, as would be expected of the RN, but the boat crew appeared to have had everything against them. I tend to agree with Captain Hope that probably the primary factor here was the swiftness of the unexpected current. No attack in those days, however well planned, could usually withstand the forces of nature. I contend that had it not been so strong, or non existent, the outcome may well have been somewhat different.

Perhaps. However, even though he was English, he was not a naval officer or in the government, but a trained lawyer (I believe he had practised in Jamaica). As you might expect, he systematically weighed up all the available evidence from his own, seemingly thorough, investigations. I might say that in this regard he also fell foul of some British naval officers, over deductions he made over some British ship actions during the Napoleanic Wars – I believe one of them even going to so far as visiting his house and knocking him down!
 
As far as the official report goes, I don't think British naval officers were in the habit of writing untruths, why would they? The Admiralty would have found out pretty quickly and, in any case, there would have been too many witnesses of the event. I am a little surprised that the American version seems to be based on a newspaper report, or are there others more official?

USS,
 
Interesting, so...
 
Btw, the contemporary naval historian and lawyer William James, considered an authority on the War of 1812 and which he wrote about in some detail in his book, 'Naval Occurrences of the War of 1812', states that the Endymion's armament indeed included twenty two 32pdr. carronades, as you originally mention. He also says that she also carried a 12pdr. boat carronade, and that there were a total number of 50 guns.

There are a pair of belaying pins in the small rail situated on the port and starboard quarters. Originally I provided these for the (lower) spread yard braces and the gaff vangs – before I discovered that vangs, at least on cutters, had not then been introduced. Thus the forward one is now a spare. There is also an eyebolt on each rail for a lead block, through which the braces will pass before being belayed.
 
Moving forward, on each side of the companion I provided shot garlands for the 3pdr guns, and these are also situated on each side of the other hatches. Garlands are also fixed to the bulwarks, between the guns. The aftermost, between the last pair of guns on each side, actually contain only three balls – and one belaying pin. This is to belay the falls of the running backstays, when they are rigged. The balls themselves are made from the round parts of a cheap necklace, which just happened to be the right size – and are definitely surplus to my wife’s requirements! Each ball was cut from the chain, tidied up, painted and then glued in place. (Btw, I usually use a thin stick with a small blob of blue tack on one end, to lightly pick up and glue small objects like this. I find it works quite well, and one can place items rather more accurately than with the fingers.)
 
We now come to the guns, which I have mentioned before as having caused a certain amount of trouble with relation to the ports! For each gun I provided a pair eyebolts in the bulwarks to take the breech ropes, another pair for the side tackles, and one in the deck behind each gun for the running-in tackle. The latter, of course, should really have a ring through it. I decided not to rig the side or running-in tackles, which perhaps was an ommission and, again with hindsite, I think the breech ropes are not really thick enough. However…
 

 
Each of the hatches was given a coaming, this being caulked into the surrounding planks and raised a little above deck level. I decided to fill in the hatches themselves with offcuts from the kit and paint them black, before fitting the red gratings, to give a sense of depth. This seemed to work reasonably well, the main hatch in any case being largely hidden by the boat.
 
We now come to that aforementioned very necessary item of equipment – without which, no vessel is really complete! I copied a suitable drawing, from ’The Boats of Men of War’ by WE May, which was about the right size that I needed. The boat was constructed on a small building board, with scale frames and planking, the latter being mostly card since it was much easier to work and shape. The gunwale, which is made from wood, has rowlocks cut in it. The interior was then fitted out with thwarts, resting on internal stringers, sternsheets, and a small foredeck. The inside was painted grey, and fitted with bottom-boards which were painted red. This I thought both made for a nice contrast with the main interior, and also matched the red of the cutter herself. I painted the outside the same ivory shade I had used below the cutter’s waterline, and the gunwale is black. To finish off, the oars were made from orange sticks, with thin card for the blades, and painted white. Thin black paper made suitable leathers. The rudder was made from thin ply, with a wood rudder stock, and there is a separate tiller. A coiled painter was provided on the foredeck. The boat was lashed down to four ring bolts in the deck.
 
On either side of the boat are the pumps. I modified the base of these, although I used the metal top and handle. Their bases were cut at an angle, so that the imaginary ’business end’ of the pump shaft would be adjacent to the keel, where the water would normally collect. The handle is connected by a brass rod mechanism , actually the stem of a cut-off ringbolt, and there is a short outfall pipe on the outboard side of each pump. The base of the pump and the handle are painted red, the former also having two ’iron’ bands, made from black paper, around them.
 

 
Forward of the boat and main hatch, and just aft of the mast, are the jeer bitts. This structure was not included in the kit, being an addition of my own, but it is certainly a feature of cutters of the period, as is evidenced by models and pictures. It consists of two uprights, with a geared roller at the top and a crossbar beneath and, as its name suggests, it is used for hoisting purposes. The gearing on either end of the top roller, is actually just pencilled lines drawn on the black-painted ends, but it looks effective enough. There is a winding handle on each end, made from pieces of bent wire.
 
I originally fitted six eyebolts to the deck, to take the various tackles connected to the running rigging that will be belayed to cleats fitted around the base of the mast. I am now not certain I will use all of them, and actually since then I have fitted another two outboard of the anchor cable, one on each side, as giving a better lead. However, one never knows.
 
Abreast the mast on either bulwark, are two pinrails, with six pins in each. These were supplied with the kit and at the time of fitting them, the number of pins seemed barely adequate. In fact, with rather more rigging seemingly to be belayed, I think they may be woefully inadequate. I should perhaps made have my own rail, with extra pins – but I tell myself, I can always resort to shroud cleats if necessary!
 
Forward of the mast is a rail. This again was supplied with the kit, but I added six belaying pins to the crossbar, as I intend to belay the the square sail sheets here. Ahead of that is the foredeck grating, down to the crews quarters, with the shot garlands on either side. Offset to the starboard side I fitted a chimney, painted black, and which I imagine connects to the stove below!
 
Next we come to the bowsprit support, from the kit. This was straightforward, but I felt that it needed pinning as well as gluing to the deck. The heel of the dowel-rod bowsprit was squared, to pass through the support, and I drilled two extra holes through it, to give the impression that the bowsprit can be moved in and out.
 
I wasn’t too happy with the anchor windlass as supplied, as I felt it didn’t look at all realistic, the completely straight windlass bar being rather strangely made up from short sections! I redesigned it to my own liking, giving it a proper shape, with hexagonal faces. The central section, was made to look as if it had toothed gearing, that engaged with the small bar-mounted rachet, but this again was merely pencilled on the black finish. The equidistant holes for the bars were also just painted black, on the red structure. I had thought about providing the bars themselves, but then the lack of a place to stow them arose – so I stored them below!
 
The anchors also needed some attention. The anchors themselves I thought were well cast and with the minimum of flash, but the wooden stocks – made as in actual practice from two halves - needed some considerable modification. To begin with they were too long, so I reduced the length at each end so that they were approximately the same length as the metal shank – which fitted with the proportions for an anchor of this type. They then needed sanding somewhat. The modified arms were then glued together around the shank, below the ring, at a ninety degree angle to the arms. Four ’iron’ bands, made from black paper, were then glued around the stocks at appropriate points. Finally, the anchor rings were ’puddened’, or wound round with black cord, which on the real vessel helps to prevent chafe. The anchors are held in their stowed position, by to two supports on the outside of the bulwarks – my own invention – although I think I may have made them a little overlarge. They are also made fast with a length of line, belayed to the two aftermost timber heads. The anchor cables are lengths of plaited cord, that I thought looked somewhat realistic. They are perhaps a little overscale, but I think they do the job. Running aft past the mast, their inboard ends disappear down the fore end of the main hatch, in which I made two squared holes. Their other ends are ’clinched’ to the anchor ring, their circumference making them too large, of course, to tie a knot!
 
The catheads needed little modification, and are basically as supplied. I didn’t give them any decoration, merely a couple of paper ’iron’ bands, before painting them black. Due to the lack of suitable belaying places I decided to fit a crossbar between the catheads, over the bowsprit, with some pins. Two of these are already taken up, by the inhaul and outhaul lines for the traveller ring, for the staysail. Finally, there is a band around the top of the stem piece, with a ringbolt on the fore side to take the preventer stay when rigged.
 
 
Next time: the outboard details, the bowsprit and the mast.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Before I move on, I omitted to mention a couple of items in the previous post. First, I wasn’t particularly happy with the stand provided and thought of various other types, including my own wooden one, a version made from perspex (which can often be very effective), or perhaps employ couple of pedestals (either brass or wood). I deliberated on this for some time before I was more-or-less forced, by progress on the model, to make a decision. In the end, I’m afraid, took the easy way out and decided to go with the stand supplied – although it was somewhat modified!
 
As can be seen, I cut down the height of the supports to around the bilge area, since this was where maximum support was needed, with rather more being taken from the front supports than the rear. This gave it a much better appearance, removed the somewhat intrusive extensions up the sides of the model, and didn’t affect the stability.  A wooden crossbar was then fixed between the supports, angled on the top face to match the that of the keel, and with two small holes drilled through it in appropriate positions. Corresponding holes were drilled in the keel and I found two suitable screws. Then with four thin strips of adhesive padding material added to the arms to protect the model, and following a light varnishing, the stand was screwed to the hull. I decided to leave the colour as it was, being less intrusive – to my mind, the stand should be as ’invisible’ as possible so as not to detract from the model itself. I added the lettering, ’HM cutter ’Sherbourne’ – 1763’ at a later date.
 
The rudder was planked with three planks on each side, with paper strips around it at suitable points to simulate iron bands. The planks I chose were a little marked, which gave the rudder a old ’worn’ look. I fitted an eyebolt on its after side. Thin strips of black paper simulated the pintle and gudgeon straps. With that well-known concept known as hindsight, I now think the rudder would perhaps have looked better tapered, but there it is.
 
The last photo also shows the metal lettering of the name, the individual letters being glued on separately. Since I had painted the stern yellow ochre, I thought black lettering would look rather effective. However, to actually position the lettering itself took a little thinking about to get the spacing right. Rather than begin on the left side which would perhaps be usual, but which might very likely end up with too much space to the right, I decided to start with the central letters over the rudder, and work out to each side. Working by eye this method kept things equal, and resulted in the same amount of space on each side of the name. Whilst on the subject, I have not managed to find out how the actual name came about. There is a town named Sherbourne, in the English county of Dorset I used to live in, but I rather suspect the cutter is perhaps named after an Admiralty or Dockyard official. It would be interesting to know.
 
So, now to the deck. With the gunport strips fitted, the instructions then said something like, ’with a pair of pliers, twist off the heads of the frames above deck level’. What?! I must have read that a few times, to fully understand that’s what they really meant – and I felt that there was no way I was going to do actually that, without causing some serious damage! It appeared to me that it would also leave an unsightly break, which I would then have to spend time tidying up with sandpaper, even a file. Instead, I came up with another solution. Before fitting the gunport strips, I decided to saw about half-way through the frame tops at deck level from the side, with a fine toothed model saw, and to use only the minimum amount of glue in fixing the strips. I reckoned I would then only need to use minimum force to remove the frame tops. It worked well, they came away with very little effort – and I expended very little effort in tidying up the remains. I seem to remember that I planked the bulwarks both inside and out, using scale length planks, as I progressed, in order to strengthen the gunport strips. These were quite weak at this point with little support, merely being glued to the upper edge of the wale. I actually used the thin strips of, I think maple, to plank the inner bulwarks (although I think they were supposed to be used for the deck) since they fitted round the bow more easily, and were painted red.
 
I decided to more or less follow the colour scheme of the Alert on the cover of the AOTS book, for the outer bulwark planking. I opted to use yellow ochre for the planking, with red in the gun and sweep ports, black for both wales, with a line of blue between the upper wale and the capping rail.
 
The deck was laid in three-step-butt fashion, working from aft forward and from the centre out, the outer planks being joggled into the margin plank. One side, and one end, of each scale plank were ’caulked’ with black rigging cord. The same cord was also used to caulk around the hatches.
 

 
Next time: the various fittings.

Eamonn,
 
Is this something like you had in mind? I believe it's called a companionway, or doghouse (looks like a kennel?) perhaps. It has double doors on it's after side, both closed, and there is a thin strip across the top to represent a hinge. I had thought of having one door open but, as you say, you wouldn't be able to see much of any steps. I knocked it up from odd bits:
 

 
 
 
 

Mk,
 
Have a look at my Sherbourne log, the link to it is in my signature. Specifically the best views of coils are on page 3, post No. 40; page 5, post 68; page 8, post 113; page 9, post 132; and page 10, post 143.

Mkmossop,
 
As Mike implied most, if not all, lines will have a working length, which means the end will be coiled to a belaying pin (normally clockwise). The coils will also roughly be about the same size (although each may not have the same amount of line) and hang just clear of the deck, to prevent them picking up any wet or damp from it.
 
The way I make mine is to cut off a length of thread appropriate for that particular line you have in mind. You can more-or-less gauge this by thinking of the job it does on the ship, and the distance it may have to 'run', eg. for the braces, how far are the yards are likely to swing, fore and aft? This may not seem important, but will most likely be spotted by anyone who knows. (Btw, in the same way, if you were to have the yards on your model braced round, the side which has the yardarms furthest aft, would have more line on that side than the other. Similarly with halliards. If the yards, or staysails, are hoisted then there would be more rope to the coils, than if they were lowered.)
 
A useful way to make coils, I have found, is to use a pair of closed tapered pliers (you can keep them closed with an elastic band around the handles). Then, having gauged how large you wish to make the coil (the taper of the pliers helps here), take the amount of line you need and run it through your thumb and forefinger, which are lightly smeared with glue (I use wood glue). Beginning with one end, at an appropriate point on the pliers, slowly wrap the line around the plier nose (in a clockwise direction) so that the turns are close to one another, for the length of the line. Some care is needed to ensure the turns are even, but it doesn't matter that they overlap here and there, as it will look more realistic. The end should come down the right side of the coil, and I normally cut it off about half way down. 
 
You should now have a coil glued to itself, but not of course the pliers! Before it is quite dry slip the coil off the nose, and press into more of an oval shape. Then when dry you will have a nice looking coil ready to glue to the rail at the pin. Any dry glue that adheres itself to the pliers can be quickly removed with a fine sandpaper.
 
I hope this helps.

Shihawk,
 
I think the positions of the tackles would depend on what position the gun was in – whether run in, run out, or housed for bad weather.
 
Many modellers like to show the side tackles in a tight coil, sometimes known as a cheese, beside the gun, but I think this was usually only done for inspection purposes, and at other times they would have been coiled as per normal. During action of course, they probably wouldn't have been coiled at all. I don't really know, but I would imagine the coils would only have been on the deck during action, and the above mentioned inspections, and at other times would have been hung from the gun. This would have kept them out of the way probably for two reasons: 1) the gun decks would have been washed too; 2) the deck was also used as living space, and tables were also hung between the guns for the men to eat at. You can see that in this situation they would have been a hazard.
 
When the guns were secured for heavy weather, the gun was hauled up to the ship's side and the muzzle triced up to two ringbolts above the port. The side tackles were obviously hauled taught, and I believe the length of line was then hitched around the tackle itself just below the blocks, in a series of hitches, to use up the rope. Alternatively I have seen a drawing where the ends of the tackles are passed over the gun barrel to the opposite side, and tightly hitched to the opposite tackle. All ot this of course was to prevent the gun from moving, and I think wedges were also placed under the trucks.
 
I have not heard or read of belaying pins being used below decks for the coils or attached to the ship's side, only cleats in the deckhead for the gun port lid tackles.
 
I hope this helps – although I am not an expert on this!

Geoff,
 
You make a good point. 'Decorative' as rope coils might look on the decks of a model, this wasn't normal ship practice. There was a good reason for this – it encouraged rot.
 
Everything was done on board ship to minimise wear and tear (which after all means money spent) and this included the running rigging. Wherever possible rope coils were hung from the belaying pin they were associated with, or perhaps from a cleat if a large rope, so that no part of it touched the deck. Apart from gravity, this also allowed air to circulate around it and so dry it. Ropes left lying on deck would probably never dry out, being repeatedly wetted by either salt or fresh water. If you consider a deck (with rope coils laid on it) which has just been rained on, or a sea has come over the side, the deck itself might gradually dry out, but you can bet that that part of it under the coils will still remain wet or damp – an ideal situation for rot to set in.
 
Apart from that a heavy sea coming aboard would also leave the coils in a hopeless tangle, so coils on deck are also a safety hazard. From experience, the only time you would normally see a large amount of rope on deck, is when the ship is either setting or furling sail, or engaged in some manouver such as tacking or wearing. At these times, you have to be very careful where you put your feet, and you should never stand on a rope in this situation if you can avoid it – in case it moved without warning. The last order normally given after such an operation was to 'tidy up the spaghetti' – ie, coil up, and hang the running rigging from its pin. I should mention that this practice is followed today, even though the rope concerned might perhaps be modern Polypropolene, which will probably also deteriorate eventually.

I get the impression that anything called 'fair' a something, 'loom' a something, or whatever else a something, is a complete waste of money and doesn't do the job. I don't think there are any real short cuts to rigging, or any other task in model making – there is only the correct way, very often how it was done on the actual ship. It might take longer, but it's worth getting it right.  

The preventer stay was made in a similar way to the fore stay, except that it is of smaller circumference and employs a pair of hearts at its lower end. I used 0.7 black thread for the stay, and 0.25 black thread for the serving. As with the forestay, the stay was served above the mouse (a smaller piece of wood than that for the forestay, and painted black) where it passes around the mast. The measurements were again fairly critical to get all parts of it in the correct position, with the mouse sitting just above the larger one on the forestay.
 
  
 
I was unable to find hearts of the right size – or at least what I thought looked right to the eye, and according to the AOTS Alert book. The smallest I could find were 7mm, which were to my mind too large. I then thought to drill out two of the 3mm deadeyes that I had, which looked to be about right for the job, and stained them. I think they look acceptable. The lower of them was seized to a strop attached to an eyebolt on the stemhead, whilst the other was seized into the lower end of the preventer stay. The lower of the two hearts just clears the large deadeye on the lower stay.
 
There is no ‘snaking’ line between the forestay and preventer stay, as this would have prevented the staysail from being hoisted and lowered on the former.
 

 
I had hoped to include the rigging of the topgallant stay with this posting, but one or two problems have arisen which will be explained next time.
 

The topgallant stay is most likely the longest single piece of standing rigging on the cutter, at approximately 75cm in length. It runs from the topgallant masthead, through a block on the top of the cranse iron at the end of the bowsprit, and is then seized to the upper double block of a tackle hooked to the stem. Consulting the drawings in the AOTS Alert book however, produced another discrepancy. The illustration on page 104 shows the stay as running through a single block fitted to an eyebolt on the top of the cranse iron, yet that on page 115 ­(an end on view of the bowsprit) shows it as passing through the central sheave of a triple block – the two outer sheaves being used for the topsail yard braces. So, which is correct? After a little thought I decided to use the triple block arrangement, as not only would it seem to be the more common, but it also reduces the number of blocks at the end of bowsprit – where it is already getting a little crowded. If I had used a single block for the stay the braces would still have to be accommodated, most likely by using two single blocks, and I still have to fit two single blocks for the topsail bowlines, on strops just inboard of the cranse iron. The triple block itself, of course, is not supplied with the kit and I bought a suitably stained and polished 5mm pear example – or rather, examples, as it came with nine others.
 
I decided to fit the eyebolt on the stem first, to take the lower double block of the stay tackle. On stropping the block, and at the same time fitting on to it one of the hooks supplied with the kit, I first tried using thin brass wire. This had, of course, first to be painted black but the process turned out to be less than satisfactory, as the paint didn’t take on the metal too well. Even after two coats the wire showed through in a few places and flaked off when bent and the wire itself, although thin, also didn’t form itself satisfactorily around the block. Instead I substituted black rigging cord, which not only doesn’t need painting (with the ever present risk of getting black paint on the nicely varnished block) but formed naturally around the block when tightened. I fastened it with a small flat (reef) knot and a spot of glue secured it in place. The triple block on the cranse iron was stropped in the same way, except that here an eyebolt was used in place of the hook, which fitted into a hole drilled through the iron into the bowsprit. Again the reef knot didn’t look overscale:
 

 
 
Incidentally, the stained and polished blocks I am using for the rigging (triples, doubles and singles) whilst looking good, unfortunately only have a token mark where the groove for the strop should be, the actual groove having to be carefully filed out. This is a somewhat tricky operation initially, to ensure that the groove is made in the centre of the block, but once this has been carefully started (I normally hold the block in one hand, using self closing tweezers, and a suitably-sized file in the other) a few more gentle passes with the file produces a nice clean slot. The smaller the block, of course, the more difficult it is to file – and I just can’t wait to get to those 3mm single blocks!
 
Having cut the right length for the topgallant stay, using 0.25 black thread, the next task was to turn in, and seize, the double block at its lower end. Having done this on the serving machine, I waxed the line and then passed the other end through the central sheave of the block on the cranse iron. I formed a slip knot at that end, which was passed over the topgallant masthead and seated down on the mast stops. It was a little tricky, when working the knot tight, to get the double block at the other end of the stay in the right position to satisfactorily correspond with the one attached to the stem. However I think I managed it about right:
 

 
A problem, which I had actually been concerning about for some while, now presented itself. This concerned the route taken by the various lines, from the end of bowsprit to their pins on the forward pinrail and whether they should pass over, or go through, the forward bulwark. I believe this was commented on by Gregor in his log. The jib traveller outhaul I had rigged some time before, and as it is shown in the Alert book. The drawing shows it passing down through the bowsprit sheave, running back along under the sprit and then up through a single block fixed to an eyebolt on the wale, next to the stem. From there it passes up and over the rail and thence to its pin. Even though this might be correct, I have to agree that this arrangement does create a somewhat sharp bend in the line, where it passes over the rail and which, on the real vessel, would most certainly be a point of chafe. I therefore decided, as did Gregor, to drill some small holes directly through the bulwark so that both the traveller outhaul, and the topgallant stay tackle, follow what I think is a more seamanlike route to their respective pins (see picture 1). It also looks a lot neater.
 
The problem when doing the above, was not only to get the holes drilled in the correct places, but also to avoid getting the drill snarled up in the bowsprit shrouds – which had already been rigged – so I had to be somewhat careful. However, I managed it without too much hassle and, more importantly, without causing any damage!
 

 
Next time: the staysail.

I thought you might like to see a few more pictures of the (slow) progress on my Sherbourne. The pictures were actually taken about a month ago, and my wife and I are now at our cottage, so work won't resume on her until the autumn.
 
I've now finished the shrouds apart from the ratlines, which I'm leaving off for access until later, and have in place some of the running rigging, including the burtons, top rope, boom topping lift, and throat and peak halliards for the mainsail. The latter is bent to the gaff and brailed into the mast:
 

 

Allan,
 
I think this contemporary model may have natural standing rigging for very simple reasons. These 'dockyard' models were basically built to show the design of a ship, and the colour of the rigging was the least of their concerns. Everyone knew what tarred rigging looked like, so why go to the expense of reproducing it? The model maker may perhaps also not have had any black thread to hand, and would have had to go to the lengthy process of dying some. That again would have been uneccessary.
 
Today, I think we tend to look at these models from an aesthetic point of view, rather than the practical one which they did. Don't forget a war was probably in the offing, was being fought, or was perhaps just over before the next one, so they were somewhat differently motivated. They wanted to get the ship built as soon as possible!
 
Andy,
 
It became the the seamen's 'problem' once the first lieutenant learnt of the tar on his spotless deck!
 
Frankie,
 
Hence the naval salute today is palm down, the other services palm facing outwards. The tar of course would have been on the seamen's hands, since you are taught to grasp the shrouds when climbing not the ratlines – they can part without warning.
 
For the record, from my own experience, I have never come across tarred ratlines.

Having a closer look at it again, I can see there is a discrepancy between the first drawing (where the side tackles are hooked over the breech rope) and the second (where they are hooked under), Surely the second is the right way? Probably a mental blip on the part of the artist, but probably not in reality!

Robert,
 
I don't see anything wrong in the drawing. As far as I can see, the breech rope is naturally kinked, due to the gun's being in the 'run out' position. If you mean the way the rope is passed through the side ring, I can't see that as a problem either, as the ring is free to move with the rope on the recoil.

Eamonn,
 
Is this something like you had in mind? I believe it's called a companionway, or doghouse (looks like a kennel?) perhaps. It has double doors on it's after side, both closed, and there is a thin strip across the top to represent a hinge. I had thought of having one door open but, as you say, you wouldn't be able to see much of any steps. I knocked it up from odd bits:
 

 
 
 
 

Captain Al,
 
I'm not sure about this, but the gaff on the mizzen mast may have been left more or less permanently hoisted. Most of the illustrations I have seen of 18th/19th cent. men of war have them aloft when at anchor and the gaff sail was brailed into the mast, it being loose-footed along the boom. Since the Bounty was rerigged when she was purchased, I imagine she would have followed naval practice in this too.
 
The gaff probably had throat and peak halliards, but there may have been an extra span from the spar to the mast to take it's weight. The vangs would have secured the gaff from movement at its outer end. In passing, there would have been a topping lift to take the weight of the boom when the sail was not set, even though it is not shown on your plans. The peak halliard and vangs would only be of use when the gaff was in the hoisted position and would not have had any control of the boom, not being connected to it. I would think there was a crutch to hold the boom end, when the sail was not set.
 
Hope this helps, but I am sure someone else may have the definitive answer.
 
 

Nigel,
 
I think most of us have seen this model, either in the catalogue or for real (in my case in a model shop), and thought 'what a great model'. BE made a superb job of his, and I expect you will do the same – given your penchant for accuracy! Looking forward to seeing how she turns out. I suppose the only down side is that it will slow up work on your other models – but I guess you will just have to 'bite the bullet'!  
 
Btw, I trust you didn't take any 'selfies' whilst watching the Tour de France – and now seemingly England?

Testazyk,
 
No, I don't think so – I believe it's an OSWT! (Old Sailors Wives Tale) If you look around the Victory, none of the ship's sides on the gun decks are painted red (as Kevin has said, they were white to reflect light) and that probably went for most ships. I think the only place where there is red 'paint' is on the orlop, where the cables are stowed, and I read that it was used there as it had certain waterproofing properties. 
 
I would imagine it wouldn't have made much of a difference to the men anyway. The gun crews on a warship which saw a lot of action were, I am sure, quite used to the sight of blood and other horrors – and it wouldn't have been limited to the ship's sides. I have an idea the ship's sides may have been red in earlier centuries, but I am not sure about that. If so, the later red around the gunports and inside of the lids, may perhaps be the remnants of it.

Each cannon was usually loaded through its own port, by rope slings from the appropriate yardarm or perhaps from sheerlegs, and then transferred to it's waiting carriage.