Doreltomin

Interesting French book that can be downloaded.  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5699565s.r=Collection%20de%20plans%20bateaux
 
Website is in French but I managed to get the book downloaded in pdf format ok not knowing any French.

Some more mediaeval pictures of ships with lateen sails.
 
The first is Catalan, thought to be from the mid-late 13th century (maybe about 1290) and shows quite a bit of detail - shrouds, halyards, braces and perhaps a fore-tackle, plus what may be a parrel truck fixing the yard to the mast - or perhaps just a loop of rope (sorry about the watermark - this is the biggest representation I could find on the net).
 
The next is mid-14th century Italian and shows most of the ropes and blocks. The fore-tackle is particularly clear.
 
The next is Byzantine, from about 1200 AD and again shows shrouds, tackles and braces. The detail's not as good, as the picture's so small.
 
The fourth picture is 14th century Spanish. It shows a single brace and fore-tackle, and halyards, but no shrouds. The yard seems to be held to the mast with a double loop of rope.
 
But a picture's emerging which should allow me to produce a rig which I'm confident is close to what was in use at the time. There seem to have been variations, as one would expect - the fixing of the shrouds to the mast, the suspension of the yard, either by a loop of rope, or two loops. I've also come across pictures of lateeners with parrels, but I don't seem to have taken copies (damn!). Though I'd expect larger ships to use parrels, I haven't got any hard evidence for them in the right period, so I probably won't have them on the model.
 
There seems to be no sign of lifts for the yard at this time, and it's perhaps debatable whether they could have been used, as the yard seems almost always to have been hoisted all the way to the top of the mast.
 
Also, a picture by a Byzantine artist of a galley which appears to me to have a horizontal spur at the bow, just as I proposed in my last post. Unfortunately I don't know the source, but it looks to be from some time in the 12th century AD. The artist seems to have got the direction of the oarsmen wrong - they should be facing the stern, which is where the steersman is.
 
And finally, a Spanish picture from between 1270 and 1284 which shows a galley in the foreground with what appears to be a lowered mast (almost horizontal, in front of the soldiers). The ships in the background still have their masts vertical.
 
The "wings" of the ship are at the stern, so the mast is leaning aftwards. If this really is a mast, I may have been wrong in thinking the masts were pulled out of the deck with sheers - I may have to go back to the idea of a pivoting mast. Of course, it's possible that what we see here is not a lowered mast but a broken one - the lower end does look like it may have been broken off.
 
Aha! I've found the other picture of the tops of shrouds wrapped around the mast - it's early 15th century, a galley from Michael of Rhodes' treatise on shipbuilding. See the final picture. It's also got some very good details of rigging, though I have to say it's rather late - up to 400 years after the time I'm interested in, and a lot of evolution would have happened in ship design in the meantime.
 
Steven

Here are the two earliest representations I can find of mediaeval lateen rigging that show any detail at all. The earlier one is 9th century AD Byzantine and is fairly simple, but it does show the shrouds and the fore tackles for the yard, as well as what appears to be a halyard with a block. The rudder's also very interesting - it appears to be attached to a platform.
 
The other is from 1339 and is Italian, and has a LOT of detail, including not only the shrouds but their method of fastening -not deadeyes but blocks [edit - this is so the shrouds on the lee side of the ship could be slackened off when tacking, so they didn't keep the sail from filling with wind to its fullest extent - see attached picture] - a rope ladder to the top, fore tackles, bolt ropes and even the shape of the tiller and the tackles that hold the rudder in position, one fore and one aft.
 
It also shows the shape of the top and apparently how the shrouds are fixed to the mast (wrapped around) - I have no idea if this was common practice in the Middle Ages, but it's certainly different from later practice [edit - I've since found at least one other representation of the tops of the shrouds wrapped around the mast just under the top]. The other details of the ship of course have very little to do with a dromon - totally different type of ship, and several centuries too late. But one question - what are those ropes halfway along the yard that seem to lead upwards to heaven?  

Thanks everybody for the "likes". They are much appreciated.
 
Dick, I'm using AutoCad LT  2006, which I use in my 'real world' business designing houses. I find it very helpful, but it's only in 2 dimensions (3D AutoCad is prohibitively expensive).
 
I take your point about frame positions, and for the midships section I'll probably come up against this if I decide to do it in full.
 
However, the Yenikapi ships show considerable variation in the spacing of their frames, benches and oarports, and the spacings quoted are only averages. So I might be able to "tweak" the spacings to allow the oarports to go between the frames without playing around too much with the frames themselves.
 
Additionally, there are quite a few frames on each of these ships where the different frame members are next to each other instead of in the same line, so that could be done as well without feeling I'm departing too much from what was actually done. 
 
This has turned out to be quite a challenging build, and I haven't even picked up a piece of wood yet!
 
Steven

A couple of days ago I saw  in the archaeological report of Texas A&M University's excavation of ships from the Yenikapi find in Istanbul, something I hadn't noticed before . The drawing of the most intact galley of all, a light galea known as YK4, includes a diagram of the 35th frame of the vessel, which is effectively a midship section.
 
Out of curiosity I printed it off as large as I could, drew up a grid of 1 metre squares around it and copied its shape on my computer to the same scale as the plans for the proposed dromon model, taken from Professor John Pryor's reconstruction.  To compare the two I superimposed the images, and the correspondence was uncanny - at the point they diverge most, the discrepancy between the two shapes is only about 50mm!
 
That a theoretical reconstruction, particularly given the scarcity of information available to base it on, turned out to be so close to the archaeological reality is amazing. Needless to say, I was very impressed, and I take my hat off to Professor Pryor.
 
The only major difference I could see was that the dromon's tholes appeared to be about 170mm higher than those of the ship found in Istanbul. But that was a galea, vessel with just a single bank of oars. A double-banked dromon would be considerably larger and heavier and would sit deeper in the water, so the tholes would be lower. Taking the galea's waterline as being at the bottom of the lowest of the three wales, I re-did the superimposition. They line up perfectly.
 
This has confirmed my confidence in the reconstruction, and that I'll be making something that is very close indeed to the reality of the actual vessel.
 
Steven 
 
 

After having found the right method for block production, a further development had to be made. Almost all the ship`s blocks have some sort of strap around it, made either of rope or metal. I was wondering if I could find a way to produce these too, without spending the rest of my life making them.
 
And for this reason I built a small jig using some plywood and strip pieces:
 

 
With this jig it is possible to produce both types of strapped blocks.
 
 
 
 
The metal strap was made using a piece of 0,56 mm soldering tin, first by flattening other end of it:
 

 
The flattened part was cut in two, and other end was formed as a hook:
 

 
 
And finally the block was attached into the jig, metal halves were bent around it and secured with tiny drops of epoxy glue:
 

 
The blocks with strap made of rope were made by first wrapping a piece of 0,12 mm thread around the pole and block:
 

 
Second piece of thread was used to make a seizing between the block and pole:
 

 
And finally we had both types of blocks ready:
 

 
It is sure that the thin soldering tin is not capable to hold heavy stresses, so when attaching it to other parts of rigging, care must be taken.
 
To be continued.....
 
matti
 

Thanks for your kind words Omega1234, Mark and Tom!
 
And again some more deck structures.
 
Pumps, hatch and some sort of cabinets. All made of 1 mm birch plywood and 0,6 mm veneer:

 
Cargo hatches:
 

 
Pentry house and winch:
 

 
And everything arranged on the deck but not yet glued:
 

 

Thanks a lot Tom!
 
Yes, only one month shipbuilding, but 60 years aeroplanes, cars, tanks, dollshouses etc. etc.
And I agree with you, now that I have been lurking here watching other people's projects, I wish that I wouldn't have started my own. So wonderful and beautifully built models that I hardly ever can do the same.
Ok, I will learn, and when me and my wife are satisfied to what we do, isn't that all that matters.
 
I too wish to you and everybody here who is reading my humble build, very happy holiday season!
 
matti

Thanks guys for your kind words and comments!
 
It is time to write some update. Next I was building the bulwarks. To support them as rigidly as possible, 1,5 mm steel pins were glued into the holes provided at the edge of the deck. On those pins came bulwark supporting pieces cut from solid birch. And finally planks for bulwarks were installed:
 

 
At the same time the stem, keel and sternpost were cut from solid birch, sanded and glued. The whole hull was then coloured with oak stain and sanded lightly to represent somewhat weathered outlook:
 

 

Thanks Nenad, Jim Lad and aviaamator for reading!
 
And now to actual building. I selected the Plank on Bulkhead method for this model, and decided to make the bulkheads out of 8 mm MDF. I know the purists among you will say: "Wrong decision", but this was made because MDF is cheap, easy to cut, sand etc. and it is very obvious that the model will never see any water when standing at our bookshelf.
The planks were cut out of birch, which is also cheap, local and can be used as solid, veneer and plywood. And it is very tight grained so small details can be easily made out of it.
 
So here am I, half of the planks glued and no problems yet:
 

 
I didn`t want to use any nails which would be seen on the planks, so I made curved jigs like the one in picture to keep the ends of planks steady during the glue setting.
 
Very nice tool for tapering the planks is this tiny little plane made by Veritas, and the attachment where the plank was fastened during tapering:
 

 
And finally after few days work the planking was finished, and the hull was sanded smooth:
 

 
A false deck made of 1 mm birch plywood was installed:
 

 
And deck planking made using again 2x4 mm planks sawn from birch. Caulking between the planks was made by blackening the plank`s edges with soft pencil:
 

 
 
To be continued...
 
 
 
 
 

Hello,
 
Thanks again for all of you who have welcomed me into this forum and encouraged to start a build log about my present project.
 
As already mentioned at the introduction area, I am building a wooden ketch Clara May after David McGregor plans, which I obtained already about 14 years ago, but never really started to build it. Soon however I found out that the plans could have been better to show more details as they do, but I think that with help from the forum all questions can be solved.
 
The reason to choose this as my first wooden ship project was, that the hull & superstructure are simple enough for the first project, and that the outlooks of the ship was appealing to me.
I chose scratch building instead of a kit because I happen to have a rather well equipped workshop to be able to cut all my timbers by myself. And having scratch built already a couple of tanks and cars in 1/6 scale I was not afraid of the work which might be ahead.
And thirdly, when scratchbuilding you can freely select your materials and are not tied to the ones included into the kit, which are not always the best possible.
 
So here we are, in the beginning. The first pictures show the plans of the ship and some of the equipment which I have in my workshop.
 
To be continued...

Most interesting, Wayne, as you note, that there is no red pigment listed.
'Verdigris' is a pigment name, though as an artists' color it is not very saturated and is fugitive with exposure to light.  It is green.  The Prussian Blue listed just after is a strong, permanent blue-green pigment that will stand much mixing with other colors and white.  It becomes, with white, a sky blue or robin's egg blue, just as a guide.  With white and yellow ochre it would become green, but not very bright, because the yellow is dull.

It may, perchance, be worth a visit to the Mariner's Mirror  for some information on past practice.  For example, we have a collection of eye witness sketches and detailed descriptions of the vessels at the Battle of the Nile available here: Paul, L. 1914. An Artist’s Notes at the Battle of the Nile. The Mariner’s Mirror 4, no. 8: 266–273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00253359.1914.10654827.
 
We may also glean a bit of information from the Carpenter's notes concerning supplies &c. for the Victory discussed by one of the eminent marine historians (a former curator for the Victory) available here:  Goodwin, P.G. 2013. The Application and Scheme of Paintworks in British Men-of-War in the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries. The Mariner’s Mirror 99, no. 3: 287–300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00253359.2013.815993.
 
Here are a couple of tidbits from the latter:
 
The Victory’s carpenter on 18 August 1805 recorded:
 
‘To whitewashing the Tiers, Wings Cock-pits Store-roomes (sic) Lower & Middle Decks – Lime 12 Bushels Glue 12 Pounds’.
 
Acting on this information a request was submitted to the VATC to change the internal colour along the ship’s side of those gun decks from buff yellow to white.
 
It appears that the original reasons for paying up the Victory’s internal sides with whitewash were as follows:
 
1 To brighten up and improve light levels to the interior of the gun decks where the majority of the seamen and marines lived
2 To kill off potential bacteria (a natural property of whitewash) for much the same purpose as the common land practice at that time of whitewashing back yards and outhouses etc. of houses.
3 Whitewash, being a cheap commodity could be applied regularly.
Research revealed that the glue was fish glue, which acted as a binding agent. The whitewash mix would have comprised slaked lime and sea salt, boiled with water, added to which was the fish glue.
 
The carpenter’s entry dated 14 September reads:
 
To painting the ships side after caulking, the Gunroom and Officers Apartments under the Awning and Quarter deck Waist &c. after Refitting
 
and the paint and materials consumed for the above entry listed in the margin are given as:
Yellow – 350 lbs; Black – 150 lbs; White – 450 lbs.; Oil – 47 gallons; Brushes – 20 in No.
 
It should be noted that the oil referred to is linseed oil, which is commonly used in paint as a binding and adhesive agent.
 
These are the relevant stores supplied to Victory at Portsmouth on 31 August 1805:
1. White – 120 lb
2. Yellow – 34 lb
3. Black Varnish – 66 gallons
4. Glue – 12 lb
5. Lime – 8 bushels
6. Whitewash brushes – 6
 
Then on 2 September 1805:
1. Yellow – 350 lb
2. Black – 150 lb
3. White – 150 lb
4. Oil. – 47 gallons
5. White – 66 lb
6. Black – 13 lb
7. Yellow – 78 lb
8. Verdigris (sic) – 5 lb
9. Prussian Blue – 1 lb
 
Then on 6 September 1805:
1. White – 86 lb
2. Yellow – 234 lb
3. Oil. – 2 1/2 gallons
4. Black Varnish – 66 gallons. lb.32
Note that no red is listed.
 
Now, I freely concede that the information which I have offered is limited both in time and space (time - late 18th early 19th century, and space - Royal Navy.  Sort of a warp in the space-time continuum reflective of the gravity of the Nelson era, eh?).  HOWEVER - Goodwin brings in more perspective on earlier period (mainly, again, British navy, although there is a bit on the French). 
 
Practice in the US is likewise available, though for a bit more work.  I recommend, for example, the information on stores in Smith, P.C.F. 1974. The Frigate Essex Papers: Building the Salem Frigate, 1798-1799. Salem [Mass.]: Peabody Museum of Salem.
 
 

Chapter 11, of NRG's epic "Ship Modelers Shop Notes", edited by Merritt Edson, deals with contemporary painting and finishing of ships. One of the articles, written by Howard Chapelle, is a collection of contemporary American newspaper accounts from the 1760's of small, un-named, abandoned merchant vessels, brigs and schooners, found floating awash at sea, that describes them to their readers, for identification purposes. They were sometimes brightly painted with red or blue portions of their hulls. This chapter deserves a re-read.

in Northern Europe they loved colours during that period.
Try to google for pictures of church interiors (pulpits, Organ cases).
You'll be surprised.
 

I don't see why the important ships of that period would not be painted according to the same taste and style. (picture linked form wikipedia, church in Basedow (Northern Germany)
 
With respect to the Dutch 'working ships': the main preservative was Stockholm tar. Hull. rigging, anything. Some paint was used, but a very restricted number of colours. And gold leaf was just too much: I don't know of any ships completely covered in gold. Some highlights perhaps (the lions crown, heraldy, but certainly not the 'ordinary' carving.) Even on their models the Dutch used gold sparingly.
 
 
Jan

One must not forget that Royal Ships of the 17th century were not only powerful machines of war, they were first of all a display of force of the respective kingdoms. Nor do this happens just to our human race, it is the same with other species: take for example the lions, where the dominant lion has an almost superfluous mane which can be seen from miles away, yet loses it when loses supremacy among his group! The same goes for or the bright colours of birds' feathers, which are used to attract females but also as a display of power... the more powerful the male, the brighter the colours!
 
Moreover, colours in 17th century ships were not only used to make ships more pleasant/attractive and a bold declaration of power. The main reason was practical: to protect the wood against the rough elements. I have also wondered at first why they would put a lot of gold leaf on something which is basically a machine to kill? The plain answer is that gold leaf is one of the most effective ways to protect wood against elements and this was learn from a long time ago. One must not forget that Egyptian pharaohs had their wooden furniture and coffins covered in gold leaf at first for practical reasons! Unlike other known materials like iron or copper, gold does not decay with time therefore covering things in gold on the long term comes out cheaper than covering it in other decaying materials which would mean in several years you have to strip down the protection and renew. Of course covering all the ship in gold leaf would cost a fortune therefore they had to make a balance of costs and added in also other materials. 
 
One more point is that bright colours were seen only when the paint was new. It might therefore be correct for a model of the unfortunate Wasa to have bright colours since she is one of the few ships known to have capsized only after 20 minutes of navigation. But for most of the 17th century ships it may be taken as certain that their paints were faded off after several weeks of navigation on rough seas. Therefore it is again a matter of choice from the modeller, how you would to display your model? be it in bright colours just as recently taken out of the building yard, or battered after several weeks of navigation on heavy seas? The choice is known also in other modelling branches: some prefer to run their locomotives and railway stock as brand new, others take their time and talent to make them look weathered! 

One must not forget that Royal Ships of the 17th century were not only powerful machines of war, they were first of all a display of force of the respective kingdoms. Nor do this happens just to our human race, it is the same with other species: take for example the lions, where the dominant lion has an almost superfluous mane which can be seen from miles away, yet loses it when loses supremacy among his group! The same goes for or the bright colours of birds' feathers, which are used to attract females but also as a display of power... the more powerful the male, the brighter the colours!
 
Moreover, colours in 17th century ships were not only used to make ships more pleasant/attractive and a bold declaration of power. The main reason was practical: to protect the wood against the rough elements. I have also wondered at first why they would put a lot of gold leaf on something which is basically a machine to kill? The plain answer is that gold leaf is one of the most effective ways to protect wood against elements and this was learn from a long time ago. One must not forget that Egyptian pharaohs had their wooden furniture and coffins covered in gold leaf at first for practical reasons! Unlike other known materials like iron or copper, gold does not decay with time therefore covering things in gold on the long term comes out cheaper than covering it in other decaying materials which would mean in several years you have to strip down the protection and renew. Of course covering all the ship in gold leaf would cost a fortune therefore they had to make a balance of costs and added in also other materials. 
 
One more point is that bright colours were seen only when the paint was new. It might therefore be correct for a model of the unfortunate Wasa to have bright colours since she is one of the few ships known to have capsized only after 20 minutes of navigation. But for most of the 17th century ships it may be taken as certain that their paints were faded off after several weeks of navigation on rough seas. Therefore it is again a matter of choice from the modeller, how you would to display your model? be it in bright colours just as recently taken out of the building yard, or battered after several weeks of navigation on heavy seas? The choice is known also in other modelling branches: some prefer to run their locomotives and railway stock as brand new, others take their time and talent to make them look weathered! 

One must not forget that Royal Ships of the 17th century were not only powerful machines of war, they were first of all a display of force of the respective kingdoms. Nor do this happens just to our human race, it is the same with other species: take for example the lions, where the dominant lion has an almost superfluous mane which can be seen from miles away, yet loses it when loses supremacy among his group! The same goes for or the bright colours of birds' feathers, which are used to attract females but also as a display of power... the more powerful the male, the brighter the colours!
 
Moreover, colours in 17th century ships were not only used to make ships more pleasant/attractive and a bold declaration of power. The main reason was practical: to protect the wood against the rough elements. I have also wondered at first why they would put a lot of gold leaf on something which is basically a machine to kill? The plain answer is that gold leaf is one of the most effective ways to protect wood against elements and this was learn from a long time ago. One must not forget that Egyptian pharaohs had their wooden furniture and coffins covered in gold leaf at first for practical reasons! Unlike other known materials like iron or copper, gold does not decay with time therefore covering things in gold on the long term comes out cheaper than covering it in other decaying materials which would mean in several years you have to strip down the protection and renew. Of course covering all the ship in gold leaf would cost a fortune therefore they had to make a balance of costs and added in also other materials. 
 
One more point is that bright colours were seen only when the paint was new. It might therefore be correct for a model of the unfortunate Wasa to have bright colours since she is one of the few ships known to have capsized only after 20 minutes of navigation. But for most of the 17th century ships it may be taken as certain that their paints were faded off after several weeks of navigation on rough seas. Therefore it is again a matter of choice from the modeller, how you would to display your model? be it in bright colours just as recently taken out of the building yard, or battered after several weeks of navigation on heavy seas? The choice is known also in other modelling branches: some prefer to run their locomotives and railway stock as brand new, others take their time and talent to make them look weathered! 

One must not forget that Royal Ships of the 17th century were not only powerful machines of war, they were first of all a display of force of the respective kingdoms. Nor do this happens just to our human race, it is the same with other species: take for example the lions, where the dominant lion has an almost superfluous mane which can be seen from miles away, yet loses it when loses supremacy among his group! The same goes for or the bright colours of birds' feathers, which are used to attract females but also as a display of power... the more powerful the male, the brighter the colours!
 
Moreover, colours in 17th century ships were not only used to make ships more pleasant/attractive and a bold declaration of power. The main reason was practical: to protect the wood against the rough elements. I have also wondered at first why they would put a lot of gold leaf on something which is basically a machine to kill? The plain answer is that gold leaf is one of the most effective ways to protect wood against elements and this was learn from a long time ago. One must not forget that Egyptian pharaohs had their wooden furniture and coffins covered in gold leaf at first for practical reasons! Unlike other known materials like iron or copper, gold does not decay with time therefore covering things in gold on the long term comes out cheaper than covering it in other decaying materials which would mean in several years you have to strip down the protection and renew. Of course covering all the ship in gold leaf would cost a fortune therefore they had to make a balance of costs and added in also other materials. 
 
One more point is that bright colours were seen only when the paint was new. It might therefore be correct for a model of the unfortunate Wasa to have bright colours since she is one of the few ships known to have capsized only after 20 minutes of navigation. But for most of the 17th century ships it may be taken as certain that their paints were faded off after several weeks of navigation on rough seas. Therefore it is again a matter of choice from the modeller, how you would to display your model? be it in bright colours just as recently taken out of the building yard, or battered after several weeks of navigation on heavy seas? The choice is known also in other modelling branches: some prefer to run their locomotives and railway stock as brand new, others take their time and talent to make them look weathered! 

Our aesthetics are still dominated by the 18th century classicistic scholars and the re-discovery of medieval and earlier art in the early 19th century. At that time much of the original paint on buildings and other artefacts had crumbled away and faded. Hence, we tend to expect either the 'pure' material (wood, marble, other stone), rather than a colourful paint-scheme. Modern archeological techniques, however, have revealed many traces of paint that allow us to reconstruct paint-schemes and painting techniques. As a result, one must assume that many ships and buildings over history were painted in rather garish colours.
 
There is no comprehensive study on colours and paints used in decorating and preserving ships. It is quite certain, however, that the dominant pigments were mineral ones because they were cheap and stable. Many plant-derived pigments, particularly reds, are not permanent, i.e. they will fade when exposed to sunlight. Yellows, brick-reds and browns are all iron(hydr)oxides that are derived from natural ochre that has been heated to varying degrees and they are relatively cheap. Blues and greens can be derived from cobalt- or copper-containing minerals or synthesised from salts of these metals. They are more expensive. White, being derived from chalk or lime is cheap too. This gives you the main palette and other colours can be produced by mixing pigments.
 
As we all know, due to the long-wave light absorption by the water vapour in the air, colours appear to become more blue and paler the more distant you are from the painted object. In order to sufficiently impress across the typical viewing distance of several hundred meters you have to use a more garish paint scheme. Of course, if you reproduce this on a model that is being viewed from a short distance, it may not be very pleasing aesthetically to the modern beholder. Even modern replicas, such as the UTRECHT statenjacht or the frigate HERMIONE are not really pleasing to the eye that has been trained by museum models and old paintings.
 
Old paintings are another problem. Often the varnish on them tones down the original colour scheme. I have been shocked, when I discovered the original bright colouring in some paintings that I have known before their varnish was stripped off and they were cleaned.

Hi Moony,
 
The image you posted actually comes from a book written by George Frederick Campbell which is called "China tea clippers" , 1954. 
 
As for your question, back in 1860 there were two situations: there were either well known shipbuilding companies which gradually switched from wooden construction to iron, therefore they had to buy iron profiles including iron plates from a local supplier or there was the inverse situation where an iron company extended their trade into shipbuilding. There are also known cases when two well known firms, one in iron working, the other in shipbuilding, start to work together. In both cases they borrowed some practices from the previous wooden construction like the distance between frames. In a lengthy process of trial and error they learned the proper thickness of an iron plate for a said distance between the frames, just as in the case of the wooden builds. Then they bought the appropriate plates either from a local supplier or had them made to specifications. So the thickness varied with the distance between frames, which in turn varied with the length of the ship, and their choice was more or less the job of the ship designer. Smaller ships had a smaller distance between the frames, bigger ships had more. 
 
Just to make you an image, the plates were offered in a wide range of thicknesses, the standard being much the same as today: https://www.tedpella.com/company_html/gauge.htm
 
So I am afraid the only correct answer to your question is: find the original drawings of the ship and you will find also the correct thickness of the plates, there is no standard!

Are you sure that Dutch anchors of that period were strapped? In early years they were just bolted. .
I am not sure when they changed to iron bands.
 
Edit: actually, after some googling I'm pretty sure you don't need straps. Look at one of the models in the Rijksmuseum: https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/nl/collectie/NG-MC-652
Alos others in maritiemdigitaal do not show straps.
This one shows the position of the bolts quite nicely:
https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/nl/zoeken/objecten?q=William+rex&p=1&ps=12&ii=0#/NG-MC-651,0
 
Jan

Well, it looks like I lucked out this time and everything in my previous post showed up as advertise.
 
Today I continued with cutting the last fluke out of that brass sheet stock and filed the last two to size.  Looking at them on the anchor arm they looked just too heavy for scale and flat.  So, I decided to hand machine them down somewhat and at the same time machine a curve into them.  
Yes, it's a lot of work but so what, it's only a few more hours of my time.  I did use diamond impregnated mini grinding wheels though to speed-up the work.  I brought the thickness down to 1.2 mm, not bad at all.  The final shaping was done with a series of files.  I'll wait with the final dressing till after all the parts are soldered on and the anchor is completed.
 
I did not make any pictures of the grinding and filing, all yuns know how to do that - - right?  I also didn't make any pics of the soldering for the same reason and besides I don't have an extra set of arms
 
So then, tomorrow I'll assemble anchor numero duo and put the stock on.  I plan to wrap three straps around each side to secure the two halves together.  That'll be fun, soft soldering the brass straps on the cherry stock without burning them
 
That'll complete both main anchors and I think I need to make a smaller one to display somewhere on the ship.
 
Here are two pics, hope you approve.
 

 

 
Cheers,

$4.000 and it doesn't even change it's own tools.  I'll wait for the up-grade. 
 
lol
 
Bob

$4000 and it makes a mess.
 
The admiral would not be happy  . 
 
Richard.