Michael P

Oh dear. No one has complained about this, but the trestle- and cross-trees really were just too big. I looked at the plans in Longridge’s book about HMS Victory, and they are shown as tiny. That’s not right either - I worked out the dimensions using Steel’s figures, and I needed to make them about 2/3 of the present size. That was possible, though the cross-trees are now too small to be drilled for the rigging. Anyway, the revised ones don’t look too bad to me, though of course a photo brings out all the imperfections. Please remember that the maximum dimension is three quarters of an inch. Despite them being small, they seem strong enough, thanks to the Bahia rosewood. I think it’s very important to avoid making things oversize if possible; I’ve seen too many photos of models where this is a fault. The topmasts are not yet fixed in place, but I put them in just for the photo. The view through the window does not, incidentally, reveal just how unbelievably wet the garden is. On a different topic, I had asked earlier if anyone knew what had happened to the modelships.de site. I found the answer on the web, and it’s a sad one. The owner of the site died, and that meant the end of it.

Well, as usual I’ve not advanced as fast as I’d hoped. Late medieval English armies have got in the way, among other things. The garden has needed some work, even though most of it is now a swamp (is this the wettest spring since 1316, I wonder?). One question about tops. Steel states that ‘RAILS are made of wood or iron, and fitted across the aftside of tops, to prevent the men from falling’, and he also says that ‘The rail is supported by stantions let into the top, with a netting from side to side; the outside is covered with baize or canvas, and furnished with stoppers, to clap on in case a topmast shroud should be carried away by accident.’ This would fit with earlier eighteenth century models, such as that of HMS Centurion (in the National Maritime Museum), but I’ve not seen evidence for anything so elaborate at the end of the century. I have just fitted wire rails, without netting or covering. I might add netting later. Advice will be gratefully received. Another issue with the tops is how to do the deadeyes. Fitting them properly, with metal strops and slots in the tops, just looked clumsy at this scale. So, I have cheated again, and just tied them to the ends of the futtock shrouds. Now, topmasts. The masts themselves are straightforward, of course. But the trestle-trees and cross-trees are not, and I’ve had problems with them in the past. I wondered about card for this model - it can bend awkwardly, but it won’t snap. Anyway, I stuck with wood. The Bahia Rosewood I used earlier is very close-grained and tough, so I’ve used that. It even takes drilling holes to take the topgallant shrouds. I have cheated by simply glueing the cross-trees in place without grooving the trestle trees. I don’t think it really shows at this scale, and they were not fitted flush in any case. The picture makes them look rougher and clumsier than I think is the case. Anything slimmer would be very difficult to do at my age, with anything so small. But if anyone has ideas, they will be most welcome.

An update is long overdue, not that there is that much to report. Rigging proceeds, all too slowly. The bowsprit presents interesting problems. A few more thoughts on the question of a dolphin striker, for I still don’t understand why this did not make it impossible to set the spritsail. Longridge has a possible solution in his fold-out rigging plan of Victory, by bringing the martingale backstay close up to the striker. This would surely have made it much less likely that the striker could hold down the jibboom effectively, though making it possible to set the spritsail. In contrast, the NMM model of HMS Mars has such a complexity of ropes from the striker that it would surely have been impossible to set the sail (https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-66538). As for a spritsail topsail, none of the drawings of Agamemnon by Pocock in the National Maritime Museum show one on Agamemnon, and I’ll not fit one. The main and foretops are just about ready to fit. I’ll need to fit the blocks that go under them, which means deciding just how much running rigging to include. I’ll go for overkill at this stage, as it’s easier to fit the blocks and remove them later if they are not all needed, than to struggle to add them after the tops are in place. One point about stays. I’ve noticed that a number of models on this website have euphroes and crowsfeet. Steel, however, says that these were not fitted to large ships of this period, and I’m not planning to fit them. I found it impossible, incidentally, to lace the stays to the preventer stays by knotting, so as you can see, I have glued the connecting lanyard. It’s a bit of cheat, but alternative methods just did not work at this scale. Oh - in the photo you can just see the bow of one of the ship’s boats, and a bit of the hull of another. I’ll be reporting on them later, but it’s been interesting to experiment with possible ways of making them.

One question about catharpins. I’ve always found them a problem to get looking right, but this query is about lower catharpins (about 1/3 of the way up the shrouds) which seem to be a rarity, though they feature on the National Maritime Museum’s model of HMS Ipswich (1730). They do, however, appear in Loutherbourg’s painting of the Glorious First of June (1794). I’m not inclined to add them, unless anyone comes up with more evidence for their use in the 1790s. They would be fiddly and difficult to get right. In the late 1950s I think I put them on a model of Centurion, but I can’t check as it’s currently languishing in daughter’s attic, having been replaced on display by son-in-law’s Lego Land-Rover. Then there’s the issue of whether to fit a dolphin striker. There was undoubtedly none when Agamemnon was built, but it’s possible that one was installed in the 1790s, for they were officially introduced in 1794. The model of the 74 gun Mars (1794) in the National Maritime Museum has one. The fine model of Agamemnon at https://julianstockwin.com/2017/10/10/agamemnon-the-darch-model/ also features a dolphin striker. But I think I’ll probably take the easy option, and not add one. One regret - I have found the modelships.de website interesting for the many photographs of, for the most part, kit models. But it has now vanished, and I can’t find any explanation. Here's the relevant bit of the very dramatic Loutherbourg painting:

Apologies - it’s been a long time since I updated this. Why? Christmas, helping 10 year old grandson with his Airfix Lancaster bomber (he’s much better at the fiddly bits than I am), and most recently getting a new computer. I can’t, incidentally, see much difference between Windows 10 and 11, except that the very old printer won’t work with 11. As for Agamemnon, the shrouds took ages to set up, with lacing the lanyards through the deadeyes proving harder than ever. There was no possibility of my knotting the ratlines on this scale. The knots would have looked too bulky, and would have pushed some of the shrouds out of place. Nor would I have had the patience to do it that way. So the ratlines are glued in place with PVA, darkened with black paint. I was a bit stuck finding a sufficiently thin thread for them, until I unwound some Gutermann sew all. As for the stays, the forestay was a bit of a struggle to fit properly, with an open heart over the jib-boom. Why did they do things in such a complicated way? And I have cheated with the mainstay, by simply lashing the collar under the bowsprit. Running it properly was just beyond me; my attempts looked much too bulky and awkward. I have not attempted to worm, parcel or serve any of the ropes - remember that this is at a scale of 1:50, and to have done so would be difficult and probably pointless. There is, incidentally, an interesting analysis of a stay from HMS Invincible to be found in a Bournemouth University thesis, The Rigging of HMS Invincible, by Tom Cousins. It was formed of four hawsers, with a core of loose yarns, heavily tarred, wormed and parcelled.

Lanyards and deadeyes. Some idle thoughts about the rigging, which I have now started (see photo below). I’m using black thread for the standing rigging, even though very dark brown would surely be more accurate. But black looks good, and I’ve got a good amount of it in. One of the issues is the colour of the lanyards for the deadeyes. This is clearly a matter of considerable controversy. I’ve gone for black, on the grounds that it’s unlikely that they needed to be adjusted very often, and they were very exposed to spray, so it surely made sense for them to be well-tarred. The evidence of pictures suggests that the lanyards were dark: they don’t stand out as they would if they were untarred or even lightly tarred. I do, however, know of just one painting in which it looks as if the lanyards are pale - it’s the one by John Cleveley the Elder, of a Sixth Rate on the Stocks, which I referred to previously. The evidence of models in the National Maritime Museum is difficult as so many were re-rigged in the last century. But the rigging on that of HMS Tartar (1734) is contemporary, and the lanyards are dark. HMS Mars looks to have contemporary rigging, brown with very dark lanyards. At the end of the day, the colour of the lanyards surely has to be a question of individual choice. Fitting the lanyards is tedious on this 1:150 scale. I bought the deadeyes from the excellent Cornwall Model Boats, which is a bit of a cheat, but never mind. There seems no option for threading them other than stiffening the end of the thread with glue, and pushing it through the holes. The first photo below shows that I’ve just managed so far to fit a pair of shrouds for each mast, along with the burton pendants (and lots of ends to cut off). However, in the mid-years of the last century I did it very differently. I don’t believe that you could buy deadeyes at that time, and I carved balsa rods, and cut the deadeyes from them. Rather than drill holes, I used a needle to thread them. They look to me almost as good as today’s bought ones - I might try the technique again one day. The second photo is of a model I finished in, I think, 1961, and shows the balsa wood deadeyes. Sorry it's a bit fuzzy - that's the effect of the case. I am intrigued to find that people are making money from old rope - for you can buy small sections of actual eighteenth-century rope , salvaged from the wreck of HMS Invincible, on Ebay. I am so far resisting the temptation. The photos, however, are of some interest.

The lower masts and bowsprit are now installed (photo below), and thank goodness, they fitted satisfactorily. The next phase will see the rigging started. The picture of ‘A Sixth Rate on the Stocks’ by John Clevely the Elder (https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-12537) shows how it was normal practice to fit the lower shrouds and stays at this stage, and it will be much easier to do this now, rather than once the topmasts are fitted. For the rigging I will use what might even be the oldest rope-walk machine to be seen on this website - see photo below. It was inspired by a diagram in R.C. Anderson’s Seventeenth Century Rigging. It’s a simple and very primitive gadget, made from Meccano, and features quite simply three turning hooks (made of garden wire), gears, and a handle. Originally, when first made in the late 1950s, it had pulleys and a rubber band to connect the three turning spindles, but gears proved more satisfactory. OK, it’s not exactly state of the art or elegant, but it works well for small models. It cannot do sophisticated things like four-stranded rope for the shrouds, but that does not worry me. There's no motor - the Meccano motor and transformer are long since dead - but winding by hand works fine.

Your model is going to look splendid. I Just thought you might like to see a picture of one I made, of the same Matthew Baker design. It's only about a foot long. I found the only way to do the geometric patterns was to paint the planks first, before putting them in place. Even then, it was quite fiendish. Michael

Now, masts. These, of course, are not as straightforward as might appear, and I am sure I will get some things wrong. The photo of the main and fore-masts shows that I’ve taken the unusual step of making the sections below deck thinner than the rest, in the hope that this makes for a neater juncture of deck and mast. Masts changed in the later years of the eighteenth century, with the introduction of iron hoops to hold the various pieces of a made mast together. Woolding, however, was not abandoned, and I am fitting both, following the example of Pocock’s painting of the Glorious First of June (https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-11962) which shows how the narrow iron rings do not go round the side fishes, and how the wooldings do. Plans of masts show the same thing. That at https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-86572 is quite clear. These lower masts are painted, but I’ll be leaving the topmasts as natural wood. The mizzen presents some problems. I’m inclined to make it similar to the other two, with larger gaps between the hoops and wooldings, even though Steel says that ‘Mizenmasts and bowsprits have one woolding under the hounds.’ He also says that ‘The aftside of mizen-masts, in ships, and main-masts, in brigs, to be coppered in the wear of the gaff and boom.’ I am not sure what this means - if he’s suggesting a strip of copper down the whole length of the mast, I am inclined to ignore it. It seems more likely that the copper was just intended at the point where the gaff and boom fitted to the mast, and there was a danger that the friction would damage the mast. As for the bowsprit, I think that iron hoops (made of paper) will be the order of the day, with no woolding. The trestles and cross-trees were a problem to make. At this scale, there is a danger of splitting and breaking the wood since they are fragile. So for the mainmast I used some of the wood used to make the stand - it’s Bahia Rosewood, and is very strong, but of course hard to work. For the foremast, I used as strong a piece of obeche as I could find; it was much easier to employ. Either way, the trees are clumsier looking than I would like, but I don’t want to make them any weaker. Anyway, they won’t be easy to see since they will be under the tops. Painted black, the difference in timber should not show.

Very interesting, and many thanks. Can I say first that, as other have said, that a problem with Gutermann thread is that it’s very hard to get hold of all the colours that are on their charts. Now, Steel. The quote I gave is a bit puzzling, as it contrasts ‘cables’ with ‘hawser-laid ropes’. ‘Cables’ here probably does indeed mean anchor cables, but could be interpreted as ‘cable-laid’, which is not quite the same thing. There are a couple of other relevant quotes about tarring from Steel: ‘All cables and cordage to be tarred with good Stockholm tar, without mixture of any other, except about one-third part, which may be of Russia tar.’ And ‘bolt-rope is slack-laid, made white, and stoved and tarred by the sail-maker when used.’ He also explains that ‘Ropes, from 2 inches to the largest size, for running rigging, are hawser-laid’. Cable-laid rope, particularly if well-tarred, would have made no sense for running rigging, as it would have been too stiff to run through blocks. I was unaware till now of the full complexities of ‘cable laid’ and ‘hawser laid’. I see that there was some controversy about the 27 miles of rope supplied for the Master and Commander film, with suggestions that the right-handed lay was anachronistic, which it was not (Harland in Mariner’s Mirror, 2014, issue 1). A note by Harland (Mariner’s Mirror 2005, issue 3) explains the differences between British and American usage, cable-laid and hawser-laid apparently being synonymous in America, but not in Britain, where, somewhat confusingly, hawsers were cable-laid. Incidentally, I’ve used the online version of Steel at https://www.maritime.org/doc/steel/index.php, which is unexpurgated (but don’t expect to find it titillating). This is easier to read than the scan of the original edition at archive.org.

A fascinating discussion. Goodness, Chuck, that’s impressive rope. I used to make model ships in the 1950’s, and found that cotton was hopeless, as if the atmosphere was at all damp, as it often was in Oxford, it stretched (much like old fashioned gut strings on tennis rackets, or those on the French crossbows at Crécy). What I used instead was terylene (a form of polyester, I think) thread, made by Sylko. There seems to be no problem about it lasting - it’s as good as it was over sixty years ago. I took to making models again in the last few years, and have been using Gutermann extra fine polyester thread. This seems good, but time will tell. I’ve not had real problems with unravelling; I use balsa cement to stiffen the ends of ropes, which makes it possible to thread deadeyes and blocks. It’s harder to make coils with it than the Sylko thread was. I’d not come across Gutermann Mara, which I think may be thicker than I need for small models. As for how to make ropes, fortunately, despite some family opposition, I kept over all these years a little machine I made from Meccano, so have not needed to buy a modern ropewalk, which in any case is currently unavailable from Cornwall Boats. Now, the colour of rigging. This appears to be somewhat controversial, with the fashion being for very pale, or even white, running rigging. The argument is presumably that this was not tarred. There’s an intriguing contrast, to judge by the photos on the web, between the black tarred rope used on HMS Trincomalee, and the pale ropes that feature on HMS Victory. Both are owned by the National Museum of the Royal Navy. Contemporary paintings are not much use, as any colour of rigging will appear dark against sky or sails. Models in the National Maritime Museum are difficult, as it’s often not clear from the photos on the web whether the rigging is original. I note that the model of HMS Ipswich (1730), which does have original rigging, looks to have it uniformly dark.Now, I read in Steel, writing in the 1790s, that ‘Yarn for cables requires more tar than for hawser-laid ropes. For running and standing rigging, the less tar the better, provided the thread is well covered.' This suggests that untarred rope was not used, and I’d have thought the right answer is to use very dark brown or even black for standing rigging, and a mid-brown for running rigging. Or perhaps just go with what seems best.

It’s been too long since the last update, so here goes with another. Progress has been slow, largely because so much of the work is very fiddly, given the small scale of the model. A word about scale seems appropriate. As I said, I’ve adopted an unusual scale of 1:150 for this model: there’s no room in the house for anything much bigger. It may explain in part why what I have done is not as neat and beautiful in the photos as all the other models in this forum. My approach is that I want things to give the right impression, rather than trying for absolute accuracy. After all, the framing on Admiralty Board models was hardly to scale. The main problem is trying not to make the details oversize and clumsy. In my case, I’m aware that the deadeyes (which are bought) are bigger than they should be, but even Barrot de Gaillard allowed that it’s hard to have them accurately to scale. As is the case with many models, the deck planks at 2 mm. are a little wider than they should be, but cutting narrower ones would have been tedious and probably unsatisfactory. Various elements have proved tricky. The skylight was one, and it took a couple of goes. It is at least glazed, even if the glazing bars are not as neat as I’d really like. The chains were difficult, and in the end I compromised by twisting wire to hold the deadeyes (something which would have appalled R.C. Anderson, who condemned this practice), and then holding the wires in place with CA glue. Not a wonderful solution, but my attempts at proper links looked far too clumsy. It was much easier with my model of the mid-seventeenth century Winsby, which I fitted with plates not chains. I’ve done a bit more with the stern, but may return to it again. The carvings are a problem, of course. In the middle of the last century I used ‘plastic wood’, but I don’t think it would work at this scale. I could not get a decent result with Fimo, but Milliput proved less bad than anything else. In the late 1950s I probably used Humbrol gilt enamel for the carved work, which has lasted fine, but modern gilt paint intended for models seems rather less satisfactory. I’ve therefore used Liberon Gilt Cream, which is not easy to put on, but looks as if it will last. I’ve left the ship’s name, though I concede it may not have been there (see Gary’s comments earlier). Pocock, however, included Brunswick’s name in his painting of the Glorious First of June (https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-11963), though this could be artistic licence, and Carr Laughton’s view was that ships did carry their names at this period. I’ve had problems with the quarterdeck, largely because the plans are not all that easy to interpret. Initially I followed the example of the kit models (excellent photos at https://www.modelships.de/verkaufte-modelle.htm), with two companion ways. This did seem odd, and it looks to me, however, as if the larger one is in fact a hatchway. It makes little sense to place steps just next to a capstan on the deck below. And the kits have two very small gratings, which I could not understand. One of the contemporary plans has one of these marked as ‘top tackle’, and I think that both are small hatches, fitted flush to the deck so as not to impede the guns when they are run back, and fitted with ringbolts. Some things were much more problematic to make than I expected. The skylight was fiendish, and still only just about satisfactory at the third attempt. Even the poop deck railing took much longer than I expected. There is no plan of Agamemnon to show such a railing, but there are sufficient other plans and models to show that they were frequently fitted. It will make rigging easier. I have not decided whether to fit the wire cranes and hammock nettings yet, for they will be fragile and could easily get broken when I get clumsy doing the rigging. I did, incidentally, go do far as to fit hammocks to a model of an American schooner of about 1820, which I constructed in the late 1950s, and I’ve included a photo for amusement. The hammocks, I recall, were cut from insulated copper wire, and have lasted fine. But I’ll not try that again. There’s still some tidying up, and the mizzen channels are still to be fitted among other things, but I should be on to the masts fairly soon, before Christmas gets in the way of work on Agamemnon.

You will probably be thinking that I have given up on this model. Far from it, but it is taking an unconscionably long time. It is, of course, the small size that’s much of the problem, and I have had to make several efforts at some elements. I may yet have another go at the wheel, which was fiendish. Wire rims might look better, if I can do it. First time round for the quarterdeck guns they looked too large, and were difficult to make as the wood tended to split. So I went for card in the end. The breeching ropes are still to be fitted. Do I put more tackles in? Probably not. The skylight has taken a couple of goes, and is still unfinished, with no glazing so far. Anyway, the ship is slowly, slowly getting there, and will be done in time for the village show next year (last year’s model got best in class, not surprisingly as there was only the one entrant, and also got best in show for handicrafts). Can I ask if anyone has advice on a future problem? Most of the plans of this class of ship don’t show any rails on the poop deck, though that for Indefatigable (https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-81744) has substantial ones, similar to the modern model of Agamemnon at https://julianstockwin.com/2017/10/10/agamemnon-the-darch-model/ . There is a simple block model of Indefatigable in the National Maritime Museum (https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-66510 ) which looks as if it has a very low railing unlike any other I have seen. There’s also the possible alternative of a wire railing, similar to that which Longridge employed for his model of Victory, though that would not be easy at this scale. At present I’m thinking of ones like the plan of Indefatigable. Another question is how to do the gunport lids. Some models, such as the one of Mars in the NMM, show them raised all the way almost to the vertical, but I think a 45 degree angle is probably best. Just a word about tools. In the 1950’s I made much use of Gilette razor blades, snapped in half, but they were not exactly kind to my fingers, and I would not dare to use anything like that now. So it’s largely been a matter of my old faithful Stanley knife. Tweezers have been important, and a toenail clipper very useful. And a small archimedean hand drill has been essential. I read about rotary tools, and decided to try one out. It’s Chinese made, inexpensive, rechargeable, and surprisingly useful for tidying up details.

Many thanks. Coincidentally, I got a large pot of white glue the other day. I used the floppiest thread I'd got, but even so it's really too stiff. I'll explain later how I make ropes, with a little machine made in the 1950s using Meccano. I am currently puzzled by the way in which the skid beams were supported by columns, which as far as I can see, would have got in the way of the capstan when it was turned.

Well, it's been some time since I added anything, as progress has been slow. Never fear - this build log won't be an incomplete one. I don't want to hurry, as there's not that much room in the house for yet another ship model. I've worked on the guns, as the photo shows. It seemed right to fit them now, as once the gangways are in place, it would be more difficult. In my teenage years I used to make the guns by casting them from lead, in moulds made of plaster of paris. To melt the metal, I used a gas ring attached to the gas fire in my bedroom, and for the lead, found disused pipes in the cellar. Not exactly advisable in health and safety terms, but it was the late 1950s. For this model, I have simply carved the cannon from wood dowel, which looks ok at this scale. I'm certainly not up to using a 3d printer, even if I had one. The cannon are all Blomefields, with the ring on the cascabel to take the breeching rope. This makes rigging them a good deal simpler that it would have been with the Armstrong type, though I imagine that in reality ships in the late eighteenth century had a mix of the two types. The rings were not that easy, but I ended up making them from paper. Rigging canons is a problem at this scale. The carriages all have wire loops on the side to take the breeching ropes, which helps, but the various tackles would be a problem. I may fit training tackles in time, but the blocks would have to be very tiny, and having just the breeching ropes at least gives some impression of the way guns were rigged. The deck was straightforward, with the caulking done with a softish pencil. On this scale, the planks would have been about a foot wide, which is a bit too much, but they are at least a good deal narrower than is sometimes the case in models. They have had a coat of danish oil, while the gratings have had french polish. Next, I think, will be the gangways etc., and further work on the stern.