HAIIAPHNK

Yes, you're right. This survey appeared at the request of the customer. He wanted me to communicate with other modelers and express all the versions that each of us has. And now he has the last word, I will wait for his decision. For my part, I am glad that the difference of opinion is revealed now. When you can discuss and adjust your actions. It's worse when you get a result you're not ready for.

Thank you for your participation and opinions. I really appreciate it. I especially noticed the respect you have for the customer. It's very... I don't know what the right word is here. It's very... Let it be weighty, heavy, valuable. In one wise book there are some words like these: a measure filled to the brim, tamped and shaken. A measure to which it is impossible to add anything else. For me, this is especially valuable!

It's not long to the finish line. In the meantime, a photo of the general view.

I received another email from a customer. I am showing a visual drawing from him. As you can clearly see from this diagram, the customer thinks that there can be different opinions. For example, what on one side can be interpreted as a lion's chin with a mane can also be seen as a flame. This means that these are no longer lions, but fauns. For this reason, he is inclined to think that the side galleries depict the heads of mythical grotesques, not animals. What do you think? What does your eye see? At this stage I will not describe my opinion so that it does not conflict with the client's opinion and the disinterested viewer can be guided by his or her own conclusions.

Thank you for the information. I wanted to see what kind of ship it was. Is that it?

So, what do I see in our drawings? What I agree with you on is that there are two kinds of heads in the drawing. The 1st kind is lion heads. This is a fairly common image in baroque jewelry. It can be found in great abundance in architecture. Here, for example: Now let's move on to our drawing, or rather drawings. I would immediately divide the image into floors or levels. This division is conditional, for different tasks it is possible to divide it differently. But for our discussion this variant is enough. We can call these tiers 1 - design of the lower balcony, 2 - design of the upper balcony, 3 - design of the "roof". And each tier has its own theme. At the bottom is located "bird floor". Above it is the "animal" floor. And even higher is the mystical, spiritual or fairy tale floor. Since we are going to discuss lions and fauns, we mentally remove the lower tier and pay no more attention to it. We will be interested in floors 2 and 3. Clearly, each author has different traits. In our drawing, you correctly pointed out that the lions have fangs. I saw them too. Except that you think that not all heads in tier 2 have such features. You think that among them there are both lion and human heads (or conditionally human (I don't know what to call the face of a mythical faun, let it be a humanoid species). I disagree with you on this one. And here's why. You and I realize that the 17th century drawing was done by hand. It is not a computerized cloning of identical elements. And therefore 10 identical images will quite naturally have their own peculiarities. I think you can easily agree with this position. Also we have a document that has image quality limits, and we are not able to zoom in and compare the smallest details. And the fangs are just such fine details. And we can have a long discussion about which head each of us sees them on, and which one definitely doesn't. We can zoom in and it will bear fruit. We can also note what else the lion's head has in Beren's interpretation. It's the mane, the hair. And we can also see the ears. Cat ears. So we have three qualities by which we can call the painted one a lion. I would call the mane the least of these identifying features. Since mystical faces can also have long hair or beards. And it will be very difficult to argue where the beard is depicted, and where the lion's mane. But the first two signs will help us a lot. We may not notice the small fangs. But if on the same face or face there are animal ears, it will give us enough reason to attribute the head to the company of lions. Some heads have both features clearly visible, both ears and teeth, in some we can clearly see something one of the two. But in this case we will connect another point of logical thinking. Since we are talking about decor, we will help us laws on which and build decorative jewelry. And first of all it is symmetry. It is logical that if we look at a number of similar images, they should be arranged in a certain rhythm. And if on the right we clearly see a lion's head by two signs, it means that on the left in the same place there should also be a lion's head, and not someone else. Therefore, I, using all the above arguments can draw a clear conclusion: the 2nd floor shows lion heads. There are no fauns there. I'll add one more argument. You wrote that in your opinion, the transom side shows lions, while the sides are fauns. If you did not find the above already listed valid, I will mention another reason to believe that from the sides are the same lions as on the transom. I've already written about the tier divisions. The views of the images on the balcony railings are in the form of a continuous ribbon that starts on one side of the ship, goes to the transom and ends on the other side. Look at the 1 "bird" tier. Agree that there are eagles depicted everywhere. There is no interchangeability, for example, on the transom are eagles, and on the sides are already angels or some other characters that can be attributed to eagles or confused with them. The same character is on the whole ribbon. In my opinion, it seems very logical that the same principle should apply to the upper balcony. What do you think? Is my thinking logical? Now about the third tier and mythical Fauns. I can incorrectly name decorative elements, as I have been naming them in Russian all my life, and the names may or may not coincide. In Russian architectural terminology there is a name "Maskarons" Maskarons, unlike the intimidating gargoyles, may also have a comic, neutral, or romantic appearance. The Encyclopedic Dictionary of F.A. Brockhaus and E.A. Efron on the word "mascaron" gives this information: "Mascaron is in architecture a convex stucco ornament in the form of a mask of a human face, with a serious or caricatured expression, sometimes surrounded by foliage and often appearing in the middle of a figural cartouche. It is usually placed as an ornament on the capstones of arches, in the middle of the upper part of the lining of windows and doors, under entablatures and balconies, at the openings of fountain pipes, etc. Mascarones were especially in vogue in the XVII and XVIII centuries and architects of that epoch abundantly decorated the facades of palaces, rich houses, country villas and other buildings with them, sometimes to the detriment of their seriousness and elegance". (Encyclopedic Dictionary, F.A. Brockhaus, I.A. Efron, T.XVIIIa. pp. 716, St. Petersburg, 1896). As a rule, a mascaron is placed in a prominent place: in the lock of an arch, above a window or doorway. Characters for these heads could be chosen by different representatives. Cupids, fantastic grotesque masks, deities, antique characters, male, female or child faces or animals. I don't know exactly what character is drawn in our case. Surely it must be some particular character who tells his part of the story, which is summarized in the whole decor of the ship. But let us call him Faunus. Let's turn again to our drawing. What are some of the distinctive elements that Beren decorated his Fauns with? Are there any repeating elements that you can see in different places. There are. Let's start with the mascaron above the doorway at the stern. I just now noticed that I didn't quite correctly refer to all the Fauns on the ship as mascarons, whereas we only have one arch over the doorway. But since it would take a long time to rewrite, re-translate and layout the text, I'll leave it as it is. I apologize for the imprecision in terminology. So, back to the mascaron. Let's look at the signs on it. Let's start with the most noticeable one: 1 - he has flames pouring out of his mouth, 2 - he has an ornament on his head. I tried to translate the Russian term, but it doesn't sound quite the same in English, there is a double understanding. So I will list a number of words that can, to varying degrees, describe the meaning I am trying to convey: wreath, crown, shell. And also the distinct differences from lions can be noted separately. The head above the door has no fangs and it has no ears. We can call this Faunus conditionally the main, as he is on the central place and has a large crown-shell on his head. His two companion-colleagues on the sides are more like assistants or subordinates. They also have decorations on their heads, but they are much more modest. And if the jewelry of the main one can be called a crown, then the side ones are more like hoops. If you want, you can doubt whether the side heads have any headdress, maybe it's just hair. But if you look at the drawing with the transom of the ship, there you can see how the Faunus henchmen look in profile. I think it is still jewelry and not locks of hair. That's purely my opinion though. In general, there is no point in arguing separately on this element, it will not change the overall picture much. Otherwise, you can still see that it's the same company. They all spew flames and are missing ears and fangs. In this they differ significantly from the heads on the 2nd floor. Even if one can question the absence of ears or fangs on some of the lions there, such as the center lion head on the transom, it still doesn't make it part of the heads on the third floor. No head on the 2nd floor has a headdress or flame, and there is not a single head on the third floor without those attributes. So again I am of the opinion that all the equal images are arranged horizontally: eagles on one level, lions on the second, mythical creatures on the third level. They do not jump above or below. I find the next part of my reasoning weak myself. It is not even a proof, but rather a desire to see this drawing as a proof. Rather, it is a kind of feeling. Let's go back to the fact that the whole decorative ensemble has levels. Let's pay attention to the 3rd level. That's where the Fauns live. Only now we'll turn our attention to the other elements of this level. And I will draw a logical thread to the head ornaments of the Fauns. I've already written that these ornaments look like shells. And exactly on this tier we can meet these same elements, but already as separate decorative symbols. Let's look at the drawing of the ship's transom. In the same row, above the windows, where the main Faunus is located on the ends we can see the same shells as on his decoration. At especially exuberant imagination it is even possible to say that intermediate flowers in the form of three-leaf clovers remind small head ornaments of Fauns-helpers. And in the same 3rd level on the dome of the side galleries there is the largest shell, which by meaning is also connected with the Fauns. Nowhere on the 2nd tier there is not a single shell, which again leads to the idea that all decorative elements are placed by floors.

Thank you for the answers. As I said, this discussion should help to find a common solution. And you have already helped very well. You can say that in general all comments stand in the same line. And all opinions confirm each other. The distinction between eagles and phoenixes can safely be omitted, because the cardinally different meaning has not changed. It is important that all of you see one image, not two different ones at the same time. In this example, you can see how differently we are organized. Looking at the same image everyone can have a different feeling. And it is not surprising that my opinion did not coincide with the customer's. In particular, it suddenly turned out that we identify heads differently. According to the customer's opinion on the side galleries under the windows are not the same characters that can be seen on the transom, on the balustrade (on the 2nd floor). And there was also confusion with the heads above the windows. Next I will publish the letter I wrote for the customer. In it I tried to argue my point of view, because I saw in Beren's drawings not the same thing that the customer saw. If you see fallacies or errors in my logical chain, it would be interesting to hear it.

Thank you for your appreciation. I tried.

Thank you. I like how it turned out, too.

The need for another discussion has arisen quite unexpectedly. And I would like to address the question once again. Please express your opinion. The essence is as follows. I looked at the sketches with the decor and I had a complete impression that everything is clear here. Since I see lines and images, then exactly the same explanation of these images have others. But it turned out quite by accident that I see some details with one interpretation, and the customer in the same images sees something completely different. And we began to share our opinions about what is drawn as separate elements on Beren's greisails. And at the same time there was a thought, what if there are not even two such different versions? What if there are more variants? For better understanding I made a small questionnaire. I wrote down each question as a separate item. I think it is easier to give answers this way and it will be clear where to look when reading your answer. For simplicity, I will conditionally divide the images into tiers. Let it be the 1st floor - the lowest level of windows. Floor 2 is the top row of windows with a balcony. and the 3rd floor is called the roof or attic. This is what is above the top edge of the windows up to the skylights. Next we remove the ornaments from our interest. I don't think there's any point in discussing them. And we'll start on the first floor. In my opinion, on the bottom floor, these are eagles. How do you rate whether there are repeating figures depicted everywhere? answer 1a: _______________ Or are there variations in some places? For example, maybe see that somewhere it is other birds? Which ones are they then? answer 1b: ______________ The second tier shows heads that are in the middle of each segment with ornaments. What do you think these heads are, whose heads are they? Is it an animal? What kind? 2а: ___________________ Are all the heads the same or do you see depictions of other characters somewhere? If so, where exactly is something different depicted, in what location? 2b: ___________________ And who is this? 2с: ____________________ On the third floor, I am again particularly interested in the heads. Who is depicted on this level? Is it the same character as below or is it someone else already? 3а: ____________________ In my opinion there are three heads depicted on this floor. One on the transom, right on the arch above the windows, in the very center (Maskaron). And two on the sides. In the transom picture you can see these heads in profile. If I remember correctly, this element on the ship is called Quarter piece. And in the picture with Quarter gallery you can see them in front. And here the same additional question: are they the same everywhere or do you think they are heads of different characters? 3b: ______________________ These questions are enough. Please share your opinion.

This isn't even the final straight. It's the last meters before the ribbon. The final stage of work on Gustav. Making it authentic. The original sculpture looks different from the others, the structure of the wood is loose. An abundance of microscratches, dents. Plus the shapes themselves have a flushness to them. In normal carving it has always been important for me to leave tool marks, I don't like it when everything is sanded down. It looks like a pillow. Here it's the opposite, we needed the effect of "eating" the shape with water. But sandpaper will not work here, it will be too smooth, I don't need it. And if you take a coarse one, you'll scratch off all the threads in no time. That's not it either. So the last stage was also another challenge. How to make licks, but still have roughness? This is what I ended up with.

You've shattered my illusions. I piously believed that every New Yorker has their own skyscraper, robot butler and every pencil has laser guidance and a separate AI. At the very minimum there should be an underground shelter with sophisticated machines, a lab and a Batman suit hidden in the wall. In all seriousness, you are certainly right. And the word New York in your statement can be changed to any other part of the globe. And every man can complain that he doesn't have enough room for his workshop. And would like a little more space. It's a good thing it doesn't interfere in any way with creating great things.

Is this little table really enough to work on? It's completely incomprehensible to me. I'm going to close this picture before my wife sees how much space is needed for a shipyard. Otherwise I'll be in danger )

Estelle: -Joe, have you seen me in ecstasy? Joe: -No. Estelle: -Well, look! Now I'll show you myself in ecstasy. It's true. And even though you can't see anything special on the outside, inside at this moment I felt soooooooooooooooooooo much pleasure. The whole thing is that not more than half an hour before this moment I found the most unique shots. Maybe even the only one in the world. I found what Vaska's back looks like. It's a truly mysterious place, impossible to find anywhere else. But I did. So at this very moment, a rumba is playing in my head!

Oh! I apologize. I re-read your post several times. And only then I realized that the picture refers to the first part of your answer and it is useless to look for a divided lid there. That's what initially confused me. Now everything has fallen into place. Indeed, your idea is very simple and natural. If the gallery has halves that open out to the sides, like a normal window, it immediately solves all the problems. Thank you. It's so simple. In the end, I can show anything I want to show. I can close the doors and it'll look exactly like Beren's. Or I can open it on the other side and show you how the gun is hidden. It looks like the answers have been found and this issue is over!

That's an interesting solution. What was the benefit of splitting the single cover vertically? A horizontal cut I can imagine. So, for example, you can put the cannon as far forward as possible so it takes up less space in the cabin. And then the horizontal doors "hug" the gun barrel. You can quickly open them if necessary without moving the cannon. But what does the vertical separation do? In the picture I see that all hatches open upwards. Why make a cut then? It doesn't make sense. The vertical separation should change the mounting style. In this case, the hatch should swing out to the sides like a normal window. Am I wrong? Or did I see something wrong?

Thank you, Martes, you've put my mind at ease. So I can forget about worrying about changing the tilt. That's good news.

Thank you for your input and suggested option. I was considering placing a cannon porthole in that location. This was before we even got the original sketches. And I only had the book drawings for the Ambitionary on hand at the time. At that time the whole quartet gallery drawing was a complete fantasy. But that option had to be abandoned. On the given sketch at scanning became worse quality, but it is still possible to discern. The azure lines show the belt where all the cannon portholes go. If the cannon is placed in the place you suggested, it will be above the planned level. No one would make a separate carriage with a higher position of the cannon barrel. And then it was necessary to change the gallery drawing, to lower the window level. In principle it is possible, but in the end it would be too far from the source. But the next problem will not be avoided for sure. If you look closely, you can see the doorway in the same drawing. It crosses the border of the window to the left of the viewer. Do you see it? So the porthole and the doorway will be one huge hole in the hull. Which is impossible. We conclude: if we have given up the idea of putting the cannon in the doorway itself, then we are left with only two options - the cannon can stand either in the last section of the porthole or already on the gallery's edge. The cannon outside the gallery was also discussed, and it was also rejected.

Stones for grinding decks were certainly used. Water + sand and this mass was rubbed on the deck with stones. Then it was washed off with clean water. Cleaning was necessary not so much because of splinters, but rather to remove salt from the deck. Which harmed bare feet much more often, because it was all over the deck. Remember in the movie about Captain Aubrey the moment with the cleaning of the deck? As to the question, what could there have been but brooms and mops? What else do you need for cleaning? You can think of scoops or trowels, of course. A ship is no different in this process than any home. If these simple tools are enough, what else do you need to clean a ship? The process itself is also quite predictable. Today, many people who are forced to clean simply pretend to clean. And instead of a proper process, they sweep the trash where it is less visible. I think people are still the same in this and many used to do much the same thing. And some of the trash gradually migrated lower and lower on the decks. And eventually ended up in the hold. As they say, ballast is also needed on the ship, I brought some more 😄. The tools were stored in the bosun's room. Next to rags, ropes and tar. We can mention one more item related to cleaning. I don't know how appropriate it is to equate this with the usual brooms and mops this item is, but it is also part of the cleaning process. This is a limber rope. It's a long rope that was knotted at intervals. This rope was inside the limber hall, at the very bottom of the ship. Sooner or later all kinds of debris would fall to the bottom and get clogged up in this drainage channel. That's what the cable was for. It was used to clear the debris. When it was clear from the condition of the rope that it was beginning to rot, a new one was tied to one of the ends and pulled into the limber hall in an understandable way. This conduit is not often mentioned. But it's interesting. There were different designs at different times. The Dutch were very different from the English or French. It seems like an insignificant detail, but without it, the ship could rot much faster. I've gone beyond the boundaries of your interest. But maybe this also fits into the topic of cleaning....

The second thought is separate from the first and has to do with the cannon porthole, which is what you gave me good examples and advice on. I will try to explain what exactly concerns me about this issue. As you have noticed, I have dived deeper into the description of this topic than just appearance. Yes, of course, I can just do the ultimate "picture" of this issue. And either show the cannon itself, or cover everything with a window (real or false) altogether and remove the presence of the cannon from view. But! This would all be enough if I was building a regular, classic model. In my case we are talking about the Admiralty version. I use the term I am used to. I hope that in English the type of model, when deliberately not made the outer skin and shown internal engineering device is called by the same term. And since I will be able to see both the cut porthole and the structural skeleton of the gallery from one side, I need to understand as accurately as possible what exactly the details look like, which in a classical model I would not need to show. That is my task: to understand the correct construction. Different situations may well arise as the construction progresses, but if I need to leave something open I care about correctness on all layers. And I am very grateful for your help.

Thanks for the feedback and great examples. I will try to respond to your comments and explain what exactly I am trying to clarify. There are two separate topics in my post with the photo of my interpretation that were important for me to show and listen to advice. 1 thought: This is a general view. After a number of discussions, I took educated advice and tried to combine your opinions, namely to leave the overall width of the side gallery design uncompressed and to compose the cannon porthole so that it falls within the gallery area. Along with this I have tried to take into account the advice that the slope of the horizontal directions should be combined with the walles. And I would like to get an outside opinion. Whether the overall pattern is correctly designed. Whether the slopes of the balconies do not look erroneous. I have already written that I can not explain for what reason Beren broke the vertical directions? Why in his sketch they don't go straight? So I took the risk of doing it differently. Suddenly someone knows the reason and will see that I "tweaked" Beren for nothing? This is the first main thought with which I posted my drawing.

The issue of the porthole in the quarter gallery remains unresolved. The construction of the gallery at Budrio on the ground floor is shown as a single room, inside of which one can stay. Now, when instead of one window (real or false) there will be a porthole for the cannon, it is necessary to think how it will look like. Will the lower tier remain a single room, as on Ambiteaux, or is it more correct to cut the room on the border of the window (which is in the middle) and the part of the gallery under the cannon will be blind, as for example on Fleuron? Also I have not yet come to an answer whether to leave the porthole as an open hole or to hide it behind the gallery window? How should this window be opened then? In my opinion, these questions are mutually influencing each other. If you leave the room whole, then inside this gallery you can go to the window and remove it completely or open it like a normal window. If the room is shortened, then it will be more difficult to reach the window and in this case it would be more logical to remove everything that could interfere. And leave the cannon porthole open.

The next step is in the works. Redrew the quarter gallery design, taking into account the ship's hull. Here's what I got. Unfortunately, when transferring the drawing on paper to digital format, the quality is lost. After thinking about it, I decided to align the broken directions into a correct line. Maybe it's a mistake on my part, as I don't know the real reasons why it was done this way in Beren's drawing. But since I never figured out the reason, I did it the way I understand it. What does it look like from the outside with non-tired eyes? What do you think? Any comments? Maybe I missed something important and made mistakes?

Actually there is another reason why I try to make the lion from the ship with Vasa closer to a museum piece. Why I started doing this whole lion collection. And how this scale was chosen. It's a whole story. At first I wanted to write about it, but I decided that again I would go far away and did not publish anything from this story. But there was a reason for the artificial chipping and implants.

Thank you so much for the high praise. I myself find it interesting to look at the sculptures and think about how they were made back in the day. Why not repeat the same way or at least do an imitation of it. Also, the scale I chose is so large that I would be remiss not to show such detail on this lion. More often it happens that you make a model in 1:100 scale and think that you will have to agree to conventions, the figure is too small to show everything on it. But here there can be no excuses.