HAIIAPHNK

The next step in the work. The work has long since crossed the equator. The rough work is turning into refinements and finer treatments. And now it is time for the sculpture to be customized. The original figure in the museum shows well how exactly the overall volume was assembled from the individual components. You can see the seams and traces of fasteners. It is time to show them. And at the same time to pay attention to another feature of the figure, which tells about how the construction was carried out. We are well aware that wood is a living material. It cracks, breaks. And we have to take that into account. And if we are talking about a warship, we can add to this the breakdowns that occur during the voyage. These can be accidents or damage that occurs during combat. And such damages are solved with the help of repairs. If it is possible to do without a complete replacement, plugs and implants are inserted in the damaged place. And this applies to the decor as well. The movie about Captain Aubrey and how the crew repaired the broken figure immediately comes to mind. There are also places on Gustav's figure where inserts and implants are visible. Only here it is of particular interest. After all, the ship wasn't involved in any battles. It hasn't even sailed. And the condition that we can look at today can be called perfect. Brand new. Fresh off the assembly line. And then all of a sudden we see these marks on the lion. Can you imagine a situation where you buy a new car. You pick it up from the dealer. It's brand-new. Smells like fresh plastics and leather. Parts and seats have protective film and covers on them. The whole car is shiny with new paint. But then you open the trunk and see traces of putty that was thrown over the dented area. We can't imagine such a thing. And if today discovers a defect on a new purchase, we immediately return the low-quality thing back. And here, on the ship, no one began to change the spoiled and remake again. They just put in the inserts, nailed them in and painted over the top. Interesting detail, isn't it? You can take these little touches in many different ways. You can be surprised and say: Wait a minute, the front paw is quite small, it could easily have been replaced in its entirety to make the figure perfect. Or you may say: Why do unnecessary work? Look, it's just a small part. It doesn't bear any load. Nothing will be weakened by her having an implant on the ship. We've got a lot of work ahead of us. We're not going to redo anything. In reality, it could have gone either way. And the chief sculptor could have made both of those decisions. Or he might not have known about the breakage at all. For example, some ordinary carver was attaching this paw and a nail caused the part to burst. And he quietly and inconspicuously inserted a plug and painted over the damaged place so that no one would know about the problem. That could have happened, too. Today we cannot say exactly how it happened. However, today we can see that our ancestors were not maximalists. They could calmly accept the fact that their work had faults and defects. And now I try diligently to replicate these implants and make artificial chipping so that my figurine becomes similar to the historical original.

You have a good eye. I took one of the old drawings for the search. Here's a gallery from Ambitious. It's narrower than the Fulminant. When the right one comes up, it'll be wider. I need a little time to get it all aligned. We'll see what happens later.

Thanks a lot everyone! For your very valuable tips. I have found a lot of useful thoughts in a short time.

It's as simple as that. Then everything falls into place. I see that I'm not making any logical sense with the theories I'm coming up with. So now I leave the door alone, it is already in the hull and should be justified and the exit to the captain's toilet should remain. I make a cannon porthole next to it so it is in the gallery area. And the gallery itself doesn't need to be compressed now. It turns out roughly like this: Now I need to transfer the gallery drawing from Beren's sketch and combine everything together. The topmost oval porthole at the end of the QD remains a point of contention. And Demerliac's data about a pair of cannons on the poop. I'll leave this question aside for now, I'll finish drawing the gallery first, it should take up more space, there and the dome is more rounded. Let's see how much free space will be left in the end.

Thank you so much.

I'm already drawing new variations based on the new information. In fact, we've almost come to the same solution on our own. The idea of putting the cannon in the doorway was logical. Except that I missed with the second one, I put it outside the gallery. But somehow I think that after the next sketch we would return to the idea of leaving the gallery the same length as on the original. One can speculate a lot, would we have come to this option or not? But this drawing certainly sped up the thinking and searching. Maybe someone has other drawings of this ship? It has become very interesting to look at it in more detail. For example, I have the impression that the outermost cannon on the MD stands higher than the others. This is tied in with the window here, most likely. So as not to break the drawing the cannon looks out of the window. But then it appears to be standing on some sort of bench or catwalk? It seems like a lot of complications for the sake of keeping the appearance intact. Is it just me or are there similar cases? Was there a very small caliber gun standing there that such a gun could be used on a table, raised, lowered? Or was the catwalk permanent? And could the balcony itself be used? Was there an exit left there, or was only a porthole left and the balcony not used as a room? In principle, the captain could climb out through the porthole, but it is still not very consistent with the position of the captain. And if the captain is also of advanced age? I think I just found the answer. And it has its own interesting nuances. The detective continues!

Thank you very much. Interesting information.

Here's another question. Am I right in thinking that this line here means that the two cannons Demerliac thinks were here? And there should be windows in Tafferel for artillery. I've drawn it roughly. Didn't measure the exact spot.

I can only agree. Yes, I know there are places on the ship where the gun is not permanently mounted. When necessary, some cannon portholes were dragged to some cannon portholes by neighbors, or those that were not in use during a given period of combat, such as from the opposite side where there is no one to shoot at. And this was the norm. First of all, such practice was for chase guns. It is simply impossible to put permanent cannons here. They would interfere with the guns on the sides. Plus you also have to take into account that during the battle the cannons need room to roll back. So each cannon on the end of the ship will interfere with 2 or 3 cannons on the sides at once. In Russian, a cannon porthole without a permanent cannon is called a retirade port. And how is it correct in English? Thank you for helping with advice. I am more interested in this question how to correctly perceive the list of cannons in reference books. Demerliac says that there should be 98 cannons. Is it meant by the number of portholes? So there are actually fewer cannons. Or is it exactly 98 cannons plus empty ports? I always thought that such data is about the first variant, am I wrong?

You're absolutely right. Decor drawings are a separate topic. There is a lot to talk about and different aspects to remember. I don't know what sources Budrio was working with in this case. Therefore, I can't speak unequivocally about poor drawing skills. French lions could have been very different. On the one hand, a French lion could be very correct, almost photographically accurate. And at the same time, it could be not very correct. I don't know what the lion was like on this particular model. In this story I had to find out more precisely the wishes of the customer before I started the work. And I missed this point. So it was my mistake. So when everything turned out I removed the first attempt of carving and made a new lion. And in general I like the design of Ankre's books. And the artist's hand drawing the illustrations is very impressive. The four-volume book on the 74-gun ship is the pinnacle for me. So detailed, simple and clear are the illustrations and how they are all supported by explanations. Drawing decorations is not an easy thing to do.

Welcome to the discussions. Personal opinions and proposed versions are just that. Get out your boarding swords, dusty scrolls and blueprints and join the raucous conversation!

I really hope that my verbosity will not break heads and the translator will faithfully translate everything I want to express. I am very thankful for all of you being helpful and sharing your opinions. Maybe there will be some good advice with everything written. Maybe I am lost somewhere in my thinking.

We see that there are no cannons drawn on the sketches, which could affect the appearance of the galleries. The customer wrote that he wants to leave these galleries in this form, to try to leave them in their original form. And all the additional guns should be inserted outside the galleries. And everything would be fine. My job is much easier. I don't have to think of anything, just take it and build it. That's great! So I started to do the adaptations. Which I tried to describe in detail. After all, even the question of leaving the gallery in the same form as on the sketch has already encountered questions. Will really look beautiful exact repetition of the drawing? Maybe it still makes sense to make changes and deform the original drawing to fit the existing hull. And plus it is still necessary to think about the fact that sooner or later cannons will have to be placed somewhere. And if you don't think about it now, it will be a problem later. And first of all it concerns the question whether to leave the quarter galleries so long or will have to shrink them? If we take into account that the customer has set a condition that there should be no cannons on the territory of the galleries, the width of these structures is a very important issue. Which I have tried to show with the help of the last diagrams. And now our detective takes it to the next level! The customer sent a letter, in which he chose a specific description of Fulminant, where it is clearly described and the number of guns and where, on which decks they should stand. I don't know how to read it all from the outside. But for me, the plot became more than just detective story, it became sci-fi or even mysticism. I just don't know now how to put it all together at the same time. I'm transcribing what Demerliac writes about weaponry into the text in a column: LD - 28 (28) MD - 30 (26!) UD - 26 (24) QD - 12 (4!) poop - 2 (0) The numbers in parentheses are what is currently available on the case. To make it easier to compare. To be honest I don't know exactly where to put the chase guns of both hull ends. The aft ones are LD and the forward facing ones are UD. But that's questionable. I also did not understand how to understand the number 12 in Demerliac's list on QD. There is not much space there. Where is it possible to fit that much in there? Maybe chase retirade positions in front should be included in the same line? But that's also a very strange thought. How can what is on the very bow of the ship be classified as QD? This is my misunderstanding after all, don't think Demerliac missed something. By the way, he has marked (most likely retirade) positions on the poop. Which means that if you put Domerliak's data as capitalized, you will have to modify the decor on the transom somehow. And it will be necessary to make there either open portholes, as on Forecastle, or to put hidden hatches. But it is not so difficult. What is more difficult is that in the existing realities it is impossible to make everything match exactly everywhere. It is possible, of course, to start construction from scratch. But that's fantasy, isn't it? And any other attempt to solve this conflict without changing everything is definitely mystical. You'd need a magic wand or parallel space or something. Something has to be sacrificed. And that's either turning a blind eye to the exact number of guns on each floor, or accepting the fact that you'll have to adjust the appearance of the galleries quite a bit. Let's leave aside all other issues. Let's take a look at just one line. MD - 30 (26!) This means that not one, but two guns should be placed on the 2nd deck. That is, you need to compress the gallery a lot and at the same time place the second gun in the gallery window. And this gun will most likely have to be in the doorway. Which is not a bad solution. Then theoretically in the marching state the cannon can stand sideways inside the captain's cabin, and the captain can use his toilet. And during the battle the cannon is put in the combat position, the window is tilted and you can fire. These are purely theoretical speculations of how everything can be combined together in a single issue. As far as it all really met in practice I will not say for sure. And I put out of brackets the discussion of how much the interior space of cabins changes. It is difficult to think about it at all. It's such a tangle of questions. And one part of the puzzle inevitably affects the neighboring parts. It's impossible to keep everything at the same time.

So, I will try to describe in order everything that may be relevant to the topic of the appearance of quarter galleries and how the number of guns may affect it. The topic is very big and complicated. I drew a lot, racked my brains with versions. Often from the outside I looked like this: And sometimes, at particularly difficult moments, even like this: For what reason, you'll soon find out. What do we have? A ship hull that is already built from Ancre's blueprints and was, up to a certain point, Ambitious. Then the decision was made to redesign its appearance so that it would be the first model of the Fulminant. After all, the ships are twins in design. And theoretically all can be easily adapted to new tasks. However, the ships have differences. One of them is the different amount of artillery. At the same time in different sources you can find different amounts of this very artillery. In any case, the Fulminant must have more guns and somewhere to find porthole spaces. So I set about that search. I looked for different ways to find some space somewhere. And this was even before there were grisailles with the appearance of Fulminant's quarter galleries. That's why I started from the book version. The subtleties of design are not so important to me at this stage. It was necessary just to understand approximately what volume should occupy the total dimensions of these galleries. And that's what the options were. This is just the arrangement of all the places, if you do not look at the shape of the galleries and start from the distance to the cannons: Here are the options now taking into account the drawing (approximate) quarter galleries. I will mention at once that there should be no additional cannons on the transom area, it was a condition from the customer. I do not want to break the decor, especially since on the only sketch to that moment there is no mention that there are chase guns. So we have to look for places on the sides of the ship. Here are what the options were: I'll make a separate note of the cannon in the farthest corner. I found only one mention that this location could actually accommodate a carriage. Let it be a British ship, I did not find such a mention on the French ones. But one has to find places somewhere. And now it's time to get to the numbers. How many guns should we add? As I have already said, in different sources the information on this matter differs Now on the hull there are 90 barrels (or more correctly places). I describe in more detail where exactly and in what quantity they are all located: LD - 28 MD -26 UD - 24 QD - 4 plus 4 cannons on Lower counter and another 4 chase guns (most likely retirade) on Forecastle. Total: 90 gun emplacements. And different sources say there should be between 94 and 98 guns on Fulminant. At this point we received word that the archive would grant the request and we would soon be able to get Beren's grisaille. At this stage, the customer suggested to postpone assumptions for a while and wait for the sketches. And then it would be clearer. They are here. And what do we see? To be continued...

Excellent and very important comments. Here we are, and we've stepped onto the road of the suspense detective. My response will take time, so I ask for a little patience. And I'm off to write. I'll be back soon, don't shoot yet. 🙂

Thank you very much for the clarification. It all makes sense now. But I will gradually get used to the nautical terms in English. It is difficult, but I will try. Feel free to correct me if I use them incorrectly.

Now let's go back to our Gustav and ask ourselves: did this frumpy image really look that scary? Not to us, was he impressive to his contemporaries? Let's compare this sculpture to the rest of the images on this same ship. After all, this is not the only image of a lion. There are others. Let's look at the impressive duo of bas-reliefs at the stern. Agree, these lions look much more ferocious and scary. And next to them, the lion from the breakwater looks even more like an alcoholic. So, it was made by other masters and they were not professional? After all, that is the conclusion that follows. It's obvious, the difference is enormous. But not everything is so simple. Let's think logically again. This is the most important sculpture on the ship. It's hard to assume that it could have been entrusted to a bad team of carvers. I'm sure that the main artist responsible for all the decoration on the ship would not allow such a thing, because he would be punished first of all. Sounds logical. But! We can see with our own eyes that the lions on the stern look much better. Why is Gustav so different? Is there an explanation? Yes. Let's have a look at these lions. Do you like them? I like them very much. These heads look better than Gustave's, too. Look how expressive the eyes are. The open mouth really comes across as the threat of an angry predator, not a yawn. And look at the fine creases in the eyebrows, the folds of skin near the nose and on the cheeks. The lion is very believable and yet stylized to a kind of generalization that highlights the main elements. The ones that even from a distance will be noticeable. But wait! Let's take another look at Gustav. He, too, has very similar tear-drop eyes. The same bulldog-like corners of his mouth. The folds at the nose. There is a feeling that the sculpture of Gustav reminds a child's lollipop in the form of some figure. As if the child has already managed to suck it for some time and now some features are completely erased, some are still visible, but not so expressive as they were originally. This is purely my opinion, but it seems to me that originally the figure of this lion looked more expressive and clear. What we can now see of the sea and the silt has been sucked up for many decades. I don't know why this lion suffered more than the others, even though they were all on equal footing. And if I were to decide to try to restore the original look, to do my interpretation of Vasa before the demise, I would pay more attention to the other lions and transfer their features to this figure. That's my opinion. I can't say that there is nothing else to talk about in this thread. Yes, nature has modified the appearance of this sculpture. That said, there were flaws here from the beginning that were definitely the result of crooked hands. There was improper symmetry and curvature. There were other flaws as well. And I will talk more about them in the next parts.

I'll tell another story. February 13, 1885 in St. Petersburg opened the 13th Exhibition of Peredvizhniki artists. At this exhibition participated all the most famous and talented artists of Russia in the 19th century: Polenov, Shishkin, Makovsky, Pryanichnikov, Kramskoy, Vasnetsov and many others. What was so remarkable about this exhibition? Here is what you can read from the remaining documents: ... In order to restore order, they had to call the mounted police. That is, the public simply poured into the exhibition building and if not regulated the flow of people, it could lead to a crush and injuries. The data on the number of tickets sold has been preserved: 44600. A figure that is impressive even by modern concepts. What was the reason for such a frenzy? The fact that one of the artists who exhibited his new painting was Ilya Repin. And the painting was called "Ivan the Terrible and his son Ivan". Maybe you've ever seen this canvas. I will not now go into a discussion of the plot, whether it actually happened or not. There is still no consensus on whether the murder actually happened or whether it was made up. Speaking of which, it is thanks to this very picture and began to say that this king was a murderer. Before this painting, no one had ever talked about it. There are no documents confirming this fact. But our goal is different. I will cite the words of the author of the painting and what he himself writes about the exhibition: "...The lamps illuminated the picture well and its effect on my audience exceeded all my expectations. The stunned people were silent for a long time, as if enchanted. Then they whispered for a long time, as in front of a dead man. I finally covered the painting with a blanket, but even then the mood did not dissipate. Especially the painter Kramskoi spread his hands and shook his head. I felt alienated from my painting. I was not noticed at all or looked at me in passing with pity". For the society of the time, this was an unprecedented phenomenon. People went to see a picture that caused not aesthetic pleasure, but fear and disgust. Cinematography was not yet widespread. At that time, filming was just emerging and was more of a documentary, showing ordinary reality. The only available way to convey emotions to the audience was theater. But even he could not compare with the effect that gave this still image. Figuratively speaking, that case can be compared by the strength of excitement with the premiere of some "Avatar" or other modern blockbuster. Now, looking at this picture, we are unlikely to experience the same horror as 19th century viewers. For us, we already need more action. Time goes on, and with it the human imagination. This story shows that in the past people could be horrified and awe-struck by images that we would now call strange or funny. And it's important to remember that there is a big difference in our perception. And if we want to convey a work of past centuries, it would not be quite right to paint it with our modern perception in mind. That's one side of the question. And we will not stop there. To be continued...

I was planning to touch on this topic a little later. But since now there is a question very close to this topic, why not continue the conversation. I will warn you at once that I will step aside from the topic of Vasa's lion and reflect on various aspects. But we will start with what has already been said. Namely about the fact that the lion's legs are made in more detail than other parts of the sculpture. And even earlier I mentioned that the lion's face is made with a very noticeable asymmetry: the eyes are located at a different level, cheekbones have a different shape. Why is this so? And can any conclusions or assumptions be drawn? For example, are these traces of time or was the sculpture not very professionally done from the very beginning? And now we will step back a little bit and ask another question. What did the sculptors want to show? What emotions was the figure of the lion supposed to inspire? The answer is quite predictable. The lion is a symbol of strength, power and predatory beauty. This animal was supposed to show greatness. Now tell me honestly, can you say that this lion inspires awe? Can you say that the lion has opened its predatory mouth and is roaring? What is the figure itself like? Is it a predator in a leap? Logically this is what the carvers wanted to show. But for me (IMO) the lion looks more like a wrinkled alcoholic, and the pose looks more like a lazy pull-up, not a jump. And what is the right attitude to what we see on historical models? I had a case once a long time ago. I was commissioned to carve a lion figure for a French ship. This model was built according to one of Ancre's monographs, and all the drawings were from that source. Specifically in this book, the lion was drawn by the authors of the book in a stylization that could not be called predatory and scary. Rather even comical. And I tried to repeat the book interpretation, since the customer gave me the source materials, I should stick to them. However, to my surprise, when the customer saw the figure, he did not like it. He said he wanted to see a beast of prey. And this is a funny poodle. And he sent me different photos of modern sculptures where lions were made in a realistic manner and looked predatory. I will put aside the question of how the preparatory conversations should have been conducted, who was right in that matter. Then I redid the figure and made it the way the customer wanted it. Now I remember this case as an example of the fact that nowadays modern people understand by the term "predatory grin of a wild beast" not the same thing that people used to understand by the same name. Why does this happen? We've grown up on a different level of the concept of "scary." We're used to horrible monsters from various horror movies. And we think that a predator should have a very creepy appearance, and yet it will show aggression always and for any reason. If it's a shark, it should chew through everything in its path, not stopping in front of metal cages and harpoons. If it's a bear or a lion, they will find a scent hundreds of kilometers away and will tear the victim until there is no wet spot left of it. And alien monsters can't be killed by anything. They're not afraid of anything, they're resourceful and they're always looking for prey. We are used to exaggeration and believe that a frightening and dangerous appearance must have huge fangs, red glowing eyes and dripping saliva. Yet we still remember that during our childhood and adolescence, we needed much less to make us scared. If we revisit the movies that scared us in the 50s and 60s, they make us smile now. And I remember very well how many times I looked through my father's art albums and books and I was scared to look at the illustrations of Bosch's paintings. It was just a horror that could not be conveyed. Or one of the scariest paintings from my childhood - Apotheosis of War. (originals modified for obvious reasons) I even tried to flip through similar pages of the book as soon as possible, so that I wouldn't even accidentally see those paintings again. This shows that the sense of fear varies. And people are frightened by different images at different times. to be continued....

Would you like to suggest placing one of the additional guns in one of the gallery windows? Do I understand the translation correctly? Apparently, the question of the gallery view, whether to make changes to the original drawing of Beren is still impossible to solve without drawing the cannon portholes. Otherwise it could be a problem later. So I followed your advice and finalized the made schemes to the next stage. I combined several drawings and this is what I got. Now you can see not only the gallery but also where the decks run. Where the exit to the lower level of the side gallery is made is also visible. The green vertical lines are the vertical direction of the windows, which was on the Ambitious. And the most important thing is where I would place additional cannons. According to my calculations they should not get into the territory of the gallery. However, for this to happen, we need to make a compression. Here I have shown a medium degree of deformation (option C). If the gallery will be wider, there will be no space for cannon on the 2nd deck. You can see that the cannon porthole is very close to the gallery. I have seen models where there was such proximity. That's why I left it like that temporarily. I don't know how feasible it is, though, won't the cannon's own fire set fire to its own hull? That's the only thing that confuses me. And then I'll have to squeeze the gallery a little more. In short, I've tried to show all the controversial places now. So that it is possible to find the most justified solution. If, of course, I understood your remark correctly. It's very difficult to keep everything going at the same time. If we go from the opinion that Beren's drawing should be recreated as accurately as possible, it would affect that such a design would sit somewhat awkwardly (IMНO) on the hull from Ambitious. The grisaille shows how far away the nearest cannons are. And this does not fit with the general data. If we start from the figures and the already finished hull, it is not possible to leave the sketch in its original form. And here we have to decide how much we can shrink the design of the galleries so that they do not become ugly. A little more and I will feel Budrio to the end and understand why he deformed his sketch so much in his version.

Thank you so much for your opinions. I really appreciate your participation. I just don't understand everything. Is it possible to repeat a little differently what this is about? The translator is telling me about the order in Wales or some rollers and I don't understand what is actually written. And in the meantime, I'm going to ask this. I don't know how to properly translate the Russian terms of the whole hinged structure we're talking about now. In Russian it sounds like "shtultsy". Sometimes they say "shell" or "side gallery". And how will this structure sound in English? If I remember correctly, I think it should be called "Quarter gallery". But I'm not sure if it's the whole structure or just the lower part? What is the correct name?

Slowly moving on. Historical drawings need to be worked with. Since the basis of the ship is built on book drawings, it is necessary to take them into account. It will not be possible to simply increase to the necessary scale French grisaille and expect that they perfectly match. It would be naive to hope for this. Therefore, the next step is to modify and adjust the drawings so that they look harmoniously on the model. Even a brief glance at the drawing is already enough to notice that the native sketch of the Fulminant is much wider than the one in the book. I roughly brought the sketch to scale and attached both versions side by side. It's funny. When you look at the book version separately, it seems natural and pleasing to the eye. But when the wider drawing of the side galleries appears next to it, the impression of the bookish one changes. Now there is a feeling that the bookish interpretation is too flattened on the sides. As if it lacks air, like a person who has retracted his belly. For the sake of interest, I attached the "Ambitious" sketch to the drawing in the same way. The original, historical version of Beren was significantly wider in this case as well. I wonder why Budrio flattened this design so much? Surely he had good reasons for such a move. It is interesting to note that a comparison of the grisaille with the book shows that the two ships had different angles of the hull sickle. L'Ambiteaux is almost exactly the same in terms of the slope of the horizontal lines. I laid out check lines (in orange color) to make it easier to see. The Fulminant, on the other hand, has a different slope. You can see that on this sheet the orange lines are at different angles. I won't go into this subject, you can clearly see that from the very beginning of the projects the ships had to carry different amounts of armament, and this seems to be reflected in the construction of the 2 hulls. I have to decide what to do with my interpretation though? Do I keep the width as fat as Beren's or follow in Budrio's footsteps? If these sketches had seen the light of day when construction started, more research could have been done and changes could have been made to the hull design, to account for the difference in the sickle. But it's too late to do that now. My goal is to make a decoration that will look logical on the existing hull and please the eye. Correctness of inclinations from the engineering point of view concerns me much less. But aesthetics is not the only issue here. I have already mentioned that the Fulminant had more cannons and they will have to be placed aft. And the wider I make the side galleries, the less room there is for the cannons. Yes, the difference in width is not 2 times, but it can still have an impact. And here are some variants, which I got by rough deformations of galleries. Well here are a few quick variations I got by roughly deforming the galleries. This is the first stage. We leave the visible part of the sketch only what is needed at the moment and overlay it on the drawing. This is what the galleries look like without deformation. And this is how you can see how much wider the sketch is compared to the drawing. Adjusting the slope. In my opinion, this step is necessary. Although in the previous frame you can also find your logic. Then the line of balconies was not on the radian of the location of the cladding, and closer to the line of decks and artillery windows. I like the second option better. The following variations. Here I tried to compare the compression ratio. It is more convenient to follow and compare variations when they are in view all at once. At this stage I do not pay much attention to accuracy. Compressing the drawing I deform it evenly, so the balcony is also compressed, which disappears completely. It is also necessary to bring manually the height of the balcony railing, now they are not where they need to be. This will all be the next step. Later, when I choose one of the options. I will bring it to the finished state. I think I've explained everything that can be explained. Now for the final shot, where all the options are in a row. A- Beren's variant without changes. B- Beren's variant with a change in the slope of horizontal lines. The total width of the design is unchanged. C to D- three gradations of compression. One point to keep in mind. In the last illustration I have taken the rest of the hull out of view. Which means that now you can't see how much room there is for the cannons in each compression ratio. How does it look from the outside? Which option is more pleasing to the eye? Maybe I'm already missing something important in a day's work? I'm intentionally not declaring my opinion now, I'd like to hear an outside opinion.

Thank you. I'm very lucky. When you have people to share their experiences, it makes the job a lot easier.

That's a very interesting question. Collective work on a big project is the norm among artists. You can remember how in the painters' art gallery the pupils passed through different stages of their development. And the teacher first trusted them to mix paints, then some separate sections of the painting. For example, the background or hands. And then the pupil gradually grew up to paint more important things. I am sure that such practice was everywhere, and with carvers too. But I don't have exact information about the lion from Vasa and who exactly participated in its carving. The rest we can only speculate. Let's take the logical path. What parts of this figure can be called especially important, and what parts are less important? Logically, the head is a more important part of this sculpture than the paws. Can we assume that the paws were carved by a more professional carver, while the face was entrusted to a novice apprentice? It doesn't seem plausible. Then why do different parts of the figure look different? I think that the answer here should be sought in the question of preservation. I was planning to touch upon the topic of working style on the example of this lion, but a little later. It is a very interesting topic for reflection. Thank you so much for that assessment. I'm glad you like it. I had a lot of fun doing this project. And I would like to show not only the result, but also tell you how the work was done. What questions were asked, what thoughts appeared during the work. What new things I discovered for myself. I am very glad if this version of publishing the work is interesting to others.

It's time to go lower. Attached the legs. And all was well. But there was a problem. The main problem was not in the legs, but between them. There lives another element that also needs to be shown. I hadn't paid attention to this place before. And now it suddenly turned out that when making the billet I didn't leave the necessary material for... what should I call it culturally? Let's call it a cockerel. And the problem is that this cockerel is poorly visible. The people at the museum were photographing the top part of the lion. What's below the waist in this figure is rarer. And the place under the belly, where the lion's cockerel lives, is in the shade, and it is difficult to see it. People avoid this sector. Everyone pays attention to the face of the beast. One might even conclude that very few perverts visit the Vasa Museum. I never thought I'd regret it. Well, I'm not going to complain. So I had to be satisfied with those photos, where you can at least roughly see what this mysterious detail looked like. So what to do now if I didn't leave any wood for the rooster? I pondered and decided that the only option left was to add some wood. Cutting off the belly would not work, the waist of the sculpture would be too thin. There were some problems with the legs too. As I mentioned, people take more pictures of the top half. There are fewer photos with the legs. There is a wonderful figure of a lion in the museum, which stands alone. And there is not just one of these figures, but two! One is an exact copy of the lion on the breakwater, in the sense that it copies the current state of the sculpture. The same chips, cracks and so on. And the second free-standing figure was painted so that visitors could understand how the sculpture looked like on a "live" ship. What colors were used to paint it. And these replicas were a huge help to me. However, even in this great gift I found disadvantages. The thing is that both copies stand the same side to the viewer. And you can see the same side on both sculptures. And the same leg. You can't get a good look at the other leg. I found some photos where one of the visitors got into the gap between the sculpture and the wall and took some photos of the back side of the lion. For which I was about ready to put a monument to him. An equestrian one! However, this person photographed the top part of the lion. He forgot about the legs. So one back leg was still a mystery. And I was left with the only way out: I had to look at the other side from afar, in the shots with the ship. There's less light, and more questions about the shape of the muscles. I noticed an interesting detail. The legs were different from the rest of the figure. They were more embossed. You could make out the muscles and veins on them. And the rest of the lion's body, compared to the legs, looked more like a huge sack of potatoes. The reasons for this difference could be different. Perhaps the feet were more mired in the sea silt and therefore better preserved. Or maybe it was the other way around. Maybe the feet were never found at all and modern carvers carved them like this in our time. I don't know how true that is. I won't insist. But on all photos of the sixties, where you can see the rise of the lion and the work on its restoration sculpture without legs. The front paws are in place but the back paws are gone. Whether they were lying separately and just didn't get into the frame or whether the divers never found them remains unknown to me. I ended up cutting them out. And the back paws of my lion are also different from the rest of the figure.