HAIIAPHNK

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.

About the thesis, I don't get it. Are you asking because you're looking for one, or do you have one? Have you read it? Is there anything useful in it that can be applied to building a Fulminant?

Thank you. It's so good to have the opportunity to hear so many opinions. Mind you, I've written you all down. If anyone throws tomatoes at me later, I'll give you all away at once! I will say that I trusted the opinion of professionals. That's a joke, of course. Thank you for your help. Now I have one less mystery to worry about. And I need to come up with a new one, it's too boring without secrets and questions. 😄 P.S. Wow! I found emoticons! One more mystery less.... I'm going to bed or I'll lose another mystery.

Wow! Is this all plastic? Am I wrong? I didn't know you could make something like this out of that material? It's not 3D printing, it's definitely handmade! Is this being built now? What's next? Is this going to be a diorama? I have so many questions...

Yes, it's clearly visible that the decor is made of molding rather than wood. It doesn't matter at all. The decor can be anything. It can be carved from wood, molded from plastic materials, or cast from metal. The value of the model lies in the craftsmanship. Your friend has captured the style very well. It's as if he lived in 17th century France and served as court painter to Louis. Tell me, does he have any other works? Maybe not even nautical. I would love to see the rest of his work. Sculpture, painting, drawing. If it's not a secret, of course.

I wouldn't somehow particularly single out Fulminant and Ambiteaux from the rest of the lineup of ships. They had no particular revolutionary distinctiveness. It was not yet time in France to tightly control decoration so that it did not interfere with a ship's maneuverability and speed. Budrio wrote that many ships had to remove particularly heavy statuary after going to sea. Captains tried to make their ships something that could be fought and sailed on. And disputes between captains and artists were still fought such battles under the rug. These words were said generally about the whole state of the navy, and our two heroes of history were just like the rest of the ships. It says much for the fact that the second Ambiteaux was already built with alterations, the extra guns having been removed from it, because the first did not sail well at all. And the difference in transom construction between Foudroyant and Fulminant is explained quite simply. There were no standards. Each ship was the product of an artist. The logic was: if you, as an artist, make all your ships the same, why should you get paid? If you can't come up with something new, then you're a bad designer. So they did something new every time. Something different from the rest of our colleagues. And so that you could find new things for yourself. That's all. The difference is only cosmetic. Nothing more.

Give your friend a big bow from me. I was very much influenced by his work at one time. I was very much impressed and for a long time I dreamed of making a main figure from this ship. At that time, I was doing carving on purpose in an accelerated mode in order to be on time for the Universities Cup, which is held in St. Petersburg. It was a wonderful time. To this day, this sculpture remains one of my favorites!

The question here is, what do you mean by junior officers? The lieutenants were on the lower decks. Only the captain was on the quarterdeck. The special honorable quarters could be used differently. The captain lived in one, and the other could be a wardroom for meetings and luncheons. In addition, the ship by rank could play the role of flagship in the squadron. Then there was also an admiral on it. Then one cabin was occupied by him and the other by the captain. They both had windows that looked out onto the keel. So the false windows were not so badly needed. The question about cabins could be continued. There was a period when I was concerned about another question. I counted 86 places for artillery on the model. Whereas according to different sources Fulminant and L’Ambiteaux had more than 90 guns. Further the data has a difference, according to some you can read about 92 cannons in L’Ambiteaux, and Fulminant 96 or 98, according to other data both ships had 96 pieces. And that's where to place another 10! cannons? In any case, you have to find a place somewhere aft. Which means some guns will be in the officers' quarters. Which really messes up the layout of the quarters. And there was the huge question of how to reconcile the book schematics and the lack of space for the guns. And how would that affect the appearance of the side galleries? So waiting for the historical sketches was very exciting. However, later I realized that I made a mistake in the calculation and did not take into account 4 barrels, which should have been in front, and look at the course of the ship. So it is necessary to add not 10, but 6 guns, which is already easier. The sketches clearly show that there are no cannon windows in the side galleries area. Which immediately took the extra pressure off me. At least this problem has passed me by. But cannons still need to be added somewhere, which means they'll still end up in the officers' quarters. Which would change the layout of the quarters that Budrio suggested quite a bit. You should see where and how I tried to put those extra 10 seats.... It's both funny and scary to think about now.

What are the stronger arguments? At first, it was simple. I saw a ready-made Budrio solution in front of me, just take the book schematics, change the shape and you can build. Then I was confused by this difference with curved windows and started looking for examples. I practically convinced myself that there is an embodied variant. But I could not find a hundred percent proof of it. And now I'm back where I started. Plus now I have a fairly well-reasoned opinion that the flat variant of the upper level is the only correct way.... But why are the windows there so crooked? Why didn't Beren repeat what he had already drawn on L’Ambiteaux?

You beat me to it. I was going to follow up with a post listing my doubts, but never got around to it. It's a slow process for me. I have to first formulate everything in one language, then torture the translator a few times to make translations one way and then another. And only then do I have the peace of mind that I can be understood. And then there's the selection of photos. So I've already decided to leave the continuation until another day. I also thought about the arches, for a long time could not find how to call them correctly, once met a special nautical term for this particular element, but I no longer remember it. But you beat me to it. Thank you for that. You saved my time, and I could hardly explain it the way you did. Oh, it's so hard to find the right and logical solutions. Thank you so much for participating so actively in the project. Your thoughts are very valuable! Indeed, if you combine everything drawn on two projections, modern logic fails. It is impossible to combine contradictory information. And at the end you have to conclude that the artist took liberties, embellished something or on the contrary did not mention it. But where exactly is the mistake or fiction hidden? Thinking about what arguments both versions have. To begin with, let's curl our fingers, listing the evidence in favor of the "flat version". And then immediately offer criticisms to the same assertion. 1. Ancre has some wonderful specialists. Budrio showed in the monograph exactly the flat version. And this means a lot. Criticism: The book version has discrepancies with Beren's grisaille. The decoration is not an exact repetition. Nor is the figure of the lion on the breakwater. Did Budrio have all the information on hand or was he making things up on his own? It is mentioned several times in the book that the technical description of the ship is not an exact repetition of the L’Ambiteaux, but rather an average of several sources that were brought together. How appropriate is it to rely entirely on the interpretation of this monograph? 2- The arches on the balcony. This is a valid argument indeed. Why make such a structure when there will be a side wall of a commode immediately behind it, and there is nowhere else to go on the balcony? I was looking at everything I could find for references and noticed that fully voluminous side galleries are found on relatively small ships. There yes, they made ribs in the form of curved spandrels, stitched then planked and then decorated with bas-reliefs on top. But in all cases, when the ship had balconies that wrapped around the sides I saw only a simplified flat version of the dome at the side gallery. Plus wherever there are arches, there was also an open balcony. Critique: I am not a strong connoisseur in the French school. And the fact that I haven't come across specific examples where the arches stand on a cul-de-sac may also speak to the need to look for more. Which is what I've been trying to do. Asked about building similar models at the same time. Criticism to criticism: It's fair to say that the search never led to otherwise. There is not a single case that I can cite as an example. Now let's see what arguments the volumetric dome has. I. The deliberate use of light and shadow has a special place in the sketch. The eye sees a voluminous figure. A flat design will not have such shadow patterns. Criticism: It should be clearly understood that Beren's drawings are not sketches from nature, the artist did not draw, having before his eyes a ship in the harbor. It's a kind of fantasy taken from his head. It was necessary to make a drawing that had yet to be built. And hence the drawing of light and shadow may well be taken as an inaccuracy. II. Why exactly does the sketch of the Fulminant show the distorted directions of the vertical lines? If it is not an attempt to show optical deception on a rounded volumetric form, it looks very strange. What prevented Beren from drawing even lines? This question will persist either way. Even if I settle on a flat version of the top tier, I will still have this very question hanging over me: why such curvature? Is it to preserve it on the model, or is it better to straighten the vertical lines? What was it about L’Ambiteaux that you could make it straight there, but Fulminant doesn't anymore? If I decide for some reason that it's right to do a volumetric 2 tier, I'm more likely to just ignore that curvature. Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)