SJSoane

Thanks so much, Alex, Alan and Gary. This research is endlessly fascinating! The Bellona project is particularly challenging, because the original Admiralty drawings had very little detail, much less than I see in these later draughts. And as I read elsewhere on this website, the absence of something in the archeological record is not proof of its actual absence; so I cannot assume that if something is not drawn in the Bellona draughts, it does not exist. So it is particularly interesting to hear of the pattern Alex identified, and Gary confirmed, that there seem to be two different approaches to reinforcing the stem. One has the false stem or apron going all the way up to the upper deck breast hook, and no standard; and the other has the false stem stopping at the gundeck breast hook and then includes a standard on the gundeck. Two schools of thought. Based on that pattern, I see that the Bellona draught (below) has the false stem going up to the upper deck breasthook, and therefore would not have a standard. If a drawing ever shows up circa 1750-60 with a false stem up to the upper deck breast hook, and also a standard on the gundeck and a breasthook just under the hawse holes, then I will reconsider. but until then.... I am humbled at how sharp-eyed you all are, to see these issues and patterns. And I benefit from it; thank you so much. And by the way, Alex, your drawings of the Anson are as detailed and as beautifully drafted as any I have ever seen. You are a master, and you have inspired me to improve my own drawings of the Bellona. You set a very high standard! Best wishes, Mark

thanks so much Gary, I am wondering about the time issue as well. Although it sure would make sense to have a knee at the stem. I saw an episode of the rebuild of the Tally Ho, and his stem was slowly leaning forward until he got it anchored back to a breast hook. A standard would help even more. But if I can't find an example in my timeframe, I may skip it. As long as we are looking at the fore end of the gundeck, how about the stoppers for the anchor cable/messenger? I see these referred to, and even found the size of the stopper bolts, but where exactly were they, and how many? I saw a reference to "a couple behind the riding bitts", but nothing else. After that and scuppers, I THINK I have accounted for everything on the gundeck.....🙃 Best wishes, Mark

Aha, thanks, Gary. So the standard and the breasthook can go together. Thanks for catching that for me. So you drilled into the trucks from underneath, to fit a pin which aligns with holes in the deck. Ingenious! Best wishes, Mark

Mike, nice tool construction! You could patent that Turbo Buzzr 3000 logo. Sweet! Mark

Sure enough, Alan, there it is listed. Thanks. Hmm, the contract doesn't match up with the drawing of the Dorsetshire, where the standard against the stern post is drawn, but not one against the stem. And the Dorsetshire shows a breasthook in this location. Lavery's drawings of the Bellona in his Anatomy of a Ship are too sketchy to see it either way. With the Bellerophon contract calling for an up and down arm of 5'-6" on a standard at the stem, there would be no room for a breasthook in this same location. Could this have changed from the Dorsetshire (1757) and Bellona (1760), to the Bellerophon (1786)? from National Maritime Museum "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/%27Dorsetshire%27_%281757%29_RMG_J3113.png"

Hi Gary, I was not aware of a standard at the stem. I see a breasthook but no standard in Goodwin on page 178. Same in the Dorsetshire cross section. I assumed the breasthook was needed for the cants and bucklers covering up the hawse holes, as in David Antscherl's Fully framed Model vol. II p. 78. But then I completely missed the schols, so I still have lots to learn! So are you planning to install the gundeck guns permanently, and then just work carefully around the barrels sticking out as you proceed building upwards? Very nice capsquares on your gun carriages, by the way. Very finely detailed! Best wishes, Mark

Thanks, Alan, you make me feel a little better! I have worked periodically through the holiday, making more standards for the gundeck. Only 8 out of 22 to go. As I approach the end of this, I am thinking ahead to another challenge, explained in Rob Napier's Legacy of a Ship Model book as the "Chinese Puzzle Effect". You have to do A before B, but A cannot be done until B is completed. I am getting to the point where the guns have to be installed, before I can eventually proceed to the upper decks. But the cannon barrels sticking out are clearly going to get in the way of further outboard work, including planking to the top and painting the wales and friezes. The outer work needs to be done first. Also, cutting all of the mortises in the clamps for the upper decks will make a mess of dust falling into the cannon on the gundeck. So these need to be cut before installing the cannon. Indeed, just about everything following is in danger of knocking about or dislodging altogether any cannon sticking out of a gunport. I am beginning to wonder if I should install the carriages now, and only towards the end of the project slide the gun barrels in through the ports and then fasten them down. I can't imagine how I bolt the carriage capsquares down onto the barrel trunnions, when I no longer have access from the inside; working entirely through the gunport. And the breech ropes would have been installed along with the carriages (because the rope goes through a ring on the carriage) long before I try to slide a barrel through a gunport; how would I get that rope to fit nicely onto the barrel cascabels, working from outside and not from within? By the way, I have decided not to plank the outboard edges of the gundeck as a platform for the guns. I really like seeing the lodging knees. So I will make a little 4" base under each gun, which will allow me to pin from underneath into the trucks of the carriage, and then pin the platform down to the beams. I am worried about these coming adrift over time, especially with the vulnerability of the barrels sticking out. So some major anchoring is needed. Hmmmm......complex problems, these ship models!

Marc, truly magnificent work, and thoughtful conjecture based on impressive historical research. Outstanding. Mark

Thanks, Gaetan, that is very interesting and helpful. Mark

Gaetan, the second photo (Sony 200-600) appears sharper on my computer screen. Is it the same sharpness for both photos? Mark

Gary and Alan, thanks to both of you. I have probably looked at that Steel print a dozen times or more, and never noticed the shole or the bevel at the inner corner of the standard. and Alan I read your transcript a few years ago and never remembered that reference. Can I put this all down to an aging brain? By the way, I was looking at a video on YouTube the other day of someone thoroughly walking through HMS Victory. I did not see a single standard on any deck. Interesting. Mark

Hi Gary, I forgot to answer your question about the bolts. Yes, I was thinking I need to anchor these with real trennails, disguised as bolts. I think these might come adrift over time without a mechanical fastening. Did you actually pin yours, or or those false bolts? Yours are pretty uniform in location; did you use a jig of some kind to locate these? Mark

thanks, Marc, my wife is a retired architect/furniture designer, and she came up with a pretty ingenious tree design. It saves vacuuming up needles at the end of the season.... It just hinges flat and goes into the basement. druxey and Gary, thanks for the alert about sholes/soles. I am guessing that these were like a false keel, something that, when damaged, could be stripped off and replaced without having to replace the whole thing. I imagine that pools of water collected at the bottoms of the standards even with small drainage holes at the waterway, leading to early rot. Those standards were large, expensive compass timber, 1'-0" by 5'-9" by 3'-6", not something the shipwrights would want to throw away if only rotted at the bottom. No end of things to learn! I may do a SWOPEM on this detail, since I am already not accurate with my standards coming straight down onto the beam rather than on to non existent planks. I am planning to plank part of the upper deck, so the standards up there may be more authentic. If my standards look half as good as Gary's I will be happy. You have set a standard 😉 for me! Mark

Hmm, what are the sholes/soles. I haven't come across those. I realize that I have the standard sitting on the beam, when in fact it would be sitting on the deck planks. I thought about putting a little piece of plank as a separate piece, but thought it would look a little messy. Is there something else that is between the planks and the standards? Mark

Gary, Here is one of the photos from your project. it looks like the gap is just a bit clear of the waterway in both width and height. Is that right?

Hi Gary, Just saw your post as I was posting my second one. No, I did not know that there is a space between the standard and the waterway. It makes perfect sense, though. That would make this a very much easier process. Getting that tight was the slowest part. Do the photos on your site show the gap shape and size? Yes, I have copied your process, fitting first to the beam, then slide up to fit to the side, then cut the curved profile when everything is properly fitting. It sure makes things easier for me to be a number of steps behind you; I get to learn from your solving the problems first! Best wishes, Mark

Thanks, druxey, and at least the ones towards midships are not as angled in both directions. I forgot to mention that for the knees I decided to use up old cut-offs of boxwood from the hull frames that have been lying around for years. The biggest challenge was siding and then sawing out their profiles. The pieces were too small to run through the thickness sander, or to cut on the power scroll saw. I built a little sled for the thickness sander, and stuck them down with double sided tape. I measured thickness using the digital caliper's depth gauge. And a fret saw and a bench pin made quick work of the sawing. Less noise, very pleasant....

The Christmas tree I built to my wife's design.... Now on to the real stuff. I started on the standards on the gun deck, which I remember Gary saying was really tedious. Now I know why. It was a full week, making the patterns of individual pieces taped together--thanks Greg and druxey, I think this was your idea originally. Then siding and rough cutting the blanks, then measuring the angles of the deck sheer and the curving in of the hull side at each point. And finally, shaping the first standard. It only took me about 4 hours, and just 21 still to go! I am sure it will get faster--won't it? I was thinking about leaving them and the breasthook natural wood rather than staining red, but now I am not so sure. I will put in a few more, along with the gun carriages, to see the overall effect. Mark

Hi Remco, I join everyone else in wishing you the best in finding your way forward. You continue to provide inspiration for me, when I look at your build, and I think every day about your great tagline, "Treat each part as if it is a model on its own, you will finish more models in a day than others do in a lifetime." It keeps me going through the slow times! Looking forward to your eventual return to the shipyard, Mark

Gary, that is an interesting deck plan. Is that the gundeck, coming to a point at the stern? The transoms must have been very high... Mark

I just saw this. Beautiful work, both plastic and wood. Particularly nice shield! Mark

Oops! I had temporarily attached a wooden pad to the side for clamping in the last piece of quickwork without damaging the wale. I forgot to take it off before I took the picture. It could be used as a spare rudder, perhaps, like on a Viking longboat?🧐 That reminds me that I don't know how I would have built this without those handy gun ports providing endless places to clamp. I can never do a merchant ship.... Mark

Hi Gaetan, I am coming to the same conclusion, that the rules were something to aim towards, but not something that could be followed without adjustment. There are too many conflicting rules: 1) a beam under every port; 2) no excessive curved, compass timber in knees; 3) knees relative to fore or aft side of a beam different fore and aft of midships. Not all rules could be followed in every location. So it is up to the experience and judgement of the shipwright to find the best compromise among all of the rules. Thank you, stuglo, for your kind comment. Gary, I posted something on your postings about this. Also, I will look at whether I can get a hanging knee near the sheave for the tiller. And regards the tiller sweep, I am relying on Goodwin's Construction and Fitting book that the sweeps did not come into use until a few decades after the Bellona (1760), so I am having to do sheaves on the sides and ropes straight from the tiller to the sheave, and back to the sheave taking it up to the quarterdeck. I understand the tiller ropes go slack at some point in this older system, which eventually I will find out when I built it. And, here is the starboard quickwork completed, and a template starting for the first standard. Once the red goes all the way up through all three decks, it is going to look like a red velvet liner inside a jewelry box! Mark

Hi Gary, You have done some remarkable research in some difficult to find sources. This is so interesting and helpful. I am beginning to understand what a difficult business it was for the shipwright to lay out the beams. So many different issues to address, like one under each gunport, making way for hatches, partners, etc, not causing problems with acute angles in knees, or excessive casting of knees. I also begin to see that no one rule could be fully carried out without violating another rule. The Bellona, for example, does not have beam under every port, and avoiding excessively cast hanging knees means violating the rule about which side of the beam the knee attaches to fore or aft of midships. So I am beginning to think that all of these rules were ideals to aspire to, but the circumstances of individual ships meant that some rules would have to abandoned in favor of other rules in certain situations. I don't yet see a pattern in the drawings or sources we have been looking at, to suggest which of the rules was always most important. It does seem to be using judgement in individual circumstances as how to best balance them all. I also wondered, in my own case of the Bellona, whether shipwright Thomas Slade had not yet perfected the design of a 74, and so was creating some problems that he worked out in later ships. The gunports are very irregular towards the stern on the Bellona relative to other later 74s, for example. Maybe the beams got more organized later on. But I haven't really looked at later ships in detail to see if this is the case or not. Just my first thoughts about what we are learning here! Best wishes, Mark

Coming from you, druxey, that means a great deal! The toughest part of the exam was calculating the displacement of the hull by 18th century math techniques...🙃 Mark