SJSoane

Now for some analysis of geometry and construction. 
 
Fifteen years ago, I built the stern frame based on my observation of the first Bellona model, and the Admiralty drawings. I did not understand what I was building at the time, I just followed what I saw. And now I understand as I get into the details.
 
In the model, you can see a couple of strange things. first, the tops of counter timbers with the dovetail joints stand proud of the horizontal transom tying them together. This leaves a gap of about 2". I now realize that these gaps provide a space for the bank of sash windows to slide up into. It means that the windows can be opened at the bottom by about 9"; not a lot, but better than no opening!
 
Second, the side counter timbers, effectively the end of the hull frame, project out from the bottom of the balcony upwards. that is, the bank of windows are recessed back relative to the balcony, creating a shadow line between the upper and lower parts of the stern. There is no functional reason I can see here; it is a visual trick to emphasize the sweeping serpentine curve of the balcony from one side of the composition to the other.

That creates some complication in how this is constructed. The green line shows the aft most edge of the side counter timbers, or hull. There is one moulding along the tops of the window bank, just under the balcony, in red below. Another moulding runs along the base of the balcony, in orange below.
 

 
when the balcony swings out from the stern, the two mouldings split from each other:
 

The next item I did not fully appreciate until I started constructing the stern is how its design needs to reconcile  two geometries working against each other; the upper sweep of the sheer, and the flatter sweep up of the decks (red lines below). The conflict shows a little where the gun ports cut into the sheer in odd places.

But at the stern they really need to be resolved. One of the most important, I discovered, is that the moulding at the tops of the windows must align with the sheer of the deck at its upper edge (orange line below), since it sits flush under the deck itself; but its lower edge must conform to the sheer of the hull (dotted red line below), since it turns the corner and runs along the side of the quarter galleries that align with the hull's sheer.
 

And then one more thing about the stern. In 2014, ten years ago, I posted a question about the stern geometry (posting #173). I noticed a discrepancy in the drawings relative to the roundup of the quarterdeck. If I continued the deck aft with its normal roundup, it was a couple of inches lower than the deck as it was shown coming out into the balcony. There was a lot of discussion around posting 173 as to whether this was a mistake in the drawing, or something else. I finally found in Steel that the quarterdeck does indeed increase its roundup as it approaches the stern balcony, to give a lighter, more springy feeling to the visual lines of the stern. So the drawing is correct, and this needs to be accounted for:
 
 

So, construction next!
 
Mark
 

Yves, thanks for sharing your model. I was aware of a kit, but I have never seen it! It looks like you did a very nice job of it.
 
scrubbyj, the history of the Bellona in Brian Lavery's Anatomy of a Ship has the ship paid off in 1762 after her initial service, turned into a guardship, briefly recommissioned, and laid up in ordinary in 1771. Then she was given a major repair in 1778, completed in 1780. this was now 20 years after her original launch. I can only assume that the first model represents her before the major repair, and the second one represents her afterwards. Adding that railing on the roundhouse bulwarks was very typical of designs of this later period, as best I can tell.
 
Visiting my son in London last year, we visited the National Maritime Museum and toured around endlessly disappointed that they had removed most of the models. Then we walked into the room devoted to the Napoleonic Wars, and there were two representative models, the first and second Bellona models side by side! At last two decent models, and they were the Bellona! In this photo you can see that the second model is larger than the first, which I never realized until seeing them side by side.
 

Busy day outside the shop, not as much done on the Bellona as I had wished...
But I did get a chance to color the stern quarter galleries based on my reconstruction:
 

 
 
 
 
 

Thanks so much, Marc, Hakan, Allan, Mark and Dan. It really means a great deal to me to hear from all of you. I have a meeting with a pain specialist on Friday, and hopefully I will be able to get past this soon!
 
In the meantime, I have been working away on what has been the biggest challenge for me so far, the stern. I plan to make a number of posts on this, starting today with an overview of the end goal; what will it look like?
 
I have always aimed to base my model on the original design and the first model, shown here:
 

 
Although this model shows mainly the framing system, it does have a hint of what the original design intended on the stern at least down to the bottom of the captain's balcony. Everything past this is speculation for a reconstruction!
 
The second model, made twenty years later after a major refit of the ship itself, shows much more detail (see below). At first glance, this provides information on all of the detail not shown in the first model. But the second model changed the original design in ways I did not find pleasing. It added an ugly railing above the roundhouse (nice for the sailors, bad for the aesthetics). The balcony railing makes a sharp turn into the stern one bay inboard on each side, whereas the original model has a nice sweeping serpentine curve across the entire stern. The original model has nicely proportioned vertical supports (painted red) with nicely detailed fretwork, whereas the second model skinnies those down and punches crude holes for detail. The first model carries additional carving down to the bottom of the railing adjacent to the large corner post carvings of women, linking things together visually. The second model unsatisfyingly smashes the balcony into the corner sculpture.
 
And in terms of color, the second model uses white for the balcony fretwork and the pilasters on the band of windows, which I find visually jarring relative to the rest of the ship. There are a few other examples of white windows, pilasters and fretwork on other roughly contemporary ships, most notably the Princess Royal in the Annapolis museum; but not many either in models or paintings of the period. This is not typical, in other words.
 
I suspect this was the modeler's effort to give visual "punch" to his model, not a reflection of common practice in the actual ships. I suspect the Princess Royal model has white details like the Bellona second model because it was built by the same modeler; the friezes on both ships are identical in painting style and technique, and the models were likely built at the same time. It may be two different modelers used the same frieze painter, but given the rarity of this look in most other ships, I think we are seeing the personal signature of a modeler here. I would be very interested to hear if others have another view of this.
 

 
So, how can I reconstruct the original model, from the incomplete information in the original model? Here, for better or worse, is my first shot at a reconstruction (see below).
 
I reproduced the balcony geometry, the carvings, and the wider balcony vertical supports with the more elaborate fretwork. I picked up the little bust carvings below the balcony from another contemporary ship. I accepted the pilaster design from the second Bellona model, although in the spirit of visual harmony I  continued the red down from the balcony into the boards behind the pilasters. In the same spirit of visual harmony, I propose to keep the pilasters and the window frames natural wood, along with the carvings and mouldings.
 
The second model friezes and paintwork on the upper and lower counters are really quite delightful (just like on the Princess Royal). So why not use them, with no other sources to draw upon for this? I propose to reproduce those paintings in my model, including the tone and hue of the background blue paint.
 
I would be very interested to hear any opinions as to whether I am on the right track on this reconstruction.
 
Next posting will discuss the very complex geometry in this stern, and my efforts to bring it under control for construction.
 
While I am working on that, I am also working with Chuck of Syren models, who is going to laser cut the window frames and balcony fretwork for me, using my drawing templates. I had long wanted to make everything on this model myself, but I finally had to face the reality that I did not have the skill to make window frames just .023" thick, or even worse, the pierced fretwork. And after a long and fascinating chat with Chuck at the Admiralty Models workshop on carving in Annapolis in October, I came to see that this is just using another tool to achieve my modeling needs, still based on my drawing. Thank you Chuck!
 
By the way, Chuck also pointed out to me that the very fine details like window frames were made of ivory in original models, because it could hold the detail better than even boxwood. Most models seem to have colored this; the second Bellona model builder maybe put up the freshly cut window or fretwork and thought, "looks good as is!"
 
Best wishes,
 
Mark
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

HI everyone,
 
I have not posted in many months, and want to catch up now.
 
In anticipation of carving the figurehead, I attended the excellent workshop on carving run by David Antscherl and Greg Herbert in Annapolis in early October. Fired up with my newly acquired skills, I flew back home to Montana ready to carve, only to discover that I had pinched the sciatica nerve in my leg on the flight. I was unable to sit at all for several months, taking me entirely out of the workshop. After several months of physical therapy, I am finally able to get into the shop again in small bursts of activity.
 
During that down time, I put my computer on a stool at my desk so I could work on CAD drawings standing up. I was able to draw many more of the details still to come. I will show some of those in some following posts. Here is a taste:

 
 
The unexpected and enforced downtime due to medical issues caused me to realize that I have to get my skates on and work more aggressively towards completion. I may not have the luxury of working for many more years at the same leisurely pace. At the Annapolis workshop, Chuck Passaro discussed with me a number of ideas for tackling the most challenging pieces that were putting me into a tizzy,  like the frieze paintings and the fretwork stern decoration, and I am beginning to pursue some of these ideas with him further. Thanks, Chuck, huge help! I am starting with the stern, and here is a sample of what I will discuss in a later posting.
 

 
The time off from cutting wood also gave me time to think more carefully about the decorative scheme I will want to follow as I get to this level of detail. I decided at the very beginning that I wanted to show the Bellona as originally designed and built, based on the original Admiralty drawings and on the first Bellona model of 1760 that shows her mainly in frame with little decorative detail other than the taffrail down to the floor of the stern balcony, with no quarter galleries. I did NOT want to portray her as she looked after a major refit 20 years later and shown in the second, fully detailed and colored Bellona model with the coppered bottom. Not only did the latter model show the later structural changes like the changed balcony geometry and the railings along the roundhouse that I do not like, but its overall decorative scheme felt like it was more extravagantly Rococo and showy than the real ship would have looked several decades earlier (like ivory details sprinkled around, and exuberant carvings).
 
So I have been looking at other models contemporaneous with the first Bellona, like the Princess Royal and the first Victory, both designed by the Bellona's shipwright, Sir Thomas Slade. In some later postings, I will explore this further, as it might be of interest for others who are attempting to reconstruct a decorative scheme from indirect sources.
 
So anyway, back into the land of the living!
 
More posts to follow as I am able to put them together.
 
Best wishes,
 
Mark
 
 

Thanks so much, Mark.
 
I thought I would share my working process thoughts regarding the carving of the figurehead, for everyone including me who is daunted by the thought of this.
 
After completing the double size maquette, I was ready to start carving. Then I realized that my original drawing of Bellona was a tracing over a photo of the Bellona figurehead on the first model.  This is the one I discovered was much out of proportion, and with arms and hands  that I kind of guessed at. This would not be a good drawing to work from on the actual wood. I knew I would have to redraw Bellona in light of what I learned in the maquette, to have a more accurate starting point for the carving.
 
Here is the original drawing:
 

 
Once I had a maquette, I took pictures of it, and then scanned these into my CAD drawing. This provided a better foundation for tracing a more accurate Bellona. Here is a photo of the maquette:
 

 And here is the revised drawing based on this. Comparing the two look in particular at the location of: the head (further back on neck; shoulder (further back on body), breast (lower and reshaped), width at waist and derriere (narrower, lower), arm location and proportion (hanging straighter, shorter lower arm), and the hand and feet. I struggled with drawing the hands and feet, until I hit on scanning images of hands and feet into CAD and tracing them. I took photos of my own hands, and found photos of feet online.
 

 
Also notice in this drawing a new trailboard. This is many, many thanks to druxey, who drew this for me based on typical designs of the period. I know he has studied many models and drawings of this period, and he has provided me with an historically more accurate idea than I would have been able to do on my own. It was exceedingly kind of him to take the time to do this, and my model of the Bellona will benefit not only from his historical knowledge, but also his artistic eye. It is an honor to have this contribution from one of the key experts on this website. Thanks, druxey!
 
Next step, starting to come to grips with laying out the wood blank. Here is the size of the figurehead I will be attempting:
 

All for now, Mark
 
 
 

I just finished a clay maquette of the Bellona figurehead, at double scale, or 3/8" =1'-0".
Here is a filler showing location and fit with the cheeks:

Then taking the advice of David Antscherl's Fully Framed Models tutorial on carving, I used an artist's guide to dimensions of the female figure to get the right proportions of things, and initially modeled Bellona with no clothes yet:

It is a good thing I did this, because I discovered that the original figurehead on the first Bellona model had lower legs way too short for the torso, minuscule feet, and a head pushed too far forward from the neck. To me, she also looks too cherubic to be the goddess of war:
 

Since I had to add arms anyway, I looked at other artistic renderings of Bellona for a fiercer, more war-like look. I found a haunting image by Bertrand MacKennal of a sculpture in the Australian War Memorial https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Mackennal_-_War.jpg.
 
Mine is not as haunting, but as good as I can do, first go around:
 

Next, reducing this by one half, and doing another maquette. I might try to do it in Sculpey so I can take measurements from it for the wood carving version after it is hardened. Does anyone know if Sculpey shrinks when baked in an oven?
 
Mark
 
 
 

A small update on the traiboard question. In posting 2286 above, I showed the two different trailboards for the two different Bellona models. I wanted to follow the first model because it is closer to the original design (since it predates the second model by 20 years or so), but the only photo I have is frustratingly out of focus.

I also looks like it lost parts in the center, and I could not imagine how to recreate the original design.
Then I saw the trailboard for a contemporary ship, HMS Hercules or Thunderer, launched just one year before the Bellona, in 1759. This shows a floral scroll:

 
So I traced what I could see of the remaining Bellona pieces, and speculated on how it might have been filled in in the spirit of the Hercules design. Too far down the road of speculation? At least it would be easier to make than the second Bellona model design, with its super thin spears, the George III cypher, etc.
 

 
 

I have now drilled the hawse holes, and fitted a bolster waiting for final assembly for final trimming:
 

 
 
 
I now have to turn my attention to the trailboard. I am getting closer to painting the blue around this area, and I want to know where the trailboards need gluing.
I want to build the Bellona as first designed, and shown in the first model. But the trailboard detail is frustratingly difficult to see or to reconstruct, from the photo I took:

Unless someone has a better photo, I may have to build the trailboard on the second Bellona model:
 

If I do the latter, do you have any advice for how to glue this down to a backing board for piercing and carving, and then how to get it unglued from the backing board with those tiny, fragile pieces holding it together?
 
Mark
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Thanks so much for the kind comments, Yancovitch and Steve. Slow but steady!
 
In my last post, I express doubts about the way I had managed the hair bracket, sitting tenuously on top of the knee at the stem. After pondering it a while, I decided there was nothing for it but to cut down the top of the knee that I had shaped in 1998 when I started construction (see image below). It was too short for the hair bracket, the gammoning slot and the hole for the mainmast stay collar were in the wrong locations. To this day, I don't quite know how I got that so wrong. I might have copied something out of Lavery's book on the Bellona, which I have subsequently discovered is not  accurate enough to build a model from. And I started construction years before I finally started drawing more accurate drawings--always a mistake!

So, I made a complete new piece, combining the hair bracket and a carved ornamental piece that stands directly behind the figurehead. It seemed more solid the two together, and they are the same thickness relative to the figure head:
 

 
And after a lot of faying and tapering, the new core for the hair brackets now holds everything firmly together.
 
I made up a dummy of Bellona (don't tell her I said that, she is supposed to be a very scary warrior...), just to see how things are starting to fit together. The first image below shows the new core piece still covered in the paper pattern, showing the bas-relief carving to come on the piece behind the figurehead (she is pulled away from it a little in this photo). It also shows the captain standing on the cheeks. Gives a good idea of the size of the figurehead.
 

And here are parts starting to fall into place:
 

 
I have been reading David Antscherl's excellent explanation of how to carve a figure head in Volume II of the Fully Framed Model. I might start with the maquette, and see how it goes...
I have pondered what wood to use, to carve the figures on the ship. My boxwood is not buxus semperivens, the stuff the old modeler's used, and that David recommended when he first wrote his book. But I can find no supplier anywhere in the world of buxus semperivens anymore. I know my boxwood is from South America, but I don't know its actual species. It seems to be stiffer in relation to what others have written about working true boxwood. I think it will have to do. And I can always blame a bad outcome on bad tools or bad wood, not lack of skill!🙂
 
Best wishes,
 
Mark
edited with higher resolution image here:
 

 
 
 
 
 

Thanks, Gaetan, someday when I get further along, I would be interested in studying French ships of the period. Always fun to see what is universal, and what is culturally different!
 
Further progress today. I finally got in the second layer of the hawse lining, ready for drilling the hawse holes:
 

And now on to that pesky support for the hair bracket. I tried letting a liner down into a rebate I cut today on top of the knee, but I may sleep on this. It seems flimsy, kind of cobbled together. I may consider making the entire core in one piece. A decision for tomorrow!
 
 

 

The cheeks saga continues. I finally got both cheeks, both sides, close to finish size and pinning in place:
 

I made the cheeks up in two parts, hopefully to get the grain to run roughly parallel to the scratch moulding still needed to be done on each outboard surface:

I also used, for the first time, my handy vise attachments that hold irregular pieces. I don't know how else I would ever have held these multi-curved surfaces for shaping:

Then came the awful discovery that I had cut the top of my knee at the head to the wrong profile. Fifteen years ago I made my best guess at this shape (photo from 2008):

And then as the cheeks neared completion, I started wondering how the moulding continuing on from the top cheek--the hair bracket-- would be supported for its full length to the scroll at the top. I looked again at the original Bellona model, and saw there had to be a much higher core up from the knee of the head, between the hair brackets and abaft the figurehead:

I tried making one piece, with a slot to slip over the knee, but soon gave up on that as pretty impossible to cut a slot tapering in two directions while keeping it aligned athwartships and fore and aft:

I finally realized that the top of the knee should have looked more like this upper left piece in the drawing below:

So tomorrow, I will see how I can fit my retro piece onto the top of the knee, between the upper cheeks:

Wish I had understood that 15 years ago, and good thing I am not in a hurry....
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Thanks so much, Gary and Alan, just when I think I know the name of everything, then I discover yet more to know...
 
The lining proved yet more difficult to fasten than I expected. I could not get a clean shot at clamping the outboard end firmly to the hull. So I made a special clamp, with a pad shaped to the end of the lining. either my clamps could not reach that far over the edge, or they were so fat I couldn't see if things were bedded home or not. So thin legs on the new clamp gave a good view and also applied pressure at just the right place.
 
Then it all worked out:
 


And a first look at the second layer, which still needs steaming. And the hawse holes penciled in:

Mark
 
 
 
 
 

With the nomenclature conversation taken care of, the moulded railings needed to be made.
 
I refined my moulding cutter setup to work more efficiently.
 
I cut the moulding profile as before in a Lie-Nielsen tool steel blank. This steel is soft enough to shape with files, but keeps its edge for long enough for a run of one set of mouldings. It is also very thick, and so it does not chatter like thinner metals I tried.  I mounted it in a wooden clamp at what I determined to be the best angle of attack, with the clamp also forming a fence at right angles to the tool steel.

 
In my refined method, I built a jig that could be secured in my tail vise, and then three clamps hold the moulding blank against one side of the jig. I clamped the blank, projecting the exact thickness of the finished moulding above the jig, using a temporary spacer for accuracy. (In the photo below, you can see the profile previously used for a different moulding; I will just keep sliding the tool steel along as I need more profiles in its edge, until I don't have enough left to clamp in the wooden block.)
 
I have read and viewed reports from others using a scratch stock in a more free-hand manner, but my freehand efforts resulted in wavy surfaces up and down. I don't know if it is a lack of skill on my part, or I have unusually stiff wood, but I found that I really need the scratch stock to be guided with this fence arrangement to get satisfactory mouldings.
 
 

 
It was then a simple matter of pulling the cutter along the projected edge, using the fence to keep the cutter parallel to the blank, and cutting until the flat part of the cutter holder hit the top surface of the jig.
 
As before, I then cut off the moulding on the Byrnes saw, using a strip of paper against the fence to avoid discoloring the moulding face while rubbing against the aluminum fence:

 
And now perfect mouldings along the top of the waist, on top of the wider sheer strake: 
 

 
Best wishes,
 
Mark
 
 

Now for some analysis of geometry and construction. 
 
Fifteen years ago, I built the stern frame based on my observation of the first Bellona model, and the Admiralty drawings. I did not understand what I was building at the time, I just followed what I saw. And now I understand as I get into the details.
 
In the model, you can see a couple of strange things. first, the tops of counter timbers with the dovetail joints stand proud of the horizontal transom tying them together. This leaves a gap of about 2". I now realize that these gaps provide a space for the bank of sash windows to slide up into. It means that the windows can be opened at the bottom by about 9"; not a lot, but better than no opening!
 
Second, the side counter timbers, effectively the end of the hull frame, project out from the bottom of the balcony upwards. that is, the bank of windows are recessed back relative to the balcony, creating a shadow line between the upper and lower parts of the stern. There is no functional reason I can see here; it is a visual trick to emphasize the sweeping serpentine curve of the balcony from one side of the composition to the other.

That creates some complication in how this is constructed. The green line shows the aft most edge of the side counter timbers, or hull. There is one moulding along the tops of the window bank, just under the balcony, in red below. Another moulding runs along the base of the balcony, in orange below.
 

 
when the balcony swings out from the stern, the two mouldings split from each other:
 

The next item I did not fully appreciate until I started constructing the stern is how its design needs to reconcile  two geometries working against each other; the upper sweep of the sheer, and the flatter sweep up of the decks (red lines below). The conflict shows a little where the gun ports cut into the sheer in odd places.

But at the stern they really need to be resolved. One of the most important, I discovered, is that the moulding at the tops of the windows must align with the sheer of the deck at its upper edge (orange line below), since it sits flush under the deck itself; but its lower edge must conform to the sheer of the hull (dotted red line below), since it turns the corner and runs along the side of the quarter galleries that align with the hull's sheer.
 

And then one more thing about the stern. In 2014, ten years ago, I posted a question about the stern geometry (posting #173). I noticed a discrepancy in the drawings relative to the roundup of the quarterdeck. If I continued the deck aft with its normal roundup, it was a couple of inches lower than the deck as it was shown coming out into the balcony. There was a lot of discussion around posting 173 as to whether this was a mistake in the drawing, or something else. I finally found in Steel that the quarterdeck does indeed increase its roundup as it approaches the stern balcony, to give a lighter, more springy feeling to the visual lines of the stern. So the drawing is correct, and this needs to be accounted for:
 
 

So, construction next!
 
Mark
 

Yves, thanks for sharing your model. I was aware of a kit, but I have never seen it! It looks like you did a very nice job of it.
 
scrubbyj, the history of the Bellona in Brian Lavery's Anatomy of a Ship has the ship paid off in 1762 after her initial service, turned into a guardship, briefly recommissioned, and laid up in ordinary in 1771. Then she was given a major repair in 1778, completed in 1780. this was now 20 years after her original launch. I can only assume that the first model represents her before the major repair, and the second one represents her afterwards. Adding that railing on the roundhouse bulwarks was very typical of designs of this later period, as best I can tell.
 
Visiting my son in London last year, we visited the National Maritime Museum and toured around endlessly disappointed that they had removed most of the models. Then we walked into the room devoted to the Napoleonic Wars, and there were two representative models, the first and second Bellona models side by side! At last two decent models, and they were the Bellona! In this photo you can see that the second model is larger than the first, which I never realized until seeing them side by side.
 

Busy day outside the shop, not as much done on the Bellona as I had wished...
But I did get a chance to color the stern quarter galleries based on my reconstruction:
 

 
 
 
 
 

Thanks so much, Marc, Hakan, Allan, Mark and Dan. It really means a great deal to me to hear from all of you. I have a meeting with a pain specialist on Friday, and hopefully I will be able to get past this soon!
 
In the meantime, I have been working away on what has been the biggest challenge for me so far, the stern. I plan to make a number of posts on this, starting today with an overview of the end goal; what will it look like?
 
I have always aimed to base my model on the original design and the first model, shown here:
 

 
Although this model shows mainly the framing system, it does have a hint of what the original design intended on the stern at least down to the bottom of the captain's balcony. Everything past this is speculation for a reconstruction!
 
The second model, made twenty years later after a major refit of the ship itself, shows much more detail (see below). At first glance, this provides information on all of the detail not shown in the first model. But the second model changed the original design in ways I did not find pleasing. It added an ugly railing above the roundhouse (nice for the sailors, bad for the aesthetics). The balcony railing makes a sharp turn into the stern one bay inboard on each side, whereas the original model has a nice sweeping serpentine curve across the entire stern. The original model has nicely proportioned vertical supports (painted red) with nicely detailed fretwork, whereas the second model skinnies those down and punches crude holes for detail. The first model carries additional carving down to the bottom of the railing adjacent to the large corner post carvings of women, linking things together visually. The second model unsatisfyingly smashes the balcony into the corner sculpture.
 
And in terms of color, the second model uses white for the balcony fretwork and the pilasters on the band of windows, which I find visually jarring relative to the rest of the ship. There are a few other examples of white windows, pilasters and fretwork on other roughly contemporary ships, most notably the Princess Royal in the Annapolis museum; but not many either in models or paintings of the period. This is not typical, in other words.
 
I suspect this was the modeler's effort to give visual "punch" to his model, not a reflection of common practice in the actual ships. I suspect the Princess Royal model has white details like the Bellona second model because it was built by the same modeler; the friezes on both ships are identical in painting style and technique, and the models were likely built at the same time. It may be two different modelers used the same frieze painter, but given the rarity of this look in most other ships, I think we are seeing the personal signature of a modeler here. I would be very interested to hear if others have another view of this.
 

 
So, how can I reconstruct the original model, from the incomplete information in the original model? Here, for better or worse, is my first shot at a reconstruction (see below).
 
I reproduced the balcony geometry, the carvings, and the wider balcony vertical supports with the more elaborate fretwork. I picked up the little bust carvings below the balcony from another contemporary ship. I accepted the pilaster design from the second Bellona model, although in the spirit of visual harmony I  continued the red down from the balcony into the boards behind the pilasters. In the same spirit of visual harmony, I propose to keep the pilasters and the window frames natural wood, along with the carvings and mouldings.
 
The second model friezes and paintwork on the upper and lower counters are really quite delightful (just like on the Princess Royal). So why not use them, with no other sources to draw upon for this? I propose to reproduce those paintings in my model, including the tone and hue of the background blue paint.
 
I would be very interested to hear any opinions as to whether I am on the right track on this reconstruction.
 
Next posting will discuss the very complex geometry in this stern, and my efforts to bring it under control for construction.
 
While I am working on that, I am also working with Chuck of Syren models, who is going to laser cut the window frames and balcony fretwork for me, using my drawing templates. I had long wanted to make everything on this model myself, but I finally had to face the reality that I did not have the skill to make window frames just .023" thick, or even worse, the pierced fretwork. And after a long and fascinating chat with Chuck at the Admiralty Models workshop on carving in Annapolis in October, I came to see that this is just using another tool to achieve my modeling needs, still based on my drawing. Thank you Chuck!
 
By the way, Chuck also pointed out to me that the very fine details like window frames were made of ivory in original models, because it could hold the detail better than even boxwood. Most models seem to have colored this; the second Bellona model builder maybe put up the freshly cut window or fretwork and thought, "looks good as is!"
 
Best wishes,
 
Mark
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Now for some analysis of geometry and construction. 
 
Fifteen years ago, I built the stern frame based on my observation of the first Bellona model, and the Admiralty drawings. I did not understand what I was building at the time, I just followed what I saw. And now I understand as I get into the details.
 
In the model, you can see a couple of strange things. first, the tops of counter timbers with the dovetail joints stand proud of the horizontal transom tying them together. This leaves a gap of about 2". I now realize that these gaps provide a space for the bank of sash windows to slide up into. It means that the windows can be opened at the bottom by about 9"; not a lot, but better than no opening!
 
Second, the side counter timbers, effectively the end of the hull frame, project out from the bottom of the balcony upwards. that is, the bank of windows are recessed back relative to the balcony, creating a shadow line between the upper and lower parts of the stern. There is no functional reason I can see here; it is a visual trick to emphasize the sweeping serpentine curve of the balcony from one side of the composition to the other.

That creates some complication in how this is constructed. The green line shows the aft most edge of the side counter timbers, or hull. There is one moulding along the tops of the window bank, just under the balcony, in red below. Another moulding runs along the base of the balcony, in orange below.
 

 
when the balcony swings out from the stern, the two mouldings split from each other:
 

The next item I did not fully appreciate until I started constructing the stern is how its design needs to reconcile  two geometries working against each other; the upper sweep of the sheer, and the flatter sweep up of the decks (red lines below). The conflict shows a little where the gun ports cut into the sheer in odd places.

But at the stern they really need to be resolved. One of the most important, I discovered, is that the moulding at the tops of the windows must align with the sheer of the deck at its upper edge (orange line below), since it sits flush under the deck itself; but its lower edge must conform to the sheer of the hull (dotted red line below), since it turns the corner and runs along the side of the quarter galleries that align with the hull's sheer.
 

And then one more thing about the stern. In 2014, ten years ago, I posted a question about the stern geometry (posting #173). I noticed a discrepancy in the drawings relative to the roundup of the quarterdeck. If I continued the deck aft with its normal roundup, it was a couple of inches lower than the deck as it was shown coming out into the balcony. There was a lot of discussion around posting 173 as to whether this was a mistake in the drawing, or something else. I finally found in Steel that the quarterdeck does indeed increase its roundup as it approaches the stern balcony, to give a lighter, more springy feeling to the visual lines of the stern. So the drawing is correct, and this needs to be accounted for:
 
 

So, construction next!
 
Mark
 

Hi Ed, I think this level of order was only going to happen one time, when I retired and moved. We will see how long it stays this orderly...
 
Here are a couple of closeups of the wall hanging system, and also the dust collectors. Noel, each has a gate, and all the tools are plugged into a surge protector which is plugged into the Fein dust collector seen under the bench. So any tool turned on and off automatically turns on and off the Fein.
 
Best wishes,
 
Mark
 
 

Hi everyone,
 
Moving and retiring at the same time took longer, and was more stressful, than I expected. The retiring is great, the moving not so much fun.
My new shop is smaller than the previous one, so I had to organize tools as efficiently as possible. Most of the major ones are now on the wall, and I have knee space at last at the power tools.
 
Here are a couple of images. I hope to get back to the Bellona soon!
 
Best wishes,
 
Mark
 
 
 
 
 
 

Now for some analysis of geometry and construction. 
 
Fifteen years ago, I built the stern frame based on my observation of the first Bellona model, and the Admiralty drawings. I did not understand what I was building at the time, I just followed what I saw. And now I understand as I get into the details.
 
In the model, you can see a couple of strange things. first, the tops of counter timbers with the dovetail joints stand proud of the horizontal transom tying them together. This leaves a gap of about 2". I now realize that these gaps provide a space for the bank of sash windows to slide up into. It means that the windows can be opened at the bottom by about 9"; not a lot, but better than no opening!
 
Second, the side counter timbers, effectively the end of the hull frame, project out from the bottom of the balcony upwards. that is, the bank of windows are recessed back relative to the balcony, creating a shadow line between the upper and lower parts of the stern. There is no functional reason I can see here; it is a visual trick to emphasize the sweeping serpentine curve of the balcony from one side of the composition to the other.

That creates some complication in how this is constructed. The green line shows the aft most edge of the side counter timbers, or hull. There is one moulding along the tops of the window bank, just under the balcony, in red below. Another moulding runs along the base of the balcony, in orange below.
 

 
when the balcony swings out from the stern, the two mouldings split from each other:
 

The next item I did not fully appreciate until I started constructing the stern is how its design needs to reconcile  two geometries working against each other; the upper sweep of the sheer, and the flatter sweep up of the decks (red lines below). The conflict shows a little where the gun ports cut into the sheer in odd places.

But at the stern they really need to be resolved. One of the most important, I discovered, is that the moulding at the tops of the windows must align with the sheer of the deck at its upper edge (orange line below), since it sits flush under the deck itself; but its lower edge must conform to the sheer of the hull (dotted red line below), since it turns the corner and runs along the side of the quarter galleries that align with the hull's sheer.
 

And then one more thing about the stern. In 2014, ten years ago, I posted a question about the stern geometry (posting #173). I noticed a discrepancy in the drawings relative to the roundup of the quarterdeck. If I continued the deck aft with its normal roundup, it was a couple of inches lower than the deck as it was shown coming out into the balcony. There was a lot of discussion around posting 173 as to whether this was a mistake in the drawing, or something else. I finally found in Steel that the quarterdeck does indeed increase its roundup as it approaches the stern balcony, to give a lighter, more springy feeling to the visual lines of the stern. So the drawing is correct, and this needs to be accounted for:
 
 

So, construction next!
 
Mark
 

Now for some analysis of geometry and construction. 
 
Fifteen years ago, I built the stern frame based on my observation of the first Bellona model, and the Admiralty drawings. I did not understand what I was building at the time, I just followed what I saw. And now I understand as I get into the details.
 
In the model, you can see a couple of strange things. first, the tops of counter timbers with the dovetail joints stand proud of the horizontal transom tying them together. This leaves a gap of about 2". I now realize that these gaps provide a space for the bank of sash windows to slide up into. It means that the windows can be opened at the bottom by about 9"; not a lot, but better than no opening!
 
Second, the side counter timbers, effectively the end of the hull frame, project out from the bottom of the balcony upwards. that is, the bank of windows are recessed back relative to the balcony, creating a shadow line between the upper and lower parts of the stern. There is no functional reason I can see here; it is a visual trick to emphasize the sweeping serpentine curve of the balcony from one side of the composition to the other.

That creates some complication in how this is constructed. The green line shows the aft most edge of the side counter timbers, or hull. There is one moulding along the tops of the window bank, just under the balcony, in red below. Another moulding runs along the base of the balcony, in orange below.
 

 
when the balcony swings out from the stern, the two mouldings split from each other:
 

The next item I did not fully appreciate until I started constructing the stern is how its design needs to reconcile  two geometries working against each other; the upper sweep of the sheer, and the flatter sweep up of the decks (red lines below). The conflict shows a little where the gun ports cut into the sheer in odd places.

But at the stern they really need to be resolved. One of the most important, I discovered, is that the moulding at the tops of the windows must align with the sheer of the deck at its upper edge (orange line below), since it sits flush under the deck itself; but its lower edge must conform to the sheer of the hull (dotted red line below), since it turns the corner and runs along the side of the quarter galleries that align with the hull's sheer.
 

And then one more thing about the stern. In 2014, ten years ago, I posted a question about the stern geometry (posting #173). I noticed a discrepancy in the drawings relative to the roundup of the quarterdeck. If I continued the deck aft with its normal roundup, it was a couple of inches lower than the deck as it was shown coming out into the balcony. There was a lot of discussion around posting 173 as to whether this was a mistake in the drawing, or something else. I finally found in Steel that the quarterdeck does indeed increase its roundup as it approaches the stern balcony, to give a lighter, more springy feeling to the visual lines of the stern. So the drawing is correct, and this needs to be accounted for:
 
 

So, construction next!
 
Mark
 

Now for some analysis of geometry and construction. 
 
Fifteen years ago, I built the stern frame based on my observation of the first Bellona model, and the Admiralty drawings. I did not understand what I was building at the time, I just followed what I saw. And now I understand as I get into the details.
 
In the model, you can see a couple of strange things. first, the tops of counter timbers with the dovetail joints stand proud of the horizontal transom tying them together. This leaves a gap of about 2". I now realize that these gaps provide a space for the bank of sash windows to slide up into. It means that the windows can be opened at the bottom by about 9"; not a lot, but better than no opening!
 
Second, the side counter timbers, effectively the end of the hull frame, project out from the bottom of the balcony upwards. that is, the bank of windows are recessed back relative to the balcony, creating a shadow line between the upper and lower parts of the stern. There is no functional reason I can see here; it is a visual trick to emphasize the sweeping serpentine curve of the balcony from one side of the composition to the other.

That creates some complication in how this is constructed. The green line shows the aft most edge of the side counter timbers, or hull. There is one moulding along the tops of the window bank, just under the balcony, in red below. Another moulding runs along the base of the balcony, in orange below.
 

 
when the balcony swings out from the stern, the two mouldings split from each other:
 

The next item I did not fully appreciate until I started constructing the stern is how its design needs to reconcile  two geometries working against each other; the upper sweep of the sheer, and the flatter sweep up of the decks (red lines below). The conflict shows a little where the gun ports cut into the sheer in odd places.

But at the stern they really need to be resolved. One of the most important, I discovered, is that the moulding at the tops of the windows must align with the sheer of the deck at its upper edge (orange line below), since it sits flush under the deck itself; but its lower edge must conform to the sheer of the hull (dotted red line below), since it turns the corner and runs along the side of the quarter galleries that align with the hull's sheer.
 

And then one more thing about the stern. In 2014, ten years ago, I posted a question about the stern geometry (posting #173). I noticed a discrepancy in the drawings relative to the roundup of the quarterdeck. If I continued the deck aft with its normal roundup, it was a couple of inches lower than the deck as it was shown coming out into the balcony. There was a lot of discussion around posting 173 as to whether this was a mistake in the drawing, or something else. I finally found in Steel that the quarterdeck does indeed increase its roundup as it approaches the stern balcony, to give a lighter, more springy feeling to the visual lines of the stern. So the drawing is correct, and this needs to be accounted for:
 
 

So, construction next!
 
Mark
 

Now for some analysis of geometry and construction. 
 
Fifteen years ago, I built the stern frame based on my observation of the first Bellona model, and the Admiralty drawings. I did not understand what I was building at the time, I just followed what I saw. And now I understand as I get into the details.
 
In the model, you can see a couple of strange things. first, the tops of counter timbers with the dovetail joints stand proud of the horizontal transom tying them together. This leaves a gap of about 2". I now realize that these gaps provide a space for the bank of sash windows to slide up into. It means that the windows can be opened at the bottom by about 9"; not a lot, but better than no opening!
 
Second, the side counter timbers, effectively the end of the hull frame, project out from the bottom of the balcony upwards. that is, the bank of windows are recessed back relative to the balcony, creating a shadow line between the upper and lower parts of the stern. There is no functional reason I can see here; it is a visual trick to emphasize the sweeping serpentine curve of the balcony from one side of the composition to the other.

That creates some complication in how this is constructed. The green line shows the aft most edge of the side counter timbers, or hull. There is one moulding along the tops of the window bank, just under the balcony, in red below. Another moulding runs along the base of the balcony, in orange below.
 

 
when the balcony swings out from the stern, the two mouldings split from each other:
 

The next item I did not fully appreciate until I started constructing the stern is how its design needs to reconcile  two geometries working against each other; the upper sweep of the sheer, and the flatter sweep up of the decks (red lines below). The conflict shows a little where the gun ports cut into the sheer in odd places.

But at the stern they really need to be resolved. One of the most important, I discovered, is that the moulding at the tops of the windows must align with the sheer of the deck at its upper edge (orange line below), since it sits flush under the deck itself; but its lower edge must conform to the sheer of the hull (dotted red line below), since it turns the corner and runs along the side of the quarter galleries that align with the hull's sheer.
 

And then one more thing about the stern. In 2014, ten years ago, I posted a question about the stern geometry (posting #173). I noticed a discrepancy in the drawings relative to the roundup of the quarterdeck. If I continued the deck aft with its normal roundup, it was a couple of inches lower than the deck as it was shown coming out into the balcony. There was a lot of discussion around posting 173 as to whether this was a mistake in the drawing, or something else. I finally found in Steel that the quarterdeck does indeed increase its roundup as it approaches the stern balcony, to give a lighter, more springy feeling to the visual lines of the stern. So the drawing is correct, and this needs to be accounted for:
 
 

So, construction next!
 
Mark
 

Now for some analysis of geometry and construction. 
 
Fifteen years ago, I built the stern frame based on my observation of the first Bellona model, and the Admiralty drawings. I did not understand what I was building at the time, I just followed what I saw. And now I understand as I get into the details.
 
In the model, you can see a couple of strange things. first, the tops of counter timbers with the dovetail joints stand proud of the horizontal transom tying them together. This leaves a gap of about 2". I now realize that these gaps provide a space for the bank of sash windows to slide up into. It means that the windows can be opened at the bottom by about 9"; not a lot, but better than no opening!
 
Second, the side counter timbers, effectively the end of the hull frame, project out from the bottom of the balcony upwards. that is, the bank of windows are recessed back relative to the balcony, creating a shadow line between the upper and lower parts of the stern. There is no functional reason I can see here; it is a visual trick to emphasize the sweeping serpentine curve of the balcony from one side of the composition to the other.

That creates some complication in how this is constructed. The green line shows the aft most edge of the side counter timbers, or hull. There is one moulding along the tops of the window bank, just under the balcony, in red below. Another moulding runs along the base of the balcony, in orange below.
 

 
when the balcony swings out from the stern, the two mouldings split from each other:
 

The next item I did not fully appreciate until I started constructing the stern is how its design needs to reconcile  two geometries working against each other; the upper sweep of the sheer, and the flatter sweep up of the decks (red lines below). The conflict shows a little where the gun ports cut into the sheer in odd places.

But at the stern they really need to be resolved. One of the most important, I discovered, is that the moulding at the tops of the windows must align with the sheer of the deck at its upper edge (orange line below), since it sits flush under the deck itself; but its lower edge must conform to the sheer of the hull (dotted red line below), since it turns the corner and runs along the side of the quarter galleries that align with the hull's sheer.
 

And then one more thing about the stern. In 2014, ten years ago, I posted a question about the stern geometry (posting #173). I noticed a discrepancy in the drawings relative to the roundup of the quarterdeck. If I continued the deck aft with its normal roundup, it was a couple of inches lower than the deck as it was shown coming out into the balcony. There was a lot of discussion around posting 173 as to whether this was a mistake in the drawing, or something else. I finally found in Steel that the quarterdeck does indeed increase its roundup as it approaches the stern balcony, to give a lighter, more springy feeling to the visual lines of the stern. So the drawing is correct, and this needs to be accounted for:
 
 

So, construction next!
 
Mark
 

Now for some analysis of geometry and construction. 
 
Fifteen years ago, I built the stern frame based on my observation of the first Bellona model, and the Admiralty drawings. I did not understand what I was building at the time, I just followed what I saw. And now I understand as I get into the details.
 
In the model, you can see a couple of strange things. first, the tops of counter timbers with the dovetail joints stand proud of the horizontal transom tying them together. This leaves a gap of about 2". I now realize that these gaps provide a space for the bank of sash windows to slide up into. It means that the windows can be opened at the bottom by about 9"; not a lot, but better than no opening!
 
Second, the side counter timbers, effectively the end of the hull frame, project out from the bottom of the balcony upwards. that is, the bank of windows are recessed back relative to the balcony, creating a shadow line between the upper and lower parts of the stern. There is no functional reason I can see here; it is a visual trick to emphasize the sweeping serpentine curve of the balcony from one side of the composition to the other.

That creates some complication in how this is constructed. The green line shows the aft most edge of the side counter timbers, or hull. There is one moulding along the tops of the window bank, just under the balcony, in red below. Another moulding runs along the base of the balcony, in orange below.
 

 
when the balcony swings out from the stern, the two mouldings split from each other:
 

The next item I did not fully appreciate until I started constructing the stern is how its design needs to reconcile  two geometries working against each other; the upper sweep of the sheer, and the flatter sweep up of the decks (red lines below). The conflict shows a little where the gun ports cut into the sheer in odd places.

But at the stern they really need to be resolved. One of the most important, I discovered, is that the moulding at the tops of the windows must align with the sheer of the deck at its upper edge (orange line below), since it sits flush under the deck itself; but its lower edge must conform to the sheer of the hull (dotted red line below), since it turns the corner and runs along the side of the quarter galleries that align with the hull's sheer.
 

And then one more thing about the stern. In 2014, ten years ago, I posted a question about the stern geometry (posting #173). I noticed a discrepancy in the drawings relative to the roundup of the quarterdeck. If I continued the deck aft with its normal roundup, it was a couple of inches lower than the deck as it was shown coming out into the balcony. There was a lot of discussion around posting 173 as to whether this was a mistake in the drawing, or something else. I finally found in Steel that the quarterdeck does indeed increase its roundup as it approaches the stern balcony, to give a lighter, more springy feeling to the visual lines of the stern. So the drawing is correct, and this needs to be accounted for:
 
 

So, construction next!
 
Mark