druxey

Hello Ab,
 
Thank you for the advice. I will consider changing the topsail later. I may save these suggestion for a future model of the Mary, as I have my own un-started kit in storage. If I build another, I will remember to alter the mast so that the sheave for the topsail halliard is higher, and modify the topsail itself so that foot arcs up higher to clear the jib. Also, might lower place the tackle for the jib halliard a tad lower on the mast.

 

I don't think the length of the spreader yard is much of a problem. It is carried by the topsail. The pendant which is attached to the spreader yard is so long that it hangs loosely when the sail is in use. It only carries the yard if the sail is not hoisted.
If you would consider to make another topsail (which would add to the atmosphere of the model, but is of course not necessary) you would see that the 'hollow' lower side of the sail goes much higher up, to avoid chafing with the halliard of the jib. With a yard hanging as low as on the model, very little of the surface of the sail remains.
 
 

Thank you for the comments Ab.
 
The mast was already constructed by the original builder, and I chose to keep as much of his work as possible. But, even so, I'm afraid I don't have much general knowledge of Dutch shipbuilding, and the it plans, as you may already guess, are somewhat lacking in the accuracy of these details.
 
I did make some modifications to the rigging, which was based, in part, on your models. If I build another similar model of the Mary or similar, I will remember your comments about the location of sheave of the topsail halliard.
 
I didn't know about the iron brace. After this weekend, perhaps I'll go back and see if I can add it to the model "after the fact".
 
Another issue I noticed when I started adding the topsail is that the spreader yard seems a bit too long and heavy. If I were to do this model again, I would consider correcting that as well.
 

You did well on this model. But I have some small remarks on the side on this topsail if you allow me:
The sheave of the halliard was placed inside the topmast and was situated much higher up, which caused the topsail to be much longer.
And I miss the 8-shaped iron brace that kept the topyard close to the topmast. It was loosely situated around the topmast and stayed up, even if the sail was hauled down on deck:

I hope this sketch clarifies it.
 

Yesterday, I had the day off, so I took the opportunity to add the topsail and finish tying off all the running rigging. I ended up having to belay a lot of the lines incorrectly, but you can't tell in most cases. In other cases, I figure that I'll be adding rope coils at a later date to hide some of those details.
 
Flags are yet to go on, but I'm no longer feeling pressed for time to get the model done for the IPMS show this weekend. And, in any case, I should have time to get the flags done by tomorrow.
 
Would like to have braced the topsail around more, but the spreader yard was starting to hit the port shrouds and I din't want to deform them. Also, not sure what others do about this, but that spreader yard has no lines that pull down on it. On most ships, you at least have the sheet lines, which can be rigged to apply some downward pressure. As a result, the spreader yard halliard was too slack. So, I cheated, and if you look really closely, there's a thin black thread pulling the yard down, tied off to the staysail sheet horse. It's hardly noticeable, and it works!

Anyway, flags are next...

Thr problem with paper plans is a considerable degree of expansion or contraction depending on humidity. You can be absolutely 'on' with that keel today,and be off several mm by the next day. It's like chasing a chimera. Madness will ensue!
 
Two solutions:
 
1) Take a known scale measurement  such as keel length and apply a scale rule against your work. 
 
2) Produce a scale drawing on Mylar sheet. It is dimensionally stable regardless of humidity. Use that rather than a paper plan. 
 
The second solution is one I've used now for decades, since I discovered paper plans were a snare and delusion for accurate work. Sure, it's more work, but saves my sanity in the long run! The photo is the prelude to my current project, the South Carolina, ex L'Egyptian.

Got the frames cut out and glued to the vacuformed canopy. Afterwards I noticed that there is a slight defect on the aft starboard side that didn't allow the lowest frame on that side to sit level. It remains to be seen how that will affect fitting the canopy to the fuselage later. I will let the glue fully cure before cutting the canopy free from its blank.

 
Since I invested in an upgraded cockpit interior, I'm leaning toward displaying this model with the canopy open.

Thank you! Pre-molded canopies are certainly convenient, but I don't think I've ever had one yet that didn't pose its own unique challenges, and this one was no different, so I'm happy with this result.
 
Next it was on to the ailerons, and naturally with this being a Halinski kit, each one had to consist of no less than thirteen separate parts. 😑 

 
In the end, though, I was completely dissatisfied with how the control horns turned out, so I ended up replacing them with much simplified scratch components, which knocked the parts count down to only twelve per side. As seems to be my habit, I also ended up with the gap between the wing and aileron being much more noticeable on one side than the other, which you can't really see from this angle. What can I say? And lastly for this session, I also added the brass 20 mm cannon barrels and their shrouds.

 
I believe the landing gear are next if I follow the numbered sequence.
 

Canopy is on.
 

After another relatively long break, I've managed to find a bit of time to work on Echo this afternoon. No great strides forward, though I did manage to make a test of one of the upper deck beams. I made a template out of card paper using the drawing in the practicum against some carbon paper, and then rubber cemented this to some 9" boxwood that came with the original framing package. I think that next time I will simply use copies of the drawing itself, printed onto card. I think this will likely lead to a more accurate template and a better result. Fortunately I have enough of the 9" box to do a bit of testing before committing to anything.
 
I had imagined that the test beam would be fit forward, but it ended up being a fraction to short for that purpose. But it fits perfectly athwartships in the aft beam position at frame 5. So even though right now the piece still looks very rough (as seen in the photos below) I hope I can tidy it up and perhaps use it since it does fit so nicely....I also made a strake of deck planking to fit in line with the port side lower deck waterway - not too difficult or exciting. 
 
The upper deck framing is going to be quite tricky I think - I'm not looking forward to making and fitting the beam arms and am a bit concerned about the beams being at the correct height.....but we'll see in the next little while how it comes together.
 
Enjoy the photos and bye for now
hamilton

working on larger blocks now...
 
11/32" singles and doubles now available and I am cooking the 5/16 as I write this. Below is an 11/32" (9mm) single block with 3mm thimble and a hook fashioned from 22 gauge black wire.  The sheave was also darkened with a #2 pencil as you can easily do that with these bigger blocks.  Once the 5/16" are done I will make 9/32" blocks.  I think 9mm or 11/32" blocks are the biggest I will make.  I cant see much need for larger blocks?  But I may be wrong.
 

Thank You for saying...
 
French Style Lantern version one is now available in 1/4" scale with glass insert.  Assembled just as the last one I showed.   These are after Boudriot.
 

Actually the inevitable very fine dust that will settle on your model and rigging should make that barely noticeable.   It wont remain shiny at all for long.   😉
 
Chuck

The polyester ropes I make at Ropes of Scale are a bit shiny. It's only really noticeable on the black and dark brown ropes. I've noticed that it helps make the details pop even in low lighting, so I'd personally leave them as is.
 
 Brushing the ropes down with matt varnish after rigging is an option. In the picture, you see unvarnished ropes on the right and varnished ones on the left. 

I smile at the actual random pattern of deck planking - so very different than seen on most models!

Construction of the knight for the main yard.

It appears that i placed the main mast too far back.

Corrected position.

Knigt and the base plates for the upper deck placed. With the layout roughly sketched.

And start planking.
First the piece that is still left, then the remaining part (a puzzle...)

Thanks Steven,
This capstan also served to raise the anchors and is therefore placed on the upper deck.
 
On the upper deck of the rear castle there is a winch for operating the mizzen sail.
 
But, I completely forgot about the knight For the main sail.
Thanks for bringing this up.

The Lomellina (Genoese, sank 1516) had a capstan a little aft of the mainmast, with a knight between the two.
 
 


As the May Rose's mast appears to have been directly forward of the aftercastle, it would perhaps be a little differently arranged. But Generally I'd expect it to be similar. On my Great Harry, I put the knight and capstan on the upper deck of the aftercastle - see post #308 at
but that's not to say my interpretation is correct. By the way, note that unlike later capstans, the holes for the bars pass right through the capstan and are at two different levels. So there are only two bars, each of which extends out from both sides of the capstan, so there are only four positions for the crew to push at the capstan.
 
I hope that helps.
 
Steven

Könnten Sie bitte entweder schreiben oder einen Übersetzungsdienst ins Englische nutzen? Danke!
Ihr Projekt sieht interessant aus.
 
(Can you please either write or use a translation service into English? Thank you! 
Your project looks interesting.)

Hallo , heute moechte ich den Baubericht meiner Endeouver beginnen . Nach einigen Standmodellen ( Adler von Luebeck , Fregatte Berlin , San Felipe , Soleil Royal ) wird dies meine erste Yacht sein , Es wuerde mich freuen wenn recht viele meinen Bericht kritisch begleiten . Viel Spass 
 

Here you go 
 
For more than two centuries, stories have circulated along the Washington County coast: that the British burned a captured Revolutionary War schooner in Jonesport’s Sawyer Cove. Some versions were recorded in 19th-century newspapers and George Drisko’s 1904 “Narrative of the Town of Machias.” Others were handed down through families like the Sawyers.
In the 1960s, Valdine Atwood and her mother followed those stories to the shoreline. “Dorley Sawyer’s family lived nearby,” said Atwood, now a Machias historian. “And the story passed down was that they saw the Margaretta beached, saw the crew run into the woods, and saw the British come and set it afire.”
No wreck was visible on the day of their visit to the shore, but Atwood reached blindly into the mud and pulled up a piece of timber.
On their way out, they passed a white cross on the rocks.
  “They used to do that to mark a shipwreck,” she said.
Atwood said she always believed the stories. Now, a multi-year archaeological study strongly supports her instincts and centuries of oral tradition — the wreck of the Margaretta likely lies in Sawyer Cove.
The area around Sawyer Cove is now private property, with no public access, but a neighboring landowner permitted the research team to work on-site.
“The wreck in Jonesport, we think, is Margaretta,” said archaeologist Arthur Spiess, co-author of a report about the shipwreck that is soon to be released by the Maine Historic Preservation Commission and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. “There’s no evidence against it, and some strong evidence for it.”
Spiess and fellow archaeologist Nathaniel King were alerted to the shipwreck in 2021, when Maine Game Warden Joe McBrine — also a local historian — heard reports of “a ship coming up out of the mud.”
“At low tide, you could see it,” recalls McBrine. “We measured it, and it was within a couple of feet of what the Margaretta would have been. I thought, ‘Man, this could really be it.’”
McBrine already knew the story well. As a member of the Machias Historical Society and a local reenactment group, he’s spent years educating the public about Washington County’s Revolutionary War-era clashes — including what some view as the first naval battle of the American Revolution, the Battle of the Margaretta.
That battle began just weeks after Lexington and Concord. On June 2, 1775, three ships sailed into Machias Bay — among them the British schooner HMS Margaretta. Their mission: to trade for lumber, forcibly if necessary, to supply British troops occupying Boston.
  The residents of Machias had other ideas. They planned to capture the British officers during Sunday services, but when the British escaped to their vessel and sailed for Machias Bay, the Americans gave chase. They met in battle exactly 250 years ago, from June 11 to 12 of 1775.
The clash ended with the deaths of three Americans — John McNeil, Robert Avery, and James Coolbroth — and the injury of several others, as well as the mortal wounding of British commander James Moore and the capture of the Margaretta. The Americans soon hid the 50-ton schooner in what is now Marshfield’s Middle River.
In 1776, when Machias men judged it safe to move the vessel, they likely reballasted her in Machias — using local ballast stones that now provide one of three key pieces of evidence linking the shipwreck to the Margaretta.
“Her ballast was derived from eastern glacial till deposits,” said Spiess, “and that fits with the rumor that it was laid up for a year and refloated.”
  Spiess believes the ship’s original ballast stones would have come from modern-day Massachusetts, where the vessel was likely built. The wreck’s construction also offers a critical clue.
“The way it was built was not ‘Navy fashion,’” said Spiess. “Everything’s a little bit variable. It’s a local job, not a military job, not perfect.”
https://i0.wp.com/bdn-data.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2025/06/Drs.-Arthur-Spiess-and-Nathaniel-King-600x450.jpg?resize=600%2C450&ssl=1 Researchers think they have found the shipwreck of the Margaretta, a ship that wrecked off Maine during one of the earliest naval conflicts of the Revolutionary War. Credit: Courtesy of Joseph McBrine This fits with British records showing the Margaretta was not purpose-built but a hired vessel — brought into service by Vice Admiral Samuel Graves, then the highest-ranking Royal Navy officer in North America, to serve as tender to his flagship, HMS Preston. The rougher workmanship of the Jonesport wreck also helps rule out another local theory: that the wreck was an 1812-era Revenue Cutter, which would have been built to stricter military standards.
To help date the ship, Spiess and his team extracted pencil-sized samples from one of the rib bases — each with 82 growth rings — and sent them to environmental and maritime archaeologist Brita Lorentzen, a specialist in dendrochronology and shipwreck dating.
  “Dr. Lorentzen is an expert in this field,” said Spiess. “She determined that growth ring 79 near the outer edge formed between 1750 and 1765.”
He added, “That means the tree was still alive around that time, which is exactly the right range for a vessel that could have been built five to fifteen years before the Revolutionary War.”
Spiess and his colleagues stop short of a definitive identification.
“The statistics on this are that that date range, 1750 to 1765, has an 80 percent chance of being correct, and a 20 percent chance of being wrong,” Spiess said.
  But with no contradictory evidence and several key alignments, Spiess said the case is “very strong.”
But why did the Margaretta end up in Sawyer Cove?
According to McBrine’s research, after the Americans repurposed the Margaretta, they used it to pursue British forces and privateers in Machias Bay and the Bay of Fundy. Possibly seeking revenge for the capture of five fishing boats, they set out to pursue the British vessel, HMS Viper.
“When they rounded Mount Desert Island, they saw a British ship on the horizon,” said McBrine. “As they got closer, they realized it was bigger than they thought. They turned back toward Machias but couldn’t outrun her. So they went right to the head of Sawyer Cove.”
  And the rest is history.
Before releasing the report to the public, the research team — Spiess, King, J.N. Leith Smith, Lorentzen and McBrine — is waiting to learn whether the U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command will assert a legal claim.
“I think this research is important to the entire region,” said McBrine. “To be able to piece together the puzzle — and have experts say this is likely the Margaretta — it adds to our understanding. And it brings a little more respect to the people who were willing to stand up, fight, be wounded and even die to capture her.”
Spiess, McBrine and other Revolutionary War history enthusiasts and reenactors will attend the 250th Margaretta Days Celebration, June 20-21, at West Branch Farms Event Center in Machias.

Would electroplating the fixtures be a better solution?

Thr problem with paper plans is a considerable degree of expansion or contraction depending on humidity. You can be absolutely 'on' with that keel today,and be off several mm by the next day. It's like chasing a chimera. Madness will ensue!
 
Two solutions:
 
1) Take a known scale measurement  such as keel length and apply a scale rule against your work. 
 
2) Produce a scale drawing on Mylar sheet. It is dimensionally stable regardless of humidity. Use that rather than a paper plan. 
 
The second solution is one I've used now for decades, since I discovered paper plans were a snare and delusion for accurate work. Sure, it's more work, but saves my sanity in the long run! The photo is the prelude to my current project, the South Carolina, ex L'Egyptian.

Well done, Giampiero. It's a tricky one to do, fitting it around the headwork and under the bowsprit. I wonder how long the original figure lasted at sea without damage!