Bob Cleek

Hi Gregory
These drawings from Caruana were meant as the rigging for stowed gun rigging options, not how the breech line was secured to the rings.  The types of securing of the breech rope were as described in post #2.  My apologies for any confusion.
Allan

I don't see any detail regarding the attaching of the breech rope to the gunwale.
 
1997, maybe?  That breech rope looks decorative rather than functional.

USS Constitution 1797
 
Regards,
Henry

Lots of options including the three below.  From The History of British Sea Ordnance Volume 2, page 382.  He gives the following description of each.
 
Illustrations of breechings and gun-tackles on a 1795 pattern carriage, redrawn from Congreve's Treatise on the Mounting of sea Service Ordnance.    
Top: gun tun in.  Center: gun run out and secured.  Bottom: gun run in, secured, and housed.
Allan
 

It wasn't until I posted the below comments that I saw Allan's post from Caruana. Fortuitously, it seems my deductions were correct. It appears that The History of British Sea Ordinance, volumes I and II need to be acquired! I was not familiar with the work. Thanks, Allan!
 
On second thought, having just looked up The History of British Sea Ordinance, volumes I and II, I'm afraid I'll just have to pass at $450 each used on eBay! Thanks again, Allan!  
***********************************************************************************************************************************
I believe it had to be a little bit of both, depending upon the size of the gun, first and foremost. As the saying goes, "Different ships, different long splices." Heavier guns had larger breaching ropes and larger rope tied through rings doesn't lend itself well to the mechanics of tying knots, so bends are the more common means of attachment. Then again, three well-done seizings will hold as well as a knot and be easier to remove that a knot that's been pulled tight by repeated jerks from a bucking cannon. For lighter guns, which will have smaller breaching ropes, they might dispense with bends entirely and just employ seizings, particularly where the rope is turned about a thimble on the ring or, as in one instance illustrated below, a thimble on a clevis pin.
 
For the purposes of modeling, the modeler may well decide that in the case of a smaller scale model, that a bend around the ring isn't a sufficiently noticeable detail to merit the work to tie them, while on the other hand, in the case of larger scales (and especially "gun station models") a proper commitment to accuracy at the finest level of detail possible will mandate that a proper bend and seizings are done.
 
The below contemporary drawing of heavy guns shows what appears, albeit unclearly, to be breaching ropes that have been bent around the ring, much as a cable was bent around an anchor stock ring with an anchor bend finished with the bitter end whipped.

In the below drawing the use of some sort of bend (an "anchor bend" it might appear) is used to secure the breaching rope to the ring in the same fashion as would a cable be fastened to an anchor stock ring with a bend and three whippings, the first being a throat seizing.

 
Here again in the below photo of a gun station on an unknown museum ship, apparently perhaps of later construction than your late 18th Century, a purpose-built toggle and clevis fitting with the clevis passing through a thimble about which the breaching rope is simply seized with a throat seizing and two common seizings. Here, the thimble precludes the bend about a ring and provides a neater, more elegant connection. 
 

 
Detail of above arrangement, albeit without a throat seizing:
 

 
Below are photos of guns rigged "for sea," rather than "for action."  (Modelers always seem to depict all their models' armament rigged for action, even to the point of all guns run out port and starboard, which would only occur on a rare occasion when the ship would be "breaking the line" and firing as her guns bore simultaneously on the enemy ships of the line to port and starboard (and to devastating effect as Nelson demonstrated at Trafalgar.) When the guns were not manned and rigged for action, they would be rigged for sea, meaning that all extraneous tackles and implements would be stowed (likely below), the barrel would be secured, more likely in the fashion shown in the first picture, than in the second, which isn't clear as to what is being used to secure the barrel, although it is not the breaching rope), and then the gun would be secured to prevent its movement on the deck in a seaway perhaps with its tackles set fast. (If the ship were sailing in any fashion which would cause her to heel when the guns were in action, the leeward guns would have to be restrained from rolling "downhill" towards the rail by their inhaul tackle, while the windward guns would have to be restrained from running backwards inboard by their outhaul or "training" tackles.) In the first picture below, however, the positioning of the gun is incorrect. In a seaway, the guns would not be stowed run out through the bulwark or through open gunports. Not only would open gunports be hazardous in a seaway (the lower deck ports often being only mere feet above the waterline) but the stability of the ship would be enhanced by bringing the weight of the guns as far inboard as possible. 
 
 

 

 

 
The above "stowed" options may warrant more research as to the exact practice common in a given navy at a given period. I included these for the sake of completeness. Although cannon depicted as rigged for sea are rarely seen on models today, they can be a lot less work to model than gun stations rigged for action and, if one must, there's always the option to combine the two conditions, with a couple of chase guns run out and perhaps two, four, or six stations rigged for action as if the larger modeled vessel were running down a much smaller quarry. 

It wasn't until I posted the below comments that I saw Allan's post from Caruana. Fortuitously, it seems my deductions were correct. It appears that The History of British Sea Ordinance, volumes I and II need to be acquired! I was not familiar with the work. Thanks, Allan!
 
On second thought, having just looked up The History of British Sea Ordinance, volumes I and II, I'm afraid I'll just have to pass at $450 each used on eBay! Thanks again, Allan!  
***********************************************************************************************************************************
I believe it had to be a little bit of both, depending upon the size of the gun, first and foremost. As the saying goes, "Different ships, different long splices." Heavier guns had larger breaching ropes and larger rope tied through rings doesn't lend itself well to the mechanics of tying knots, so bends are the more common means of attachment. Then again, three well-done seizings will hold as well as a knot and be easier to remove that a knot that's been pulled tight by repeated jerks from a bucking cannon. For lighter guns, which will have smaller breaching ropes, they might dispense with bends entirely and just employ seizings, particularly where the rope is turned about a thimble on the ring or, as in one instance illustrated below, a thimble on a clevis pin.
 
For the purposes of modeling, the modeler may well decide that in the case of a smaller scale model, that a bend around the ring isn't a sufficiently noticeable detail to merit the work to tie them, while on the other hand, in the case of larger scales (and especially "gun station models") a proper commitment to accuracy at the finest level of detail possible will mandate that a proper bend and seizings are done.
 
The below contemporary drawing of heavy guns shows what appears, albeit unclearly, to be breaching ropes that have been bent around the ring, much as a cable was bent around an anchor stock ring with an anchor bend finished with the bitter end whipped.

In the below drawing the use of some sort of bend (an "anchor bend" it might appear) is used to secure the breaching rope to the ring in the same fashion as would a cable be fastened to an anchor stock ring with a bend and three whippings, the first being a throat seizing.

 
Here again in the below photo of a gun station on an unknown museum ship, apparently perhaps of later construction than your late 18th Century, a purpose-built toggle and clevis fitting with the clevis passing through a thimble about which the breaching rope is simply seized with a throat seizing and two common seizings. Here, the thimble precludes the bend about a ring and provides a neater, more elegant connection. 
 

 
Detail of above arrangement, albeit without a throat seizing:
 

 
Below are photos of guns rigged "for sea," rather than "for action."  (Modelers always seem to depict all their models' armament rigged for action, even to the point of all guns run out port and starboard, which would only occur on a rare occasion when the ship would be "breaking the line" and firing as her guns bore simultaneously on the enemy ships of the line to port and starboard (and to devastating effect as Nelson demonstrated at Trafalgar.) When the guns were not manned and rigged for action, they would be rigged for sea, meaning that all extraneous tackles and implements would be stowed (likely below), the barrel would be secured, more likely in the fashion shown in the first picture, than in the second, which isn't clear as to what is being used to secure the barrel, although it is not the breaching rope), and then the gun would be secured to prevent its movement on the deck in a seaway perhaps with its tackles set fast. (If the ship were sailing in any fashion which would cause her to heel when the guns were in action, the leeward guns would have to be restrained from rolling "downhill" towards the rail by their inhaul tackle, while the windward guns would have to be restrained from running backwards inboard by their outhaul or "training" tackles.) In the first picture below, however, the positioning of the gun is incorrect. In a seaway, the guns would not be stowed run out through the bulwark or through open gunports. Not only would open gunports be hazardous in a seaway (the lower deck ports often being only mere feet above the waterline) but the stability of the ship would be enhanced by bringing the weight of the guns as far inboard as possible. 
 
 

 

 

 
The above "stowed" options may warrant more research as to the exact practice common in a given navy at a given period. I included these for the sake of completeness. Although cannon depicted as rigged for sea are rarely seen on models today, they can be a lot less work to model than gun stations rigged for action and, if one must, there's always the option to combine the two conditions, with a couple of chase guns run out and perhaps two, four, or six stations rigged for action as if the larger modeled vessel were running down a much smaller quarry. 

It wasn't until I posted the below comments that I saw Allan's post from Caruana. Fortuitously, it seems my deductions were correct. It appears that The History of British Sea Ordinance, volumes I and II need to be acquired! I was not familiar with the work. Thanks, Allan!
 
On second thought, having just looked up The History of British Sea Ordinance, volumes I and II, I'm afraid I'll just have to pass at $450 each used on eBay! Thanks again, Allan!  
***********************************************************************************************************************************
I believe it had to be a little bit of both, depending upon the size of the gun, first and foremost. As the saying goes, "Different ships, different long splices." Heavier guns had larger breaching ropes and larger rope tied through rings doesn't lend itself well to the mechanics of tying knots, so bends are the more common means of attachment. Then again, three well-done seizings will hold as well as a knot and be easier to remove that a knot that's been pulled tight by repeated jerks from a bucking cannon. For lighter guns, which will have smaller breaching ropes, they might dispense with bends entirely and just employ seizings, particularly where the rope is turned about a thimble on the ring or, as in one instance illustrated below, a thimble on a clevis pin.
 
For the purposes of modeling, the modeler may well decide that in the case of a smaller scale model, that a bend around the ring isn't a sufficiently noticeable detail to merit the work to tie them, while on the other hand, in the case of larger scales (and especially "gun station models") a proper commitment to accuracy at the finest level of detail possible will mandate that a proper bend and seizings are done.
 
The below contemporary drawing of heavy guns shows what appears, albeit unclearly, to be breaching ropes that have been bent around the ring, much as a cable was bent around an anchor stock ring with an anchor bend finished with the bitter end whipped.

In the below drawing the use of some sort of bend (an "anchor bend" it might appear) is used to secure the breaching rope to the ring in the same fashion as would a cable be fastened to an anchor stock ring with a bend and three whippings, the first being a throat seizing.

 
Here again in the below photo of a gun station on an unknown museum ship, apparently perhaps of later construction than your late 18th Century, a purpose-built toggle and clevis fitting with the clevis passing through a thimble about which the breaching rope is simply seized with a throat seizing and two common seizings. Here, the thimble precludes the bend about a ring and provides a neater, more elegant connection. 
 

 
Detail of above arrangement, albeit without a throat seizing:
 

 
Below are photos of guns rigged "for sea," rather than "for action."  (Modelers always seem to depict all their models' armament rigged for action, even to the point of all guns run out port and starboard, which would only occur on a rare occasion when the ship would be "breaking the line" and firing as her guns bore simultaneously on the enemy ships of the line to port and starboard (and to devastating effect as Nelson demonstrated at Trafalgar.) When the guns were not manned and rigged for action, they would be rigged for sea, meaning that all extraneous tackles and implements would be stowed (likely below), the barrel would be secured, more likely in the fashion shown in the first picture, than in the second, which isn't clear as to what is being used to secure the barrel, although it is not the breaching rope), and then the gun would be secured to prevent its movement on the deck in a seaway perhaps with its tackles set fast. (If the ship were sailing in any fashion which would cause her to heel when the guns were in action, the leeward guns would have to be restrained from rolling "downhill" towards the rail by their inhaul tackle, while the windward guns would have to be restrained from running backwards inboard by their outhaul or "training" tackles.) In the first picture below, however, the positioning of the gun is incorrect. In a seaway, the guns would not be stowed run out through the bulwark or through open gunports. Not only would open gunports be hazardous in a seaway (the lower deck ports often being only mere feet above the waterline) but the stability of the ship would be enhanced by bringing the weight of the guns as far inboard as possible. 
 
 

 

 

 
The above "stowed" options may warrant more research as to the exact practice common in a given navy at a given period. I included these for the sake of completeness. Although cannon depicted as rigged for sea are rarely seen on models today, they can be a lot less work to model than gun stations rigged for action and, if one must, there's always the option to combine the two conditions, with a couple of chase guns run out and perhaps two, four, or six stations rigged for action as if the larger modeled vessel were running down a much smaller quarry. 

It wasn't until I posted the below comments that I saw Allan's post from Caruana. Fortuitously, it seems my deductions were correct. It appears that The History of British Sea Ordinance, volumes I and II need to be acquired! I was not familiar with the work. Thanks, Allan!
 
On second thought, having just looked up The History of British Sea Ordinance, volumes I and II, I'm afraid I'll just have to pass at $450 each used on eBay! Thanks again, Allan!  
***********************************************************************************************************************************
I believe it had to be a little bit of both, depending upon the size of the gun, first and foremost. As the saying goes, "Different ships, different long splices." Heavier guns had larger breaching ropes and larger rope tied through rings doesn't lend itself well to the mechanics of tying knots, so bends are the more common means of attachment. Then again, three well-done seizings will hold as well as a knot and be easier to remove that a knot that's been pulled tight by repeated jerks from a bucking cannon. For lighter guns, which will have smaller breaching ropes, they might dispense with bends entirely and just employ seizings, particularly where the rope is turned about a thimble on the ring or, as in one instance illustrated below, a thimble on a clevis pin.
 
For the purposes of modeling, the modeler may well decide that in the case of a smaller scale model, that a bend around the ring isn't a sufficiently noticeable detail to merit the work to tie them, while on the other hand, in the case of larger scales (and especially "gun station models") a proper commitment to accuracy at the finest level of detail possible will mandate that a proper bend and seizings are done.
 
The below contemporary drawing of heavy guns shows what appears, albeit unclearly, to be breaching ropes that have been bent around the ring, much as a cable was bent around an anchor stock ring with an anchor bend finished with the bitter end whipped.

In the below drawing the use of some sort of bend (an "anchor bend" it might appear) is used to secure the breaching rope to the ring in the same fashion as would a cable be fastened to an anchor stock ring with a bend and three whippings, the first being a throat seizing.

 
Here again in the below photo of a gun station on an unknown museum ship, apparently perhaps of later construction than your late 18th Century, a purpose-built toggle and clevis fitting with the clevis passing through a thimble about which the breaching rope is simply seized with a throat seizing and two common seizings. Here, the thimble precludes the bend about a ring and provides a neater, more elegant connection. 
 

 
Detail of above arrangement, albeit without a throat seizing:
 

 
Below are photos of guns rigged "for sea," rather than "for action."  (Modelers always seem to depict all their models' armament rigged for action, even to the point of all guns run out port and starboard, which would only occur on a rare occasion when the ship would be "breaking the line" and firing as her guns bore simultaneously on the enemy ships of the line to port and starboard (and to devastating effect as Nelson demonstrated at Trafalgar.) When the guns were not manned and rigged for action, they would be rigged for sea, meaning that all extraneous tackles and implements would be stowed (likely below), the barrel would be secured, more likely in the fashion shown in the first picture, than in the second, which isn't clear as to what is being used to secure the barrel, although it is not the breaching rope), and then the gun would be secured to prevent its movement on the deck in a seaway perhaps with its tackles set fast. (If the ship were sailing in any fashion which would cause her to heel when the guns were in action, the leeward guns would have to be restrained from rolling "downhill" towards the rail by their inhaul tackle, while the windward guns would have to be restrained from running backwards inboard by their outhaul or "training" tackles.) In the first picture below, however, the positioning of the gun is incorrect. In a seaway, the guns would not be stowed run out through the bulwark or through open gunports. Not only would open gunports be hazardous in a seaway (the lower deck ports often being only mere feet above the waterline) but the stability of the ship would be enhanced by bringing the weight of the guns as far inboard as possible. 
 
 

 

 

 
The above "stowed" options may warrant more research as to the exact practice common in a given navy at a given period. I included these for the sake of completeness. Although cannon depicted as rigged for sea are rarely seen on models today, they can be a lot less work to model than gun stations rigged for action and, if one must, there's always the option to combine the two conditions, with a couple of chase guns run out and perhaps two, four, or six stations rigged for action as if the larger modeled vessel were running down a much smaller quarry. 

It wasn't until I posted the below comments that I saw Allan's post from Caruana. Fortuitously, it seems my deductions were correct. It appears that The History of British Sea Ordinance, volumes I and II need to be acquired! I was not familiar with the work. Thanks, Allan!
 
On second thought, having just looked up The History of British Sea Ordinance, volumes I and II, I'm afraid I'll just have to pass at $450 each used on eBay! Thanks again, Allan!  
***********************************************************************************************************************************
I believe it had to be a little bit of both, depending upon the size of the gun, first and foremost. As the saying goes, "Different ships, different long splices." Heavier guns had larger breaching ropes and larger rope tied through rings doesn't lend itself well to the mechanics of tying knots, so bends are the more common means of attachment. Then again, three well-done seizings will hold as well as a knot and be easier to remove that a knot that's been pulled tight by repeated jerks from a bucking cannon. For lighter guns, which will have smaller breaching ropes, they might dispense with bends entirely and just employ seizings, particularly where the rope is turned about a thimble on the ring or, as in one instance illustrated below, a thimble on a clevis pin.
 
For the purposes of modeling, the modeler may well decide that in the case of a smaller scale model, that a bend around the ring isn't a sufficiently noticeable detail to merit the work to tie them, while on the other hand, in the case of larger scales (and especially "gun station models") a proper commitment to accuracy at the finest level of detail possible will mandate that a proper bend and seizings are done.
 
The below contemporary drawing of heavy guns shows what appears, albeit unclearly, to be breaching ropes that have been bent around the ring, much as a cable was bent around an anchor stock ring with an anchor bend finished with the bitter end whipped.

In the below drawing the use of some sort of bend (an "anchor bend" it might appear) is used to secure the breaching rope to the ring in the same fashion as would a cable be fastened to an anchor stock ring with a bend and three whippings, the first being a throat seizing.

 
Here again in the below photo of a gun station on an unknown museum ship, apparently perhaps of later construction than your late 18th Century, a purpose-built toggle and clevis fitting with the clevis passing through a thimble about which the breaching rope is simply seized with a throat seizing and two common seizings. Here, the thimble precludes the bend about a ring and provides a neater, more elegant connection. 
 

 
Detail of above arrangement, albeit without a throat seizing:
 

 
Below are photos of guns rigged "for sea," rather than "for action."  (Modelers always seem to depict all their models' armament rigged for action, even to the point of all guns run out port and starboard, which would only occur on a rare occasion when the ship would be "breaking the line" and firing as her guns bore simultaneously on the enemy ships of the line to port and starboard (and to devastating effect as Nelson demonstrated at Trafalgar.) When the guns were not manned and rigged for action, they would be rigged for sea, meaning that all extraneous tackles and implements would be stowed (likely below), the barrel would be secured, more likely in the fashion shown in the first picture, than in the second, which isn't clear as to what is being used to secure the barrel, although it is not the breaching rope), and then the gun would be secured to prevent its movement on the deck in a seaway perhaps with its tackles set fast. (If the ship were sailing in any fashion which would cause her to heel when the guns were in action, the leeward guns would have to be restrained from rolling "downhill" towards the rail by their inhaul tackle, while the windward guns would have to be restrained from running backwards inboard by their outhaul or "training" tackles.) In the first picture below, however, the positioning of the gun is incorrect. In a seaway, the guns would not be stowed run out through the bulwark or through open gunports. Not only would open gunports be hazardous in a seaway (the lower deck ports often being only mere feet above the waterline) but the stability of the ship would be enhanced by bringing the weight of the guns as far inboard as possible. 
 
 

 

 

 
The above "stowed" options may warrant more research as to the exact practice common in a given navy at a given period. I included these for the sake of completeness. Although cannon depicted as rigged for sea are rarely seen on models today, they can be a lot less work to model than gun stations rigged for action and, if one must, there's always the option to combine the two conditions, with a couple of chase guns run out and perhaps two, four, or six stations rigged for action as if the larger modeled vessel were running down a much smaller quarry. 

It wasn't until I posted the below comments that I saw Allan's post from Caruana. Fortuitously, it seems my deductions were correct. It appears that The History of British Sea Ordinance, volumes I and II need to be acquired! I was not familiar with the work. Thanks, Allan!
 
On second thought, having just looked up The History of British Sea Ordinance, volumes I and II, I'm afraid I'll just have to pass at $450 each used on eBay! Thanks again, Allan!  
***********************************************************************************************************************************
I believe it had to be a little bit of both, depending upon the size of the gun, first and foremost. As the saying goes, "Different ships, different long splices." Heavier guns had larger breaching ropes and larger rope tied through rings doesn't lend itself well to the mechanics of tying knots, so bends are the more common means of attachment. Then again, three well-done seizings will hold as well as a knot and be easier to remove that a knot that's been pulled tight by repeated jerks from a bucking cannon. For lighter guns, which will have smaller breaching ropes, they might dispense with bends entirely and just employ seizings, particularly where the rope is turned about a thimble on the ring or, as in one instance illustrated below, a thimble on a clevis pin.
 
For the purposes of modeling, the modeler may well decide that in the case of a smaller scale model, that a bend around the ring isn't a sufficiently noticeable detail to merit the work to tie them, while on the other hand, in the case of larger scales (and especially "gun station models") a proper commitment to accuracy at the finest level of detail possible will mandate that a proper bend and seizings are done.
 
The below contemporary drawing of heavy guns shows what appears, albeit unclearly, to be breaching ropes that have been bent around the ring, much as a cable was bent around an anchor stock ring with an anchor bend finished with the bitter end whipped.

In the below drawing the use of some sort of bend (an "anchor bend" it might appear) is used to secure the breaching rope to the ring in the same fashion as would a cable be fastened to an anchor stock ring with a bend and three whippings, the first being a throat seizing.

 
Here again in the below photo of a gun station on an unknown museum ship, apparently perhaps of later construction than your late 18th Century, a purpose-built toggle and clevis fitting with the clevis passing through a thimble about which the breaching rope is simply seized with a throat seizing and two common seizings. Here, the thimble precludes the bend about a ring and provides a neater, more elegant connection. 
 

 
Detail of above arrangement, albeit without a throat seizing:
 

 
Below are photos of guns rigged "for sea," rather than "for action."  (Modelers always seem to depict all their models' armament rigged for action, even to the point of all guns run out port and starboard, which would only occur on a rare occasion when the ship would be "breaking the line" and firing as her guns bore simultaneously on the enemy ships of the line to port and starboard (and to devastating effect as Nelson demonstrated at Trafalgar.) When the guns were not manned and rigged for action, they would be rigged for sea, meaning that all extraneous tackles and implements would be stowed (likely below), the barrel would be secured, more likely in the fashion shown in the first picture, than in the second, which isn't clear as to what is being used to secure the barrel, although it is not the breaching rope), and then the gun would be secured to prevent its movement on the deck in a seaway perhaps with its tackles set fast. (If the ship were sailing in any fashion which would cause her to heel when the guns were in action, the leeward guns would have to be restrained from rolling "downhill" towards the rail by their inhaul tackle, while the windward guns would have to be restrained from running backwards inboard by their outhaul or "training" tackles.) In the first picture below, however, the positioning of the gun is incorrect. In a seaway, the guns would not be stowed run out through the bulwark or through open gunports. Not only would open gunports be hazardous in a seaway (the lower deck ports often being only mere feet above the waterline) but the stability of the ship would be enhanced by bringing the weight of the guns as far inboard as possible. 
 
 

 

 

 
The above "stowed" options may warrant more research as to the exact practice common in a given navy at a given period. I included these for the sake of completeness. Although cannon depicted as rigged for sea are rarely seen on models today, they can be a lot less work to model than gun stations rigged for action and, if one must, there's always the option to combine the two conditions, with a couple of chase guns run out and perhaps two, four, or six stations rigged for action as if the larger modeled vessel were running down a much smaller quarry. 

Caruana gives the following description on page 384 of The History of English Sea Ordnance Volume 2.   
Allan

I believe that breeching rope was made from previously used line that had already been stretched.

Regarding this common depiction of the hauling end of the tackle wrapped around and around the falls of the tackle: I don’t believe this represents real world use. This is my opinion based on my own experience-not with cannon but with tackle on ships in general. This laborious and unnecessary technique of tightly wrapping is bad for the rope and too time consuming to do and undo. Sure I could see a few frapping tuns used around the fall, which would keep the fall from fouling on stuff, but the entire line? No. Extra length would be gasket coiled, as extra line not intended for use for extended periods always is aboard ship. 
Im certain that the photos depicting this practice are all taken on museum ships which are open to the public. In the context of a museum display which can be accessed by the public it would make sense to isolate the entire length of the tackle falls under turns of the hauling part of the line as this prevents kids or miscreants from tugging on or  otherwise misusing the museum artifact. Believe me: if there was a free hauling part available on any tackle anywhere on any museum ship, hundreds of people each day would be doing their best to haul on it!  But on a real ship the tackle won’t need that kind of insurance represented by the elaborate wrapping. 

And right off the bat, I'm going to ask the first question. It's creative. It's true!
And then in the voice of some TV quiz show host:
We see the stern. What do you think would crown the bow of the ship? What or whom would you put there? 
 

 
Unfortunately, I can't give more information for thinking, everything that can be used in any way has already been said and shown. Further, Mr. Masters, you have a conditional minute, after which you must give an answer.
 
Actually, I have my own version. I can substantiate it and prove it. But the question is still important. We happen to have a difference of opinion. So I'd like to hear some other people's versions. And for the sake of keeping them unbiased, I'll give you my opinion later. And at the same time I will check myself, compare my thoughts with others. There don't seem to be any conditions, you can just say what you would put there yourself, but it's better if it's accompanied by a short "because".
 
And here's another thing: the stage of working with the main figure is still very far away and you can express versions even when the narrative runs away. So if you happen to read this when the conversation has already moved on to other topics, feel free to offer your ideas at any point. This social poll is very important to me. The more people who offer their side of the story, the better.
 
 
 

In principle it is easy to show whether a material is bone or ivory, but one has to take a sample and make a thin-section for microscopic inspection. Apart from the DNA-analysis, one can also take samples for a C14-analysis, which shows the age of the material (in the case of historic ivory).
 

Probably a receipt for the purchase of the bone or synthetic material would be a good first step. If a real problem was anticipated, I expect you could get a certificate from some sort of testing laboratory that confirmed, through DNA testing, perhaps, that the bone was not from a protected species. Bone, of course, is readily distinguishable from ivory, but I expect your concern is well-founded that it would be difficult to distinguish a piece of cow bone from a piece of bone from a whale or an elephant short of some sort of scientific analysis. 

Not side-tracked at all. Interesting thoughts. Ivory is, of course, out of the question and I suppose elephant bone would also be similarly unavailable and illegal to trade in most everywhere in the civilized world.  The laws are labyrinthine, though. Sometimes ivory is still released on the world market from various legitimate sources, such as national "treasuries" of confiscated poached elephant ivory.  Some nations permit antique (over 100 years old) ivory items to be imported and/or sold, while others do not. Some permit exceptions for possession of musical instruments containing ivory, such as antique piano keys. Reportedly, the acquisition of "legal" ivory is not recommended because, due to changing national and international law, products made from protected endangered animals change so fast that one can't rely on any one law remaining in effect for any great length of time. As you probably know, the same is true for protected woods, e.g., African ebony and Brazilian rosewood, etc. These international trade restrictions commonly adversely affect musical instruments (with stories of famous musicians finding their prized antique instruments confiscated by the customs authorities when they travel internationally to perform, but they certainly threaten the same sort of nightmare for any "traveling" ship model which may contain now-prohibited endangered materials.
 
My dentist is a very accomplished miniature carver, producing very fine human figurines of about an inch tall out of various materials used for dental prosthetics and the like. Not that I otherwise ever look forward to going to the dentist, but I'll have to ask her when I see her next what synthetic ivory-like materials are best for carving small details. Plastics pose the problem of possibly melting from the heat of a rotary carving burr, but there must be stuff dental technology has developed to get around that.
 
As for bovine bone, one source I've found that's quite convenient is our pet stores here in the U.S. I don't know if the same is true in Germany, but all U.S. pet stores sell sterilized, fully dried cow bones in various shapes and sizes which are for the enjoyment of people's pet dogs. (They also sell "smoked" flavor cow bones, but these are stained brown and don't appear as the boiled, dry white bones used in the French prisoner-of-war bone models.) While I haven't gotten around to it as yet, I expect that when the occasion arises next, I will try cutting up some of these bones and epoxy-laminating them where necessary to obtain the size and shape of stock I require. Straight leg bones of eight to ten inches are available, as are knee and hip joint bones. The joint "balls" have a finer-grained texture and polish up better than the non-joint bone and can be as large as around three inches in diameter and solid throughout. 
 
Animal bones do have one minor drawback, however. If a rotary dental burr is used to carve them and the burr gets hot enough from friction to burn the bone material, it has a rather disagreeable aroma. I expect, though, that using a modern air turbine dental handpiece with a water-jet cooling feature should negate that. I think, though, that most carvers using dental burrs prefer to use the old belt-driven laboratory "dental engines" which are much easier to control in a "high(er) torque - low(er) speed" mode than the newer turbine and micro-motor handpieces that operate on a "low(er) torque - high(er) speed" basis and the slower speed should keep the heat down if one takes care not to overdo it.

Yes, I've considered the Cricut as well. My daughter has one. The manufacturer's specifications indicate that grown wood or veneer up to 2.4 mm thick or plywood up to 1/8" thick (why they mix the measurement systems, I have no idea) can be cut on the machine. I suppose, theoretically at least, that computer data for an entire ship model, in some cases, at least, could be sold for use on the machine to cut out all the parts for a decent model. In theory, at least. It would have to employ some card stock modeling techniques. The machine surely has many applications for modeling, although most all of which I'm aware are already well-covered by existing technology.  They seem to be a lot of fun to play with. Whether you need one or not, is up to you.

An excellent light duty tool system given the price point. Well worth what they charge for it, although it becomes far more effective if used with the much more powerful low-speed/high torque power source of a  variable-speed foot-controlled Foredom flex-shaft machine with a standard one-inch diameter handpiece. Vanda-Lay advised me they can provide a holding fitting for these upon request (or one can be easily machined from stock aluminum plate.) 

Yes, I've considered the Cricut as well. My daughter has one. The manufacturer's specifications indicate that grown wood or veneer up to 2.4 mm thick or plywood up to 1/8" thick (why they mix the measurement systems, I have no idea) can be cut on the machine. I suppose, theoretically at least, that computer data for an entire ship model, in some cases, at least, could be sold for use on the machine to cut out all the parts for a decent model. In theory, at least. It would have to employ some card stock modeling techniques. The machine surely has many applications for modeling, although most all of which I'm aware are already well-covered by existing technology.  They seem to be a lot of fun to play with. Whether you need one or not, is up to you.

Probably a receipt for the purchase of the bone or synthetic material would be a good first step. If a real problem was anticipated, I expect you could get a certificate from some sort of testing laboratory that confirmed, through DNA testing, perhaps, that the bone was not from a protected species. Bone, of course, is readily distinguishable from ivory, but I expect your concern is well-founded that it would be difficult to distinguish a piece of cow bone from a piece of bone from a whale or an elephant short of some sort of scientific analysis. 

Not side-tracked at all. Interesting thoughts. Ivory is, of course, out of the question and I suppose elephant bone would also be similarly unavailable and illegal to trade in most everywhere in the civilized world.  The laws are labyrinthine, though. Sometimes ivory is still released on the world market from various legitimate sources, such as national "treasuries" of confiscated poached elephant ivory.  Some nations permit antique (over 100 years old) ivory items to be imported and/or sold, while others do not. Some permit exceptions for possession of musical instruments containing ivory, such as antique piano keys. Reportedly, the acquisition of "legal" ivory is not recommended because, due to changing national and international law, products made from protected endangered animals change so fast that one can't rely on any one law remaining in effect for any great length of time. As you probably know, the same is true for protected woods, e.g., African ebony and Brazilian rosewood, etc. These international trade restrictions commonly adversely affect musical instruments (with stories of famous musicians finding their prized antique instruments confiscated by the customs authorities when they travel internationally to perform, but they certainly threaten the same sort of nightmare for any "traveling" ship model which may contain now-prohibited endangered materials.
 
My dentist is a very accomplished miniature carver, producing very fine human figurines of about an inch tall out of various materials used for dental prosthetics and the like. Not that I otherwise ever look forward to going to the dentist, but I'll have to ask her when I see her next what synthetic ivory-like materials are best for carving small details. Plastics pose the problem of possibly melting from the heat of a rotary carving burr, but there must be stuff dental technology has developed to get around that.
 
As for bovine bone, one source I've found that's quite convenient is our pet stores here in the U.S. I don't know if the same is true in Germany, but all U.S. pet stores sell sterilized, fully dried cow bones in various shapes and sizes which are for the enjoyment of people's pet dogs. (They also sell "smoked" flavor cow bones, but these are stained brown and don't appear as the boiled, dry white bones used in the French prisoner-of-war bone models.) While I haven't gotten around to it as yet, I expect that when the occasion arises next, I will try cutting up some of these bones and epoxy-laminating them where necessary to obtain the size and shape of stock I require. Straight leg bones of eight to ten inches are available, as are knee and hip joint bones. The joint "balls" have a finer-grained texture and polish up better than the non-joint bone and can be as large as around three inches in diameter and solid throughout. 
 
Animal bones do have one minor drawback, however. If a rotary dental burr is used to carve them and the burr gets hot enough from friction to burn the bone material, it has a rather disagreeable aroma. I expect, though, that using a modern air turbine dental handpiece with a water-jet cooling feature should negate that. I think, though, that most carvers using dental burrs prefer to use the old belt-driven laboratory "dental engines" which are much easier to control in a "high(er) torque - low(er) speed" mode than the newer turbine and micro-motor handpieces that operate on a "low(er) torque - high(er) speed" basis and the slower speed should keep the heat down if one takes care not to overdo it.

Probably a receipt for the purchase of the bone or synthetic material would be a good first step. If a real problem was anticipated, I expect you could get a certificate from some sort of testing laboratory that confirmed, through DNA testing, perhaps, that the bone was not from a protected species. Bone, of course, is readily distinguishable from ivory, but I expect your concern is well-founded that it would be difficult to distinguish a piece of cow bone from a piece of bone from a whale or an elephant short of some sort of scientific analysis. 

Probably a receipt for the purchase of the bone or synthetic material would be a good first step. If a real problem was anticipated, I expect you could get a certificate from some sort of testing laboratory that confirmed, through DNA testing, perhaps, that the bone was not from a protected species. Bone, of course, is readily distinguishable from ivory, but I expect your concern is well-founded that it would be difficult to distinguish a piece of cow bone from a piece of bone from a whale or an elephant short of some sort of scientific analysis. 

You can use cad but some of the drawing programs I’ve found that the only thing I had to do was resize the whole wall to the correct size and then cut it.  
 
when I resized everything the windows and floors were then the correct size as well.
 
 You can also just draw with the cricut program and no resizing is needed then.