Bob Cleek

I knew I was right!  And it didn't take long, either. 
 

Without pulling my copy off the shelf, I believe zu Montfeld refers to the diameter of the mainstay as a percentage of the diameter of the mainmast at the deck and then everything else as a percentage of the diameter of the mainstay, for cordage standing rigging, at least. In real life, I think it was left to the bosun's judgment and the cordage available. "Big enough to carry the load" was essential, of course. At some point, I believe the Admiralty standardized block sizes for purposes of procurement and store-keeping and the running rigging would be sized to match the blocks, but I doubt there was a lot of science to rigging sizes that could be reduced to absolute mathematical formulae back in those times. "Different ships, different long splices" was the order of the day.  There are many far more informed on the subject than I am, I'm sure. Perhaps one can add more than what i have or correct any errors in what I've stated. 

Oh, come on!  You can't be serious.
 
The galleon has Dacron lanyards and their overly-long bitter ends are tied off ludicrously, wrapped around the shrouds. They'll serve their purpose just fine and won't require the maintenance natural fiber cordage would, but they are not historically correct in appearance. (Black synthetic line is readily available, so there's really no excuse.) Neither are the bronze ring bolts. For an "historical recreation" of a vessel the appearance of which can never be more than an educated guess, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised. (The electrical cables running down the shroud and into the cabin side are a nice touch, too.)  But what difference does it make? The tourists will love it. "A real pirate ship!"  
 
USS Constitution, the only commissioned ship in the U.S. Navy to have actually sank an enemy vessel, and an actual historical artifact responsibly restored and conserved, is completely correct.* And her lanyards are black.
 
* Except for the "kiddie proof" netting they festoon all over her, as between the cannon barrel and the port jambs.
 
As I said, one can use any color lanyards they wish. Those who are interested in historical accuracy will make sure the lanyards on their period models are black. 

It's only "amber" when it's been thinned like all get out, as in when it's applied to fibers when making rope. All the "Stockholm" or pine tar I've ever used around boats has been very, very dark brown, virtually black, before thinning. The more it is thinned, the lighter it gets. Hence, when repeated coats are applied, the amber color deepens to black as the coats build up. 
 

 
Pine tar is widely used for dressing horses' hooves and for veterinary medicinal purposes:
 

 

 
It's also traditionally used as a sealer on bare wood in Scandanavia:
 

 
 
And it's the traditional method of treating wooden baseball bats to provide a sticky grip for the batter:
 

 

 
Dark, dark, dark brown... virtually black.
 
And because it is sticky and gets all over everything, after a good coating of tar for preservation was applied to rigging, it was painted over with black paint to further seal it and provide UV protection. Were this not done, a ship would have "tar tracks" from stem to stern in short order and be quite a mess. As most know, the sailor's "middie" collar, the square of cloth attached to the back of the collar on a sailor's blouse, evolved from a scarf tied around the neck to prevent the pine tar from the sailors' pigtails from staining their shirts when they tarred their pigtails to preserve their hair as it grew out uncut on a long voyage. Upon their return, they'd cut off their tarred pigtails and sell them to the wig makers, who'd rinse them in turpentine to remove the tar and clean the hair for making the wigs so popular in past times.
 

 
I could care less what color people make their rigging, but if anybody's asking what color deadeye lanyards were in the Age of Sail, I'm going to say "black." And if people insist on "two tone" deadeyes and lanyards with black shrouds and tan, or even white, lanyards, they're certainly free to do so. 
 
 
 

One of the issues here is "tar".   Tar today is an oil based product and black.   Way back when it was resin based and when fresh was anything but black (amber as I recall).   So color choices could be made on the shrouds and lanyards.

That will do it, for off-model rigging jobs, at least. A similar effect can be achieved by simply blowing for a couple of seconds on a knot dampened with shellac. The alcohol evaporates very quickly. The same is true if one thins their white carpenter's glue with denatured alcohol. It's the water content in the thinned glue that slows the curing time way down.

No. It's not a "very debatable topic," notwithstanding how much it's been debated. There's a big difference between something which is "debatable" and something which is "debated." Just as there is a big difference between an opinion and a fact. As the saying goes, "We have a right to our own opinions, but not to our own facts."
 
When a fact is easily ascertained under conventional standards, such as "the night sky is dark," opining that the night sky is light is not the fair expression of an opinion, but, rather, an erroneous statement of fact, which, when propounded seriously as fact is often colloquially referred to as "BS." When one expresses their opinion about an ascertainable fact, it constitutes the proponent's admission that they actually don't know what they are talking about, in which case, when they assert a position, they are said to be "BS-ing." Given the obvious olfactory limitations of the medium, it's sometimes difficult to easily discern whether someone is "BS-ing" on the internet. It is generally a dead give-away when, after having been soundly proven wrong, the proponent of "BS" continues "BS-ing" with deflecting comments such as "Well, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree," "Well, I have a right to my own opinion," and, "Well, I'm afraid we're way off-topic at this point."
 
Vessels rigged with deadeyes and lanyards today will frequently have lanyards colored other than very dark brown or black because their lanyards are today frequently made of synthetic cordage which does not require treatment with old-time tar-based coatings to preserve it and the vessels' owners don't care about authentic period appearances. If a model depicts a modern deadeyes-and-lanyard rigged vessel, the model should obviously depict the lanyards as the color they appear on the prototype vessel with allowances for "scale distance viewing." If a model depicts the deadeyes and lanyards on a vessel during the "pre-synthetic cordage era," considering scale viewing distance, they should be black. That's a fact which was never in dispute until some ship modelers started putting light colored (sometimes even ecru or white) lanyards on their models and asserting that light colored lanyards were correct "in their opinion."  There's no need to opine. Deadeyes and lanyards continue to be used on vessels of all sizes to this day and when natural cordage is used, it continues to be tarred and painted black to ensure its longevity, just as it was in earlier times. This isn't an opinion, it's a fact. (I once owned and maintained a ketch traditionally rigged with deadeyes and lanyards and I've done my share of full-scale traditional marlingspike rigging on more than a few other vessels. I know the difference between black and any other color and the difference between natural fiber cordage and synthetic.  )
 
Interestingly, now that high-strength UV-resistant cordage [Dyneema (tm)] is becoming popular in the high-tech racing machines, we are seeing modern deadeyes and lanyards and cordage standing rigging replacing turnbuckles and wire cable standing rigging on modern sailing vessels across the board. The lanyards pictured here aren't black because they don't require tar and paint to keep them from deteriorating in the elements.
 

 

 
Today's cordage comes in an unlimited range of colors. I'm sure somebody will rig a deadeye with a fuschia lanyard some day, but that's not going to make fuschia lanyards correct on a 18th Century ship of the line. I suppose if you are modeling a modern day vessel with deadeyes and lanyards you can correctly make them any color of the rainbow.
 

 

 
 

Good luck in your endeavor. I remain curious as to how putting seven windows in the transom of HMS Speedy, together with a quarterdeck and captain's cabin will be possible, if for no other reason than there does not appear to be sufficient depth in the stern of Speedy to accommodate a great cabin with even minimal standing headroom. She's just not that large a vessel. Note in the drawing below on the right that the compartment indicated does not run all the way aft. That's because there's no room back there, given the tuck of the stern.  What space there may be in the compartment indicated would have quite a minimal sole area, being useful perhaps as a sleeping cabin with pilot berths on either side, but certainly not for anything serving as a captain's great cabin with a table and chairs, etc.
 

 
If Speedy wasn't the prototype for Surprise, as some commentators have concluded, any other vessel of the size described in the book would have to have a radically different hull shape and deck structure to provide space for a cabin with seven windows across the transom, negating the usefulness of Speedy as a basis for a kit bashing. 
 
I wouldn't give all that much weight to the descriptions in the book, nor in Geoff Hunt's cover illustration. Hunt's depiction, as you have noted, is inexplicable when critically examined, no matter how convincing it appears at first glance. On close examination, the side of the ship and the shape of the windowed stern in Hunt's illustration simply don't match. He's basically painted an optical illusion. As for O'Brian's descriptions, it must be noted that, by all indications, he knew diddly squat about ships and the sea, save what he cribbed from old Admiralty reports. O'Brian was a technical writer and translator by trade who, despite his published claims to the contrary in one instance, later betrayed himself to have had little, if any personal nautical background or experience. His Aubrey/Maturin series was written at the request of a publisher who wished a Napoleonic Era "Hornblower-type" period sea novel. As an excellent technical writer, he based his stories on the Admiralty action reports of the time researched in the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, primarily basing his Aubrey character on Thomas Cochrane (1775-1860) the real Master and Commander of the sloop HMS Speedy. (See: Thomas Cochrane | Royal Museums Greenwich (rmg.co.uk) )  In all of his writing, O'Brian was noted for his uncanny ability to present himself as sounding as if he knew far more about what he was writing than he actually personally knew, this being the hallmark of a great technical writer. That said, in a body of work as extensive as the Aubry/Maturin novels, and particularly in his very first effort in the gendre, he's entitled to a faux pas now and again. He was, after all, imagining the features of vessel upon which he'd never set foot without the slightest background in naval architecture, let alone such as was particular to the period. In short, I think he dropped the ball on this one.
 
Still and all, have fun with your build and do keep us apprised in your build log.  It's a bit of a "square peg in a round hole" challenge, but a fascinating one nonetheless.
 
 

Thanks a million, Ron. That was very helpful.

Wow! Those are some fantastic looking sails, Ron.
 
Did you show how you accomplished this in a build log? I'm interested in picking up some tips on this technique.

Got ya beat, jud! I did the "punch card two-step" as an operator on IBM 360s on one of my working-my-way-through-college jobs at Standard Oil about 50 years ago. I remember, in those pre-internet days before "sexual harassment" and "hostile work environments," the programmers would work up printouts of the Playboy Playmate of the Month foldouts using ASCII characters as a "dot matrix" and print them out on tractor feed paper and pass them around. On a later college job, working for ITT Telecommunications when ITT was setting up the DARPA-net, the operators were sending that "ASCII art" out on the 33 and 100 KSR teletype terminals of what eventually became the internet. "Computer graphics" have come a long way since then, and I can't claim to be a CAD maven by any stretch of the imagination, but for modeling purposes, I find the old-time "ducks and battens" drafting technology is easier and faster for me, at least as far as what I need for ship models. I suppose it's different for younger folks who never learned "mechanical drawing" in high school when is was taught everywhere and for those who have mastered one or another of the CAD programs and kept up with their developments, often on the job, but when the contemporary hand drawn lines of period ships scale up to an inch or more wide at full size, I'm not sure I understand the point of trying to work with them at the "space age" tolerances of today's CAD software. 

It sounds like a very interesting project TBlack. I'm a big fan of the books, and look forward to seeing your progress. You certainly have your work cut out for you though. Vincejo looks to have been a significantly larger brig than the historical Speedy, with very different lines. I almost wonder if you would have more luck modifying a kit like HMS Fly. 

Thanks a million, Ron. That was very helpful.

Yes. Some canvas was "sent up" and "sent down" at sea and not left continually bent to spars, but this was generally light air stuff. In port, where it would often take weeks to unload a vessel, or months, if it was necessary to wait for favorable winds, canvas would be sent down and ashore for repairs and/or storage. When I was a kid, the was an old sailmaker and canvas shop on San Francisco's Embarcadero, Simpson and Fisher, that had been around since the sailing ship days. They had a big painted sign on the wall of the building advertising "sail storage."  Ships which anticipated being laid up for a period of time would store their canvas ashore in dry storage where the rodents could be kept at bay more easily than aboard ship. Salty cotton sails were a delicacy to the shipboard rats.

Dude, why didn't you say so? When I had that very same problem decades ago, that's exactly what I did... I asked a doctor. A microsurgeon, to be exact, and he showed me how. Now, with the magic of the internet, you don't have to ask a doctor. Just study the medical school instructional videos on YouTube. These are basic essential ship modeling skills that aren't in the kit instructions.
 
 

Wow! Those are some fantastic looking sails, Ron.
 
Did you show how you accomplished this in a build log? I'm interested in picking up some tips on this technique.

Yes. Some canvas was "sent up" and "sent down" at sea and not left continually bent to spars, but this was generally light air stuff. In port, where it would often take weeks to unload a vessel, or months, if it was necessary to wait for favorable winds, canvas would be sent down and ashore for repairs and/or storage. When I was a kid, the was an old sailmaker and canvas shop on San Francisco's Embarcadero, Simpson and Fisher, that had been around since the sailing ship days. They had a big painted sign on the wall of the building advertising "sail storage."  Ships which anticipated being laid up for a period of time would store their canvas ashore in dry storage where the rodents could be kept at bay more easily than aboard ship. Salty cotton sails were a delicacy to the shipboard rats.

Wow! Those are some fantastic looking sails, Ron.
 
Did you show how you accomplished this in a build log? I'm interested in picking up some tips on this technique.

Yes. Some canvas was "sent up" and "sent down" at sea and not left continually bent to spars, but this was generally light air stuff. In port, where it would often take weeks to unload a vessel, or months, if it was necessary to wait for favorable winds, canvas would be sent down and ashore for repairs and/or storage. When I was a kid, the was an old sailmaker and canvas shop on San Francisco's Embarcadero, Simpson and Fisher, that had been around since the sailing ship days. They had a big painted sign on the wall of the building advertising "sail storage."  Ships which anticipated being laid up for a period of time would store their canvas ashore in dry storage where the rodents could be kept at bay more easily than aboard ship. Salty cotton sails were a delicacy to the shipboard rats.

Yes. Some canvas was "sent up" and "sent down" at sea and not left continually bent to spars, but this was generally light air stuff. In port, where it would often take weeks to unload a vessel, or months, if it was necessary to wait for favorable winds, canvas would be sent down and ashore for repairs and/or storage. When I was a kid, the was an old sailmaker and canvas shop on San Francisco's Embarcadero, Simpson and Fisher, that had been around since the sailing ship days. They had a big painted sign on the wall of the building advertising "sail storage."  Ships which anticipated being laid up for a period of time would store their canvas ashore in dry storage where the rodents could be kept at bay more easily than aboard ship. Salty cotton sails were a delicacy to the shipboard rats.

I've used the lightest weight silkspan for my sails as I laminate two layers of silkspan to both sides of normal office bond paper; this technique I use for set sails only, not furled. Even with the three layers, this still allows nice translucency which I believe is important. This also emphasizes the various tablings and linings of large sails with ambient lighting of all kinds. Another benefit of the thinnest silkspan is that after it's glued to the bond paper (diluted white glue) it "shrivels" slightly as it dries; this imparts a nice fabric texture that subtly simulates canvas.
Photo example is attached. This is a close-up of my HMS Swan, rigged and sails fashioned with guidance from druxey's Swan Class, Vol IV book.
Never tried this, but it makes perfect sense to me!
 
Ron

Well, if you can get different weights of SilkSpan, you could even imitate the different weights of canvas used for various sails.

Dude, why didn't you say so? When I had that very same problem decades ago, that's exactly what I did... I asked a doctor. A microsurgeon, to be exact, and he showed me how. Now, with the magic of the internet, you don't have to ask a doctor. Just study the medical school instructional videos on YouTube. These are basic essential ship modeling skills that aren't in the kit instructions.
 
 

The only explanation would be artistic license taken in Geoff Hunt's cover art for Master and Commander, I suppose.  I never noticed it before, but there's definitely something fishy about that stern. He's omitted the overhang and curve of the gallery, which would accommodate the width for the windows, but even then, it's just wrong. Hunt appears to have painted the right vessel, a 14-gun sloop, and then added seven windows where there were never ever any windows at all, apparently in order to cover for O'Brian's confusing HMS Sophie with HMS Surprise. Sophie had no windows in her stern at all. It's Surprise and her prototype, the 24-gun HMS Porcupine class, that had seven.
 
O'Brian based his HMS Sophie on the 14-gun sloop, HMS Speedy. (Vanguard Models offers a well-respected kit model of HMS Speedy.) No kit bashing required, save painting the name "Sophie" on it.  Order 1:64 HMS Speedy – VANGUARD MODELS
 

 
(What may appear to be two windows on Speedy's stern are actually gun ports for deck cannon. She has no aft great cabin.)
 
If you want to build a model of HMS Surprise,  you should be building a model of a 24 gun Porcupine class Royal Navy frigate, which was, I believe, HMS Surprise's sister-ship.  I suggest you get a copy of The Anatomy of the Ship series, The 24-Gun Frigate Pandora. The 24-Gun Frigate Pandora (Anatomy of the Ship): McKay, John, Coleman, Ron: 9780851778945: Amazon.com: Books You'll find the complete plans in there for the actual vessel upon which O'Brian based his fictional HMS Surprise. Here's the stern of the actual vessel created for the movie, a conversion of the HMS Rose replica. I wouldn't trust Hollywood's accuracy, but you can see that a seven-window great cabin wouldn't ever fit on tiny little Sophie. 
 

 

 
 
 

 
 
HMS Pandora went down on the Great Barrier Reef after rounding up some of the HMS Bounty mutineers. Her wreckage was discovered, 30% intact, in the late seventies and extensive archaeological excavations have been done on her. Consequently, she's very well documented. Here's a photo of the Constructo kit model of HMS Pandora, seven windows and all. HMS Pandora | Model Ship | STEPHENS & KENAU™ (stephensandkenau.com) 
 
 
 

The only explanation would be artistic license taken in Geoff Hunt's cover art for Master and Commander, I suppose.  I never noticed it before, but there's definitely something fishy about that stern. He's omitted the overhang and curve of the gallery, which would accommodate the width for the windows, but even then, it's just wrong. Hunt appears to have painted the right vessel, a 14-gun sloop, and then added seven windows where there were never ever any windows at all, apparently in order to cover for O'Brian's confusing HMS Sophie with HMS Surprise. Sophie had no windows in her stern at all. It's Surprise and her prototype, the 24-gun HMS Porcupine class, that had seven.
 
O'Brian based his HMS Sophie on the 14-gun sloop, HMS Speedy. (Vanguard Models offers a well-respected kit model of HMS Speedy.) No kit bashing required, save painting the name "Sophie" on it.  Order 1:64 HMS Speedy – VANGUARD MODELS
 

 
(What may appear to be two windows on Speedy's stern are actually gun ports for deck cannon. She has no aft great cabin.)
 
If you want to build a model of HMS Surprise,  you should be building a model of a 24 gun Porcupine class Royal Navy frigate, which was, I believe, HMS Surprise's sister-ship.  I suggest you get a copy of The Anatomy of the Ship series, The 24-Gun Frigate Pandora. The 24-Gun Frigate Pandora (Anatomy of the Ship): McKay, John, Coleman, Ron: 9780851778945: Amazon.com: Books You'll find the complete plans in there for the actual vessel upon which O'Brian based his fictional HMS Surprise. Here's the stern of the actual vessel created for the movie, a conversion of the HMS Rose replica. I wouldn't trust Hollywood's accuracy, but you can see that a seven-window great cabin wouldn't ever fit on tiny little Sophie. 
 

 

 
 
 

 
 
HMS Pandora went down on the Great Barrier Reef after rounding up some of the HMS Bounty mutineers. Her wreckage was discovered, 30% intact, in the late seventies and extensive archaeological excavations have been done on her. Consequently, she's very well documented. Here's a photo of the Constructo kit model of HMS Pandora, seven windows and all. HMS Pandora | Model Ship | STEPHENS & KENAU™ (stephensandkenau.com)