rybakov

Marc, any reply to an offhand comment like you gifted me with deserves a detailed response of its own.

Although I never meant to go back to it, I've attached a new version of the sketch that incorporates a lot of your suggestions—higher taffrail, upper balcony balustrade and figures in better proportion, windows and decks lining up better, etc.  I left the lower and middle stern lights alone, since the whole point to the exercise was to see how well SR's features would graft onto a drawing of a real Hubac hull. I can very easily see that a seven-light solution would be practical, though, and Tony Devroude's DR framing corresponds nicely with similar diagrams in Peter Goodwin's book.
 

 
Not to be contrary, but the field of fleurs on the upper bulwarks was used on both Hubac ships that I have VDV drawings of (La Reine and Terrible). They also show up, as you pointed out, on Le Monarque and DR. Looks like it was a First Marine thing. So unless somebody can provide an authoritative description of the first SR's bulwarks, I'll stick with the fleurs. It's the lys amount of effort. Same goes for the vestigial QD upper balcony tier. No tiers shed.

Besides, if I work on this Photoshop thingie any more, it'll take time away from my own Heller SR build.
 
There were some other things in your reply that spark conversation. I—uh,—swiped the 1853 D-M-J Henry  description of the SR the first time you posted it. It looks like it was written by someone who saw this version of the stern drawing:
 


As opposed to the version we all know and love, and everybody wants to attribute to Bérain.
 

 
The mention of the ostrich feathers is a dead giveaway. Has anybody come to any conclusions about who did the original artwork and which version came first? The figure of Africa in the Bérain drawing has the same elephant-head headgear that's on Le Brun's Africa at Versailles. This might be a telltale as to who actually designed the SR figures.

It's weird that D-M-J Henry didn't mention that the figures represented continents, not just "East" and "West." Attributing the designs of the figures to "the pencil of Puget" seems to me a misplaced leap of faith, considering that Le Brun had already designed all the allegorical statuary with the same subjects and attributes for the Versailles gardens. Makes me doubt that Henry had any more insight into the ship than researchers have now.  

You mentioned all the gold leaf at Versailles and the likelihood the first version of the ship was adorned similarly. I recall that in one of your posts you discussed some period document that gave a budget for gold leaf for one of the warships. I can't find that post, but I remember that the amount was scarcely enough to do much more than gild the figurehead. I've been thinking about how to limit the amount of gold leaf on my own Second Marine SR build. One thought was to use most of the gilt on the stern Apollo frieze and the upper reaches of the quarter galleries—keep all the major areas of gold leaf high up on the structure surrounded by blue, just like at Versailles.
 

 
Under this plan, I'd paint the major figures in shaded faux gold (original formula was yellow ochre with lead-tin or Naples yellow highlights, and darker yellow—red ochre mixed in—for shadows. I painted the SR figurehead this way as an experiment. (I can still repaint it metallic gold if I want to.) There would still be the Bourbon crest and crown on the forecastle surrounded by gilded ornament, so there would be some gilding forward. Any thoughts on how much gold leaf seems appropriate for the Second Marine period?
 

 
Thanks again for the information and all the inspiration. This has been a sweet deal— I post an odd little Photoshop and get a college-level education in return. Looking forward to your next post. Building and painting 104 guns in the meantime.
 
John O
 

 
 
 

Wow, John-O!  You have truly blown my mind here with a masterful job of photo-editing; somehow you have taken a barely more than 2-dimensional Berain stern drawing, in plan view, and made a fully 3-D perspective drawing.  And you are pretty close to my own thinking on this subject.  I hope you don’t mind that I have screen-shotted your drawing for the sake of an over/under comparison:


One can see on the LR drawing that just to either side of the tafferal carving - the Arms of France - are two small arched port windows that correspond with two of the same ports at the quarters.  You are quite correct, in my view, to shorten LR’s tafferal from the bottom, so that you can introduce the upper tier of 6 stern lights for SR.
 
One gentle critique I’ll offer is that in manipulating the Berain drawing, the height of this upper balcony tier is a little too far reduced to make it practical; for a man of the times standing on this balcony, the cap rail might only reach mid-thigh.  See what I mean, comparatively, in plan view:

The height of the upper balcony bulwark is slightly reduced from that of the middle balcony, but not by half.
 
If you were to nudge that upper balcony rail upwards by an additional scale thickness of caprail - a highly imprecise measure, if there ever was one - you would arrive at a scale impression that at least looks more right to the eye.  This incremental increase should also be transferred to the top of that upper window tier so that it is just a little more closely aligned with the quarter port openings.  Right now, my eye reads that upper tier of lights as being just a bit lower than they should be.
 
”But Marc,” you might be saying to yourself right now, “that reduces the tafferal height for the big carving of Apollo and his quadriga.  WTF, man, don’t mess me up like that!”  You probably aren’t saying that exactly, John, but I like to amuse myself 😏
 
Okay, so, here are my thoughts on LR’s tafferal height.  By the time the VdVs are sketching the French fleet in 1673, it is reasonably likely that LR’s original sheer height of stern had been reduced, somewhat, to comply with the new Reglements of 1671.  Alterations to the height of stern and previously top-heavy ornamental figures were undertaken for the ships that were to be part of the allied French/English fleet.
 
The French did not wish to embarrass themselves in the eyes of the English, whom they were studying closely, in order to improve their own construction measures and proportions.  It is the particular observations of Tourville, Etienne Hubac and Seignelay while boarding and taking principal measurements of The Royal Charles in late 1672 that ultimately results in the comparative study between the RC and SR, presented to the construction councils in December of 1672.  As flagship, I think it likely that LR’s height and ornamental program would have been reduced to comply.
 
However, La Reyne was a commissioned warship, while Soleil Royal remained a symbolic beacon, at anchor, on the Penfeld.  There may not have been any immediate urgency for razee’ing her deadworks to comply with the Reglement of 1671, and it is known that her ornamental program, at the very least, took into account the failures and excesses of the Royal Louis of 1668; while SR still has large rounded figure carvings, they have been hollowed-out to reduce weight.
 
In consideration of your drawing, I think it is reasonable to raise the reverse-curve coronation a few scale feet (perhaps by the same height of the band of astrological symbols), in order to represent this higher sheer height of the earliest constructions (1667-1670), and to give more room to Apollo’s quadriga.  I suspect the overall impression of sheer height would have been quite similar or the same as that of the Monarque:

I also think that the shape and projection of the lower and middle balconies would have followed more closely what you see on the Monarque, or the refit Dauphin Royal (below in blue) but that the lower balcony was probably already a mere vestigial “shelf” for the Four Seasons figures.
 
Now, with regard to the number of stern lights that may have been present on the earliest ships, there does seem to be enough corroborating evidence among the Monarque, the RL and the Dauphin Royal to suggest seven windows between quarters.
 
The RL of 1668, as perhaps roughly sketched by LeBrun or Girardon:
 

A more finished version of the same:

And the DR:

That is conjecture, on my part, but there is some concrete reference to this possibility, in the form of the survey drawing of the original grand council chamber ceiling in May of 1688:

There are what appear to be five full window openings, bracketed by two half-lights at the extremities for a total of seven.
 
One exercise in drawing and proportion that I have not yet gotten to is to map out the stern widths at each level, which are also known and recorded from this same 1688 survey.  That might provide a reasonable guide of the ship’s degree of tumblehome at the stern, and ultimately may suggest whether it was possible or even likely to continue two additional upper tiers of seven stern lights.
 
It may be the case, though, that there is a reduction from seven on the lowest tier, with five full and two blank-panel reliefs on the middle tier, and five full on the top tier that are book-ended by ornamental pilasters.
 
If it is possible to cary seven at each level, I like very much what Tony Devroude arrived at for the framing of his DR of 1668:
(NRJ Vol. 55, No. 3, Fall 2010)
 
As for the particular ornamental differences between the original SR allegory, suggested by LeBrun and perfected by Puget, I am fascinated by the following excerpt from:
 
Sur la vie et les oeuvres de P. Puget , par D.-M.-J. Henry,...
Author : Henry, Dominique-Marie-Joseph (1778-1850). Auteur du texte
Publisher : impr. de E. Aurel (Toulon)
Publication date : 1853
 
…The stern of the Royal Sun, whose decoration is also due to the pencil of Puget, seems to testify to the account held by this artist of the need to restrict the extent of decoration. In the design of this new vessel the upper gallery, that is to say, the one which in the other vessel culminates in the coronation, is suppressed, and the figures are less gigantic. The vault
it is a duty and a real pleasure to express to this laborious writer all my gratitude for the obliging competition which he has kindly lent me by searching, in the archives of the Ministry of the Navy, the documents which could not be furnished to me by the archives of the port of Toulon, and sending me textually a copy of the various pieces of Colbert's official correspondence which I use in this work.
38 ON LIFE AND WORKS
other ornament than simple moldings and a mascaron to cover the opening of the jaumière. To this seems to be reduced the apparent modification made in the profusion of ornamental riches, the composition of the painting always retaining a great and noble character. It may be, however, that the absence of ornaments in the vault was less akin to the modification demanded by the minister, than to the quality of the vessel, which being of second rank did not admit so much luxury of decoration. The area that bears the name of the vessel, covered with beautiful arabesques, is, at the Sun Royal, supported by four baths indicating the seasons that the star of the day shares in its annual race, because it must be noted, everything is allegorical in the decoration of this building whose name itself alluded to the young monarch. The succession of seasons begins with the left, where winter is represented under the appearance of an old man wrapped in a drapery covering his head and body; the other three seasons are graceful figures of women carrying on their heads a basket full of flowers or fruits that characterize them. The gallery extends from one end of the stern to the other, and its two extremities serve as the seat of two beautiful figures representing warriors of lesser proportions than those of the first vessel. These warriors, whose defensive armor differs as well as attitude, still refer to the two great regions that the sun illuminates. The east, on the starboard side, had its helmet adorned with floating ostrich feathers, while the crest of the port warrior, composed of feathers of other birds, formed a broad plume framing with great taste all the top of the head . With the hands of the two hands, which were near the ship, on the cornice of the gallery, which served as their seat, both of them held up the arm on the opposite side, so that the hand served as support.
P. PUGET. 39
next to the top of the board. These sides are formed of an inverted console whose notch accommodated at the reentrant part of the flanks of the building, at the height of the second battery. A bust of a woman carrying on the head a basket of flowers for one, fruit for the other, comes out of the small winding of these consoles. The great bas-relief, left blank in the project of decoration of the first vessel, but drawn in this one which had already received its name, represents the young king under the figure of Phoebus, driving his chariot harnessed of the four mythological horses launched at a gallop, and in the ancient style, that is to say, thrown two on the right and two on the left. The coronation of this beautiful stern, of better taste than that of the other vessel, is formed by two figures of women seated with their legs extended along the very slightly arched border of this coronation, and turned on their hips so to present face all the upper body. Their costume still indicates in them the symbol of the East and the West. Nobly draped one by one, the figure of the west holds in his right hand a long scepter leaning on his shoulder, while in front of her, at her feet, a horse with a bristling, floating mane, with her head held high, her mouth open, and her nostrils wide, looks at her, neighing. To starboard, the symbol of the east carelessly holds in its hands, in front of it, a vase from which rises a plant apparently indicating that of perfumes. At the foot of this figure and symmetrically with that of the opposite side, is lying a tiger that a necklace passed around his neck seems to show as tame and submissive animal. This remarkable composition is, as we see, only an ingenious flattery by which Puget celebrated in his own way the glory of the young monarch, who at the same time dominates the East and the West, the East by the establishment created or
40 ON LIFE AND WORKS
encouraged, (1) the West by the power of its weapons, and making its domination accept with love. An immense royal crown placed between the two symbolic figures, in the middle of the arch of the coronation, serves as a support for the only stern lantern. As in the other vessel, the whole surface of the painting is still noticeable by the profusion of details of the accessory ornamentation: L-stamped cartridges, crisscrossed, faces of radiant sun, fleur-de-lis medallions, strips of lambrequins between all the carvings of which is showing a fleur de lys, and this.
The design of the Sun-Royal still bears, as we see, several great figures; that was splendor, brilliancy, magnificence, it flattered the vanity of the king, who was as dazzled by sumptuousness as by victory, and Colbert, whatever his conviction, was not a man to be opposed to. his master on this article: the large figures, a little modified as to size, were still tolerated despite the formal disapproval of sailors, despite their incessant claims. However, Puget, in order to remove the inconvenience of too great a weight, had decided to hollow out as much as possible these masses of wood, as we see by those of those figures which still remain. Ten years had elapsed in this sort of struggle since the great minister had engaged the great artist to diminish the proportions of these ornaments, when the Sun-Royal received the decoration which I have just described. As this sculpture work was executed in Brest and that this port lacked or (1)…
———
 
Among the notable differences are that the “vault,” or area above the stern chase ports and below the stern counter is relatively plain.  The Four Seasons figures are all female, with the exception of Winter.  There is the suggestion that the “warrior” figures of Africa and The Americas are male, and that they are seated upon the extremities of the middle balcony rail; this detail differs from Berain’s re-working of the design in 1689, in that Berain has these two figures perched above pass-through archways on the upper balcony tier.  I think the warrior figures seated on the middle balcony rail is actually what is being vaguely suggested in the Gilded Ghost portrait:

And more concretely confirmed by the RL and Monarque drawings, above.
 
One notable similarity is what appears to be the quarter pieces that support the side lanterns in Berain’s drawing.  Contradictorily, though, the author describes only a large central lantern for this early version of SR, which he suggests is of a lesser rank.  Frankly, this seems just wrong because as the principal ship of the Ponant (Atlantic) fleet, SR would always have been a first-rank ship with three stern lanterns.
 
The other truly fascinating difference is the “docile” tiger at the feet of the East, as opposed to Berain’s Camel.  I can only project that, if this was indeed Puget’s original design, perhaps Berain did not like the A-symmetry of the West’s proud horse with head raised high, opposite the East’s docile tiger with his head lowered upon his fore-paws.  Perhaps the solution, there, was to substitute a camel who also has his head raised high.  I don’t know.  I can only guess.
 
Returning to your drawing John, I like your extension of the tasseled lambrequin to the quarter galleries, below the window tier.  This seems a harmonious and fitting extension of the stern decor.  I think that early SR, though, would have had a cul-de-feu, or lower finishing of the quarter gallery that may have been comprised of some form of the following elements, drawn by LeBrun:
 

And I think early SR may still have had a vestigial balcony tier at the quarter deck level of the quarters, that was framed by a trompe l’oeil amortisement of foliate ornament - much as you see with the refit DR of 1680:

While I have some more or less specific ideas about how to assemble all of that into a coherent narrative that supports the stern allegory, I have yet to begin sketching any of that, myself.
 
It is fairly certain in my mind that early SR would have had a more elaborated upper bulwark frieze than the simple field of fleurs seen on La Reyne, though.
 
And one last thought, after my 12 days in Paris and Normandy, I have come to think that it is not unreasonable that the majority of ornament on the first version of SR likely was leafed in gold.  Despite the massive expense of the times associated with this extravagance in the 1660s, the Royal Palace at Versailles is covered in gold leaf and the richest paintings and tableaus imaginable.  Incroyable!
 
So, this is already a book unto itself.  I will conclude here, for now.  John, I really look forward to the continued development of your project - this is really great stuff, so far!
 

@Keith Black
Hello,
thank you for the praise.
I would also like to thank the others for the many LIKES.
With new motivation we continue with "little things":
 
Continued: Equipment of the lower yards - Clew garnet blocks of the main yard - Poulies de cargue de point
In the meantime I also lashed the second clew garnet block to the main yard until I can continue with the footropes.
Adapted to the slings of the clew garnet blocks, the lashing lines had to be made much thinner than those of the quarter blocks. But even with this, the rose lashings managed tolerably well.


Sequel follows ….
    
PS: What is the correct name for these blocks? Clew line block or clew garnet block? 
 

@Dziadeczek
@noel_colledge
Hello,
thank you for the lovely comments.
 
Continued: Equipment of the lower yards - more blocks - poulies
As already described, I preferred to produce more blocks for the lower yards. These are blocks for the braces, clew lines and lifts of the main and fore yard and for the sheets of the mizzen yard. A total of 12 pieces with a length of 5.6 mm had to be made. The brass sheaves of the single blocks have a diameter of around 3.2 mm and are 0.6 mm thick.

 
For the clew line blocks (Poulies de cargue de point - the main yard) I have already made the strops as you can see in the next picture.

 
Here's a look at the workspace:

 
Finally a picture from the middle of the main yard with a clew line block that has been lashed down in the meantime. Here, too, a rose lashing was used, which was not easy to accomplish with the necessarily somewhat thinner rigging yarn.

 
The brass tubes have now been delivered. So I can continue with the thimbles for the foot ropes. I hope that the size will be appropriate.
Up soon …

Something else in between...😀
Ron Neilson of the Philadelphia Ship Model Society asked me if they could use a detail photo of my La Créole as the cover photo for their next club newsletter "Quarterdeck" in April.
Of course I was happy about the interest in my model and agreed.
This is what the cover looks like:

If interested: www.philadelphiashipmodelsociety.com

Good Evening Steven;
 
An interesting question; I see no problem with accepting that your second picture corroborates the first. 
 
Re the loop of rope used to attach to the yardarm, if one accepts that two anchorage points is better than one, because the load on each leg is much reduced if there are two, then one must conisder how this would work as the yard rises, and the angle  of the two legs relative to the yard changes. When the yard is fully lowered, the legs will be at their closest point to being equal, although the inboard one will always be shorter. As the yard is raised, the angle of the lift becomes much closer to the horizontal, and the difference between the leg lengths changes significantly. If the main lift block was simply seized to a bight in the rope at the yard-arm, then, as the yard rises, the inner leg would slacken, and all the stress would be on the outer leg only. By allowing the bight of the rope to move through the sheave of the lower end of a sister block, the stress remains equally distributed through both legs, regardless of how much their lengths change relative to each other.
 
All the best,
 
Mark P

a slight difficulty for these hinges:
everything is provisional still, I have to prepare the right-hand doors before fixing the bulkhead and beam








 

@dvm27
@Testudo
@uss frolick
@bdgiantman2
@druxey
@jdbondy
@hollowneck
 
Hello,
I am very pleased with the lively interest in my report. I also thank you for the positive feedback and the nice comments.
Of course I am also grateful for the many LIKES.
 
Continuation: Equipment of the lower yards - Footropes and stirrups - Marchepieds et étriers
As often practiced, I also try to clarify the implementation of details for the foot and jumper horses by making a sample specimen.
According to the specifications and the description from the monograph, the two-piece foot horses of La Créole consisted of tarred cordage, taken with spliced eyes over the yardarms. Thimbles were spliced into the inner ends and lashed to the center of the yard by means of lanyards.
In the main yard, the rope for the footrope had a diameter of 32 mm according to the monograph. The ropes for the stirrups are given with a diameter of 30 mm.
 

Source: Monograph on the La Créole by J. Boudriot
 
For the execution of the foot horses on the model I orientate myself on a drawing from the atlas.
I received corresponding information from G. Delacroix, for which I am very grateful.
 

Source: Detail from Atlas du Génie maritime, annexe No. 1, Pl. 1
 
The first test piece shows that the used thimble with ø 2.1 mm appears much too dominant in the model scale. The smaller thimble with ø 1.5 mm, however, is too small for the rope thickness ø 0.67 mm. To be able to make a size in between, I am currently missing the appropriate brass tube, which I have already ordered in the meantime.


So I will now bring forward the production of the other blocks for the main yard.
 
To be continued ...
 

My visit to the INHA, National Library of France was interesting, if not as directly productive as I had hoped.
 
One thing that I was able to request and look at in the fantastic oval reading room was Le Chevalier de Tourville, the Boudriot monograph of the proposed 1680 First-Rate L’Ambiteaux.  It is an impressively documented project and a beautifully hand-drawn monograph.  The plans, in 1:48, give a strong impression of just how large a model one can produce from this set.  Even at 1:72, one needs a slipway to launch such a behemoth.
 
There were a few new plates of interest in the monograph that I hadn’t seen before:
 



Belle Viue is the same Brest sculptor and draftsman responsible for the following drawing of the highly fascinating Souverain of 1678:

As an added bonus, the following is the best and clearest image I have yet seen of the RL of 1692:

While I was really only skimming the monograph, in the interest of limited time (I had a 3 hour window that I stretched to 4), I will say that I was fascinated by Boudriot’s skepticism of the VdV drawings of La Reyne, with specific regard to the sheer and placement of the artillery.  Perhaps this is my personal failing in that I imbue the work of the VdV’s with a degree of photo-realism only paralleled by Puget for these times.  All I can say for sure is that I am no expert.
 
My primary objective for this visit was to see whether there were any catalogued references to the “Gilded Ghost” portrait:

Unfortunately, an image search produced no direct result.  Upon walking amongst the stacks, I realized that I happened to be in a room divided between artists both pre and post 1845.  And so, I did what I usually do when I visit the STRAND bookstore in NYC; I went in search of my coterie of famous French artists, sculptors and Dutch Master marine artists.
 
And so, I skimmed through the six books in the stacks for Charles LeBrun, the four for Antoine Coysevox, the six for Puget.  There was nothing in the stacks for Van Beecq.  Regrettably, I did not think to look for Francois Girardon.
 
Only the works on Puget made any specific pictorial reference to his work at the arsenal at Toulon; not much there that I hadn’t seen before.  But, then I found the three volume Robinson set on the Van de Veldes.  Again, if I had more time, I could probably have pulled more, but following are a number of fascinating portraits that help clarify things I couldn’t see clearly before.
 
For example, this whisper of a portrait:

Appears to have very much in-common with this portrait:

They do not appear to be the same vessel, but perhaps the same type of Second-Rate - that of the “interrupted” third deck (an un-armed and open waist).  Other corollaries:

I have never seen the following two before:

The boutielle, below seems out of proportion, but it is nonetheless fascinating:
 
Here is one of the early Holland-built ships of the 1660’s:


Fantastic detail!
 
A different perspective and fascinating study of La Royal Therese:

And then, of course, there were quite a number of fascinating studies of famous English ships.  SR’s early rival, the Royal Charles:



The London:


A particularly interesting re-fit of the Royal Sovereign:

And, a perhaps conjectural ship:


At least I can say there may be sound artistic precedent for pulling a ship out of thin air!
 
All interesting to me, and so the journey through Paris and maritime history continues!  Dad is having a great time, despite the expected travel exhaustion of his 88 years.
 
More to follow, and thank you for looking-in.

Constraining the quarter blocks using a lashing contrasts with British practice: they used cleats to prevent the blocks from moving out. Beautifully done.

@jdbondy
@druxey
 
Hello,
thank you for the encouragement, also I would like to thank the others for the many LIKES. 
 
Continuation: Equipment of the lower yards - Quarter blocks - Poulies d'ecoute
Before I continue with the footropes according to my announcement, there was one small thing to add that I almost forgot. It is a strop with lashing that holds the quarter blocks in place. Due to the deflection of the sheets, these blocks would otherwise move towards the yardarm.


See you soon ...

little step:






 

@dvm27
Hi Greg,
I totally misunderstood that, sorry.
For these eye splices, I outlined the process in connection with the production of the stays in my analogue notebook a long time ago.
I hope this makes the process clear to you.

 
@jdbondy
Hi JD,
at least I was able to fully answer your original question with the sketch.
 
And here's a little update:
Continuation: Equipment of the lower yards - truss pendants and jackstags - Drosse d´une basse vergue et filière d`envergure
According to the announcement I made the truss pendants for the lower yards, especially for the main yard. The two-part truss pendant for the main yard consisted of two ropes, each with a diameter of 37 mm. Thimbles were spliced into the ends of the served ropes.
As can be seen in the following picture, these ropes were placed around the main yard and secured with a lashing.

The respective counterparts are then pulled through the thimbles later when assembling the yards on the model and further guided through the sheaves in the trestle trees in the direction of the mast cap and lashed there with a tackle.
In order to pull in the jackstays, the eyebolts that had been made some time ago had to be attached in advance. To ensure correct alignment of the holes for these bolts on the yard, I stretched a thread.

As with the Paris model, I also used served ropes for the jackstays. These were placed on the yard arm with the eye on grommet strop as abrasion protection.
With the thimbles integrated into the inner ends of the jackstay, the two halves can be connected in the middle of the yard with a lanyard and stiffened
Presently I am preparing making the footropes. Here, too, a few points of detail need to be clarified.
To be continued soon...

@dvm27
Hello Greg,
maybe this rather clumsy drawing can explain it further. 

I resumed the setting up of the upper deck:

Hello and many thanks for the likes,
but I have a serious problem. The 12 pdr 9 ft cannons are too long! If they are secured inside, nobody could pass without being an artist. And this is a very often used way to the head.

The Armstrong design has 3 lengths for 12 pdr's, 7,5, 8,5 and 9 feet. In the next picture I used a 7,5 ft cannon

and here the 8,5 ft cannon. From the aspect of space I would prefer the 7,5 ft cannon

Also for the cabins, the 9 ft cannon would be an obstacle. 

So my question: did anywhere know if they had these cannons at that time? At least the 7.5 ft 12 pdr? Many thanks in advance.

@jdbondy
Hello,
for the double strop I use a rope that has already been served, which is formed into a loop. The place where the loop is glued together comes under the round seizing.

If I didn't explain it clearly, just ask again.

Side railings and hammock stowage railings now attached.  You wouldn't know I had to use white glue to fill the gap in the deck to hull mating.  Deck is now painted the correct tan, ready for clear coating and black wash.  I'm especially pleased with my custom skid beams for the boats.

I am less than a week away from our trip to Paris, and then the North East Joint Clubs Meeting is shortly around the corner, once I return.  My objective, before the show, was to get the head fully together and re-touched, as well as the upper balcony level.  Well, I’m not going to cross that threshold before April 29th.
 
There were a number of competing priorities, throughout March, and I just couldn’t find the time I needed to make that happen.  I say all of this in the event that even one of you had hoped to see the model in New London.  I’ve decided not to bring it because these areas at the bow and stern will remain too un-finished looking for display.
 
These also happen to be particularly challenging areas of the model to bring together.  I am satisfied enough with the balcony bulwark parts that I made:

Fitting the end pieces to the model required some tricky cutting-in to the outside window pilasters.  You can see that the sill moulding for the window tier extends fully to the ship’s sides:

The rebate has to accommodate both the end piece and the 1/16” caprail that I have yet to make:



It’s a slow and winding business that necessitates painting in stages.  One thing that was a little surprising to me is that the fore and aft depth of my middle and upper balconies is significantly more shallow than the stock kit:

Thinking about my process, I realized that I had made a design decision, earlier, when I was figuring out the middle balcony; I realized there would be limits to the degree to which I could bend the posture of the Four Seasons figures, so that they could stretch from the now “false” lower balcony to support the projection of the middle balcony.  By necessity, then, the middle balcony determined the depth of the upper balcony.  Proportionally, I am not displeased by the more shallow depth.
 
One failed experiment had to do with the bow angels that seat just behind the headrails.  I used a combination of C/A and liquid plastic cement to secure the headrails.  Before glue, though, I had dry-clamped each headrail in-place for several days, in order to better induce the shapes and relieve unwanted stress on the subsequent glue joint.
 
Now, bear in-mind that I am fully aware these headrails should be flat.  The design of the kit figurehead, in combination with my widening of the bow, does not allow for any reasonable projection of the aft escutcheon of each headrail.  The gap you see on Frolich’s model, below, would have been more than double on mine:

photo, courtesy of Marc Yeu
 
With such a distracting projection away from the forecastle bulwarks, these escutcheons would have looked like jug ears.  In consideration of that, I decided it was better to perpetuate the in-accuracy of the stock headrails, which are also rounded to seat up close to the hull.
 
In an attempt to distribute any remaining stresses across a broader glue surface, I thought I could literally pin those escutcheon ears down with the bow angel carvings:

Unfortunately, one must drill for these pins at the precise depth and angle.  This proved quite difficult to do with the headrails already in-place, and the result of my attempt was that the carving did not lay flat against the ship’s side.  Forcing it to do so would have, in fact, introduced additional lever strain on the headrail glue joint.  Consequently, I ground the pins away, filled the holes and simply glued the bow angels in-place.  I’ll post pictures of all of that once the re-touching is complete.
 
The other surprising thing to me was just how much shimming was necessary for the other remaining headrail supports, now that both headrails were fixed in-place.  In hindsight, it would have been much wiser to pattern these supports after the headrails had been installed.  Instead, I had attempted to dry-fit them one side at a time.  Using this approach, though, I could only eyeball the centerline, and only poorly at that!  Just look at all the plastic I’ve added back to these parts:

Finally, though, I can do the necessary touch-ups and glue these in-place.
 
One part that could only be made once the headrails were installed was the forward terminus of the headrail grating.  In the stock kit, Heller provides a mostly flat headrail grating, the forward end of which rests on a small ledge just behind the figurehead.
 
As an upgrade, I want to create a new headrail grating that is both cambered, athwartships, and that follows the upward sweeping arc of the headrails.  This is a tricky piece to make and fit.
 
I seem to have lost the picture of the cardboard template I had made to start this part, but I transferred that pattern to a piece of 1/16” styrene.  In my first attempt, I tried to muscle a bend into the part, but it snapped.  On the second attempt, I used an open candle flame to soften the plastic so that I could easily induce this curve:

There was some melty distortion, at the edges, that was removed during the fitting and shaping process.  As I had with the pattern, I temporarily CA’d a handle to the part for ease of fitting in this tight area.  Once I had a perfect fit, I glued a piece of 1/8” square stock to the forward end so that I could shape a neat bullnose that transitions into the knee of the head:

You can also see the thinner stock that I glued to the aft end, on the under side, to create a ledge for the grating slats.  To finish off the piece, I filed a gentle camber into the top surface of the part, which is now ready for paint and installation:


And so, it is a lot of fiddling around to make this imperfect geometry coalesce into something that looks purposeful and a reasonable facsimile of a ship’s head structure.
 
If I were starting this whole project all over again, one thing I would definitely do would be to fabricate a continuation of the middle battery planking past the beakhead bulkhead, in a downward tapering arc towards the stem.  By the time I realized this was actually a feature of French practice, it was too late to incorporate the detail.
 
Thank you for the likes, comments and for looking-in.  When I next return, later in May, I will have some nice finished pictures of the head.  Until then, be well!

Continuation: Equipment of the lower yards - Quarter blocks / Slings - Poulies d'ecoute et de cargue-point / suspentes
In the meantime, the quarter blocks of the main yard have been fastened at the appropriate positions by means of rose lashing. I continued with the slings. These strong ropes with ø 43 mm (0,9 mm in 1:48 ) are completely served. There are two of these slings per yard, each with a spliced eye at the end.
In preparation for serving these ropes, they were wormed in advance. As described some time ago, the pre-wormed model ropes simply look more realistic.

Here is a picture of the current condition of the rigging elements on the main yard:

Next I will make the truss pendants and jackstays and mount them to the yard.
The following picture from the Atlas du Génie maritime shows, among other things, the truss pendants as it was most certainly used on the La Créole, which is also the case on the original model. Accordingly, I have provided the necessary sheaves when making the longitudinal salings. The slings shown in this picture do not correspond to those of the La Créole.

Source: Extract from Atlas du Génie maritime, annexe No. 1, Pl. 23
 
To be continued ...
 

Continuation: Equipment of the yards - Quarter blocks of the lower yards - Poulies d'ecoute et de cargue-point
The quarter blocks of the lower yards were equipped with double strops and lashed at the appropriate positions with rose lashings.
Other model building colleagues have successfully demonstrated that it is even possible to depict a rose lashing on a scale of 1:75 and smaller. It should be all the easier to do on a scale of 1:48.
In this context, I remembered Frank's contribution "Making rose lashings" (LINK). In it he explained very clearly and comprehensibly with text and pictures the step-by-step process of how to make a rose lashing. The tool he made from toothpicks makes the process a whole lot easier.
Thanks to these excellent instructions, I was able to try a rose lashing on a test yard relatively quickly in advance, after I had modified Frank's tool a bit. In this respect, I can simply pull it apart through the sockets and don't have to snap through the toothpicks later.

 
By temporarily gluing the aid to the yard, the required cross lays can be easily produced.

 
I like the result. So I will then do it at the appropriate positions.

 
I still have to think about the execution of the knot.
Sequel follows …

Hello,
the carpenters fished mostly the cabins and the painter painted them. They will get now some free days till Eastern, but the shipwright has to think about the galley. Some bricks are ordered, but there are some more questions to solve. 
 
If you want to find the dust, make a picture 😄 

Hallo and many thanks,
today the carpenters where fit Keith and started with the cabins. 😉

I personally feel the artist is still too much in the 18th-19th century mindset - somehow the proportions seem wrong. The same problem applies to the early (and to some degree the current) theoretical reconstructions of the Newport ship. Just somehow look wrong. For a better look, check out Carpaccio's carracks

Or better yet, as your ship is Spanish, these ones from the votive table of the parish of San Pedro de Zumaia in Spain https://zumaia.eus/es/noticias/la-tabla-botiva-de-la-parroquia-de-san-pedro-se-muestra-en-la-exposicion-sobre-elcano probably celebrating the victory of ships led by Juan Martínez de Mendaro, in 1475 in the Strait of Gibraltar, against the Portuguese and Genoese armies."The ship on the left bears the arms of Portugal, and the one on the right those of Castile."

and here's a somewhat better detailed version (for some reason it's been mirror imaged - it's actually the ship on the right in the picture above)

There's also the retable of St Ursula by Joan Riexach of Catalonia (now part of Spain, but then a separate kingdom) of 1468

Regarding the forecastle sheer, I believe many painters exaggerated it - I wouldn't make it any more than on the Mataro model.
'Blush'
 
Steven

Why nobody in the books talk about this subject? I think, we highly underestimate the enemy: the aggressiveness of the salt.
Why would a line be tarred and the next one untarred? Inevitably, by cross contamination, both lines would finish tarred.
 
Jean Boudriot wrote a letter about which lines are tarred.
One sentence is interesting: The rope for the ship rudder wheel is not expose to the salt, so tarring this line is unjustified.
Does that mean that the idea is very simple: If a line is expose to the salt, tar the line.