rybakov

Good morning and thank you all for the message and likes, I will continue with more photos.
 
 

Good morning and thanks to everyone, making the various details so small was a real challenge for me, however, I really enjoyed it.
More photos.

Good morning and thank you all, the lifeboat was very challenging because of the small thicknesses.
I will continue with more photos.
 
 

Good morning and thank you all, I will continue by putting some pictures of the lifeboat.
 
 

Good morning and thank you all for the likes, you are too kind, I continue with the photos of the kitchen, the new base for the shrine and the oar stand.
Un saluto.
 
 

Good morning and thank you all, I also think that the gratings could have been taken up for cleaning. I see no other solution. I continue with more photos.
 
Un saluto.
 
 

Good morning and thank you all for the likes, more photos of the cannons.
Un saluto.
 
 

Good morning and thank you all, good to see you again, I will continue with more photos.
Un Saluto.
 

Hi Bill!
 
Yes, what you are saying about Dutch construction is true;  they constructed ships of flat bottom, and shallow draft so that they could navigate their relatively shallow coastal waterways.  The upper works were also comparatively lightly framed to further reduce top hamper.
 
While the Dutch built 10, or so, ships for the launch of Colbert’s navy, those ships were constructed to French dimensional specifications.  In the early First Marine, the French built relatively beamy ships, with rounded live works, and a generally deaper draft, aft-wards than the Dutch and English.  French ships were also significantly heavily timbered.
 
Laurent Hubac was one, in particular, who constructed broad, stable ships.  This is evident in the sheer mass of La Reyne, for example:


When comparing the dimensional characteristics of ships from different nations, one has to keep in mind that the French pied was bigger than the English foot, for example, so that if both nations had a ship on their lists at 164’ long - it would be the French ship that was bigger by a factor of 1.066.
 
Relative to their contemporaries, the French just built bigger.  They were aware, however, of the significant advantages that the Dutch and English had, in terms of maneuverability.  Colbert sent his son Seignelay and Etienne Hubac on an espionage mission to Holland and England to see in what ways the French could improve upon their constructions.  This exercise in revision consumes the 1670s and 1680s before finally arriving at reliably efficient designs, across all rates, in the 1690s.
 
The Dutch influence in these early First Marine constructions can particularly be seen in the breadth of the stern, and the more protuberant head structure. The head on La Royal Therese, here, is definitely more beak-ish:

One aspect that is particularly French, though, is the pronounced early tumblehome, with the so-called “duck’s breast” shape at the rounding of the bow
 


My conjectural reconstruction will reflect all of these early particularities.

Hi John, and thank you!
 
My guiding principle is that sharing the RL portrait can only help us ALL.  I could keep it to myself, but then I’d be working in a vacuum without the benefit of others’ more concrete knowledge.
 
What I will ultimately do with this portrait still depends very much on my artistic sensibilities, continued research, and willingness to develop the idea to its fullest extent possible.  My hope is that others will use these portraits to begin their own voyage of discovery, because more new projects means more research, debate and discovery. We all benefit from pushing the conversation forward, as long as we are honest with ourselves about what is factual and what is conjecture, or even straight-up guesswork.
 
Now, as for the gun layout presented in the RL portrait, this is an excellent example of where even credible artists present anomalies, that have no support in the recorded history of the ship, in question; there is nothing ever written about these ships of the Premier Rang Extraordinaire to suggest that any of them were ever pierced for 17 on the lower deck, or that they carried 3 guns per side on the poop.
 
I am merely arguing that the profusion of guns in the Van Beecq portrait, as compared with the Vienna portraits, distinguishes this VB portrait as being the Royal Louis, and not the Monarque.
 
When I do my tracing of the VB portrait, in order to create a base-template for what my SR 1670’s ornamental program may have looked like, I am looking to record the length of the hull, overall, and the placement and sheer of the wales.  I will slightly increase the poop sheer, as the available tafferal space on the VB portrait is not quite enough to represent SR’s Apollo with his horse-drawn chariot.
 
For my distribution of armament, I will rely on what I have, so far, found to be the best-researched source of information on as-launched armaments:  Winfield and Roberts’s,  French Warships in the Age of Sail 1626-1786.

Respecting scale as best I can, I will locate ports on my drawing, according to the above distribution.  This tracing exercise is primarily to get an isometric perspective that will help me to strike a harmonic balance between the quarters and stern.
 
I have been immersing myself in the art history and particular allegorical styles of LeBrun and Puget.  Even right now, I have a pretty solid rough-draft of what 90% of the ornamental program might look like.  The key will be to begin putting ideas to paper so that I can begin to see how all of these elements relate to each other and tell the story of the ship.
 
What I have found in my experience of designing ornamental projects is that one needs a basic conceptual framework, as a departure point.  Fortunately, in the case of SR 1670 the essential allegory does not differ much from Berain’s re-working of the original design.  The portraits of the Monarque, the RL, and the refit Dauphin Royal make it possible to design supporting ornament that is appropriate for this earlier time, while still supporting the particular story of SR.
 

That story is always a story of fours; four continents, four seasons and four winds.  The quarters, though, could potentially include the four humors of man, or the four times of day, for example:


Over time, as these ideas coalesce in my sub-conscious, I have usually experienced a moment of epiphany, where these relationships become concrete and balanced.
 
We will likely NEVER fully understand what SR looked like in 1670, but I do think it is possible to design something that is highly representative of the times.

YEAH - I’m already knee-deep!!
 
I’ve already mapped out the layout of guns; I’m going to go with Winfield & Roberts for the initial armament - 106 guns, actual; 30 LD, 30 MD, 26 UD, 10 QD, 6 FC, 4 poop.
 
I will transpose the gun layout and the break of the quarter deck bulwarks (which will be further aft than represented in the VB portrait, which presents as a very short waist between QD and FC) from the other principal Hubac 3-decker, La Reyne.

I will be paying particular attention to the relative proportions, as they relate to the stern; with La Reyne as my model, my SR will be a little broader or more “Dutchy,” to borrow the phrasing of Heinrich de Seafarer.
 
My general sense is that, while SR and RL were the same greatest breadth, SR probably was broader across the stern, as an affinity for breadth, overall, was a particular predilection of Laurent Hubac.
 
One interesting thing to consider is a basic framing guide that was probably drafted by Laurent’s son, Etienne, following his informal espionage of the English and Dutch building practices, in the 1670s.  At around 1680, this drawing surfaces:

My general impression, here, is that this proposed vessel has too much “flat”, and that it does not jibe with Tourville’s contributions to Le Chevallier de Tourville.  At this time in the 17th C, these were still elegant sailing ships, as opposed to East River barges.
 
My supposition is that this was a “spitball” projection of what might yield the most stable gun platform, along with the lowered (below the chase ports) stern counter timber.  I don’t think this drawing is necessarily reflective of a First Marine First-Rate, apart from the possibility that the rake of stem and stern-post may still reflect earlier practice.  I am just guessing here, though, and welcome any and all concrete insight.
 
Obviously, I have a lot of homework to do, here, but this is my present stream of rabbit-hole free-fall😜.
 
 
 

I agree with you on this point Mark; the VB portrait is merely a snapshot in time, stripped of any context relating to whether the portrait memorializes any particular scene in history, or whether the ship had been modified in any way to serve that present reality.
 
Dan Pariser had shared an article with me from the Mariners’ Mirror, which discusses this very difficulty of bestowing too much credibility into any one artists’ work, when trying to determine what a vessel may have looked like.  Not only do we lack a thorough accounting of small repairs and refurbishments, but we have no way of knowing to what degree an artist such as VB may have simplified his gestures so as not to bog the portrait down in the minutia.
 
To that point, if one considers the interior descriptions of the ship, alone, it quickly becomes clear that every surface was adorned with carving, gilt, paint and sculpture.  She must have been a riot of color and truly a load for the senses.  Hyatt’s monograph describes the interior bulkheads and surfaces at great length, as he walks the “viewer” up from the aft lower gun deck, up through the higher decks and officers chambers:
___
 
THE SCULPTURE AND PAINTING
 
It may be said that never has a ship been so richly adorned with painting, sculpture and carving as this one, built to the designs of M. Le Brun, who, in the service of His Majesty, is one of the most eminent exponents of his art in Europe is. The general color of the ship is gold and white,278 both on the outside of the beams 1401 as well as at the stern, all covered with golden Bourbon lilies279.
 
ON THE FIRST DECK One sees the wall of Saint Barbara,280 richly decorated with Bourbon lilies and gilded mouldings. One then finds a stairway with two risers and their banisters, all richly painted, di leading to the second deck.281
 
SECOND DECK Three cabins are seen on each side, decorated with richly beautiful paintings.282 - 26 ini? ashisblad siul tim THE GROSS CHAMBER In the aft part one finds the large chamber,283 which is commonly referred to as the chamber of the volunteers, the wall of which can be divided into four sections and can be opened and, in the event of a battle, allows a view over the entire deck from the stern to the forecastle, with a door to starboard for entering said chamber. This wall is decorated on the outside with several small painted panels surrounded by gilded mouldings, and on the inside bears a large painting showing the king's gilded coat of arms supported by painted sea gods in fine grisaille 284, with the coat of arms of His Eminence Duke de Vendôme on the right and that of His Eminence the Duke of Beaufort on the left, enriched with trophies of captured weapons, in a very beautifully gilded frame. and Next to said picture are further paintings of two allegories of renown bearing the king's gilded monograms in an azure oval and a DF Cupid 285 carrying their trumpets. In the background is a balustrade with distant terrain on the horizon. On the port side, in a frame that occupies almost the entire length of the said chamber, is the painted representation of Apollo's encounter with Cupid, who, seated on a cloud, draws his bow after defeating the python.2
 
To starboard is a painting of the same size, showing Apollo in pursuit of Daphne who has been transformed into a laurel tree,287 with a nymph in each corner of both frames shedding a blue curtain. In the back of this chamber, extending from the gallery wall to the stern, there is a door on each side with three windows, decorated with very fine foliage and gilded mouldings; in the lower area there are pictures of buildings and marble slabs. The ceiling of the chamber is painted azure blue and is supported by six deck beams with rounded borders decorated with wickerwork 288 as gold as said deck beams with their sea gods, rich foliage, intertwined suns and deck beams with sea gods, of which the one bears Bourbon lilies and the others bear the king's initials.
 
Upon exiting this chamber, one step or visette leads to two opposing oval flights of stairs,289 that lead to the third deck lead, adorned by its supports and a railing decorated with a painting by foliage is richly decorated. Its entrances and exits are surrounded by an arcade supported by two columns with their capitals painted in the color of jasper 290 in the most artistic way. The parquet of the said chamber seems to want to compete with the rest of the ornaments, even to surpass them, as generously as olive wood, ebony and ivory have been used for it.
 
THIRD DECK During the ascent, when one arrives at the intermediate landing where the two flights of stairs meet, one finds at the foot of the mizzen mast a plaque bearing, in golden letters on an azure background, the following unique and true inscription: »JE SUIS L'UNIQUE DESSUS L'ONDE. ET MON ROY L'EST DEDANS LE MONDE<< >>I AM UNIQUE ON THE SEA LIKE MY KING IN THE WORLD.« The whole wall, along which runs the flight of stairs leading to the upper decks, is adorned with balustrades and marble-colored ovals with ubiquitous foliage and gold braid.
 
- 27 - BELOW THE AFTER DECK (Corps de Guard)291 Attached to the eaves 292 above the entrance is a cornice with a parapet 293 dividing the jambs into four foot sections and decorated with moldings and a king's monogram. On each of said four pillars is a gilded globe or sphere.
 
The entire ceiling is painted with Bourbon lilies, crowns and gilded monograms with intertwined foliage in fine grisaille. All the beams are bordered by rounded, gilded fringes and are decorated on all sides with beautiful multi-colored friezes. In the middle is a platform with eight columns and capitals supporting them, painted in the color of jasper; in addition, four gun ports on each side, adorned with cartouches294 that adorn children; all painted in very fine grisaille. In the middle of one of the said cartouches you can see painted false windowpanes.
 
Between the gun ports there are large paintings depicting swamps, seascapes and landscapes. Between them are knee beams that support the quarterdeck and whose rounded edges are decorated all over with golden braiding. The sides bear paintings of masked children accompanied by lots of beautiful foliage. The back of the staircase is more richly decorated than its other parts.
 
The 295 mizzen mast is up to the quarterdeck with a gold fluting on azure reason adorned. Nearby is the wall of Council Chamber 296 with some other chambers for the officers. It is divided into four gilded cassettes on the outside, on which members of the guards are depicted in a naïve manner, some smoking, others playing dice or cards - all beautifully painted. The chambers are divided into three. Those of the Council and one on each side, between them a hallway297 in which Turks have been painted, who raise curtains and appear to salute those entering.
 
The doors and windows are very nicely worked. Their shutters are painted with Bourbon lilies, suns, and the king's monograms, adorned with gilded braid and very fine foliage. In the starboard compartment there are two panels on the outside wall. The one closer to the stern bears the depictions of Midas, Pan and Apollo in a round gilded ornament, the latter playing his violin. The table is supported by beautiful nymphs, who draw back curtains. In the chamber on the port side, also on the outer wall, Apollo is depicted flaying the satyr Martias,298 with the same decoration as on the starboard side.
 
On the inner wall, in addition to the azure panels, the beautiful golden ornaments, braiding and similar cornices, there is a beautiful round panel containing a very rare portrait of our indomitable monarch by the hand of M. Fauchier299 and one of his Eminence the heir apparent. On the other side are a portrait of the queen and an effigy of the king's only brother. These four panels are of the same size and have the same gilded ornaments. Each is supported by two children and rests on large marble colored capitals
 
___
 
The monograph goes on, in this fashion, but you get the idea;  The exterior of the ship must have been just as spectacularly detailed, but that would be a very difficult thing to convey in oils, so the artist must make interpretive choices.
 
While portraits like these are sometimes quite difficult to locate, I believe in sharing this information because my present inability to freely visit the French archives, in-person, limits my ability to understand and interpret what I am looking at.
 
By re-introducing these works in the public domain (for which my licensing of the image permits, as long as I am not selling it), I hope to spark interest and conversation, among the community, and perhaps those individuals who really know what we are looking at might contribute some of their insight, as well.  For this early time period, though, artists’ works are the only visual reference we have for these ships, as no formal plan-sets exist for these vessels.
 
My whole effort, here, is to establish some degree of a contextual framework so that these ships can be better understood in the evolution from the First to the Second Marine.  Paintings, such as this, do nobody any good if they remain buried in a crate, somewhere.  Just consider it - this is one of only a very few coherent, color representations of a French First-Rate from the early First Marine; as the inscription upon her mizzen mast makes clear - this portrait like the ship she represents is unique!

Okay, so, here are my thoughts.
 
One point I was hoping to illustrate with the above exercise is that, sometimes, two portraits of the same subject (the Vienna portraits) don’t always perfectly agree with each other in all details.  Given that Puget was such a scrupulous draftsman, it is interesting that the fleurs are missing from the lower stern counter on the port Vienna portrait.  Perhaps, with the vantage point of the light being what it was, he chose to simplify this area in shadow.
 
More to the point, though, Hyatt’s monograph is a highly scrupulous first-hand account and quite a lot of what he describes corresponds with Van Beecq and not Vienna, or visa-versa.
 
Which brings me to my next point: I have no way of determining, as of now, the date of this VB portrait, so it probably falls somewhere within the first 9 years of the RL’s existence.  I make this assertion on the basis of my belief that this represents the post 1677 appearance of the RL:
 

While I don’t know this for fact, my inference is that while this later version of the RL still displays a profusion of figures, even on the QGs, the sheer is appropriately lower and the QGs, themselves, represent the beginnings of the evolution from terraced galleries to fully closed bottles.  The head structure also represents an evolution in style.
 
Lastly, and related to this broad 9-year time-frame, ornament is the most ephemeral aspect of the entire construction.  While it certainly would seem a monumental effort for any of us to carve even one figure, in our modern times, the artists of this time churned these works out with surprising efficiency.  What Van Beecq may have been looking at, at any one time, could be vastly different from the way the ship actually appeared in 1668 or 1677.
 
Also, I might add that the LeBrun drawing probably represents more of a proposal than an as-built and decorated representation.
 
In the end - for me - it comes down to the guns, and the allegory, and the specific domed shape of the taffrail (which, it seems to me, is also a characteristic of the Monarque):  there is just no way the Monarque carried that many guns, let alone guns on the poop.  Unfortunately, VB’s forecastle is too damaged to interpret.
 
My other curiosity with this portrait is the flag carried on the Mizzen; the “L” with a crown.  I do not know whether this flag only alludes to Louis, or whether it specifically represents the Levant, or Mediterranean fleet, that the RL was the primary representative of. 
 
Very lastly - I really wonder whether it is VB’s portrait that Bakhuizen referenced for his depiction of Soleil Royal:
 

I have previously discussed the many anomalies of this portrait in earlier posts, but there is no mistaking that this is the RL’s tafferal allegory and domed cornice.  Even the figures reclining on the tafferal are very similar.  Also, there appears to be an allusion to the swagged garland, beneath the stern chase ports.
 
And, so, that is what I have to say about that. What say you, friends?

When I first found this thumbnail, over five years ago, I didn’t know what it represented, nor who painted it, however, I had a strong sense that whatever was there was important.

Having finally located the portrait, I decided to treat myself to an early birthday present.  Fifty dollars yielded a super high-resolution (pixelation is 9,528 x 6,489) digital file of this portrait.  I was correct.  There is, indeed, something of great significance, here.
 
To begin with, the portrait was painted by the renown Dutch marine artist Jean Karel Donatus Van Beecq.  His early career spans from 1672 - 1681, when he left France for England, at the invitation of Charles II who wanted to encourage Dutch marine artists to expatriate.  Although the Van de Veldes dominated the patronage scene, during this time, Van Beecq was also highly regarded for his technical mastery and his lively color palate.  He was no slouch:



And, his best-known and most brilliant portrait of the Royal Prince:

Well, it turns out that it is Van Beecq, to whom this mystery portrait is attributed, and despite the horrendous damage to the portrait, you will soon see the many parallels to his other, better known work.
 
I can only guess that this portrait - clearly of a French First-Rate - was done before he left for England.  On the other hand, it may have been done upon his return to France, where he benefited from the patronage of his friend, the Duc de Vendome.
 
And so, without further ado, I present to you Le Royal Louis of 1668, at some point in her early career between 1668 and 1677, as seen through the eyes of Van Beecq:




Of course, my hope was that this portrait would reveal itself to be Soleil Royal.  I am not the least bit disappointed, though!  The reasons for this are several.  From a dimensional standpoint, the RL 1668 and SR 1670 are only nominally different, with SR being slightly longer overall (1.5 French pieds), and with a deeper draft (1 pied).  Their breadth is the same, though, at 44 pieds.
 
Given that, I think there are reasonable grounds to assume that Soleil Royal 1670 would have had a similar “presence” on the water, sheer plan, distribution of armament, and underlying structure for the stern and quarters.
 
The chief differences would be a lesser profusion of monumental figures for SR, and the defining allegory would be very similar to Berain’s re-working of Puget’s original design.
 
Make no mistake - any future attempt I make at representing SR 1670 can only by its very nature be a product of conjecture and artistic interpretation, within the known dimensional parameters of the ship.  I am more confident than ever, though, that I can accomplish this with a high degree of fidelity to the artistic sensibilities of the time.
 
So, why am I so certain this is the Royal Louis?  Well, the main reason is the profusion of guns, if not their exact number and distribution.  Also, and just as importantly, the known allegory of the RL is very much in attendance, and overall - while their are certain key differences between this portrait and the Hyatt monograph, which do correlate in certain aspects more directly to the Vienna portraits, the important elements agree really very closely to this portrait.
 
I am excerpting a German to English translation of Hyatt’s monograph from the excellent Versailles de Mer.  German to English translates more coherently than French in Google Translate.  Within the text, I have inserted [..], where I attempt to clarify what specific element or area is being referred to.  In a few instances, here, I am guessing a bit, and welcome any insight.  Also interspersed between paragraphs are my notes in italics.
___
 
ABOUT THE SCULPTURES
Presentation of the transom of the ROYAL LOUIS.
 
The large transom is richly decorated on the outside with laurel leaves, garlands and shells underneath, all in perfect gilding [lower transom]. Above are a seahorse on each side and four large brackets supporting the first battery [lower stern balcony].  Underneath there is a very beautiful pendent decorated with foliage [covering the jaumier, or tiller opening].
 
This description corresponds very closely to LeBrun’s drawing, and Van Beecq’s portrait, as well:


 
The first gallery at the level of the support is covered with gilded Bourbon lilies. On it [the gallery] sit four sirens who serve to support the second gallery. On the sides [quarters] are three sea gods and two consoles, as well as an all-encompassing frieze [middle balcony/main deck level].  On it are the coats of arms of His Eminence the Duke of Beaufort, also supported by two sea gods holding an anchor.
 
The arms of Beaufort do not appear to be present on either Van Beecq or the Vienna portraits.  Only on LeBrun are they shown, and in that instance they appear on the lower stern balcony.  The fleur-de-lis do not appear on LeBrun or Van Beecq, yet they are apparent on the starboard quarter portrait of the Monarque:

Any, yet, not on the port quarter of the same:

Next to them sit Neptune on the starboard side and Thetis310 on the left with a Cupid at their feet offering the aforementioned deities the treasures of the sea and the earth. These in turn are offered to the figure of the king seated on the throne of justice above the third gallery.
 
In this aspect Hyatt agrees with the Vienna portraits, while Lebrun and Van Beecq have Neptune and Thetis reversed.
 

The entire stern is in the same gold relief, with a slave on each side and a gilded cornice running the length of the ship. 
Along with trophies, everything adds up to the aforementioned gods. At the top of each corner is an allegory of renown with a trumpet. Above the second ledge on the portico, which gives the same impression as the other, sit two figures holding in their hands a laurel wreath on one side and an olive branch on the king's head on the other.

On these points, everyone agrees.
 
On the third gallery there is a balcony projecting two feet where the king's arms are set in a medallion. On it are four capitals with four gilded half-figures representing the four continents.
 
All gunport covers are decorated with gilded Bourbon lilies, king's monograms, lyres and suns. And at a distance [above] from this arrangement of clasps described above, there is a gilded frieze between the mountain timbers [upper bulwarks?] which runs the entire length of the nave [upper bulwarks from Q-deck aft?] with also gilded intertwined Bourbon lilies.
 
This may, indeed, be what Van Beecq is showing just beneath the timberhead sheer railings.
 
Between the gunports of the second battery are gilded naval trophies, even with fiskers and anchors woven into them.
 
Here is an important variance where Hyatt is in agreement with the Vienna portraits.  Van Beecq places these trophy carvings even above the main deck guns.  I still do not think that negates my distinction between the Royal Louis and the Monarque, which I will explain more fully in a moment.
 
Those of the third battery are decorated with frames of foliage with griffins³11 on the sides, all finished in gilding.
 
It is not possible to discern what ornament Van Beecq has placed here, while on the Vienna portraits, the flanking figures are cherubs with triton tails.
 
On the highest mountain wood [poop royal level upper bulwarks] there are consoles, the spaces between which are golden Bridging garlands.
 
Clearly evident on Vienna portraits and not at all on Van Beecq.
 
The sides of the nave are richly decorated on the beams with gilded Bourbon lilies and mouldings. The entire mirror - in other words, the patron saint of this ship - is painted in blue and dotted with golden Bourbon lilies.
 
This is one important detail where Van Beecq stands apart from all the other representations.
 
I am always worried I might lose a really long post, so I am going to post this much, before continuing with a few observations…

This morning, the idea occurred to me to do a reverse-image search for any number of images that I was hoping to find better resolution for.
 
I tried a few different image checkers, but the one that loaded results for the greatest number of search engines was DupliChecker:
 
https://www.duplichecker.com/reverse-image-search.php
 
In particular, the Yandex search engine seemed to pull the broadest range of related images.  Now, while I didn’t hit upon my “Gilded Ghost” portrait nor my Battle of Barfleur VDV portrait, I did have one fascinating hit.  Here is the original fuzzy image I found years ago on some corner of the internet:

And then, via Duplichecker/Yandex:

A fuzzy enlargement of the ship:

A sharper resolution enlargement:

Okay, now that is really interesting!  I still can’t tell whether this is the Royal Louis or Soleil Royal (both pierced for 16, initially, and poop guns are visible, here), but I can at least get a clearer sense for the ornamental tableaux and the structure of the quarter galleries.  I can say this, though, the deadworks are not painted white, as was the case for the RL, according to Hyatt in 1677.
 
What is of particular interest to me are a series of figures that appear to be seated on the main deck-level, gallery and balcony rails.  The foremost figure on the quarter gallery has no corollary on the Vienna portraits of the Monarque.


The aft seated figures, at the turn to the stern balcony, do not resemble the Neptune and Thetis figures that are associated with both the RL and the Monarque.  In fact, the starboard figure appears to have an up-stretched arm that is reminiscent of the “seeking” posture of the Africa figure of Soleil Royal.
 
While that is nothing to draw any firm conclusions from, it must also be noted that the overall structure of the stern and arrangement of statuary has much in common with that of the RL, including what seems to be a swagged-garland ornament beneath the stern chase ports:
 



My hunch, more-so than before, is that these two portraits are directly related:


On a separate note, I churned a pair of low-res VDV drawings from 1672 through the DPI enhancement app.  Although it is very hard to see much appreciable difference, the DPI supposedly increased from 92 to 5000.
 
Before:

After:

Before:
 

After:

The second, clearer VdV sketch is nearly identical in identifiable details to the much less clear portrait, above.  Perhaps the second is simply a more finished portrait of the same subject.
 
‘Nothing earth-shattering, here; just playing with tools at my disposal.
 
Work on the model continues at a moderate pace.  Progress update to follow in the not too distant future.
 
All the best,
 
Marc
 

Marc, nice to see you having a great time/trip with your family.
 
 In regards to the above quote. If you'll note in the photo below, there are no gun tracks for the Parrott rifle (on the right as you're viewing the photo) to move across and into position. If it's a 60 LB rifle the weight is a little over 2.5 tons, if it's a 100 LB rifle (which is my guess because of the size) the weigh is almost 5 tons. If a deck was going to get ripped to shreds this lump would be the one to do it. 
  
 Gun carriage trucks (wheels) could have been iron banded. Sea battles were intense but its not like they were happening on a daily basis. Deck plank repair is a simple task and could have been carried out by the carpenter's apprentice with the aid of a couple of crew members if needed. 
 

Good morning everyone, after more than a year of not updating the site due to various problems I had, I am resuming even though the model has continued. 
 
 
Un Saluto.

I now have the boarding ladders completed. Chuck says that they are "pretty straight forward". I guess that in a way they are, but I needed to figure out how deep to make the profile for it to work. The back edge needs to be tapered in order for the tops to sit parallel to the building board. If the profile is too deep they would be too thin on the bottom after tapering. My first scraping was just that, too thin. I made another profile that was only half as deep and that worked out okay, I think. The I-Gauging tool help me to see when the top was parallel. The middle three ladders where later given a coat of Poly after being glued onto the hull. That strip of blue tape was just to protect the wales from getting scratched by my fingers while working.

I decided not to cover the top ladder with a frieze. Now that the ladders are in I will finish up the two dangling chain plates.

Mike

Thanks so much, Gary, Marc and druxey, for your kind thoughts. Gary, I have sent you a PM about drawings. Marc, like you, I love working through problems and finding solutions. I am glad you find mine interesting, because I enjoy looking over your solutions to historic accuracy.  
 
And druxey, as you know, the projection drawings on the catheads are particularly fun, since they have to be adjusted first from true elevation to apparent plan, and then from the apparent plan to an apparent elevation to account for the stive in two directions. I confess it took me a few tries before I could visualize what was going on. I tried at first to work this in one step rather than two, but it was too complex for my poor imagination. I guess one step at a time keeps things more orderly!
 
Here is the cat beam fitted but not yet installed. Facing the prospect of many more beams to install on 3 more decks, I decided to rationalize the work a little.
I use my sliding jig to measure the distance at each beam between the sides. The next challenge is to trim each end equally so the centerline remains on center. I made a simple jig  seen here, in which I can position the sliding measuring jig between converging strips of wood, and mark the location on the paper.

 
Removing the side strips of wood, I can then align the center line of the beam with the centerline of the jig, showing me exactly how much to trim on each end to remain symmetrical:

The cat beam interacts with the complex reverse tumblehome at the bow, and so its top surface aligns at an angle less obtuse than the lower surface. I used angle gauges to determine the top angle, and then progressively filed the lower surface through trial and error.

So now the first transverse piece at the bow, which will serve as the foundation for the entire beakhead bulkhead. It was very gratifying to see that the hull form I had constructed so many years ago aligned perfectly with where it needed to be in order for the cat beam to fit properly.

Next, thinking about the catheads and how they will cut through the bulwarks. I wish I had thought about this before already installing the sheer trim that will be cut into at the base of the cathead. Some precision surgery needed to keep this intersection clean.
 
Mark
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mark

While attending to the cat beam, I had to look again at my reconstruction of the beakhead in the original model. I saw more this time than I had seen before. Notice the arches over the doors to the fore platform. At first, I though it was cut through the cat beam with a half circle on the fore side, and an elliptical shape on the aft side. But after messing around, I realized that it is an additional baulk of wood afore the cat beam, through which is cut an arch in elevation and plan, or a quarter dome. You can see that in the section below. I imagine this was done to give more headroom for the door, while minimizing the wood cut away from the lower surface of the cat beam.
 
 
 

I also realized that the original sheer drawing from the admiralty grossly mis-represented the cathead. The contract for the Marlborough, built just 2 years after the Bellona, gives information on the cathead with a "steve" (stive) forward of 3 1/2" to the foot, and upward of 4" to the foot. The Berwick and Bombay contract gives a length of 7 feet outboard. I drew some apparent size drawings for plan and elevation using this information, and came up with a more compact new of the cathead in the sheer drawing. Here is the geometrical construction of the cathead in plan and section:

 
Here is the original admiralty drawing:

and here is my more accurate rendition:

For so many years, I had assumed that the Admiralty drawings were the most accurate information I had, and I could trust its dimensions. I now realize that it followed some drafting conventions that simplify and distort, like the upper head rail drawn as if it were parallel to the drawing plane, not angled towards the figurehead. Multiple sources of information usually save the day!
 
Mark
 
 
 
 

I am still working away, slowly. I have run into a continuing puzzle of what happens before what in the building sequence. I know I have to finish all outboard work and paint and work the friezes, before fastening the guns in the gundeck (because they stick out) and proceeding along to the upper decks. However, I can't finish the outboard works before fitting the cat beam and cattails. So now I have to flip back to decks for a time. Maybe I will start the remaining decks at the bow, finish the outboard work, paint, and then get back to the decks...
 
Long story short, I have started on the cat beam. It requires a rabbet at its aft side, for landing the planks of the quarterdeck. I have long thought how nice it would be to have a small router table, and now I need one. I suddenly thought, what about the Foredom drill press stand turned outside down? it worked!
 
I made a fence with a face the same radius as the top of the beam, which provides good support. A wooden block fitted below the Foredom clamp allows a screw for fine vertical adjustments.
 
I saved a bunch of money on a dedicated miniature router table; I wonder what I should spend it on?🤨
 
Mark
 
 

 
 
 

Well, Ian, thank you!  I have been known to practice a little home dentistry, when necessary, so I suppose those abilities see some light of day.
 
There hasn’t been a whole lot of time to put into the ship this past week, as a dear friend from Sweden has been visiting.  It has been an extremely social and active time for me.
 
I have managed to continue detailing the port headrails.  This is very time consuming because all of these fine border mouldings have to be cut and fit by hand.  I decided that the best course for the middle rail was to affix the top moulding and leave the bottom moulding off until I had fit and secured each section of the bellflower garland:
 

The forward end of the headrails gets an inside bevel so that I will have some glue surface to attach to the upper knee of the head, just behind the figurehead:

As it stands, I am modeling the bellflower garland.  This is, naturally, time-consuming, but the effort is always worthwhile:

After that is complete, I will make the inside lamination for the horse carving from 1/16” styrene.  Most of this figure, as you will see in a minute, rests above the f’ocsle sheer rail.  As with the drift-rail serpent ornaments, I want a more 3-D appearance for this carving.  It will make a tremendous difference, in the end.
 
So, at this point, I wanted to really suss-out what my exact headrail positioning will be.  It is complicated by numerous considerations and hard realities of the kit.  It is impossible to do this perfectly, and according to actual practice of the times.  What I can do, however, is prioritize those aspects of the construction that I most want to improve upon.
 
To that end, I have already lowered the forward scroll below the level of the sprit-mast.  Next in importance are the transverse support timbers for the headrails:  I wanted to create enough open space for elegantly arching supports, instead of something that  was more flatly aligned with the horizon.  I think that this spacing provides for that:

The fundamental problem with the kit architecture is that the forward sheer of the lower main wales rises too dramatically.  The whole knee structure of the head should, in fact, be a good bit lower.  Consequently, I am having to choose to position the horse carving a little higher on the f’ocsle sheer rail than I would ideally like.  I can live with this.  There is another important implication concerning the run of the beakhead grating that I will discuss in a moment.
 
On the plus side, the lowest point of the headrails does not dip below the level of the middle main wales.  I also really like the harmonic sweep of the knees and the headrails:


Really keen observers will note that the Berain/Vary drawings show the forward and aft headrail medallions in the same plane:

However, super-keen observers will note that both of these drawings mysteriously and completely ignore the presence of the f’ocsle deck, which would have raised the f’ocsle sheer a step.  So, I don’t think I am wrong to represent the aft medallion as being in a higher plane.
 
Although, as discussed, I still find it necessary to incorporate some shape to these headrails, I do not find it to be terribly exaggerated or noticeable:


And, finally - the second complication of the abruptly rising sheer of the lower main wales; the beakhead grating on French ships of the period should run behind and follow the curve of the upper headrail.  I, on the other hand, have chosen to prioritize the sweep of the headrail support timbers.  Consequently, I will run the beakhead grating in-line with the middle headrail:
 

It isn’t exactly correct, but it will make it easy to tuck my new seats of ease between the beakhead deck and the headrails, as Michel Saunier did here:
Photo, courtesy of Marc Yeu
 
Next, I have to pierce the beakhead bulkhead for the cathead timbers, so that I can figure out the ideal placement for the cathead support carvings.
 
None of this is exactly right or perfect, but considered in its entirely it will be better and closer to the truth than what Heller has presented out-of-box.  As always, thank you for stopping by.  More to follow…

@Dziadeczek
@Nunnehi (Don)
@albert
@AJohnson
@Pirate adam
First of all, I would like to thank you very much for the interest in my work and the nice comments. Also I would like to thank you for the many LIKES. 
 
Continuation: Standing rigging for jib boom and flying jib boom - Bâton de foc et bâton de clinfoc
On a grommet strop (ring rope) as a base, the standing rigging for the jib boom was laid on top. Building on this, first come the footropes, which are slipped over the boom with a served cut splice. At both ends the footropes had a served eye for tying to the top of the bowsprit at the back eyebolts, to which the single blocks for the bowlines of the fore top sails were also attached.
In order to guarantee the sailors a secure hold during their work, knots were worked into the 22 mm (ø 0.46 mm in model scale) thick rope of the footropes at intervals of two feet, e.g. as Turkish head knots. In 1:48 scale, I think it seems quite sufficient in this case to make overhand knots.
After the abolition of spritsail yards in the 19th century, the jib boom guy and flying jib boom guy were often spread to the cathead by means of iron outriggers, thus giving the jib boom and flying jibboom greater strength laterally. Accordingly, this was also the case with the La Créole. The rigging was mounted on iron spike-like outriggers on the fore channels.
In principle, the jib boom guys perform the same function as the shrouds, hence their designation by the French, such as Haubans bout-dehors beaupré, which corresponds to the jib boom guy.
The jib boom of this corvette had two 22 mm dia. ropes on each side, one of which was stiffened with tackles and double blocks.
The jib boom guys were attached individually with served eyes to the top after the footropes, and as already described, led through the outriggers to the cathead to the fore channels for mooring. The area of the lead through the booms was served against rubbing.
Next came the jib boom stay, also a 22 mm dia. rope. This was slipped over the top with a served eye and attached to the iron martingale in a groove provided for it. Underneath, the two jib boom stays were slipped over as counterparts, which were then attached to eyebolts on the port and starboard sides of the bow.
With the already shown triple block for the bowlines and the fore topgallant stay, the rigging of the jib boom came to an end.
The following picture shows the rigging elements that were partially mentioned before.


The second picture shows the finished jib boom top. After all, six ropes have been laid there, as well as the grommet and the triple block strop.

And in the last step, the flying jib boom was rigged, as can be seen in the last picture.

Building on the grommet, the following ropes were stripped over the flying jib boom top:
- footrope ø 19 mm (ø 0.40 mm in model scale)
- flying jib boom guys ø 22 mm (ø 0.40 mm in model scale)
- pair of flying jib boom guys ø 19 mm
- strop with 2 thimbles for the bowlines 

Finally, the fore topgallant stay ø 15 mm (ø 0.35 mm in model scale) could be passed through a disc in the flying jib boom top and fitted in the forecastle.

See you soon ...

 

As usual I'm working on a number of tasks at the same time. The Lantern is near completion and I should have some photos to share fairly soon. Meanwhile I've managed to complete the nailing of the chain plates except for two on each side which I left dangling. Also, I removed the moulding under them. When I start on the boarding ladders it will be easier to work in that area without the moulding. Besides, I prefer to shape the moulding to the profile of the ladders while off the ship rather than on. The billboard and fenders are done. The fiddly fenders required a lot of profile tweaking and I was very happy to be done with them.😏



Mike

In answer to my own question: a welded bond can be quite difficult to break free.  Honestly, I expected that the turrets would pry loose fairly easily.  It soon became clear that wasn’t going to happen without something breaking where I didn’t want it to.
 
So, I used a series of implements to winnow away the problem:
 




It will only require a little putty to come flush with the plank surface of the beakhead deck; engrave a plank line, paint and it will all disappear.
 
With the turret out of the way, I could now get the headrail to seat where I want it:

Because of the angle of entry, behind the wings of the figurehead, I still will not get away with flat headrails.  I am okay with this concession, though, as I have at least corrected the problematic turret placement.