rybakov

With chapter eight completed I thought it would be a good time to post some photos. Please excuse the dust.

 

 

 
Mike

Hallo photos. 

Hello, I temporarily removed the hull from the yard to start leveling the coasts.

"The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor; or, A key to the leading of rigging, and to practical seamanship." American edition 1843
I can't see that this has been posted before, could be wrong.
 
Sheet Anchor.pdf
 

Standing rigging of the royal masts
Before I lash the boats, I would like to finish off the standing rigging as a whole.

To complete the standing rigging of the royal masts (shrouds, stays), a few more detailed clarifications and preparations were required.
As can be seen in the image section of the upper rigging of the original model, the royal masts are very filigree components. In the model, the royal masts are between a maximum of 2 to 3 mm thick.
In the picture I have the stays
marked in yellow and the royal shrouds in red.
 
Source: Monograph by J. Boudriot, detail of the original model

Since neither the plan nor the description of the monograph contain any specific information on how the edition of the royal stays and shrouds should look in detail, I tried to find relevant information in relevant sources (literature, internet). Unfortunately, I was unable to get much information on this. Somehow the stays and shrouds have to be given a fixed position. Therefore, I orientated myself on the book by KLAUS SCHRAGE - RUNDHÖLZER, RUNDHÖLZER, RUNDHÖLZER, RUNDHÖLZER UND SEGEL page 92, Fig. 255. There you can see cleats on the royal masts. Accordingly, I tried to make these cleats as suitable as possible.
In the first step, the fastening of the cleats (model size 2.8 mm / 1.2 mm) had to be clarified. For this I needed tiny bolts, which I made from brass wire ø 0.25 mm using the method of a Russian model maker.

 
Furthermore, the ropes for the royal shrouds (mizzen mast ø 0.25 mm or fore mast and main mast ø 0.35 mm) and the stays (ø 0.25 mm or ø 0.40 mm) were made with the rope making machine manufactured.
There was also the question of how to manage the lifts for the royal yards. There was only one royal shroud per side. In this respect, the thimbles for the royal lifts could not be integrated. So I made a mast collar with two thimbles (ø1.2 mm).
A serving of these thin ropes was not given in the original either. The stays are placed with one eye on the cleats. The stays were brought down using thimbles and fixed with lanyard lashings. I still have to clarify these fastening details.

 
The location of the cleats on the royal masts was above the sheaves for the royal halliard, as can be seen in the following picture (mizzen royal mast).

 
Sequel follows …

@druxey
Hello,
thanks for the interest and the nice comment, and all the others also for the many LIKES.
 
Continuation: Garnet tackel - Palan d'etai
To check that the garnet tackels do not collide with pendants and guys, I attached them provisionally before final assembly. As already described, there is nothing in the monograph of J. Boudriot about the attachment of the granet tackle to the tops. Accordingly, I am guided by the representations in the Atlas du Génie maritime and by the photos from the original model. Accordingly, it can be seen that the attachments of the two garnet tackels to the tops were made on the starboard side.


In the next picture a single block for guidance and the pendant with the tackle can be seen in detail:


After the garnet tackle installation is complete, I will begin lashing the chaloupe and pinasse. The exact details of this still need final clarification.
To be continued ...

 

The stove is taking shape nicely.  I still have to build out the interior, which is clad in iron plating.  I’m toying with representing the brick work, on the top edge, but it will not be visible at all.  I have to also attach the three skids that the stove sits upon, on the deck:
 

 

 

 

 

 

 
This is a fun little scratch project.  There are also rings and other small bits of hardware that will be attached.
 
Thanks for looking in!

Thank you T_C and Eric!
 
Well, it is interesting to attach names of artists to the one aspect of the original ship’s ornamental appearance that was well documented: the great cabin ceiling.
 
Below, is the correspondence that details which artists were to be paid, and in what sum for the seven painted panels of this elaborate coffered ceiling:
 

 
The survey of 1688 details precisely what these paintings were composed of:
 

 
There are a couple of things about the ceiling drawing, apart from the artwork, that interest me.  First is the aft-ward taper of the ceiling, culminating in the round-up of the stern.  I have learned, over time, that this kind of drawing is often very precise and reflective of the true shape and reality of the thing in question.  The other main example of this is Berain’s stern drawing which reflects the pre-1673 reality of SR’s wing-transom.
 
That being so, it is really fascinating to me how closely the shape of the ceiling mirrors the aft portion of this drawing from 1679, by Etienne Hubac, which illustrates the ideal proportions of a first-rate ship:
 

 
Unlike SR, though, the wing transom in Etienne’s drawing is shown below the stern chase ports, in accordance with the Reglements of 1673.
 
Getting back to the ceiling, though, it’s shape is significant because the ceiling was preserved, during the re-build and then re-installed on the ship.  This suggests that the framing of the ship, and her shape would not have changed much - beyond the reduction of her sheer-line - even if much of the so-called dead-works (above the waterline) was horribly rotten and had to be replaced.
 
The other interesting detail of the ceiling drawing is the space and pilaster arrangement of the stern windows.  There are five full openings and two half-openings at the ends.  My Quebecois friend, Guy, believes that this may be why the Tanneron model only shows five stern windows, within the QGs.  Given my position that Tanneron’s model is a hybrid between what SR 1670 may have looked like, and what SR 1693 probably looked like - that makes some kind of sense.
 
Remember, though, that this ceiling drawing was made before the ship was taken to pieces.   Personally, I believe those half-lights, at the extremities, were likely false-windows that appeared whole from the exterior; their framing would simply overlay the timbering structure of the ship’s sides.  What this means is that the ship would appear to have 7 stern lights, between the open-walk quarter galleries.  The early constructions of the First-Marine seemed to favor a profusion of stern windows, or at least the appearance of such.  Along those lines, SR’s near-sister La Reyne, as drawn by the VdVlds in 1673 with 8 stern lights:
 

 
Consider, also, this drawing if the DR of 1668, showing 7 stern lights:
 

 
And the RL - also with 7 stern lights:
 

 
As for Tanneron, as I have mentioned before, he seems to have consciously departed from the Berain drawings of Le Brillant and L’Agreable, when making his models of those ships.
 
Very pertinent to this ceiling discussion is the Berain drawing of L’Agreable from 1697, which shows 7 stern lights within the QGs:
 

 
Tanneron chose to model 5 lights:
 

 
Similarly, Berain’s drawing of the coronation of Le Brillant’s stern is notably different than what Tanneron chose to model:
 

 

 

 
Where is the lambrequin carving that should be beneath the central crown, and from which the swagged draperies hang down and frame Louis’ cameo relief?
 
Why Tanneron chose these departures, I cannot say.
 

Addendum: garnet tackle - Palan d'etai
I almost forgot something. Because to secure the garnet tackle, eyebolts still have to be attached to the deck. I also found out that according to the Paris model, the hauling part for the garnet tackle, which is attached directly to the mainstay, has to be led over a single block. 

So for this purpose some parts had to be made, which can be seen on the following picture (double block with swivel hook only for size comparison):

 
See you soon ...

 

From a life standpoint, my sister and I have made tremendous strides in sorting out our father’s affairs, and our current biggest hurdle is getting approval from his long-term care insurer for assisted living.  Steadily, we are getting there, and I appreciate those who have asked, just as I appreciate everyone who comes to visit me here.
 
I have managed to sneak-in a few hours, here and there, and I have completed all of the port side buttressing knees of the channels, and I got everything nicely re-painted and pretty.  In general, lowering the channels pretty dramatically changes the whole aspect of the model, and the difference is pleasing to me:
 

 

 

 
The mizzen channel knees were challenging to cope over mouldings and around the fleurs, but I am happy to have lowered them to here, where there is less interference with the frieze:
 

 
I am using this portrait of the DR, circa 1680, as justification for this placement:
 

 
I continue to comb through the archives, but I have yet to find anything vividly descriptive about the ship’s pre-refit external appearance.  Despite the beautifully florid cursive, I’ve come to realize the hard truth that the letter writers and record keepers of 17th C. France were basically clerks.  Mostly their correspondence has to do with SR’s comings and goings; armaments and dis-armements;  payments made/owed to painters and sculptors; cost estimates relating to her refit, etc.  It is all fascinating, and it will all get its due mention in my book, but it does not help me paint the picture of the ship.
 
Where are the artists sharing their wonderfully descriptive observations, when you need them?!
 
What I’m hoping to find is something along the lines of this:
 

 
”The morning fires shone brightly upon the gilded ornaments of Soleil Royal and her heights rose up and became one with the azure sky.  The warrior of the Americas clung resolutely to the port side, while that of Africa peered off in the middle-distance - daring his lesser adversaries to emerge from the morning mist.  Presiding above, with shimmering rays of gold and silver gilt bursting past his golden chariot is the Sun King, himself…”
 
And, so forth.  It must be out there, somewhere, right?
 
Anyway, I can now get busy with fitting and prepping the starboard upper bulwark for paint.  I can also go ahead and design my stove - that will make a nice little side project.  Before long, I can design and make the next tier of stern lights, which will enable me to finish off the wrapping stern walk.
 
As always, thank you for your likes, comments and for looking-in.  More to come!

Hello,
now also the main channels are ready. Ok, the artist has some small repairs to paint 😉, but now he is ready
 

 

 

 

 

 

Hello,
now the fore channel of the star board side is also ready. So during the next days I will build the main channels. That may take a little time, because my garden needs now a lot of attention. Collecting all these leaves that fall down 😐
 

 

 
 

Hello and thank you for your comments and likes
 
Yes Chuck, I used a scraper for the mouldings, but also carving tools.
Today I installed the first channel, but not fast at all. That was more work as expected, but at least I got it. The next will go faster.
 
The shipwright spend a grog for that and I think the water is hot 😃
 

 

 

Hello, and many thanks for your likes
Finally, sawdust again! The fore channels are mostly ready
 

 

Hello and thank for your likes,
@ Jaager, thank you for your efforts. I don't think that your first thought is the solution. You would't see it at any model. Your second thought is may be the solution, but why did they give the wide only for the middle part of the ship.
 
I think that the given measurements are the widest part of the channels. If that is true also in 1745 is an other question. The mizzen channels are parallel to the ships side, there is given only a wide for the whole thing. 
 
I found a drawing in Lavery's Ship of the Line I, the Centurion at page 71-72
 

 
That is what I thought was the meaning with design. To follow the lines of the ship. Ok, I would made the channels at the main mast to the aft end at least 4,8mm, so narrower then in the front. The measurements are from the drawing.
 
This are the fore and main channels from the Centurion. That model was build ca. 1745, 
 

 

 
and her the same from the 60 gunner with no name
 

 

 
I'm sorry, but I haven't better pictures. I did't know at that time that it would be important. But with a little good will you could see that the fore channels are to the front narrower and the same for the main channels to the back.
 
I made some channels to look how much space is from the shrouds to the ships side, and I think there is much space. Even when the shrouds come in a little more. Here the channels have the same wide in the front and back. So I think I could made them to the front/back a little narrower to get that arch and follow the ships lines.
 

 

 

 

Hello,
now the lids at the gun deck, at the star board side, are also ready 🙂 Now with more experience I also repaired some of the hooks for the rings at the inside of the lids at the port side. 
 

 
The rings have a inner diameter of 1 mm and the wire is 0,4 mm thick and you may have seen at my last post that some hooks are much larger then these.
 

Hello,
now the port lids at the port side have there rings. But the lids are nor fast installed, that will come after I have the channels ready.
 

Continuation: Garnet tackle - Palan d'etai
In the meantime I have finished all the components for the garnet tackles.
The pendants were hung up on a specially made mast collar with a thimble. I made these hooks with thimbles using my own method. For this purpose, an 18 mm long brass rod with a diameter of 1.2 mm was turned off with a needle file on the Proxxon fine grinder so that the thickened areas were created at the corresponding points on the hooks. I made the thimbles in the tried and tested manner from brass tubes.

 
The next picture shows the finished hooks with thimbles, not yet blackened.

 
The other two pictures show all components of the 3 garnet tackles:
- 6 double blocks, 3 of which have swivel hooks for the tackles
- 4 single blocks for the guides, 2 of them with hooks
- 2 guide elements
- 2 mast collars (one tackle was lashed directly to the stay with an eye)
- ropes ø 0.46 mm and ø 0.67 mm (original ø 32 mm or ø 22 mm)
- 3 pendants ø 0.90 mm (original ø 43 mm)

 

 
Sequel follows …

Hi there,
the first strop for the heavy garnet tackle block with (croc à émerillon) the swivel hook is ready.
The others are then produced in the same way.

Quelle: Atlas du Génie maritime, annexe Nr. 1, Pl. 2

Garnet tackle - Palan d'etai
The garnet tackle were generally used for loading goods, cannons and for lowering and hoisting boats.
With regard to the execution of the stage tack, there are differences between the graphic representation of J. Boudriot in the monograph and the original model in the Paris Museum compared to the model of La Créole.
 
Source: Monograph La Creole by J. Boudriot pp. 125 and 126
 
 
Source: Monograph La Creole by J. Boudriot p. 101, photo detail of the original model

The execution of the garnet tackle documented in the Atlas du Génie maritime corresponds to the representation on the Paris model. Accordingly, I also do this on my La Créole model.
 
Source: Atlas du Génie maritime, annexe no.1, pl. 50

I was able to identify another garnet tackle on the photo of the original model. I will also represent this accordingly on my model.
I started the preparations for the appropriate arrangements of these rigging details with the production of the double and single blocks. A total of 6 double and 4 single blocks are to be produced. I determined the block size by scaling the drawings from the atlas in comparison with the block list from the monograph (dependency on the rope diameter), which ultimately fitted pretty well. Thus, the double blocks have a length of around 6.8 mm and the single blocks have a length of around 5.2 mm. The blocks were made in the manner that has meanwhile been tried and tested for me.
In this context I would like to emphasize that, from my point of view, it makes no sense to prepare the blocks in their entirety in advance. That would be several hundred blocks for this corvette. In the meantime I have laboriously learned that all these blocks have the most varied of sizes and shapes, depending on the purpose. There are also many differences in terms of their fittings and fastening. That's why I manufacture the blocks individually based on the respective detail section. Due to the complexity of rigging, any other approach does not seem expedient to me, unless one simplifies and differentiates less, which of course is at the expense of the level of detail. Ultimately, everyone has to decide for themselves.
 
 

 
As can be seen on the following drawing from the Atlas du Génie maritime, the French used heavy garnet tackle blocks with so-called swivel hooks (croc à émerillon).
 

Source: Atlas du Génie maritime, annexe no.1, pl. 2

Below is a picture collage for making the swivel hooks.

 
The majority of the required blocks, thimbles and hooks for the arrangements of the garnet tackle were made as far as can be seen in the next picture.

 
The manufactured brass parts are of course burnished to give them an iron-like appearance.
The next step is to make the garnet tackle. For this I still have to make the ropes in the appropriate strengths and serve. The necessary block strops must also be made.

Sequel follows …

As the better is always the enemy of the good, here comes the next step, or better saying come the next steps.
 

 

 
Stairway to heaven 🙂
 
XXXDAn

Thank you druxey, I am quite with you there, but still ...
 
And I've gone through the different possibilities that come into question for the hangers. The ropes are just place holders. The jeer cleat could be placed a tiny bit down what would ease the case, but still ...
 

 

 

 

 

 
One sees, that the bolster on the cap is the most elegant solution. I don't know to what extent the hanger running over the jeer block lashing tends to chafe here, since both parts are static. Above all, the fact that the stopper cleat at the rear is the only version mentioned in contemporary sources gives me reasons for further investigations. 
 
Only the bow-shaped jeerncleat I would have reservations about the hanger running over it; here the two actually interfere with each other.
 
I'll keep digging.
 
XXXDAn
 

Speaking of research, John…
 
As I haven’t had much time at all, to devote to the current model, I have spent quite a fair amount of time conducting research for Soleil Royal 1670.  As a GenX’er, I am continually amazed by the strides we have made in computing and on-line connectivity; we’ve come a long way from DOS!
 
It took a little fiddling, but I finally figured out how to navigate the database for the French Archives Nationales.  If you recall, I was initially intrigued by a footnote I found in Ronald Portanier’s dissertation on the evolution of ornamental carving, in French naval architecture.
 
Back in June, I sent a digital file request for this comparison, dating to 1672, between Soleil Royal and the Royal Charles, ex Naseby.  I referenced the archive location noted in Portanier’s work MAR/B/5/3 (the archival coding specifically relating to armaments and naval technologies), and included a description of the specific subject matter in the additional information section of the request form.  With boundless hope, and breathless anticipation, I pressed SEND, and heard nothing back, thereafter.
 
Or, so I thought.  After the New London show, I decided to re-visit these archives.  Searching through abstracts of other files that mention and/or discuss SR, I found the following array of interesting things:
 
I had great hope that this file, “Les Pieces de sculpture..” might be a Hyatt-like description of Soleil Royal’s stern.  I requested this document.

 
More recently, I discovered this document which apparently discusses the wax model made for the re-fit ornamentation in 1688.  I hope to receive this document some time this week.

 
Eventually, I will request this document, which describes the flags carried by SR:

 
So - back to the first request I made for the SR/RC comparison of 1672.  I had thought that Mr. Portanier had mis-identified the location in his footnotes because MAR/B/5/3 seems to reference documents between the years of 1691-1759
 

 
Surely, he must have meant MAR/B5/2.  So, I sent a second request referencing this other file location, along with a request for the sculpture document.
 
Much to my amazement, within five days I noticed an email containing a link to the sculpture document from the file-sharing server WeTransfer.  Now, this was enlightening to me.  I had been expecting these documents to come from an email address directly connected to the Archives Nationale.  When I looked back to my emails from June, I discovered the WeTransfer document linking me to the SR/RC comparison!  I had the damn ship in my back pocket for months, and didn’t even realize it!  Naturally, the link had expired.  ‘Turns out - Mr. Portanier’s referenced location was correct, and I had only succeeded in confusing matters with my second request for the wrong location.
 
I wrote to my contact at WeTransfer explaining how I had managed to gum-up the works; she was, naturally, having a lot of trouble finding the document in the wrong location.
 
Anyway, at the end of the day, Ms Wulf ended up sending me the comparison, the sculpture document, what seemed like a fascinating accounting of the “radoub”, or rebuild, and also the ship-log of SR2, from the Valez/Malaga campaign of 1704.  To say that I was overjoyed just does not adequately express how I really felt.
 
And, so, I began the lengthy process of transcribing and translating these variously legible, hand-written documents.  I started with the sculpture document.  To give you an idea, this letter which is addressed to the Intendant at Brest, Msr. de Seuil, looks like this:
 

 
Deciphering something like this is particularly challenging because the spellings are sometimes antiquated, words often run together and seem like one word, and writers of the time employed a strange and archaic form of abbreviation.
 
In Google Docs, I began to key in a letter by letter transcription, fortunately the software seems to recognize archaic spellings and often suggests the modern spelling and/or phrasing.  This combined with my keying possible words into my Google Translate app, helped me to parse a likely meaning from the most opaque sections.  I have found that, as I work through a document, I will often encounter more legible examples of words and characters, that help clarify other less clear sections of the text.  It is a backward and forward process of revision.
 
My method is to alternate, paragraph by paragraph the French transcription with the rough English translation.  I then highlighted, in blue, any particular passages that had to do with SR, specifically.
 
Well, this particular document did not turn out to be the treasure-trove I was hoping for.  Mostly the correspondance (from a sender I have not yet identified, which does not look like the hand of Colbert) concerns the amassing and distribution of sailors and soldiers, among the major port fleets.
 
Here is what I found of interest, relating to SR:
 


also,
 

 
 
 
What is interesting to me about these passages is that they were clearly experimenting with methods aimed at preservation of the backbone of the ship, while simultaneously considering a scaling-back of the ornamental works, which were decaying, some 12 years after launching.
 
Okay, all well and good.  Next, I turned to the radoub document:
 

 
I quickly discovered that a lengthy and thorough translation would not be necessary.  This was not, after all, a lengthy accounting of the specific cost estimates for the re-build in 1688/89.  Instead, this is an aggregate estimate for the ships returning to port of Brest in August of 1690, one month after Tourville’s victory off Cap de Beveziers.  The costs listed are for the radoub (repair of battle damage), careening and general maintenance of the listed ships. It is a fascinating document in its own right, but not especially illuminating toward my quest for understanding the ship as she first was.
 
Next up, I have turned my attention to the quite lengthy (16 pages!) comparison survey of SR and the RC:
 

 
The observations and conclusions noted in the left margins are written in such a small and stylized cursive that they are incredibly difficult to decipher.  I have found that my letter for letter transcription has to be conducted via magnification of the PDF files on my phone.  Even then, the translations are only approximate, but nonetheless illuminating.  Here is what I have so far:
 

 


And, so, this is all a process that only slowly yields fragments of a mosaic that might, or might not add up to a portrait of the ship.  Perhaps I am merely re-treading ground already covered by Lemineur and others before me.  I believe that is a journey I must embark upon for my own edification, though.  I will not give up!
 
What little modeling I have done concerns the buttressing knees of the channels.  One advantage of lowering the fore and main channels to below the main deck guns is that there is now more surface mounting area to allow for a more credibly functional support than what the stock kit provides.  The process requires some careful coping around the top edge of the upper main wale, and around the garland carvings.  It is slow work:
 



Eventually, I will add the simulated bolt heads, as I have done elsewhere throughout the model.  Note how the forward end of the fore channel flares out further than stock, in order to compensate for the lower positioning;  this is necessary so that the shrouds will clear the reverse tumblehome of the upper bulwarks.
 
Well, that was all a mouthful.  I hope I have not bored you all to death with my process.  Until next time, thank you all for your continued interest, your likes, and your comments.

Since I can't physically get to my tinkering place at the moment (moving box stacking place), here are at least some further developments on some detailed topics 🙂
 
The cathead in Portsmouth displays a crown. So far no historical evidence of this use was to be tracked down by my knowledge. One favorite of those days, als displayed on the contemporary 1765 model of the vic was a what I believed to be a compass rose. A german forum comrade pointed it out to be the Order of the Garter, and if one looks carefully some models really show those colors on the star.
 
So here is the new cathead with the Order of the Garter as decorative plate instead of the well known but possibly incorrect crown. 
 
The first picture shows the kit part, then the first draft and after that the optimised version: The proportions were adjusted, the star of the order was emphasized and the cassette compartments got the cambered base typical for the time. However, there are still a few small things to be done.
 

 

 

 

 
The two-part fighting top, the masthead and the cap have also been reworked again.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
But as usual, every corner solved draws two new ones behind it 🙂 It remains exciting.
 
Greetings, Daniel
 

Hello,
I am very happy about the extremely nice comments from all of you and the many LIKES.
That of course motivates me a lot and gives me the feeling of being part of a really great community that pursues the same interests. Thanks again for that.
 
Continuation: Mizzen topgallant stay - Étai mât de perruche 
As already reported on this topic some time ago (LINK), the monograph by J. Boudriot does not reveal in detail how the mizzen topgallant stay was attached. In this respect, I orientated myself on examples from relevant literature.
Before attaching the stay (model rope ø 0.46 mm), its length must be determined on the model, as it is guided over a single block (length 4 mm) and integrating the thimble on the model is not necessarily recommended.

 
The next picture shows the finished mizzen topgallant stay and the two-legged sling (counterpart for the lanyard lashing), which is attached to the trestle trees.

 
The lanyard for the lashing to fix the mizzen topgallant stay was set up with a simplified splice or fake splice (unfortunately I don't know the English name).

 

 
In the last picture you can see the finished lanyard lashing. A corresponding enlargement in the cut-out at the top left.

 
Sequel follows …