ancre La Créole 1827 by archjofo - Scale 1/48 - French corvette

[archjofo]

Photo Book - LA CRÉOLE CORVETTE DE 24 BOUCHES À FEU 1827
DU L’INGÉNIEUR LEROUX
Sometimes a project needs a little break – and sometimes you need something to remind you why you started it.

Since I can't currently continue working on the running rigging of my French corvette, La Créole, for personal reasons (my son's house building and a few age-related aches and pains...), I've created a photo book: as a source of motivation, a look back, and a look ahead.

 

In this video, I take you on a little journey through this book – a piece of model building history in pictures.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 6 by archjofo

[Knocklouder]

Just Gobsmacked awesome, definitely got me motivated  🙌.  

Bob  M.

[archjofo]

After the Summer Break – Continuing My Build Log

The days are growing shorter, the world outside is quieter—and with autumn comes a renewed passion for model building. After a brief creative pause, I’m looking forward to resuming work on my French corvette La Créole.

As a starting point, I’ve recently focused on clarifying the belaying points in the foredeck area, in order to complete the rigging of the fore yard as well as the jibboom and flying jibboom. In this context, I’ve created two illustrations (based on cropped images of the original model and excerpts from J. Boudriot’s monograph), which I’d like to share here.

These sketches are not yet complete, but they serve as a foundation for further development and offer a glimpse into the research that preceded this stage. Once again, working through these details has shown how multifaceted and rewarding the engagement with historical sources, technical drawings, and contemporary models can be—and how much it contributes to the vitality of a project like this.

One aspect that remains unclear to me is the routing of the mainsail bowlines, as depicted in Boudriot’s monograph. According to his illustration, the bowlines are led forward over the foredeck—a solution I hadn’t encountered before. Based on my current understanding—and after reviewing several period models—bowlines are typically belayed aft of the foremast.

Routing them over the foredeck seems not only unusual but also technically problematic, as it could potentially interfere with the foremast rigging. This point therefore remains unresolved and will require further investigation.

I look forward to exchanging ideas with you and am eager to hear your thoughts and suggestions regarding the sketches I’ve shared.

[Keith Black]

 Glad to see you posting once again, Johann. 

[archjofo]

Supplementary Note on the Routing of the Mainsail Bowlines

 

To further illustrate the issue described above regarding the routing of the mainsail bowlines (blue lines), I’d like to share two visual references. These are based on cropped images of my model and excerpts from Boudriot’s monograph, and are intended to clarify the technical challenge posed by the forward-leading arrangement.

From my perspective, the solution depicted in the monograph—leading the bowlines over the foredeck—raises questions, particularly with regard to potential interference with the foremast rigging.

This configuration seems unusual when compared to other period models, where bowlines are typically belayed aft of the foremast.

I’d be very interested to hear your thoughts on this matter, and whether similar arrangements have been documented elsewhere. 

[druxey]

Bowlines (literally 'bow lines') normally lead forward, at least in English practice. The line for the fore course leads forward to a block hooked to the aft side of the bowsprit cap, then aft to belay at the forecastle. 

 

The main course bowline also leads forward. The English belayed it at the fore topsail sheet bitts forward of the fore mast. In your diagram it appears to belay inside the bow bulwark, presumably on a pinrail.

 

Hopefully this is of some help!

[wefalck]

If the main bow-lines indeed lead so far forward, they would need to somehow clear below the fore-course and should also not foul the fore-sheets, though the latter would be loose, when the bow-lines are in use.

 

I wonder, why they wouldn't be led analogous to the main-topsail bow-lines.

[JerryTodd]

The bowlines purpose is to pull the windward edge (luff) of the sail forward when on-the-wind (beam-reach to close-hauled), so they would need to lead forward of where that edge of the sail would be when braced hard over, same with the tacks.

[archjofo]

@druxey

@wefalck

@JerryTodd

 

Hello,

I would like to expressly thank you for your precise and helpful contributions on the question of the routing of the mainsail bow lines.

The different perspectives on historical practice, especially in the English context, as well as the technical information on possible interference with the headsail rigging, have greatly helped me to consider the issue in a more nuanced way. Your assessments contribute significantly to critically questioning the plausibility of the solution presented in Boudriot's monograph.

I will incorporate the suggestions into my further planning and look forward to further discussions.

[archjofo]

Rigging of the Mainsail Bowlines – Boulines de grande voile
In the meantime, I have been able to clarify the principle of how the mainsail bowlines were rigged on my French corvette through the study of contemporary technical literature. It is important to maintain both the chronological and geographical context. 
My findings are consistent with the observations made on the period models in the Musée national de la Marine.

The mainsail bowlines were led through snatch blocks (fr. poulie coupée), which were attached amidships on the deck abaft the foremast and belayed, for example, at the pin rail behind the foremast.

Since the mainsail bowlines of larger ships required considerable force, they were usually double-purchased. Accordingly, blocks were fitted at the ends of the bowline bridles through which the bowlines were rove. Whenever the bowlines were not in use, they were unrove from the snatch blocks. Whether La Créole actually carried double-purchased bowlines could not be determined with certainty.

 

What is decisive, however, is a finding from contemporary literature: 

The mainsail bowlines were not permanently rigged, in contrast to those of all the other sails. They were only bent on when actually needed; otherwise, they were kept ready for use on the foredeck. 

Source: Nouveau Manuel complet de Marine by M. Verdier, Capitaine de Corvette, Paris 1837, p. 175.

 

This also explains why, on the period models (rigged without sails) in the Paris museum, bowlines are always to be seen on the other yards – but never on the main yard. The same applies to the original model of La Créole.

For this reason, I will consequently not represent mainsail bowlines on my model.

 

Nevertheless, for illustration, I show here how the rigging of the mainsail bowlines would have looked in principle:

Source: Manuel du Gabier, Paris 1875.

Edited October 21 by archjofo

[Pirate adam]

Johann,

 

I continue to be amazed by the detail of your research combined with the level of craftsmanship on your model. It is inspiring how much work you have put into answering questions related to details most people would just skip over. I hope you realize your build log is surely becoming one of the most valuable resources related to rigging in this period available on the internet. Thank you very much for sharing. 
 

Adam

[archjofo]

@Pirate adam

Hello,

Thank you very much for your appreciative words—they truly mean a lot to me.

Regarding your generous remark about this build log becoming a “valuable resource on rigging,” I’d like to add a small clarification: just as with ship construction, rigging practices must always be understood within their specific historical and geographical context.

My research and conclusions are focused on the early to mid-19th century, particularly within the French naval tradition.

Sharing these findings feels natural to me—especially since I continue to benefit greatly from the many outstanding build logs and discussions here on the forum.

[Keith Black]

3 minutes ago, archjofo said:

Sharing these findings feels natural to me—especially since I continue to benefit greatly from the many outstanding build logs and discussions here on the forum

 Hear, hear.

[Loracs]

Indeed amazing, a must stop for anything rigging. Thanks for your detailed log.

 

I'm sorry if you posted before but could you provide information on the thread (type, manufacturer and color) you used for making the various ropes/cables?  I really like both the texture and color. 

Edited October 22 by Loracs

[archjofo]

@Loracs

Hello,
No problem, of course I'll show you which yarns I use as the raw material for making my ropes.
It's silk yarn, which isn't entirely undisputed in terms of durability. Nevertheless, I chose it because, in my opinion, it's the ideal raw material for model ropes.
You can read an interesting post by Greg Herbert about the use of silk in model making and in general in my topic: 

LINK

I use silk yarn from Gütermann, Ylk, and Kimono. The following pictures also show the color numbers used.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.

[Loracs]

This is great information... thanks a lot for taking the time.

[archjofo]

Bowlines and Bridles – Boulines et branches

In continuing my research on the bowlines (boulines) for my French corvette, I came across an intriguing national distinction that manifests not only in theory but also in practical model execution.

I have since identified a differing treatment of bowlines when sails are struck, between British and French practice. The aim of these measures was to prevent the lines from becoming entangled and to ensure immediate readiness when re-rigging. These differences are well documented in contemporary sources and observable in period models:

a) British Practice:

British manuals such as David Steel (1794), Darcy Lever (Sheet Anchor, 1808/1843), and Brady (The Kedge Anchor, 1841) depict bowlines fitted with spliced-in thimbles, through which the bridles were rove.

Lever states explicitly:

“The bowlines are rove through thimbles spliced into their ends, to which the bridles are attached.”

 

Source: The Young Sea Officer’s Sheet Anchor, Darcy Lever, p. 57, 1843

Accordingly, the British rigged the bowlines together with the bridles to the outer yardarms. This arrangement was certainly robust, but less flexible when striking sails, as bowlines and bridles had to be handled as a single unit.

Source: K. Schrage – Rundhölzer, Tauwerk und Segel, p. 144

b) French Practice:

Baudin (Manuel du jeune marin, 1828) notes that bowlines were rolled up and secured to the mast or yard after the sails were furled — “roulées et assujetties au mât ou à la vergue.” He does not elaborate on the exact method of securing them to the yard. However, his description suggests that the bridles remained attached to the sail. This interpretation is supported by illustrations in the Atlas du Génie Maritime, where bowlines are shown fastened to the bridles using toggles. This solution facilitated rapid bending and unbending of the sails.

The bowlines of the mainsails require separate consideration, as discussed in a previous contribution of mine.

 

Source: Atlas du Génie Maritime

 

On the period model of La Créole, as well as on numerous other models in the Musée national de la Marine, one can observe bowlines secured amidships on the yards, without bridles. In the case of La Créole, the bowlines in this example appear to be connected to the buntlines via eye splices or stopper knots, and thus stowed securely.

Source: Detail from the original model of La Créole, Musée de la Marine, Paris

Source: Detail from La Flore, Frégate de 18, Musée de la Marine, Paris, 1806

Personal Conclusion:

The French employed toggles at the bridles and secured the running ends of the bowlines amidships on the yard, where possible, e.g., in conjunction with the buntlines — in my view, a practical solution that facilitated swift re-rigging.

The British, by contrast, preferred spliced-in thimbles at the ends of the bowlines, through which the bridles were rove — a permanent and solid connection, but likely less flexible when striking sails.

 

This reveals a clear national differentiation, as seen in many other rigging elements.

 

As a result, I now need to revise the detail of the bowlines on the fore yard, which I had mistakenly and prematurely executed in analogy to British practice.

It seems important to me that such details shouldn't be viewed too absolutely. Depending on the ship type, time period, or source, different solutions may have existed side by side—and therefore, variants that deviate from the "schema" are not automatically wrong.

 

I welcome any feedback or additions — especially references to French sources that further illuminate the use of toggled connections.

 

Edited Friday at 05:49 PM by archjofo

[Kenchington]

The only time I sailed in a ship with bowlines (the Rose, before she went off to play at being Surprise), we furled the sails with the bowlines attached to their leeches. Thus, coming at the question from the English side, I was surprised to discover, when reading Jean Boudriot's 74-Gun Ship, that French practice was to release the bowlines from the sails! That seems like a lot of unnecessary extra labour, when setting sail, though it doubtless had advantages.

 

Trevor

[archjofo]

@Kenchington

Hello Trevor,

Thank you, very exciting that you experienced the Rose before her ‘career’ as Surprise. Your note on English practice complements the French sources wonderfully and makes the differences even clearer.

[Loracs]

a small question: in your post on "british Practice", second picture.  How is the lines attach to the yarn? what kind of knots?  so sorry for the basic question.  I can't see the knot very well.   here reposted:

Edited Sunday at 01:27 PM by Loracs

[archjofo]

Hello,
These are so-called timber hitches (see LINK ). A knot that was used in various rigging situations, including for temporarily securing the bowlines. However, this was primarily used in the British Navy, as already mentioned.

[Loracs]

a thousand thanks... greatly appreciated.