Royal Caroline, deck covering

[druxey]

I remember oilcloth from my childhood: it had a distinctive odour to it.

[JerseyCity Frankie]

Here is a shot of painted canvas deck covering from HMS victory, this is what is meant when there is discussion of painted canvas on a deck. Its an exclusive interior space and its intended as a decorative flourish, not as a practical coating to prevent water getting in. And most importantly its in an interior space. To my knowledge the painted canvas is used nowhere else aboard Victory.

[Mark P]

Hi Frankie;

 

thank you for posting the picture of Victory's cabin.  I must go there again,  not been for many years! I have seen the chequer-board pattern on the decks of cabins in models,  as well.  So painted canvas was used internally,  without doubt.

 

I think,  though,  that we must at all times remember that 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'.

 

Doreltomin has sent me a link to a contemporary model of the Naval Yacht 'Old Portsmouth'  from an auction catalogue.  This model is attributed to the yacht in the year 1752.  The entirety of the upper decks is covered in the same pattern of painted chequerboard,  presumably on paper in the model's case,  but it must represent canvas on the real vessel.  There cannot have been any alternative material to use in those times. 

 

I have also seen a contemporary model of an admiral's barge with painted canvas on the deck planking,  at the NMM's model store.

 

I will try to put a link here:  http://www.charlesmillerltd.com/catalogues/ms301013/lot0347.html

 

Doreltomin has also carried out research at the National Archive at Kew,  into the building of the Royal Yacht 'Henrietta' in 1679.  A letter from her master shipwright is there,  in which he writes complaining about the late arrival of the copper for the kitchen funnel,  and for coppering the mast.

 

I think that these two items of evidence must give rise to an acceptance that perhaps Royal Yachts and Naval Yachts at least,  and maybe some other small vessels sometimes had painted canvas deck coverings,  and/or (Speedwelll,  as above,  post #27,  thanks Druxey) copper mast funnels at deck level.  Regarding the mast funnels,  it is also beyond doubt that in every painting of the Royal Caroline I have seen (four of them) in which it is possible to make out the lower masts,  these are a pinky-red colour for the first 5 feet or so.  I am happy to accept Doreltomin's written letter as evidence that this represents a copper funnel.

 

I will also carry out further research into Royal Caroline myself,  and will see if there is any more mention of such things.

 

All the best,

 

Mark

Edited July 16, 2016 by Mark P

[Mark P]

Greetings everyone;

 

Unfortunately it appears that the link above does not work properly.  The photos of the model can also be found on Charles Miller's website,  auction catalogue for sale number 12,  30th October 2013.  After a couple of clicks it is possible to get to a page-turning online catalogue.  The model in question is on page 106 & 107.

 

Incidentally,  it appears that Charles Miller's catalogues are well worth looking at for Naval and maritime items.  They hold twice-yearly auctions of fine art, models, and memorabilia.  With prices that are well beyond the pockets of most people,  unfortunately.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

Edited July 16, 2016 by Mark P

[druxey]

Tried the Miller web site, but while I could spend a lot of time with these e-catalogs, it jumps auction 12. Do you have a url, please, Mark?

 

I've sen the chequerboard canvas represented on open boat models and always assumed these were roll-up temporary, not permanent, floorcloths. One would need to lift them to bail the boat, among other maintenance activities. 

[Doreltomin]

http://www.charlesmillerltd.com/Catalogues/ms301013/lot0347.html

 

Hi Druxey & all,

 

Here is the link to the said model. Certainly for yachts deck covering was not temporary! However we must keep in mind that yachts were the luxury limousines of the times so these little ships were finished in a style not matched by the common warships!

[Mark P]

Greetings Doreltomin;

 

Thank you for the link;  that is much better.

 

And thank you Frankie for posting the picture.  I have my doubts about the mast,  I think that this is a modern addition (the bowsprit is the same) but everything else seems genuinely old.

 

I wonder if what we are seeing in the painting of the Royal Caroline is a temporary covering to protect a chequer board pattern, or similar design,  from wear,  whilst there are no important passengers aboard.

 

Certainly the Royal Standard is not flying from the masthead,  which means that no royalty is aboard,  presumably just the crew.

 

More research required,  I think!

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

[druxey]

The stub mast and bowsprit jumped out at me even before I read your post, Mark. I concur that they are modern additions. This odd duck is the first representation I have seen showing chequerboard druggets on the weather decks of a ship. The carved works are nowhere near the standard of the so-called 'Admiralty' models.

 

Are those out-of-scale fire buckets represented on the quarter deck breastwork? Strange.

Edited July 22, 2016 by druxey

[Mark P]

Frankie;

 

Can you let me know how you managed to download the pictures,  because I couldn't get this as an option at all.  I could only get them to print.

 

Druxey,  I had assumed the breastwork railing was simply decorative,  but you may well be correct.  

 

Thank you both for the continued interest and posts.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

[Doreltomin]

Hello everybody,

 

I completely agree with you that the stub mast and bowsprit are modern additions - it shows from the colour of the wood.

 

However, the rest of the model looks genuine - at least to my eyes. Whether it is real or just a modern conception done with the aim to deceive, mimicking an old model, cannot tell just from seeing a picture. However all the details look authentic even if the deck covering is intriguing. As for the "fire buckets", I also thought they were just a bit odd decorations, nothing more.

 

Generally speaking, when someone tries to mimic an old model, besides great care taken to make the materials look old they carefully avoid strange, unnatural details not seen elsewhere. Now if you analyze this model, it shows as if its builder didn't care whether the details he uses were seen elsewhere in real period models, be them in museums or private collections - he seems just concerned with showing the details of the real ship as best as he could.

 

Again, cannot tell, it may be a recent model built by a exceptionally skilled modeller, or a genuine Georgian model. Now if you ask me, I would go for the later. 

Edited July 22, 2016 by Doreltomin

[Mark P]

Greetings Doreltomin;

 

Thank you for your thoughts.  I agree with you that the model is genuinely old,  and I have done so since I first saw it.  And I think that is the opinion of the others here,  as no-one has stated otherwise.  It was also identified as contemporary by the staff at the auctioneers who deal regularly with models of many different ages,  and having handled the model,  would have been in a good position to spot any anomalies. 

 

I have also seen other contemporary models (Warrior,  74;  and Endymion,   44,  both in the Science Museum) with painted figures,  using a very similar set of colours,  and other members will surely know of others.  I think Druxey's comment on the quality of the carving was merely a comment,  and not an argument against the model being contemporary (put me right here,  Druxey,  if I'm wrong) 

 

I have no doubt that the model depicts a contemporary practice,  although one normally limited in scope to vessels of a certain type. 

 

I will now keep an eye out for any other further evidence of this,  especially related to Royal Caroline or her contemporaries.

 

Again,  many thanks to all contributors,  for all the ideas posted.  I have certainly added to my knowledge from reading the responses to this topic,  and if anyone has any further thoughts,  or pictures,  please add them for all to read/see.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

[druxey]

The latest post by Doreltomin made me go back and look at the photographs again. On more careful inspection there are too many anomalies that are making me suspicious. I've no doubt that the hull is genuine and old. Look at the condition of the paintwork and surfaces. Now look at the various rails along the topsides. Nice, unchipped and with unmarked paint. Check the quality of the quarter badge. Now compare the quality of work with that of the stern ornamentation. No comparison. Also, doesn't that chequerboard look just a little too neat and clean? 

 

Now, convince me that all that weather deck work is the same vintage as the hull. (OK, some of the deck fittings such as the capstan and windlass look 'right', but....)

[Mark P]

Greetings Druxey;

 

I have to disagree with some of your comments.  If you follow the link,  and look at the photo which shows the best view of the deck,  the one included in Frankie's post,  it is quite clear that the paintwork to the rails and stanchions around the hancing abreast the quarterdeck rail is marked and chipped,  to both Port and Starboard.  This kind of thing can be seen in some of the other pictures,  but not so clearly.  There are certainly areas where it looks undamaged,  though.

 

Concerning the chequer-board pattern,  if you look at the areas each side of the main mast as it crosses the deck,  the lines are not straight at all,  there are misalignments and bends in the patterning.  This can also be seen in a couple of other areas,  and many of the 'tiles' do not have straight edges or sharp corners.  There are also lines which could be tears from expansion/contraction of the wood below,  near the top of the steps to the quarterdeck,  and in front of the quarterdeck breastwork.

 

The edge of the chequerboard at the top of the quarterdeck steps also appears to be scuffed,  although this could be the wood of the underlying step.

 

Concerning the stern carvings,  these are somewhat difficult to assess too accurately,  as the paint obscures some of the detail.  To my mind,  the quality of the quarter badge carving is no less crudely executed than the stern carvings and counter ends.  Most tellingly the 'scallop-shell' top finial to the badge is merely incised lines,  with no hollow curves or three-dimensional definition attempted.

 

The last point is why would anyone want to go to the trouble of making and pasting a chequer-board pattern onto a model,  which has obviously been carefully fitted,  at a date later than the model's construction.  I think the most telling point here is that the auction house expert,  who has presumably handled many models of differing age,  as there are quite a few in the auction catalogues,  has made no comment on the deck or railings.  He would have handled and inspected this at a much closer level than any of us can manage through the photographs available here.

 

I feel that the balance of probability is heavily on the side that the deck-covering is genuine and contemporary with the model's manufacture.

 

I hope that this has laid some of your doubts to rest.  If not,  I will try and trace the buyer,  and see if it is possible to inspect/photograph the model (I might well do this anyway)

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

Edited July 25, 2016 by Mark P

[druxey]

Thanks for your thoughtful rebuttal of my argument, Mark. I agree that the shell carving over the quarter badge is less than sophisticated, but I was looking at the framework of the lights. Also, I absolutely agree that some of the deck furniture looked paint-chipped and knocked about: I mentioned the examples of windlass and capstan, but the quarter deck breastwork also falls into that category.

 

My 'take' is that more than one hand worked on the model and one was far more skilled than the other(s). Still, unless another example of ship with chequerboard deck coverings turns up, I remain a little sceptical!

 

Regardless, this is - to me - a fascinating thread.

[Mark P]

Greetings Druxey;

 

Thank you for your response.  I agree with you that I would feel happier with another model displaying the same type of thing.  I shall have a good look through the archives to see what I can unearth. 

 

Additionally,  I think I will contact the various auction houses,  asking for photographs of models sold.  This might turn up some results of interest.

 

I certainly concur that this is a fascinating thread,  and has developed in a direction I did not foresee. 

 

I would still like to know if the grey deck on Royal Caroline is a temporary cover over a chequer-board deck.  More research still required there,  I think.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

[Roger Pellett]

Canvas covered decks have been used on yachts even into relatively modern times. L. Francis Herreshoff was a proponent of these, and in the late 1940's my father built a Herreshoff designed Prudence H-22 sailboat with a canvas covered deck set in paint. Wooden Boat had an article on the subject several years ago. A few years ago there was a Herreshoff H-28 ketch here in the harbor. It had a teak deck sprung into a king plank and it looked totally out-of-place. Herreshoff would have disapproved. The modern plywood decks with synthetic fabric set in epoxy are direct descendants of these canvas covered decks.

 

I would think that a canvas covered deck on a royal yacht would be an entirely practical moth of for protecting passengers and furnishings below, and decorating it with paints would be a plus.

 

Roger Pellett

Edited July 25, 2016 by Roger Pellett

[Mark P]

Hi Roger;

 

Thank you for the comment,  that is interesting.  I will remember what you say.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P