Soleil Royal by Hubac's Historian - Heller - An Extensive Modification and Partial Scratch-Build

[Hubac's Historian]

Thank you, Patrick!  And thank you Vic and Dan for the tips on glues.  I have limited experience with regular Gorilla Glue - which I'm not wild about because of the bubbly expansion.  I also probably haven't used it properly, as I think mating surfaces are supposed to be slightly damp.  But, presumably, Gorilla CA glue wouldn't behave that way, anyway.  I will look into it and find something that works for me.

 

Tonight, I glued in the dolphins on the starboard, aft bulwark and seeing the three of them neatly inlet into their places really completed, for me, the whole visual upgrade to the sheer railing.  I'll post more pics after I have fit and glued-in the mating halves of the sheer dolphins, and after I have created the port poop royal railing.

 

The next step, after that, will be to create the round-port enhancements.  And following that, I will tackle the upper bulwark frieze, which is what really transforms this build into another model, altogether.  After that, I think I can begin painting.  Although, I am still not sure about what method I will use to build up the quarter galleries.

 

At one of our Ship Craft Guild of New York meetings, Dan was unloading various odds and ends, and I picked up a few really nice sticks of very finely grained wood that might be lime, or holly.  Something white, and with an extremely fine grain, yet not especially hard like boxwood.  I am tempted to edge glue this stock and make blanks for both the lower finishing, up to the main deck level (that wraps to the stern), as well as a separate piece for the ammortisement.  My reservation with doing so, is that I wonder how much seasonal movement I could expect from this solid wood glued to the plastic hull.  Or, if it is glued only at the center, will it even matter at all?  I could paint the hull and upper bulwarks such that, if there is some degree of expansion and contraction, then there is never an unpainted line of demarcation around the quarter gallery.

 

The advantage of carving from the solid is that you can carve, directly, the convoluted undulations of the QG surfaces, as well as any frame and panel detailing.  You could then apply any necessary profiled mouldings, as well as the carvings.  Maybe, though, it would be more advisable to do an underlying bulkhead framework, as Doris has recently done on her Royal Katherine build - over which, I could skin a thin layer of card sheathing.

 

The difficulty with this choice has to do with my interpretation of Berain's drawing; these French quarter galleries are not neatly compartmentalized into segmented panels, in the English style (where the panels, themselves, can be mostly flat), but have rather a more rounded and sculptural shaping of their surfaces.

 

The QGs are, by far, the most complex part of this build and making a good model of this will mean really taking whatever time is necessary to figure it out and execute it.  I will probably proceed with painting the lower hull and upper bulwarks, but leaving a large enough glue surface bare, that I am confident will be covered by the QGs, no matter whether they expand and contract.  In all likelihood, I won't begin building up the QGs until after this thing has been assembled into a hull.  That probably makes the most sense, anyway, as the ammortisement has to flow fairly into the lower QG.

Edited June 20, 2018 by Hubac's Historian

[yancovitch]

ha....yes using the original gorilla glue really got me upset.....had to redo a lot of work...didn't know whether to laugh scream curse or cry...though it must have some special purpose i don't even want to know about :).....but gorilla ca is great...use it all the time....but mainly  on wood ............but i think the ordorless ca's work well too......

   your depth of analysis never ceases to amaze me.....haha...i feel more like a neanderthal compared to you.....

[EJ_L]

Yes, the quarter galleys are extremely tricky on this ship and more so if trying to follow Berain’s drawing. One thing that I would love to see is a framing plan, obviously we don’t have an original but, even a modern interpretation of the framing on the QGs. That is something that is rarely shown on any plans or models. Even pictures of existing spaces such as the QGs on Constitution, Victory and Vasa showing the interior spaces are rare. I know that these are not really points of interest for the casual observer and tourist but, are of those mportance to those of us trying to understand and model them. 

 

Best of luck as you begin to plan, design and model yours. Looking forward to see what you come up with! 

[Hubac's Historian]

Far from Neanderthal, Vic, I think of your talents as those of an artistic savant.  Your intuitive feel for proportion and the right amount of detail is a gift, and the way your RW sits on the water is about as close to any of us will ever get to seeing one of these great First Rates sail.

 

Mostly, I am a compulsive personality and remain obsessed with the small details until I am satisfied with their execution.  Nothing I do is ever "perfect," but I do strive to create something that can really be scrutinized very closely and still found to be consistently good.  I appreciate the compliment, though.

 

I agree with you, EJ, that I can only muster a hazy sense of the underlying framework of the QGs.  My sense for them, though, is that the wales serve as supporting ledges for the structure.  I suppose it helps that tumblehome generally gives an assist to resisting gravity, here.  Now, whether the beam framing from the interior decks extends past the ship sides and becomes the floor for the QGs, on some ships, I cannot say.  My recollection of the Batavia replica, though, was that the whole structure sort of grew from the support of the wales and was fastened to the sides of the ship.  The structure was very light.  Come to think of it, I believe that the Batavia Werf website features a partial model of the Provincien's stern, which may just show the framing of the QG on one side.  Will check and get back to you.

Edited June 21, 2018 by Hubac's Historian

[Hubac's Historian]

Following are a few shots from inside the Batavia replica's QG, and also a framing shot I found of the Batavia Werf's large scale model of the Provincien.

The people at Batavia Werf are pretty much the authority on 17th Century Dutch practice, so I would say that these are solid guides for the sort of framing that make up your average QG. 

[EJ_L]

Thanks for sharing these Marc!

 

I had always assumed that the construction would be more of a "gilded" construction (fancy coating over a simple structure) mostly due to weight and stability factors. With the massive sizes of some of the QGs, especially on 17th century vessels, if they were a massive, heavy build and one was severely damaged or lost, the imbalance to the ship could have proven fatal. Keeping the construction as simple as a possible helps to lessen that. Of course that also makes it easier for them to become damaged... Hmm, lots to think about. 

[Hubac's Historian]

Work on the port poop-royal railing continues.  I still have to clean up my dolphins.  In the meantime, though, I have made masters for my round port enhancements.

 

I laminated two pieces of .032" stock because I desired a somewhat more rounded relief.  The following series of pics pretty much tells the story:

 

These ornaments are so small that it is difficult to draw these little scrolls in a truly symmetrical fashion.  When faced with this circumstance, I always figure that I can round out the shapes better with the tools as long as the drawing is close:

Pretty good symmetry

Not shaped, yet, but placed to get a sense for the ornament

You can see that I was not able to carve both sides in exactly the same way.  I happen to like one more than the other, but I like both them well enough to use them as masters.  I will simply pair identical ornaments for each port, and alternate them from one port to the next.  Here they are, in the vertical, so that you can see them in a different raking light.  I may also shorten the "neck" that abuts the port frame, when I do the installation.

 

Edited June 27, 2018 by Hubac's Historian

[shipmodel]

Hi Marc - 

 

Beautiful carving work, and a very closely matching pair.  But if you only used the best master, and doubled the number of castings, wouldn't they all be identical?  One of the pair is just rotated 180 degrees.

 

Dan 

[Hubac's Historian]

Hi Dan, and thank you.  Yes, the reason that I have not done as you suggested is that while the Allumilite resin does a pretty nice job of making castings within these rubber moulds, I think the resolution degrades when you make a new mould from a previous casting.  I haven't tried it yet to confirm, but I prefer the crispness of casting from the masters.  By pairing like ornaments at each port, I will minimize any apparent differences, and whatever differences there are can be considered the charm of a mostly hand-made thing.

 

In other words, I'm just being a little lazy, here

Edited June 27, 2018 by Hubac's Historian

[EJ_L]

With all the work you are doing on this build, I think we can forgive a little laziness but, only a little....  

 

One thing that has been both a frustration and a relief is the variance in the decorations between the artists of the time. I know that this is mostly due to the various refits as well as the distances and angles the ship was painted at not to mention the 300 years that have passed since then. Still the frustration sets in when thinking of historical accuracy as to what was there but, as I have not yet seen 2 models with the same configuration and when I add that to the differences in the artistic renderings we have, I do not feel too bad when I take creative licenses. That being said, I have a feeling that this build log will be held in high regard for guidelines on future S.R. builds and should be. The research you have done and your willingness to share both what you have learned along with how and why you are building the ship the way you are brings a lot of insight and guidance to a very famous though perhaps misrepresented ship. 

[Hubac's Historian]

Thank you, EJ!  I think the best I can strive for with this model is historical plausibility.  That being said, I take many of my cues from Michel Saunier and Marc Yeu, whom I consider the un-paralleled experts on the ship.  The nice thing is that, like all art, the execution of the sculptures is an act of artistic interpretation, and everyone’s efforts will reflect something of their own personal style.

 

As always, I appreciate your thoughts and for following this build.

Edited June 30, 2018 by Hubac's Historian

[Hubac's Historian]

Work on a number of aspects of the upper bulwarks continues.  Having freed the round-port enhancements from their backgrounds, I have begun inletting them into the forward upper bulwarks.

 

There has been some discussion on Doris’s build log for the Royal Katherine about the merits of sculptung each ornament, individually, versus casting repetitive ornaments.  Consencus, there, has been that making each ornament individually, with the inherent small variations in execution, contributes toward the unique and handmade character of the finished model.  I also agree with this.

 

What I have found with the casting process, on the other hand, is that these castings require a significant amount of cleanup and rework so that - in the case of these round port enhancements, for example - the tiny scrolls are identifiably small scrolls.  In the end, though, all of this re-work results in each ornament being slightly different in size and shape.

 

With this in mind, I cast an extra four pairs of port enhancements so that I could mix and match similarly sized and shaped pairs, using only the best of what is available to me.

 

So far, this seems to be working out well for me.  These pictures are illustrative of a number of things.  First of all, the ornament I ended up carving is not what I originally drew; the original intent was a tiny tulip flower nestled between the scrolls.  At this scale, I found that extremely difficult to draw, let alone carve.  Simplified fleur-de-lis seemed a reasonable compromise.

 

The other challenge, here, was letting the enhancements into the sheer rail.  This required, first marking the lower scroll onto the white timberhead stile with a sharp knife.  Leveling the waste area of the stile down to the timberhead surface.  Then, finally, lightly scribing the upper scroll into the sheer rail with a sharp EXACTO, while holding the ornament in place with your thumb.  A small round DREMEL burr is then used to waste away for the upper scroll head.  Challenging, but doable.

 

So, that’s where I’m at for now.  There are still many more of these to place.  I still have work to do on my dolphins, and my port poop-royal railing is almost complete.

 

Edited July 8, 2018 by Hubac's Historian

[yancovitch]

looks shookum hubac........... one has to give credit to the artists who make some of these kits....

[Hubac's Historian]

Is that a Vancouver colloquialism, Vic?  Shookum!  I’ll take it as a compliment 👌

[yancovitch]

haha...what else could it be

[EJ_L]

Continuing on with your incredible work my friend. Well done!!

 

I have seen several discussions on what is to be considered true "hand building" or not. While arguments can be made on all sides of the issue, I personally feel that if you created it, regardless of the medium used, than it is "hand made". I know this debate has been around for a long time between full scratch builds and kits especially if those kits are plastic but, with the ease of accessibility to other techniques like photo etching, laser cutting and 3D printers all being able to be done affordably in home, I think we could be on the cusp of great things in model building.

 

Even in casting pieces, you still had to make the mold and clean up the resulting pieces. The time and effort involved is still a skill set that requires practice and patience just like carving. You still created each one. Your hands and tools still plied their trade onto each piece making it ready to go onto your model. To me, that is the definition of hand made.

 

 

[Hubac's Historian]

I agree with you, EJ, that technology is opening the door for modelers to do previously only dreamed about things.  In particular, 3-D printing and 3-D computer modeling are already affordable and accessible options that many on this forum are already using to great effect.

 

On his excellent scratch-build of the Italian liner, The Michelangelo, Dan Pariser sourced a 3D printing firm to create the complicated, tapering lattice frameworks that surround the ship’s funnels.  Could Dan have devised a way to build them, himself?  Absolutely.  However, sometimes, the computer can do things like this in a fraction of the time and to a standard we can only dream to match.  That way, we are free to concentrate our efforts on the other, more rewarding aspects of our build.

Edited July 9, 2018 by Hubac's Historian

[Hubac's Historian]

Today, I visited the Strand bookstore, just south of Union Square.  I like to go there, when I'm in the area, because they have a decent maritime/nautical history section, and I sometimes find some gems for my collection.

 

Well, today, I found a different depiction of the burning of Soleil Royal at La Hogue, that I have never seen before.  Below is the title page of the book, a picture of the composition as a whole and a close-up of SR:

 

There was no artist attribution in the caption, and I can only guess that the painting was done sometime between 1700 - 1730.  I think this may be so because the stern of SR bears little resemblance to Berain's design, and appears to feature set-back, screen bulkheads, where the stern windows are located.  To my knowledge, this feature of stern construction did not become commonplace until the first half of the 18th Century, and then, more often on English ships.  I'm not positive about that, but I seem to remember that being a point Andrew Peters made in his book, Ship Decoration 1630-1780.

 

While I don't think there is much that can be taken as literal truth, from this portrait, I like it because it conveys a sense of the drama of the scene and the grandeur of Soleil Royal.  Here, Soleil Royal is shown only with two stern balconies, and only two small port windows to either side of the tafferal frieze, on the quarter deck level.  Interestingly, the appearance of screen bulkheads and only two stern balconies also appears in the Bakhuizen portrait of Barfleur, where there is at least some vestigial evidence of Berain's design:

 

If anyone knows the artist that is attributed to the black and white portrait, above, I would very much like to know who that is.

Edited July 11, 2018 by Hubac's Historian

[Hubac's Historian]

Now that all of the sheer-rail detailing is done, and dolphins installed, and all of the round port enhancements are let in place - here is a bit of a before and after comparison with the original kit parts:

 

I’d like to note that, only here at the transition from waist rail to the f’ocsle rail, does the dolphin nearly align with the scalloped hancing detail, below it, as drawn by Berain.  For the stern upper bulwark pieces, I felt that at least having the dolphins and hancing steps present was enough, without going the extra mileage to extend the piercing of the timberheads, so that the hancing pieces all lined up under the dolphins.  In at least one instance on the quarter deck, the presence of a round gun port prevented that alignment, anyway.  By not doing so, I afforded myself more room for a more complete layout of the lattice frieze, which I felt was a more important detail.

Now, I will begin making all of the fleur-de-lis, shells, scrolls and folliate diamonds that ornament the new lattice frieze, which will fill all of this newly cleared space on the upper bulwarks.

 

At some point soon, I will need to figure out where I went wrong in my GIMP drawing process, so that I can print what I have for the lattice frieze and the amortisement of the quarter gallery, to scale.  Presently, the entire drawing is crammed into something like 1/300 - 1/350 scale. I made some error in importing the scans of my hand drawing into a workspace that was unnecessarily too large.  To work on the drawing, I really have to zoom in.  All of this, in some way or how must be why working on the drawing slowed to a near standstill because I had many thousands of data points crammed into too small a space.

 

Anyway, Much as I would like to, I don’t need to finish the drawing in order to complete the model.  It would just be really helpfull to extract that frieze layout because it should be a perfect match for the upper bulwark pieces.  I’m also hoping to salvage my bow angel and the trailboard frieze for between the knees of the head.

[Hubac's Historian]

In preparation for my week off, in Cape Cod, I am trying to prepare fleur-de-lis carving blanks for the frieze.   My current inability to print my GIMP drawing, to scale (or at all, really), has me improvising in ways that are somewhat successful and in other ways not.

 

I’ve been taking measurements off my flat computer screen with my Starrett rule, to determine that my fleur-de-lis for the frieze should be very nearly 3/16” x 3/16”.  Great, I think to myself - I have styrene strip that is 3/16” x 1/16” thick!

 

So, on a piece of vellum, and within these perameters, I begin to attempt drawing my fleur-de-lis.  This takes a few hours to arrive at proportions that are pleasing and approximately close to what I could achieve on the computer.

 

For reference, though, I went back to pics from a recent visit to the Met, which featured an exhibit on the court of Louis XIV.  Among the exquisite items and artifacts, on display, was this relatively small marble study, that depicts Benjamin Franklin and Louis XVI, on March 20, 1778, signing the Treaty of Alliance.  Aside from a relationship that would help (tremendously!) forge our American independence, what I was most drawn to were the perfectly rendered fleur-de-lis that adorn Louis’s cape.  Look, Ben’s going in for the Bro-shake:

This is, in actuality, a very small-scale sculpture of this event in Amero/Franco history, but the carving of the marble is remarkable in its detail and consistency.  Here, it seemed to me, was a perfect example of everything a fleur-de-lis should be.

 

With that settled and the first flower drawn, I next folded the vellum over that first drawing, and made a series of tracings, all in a row - 8 in all.  My objective, ultimately, is to make carving blanks from the five best tracings.

 

Reasonably satisfied, and reasoning as always, that I can correct shaping discrepancies with the tools, I pasted a photocopy of my drawing to a strip of styrene.  I wanted to preserve the original drawing for the several other sizes of fleur-de-lis that I will need elsewhere on the ship.

 

Here is a photo montage of my mixed results and several epiphanies along the way:

 

These look decent.  Workable.  After filing a few to profile, though, I discovered that they did not fit neatly within the sheer strakes at the fo’csle and quarter deck levels, as I had previously drawn.

 

Keeping them, at this size, would necessitate letting them into the sheer strakes at these most narrow points.  While this was an acceptable accomodation to me for the upper arches of the domed port enhancements, along the main deck level, I feel that this will not look passably ok with an ornament that would, naturally, be scaled to fit the available space.

 

The middle fronds of the fleurs are small enough as it is.  So, I decided to chop the points from the top and bottom of the flower until they, at least, fit within the sheer strakes.

Above is a good comparison of the difference in proportion, from where I started to where I need to be.  They should, in fact, be even a little smaller!  But, here are two revised flowers, side by side:

My experience, thus far with this casting process, is that I inevitably end up with ornaments that are larger or smaller, depending upon a number of variables related to the process of removing the ground and defining the perimeter.  There will be plenty of extras to choose from, that will fill these more narrow spaces without seeming too large, relative to the frieze lattice.  Whatever other differences, in size throughout the frieze, should contribute (hopefully, in a good way) to the handmade quality of the model.

 

I can’t wait for vacation!! 🌞🌊🏊🏻‍♂️⚓️

 

Edited July 29, 2018 by Hubac's Historian

[Landlubber Mike]

This has been a real interesting log to follow Hubac.  Love your attention to detail and have been learning a lot!

[Hubac's Historian]

I really appreciate that, Mike.  I feel sometimes that I overdocument the minutea, but that’s just who I am - a classic over-sharer 😀

[mtaylor]

1 hour ago, Hubac's Historian said:

I really appreciate that, Mike.  I feel sometimes that I overdocument the minutea, but that’s just who I am - a classic over-sharer 😀

That's not a bad thing, IMO, Marc.  I'd rather see "over documented" than bare bones, here's what I did with one picture as it really does help others in unexpected ways.  

[Hubac's Historian]

One of several aspects of your Licorne build log that has been especially helpful to me, Mark, is the galley stove section of your build.  I’m not sure I will go whole-hog and build a full galley stove, like you did, but I will probably include the visible portion, beneath the f’ocsle deck, as well as the chimney through the deck.  This was a detail I was aware of, before, but your particular approach made it seem very doable to me, and worth the extra effort.

Edited July 31, 2018 by Hubac's Historian

[mtaylor]

Thanks for the compliment, Marc.   We're all in this together and if anything else is useful, feel free to use it.

[Hubac's Historian]

Well, it was a delightful week away, spent entirely on the beach.  I didn’t get to any of the carving I thought I was going to do, though, but that is just as well;  I needed a break from everything.

 

Today, I carved the first of four fleur-de-lis that will make up my master for the frieze, and probably the lower battery port lids, as well.  And maybe even the middle battery ports, if they don’t seem too large.

 

Here’s what that looks like:

And one more shot against a clear ground:

If they all come out at least this well, I will be happy.

 

[Hubac's Historian]

Voila!

 

These are now clean and uniform enough to mount and make mould impressions from.  And then, I’ll just be making a ton of em!

[Hubac's Historian]

This is mostly a place-keeper post, just to show that something is happening.

 

I continue to learn interesting (to me, at least) things about the process of making casting masters.  On previous ornaments, I was perplexed as to why - when the ground was sanded/cut away - the ornament seemed larger, all around, than the masters.

 

Well, I finally realized that the thin-set cyano I am using to mount the masters to their stamp blocks, leaves a corona of squeeze-out around the perimeter of the master, which is not really visible to the naked eye, yet it leaves an impression in the mould medium.  In the end, this results in quite a lot of re-profiling of the cast blanks to bring them back to scale.

 

Sorry that I do not have any pictures of this phenomenon.  Hopefully, I have described it adequately.  This time, I was carefull to scrape away the cyano squeeze-out from the master block and the resulting moulds were much cleaner.

 

That being said there was still quite a lot of cleanup and re-shaping involved, after cutting away the ground.  Here’s a rough blank with the ground removed:

 

Here’s that same ornament after clean-up and some re-shaping:

Here are fifty ornaments that have gone through that process, and then have been given the once-over, again, in order to maintain a level of consistency among them all:

This is more than enough to select from for the upper bulwark frieze, and I’ll have a good number left over for the port lids, although I will still need to cast more when I get to that stage of the build.

 

What is not evident in the above pictures is the decision I made to change the profile of the side fronds of the fleurs from my original intent in the mould masters.

 

Ultimately, with my mind set on the fact that the frieze will be dense with ornament - I decided to soften the frond points and cut the fronds a little closer to the ornament centerline.  We’re talking slivers of an inch, here, but repeated many times, over an area, this should help balance the visual weight of the ornaments, relative to each other.

 

Hair-splitting, yes, but worth the extra effort, IMO.  Next up, I will make the many small frieze scroll ornaments I need:

These little things (on every pointy end of the frieze lattice) are really tiny.  I’m not sure this casting process is the best method, as they are roughly 1/8” wide by 1/16” high and I need A LOT of ‘em!  I haven’t gotten around to taking an actual measurement yet, but they are tiny enough that it is hard to imagine going through any advanced effort at sculpting, over and over again.

 

I wonder about making a punch that I could use to stamp these things out easily and quickly from 1/32” styrene sheet.  I could then use the same technique I used for the wale through-bolting, to create tiny domed accents for the scroll heads, that I would apply to the scroll with a dot of glue.

 

This would give the scrolls just a bit of shape and dimension, as opposed to being a completely flat stamping.

 

Does anyone out there have any relatively easy advice on making such a small punch, or any ideas on an alternative approach to this particular ornament?  Is this, perhaps, an ideal application for 3-D printing?

Edited August 17, 2018 by Hubac's Historian

[yancovitch]

hmmmmm..dem cookies look good enough to eat.......could even hang them on our christmas tree :)

[Hubac's Historian]

Well, that’s appropriate, because the frieze-lattice is exactly that - a Christmas tree for ornaments 🎄