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

[shipmodel]

Hi Marc - 

 

How do you plan on making those numerous nailheads on the inside of the port lids.   I never did it.  They always seemed to be too much trouble to replicate on a surface that would rarely be seen.   On a wooden surface they would have to be done one at a time.  But on plastic, I think a custom decal could be created.  

 

Just musing out loud.

 

Dan

[Hubac's Historian]

Well, Dan, my plan is to devise the most remarkably tedious process and to follow through on that, ergo...

 

Using the thinnest styrene sheet I have, I will scribe the layout for two strips that match the width of the upper and lower port lids.  Each strip will then be equally divided, along its length, and another two plank lines will be scribed-in so that the linings each look as though they consist of three equal-width planks.

 

Next, using my try-square I will measure and scribe a series of lines that represent the lid lining height, which is slightly less than their width on the Heller model.  Later, I will use these lines to part the lids from each other with a straight chisel.

 

But, first, the really fun part:  I will chuck a sewing needle (made of better steel, more rigid and sharper than a common pin) into a pin-vise and make just enough of an impression in a diamond-hatch pattern of lines, maybe five or six lines per lid (let’s just say 2 lines per plank), and so that none of the nail impressions comes too close to the border of each lid lining.  The diamond-hatch pattern is what makes the detail convincing.

 

This seems incredibly tedious, and IT IS, but I am reminding myself that there are only going to be 60 of these to do.

 

Unfortunately, I think one would need a swiss watch gear to mount a daisy wheel that you could roll in straight lines to make your impessions easily, and even then - it’d be a trick to get the lines to alternate in a diamond-hatch pattern.

 

Next, a light swipe with an emory board to level any mounding of the plastic, around the pin impressions, and then - the big decision:  whether to paint before mounting the ornaments.

 

Painting before ornaments would make it tremendously much easier to distress wash the lids (so that your hundreds of pin pricks show), and it would also mean that I could easily paint the ornaments flawlessly gold.  And, just wait til you see this gold paint I found; it’s an Academy (I believe, but I looked at a lot of gold paints and brands are blurring in my head) artist acrylic that looks like slightly patina’d, 24-Karat old gold, that still has a lustrous warmth to it.  I wanted to capture the golden impression that Bakhuizen makes in his Battle of Barfleur painting.  It’s going to look dynomite!

 

So, painting first would be much easier, and then I could just cyano the ornaments over the paint - something I almost never do - but this joint isn’t doing any work, so it should be fine.

 

Then, finally, part the lid linings.  Retouch the edges.  And then I have to figure out how to make really tiny rings out of the appropriate guage of annealed wire.  Any thoughts on that?  The rings need to be, like a heavy 1/32”, 3/64” (at scale, if an 1/8” = a foot, then a 1/16” is = 6”, so you want to end up somewhere around 4”, scale.  TINY.

 

Muse away, my friend!

Edited December 19, 2018 by Hubac's Historian

[EJ_L]

I've read that as well that often there were unarmed ports that had versatile uses with ventilation being chief among them on the lower decks as air struggled to get down there especially on the two and three deck ships. Other causes of lack of full armaments could include the availability of the guns themselves particularly during war when many ships were being outfitted and refitted and during peace when demand to produce new guns was at a low. This problem was largely encountered in foreign ports as supplies would be low. 

 

Cost of the guns came into play as well as it was not uncommon for the Navies to only supply a limited amount of shot and powder and left additional munition supplies up to the captain. If a captain found himself unable or unwilling to fully stock the ship, a smart trade off would be the number of guns being carried in exchange for more ammunition for those he could afford. A well trained crew could always shift guns rather quickly and easily from port to port to set up for action as needed.

 

Weight played another crucial role as a captain might find that while his ship can carry 110 guns, she sails better with only 100. If those 10 extra guns can be traded out for maneuverability without costing the effectiveness of combat, I believe that is a trade many captains would have taken as sailing the ship was even more crucial than the fire power. 

 

These are of course only my opinions as I am far from an expert on the subject but, from readings and the apparent commonality of the extra ports and lesser guns than the rated number suggests, I feel that they may hold some credit.   

[EJ_L]

I'm quickly approaching the lid dilemma myself. How to make them and make them look good.... I'm becoming more and more tempted to try Doris' method and make the decorative pieces by clay and mount them to the wood lids. The nails... well that is still uncertain.  

[Hubac's Historian]

I certainly agree with your insights, EJ, particularly regarding the availability of munitions/guns, and a captain’s preferences as they relate to ship handling.

 

Excellent insights!

[Hubac's Historian]

Well, I am on a hot streak of finding really cool, contemporary ship portraits that I had previously never seen before.

 

Here’s a portrait of a first rate that is attributed to Pierre Puget, from 1676.  Again, it is too fuzzy to read for detail, and it may just be a general portrait of a first-rate that may or may not have actually existed.

 

Whatever the case may be, it is interesting for a variety of reasons:

 

 

One thing that really jumps out at me is the pronounced rake of the main mast.  It seems that this feature, which shows up in earlier portraits, is greatly reduced as construction trends close out the 17th Century.

 

The heraldic band of arms between the middle deck ports matches what we see on the Monarque - in their presence and placement, if not their detail.

 

The stern balconies are hard to read for their arrangement, but it looks as though you have a lower (middle deck) stern balcony, supporting a main deck balcony.  The lower balcony could be a false balcony, though, but it is hard to read for detail;  looks shallow, though.

 

Also, the high sheer and ballustraded quarter galleries seem to be characteristically representative of the early First Marine.  Those might be Puget’s signature horsehead sculptures at the lower finishing of the QGs.  Maybe not.

 

No idea what ship this is, really, but it’s interesting.  Also, cool to have a bow view, to the side.  This view offers a decent perspective of the earlier headrail arrangement.

 

I have to say, I’ve come to view Puget as being on a par with the VDVs, when it comes to ship portraiture.

Edited December 19, 2018 by Hubac's Historian

[shipmodel]

Marc - 

 

Once again you inspire me with your scholarship and perseverance.  It would drive me mad, Mad, Mad I Tell You !!  - sorry about that little moment - so when I did the nailheads on the copper plates of Oneida, I made up a block of needles in the right pattern and impressed them all at once for each plate.  Of course, I had to make a lot of them, so it more than justified the time spent making up the stamper.  In your case, not so much.

 

Whatever method you settle on, I know your result will be equally inspiring.

 

Dan

[shipmodel]

Those rings you need are much smaller than I can make.  Instead what I do is make an eyebolt.  This gives me both the ring and a shaft to secure it to the model.  After installation the ring can be bent in any desired direction.  A piece of fine wire is folded around the shaft of a small drill bitt and the tails are twisted together until the eye forms around the drill.  Doing it that way I can get even smaller 'rings' than you need.

 

It works for me.     

[druxey]

Bucklers were loose lids, usually secured with ring- or eyebolts and bars from inboard.

[Hubac's Historian]

I like the idea of a stamping block.  It’s a bit of a trick to get all of your block points to index in exactly the same plane.  Might be worth a go, though.  Thanks for the tip, Dan!

Edited December 19, 2018 by Hubac's Historian

[Hubac's Historian]

Yeah, EJ, I’m feeling you on the clay issue.  Pretty soon I’m gonna give it a go, but I’ll experiment with a larger figurative carving.  I think it might be really tricky to master these new skills on small ornaments like fleur-de-lis.

 

I also like the eyebolt method, Dan, and I think that is definitely the way to go.

Edited December 19, 2018 by Hubac's Historian

[shipmodel]

Actually, it's dead easy.  I can show you the next time you are over, but here is a quick explanation - 

 

1.  Lay out your nail pattern on a wooden plank that is longer and wider than you need and about 1/4" thick.

2 . Use a drill press to make holes the same size as the needle shaft.

3.  Suspend the plank parallel to and about 1/4" above a hard, flat surface like a piece of glass.

4.  Slide the needles through all the holes until they just touch the glass.  

5.  Flood the top side of the plank around the needles with thin CA. 

6.  When dry and the needles are fixed in place, turn over and flood the bottom side.

7.  Trim the stamper from the plank, trim off the excess needle shafts, mount a handle and start stamping.

[Hubac's Historian]

Well, that does sound easy enough!

[Hubac's Historian]

So, I’ve been thinking about this German language study of the Royal Louis of 1668 that was recommended to me by Chapman.

 

As I commented, earlier, I found it really difficult to find any material difference between the German book cover art closeup of the “Royal Louis’s” stern and a known and inscribed portrait of Le Grand Monarque, par Pierre Puget.

 

Here are a couple of screen shots of the German book:

 

Now take a close look at the Monarque below.  At the top, just off the center, left, is the inscription incontrovertibly identifying the ship as the Monarque.  Now zoom-in on the stern, and count the number and arrangement of bolts beneath the stern chase ports; look at all the little details of the ship, as well as the shading around the lanterns, and the undulations of the water.  Really look closely.

 

 

The reason I can see no difference between these two portraits is that there is no difference.  The German cover art is simply a cropped enlargement of this portrait of the Monarque.  It would seem that the authors have mis-identified their subject.

 

This can be confirmed by the fact that this larger picture of the Monarque has an un-armed forecastle, however the RL of 1668 would have had an armed forecastle.  Incidentally, the port broadside picture of the Monarque that I have been posting, recently, also is unarmed in the forecastle, and yet it is often mis-identified as being the Royal Louis of 1668.

 

It is interesting to note, BTW, that the stern chase ports in the Puget drawing of the Monarque are shown unarmed.

 

Now, look at the following pics of a primitive contemporary drawing that is always attributed as the Royal Louis of 1668:

 

Because of the primitive nature of these drawings, it is difficult to guage how many grains of salt one should take with them, but there are differences in the number and arrangement of figures.

 

And, yet, there are many similarities.  The architecture and overall aspect of the stern would seem to be very close to the Monarque’s.  Notice, also, that the armed forecastle is clearly visible, off the port bow.

 

I don’t want to seem ungrateful to Chapman, for the reference, because, really - I do appreciate the suggestion.  Unfortunately, for our German friends, this does not appear to hold up.

 

I’m not really sure what the RL of 1668 looked like, but I would not be surprised if she were very similar to the Monarque.  Murky waters, here.  Tres murky.

Edited December 19, 2018 by Hubac's Historian

[Chapman]

Hello from Germany,

first of all, I've been little concerned with the Royal Louis.
The book I linked and read in parts "About the waves ..." I have acquired as background knowledge 
for the decoration of Hubacs Reine.

In my humble knowledge, Grand Monarque and Royal Louis are one and the same ship!
There was also a Monarque but that was a two- or three-decker with two covered gundecks. 
This Monarque sailed on its first mission with a part of the ornament of Royal Louis because its 
own decoration was not yet completely made.

The lower anonymous drawings shown above are from a report about Royal Louis published by 
Commissaire Hayet in 1677 and show the ship after a first conversion.

The ENSBA total rear view of the ship is, according to Charles Le Brun, a design drawing of the 
Royal Louis from 1668. On the transom stands P.P.F. 1681 and on the back Pujez, 1668 (?).

How all this fits together? At the moment, I do not know.

I think the book is worth it because of the research and because the author explains the symbolism 
of the figures and different coat of arms of the leading families.

At this point, I would like to thank you for this inspiring research and building report, Fantastic work!

 

Joerg

 

 

Edited December 20, 2018 by Chapman

[druxey]

Coming in as relatively unknowledgeable on this particular subject, the first thing that strikes me is the similarity between the 'primitive' stern view and the port quarter view. In both cases the lower port side quarter figure's trident and upper quarter figure's trumpet are clearly consonant, as well as the shape of the stern lanterns. Other items also are in agreement. These, it seems to me, would make these two images fairly reliable, surely? And both are different from the image positively identified as Monarque.

[Hubac's Historian]

Hello, Chapman.  Thank you for returning to this subject of the Royal Louis.  And, Druxey, yes the primitive port quarter and stern drawings do agree well with each other.

 

What I should have mentioned yesterday is that I am not completely discounting this German analysis of the RL/Monarque’s carved works.  Both ships were named for and celebrate the munificence of Louis XIV.  Although it will require a lengthy transcription into Google Translate, I do still plan to buy the book because I would like to better understand the allegory, and hopefully gain a better appreciation of the working relationships among LeBrun, Girardon and Puget.

 

My point in drawing the comparison was simply that few sources are unassailable - unless written by the principle actors, in the time period in question.  Pepy’s Diary, for example, is a pretty open window into his life and ship-building times.  In the 21st Century, on the other hand, we are tasked with sifting through a variety of primary and secondary (academic) sources.  Even among the highly regarded experts - there often appear discrepancies between ship attributions, histories, armaments, etc.

 

I will first illustrate this point using the following captioned images from Winfield and Robert’s book, concerning the Terrible vs. Le Royal Therese.  Hopefully, the captions are legible:

 

Now, in a very highly regarded (by me, especially) book that explores the First Marine in depth, this portrait, as well as a less detailed port broadside view of what appear to be the same ship, are labeled as the Royal Therese.  However, W & R’s explaination of why this was likely the Terrible, and not the RT, reveals a step further in analysis.  In my opinion, then, the attribution seems more likely correct that this is the Terrible.

 

And, then, I feel even more strongly so, when I see this captioned image of the Royal Therese, also from W & R:

 

The particulars of this portrait correspond with numerous other citations of the RT, that I have seen, and agree also, among the aforementioned particulars of the stern and quarter galleries, with a well-circulated portrait of Le Paris, as she originally appeared.

 

So, as my sources improve, the quality of my educated guesses improve, though - of course - little that I am saying is irrefutable fact;  I’m just an amateur, really.

 

Returning to the Monarque, following is W & R’s caption describing her early particulars:

 

Now, allowing for certain discrepancies in the following picture (as drawn vs. what is described above) that I believe to be the Monarque, and making an assumption about the presence of four chase guns pierced through the beakhead bulkhead - at most, the description and the ship pictured below could only carry 94 guns.  This would place her beneath the Premier Rang Extraordinaire, of which the RL definitively belongs.

 

W & R make mention that the Monarque was intended to have an armed forecastle, but the picture below would seem to indicate that she did not.  Also, the portrait must date to a time just after her launching because,  by 1670 her forecastle is removed.

 

This portrait shows 15 piercings on the lower deck (including an armed chase port), as opposed to the 13 intended pairs mentioned above, in addition to the chase port.  Despite these artisitic discrepancies, I still only count 94 guns, if I exclude the lower deck chase port and add in 4 beakhead bulkhead guns on the middle and main decks.  It is primarily on the basis of armament, in addition to the agreement between this portrait and the starboard quarter portrait that is labeled the Grande Monarque, that I believe this ship to actually be the Grande Monarque.

 

 

Now, consider below, the W & R description of the RL of 1669:

 

There is specific mention of the forecastle armament (8 6lb guns), and the poop (4 4lb guns).  At any point in her career, the RL would have been more heavily armed than the Monarque, and I imagine that any portrait of her would reflect it.

 

Anyway, that is why I think what I think, but I remain open to the possibility that this German title might change my mind, or some other, future source may paint a clearer picture.

 

As always, thank you for your interest and your thoughts and for pushing this conversation forward.  It is greatly appreciated!

 

Chapman - you mention that you are researching Puget’s work for a project concerning La Reyne.  Are you planning a model of her?

Edited December 21, 2018 by Hubac's Historian

[kirill4]

Good day Marc,

Your( yours and colleques who participate in discussions) researches and building of your model just fantastic for me!

Recently started to read all topics from begining- a lot of interesting facts !

Thanks a lot for sharing such information...have plans in future to assemble this model too...not with such deep conversions as you did, much less...but posts in your building just priceless for me!

Thanks!

Kirill

[Hubac's Historian]

Welcome, Kirill!

 

I am very glad that you have found the project of interest, and the information useful.  I try to update what I’ve learned, as my understanding of period practice improves.

 

I look forward to seeing your model develop, when the time comes to get her started.

 

Thanks to everyone for your likes, comments and looking in.

 

Happy Holidays, everyone!!

[jose_b]

On 10/20/2018 at 1:55 AM, Hubac's Historian said:

So, this is kind of a big day in my build-log!

 

After much waiting, Ancre publications has finally released the monographie of Le Saint Philippe of 1693.  This is a collaborative effort between Jean Claude Lemineur, and the modeler Jose Tusset.

 

Here is the link:

 

https://ancre.fr/en/monograph/93-le-saint-philippe-1693.html

 

The reason this work is so significant to me, and particularly for this project, is that Le Saint Philippe was one of the new ships of the “Second Marine,” which was the major rebuilding program, following the losses at La Hogue.  This rebuilding program marks the beginning of the long pushed-for standardization of French naval architecture into a codified rate system.

 

Because SR’s rebuild in 1688/89 is so close to the re-construction reforms of the second marine - it is plausible that the re-built, first SR would have incorporated much of the design elements that would be incorporated into the new navy.

 

My approach to modeling SR has always been a sort of forensic exploration, using contemporary sources to fill in the numerous blanks of the Heller kit.  From the instant I saw early photographs of the Tusset model, I recognized many of the more prominent features of the model I was proposing to build.

 

I expect that this new monographie will be an invaluable resource, and a much-needed one for the details of hull form/design, ship furniture, arrangement of armament, masting, rigging, etc.

 

Oh, and did I mention that it’s available in English?!  I know what I want for Christmas!

I've just discovered this thread and I think it's outstanding. Congratulations!
I'm also waiting for receiving this awesome monograph.

By the way, Happy Christmas for everyone!

Edited December 24, 2018 by jose_b

[Hubac's Historian]

Welcome aboard, Jose!  Thank you, I’m so glad that the project interests you.

 

Well, the St Philippe monograph is my Christmas present, but it has been in transit for almost a month now.  Perhaps it is sailing over here on Le Saint Philippe II 😉

 

For clarification, we had an “early” Christmas on Saturday, at home in New York because we flew down to Florida to be with family for the actual holiday.  That’s why I know my big present hadn’t arrived.

 

In the meantime, though, I’ve been browsing photologs from the Rochefort conference and this page has a ton of really good pics of the two models made for the monograph:

 

http://www.modellmarine.de/index.php?option=com_imagebrowser&view=gallery&folder=rochefort18-3&Itemid=55

 

Thanks to Kirill for providing this link!  One model is fully rigged, and the other is in the admiralty style.  Right away, I can see how helpful this new resource will be for correctly outfitting the decks and resolving certain issues I am bound to encounter in the poop deck/poop royal deck from lowering the sheer.

 

But the greatest advantage, for the model I’m building now, is the masting and rigging.  I think it is reasonable to rig SR of 1689 to a 1693 scheme.

 

So, anyway, this is a slow-moving monster, but things are starting to happen.

Edited December 24, 2018 by Hubac's Historian

[jose_b]

3 hours ago, Hubac's Historian said:

Well, the St Philippe monograph is my Christmas present, but it has been in transit for almost a month now.  Perhaps it is sailing over here on Le Saint Philippe II 😉

 

Yes, in fact, I ordered it on 14th October and I know it was sent on 14th December from France to Spain.

Thanks for the link.

[kirill4]

jose_b, thank you very much for you mentioned the Le Saint Philippe of 1693 link !

I missed it/ or didn' t reach it yet in reading posts in this wonderfull Marc building log I have to order this book as well - it is briliant! :)))

[kirill4]

pictures 

...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/49225014@N05/albums/72157632135025276

 

Edited December 25, 2018 by kirill4

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

Great work you do HsH - and a damned temptation to me! Du to the fact that 35 years ago I built her  and when applicating the last fag she fall from the table down on her rig... 

 

What I love most is the detail work you do. The decoration is beautyfull and the detail work is pure craftman's workmanship! Thankys a lot for showing to us.

 

But why you don't cut away for example 1/16``  from the underwater ship parts and glue both from both sides  on a 1/16`` thick plexiglas so you have got a WL-model and you keep the underwater part, too?  

 

So I would like to substitute my long time ago lost model by a better model and I don't thing I'll be so wealthy to both the SR as modelkit and as a reserve part spender. So I'm looking for some alternatives. 

 

 

But I'm still looking through my vdV-drawings colloection to find anything else than Le Reyne to "abuse" the hull - as a Le Reyne is still in build at a French colleague's modelyard. But why not figure out and learn from him?

 

 

Also Superbe my be an option but the decoration looks lo "dutchy" with out any balkony:

 

The Royal Louis has a plenty of figures in the transom and looks more like "Madame Trousseaus goes naval"

...it doesnÄt look very beliefable:

 

And I so think about taking the hull and building the S.Philippe 1693 from the newest ancre monographie.  

 

 

What do you think is the best way to re-use the hull?

Edited December 25, 2018 by Heinrich der Seefahrer
Insert pictures

[Hubac's Historian]

Heinrich, thank you so much for your generous compliments!

 

Your consideration of the Heller kit is an interesting one.

 

There is a modeler here, Cedric, who is in the process of converting the Heller kit into La Reine.  He is quite busy, in life, and has not been visible for a while, but his research is quite fascinating, and highlights many of the practical difficulties of converting a model of a particular ship - Soleil Royal in 1:100 scale - to her kissing cousin - La Reine, which was actually slightly smaller in full size, and consequently, the scale of the model must reflect that.  Very tricky!

 

Cedric has made an excellent start of it, and his build-log can be found here under his screen name, CedricL.  I highly recommend checking it out.

 

That being said, I do not think the Heller kit is suitable to convert to the Monarque/Royal Louis.  Le Saint Philippe, on the other hand, is a highly plausible alternative, in my opinion.  There is very much in the Heller kit architecture to recommend this approach.

 

To answer your question about the lower hull, though, I am really captivated by this idea of creating a super realistic diorama, with my ship in a sea - at port of Brest, on the Penfeld.  To me, the lower hull of the Heller kit is really problematic, and I just prefer to cut it away altogether.

[yancovitch]

speaking of dioramas.....as i'm only  now building small 16'' medeterranean galleys now to keep me out of mischief, i had a short commute with this fellow in the netherlands....thought you'd get a kick

http://bennosfiguresforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=18962&start=140

 

[Hubac's Historian]

That’s quite a build, there, Vic - although it would seem your rowers received some pretty rough treatment, in the painting process; it’s a wonder they can sit at all after that!

 

I just went through the link to ModernNight’s Flikr page on French ships.  There are some real VDV gems in there, for sure.  Thanks, again, to Kirill for providing the link!

 

Merry Christmas!

 

 

[yancovitch]

that trireme was this fellow's build....more detail than i could manage haha.....

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

I've read the hole theme but I still miss any excat idea or number of the scale. I've somewhere read about 1/90 - what is your opnion?

Edited December 27, 2018 by Heinrich der Seefahrer