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

[Hubac's Historian]

Hi Mark - thank you for the kind words and for weighing in.  To answer your question, I am not positive, but I am pretty sure.  Unfortunately, there’s very little one can be certain about, in this time frame.

 

On the one hand, there are the Van de Veldes, whom we know would row up in their chaloupe to where the ships were moored, and sketch them in exacting detail.  These studies would, then, later be used as guides when painting portraits of battle engagements, where even at a much smaller scale - individual ships are still recognizable.  Even in the midst of battle, the VDVs are on the water, rough sketching the engagement so that they could accurately portray the line of battle as it was.  They even, often painted themselves into the finished portrait - their small boat off in the periphery of tHe engagement.  They are unique in this regard.

 

Bakhuizen is a fabulous portrait artist, however, the fidelity of his ship representations varies tremendously, I suspect, according to how familiar he was with the ship he was painting.  Generally, his Dutch ships look amazing, while his English and French ships tend to be more approximate amalgamations of details - some of which make sense together, others of which do not.

 

Puget is interesting to me because, unlike Bakhuizen and the VDVs, he was making design drawings for the ships themselves, but then he was also making highly detailed (photographic quality, even) pen and wash drawings of the finished ships, either at anchor or under sail.  He must, occasionally have done a portrait in colors.  I believe my ghost portrait of SR is one such example, by his hand.  I am working to find confirmation of what, exactly, that portrait represents and by whom.

 

As the article from the Musee that I linked to explains, the proposal drawings did have a format; straight-on perspective drawings of the stern, quarters and bow.  From these drawings, the wax models would be made, in order to translate the ornament into three dimensions, which would illuminate any inherent design conflicts.

 

So, again, I can’t say definitively, but I think Puget drawings, on the water and in three dimensions with a full perspective of the ship, and often with background details, are portraits of the vessel after launching.  Perhaps he preferred pen and wash because it allowed him to meticulously render all of the beautiful details that he labored to create.  A person of the creative talent and ego of Puget would not have been satisfied with an approximate depiction of these details in oil paint.  Or, so I suspect.

Edited May 11, 2019 by Hubac's Historian

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

S-Line missing?

 

Great work, Marc!!! Wonderful colouring of the wood. The nailing is also well visible. tharyt is some very ggood sign. So you did not show the enlarged/massed planking usualy placed at the bow where the ancre is swinging. At SOLEIL ROYAL there were no

doubled layers of planking on the stem to protect the planking due to damage by ancre puties? Have yoyu gote some information about this characteristic detail - let us call it S-line.

Here you can see the double planking visiable at the aestetic curve as printed on p.154 in the monography of SAINT PHILIPPE we both do use.

 

But suddenly there is an annoying flickering detail!

 

But I thought I could do something good to you, Marc, and picture this detail for you from the 1/48 plan (also to recycle this intersting aesthetic discovery on my SP, too.) IYou would just have to cut some 0.5mm sheets to plankes and give the the right shape and ending, glueing it into place, painting it black... 

...and Bob is your uncle! 

 

And so I did run into a mass and so now some heavy criticism about the $250 - Ance plan set!!! I am completely confused about this very nice looking detail... 

 

...because...

 

...it is "flickering".

 

In the monography book it is clearly visible as print of plan sheet N°36 detail. But if you look on the 1/48

real plan N°36 sheet the beautifully S-line isn't to see on there...😨

 

So on plan let us have some look on the same region around former Av.VI on plan several sheets will show it to us! Letsstart with the most aestaeticaesthetic one. What is sheet N° 34 - hull with complete decoration - it is 

also damned silent in there about this detail.

 

There must be a sign of this in the

cut drawing at Av. VI  as it runs through the MD gunport N°1. So there has had to be some evidence about any doubleplanking. But also there is nothing to see. 

 

This looks very much like some kind of doubleplanking (usually black painted to do some easy optical repair by black paint) it does only appear

once in plan sheet N°45 (sailplan 1/96) on the LD level - not on the MD tiers planking - partlyhidden by the ancre. And that is all - nowhere else in the rest of the 1/48 drawings these S-line is to be recognized. This was my very first impression.

 

And so I have gone

 

- conscientious

- slowly

- intend

- pedantic

 

through my hole set of plans this morning. And I did hope for a place where it has had to be drawn in...in the planking and nailing plan  N°33 it certainly should appear...

As you do see in here - you do not see anything! But for some reason there is no S-Line.

 

And so I do think the doubleplanking S-line is placed in the reduced drawings for the book and the sailplan what were drawn very late. And the effect of this line isn't brought in all the other side drawings and cut drawings.

 

Has anyone any idea or even some better guessing?

 

Edited May 11, 2019 by Heinrich der Seefahrer

[Hubac's Historian]

Hello Heinrich,

 

The S-curve anchor lining is an elegant detail, but not one that I think was in use until a little later in the 18th century.  Right here, on MSW, Patrick Jouff renders the detail beautifully on his Renomee, and you also see it on Le Fleuron.

 

For the late 17th century, the plain sweeping curved anchor lining is more appropriate.  Interestingly it is not always documented on period models, or in period portraits, but it served a necessary purpose, and must always have been incorporated.

 

Following, are a few pictures from Mark Yeu’s (aka, NekO) collection, which I am posting here with his permission:

 

The Royal Louis shows a vestigial lining between the wale and the fore channel, as well as some stylized painting around the hawsers.

 

The modern Frolich model of L’Ambiteaux shows the conventional anchor sweep.

 

Interestingly, despite showing two different representations of the lining in the plans for the St. Philippe, neither of the two models made from the plans has any kind of anchor lining:

 

At the end of the day, it seems to me that the simple sweep is both functional and appropriate for the time period, even if the S-curve would be more attractive. 

 

 

Edited May 11, 2019 by Hubac's Historian

[Guest bearegalleon]

Hubie, that’s very good work.  The reincorporated elements, within a simpler structural program for sea keeping and martial reputation, makes sense.  Its excellent to see the reused ceiling.  

 

The van Beecq painting is perfect.  It clearly shows they are in use on French warships by the 1680s.  You could not get better primary source document for a 1689 SR.  Its especially useful because it predates 1689, this showing it in use by that time.  It also helps refine the overall timeline for details like this, and gives us a better picture for the development and evolution of ship features.

 

Red gun port lids come into use around 1650, and quickly become very popular.  In fact they seem to become universal almost immediately, and far more rapidly then blackened wales.  I used to think they dated back to Vasa in the 1620s, but now I think that Vasa is a separate and unrelated style, which is another discussion.  

 

Your technique for the wooden hull is very sound and looks good.  You will have a very effective and impressive ship.  

 

 

[Baker]

A nice paint job and nice wheatering
Congrats

[Hubac's Historian]

Thank you very much Beare and Backer!

[EJ_L]

It is my understanding that the extra planking remained more of the sweeping curve design as Marc has done on S.R. until the early-mid 18th century when the "S" curve started to make its way into the designs. By the mid-late 18th, the added planking for the anchor protection was basically built into the hull itself so there was no visible line showing where it was. This design had the added benefit of heavier planking around the bow. On plans, the line would be shown to indicate where the added planking would have stopped but, it would not be visible from the finished exterior.

[Hubac's Historian]

I decided that I wanted to give the starboard side a good long drying time for the Van Dyke Brown Oil wash to cure.  Although, I suspect it has more to do with using an artist’s acrylic, as opposed to a purpose-made model acrylic, it was bothering me that my blacking scuffed so easily away from the edges of the wales, and such.  Perhaps, I surmised, the residual oil under the black makes it easier to wipe it away.  This did not seem to be a problem on my test samples; same paint, same application, but no scuff.

 

I bought some Tamya flat black acrylic, and as expected, these paints are much less fussy to use. And they seem more durable.  I’m testing on my scrap hulls, but as long as the surface sheen matches what I have on the port side - after spraying with matte latex clear coat - I will go ahead and just use the Tamya.  This experiment of mine, in the use of artist acrylic was instructive, if not effective, I suppose.

 

While waiting for my hull to cure, I decided to go ahead and paint my gun port lids.  This was all going along well, until - again - I tried to use artist acrylic for the gold.

 

I love the metallic luster of this gold, but it takes three applications before the color is consistent, and by then, you have muddied up your fine detail.

 

The top row, here, is the artist acrylic.  The second row is one of Warhammer’s gold paints:

 

Right fleur, artist acrylic / left fleur War Hammer

I’m really not here to endorse WarHammer paints, but the color and ease of application are second to none.  One application and you are done.  I bought a translucent red wash that will really accentuate the detail.  I am happy with this.

 

I will try to rub away the other paint with an eraser, first, or a red ScotchBright pad, if that doesn’t work.  Then, I’ll go over that first row again.

 

I just couldn’t tolerate the idea of all that work to make nice sculptures, and then the detail gets filled in with gloppy paint. Nuh-Uh!

[hexnut]

Great work!  I've also had good luck with Vallejo paints, both w/ brush and airbrush.  They go on thin enough to keep detail and permit layered glazes, but also cover well enough so that too many coats aren't needed...  https://acrylicosvallejo.com/en/producto/hobby/sets/war-games-en/french-infantry-napoleonic-wars-en/

 

[Hubac's Historian]

Painting the port lids has been a process, but it has yielded some pretty good results:

I used a translucent red/brown wash from War Hammer to get into the creases and the lows of the gilded ornaments for better contrast.  The difference is subtle, but worthwhile:

Here are a few shots of them placed, to get a sense for what that will look like.  When it actually comes time to install them, I will make up lanyard rings:

While I was at my father’s, this past weekend, I picked up the gun barrels for the middle battery.  Previously, I was puzzled as to why I only had 24 out of what Should have been 32 lower battery guns - what Heller is designating as 24 pounders.

 

Well, it turns out that the kit researchers were also aware of the practice of a mixed armament on the lower deck; for the kit, the aft four guns on each broadside, as well as the four stern chase ports are designated for 18 pound guns.  The middle battery are all 18 pounders.

 

For the record, Heller’s classification and distribution of the armament is lighter, overall, than what the ship carried in reality; for example, the lower battery was a mixture of 36 and 24 pound guns, with - if I remember correctly - the majority being the lighter 24s.

 

This discrepancy between the model and the reality bolsters my decision to beef up the gun barrels from the lower deck, on up.

 

Right now, I am replicating the same process of adding an insert for 6 of the 18 pound guns;  I may leave all four of the stern chase ports empty, or I may arm the two closest to the rudder.  I haven’t yet decided.

 

I will take one 18 pound gun barrel,  and attempt to make castings for the entire middle battery.  For my casting blanks, one half will already have the insert glued and faired, in place.  To facilitate casting, I will cut away the dolphin “handles”, which wouldn’t be visible, anyway.  I had remained hopeful that maybe I saved the 24-pounders from my first build of this kit, but I couldn’t find them anywhere.  They must have been a casualty of several purges.

 

One thing that I have begun to ponder more seriously is what, exactly, I will do about the quarter galleries.  Although, I still think that the following drawing originated from the hand of Jean Berain, there are certain problems in its presentation that need to be resolved:

The biggest issue has to do with the five windows shown in the closed middle deck tier - the functional toilet of the officers’ quarters;  first of all, the windows taper down in size from aft, moving forward.  Second, of all, this profusion of glass (whether dummy windows or actual glass) clutters the design.  Thirdly, the diamond-hatch webbing does not correspond to their corollary on the stern.

 

Resolving these issues will necessitate sketching them out. I started to do this on the computer, a couple of years ago.  I managed to get the amortisement mostly done, before the software locked up:

So, I will sketch out the lower section of the QG by hand.

 

I have this idea that I can take cues from the following Berain scheme for the Formidable to help simplify and de-clutter my new quarter galleries.  The Formidable was an Etienne Hubac built ship from 1691, and as such, a very near contemporary of the re-built (also by E. Hubac) Soleil Royal:

There is nothing, in my view, about this scheme that seems out of place or proportion.  My main approach, here, would be to reduce the four primary windows down to three, with better spacing and more consistent scale.  This will also simplify all of the fleur-de-lis paneling, beneath that.  I may, also, eliminate the smallest fifth window, replacing it with a simple panel, and perhaps an appropriate ornament - the criss-crossed L monogram, for example.

 

My first attempt at making this lower section will probably involve carving the complex, faceted form from close-grained solid wood, to which will be added moulding and paneling and carvings.

 

I had tried to do some experiments with polymerized clay, but I’m a long ways off from Doris.  I at least understand how wood behaves and how to shape it.

 

In other research news, I have struck up a very interesting and informative correspondence with Montreal native Guy Maher.  Guy is another SR obsessive, like myself, who has assembled a really impressive body of research into Soleil Royal’s early appearance.

 

There is much that he and I agree on, but naturally we have our different views about certain things.  At the moment, I am reading through one of his primary sources:

Mr. Dessert is a modern historian with a particular interest in the life and times of Louis XIV, and the ministers of his empire.  He has a number of titles to his credit, concerning this epoch.  This book, so far, is an excellent overview of all of the individual strata of Human Resources that made Colbert’s navy possible.  There promise to be a few golden nuggets about SR that may corroborate or refute some of what I’ve presented here, so far.  Either way, I remain open to the possibilities.

 

One fascinating observation from Mr. Maher, so far, is that the following drawing of the head (which also clearly appears to be Berain’s hand) makes no allowance for the actual structure of the forecastle deck.  There is only a forward sheer railing, just over the main deck ports, but no additional “step” above them to include the structure of the forecastle deck:

I am almost absolutely certain this is Berain’s hand because on the French modeling site, where Michel Saunier primarily posts his SR build, Gerard Delacroix posted very clear close-ups of this drawing.  Their style of line and shade exactly matches that of the Berain stern drawing.

 

We know, absolutely, that SR always had a forecastle.  Are we to believe that Jean Berain “forgot” to include this detail?  As many times as I have looked at this drawing, I have never noticed this discrepancy.  But, there it is!  I have no theories or explanations for that one.

 

Tanneron did not forget to include this step-up to the forecastle deck:

As it was drawn, though, it would be as though the waist rail merely continued all the way to the headrails.  Perplexing!

Edited May 31, 2019 by Hubac's Historian

[yancovitch]

looks super!!

[Chapman]

Quote

We know, absolutely, that SR always had a forecastle.  Are we to believe that Jean Berain “forgot” to include this detail?  As many times as I have looked at this drawing, I have never noticed this discrepancy.  But, there it is!  I have no theories or explanations for that one.

Maybe this is an early version, as an alternative to make the SR a second rate?

[Hubac's Historian]

Maybe, Chapman.  If so, that would be a wrinkle that I haven’t read about.  Is that a theory of yours, or something that you have read about; that SR was under consideration, at one time, to be cut down to a second rate?

 

How is your La Reyne conversion project going?

[Chapman]

It was just a thought, have nowhere read what that supports. However, older ships were often reduced in 
superstructures and or armament and were downgraded. Such as the HMS Victory, she served for a time after 
Trafalgar as a 98 gun second rate.

Incidentally, the Berain drawing discussed here is, apart from the frame, identical to that in blue color.

 

The work on the Reine rests, I'm still busy with two other french beautys.😇

[Hubac's Historian]

It is true, yes, that many ships were reduced in armament.  And, certainly, for Soleil Royal there is a huge difference between her “notional” early rating of 120 guns, and the actual number she carried at any given time.  It seems pretty certain, though, that she was always equipped with a forecastle.  In any case, Chapman, I hope your experiments with La Reyne work out.  I would love to see that.

 

As for my gun experiments:

 

I am delighted with the mild ver-de-gris patina I have achieved over a very realistic dark bronze.  The patination does, in fact, pick up the extremely low-relief fleur-de-lis, and emblems that are cast into the barrels.  Pictures of this to follow.

 

I am much less delighted with my attempts to cast beefed-up versions of the middle battery, so that I could take the stock middle battery and place it on the upper main deck.  I can’t make these work, and there were many failed moulds that produced deformed castings:

So, I will abandon this casting experiment in favor of the infinitely more tedious process of placing inserts in every barrel blank and then fairing out the bores as concentrically as I can.

 

This morning I did a quick napkin sketch of the simplified quarter galleries that I am proposing:

Obviously, this is a terrible drawing, but such as it is - you can see a much less cluttered 3-2-1 window arrangement that is much more sensible, in my view.  So, after I get my lower hull painted, I will focus on doing a really good and fully detailed drawing of this QG, so that I can pattern them, and begin to shape them. 

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

... and Marc,

at all the problems with the detailing of the decoration...

---just remember you are the lucky guy building the "lesserest" decorated version of the baroque ships of the "rang primeur extraordinare". SR was build after the experience with the overwhelming decoration of ROYAL LOUIS 1668 and DAUPHIN ROYAL 1668 designed by Le Brune. 

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

On 4/17/2019 at 12:43 AM, Hubac's Historian said:

(...)They’ll look even better in ver-de-gris patina; all of SR’s guns were bronze.  And I’m cautiously optimistic that if I get the green wash right, you’ll even be able to see the tiny fleur-de-lis that are moulded onto the barrels.(...)

[Writing from the waitingroom]

 

Dear Marc,

I am fascinated about your work at the guns and do read your lines repeatedly. 

And I just read about the highprices of copper and the dependence of importing it mainly from abroad into France in "Versailles der Meere" - so I do come back to this very interesting topic of mid of April with some questions onto ordonance:

 

So as you do build the SOLEIL ROYAL (II) there were some progresses in iron casting so SAINT PHILIPPE has mixed battery. This may reduce the ammount of work to be invested in the decorationaly additives of the irony ordonanece barrels? 

The monography of SP shows clearly the differences in the invest of decoration. Is there some evidence about the complete bronce fitting out of SR that forces you into the fleur and Cote of Arms detailling work?

 

Does these three deckers lack of 1/2 to 2 pounder swifel guns (littel rifle shaped canons for grape shots placed up on the handrails/bulkwalks posts)?This may be to the factum that the had an proper number marines with musquetes aboard? Or am I used to this feature by later ships permanent influence as my beloved COUREUR? {If you do need the scaled shape of theses riflelooking (in contrast tothe Royal Navy style mini canon barrels) - do not hesitate to ask!}

[Hubac's Historian]

Hello, Chris!  I am glad to hear that you are recovering your strength.  Thank you for your thoughts, and thanks to all for your thoughts, comments and following along with the project.

 

In the 2 1/2 years that I’ve been chipping away at this project, I have found that nothing arouses as much debate and difference of opinion as the question of Soleil Royal’s armament.  I suppose this owes to the fact that her armament is one of the few things about her original makeup for which there is any substantive documentation.

 

But what was the composition of her armament, in terms of caliber, metallurgy, and placement on each deck, in any given year?

 

For these questions, I have chosen  Winfield and Roberts, French Warships in the Age of Sail, 1626-1786, as my default reference to these questions.  It is, in my opinion, the most detailed and scrupulously researched secondary source that I have found, so far.

 

Their work was the first to introduce to me the concept of a “notional” rating (120 guns - not likely) vs. intended, and finally, actual armaments.  They clearly explain that much of that discrepancy has to do with the convention of not arming any of the forward or aft chase ports.  They discuss the limitations of iron casting in the early and mid-point of the 17th Century, and that the two great prestige ships - SR and the RL - were to be armed entirely with bronze.  Here are a few photographed excerpts as they relate to SR, specifically:

 

Now, I have said before that the question of SR’s armament is not one that I intend to get “right” on this particular model.  I have scribed in a representational 15th “hunting” port on the lower battery, beside the hawsers.  As good fortune would have it, my model now correctly (at least according to W&R) depicts the piercing of the lower battery, for 30 broadside ports/28 armed.

 

Deducting armament from the four beakhead bulkhead chase ports, the four lower transom ports, and the two representational hunting ports - my model is currently set to display 100 guns.

 

While in 1692, the lower battery was adjusted to contain only 36 pounders, my model will carry a total of four lighter 18 pounders (as classified by Heller) because I don’t have enough of the lower battery guns for them all to be the same caliber.  This does not bother me in the least.

 

Now, for the sake of just getting the number of guns right (104 in 1692, at Barfleur), if not their actual distribution, I could, without too much extra effort do the following

 

I could arm the first octagonal port, aft of the single round poop port that the Heller kit provides for, so that my poop deck carries four guns - as almost all credible sources seem to agree on:

In the above picture, that will be the port to the right.  The second octagonal port will be pierced and not armed.

 

There is an opportunity, though, to do something interesting, in an attempt to add back another two guns to my model.  Winfield and Roberts indicate thirty guns on both the middle and upper decks. My model is pierced for 28 on all three of the main battery decks.

 

I believe there is an opportunity to place an extra pair of guns, on the main deck level, by piercing through the large (likely false and merely decorative) first forward window of the quarter gallery, on this level:

 

Six central panes of “glass” could be cut away for an open port that would otherwise be covered with a removable panel.  I have had a number of discussions with people  about the un-realistic scaling of these windows, as they were drawn:

 

If they were merely decorative stagecraft, as opposed to fully glazed windows, then their size would not matter.

 

The following picture of Frolich’s L’Ambiteaux, courtesy of Marc Yeu’s (AKA: Nek0) personal photo collection, illustrates quite well what one of these removable panels might look like.  Look closely at the lower window of the QG.  Sensibly, it appears to be a panel that pulls inboard:

For my purposes - even if I don’t literally poke a gun through this new opening, it would add historic interest to the model to at least represent this removable port cover.

 

If I had not already completed the bulwark frieze, I might have converted the oversized coach window into the missing fifth quarter deck port.  At this stage, though, I like what I came up with to dress that window, and I am not about to go monkeying about with the frieze:

Finally, there may also be an opportunity to add that second pair of guns, on the middle deck level, by piercing through what’s shown as the fifth, and most forward false window of the lowest quarter gallery tier.

 

Because I have yet to draw it, I’m not sure how the spacing would work out, relative to the next actual gun port, forward, on the middle deck battery.  I’ve already discussed altering the window representation from four main windows to three, while eliminating the representation of a window in this forward fifth panel.  Piercing a gun through this spot is one means of making better sense of the overall shape of the QGs as drawn.

 

We will soon see, I suppose, when I make my way to the drawing board.

Edited June 28, 2019 by Hubac's Historian

[Hubac's Historian]

Also, Chris, to answer your question about swivel guns:

 

They certainly played a huge role in the light armament of ships in the 16th Century, but I have not seen or read of any evidence of their presence (among any of the great seafaring nations) on the first or second-rate ships of the 17th Century.  That, of course, is not irrefutable fact, but merely the sum of my understanding and observations.

[EJ_L]

The larger 1st & 2nd rates would not have needed the swivel guns as much as the smaller sloops and frigates would have. This was mainly due to the uses they were typically used in, blockade and the line of battle. The large ships, were more often found used as an intimidation factor than in actual combat. When combat did take place however, it was far more likely to be at range rather than up close. There were always exceptions to this of course, but the close in fighting that would give swivel guns their most effective range, (think of them as shotguns in their use - powerful at close range, not as good long range) was left to the smaller and easier to maneuver ships.

 

 

[Hubac's Historian]

Thanks for weighing in EJ!  That all makes perfect sense to me.

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

 

 Hello as I wasn't able to catch the German version at Amazon I yesterday went to the museum to catch it in the shop in there - 😁😁 little literature tip for the BaFC* as we find in where nicely enlarged drawings of mostly T_ransom/G_allion/S_idegallery

POMPEUX 1706/08 (T)

AMBITIEUX 1691 (T/G/S)

BRILLANT 1690 (T/G/S)

PRUDENT 1697 (T/G)

TERRIBLE 1692 (G/S)

FROUDOYANT 1723 (T/G/S)

SOLEIL ROYAL 1669 (T)

SAINT LOUIS 1693 (T/G/S)

 

Here my favorite - LE TERRIBLE** in all her uglyness:

The side gallery with highly intersting details

Looks harmonic andd friendly from the far...

But the details are awsome...

 

Horrofic

 

And sometimes funnyly surreal.

 

Sadly the transom prospect paper came into lost - so one may reconstruct something iconic...

 

I personaly thing about a  prototype by Pierre Puget when

everything on the the transom serves only the pair of free standing figures but this is 1669 - the earli 60-70 gun TERRIBLE of 1670 might be the solution as often figurehead and decorational elements swift from the nearly broken/rebuild ship to following names bearer. Puget was from the luxourios Italian baroque school and was narrowed down more and more until. He left the shipyards. 

 

And for @Hubac's Historian Marc the original LE SOLEIL ROYAL drawing of 1668 from LeBruns hand (?) For his next Heller rebuild

And an important link that shows also the First Navys ships - the English side  standing silent:

 

https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_vaisseaux_français

 

The book also bears a plenty of information about the development of the Reaissaince into early Baroque to the French Highbaroque and the more floating and light Late/Southgerman Baroque and the Rokokko. (The exhibition is until October 2019 here in Berlin

https://sdtb.de/technikmuseum/ausstellungen/architectura-navalis/

)

 

*Baroque Fan Club

 

**to avoid any copyright troubles I took only this sinlgle example extensivly as it is a kind of museums marketing support there will be no problems. 

Edited June 29, 2019 by Heinrich der Seefahrer
Added Museum link - English site is not up to date.

[Hubac's Historian]

Dynomite post, Chris!!  The Terrible of 1691 is, indeed, fascinating and instructive for the ways in which I am planning to modify the quarter galleries.

 

Is this guide available for sale?  I would live to see a clearer image of SR’s transom.  Does the text explicitly state that this is LeBrun’s hand?

[Hubac's Historian]

I see that this is available on Amazon - definitely going to pick up a copy.

 

Clearly, Jean Berain was having a lot of fun with the decor of the Terrible.  The figurehead is spectacular.  As for what the stern may have looked like, here are a few VDV that are believed to be the preceding Terrible, as built by Laurent Hubac:

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

On 6/29/2019 at 7:16 PM, Hubac's Historian said:

(...)

Clearly, Jean Berain was having a lot of fun with the decor of the Terrible.  The figurehead is spectacular.  As for what the stern may have looked like, here are a few VDV that are believed to be the preceding Terrible, as built by Laurent Hubac:

Wow the TERRIBLE of 1670... Thanks a lot , Marc!

 

 

And think about it! So if you buy both (English and German edition) you can train your German,  too... 

[Hubac's Historian]

These two portraits are often identified as La Royal therese, however, Winfield and Roberts make a pretty convincing argument for why they are not the RT, and more likely the Terrible.

 

I ordered Floating Baroque, and while I was at it - the last available copy of Uber Den Wellen...

 

Both in German.  It will be okay, though.  The Google Translate phone app is pretty incredible!

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

If you may have come to a questionable translation like:

 

"Someone tell truth in going to look around for a quick halwse."* it needs to bee google rubbish

Please don't hesitate to send me the German phrase and I do translate. The book is written in the 50/60th in a quite academic German language.

Have fun with the book - but donnot show it to you better half - mine says: "That shell pattern looks right, lets paint these old cupboard like this and you can do some craving work..." and you are damned to do so in mintish green and gold for the next five years - or you are going to use the TERRIBLE pattern for your mother-in-(c)laws cabinets furniture...

 

 

*meening:

"The one who tells the truth

Needs as fast horse."

Lao Tse

 

 

Edited July 1, 2019 by Heinrich der Seefahrer
Adding mother-in-(c)laws ( C )

[Hubac's Historian]

I will certainly make use of your translation services, as needed, Chris.  I’ll send you PMs.

[Hubac's Historian]

So, just a few days ago, my Canadian friend, Guy, sent me his extra middle deck battery of 18-pounders.

 

I had just completed the uber tedious process of fairing-in thickening inserts, which were about half the thickness of the lower battery inserts, into my own middle battery 18-pounders.  Like the lower battery, the middle battery will also be dummy barrels, from which I have removed the trunnions and cascabels, and inserted pins.

 

The lower battery is fully painted.  I will soon prime the middle battery, and the main deck guns (the red barrels, Guy donated) are in the process of cleaning away excess glue and flash lines.

 

I thought the following pictures were a good illustration of the ver-de-gris patination - which I wanted to moderately reflect 20 years over sea water - as well as how the barrel widths and bore diameters are now more pronounced and graduated:

 

Comparatively speaking, the main deck guns are a joy to assemble; without the necessity to make the barrels wider, nor the need to grind away trunnions and cascabels, they require much less processing to prepare for paint.

 

Once I have completed the main deck gun barrels, my next small work project will be assembling the main deck carriages.

 

There will be quite a lot that I can do with the Heller carriages to make them closely resemble what Marc Yeu made from scratch on his build of Soleil Royal:

 

 

His treatment of the guns begins with post #41, on the second page.

 

Following that, the next small work project will be a vast improving of the kit deck gratings.  The nice thing about the kit gratings is that the holes are correctly scaled, so that sailors’ feet wouldn’t fall through; I would be hard pressed to make them that size, from scratch.  But, I thought, they sure would be nicer, if their outside surface was cambered like the deck is - even slightly more, as seen on this model of Le St. Philippe:

To that end, Guy has come through, yet again, and is sending me his partial, extra set of gratings.  I’ll have to see what he sends me, and then I’ll ask to see whether anyone has spares of the missing gratings.

 

My idea is to double-up the gratings; mark a longitudinal centerline; and sand a cambered surface across the top surface of the gratings.  I will have ground away the stock coamings, and I will then re-frame with better scratch coamings for installation into the new deck.

 

Otherwise, painting of the starboard side continues; it is slow going, but it is coming out as I would like it to, so the time is well spent.  Once that side is painted, I will begin assembling the hull onto its base.

 

Little by little.  Thank you to everyone who continues to follow along!

 

Edited July 2, 2019 by Hubac's Historian

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

Hy Marc, perchance the gratings being cast fromnresine may be some possibility, ad they do follow eachother in the same shape over all the decks middel openings/hatches. The bent stairs are my pure hoorortrip at the moment... (I simply enlaged them from the 1/144 plans in the SP-brochure.)

Also by this I know the parallelism of the gratings of SP - are these also at SRmodel in the Paris marine museum???