Deadeyes versus Hearts for Standing Rigging

[TomShipModel]

Good morning everyone.  Finally I am progressing with my current project, HMS Liverpool circa 1778, 1:96.  I have made the lower masts and bowsprit and I am now putting riggind attachment points on each.  Now ther question: I've checked Steel, Lee's, and David A's Swan Class to verify attachment of the Fore stay, Fore Preveter Stay and Bowsprit shrouds.  Swan class show a heart (open in the case of the Fore Stay.  Steel says either or, while Lee's also shows either or.  Although Liverpool was built in 1757, she was rebuilt twice.  Also, twenty years latter, I'm sure that her rig was updated.  If I was into 1800 and latter, hearts would definitly be it.  The question would be, in 1770 to 1778, would hearts be used?  My guess is that when Liverpool was originally rigged it used deadeyes.  But, how about in 1778?  Thanks for your comments.

[Blue Ensign]

Hi Tom, I would be inclined to use hearts at that date.

 

My reading of Lees (page 40) is that deadeyes were used for the lower stays up to 1690, and hearts thereafter.

 

Steel's description is:

THE FORE-STAY has a heart turned in the lower end with a throat-seizing, and two round seizings above, and the end of the stay capped with canvas, whipped and tarred, then set up with a laniard, that reeves alternately through the heart in the stay and the heart in the fore-stay-collar on the bowsprit. The first four turns lie in scores cut in the hearts, and are tallowed, that the strain may be immediately given to all the turns at once. The laniard is then strained tight by tackles, thus: The upper block of a luff-tackle is hooked to a selvagee fastened round the stay, and the lower block is hooked with a cats-paw to the laniard: then the outer-block of another luff-tackle is hooked with a cats-paw to the fall of the other tackle, and the inner block hooked where most convenient. The fall leads in upon deck, and is swayed by all hands. Then two of the turns, are stopt together with a rope-yarn to prevent their coming up, and more turns taken, and hove on, as before, till the laniard is expended; the end is then well stopped.
THE PREVENTER-STAY is set up the same as the fore-stay.
THE MAIN-STAY sets up, as the fore-stay, to a heart seized in the bight of the main-stay-collar above the bowsprit-chock.

 

Steel does make reference to the use of deadeyes as an alternative to hearts for the Bobstays and Bowsprit shrouds.

 

Regards,

 

B.E.

[TomShipModel]

Thank You BE,

 

What edition of Steel do you have?  I need to read it a little more closely.  Lee's was lead to the confusion.  I'll use hearts for the stays.  It is likely that I will also use them for Bobstays and Shrouds as well.  They are very small for the bobstays in 1:96.

 

Thank you for your help.  I've had a valid reference all along, but alas I believe that I'm being a little bit lax.  Looks like Steel replaces Lee's on my desk.

 

Best Regards

[Blue Ensign]

Tom, this is a link to the online version of Steel's The Elements and Practice of Rigging And Seamanship, 1794,

 

http://www.hnsa.org/resources/manuals-documents/age-of-sail/the-elements-and-practice-of-rigging-and-seamanship/

 

Hope you find it useful.

 

B.E.

[TomShipModel]

Thank you.  I really appreciate the help.  I have a the 1932 Sweetman reprint of that edition.  I just finished the lower masts and bowsprit for Liverpool.  I have the plans that were published in Shipwright as well as a copy of an earlier Edition.  The dimensions for the lower masts as well as the bowsprit differ quite a bit.  I'm going to pick one version and go with it.

 

I'm going to put all of the rigging attachments on the spars before I step them permanently.  Being only a 28, the stay collars and gammoning etc. are 5.5 inch rope.  That's 0.018 inch diameter in scale.  At that size, serving line would be .003" diameter.  It would be very bad to use seizing that just looks out of scale.  I'll see how it goes.  I think that now that I have some time, I might just start a build log to get photos up.  We'll see.  Anyway, thank you very much.

 

Tom

[Blue Ensign]

I tend to use 0.1mm diameter line for serving, but if I think the true scale size of the line to be served would look too bulky, I reduce the size of the line to be served to allow for this. How it fits around any scale heart or block also has to be taken into account, sometimes compromises are required to get the right effect.

 

You should start a build log, don't think there are any other examples of Liverpool on here.

 

Cheers,

 

B.E.

[MarcM]

Hi,

 

I'm using Egyptian cotton 185/2 as the serving line.

It's the thinnest I could find in Europe.

[druxey]

Great discussion! While Lees' contribution to rigging knowledge is significant, there are some errors still uncorrected in his second edition. Even Steel contains the occasional typographic error. None of us are perfect, but we can usually sort things out from multiple sources.

[popeye2sea]

Considering  that a round seizing consists of 7-9 turns of line,use the diameter of line that looks the right size using that many turns and you should end up with a good looking seizing.

 

If you really want to go crazy with accuracy a round seizing starts with 7-9 turns followed by riding turns one less in number in the opposite direction and three crossing turns.

 

regards,

[TomShipModel]

Good morning all,

 

Well, thank you all for the replies.

 

B.E. Yes, I will put up a building log soon.  Frankly, due to work and other models, I've literally been working on and off for about a decade!  I don't think that I'll go all of the way back to the beginning but I wil give a general description of what I found out along the way.  An interesting issue that I run into is that I will get a good and precise method for doing something, and then finish that particular aspect and then, years latter, when I have to do it again, I have to rediscover how I did it.  Very frustrating.

 

Marc, I will be searching out the best source of serving and seizing line.  I have quite a bit of rigging line that I collected over the years, but the really fine stuff is tough to find.  I'll get through it though.

 

Henry, I already crazy.  You are correct, there is compromise because some actual practices just will not look correct in very small scale.  That is whats important.  For example, if a line is parceled over worming and seizing, doing all of that in scale would be much too bulky.

 

Druxey, yes, the differences among different sources is a bear.  However, I don't think that anyone will be doing that much detail measuring on Liverpool.  Of course, it has to look right.  For a 28, the bowsprit length in two different editions of Steel varies almost 3 feet!  There are other minor differences in spar diameter and length but, a three foot delta would be very noticiable in any scale.

 

Best regards all,