HMS Victory by gjdale - FINISHED - Mamoli - Scale 1:90

[gjdale]

Hi Michael, and welcome aboard. Thank you for your very kind words. I have been silently following your pilot cutter for some time now and have been quite humbled by the standard of your work. I'm looking forward to completing this build so that I can do something in a slightly larger scale - probably not quite as large as yours though!

[Blue Ensign]

Great progress and ideas Grant, like the modification to make a shoulder block, something I've been pondering over for a while, I think I will adopt your approach, and thank you for your kind references to my build.

 

Nice additions to your machine collection, I've had my eye on a planer/thicknesser for a while now, been resisting the temptation, but I feel myself weakening. Did happen to show your post concerning the machine to my wife who was passing at the time- just sowing seeds...

 

Best wishes for Christmas and the New Year.

 

Regards,

 

B.E.

[Jeff-E]

Hi Grant,

 

I just browsed through your log and i must cogradulate you on your excellent workmanship and attention to detail, especially at this scale.

I do remember following your log on the old site and trials and tribulations you had with stern galley but it was well worth the effort it turned out fantastic.

 

The slings and jeers look excellent very neat and a great way to make the parrel ribs very nice

 

I will follow your build from here on

[gjdale]

Thanks B.E. - very pleased to have aided and abetted a fellow modeller in the acquisition of new toys (er, I mean tools)! . I feel it was the least I could do after all of your assistance to me.

 

Welcome back Jeff and thank you for the kind words. Your Vic bow section is looking fabulous.

[texxn5]

Hey my brother from down unda......just wishing you and your loved ones a very Merry Christmas and Prosperous New Year....hope all is well down there.....

[gjdale]

Thanks John.

 

Some minor progress to report just ahead of the big fat guy with the red suit...

 

I've now completed attaching all of the yards to the Foremast, complete with Jeers/Tyes, Truss Pendants/Parrals, and Lifts.  Getting this far has required a great deal of cross-checking between the kit plans, Longridge and TFFM.  I would NOT like to be attempting this based on the kit plans alone!!!  That said, the kit plans for the most part aren't actually too bad - once you can understand them..........although there are a few inaccuracies, most of which it is possible to correct at this stage (though not all).  Longridge is great for accuracy, again when you can understand what he is saying.  He tends to be somewhat brief at times, and his writing can be difficult to fathom unless one is already an expert in 18th century rigging.  Antscherl, in the TFFM, provides a good counter to both, making both Longridge and the kit plans more intelligible.  Although Antscherl is writing about a Sixth rate ship, there is a very high degree of alignment with that of the First rate.  For the most part the differences are just the size of lines and blocks, although there are a couple of minor variations in rig.  Anyway, between the three of them, I'm making some progress, although I would say that I have spent probably twice as much time reading, studying plans, and re-reading, as I have actually rigging.  It really is like a game of chess as you try to figure the next move and the one after, and the one after.........

 

A couple of pics to show where I'm at, and to keep you-know-who happy.  It's quite difficult to see some of the lighter coloured line in the first photo, so I improvised a back drop with my cutting mat for the second shot.  There is no tension on the lifts or tyes of the topmast and topgallant yet as there is no counter tension to stop the yards sliding up the mast.  That will come when further rigging, such as braces, has been added.

 

 

 

Now, to do it all over again with the Main Mast...................

 

Merry Christmas one and all.  May your Christmas stockings be full of Ship Modelling stuff. :D

Edited April 4, 2014 by gjdale

[Jeff-E]

Hi Grant,

 

Looking very nice with all the yards up on the fore mast  . I agree, when you get to this stage of rigging it becomes rather complex and tight and it does pay to plan your moves so you don't get to a point where you can't get to a line that you have missed

 

Hope you have a very Merry Christmas

[Blue Ensign]

That's an impressive view of her Grant, very, very, nice.

 

Best wishes for a successful modelling year in 2014.

 

B.E.

[Sjors]

Hi Grant,

 

Looks great your spars/yards....

Only the rope at the top are to loose.

You have to tie it a little.

Best wishes for 2014 with a lot of modelling time !

 

[gjdale]

Thanks Jeff, Lawrence, B.E. and Sjors, and all those who "liked". Your support and encouragement really helps keep me going through this tedious stage.

 

Sjors, as I said in my earlier post, there is no tension on the lifts or tyes of the topmast and topgallant yet as there is no counter tension to stop the yards sliding up the mast. That will come when further rigging, such as braces, has been added.

 

I have almost finished fitting out the Main lower yard. Expect to complete that and possibly the Main topmast yard and Main topgallant yard today. Will post an update when those are completed. The end is creeping inexorably closer!

[themadchemist]

I completely understand your analogy of this to chess. I too find myself spending a lot of time researching. Its a part of this hobby I knew coming in it would be required and it is one of the reasons that I was drawn into this hobby. I sometimes feel as much joy at figuring something out in my mind as I do creating it. I love the mix of tactile and cerebral that this hobby provides.

 

By the way, the yard really fill out the top nicely Grant. She's really coming along nicely. Beautiful build.

 

Oh I recently purchased Laughton's book Old Ship Figure-heads and Sterns. We had discuss the Vicky pre-refit about colours and stern. This book has some pictures of the stern, quarter and head dated 1765 and they are quite different. The 1765 figurehead was amazingly different. I'd love to see someone attempt a 1765 version of this wonderful vessel. I'm still looking for when she was painted the black and ochre and what she was prior. The Laughton book gives a great breakdown of the decorative changes that occurred through the 18th century, from 1703 to 1817, on all the HMS vessels. Although 1st rates were sometimes exempt from the reductions.

[Ensign]

Hi Grant,

 

Victory is looking superb, great work. Forgive my ignorance, but I'm not sure about your reference to Antscherl and TFFM. Could you explain please. My Victory references are Longridge and John Mc Kay 'Anatomy of the ship' I also have Lennarth Petersson's 'Rigging Period Ship Models' if there is another reference I should look into I am interested in knowing. Victory is such a complex build I need all the help I can get.

 

Thanks

Gary

[gjdale]

Thanks Keith and Gary.

 

Keith - I think that Janos has done/is doing a carving of the old Victory figurehead. I have some photos if you're interested - just PM me and I'll send them to you.

 

Gary - TFFM refers to the four part book series, The Fully Framed Model, by David Antscherl. While specifically about building a model of a Swan Class Sloop, it is a very good general reference set. Volume four deals with rigging. The while set is very well written and relatively easy to understand. He is quite meticulous about reference to primary sources. As I mentioned, while there are some differences between the rigging of a sixth rate sloop and a first rate, those differences are relatively few and the principles and techniques discussed by Antscherl are equally applicable to both (in general). Longridge remains my primary source of guidance, but Antscherl often helps me to understand Longridge. Hope this helps you.

[Blue Ensign]

Oh I recently purchased Laughton's book Old Ship Figure-heads and Sterns. We had discuss the Vicky pre-refit about colours and stern. This book has some pictures of the stern, quarter and head dated 1765 and they are quite different. The 1765 figurehead was amazingly different. I'd love to see someone attempt a 1765 version of this wonderful vessel. I'm still looking for when she was painted the black and ochre and what she was prior. The Laughton book gives a great breakdown of the decorative changes that occurred through the 18th century, from 1703 to 1817, on all the HMS vessels. Although 1st rates were sometimes exempt from the reductions.

 

I did some research on the changing face of Victory when I was  modelling her a few years back, these are the date changes for her broadside scheme.

 

At Commissioning in 1778 -  Her sides were ‘bright’or payed with rosin

 

During the 1782 /83 refit it is likely that her sides were first painted yellow ochre in compliance with an order dated May 1780; that painting should replace the ‘paying’ of sides.

 

1800-1803 (The Great Repair)

Sides painted with black and yellow ochre bands but outer lid colour painted yellow to match the strakes. This was her appearance as she left Chatham 14 May 1803.

 

Nelson took command of Victory in the Med 31 July 1803 and sometime between then and September 1803 Nelson had the outer port lids painted black, and shortly before Trafalgar, the previously painted black mast hoops were painted yellow, this was a general fleet order applicable to all British ships intended to aid identification.

 

B.E.

[Ensign]

Hi Grant,

 

Thanks for the explanation. I know what you mean about Longridge he puzzles me a bit too sometimes. Looks like my reference library is about to grow.

 

Regards

Gary

[Sailor1234567890]

Looking good. Cross a few more yards now…..

[gjdale]

I've been battling with a persistent virus for the past two weeks, so progress hasn't been as fast as I had hoped for this holiday period.   That seems to be a regular pattern for me of late - too busy while working to get sick, so get sick as soon as I stop and relax!     

 

I have however, finished fitting out all of the yards for the Main mast, so they are ready for installation to the ship.  Just the one pic to keep you-know-who happy

 

 

I've also come across an interesting conundrum regarding the rigging of Victory that other Victory builders may be interested in.  I spent several hours poring over documentation to try and work out the use of Yard Tackle Pendants and Brace Block Pendants.  I consulted several sources, but my primary reference for any assertions here is Longridge.  I also sent a PM to Gil Middleton to seek advice on his approach to this aspect - his reply is posted within Gil's own log (as we had a problem with the PM system), so I won't repeat it verbatim here.

 

First up, as far as I can tell, Yard Tackle Pendants are only used on the lower yards of the Main and Fore Masts.  Longridge talks of these in the text descriptions for each of the yards, and this is matched by the drawing of the Running Rigging by Campbell (Plan No. 7 in Longridge).

 

Secondly, I don't believe Pendants were used for Braces except for the Cross Jack Yard.  Longridge specifically states (pg 258), in his description of the Cross Jack Yard, that "Here is the only place in the ship where Brace pendants are employed."

 

I also checked over McKay's AOTS book, and as vague as it is, it does seem to match Longridge as well, with the exception that it does not show brace pendants for the Cross Jack Yard.

 

I got terribly confused by all of this as Antscherl (in TFFM) employs brace pendants on all yards, and although he shows the Yard Tackle Pendants, he doesn't say much about them.

 

The Mamoli kit plans, as bad as they are, actually do match Longridge (now there's a turn up for the books!), with the exception of the Cross Jack Yard Brace Pendants, and belaying of the yard tackle pendants.

 

I got further confused when I looked back over Gil's excellent log, where he has employed brace pendants on all of the upper yards.  So I asked Gil about his sources and choices.

 

Gil's response was (in essence) that the Jotika plans showed them this way, and that this matches his photographs of the actual ship (see Gil's log for these photos).  He opined that Longridge was basing his version on the 1922 restoration and that this may have been different to the more recent restoration to (supposedly) the "Trafalgar" state of the ship.  Gil also quite correctly points out that different Captains changed rigs to suit there personal preferences, so unless we can go back and interview Captain Hardy, we might never know for certain.

 

In the meantime, Gil has chosen to stick with the Jotika/Trafalgar restoration version, and I have decided to stick with the Longridge version on the basis that if Longridge is wrong, then I'm happy to be wrong with him.   

 

 

I've also been confused by the belaying of the Fore Lower Yard Tackle Pendants.  Longridge, in the text (pg 242), is quite vague saying, "The pendant...is a 7-in rope with its lower end spliced round a 13-in double block which is connected by its 3 1/2-in fall to a 13-in single block which hooks on to an eyebolt in the side of the deck."  In the diagram (Plan No.7) "the side of the deck" seems to translate to the Fore Channel, and this matches the drawing in McKay (pg 109), though neither actually show the final belaying point clearly. In checking the text again, Longridge's Belaying Plan (Plan 10, pg 266) and his Table of Belaying Points (pg. 270) both show that it belays to the "7th timber head, side of forecastle". But this raises another question for me - how does the line get to this belaying point without going through the shrouds/ratlines and/or the hammock netting and consequently becoming fouled?  It would make more sense to me to belay it on the Fore Channel, outside the shrouds, as seems to be indicated by all of the diagrams.  Does anybody have an opinion on this?

 

I hope to install the Main mast yards tomorrow.

 

 

[Jeff-E]

Hi Grant,

 

Sorry to hear about your virus and I hope you are feeling better soon. It always seems to be the way that we fall ill on our holidays.

 

I have just being going over your quandery of the belaying point for the fore tackle pendant and I think you are right that the lower single block hooks to an eye on the fore channel and I think you are a right in saying that it should belay to a deadeye or eyebolt on the fore channel but Longridge goes on to explain that when it wasn't in use it was triced up by the inner and outer trice lines which maybe suggests that it wasn't a critical line to the operation of the yard and maybe this is why it was belayed on the inside timber head when it was used. Just my opinion I hope I have not confused the matter further

[texxn5]

Hi Grant, sorry to hear you've been "down unda"....the yards are looking terrific.  Did you put tension on the yards like a weight or something to get the length of the lines for the lifts correct so that when the downward pressure is applied they would be of the right tension to tighten up?  It looks to be quite tricky...

[Blue Ensign]

Hope you recover quickly Grant, hell, you've got a rigging job to do.

 

For completeness this is a copy of the reply I have made re the brace pendants/yard tackles that you also did as a separate post.

 

 

 

Hi Grant,
 

When in doubt I always refer back to Steel, writing in 1794.
This is what he has to say:
 

YARD-TACKLE-PENDENTS are next put over the yard-arm, with an eye, as the former. In the lower end is spliced a double block, connected by its fall to a single one, strapped with a hook and thimble, to hoist in the boats, &c.
 

YARD-TACKLES are sometimes carried aft and hooked to eye-bolts in the side, and used to prevent too great a strain on the braces in bad weather.
 

Lees also covers yard tackle pendants in his book:
 

Comprising a pendant and long tackle block, the pendant being a quarter of the yards length.
The tackle fall comprised the pendant block and a single hooked block. When not in use the  tackle was hooked to the Futtock shrouds, and made up along the yard (by the use of a tricing line.)
 

This is how I have always chosen to display the yard tackles.
 

On Victory today recent photos show the Starboard yard tackles hooked to the Futtock Shrouds and the port tackles  are shown extended and  attached  to the lifting rings of  a boat.
 

Brace Pendants
This is what Steel has to say again writing in 1794.
 

BRACE-PENDENTS are next put over the yard-arms with an eye, as above; in the lower end is a single block, through which the brace reeves. Sometimes, in the navy, and oftener in the merchant service the block is lashed to the yard-arm without a pendent.
 

TOPSAIL-YARDS.
 

BRACE-PENDENTS are next put over the yard, as on the lower ones. The fore-topsail-braces reeve through the block in the pendent, and then through a block lashed on each side the collar on the main-stay, a little below the fore-braces; the standing-part makes fast to the stay below the block with a hitch, and seized. The leading-part leads from the block upon the collar of the stay through a block lashed on the stay abreast the fore hatchway, and through a block strapt with a thimble into an eye-bolt in the aft-part of the forecastle, and belays round an iron pin in the boat-skid.
 

MAIN-TOPSAIL-BRACES reeve through the block in the pendent, and the standing-part makes fast to the collar of the mizen-stay. The leading-part reeves through a block in the span round the mizen-mast-head below the hounds, and leads down through a sheave-hole in the mizen-topsail-sheet-bits, abaft the mizen-mast, and belays there.
 

THE CROSS-JACK-YARD
 

BRACE-PENDENTS are stopt to the yard about four feet within the cleats at the yard-arm; the brace then reeves through the block in the pendent. The standing-part of the starboard brace makes fast to one of the middle shrouds on the larboard side with a hitch, and the end stopt; and the leading-part reeves down through a single-block lashed to the same shroud a little below the catharpins; it then leads through a truck or double-block seized to the middle shroud, and belays round a pin in the fife-rail, and the larboard braces the contrary.
 

This is the link to the online work of Steel
 

http://hnsa.org/doc/...part7.htm#pg201

It is interesting to note that  Monamy Swaine in his painting of Victory at Sea in 1793 shows Brace pendants used.



Lees writing about Brace Pendants says on the lower yards they were fitted until 1815, and on the Topsail/T’gallants until 1805.*
*I have a slight niggle as to whether this is a typo error.
 

Marquardt (18th Century Rigs and Rigging) indicates that the attaching of the brace blocks directly to the yard using the dog and bitch connection became official in the Royal Navy in 1815.
 

Victory currently has brace pendants. Older photos of Victory show her without pendants, and Bugler writing in 1966 shows no brace pendants in his rigging plans etc.
 

It is the case that certain features on Victory extant in the days of Longridge and Bugler, were changed prior to the Bi-centenary in 2005, removal of the stern davits, changing the name detail on the stern etc; it may well have been thought that 1805 was too early to fit the dog and bitch connection.
 

Although unofficial changes were often made a fair time in advance of the official adoption, Steel's comment in 1794 that ‘sometimes’ in the Navy the block is lashed to the yard without a pendant, suggest to me that it was the exception rather than the norm at that time.
 

It does however give some leeway to choose not to fit brace pendants.
 

Personally  on balance I would fit pendants until the post Trafalgar era.

Hope this helps.
 

B.E.

[gjdale]

Thanks Jeff, John, and B.E.

 

B.E. - Thanks so much for your excellent response with so much information. I was hoping I could rely on you to provide an authoritative response and you didn't let me down I posted the question separately for the benefit of others who may not be following this log, so the answer you provided there will hopefully help many others as well. The link to the online version of Steel is particularly helpful.

 

I'm going to give this a little more thought now before finally deciding which way to go regarding Brace Pendants. I'll also consider how I will display the Yard Tackle Pendants - tricing them up might be the way to go.

 

Thanks again for the input B.E. - that really has helped remove the confusion - possibly more than you could know!

[mikec]

Hey Grant, nice work on the rigging and foremast. i have taken a break from my Endeavour and I am working on the final finishing touches to my Victory - the quarter davits, flags and ships launch. i will post pics of these builds. have you done the davits yet? I am scrolling through your build but havent come accross it yet. the mamoli instructions are completely wrong (no foot cleats, details etc) I am interested to see how you tackled them. Thanks for your great posts on your suberb build. Mike

[gjdale]

Hi Mike,

 

Thanks for dropping by. I haven't done the quarter davits yet. Still considering how I will tackle this one as I agree the kit instructions are somewhat lacking here. I will probably be guided by Longridge for this aspect.

[gjdale]

Following on from the most useful discussion on Yard Tackle Pendants and Brace Pendants, I think I've decided to show the Yard Tackle Pendants "triced up".  But that leads to two more quandaries......

 

The first of these is to do with how the tricing was actually achieved.

 

Lees (pg 71) says that the outer tricing line was attached to the Pendant just by the (yard tackle) block, reeved through the outer tricing line block (seized to the yard close to where the pendant would come to the yard) and then belayed in the top.

He goes on to say that the inner tricing line was attached to the fall close to the hook block and reeves through the inner tricing line block.  He doesn't indicate where the inner tricing line block is attached, nor where it belays, although the diagram on the same page shows the block as being on the yard close to the mast and the the tricing line then leading to the deck.  

In a description of the the rigging of HMS Medway (1742) on pg 175, he seems to contradict himself somewhat by stating that the outer tricing line belays "to the fore topsail sheet bits next to the upright". The same page also indicates that the inner tricing line belays to the third shroud of the foremast.

 

Longridge (pg 242), on the other hand,  says the outer tricing line is made fast to the pendant just above the (yard tackle) block, reeved through a 7" single block just outside the quarter iron, through another 7" block lashed to the first shroud just below the futtock stave and leads down on deck where it is belayed around the first lower shroud above the deadeye.  The inner tricing line is made fast just above the hook block, reeved through another 7" block on the same shroud and belays on deck around the second lower shroud above the deadeye.

 

Antscherl agrees with Lees, including the contradiction of whether the outer tricing line belays in the top or on the fore topsail sheet bits.

 

Confused yet?  I sure am!!!!

 

The next issue is the Yard Tackle Pendant Block itself.

 

Longridge quite clearly says that this is a 13" double block.

 

Lees describes it as a long-tackle block.

 

Antscherl says that at first he was confused by Steel's description into thinking that the blocks were conventional double ones while in fact these were long tackle blocks.  He doesn't offer an opinion as to what convinced him of this, but does add that these were "double thin blocks", meaning they are narrower than a standard or common block of the same size.

 

I'm inclined to go with Lees/Antsherl on this and use a long-tackle block.  That then leads to the next question - what size/proportions should they be?

 

Enter Steel.  Steel describes Long Tackle Blocks as being two thirds longer than the proportion for a single block.  My reckoning says then that if Longridge is describing a 13" (conventional) double block, then the Long Tackle Block would be roughly the length of a 13" block and a 10" block combined (or about 22 - 23").  At scale this equates to using the equivalent of a 5/32" and 1/8" block length, which is a total length of roughly 9/32"or 7mm.  A comparison to Antscherl's choice of a 15" block for a Swan class would seem to be about right.

 

So, how to make them then......

 

Noting that the blocks need to be thinner than standard, I decided to use the size of the smaller block for this dimension.  I found a drawing of a Long Tackle Block and scaled it using the photocopier until it was the right overall length.  I then prepared some Boxwood stock 1/16" x 1/8" and made grooves for stropping and sheaves, and stuck on the pattern:

 

 

Next, I marked the divisions of the block onto the edges and drilled 0.5mm holes for the sheaves:

 

 

Then I used a razor saw to make small cuts at the extremities and the "centre" of the block, and used this as a starting point for a triangular needle file to start shaping the block:

 

 

I continued to file the shape until it was "almost there":

 

 

 

At that point I was able to snap off the block from the stock and finish off the end:

 

 

And here's the final result, not perfect, but I think they'll do:

 

 

All I need to do now is replace the existing Yard Tackle Pendants/blocks with the new Long Tackle Blocks and then sort out just how the whole tricing thing is going to work.......

 

Oh, and while I'm at it, I'll probably replace the Brace Blocks with Brace Pendants/Blocks as well.

 

Okay, I'm exhausted just thinking about this.  Any and all opinions welcome. 

 

[Jeff-E]

Hi Grant,

 

Excellent work on making your long tackle blocks, a great technique and thank you for sharing it.

 

To your query on tricing the yard tackle pendants I have read lonridges version and also looked at Mckay's book, the only two refeerences I have of this shiip and betwwen the two of them I have come up with a theroy, proably wrong, on how the pendant was triced up.

Longridge says that when the pendants were not in use the tackles were triced up under the yard.

In McKays rigging schedule he lists the inner tricing line as having Two 8" single blocks as part of it's makeup and the outer tricing line having four 7"  single blocks as part of it's makeup.

 

Putting both of these pieces of information together I came up with the following interpretation of how it might have been rigged

 

 

The two lines would then belay at the points indicated in Longridges belaying plan

 

I hope this helps and thank you for raising this interesting topic I have learn't a lot fom it so far

[gjdale]

Thanks Lawrence and Jeff.

 

Jeff, I also looked at McKay and he generally is in agreement with Longridge. Thanks for your sketch and thoughts on how it might work. I would differ a little from your interpretation of McKay's table though. I think the quantities he refers to take into account both port and starboard sides of the yard, so there would be one inner and two outer tricing line blocks on each side (if I'm correct).

 

The more I look at this, the more I'm inclined to follow Antscherl's interpretation......

 

Still hoping one of you guys/gals will weigh in with some illuminating thoughts....

[Blue Ensign]

Hi Grant,
 

I agree - Longridge is suggesting that there are two outer tricing line blocks.
 

This is what Marquardt has to say (18th Century Rigs and Rigging)
 

The Outer Tricing line was spliced into the strop of the Upper (LongTackle) block, ran thro’ a lead block fastened to the yard one pendant length inside the yardarm, then thro’ another at Catharpins height lashed to the shrouds, to belay finally in the lower shrouds (shroud cleat) The tricing line was sometimes found running from the first lead block up to the top and made fast to a cleat.
 

A thimble was spliced into the end of the Inner tricing line, and this was slipped over the hook on the lower tackle block. The hauling part passed thro’ a lead block beside that for the outer tricing line in the shrouds, and belayed like the outer tricing line to a cleat in the lower shrouds.
 

As far as Victory is concerned Longridge show the tricing lines belayed around the first two shrouds forward on the Fore and Main Masts.

 

It makes sense to me that such light lines would reasonably be belayed to shroud cleats on the Lower Shrouds, and from a modelling point of view this presents a neat solution, if the tricing lines are to be rigged.

 

Hope this helps,

 

B.E.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[gjdale]

Thanks B.E.,

 

That kind of says that both Longridge and Lees are correct! Which means that if I were to follow as written by Longridge, I would not be incorrect.......

 

Hmmmmm. I've been around the buoy on this so many times in my head that I'm getting dizzy. I think now there is sufficient evidence to suggest that for Victory, Longridge may be taken as being correct on this point (except I shall use a long tackle block in lieu of the common double block).

 

Many thanks for your input B.E.

[mikec]

Hi grant, can you fellow Victory modellers help me please?

see link 

http://modelshipworld.com/index.php?/topic/4931-mamoli-victory-by-mikec-final-finishing/

[gjdale]

Answered in your log Mike.