Le Soleil Royal by Nek0 - 1/72 - Marc Yeu

[Bill Morrison]

On 9/27/2017 at 5:06 PM, Nek0 said:

So, I suppose the important point about a one hundred and four guns first rate warship is... the guns ! Here is what I did for the 36 gauge guns. At first, we had the opportunity Michel Saunier and I to work with Alexey Baranov, an ukrainian based craftsman, that could mold us the guns. Indeed, the guns of Le Soleil Royal were in bronze, not iron. It means they were prestigious pieces that were highly decorated. 

One of these guns still exist nowadays and is displayed in a french town called Le Croisic. In fact, it is a gun recovered from the wreck of the second Soleil Royal, but it may have belonged to the first one. 

 

 

I'm confused.  I thought that this is a model of the first SR but you say that she is pierced for 104 guns.  The first SR carried 110 guns, the second carried 104.  The gun displayed had to be of the first because of the sign claiming that it was off of SR in 1670, which is appropriate for the first.  The second ship wasn't built until she was started in 1692.  Could you please clarify?

[Hubac's Historian]

SR1’s armament fluctuated over her 22 year life span:

 

 

[Bill Morrison]

Marc,

 

Fair enough.  May I have the specifics about the reference?  Which book?  Which author?

 

Thanks!

 

Bill

[yancovitch]

sorry to interrupt...artesania latina S/R ?..........wish ''they'' had checked with you or hubac before creating it....so sad.....

[Hubac's Historian]

 

Simply one of the best resources on the subject.

[Hubac's Historian]

2 minutes ago, yancovitch said:

sorry to interrupt...artesania latina S/R ?..........wish ''they'' had checked with you or hubac before creating it....so sad.....

 

I know of one English modeler who has purchased this kit and plans to correct the length of the hull, the spacing of the guns, the sheer-line, deck furniture, etc.

 

He’s quite talented, so I am sure he will make excellent work of it.  I also believe that there is solid potential in that kit to produce a fairly representative ship, but it would require a tremendous degree of reverse engineering.

[Bill Morrison]

Marc,

 

Thanks. I appreciate it. Also, the Artesania Latina has quite a few problems.  One issue is that they have used belaying pins in their advertisement, while the use of belaying pins came about almost 100 years later. Another is the lack of external decoration, her reputation being of a highly decorated ship.  There are others commented about in the comments section for the model on You Tube.  The kit has been around for about a month.

 

Thanks for the reference.  I will look it up and purchase of copy.

 

Bill

[yancovitch]

yes i was thinking of that, but although nice, some of the sculptures seem small, and window frames too thick etc etc...and shape of the side galleries....etc etc....yes there is some good stuff there, but like you said, it's gonna take a lot of improvisation...ha............i even thought of having neko's hull and somehow using hellers decorations on it 😄..seeing as i'm not a sculptor.....being only a medium class ship builder......just working on revell constitution now...no mess no stink...wife's happy....getting weaker at 81, but still happy....gotta connect back on hubac's build too....so appreciate the wonderful work you fellas are doing....cheers..........vc

[Hubac's Historian]

I am glad to hear you are still modeling, Vic!

 

To be honest, I’m not sure about the question of belaying pins.  I don’t think the French employed pin rails, at this time (1670-1700), but I do think it likely that pins were used along the sheer rail, as Heller shows.  Then again, for his SP monograph, Lemineur does show pinrails.

 

He also shows them for his Le Francois of 1683, monograph:

 

Edited March 24, 2022 by Hubac's Historian

[Bill Morrison]

According to my sources, the use of belaying pins did not occur until the 1790s.  Granted, these sources might be talking about English ships, but they do not differentiate between navies.    I have carved off all of the pins from the Heller kit and sanded the sheer rails smooth. But, again, there might be other opinions.

 

Bill

[Hubac's Historian]

Respectfully, I am more inclined to believe that the simple utility of belaying pins would have been universally understood much earlier than that.  They show up in this Van de Velde sketch of a Dutch warship, following a battle:

 

 

 

And another ship, where they are evident along the forecastle sheer rail.

[Bill Morrison]

Marc,

 

Just as respectfully, I am inclined to believe just the opposite.   Perhaps it's my age but I don't clearly see belaying pins in the paintings.  The red arrow is pointing to what seems like carvings, but I could be wrong.  But, I am enjoying this conversation.  Thank you!

 

Bill

Edited March 25, 2022 by Bill Morrison

[Hubac's Historian]

Look at the area referenced by the red arrow;  there are pins between the sheer railing and the top fighting cloth rail.

 

One last reference - the poop sheer of the Monarque appears to have pins:

 

Edited March 25, 2022 by Hubac's Historian

[Hubac's Historian]

They also appear on the contemporary-build Louis Quinze model:

 

 

 

And actual pinrails on Frolich’s L’Ambiteaux:

 

[Bill Morrison]

Marc,

 

I will certainly look tomorrow. I discovered a similar discussion on MSW in August 2019 that sources Lees.  The participants can point to a reference as early as 1750 in smaller ships but no reference before that date except for a reference to something called a "turnpin" that no one could define.  They tried to pin i t down by using logic and reason, but no one was sure.

 

Again, it does make an interesting discussion.

 

Bill

[Bill Morrison]

Marc,

 

Good morning.  Okay, I see what you are pointing to.  They certainly look like belaying pins at a glance, but they are far too large to be used as such.  Even on the models, pins of that size couldn't be easily handled. They appear to be larger than a man. Maybe we have an answer to the mysterious "turnpins"!  😀

 

Bill

[Hubac's Historian]

I dunno’ Bill - relative to the men sitting on the poop deck, those pins don’t seem too impractical to my eye.

[allanyed]

The VdV painting shows what look like pins but I can only see one line belayed to these.  Also the painting is a Dutch ship, not French,  so maybe no correlation to LSR in this particular case.  I agree that the bowling pins on the model look like, well, bowling pins, not belaying pins.  I wonder if they are  originals or were they added at some later date?  Is this the 1720 model at the Musee National de la Marine?   While she is gorgeous in many ways, the rigging and painting look as if MAYBE she was renovated at some point.   The belaying of the line to the cleat on the mast is rather odd for one example. 

Allan

 

 

Edited March 25, 2022 by allanyed

[mtaylor]

You might try PMing g-delacroix who is a member here.  He should be able to give an answer I would think.

[Nek0]

On 3/25/2022 at 12:24 AM, yancovitch said:

yes i was thinking of that, but although nice, some of the sculptures seem small, and window frames too thick etc etc...and shape of the side galleries....etc etc....yes there is some good stuff there, but like you said, it's gonna take a lot of improvisation...ha............i even thought of having neko's hull and somehow using hellers decorations on it 😄..seeing as i'm not a sculptor.....being only a medium class ship builder......just working on revell constitution now...no mess no stink...wife's happy....getting weaker at 81, but still happy....gotta connect back on hubac's build too....so appreciate the wonderful work you fellas are doing....cheers..........vc

 

Hello Vic !

Yes the Artesania Latina model has a few problems: the space between the gunports, the sheer rail, the deck equipments, the side galleries are underscaled, etc... But the metal parts are very good and the recreation of the stern is exciting. I'm sure with a good work of "reverse engeneering" as said Marc, it can be a great model. Anyway I'm always pleased when someone shows interest in this ship and I look forward to see the first builds from this kit.

 

[Nek0]

On 3/24/2022 at 5:09 PM, Bill Morrison said:

I do not believe that the Tanneron model is "false".  It simply does not represent the first SR.  It is much closer to the second ship of that name t was built beginning in 1692.   In fact, the Tanneron model is also not complete given that he died while the model was under construction.  The infamous "hole in the knee of the head" bears testimony to this fact, as does the alleged lack of deck furniture.  Look at the Berain paintings and compare the different details of the decorative carvings. Even the quarter galleries are different in shape and detail. Count the gunports: the first ship carried 110 guns while the second carried 104.  The third ship is not in consideration as she was an 80-gun ship.

 

I saw the Tanneron model in Paris and was impressed by his attention to detail in other models, It was clear to me that had he been able to finish the model, it would have been fantastic.

 

Bill

 

Hello Bill !

It's a bit complicated, but yes, the Tanneron model is false. Don't get me wrong, my own model will be false too, but it's not so bad. Concerning the Tanneron it's complicated because we don't know his documentation. We are not sure his model is the Foudroyant that became SR n°2, it's an assumption by M. Lemineur (taken up by Michel Saunier) based on a few good arguments. First, at the time of the firts SR, the biggest width of the stern was at the second deck (just like the Berain drawing of the stern) when after 1673 the biggest width was under the second deck, making the stern look narrow. Second, we know that the second SR was supposed to have the same decoration than the first one. So, M. Lemineur supposes that Tanneron adapted the Berain drawing to the supposed proportions of the second SR (it makes a lot of "supposing"  ) Third, the Tanneron model is pierced with 14 gunports at first deck, so is supposed to be the second SR, when the first SR was pierced at 16. So, it's a good point of view to say that the Tanneron model is certainly a good representation of what SR n°2 should have been, but it's not THE SR n°2. 

Because, and it's only my point of view.

We know that Tanneron was told to build a model of the first SR. So he made the galleries with open balconies when the second SR should have had closed side galleries. He used as a reference the work of admiral E. Paris "Souvenirs de marine conservés", which are false in many ways. (he confused the Royal Louis with the Louis XV) As an example the last two gunports of the first deck that are lower than the others. The last gunport of the first deck pierced in the low side gallery is also suspect. 

The side galleries are a big problem. It does exist two different drawings of them, and none proved to be exact. The first, that I chose, has a lot of problems: a very strange architecture of the first stern balcony and a too long "voute d'arcasse". The decoration is not quite the same than the Berain drawing of the stern. But, well, in my opinion it does exist, so we have to deal with it, and it is a drawing from the 17th century, stated as "anonymous, copy from Berain". Who stated this as a copy from Berain ? We don't know. Was this drawing a version of the first decoration by Lebrun before Berain remade it ? Is this the Berain version despite all the arguments ? The question will remain. It is also hard to tell if this is open balcony or closed galleries. I readily admit that my only arguments to use it are "it does exist so I had to deal with it" which is quite weak.

The second, that Michel Saunier chose, is a more recent drawing (anonymous also, to make things more complicated...) on a tracing paper. It says "Ludovic" at one point instead of Louis, so M. Lemineur suppose it has a german origin. The decoration is more connected to the Berain drawing of the stern, but maybe it has been made after, to connect better. Some say it is a working version of the Tanneron model. We will never know. The good points here are that the decoration connects better with the Berain drawing of the stern and the architecture of the first deck connection with the stern is better. 

Tanneron made a third version of the galleries.... Did he know the existence of the previous drawings ? If yes, why didn't he used them ? Didn't he trust them ? Or is the second drawing a preparatory for his model ? (I personnaly don't think so) Or is his work with the balcony pure invention ? Or did he had some other documents that didn't made their way to our days ? 

So, as you see, all you can make with le Soleil Royal is a representation of what she may have looked like, and not what she was. All the interpretations will be very hypothetical, and neither can be stated as more or less false than the other. That is why, in my conversation with M. Lemineur, he firstly told me that is was a bad idea to make a SR model. Then he told me that, if all the other points were good and respectful of the ways of doing things at the time, it could be a good model of what the SR may have been.

The documentation on the SR is a mess and too poor to pretend to recreate what really this ship was. But it's what we do, suppositions and patchwork of documentation and references. Even his monograph of the St Philippe is a patchwork of what should have been and not the reality. The best monographs from Jean Boudriot and Gérard Delacroix are patchwork of different sources. The difference is that they used first hand historical sources to make their monographs when for the SR the sources are not even sure. 

  

 

[Hubac's Historian]

Well explained, Marc!  Do you hold a position on the pinrail debate?

Edited March 26, 2022 by Hubac's Historian

[Hubac's Historian]

Also, would it be fair to say that the collection of Tanneron models were commissioned, in the first place, to be the visual expression of the more evolved and codified Second Marine of the 1690’s?

 

I don’t have good pictures of L’Agreable’s stern, so I can’t tell whether he modeled her with the pre or post 1673 stern:

 

 

Like SR, though,  her 1697 refit drawing shows the early stern:

 

 

As you know - notwithstanding all of the problems you mentioned - I also agree with your basic premise that the Berain/Vary drawing must exist for a reason.  From an evolutionary standpoint, this particular arrangement of the quarters is consistent with other examples that are better understood from the late 1680s/90s; lower gallery closed, middle gallery open and walkable, upper gallery a trompe l’oeil amortisement. 

Edited March 26, 2022 by Hubac's Historian

[Gaetan Bordeleau]

2 hours ago, Nek0 said:

The difference is that they used first hand historical sources to make their monographs when for the SR the sources are not even sure. 

If you give 1 point for every good guess made about an 17th ship construction like Soleil Royal

and you give 1 point for every good guess for an 18th ship construction like the 74 guns

Plus, if we subtract 1 point for every wrong guess

 

Who would be the winner?

[Hubac's Historian]

It is not even a contest, Gaetan.

[Bill Morrison]

NekO,

 

You gave an outstanding explanation of your point that the Tanneron model is "false".   I appreciate your point of view.  I suppose that we can look at all models of this period as being "false" if we cannot back up our models with documentation. At best we can use a medical description that the Tanneron model," . . . morphologically resembles . . ." French warships of the 17th-18th centuries.  Indeed, the same description can apply to many ship models. Without specific evidence the Tanneron model is a facsimile.

 

Concerning the belaying pin issue, we are all relying on secondary and tertiary sources.  I am using Lees' book that was first published in 1979. Given that we are all using such sources we are all discussing based on very scanty evidence at best.  Given this, I am open to everyone here offering an opinion.  I would love to find primary sources to add to this discussion.

 

Bill

[G. Delacroix]

Hello,

 

Concerning the belaiying pins, it is certain that they existed at the time of the SR, their creation does not date from 1790 as I read above. For the period we are interested in, they are mentioned in Blaise Ollivier's dictionary of construction which dates from 1729 and are obviously common practice. 
In French the term is called "cabillot" or "chevillot" and comes from the Provençal vocabulary "cabilhot" from "cabilha" meaning wooden peg and attested since 1283.

 

GD

[Hubac's Historian]

What the French have to offer, in the way of primary sources of 17th C. French practice is unique among European nations of the time.

 

First, there is the pictographically complete Album de Colbert, which illustrates the complete timbering and process of constructing an 80-gun, three-deck ship.  As I understand it, there are a few small anachronisms between what the artist drew and what actual practice would have been in 1670, but the liner notes clarify these discrepancies.

 

Then, there is the Chevalier de Tourville, 1680, which is a distillation of Colbert’s son Seignelay, and Hubac’s son Etienne’s study of the English and Dutch construction practices, combined with Tourville’s conception of the ideal three-deck ship.  The resulting plans are what Frolich used to create his model of L’Ambiteaux.

 

So, while complete sets of plans for actual ships in this period do not exist, it is possible to draft a credible reconstruction with accurate timbering, and in accordance with the known dimensions and armament of any given ship;  this is the best educated guess that is possible.

[G. Delacroix]

16 minutes ago, Hubac's Historian said:

...

Ensuite, il y a le Chevalier de Tourville, 1680, qui est une distillation du fils de Colbert, Seignelay, et de l'étude d'Etienne, le fils d'Hubac, des pratiques de construction anglaises et hollandaises, combinées à la conception de Tourville du navire idéal à trois ponts. Les plans qui en résultent sont ce que Frolich a utilisé pour créer son modèle de L'Ambiteaux.

...

B. Frolich used the plans from Jean Boudriot's research on the Chevalier de Tourville, he is not a researcher nor a historian but he is a good modeler. 

[Waldemar]

 

Concerning the 17^th century sailing navy (as opposed to the galleys) shipbuilding practices, may I propose some other French primary written sources?

 

–         G. Fournier, Hydrographie […], Paris 1643

–         F. Dassié, L'architecture navale […], Paris 1677

–         F. Coulomb, Livre de construction des vaisseaux […], Toulon 1683

–         Anon., Construction des vaisseaux du Roy […], Havre de Grace 1691

–         Anon., Construction et proportions de plusieurs vaisseaux, manuscript, ca. 1690–1701

 

These are as much useful works for early modern era ship’s reconstructions as any other, partially even for non-French constructions, provided they are correctly put in a wider context.