Sovereign of the Seas: square tuck or round tuck?

[Mark P]

Good Afternoon;

 

The recent publication of John McKay's book 'Sovereign of the Seas', which purports to give an accurate representation of the ship as built in 1637, has resulted in some fairly caustic reviews appearing on Amazon. This includes one from Frank Fox, probably the foremost expert in ships and Naval history of this period, who is deeply thanked by McKay for his help with the preparation of the book. Frank Fox starts his review with the comment that although McKay asked for his advice and comments, this was then largely ignored, so he wishes to counter the impression created that he has endorsed the book, when in fact he has no wish to be associated with it, as it contains too many inaccuracies. 

 

The largest of these centres around the shape of the stern: was she a round-tuck, or a square-tuck? Frank Fox is adamant that she was built with a round tuck, and cites ample examples to prove this.

 

John Mckay's reconstruction shows her with a square tuck, with his reason for assuming this largely based on the well-known portrait of Peter Pett, the builder of the Sovereign, by Peter Lely. This can be interpreted as showing a square tuck (although the planking is quite clearly curved, and almost vertical, both as is normal for a round tuck stern; square tucks had straight, diagonal planking) However, it is undeniable that the outer portion of the stern does show a 'knuckle', or sharp angle.

 

According to one's point of view, this can be taken as proof of a square tuck (despite the curved planking) or as an error on the part of the painter, who knew nothing of ships (Peter Lely was a portrait painter, and is very unlikely to have ever gone near Chatham where the Sovereign was generally laid up or moored)

 

However, maybe an injustice has been done to Lely, and he has actually painted an accurate portrait of her (or whoever did paint it; there is no certainty that Lely actually painted the ship's stern at all, or even the portrait of Pett)

 

Compare the three pictures below. These show part of the Sovereign/Pett painting (which is held by the National Maritime Museum) and adjacent is a drawing taken from the book 'Sailing Ships of War', by Dr Frank Howard (highly recommended if you do not have it) This shows a sketch of an English third rate in around 1634 (although this identification is not certain) She certainly has the English coat of arms, and a CR monogram. Most interesting, though, is the planking around the buttocks. This could be what is portrayed in the Sovereign painting. The final picture shows part of the stern of a model of Warrior, which shows the run of the planking in a round tuck very well.

 

I have not yet seen McKay's book, although I do intend to purchase a copy, as the drawings of the decoration are, according to Frank Fox and other reviewers, very good. 

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

[druxey]

Mark: interesting comments. I interpret the pen and ink picture as a transitional stern, where the round tuck was still being figured out by the shipwrights. I can see that the Lely is ambiguous; as first glance it appears to be a square tuck, but on closer examination it seems to also be transitional like the drawing - especially on the port side.

[Jaager]

I see this as a minor controversy that seems to have lasted about 250 years.  Unless some misplaced plans from 1637 finally show up, there is no definitive resolution.  It is all a best guess.  It is unfortunate that it has taken on more significance than it deserves.  It serves to divide into two camps,  whose further differences are not evident.   This is a large ship.  There is much about it to cover in a book.  For Frank Fox to disavow McKay's entire book over a couple of choices that are open to interpretation, seems excessive.  Better to praise what works and footnote the disagreement.  Then publish the alternative in NRJ with the alternate version of the plans.

I do not see this as being subject to vote,  unless the voter is actually building a model of the ship.  And, then, which ever choice is made should have no affect on how that model is judged, if it is an entry in a contest.  A museum suit is entitled to use this as a decision point for an acquisition.  Given the current fashion / fad exercised by museums, who knows how long it will be before even the possibility is a factor?   

 

Now, valid vote or not,  I see round.  The continuation of the caulking seams in the whole white area, is my key.  A flat tuck would have different planking.  That said, them's some pretty wide boards between those seams.  Did the painter actually see the ship?  Did he use a poorly planked model of it as his source?

[Mark P]

Thanks Druxey and Jaager for your thoughts.

 

I posted this because the preponderance of evidence for the period is that the Sovereign had a round tuck, in my opinion. If Frank Fox holds the same view, I would regard this as very strong advocacy for the same. 

 

I also believe that the portrait shows a round tuck. If it were square, as Jaager mentions, the planking would not continue the lines of the main hull planking, as the fashion piece would be partly visible, and the stern planking would stop short of the knuckle.

 

Jaager, have you read the review in question, which raises a number of points that are hard to set aside, and which give a good indication of the actual level of research carried out by John McKay while preparing the book. It is undeniable that McKay is a draughtsman of outstanding ability, but I do believe that he has given insufficient consideration to the information available for this subject. 

 

There is a contemporary draught of the Sovereign available. It was found in the early 20th century, in the London house where Samuel Pepys once lived. This is also mentioned by Pepys as being amongst his possessions. For about the last hundred years it has been in the collections of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts (copies are available at an extortionate price) The provenance of this is accepted as genuine. It has been colour-washed, and shows the decoration of the side in great detail, at a scale of 1:48

 

This draught also shows the tuck, in side view, with gradually fading shading running away from the line of the stern. It is very difficult to disagree that this shows a rounded shape. The reflection on the surface of the water shows the same thing.

 

Re the apparent width of the planks, although I think they are reasonable, two things might be of interest: the very different timber supply situation for the early 17th century must be borne in mind; I have seen floorboards in houses of that date, which are 2 feet wide (not that I am advocating that the planks here are that width) Secondly, the Sovereign had a notedly narrow stern, which was one reason for her unpopularity amongst admirals, and explains why she almost never served as a flagship. Given the choice, they preferred other first-rates with wider accommodation. 

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

 

 

 

[chris watton]

If I ever made Sovereign again, I would still model the round tuck, as the square stern shown in the latest book just doesn't look right. Rudder would be next to useless.

[Jaager]

I checked my library.

I lost what little Deutsch I had,  but none of the illustrations in Hendrik Busmann appear to address the stern at the water line.  Tafel II is a 27"x8" color foldout Peter Pett print.

 

There is something in James Sephton.  It is in an authoritative voice,  but he does not footnote that I can see, so I do not know his source.

[Mark P]

Good Afternoon;

 

Thanks Jaager for posting more information. 

 

It has been suggested to me that the ship shown in the pen and wash drawing, in the first post, is a captured Dutch vessel, with the strange knuckle due to English shipwrights either altering or repairing her stern in their round tuck style, but finding this awkward, as all Dutch warships had square tuck sterns, and no wing transom. Hence the rather amateurish look to the planking, and probably the seeming clinker-built style of it also. Especially as other English ships had perfectly well formed round tuck sterns well before the Sovereign was built. 

 

This makes it unlikely that the knuckle shown in the Lely painting of the Sovereign is there for a similar reason, so why the picture shows this is still a subject for guesswork. However, that does mean that the painting is the only evidence of any kind for the Sovereign to have had a square tuck; which should be considered in balance against a number of depictions of pre-Sovereign ships with round tucks, and the draught of the actual vessel shown above. 

 

Below on the left is a Van de Velde picture of the Garland, built in 1620; shown in the Commonwealth period, but she had not been re-built, and still has her original round tuck stern. Likewise the Convertine, on the right; built in 1616 with a round tuck stern, although the drawing is later.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

 

 

 

 

[md1400cs]

On 5/29/2020 at 9:10 PM, Jaager said:

For Frank Fox to disavow McKay's entire book over a couple of choices that are open to interpretation, seems excessive. 

Jagger - I so agree with you. I have the book  --- it is, IMO, excellent.

 

I will start this ship soon. I don't have the skills to properly master a well done round tuck, so I will compromise with a minor square tuck - see image below.

The McKay book will be gone through very carefully indeed. Though I will adapt one of the upper decks with Fox' thoughts in mind. My next build will be this ship - Amati discontinued that product - so Sergal are the only option available...

 

PS: I don't know whom to credit for this amazing Sergal example  below - Brilliant work!!

 

[Mark P]

Good Morning Darius;

 

I agree with your comments. 

 

Whilst Frank Fox certainly has criticisms of McKay's book on this subject, he did not condemn it in its totality. What he wished to emphasise the most was that although he is cited in the introduction, thereby implying that he had a part in its contents, he did not endorse the book, and does not support much of what is shown; and most especially, his advice was given on some parts, but not adopted.

 

As Darius and others have mentioned, the book is worth having, even if only for the drawings of the decoration. The quality of the draughtsmanship is indeed acknowledged by Frank Fox, as being practically the book's only merit.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

[druxey]

Perhaps part of the problem is conflating excellent draftsmanship with researched historical accuracy. The two are not always mutually inclusive. I would tend to accept both Frank Fox and Richard Ensor's work with less question than John McKay's. For instance, there are questionable items in the AOTS book by McKay and Coleman. Although beautifully delineated, for one instance, joggled deck planking was of later origin than 1779.

 

A good friend of mine, the historian Karl Kessler, declared: "This is a very small book. Read elsewhere and read critically, always."

[druxey]

Darius: I suspect that the planking would be tapered and possibly in irregular widths. Although Vasa and Mary Rose are not necessarily examples for R.S., look at the deck planking on these contemporary examples of shipwrightry.

[Mark P]

Greetings to anyone interested in this topic:

 

I have recently photographed a document among the State Papers surviving from Charles I's reign, dated 1630. This is a specification for the repair of the Vanguard in dry dock.

 

One item of great interest is this: 'To Birth upp the Sterne on both sides alike, with Buttock planckes wrought out of Rounde Tymber (which I take to mean that the sharply curved planks forming the round tuck were to be sawn out of timber with a suitable curved grain) to bringe on a Transome uppon the Heades of the Buttocke plancke without Boarde to finish the same' (presumably the later tuck moulding, not the wing transom)

 

As the specification was drawn up by Phineas Pett and William Burrell, the two foremost Master Shipwrights in the kingdom, this would make it very likely that this was considered, by this date at the latest, to be normal. If Phineas Pett was involved in specifying a round tuck stern for a rebuild/repair in 1630 it can reasonably be considered unlikely that he would design the later Sovereign of the Seas with a square tuck.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

Edited October 25, 2022 by Mark P

[Louie da fly]

Though it is from a different nation, and built in 1629 not 1637, the stern of the Batavia may be informative - see https://www.donsmaps.com/batavia.html - here's a couple of photos from that site - 

 

 

 

Steven

Edited October 25, 2022 by Louie da fly

[druxey]

Late to the fray, another consideration: If a square tuck, the fashion piece needs to join the sternpost at about waterline level in order for the rudder to act effectively. Look at the Lely painting again:

 

If that were a square tuck the lower end is well submerged and rudder action would be severely affected. That image, together with the Boston one, lead to the inevitable conclusion that she had a round tuck or just possibly a transitional one. It cannot have been a square one. I rest my case, gentlemen!

[Louie da fly]

I agree about the position of the fashion piece affecting the action of the rudder - I had to drastically re-jig the stern of my Great Harry model to take that into account.

 

Steven

[Mark P]

Good Morning All;

 

I am not sure if this was mentioned before in another thread on this painting, but there is some indication that Lely (if indeed it was him who painted the ship) did not work from life, but from draughts or sketches of the ship: this is that the perspective of the quarter galleries is completely wrong. He depicts them as parallel to the waterline, whereas in life the forward ends are considerably lower than the stern ends. The quarter galleries follow the sheer of the ship, which those depicted quite obviously do not, being shown parallel with the deck line (look at the line of slightly open gunports on the lower deck) To my mind, this throws into doubt that anyone of Lely's stature, who quite clearly understood perspective, would have depicted the ship thus if painting it from life. Even if it was not Lely, the artist is clearly highly talented, and the same should apply.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

[Waldemar]

 

If my two cents are taken into account:

 

– I agree with the Druxey's view in post #2, that it is about the transitional form of the stern. Specifically, that the stern is round, but with the still sharp edges of the stern closer to the ship's sides;
– at least some of the planks (in the more difficult spots) were cut from compass timber, such as those shown by Steven in post #13 and described by Mark in post #12;
– also consider that the height of the tuck was a compromise between rudder effectiveness and adequate stern support; for the square tucked ships this height was virtually never above the waterline, but always below. In other words, the bottom part of the stern surface was always under water. In any case, ships were then rather more sail-controlled than just rudder-controlled;
– Even a cursory look at the way the station lines were drawn (p. 157 in McKay's book) is not optimistic. In soldierly terms: for me it is a rather strange improvisation which cannot be quite trusted.

 

As an aside: I find the drawings of the gun carriages particularly painful, especially because of the faulty positioning of the transoms (they should be under the trunnions rather than completely in front of the carriages).

 

 

Edited November 12, 2022 by Waldemar

[Waldemar]

 

To illustrate another unorthodox case, below is a somewhat surprising example of a ship's stern from a presumed transitional period. The portrait was made by van de Velde in 1658 and depicts the famous Danish admiral ship Trefoldighed (the equivalent of Nelson's Victory for the Danes). The ship was rebuilt by English shipwright James Robbins in the 1640s at the behest of Christian IV and was then given a round stern.

 

Note the run of the lowest wale and the position of the stern gun ports. The transitional sterns of some French ships in the second half of the 17th century had a similar layout. The picture was taken from the study by Niels Probst, Christian 4.s flåde, 1996.

 

 

 

[druxey]

It foreshadows Seppings' round stern by many years!

[Waldemar]

 

There is probably direct evidence that Sovereign of the Seas had a round stern from the outset. In McKay's book, on pages 20–21, there is a table of the ship's projected dimensions from 1635 ('Detailed Schedule of Dimensions for the proposed Sovereign of the Seas'). In this table I found, among other things, these two dimensions:

 

Height of the tuck at the fashion piece: 16' 0"
Height of the tuck: 17' 0"

 

'Height of the tuck' is nothing more than the height of the rising line of the floor aft (i.e. at the sternpost). In short, for ships with a square stern the first given dimension is not necessary at all, and even meaningless (at least I personally do not know of such a case).

 

It would now be sufficient to check the reliability of these figures given in McKay's book (incidentally largely ignored by the author himself in making his drawings) and whether they all refer to the ship as first build or to her later rebuilds. I think Mark would be best placed to do this.

 

I would also add that it would be difficult to dream up more complete data for reconstructing the hull shape of a ship of this era. No or almost no guessing, just the implementation of ready-made data...

 

 

Edited November 15, 2022 by Waldemar

[Waldemar]

 

Specifically for this issue I have also consulted early English texts on shipbuilding as well as ship plans. Somewhat promisingly, I found that some of them suggest the use of round sterns as early as about 1600. But this is a subject for a rather long commentary requiring proper preparation...

 

 

Edited November 17, 2022 by Waldemar

[No Idea]

I find this so fascinating as I'm just really getting into the history of ships and I have so many questions.  But could someone do me a very simple diagram of why a square tuck would affect the rudder more than a rounded one.  I'm sure that once I see a diagram it will all make far more sense to me.

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

On 10/25/2022 at 7:25 PM, Louie da fly said:

Though it is from a different nation, and built in 1629 not 1637, the stern of the Batavia may be informative - see https://www.donsmaps.com/batavia.html - here's a couple of photos from that site - 

 

 

 

Steven

  Wow, this sure looks like an example of a 'hybrid' ... where the planking was bent (most likely while quite hot from steam in the area to be bent) at some angle shy of 90 degrees along what we might call the last 'bulkhead' (framing member) in that era of the stern.  So it would not exactly be square tuck, and not exactly round tuck - but something that would sure look like the painting of the Sovereign's stern-on view !

 

[Louie da fly]

Yes, that's how it looks to me, too.

 

Steven

[druxey]

No Idea: The square tuck, if almost above water level, will not really affect the rudder's effectiveness. However, if the tuck is deep into the water, the rudder will be in its 'shadow' with water turbulence in that area as the ship moves through the water. This situation means that the rudder is less efficient.

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

  The painting of the Sovereign shows a white painted (treated?) under-hull (mostly near the waterline except for what one can see  at there stern).  I wonder what this concoction might have been ... white lead paint? (lead oxide based)  It is known that (at least in Elizabeth the First's time) that makeup with a lead oxide base (... its all about that base ...) was 'fashionable' - possibly because the Queen used it to cover-up pox scars, and her court followed suit as far as makeup was concerned.  White makeup for ladies can be seen in Cavalier-era artwork, so the stuff was still around.

 

  High-class French used white powder on the face and wig in the 18th century - as did English fops, but that could also have been tin oxide or talc.

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

  'Just saw a post of a Norske Love build that has the 'transitional' tuck we've been pondering.  Picture below:  

 

 

[DARIVS ARCHITECTVS]

I went with a round tuck on the Sovereign.

 

[druxey]

And no-one can prove you wrong! Well done.

[Old Collingwood]

Interesting   question  and  conclusions   -  reminds  me  of the  debate  over the  Deck Bulkheads   -  Square   or  Rounded?

 

OC.