Jump to content

HBMS Amphion 1798 by Matrim - 32 Gun 18pdr Frigate

Recommended Posts

For my next build I wanted to scratch build something that would mean something to me. I have done the Triton cross section and kits
before but these all took from one to two years. For a scratch built frigate I would estimate it would take me around 8 to 10 years. Since that is a considerable portion of anyone’s life I wanted a subject that would stick with


Not having a preference I started by preparing a short list of requirements



A)    It would have to be an English Napoleonic frigate. I have always been fascinated by the period (and have re-enacted as a
Coldstream Guard at Hougomont on the anniversary of Waterloo and as an officer of the 40eme (part of Lannes’s 5th Corps) on the anniversary of Austerlitz (that was great as the re-enactment was on the site where the 5th Corps had fought and it was snowing) I was admittedly a bit of a Bonapartist on the land war. On the Sea war I am unashamedly a Royal Navy fan.



B)     It would have to be of English design and not a capture (see A)



C)     It would have to be smaller than most late war frigates as firstly size is an issue and secondly the early war was more


challenging. The British dominance in the late war was of no  interest to me 


D)    It would have to have a story or something of interest for me to look into



Now I then started to read around. Early candidates included




A)    The Shannon, should need no reason really though a personal connection for me is that I have held the sword Broke used in the
Chesapeake battle and swished it around. In the end it failed on reasons C, plus it was built of fir which I found strangely unattractive




B)     The Guerriere – almost for the same reason as the Shannon but knocked out for reasons A and B plus C



C)    The Juno – Out of all the British Captains of the war Samuel Hood is one of my heroes. The problem with the Juno was that the


Toulon incident was the primary one and that was not quite enough to fulfil D. If I ever do a 64 it will be Hood’s Zealous at the Nile


D)    The Phoebe – The fightingnest ship of the Napoleonic Wars. If you like ship to ship actions then this is the one. If I


ever do a second frigate it will be the Phoebe as it stands my eventually winner trumped it on D


So we now come to my winner. I had encountered it earlier in my reading but discarded it on C as its ‘famous’ action was a late war one at the battle of Lissa. I then encountered it again and the more I found out the more I grew interested. Its run of ‘interest’ was quite outstanding


First up it was designed by Sir William Rule (the junior surveyor at the time) but had been extensively re-worked by Gambier at the
Admiralty to take some more attributes of the Triton. This must have been mortifying for Rule but the resultant ship turned out well. Gardener states


The modifications, presumably down to Gambier’s influence, show striking similarities with ideas behind the Triton ordered a month earlier: the extra length gave the ship the greatest length: breadth ratio of any frigate so far designed by the Surveyors,
and the raked bow owes something to Triton’s most individual feature. Contrary to accepted wisdom this design-by-committee produced not a camel but a racehorse – in service the Amphion proved fast, weatherly and manoeuvrable, and was particularly good in strong winds.



. So it had an interesting origin. I was initially further put off because Goodwin describes it as a fir ship and I have already stated my
irrational dislike of fir. Fortunately (along with a mis-captioned Triton as the Amphion in his book) he was wrong and the Amphion was not fur built.




Next up the ship had acted briefly as Nelson’s flagship on his way to the Med.


I then found it had also transported the Archduke Charles on an abortive trip to Spain. Charles was the Austrians best fighting general so that was in itself an interesting point for me.


It was also involved in the treasure ship action where four British frigates intercepted the Spanish treasure fleet under Graham Moore. The
Amphion was fighting the Mercedes when she blew up possibly due to fire. So she now could be placed at a pivotal point in the war playing an important part.


Moving on she was involved in the chase of the combined fleet to the Caribbean and back though being detached just before Trafalgar.


Finally she was Hoste’s flagship at the battle of Lissa of which plenty has been written.


All the above gave me plenty of interest but the decider was where she was built. The Amphion matched my pointy A because she was designed to be smaller than most standard frigates because the Admiralty wanted to use shipyards outside of the existing range. I also knew she was built in Essex but just assumed this meant a yard Southend way or on the Thames. When I eventually
checked her actual build location (at Mistley) she was actually built on the Stour on the border between Essex and Suffolk very close to Manningtree and Capel. Most of my mother’s family come from (and still live in ) this very region. The possibility of my relatives knowing about her or even working on her were more than any other ship I could think of.



The Amphion at Lissa - 


Link to comment
Share on other sites


My research on the ship is still continuing but initial work has been interesting. Taking the first few Captains for the subject of this
post we start with

Richard Henry Alexander Bennett – a whig Captain and nephew of the Duke of Northumberland Bennett is a very interesting character and he is one of the most unusual examples of how heroes are a special breed by what he did to show the opposite. Now please do not mis-understand me here.  He was probably a brave and dedicated man he just consistently failed to go that extra mile and suffered in comparison with some of the more famous officers of his time.

Bennett’s father was apparently a good looking man and popular with the ladies though not rich who managed the difficult feet of
marrying a rich attractive woman whose younger sisters all married into the high aristocracy. This provided him with a powerful backer and that oh so important ‘interest’ – but not enough that he could rely on just that.

Gossip at time

I will conclude this digression on the Burrells by adding one fact more, scarcely less remarkable than those already commemorated; namely, that the charms which nature had so sparingly bestowed on the three younger sisters, who married some of the
greater nobleman in Britain, were lavished on the eldest, who gave her hand to Mr. Bennet, a private gentleman. I have rarely seen, and scarcely ever known, a more captivating woman in every point of female attraction



Lord Percy, it is said, is to be married next week to Miss Burrell. Little Dick Bennet, who married one of her sisters long ago, is a droll, little fellow, and a sort of privileged man for talking freely to the ladies. In a circle of them, the other day, Lord Percy was spoken of, and somebody said that he had the gout: “ No Madam,” said little Bennet, “ I saw him this morning at my sister Burrell’s, making great love to her, and it is astonishing what a quantity he made”

(Bennett senior)



Bennetts first individual command had been a 24 gun brig  - the Moselle (a French Capture).Soon after receiving her he sailed into the harbour at Toulon and not realising the French had re-taken the port was promptly captured. Not bad in itself but a week or so later Samuel Hood in the Juno did exactly the same but fought his way out. You may be accusing me of callousness and one man’s luck over another but let us move on.

Bennett quickly received command of the Amphion having been exchanged and took her out to the West Indies. Whilst in command he captured a Spanish privateer. He also bumped into Graham Moore who was impressed with Bennett and the ship

The Amphion sails very well seems to be in excellent order and is a very good cruiser, she takes her station just where I would wish her to be in the day time and takes care to close at sun set to avoid the risk of separation. I have good hopes of doing something in such a favourable cruising ground with so able a second

It should be pointed out the Moore was often full of praise the first time he met a new ship and in this case even though the ships agreed
to share prizes the night after this written the two ships separated and Moore assumed the Amphion had picked up a rich prize and decided to take it in. On the 2nd April he encountered a Spanish Brig which had indeed been boarded recently by the Amphion with a prize in company  - another brig laden with suger.

After moving on from the Amphion Bennett gained a parliamentary seat and gained another new frigate (probably connected) and was
sent to join Nelson’s fleet in the Mediterranean. This should have resulted in wonderful things as Nelson (as is well known) was desperate for frigates and it was Bennett’s chance to join that band of brothers. It did not happen though because when Bennett reached Gibralter he was persuaded by a British General that rather than carrying out his orders it would be better if he instead
couriered this General and his entourage back to Britain. Bennett was court martialled and Nelson’s dislike of his actions rings out in his letters. I do wonder if there is something else to it though as Bennett had been a midshipman under Collingwood in the Mediterranean (and would have been one of the senior Mids mentioned in Admiral Raigensfelds memoirs) so apart from having an excellent teacher would have encountered Captain Nelson. I wonder if there was a personal reason involved as well.


Your letter of Decr 22nd:
I only received the 26th: on my anchoring in the Gulf of Parma Sadinia. The Juno is the only frigate I have with me. She is going to Malta to get some small repairs and will then proceed to Trieste. My distress for frigates has been and still continues to be extreme, but I fear we have them not in England in sufficient numbers for the Service wanted. I never a, able to have one with the fleet as it is necessary to watch so many points.

I felt sensibly the very long time you may have been detained at Trieste. The Anson was ordered for you two months ago but she has proved so leaky that she is ordered to be  repaired and to proceed to England. The tribune went to England from Gibralter or Capt Bennet should have been ordered to attend to you, but I am sure you will find every polite attention from Captain Richardson.



Bennett’s own letter to the Admiralty lists his reasons and was included in the Court Martial

February 7th 1805


I have the honor to  inform you His Majestys’s Ship under my Command with the Carvel Revoyante and Convoy arrived at Gibralter on Dec 18th where we found His Majesty’s Ships Swiftsure and Sea Horse, the first of which sailed for Lord Nelson’s fleet the 20th


On the 21st

I received an application from General Thomas Trigge KB requesting me to order the Sea Horse to take him to England, to which I replied it was impossible for me to take on myself the ordering one of Lord Nelson’s best frigates home but I should sail the first opportunity with the Convoy for Malta, Captain Boyle would then be left senior Officer and might act from his own judgement.


On the 22nd December having received information from Lt Gen Fox that the Spaniards had declared war against Great Britain on the 14th I thought it right to send the Sea Horse/ the Tribune not being ready for sea/ to give Lord Nelson the Intelligence and having ordered thirty of the 61st Regt on board the Carvel sent her with the Convoy to Malta and offered General Thomas Trigge a passage in this Ship, which he having accepted, I sailed from Gibralter on the 27th Dec and anchored here this day

He continues to state he sent another frigate as cover for the convoy. His original orders incidentally were to take the convoy to Malta
then to find Lord Nelson and put himself under his command.

Nelson was less than impressed.

Bennett survived his court martial (one of his judges was also an ex-Amphion captain – Admiral Fraser) and the need of the government to get votes might have caused his eventual recall to a 72. Here he performed well in the Mediterranean. At one point as Senior Captain in command of the Fama he and another ship attempted to hold a Spanish Coastal fort against St Cyr but seeing the forces arraigned against him he decided it was an impossibility and pulled his troops out. This may have been militarily a good decision if it was
not for the fact a certain Captain Cochrane in his frigate turned up and did occupy the same fort and covered himself in glory holding back a French army for weeks.


Oman states

Captain West handed over the task of co-operating with the Spaniards to Captain Bennett. The latter thought so ill of the state of affairs that after two days he withdrew his marines from the Trinity Fort, an action most discouraging to the Spaniards. But at this juncture there arrived in the bay the Imperieuse Frigate, with her indefatigable commandant Lord Cochrane, a host in himself for such a desperate
enterprise as the defence of the much-battered town. He got leave from his superior officer to continue the defence

So Bennett allowed Cochrane to carry out the defence but stayed in the area with boats from his and Cochrane’s ships removing the
garrison when all was almost lost.

Later Oman also notes, along with some general comments on the correctness of Bennetts decisions in pulling out Cochranes forces

Another futile charge
made by the French against the British Navy, is that the Fama shelled the beach near the Citadel while the captive garrison was marching out, and killed several of the unfortunate Spaniards. If the incident happened at all (there is no mention of it in Lord Cochrane or James) it must have been due to an attempt to damage the French trenches; Captain Bennett could not have known that the
passing column consisted of Spaniards. To insinuate that the mistake was deliberate, as does Belmas, is simply malicious.

As I said he suffers by comparison but is obviously still carrying out his job to the best of his ability

There were no command after this and apparently his politics was sufficient for a falling out with his patron and he died in 1818 (though
had a stroke 1813) in middle age a few years after his father. He never married and we possess little in memoirs concerning him apart from a single affectionate letter written to his sister Lavinia Gordon in his later years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

K, moving through the Amphion Captains we next come to Alexander Fraser. Now Michael Feather in his book on the Amphion states that not a lot is known concerning this officer and leaves it at that. Hmm. Let us see what I can come up with.



So from a Captain whose father’s marriage provided him with a link to the aristocracy we move to a Captain  who was part of a impoverished line of aristocracy. He is Alexander Fraser the eldest son o f the second son of the second son of the fifth Lord Lovat with a relationship to the first
Marquis of Hamilton on his mother’s side. Born in Orkney in 1751 he probably took to the sea as a way of gaining fortune.

His initial career appears steady if unspectacular and you would assume that what interest he had allowed him his initial position and little else. On passing for lieutenant in March 1773 he did not even receive his commission  until July 1777. This gives some clue to his personality as the only way he could get promoted was to get noticed and this he did by his enthusiastic destruction of  Falmouth in the American Revolution. Lord Sandwich promoting him
directly provided the direct compliment ‘that it was for his services in America’

As first lieutenant in the Conqueror he was travelling back to Britain when the ship lost her mast in a hurricane. This was unfortunate in that he had received an offer of a place with a friend Commodore Johnstone and due to the storm was unable to arrive in time. On the other hand his exertions in saving the ship were noted by the Captain who stated that the ‘preservation of the ship was in a great measure owing to the efforts of Mr. Fraser. Showing seamanship to match his aggression earlier perhaps.

In a career with lots of little actions he consistently did well – he was 1st when the Ruby (64) took the Solitaire of equal force – in later years that would be
enough for a promotion but not for poor Alexander. He managed to be sent to the West Indies to serve under Admiral Pigot where peace ensured he was sent straight back then went back out with Sir R.Hughes and gained the friendship of Nelson. He did appear to start gaining the notice of the powerful for at this point Admiral Pigot requested him removed from the Collossus to be the first of his flagship this led to his promotion in the wave that accompanied the end of the war and he gained his step to Commander.


Rear Admiral Alexander Fraser




Naturally he then remained unemployed until 1790 when his connection with Admiral Pigot gained him the command of a sloop. When the revolution tarted his sloop capture La Custine a privateer then he was requested to seize a town in France which he did. In this interesting location supporting the Royalists his speed in keeping Whitehall informed of developments so impressed the Admiralty that he gained his step to post rank.


His biographical
record notes


In April, 1793, he was directed to take the Ferret sloop and several cutters under his command, and proceed off Ostend : here he received a requisition from the Baron de Mylius, to land and take possession of the town and garrison ; with which he complied, and ran the Savage into the harbour, landing about 500 men, partly marines and partly seamen. On the 5th, he received from the Court of Brussels the intelligence, that General Dumourier had arrested Buernonville and the other Commissioners of the National Convention, and sent them to the Count de Clayrfait.

This intelligence, of infinite consequence to the war, he instantly transmitted to the Admiralty ; and it was received in so very short a time, that Lord Chatham could scarcely believe the officer who brought the despatch. In four days afterwards, the French army refusing to march to Paris with Dumourier, he was himself obliged to fly, which of course put an end to the armistice between the Prince of Cobourg and him. This intelligence Captain Fraser received through the same channel, and was equally fortunate in the speedy transmission of it to the Admiralty. As he necessarily lived on shore, H. R. H. the Duke of York was pleased to order the Commissary-General to pay him one pound sterling per day for his table, which was continued all the time he remained on the station

Now he controlled frigates and in the Shannon (32) he captured the le Duguay Trouin (24), ele Grand Indien (20) la Julie (18) and le Mouche (16). More frigate commands andsuccesfull escort duty ensued before he was placed in the Amphion. His command was limited to brining her out of ordinary and then escorting the Duke of Cambridge to Cuxhaven. This in itself was a plum role and shows that he was picking up friends and not through riches of which he had little but professional competence. His lineage probably helped as well.

His stint in the Amphion was short and his next notable event was his participation in the 2nd attack on Copnehagen under Lord Gambier whilst in the command of the Vanguard. He was trusted enough to be responsible for the region after Gambier left though with little thanks from the merchants. His sea service was limited after this to the Royal Yacht and as equerry t the Duke of Cambridge. His promotion to Rear Admiral occurred due to seniority though it was not the yellow and he eventually reached the rank of Vice Admiral of the White.

Fraser appears a solid and reliable officer who showed by his actions he deserved the promotions that were missing him by. Though starting without enough interest to get him out of the midshipmans berth his actions past this point started gaining him powerful supporters and his career rose accordingly.

As with a lot of naval officers there are no know biographical records though he is mentioned as being a ‘strict’ officer in Gardiner with an ability to ignore near death experiences (my copy is in the loft so the actual quote will have to wait)




Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather than drone on about history intermiabley (which may not appeal to some) I thought I would bring the current state of the plans up to date. Some of these appeared in the log in the late lamented msw 1.0 as follows. None of these are particularly drillable.








Next up the framing plan - No changes apart from re-arrangement of barricade type construction on the quaterdeck




Then we have the first new plan. This is a framing plan to be used on the 'shipway'. Due to the innovative method of making the square frames follow a waterline (done on a whim) it looks a little like a large fish. This plan will be 'adjusted' as and when I get round to doing more detailed plans of the transoms, stern and bow details




Finally we have the first working plan - this of the keel and false keel. I took some decisions here which I am uncertain about. The first is that I followed the Euryalus book in placing the keel taper over the cant frames only and not over the entire keel. I am not certain whether this should be over the entire keel length hence providing a smaller angle for a longer distance. The second decision was that what I read seemed to state that the false keel overlapped the joints of the keel. This seems to work well apart from the most forward piece which seems a little small to my eyes. Anyway comments on either welcome as always.




Plans wise I am currently working on the rising wood then stem, stern and keelson plans.









Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Joss,

that are really nice plans! According to tapering of keel, it tapers only fore and aft part, as described in Euryalus book. The fore piece of false keel looks really short. It may be, that the false keel has one piece less than main keel (5 in your case), so the fore piece may be longer


Link to comment
Share on other sites

A brief update.I am still beavering away at the deadwood. Here is a cross section of the keel unit with the diagonal lines representing the rising wood between the frames (as I interpret it so far, might be incorrect)




And the stern deadwood




I might have over sized the height of the stern post as I cant see yet the joint line on the plans


One area I am suspicious of is the height of the rising wood when encountering the stern deadwood as follows




In the above shot the bottom of the keelson can be seen by the dashed blue line. Looking at the other plans sets (Naiad/Swan/Euryalus) the top of the rising wood looks high to me. If anyone could explain what this height should relate to then I would be grateful - it might cause me to redo the slots on all my square frames but better to fix now than regret later.


On the original plans I assumed the keelson sat on the top of the frames and rising wood would be the difference between the seating slot of the frame (which was 13 inches if I remember correctly) and the keel so if the gap for a particular frame between top of keel and bottom of keelson was 20 inches then the rising wood would be 7 inches. 


Not too difficult to adjust if incorrect though so any comments either way would be welcome.







Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Alan! - it does look like I have missed judged the height if the rising wood. On my plan the bearding line is the third one up on the left.


I can go back and work out where I went wrong now and adjust.


Thanks for the course correction  ;)



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Joss,


I'm not sure I understand your question, specifically, but I would offer some comments that I hope will be helpful and not confusing. The one thing that strikes me is that your sketch shows a discontinuity in the cutting down line, which is probably incorrect.


The line of the bottom of the keelson and the tops of the floors, called the cutting down line, was a basic design parameter specified on the Table for Forming the Body. So, it is an independent variable - not dependent on other components. It should be a fair curve along its full length. The heights can be taken off from the profile draft. It terminates at the timber you show as Deadwood 4 and at the stem.


The bearding line is not an independent line. It is described by points on a vertical plane offset from the centerline by the breadth of the deadwood - actually half the deadwood breadth. These points are at the intersection of each frame profile with that plane. This applies to the square frames as well. If you draw the bearding line from these points on your the body Plan, the seat for the cant frames will be at the correct height. If you draw the bearding line from the profile you may introduce error.


I believe it is preferable to plot The bearding line from heights taken from your CAD body plan at each frame. Just drawing a vertical line outside the centerline to represent the plane and pick of the bearding line heights at each frame. This applies at the fore and aft ends.


The terms deadwood and rising wood are essentially interchangeable. They have the same breadth and the rising wood is just a specific part of the deadwood. Of course both are tapered down to the rabbet of the keel.


Hopefully this is useful. It helped me in drawing and lofting Naiad. I found that the bearding line taken from the profile differed from the line drawn from the body plan.


Good Luck,



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the detailed info. This proves how useful the Naiad and Euryalus book/plans can be as I am using them as a 'sense' check on the drawings. If my own show a noticeable discrepancy with either of those plan sets then most of the time I can assume something has gone wrong.


Fortunately once I get my head round things I do not think this is a drastic one to correct (time consuming perhaps but not drastic)


Many thanks to the pair of you for taking the time to provide such informative response/corrections.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Additionally I have just used the info provided to cross reference my copy of Steel - I had not realised that inverted U on the body plan was related to the Rising Wood.. so I will switch to getting a more accurate line in and adjusting my square frames as well.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joss, if you are referring the the inverted u on the sheer plan, that defines the height of the rising, not the rising wood.  The rising is the height of the centers of the floor sweeps above the rising line which is the height of the rising at the dead flat.  This is different from the rising wood and I do not believe they are related.  This is explained on pp 203-204 in Volume 1.  The duplicate terminology is confusing.



Edited by EdT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well after a lot more reading (In Ed's book p208 & p209 also define the two lines) I think I have finally got my head round the line. 


For those who are interested (and most will probably know of it already) here is the relevant Steel shot




The red and blue lines cover the 'inverted u' I was incorrectly looking at. The red is labelled 'Rising Height' and the Blue 'Rising Breadth'. The key line though is the green line which is labelled the Bearding line.


Anyway this is not marked on my body plan so initially I considered using the short section of the bearding line that was shown on the framing plan - and taking a line across to the body and back engineering it from there but I noted Ed's wise words to not trust the line so much so tried another way first.


I re-referred to my Steel and firstly used the table on p10 of the 'Tables forming the bodies' - here nothing seemed to match the expected bearding value but it did provide cutting down line heights at specific frames.So I added these to the profile and was pleased to see the resultant curve matched my cutting down line almost exactly.


The next relevant page for my 32 gun frigate was Folio II this listed the rising wood to be 1' 6'' broad for a 32 gun ship. Looking over my plans the half breadth showed a dotted line where the cant frames would be at either end of the ship. Measuring this came to 5.something small mm (give or take a 10th of a mm). Pushing that up to full scale and then to inches gave me a figure of 1 foot 7 inches. Not the same as the Steel but it would match a 36 gun ship. As a rule you would expect to take the plans over the book so I resolved to plot both and then compare them to the existing cant frames start points.


The end result of this was that the 1' 6'' was lower but the 1'7'' matched the fore cant frame lines exactly and was close to the rear cant frames. This I think means I have the correct line and has also validated the frame start points from the framing plan.


Anyway to show the rear (where the line from the cant start frames was visibly higher)




Here you can see the gap between the current cant frames markings and the washed out orange line which represents a bearding line drawn at 1'7'' (the 1'6'' was of course lower still). if that is not obvious then it is the fourth full line that covers the entire width of the image from the bottom 


I will probably adjust a few more of the rear deadwood lines now - I will possibly make them all straight so they are easier to cut, these again are not marked so I am guessing with all bar the new bearding and the cutting down (which can be seen easier with the obvious joint)


Anyway hopefully that is actually correct. As always if not shout.  :) Thanks to all those wise heads who are helping me keep to the straight and narrow. Or at least trying to.



Link to comment
Share on other sites



Looks like progress. Keep in mind that some of the dimensions in Steel are ship specific - although he is not clear about that. I suspect that the example Table for forming bodies may not be specific to your ship. Perhaps thats why things didn't match. The cutting down line heights are most likely ship-specific measurements. Do you have plans for Amphion? If so, the cutting down line is best measured from them, unless you know that Steel's tables are for Amphion. I looked at the table in Steel for a 32 and it does not give the ship name.


You,ve marked the plane of the bearding line on your plan in green. The best way to draw it in the sheer plan is by measuing heights up the green line on your body plan for each frame, transferring them to the sheer view and then drawing a curve through them.


Hope this helps.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

K, Just announcing a reset as I am not happy with my base plans. As with a lot of things ship building related the experience taken to get to this point has given me the knowledge to do the job properly (maybe that isn't quite correct - better may be the correct phrasing). I still have around 8 months before I was expecting to start building which will be plenty of time for a re-work. 


So thanks for all assistance so far and all your supplied knowledge will help make my re-work better  :D



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joss, I know exactly that feeling of not being satisfied with the status of the work and to many deviations from what one wanted it to be...

(I'm in the same mental state with my Wasa, although I haven't hit the delete-button yet...)



And of course we anticipate some great work from your drawing table in the near (?) future ;)

Take your time!

Edited by Wintergreen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...