Saint Philippe 1693 by CRI-CRI - scale 1/72 - French warship from Lemineur monograph

[CRI-CRI]

Jean-Claude Lemineur wrote me that verticalised and equidistant frames will be without real visible difference about shape of hull   

 

Here, as previewed, pics of a simulation of gammoning :

 

 

 

 

[CRI-CRI]

Possible rectified gammoning's holes simulation :

 

 

 

 

[CRI-CRI]

Small holes :

 

[Hubac's Historian]

As you are still in a conjectural planning/spitballing phase, I would like to chime-in on your proposed re-gammoning location.

 

From a timbering standpoint, running the gammoning above the trailboard creates a vulnerable weak spot that jeopardizes the bowsprit.

 

Also, it just wasn’t done, so the wrongness of its appearance, here, would look even more wrong than the gammoning soaking beneath the waterline.

 

It seems to me that, while you may have to re-think the timber joinery beneath the trailbord, there is ample space to locate the gammoning above the waterline, but below the lower cheek.

[CRI-CRI]

These illustrations show little more about this rather difficult question : 

 

 

 

[daniel.b]

Very interessing discution, I like!

[Hubac's Historian]

Your last edited photo with the gammoning going through the trailboard is even less structurally sound.

 

All I’m trying to advise, here, is that if you are going to go to the trouble of making something immensely complex, like the SP, then try to avoid glaringly wrong work arounds.

 

If it were me, I might redraw the timbering, so that the gammoning didn’t pierce at an awkward place below the lower cheek, and I would probably cheat the waterline down by a 1/16” - 1/8”.

 

It may not be exactly right, but it is more correct LOOKING than what Lemineur provides for.

[CRI-CRI]

Some end of afternoon small work :

 

 

[CRI-CRI]

Don't forget that these holes will be hidden under a furring deck, SP seems to be a little difficult, but nothing really impossible for me...   😘

[Hubac's Historian]

What do you mean by a “furring deck”?  Do you mean the beakhead grating?

[CRI-CRI]

Yes, it's what you've understood, If you know the kit of USS Conferderacy, it's the model i'm following for improve the S-P gamonning

 

I shall not modify the waterline position, because it's an absolute reference for all the built

 

 

[Hubac's Historian]

With a hundred years separation between them, I am curious as to how the Confederacy will inform your SP build; the head structure is completely different.

Edited March 16, 2021 by Hubac's Historian

[CRI-CRI]

I have the "choice" between an historic "probability of truth", and another approach, more "creative"

 

J-C Lemineur wrote to me that my proposition had existed, but later, then it would be an anachronism, that's also your point of view...

 

I shall take a moment of reflection before a definitive decision   😘

[CRI-CRI]

@Hubac's Historian

 

I received a notification of a message titled "test" send by you, but I found any message on site ? What a curious mystery !  😋

[Hubac's Historian]

I posted a test message because your previous post - for which I received an email notification did not appear, when I went to your page.  No number of refreshes brought it to light.  So, I posted a test message to see whether the page would refresh that way.  Whatever you wrote this morning still isn’t visible to me.  I deleted the test message, though.

[CRI-CRI]

I had inform you that I decided to follow my first idea about gammoning of S-Philippe, I cannot follow the sinking ropes...  😘

[Hubac's Historian]

Ah, okay - I see now.  Thank you.

[CRI-CRI]

The first rail is almost finished, closer to a work of sculpture than of engraving :

 

 

 

 

 

Then, like pancakes, turn it, and start again the same work of cook, without burn out  😘

[CRI-CRI]

On 3/16/2021 at 4:19 PM, Hubac's Historian said:

[...] if it were me, I might redraw the timbering, so that the gammoning didn’t pierce at an awkward place below the lower cheek, and I would probably cheat the waterline down by a 1/16” - 1/8”.

 

It may not be exactly right, but it is more correct LOOKING than what Lemineur provides for [...]

Here I show you a redraw of plan using your recommendation, and water line cheated down 1/8" (around 3-4 mm) :

 

 

The ropes will be out of water, but with the decorative element hidden by

gamonning, without inconvenient, it's not an immortal masterpiece of Art  😋

 

Edited March 20, 2021 by CRI-CRI

[CRI-CRI]

Today work without gammoning holes (and not glued) :

 

 

 

 

[Hubac's Historian]

I agree.  I recently spent too many hours to count, carving a lovely trailboard for my model.  It is annoying that it will be partially covered, but the necessity of this can’t reasonably be avoided, IMO.

[Jaager]

As an alternative you could cheat:

Part 204 - chock piece  - seems the extend to the top of part 202B - upper head rail.
I would place the two gammoning slots in 204 - just above the upper head rail.

This would save having to move the LWL or hide the carving.

In real life, if the boatswain, I would probably try to place the gammoning where the carving is and adjust the pattern to include it.

[Hubac's Historian]

For reasons I point out in prior posts, doing so creates unnecessary weak points in the structure.  These ships were massive, with tremendous dynamic forces working against them all the time; the gammoning really needs to be secured by the heavy timbering of the cutwater.

 

Anyone, of course, is free to do as they wish.  However, if they want to represent authentic reality, then there are some rules of construction that shouldn’t be violated for the sake of aesthetics.

Edited March 20, 2021 by Hubac's Historian

[CRI-CRI]

The two solutions without sinking gammonings :

 

 

I suppose that the piece 204 don't arrive at height of upper volute  (hances and standard knee are different pieces)

[CRI-CRI]

A test of a simulated trailboard shock (not glued) :

 

 

[Chapman]

Quote

These ships were massive, with tremendous dynamic forces working against them all the time; the gammoning really needs to be secured by the heavy timbering of the cutwater.

Here are two contemporary representations of artists who knew the ships.
Left: Grand Monarque by Puget
Right: Reine by van de Velde

[GrandpaPhil]

This will be awesome!

[CRI-CRI]

First frame in position, it will be a fat boy, miraculous, floating line is OK  😘

 

 

[Jaager]

1 minute ago, CRI-CRI said:

First frame in position

Language differences aside, that is not a frame.  The usual name is "bulkhead".  It is not really a bulkhead either.  What it actually is = a "mold" or "mould"*.   From my time around microbiology, I prefer mould - even if the site spell checker does not. It also does not like a lot of other words we use, such as "futtock".

 

25 minutes ago, CRI-CRI said:

it will be a fat boy, miraculous

Imagine doing this at 1:48 as provided in the monograph?  

 

* Old Ben, Ben Lankford was the first the make a point of this back on Clay Feldman's listserver.

[CRI-CRI]

i have a dictionnary of marine vocabulary of 18th century... but you have to open it for use...  

Moby Dick's monograph exists also at scale 1/36 = length 2.20 m  😘