Coca by Foremast - Amati -1:60

[Waldemar]

Many thanks, Alex!

 

Then, if you are interested, please take a look at some suggestions made by well known experts in this field, which for some reason are so notoriously ignored by most popular kit manufacturers.

 

Layout of a large Mediterranean carrack by R. Morton Nance (captions in red are mine). There are small breaks in both „continous” decks, which delightfully explain a slight off-center of the capstans seen on Boticelli paintings (see post #12). Mataro model, being rather a miniature of a smaller ship, has no such break. The capstan is mounted abaft the main mast, and at one level with hawse holes, so that the anchor cable/viol/mesenger (dashed line) is horizontal, which is necessary for the correct operation of a capstan.

 

Layout of the „Santa Maria” by Jose Serrano. This is perhaps a better proposition, with a windlass instead of a capstan, which much simplifies running rigging configuration, ie. that cargo or yard lifting ropes, and anchor cables (viols, messengers) as well, can all be attached to windlass at different angles, at least in the vertical plane.

 

Large carrack from Venetian manuscript of 1445. Note the main deck (in red), sporting a break close to the position of the main mast.

 

Running rigging of the main mast after Venetian manuscript of 1445 by Sergio Bellabarba. No halyard! The double main yard tie, recorded in the manuscript as twice the length of the mast (led through a knighthead or a block) is attached directly to the windlass (or capstan)!

 

This would all perfectly work on a small ship depicted by the Mataro model, except one thing. If the main yard tie was constantly coiled around the windlass, then how could the same windlass serve other needs, say – anchor weighing?

 

I suspect a kind of main yard fixing at the top, so that the double tie could be uncoiled from the windlass, but maybe some more specific ideas? Thank you in advance.

Edited May 14, 2021 by Waldemar

[Foremast]

Thanks for your analysis, it confirms that rear the mast there was always something to lift the yard. If it was placed on the main or half deck (or both) is still to investigate; where the solution depended in the end only by the shipwright's  project. 

I don't think the main yard tie was constantly coiled (this is a  solution that I saw in little northern cog, in which there was no knightead and the tie run from the top directly to the windlass or to the windlass through rings on the deck). Once in position, I think the yard was hanged to the mast; and the main yard tie ... tied to a cleat, using at this point the winding gear for other purpose. Knightheads had often one or more cleats, on the side. 

[Ab Hoving]

Not that I want to discourage any of you, in your queeste for the truth, but seeing the Mataro model again I could not help remembering the study that was done in 2004 by the late professor Gerritsma, a famous shipbuilding scolar I had the honor to know. HIs aim was (amongst other purposes) to see how the Mataro model must have sailed and his conclusion was, that it could not sail at all. If the model had been a true depiction of a ship of its days this must have been the difference between it and the nearest possible shape that could sail:

 

I don't say this because I want to look like someone who thinks he knows things better than others, but the calculations of the professor seemed sound to me and once again I was confronted with the way we should look at ship models, especially old ones. The Mataro model seems to be a charicature of ships of the period. Having said that, you can ask yourself: if the real ships was as deformed as it is in the model, what truth can there be in its details? How can we try to give belaying points and deck furniture a place in the ship if all its dimensions are deformed.

That is the only answer I can give to all the questions Waldemar asked. The age of the Mataro model is one big question mark to me. It took me half a life-time  to understand a slice of 17th century Dutch shipbuilding and still I think I only scratched the surface.

A real good project would be to build the Mataro ship with the dimensions professor Gerritsma suggested and have a new look at all the items that are so hard to locate in a replica of the deformed model.

But who am I?

[Waldemar]

Well then. Not wishing to disturb your excellent „shipyard” job. Alex, please make your choices and test them in practice on your fine model. Would eagerly wait for the outcome. And if practical, I would certainly mimic them in my „copy” of this magic ship.

[popeye the sailor]

you certainly did not disappoint.........you've returned to us with a very interesting project!      truth be told,  I've not modeled that far back......I'm not too familiar with cogs or carracks.  it will be interesting to see what you do with this model.  I hear you about scratch building.......I can't do a kit model without changing something      very nice progress!

[popeye the sailor]

your referring to a 'short hulled' ship?.........even under sail,  it might have been hard to keep them moving straight in the water.  not sure how far back they were used,  but are you suggesting that some form of leeboard was used?  

[Waldemar]

Ab, you are perfectly right, and we are well aware that Mataro model proportions are much distorted to the point it could not properly sail if built real-size, and now it is still better to know that precise calculations have it confirmed.

 

Yet, this very model has solved some constructional mysteries, which could not be unravelled using other, notably graphic sources, and this despite its ridiculous proportions. Many shipwrecks are even more distorted and/or consisting of a few shabby timbers, and we are still trying to reconstruct whole vessels from them, down to their belaying points.

 

Why should Mataro model be excluded from such research, I would not understand.

Edited May 13, 2021 by Waldemar

[Ab Hoving]

Nobody said that the model should be excluded Waldemar. Only its dimensions, which are apparently the product of someone’s fantasy. 🙂

[Foremast]

Thanks, Ab for the clarification and the correct assessment of the matter. At this point, everything I do I'll do it serenely. I think I'll put a big block on the halfdeck for the main yard tie, instead of the knighthead, finding it more realistic: a knighthead is perhaps too much refined for the era and this kind of cargo; and a small capstan too, on the halfdeck: I've some dubts left, but it has sense, is choreographic and its realisation is a challenge in the challenge. In the end, I'll put even a windlass - beneath the halfdeck: having eliminated the pole of the knighthead I'have space enough.

 

Hello, Popeye! Nice to see you here! I prefer the scratch building, but I had only a little time so I bought a kit. Despite the quality of the manufacturer, I'm not satisfied (I'm a free spirit  and try to understand things before do them, whereas a kit can keep a modeller in chains, really) so I've been changing a lot ... till the point that ... if I had built the ship since the beginning using only the drawings , now I'd be much ahead wit my works.

 

Waldemar, this of ours is ... a sort of research! Not destined to become famous, nor referred to a important vessel but it can help us or others to satisfy their need of knowledge and make a better model!

 

Cheers, friends

Alex

[Waldemar]

Ab: Right, I see your point. I would only add, that some of us simply love caricatural shape of this iconic model just as it is, and wish to model it without any attempt to make any corrections to its erratic proportions. To make model of a model. Just small corrections or some additions, based – if possible – on contemporary sources.

Edited May 13, 2021 by Waldemar

[Ab Hoving]

I know Waldemar, I too think it's an iconic model and I would not dare to deny anyone's right to duplicate it. I simply wanted to point out that if you want to draw conclusions or solve mysterious issues coming with it, it might be a better idea to work from a model with more authentic dimensions. No more. I recognize the joy of creating a model with an obvious character, keeping in mind the limits of its technical value. I wish you a lot of joy building. No better way to spend your available hours (and more).

[Waldemar]

Many thanks, Ab. And that is what we are actually trying to do here, only by a different, „virtual” approach – conlusions are rather drawn from the real-size practices (shipwrecks, contemporary shipbuilding treatises, period iconography). And only then, if practical, applied to this lovely „caricature”.

[Waldemar]

Ab, if you are on-line still, could you help in interpreting these small, rectangular holes on the ship’s sides in the waist? They are a complete mystery even to the best experts describing this model. Perhaps you know something similar or understand their purpose? Thank you.

 

[Foremast]

I saw them years ago in a model. A sort of removable cleats. In those points, I think, to keep anchors in position

[Waldemar]

This is the best explanation so far, Alex. Are you going to make these fixings?

[Foremast]

For sure. I’m trying to remember where I saw them. It seems to me in an old publication of Verlag Hinstorff- Rostock. It’s been a long time

[Waldemar]

Originally I thought it superfluous here, but now it seems perhaps not out of place to quote the right proportions of a Mediterranean round-ship taken from the XV-century Italian manuscript(s). They are in perfect harmony with prof. Gerritsma estimations and hopefully they may be useful for those wishing to build a carrack with correct proportions, as suggested by Ab.

 

They come from the work by Sergio Bellabarba, The square-rigged ship of the Fabrica di galere manuscript. This is one of the most valuable works on XV-century shipbuilding, as it covers in great detail many technical aspects not found elsewhere, including rigging (clear diagrams!).

 

 

Edited May 16, 2021 by Waldemar

[Foremast]

Thank you, very useful! My next model will probably be a Venetian cog. After all this training , no fear 

[Louie da fly]

You might this useful - 

 The Lomellina (probably built around 1503) had a capstan and a knight for the halyard, both of which have been recovered, and her approximate proportions have been figured out. However, she was probably a considerably larger vessel than the one the"Coca" is based on.

 

Steven

Edited May 16, 2021 by Louie da fly

[Waldemar]

Steven, you have opened the Sesame's gates . The publications on the Lomellina shipwreck are especially enlightening... Many thanks.

[Foremast]

Thanks, Steven! Now I have something to read ....

[Louie da fly]

Glad to be of service. The Lomellina, because she ended up on her side, has had quite a bit of the upper structure preserved. My post #13 in the link above shows it. The documentation is very comprehensive and well worth a read all the way through. I did an English translation of the main report  - any mistakes are my own . . . I can send it to you if you like (I was going to attach it but it's 16Mb). Send me a PM if you're interested.

 

Steven

[Foremast]

You've a PM, Steven! Thanks a lot for your help.

 

Little progress in my work. Completed planking - it is currently only roughed and needs to be filed properly; as you see at the edge of the hull's shape, there are some inaccuracies. Next step, the placing of the wales (their position is marked by oversized light brown planks) and the keel (into the fissure)

 

Cheers

Alex

[Waldemar]

Alex: Beautiful shapes and workmanship, thank you for that. Please do not stop...

 

Steven: Happilly, I can read French, but many thanks again for your generous offer. Instead – as you are very well versed in period evidence – I need you to comment on the 'halyard or no halyard' issue:

 

There are two sheaves in the attachable masthead (calcet) in the Lomellina vessel, for what must be a double tie, and there are only two sheaves in the knighthead too. First, one would expect that a main yard halyard would 'typically' need more sheaves than just two. More important, however, that it is expressly stated in the round-ship section of the Italian manuscript, that the main yard tie is connected directly to the windlass or capstan (sguindazo). Only small lateen-rigged mizzen yard has a halyard, perhaps on its being operated by hand solely (on this, see S. Bellabarba, The square-rigged ship of the Fabrica di galere manuscript).

 

How would you interpret this evidence from the Lomellina wreck? For the sake of clarity, there is also a diagram below. 

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by Waldemar

[Waldemar]

After some browsing… The book Sailing Ships of War 1400–1860 by Frank Howard seems to be the most explanatory on this specific subject so far (at least among the books at hand). While mostly Northern (English) practices are described, they are – on the other hand – strictly based on the first hand written contemporary accounts.

 

Unfortunately, the relevant text, together with its explanatory diagrams, is too long to quote here. But in short, the earliest main yard halliard blocks/ramheads/knights could have originally only two sheaves, creating very simple halliards indeed.

Edited May 18, 2021 by Waldemar

[Foremast]

Thanks for the info. I think all configurations you have shown were applied, depending on the tonnage (so by the weight of the yards) of the ship. In little northern cogs you could see even  the tie linked directly to a very simple windlass. 

[Louie da fly]

Waldemar, I'm afraid you're asking the wrong guy. I have terrible trouble getting my head around the way rigging works at the best of times, especially block/tackle systems. All three of the examples you show would work, but I'm not at all qualified to make an informed comment on which would be better or more likely. As no wrecks have been found with masts/rigging intact (surprise, surprise!) except perhaps the ones in the Black Sea which aren't relevant here anyway, we're forced to rely on contemporary iconography and manuals of shipbuilding, which don't give enough reliable information to base a proper reconstruction on. 

 

However, one point - as far as I understand it, the calcet was a feature of lateen masts - so would have been used on the mizzen of the Lomellina. Again, we're short on reliable info, but I believe the sheaves for the mainyard were not at the masthead, but ran through cheeks at the sides of the mast - certainly this is the way they were done in the 17th century, but I admit it's stretching things a bit to extrapolate that far back.

 

Steven

[Waldemar]

7 hours ago, Louie da fly said:

As no wrecks have been found with masts/rigging intact (surprise, surprise!)

 

😄

 

Not even my Bermuda sloop model, made only some 15 or 20 years ago, and found lately in the basement.

 

 

As to the calcet, true again, and – fortunately – we are not confined to guesswork only. It seems that it was then a common Mediterranean feature (in contrast to Northern rig), irrespective of the sail type. Referring again to Sergio Bellabarba work:

 

 

 

 

Be that as it may, my ultimate goal is to find the correct/probable/workable/simplest configuration of the winding gear, suitable for a smaller, late medieval round ship. Unexpectedly hard work...

Edited May 19, 2021 by Waldemar

[Louie da fly]

21 minutes ago, Waldemar said:

Unexpectedly hard work...

 

'Fraid so . . .

[Louie da fly]

By the way, have you looked at Woodrat's build log?

 

LOTS of very worthwhile research went into this one - I think you'd find it helpful.

 

And also a collection of contemporary pictures of carracks I've put together at https://www.pinterest.com.au/lowe1847/carracks/

 

 

Steven

Edited May 21, 2021 by Louie da fly