2nd rate London 1656 – the art of the shipwright

[trippwj]

@Waldemar

The text from the 1620 treatise very specifically identifies that the narrative describes developing the lines for the 3 planes or projections. This would include:

the plan view (a top-down view of the vessel)
the profile view (a side-view of the ship)
the body plan view (a view of the ends of the vessel)

 

The absence of preserved ships plans from the early to mid 17th Century is not conclusive evidence that they were not used by the shipwright, but rather that they were not submitted to the cognizant naval administrators for review. It is fairly compelling evidence of their becoming a tool used during the conception and design process by the shipwright that they are identified in the 1620 treatise and, even more significant, included in Deane's "Doctrine" from 1670. In nearly every treatise from the 16th through the mid-19th Century the methods and approaches described reflect those undertaken during the previous decade (or more) and can be considered "common practice".

 

As you and I discussed early in this thread, I did not think that the initial drawing represented a true scale body plan but rather some form of presentation drawing - art work - intended for other than construction use. The fact that it was done displaying an idealized version of a body plan is a strong indication that in 1656 body plans did exist - either that, or the artist created the view which was then embraced by shipwrights.

 

 

[Richard Endsor]

The absence of early ship plans is believed to be due to the Navy Office burning down in 1674, I think it was. Wouldn't it have saved us a lot of effort if they had survived. Even so, our early Navy records are incredibly intact compared with others, such as the Dutch.

[Waldemar]

 

Wayne, now look up Treatise itself and see how the planes were actually named. But even more, see what exactly was drawn on paper on these planes. Do you even have the text of this manuscript available at your place?

 

Also, do you know the contents of Newton manuscript ca. 1600 and Bushnell's 1664 book, which Richard is so carefully silent about in his statements? Deane 1670 must be regarded as neutral. Only Sutherland 1711 clearly makes the difference between drawing frames on paper and tracing them on the mould loft.

 

I have evidence and you have only conjecture and some fire, which is nice, but not enough for me. Keep looking. Maybe not just in London itself, but elsewhere in the country. They may be for commercial vessels. I'm not being picky.

 

 

[trippwj]

1 hour ago, Waldemar said:

Wayne, now look up Treatise itself and see how the planes were actually named. But even more, see what exactly was drawn on paper on these planes. Do you even have the text of this manuscript available at your place?

 

Also, do you know the contents of Newton manuscript ca. 1600 and Bushnell's 1664 book, which Richard is so carefully silent about in his statements? Deane 1670 must be regarded as neutral. Only Sutherland 1711 clearly makes the difference between drawing frames on paper and tracing them on the mould loft.

As s matter of fact I do. I have also got many others, contemporary and later. I have spent time in each for various purposes. At some point I may even put something out comparing them.  In the interim I stand by my comments. We have offered evidence which you choose to either ignore or dismiss. That is your choice.

 

Ultimately all I can do is offer alternative interpretation of information. What you opt to utilize or accept is your choice. How others interpret the information available is always an individual and personal choice.

 

[shipman]

It isn't very edifying to feel one's self being swayed one side or the other of an argument.

I do not wish to take sides, but one point occurs to me is that 'Waldemar' is doing a fine job defending his case using not his first language, so any perceived abrasiveness may be misplaced.

He clearly knows his stuff and I admire his tenacity.

Perhaps this forum should not see itself, or be the platform to be the final arbiter on such matters; something it frequently attempts to be?

How many times must a hair be split?

[Richard Endsor]

I agree with Shipman to a point. Waldermar is obviously a bright guy who has an astonishing grasp of the English language. He knows the meaning of big words but has difficulty in how to use them in the manner of a native English speaker. I agree his tenacity is to be admired and if we were in a war then I would like to be next to him, as long as we are on the same side. He must know the truth of the arguments made but is sadly unable to accept them. I am happy with our findings and have no need to pursue the subject any longer. I really do appreciate the points made, have learned something, and am grateful for it. Thank you all. I do hope no one bears a grudge, I don't, I respect the other contributors and hope to join conversations in the future. Perhaps this one, but only in a genuinely friendly manner.

[Martes]

@Richard Endsor,

 

As an initiator, in a sense, of this thread - as it was I who suggested to @Waldemar to look into this plan, I feel an obligation to reply.

 

When we saw your interest in the topic we were delighted and hoped that - knowing you were a leading expert in the field and working on the subject - you may provide some information that you possess but which have eluded us, the ship's timbers and their sizes, for once, or anything regarding reconstructing the profile.

 

Were you reluctant to share this information, you could have left us to play our games of numbers and lines, and stayed a celestial being, an author to be cited and referenced. You could have waited until we ran - if indeed we ran - into a wall and deliver the coup-de-grace. We had a plan B exactly for this event. And if we didn't run into a wall - well, there would be a one more version of reconstruction, and the final comparison would still depend on whether any parts of the original ship's structure are raised and measured, provided they survive that long. We had a discussion here not very long ago concerning the difference between the reconstructed replica of the Hermione (which was built referencing a contemporary treatise by Morineau) and the remains of the real ship, which case is even more striking as the remains of the ship were measured and known before the replica project began.

 

In my worst nightmare couldn't I imagine to see a thread degrading into a comment referring to somebody's knowledge of any language or personal traits with an impossible amount of condescending as a final argument in a dispute over existing and readable texts, even with understanding this comment is fueled by an obvious conflict of interest. I sincerely hope that the above comment will be removed and forgotten.

Edited February 11, 2023 by Martes

[Waldemar]

 

To forum members. Do you guys really not realise that Richard appeared on this forum solely to attempt to discredit this reconstruction because he must have deemed it threatening enough to his own to destroy it?

 

And there is another issue, far more important than London itself with her sweeps. It is, of course, about the use or otherwise of complete plans in 17th century England. To challenge this factually unsubstantiated presumption ruins the scholarly (or whatever the name is) record to date and, in a sense, the reason for the sense of exceptionalism. In other words, it is a heresy to be stamped out.

 

It is a second possible reason for Richard's visit. I don't expect there will be any other in the future.

 

 

[Murphys77]

Waldemar, 100% true!

Lets hope, for your last sentence.

M.

 

[Waldemar]

 

Anything else? Don't be shy. Just why do you even read my posts?

 

 

[shipman]

Admin....

This thread has descended beyond the pale.

Before the real muck starts to fly, it seems the time to pull the plug has arrived, before this forum gets dragged down any further, with the possibility of litigation on the horizon.

A sad state of affairs which can do the forum no good at all.

[James H]

1 hour ago, shipman said:

Admin....

This thread has descended beyond the pale.

Before the real muck starts to fly, it seems the time to pull the plug has arrived, before this forum gets dragged down any further, with the possibility of litigation on the horizon.

A sad state of affairs which can do the forum no good at all.

I agree.

 

Topic locked.