HMS Agamemnon 1781 by Michael P – scale 1:150 – 64-gun Third Rate - Ardent-class Man-of-War

[Michael P]

My present project is a model of Agamemnon. Why? Are there not enough models of this ship? Well, as a 64 gun ship, Agamemnon is not too big. At a very small scale of 1:150 there’s probably still room in the house. There’s even a book about her, by Anthony Deane, not that it contains much information about the design of the ship herself. And here are plans in the National Maritime Museum available online. There will, I think, be more differences between my model and the kit versions than just the scale. I should perhaps add that I am no photographer, but I’ll try my best.

I’ve always built models on a bread-and-butter principle. That may horrify readers, but it was a standard late eighteenth-century method, and is advocated in what used to be (and in many ways still is) my bible, Barrot de Gaillard’s Construisez des modeles reduits de marine. What will probably appal even more is my use of balsa wood for the bread-and-butter core, but this does have advantages. It does not shrink or warp (as my surviving teenage models testify), and it’s remarkably easy to work. The photograph shows how depressingly crude the model is at this stage. The shot of my Sphinx possibly suggests that Agamemnon may come out all right in the end.

Planking. It seems unnecessary to plank the whole of the hull, when all the underwater section will be coppered. But planking helps to smooth out any inconsistencies in the bread-and-butter hull. I have gone over the top to some extent, in that the wales are done in anchor-stock fashion. It may well not show once it’s painted, but since it can be done this way, why not? I did cheat, by cutting a single piece of wood in a zig-zag pattern. That way, it fits together neatly – almost too neatly.

Coppering. The advice with a model on this scale is to avoid coppering. Nevertheless, I’m having a go. Many kit models have sticking-out pimples on their copper plates. These are presumably intended to indicate nails, but a look at a coppered ship, such as Trincomalee, suggests that the heads of the nails lay flat. Photos of City of Adelaide also show no sign of pimples or protuberant nails. The coppering of USS Constitution is new, but again, there are no pimples in the photographs I’ve seen. So, my model is to be coppered with 2 mm adhesive tape, made in China and bought through Ebay, with no attempt made to mark the nails.  One problem is that the joins are very hard to see; I chose therefore, rather than using small pieces of tape, to mark the divisions by scribing them. It's important, of course, to make sure that the surface to be coppered is absolutely smooth. Being old-fashioned, I used French polish.

[GrandpaPhil]

Very cool!

[allanyed]

The free plans on the collections website at RMG are low res.  If you are interested in 6 very high resolution plans from RMG at no cost, go to the first page on the  Wiki Commons web site and go down to the Ardent 1764, the class of which included Agamemnon 1781.   

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ship_plans_of_the_Royal_Museums_Greenwich

Allan

Edited March 11, 2023 by allanyed

[Michael P]

That's incredibly helpful, Alan. I'd no idea that you could get the plans in proper detail. It's going to be particularly useful when it comes to the decks. So, very many thanks. 

Michael

[allanyed]

Glad to be of help!  Everyone willing to help one another is one of the top reasons to belong to this great site

Allan

[allanyed]

16 hours ago, Michael P said:

I'd no idea that you could get the plans in proper detail.

A bit more on this.  Of course you can get any of thousands of drawings that are shown on the RMG Collections site in high resolution as well, but they are costly.  For the Wiki Commons site, there are about 800 high res drawings and another 2000+ in low res.  I have assembled all of the high res drawings into 30 folders by type of vessel, including number of guns, &c.  so it is much easier to navigate than the website.  The folders include mainly the contemporary plans but there are also a few contemporary contracts in the appropriate folders.  For example in each folder there are the subfolders for each ship.   In the subfolder for Elephant 1786 there are the high res drawings as well as a transcription of the original contract which gives her scantlings. I offered them to MSW a couple years ago so they could make them accessible for all members to use and add to it to allow it to grow, but there are other priorities, which I fully understand.  The full set is about 45 GB at this point.

Allan 

 

 

[Michael P]

 

 

It’s about time I updated this log. I’ve been tackling the challenge that the stern presents, and the photo shows the state of play. There’s a good deal of tidying up to do, and I’ve not done anything about the gingerbread works yet. There’s much less room on the taffrail than is shown in photos of kit versions of this ship, and I doubt if I could make a reasonable effort at a topless nymph anyway. There’s no contemporary plan of the stern of Agamemnon that I can find, so I’ve followed that of HMS Indefatigable (before she was cut down and converted into a frigate), another in the same class. Any suggestions as to how best to do the carvings will be welcome. In the 1950’s I used plastic wood filler, but there seem to be much better products today.

 

Paint colours are a problem. There are excellent discussions in Mariner’s Mirror vol 99 (2013) by Peter Goodwin, and in vol 106 by Brian Vale. They do not suggest that there was any gilding, but Nicholas Pocock’s painting of the Glorious First of June shows it on the stern of HMS Brunswick. He also showed gilded sterns in his picture of Nelson’s Flagships. I am undecided, but may gild the carvings if and when they are done. For now, I've just used a stronger yellow than that on the hull. The lettering is computer printed. It seems right to have white letters; this follows the latest work on Victory (see https://www.abyme.net/revue/victory/). Grey seems more appropriate than white for the window frames, to judge by Pocock’s paintings, but brown was another possibility.  

 

The coppering proceeds. I have seen much discussion of whether the copper should be weathered, and if so, what it should look like. To judge by HMS Trincomalee (preserved at Hartlepool), it would be very difficult to do effectively, and it seems best just to leave it as it is, and let it gradually lose its high sheen

[Morgan]

Here is an interesting article on a well researched model of the Agamemnon, in particular the decoration.
 

https://julianstockwin.com/2017/10/10/agamemnon-the-darch-model/

 

Gary

 

[Michael P]

Very many thanks -that's incredibly useful. There's no way I can attempt that frieze; I had decided that the ship should be as she was after 1796 when it was probably painted over.  The model you refer to, which I did not know about, shows eight stern windows, which could well be right. I chose seven, following Indefatigable and a drawing of Stately, both in the same class, so I think I'll leave it as it is. I will clearly have to have a go at topless nymphs, but I'm not optimistic at this scale. 

 

Michael

 

 

 

[allanyed]

If you are still undecided, do you have any kind of CAD program, including Paint which a free app with Windows?  You can make the frieze work then save and print on paper.  You can make it in a large scale so it is not hard on the eyes while making it, then reduce and print so the size is appropriate to your scale.    

 

Considering the age of sail,  if you are going to show her as she actually looked in 1796, it would then be appropriate to remove the name on the stern as the Admiralty did not allow the names on the RN ships before 1780 or after 1790.  

 

Allan

[Morgan]

Hi Michael,

 

Little know fact, if you are modelling prior to 11 June 1796, the date Nelson transferred to HMS Captain, he took with him 2Nr. 68-Pounder Carronades, probably the same 2 he had fitted to Victory 8 years later.  Roger Knight recounts this his ‘Pursuit of Victory: The Life and Achievement of Horatio Nelson’, page 268.  It seems Nelson toted these guns around the Mediterranean in his successive ships.

 

I have not seen anyone model this, primarily as these were unofficial ordnance that did not appear on the record.

 

Gary

[Michael P]

That's fascinating, Morgan. I'll certainly include a couple of huge carronades - at the scale I'm using they will in fact be tiny. 68 pounders look to have been rare, but apparently one survives from 1790, in the Royal Armouries at Leeds. Incidentally, there's an excellent account of carronades available at https://falkirklocalhistorysociety.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/object-9-carronade.pdf , but it's missed your 1796 reference.

 

Michael

[Morgan]

35 minutes ago, Michael P said:

68 pounders look to have been rare, but apparently one survives from 1790, in the Royal Armouries at Leeds.

Hi Michael,

 

I haven’t been to the Royal Armouries for a decade or so, but it’s only an hour down the road, I should book a visit for this summer.

 

Gary

[Michael P]

It's time for an update on my distinctly slow progress. The coppering of the hull is effectively complete, and worked quite well with the adhesive-backed strip. Goodness knows how it will last, but it does seem very sticky. 

   I've been working on the bow. This was very fiddly, and required a good deal of experimentation. In the end, I found that it was best to make the rails from card rather than wood, as it was easier to get the bends right. The grating, which you can't see in the photo, was particularly tiresome. There is, of course, no figurehead yet. My first attempt, using Milliput, looked like a rather obese baby, but I will go on trying. The answer may be to carve it from wood, but we'll see. The style of the bow, with the yellow and black rails, does not really quite match the stern, and I will probably go back and redo that. 

   According to Longridge in his The Anatomy of Nelson's Ships it was a convention that the beakhead bulkhead should be painted 'a rich ultramarine blue'. I've not done that, as I've not seen evidence for it in contemporary pictures, but I'd be delighted if anyone knows more about this, as it would be easy to make the change. There was not much blue in the recorded stocks of paint.  

   The gratings are a problem. You can just see one on the forecastle deck, but there are a lot to go, and if the holes are too large, it all looks wrong. One problem is that the contracts I have seen from this period (there is one for Aquilon from 1786 in the NMM) state at the end that all gratings, ladders, gangways, bulkheads etc are to be painted. I've not seen any models, or indeed ships, with painted gratings, and am inclined to ignore this.  I'll say something about how I make the gratings in another post. 

   The model still looks a bit crude in the photo, but it's gradually getting neater. 

[Michael P]

Well, I said I'd put something in about making gratings. I've never found it easy. In about 1955 I resolved the issue by buying some plastic ones (from Howes model shop in Oxford), which of course looked all wrong, even when painted. Recently I tried buying a gratings kit, but of course even the smallest scale that is produced was far too large for the scale I am using. Oversized gratings always look very wrong to me on a model. So, I am making them the way I have always done, though smaller. The first photo shows strips of wood with narrow square strips glued across. The strips are then cut into two, and are glued together one by one to make the gratings, as in the second photo.  One advantage of doing it this way is that it is possible to curve the grating - look at photos of HMS Trincomalee and you can see the curvature. Of course the grain is not running the right way on the cross pieces, but that's not a real problem when they are so small. I'll probably finish the gratings off with a light stain and coats of French polish - they should certainly be darker than the deck. I am reluctant, however, to paint them, even if this was done at the time. And there will, of course, be a coaming round them. It will all take time to make all that will be needed. 

[Michael P]

I've not said anything about the issue of whether or not the name should be painted on the stern, because I don't know the answer. Admiralty instructions are one thing, but were they always followed? Nicolas Pocock's picture of the Glorious First of June (1794) shows Brunswick's name clearly painted. And of course, though it's later, his picture of Nelson's flagships shows Victory with her name on the stern. As for practice before 1780, there is a plan of Sterling Castle (1775) in the National Maritime Museum showing the name in large letters on the stern.   

[Morgan]

Hi Michael,

 

Just catching up with you last few posts, and a couple of points.

 

In terms of painting ladders, gratings, etc. it depends if you are going for realism or following modelling conventions I suppose.  If the contract said they were to be painted then I would imagine they were indeed painted.  But then what colour?  In contemporary paintings they look like natural wood.  So is it the case they were painted with Rosin - the varnish of the day?  Modelling convention in the 18th Century and now dictates natural wood.  There is also the issue of what any colouration wood look like at scale to consider.

 

In my view Longridge is wrong on the universal painting of the bulkhead blue.  The pigment was very expensive, at Trafalgar Victory’s beakhead bulkhead was black with yellow ochre detailing, you can see this in the works of Stanfield and Turner.

 

In respect of the name on the stern it did vary from time to time, but at Trafalgar certainly Victory did not have her name on her counter.  This is evident from post battle sketches by Turner and Livesay.  Putting names on sterns in both paintings and models was to inform the viewer as to what ship they were looking at. Upto c.1790 I would have her name on the stern but not after that date.

 

BTW nice progress.

 

Gary

[Gabek]

Awesome work on this model!  Could you give me the dimensions for your grating? I'd like to see if I can create one on my resin 3D printer.  
Clear skies and sharp tools!

- Gabe

[Michael P]

That grating is 1/2 inch by 5/8 inch (or 11 mm by 17 mm). A 3d printer sounds very sophisticated - I can't manage anything much more than a Stanley knife. I was rather better at gratings in my youth. The photo shows a model I made in, I think, 1960. It was based on that of HMS Tartar (1734) in the National Maritime Museum, with some changes. My fingers must have been a good deal more nimble in those days.

[Michael P]

Just a quick reply with many thanks to Gary. Yes, blue was extraordinarily expensive. According to Vale in Mariner's Mirror (2020) Prussian blue cost 16s. a lb in 1785, as against an average of 4d. for white, red and yellow. Nor is blue mentioned in contemporary descriptions.  Anyway, my beakhead will remain black with yellow detailing. 

[Morgan]

That is a huge difference, in todays money if you paid £20 for a similar amount of basic ocher paint in contrast you would be paying £960 for the same volume of blue! No wonder it was generally confined to models and not the real ships!

 

Gary

[Michael P]

Well, it's been a bit since I wrote another entry, and work proceeds slowly. I do now have a figurehead. Carving it out of wood was a total failure, as the material I had got was either too hard, or too soft. So Milliput was the answer. Then there was the question of painting. It's too small for me to paint accurately, and it seemed better to go for gilding, even if it's unlikely that any captain would have wanted to pay for this. The National Maritime Museum's model of Mars has a splendid white figurehead, but that looked much to bright on my model. It's not clear to me what contemporary practice was, and I suspect that there was limited consistency. 

    As you can see from the photo, the forecastle now has gratings, belfry and bitts, all of which were tricky at this scale. It's all too easy to make such fittings too large, but it's obviously best to try to be as delicate as possible. Photos are difficult to get right - they always bring out the imperfections, and my only excuse is the small size of this model. 

   Next problem is the guns. It seems much too soon to do them, but I don't see how I can do the beams and gangways, or indeed the quarterdeck, without them, as they would be fiendish to fit them later. That loop on Blomefield pattern guns won't be easy. 

[Michael P]

Well, it's been some time since I added anything, as progress has been slow. Never fear - this build log won't be an incomplete one. I don't want to hurry, as there's not that much room in the house for yet another ship model.

 

I've worked on the guns, as the photo shows. It seemed right to fit them now, as once the gangways are in place, it would be more difficult. In my teenage years I used to make the guns by casting them from lead, in moulds made of plaster of paris. To melt the metal, I used a gas ring attached to the gas fire in my bedroom, and for the lead, found disused pipes in the cellar. Not exactly advisable in health and safety terms, but it was the late 1950s. For this model, I have simply carved the cannon from wood dowel, which looks ok at this scale. I'm certainly not up to using a 3d printer, even if I had one. The cannon are all Blomefields, with the ring on the cascabel to take the breeching rope. This makes rigging them a good deal simpler that it would have been with the Armstrong type, though I imagine that in reality ships in the late eighteenth century had a mix of the two types. The rings were not that easy, but I ended up making them from paper. Rigging canons is a problem at this scale. The carriages all have wire loops on the side to take the breeching ropes, which helps, but the various tackles would be a problem. I may fit training tackles in time, but the blocks would have to be very tiny, and having just the breeching ropes at least gives some impression of the way guns were rigged. 

 

The deck was straightforward, with the caulking done with a softish pencil. On this scale, the planks would have been about a foot wide, which is a bit too much, but they are at least a good deal narrower than is sometimes the case in models. They have had a coat of danish oil, while the gratings have had french polish.  

 

Next, I think, will be the gangways etc., and further work on the stern. 

[mtaylor]

That is a small model.   Looking great.    May I suggest taking a 50-50 mix of white glue and water and brushing it on the breechings?  It will help to shape them into natural curves and also lie down on the deck.

[Michael P]

Many thanks. Coincidentally, I got a large pot of white glue the other day. I used the floppiest thread I'd got, but even so it's really too stiff. I'll explain later how I make ropes, with a little machine made in the 1950s using Meccano.

 

I am currently puzzled by the way in which the skid beams were supported by columns, which as far as I can see, would have got in the way of the capstan when it was turned.

[Morgan]

Hi Michael,

 

The beams were jacked up to allow the columns to be removed, common practice when using the capstan or clearing for action.

 

Gary

[Michael P]

You will probably be thinking that I have given up on this model. Far from it, but it is taking an unconscionably long time. It is, of course, the small size that’s much of the problem, and I have had to make several efforts at some elements. I may yet have another go at the wheel, which was fiendish. Wire rims might look better, if I can do it. First time round for the quarterdeck guns they looked too large, and were difficult to make as the wood tended to split. So I went for card in the end. The breeching ropes are still to be fitted. Do I put more tackles in? Probably not. The skylight has taken a couple of goes, and is still unfinished, with no glazing so far. Anyway, the ship is slowly, slowly getting there, and will be done in time for the village show next year (last year’s model got best in class, not surprisingly as there was  only the one entrant, and also got best in show for handicrafts).  Can I ask if anyone has advice on a future problem? Most of the plans of this class of ship don’t show any rails on the poop deck, though that for Indefatigable (https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-81744) has substantial ones, similar to the modern model of Agamemnon at https://julianstockwin.com/2017/10/10/agamemnon-the-darch-model/ . There is a simple block model of Indefatigable in the National Maritime Museum (https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-66510 ) which looks as if it has a very low railing unlike any other I have seen. There’s also the possible alternative of a wire railing, similar to that which Longridge employed for his model of Victory, though that would not be easy at this scale. At present I’m thinking of ones like the plan of Indefatigable. Another question is how to do the gunport lids. Some models, such as the one of Mars in the NMM, show them raised all the way almost to the vertical, but I think a 45 degree angle is probably best.

Just a word about tools. In the 1950’s I made much use of Gilette razor blades, snapped in half, but they were not exactly kind to my fingers, and I would not dare to use anything like that now. So it’s largely been a matter of my old faithful Stanley knife. Tweezers have been important, and a toenail clipper very useful. And a small archimedean hand drill has been essential. I read about rotary tools, and decided to try one out. It’s Chinese made, inexpensive, rechargeable, and surprisingly useful for tidying up details.  

 

[Michael P]

It’s been too long since the last update, so here goes with another. Progress has been slow, largely because so much of the work is very fiddly, given the small scale of the model. A word about scale seems appropriate. As I said, I’ve adopted an unusual scale of 1:150 for this model: there’s no room in the house for anything much bigger. It may explain in part why  what I have done is not as neat and beautiful in the photos as all the other models in this forum. My approach is that I want things to give the right impression, rather than trying for absolute accuracy. After all, the framing on Admiralty Board models was hardly to scale. The main problem is trying not to make the details oversize and clumsy. In my case, I’m aware that the deadeyes (which are bought) are bigger than they should be, but even Barrot de Gaillard allowed that it’s hard to have them accurately to scale. As is the case with many models, the deck planks at 2 mm. are a little wider than they should be, but cutting narrower ones would have been tedious and probably unsatisfactory.

Various elements have proved tricky. The skylight was one, and it took a couple of goes. It is at least glazed, even if the glazing bars are not as neat as I’d really like.

The chains were difficult, and in the end I compromised by twisting wire to hold the deadeyes (something which would have appalled R.C. Anderson, who condemned this practice), and then holding the wires in place with CA glue. Not a wonderful solution, but my attempts at proper links looked far too clumsy. It was much easier with my model of the mid-seventeenth century Winsby, which I fitted with plates not chains.

I’ve done a bit more with the stern, but may return to it again. The carvings are a problem, of course. In the middle of the last century I used ‘plastic wood’, but I don’t think it would work at this scale. I could not get a decent result with Fimo, but Milliput proved less bad than anything else.  In the late 1950s I probably used Humbrol gilt enamel for the carved work, which has lasted fine, but modern gilt paint intended for models  seems rather less satisfactory. I’ve therefore used Liberon Gilt Cream, which is not easy to put on, but looks as if it will last. I’ve left the ship’s name, though I concede it may not have been there (see Gary’s comments earlier). Pocock, however, included  Brunswick’s name in his painting of the Glorious First of June (https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-11963), though this could be artistic licence, and Carr Laughton’s view was that ships did carry their names at this period.

I’ve had problems with the quarterdeck, largely because the plans are not all that easy to interpret. Initially I followed the example of the kit models (excellent photos at https://www.modelships.de/verkaufte-modelle.htm), with two companion ways. This did seem odd, and it looks to me, however, as if the larger one is in fact a hatchway. It makes little sense to place steps just next to a capstan on the deck below. And the kits have two very small gratings, which I could not understand. One of the contemporary plans has one of these marked as ‘top tackle’, and I think that both are small hatches, fitted flush to the deck so as not to impede the guns when they are run back, and fitted with ringbolts.

Some things were much more problematic to make than I expected. The skylight was fiendish, and still only just about satisfactory at the third attempt. Even the poop deck railing took much longer than I expected. There is no plan of Agamemnon to show such a railing, but there are sufficient other plans and models to show that they were frequently fitted. It will make rigging easier. I have not decided whether to fit the wire cranes and hammock nettings yet, for they will be fragile and could easily get broken when I get clumsy doing the rigging. I did, incidentally, go do far as to fit hammocks to a model of an American schooner of about 1820, which I constructed in the late 1950s, and I’ve included a photo for amusement. The hammocks, I recall, were cut from insulated copper wire, and have lasted fine. But I’ll not try that again.

There’s still some tidying up, and the mizzen channels are still to be fitted among other things, but I should be on to the masts fairly soon, before Christmas gets in the way of work on Agamemnon.

 

 

[Michael P]

Now, masts. These, of course, are not as straightforward as might appear, and I am sure I will get some things wrong. The photo of the main and fore-masts shows that I’ve taken the unusual step of making the sections below deck thinner than the rest, in the hope that this makes for a neater juncture of deck and mast. Masts changed in the later years of the eighteenth century, with the introduction of iron hoops to hold the various pieces of a made mast together. Woolding, however, was not abandoned, and I am fitting both, following the example of Pocock’s painting of the Glorious First of June (https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-11962) which shows how the narrow iron rings do not go round the side fishes, and how the wooldings do. Plans of masts show the same thing. That at  https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-86572 is quite clear. These lower masts are painted, but I’ll be leaving the topmasts as natural wood. The mizzen presents some problems. I’m inclined to make it similar to the other two, with larger gaps between the hoops and wooldings, even though  Steel says that ‘Mizenmasts and bowsprits have one woolding under the hounds.’  He also says that ‘The aftside of mizen-masts, in ships, and main-masts, in brigs, to be coppered in the wear of the gaff and boom.’ I am not sure what this means - if he’s suggesting a strip of copper down the whole length of the mast, I am inclined to ignore it. It seems more likely that the copper was just intended at the point where the gaff and boom fitted to the mast, and there was a danger that the friction would damage the mast. As for the bowsprit, I think that iron hoops (made of paper) will be the order of the day, with no woolding.

 

The trestles and cross-trees were a problem to make. At this scale, there is a danger of splitting and breaking the wood since they are fragile. So for the mainmast I used some of the wood used to make the stand - it’s Bahia Rosewood, and is very strong, but of course hard to work. For the foremast, I used as strong a piece of obeche as I could find; it was much easier to  employ. Either way, the trees are clumsier looking than I would like, but I don’t want to make them any weaker. Anyway,  they won’t be easy to see since they will be under the tops. Painted black, the difference in timber should not show.

[Michael P]

The lower masts and bowsprit are now installed (photo below), and thank goodness, they fitted satisfactorily. The next phase will see the rigging started. The picture of ‘A Sixth Rate on the Stocks’ by John Clevely the Elder (https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-12537) shows how it was normal practice to fit the lower shrouds and stays at this stage, and it will be much easier to do this now, rather than once the topmasts are fitted. For the rigging I will use what might even be the oldest rope-walk machine to be seen on this website - see photo below. It was inspired by a diagram in R.C. Anderson’s Seventeenth Century Rigging.  It’s a simple and very primitive gadget, made from Meccano, and features quite simply three turning hooks (made of garden wire), gears, and a handle. Originally, when first made in the late 1950s, it had pulleys and a rubber band to connect the three turning spindles, but gears proved more satisfactory. OK, it’s not exactly state of the art or elegant, but it works well for small models. It cannot do sophisticated things like four-stranded rope for the shrouds, but that does not worry me. There's no motor - the Meccano motor and transformer are long since dead - but winding by hand works fine.