Great Henry (Henry Grace a Dieu 1515) by Sergal (1975 vintage kit) - scale to be clarified

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

  Ahoy from Snug Harbor Johnny !  This is my third unbuilt kit review (reference Endurance by OcCre and Khufu's Solar Barge by Woody Joe) and this will take a few posts to do this fine old kit justice.  Like the man asked, "How do you eat an elephant? ... One bite at a time !"  As mentioned in the 'What did you Receive Today' category, I was informed about the availability of the the LARGE scale Great Henry by Rick from the Modeller's Workshop in Montreal, Quebec.  BTW, he was a pleasure to deal with and the parcel was received much faster than I'd have guessed.

 

  We were discussing a completely different old kit he offered to the Forum, when he mentioned that there was a group of 4 kits that were dropped off at his store for consignment that included the HMS Victory and the USS Constitution.  There are many fine builds of these, as well as the Bounty, but the prospect of a BIG version of the Great Harry piqued my interest as I've only seen a couple of pictures of this version anywhere.  Rick noted that it is unlikely that Sergal produced more than 100 of these, with drawings dated January 1, 1975 - well before the Mary Rose was raised (much less conserved and studied enough that quality reference books became available).  He posted some pictures of kit components without 'digging' too much into what he described as entering Tut's tomb, and he suggested a price including shipping of $500 ... yet went so far as to say I was welcome to bid lower if I was interested (as this item was considered a 'slow mover') and he'd relay that offer to the consigner.  No way was I going to risk offending anyone, and I was willing to 'pay to play' and agreed to the initial price suggestion.

 

   I don't risk giving too much away by saying that I think it was  fair value given the unusual nature of the kit, and to do it justice will take a real commitment of time and effort.  As mentioned in the other thread, the box weight 15 pounds and I was surprised by the mass - as if there were bricks inside the carton.  'Turns out that the large box was fully packed with materials (wood, metal and paper) - enough to be considered a 'solid' mass.  The picture below is of the first opening.

 

 

  

 

  Sergal had to design this based solely on a few contemporary illustrations, and their experience with 17th through 19th century ship kits of various types.  Prior to receiving the parcel, I'd procured three great reference books on the Mary Rose (pictured below) because Sergal had 'gallionized' the Great Harry somewhat as exhibited by putting too much tumblehome in the widest places than we know is appropriate based on the recovered hull of the Mary Rose.  The Great Harry, after all, is a larger and better armed version of the MR - and was built to match (or exceed) the newly built Scottish warship the Great Michael.  These might be thought of as 'Carracks on steroids' - taking the recent carvel-below, lapstrake above construction developed in the late 1400s (reference the Danish ship Griffin - Griebshund - now located and featured on a PBS NOVA documentary) and expanding the size with 'less tubby' lines and more powerful weaponry, 4 masts and the new innovation of sealable gun ports in the sides so the heavier ordnance could be lower in the ship for reasons of better stability.

 

  Sergal had three full decks in the stern castle (although the top is narrower, what, so it looks a little more like a galleon? ... and its DEFINITELY not "Elizabethan", even thought Elizabeth I was a Tudor Queen).  They've played a bit with the forecastle as well, but then I'm not 'knocking' the manufacturer at all - considering the date of production and the paucity of accurate scholarship in the 70s concerning Henry VIII's fleet.  In fact, the re-build of the GH in 1536 (the MR was also rebuilt, but loaded with more and heavier guns that likely played a key role in her demise - but much to our present scholarship, so look on the bright side) the sterncastle of  the Harry was reduced to lessen the heeling it was previously noted for.  So the original version should have 3 full decks in the stern castle, and reportedly did not have top gallants in the pre 1536 version.

 

  My intent (when work will be done on the GH) will be to incorporate information in the book pictured below to build a pre-1536 version:

 

 

  OK, time to have a look at the first drawing that lay on top when the kit box was opened.  Yup, this model is BIG - and the length at the waterline is 28 1/2", and the hull from the beak of the fore castle to the stern (not including the bowsprit) is 35".  And talk about height ... if taken at face value, it will take a larger case indeed.  Baggins might consider this a 'mathom' - or perhaps some might think a 'white elephant'.  Bur wait - a 1:75 Vasa or Cutty Sark will be as large, and there are many who build models this size.  I've been struggling with 1:96 and smaller for a while, and having more 'elbow room' might be a good thing.  So in the picture below I placed a yardstick for scale - and also the largest hull frame that points to a rationale how this model may really be 'not as large as it seems'.

 

 

Edited May 2, 2023 by Snug Harbor Johnny

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

  Yes, the model is large ... but perhaps not quite as large as it seems.  The kit was made before the raising of the Mary Rose, and did not have the benefit of all the knowledge gained thereby in the decades of study to follow.  So they had to have based the design on the few contemporary pictorial records available, plus their understanding of 18th & 19th century ship proportions.

 

  The ratio of length at the waterline to maximum beam of the MR is 3.25, so the GH should be about the same.  Experts estimate the GH's beam at 50', which would yield about 162.5' at the waterline using the same 3.25 ratio.

 

  The widest frame (bulkhead) in the kit measures 7.75", so multiplying that by 3.25 should give a model waterline length of 25 1/4"  Hmmmmm, the actual (full scale) drawing of the model has the waterline measuring 28 1/2" ... an 'Ah-ha' moment that provides a rationale to reduce the model length by 3 1/4".  But then there are some slight alterations to make the bulkhead shape conform more closely to the MR, so the resultant adjusted width (with allowance for planking) will be 7 1/4 (or marginally more).  Re-doing the ratio calculation will give a model length at the waterline of  about 23 1/2 inches - taking 5" off the 'as designed' length of the model.  The hull (less bowsprit) will end up being 30" instead of 35".  This will make a difference in 'buildability' and management of the project - not to mention the size of the case eventually needed.

 

  The scale of the drawing (in length and height) to what is probable on the original ship is about 1:68, yet the scale "in width" of the bulkheads are 1:80.  What about the guns included in the kit?  (There are many !)  I picked out a saker barrel (originals are about 9.5' long) and measured it through the plastic bag and got 1 3/8" ...  (x 85 represents 9.7') pretty close to being in proportion to the model's beam.

 

  The biggest cannons (11' originals) and culverins are 3/4 length turned brass to be mounted into recesses behind the gun ports below deck (a common practice with models), so my reckoning of the full length (if they were fully turned) is about 1 5/16"  (x 85 represents 11.1') ... so the gun are about 1:85 scale, still al little smaller than the proportions of the bulkheads.

 

  Most of the drawings are the elevations only, but where drawn, the view of the decks from above look somewhat 'stretched out'.   So we have a situation just the opposite of the old (1st edition) Billings Wasa (Vasa) where the scale length of the hull should have been 24"  but was reduced by 4" to fit the box they were using for all their models then.

 

  Sergal (in 1975, the date on the drawing) sized the length of the model in their best guess of how the proportion should be to the largest bulkhead size they chose (not knowing then what we know now, I don't blame them a bit).  They chose not to be limited to any size box and 'went for it' as one might say now.  So based on current scholarship, parts can be adjusted or re-made as needed to adjust the length and height downwards a little.  There is no way of 'stretching' my Vasa now (but it could have been done at the outset if sufficient information was readily available in the 70s ... (isn't the internet a trove of info?), but with a little planning there should be no major difficulty in trimming the Sergal Great Harry to a length proportional to its beam for Henry VIII's big ships.

 

  So lets look at a few more plans (they are VERY large and I don't intend to post pictures of them all) ... they just don't print plans like THESE anymore !

 

 

  The plans are the primary 'instructions' for the build, supplemented by ten 6" x 8" pages of typed material (in Italian, French and English), that mostly tell you to refer to the drawings for each step.  Obviously this is not a 'beginner's' project, given the scope of the work, the modifications that should be made to the 'as supplied' configuration, and the reliance on the drawings (nice as they are) as the only effective means of instruction (other than just a few pointers in the booklet - to be picture further down).  Prior ship modeling experience is recommended, unless one want a 'baptism of fire'.

 

  The drawing below (and on others) indicates belaying pins (supplied, of turned brass) - which had not been invented yet.  I'm not sure about kevels, but there were knight heads and railings of various sorts.

 

 

 

  On the drawing below, one can note the exaggerated tumblehome in the central area of the frame layout on the left, and on parts of of the framing in the upper right.  How to adjust these and also how to make a better construction of both castles will take some study and experimentation.  I anticipate making a number of replacement framing parts and trial-fitting everything multiple times.  One still can simply 'build as supplied' and get an impressive - and large - display piece, bristling with about 180 guns of various sized.  If its 'Guns R US' one is looking for, you've come to the right place.

 

  There is a cool wall poster over 2' x 3' which is pictured next, and the brief 'instruction booklet' is at the lower right corner for comparison.

 

 

Edited May 8, 2023 by Snug Harbor Johnny

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

  OK, let's dive into the box.   'Sorry for the glare where items are plastic wrapped - I don't want to tear anything open yet.  When I do a build sometime, there will be better pictures.  A blue plastic holder (with compartments) holds bronze castings that include a real nice dragon head for the prow, a grappling hook to hang from the bowsprit, a royal crown for the top of the bowsprit as shown on the Anthony Roll, rigging cutting knives for the fore and main course yard ends and a bunch of small decorations (perhaps for the castles).  Very slight oxidation is present from nearly half a century of storage - nothing that won't clean-up.

 

 

 Below is the open box with a WHOLE BUNCH of planking stock, decking, mast and yard dowels (most stuff is walnut, but some is light) ... haven't yet bothered to delve into what passes for instructions.  The mast & yards are not tapered (Billings old Wasa had pre-tapered stock) - but the forum has several threads on how to do that ... I'll use my Unimat lathe (lucky me).

 

 

  So here's some of whats in the framing box.  All of this is cleanly cut with virtually no burrs and NO char marks (laser cutting wasn't done when this kit was produced).  I'm REALLY impressed how everything in this box (which is most of the structural pieces) is done and numbered.  You'll see later that there are three sheets of ply with printed parts that have to be cut out ... but they are for a castle configuration that I don't plan on using.  Now there is a little warp on a few of these pieces ... nothing that I either can reverse-bend out, or at worst replicate.  Most pieces are flat and true.

 

 

  Below I've spread stuff out in the box for a better view of the stock, the planking is thin enough to easily bend a fair amount without even wetting - and wetting would allow for tighter curve bending. The stock seems perfectly fine and not cracking ... care was likely taken in the orientation of the wood it was cut from.

 

 

 

  Now for the packs in the fittings box.  First up are conventional chainplate - which is not like the simple chain used on the MR, but what is supplied will be useful on another build.  There are very well made deadeyes - again not the tear-drop shaped, 7-holed period type (again from the MR) - they could be used as-is, but I prefer to make my own and use these elsewhere.  They are really quite fine.

 

  There are single, double and triple blocks that are better than average ... must be that during this time period of production the Sergal fittings were a very good quality in general.  The blocks may not be 'early', but I'm inclined to use them as supplied.  And there is a group of 'kits' to make the nest-shaped tops - a nice touch that I really appreciate.

 

 

    The next group includes a bunch of swivel gun parts, a couple sizes of cannon kits (one of them contains sakers), 3/4 cannon (culverin) barrels designed to protrude through the side gun ports ... they fit into holes the builder drills into supports recessed behind the hull planking and that will have a nice appearance (no one would see the gun carriages anyway) as opposed to a contemporary kit-supplied method of popping inserts into square holes made into a the hull after it is planked.  One can generally see the shallow back of these inserts even if they are painted black.  I'll either use the recessed Sergal method or perhaps go to the trouble I did on the Vasa by placing 'dummy' carriages with the back part of the cannon barrel made of dowel drilled to accept the brass half-cannon (or in this case they are 3/4 barrels turned out of brass).

 

  There are a slew of gun port liners (which I won't use) as well as demi-lune liners which I'll probably use to 'pimp' the castles a bit.  There are also a lot of other fittings and some grating strips.  There are etched shields on the left that I don't plan on using.

 

 

 

  Last up is the rigging rope, which I must say surprises me how good it looks.  It is miniature rope, and by far the best rigging rope I've ever seen in any kit from a large producer (note that I have not seen any of Chuck's kits, but know that they have his excellent miniature rope).  The anti-boarding netting seen underneath the rigging rope is ... eh .. I suppose OK, but I don't plan on having any netting so you can SEE the decks and whats on them.  Netting would likely only be deployed either during a drill (temporary) or before an engagement with hostiles.

 

 

 

 

  OK, old Johnny's nattered on in his typically convoluted way ... so how would he describe this vintage kit on one word?   SWEET !

 

[rshousha]

Geez, this sure is an interesting find. How much do you think this was worth back in the 70s? 

[Louie da fly]

Pulling up a chair and putting the popcorn on the cooktop!

 

It'll be interesting to watch this one - the assumptions Sergal made vs those of Landström in reconstructing the Great Harry, vs what is now known from the excavation of the Mary Rose.

 

Are you planning to follow the Anthony Roll's colour scheme? If I had a time machine I'd go back and fix the colours on my own Great Harry. But everybody back then seems to have gone with Elizabethan colour schemes which though really cool, are maybe 30-40 years wrong.

 

Steven

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

14 hours ago, rshousha said:

Geez, this sure is an interesting find. How much do you think this was worth back in the 70s? 

  Ahoy, Rick !!   And thanks again for informing me of this consignment item ... which happens to be of interest, in part since the Admiral and I have long been historic re-enactors in time periods ranging from Italian Renaissance, Tudor and Elizabethan England, Colonial, 19th & early 20th century ... eclectic, no doubt.  'Guess I'm a learning, costume and dance junkie.  

 

  The inflation factor going back to the late 70s (USD) is easily 4 to 1 (400% cumulative inflation - Gee, guess the 2 long-term hazards for personal savings are inflation and market risk ... how do you balance them?  Our answer in semi-retirement is to continue to earn an income stream by part-time work and self-employment).  A new kit like this today (modified to reflect current information, and less reliance on large format drawings - made up for by better instructions/photos a-la OcCre) might retail around $900 since there are not extensive carvings and complicated fittings like on the Sovereign of the Seas or the Vasa.  'Scaling back to late 70s prices and you get $225.

 

  What the heck, I might as well add a few pictures of my historical interests.  I can't lay hands right now on my best photo in Henry VII finery (like in Henry's famous portrait), but I'm seated showing my order of the garter in one picture of our dance group friends in the Tudor period.

 

Bvr Bllrm 150dpi_layers copy

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

3 hours ago, Louie da fly said:

Pulling up a chair and putting the popcorn on the cooktop!

 

It'll be interesting to watch this one - the assumptions Sergal made vs those of Landström in reconstructing the Great Harry, vs what is now known from the excavation of the Mary Rose.

 

Are you planning to follow the Anthony Roll's colour scheme? If I had a time machine I'd go back and fix the colours on my own Great Harry. But everybody back then seems to have gone with Elizabethan colour schemes which though really cool, are maybe 30-40 years wrong.

 

Steven

 

  Greetings, Steven !    Since this is the unbuilt kit review section, the build won't be posted on this thread.  I wasn't planning on doing the Great Harry for some time, but my imagination is stoked a bit ... and at the very least I want to see how I can reduce the length a little to more accurately fit the proportions (waterline length - which is essentially 'between perpendiculars' to maximum beam) of 3.25 like on the Mary Rose.  For that I'll have to dry fit the extensive framework provided to see where pieces can be sequentially removed from the keel pieces (its not a single piece anyway) to change the spacing between frames - and also there is the need to alter the shape of the frames to conform (more or less) to those of the MR.  The kit ratio is 3.6:1, and it might be hard to change that much now that I'm looking at the 'honeycomb' design of how everything goes together.  We'll see ...

 

  'Seems there was an 'evolution in this ratio, where earlier Carracks were around 3:1,  3.25 for the MR & GH, 3.6 or more Galleons and up to 5 - 6 in the Clipper era.  There are things modelers of early ships don't have to deal with like jackstays, studding sails, belaying pins, metal railing & such.  I'm seeing sails as problematical, especially if set versus furled.  Fore one thing, set sails tend to block the view of the hull and deck details depending on the point of view.  Since a majority models traditionally were not fitted with sails - at the dock or in the harbor so to speak, there is a lot of running rigging that can be omitted - reducing the 'spaghetti ' of all those lines running everywhere (my taste, though) - especially with later ships.  

 

  As an addendum to my kit review, I note that there appears to be a sort of building jig (if I'm not mistaken), but one must devise a suitable stand for the ship.  The one in the wall poster is shown with acrylic pieces supporting the hull - definitely NOT included in the kit.

 

  Looking at the drawings (which are massive in size  - a little too big for convenient handling), the notes are in Italian, so I'll have to get out my Google translator to see what they say.  As mentioned earlier, the 'instruction' book is merely a gloss - and even in Italian, the notes on the drawing are brief.  Ergo general experience will have to be relied upon, as well as current source books.

 

  There are several cloth flags (not pictures in the review) that are printed fabric.  They seem OK.  Some other quirks came to mind about the box contents, but since my RAM often dumps overnight I can't recall those observations.  I've always been process-oriented and I focus on the problem at hand and how to solve or work around it with the materials and tools available.  Later, I often can't recall how I did things ... like a few years after making a scratch-built 6" reflecting telescope, I wanted to do a larger one.  So it was back to the books to refresh myself on the grinding, polishing and testing procedures (which are very fussy ).  A couple years later I did another, and had to re-aquaint myself with the procedures.  Everything 'came back' alright, but not without consulting notes and references.

 

  Thank the Lord that there are some things that automatically 'stick with' you once learned, like riding a bike or driving a car.

[rshousha]

Hi Snug Harbor Johnny, 

 

You make an interesting point about the lack of carvings, etc. I see what you mean. Still, I doubt the company expected to sell many of those kits so the price may have been a little higher than you mention because of that but I am sure your price estimate is pretty close.  

 

I had no idea you were so interested in this period. This model will surely be a prized display among your friends! 

 

I am looking forward to seeing the construction develop. 

 

Cheers,

 

Rick 

 

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

7 hours ago, rshousha said:

Hi Snug Harbor Johnny, 

 

You make an interesting point about the lack of carvings, etc. I see what you mean. Still, I doubt the company expected to sell many of those kits so the price may have been a little higher than you mention because of that but I am sure your price estimate is pretty close.  

 

I had no idea you were so interested in this period. This model will surely be a prized display among your friends! 

 

I am looking forward to seeing the construction develop. 

 

Cheers,

 

Rick 

 

 

  Rick,  I've had a chance to look at the components more closely - and was wondering if the frames had been CNC nilled from stock, yet a mill doesn't make square corners milling from the face.  More clues came when I found several thinner ply pieces still in 'matrix', and they were definitely die cut !  So my guess is that the major frames were also die cut - super nice with only slight teeny vertical striations where the blade(s) descended.

 

  So there was definitely dedicated tooling to make the limited run of kits - ergo fewer units to spread the development and tooling costs - ergo my initial estimate for retail of something comparable in quality in limited quality was low - and should be bumped-up to something like $1,200 today.  So the revised estimate (unless someone can find catalog data from the 70s) of the original retail may have been in the $300 to $400 range - a hefty price for a kit even then.  The plywood has three plies plus a face veneer on either side ... really nice stuff.  I trial fit some pieces at the bow, and they are nice and snug with no 'wobble' - really precisely cut and a modeler would have a lot of trouble to scroll saw them so perfectly.

 

  Below is a dry fit of a few pieces - also one of the printed stock that I will have to cut out myself ... could be the tooling budget reached its limit.  Now it appears that the fore castle is really different from the Anthony roll and other contemporary art.  My first challenge will be to alter or re-fabricate that entire sub assembly before going any further.

 

 

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

  Ahoy Steve,   'I forgot to address the color & decoration scheme you inquired about.  I'll have to give much weight to the Anthony roll, yet I want to depict the pre-1536 version ... actually as it might have looked being prepared (sans sail cloth or netting) prior the the 'Cloth of Gold' voyage.  The diagonal design across seems to be diagonals of red and yellow separated by white.  And there should be shields atop the castles like in the picture (as well as the 'wedding' picture depicting the same time) - and the heraldry used is likely accurate, and 4 principal designs are used in sequence (one can also see a 5th design in places).

 

  I'll want 3 full stern castle decks and will not have top gallants.  Some good news - in that the vertical measure (keel to waterline, waterline to weather deck and the relationship of the lowest row of gun ports to the waterline) are all consistent and at the desired scale of about 1:78 (+/- 2) - so its only the overall length that is just about 4" long.  This means that I can likely engineer a way to shorten just the stern area without affecting all the stuff forward of that.

 

  The exception is some MAJOR re-work of the fore castle geometry, which constitutes a 'module', so can work on that (and rework it) until I get something that looks right. The framing of the hull is like a 3D jigsaw puzzle, and I've not seen anything quite like it.  There will have to be a LOT of thought to strategize how the build will go 'from the guts out', and I anticipate a number of months (on and off) fooling around with it as I still want to make foprward progress with the Vasa.

[Louie da fly]

Ahoy Johnny!

 

I hadn't realised you were a re-enactor. Me too, but mostly mediaeval - in particular 11th century Anglo-Saxon (my big triumph was getting to play King Harold's brother Leofwine and "lead" the English right wing at the Battle of Hastings re-enactment on the actual battlefield in 2006. Not re-enacting any more, but my wife and I toyed with doing Henrician (i.e. Henry VIII 1545 - same year as the Mary Rose went down, so a lot of artefacts available to reconstruct), got as far as a shirt and doublet for me (and underdaks) then changed our minds.

Me with my hearth troop, Senlac Hill, 2006. I'm the tall one, standing third from the right, with red hose and a big axe.

 

Regarding colours, the paintwork on the Anthony Roll picture is a bit hard to make out, but is either (as you propose) alternating red, yellow and white diagonal stripes or perhaps just red and yellow. And as you're doing pre-1536, the earlier you go, apparently the less paintwork, though it does depend on where - Bruegel's ships are completely without painted decoration, as is the "marriage" ship and the ones on the St Auta altarpiece of 1520

but others such as this one from a Portolan of 1521 by Iacopo Russo seem to show paintwork on the upper works.

 

Regarding shield decoration, the Anthony Roll shows alternating "St George" (red cross on a white background) shields and pale blue shields with possibly a white band at the top. The definition is very bad, but the Embarkation at Dover painting (thought to have been painted around 1545, well after the event),   http://gallery.nen.gov.uk/imagelarge69119-.html shows three shields any of which which might be what is portrayed in the Anthony Roll. They are all per pale (divided in half vertically) blue and white - one with a gold fleur de lis, one with a red Tudor Rose and one with a portcullis (which I think denotes London).

 

It's a very interesting model. I'll look forward to seeing what you do with it.

 

Steven 

 

 

 

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

  I've done a bit of looking, and (aside from Steve's fantastic model) found two relatively recent depictions of the GH ... there are elements from each I like, so what I end up doing may be an amalgamation from all 3 of the above.  Doing careful measuring and scaling, the conclusion is that the Sergal kit may not be far off in OAL (less bowsprit) after all.   The two images below both have a ratio of length at waterline to maximum beam of about 3.42 - 3.44 - considering the larger size and tonnage (originally as high as 1,500 per some sources, reduced in 1536 to about 1,000 - 1200 ?) the higher ratio seems justified.

 

  That would put the OAL (less bowsprit) scaled at 1:76 (all other calculations of the model's drawings and fittings fall into a 1:76 - 1:80 range) to about 33.4" compared to just shy of 35" as drawn.  Perhaps discretion may be the better part of valor in this case and I may go with the provided hull ... the largest I've attempted so far, but by no means unusual in our hobby.  For instance, all the Cutty Sarks at 1:75 (215' on deck)  will have that dimension represented by 34.4", with the entire model over 40".  The 1:75 Vasas have nearly 32" hulls (less bowsprit), and there are two big version kits at 1:65 ... with nearly 37" hulls !! ... 'Chunkey monkeys to be sure !

 

  I've started to cut out a couple of frame pieces needed for dry fitting - and also to figure out how I'm going to re-engineer the fore castle.  This will be something to be done "hands-on", versus trying to pre-draw everything.  Cardboard templates may come into play, and once worked out this module can be set aside until the rest of the beast if dry fitted.  I don't want to think about glue until I know everything is going to fit correctly.

 

  Some thinking ahead before even cutting out pieces showed that a modification for two frame pieces would be better (considering what would have to go on later) even if the kit were to be built as provided (which I knew I wouldn't do).  As mentioned before,  Sergal (in the 70s) had "galleonized" the GH ... (that's term I coined as I love word-play in the English language ... including puns).  So the process of 'galleonizing'  would be 'galleonization'.  Hmmmm,  so the process I'm involved with now is 'reverse-gallionization'.   Like was exclaimed in the movie 'The Mask' , "Somebody, STOP me !"

 

 

  So here (at last) is where my occasionally verbose review of the subject kit should end, as I've now 'cut some wood'.  'Look like I'll be doing some on this WHILE going back and forth trying to do more on the Vasa.  But they are only about 100 years apart, and the masting/rigging will not be entirely dissimilar - actually relatively similar.  The next step (when there's something to show) will be to start a build log - which I hadn't planned on doing for a while.  But when the 'bug' bites ...

 

  BTW, Steve, I also did a few Hastings re-enactments a rowdy bunch of us would do annually on the hilly Chapel lawn of the University of Maryland. We also would do Stamford Bridge elsewhere as a prelude, as well as march in parades and hold feasts (the beer would flow).

 

 

[mtaylor]

I'd be cautious about the scale.   Too many manufacturers for too long would look at the box, put the model in it to check fit and then come up with a scale   Seems older kits are all over the map with scales.

[Louie da fly]

To me it looks like the "collectioner's" vessel is too high - it would probably be crank and unseaworthy. Even though it pretty much duplicates the height of the forecastle on the Anthony Roll, I think Anthony got it wrong. AS far as I know, the aftercastle could be estimated from that of the Mary Rose; as she sank on her side, just about all of the upper works survived. There is still hope that they'll eventually get the funding to go and find the forecastle, but in the meantime we just need to work on 'best guess'..

 

Nice to know you got into doing "Hastings" at some point. The Big One in the UK is a real experience - I've done it twice and loved it. https://www.google.com/search?q=hbattle+hastings+2006&rlz=1C1NHXL_enAU770AU770&oq=hbattle+hastings+2006&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i8i13i30j0i390i650l4.7532j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:b1403b79,vid:EOwW04V4NA4

 

By the way, additional to the model Tudor figures I mentioned above, the sailors should be easier to obtain as their clothes were simpler - see http://gallery.nen.gov.uk/imagelarge69119-.html 

 

Steven

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

  Steve, I agree ... but there are certain 'details' that are of interest, as there are things that any attempt to picture the GH will have unique features and some other features found in other art.  Now there is ONE feature that draws my attention from the Anthony Roll, and that is the 'overhang' of the fore castle that shows a curved support.  Whereas the view 'from the deck' looking forward in the Anatomy Book on the Mary Rose (MR) shows the base of the fore castle flush with the hull (thereby making for an distinctly 'skinny'  shape not seen in Anthony'd depiction of the MR)  one can see in the image section below that the GH (or HGaD if you prefer) forecastle has a WIDER base than the gunwale below.

 

  Some models have this overhang, while some do not.  Many of those that do, have a flat projection, that is, no curving planking from below.  The Sergal kit has the curve underneath ... but also an overly wide 'snout' where the bowsprit emerges (more on snouts later).  There would be a distinct Military advantage to having the fore castle wider at the base than the gunwale leading up to it.

 

  1.)  Just like in land forts that were beginning to evolve (eventually leading to the 'star' fort), having a section of defensible wall at an angle to a main wall will allow defenders to fire down at attackers who may have been able to get up to the main wall - thus would be underneath defensive fire from that wall (unless someone exposes themselves by leaning over the main wall).  The guns in the Anthony image (crude as they may appear) represent anti personnel guns along the edges of the fore castle that hang slightly over the hull to afford those weapons a direct line of sight to small vessel that might get close to the ships side - and NOT (as some have supposed) meant to fire into the deck area to repel boarders, as such fire would harm friend as well as foe.

 

  2.)  A wider for castle is needed to have enough room inside for  sufficient attack/defense personnel, and as the forecastle has to taper anyway toward the point of the bow, one needs to start wider rather than narrower.

 

Soooo, the reason there is a CURVE under this 'overhang' is because there are knees beneath (attached to the futtocks there) to prevent sagging.  This 'under-curve' lessens as the bow tapers, so that the overhang in the forward part of the forecastle projecting beyond the bow IS flat, but supported by the extension of the keel (my terms are lacking right now) sprouting out from the bow (that is seen just under the bowsprits of clippers) that is NOT shown on the Anthony picture - also missing is a dragon or monster head on the end of said projection.

 

  Now I suspect (just my opinion) that they may have had multi-hole toilets (with so many men, there might have been a three-holer on either side of the keel ... but no Sears catalogs yet) in the front part of the fore castle where the 'waste' would just drop below through gaps in the short support beams or through holes if the understructure was otherwise planked.

 

  BTW, I've found a 'pirated' version of the Sergal GH (well, a duplication of the design) in a heavy 'paper' kit listed in some ads as 1:100 available now from 'Eastern Europe" ... 

 

  Below is an image of the Sergal (with it 'gallionization' previously mentioned).  The under curve is not easily seen in the picture, but it's there - as well as to overly wide 'snout' ... something I have to change.  The treatments of the tops of both castles need to be different to better conform to contemporary images.

 

 

  There is an image (artwork) where the under curve is better seen.

 

 

 Now a good compromise in a flat snout can be seen below ... an all to familiar build on our forum.

 

 

 

  Compare that with a 'pointed' version - that its own problems relating to accommodating the bowsprit.

 

  And there is a model that tries to more closely resemble the 'Embarcation' picture (with all its 'cloned' ships having the same prow beast with extended arms) ... but does depict the shields seen in the original art.

 

  Any input, opinions, etc. would be appreciated.

 

  There's SO much to think about, and another challenge is making replacement frames to provide more accurate line (similar to what we know the MR had) ... just as we're beginning the yard-work, exterior maintenance, Honey-do cross-offs (thats really a game of 'Whack a Mole'), etc season.  Well, one can cut all sorts of trial frames and pieces as time permits.  There is still the possibility of doing it slightly 'less large' ... we'll see.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

    SO far no opinions offered,  so I'll have to be 'Captain of my own ship' ... subject to Admiralty directives.   'Seems the HGaD represented the cutting edge of the naval battleship at the time in so many ways ... and the MR was the immediate precursor (so its lucky we have what we have of her).  A very notable thing was the bow shape and lines BELOW the waterline, which were anything but 'bulbous' as earlier carracks often were.

 

  A gentler transition to the 'fatter' middle sections would lessen resistance and provide speed superiority over any comparably sized (or lesser) vessels.  This is a key tactical advantage since (after battle assessment) an opponent could not 'get away' if the decision was to engage - nor could an otherwise superior force catch-up if the decision was not to engage.  The advantage to the development of a 'square' stern was to support a larger stern castle as well as creating room for ordnance much further back in the hull (allowance for recoil and reloading requires enough breadth on the gun deck) - and a stern rudder w/tiller saw the elimination of the vulnerable steer-board (on the starboard side).  The lines in the stern had to be modified so that the stern rudder would be effective - simultaneously providing a speed advantage as strong eddies were mostly eliminated  Perhaps this inspired some streamlining in the bow.

 

  The full-round (or 'apple') bow would return as 'Castles' disappeared and space was needed for heavy ordnance to be in the forward part of a warship, and more displacement was also needed to support the increased weight in that area.  So you see, form follows function - which is at the core of my considerations about the HGaD's for castle shape and size.

 

  Most contemporary depictions are from a stern aspect (or profile), and many models have defaulted to a 'pointed' forward castle.  There is another reason why this would be a disadvantage ... as the sides go down to a 'point', there is almost no internal space for anything.  Carrack castles started out as mostly square fighting platforms on either end of a double-pointed hull.  There ARE pointed forward castles where they are 'open- topped fighting spaces.  In the case of the HGaD, a fore castle starting out at least a little wider than the gunwale beam would serve better as a 'mini fortress' if the forward face were not so narrow.  Below are some images for comparison:

 

The earliest castles:

 

 

 

A flat forward face (but no overhang)

 

 

 

 A 19th century engraving depicting what sure looks like a relatively wide front-faces castle:

 

 

A more modern piece of artwork:

 

 

 

  Once again, these are different opinions through time - so the concept of 'form follows function' should be my guiding principle whatever route I go.  BTW, here's a nice stern view of a model showing the narrowing of the back ... but the shape goes too deep to afford the 'clean' water needed to make the rudder more effective, as the reference books on the recovered MR show.

 

 

  I found a good enough piece of birch plywood (2' x 4') just a few thousandths over the Sergal kit frames. There's plenty there to make all the modified frames I'm likely to need.  I searched through the whole stack at Home D to find one that was flat enough.  Regarding the Sergal frames supplied, I noticed that the keel piece was kinked enough to be not good to use as it sat - so I got out my iron (set on high for linen) and used dry hear and cautions counter bending on a wooden work bench to reverse the kinks.  It worked!  I've used wet heat for 'solid' (non-plywood) stock and dry heat for plywood before (it can loosen the glue bond) - and wrecked pieces (some time ago) while learning.  The deft touch and 'wood sense' not to over-bend (once learned) is helpful.  It's like when I was a kid and 'stripped' a metal nut when over-tightening on a bolt.  That helped 'calibrate' me how not to strip a nut - and the lesson has stayed with me all the intervening years. 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 7, 2023 by Snug Harbor Johnny

[Roger Pellett]

Johnny,  

 

There are two ships built in the 1500’s that have been studied by archeologists for which enough wreckage exists to construct a meaningful lines drawing; Mary Rose and the “Red Bay Galleon” San Juan.  The more recently discovered and earlier “Newport Ship” might be another addition.

 

These ships built at different times by different nationalities all share the same characteristic- the boat like shape of their hull leading back to a much earlier time when hull shape was determined by plank bending.  These do not have the bluff Apple cheeked bows usually assumed to exist at this time period.  One gets the impression that the fore and stern castles were appendages not integral parts of the hull.  I am therefore suggesting that the forecastle structure does overhang the sides of the hull as you believe.

 

Roger

[Louie da fly]

Hi Johnny,

 

Jeez, you don't give people much time to think over an answer, do you? 

 

Let me see, I'll try to reply to both the previous post and this one.

 

First point - I'm not really sure I understand your point about the forecastle having a wider base than the gunwale below. To me it seems that the picture shows the after end of the forecastle is flush with the hull, which then curves away forward to form the bow. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding the point. Do you mean the forecastle is cantilevered out sideways where it meets the hull at the break of the forecastle?

 

And I'm not sure about the curved support you describe - do you mean the gently curving horizontal line that forms lower border of the forecastle? Perhaps that could be  interpreted as a curve in the horizontal plane - or is it in the vertical plane (as shown on the "pointed version" Science Museum model - 6th picture in your post #15 above)?

 

Regarding your point (1) in post #15, that's definitely a possibility - I have seen somewhere  it proposed that these guns had that function. But depending on their calibre they might still be intended as anti-personnel weapons to defend against enemies who have achieved the weather deck, which would form a "killing field" fired on from both front and back with no means of escape, a common principle in castle architecture of the time. For example, 'hailshot pieces' which fired small iron cubes (a forerunner of canister) could perform that function. 

As you're surely already aware, I'm in the 'pointy forecastle' school, for two reasons.

 

The first is that almost all representations of carracks and the later ships like the Great Harry (which I choose to call "great carracks") show them with triangular forecastles. Exceptions are the picture of the Battle of Zonchio and some pictures in one of the Cowdray engravings http://www.dominicfontana.co.uk/dominic/maryrose/calaissmall.jpg (which in any case are 19th century copies of a lost original, which allows two opportunities for misinterpretation - once by the original artist, once by the copyist - instead of just one). See the pictures of "great carracks" at https://www.pinterest.com.au/lowe1847/great-carracksnaos/

 

The second is structural - that amount of weight cantilevered over the bow would force the ship's head down and make her unwieldy to sail, as well as being vulnerable to being shaken apart in heavy seas. I believe this is the reason the triangular forecastle replaced the earlier rectangular one as ships grew bigger. However, I believe they weren't sharp points all the way up - as shown here:

  

                                       Saint Auta altarpiece of 1520                                                                                                 from the Miller Atlas, 1519

It seems to me the forecastle stepped backwards as it went upward, and that would mean the higher 'stepped back' decks would be wider at the forward end, as in the forecastle of my own Great Harry (the 5th picture in your post #15). But even if it came to a sharp point, it seems the bowsprit was often off-centre to miss the foremast, so the problem with it passing through a pointed forecastle might be moot.

 

And another point - galleons, which seem to have come into use about the 1540's, had sharp beakheads, with the forecastle 'proper' further aft - in my view for the same structural reasons as triangular forecastles in carracks.

 

On 5/7/2023 at 8:52 AM, Snug Harbor Johnny said:

the overhang in the forward part of the forecastle projecting beyond the bow IS flat, but supported by the extension of the keel (my terms are lacking right now) sprouting out from the bow (that is seen just under the bowsprits of clippers) that is NOT shown on the Anthony picture - also missing is a dragon or monster head on the end of said projection.

Well, the 'extension of the keel' would be the stempost, but I guess you're talking about the horizontal extension of the stempost, for which I don't have a name either. And interestingly, I hadn't really noticed up to now that Anthony Anthony's Great Harry didn't have a dragon figurehead - I was just assuming it did because Landström's reconstruction picture had one. However, the definition in the images of the Great Harry available on-line is rather vague, to the point that maybe the dragon-head is there after all.

 

Though I agree with your idea of 'seats of ease' toward the front of the forecastle, I think there would still be plenty of room for them in a triangular forecastle.

 

Okay, now onto post #16. 

 

I think many contemporary representations of carracks falsely show them as "bulbous" at the bow, and I think this is not so much an accurate representation of reality as a problem with the ability of the artists to show what is, after all, a rather difficult shape. See Woodrat's Venetian Carrack or Cocha - 

 

 

in which he follows the contemporary text-books to determine the shape of the hull, which turns out to be eminently slim and seaworthy after all - a fact supported by the better artists of the time - Carpaccio and Botticelli. 

 

I'm not sure the flat stern gave a wider platform for artillery - round carrack sterns should still have been sufficiently wide for artillery where it mattered.

Though I agree with your observations about the stern rudder, it had already been in use for quite a while - at least since the late 14th century (though some Mediterranean ships retained it right into the late 15th century).

1487  Mediterranean Merchant ship, Ragusa. von Grunenberg's Beschreibung der Reise von Konstanz nach Jerusalem (Record of the journey from Konstanz to Jerusalem).

 

12 hours ago, Snug Harbor Johnny said:

The full-round (or 'apple') bow would return as 'Castles' disappeared and space was needed for heavy ordnance to be in the forward part of a warship, and more displacement was also needed to support the increased weight in that area.

I agree.

 

12 hours ago, Snug Harbor Johnny said:

many models have defaulted to a 'pointed' forward castle.  There is another reason why this would be a disadvantage ... as the sides go down to a 'point', there is almost no internal space for anything. 

OTOH, when Woodrat built his carrack, he was surprised at the amount of space still available in a quite sharply pointed triangular forecastle. The earlier ships with rectangular forecastles (which certainly did exist) were considerably smaller, and I think the problems with structure would have multiplied dramatically as ships got bigger.

 

Finally, as you want to represent the Great Harry as she was when built in 1512-1514, this adds yet another difficulty of interpretation. There are no contemporary pictures of her at that time. The Embarkation at Dover is thought to have been painted around 1545, so is not a reliable record of the ship before her rebuild. I would recommend you look at other pictures of ships of this type from around the time she was built - such as the "marriage" painting (thought to be of the Santa Catarina do Monto Sinai, built 1512), the Saint Auta altarpiece of 1520 (above), the Miller Atlas carracks of 1519 and Lourinha's St John the Evangelist at Patmos of 1510-14 (both below)

  

                                      from the Miller Atlas, 1519                                                               Lourinha's St John the Evangelist at Patmos, 1510-14

 

I have to say they're not all that different from the Anthony Roll depictions. We know she was up-gunned in the rebuild - according to Wikipedia when launched she had 20 heavy guns - after the rebuild she had 45. Guns from 1512-14 were only little more primitive than in 1536. Quite sophisticated bronze guns were already available by this time, and iron guns when launched weren't all that different from the ones recovered in the 19th century from the 1545 wreck of the Mary Rose.

 

Again according to Wikipedia, when launched she was found to be top-heavy and the height of the hull was reduced in the rebuild. That plus the weight of the additional heavy guns low down would presumably have lowered the centre of gravity and made her more stable. So it seems to me that in 1512-14 she would have had a pretty high forecastle and summer castle, but how high that was is anybody's guess - again, I'd use the pictures I mentioned in the previous couple of paragraphs as a guide, but not rely on them too much.

 

Well, that's about all I can think of. I haven't commented on the purely modelling aspects of your post - I don't think I can usefully add anything to that aspect of things.

 

I hope this is of help - at least it might give you a few things to think about.

 

Best wishes,

 

Steven

Edited May 8, 2023 by Louie da fly

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

  Thank you for all the info in your reply ...  This new distraction is a break from the Vasa for perhaps a couple weeks.  I know that 'conclusions' are hard to draw from the Anthony roll depictions, and that the is a certain amount of subjectivity to what one thinks he's seeing in the drawing.  Yeah, and most of what has survived are mostly stern quarter views.  But ...  my eyes think they're seeing at least some sideways cantilever' at the forward break of the 'waist' (exposed weather deck) - the back face of the fore castle.   It's the 'shading' under the Anthony fore castle going forward from there that also gives the impression of 'overhang'.

 

  I'm no artist, but I've made a quick (and crude) sketch (not even as good as the Anthony roll) to try and depict what I'm seeing.

 

 

 

  My pre-1536 concept is a 2-decked fore castle with railings on top that will have shields affixed to said railing.  The stern castle would have 3 decks with railing (plus shields on top).  I figure when modified in 1536, the stern castle was likely reduced for a 2-deck configuration, then a partial 3rd 'deck' built onto the fore castle in the back half (per Anthony).  The pre-1536 would not have top gallants.

 

  I'm a bit overwhelmed at the TOTAL dimensions of the model 'out of the box' ... like 50" stem to stern pole and as high from keel to pennants.  It IS a whopper of a project, and when I look at the size of the brass turned guns, they are really at a smaller scale.  The likely solution is to make all new framing at 1:88 scale (halfway between the 1:75 of the kit - apart from its length, which is more like 1:65 - and the 1:100 that I'm used to working with. The provided cannon seem consistent with an adjusted size of hull at 1:88.  I'm mindful of the display case to protect the finished model.  As supplied, over 50 sq. feet of glazing material would be needed for the larger size, versus 27 sq. feet for the adjusted size.

 

  I'm also mindful now that Australia is in a much different time zone (our days and nights are effectively reversed) - so please forgive my earlier oversight time-wise.

 

[Louie da fly]

Yes, your diagram makes it clear. Nicely done. Do I agree with the interpretation of the Anthony Roll picture? Not sure.

 

To me it seems the shadow is nil where the forecastle meets the gunwale and gets wider towards the bow, which would be the case if there were no overhang except what is caused by the bow curving away faster than the angle of the (triangular) forecastle. But I'm just throwing that idea out for your consideration, not saying your interpretation is definitely wrong. BTW, are you also thinking of having the forecastle curved in the vertical plane, as shown on the Science Museum model? To me that doesn't seem likely, but I'd like to hear your ideas on it.

 

On 5/9/2023 at 3:25 AM, Snug Harbor Johnny said:

My pre-1536 concept is a 2-decked fore castle with railings on top that will have shields affixed to said railing.  The stern castle would have 3 decks with railing (plus shields on top).  I figure when modified in 1536, the stern castle was likely reduced for a 2-deck configuration, then a partial 3rd 'deck' built onto the fore castle in the back half (per Anthony).  The pre-1536 would not have top gallants.

That all makes a great deal of sense. The reduction in height of the aftercastle, plus the addition of more guns lower down - and probably heavier guns at that, as despite my earlier comment, I do believe there was quite a bit of progress in gunmaking between 1512 and 1536; note the Lomellina, probably built about 1503, just had iron "stave construction" guns with iron strips welded edgewise into a tube and held together by iron rings, while the Mary Rose had those, but also big bronze guns.

 

She certainly sounds BIG. Good luck with that. At least you won't have too many problems with reaching in to make fiddly details. 

 

Yes, time-zones can be a bit confusing. But no problem.

 

Keep up the good work. A very interesting discussion.

 

Steven

 

Edited May 10, 2023 by Louie da fly

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

   'Looks like the Science Museum Group model has heavy beams to support the overhang in the prow area of the model - something mot seen in the Anthony image ... but then one does not see a dragon (or monster) figure head mounted on a stempost, as was typical on carracks of that era.  Hmmm, I don't imagine that they'd have taken it off in 1536.  The Anthony drawing does not show a cutwater either, and I doubt THAT would have been removed.

 

  This shows the challenges of trying to interpret 'too much' into any piece of artwork.  How lucky are those who have either photographs or recovered hulls to guide them ... noting that the forecastle of the Mary Rose has (to date) not been found (and may never be).  I don't think that there were vertical curves on the forecastle, as straight timbers were most likely used to build the 'fort'.   Yet the Anthony picture has a curved profile of the back ... and if combined with the reverse curve near the bottom ( IF one posits that there was no cantilever at the gunwale), there would be a 'S' curve to the back profile of the fore castle (unlikely).   Once again, there is a lot to think about.

 

  I'm in the process of making an entirely new set of framing pieces (what Sergal uses for the kit is actually a nice structural design) in a smaller scale to work with as part of the considerations.  Obviously, modifying and otherwise proving-out the frame and concepts BEFORE doing any planking is advisable.  And I can cut-to-fit or remake portions as part of the discovery process.  This is likely how the build log will have to start.  

[Roger Pellett]

Johnny,  You’re in good hands with the forum’s two Ancient ship experts, but I’ll add my two cents worth.  First, I believe that the vessel’s shown on the Anthony Roll are caricatures- The features are correct but the proportions are distorted as are the projections.  Still it may be as close to a “technical drawing” that we are going to find.  I believe that your (not so) crude sketch exactly captures what the Anthony Roll is trying to show.

 

I would be more concerned whether the old kit reasonably reflects the  underwater shape of the hull.  This might be a case where due to underwater Archeology we know more about the hull shapes of these old vessels than we do about the upper works.

 

Roger

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

2 hours ago, Roger Pellett said:

Johnny,  You’re in good hands with the forum’s two Ancient ship experts, but I’ll add my two cents worth.  First, I believe that the vessel’s shown on the Anthony Roll are caricatures- The features are correct but the proportions are distorted as are the projections.  Still it may be as close to a “technical drawing” that we are going to find.  I believe that your (not so) crude sketch exactly captures what the Anthony Roll is trying to show.

 

I would be more concerned whether the old kit reasonably reflects the  underwater shape of the hull.  This might be a case where due to underwater Archeology we know more about the hull shapes of these old vessels than we do about the upper works.

 

Roger

 

   Roger,  You're 'right on' about all the expertise on the forum (for those who invest the time to search and learn) ... in my 2 years so far I've learned more about sailing (and also steam) ships than I had up to that time.  And every niche has specialists with much to offer.

 

  You're also right about the Anthony Roll sketches - and there are still a number of other paintings & other artwork that shed light on these relatively early ships.  I say 'relatively', in that the 4,000 + yr old Khufu barge is REALLY early.  BTW, I watch builds of ancient galleys (how 'bout that Mycenaean reconstruction) and other boats the the 'Galilee'  with great interest.  'Guess I'm not a 'specialist' but one with a love of learning, as all the eras are fascinating to investigate.

 

  So now (for the moment)  I'm drawn towards Henry VIII's big ship, and once agin, you are spot-on with the advice to look into the lines below the surface of the water.  It is very fortunate that we have as much of the Mary Rose as we do, and there are excellent hull lines in the 'Anatomy of the Ship' book on the MR.  The Sergal kit (given its 70's antiquity) has inappropriate lines, and I've already started working on frames that will be a lot closer to the ones on the MR.  The logic being that the HGaD was built shortly after, but 'manned-up' a good bit, as if the Mary Rose 'grew a set'.  The MR represented the cutting edge of warship development when construction began in 1509, and the HGaD likely followed suit.

 

   Nice work on the Revenge, Grandpa ...                                     Johnny

[Baker]

Thank you for reviewing this kit.
Looking forward to your build log. There will be much to discuss 😉

[GrandpaPhil]

Thank you very much, Johnny!

 

Looking forward to your build log!

[gak1965]

I have nothing to offer on the best way to build her, certainly not compared to some of the folks that have actual expertise. My only observation looking at the side view plan (and where I m in my current build) was "I hope you enjoy tying ratlines", because that ship has a lot of shrouds...

 

Good luck, I'm sure she's going to turn out great!

 

George K

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

1 hour ago, gak1965 said:

I have nothing to offer on the best way to build her, certainly not compared to some of the folks that have actual expertise. My only observation looking at the side view plan (and where I m in my current build) was "I hope you enjoy tying ratlines", because that ship has a lot of shrouds...

 

Good luck, I'm sure she's going to turn out great!

 

George K

 

   Yeah, there are ratlines in abundance on the HGaD ... but since I want to reduce the scale to somewhat to 1:88 (gosh, the 1:65 hull length provided is intimidating), I'll likely opt for the 'sewing' method of ratline installation.  This will prevent oversized knots ... and tying them (except perhaps a cow hitch on the ends so there are no 'short stubs' projecting as seen on some models).  There are quite a few ratlines also on the Vasa - work on which has been sidelined while I work on an entirely new set of HGaD frame members at the new scale with;  a.) much better hull lines based on the Mary Rose  b.) curved false gun decks  below the weather deck,  c.) a corrected fore Castle configuration and d.) corrections to the length versus beam and stern Castle.

 

   Once a trial fitting of both frames for comparison has been done, the new set will likely need further tweaking (assuming  another re-work is not required) before photography for the proposed log.  It seems like I'm developing my own 'kit' based on Sergal's  framing concept, then will be using materials from the Sergal kit for the execution.  That beats having to cut my own planking and turning brass cannon barrels.  I've not attempted to translate the Italian notes on the massive drawings yet (still might, but the draftsman's 'slant' and modified letters might puzzle Google translate).  Its more a case of looking at all the sketches and 'figuring it out' ... cut to fit, bend to suit.

 

  It brings to mind old man Einar Billing's words:  "You are about to begin the exciting task of building a model ... (which) is intended to be BUILT, and not merely assembled.  In consequence, you must not expect the parts to fit perfectly, (and) it will be necessary to exercise skill and imagination in the building of this kit - as thought and care should be exercised during construction.  After all, any child can put a puzzle together."

 

  So the venture will be something between a major 'kit bust' and 'semi-scratch'.  Once phase one (frame definitization) is accomplished and documented, I'll have to go back to the Vasa since there are some similarities in masting and rigging - a good dry run to be sure.  And I may flip back and forth between these two ships ... and all the other services rendered for the Admiral.

Edited May 23, 2023 by Snug Harbor Johnny

[Louie da fly]

You might like to refer to my own HGaD build for the rigging configuration - not necessarily to follow it exactly, but to see the decisions I was faced with when the best text I could find (Anderson's The Rigging of Ships in the Days of the Spritsail Topmast) starts over 50 years later than the Great Harry, so I had to extrapolate backwards and hope I'd got it right.

 

There's also the Anthony Roll and The Embarkation at Dover to refer to for rigging, as well as a few contemporary pictures of galleons, which, though a different kind of vessel, often date back to 1545, such as the ones below.

 

1545 - from a map of Normandy by Jean Jolivet - there are another 3 pics from this series if you're interested.

 

outgoing-ship Holbein 1532-3

 

Have fun with it.

 

Steven

 

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

  Aye, the Holbein drawing shows a rowdy crew with a wench aboard ... and also shows the characteristic 'teardrop' shaped deadeyes.

[Louie da fly]

Yes indeed. The guys on board are probably mostly passengers, as they are dressed as landsknechts (mercenary soldiers) -  lansquenets in French. Here's some more information on the picture itself - https://sammlung.staedelmuseum.de/en/work/ship-with-revelling-sailors . Holbein was a superb artist.

 

Interesting about the deadeye shape. Have you seen the deadeyes they fished up from the wreck of the Mary Rose? They're in McElvogue's book Tudor Warship Mary Rose. Here's a sample

 

 

I only found out bout these after I'd committed myself with the deadeyes on my own Great Harry. And anyway, at the scale I was working in they would have been impossible.

 

Steven