Question on quarterdeck bulwark inside belaying points of English 74

[fake johnbull]

 

I’ve recentry re-started building of Bellerophon after I finished other modelling project, but two concerns on rigging prevent me from further progress of building. One is what most likely arrangement of her belaying points on inside of quarterdeck bulwark is, and another is what most likely method to lead main course sheet is.

 

Firstly, question on belaying point. Kit design shows two cleats here.

 

 

But belaying plan of 18^th century ships appeared on Lees show no cleats here, although belaying plan of frigate of 1810 and 1850 ships show cleats here. Also some of contemporary models or Victory today have staghorns here instead of cleats.

 

Lees "Masting and Rigging"

Meway model

https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-66289

 

 

Bellona

https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-66299

 

Royal George

https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-66297

 

Victory has V shaped staghorn.

 

Photo by myself.

 

 

ONTH Model of 64 gun ship of 1775 seems to be having cleats here.

 

https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-66274

 

Images of this same model on members only page of this site suggests that rope is passing through sheave of angled kevel then belayed this cleat-like fitting. But I assume that cleats on this place are rare in 18^th century ships of the line.

 

https://modelshipworld.com/gallery/image/5205-london-525/

 

Plans of 74 gun ship of 1813 drawn by Underhill shows cleat to belay main course sheet.

 

https://www.ebay.it/itm/384243693162?mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=724-53478-19255-0&campid=5338722076&customid=&toolid=10050

 

Model of Hastings of 1818 also seems to have cleats. This is sailor’s made model, so fittings must be authentic.

 

https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-66653

 

From these examples, my best guess is that staghorns had been used with change of appearances from U shaped to V shaped around some date of late 18th century, then sometime after Trafalgar cleats replaced staghorns. But I’m still anxious for my guess.

 

 

Then second question, how to lead main course sheets.

 

Steel depicts that sheet is lead backward from clew, then passing through sheave-hole of ship’s side and belayed to a range-cleat in the waist.

 

https://maritime.org/doc/steel/part7.php#pg211

 

This image is I found on google image search and I believe this is taken from “Rees’s Naval Architecture”.

 

64 gun ship model of 1775 also shows sheave-hole to lead sheet into hull.

 

ONTH Lees depicts that sheet is lead backward from clew , then turned forward through block and hauled into hull.

 

 

This method can be seen on Victory today (photo by myself). Some of contemporary models is also showing this method.

 

https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-66407

 

Although this is depiction on 17^th century ships, Dr. Anderson depicts both methods were used on English ships, though sheave-hole method were mainly used.

 

 

My best guess is Bellerophon had sheave-hole on her side. Internal profile plan of her sister ship Elephant which Chris Watton based on for his Vanguard/Elephant/Bellerophon kit design is clearly showing it at mizzen mast position. Both of Bellerophon and Elephant were ordered from private shipyards and launched almost same time, so both ships must had been constructed on identical plans manually copied.

 

https://images.rmg.co.uk/asset/12418/

 

But in the case of sheave-hole method, belaying points on the inside of quarterdeck become useless. Kit rigging plan shows main topsail halyard and shifting backstay fall is belayed to cleat, but Victory shows the former belayed to angled kevel and latter tied to hook of lower block of tackle.

 

 

 

I’m now inclining to the idea to fit my Bellerophon with belaying points based on those of Victory today except staghorn left unused for alternative belaying point for main course sheet.

 

But again I’m anxious for my idea and it is very appreciated to hear other possible method from members here.

 

 

Kindest regards

Mitsuaki Kubota

 

 

Note on glossary

 

Sometimes the usages of maritime terms are deferent from one author to another. Lees or other authors use the term “kevel” for U shaped belaying point and “cavel block” for timberhead like fitting with sheave. ONTH Longridge or Lavery use the staghorn for U or V shaped belaying point and kevel for timberhead like fitting with sheave. For convenience I followed usage of Longridge or Lavery.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 15, 2023 by fake johnbull
editing attachment of images

[allanyed]

4 hours ago, fake johnbull said:

But belaying plan of 18^th century ships appeared on Lees show no cleats here, although belaying plan of frigate of 1810 and 1850 ships show cleats here. Also some of contemporary models or Victory today have staghorns here instead of cleats.

British 74's were launched starting about 1760 so rigging drawings from before that may not be applicable.   Other than the photo of the Bellona model that you posted,  the drawings or photos that you copied might not be applicable. 

 

Did you study the photos of the Hercules 1759 (or Thunderer)?  They are applicable and may be of some help.   https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-66271   Maybe contact the museum to see if they can give you more help as well.

 

Allan 

[fake johnbull]

Allan, thank you for your suggestion. Hercules or Thunderer model is important and beautiful one and also appeared on jacket cover of Lees's "Masting and Rigging".

 

But I gave up to refer this model because of reasons below.

 

1. Masting and rigging of this model is modern addition. Of course, rigging of this model had might been done by expert of the museum, so it is thought to be almost accurate.

Image below is scanned from "Building the Wooden Fighting Ship" by J. Dodds and J. Moore, and I believe this is same model before addition of rigging. But this photo seems to be having no sheave-hole on side as well as chestree or fenders. Photos of this model after addition of rigging are showing sheave-holes for main course tack and fore course sheet, but any kind of hole for main course sheet isn't added. Instead main course sheet is lead through gun port under main channel, but I think this is expedient way to add main course sheet.

 

2. Photo of above seems to be having no belaying points on inside of quarterdeck bulwark. Photos of members only page of this model is also suggest it.

https://modelshipworld.com/gallery/image/9197-dsc01392/?browse=1

 

But anyhow, this model can be safely said as one of masterpiece of contemporary works and many finding can be found.

 

Kindest regards,

Edited July 15, 2023 by fake johnbull
correction of spelling miss

[fake johnbull]

After some consideration, I've determined to adopt mixture of (or compromise between) Bellona coppered model and Victory. Three kevels are referred to Bellona coppered model and staghorn and pinrails are referred to Victory.

I only hope my interpretation is not far from original😅 Of course this is only my assumption and any suggestion or opinion from other aspect are welcome.

 

BTW. I noticed some interesting (or annoying) fact while researching belaying positions of this era.

 

1. Quarterdeck gunports of Bellona coppered model are positioned aft than plan shows. This difference of gunports positions also gave influence to deadeye positions of main channel. I don't know precise reason why, but I assume that this model was made for examination of new gunport arrangement including Carronades as well as promotion of coppering to the King.

 

2. The angle of foremost kevels of quarterdeck of Bellona  coppered model are different from port to starboard. Port one is vertical and starboard one tilted to aft. I have no idea the reason why, but if main lower lifts are belayed here, vertical ones seems to be more natural.

 

3. Main course sheet sheave-hole position are defferent between Bellona copperd model and Elephant plan. While that of Bellona model is positioned forward of the third gunport to last, that of Elephant plan is aft of the third gunport to last. I once wrote identical plan maybe used for construction of Bellerophon, but I noticed that this sheave-hole position is somewhat unnatural considering sheet lead to this position is interfering gunnery. Again I have no idea why, but there would be some possibility that draughtsman who wasn't familiar with rigging draw sheave-hole to this positon.

 

Kindest regards,

 

 

[Jaager]

All of this looks to me like something that a team of ship's carpenters could alter on their own in an afternoon or two.

I do not think that obsessing about there being a single "answer to it" would have a definitive solution.  I see it as a moving target.

Anything contemporary could be and probably is correct.  Just avoid anachronism. 

 

It may be an artifact from the photography, but the holes for the pins look to have about twice the probable diameter.

[allanyed]

6 minutes ago, Jaager said:

 

It may be an artifact from the photography, but the holes for the pins look to have about twice the probable diameter.

Mitsuaki 

I agree with Dean, the holes for the pins in the first photo in post #4 above look much too large.   For some great information on making belaying pins take a look at the Euryalus build log by Matiz.   https://modelshipworld.com/topic/24583-hms-euryalus-by-matiz-scale-156/page/9/#comments,  posts #252, 253, and 254  as well as the photo from his log below.  He made all his pins to scale. 

Allan

[Gregory]

2 hours ago, fake johnbull said:

The angle of foremost kevels of quarterdeck of Bellona  coppered model are different from port to starboard.

An anomaly that has arisen after 260 years?

[mtaylor]

4 hours ago, Jaager said:

All of this looks to me like something that a team of ship's carpenters could alter on their own in an afternoon or two.

I do not think that obsessing about there being a single "answer to it" would have a definitive solution.  I see it as a moving target.

Anything contemporary could be and probably is correct.  Just avoid anachronism. 

 

I think this comes under the concept of "Captain's Prerogative".  And I agree, a couple of carpenters in an day or so.

[fake johnbull]

jaager, Allan, Gregory and Mike,

Thank you for your reply. I agree these fittings are subjects of changes by preference of Captain, Sailing Master or boatswain.

 

jaager suggested the importance of “avoid anachronism“. In this sense, I believe U shaped staghorns had became old-fashioned till Trafalgar days. (I’m sorry if I misunderstand jaager’s intention.)

jaager and Allan,

Pinrails are kit laser-cut parts. Maybe large holes are results of belaying pins from Amaty’s stock parts. I agree finer pins and holes are much better.

 

 

Gregory,

I agree that there is a possibility of difference of angles are result of incorrect repair of later days.

 

Kindist regards,

Mitsuaki

[Jaager]

1 hour ago, fake johnbull said:

jaager suggested the importance of “avoid anachronism“. In this sense, I believe U shaped staghorns had became old-fashioned till Trafalgar days. (I’m sorry if I misunderstand jaager’s intention.)

I was not thinking about being too "old fashioned" - anachronism from the past - because I mostly consider anachronism as referring to adding things that had not been invented yet.  I am not sure if "anachronism" even fits as a definition for using outdated tech. 

 

If you want to include 17th century tech on an 18th century ship, you could always say that the captain was sentimental and it was there to honor his grandfather who was also a captain in his time.   This is silly, but it is also possible.  A 5 inch revolving gun is not possible.

 

To be contrary and controversial  - adding a 5 inch gun mount or wings from a DC3 to an 18th century warship was the sort of thing that "kit bashing" was originally meant to describe.   I do not see how "to bash" can ever fit with the process of improving or augmenting parts that come with a kit.  "semi-scratch" seems to be a more appropriated term - if you fabricate the additions yourself.

Edited July 19, 2023 by Jaager

[fake johnbull]

Jaager,

 

Thank you for your explanation. I don’t know if this is suitable for example of anachronism, we often see mid-18th century French ship with tricolor flag or 17th century English ship with Union flag containing St. Patrick Red X Cross.

 

Also I don’t know if this is suitable for example of sentiment to old days, elliptical stern would be one of revival of old stern appearance against unpopular round stern.

 

Kindest regards,

Mitsuaki

[Jaager]

2 hours ago, fake johnbull said:

lso I don’t know if this is suitable for example of sentiment to old days, elliptical stern would be one of revival of old stern appearance against unpopular round stern.

Here goes a stream of consciousness tangent:

 

I have the idea that an elliptical stern was considered as a significant improvement for frigates and corvettes starting early in the 19th century. 

I have been thinking that a circular stern happened around 1860 or later - and my focus ends at 1860. 

 

There was a famous - here - 1 to 1 frigate dual between HMS Shannon and Chesapeake.  ( I thought it was fought off the Virginia capes where I live.)  (Turns out it was off Boston.) (The Chesapeake captain was an amateur poseur idiot and got himself and a significant portion of his crew killed.  The Shannon captain was a gifted professional.)   I got Chesapeake plans from S.I.  I had to dig for Shannon.  HMS Shannon was a Leda class frigate.  There were a lot of frigates in that class.  They used the same plans: HMS Leda - probably traced - over and over - for every one of them.  They even drew the improved "ellipicical stern" in different colored ink on the original 18th century flat stern Leda plan (as well as a more "modern" forecastle).  The plan was so over used that there is a low contrast between the lines and the dark background.  The NMM offered different sized prints when I bought it.  I made the mistake of buying a reduced scale copy.  It was easier to place on my home scanner - which is why I chose it.  This was before I learned that commercial shops could scan a 4'x3' plan and give me a PDF copy on a USB stick.  It was touch and go for picking out the lines from the background.  

 

[fake johnbull]

Jaager,

 

Firstly I'm sorry if my term "round stern" mislead you. You maybe refer to sterns of ships like Gannet or ironclad Achilles.

 

Gannet photo by myself

 

Achilles from NMM (https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-66902)

 

I

 

I intended to refer to round stern introduced by Robert Seppings but unpopular amongst officers as ugly and uncomfortable.

 

Queen Charlotte from NMM (https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-68226)

 

My appology again.

 

BTW, your mentioning on Leda class frigates reminds me of two survivors amongst them.

 

Trincomalee from wikipedia (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:H.M.S._Trincomalee,_Hartlepool_Maritime_Experience_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1604022.jpg)

 

Unicorn from wikipedia (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HM_Frigate_Unicorn,_from_the_stern_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1316939.jpg)

 

Unicorn has upper cabin as hulk and Trincomalee also once had upper cabin in her training ship era, so there would be some changes from their original appearance. But variations of stern shape in one class are shown in them and we are very fortunate to have these two existing examples.

 

Kindest regards,

Mitsuaki

[Jaager]

I do not know how to write this so that it comes across in the way that I intend it. 

I mean this as one way to look at it.  It may well be incorrect.  But it is a vulnerable flank if you disagree

 

 

I do not place much value in using the survivors from 1765 1799 1800-on as sources of information for how these vessels looked when launched.  Especially "officers country" in the stern.

They were "improved" - remodeled - rebuilt - about every 20 years.  This was done by sequential generations who were hostile to the past and ashamed of and embarrassed by older practices.  They were aggressively "modern" in their outlook.  A new "modern" every 20 years at a time of profound tech change. 

Then, when GB or the US became wealthy enough to have surplus to preserve some of the past - it was done by strong personalities who were more driven by preconceived visions in their imaginations than what was left of actual past documentation.

 

For the most part absolutist historians have been left with hodgepodge  monsters too substantially altered to rescue back to their original iterations.  They are probably more valuable remaining as what they are.  But what that is - is far from representing their as launched versions.

 

Zealous PR people tend to exaggerate if not outright lie about what they are selling.

 

Almost everything in your examples are post 1860.  I have to draw a line for the sake of my sanity.  It is still far to broad, but 1860 is a hard limit for me.

Edited July 19, 2023 by Jaager

[Morgan]

Jaager,

 

I entirely echo your thoughts, even though it is uncomfortable in that it challenges the interpretation of the models many of us strive to build, but as you allude to, strongly opinionated personalities often dominate the debate on a given restoration programme, all in order to achieve a preconceived interpretation that they favour which masks a more accurate interpretation.

 

One case I have looked into extensively is that of the Victory.  The artist WL Wyllie was a leading figure in the drive to restore the Victory to her Trafalgar condition, he was an outspoken individual and in many respects a self-declared expert.  In 1905 he exhibited his ‘Panorama of Trafalgar, of which Arthur Bugler in his ‘H.M.S. Victory: Building, restoration and repair’ was to say some 60 years later that “it is remarkable that the VICTORY of the painting was in the main faithfully portrayed as she was finally restored in 1929”.  Somehow Wyllie was able to forecast the appearance of Victory 20 years prior to her restoration, how prescient!  Yet, the investigations into what Victory looked like were not undertaken until 1923, by LG Carr Laughton, at the outset of the restoration, which spanned the years 1922 – 1928. 

 

Wyllie certainly took in Sir Philip Watts who had ‘been appointed by the Society for Nautical Research to act as chairman of a Sub-Committee to consider what steps shall be taken to preserve the ship and to restore her approximately to her condition at the Battle of Trafalgar’.

 

Watts was to record in April 1923 in [The] Mariner’s Mirror in an article entitled ‘Notes on the Preservation of H.M.S. “Victory” and her Restoration to the Trafalgar Condition’ that “She had originally a most beautiful bow and stern, much admired and beloved by all marine artists (who would that be 😏) Some of the beauty still remains, but much has disappeared as the results of changes made from time to time.  It is necessary that the original beauty of the bow and stern shall be restored, and this shall be one of the first works of restoration”.

 

Wyllie had a vision and not a Time Machine, and he pushed it through, this was ostensibly to revert Victory to her 1765 appearance, which Watts dutifully echoed.  Fortunately, the advisory technical committee could not ignore all the work of LG Carr Laughton and had to concede on matters such as the figurehead and stern, but much of Wyllie’s interpretation lingers in the present Victory despite evidence to the contrary.

 

In part, even nowadays, many ‘respected’ historians, who are often cited in threads on this site, are guilty of pedalling and repeating incorrect facts, some of which are quite fundamental to interpreting certainly what the Victory and Trincomalee looked like.  These ‘experts’ have demonstrably failed to check the primary sources for themselves.  Having spent many hours at the UK’s National Archives, British Library, National Museum of the Royal Navy, etc. looking into the source documents leads me to very different descriptions drawn directly from primary sources, these sources don’t need interpretation, they are unequivocally clear.

 

NAM Rodger in his ‘The Command of the Ocean: A Naval History of Britain, 1649 - 1815’, puts it as follows “The ultimate view of an indignant historian is profit .... It is not expected that he will consume his years in laborious researchers after truth.  His subsistence depends on the immediate sale of his labours.  Hence he complies in haste the errors and contradictions of former historians, and perpetuates error from want of time to investigate truth.”

 

My advice to those who want authenticity in their models, even in respect of the subjects thought to be well documented, is go check the source documents for yourselves if you can, don’t rely on the ship as evidence if it still survives, or artists interpretations who cannot have seen the subject for themselves firsthand at the time at which it is said to have been portrayed.

 

Gary

 

Edited July 19, 2023 by Morgan

[mtaylor]

15 hours ago, Jaager said:

I have the idea that an elliptical stern was considered as a significant improvement for frigates and corvettes starting early in the 19th century. 

I have been thinking that a circular stern happened around 1860 or later - and my focus ends at 1860. 

 

Methinks a bit earlier than 1860.  Or perhaps it was a US thing earlier?   The Constellation of 1854 had the elliptical stern.  So.. maybe a gray area.......

[Jaager]

5 minutes ago, mtaylor said:

Methinks a bit earlier than 1860. 

It is the circular stern that I am placing at the 1860 +/-  and dismissing as being outside my focus era.

I also kinda put circular in the merchant ship bucket.

From the beginning, I have found the thought of iron and steel hulls,  iron masts and yards , chain and steel cable rigging to be too intimidating to model.

[fake johnbull]

Jaager, Gary and Mike,

Thank you for your useful discussion while I was sleeping and going to work. I re-recognized the risk of referring to surviving preserved ship.

 

Gary,

Thank you for detailed explanation of processes of restoring Victory to Trafalgar appearance.

I’ve recognized Wyllie only as painter of Victory under restoration and Laughton only as author of “Old Ships Figureheads and Sterns”.

It is great pressure for me to learn theses facts I didn’t know.

 

Thanks again all members on discussion.

 

Kindest regards,

Mitsuaki