Thinking things through: Victorys bobstays

[dafi]

Hello again,

 

looking for the set of Victorys bobstays. Especially then foremost one. The two inner bobstays are lead into holes in the knee of the head and then spliced.

For many years the Vic in P had the foremost bobstay - officially allowed from 14th May 1800 on - with long legs, equal in length. A round seizing holds the legs together where they touch the foreside of the knee of the head. They then diverge. The ends have a thimble and hook spliced in by which they were attached to exye bolts inth bows just below the lower deck. (Longridge) This con be seen on the reverse sleeve of Longridge´s book "Anatomy of Nelson´s ships"

 

Here the picture that Longridge uses and the same on the Vic in P.

Since the last restauration, the long legs were skipped for a third hokle for the stay just underneath the other two ones.

Also this is shown in ZAZ0513 with is indicated to show Victory in 1803 but where I strongly believe this was HMS Union of 96 guns. Netherthekless, this model is giving good hints for the Victory of 1803.

 

Which is the more plausible version for 1803?

 

All the best, Daniel

 

Edited September 2, 2023 by dafi

[Keith Black]

For easier viewing

 

[dafi]

Thank you Keith. Unfortunately I found no sources about the provenience of this picture. Did I oversee it in the book?

 

XXXDAn

[Morgan]

Daniel,

 

The only one with any provenance is the 1805 model. The present day ship is a chimera of designs and times (or designs out of time!), and the Longridge example - whatever it is, is appears to be no better.

 

Like you I think the 1805 Model is Boyne / Union, a 98-Gun half sister to Victory, but that is irrelevant to your query, the rigging points are applicable whether a frigate or first rate, si I would follow what the model offers.

 

Gary

[allanyed]

A picture of the stern of the model in post # 1

 

13 hours ago, Morgan said:

but that is irrelevant to your query, the rigging points are applicable

I agree, but the plans bring up a question for me regarding number of guns.  There are 15 gun ports on the lower gun deck, 15 on the middle gun deck, 15 on the upper deck, 8 on the QD and 3 on the forecastle.  This yields a count of 112 guns, but, are carronades on the QD and FC counted in the number of guns?   The plans for the Boyne and Union of 1811 show 15, 15, 15, 7, and 2 gun ports for a total 0f 108 gun ports.   

 

Allan

Edited September 2, 2023 by allanyed

[Morgan]

If only it were so straight forward!

 

On the lower and middle deck the bridle ports are not routinely armed, and on the middle deck there is the issue of whether an entry port is fitted!  Carronades were not counted as guns in the RN until after the Napoleonic Wars, but ports are provided for them.  Carronades were normally additional to the long gun count, but could also replace them, but this reduction or substitution in long guns would not affect the rating!  Confused? That’s why after Napoleon was ‘put to bed’ the system was simplified and all ordnance counted towards a ships rating.

The hull forms meant that First and Second Rates were essentially interchangeable and many 98-gun Second Rates would later be re-rated as First Rates.  Whilst notionally the scantlings separated a First and Second Rate as the classes grew the boundaries blurred between the 98 and 100 gunner with ships moving up and down the ratings from time to time.

 

During the Napoleonic Wars Second Rates normally had only 14 32-Pounders on the Lower Gundeck, as opposed to the 15 (and later 16 of larger) First Rates, discounting the bridle port the model and plans referred to above agree on this.  On the Middle Gundeck a Second Rate carried 18 Pounders as opposed to the 24 Pounders of a First Rate.  Victory was reduced to a Second Rate in 1808 and had 18’s in lieu of 24’s, and lost a 32 Pounder.  The balance of long guns were made up of 12 Pounders, usually 30 long 12’s on the Upper Deck, and 2 long 12’s on the Forecastle (later the Forecastle 12’s became medium length 12’s), and the balance on the Quarterdeck which had enough ports to accommodate the balancing number, these were usually short 12’s.

 

So the difference between a First and Second Rate came down to the ordnance establishments - number and weight, and not the hull form.

 

Gary

 

Edited September 2, 2023 by Morgan

[dafi]

More to this Topic:

Even if i strongly beliebe that ZAZ 0513 is Union class and not Victory, i think the details can be strongly considered. Still the doubling of the hawse area looks strange. But there is still ZAZ0517 that gives a good idea about a possible bow structure.

Edited September 2, 2023 by dafi

[Morgan]

My view is the same, it started as a model for the new class of 98-Gun Second Rate ships ordered by St. Vincent, to the lines of the Victory.  The profiles for the Union and Boyne have this information written upon them.  This explains the different gunport disposition.

 

At some point the model of the Boyne / Union was changed to commemorate the Victory and Trafalgar.  New models for altered ships are rare, although not unknown, although this is usually to demonstrate some novel feature, Victory had none of these in her 1801/03 refit, so why a new model for a run of the mill refit? A lot of the apparent affection for Victory was to come later, and contrary to myth Nelson did not request her nor did he guide her refit, she was destined for the Channel Fleet under Cornwallis unless Cornwallis were to allow Nelson to keep her.  In spring 1803 Nelson had to leave Victory and proceed to the Mediterranean without her pending Cornwallis’s approval.

 

Two of the main features different between the model and Victory are the rearmost lower gunport missing on the model and the stern, which Allan has posted above.  Both Goodwin and Lavery have said that the closing-in of the gunport and stern were future developments planned for Victory which had to be cut short to rush her out for service.  This nice explanation tidies things up, but is wrong.  Victory was not being rushed into service, in 1802 and early 1803 the Chatham Officers were asking if she was to be readied for sea or placed into Ordinary, there was no urgency to get her commissioned.  The team refitting her were saying we are nearly done here, what would you like for us to do with her!  I have copies of letters from TNA that were exchanged.

 

And why, if the ship was being rushed for service, would you plan for the stern shown above, but because of time constraints you instead short-cut it and produce the stern we all know, which was in place at Trafalgar (we have strictly contemporary sketches from Turner and Livesay to support this).  It makes no sense, especially as we know the ship wasn’t being rushed.  
 

Another anomaly, the figurehead, which is that of the Victory, it is in a starkly contrasting colour, it looks like a latter addition, as do some of the clunky stern decorations.

 

LG Carr Laughton, who researched the Victory for her 1920 restoration actually dates the model to 1803, and not 1805 as stated by the NMM.  But, in either case, how did the model get its Nelsonic paint scheme? When re-launched in 1803 she didn’t have the Nelson chequer, the painter Constable tells us this, she had fewer broader stripes.  This, in my view adds to the thought of the model being altered to commemorate the Victory, but it started out as a model for the new Second Rate class.  As for the name on the counter, Victory didn’t have this at Trafalgar, again this is evident from the Turner and Livesay sketches, the name on the counter is to tell the observer which ship the model is and is not an actual recording of ship’s appearance.

And the NMM just paid north of £500k for this model!

 

Gary