1:98 Wooden Stanchions for HMS Victory

[tmj]

Does anyone know of someone who sells these things? I don't want 3D printed plastic; I want real wood. I'm trying to avoid having to make these tiny things myself, unless I have no other choice. 

[Keith Black]

 https://www.hobbylinc.com/htm/msw/msw353.htm?source=froogle&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIuJuS77-ygQMV9fDjBx1TIwYcEAQYAyABEgKikvD_BwE

[tmj]

Thanks Keith! Those stanchions look great, however there are two problems. They are a bit too short, and they are also not to scale as per proper geometry. They just don't look proper for the HMS Victory gun decks. I'm probably going to have to make my own, due to what seems to be available for sale, but who knows. Somebody might know of an obscure source where these things can be bought. That's what I am hoping for.       

[tmj]

I'm looking for something like 'this'.

 

[allanyed]

There are way to make these yourself that will yield nice results.  If you do not have an electric drill or lathe, you can make them with separate pieces, square stock and dowel.  Drill holes in the square ends to the diameter of the cylindrical piece and assemble.  You can also glue flats at the ends onto dowels of the proper diameter then sanding and filling with saw dust will yield nice results as well.  Finding these already made to the dimensions you want is unlikely.  Perhaps some member here with a lathe will make them for you if you provide a detailed dimensioned drawing.  

Allan

 

 

[tmj]

I do have a mini lathe and have thought about the exact same process that you described. I also came up with another idea that requires the use of a dowel that is much larger than the required stanchion diameter at its widest diameter when completed. Turn the round portions and details on the lathe and 'then' put the round piece in a 'V'-Block, lined with sandpaper, and square off the ends... somewhat like the concept below. 

 

[Keith Black]

 TMJ, I didn't realize you needed post. You'll have to make those yourself. Because you have a lathe it shouldn't be a problem. 

[tmj]

12 minutes ago, Keith Black said:

 TMJ, I didn't realize you needed post. You'll have to make those yourself. Because you have a lathe it shouldn't be a problem. 

Not a problem, Keith. I typically 'think' better than I speak or type. I'm often unclear in accurately describing exactly what's going on in my mind. I should think a bit more before starting to haphazardly bang away on my keyboard!    

As for having a lathe? It's a nice pet to have, albeit. These are small parts and I'm not so sure that I'll be able to pull this off as easy as I Invision it, nor be able to accurately 'repeat' the same, exact process 24 times! 😶Something tells me that we will 'all' find out, very soon, just how well I can make a handful of custom stanchions DIY. "Fingers are crossed!"  

 

[allanyed]

Hello TJ

According to contemporary information in David Steel's 1805 Elements and Practice of Naval Architecture, the pillars in the hold were not round at that period of time.

Pillars under the orlop beams and gun deck -

13" square along the middle 3/4 of the overall length

At the lower 1/8 of the length they are 16" fore and aft, and 14" athwartships

At the upper 1/8 of the length they are 14" fore and aft and 13" athwartships.

 

Under the middle gun deck beams, one per beam, 8 inches square at the top and 9 inches square at the bottom.

 

Under the upper deck 6 inches square at the top and 7 inches square at the bottom except for 2 1/4" square iron pillars at the capstans and galley.  

 

As normal, anything found on Victory today should be checked against contemporary information for the time period the model represents.  Many of the details today are different than what she actually looked like at various times of her existence.  In the end, your choice.  Personally I think the rounded pillars have more character but they may not be realistic if accuracy is a criterion. 

.  

Allan

 

Edited September 18, 2023 by allanyed

[tmj]

10 hours ago, allanyed said:

According to contemporary information in David Steel's 1805 Elements and Practice of Naval Architecture

Thanks Allan! I was about to make another major, historical error via the geometry of the Orlop and gun deck(s) pillars/stanchions. If I am understanding the content of your post correctly, I will 'NOT' need a lathe for 'any' of my stanchions and or pillars if I am to pursue an 1805, Trafalgar configuration! If that is correct, that's also 'great', however. I'm not out of the woods yet! I now need to know just where those pillars/stanchions were actually placed, athwartships, with the keel being used as a centerline reference point. I do not trust any of my reference material for the 1805 era. You wouldn't happen to have 'that' data too, would you? 

  Regards,

    Tom...    

[GrandpaPhil]

They aren’t hard to carve.  
 

I made the full set for my Victory out of a 1/8” square basswood strip.

 

I used a scalpel to shape them.

Edited September 18, 2023 by GrandpaPhil

[allanyed]

I have only seen them  in deck drawings but very few show these.  Sorry I do not remember where, but from what  I recall they were all single stanchions on the center line except where there might be two in the area of a hatch.  In that case they were in line with the coamings and often near the corner of the coamings and head ledges.    I checked a half dozen contemporary contracts and they all give dimensions of the pilar ends but not location.  For a first rate there may have been two under each beam rather than one on the center line.   I am curious to see some contemporary information that some member might be able to share.

 

NOTE:  While the center section was often/usually square as mentioned above, keep in mind that this section usually had a heavy chamfer on all four corners.

Allan

Edited September 19, 2023 by allanyed

[GrandpaPhil]

They have good drawings of them, including location, in John McKay’s 100 Gun Ship Victory.

[allanyed]

9 hours ago, GrandpaPhil said:

They have good drawings of them, including location, in John McKay’s 100 Gun Ship Victory.

Thanks Phil,  As mentioned in post #12, I asked about information based on contemporary sources.  Does the book you mention provide a contemporary source for the drawing showing the pillar locations?   

Thanks again.

Allan

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by allanyed

[GrandpaPhil]

I’ll take a look this evening!

[tmj]

On 9/18/2023 at 6:25 AM, allanyed said:

According to contemporary information in David Steel's 1805 Elements and Practice of Naval Architecture

Allan,

I now have a link to David Steel's 1805 Elements and Practice of Naval Architecture. Could you please tell me what page number you found this data on? 

Thanks,

   Tom...

[GrandpaPhil]

McKay said he based his data on the best current thinking back in 1987.

[GrandpaPhil]

I’ve been really happy with the McKay book.  It has been my primary reference for my Victory model.

[allanyed]

12 minutes ago, GrandpaPhil said:

McKay said he based his data on the best current thinking back in 1987.

Thanks.   I realize contemporary information may not even exist for this kind of information but trust that the work in your book was well studied and could be right on the money, 

Allan

[Gregory]

On 9/18/2023 at 7:25 AM, allanyed said:

According to contemporary information in David Steel's 1805 Elements and Practice of Naval Architecture, the pillars in the hold were not round at that period of time.

Pillars under the orlop beams and gun deck -

13" square along the middle 3/4 of the overall length

At the lower 1/8 of the length they are 16" fore and aft, and 14" athwartships

At the upper 1/8 of the length they are 14" fore and aft and 13" athwartships.

Allan,

Do you know for a fact that Steel, in giving the square dimensions, that they were not rounded in any segment?

 

Making them 'square' in the middle would have been a lot more work than rounding them off with the given dimensions.

 

Just a thought.

[tmj]

13 minutes ago, GrandpaPhil said:

McKay said he based his data on the best current thinking back in 1987.

Hello Grandpa!

I have that book, and it is a very 'fine' book, however. Its data, as accurate as it is, is also based upon cumulative refits, reworks, modifications, etc. that have taken place over a very long period of time. The ship that McKay based his data upon is not the same ship as it truly was back in 1805. His book is based upon the latest version(s) of that ship, after re-fits, during our more modern times. 

'McKay'...  I really like that name... only not so much 'John' McKay as that of 'Donald' McKay! Every time I think of Donald McKay, I start having visions of a 'Flying Cloud'! 🙂        

[tmj]

16 minutes ago, Gregory said:

Making them 'square' in the middle would have been a lot more work than rounding them off with the given dimensions.

Making them round, or somewhat pyramid shaped, as the description reads, would 'BOTH' require a lot of unnecessary work! I'm thinking that the description is a bit loose in language, for the time period, and also leaving a lot of room for modern day interpretation.    

[allanyed]

15 minutes ago, Gregory said:

Do you know for a fact that Steel, in giving the square dimensions, that they were not rounded in any segment?

Hi Gregory,

I only have what Steel wrote in the scantlings pages.  It is written that the pillars were square, but I imagine the four corners in the middle 3/4's square section were chamfered.  I would be very interested to see other contemporary information with additional descriptions.  I  would not be surprised if there were other shapes and dimensions coming out of the various yards.  Seems there is very little fixed in stone in those days.

Allan

[Gregory]

1 hour ago, allanyed said:

It is written that the pillars were square, but I imagine the four corners in the middle 3/4's square section were chamfered. 

Chamfering the corners would not reduce the square diameter from  16" to 13".  Besides, you would now have an octagon and not a square.  Are octagonal pillars described anywhere for these ships?

Are "square" pillars found in any contemporary drawings?

This is an illustration from " Navy Board Ship models".

Of course it doesn't prove anything about Victory during the time in question, however in the absence of contemporary drawings to the contrary,

I think McKay's opinion is as good as any.

 

P.S.

Here is an illustration from Lavery of " Early 19th Century First Rate " ..

I guess those pillars could be square, but they don't give that impression.

 

Edited September 20, 2023 by Gregory

[allanyed]

Gregory, You may right that McKay is right and Steel got it wrong.  I was just going by Folio XVI  of Elements and Practice of Naval Architecture as Steel was a couple years after the period in question and he was basing information on actual practice at that time.  I am sure there were other designs, I was only pointing out what Steel wrote as it was as close to the 1803 date in question as I could find.  For example in the The Shipbuilder's Repository of 1788 on page 290 it gives dimensions of the square ends only, it does not make mention of a shape for the area between the ends.   Maybe in that book it assumed it could be  square with some chamfering or octagonal or round.    If you go back to the Establishments of 1719, 1745, and 1750 , they are specific that the pillars are all square from top to bottom.  

 

Maybe the sketch below will help regarding Steel's specific comments that the middle section is to be square.  The lengths are of course going to vary by deck and location but the cross section dimensions are those given by Steel for a first rate. I added the chamfer as well.

Allan

 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2023 by allanyed

[tmj]

I'm still struggling with the true 'geometry' of these posts/pillars/stanchions... whatever the true nomenclature actually is. My issues are based upon structural integrity, cost effectiveness, and time constraints. Without getting into details and diving down a lot of deep 'rabbit-holes'... I'm beginning to wonder if 'anyone' will ever know the truth! 

 

#1)... I understand that way back when, folks took a lot more pride in their work and skills than folks seem to do today. They had very crude tools, very strong backs and finely honed skills worth being proud of! 

#2)... Materials, labor and time. Ornate posts/pillars/stanchions would produce excess amounts of waste requiring a great deal of time/labor/money in creating all of that unusable waste for the sake of aesthetics! 

#3)... Engineering. There would be no advantage in having the ends of these posts/pillars/stanchions larger than the mid-sections of the so-called posts/pillars/stanchions except to provide better 'footing' upon the surfaces upon which those posts/pillars/stanchions would be mounted, for 'whatever' reason. Those large square ends would serve no other purpose. If the posts/pillars/stanchions ever failed, they would fail within the smaller profile of their mid sections. I can also see the 'thicker' tops and bottoms cracking, due to fatigue from the ship pitching, rolling and twisting as ships must be able to do. Those enlarged, square tops and bottoms actually create certain shear points that would eventually crack and fail. No real structural integrity. Pure aesthetics and footing.   

 

 All that being said... were ornately carved posts truly used back in those days, or were such artistic designs simply the initial products presented by desiring architects, who's ornate ideas were eventually turned down, for many reasons, and replaced with things more practical with the original drawings still remaining simply out of flare and pride from the designer? Maybe creative licensing by authors wanting to make their works more appealing to potential buyers has had an influence on the material we now examine? Let's not forget museums... unless you think that I'd be historically accurate in building HMS Victory, as per the current vessel, as she sits in Portsmouth's Historic Dockyard. This sort of research into factual historic details is becoming very curious, as well as confusing!

 

There's obviously a bit of "Tongue & Cheek" going on with the content of this post. I hope that this post does not open up a huge can of worms. That is not my intent. I'm just beginning to scratch my head and wonder if the truth is really out there at all! Halloween is approaching. Maybe someone knows of a spiritual medium who can channel the spirit of a sailor who was onboard Victory during Trafalgar? Some of that 'automatic writing' might give us all some good drawings of period correct posts/pillars/stanchions, etc.!🫠 

 

In case anyone missed it. This post is about posts/pillars and stanchions! 🙃 

       

Edited September 20, 2023 by tmj

[Gregory]

Just to keep the discussion going.

 

Here is a draught of "  'Dorsetshire' (1757) Scale: 1:48. Plan showing the capstans, lanterns, turned columns,

 

 

 

A snip from that drawing.   Did someone not follow the 1750 establishments? 😁

Medea 1778

 

One More:

Prudent 1768  .  The shading would seem to indicate the centers are turned.

P.S.

I realize, without further evidence, we cannot assume the ship was built as drawn.

Edited September 20, 2023 by Gregory

[tmj]

20 minutes ago, Gregory said:

I realize, without further evidence, we cannot assume the ship was built as drawn.

We also cannot assume that it wasn't! I totally agree with you as per the shading! All in all, This goes back to #1) on my list of curious things to consider! 

Edited September 20, 2023 by tmj

[allanyed]

Hi Gregory, 

Turned pillars may very well have been a common sight in 1757 regardless of the Admiralty Establishments.  But, this is a topic circa1805 so turned pillars may not be apropos.   No matter, there always seem to be exceptions regardless of whatever the norm might have been at any given time and regardless of what the Admiralty called for.

35 minutes ago, Gregory said:

I realize, without further evidence, we cannot assume the ship was built as drawn.

Ain't that the truth!   😀

Allan

[Gregory]

12 minutes ago, allanyed said:

But, this is a topic circa1805 so turned pillars may not be apropos

Is there good reason to believe Victory's pillars would have been replaced between 1765 and 1805?

 

( I am still looking for some apropos examples )

Edited September 21, 2023 by Gregory