Sovereign of the Seas by 72Nova - Airfix - PLASTIC

[Tumblehome]

Like others watching this thread, I'm amazed to see each instalment.

 

Just got my own Airfix Vasa kit, after reviewing Michael's previous build, much to the same scale.

Opening the box, I'm already scratching my head!

 

It illustrates the potential these kits have for those who dare.

[72Nova]

Thank you for the compliments gentlemen, Ian the 100wt silk thread works great for the crow feet and upper stays along with the 50-60wt polyester thread for some of the other lighter lines. 

Tumblehome I hope my Vasa build log will be of some use to you. 

Wish you all the best on your build and do hope to see your progress?

 

Michael D.

 

Edited November 24 by 72Nova

[72Nova]

Work of the fore course continues with the rigging of the buntline blocks and the furling of the sail, I still to manipulate it some and tone down the white before finishing up the gaskets but looking good so far. My plan for the martnets is to let them hang down below the yard instead of drawing them up tight above the yard like I did on the Vasa, this will be quite the challenge.

 

Michael D.

 

 

 

[72Nova]

The furled sail is for the most part completed along with mocking up the rigging of the single jeer, next I'll be working on the sprit sail yard while I figure out the martnet situation. Thanks for looking.

 

Michael D.

 

 

[fmodajr]

Michael,

As always, beautiful workmanship.

So much fun to follow your work.

 

Frank

[Kenchington]

You have a very nice representation of the sails!

 

There's more than one way to furl a squaresail and I'm not sure how it was done on English warships in the mid-17th Century -- though the (unreliable) Payne engraving shows the royals drawn together into a vertical, tube-like bundle ahead of the mast, which is a known technique of later decades. That source also shows the furled main course much as you have the fore course on your model, with sheets and tacks (hence the hidden clews) near the quarters of the yard. Maybe that wa show it was done but, through the 18th and well into the 19th, the clew garnets and clewlines pulled the clews up to the slings of the yard. When the sail was furled, the two clews (with their multiple blocks and general bulk) were hung outside and forward of the furled bunt of the sail. I don't know whether you should (or could) represent that but worth thinking about before you add the other sails?

 

I can't suggest how you handle the martnets. Their elegant draping shown in the Peter Pett portrait does look lovely but would be hard to reproduce in a model and does not look very practical at sea.

 

Trevor

[72Nova]

Thanks Trevor,

I will attach the clue of the sail later on and still undecided on the martnets, I might just rig them as I did on my Vasa with 2 per side instead of 4 and I think will look fine as in this picture.

 

Michael D.

 

 

[Kenchington]

Nicely shown! But you have interpreted the martnets as brails, gathering the sail from both sides. I have supposed (perhaps wrongly) that they were like buntlines, pulling the edge of the sail to the yard across the forward face of the bunt. It would make a big difference when furling, as there would be no easy way to fist the canvas into a "skin" when it was gathered up tightly by a brail.

 

But maybe the idea of forming a weather-tight "skin", with the rest of the sail inside, was a later development.

 

Trevor

[72Nova]

Thank you, Frank, for the wonderful compliment. I've been experimenting with how I'll be displaying the martnets and this is early in the mockup stage, I think using just two will suffice in their presentation at this scale.

I'm still undecided on where to run the falls, either under the top attached to the stay or taken up to the topmast top with pendants. As always, I appreciate the comments and recommendations.

 

Michael D.

 

 

 

 

[72Nova]

The spritsail is bent to the yard and furled and the yard attached to the bowsprit, still much fine tuning and rigging left to do but at least it's one less loose piece floating around. 

 

Michael D.

 

 

 

 

[Mark P]

On 8/18/2025 at 2:52 AM, Kenchington said:

Most (maybe all) modern reconstructions, whether in 2D or as 3-dimensional models, interpret those lines much as Payne showed them, though each passes over the top of the bowsprit, while the ratlines provide a sort of ladder for men to climb from the beakhead to the bowsprit. Yet that makes no sense. The bowsprit was held down by the gammonings (and the rigging of the spritsail yard) and did not need extra shrouds. Men going out to the spritsail or spritsail topsail yards will have climbed along the bowsprit (as Payne showed one man doing), not walked out along the narrow, wet and dangerous beakhead before climbing a "ladder".

 

I suggest that the engraving misrepresents what was on the ship and that what the Morgan drawing portrayed was the lower ends of six stays that held the forestay down and back against the forward pull of the sprit topmast backstays. I further suggest that, when someone (I'm inclined to blame Heywood, designer of Soveregn's decorations) combined the details of the drawing with a different source that showed the rig, in preparation for Payne to engrave his image, he didn't know what to do with those six lines and so ended them at the bowsprit. Seeing no obvious purpose for them there, they were given ratlines. The outcome was just one of the multiple technical errors in the engraving.

 

There's no basis for any definite conclusions but Payne's version, as so often realized in model form, just doesn't seem sensible. I think that alternative arrangements merit some thought and, if not stays to take the pull of the sprit topmast backstays, some other hypothesis should be considered!

Good Afternoon Trevor;

 

I am sorry to say that I cannot support your hypothesis re the ropes running over the Sovereign's bowsprit. They are not connected to the forestay in any manner. A rigging inventory for the Sovereign exists from circa 1643, which, under the bowsprit section, describes the item you are referring to as the 'Ladders in the head'. They are made of 4" rope, a total of 15 fathoms; or 18ft per up and over length; which seems a perfect fit to the engraving. Payne also clearly shows ratlines across these ropes. To access the bowsprit via this seems totally logical, as although the beakhead may indeed have been wet, it was a lot firmer footing than the top of the bowsprit would have ever afforded; the beakhead was used for handling the rigging of the headsails, some of which belayed to a pin rack in the head; as well as being the location of the seats of ease, and would have been very familiar territory to the crew. 

 

One puzzling entry here is the 'Horse under the Bowsprit', which is 10 fathoms of 6" rope. This is not the same as the 'Horse to go up the Bowsprit', which is listed separately, and is clearly shown in Payne's engraving. If anyone knows what this is, I would be pleased to hear about it. 

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

Edited 22 hours ago by Mark P

[Kenchington]

Thanks for that, Mark. Certainly food for thought.

 

Can you provide a link to any version of the 1643 inventory? I have tracked down much of the (very limited) information on Sovereign, in her 1638 form, but I seem to have missed that one.

 

I agree that the seats of ease were likely in the head, where they were on later ships (though I know of no direct evidence that they were there on Sovereign), but that means close to the stem -- quite different from the outer end of a feature that was recommended to be shortened during the 1651--52 refit specifically to make it "fitted for the sea”.  (I take that to mean that the limited experience of her 1638 cruise had shown a troublsome tendency to dip the figure of King Edgar! And I am mindful that the principal danger for men working on any bowsprit was (and still is) being washed off when their ship plunged into a sea. Climbing out along a steeply-steeping bowsprit reduced that risk.)

 

When it comes to where men worked the headgear and where that was belayed, I don't think that we should forget the massive uncertainties. Maybe there was a pinrail in the beakhead but there is little direct evidence of it, so far as I am aware. The Payne engraving does show lines led down into the head and none going the the timber heads along the forward rail of the fo'c's'le but the Payne is a highly unreliable source and the absence of anything run to the fo'c's'le looks suspicious to me.

 

As to horses: Boteler gave the term to four different things, none of them the footropes which bore that name in later centuries, let alone the manrope that Payne shows above Sovereign's bowsprit.  Boteler's first definition concerned a rope bearing a "dead-man's-eye" (meaning a bullseye fairlead?) through which the spritsail sheet was rove, serving to keep the sheet clear of the anchors. Could that be the "Horse under the Bowsprit"?

 

Trevor

Edited 20 hours ago by Kenchington

[Mark P]

On 8/19/2025 at 1:31 PM, Kenchington said:

You have just dragged down my previous respect for Frank Fox's judgement by a whole big step!

 

1: There is not and never has been any reason to link the Morgan drawing with either van de Velde -- as Laird Clowes pointed out in the pages of Mariner's Mirror way back in 1931. Yet that fallacious connection goes on getting repeated again and again. If it were possible to date the paper on which it is drawn to post-1660, that date might support a van de Velde origin. The unsupported assumption that either father or son drew the Morgan can never provide us with a date for it. So scratch that suggestion.

 

2: The little bridge at Gillingham did not extend from ship to shore but from the shore to a boat landing, so that visitors could get into a boat without walking through riverside mud. (Read the original text. Its wording is very clear.) The boat would then take them out to the ship which was, of course, laid up at a mooring, not alongside a wharf.  Nobody would have laid the ship up against anything solid that she could have beaten herself against in a gale. So scratch that one too.

 

3: A glance at the two images confirms that the shape of the topsides of Sovereign shown in the Morgan is that of the ship shown by Payne, and quite different to that of the 1660 Royal Sovereign. If the Morgan was actually prepared after 1660, the decorations were drawn over a draught of the ship launched in 1637, not of the one afloat when the van de Veldes might have seen her. So scratch that also.

 

Sweep all of those myths aside and we can ask ourselves how come two so similar images of the same ship came to be. Did some artist take a copy of the Payne, fix its obvious mistakes (the third anchor, the absence of an entry port etc.), delete most of the human figures but keep three of them, drop the rig, then produce the lovely, lively Morgan drawing? Or did someone take the Morgan, combine it with information on the rig, delete the unique boarding ramp, add a whole lot more people plus some dramatic extras (third anchor about to be catted, the whale off the larboard bow etc.) and then rush to publication of an engraving (matched to the timing of the 2nd edition of Heywood's book, both being driven by the rising political crisis), without pausing to fix the obvious technical errors? I know which seems more plausible to me.

 

 

As to the second thread that you present: The 1660 ship was entirely new (aside, perhaps, from some timber re-used from the pile of scrap remaining from the broken-up Sovereign). It wasn't just a matter of sinking the hull deeper into the water while raising the sides and decks. (That would have played havoc with her stability, as the height of greatest breadth became deeply immersed.) On another thread, @Waldemar has produced a contemporary drawing of the midship bend of the Royal Sovereign that burned in the 1690s and we know (from the writings of the master shipwright who built that one) that she had the same lines as the 1660 ship. They both had much fuller sections than Sovereign of the Seas, hence more buoyancy -- which could have been inferred from their above-water appearance anyway, though nice to have confirmation.

 

 

Trevor

Well, gentlemen; my apologies: I am about to put a large cat amongst the pigeons, by disagreeing with much of the assertions made in several previous posts, too extensive to quote here individually.

 

I do, however, completely agree with Trevor's interpretation of the landing stage; I read this passage and came to exactly the same conclusion. Any attempt to build a bridge from the shore to the Sovereign, which was moored in the deepest part of the river, well away from the banks, would have been totally impracticable, and I must admit cannot be seen as one of Frank's finer moments. Regarding the authorship of the 'Morgan' drawing of the Sovereign, this is a new argument to me, and I must look into what Laird-Clowes wrote about it. 

 

Before I continue, I will state that everything I am about to write here is completely based upon clear contemporary documents, which I have seen and photographed, and is not the interpretation of limited documents carried out by some earlier authors. Although one or two of these documents are referred to in articles & books from the 20th century, I do not believe that any of them are available on the internet, and I also believe that few, if any of them are catalogued anywhere, or online, as they are bound up within larger volumes. They are available to a keen researcher, and with the exception of some of the documents relating to her 1680-85 repair, are not easy to find, and are not in obvious places. The combined meaning of all these documents is clear enough to have led me to the conclusions set out below. 

 

Misconception number one: although a large amount of work was authorised to be carried out on her in late 1651, this was in fact not done; in  February 1652, Peter Pett, the man in charge of Chatham Yard, wrote to his superiors asking permission to dock the Sovereign to carry out the works intended. However, only a few weeks later, in early March, she was ordered to be fitted for sea with all haste. This was in response to the rising fears of war with the Dutch, which did indeed break out shortly thereafter. Any ship which was capable was then outfitted with all speed, including the Sovereign. She was not docked at this time. This is not a personal opinion, but a proven fact. Peter Pett, seeking permission to dock the Sovereign in 1659, due to a serious leak which was proving impossible to to fix whilst she was afloat, stated unequivocally that she had not been docked at all since she was launched 21 years previously. Minor alterations may well have been carried out to her topsides in 1651-2, but there is no record of this, so it remains only a hypothesis. As Pett, the man on the spot, thought it necessary to dock her to carry out the work, and she was not docked, it is difficult to justify any modern statement that the work was indeed done. 

 

Misconception number two: the Sovereign was rebuilt twice. This is a total fallacy: she was never rebuilt before she burned. She was repaired twice, in dry dock. The first time in 1659-60, and the second in 1680-85. In both cases the list of works to be carried out survives, along with the letters authorising this work and the corresponding expenditure. Neither list contains sufficient work to justify in any way being described as a rebuild, and contemporary records refer to 'repairs' only. There are references to the fact that she was found to be exceptionally sound in many of her timbers. On the occasion of the first repair the Navy Board gave orders before it commenced, that she was 'Not to be altered in her build'. See also the Navy Board letter mentioned in the next paragraph.  

 

Misconception number three: that her gundecks and ports were altered due to an increase in draught. This again is a totally mistaken interpretation of very limited evidence to even hint at this, and is based, I believe, solely upon figures given for her draught. Such a measurement is rather subjective, and covers a range of figures. It is also based upon different methods of measurement, which has given rise to the oft-repeated assertion that her keel was lengthened in the second repair, despite there being absolutely zero evidence anywhere else to support this. A letter from the Navy Board to the Admiralty dated 1687 states the following facts: firstly, 'The Sovereign was never altered in her principal dimensions, since her first building, although she has been twice repaired, the last of which was almost new, yet kept to the same shape with her old timbers'. Secondly, 'The number of guns of the Sovereign is the same now that she carried in her first building. The Ports being the same'. As there is no mention in the list of works to be carried out that the decks were to be raised, or ports altered, this second sentence is best interpreted in its most obvious meaning: ie that the ports are unaltered. 

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

Edited 20 hours ago by Mark P

[Mark P]

31 minutes ago, Kenchington said:

Thanks for that, Mark. Certainly food for thought.

 

Can you provide a link to any version of the 1643 inventory? I have tracked down much of the (very limited) information on Sovereign, in her 1638 form, but I seem to have missed that one.

 

Good Afternoon Trevor;

 

'Dead-men-eyes' is not a reference to fairleads, although Boteler does seem to be using it in that context, I agree. This phrase is the original wording of what became later called 'dead-eyes'. The frequent occurrence of the earlier version of the phrase in rigging lists with shrouds, or in lists quite clearly describing them being set up with lanyards for the shrouds makes this beyond doubt. Mainwaring's dictionary refers to a rope designed to perform the same function as Boteler mentions, but I forget what it was called. It was not a horse, though. Perhaps it was 'Timenoguy' (although I think this was a later term) or something similar. 

 

I am afraid that there is no link to the rigging inventory document. Something similar to it exists in the Science Museum collection, but neither is available online. I have been carrying out extensive research into the Royal Navy of the later 16th and early 17th centuries for many years, and I am now engaged in putting some of  the results of this down into a book; one which which will deal with the Navy and many of its aspects at  this time; but before this another which will be about the Sovereign of the Seas, and probably the Prince also; about both of which vessels I have accumulated a large archive of contemporary documents, many of them never before referred to anywhere in print, and quite possibly unknown previously except to a very few. I have seen no published reference to most of them, nor heard anyone else mention any of them. Unfortunately, even so, they are nothing like as extensive as I would like, and still leave many questions unanswered. However, they do most certainly add a worthwhile amount to the knowledge previously available. The fires at the Navy Office which destroyed all the early records were an unmitigated disaster for all with an interest in this time. 

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

Edited 20 hours ago by Mark P

[72Nova]

This info is very interesting and contradicts most everything I've read in my limited research, thank you for sharing your extensive research, Mark. I'm in agreement with Trevor though on the lack of rigging leading to the forecastle timberheads, at the time I was too focused on the Payne engraving and others builds when reworking the beakhead area when I came across information that Paynes engraving was made prior to S.O.S even being rigged, by then it was too late and I think I made reference regretting this decision, at any rate I will run a few lines to the forecastle as Illustrated in an earlier post and move forward.  I appreciate you guys taking time to share your thoughts.

 

Small update, I've rigged the halliard which is lead to the range and working on the standing lifts void of any knots, sometimes these have knots according to Lee's, anyways thanks for looking.

 

Michael D.

 

[Kenchington]

2 hours ago, 72Nova said:

information that Paynes engraving was made prior to S.O.S even being rigged

That is frequently claimed but I doubt it even so. The engraving was not mentioned in the first (September 1637) edition of Heywood's "A True Description of His Majesties Royall Ship" but was promoted by the second (late 1638) edition. While perhaps less than conclusive evidence, I think that points to Payne's work dating between the launch of the ship and the end of the following year.

 

More to the point (like the Morgan drawing from which it was probably copied), the Payne shows the ship floating much deeper than her design draught (in contract to the Boston image, which appears to pre-date construction). There would be little reason to portray that design failure unless an artist had seen her float that deep -- which she would not have done until rigged, armed and stored for sea. As I have said elsewhere, I think the Morgan drawing was a sketch of the ship prepared to receive the King off Gravesend late in July 1638, in preparation for some monumental artwork that was never completed. If so, the Payne was prepared between then and the end of that year.

 

I would be deeply sceptical of anything shown in the engraving that is not supported by other sources, but I doubt that its faults arose from too-early preparation.

 

Trevor

[Kenchington]

Hi Mark,

 

It is good to hear that someone is finally working on a serious account of the ship, based on documentary sources. I look forward to seeing your book, once you have it ready, as the documents may be available to a keen student of the ship but not to one on the wrong side of the Atlantic! I will happily leave you to probe the details and present your conclusions.

 

I have retained some doubt that the work undertaken in 1651–52 was entirely as recommended by the shipwrights, though that was what they were instructed (on 7 November '51) to do. You have now said that she was not docked that winter, which would have precluded most underwater repairs, but she was not ready for sea until July or August '52, which gave ample time (8 or 9 months) for the above-water modifications. Unless you have other documentation showing that that was not done, I don't think that the lack of a docking shows that major changes were not made.

 

On the two rebuildings, we will have to agree to disagree until you have prepared and published your arguments. The principal dimensions (length on keel, breadth, depth in hold) were maintained, as multiple documents confirm, but the shape of the post-1660 hull was quite different to that of the ship launched in 1637 -- as is well shown by the artworks depicting each of them. The post-1685 ship retained the shape of her predecessor (aside perhaps from details of the stern) but, as you quoted above, had almost all new timber. Those were rebuildings, in the terminology of the time.

 

I am interested in the quote you give of her number of guns and her ports being as in 1638. Yet both cannot be true as the old ship had an all-round (not broadside) armament, with multiple chase guns fore and aft. I do not doubt that the post-1685 ship carried 102 or 104 guns (whichever you prefer for the 1638 armament), as 100 was the normal number for a First Rate by the end of the century. But it would have needed another 9 on each broadside. Could the meaning of the document be that the number of ports on each of the three continuous decks was the same in the 1638 and 1685 configurations, while there were more ports on forecastle and aftercastle? Certainly, the types of guns were quite different.

 

And, yes, I do know the derivation of "deadeyes", but that was clearly not what Boteler meant when describing "horses".

 

Finally, Manwaring did indeed refer to the same "horses" as Boteler -- and he used that same term for them (as well as giving the latter's alternative meanings for the word). He even called the (presumed) bullseye at the end a "dead-man-eye". That similarity is hardly a surprise as the two authors used much the same wording in many places, though who copied from whom might be argued.

 

Trevor

[Mark P]

Good Morning Trevor;

 

Thanks for your thoughts; I always appreciate discussion of the various points that are raised around this remarkable ship. All the documents upon which my conclusions are based will be either included in the appendices (most of them) or clearly referenced. 

 

As you say, we will have to agree to disagree, perhaps; but with regard to her 1659-60 rebuild, the twin facts, preserved in the contemporary records, are that the Navy Board specifically ordered that she was not to be altered in her build; and that the list of works ordered to be done quite clearly could not in any way alter the shape of her hull, together make it clear that, barring very specific evidence to the contrary, her hull was not altered in its shape. This statement is then backed up in a letter from the Navy Board in 1687 which states again that she was not altered, and the list of approved works again shows that she was not altered. The reason for the length of time which the second repair took is that the money kept running out; the men were unpaid for over 15 months at one point. There was a constant shortage of timber also, due to lack of funds or credit. Other work may have been authorised as work progressed, and I am currently searching for proof of this, but have so far found none.

 

Nonetheless, you are completely free to hold a contrary opinion, and I certainly don't expect others to agree with me, although once published I would expect the contrary opinions to at least diminish. 

 

The book was born out of a feeling of disgust with the last couple of books published about the Sovereign: McKay's, which while beautifully illustrated, as always, is so demonstrably wrong in so many ways that it is not fit to be taken seriously (and which I know seriously teed off Frank Fox by the inclusion of his name in a way which implied he had endorsed the work, when in fact all his recommendations had been ignored) The other is Sephton's book, which is poorly illustrated, not well written, wrong in many places, and fails to give references for almost every assertion which he makes. 

 

The book is a joint venture with a well-known author, who will be providing many of the illustrations. As you write, our intent is to base it as much as possible on contemporary sources. Obviously much will still be speculation, but it will be informed by a long-term study of the structure and appearance of other vessels before and after the Sovereign (the size of most of the main timbers of the Prince and many other vessels is recorded, for example) I very much doubt that any other individual has seen, photographed, and studied as much of the contemporary documents as I have since I commenced this (which was actually for a different era and vessel originally) I have documents which list her draught in three places at her launch, and laden; the dimensions of her masts, yards, sails (including the royals) tops, parrels, deadeyes, and rigging. Her armament is well-attested, and I have all the documents relating to this also, as well as others which demonstrate that her guns were indeed placed aboard her (which some have argued never took place) Some of the financial records of her building, which are detailed in some ways, but not others, also survive.

 

There will also be, some time next year, an article in the Mariner's Mirror concerning the decoration of Elizabethan ships; if all goes as planned. There is some delay at present due to a change of editor, but this will hopefully be sorted soon. This article (which has not yet been accepted) has some interest beyond its subject, as it lists the decoration of one of Elizabeth's 'first-rate' ships, rebuilt around 1601, which is described in sufficient detail to make it clear that she was decorated in a very similar manner to the Sovereign. Phineas Pett would have been very familiar with her appearance; draw your own conclusions!

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

[Mark P]

Good Morning Michael;

 

I must express my great appreciation of your work on your model. When I was a nipper, I had the exact same model; dreamt of it for a long time before it was actually given to me as a present. Unfortunately I cannot remember if I ever actually completed it; and even if I had, it would have been the bog-standard kit; not very well painted, and with the black plastic shrouds (like something out of Shelob's Lair) So I congratulate you on the standard and completeness of the changes which you are making, and wish you the best of success in your endeavours!

 

All the best,

 

Mark P