Copper Sheathing at the Keel and False Keel

[Fritzlindsay]

I am not sure if I am interpreting the contracts correctly where they describe the coppering of the keel and false keel. Of importance is that the wording is that the Ship is to be coppered before the False Keel is put under. To me it appears they were both coppered on some ships and but the false keel was not on other ships.  Would coppering the false keel prevent it from serving its purpose, that is, tear away from the keel if the ship grounds?  The sketch is how I envision this, but hopefully some member can confirm or correct any errors.  Thank you

Fritz

Acquillon (32)  

Diana (38)

Some contracts do not mention coppering the false keel, but others do, so I am not sure which. if either, was predominant as the contracts in question were both from the late 18th century.  The first is for Diana (38) 1794 and does not mention coppering the false keel.

 

This next contract was edited to include sheathing the false keel.
 

The sketches below are how I picture the two options but they may be totally wrong and I welcome any corrections.

[BANYAN]

Hi, I am researching a ship built in 1855, and by her contract, and the discussions/descriptions provided by the contemporary and latter 19th century authors, the false keel was put on last and was NOT sheathed, as it was 'sacrificial'.  What happened in earlier ships I am not familiar with.

 

Also, in a letter from the ship's build superintendent to the Governor of the Colony of Victoria, reporting the progress of the vessel's build, he states:

… About two thirds of the False Keel is on, the main Keel having been first coppered on the underside, and: … 

 

cheers

 

Pat

Edited February 1 by BANYAN

[Kenchington]

I don't know the answer but maybe some speculation would help ...

 

What purpose would there be in putting copper between the keel and false keel? No fouling could grow there. If the specialist coppering crew was sent to the ship while her keel still rested on the building ways, maybe there was no point in knocking away blocks to get access to the underside of the keel, only to put those blocks back to support the ship, then knock them away again to fit the false keel.

 

However, if the false keel was bare wood and there was nothing between it and the keel, the worms could bore through the false keel and into the keel. Thus, some protective layer was needed, the contracts suggesting lead, heavy paper (maybe tarred?) or tar and hair (presumably horse hair), applied as the false keel was put on. So why not use copper at that stage? Expense? A need to call a specialist crew back? Or was someone still worried about the electrolytic problems between copper sheathing and iron bolts that had been such a problem with the first coppered ships?

 

I doubt that coppering the false keel would stop it from being torn away if the ship ran aground. Maybe there would be a ragged mess of loose plates, rather than a clean removal of the false keel and its staples. Then again, I'm not sure that the purpose of the false keel was to be torn away. (There must be a very fine line between taking the ground on sand, without harm, and a hard grounding that broke timbers. Only when in the narrow margin between would the ship escape with nothing worse than a lost false keel.) Rather, I would suggest that the false keel's purpose was to take the wear and tear of routine dockings. Maybe there didn't seem much point in applying copper if it would only be torn away at the next docking.

 

Trevor

[dafi]

As I have seen pictures of Victory with her false keel coppered in the past together with the keel I also could guess that the original coppering was without the false keel, but when recoppering was done, it was possibly less work to copper over it instead of taking it off.

 

XXXDAn

[Thukydides]

Your second sketch is how I have always envisaged it based on what I have read. However, as dafi said there was likely a lot of variation in the application and it is likely that subsequent work may have changed the practice.

 

Another consideration is when the ship you are researching was built. I know at least early on (1776ish) that in many cases the coppering was ordered to be done after the ship was built (hence not mentioned in the contract). In cases like that it is entirely possible they just coppered over the whole thing without removing the false keel.

[Gregory]

Just an un-educated guess, that coppering over the false keel might have defeated it's purpose, i.e., to break away easily.

[Fritzlindsay]

On 2/7/2025 at 6:37 AM, dafi said:

As I have seen pictures of Victory with her false keel coppered in the past together with the keel

Are these contemporary drawings from the 18th or 19th century or are they modern photos or images?

Thanks

Fritz