False keel: Admiralty orders concerning coppering

[bruce d]

Just found an Admiralty instruction dated February 15 1782 directing shipyards ... "... not to copper the false keels of ships in the future".   

It is contained in file number at The National Archives (UK) ADM 106/1273/36.

 

HTH,

Bruce

[BANYAN]

Thanks Bruce, that's quite useful to have confirmed.  Is this an online record?  I tried a quick search of TNA Admiralty 1782 but nothing came up.

 

cheers

 

Pat

Edited Sunday at 11:08 PM by BANYAN

[bruce d]

6 hours ago, bruce d said:

ADM106/1273/36

Hi Pat, 

It's not downloadable but the summary I quoted is from the description. 

Use the ADM reference above in the advanced search section of Discovery (the National Archives online catalogue) and you will see the description. 

Let me know if you have any questions. 

Cheers, 

Bruce 

[druxey]

This order makes perfect sense as the false keel is sacrificial. Thank you for this, Bruce.

[Thukydides]

Great find. Thanks for sharing. I remember there was a thread a little while back discussing this very question, but there was no definitive answer.

 

@Sizzolo you might be interested in this.

 

[Sizzolo]

Cheers @Thukydides - that’s why I finished the coppering before adding the false keel. I’ve also read that the false keel was sometimes ‘filled with nails’ but I’ve tried a few ways to represent that and it doesn’t look great - I’ll use dark wood instead. 

[dafi]

Is there any hint or knowledge if the keel was coppered underneath going round th whole keel or if the coppering went "full stop" at the edge of the false keel?

XXXDAn

[bruce d]

On 3/30/2025 at 5:30 PM, bruce d said:

February 15 1782 directing shipyards ... "... not to copper the false keels of ships in the future".   

 

40 minutes ago, dafi said:

Is there any hint or knowledge if the keel was coppered underneath going round th whole keel or if the coppering went "full stop" at the edge of the false keel?

XXXDAn

Sorry, that is all the summary says. If I visit The National Archives later in the year I will look at the original document to see if it explains further.  Personally, I expect the keel was coppered and the false keel attached afterwards.  I can't imagine they would copper the whole hull underwater and still leave the keel vulnerable to the dreaded worm.  

 

Regards,

Bruce

[BANYAN]

Dan, based on a letter (report) written by the ship's build superintendent (Commander Lockyer, RN) to the Governor (Hotham) of 4 June 1855, about the progress of HMCSS Victoria's (1855) construction:

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

 

This suggests, that least in 1850s, the coppering passed under the keel but the false keel (Lang's safety keel in this instance) was not coppered.

 

Not for the exact time period you are looking at, but I hope this helps?

 

cheers

 

Pat

 

---

[i] PROV; VA 475; VPRS 1189/P0000; 580, Unregistered Correspondence; Lockyer second Letter to Hotham, 4 June 1855.

Edited yesterday at 12:29 AM by BANYAN

[Thukydides]

An interesting corollary of the 1782 letter is that it suggests that prior to that date the coppering was often done over the false keel.

Edited yesterday at 11:28 AM by Thukydides

[paul ron]

where can i see the documents?... do have the links?

 

thanks

[Thukydides]

3 minutes ago, paul ron said:

where can i see the documents?... do have the links?

 

thanks

There is only the catalog entry: https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C13422581

[BANYAN]

Which documents are you referring to Paul, the original identified by Bruce, or the one I refer to.   If mine, it is a letter, not so much a document.  The original record is held in the Public Records Office of Victoria (PROV) Australia.  I provided the path/location at the bottom of my post, but it is not digitized and can only be read in their premises unfortunately. 

 

If Bruce's original find, he provided the link, as does Thukydides above, as you can see below, the comment is merely a small part of the 'summary' of the document, not the actual document  as it also has not been digitized.

If anyone actually goes in and finds this document, I would appreciate a copy.

 

cheers

 

Pat

[paul ron]

aww its a shame they arent digitzed. id really love to see the originals of all of them. sometimes things get lost when translated or pulled out of context... someone's summery is as good as an opinion, not as a matter of fact. plus to see the manuscrips in the original hand is a real treat in itself. 

 

this is what i enjoy more than the models... it gives this hobby purpose n makes our models that much more special as i explain to my viewers what it represents instead of just "a nice ship Paul" n a pat on the back. 

 

Edited 9 hours ago by paul ron

[bruce d]

Hello Paul, 

Having viewed thousands of files at The National Archives I am pleased to say that the summaries in the descriptions are reliable. There is an in-house system for reporting any discrepancies and the only time I found something to be scrutinised it was reviewed and edited in a couple of days. 

For what it's worth, I will view the original on my next visit and transcribe the full text for posting here. 

However, the first thing to do will be to look at any correspondence leading up to this instruction from the Admiralty as I expect it didn't come out of the blue. 

In the meantime the flat statement 'don't do it anymore' tells us that (A) it was being done by someone and (B) it stopped from this date. I feel confident on this last point because the dockyards and contractors would know they would not be paid.

FWIW, this was the period when dockyards were still buying in most of the copper plates before the Admiralty took control of copper production. 

Don't have my notes but I'm sure I read a report of a ship's coppered hull being damaged to a greater degree than expected when a false keel was torn off; if I can find the incident (or someone recognises it?) then it's possible this was a factor in the Admiralty order. 

 

Bruce