1760's Royal Navy deck planking and waterway nibbing patterns?

[jbshan]

I once checked a number of old sources, and most of them used tapered plank for the decks, especially aft.  I can probably find my notes, if you want to go that far into it.

[druxey]

Joel is correct: tapered planking on decks was common until powered circular saw mills came in in the early 1800's.

[Alex M]

 I can probably find my notes, if you want to go that far into it.

It will be for sure very interestign, Joe.

 

Alex

[jbshan]

Alex, I found my notes.  It'll take a little time to put them together into understandable form.

[jbshan]

I'll do this in installments.

A few general comments first.  There seem to be few actual plans of the deck plank.  I looked through my library and the only source material from the time I could find were a very few perspective drawings by Chapman.  Chapelle did mostly the standard plan views, only a few perspective views, and he is noted for reconstructions which he doesn't document.  We can discount replica vessels, even surviving vessels I think since much has had to be replaced since their active service days.  Supposedly Victory has some original plank on the lower decks, but photos don't show the edges because of guns and other equipment.  The same goes for later warships, in the photography era.  Fishing schooners which do show deck plank in photos are not 1760s warships and not relevant.  Most wrecks are piles of ballast stones; even Mary Rose doesn't have much deck left.  That leaves us with Vasa.

[Mark P]

Gentlemen;

 

regarding the dating of the model of the first rate from George I's reign,  discussed above by Alex and Druxey,  this is held by the Science Museum Archive,  and is listed as mid 18th century  (although George I died in 1727)

 

The gun-deck of this model is normally invisible,  only seen when the model is taken apart,  and its planking treatment is totally different to all the other decks.  All upper deck planking is cut from wide sheets,  scribed to represent individual planks.  This was a common technique in the Georgian period. 

 

I thought the shift of the planking on the gun-deck was incorrect as regards the shift of butts,  however,  the rest of the model seems to display all the signs of age,  with shrinking and cracking of planking. 

 

I believe it to be a contemporary model to the period it represents,  and as to why the butts shift wrongly,  I can give no reason. 

 

All the best,

 

Mark

[Alex M]

Hi Mark, and thank you very much for explanation about this model. It is now the fact, that it is contemporary, and show nibbing. I can't ignore it.

Joel, thank you also for comments. I fully agree, that we should use only contemporary sources like plans, models, books and archaeological founds. And you are right that the infos here are very rare. So we should use every info we can find.

The plan I have posted above show the deck of a purpose build cutter, designed by T. Slade and build at Deptford by Master Shipwright A. Hayes. So it is not fishing cutter, and if it show nibbing, that suggest that this method was in use in Royal Yards it those times. This was just one of common methods. The other was hooked planks, and they are both still in use in1760's

 

Alex

[Chuck]

I agree that both methods were used. until around 1825-30 when most decks were nibbed.  Here is an image of a 1770's cutter.  It is a contemporary model for sure.  The deck is clearly nibbed.   Both methods were used and its just a matter of picking which you prefer to model.   I prefer the curved planks with hooked and tapered scarfs over the straight and nibbed.  Although there was also curved and nibbed deck planking as well.  Like everything else....its a matter of personal preference.

 

 

Chuck

[druxey]

The Georgian first rate model's deck looks distinctly 20th century in style with its tree nailing and lack of signs of age. As Mark mentioned, usually that style of model had scored sheet decking. Also, decks below the weather deck on other Georgian 'takeapart' models I've seen are often unplanked. I'm skeptical of that one! However, the 1770's cutter deck certainly looks authentic and the nibbed planking cannot be discounted. The question with the latter model is whether the planking is also tapered - it's hard to tell from Chuck's photo.

[Chuck]

Druxey

 

On this particular model they are not curved or tapered.  They are straight planks.    Go figure!!!

 

Chuck

[Mark P]

Gentlemen;

 

Druxey's comments on the first rate model may well be correct.  The ceilings of a couple of the stern galleries have been given a very amateurish and garish paint-over which is not in keeping with the standards of the rest of the model;  so someone may well have tried to 'improve' it at some point in the time since it was first built.  

 

As both nibbing and hooking seem to have been used on contemporary models,  I would agree with Chuck,  it is a matter of choice,  although the hooking seems to display a higher degree of craftsmanship.

 

All the best,

 

Mark

[jbshan]

I checked Chapman, 'Architectura Navalis', and there is only one drawing showing deck plank.  This is Pl. LVIII showing an Algerine Chebec.  This vessel is a galley with four 12 pounder guns firing forward and 16 6 pounders firing on the broadsides, 8 per side.  The guns are on a small deck forward and a 'spar deck' on the broadside.  The forward platform is planked fore & aft, the 'spar deck' is planked athwartship.  This drawing is not of much relevance to Royal Navy ships of 1760, as the question was.

Chapelle, in the volumes I have of his, shows deck plank in only perspective views, some of which are labeled 'drawn for model construction' or to help delineate the surface of the deck or to make it more decorative.  In any case, it is only a portion that is shown and not the deck edge.

 

The only really close look I have at undisputed period models is Princess Charlotte as presented in Rob Napier's book of her restoration.  This model is only planked in sections, and those are panels with the individual plank scored on.  In the stern, there are enough panels to show tapered, straight plank.  This may or may not be correct; it could be a simplified version.

 

Don't give up on me, there is one more installment.

[Mark P]

Another pennyworth:

 

I have deck plans from the NMM of HMS Tremendous,  a 74 launched in 1784.  There are notes and sketches on all deck layouts,  drawn by the original builder,  including many of the plank seams and butts.  Although unfortunately these do not show the details of any nibbing or hooking at the bow,  they show quite clearly that on all decks the planking runs in tapering curves towards the bow and stern.  And whilst the bow planking clearly runs into a margin plank or waterway,  at the stern the number of strakes remains constant,  and they all diminish.  At both bow and stern the outermost planks have much more curvature than those nearest the centre.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

[jbshan]

Final installment:

  Now that I’ve disallowed most of the usual suspects, I can report on the one source I have that is incontrovertible, Vasa, which has been published to some extent, including the deck plank on all the surviving decks.  She’s far too old to be absolutely reliable for the 1760 date of the original question, but relevant to the extent that joints exist in her planking that were used much later, showing that the percentage of use of one or the other may have changed, but that they knew about and used all the joints used hundreds of years later.

  The lowest deck is deep in the hold, I suspect laid to keep any stores out of the ballast.  This deck was mostly clear, the stores not having been yet brought aboard.  It is laid in sections, with straight plank, the edges merely being cut off to match the curve of the hull.  The plank butts are in ‘seams’ across the hull, and are scarfed with flat scarphs, not staggered in any way.  Presumably this would allow a section to be taken up for access to the ballast below.  When the ship filled and capsized, this deck lifted up along the port edge, allowing the ballast to spill farther up the side.

  Next is the orlop deck.  These planks are tapered with staggered butts, though there are two seams.  There are a few hook joints at the waterway.

  The lower deck has curved plank, with less plank at the cabin.  There is a seam beneath the cabin bulkhead and this is where the number of plank was reduced, along with some drop planks.  There are a few hook joints, and several places where there are ‘plugs’ put in, as if there was a rotten place that was cut out and a small section inserted.

  The upper deck is basically the same as the lower, except there are two seams aft, the plank in the cabin being tapered.

  There is no quarter deck or focs’l remaining.

  The whole looks expedient, as if they made use of the material at hand without much attention being paid to any scheme of butts or symmetry, except that inside the cabins things are a bit neater.

Edited October 23, 2015 by jbshan