As promised some time ago, here are a few pictures of the Sheldon model that belongs to the National Maritime Museum of Sweden. The paper trail in the naval archives indicates that it was built by Francis Sheldon when he came to Sweden in 1660, at the request of the king. It was found, broken into three pieces and wrapped in a flag, at the end of the 19th century and restored. This involved some fabrication of new timbers, which are easily visible as lighter, unfinished wood. Most of the damage is at the stern. The model is being studied by Dr. Krum Batchvarov and myself for a publication.
Here's a small quotation about your model from a (maybe) not so obvious source: Donald McNarry. In his 'Ship Models in miniature' from 1975, he talks about his 'Admiralty Board dockyard model' of the Naseby of 1655, and says the following: "There are two known unplanked seventeenth-century dockyard models: the 2-decker, dated 1655, at Greenwich and the model in the Stockholm Museum traditionally known as Sheldon's Naseby. (A large model of the Loyal London of 1666 was destroyed when Trinity House, London was bombed on 29 December 1940.) Francis Sheldon was a shipwright concerned with the building of the Naseby at Woolwich. He went to Gothenburg in 1658 as a master shipwright in teh service of the King of Sweden and apparently took this model with him. The dimensions and armament arrangements agree fairly well with the Naseby so it may perhaps be her original dockyard model, although some of the experts do not agree. However this model in Sweden is a most interesting one for many reasons but its unique feature is a cockpit in the after end of the quarter deck, a cockpit very like those we shall come across in the royal yachts of a slightly later date. If one is to use this model as a basis for the Naseby (the Stockholm Museum has an excellent set of lines taken off the model) this cockpit has to be reconciled with the quite detailed exteriors shown by the contemporary artists, and this has been done on the model."
Yes, I am aware of McNarry's take on this model, which represents the conventional point of view at the time, as well as the wishful thinking of English model builders - there is a group of die-hards who refuse to accept that this model is not Naseby. Twenty years later, Jan Glete tracked down the records concerning this model in the Swedish archives, which indicate that Sheldon did not bring it with him, but built it in Sweden as a commission from the king. It was not ordered as a proposal for a specific ship, but either as a decorative model (the king liked stuff like that) or as an indication of the kind of ships Sheldon might build in Swedish service. It thus does not represent any specific ship, Naseby or otherwise. It no doubt incorporates some of the ideas Sheldon had acquired up to then, and may thus reflect some aspects of Naseby, and it is about the same size as the first big ship Sheldon later built for Sweden, Äpplet, but it is not really the "builder's model" of this ship either. The dimensions and armament do not agree with either Naseby or Äpplet very closely, despite what some authors have written, although this matter is complicated by a lack of consistency in what particular dimensions actually mean.
Thanks Fred, -very interesting. I had read of this model being found in an attic in Karlskrona in pieces wrapped in a flag, restored by Jacob Hägg. Thank you for providing the pictures. Did you by any chance have a side view as well? I saw that Francis Sheldon models exist at Holmen in Copenhagen as well (one or two). Orlogsbasen.dk has pictures of at least one.
Wasn't also Sam Svensson chasing up the dimensions and found them to differ? Seems rather overwhelming evidence it's not the Naseby...
:-) aand twice in a week I find myself looking for "Sjöhistorisk Årsbok 1959-1960" Turns out that Sam Svensson's article on the Sheldon model is just next to an article on the Amphion I was looking for less than a week ago... :-)
do you have any news about the sheldon model monography? Im really interested. Im starting my new project of the Naseby (1655), and im looking for any suitable informations about construction, dimensions and hull framing design. Yes, im know what Sheldons model are only expensive toy, but sometime toys copy original scheme (partialy). Im interested on frontal, horizontal and top wiev of the model to confirmation what this is only toy or some part of the refference of the English shipbuilding art. What I saw, this ship would not be able to sail, im sure. Due the low dive and high centric gravity and many other things. But the dimensions of the frontal gallion deck will be propably right (even though the essential structural elements are missing), and same situation is on other deck, but thier board curving, will be propably refferences. As the refference for my work i chose Loyal London (1656) and the revisited scheme of the SOS (1637), and Royal Prince (1610) aka Ressolution (1647), the first work of the Phineus Pett younger at Chatham 1650 (rebuild of the grand fathers Royal Price - aka Ressolution) before he start to built Naseby. And Sheldons model is one of the jigsaw on the puzzle. Is there any option to use any other refference, than you presented pictures? As you know, there are too many white spaces. Only few pictures of the Loayal London left (because model was lost during "Adlers Tag" in 1940) and any other refference was not relevant. Only revisited reconstruction of the Royal Prince and SOS by using Bakers mathematics. Nothing more.
Recent research suggests that the model we have is likely connected to the construction of Riksäpplet. Niklas Eriksson has recently published a book (Riksäpplet: Arkeologiska perspektiv på ett bortglömt regalskepp; Nordic Academic Press 2017) which discusses the model and investigates this connection quite closely. Analysis of the hull form of the model suggests it should sail fine on the design waterline. It was made by a professional ship designer, so it is not a "toy", but embodies his ideas of how a large warship should be configured. The ship built from it had no problems as a sailing vessel, and was only lost through poor management in an anchorage.
We are working on a detailed documentation of the model, but do not have a definitive timetable for publication.
thanks for few new pictures in topic, and time which you give to me. Yes, as you said, this is a deffinitely different ship, than Spencers built(1943) of Naseby model (this is may only refference to Sheldons model). Somewhere i read what Spencer use lines of the superstructure from Sheldon model to built his own. If im speaking about floating problems, im speaking about his interpretation of the Naseby. Too heavy on stern, too little mass on the bow and inadequately low dive (than presented historic dimension). You have a dream work...you know. There is many parts which are suitable to close investigation. As a gunport on the bow in first gundeck. Im saw same possition on the many van de Velde drawings. Its looks like a frontal fighting gun possition than regulary side gunery. I seen this strange possition of the first gunport on the SoS and Loyal London (pics of the model) too. And strange extension built front of the mizzen mast. Have you seen this picture from van de Velde der Elde from early 1660? culturepics.org/on-this-day/index.php?year=1660#NMMPAF6460 Curently im got stuck on the bow part. I refuse to believe that the cross sections of the bow (first three frames) correspond to the boats from the mid 18. sentury (as Spencer presnted). Specialy after 15 years between SoS and Naseby build. Connection between frames and the main keel i believe are not sharp (as you can se here www.shipmodel.com/files/naseby-dockyard-style-webnaseby-after-006.jpg), but more obtuse angle. How look this parts on the Sheldon model? They are robust? Or sharpen? Im really interested.
The deckhouse on Naseby in the van de Velde drawing resembles the arrangement on the Sheldon model, which includes a cockpit or lowered deck section abaft the house.
Most ships of this period, (including Vasa) have at least one gundeck port on each side which points directly forward. On Vasa, this is the first port on the lower deck. Often, this carried an especially heavy or long gun, (as on Vasa).
I am not sure how to respond to your quesiton about the bow shaping. The form of the Sheldon model looks to be similar to other ships of the newer type produced in the 1650s, after the model of Speaker, and so is relatively sharp, with some hollow in the lower part. I expect that Naseby and Äpplet would both be very different in hull form from SoS.
Thanks for the refference about the book from the Niklas Eriksson. I read it almost breathless. If colleague Eriksson is right, this is a significant discovery.
Bow sharpin is dificult. Do you know John and James Taylors work? John Taylor design HMS London 1656 at Chatham as Master builder between 1651-1660. His (propably) son James Taylor design HMS Loyal London 1666 at Deptford. History of both ships are tragic. Firast accidentaly blown up during sail, second burnt and sunk at Medway. This is a last of the Trinity House models from the 17 century. If i know, this is the last picture of the original Triniti House stored model (from ?-1672-?) of Loyal London 1666 from James Taylor. felipe.mbnet.fi/assets/images/loyal_london_1666.jpg If its not, im totaly out :-). Photography allegedly come from the 1920s. Because bow of this ship is anything else, but not srapen and streamline as we know from the ships designed or rebuilt from older ships in the early and late 18. century. And this ship was build a decade after Naseby. Sheldon and young Pett was working at Chatham. Young Pett as Assistant of the Master builder. And all of us must be in charge of our Masters. Naseby is interesting from many angles. Ordered as a 60-guns ship of the second rate, as part of the two more units in Chatham. During the construction, it was rebuilt and redesigned to a first rate ship with 88 guns. Which means 1 extra gundeck and a significant increase in the weight of the carried equipment, especially in the upper superstructures, and a change in the balance. The difference between 60 guns HMS London (1656) and 88 gun Naseby (1655) is almost 200 tons in buthen, 0.5 m in depth, 2 m of the keel. In its overall dimensions Naseby is very close to the size of HMS Loyal London (1666) up to a few centimeters. And if i can, i vote Loyal London as the main refference to the british hull design of the first rate in the mid of the 17s. But who knows. Mybe the Sheldons bow are young Pett idea how to redesign almost finished ship for two more meters in keel than originaly ordered unit. Everything else are routine for British designers. Furring of the hull, and drilling more holes for gunports in the castels. :-) Thanks for your oportunistic ideas. They are realy important in decission of my own work. I'm really impatient when you publish your monography. Do you expect the Sheldon model come to one of displays at Vasa Museum in future? I think it is a crime to keep such a piece of history locked in the deposit. I'm holding my fingers crossed in your next progress. All best
By the way, SoS has been rebuilt several times. His most famous look was remained about 18 years. Before this is happened: collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/157854.html Yes, this is exactly same ship. Sovereign of the seas was renamed after rebuild to the Royal Sovereign. After his first rebuild, it was very similar to other ships of the later period. Especially with regard to the bow (disappeared gallion deck) and the back (decoration on sides, mirror, and bottom of the mirror). That does not mean that his cross section has gone through a change other than furring only.