|
Post by jules on Aug 18, 2014 9:10:39 GMT
Hi Clayton,
Thank you very much for taking all the trouble.
Regards,
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Aug 18, 2014 9:08:17 GMT
Hi Rein, Sorry, can't help. I suppose I still didn't take enough pictures that day. But here's a question for you. I found this part (see picture) on the Gent-model and I don't have a clue what it is. Any suggestions? Regards, Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Aug 12, 2014 7:17:18 GMT
Hi Rein,
I am glad you are convinced now of the identity of Waasdorp.
I am sorry, but I'm not going to post the Van de Velde drawing of the Boymans museum. The museum has published the drawing in their three-book catalogue 'The Willem van de Velde drawings in the Boymans-Van Beuningen museum Rotterdam'. I am in the possession of this catalogue, but I don't feel free to just copy it and publish it in the net. I hope they soon will publish all their Van de Velde drawings on the net so everybody can profit from them. I know some of the Boymans drawings are on the 'Maritiem Digitaal'-site. Have a good look there.
I am aware that the lions on the upper stern in many cases face both ways, but this does not seem to be the case with Waasdorp on the Boymans drawing. The print in the book isn't that good though (quite small) soo I'm not absolutely sure. I have a suggestion: make an appointment with the museum to have a good look at the original drawing. I saw some original Van de Velde drawings in the museum and it's an overwhelming experience: the drawings are huge and the detail is magnificent. The reproductions in the book can't match that.
Kind regards,
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Aug 6, 2014 9:26:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jules on Aug 6, 2014 8:31:52 GMT
Hi Rein,
The drawing from the stern on the right, the one from the British Museum, surely is Waasdorp. The Boymans museum has a drawing that has been offset from the same drawing as the one in the British Museum, and that drawing is inscribed by Van de Velde, showing that the depicted ship is Waasdorp. It is difficult to identify the left ship from the right, so I tried to identify your ship in another way. Here we go: deducing from the higher wale position only, the following ships might comply: Spiegel and Waasdorp from 1663, Utrecht from 1665, Gouden Leeuw, Witte Olifant and Gouden Dolfijn from 1666/7, the six Dutch built French ships from 1666/7, Steenbergen from 1671 and the Amsterdam ships from the 80's. And, maybe even the obscure Pacificatie from the Noorderkwartier Crone suggested for the Gent-model. We can discard most of these on other grounds. I also compared your drawing to another Waasdorp-drawing in the Boymans-museum. That drawing is inscribed by Van de Velde and so is sure to represent Waasdorp. Waasdorp in the Boymans drawing is depicted from the front also, but seen from the starboard side. This drawing is not an offset from your drawing. Comparing the two makes it likely that your ship is Waasdorp: both drawings show a twodecker with high channels, the gunport configuration is the same, the positions of the deadeyes relative to the ports are the same, both ships show the bound slaves on top of the ends of the side galleries; the same decoration that we see on the stern drawing on the right. There are a couple of discrepancies though: the heads, the roman heads, on the ends of the upper rails are larger on the Boymans-drawing, the Boymans-drawing does not show the two small guns on the poop deck and in the Boymans-drawing the two lions on top of the upper stern, don't seem to be looking forward, but aft. What made you think the ship on the left is Waasdorp? I don't know where you found the drawing on the left. Thanks for posting it here.
Regards,
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Aug 5, 2014 13:12:15 GMT
Hi Rein,
Thanks!
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Aug 5, 2014 12:21:19 GMT
Hi Rein, Thanks for sharing your thoughts on Spiegel. So, when I interpret correctly, you're saying that the decoration of the stern of Spiegel determines that she is a threedecker. I know what you mean because Gouden Leeuw and Witte Olifant show the decoration you describe: high statues between the windows of the captains cabin. But... Spiegel and the six French Dutch-built ships of 1666, do not. When I look at the Van de Velde drawing of Spiegel in the Boymans-museum (Robinson, III, p.158), for me the most reliable picture of the ship, I see five small putti between the windows. When I look at the Van de Velde drawings of the French ships in the same museum (Robinson, III, p.311-316), I see the same short putti as with Spiegel. To determine the stern decoration of Gouden Dolfijn is not easy because there are not a lot of stern views available from this ship. As far I know, the Gouden Dolfijn probably had the same decorations as the French ships. So when we restrict ourselves to the decorations, Spiegel could be the forerunner of the French ships and the Gouden Dolfijn. That raises the question if the six French Dutch-built ships were threedeckers. They show the higher waists, which might imply that they were threedeckers, but they also show the bulkheads aft of the forecastle and forward of the halfdeck that normally were omitted with the Dutch threedeckers. What complicates the matter even more, is that we have the contracts for the French ships; and the French ordered twodeckers, not threedeckers. Please, don't get me started on the many misconceptions about the Dutch threedeckers: this is not the forum to elaborate on that. About the sideview of the Gent-model: I am sorry, the box the model is kept in, was jammed between other museum drop outs. This means I could not get enough distance to make a complete side view. Luckily the museum took a picture of the model while being prepared for the transport to the depot. It was published on the web by the museum, so I think I am allowed to include it here. I hope this helps. I would like to see your composition of the four Winter-photo's of the Hohenzollern model. I remember seeing another example of this in a German forum. Please post your version in a new thread. (By the way, adding attachments is easy: log in, create a post, in the upper right hand cormer you see the button 'Edit attachements', push it and the rest, I think, is self explanatory.) Kind regards, Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Aug 2, 2014 7:13:08 GMT
Hi Rein, Let me help you by posting the painting and the drawing you refer to. (By the way, for others trying to find the pictures, it's http://www.maritiemdigitaal.nl) I don't believe the painting depicts a scene from 1666 (fourdays battle) as you say, since Gouden Leeuw is in the far distance. That ship first saw action in 1667, Medway. Regarding Spiegel: everybody can determine for himself if the ship on the far right of the painting is the same ship as in the drawing. And then we still have to find proof if the ship in the drawing is Spiegel. Rein convince me please. All the other paintings and drawings that are surely of Spiegel (Boymans, Louvre, R&H-collection), do not make clear that it's a threedecker. One even showed Spiegel with low-placed channels. I tried to find references of Spiegel being a threedecker in De Ruyter's journals of 1664/65, but, diagonally, not thoroughly, read, I couldn't find any. So it's up to you now. Here's the picture you requested. No chicken coops here, just a closed bench. Some nice guirlandes though. Hope this helps. Hope to hear from you soon, Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Aug 1, 2014 12:48:21 GMT
First to Rein, I thought a good portrait of Pacificatie had finally emerged from the many archives. Alas, no such luck. The Van de Velde-drawing in the NMM (PAF6867), is too little to go by. Here are the two requested pictures: side gallery and head. Look at the beautiful vases on the outside of the rails: so very Dutch I never came across another example. I was not allowed to remove the upper stern piece from the model. I tried though, but either the piece was stuck or was not removable at all. It was only possible to take pictures through the windows and ports. So I was not able to take the pictures you request: captain's room looking aft and constable's room looking aft were not possible to make. By the way, the central cartridge store bulkhead in the constable's room we know from the Hohenzollern-model (Winter, Abb. 37) is missing in the Gent-model. If it was there in the first place and went missing, I don't know. Don't get overexcited Rein! Read before you fire. In my last post I am not stating that the modeller did invent the higher placed channels; I am saying that he must have seen them at first hand or, in case he is a 'bouwmeester' himself as you say, might even have designed them himself. If the modeller was a 'bouwmeester', I think it would be unlikely that he built a model that would not resemble the ship he was building or had just finished. And, I am not saying that the model is not from 1665 or later. Read my earlier post: 1660-1670. You're right in saying that many other ships had high-placed channels. Was I denying that? The first probably was Spiegel of 1663. If she was a threedecker? I'm not sure. Probably the wales could be placed higher up because the third deck was able to counterbalance the extra forces that high up on the side of the ship . So the higher placed channels could be a telltale sign for a third deck. That would make Spiegel a threedecker. I never came across any other proof. Please be of help here Rein. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the anchor-cleat on the 'bosbank'. I am not sure what you mean with that you can not share my view about that point. I never made a comment about that cleat. I just published the picture of it to show the detail of the model: without comment. Maybe searching for a real ship for our model is futile. But wouldn't it be great if the model represents an actual ship? It's a shame that in these kinds of models the denominator for the name, the sculpture or painting on the upper stern, is changed to please the receiver of the model. But, rest assured, I will be able to sleep without identifying the model. I am doing so for years now. Your last remarks make me think you're doing research for a model of a certain ship. May I ask which ship you are working on? To Fred: Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the Sheldon model. Would that be the model you were going to place pictures from on this forum? Just kidding I think we can be pretty certain that Sheldon used his experience of the English dockyards to make his model. It may not depict an actual ship, but it probably combines features of ships he built and some new features he would like to incorporate in his next ship. I guess that's how progress works: use the good things from old designs, discard the bad things, change the bad things for something better. Of course you're right about the high-placed channels on Vasa. The 'modern' was only meant for ships from the later age. The ships from the building programs of the sixties, e.g. Zeven Provincien and Hollandia, had low channels. High channels were probably introduced by the Admiralty of Amsterdam in 1663. It might be a coincedence that this came about at about the same time that this admiralty started building threedeckers. Thanks for sharing my thoughts on the channels (or chainwales) and the deadeyes. Here's another one for you. Kind regards and keep it cool, Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Jul 31, 2014 8:22:46 GMT
Hi Rein,
Glad I could be of some help.
About your remarks on identifying the model. I am sure the modeller built the model after an example he could actually see. He didn't just build from his own imagination. The detailling on these kind of models is just too great. The modeller probably had full access to the actual ships. Maybe he could even see them being build or lying in the harbour from his window. You just don't come up with things like higher placed channels on your own.
That the Hohenzollern-model was a gift, is likely. I assume the models were built with the weapon shield of the receiver on the stern. In the case of the Hohenzollern-model, the weapon is the weapon of William III. I presume he was the owner of the model when he gave it to his relative, the elector of Brandenburg. But, no proof for all of this, just speculation.
I know the picture of the Gent-model in Carr-Laughton's book. But, it's in black and white. No way of telling what the actual colours were. If the sculptures were guilded or simply painted white, like parts of the hull, is hard to tell. Some other black and white pictures of the model in it's old guise, show that the eagle on the stern holds a weapon shield with a faintish lighter stripe; the weapon shield was not totally black.
We must not forget that Birnie did a great job. The model was in a very sorry state when he began his work. He sent me some colour photographs of the model before he started his work; it was a big mess, and he didn't have much to go by. He did a great job turning it into something more representative and more presentable. Sure, he made some mistakes. But that's the risk of being in the restoration business. When you're finished, no one appreciates your work, and you're sure to have made some mistakes. Don't forget: all restored models show mistakes.
Could you be more specific on the Pacificatie-drawing in the NMM you are referring to? A number might help. Or just post it here. (Become a member: it's free!)
About the scale of the Gent-model. As mentioned before, I think the scale is 1:16,5, since this relates to 1 inch to 1,5 foot. For the Hohenzollern-model the scale probably was 1:22, since this relates to 1 inch to 2 foot. As you know, Winter gives 1:21, but I think that's a mistake.
Kind regards,
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Jul 30, 2014 14:23:07 GMT
Hi Rein, I agree with you, The Hohenzollern-model is a great source for the understanding of shipbuilding in the 17th century. We have to thank Winter for taking the trouble to take the photo's and publish the book. It's a shame though he didn't do a better job on determining the lines of the hull of the model. But that's a whole different story. To your questions. The missing beakhead bulkhead from the Hohenzollern model, has led to some heated discussions. Some say the bulkhead is not missing at all, it simply wasn't there in the first place. I tend to disagree. I tried to find ships without a bulkhead, but couldn't find any. I am not sure what you mean with the 'two upper one' bulkheads, so I included pictures of all the bulkheads, all five of them. About the glazing of the windows in the bulkhead in front of the mizzen mast in the Gent-model: they were not glazed. I am a bit surprised that Winter describes these windows as being glazed in the Hohenzollern model. You are right though, Winter describes them as being glazed (page 27, I: "Unmittelbar hinter dem hier verglasten Schott..."), but I think the glass can not be seen in 'Abbildung 18' and 'Abbildung 12'. I also think the windows are too big to cover with one pane of glass. I think glass of that size was not available at that time. Unluckily, neither the Gent-model nor the Hohenzollern-model contains the windows in the stern, so we are not able to determine how the glazing was done in these type of ships by these two models. Luckily the Van de Veldes help, they show these windows in many of their drawings and paintings: leaded glass windows with small panes of glass. I am sure that, if the windows in the bulkhead were glazed, these type of windows would be used, not windows with one single pane of glass. And, given the detail of the Hohenzollern model, these are what the model builder would have represented: leaded glass windows. Another question would be why the windows had to be closed with glass at all. To protect the helmsman from the weather? The doorways next to these windows contain no doors, so the bulkhead was very open anyway. I hope this helps, Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Jul 7, 2014 7:14:17 GMT
Hi Fred,
Thanks for the answer. Any chance of lifting the keelson of Vasa soon? Just kidding. I tried to find something on this subject in Kroum's 'Framing of seventeenth century men of war' of 2002, but came up with nothing. I guess I have to wait for VASA III to get the final answer. Anyway, I am going to try to persuade the 'Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed' to allow me to lift a section of the keelson of the E81-wreck. Let's see how they will respond. I will keep you posted.
Kind regards,
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Jul 4, 2014 13:41:59 GMT
I found this triton in a church in Nijmegen. It reminded me of the triton sculptures on Vasa. Since it dates from 1623, it even predates Vasa. Regards, Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Jul 4, 2014 6:01:32 GMT
Hi, I am wondering if the floor timbers of Vasa were fastened to the keel before the keelson was fixed. Witsen, describing the bottom first method, does not mention any fastenings and Van Yk, describing the frame first method, mentions that the floor timbers weren't fastened to the keel but only nailed to the garboard strake. The E81-wreck only shows a small section with exposed floor timbers, the rest of the floor timbers is covered by the keelson. The exposed floor timbers show no fastenings (see picture). I know that the English used to bolt every other floor timber to the keel and, after placing the keelson, bolted the keelson to the keel through the other floor timbers. (Endsor describes it beautifully in his 'Restoration Warship'.) This does not seem to be the case in the Dutch/Vasa method. In the E81 wreck the keelson is bolted to every floor timber with two adjacent fasteners; using as fasteners wooden pegs and iron bolts. Regards, Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Jul 3, 2014 19:11:17 GMT
Hi Clayton, About the ship. It was found with some cargo onboard which suggested that the ship came from the mediterranian. They also found a swedish coin from 1654 on board. Archival work showed that the ship was probably the Samuel that sank in 1662. That ship came from Alicante and was on its way to Amsterdam. It ran ashore to the east of the island Urk. In the following years the bottom of the ship sank into the soft bottom of the Zuider-sea; the upper part rotted away. From 1937 to 1942 this part of the Zuider-sea was made into a polder and in 1948 a farmer found the wreck on his land. From 1957 to 1961 the wreck was dug up and studied. In 1969 they brought the wreck to a museum in Ketelhaven. There the wreck was kept wet for 10 years to prepare it for PEG-treatment. Since this method would take too long they decided to simply dry the wreck. This method was completed in 1983. When the museum closed in 1997, the wreck was transported to Den Helder. They placed the wreck in its own glass box in 2003, where it (after making an appointment) can be studied. I included a picture of the wreck in situ in 1961. The ship is 27 meters long and 7 meters wide. Fred, thanks for explaining the term 'waney' to me. I found a lot of parts with waney surfaces and edges in the wreck. Regards, Jules
|
|