|
Post by jules on Nov 28, 2020 12:08:12 GMT
Hello Rein, Oh yes, there are still a lot of pictures. With these two for example you can check your theory about the protruding deck. What do you think this says about your theory? As for the fenders. So you neglect Witsen, writer of the 'north'? And you think Zevenwolden was drawn by Van de Velde after capture and change by the English? And you think such a very strict line can be drawn between 'southern' and 'northern' shipbuilding, that 'southern' ships can not be regarded as proof for Dutch practice? Even when Witsen describes such practice and a contemporary model shows such practice? Well, that's your choice then, mine is a different one. As for the extra hole in the box that you suppose the 'restorer' made. Just one question: why would he? What on earth could be his motive? Please support your theory a bit more. I hope you're not trying to convince me that because the rigging of a model has been changed, that the model has no value for further research anymore. Because that point of view would exclude almost all seventeenth century ship models, Dutch and English, for further research. Kind regards, Jules Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by jules on Nov 27, 2020 11:44:50 GMT
Hello Rein,
Thanks for looking in.
But it often turns out that the answers are not always that simple. Simply assuming that everything we can not explain must be an 'incompetent repair', as you call it, is too easy. A great example for this are the fenders.
Witsen mentions fenders in 1671, Van de Velde shows them in his drawings, and ... the Gent-model, a contemporary model, shows them. So for me it is at least likely that fenders were used on Dutch ships in this period, and that the Gent-model possibly is an unique example of how they were made. Especially since the fenders of the model look the same as in the Van de Velde drawings.
(If you want to check: Witsen, 1671, p. 62, I: "On large ships, often beams were attached on the ship's side, which were used as a protection for the wales, while loading boats or other heavy goods. (my translation)" Van de Velde: Zevenwolden, 1665, British Museum, SL,5214.33, and Vrijheid, 1667, NMM, PAH1893.)
For the 'box' I am still looking for an explanation. But I have some ideas. Your explanation, that a box from the inside of the ship has been placed on the outside of the ship by an ignorant restorer, does not explain the hole that is inside the box. Or do you think the restorer took the trouble to make that as well?
And now, for something completely different: I remember, from a long time ago, a discussion on the German forum about the construction of the frames in the bow of the Hohenzollern-model, the construction on top of the small forward deck (luizenplecht). I remember that discussion stayed unresolved because of a missing picture of the Gent-model. Can I help in providing that missing picture of the model here? If so, could you please indicate which picture you need?
Kind regards,
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Nov 26, 2020 11:17:37 GMT
Hello, Jan, yes, the box can only be found on one side of the hull: the port side. I suppose the hole goes through the ship's side. Here is another thing that can only be found on the port side of the model: the fenders. Maybe you are willing to share some of your pictures of the model here. That would surely help to fight my Covid-blues. Martyn, luckily the box has you scratching your head as well. Now I do not feel so stupid anymore. Shared ignorance is always better. Thanks. Regards, Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Nov 25, 2020 12:38:43 GMT
Hi all, Since all visits to museums are impossible now, I thought it might be a good idea to post a picture I took in one of these museums a long time ago. And I would like to ask a question regarding this picture as well. Does anyone know what the small 'box' at the side of the model is? Any help is, as always, much appreciated. Best regards from a France in lockdown, Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on May 15, 2018 22:20:08 GMT
Hello Peter,
And I wish you all the best with building as good a model as you can with the material that Winter left us.
Kind regards and good luck with your health,
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on May 7, 2018 21:50:51 GMT
Hello Peter,
I think we have to be grateful for what Winter tried to do. He recognized the importance of the model, and tried to determine its lines. Very admirable. But, whatever the reasons, what he has left us, is simply not enough to come to a good reconstruction of the lines of the original model. I think we simply have to come to terms with this. And that's also the reason why I do not understand your conclusion that 'we can get pretty close to the original hull'. I do not want to get into a discussion about the definition of the description 'pretty close', but how can you tell you're copy is 'pretty close', when you don't know what the original actually looked like? Maybe an explanation for the difference in our point of views is that we're not talking about the same material that Winter has left us. Maybe you simply are in the posession of more material than I am. I surely hope so.
Kind regards,
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Apr 30, 2018 10:49:07 GMT
Hello Peter,
Thanks for your reply and the explanation why you chose the 11 degrees inclination for your model. It's a pity you can't remember which Wagner-frame went where. That might have been useful information for other model builders. Since the Wagner plans are unreliable, and the extra information the Winter data provides is insufficient, I think we have to conclude that we will never know what the hull of the original model exactly looked like. What a shame. So much time and energy invested in taking the lines of the model, and it has all gone to waste because of poor data registration. I guess it must be bitter for all the people that built a model according to the Wagner plans, that they were not successful at recreating the lines of the original model. I guess Werner took the 13 degrees from the Wagner plans for granted, and used that angle for his reconstruction. I pointed out to him that Winter gives a lesser value, but, for reasons of his own, he stuck to the 13 degrees.
Kind regards,
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Apr 25, 2018 20:17:02 GMT
Hello Peter, Thanks for sharing the results of your research here. If I understand correctly you used one of Wagner's frames 17 as frame 21 and the other as frame 13, and you used Winter's sketch for determining the shape of the new frame 17. I know you changed the shape of the transom according to the photo of the model, and by consequence had to change the shape of two frames. I believe that you used the Wagner drawing for the shape of the rest of the frames. Did you use the Winter offset values at all for your reconstruction, or did you just stick to the Wagner plans? I am asking because Werner Bruns tried to make a reconstruction of the model by using the Winter offset values, and he had to give up because of lacking information. If you want to know the details, have a look at his website: www.werner-ulrich-bruns.de. One more question. You decided to increase the elevation of the main frame from 10 to 11 degrees. Was this done to achieve better fairing with the adjacent frames, or was there another reason? Kind regards, Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Apr 16, 2018 8:29:14 GMT
To whom it may concern, A long, long time ago I promised to make a study of the original Winter drawings of the Hohenzollern model and present the outcome here. So here it is. For now I want to restrict myself to the shape of the main frame of the model, frame 17. This is the only frame for which Winter gives the 'Anstieg', the inclination of the hull. What did I do? I scanned the Wagner drawing from the book and inserted the scan in my drawing program. I traced the waterlines and the shape of frame 17. Then I inserted points for the values Winter gives on the several waterlines. After that I inserted Winter's sketch into my drawing program and traced the 'Anstieg' and the shape of frame 17, up until waterline 8. Then I scaled Winter's sketch to make sure that the width on waterline KWL was the same as in Wagner's drawing. Then I placed Winter's scaled sketch over Wagner's drawing. I used the intersection of the frame with the keel as a reference point for that. The result can be seen in the sketch below. In blue the shape according to Wagner. In magenta the points according to Winter's values. In green the 'Anstieg' or inclination of the frame. In red the tracing of Winter's sketch. The 'Anstieg' makes an angle of 9,25 degrees with the horizontal. When we insert an inclination line for the Wagner drawing, it makes an angle of 13 degrees with the horizontal. Kind regards, Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Mar 29, 2018 15:54:30 GMT
Hello Sterntreter,
You got me worried for a moment there. When I read your message, my first reaction was: have I really wrote that? Because I never found anything like that in the archives. After reading my complete message of last year, it became clear to me what went wrong. I tried to explain what would form evidence for the statement that the Hohenzollern-model was built in Amsterdam. An example of such evidence would be the discovery in the archives of a contemporary document stating that model builders were paid by the Admiralty of Amsterdam. I was not trying to say that I found such a document. I looked for it, but haven't found it. Sorry if my reasoning was not clear enough and caused confusion. To change the subject completely. Thank you for your contribution of the 23rd of March on the identification of ships of the different admiralties on the German forum. I have some bit of information that might help you along. The weapon shields of the Noorderkwartier and Friesland show two lions above eachother, not three. The two lions of the Noorderkwartier have their heads turned and are facing you, they are called leopards. The two lions of Friesland look straight ahead. Hope this helps.
Kind regards,
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Oct 11, 2016 9:48:30 GMT
Hi Peter J,
Now I have to apologize for being late in responding. I sure think your model would be more easily created in a 3D-drawing program. I also am an 'old style mechanical engineer' by birth. Began my 'career' behind the drawing board, used several versions of AutoCad after that, and then went into project management; so my professional engineering career ended. Since my company chose SolidWorks as their 3D standard, I used that in my spare time, just to stay in business. I hated it: very cumbersome and heavy on the computer memory. So, looking for an alternative, I tried Blender and Delftship among others. Not being thrilled, I looked further and came across Rhinoceros. Very happy with that. Runs on my laptop without any problems, and, when you're familiar with AutoCad and SolidWorks, the learning curve isn't too steep. Compared to other professional programs, it isn't too expensive either. Try the free version you can download from their site, and look at the tutorials on ship hull design on YouTube. Hope you like it.
Kind regards,
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Sept 23, 2016 6:57:32 GMT
Good morning Peter (Tromp),
So now it's down to which photo's we are allowed to use, and which ones we're not. The detail I posted is from a photo that has the largest distance from the model, but still shows the nails. As mentioned before, photo's taken further away from their subjects show less photographic distortion than photo's taken closer to their subjects. So, I think, this photo is the best I could find in my collection. We know the forward shroud is vertical (the rigging plan shows this), we know the vertical sills of the gun ports are vertical (the Winter drawings show this), and we have a photograph that shows that the shroud and the sills are parallel, and that the nail patterns and the 'stutjes' follow along... What more could you possibly want?
Kind regards,
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Sept 21, 2016 14:31:15 GMT
Hey Jan,
But that's exactly what I'm trying to say here. If one photo of a model shows one thing, and another photo of that same model shows another thing... Compare my black lines with the yellow and blue lines. That's why I backed up the statement about the rhomboidal shape of the gunports with what Winter shows in his drawings. That, in my view, makes what we see in the photo more reliable.
Kind regards,
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Sept 21, 2016 12:22:32 GMT
Hi all, Here's a picture of the Hohenzollern-model that, in my view, shows that the nail patterns are parallel to the forward shroud of the mizzen mast, and not to the backward shroud. I added some some black lines to show what I mean. In reality the mizzen mast is leaning backward, but the forward shroud is almost vertical. All the nail patterns are almost parallel to this shroud, any unparallelity can, in my view, be explained by photographic distortion. Except the pattern of the row of nails between the aftermost shroud and the gallery. Maybe the builder of the model lost track there. This picture, in my view, also shows that the gunport between the shrouds is rhomboidal, and not square. That is also what Winter's own drawings of the model show: rhomboidal gunports. In his drawings the vertical sills of the gunports are perpendicular to the waterline, and the 'horizontal' sills follow the sheer of the deck. Kind regards, Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Sept 21, 2016 6:56:28 GMT
Hello Fred,
Thanks for the complete picture. Things look promising for a couple of Dutch wrecks then. And with a lot of new data to be expected, I can't wait.
Regards,
Jules
|
|