|
Post by jules on Sept 19, 2016 13:54:02 GMT
Hello Fred,
Thanks for the reply. I was sure you had the book by Arent Vos; that bit of my post was for Jan. The timbers in SO1 sure look tilted. But everything is indeed very flat. What would the picture be when we place the side upright and make it curve along the bottom? No idea if this data is available from Arent. Looking forward to an update on the Norman's Bay Wreck. TRB-5, Huis te Kruiningen, sure looks very promising. It already seems a long time ago since the discovery hit the headlines. In the Dutch press it immediately turned into a discussion about who owns the wreck. According to the Netherlands the wreck is a Dutch ship of war, so the ship itself is Dutch territory; the ship and its contentst belong to the Netherlands. I hope these matters are cleared now. Good to hear that the ship is in deep mud. Still, I guess it'll take years before there will be anything revealed about the ship's structure. That is, if the financing doesn't dry up. I still remember an effort by a group of people who wanted to help financing the lifting of the A55-wreck out of the polder. It never materialized. It sometimes looks like we're only interested in finding and registering the position of the wrecks; the complete archaeological follow through hardly ever happens. Probably because of financial reasons.
Regards,
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Sept 19, 2016 13:36:12 GMT
Hello Peter J,
Thanks for finding the time to reply. Looking forward to your 'square cross section model'. Will it be a digital 3D-model, or a real life model in wood?
Kind regards,
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Sept 19, 2016 13:33:26 GMT
Hallo Jan,
About the how and when of my book. First about the when. Do not think in days, weeks or months; think in years. To say it in another way: I'm not in the process of finalizing the request for proposals for the printers yet. The about the how. Think of Boudriot's four volume 'Le vaisseau de 74 canons'. Is this still feasible in a time when all books are ripped and put on the internet within a couple of weeks? Is it feasible to publish something like this in Dutch? By the time I've finished writing, will there still be paper books, or has that concept disappeared in favour of digital books? So, still a lot of questions to be answered. I'll tackle them when I get there.
Met vriendelijke groet,
Jules
PS I'm still looking for a great model builder to test my 3D reconstructions. So when you've finished building your Prins Willem...
|
|
|
Post by jules on Sept 16, 2016 15:09:04 GMT
Hello Fred and Jan (Amateur), There's some more information about SO1 in Arent Vos's book 'Onderwaterarcheologie op de Rede van Texel' of 2012. That book also contains a large print of this drawing. (RCE, Amersfoort) Since we're talking wrecks now. Does any of you know if there is something new on the Norman's Bay Wreck near Eastbourne in the south of England? That ship is probably Utrecht, aka Stad Utrecht, aka Wapen van Utrecht of the Admiralty of Amsterdam. Built in 1665 at 147x38x14,5 foot. She sank in 1690, after the battle of Beachy Head. Dendrochronology of parts of the hull show the wood is from the continent. The National Archaeological Society is working on this site. That ship, if it is the Utrecht, would make a good comparison with the Hohenzollern-model or the Gent-model. Here's a Van de Velde drawing of her. (NMM-Greenwich) Kind regards, Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Sept 16, 2016 13:34:58 GMT
Hello Rein,
Considering the length of Gouden Leeuw, 170 foot or 178 foot. In all the contemporary sources I can only find 170 foot. Admiralty of Amsterdam, Staten van Holland, and the 'French spy list' from Seignelay of 1671, mention 170 foot. The length of 178 foot probably originates from a miswritten entrance in a list of 1817 in the National Archives. This list was copied, including that same entrance, and that copy is now in the Scheepvaartmuseum in Amsterdam. The 178 foot from these two sources, has found its way into many publications. The most recent victim, I think, would be Bender's 'Dutch warships in the Age of Sail' of 2014.
Kind regards,
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Sept 16, 2016 13:16:00 GMT
Hello Peter (Tromp),
Apology accepted. Thanks.
Kind regards,
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Sept 16, 2016 8:16:43 GMT
Hello Tromp,
I think you got my reaction to your questions of last year mixed up with the reaction of some of the other historians you consulted. So please, check your facts first before you start making accusations about me. To refreshen your memory. It is not like you made the observation that Vasa has tilted frames, first. Fred knew this way before you, and he shared his knowledge, for example, in the thread 'Framing revisited' I posted on March 8, 2014. On March 10 Fred replies: 'The frames also do not sit parallel to each other or square to the keel, but tend to gradually tilt in towards amidships near the end.' So if you only came here to get confirmed that Vasa had tilted frames, the only thing you had to do was read this thread. I did read Fred's reply, and I can say that I knew that Vasa had tilted frames when you started asking your questions to me in 2015. Now, did I not want to share this information with you? On the contrary, I shared this information with you. Let's go back. In July 2015 you came to me with a question about the relation between the shape of the gun ports and the framing in the Hohenzollern model. So, not in Vasa, but in the Hohenzollern model. I answered your question without even mentioning Vasa. Then, in the second round, Vasa entered the discussion, and I said this: 'When you look at the only reliable archaeological source we have that shows the upper part of the ship, Vasa, we're talking about a source of 1628. And these ships were completely different from the ship we see about 1665. Decks had way much more curve in those days. For one thing the decks of the later ships tended to get flatter and flatter until almost straight at the end of the century. Maybe the frame parts followed allong, and got steeper and steeper until vertical. We have other archaeological sources for the underside of the ships. For example: E81, Vasa, the B&W-wrecks. These all show flat bellies, not the Hohenzollern-one. What shall we do about that? Nothing, you're building a copy of a model. Again, I can't stress this enough, you're making a model of a model. You have to reproduce the model, not the 17th century ship. And, as stated above, we have only limited sources for this model. If you conclude from these sources, photographs mainly, that the gun ports were tilted, be my guest. Nothing wrong with that. I can live with that. ... Good luck with your struggle. Make the right decision. Hope I could be of some assistance.
Kind regards,
Jules' [end of quote]
I think this speaks for itself, but here we go: making a difference between Vasa and ships of 1665, and confirming Vasa had tilted frames.
How was I to know you were going to make a theory concerning all Dutch ships of the 17th century out of this? Because that is what you did. You did not only present your 'Vasa has tilted frames'-theory, you generalised for the whole 17th century. That is not what I did, that is what you did.
If you feel you need to apologize, do not hesitate.
Kind regards,
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Sept 15, 2016 10:15:46 GMT
Hello Peter (Tromp),
Thanks for your reaction, though I do not understand the 'now that explains a lot!'. Why is it that I already thought that nothing was going to convince you? Maybe it is because I tried to convince you with the same arguments a year ago, and didn't succeed. To say it in short: will I ever convince you? No. Do I want to convince you? No. Do I care? No. You just keep on focussing on the photographs of the Hohenzollernmodel. But, there are some serious flaws in the model. To name but two. As mentioned in my post to Jan above, the hullshape is not ok. And as Rein explained to you only this week, the distance between the decks is not ok. Don't get me wrong, I still think this model is of enormous importance to us. It shows a great many details that explain what we read in the sources. But, like Witsen, the model is not holy. You have to back up what you think you see in the model, with what you find in other sources. When you still think the frames tilt in the model, be my guest, but where's the back up? Do not tell me it is in some drawing of the wharf of an artist. You yourself rejected all evidence created by artists. In doing so, tying my hands behind my back, because I couldn't use any work created by artists like the Van de Veldes, Storck, Bakhuysen, etc., to tell you your theory might be wrong. And now you want me to accept your drawing? No, but thanks anyway. I might be more willing to answer your questions, if you would answer mine. Here's the one that kept me wondering: who are the historians you mention in your first post? I contacted a couple, Werner Bruns and Ab Hoving. Werner had talked with you and rejected your theory, Ab didn't know you. I asked Ab to join us in the discussion, but he did not want to. He told me not to waist my time. He said, I have to translate, 'you can come up with all the proof you have, they will only say that you have an opinion, but that you have no proof.' A man of great wisdom... To repeat my question: who are the other historians? I think you may have missed Fred's quote. I repeated it in my, I admit it, far too short answer to him. So, if you don't mind, I am going to use 'the most commontype of framing in Dutch shipyards' in my reconstruction of Gouden Leeuw.
Kind regards,
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Sept 15, 2016 9:35:21 GMT
Good morning Fred,
Thanks for spelling it out for me. Your 'I believe that by the second half of the 17th century, parallel frames were the most common type of framing in Dutch shipyards, and that all of the different types of evidence available to us are more or less in agreement about this. This is true for ships built in both the bottom based and frame based traditions.', made my day.
If you don't mind I will get back to you about some small stuff.
Kind regards,
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Sept 15, 2016 9:24:03 GMT
Goedemorgen Jan,
Thanks for your positive reaction. Yes, the complete reconstruction of the ship forms the biggest part of the book. And, before you ask, there will be a set of plans for modelers. But, there's still a lot to be done. Main problem: hull shape underneath the waterline. The Van de Veldes and their colleagues are very good at showing the hull above water, underneath is more of a problem. Like many times mentioned here, not a lot of papertrail for the bottom first building method. Witsen, giving the ordinates for the hullshape of his pinas, helps of course, and there are other sources, but not too many. And, before anyone else asks, the hullshape of the Hohenzollernmodel is not a good representation of the actual hullshapes that were built. Helas, the hullshape of the model does not show the characteristics that are mentioned in the contracts for the Gouden Leeuw, or other ships from this era. And before anyone asks if the hullshape was actually built according to the contracts, yes, we have the acceptance reports showing that the hullshape was in accordance with the contract. If only the contracts would state more actual demands for the hullshape. But, I'll get there in the end, promise.
Met vriendelijke groet,
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Sept 14, 2016 15:59:04 GMT
Hello Peter J, To say it bluntly, I don't care about placing it in a time frame or whatever. All I care about is how it was done in the 1660s-70s at the Admiral's wharf in Amsterdam. To be even more precise, I only care about how it was done for one ship. What Fred is doing for Vasa, I'm doing for another ship. Fred is building a comprehensible data set for Vasa, I'm building a comprehensible data set for this ship. (Drawing Van de Velde the elder, National Maritime Museum, Greenwich) It is the Gouden Leeuw, built in 1666-67 by the Admiralty of Amsterdam. I am writing a book about the history of this ship, and a large part of its history is, of course, me being a technical guy, its concept and its building. I know this ship was built using the bottom based building method. And the question for me is simple: do I need to give 'my ship' tilted frames or not? Nothing in all the evidence I had gathered over the last 30 years or so, showed tilted frames (Witsen only providing part of the evidence. There is a lot more). And then someone comes along making statements about how 'my ship' was built, with tilted frames, and I saw this confirmed by an archaeologist I respect greatly. It's time to get active, I thought, we can't have that! So let me tell you how I think this discussion progressed (at the risk of being pedantic): June 25, Peter (Tromp) posted his theory about the tilted frames in Dutch ships. July 4, the discussion ended with the consensus that the frames of Dutch built ships tilt during the 17th century. The thread died, 200 views, that's it. July 28, I thought this had gone too far, and started chipping away the evidence for the theory. Starting with archaeology: E81 shows parallel frames in combination with the bottom based building method. August 14, Peter (Tromp) stated that frames had to tilt because the deck beams have to fit between the frames. This evidence was chipped away by Fred and me. August 15, I tried to introduce a time slot to the discussion: 1660s-70s, and asked if we can accept that gunports are formed by the frames. August 16, I said that Sturckenburgh shows parallel frames; chipping away more evidence. August 18, I posted about the sawmill technology in Holland. Linking building method to the preproduction of parts. And I posted the first bit for chipping away the Hohenzollern model proof (1660-70) for tilted frames. August 21, I posted the second bit for chipping away the Hoh.model evidence. August 23, I posted the third bit for chipping away the Hoh.model evidence. August 26, Gent materialized. August 29, I gave a sum up of all the evidence for the tilted frame theory that had been chipped away, and chipped away some more. And asked: why would they make tilted frames in the first place? August 30, your argument for the tilted frames was that the floor timbers follow the sheer of the bottom. Fred linked tilting to the bottom based building method. He called it 'one issue that has not been discussed yet'. Everybody agreed with his theory until September 8. August 31, Peter (Tromp) posted new evidence for the tilting, placing straight frames against planking is easier, and less work. (This evidence was chipped away by you and me (Sept.5). I replied to Fred that I doubted there was a link between bottom based ship building and tilted frames. September 1, Rein asked me if E81 shows tilted frames on the sternpost. Very relevant question, but looks like it wasn't noticed. If the shipwrights didn't mind doing the extra work on working the frames here, why would they mind doing it for the rest of the bottom? September 4, I answered Rein: in E81 frames are parallel on the stern post. September 5, I chipped away the evidence Peter (Tromp) came up with on Aug.31. And chipped away the evidence Jan (Amateur) came up with from Van Yk. September 8, because everybody seemed to agree with Fred's link of the bottom based building method with tilted frames, I had to make clear that 'we're missing a point here'. Fred hadn't answered my objections to his theory yet. (This changed Fred's tone a bit) September 11, I posted the Witsen drawing, that no one, inexplicably, during this whole discussion produced. September 14, it looks, I am careful, that there are no more arguments for why the tilting of the frames was necessary. And we all seem to agree that parallel framing was 'normal' and that it was combined with the bottom based building method. I can sleep in peace again: I do not need to scrap my research, or rewrite my book, everything is good again. (And, oh yeah, I almost forgot, somewhere along the line it was also made very clear that Vasa does not show 1660-70 shipbuilding.) (And, to answer Fred's question, do I want to be mentioned by my full name when he uses the research I have presented here? Hell, yeah. And don't he forget it. ) What worried me most in your answers, is that you make it sound as if it is very easy to place the floor timbers when following the sheer of the bottom. Keep in mind, it is a lot of work to shape the floor timbers according to the bottom. The bottom, at its extremities, is not a flat thing at all. It has a v-shape with a lot of curvature. Not easy to fit your floor timbers to that, parallel or tilted. I think the shipbuilders had a choice in making the floortimbers parallel or tilted, they sure were able to build both, they just preferred to do it parallel. And maybe this was induced by the demands in the contracts: the frames had to be placed against eachother in the bilges and at the lower wales. And again, it seems I can not stress this enough, when I say these things in this forum, I restrict myself to the 1660s and 70s. In my book I will explain why I dare to stretch this timeline. (And, I will surely go further into the advantages of the sawmills. You, and Fred, made clear to me that people do not take at face value what we Dutch consider as an open and shut case. To lift a tip of the veil: beams and curved wood were sawed in wood mills, and with multiple sawblades, so parallel.) About your remarks about Witsen. I can tell you haven't read his book. There is no doubt about what Witsen tells us. Witsen describes very, very clearly how ships were built in Amsterdam before 1671. So, read it. Do not base your thoughts on what others tell you, the others are wrong, go to the primary source and make up your own mind. Kind regards, Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Sept 13, 2016 13:06:43 GMT
Hello Jan,
I already said good bye to this discussion, but it seems that circumstances make me join again.
The discussion has changed a bit. August 30 Fred linked bottom based building to the tilting of the frames. When you do that, the bottom timbers need to tilt according to the sheer of the bottom. In Witsen's drawing they do not. They stay parallel, even when going forward, past the keel, over the stern post. As mentioned before, in a reply to Rein, this parallel position over the stern post is confirmed by the E81-wreck, and the Sturckenburgh-drawing. According to Fred and Peter Jenssen, the continuation of parallel framing in the front and aft of the ship would result in a lot of extra work for the ship builders. But apparently the ship builders didn't mind.
It is not for me to prove why Witsen doesn't mention the frames to be parallel, it is for people who say the frames are tilted, to prove that Witsen was wrong in showing parallel frames in this drawing. After all, should I prove that the frames are not horizontal, diagonal or circular? Witsen doesn't exclude these things either, so I would have to prove why? I don't think so, and I won't.
Kind regards,
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Sept 11, 2016 18:56:21 GMT
Hi all, I prepared a very long piece to post here, but decided against it. This is the short version. E81, unlike Vasa, shows its frames. The drying of the planking created openings between the planking. So I could see the framing, and I saw it was parallel. And I saw my observation confirmed by the model. So, parallel frames in combination with the bottom based building method. Witsen, describing the bottom based building method in extenso, doesn't mention tilted frames, and shows proof for parallel frames in combination with this building method. I do not understand how anyone can say anything sensible about this building method, if he doesn't accept the only source that thoroughly describes it. I would like to end my short version with this: The people in the know will recognize this immediately. For the people who are not, it's from Witsen's book and it shows parallel framing in a ship that was built bottom based. It's a complete mystery to me why during this whole discussion nobody came up with this. But I can already hear that whisper again: 'yeah, ok, but what did Witsen know? He was just a burgomaster... Good bye, Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Sept 8, 2016 9:06:24 GMT
Hello all,
A bit disrespectful maybe, but I would like to take the discussion back a step again. I think we're missing a point here. Now that everybody seems to accept Fred's explanation for why frames tilt, it is induced by the bottom based building method, I would like to raise a couple of questions. But first, I admit, a lengthy introduction.
When Fred says on August 30: '... the apparent change from tilted to parallel frames around the middle of the 17th century coincides, more or less, with the abandonment of the bottom-based assembly sequence, I don't think that's a coincidence.', and when I, in reply to this, say: 'I do not see a linked timeframe between the two' ('the two' being the building with tilted frames and the building with the bottom based method), and: 'It looks to me that bottom based shipbuilding outlasted tilted frame shipbuilding.', Fred has to come up with proof that this theory is true; or at least explain why he thinks his theory is true. And when Fred, in his post of September 5 repeats: 'To me, the relative orientation between the frames and bottom planking suggest that tilted frames were a traditional part of the bottom-based method,...', that, for me, does not form a reply to my objections.
Fred's theory that tilted frames are induced by the bottom based building method, maybe true for the time leading up to Vasa, but that does not explain why there was a long period of bottom based shipbuilding with parallel frames after that. We have to look forward from Vasa, not backward: we all seem to agree on seeing a change from tilted to parallel frames after the building of Vasa in 1628 and, say, 1652. When Fred's theory is correct, after this traditional period of about 20 years, there should be no more bottom based shipbuilding. After all, if the only reason for tilting the frames is the bottom based building method, the only explanation for the absence of tilted frames, is the absence of the bottom based building method. So when we see that the bottom based building method still exists after the transitional period, but that tilted frames no longer exist after the transitional period, the theory is not correct. And, in my opinion, that is what we see: the use of tilted frames had stopped in 1660-70, but the bottom based building method is still in use in 1660-70.
And now, finally, to the questions: If Fred's theory about there being a link between the use of tilted framing and bottom based shipbuilding is true, why does the E81 wreck, that sank around 1662, and was built with the bottom first method, show parallel frames? And why doesn't mention Witsen, who spent page after page describing the bottom first building method in 1671 and 1690, mention the tilted frames? These two things show, in my humble opinion, that the tilted frames got abandoned much, much earlier than the bottom first building method. But, if we have elegant answers to these two questions, that leave the theory intact, the theory may be true.
Your thoughts are welcome, as always.
Kind regards,
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Sept 6, 2016 8:34:38 GMT
Goedemorgen Jan,
I don't understand why Van Yk is so sloppy, as you call it, either. I've read these lines several times in the past, but had to give up. At first I interpreted them like you did, made the sketch, and came to the conclusion that this could not be what he meant. And, Van Yk is describing the frame first method which preconnects the frame parts to make a frame, and then erects this complete frame. Why the need to taper the oplangen in this case? No bottomplanking to follow with this method, the frames were simply placed on the keel, and the bottom planking placed against the frames. So, I decided I had to move on... (to boldly go where no one's ever gone before ... E81, Sturckenburgh, Gent and beyond).
Good luck with the quest,
Jules
|
|