Jules, now that explains a lot! You are writing a book about a Dutch Twodecker that was built on the Amsterdam yard between 1660-1670. We have pictures of an authentic model from that period and that yard that show that the frames were tilted which indicate that if this model had tilted frames then the ships that were built on that Yard most likely also had tilted frames. Even in 1660 - 1670. I think we should all be in agreement by now that the tilted frames didn't disappear by a flick of a switch on January 1st 1650. As Fred explained this method was slowly phased out but was probably still in use in the second half of the 17th century even though frame first was taking over at that time. We have no definitive evidence disproving this. I have to say Jules, you haven't "chipped away" anything. Far from it. But as you mentioned my post from August 21st may I remind you that you still haven't answered the questions that I asked then. Peter
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 GoudenLeeuw, 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.
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.
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 GoudenLeeuw.
Jan, The Scheurrak SO1 wreck (1590s) and the Swash Channel wreck (late 1620s) are both examples of large, Dutch-built merchantmen with substantial hull, remains, so are doubtless of interest in this question. In both cases, what is preserved are sections of the upper part of the side. In the case of SO1, it is mostly one large contiguous fragment near amidships, while the Swash Channel wreck is several large, disassociated pieces. It may be possible to extract frame orientation from these remains if they can be recorded with care, but as we have discussed previously, the dimensional differences between the two framing methods are relatively slight, especially in the central body of the hull. With disassociated fragments, it is also difficult to evaluate the relative angles over long distances.
In the case of the Swash Channel wreck, a surviving section of the upper side at the bow has been documented in detail, and it appears to show parallel frames. The frames themselves taper in width, but their spacing on the planks does not show any significant lean. The people who are working with this material are of the opinion that the ship was built in the "southern" (frame-based) method for other reasons,so this is not necessarily surprising. I do not have access to similarly detailed data for SO1 so would hesitate to say anything about it.
The Gouden Leuww is for sure a great project for a book. I have a question: Will you use the 178 vt figure for length between uprights, or 170? I think 178 is stated in a french intelligence report at the beginning of the 1670ties. I strongly suspect that cannot be correct. 170 is in an Amsterdam list. Which one will you use? rein
the difference between what we were discussing last year and what we are discussing here is that last year you and others refused to accept the leaning Frames completely! And that is why I brought the discussion here because I knew that the Vasa was built that way, one can see it in the Pictures, and I knew that Fred would support my observation, and that's what he did. Now your refusal to accept the leaning Frames is reduced to the time-span 1650 onwards. This is a big difference to your views last year. So it is no surprise that you couldn't convince me last year and for the same reasons you can't convince me now. You have your opinian and I have mine. There is nothing wrong with that.
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.
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.
Considering the length of GoudenLeeuw, 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.
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 StadUtrecht, aka WapenvanUtrecht 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)