Yes, but I have been scanning the pivpcs, all thise lower deck spuigaten do have this form. (And the same orientation: pointing forward). There seems to be method in this. However, it does not match the usual 'square with sack' model. Again: major alteration, or misunderstanding of 'how it should be'?
I admit the fenders are hard to find on drawings or pictures of Dutch ships from this period, but it seems they were used anyway.
Rein, I am not so sure I can find the small protrusion of the deckplanks of the 'luizenplecht' on the port side as well. And I am not so sure the small sliver of wood on the starboard side is actually a protruding deckplank. If it is a protruding deckplank, I think it is hard to make such a detail in a model, harder than making the 'normal' construction.
The v-shaped wooden contraptions in front of the scupper holes are a unique thing for the model. I never read anything about the use of them, and never saw them on other models. I can, with a lot of imagination, find a reason for them though. As mentioned already, normally the scupper holes would end in a hose made of leather or sail cloth nailed around the scupper hole. I can imagine that this construction was rather vulnerable to waves crashing into them, and that some sort of protection was needed. Maybe the streamlined v-shaped construction would provide that protection.
Will post some more photos of the model next time,
This great photo confirms a suspicion of mine. The upper rail of the galion needs to be low enough for the chase gun to have free field, and it has here. On the HZM this rail goes too high, it would be smashed by a gun in the same place.
That´s the reason for the missing beakhead bulkhead on that model - they simply wanted to conceal this flaw! That bulkhead didn´t get lost, it was never there in the first place.
By the way - the flower sculptures nr 1 and nr 2, seen from the bow, need to exchange their places on the three rails: on both sides of the ship. Obviously they fell to the ground at some time, and that was poorly repaired.
Interesting thought, but we will never be sure with respect to that beakhead bulkhead......
With respect to the sculptures, I can see that someone made a mess of those: most standing on the lower rail, but not all (the first on the left side sitting too high, the third sitting too low), but how can you be sure that the first and second on both sides need to switch places? Seen from the side, that would be difficult, as the angle of the underside does quite neatly follow the lower rail. Seen from aside it is number three that seems 'out of line': sitting too low, not parallelto the others, but also considerably smaller than the two at the foreward end.
I think, the basic thing is: Every sculpture sits with its foot on the upper surface of the lowest rail and its top is on about the same level as the upper surface of the highest rail, and the sculpture is bolted against a frame. They cut notches
etc. where there weren´t any because of hasty repaires.
Moving the chase guns to the beakhead bulkhead to shoot over the main rail was, for as far as I know, a common feature in shipbuilding in this period. We see it, for example, in contemporary Dutch models like Hollandia and William Rex. And we see it in England and France as well: Deane's doctrine and the Album the Colbert show the same feature. And we also see it in the Zeven Provincien reconstructions of Dik and Blom.
And now you tell me this is not the case in the Hohenzollern-model. But, when I look at the drawing of the front view of the model on Tafel II of Winter's book, I can see it would be possible to move a chase guns in this position, and that it would be possible to fire these guns over the main rail. Do you think this is a drawing fault? It would not be the first, but we better make sure.
Do you know if a front view photo of the Hohenzollern-model was taken by Winter, and if it is, could you post it here?
About the vases on the rails. For me it is very strange to find them on a Dutch ship. I never saw them on other contemporary models or in contemporary paintings. The English embellished the outside of the railings of their ships, but the Dutch did not. If these vases dropped of the model and were misplaced during a repair afterwards... who can tell for sure?
Yes, you're right, I've noticed the broad filling board on the Hohenzollern-model as well. And I also noticed that the head of the Hohenzollern-model is indeed different from the head of the Gent-model.
But, what I meant to say was that the drawing of the front view of the model would suggest that here was room for placing a chase port in the right position in the beakhead bulkhead anyway. See the red circle I added to that drawing:
Would you say that this is a mistake in the drawing, and that it would not have been possible to position such a chase port in the beakhead bulkhead?
You can also see on the drawing (and in some of the sideviews) that the upperrail is above the gunports of the upper gun deck. A forward pointing gun would have to be on a platform to get clear of the gallion. Plcing guns at the bakschot would be of no use. All models I checked have their upper rail at the level of the luizenplecht