Brilliant 64 Gun Ship 1690 3d Project

[GuyM]

Yes; there was always small archng of the stern, as well as all the decks; none were pancake flat........Water evacuation was the reason for the decks; I guess the tailing winds would have been the reason for the strn's arching, but I'm not sure of that

 

[WojtasS]

The rear surfaces of the sterns were never flat when viewed from above.
They were always more or less curved, as shown in the following examples.View attachment 606331View attachment 606332

I completely agree. It might have been an optical illusion, so I fixed it. Now there’s no doubt—I guess the curve wasn’t bent enough.

 

[WojtasS]

Now, as for the naming of the different drawings, you need to keep in mind one important thing; we do not know who drew those, nore do we know when.... In that respect, two drawings carrying different file names with the same illustration may very well simply depend on who gave it the file name while keepeing track of the works' inventory and during which period.......There are many mistakes in the filing of drawings and misinterpretations of the actual artists who drew them. One case being the museum's model called the Louis XV, and that same ship on a drawing being called the Royal Louis.....The same is true with mistakes on the 1668 Royal Louis drawings being written Monarque on them. In the case of your example, the 1670 Soleil Royal was registered initially when Colbert and Duquesne decided to build the 4four royal ships as a 120 canon ship, which it never became. The labeling however remained throughout time, and it's only when you find all the information about the evolution of the initial constructions and set up that you realize what they really were. The Tanneron ship is a very beautiful exercise in 1670 Soleil Royal stern ship decor, but the hull shape, and the bow's decor, aswell as the top gunport row are not from the ship; The front and the top gunport rows represent a style more related to the beginnig of the 1680's and beyond; the same is true for the brillant as far as the top gunport row; now, the Brillant's career was so long (25 years) that it must have ha some refit during its time; it is quite possible that those top ports were modified with the new style as with all the ships of that 1680's period; the same is true with the decor. It could be that the initial decor ( with the curtains) was in face the right decor, but by the time of the first refit, it was modified because of the rott in the wood carving, or some other reason; Tanneron's Brillant could also be any of the three first ships which carried that name in that period....Initially from 1671 to 1678; the name was tranfered to another ship from 1678 to 1687; and to a new build in 1688.....up to 1698.....All those ships were very similar in their appearance and construction....

I completely agree.

So I would suggest you keep the Tanneron Brillant as your main reference for your buld.

This might be a bit of a problem. I should clarify something. When I was choosing a ship for the project, the Tanneron's Briliant was one of the candidates. At that point, I didn't know much about it other than that it was a Tanneron model I liked. When I looked into it a little more, I discovered other variations of the carvings and the Souvenirs de La Marine plans. For final version of carvings I choose Berain variant. Tanneron model was helpfull for designing proportions of quarter galeries. The next issue I have is whether I should strictly follow the Berian sketch and add a second balcony (extension) at the stern, or follow the Tanneron and other Berain scetch which use a support pillar




As you can see, Tanneron used Berain’s exact sketch but omitted the “second balcony/extension” and simplified some of the stern’s ornamentation. QG are almost identical apart from their proportions, but I think this is largely because Berain’s sketches were merely an artist’s vision, and Tanneron had to adapt them to fit the physical objects. This leads me to conclude that Tanneron, for reasons known only to him, used only part of the sketch, and we are left to deduce what the source material was when he was building his models

 

[GuyM]

I completely agree. It might have been an optical illusion, so I fixed it. Now there’s no doubt—I guess the curve wasn’t bent enough.

View attachment 606409

The same should go for all the rear decks to stern junctions, including the rear windows

 

[GuyM]

I completely agree.

This might be a bit of a problem. I should clarify something. When I was choosing a ship for the project, the Tanneron's Briliant was one of the candidates. At that point, I didn't know much about it other than that it was a Tanneron model I liked. When I looked into it a little more, I discovered other variations of the carvings and the Souvenirs de La Marine plans. For final version of carvings I choose Berain variant. Tanneron model was helpfull for designing proportions of quarter galeries. The next issue I have is whether I should strictly follow the Berian sketch and add a second balcony (extension) at the stern, or follow the Tanneron and other Berain scetch which use a support pillar

View attachment 606415
View attachment 606416

As you can see, Tanneron used Berain’s exact sketch but omitted the “second balcony/extension” and simplified some of the stern’s ornamentation. QG are almost identical apart from their proportions, but I think this is largely because Berain’s sketches were merely an artist’s vision, and Tanneron had to adapt them to fit the physical objects. This leads me to conclude that Tanneron, for reasons known only to him, used only part of the sketch, and we are left to deduce what the source material was when he was building his models
View attachment 606418
View attachment 606417

I guess it will depend on your likings the Tanneron version may well have been of the 1678 ship of the later refit, while the earlier original may have been of the 1678 one, though Berain was just a student of Le Brun at that period; then again. Don't forget that there were always alterations during the ship's life simply because of the wear and tear......The Tanneron version may well show the ship during the late period of its life where the lower extensions were disappearing....

 

[WojtasS]

I guess it will depend on your likings the Tanneron version may well have been of the 1678 ship of the later refit, while the earlier original may have been of the 1678 one, though Berain was just a student of Le Brun at that period; then again. Don't forget that there were always alterations during the ship's life simply because of the wear and tear......The Tanneron version may well show the ship during the late period of its life where the lower extensions were disappearing....

It seems I'm making another artistic interpretation

 

[GuyM]

It seems I'm making another artistic interpretation

Indeed you are))) I don't think you'll find an exact document about what the ship looked like at a specific date; so, which ever version you make with the corresponding information will be right