Le Saint Philippe 1693 after Jean-Claude Lemineur (Ancre) in scale 1:48

[Maarten]

Hi Stephan,

These windows are a fake structure directly placed on the hull. The don't protrude from the ships hull and therefore are invisible from the stern.

 

[GrantTyler]

Paul’s logs and all the discussion related are a shipbuilders paradise…

 

[Steef66]

Hi Stephan,

These windows are a fake structure directly placed on the hull. The don't protrude from the ships hull and therefore are invisible from the stern.

In that case the ornament on top and bottom are flat too. And the difference between left and right from the centerline is correct. Too fake the look from a distance that it is shaped. No artistic look needed.

IceT would say: "Those fake ass French bitches"

 

[dockattner]

I’d actually build a prototype first. I’d start with a 2D drawing, print it out, stick it onto cardboard and adjust it to the hull until it sits harmoniously on it. Then I’d work my way up and down from the centre by adding layers of cardboard; there’s also architectural cardboard available, which is a bit thicker. You can then work on it from all sides and transform the 2D design into 3D. Towards the end, you might use modelling clay to refine the shapes. Once everything fits, recreate the individual segments in wood and keep fitting them to the prototype; the prototype can then gradually be incorporated into the wooden structure. But as I said, that’s probably what I’d do – I don’t know if it’s the best way.

Thanks, Dirk. I have seen this done on other models. I think it is a good idea.

 

[dockattner]

Now these dots you connect with ruler to the lowest point of the gallery as these lines should coverge to this point. Now draw the lines at these angles across the panel. This should result in a panel with lines giving you the orientation of your carvings. Now you can simply draw the carvings radii and start carving.

Brilliant for its simplicity.

 

[dockattner]

Yup, the same problem of a 2D drawing that's actually a 3D form. the way Maarten discribes is a good solution to solve the problem.
I think the part left of the red line and the part on the right are almost equal, the same . Only the right is draw under an angle. It's a difficult thing for a brain to see the 3D shape in a 2D drawing. You need to train that by drawing 3D shapes. For example, draw a circle in a sqare on paper, devide it vertical with a line. Then make a fold along that vertical line and fold that part back. Now look to the left part and see what the right part does when you fold that back. That part will get narrow like the drawing you use. Where the fold possible is between window 2 and 3. Hope that helps.

Good advice, Stephan!

 

[dockattner]

Hey Paul, I had to do some catching up. First of all it’s really taking shape! Good work.
On the issue of the lower section, in my eyes it is leaning to the bow too much and the angle should be more inline with the upper portion. Look for more symmetry about your vertical line, which is a slight angle towards the bow, but is constant through the upper and lower. Hope that makes sense.

Paul, this is what I am refering to...
View attachment 614082

As you can see the vertical center from top to bottom is at a constant angle, however symmetry is not perfectly established in some areas.
If it were me, I would print this and scale it to fit on your ship properly and use it as a template. Mark the angle on your ship and use the pic above as a template to align all features about the center line. And note the carvings you made are at angles too, not vertical. They fan out from the center in both directions.
Hope this helps.

And it seems that angle is the same as the stern angle on both ships. So that’s a good guide IMO. Just figure out the offset distance.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and suggestions, Dean! Much appreciated and all very helpful!

 

[dockattner]

In the SP quarter drawing that Maarten posted, the forward third is also concave, like Lemineur

I guess I see that now - clever use of shadow in that drawing...just too clever for me as a novice.

And thanks for the prompt to re-draw the stern section myself - that will add to my understanding of it.

 

[dockattner]

Paul,

I have not parsed thru much of the above but I this is my view

1 - Kevlar gloves! The least cumbersome style may not have completely stopped the micro spear - diverted it probably.
If you are right handed - just on the left is enough - the economy are probably uni anyway.
I hope that the foreign material the spear took with it into your finger did not make your giant killer macrophages too angry!

I was advised to never go any saw blade wearing gloves - tablesaw, bandsaw, circularsaw, The fabric will pull your fingers into the action.

2. If I have a choice between Lemineur and contemporary - contemporary wins every time.

3. I would not use the contemporary as anything like a blue print. Use it for what was there. Draw your own plan for where.
The original is old - very old - the illustration may be a photo
It is on an organic matrix. Time - temp - humidity oxygen = micro changes -360 degrees of possible twists and rotations of just very small regions within the single picture. Glass lens = imperfect - light wave shift


You went with the existing frame patterns in the monograph so you did not have to deal with the insanity of Lemineur's lines.
Canting every station 1.2 degrees right? - insane - the baseline should be at the 1.2 degree CCW rotation.
Is the Body plan what the shape is at vertical or the foreshortened 1.2 degrees?
The table mortise for the two frames in every bend? No way! Totally nuts! It was one off in 1693 - a failed idea - why continue to embarrass the poor shipwright three hundred plus years later?

Dean

Thanks for this, Dean. A proper reframing of this monograph and my attempt to understand and use it.

 

[dockattner]

Paul’s logs and all the discussion related are a shipbuilders paradise…

As well as my personal nightmare ...

 

[dockattner]

In that case the ornament on top and bottom are flat too. And the difference between left and right from the centerline is correct. Too fake the look from a distance that it is shaped. No artistic look needed.

IceT would say: "Those fake ass French bitches"

But the balcony sections are not a facade so we end up with a single drawing that represents two things.

 

[Steef66]

But the balcony sections are not a facade so we end up with a single drawing that represents two things.

These French ass bitches where not always perfect. We in Dutch have a saying; "Met een Franse slag" that means "half-heartedly"

 

[Hubac’s Historian]

It isn't quite that the upper and lower finishings are flat. They're not painted on. Rather, they are low-relief, superficial structures that give the impression of a rounded form. I don't know this for certain, but I strongly suspect that trompe l'oeil painting techniques were also incorporated into these superficial structures to further lend a sense of depth.

For the French ships, in particular, the stern and quarter galleries take their cues from land-based palace architecture. They were quite literally designed to be palaces on the sea.

 

[dockattner]

Hello Friends,

My thanks to all the people who shared their observations about the alignment of the lower portion of my Saint Philippe quarter galleries.

What seemed so obvious in the 'thinking about it' stage tragically unraveled during the 'building it' stage. In one sense I'm sort of embarrassed by my work. But this structure is more complicated than it appears in a line drawing, and I take a bit of consolation in the simple truth that I have been out of my depth for about a year now building this model - and I shouldn't be all that surprised that some hard learning would be part of the process. In this case, a bit of denial in the early stage of questioning led to the loss of one full month of construction progress. Lesson learned.

Again, my thanks to those who offered suggestions and corrections - this forum has the ability to be very kind and helpful when it's not being a total jerk (yes, one of my haters also got involved though he lacked the courage to mock me (is that what you did???) on the public facing side of the forum).

This is not a very extensive update (stbd side only) because the deconstruction process created some collateral damage which needed to be addressed. And then there was the necessary progression through the stages of loss: denial, anger, depression, acceptance. How silly - it's a ship model...







Here is the before and after (before on top):



Can you believe I tossed out a month's worth of work for that small difference? What an odd group we are...

And I thank you for continuing to follow my work despite the mis-steps.

 

[DAWarden-(Jaager)]

Paul.

Can you believe I tossed out a month's worth of work for that small difference?

Yes, I can believe it. The difference is not all that small.
It is the carving that makes the waste so painful. The more that you do the carving, the faster and more proficient you will become with it.
One question: you mentioned the difficulty in carving the end grain. It is something to be avoided if at all possible. Did you end up making it two pieces with a cove joint at the corner? It is just a form of crown moulding after all. It is at the outlet of an outhouse.

Some perspective on what this project is:
This is a 17thC. floating palace. This is the ultimate project - a magnum opus.
If it was just lines and you had to also do the design, I doubt that you would have considered it.
As a monograph, it appears to be more approachable than it really is.

You jumped a lot of intermediate stages in skill progression. That classwork still has to be done. What you have done is sky dive to the top of the mountain instead of climbing it. This means that this project is your classroom. You probably should be finding that most of it will require multiple tries - way more than two.
There is no free lunch. You are probably just going to have to "sing Kathleen -- one more time" over and over.

Doing all this is the ultimate in working with wood.

 

[escabena]

I love this log because it's not just a log of building a model; it's also a log of many thoughts, doubts, and reflections that we all, or at least I often ask myself.
Keep it up!

Miguel.

 

[WojtasS]

Hi Pual
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the new structure isn't entirely correct. Please don't do anything stupid, I don't want you to have to reassemble this structure and waste another month of your life.. Just notice it and accept it you'll do it better next time. Each time I look at Saint Philippe QG, I discover new details that I hadn't noticed at first glance.

It's very important to look at every element from diffrent plans top, bottom, left, right, carved, uncarved. Even the sculpture drawings are helpful despite being only a vision. Do you want to play a little game, or should I get right to the point? I'll show you a couple of images—maybe you'll get it right away.

Tip: Look at shadow

 

[CLB]

Hello Friends,

My thanks to all the people who shared their observations about the alignment of the lower portion of my Saint Philippe quarter galleries.

What seemed so obvious in the 'thinking about it' stage tragically unraveled during the 'building it' stage. In one sense I'm sort of embarrassed by my work. But this structure is more complicated than it appears in a line drawing, and I take a bit of consolation in the simple truth that I have been out of my depth for about a year now building this model - and I shouldn't be all that surprised that some hard learning would be part of the process. In this case, a bit of denial in the early stage of questioning led to the loss of one full month of construction progress. Lesson learned.

Again, my thanks to those who offered suggestions and corrections - this forum has the ability to be very kind and helpful when it's not being a total jerk (yes, one of my haters also got involved though he lacked the courage to mock me (is that what you did???) on the public facing side of the forum).

This is not a very extensive update (stbd side only) because the deconstruction process created some collateral damage which needed to be addressed. And then there was the necessary progression through the stages of loss: denial, anger, depression, acceptance. How silly - it's a ship model...

View attachment 615492

View attachment 615493

View attachment 615494

Here is the before and after (before on top):

View attachment 615495

Can you believe I tossed out a month's worth of work for that small difference? What an odd group we are...

And I thank you for continuing to follow my work despite the mis-steps.

Looks much better Paul - in my mind well worth the effort - this is a good proving ground for all that will demanded later with more complicated shapes and carvings.

 

[GrantTyler]

Good morning Paul. To my untrained eye I can see a marked difference and improvement in the carving and shape. Whether it is correct or not I have no idea however it came out really well. Cheers Grant

 

[Maarten]

Hi Paul,

Certainly a huge improvement and worth all the efforts.
Indeed @WojtasS is correct.
Even the model shown by him is not representing the drawing completely, as also the jump in the freeze is present in the carving below it.


I can imagine in your line of work protruding parts is a frame are not wanted and a straight line is aimed for.

But your current works fits the other shown model so it will give a good appearence on the final gallery.
Job wel done.