La Créole 1827 by archjofo - Scale 1/48 - French corvette

@Steef66
Hello Stephan,
Thank you for the interesting post with the pictures and suggestions.

Supplementary Note on the Routing of the Mainsail Bowlines
To further illustrate the issue described above regarding the routing of the mainsail bowlines (blue lines), I’d like to share two visual references. These are based on cropped images of my model and excerpts from Boudriot’s monograph, and are intended to clarify the technical challenge posed by the forward-leading arrangement.




From my perspective, the solution depicted in the monograph—leading the bowlines over the foredeck—raises questions, particularly with regard to potential interference with the foremast rigging.

This configuration seems unusual when compared to other period models, where bowlines are typically belayed aft of the foremast.

I’d be very interested to hear your thoughts on this matter, and whether similar arrangements have been documented elsewhere.

Der William Rex

@Steef66
Hello Stephan,
Thanks for the impressive pictures. I also think this is a plausible way of laying the mainsail bow lines.
Here I'm showing an example from a French ship, the Foudroyante from 1794. There, the mainsail bowlines are attached aft of the foremast.

archjofo said:

@Steef66
Hello Stephan,
Thanks for the impressive pictures. I also think this is a plausible way of laying the mainsail bow lines.
Here I'm showing an example from a French ship, the Foudroyante from 1794. There, the mainsail bowlines are attached aft of the foremast.
View attachment 551102

Click to expand...

I got this link of the Dutch ship "De gerechtigheid" but the link is death for the moment. I should not be like that.

Another one 1666 De krijgsraad v/d Velde

Witaj
Może to Johanie ci pomoże tyle że ty masz korwete a ja frégate. Pozdrawiam Mirek

View attachment 20251019_163801.mp4

View attachment 20251019_163922.mp4

@Mirek

Cześć Mirku,
Dziękuję za tę informację.Nie sądzę, żeby miało to jakiekolwiek znaczenie, czy to fregata, czy korweta.
Układ linek grota, który pokazałeś, ma sens i tak właśnie jestem do tego przyzwyczajony.
A tak przy okazji, to bardzo ładny model.

Pozdrawiam,
Johann

Hello Mirek,
Thank you for this information.
I think it makes no difference whether it's a frigate or a corvette. The arrangement you showed for the mainsail's bowline guides makes sense, and that's how I'm familiar with it.
By the way, that's a very nice model.

Mirek said:

Witaj
Może to Johanie ci pomoże tyle że ty masz korwete a ja frégate. Pozdrawiam Mirek

View attachment 551290

View attachment 551297

Click to expand...

Not visible for me

If the model is without sails, then the bowlines of the lower sails do not need to be installed - according to the French rules, these bowlines were removed. When the sails were secured to the yards, the bowlines were re-set. The French scheme involved laying bowlines to the after bitts of the foremast or to blocks on the deck next to them.
Dutch, English, Russian and Spanish schemes are not suitable.
Bowline sails can be found on models from the Paris Marine Museum collection, but only on models with sails.

iutar said:

If the model is without sails, then the bowlines of the lower sails do not need to be installed - according to the French rules, these bowlines were removed. When the sails were secured to the yards, the bowlines were re-set. The French scheme involved laying bowlines to the after bitts of the foremast or to blocks on the deck next to them.
Dutch, English, Russian and Spanish schemes are not suitable.
Bowline sails can be found on models from the Paris Marine Museum collection, but only on models with sails.
View attachment 551414 View attachment 551415 View attachment 551416 View attachment 551417 View attachment 551420 View attachment 551418

Click to expand...

This is the sort of information modelers crave, how lines are rigged when not in use when the sails were removed.

iutar said:

The French scheme involved laying bowlines to the after bitts of the foremast or to blocks on the deck next to them.
Dutch, English, Russian and Spanish schemes are not suitable.
Bowline sails can be found on models from the Paris Marine Museum collection, but only on models with sails.

Click to expand...

Great example, which ship and from which year is this ship a model?

iutar said:

If the model is without sails, then the bowlines of the lower sails do not need to be installed - according to the French rules, these bowlines were removed. When the sails were secured to the yards, the bowlines were re-set. The French scheme involved laying bowlines to the after bitts of the foremast or to blocks on the deck next to them.
Dutch, English, Russian and Spanish schemes are not suitable.
Bowline sails can be found on models from the Paris Marine Museum collection, but only on models with sails.

Click to expand...

@iutar

Hello,
Thank you for your insightful remarks regarding the French approach to bowlines on models without set sails.
In this context, I’d be very interested to know which source supports your statement that “according to French rules, these bowlines were removed.” Is there a specific regulation, a contemporary document, or a monograph that clearly outlines this practice?

As a complementary note, I’d like to point out that the Paris Marine Museum does feature models without sails where bowlines are attached at the center of the yards – albeit without the corresponding bowline bridles.
One such example is the Friedland (1810). Likewise, the original model of the La Créole includes bowlines, as documented in several of my posts and illustrated through cropped images of the Paris original. Only the bowlines of the mainsail are absent.

Rigging of the Mainsail Bowlines – Boulines de grande voile
In the meantime, I have been able to clarify the principle of how the mainsail bowlines were rigged on my French corvette through the study of contemporary technical literature. It is important to maintain both the chronological and geographical context.
My findings are consistent with the observations made on the period models in the Musée national de la Marine.

The mainsail bowlines were led through snatch blocks (fr. poulie coupée), which were attached amidships on the deck abaft the foremast and belayed, for example, at the pin rail behind the foremast. Since the mainsail bowlines of larger ships required considerable force, they were usually double-purchased. Accordingly, blocks were fitted at the ends of the bowline bridles through which the bowlines were rove. Whenever the bowlines were not in use, they were unrove from the snatch blocks. Whether La Créole actually carried double-purchased bowlines could not be determined with certainty.

What is decisive, however, is a finding from contemporary literature:

The mainsail bowlines were not permanently rigged, in contrast to those of all the other sails. They were only bent on when actually needed; otherwise, they were kept ready for use on the foredeck.


Source: Nouveau Manuel complet de Marine by M. Verdier, Capitaine de Corvette, Paris 1837, p. 175.

This also explains why, on the period models (rigged without sails) in the Paris museum, bowlines are always to be seen on the other yards – but never on the main yard. The same applies to the original model of La Créole.

For this reason, I will consequently not represent mainsail bowlines on my model.
Nevertheless, for illustration, I show here how the rigging of the mainsail bowlines would have looked in principle:


Source: Manuel du Gabier, Paris 1875.

Bowlines and Bridles – Boulines et branches
In continuing my research on the bowlines (boulines) for my French corvette, I came across an intriguing national distinction that manifests not only in theory but also in practical model execution.

I have since identified a differing treatment of bowlines when sails are struck, between British and French practice. The aim of these measures was to prevent the lines from becoming entangled and to ensure immediate readiness when re-rigging. These differences are well documented in contemporary sources and observable in period models:

a) British Practice:
British manuals such as David Steel (1794), Darcy Lever (Sheet , 1808/1843), and Brady (The Kedge , 1841) depict bowlines fitted with spliced-in thimbles, through which the bridles were rove.
Lever states explicitly:
“The bowlines are rove through thimbles spliced into their ends, to which the bridles are attached.”


Source: The Young Sea Officer’s Sheet , Darcy Lever, p. 57, 1843

Accordingly, the British rigged the bowlines together with the bridles to the outer yardarms. This arrangement was certainly robust, but less flexible when striking sails, as bowlines and bridles had to be handled as a single unit.



Source: K. Schrage – Rundhölzer, Tauwerk und Segel, p. 144

b) French Practice:

Baudin (Manuel du jeune marin, 1828) notes that bowlines were rolled up and secured to the mast or yard after the sails were furled — “roulées et assujetties au mât ou à la vergue.” He does not elaborate on the exact method of securing them to the yard. However, his description suggests that the bridles remained attached to the sail. This interpretation is supported by illustrations in the Atlas du Génie Maritime, where bowlines are shown fastened to the bridles using toggles. This solution facilitated rapid bending and unbending of the sails.


Source: Atlas du Génie Maritime

The bowlines of the mainsails require separate consideration, as discussed in a previous contribution of mine.

On the period model of La Créole, as well as on numerous other models in the Musée national de la Marine, one can observe bowlines secured amidships on the yards, without bridles. In the case of La Créole, the bowlines in this example appear to be connected to the buntlines via eye splices or stopper knots, and thus stowed securely.


Source: Detail from the original model of La Créole, Musée de la Marine, Paris


Source: Detail from La Flore, Frégate de 18, Musée de la Marine, Paris, 1806

Personal Conclusion:
The French employed toggles at the bridles and secured the running ends of the bowlines amidships on the yard, where possible, e.g., in conjunction with the buntlines — in my view, a practical solution that facilitated swift re-rigging.
The British, by contrast, preferred spliced-in thimbles at the ends of the bowlines, through which the bridles were rove — a permanent and solid connection, but likely less flexible when striking sails.

This reveals a clear national differentiation, as seen in many other rigging elements.

As a result, I now need to revise the detail of the bowlines on the fore yard, which I had mistakenly and prematurely executed in analogy to British practice.


It seems important to me that such details shouldn't be viewed too absolutely. Depending on the ship type, time period, or source, different solutions may have existed side by side—and therefore, variants that deviate from the "schema" are not automatically wrong.

I welcome any feedback or additions — especially references to French sources that further illuminate the use of toggled connections.

Thanks for the research.