AKERBOOM 1681 after Ab Hoving nominally 1/66 but drawings in 1/64

Hello friends!

This weekend I made a set of (and mirrowed) copies of the side view:
Polish_20250316_204806637.jpg
By using these so I can insert the deck's flat curve and some horizontal/WLs from the frames into the drawings to get my constructional stiffness...

to eat my heart out.

No! I think a plenty of stiffness can be given by simply glueing rectangular triangeld cardboard pices into the edges.

Thanks to you, very much and heartly for your advice, Ab!

Next stop for tomorrow we're the lines' colour code!
 
Last edited:
Hello friends,

today I do deal with the bulkheads and the colours of the horizontal lines:

IMG_20250317_101306_663.jpg

Blue: CWL
Green: 1500mms above Basis called a
Orange: 4500mms a.B. called c

So I did Work my way from the stem to the main frame lettering A, B,... ending with H on the lines' plan:
IMG_20250317_111112_252.jpg

Then I started my way from the stern end towards admidship:

IMG_20250317_110546_114.jpg

So I came from my provisorial A' up to H' in the aft linesplan:
IMG_20250317_111232_308.jpgSo I got H, H2, and H3 being simelar in shape between the half cut linesplan.


IMG_20250317_112740_233.jpg

I assume this three bulkheads are giving to us a straight line (with changes in the board side's hight only) - am I right?

So my question is if I am still right with three (below deck's level) similar shaped bulkheads? So by this H, H2, and H3 are mostly parallel to draw and to cut?

IMG_20250317_093300_859.jpg
And is it like in here that the thick in the lines' plan's drawings does show the same thick drawn line inthe side view?
 
Last edited:
On p.10 of Ab's book NICOLAES WITSEN AND SHIPBUILDING IN THE DUTCH GOLDEN AGE I found the following:
Polish_20250317_132728285.jpg
aside this text passage:
Polish_20250317_132805087.jpg
"on certain locations in the keel two identical frames are errected" So parallerity of parts of the hull's lines to the CL is possible due to this original source?
 
So my idea is to use thinner cardboard (1,5mm) getting it ridget by adding more layers and more girder parts and fill pices inside for example between orange WL (4500) and the deck;

and between the hull's underside and the green water line (1500) is a great opportinity:

IMG_20250317_110250_797.jpg
Also the decks will slize into their places by "card bars" giving foundation to rest and surface for glueing, too.

So the process of cutting all the bulkheads will be faster and easier...

... hopefully!
 
Last edited:
'I looked at an artist shop for some chromeoxyd acrylic/oil colours and got fascinated by the variations of "chromeoxyd" and stay still astonished of these prices.

I am pretty sure that the correct pigment for your period would be Malachite Green - a pigment derived from a naturally occurring copper mineral - happily still available.
 
Alan Smith said:
'I looked at an artist shop for some chromeoxyd acrylic/oil colours and got fascinated by the variations of "chromeoxyd" and stay still astonished of these prices.

I am pretty sure that the correct pigment for your period would be Malachite Green - a pigment derived from a naturally occurring copper mineral - happily still available.
Click to expand...
Thanks Alan,

that is a very helpfull that this mineral ist still alive and kicking and so I found some Questions in the information you wrote about
I did find some shades of the colour:

61489.png

So there is certainly a bundle of Art historical Questions about the use like:

Was the green colour used in a for example chalked underground?
Was it painted directly on the sanded wood?
Was the linseed oil used to mix the paint ready? How was it darkend by this process?

Is there any grown knowledge collected from the archeological build of BATAVIA or DUYFKEN we do have got?
 
Last edited:
1742236963688.png

Variation of colour in natural mineral pigments is common - think of all the different shades of Ochre ranging from Crimson to brownish-yellow. This slice of natural malachite also shows variations of colour within a single sample. Grinding it fine in oil would not necessarily darken it, but the oil itself would darken over time. I think that this is a case of 'it's your model, paint how you like;' A fine model in any colour it will be too.

I'm afraid I know nothing about any archaeological discoveries related to the actual ships- but this place is a treasure-house of knowledge, I am sure that if there is information extant about the actualité someone will know it.
 
I'm not sure why you are looking for greens. I usually use blue, mixed with a little bit of yellow an a tiny bit of black. If green was used (we cannot be too sure) it would have probably been 'spanish green' a cheap earth pigment. But the choice is yours...
 
Ab Hoving said:
I'm not sure why you are looking for greens. I usually use blue, mixed with a little bit of yellow an a tiny bit of black. If green was used (we cannot be too sure) it would have probably been 'spanish green' a cheap earth pigment. But the choice is yours...
Click to expand...
That sounds very interesting and reasonable, Ab.
 
Ab Hoving said:
I always think this is the fun part.
The only suggestion I can make here is about the choice of your cardboard. You chose a thick, sturdy board with a thickness of 3 mm, which is fine for the construction, but cutting will be a harsh process. Poor arms and fingers. If you take 1 mm cardboard instead you can easily cut it and if required you can double or even triple it. Simply cut around the first layer. Saves a lot of sweat and swearing.
But of course, that's your own choice...
Click to expand...
For this I do changed the plan on the light construction using 1,5mm for the built...
 
Dear friends,

to go a bit into History I searched my brain.
As the AKERBOOM and her sister GIDEON is part of the 2nd charter of the 1660-80 building programm I did work on the list at Wikipedia [click] to collect all 140ft ships of the Amsterdam's admirality - as I was told above that these was a building programm of several ships (but I am unable to find the text's passage it was in) for the 2nd Anglo-Dutch War. If possible I added some intersting information from threedecks.org and other sources. I collected all the pictures I could find above the names and datas - so we do have got some idea what the ship looked like (as a helping hand if anybody wants to build in particular her.) This list isn't a dogma there might be very well errors in there - please add your knowledge to this.

The number of guns is given for
MD: Main Deck
UD: Upper Deck
BD: Back Deck
QD: Quater Deck
(the number of gunports is given behind)
as there were changes these will be noted.

So here my list of 140ft (and +/-5ft arround) ships. I try to understand the difference in armament between 50 Up to 65 and even 70 guns! :oops:

Out of the Amsterdam built ships are:

Here we do start with a portrait of GELOOF 1661 by Van de Velde (picture allways above the notes) showing here fine lines:
py5011.jpg
  • Geloof 60-guns (1661, 140 ft) – broken up 1676 MD: UD: BD: QD:
px6186.jpg
  • Liefde 70-guns (1661, 140 ft) – broken up 1666 MD: UD: BD: QD:
412506-cced2cc4d8997ed5eb456ff0c01947db.jpg
  • Akerboom 60-guns (1664, 140 ft) – wrecked 1689 MD: UD: BD: QD:
De_Gouden_Leeuw_Vlaggenschip_(Flagship)_Detail,_Willem_van_de_Velde_(I).png
  • Gouden Leeuwen 50-guns (1665, 141 ft) MD: UD: BD: QD:
beschermer_4.jpg
  • Beschermer 54-guns (1665, 141 3⁄4 ft) MD: UD: BD: QD:
  • Essen 50-guns (1665, 142 ft) MD: UD: BD: QD:
  • Oosterwijk ??-guns (or Huis te Oosterwijk) (140 ft) MD: UD: BD: QD:
py3859.jpg
  • Provincie van Utrecht 60-guns (1663, 145 ft) – broken up 1691 MD: UD: BD: QD:

Admiralty of the Noorderkwartier:
  • Monnikendam 62-guns (1664, 140 ft*) – wrecked 1683 second rate of the line MD: UD: BD: QD:
  • Alkmaar 62-guns (1666, 140 ft*) third rate of the line MD: UD: BD: QD:
  • Noorderkwartier 60-guns (1664, 136 ft) – sold 1686 MD: UD: BD: QD:
Admiralty of Friesland:
  • Vredewold 60-guns (1665, 140 ft) third rate of the line MD: UD: BD: QD:
  • Sneek 65-guns (1666, 150 ft) MD: UD: BD: QD:
Admiralty of the Maze (Rotterdam):
images (42).jpeg
  • Schieland 54-guns (1666, 140 ft) MD: UD: BD: QD:
portrait-of-the-wassenaar-rmg-pw6864-d27bf8-1024.jpg
  • Wassenaar 56-guns (1666, 140 ft) MD: UD: BD: QD:
Admirality of the Zeeland:
  • Zierikzee 60-guns (1665, 145 ft) MD: UD: BD: QD:
43934drsdl.jpg
  • Tholen 60-guns (1666, 145 ft) MD: UD: BD: QD:
  • Domburg 60-guns (1666, 145 ft) MD: UD: BD: QD:
So the question certainly is: Were the ships of the other admiralities build similar to AKERBOOM or GIDEON lines?

(When I do find the books and time to add further data I will add as much as possible...
so please stay patient.)

_______
*www.threeddecks.org says: "Length of Gundeck"
 
Last edited:
Hi Chris,

Don't expect these ships wrre build according similar lines. Most probably even the "sister" were not identical in lines. The finall shape of the ship depending on the hand of the master and available materials. The "bestek" of the ship is only guiding the main parameters of the ship leaving much up to the master shipwright building it.
To get an idea about bestekken have a look at Van Eijk's book.
 
Iterum said:
I wasn't able to find the title of a book about bestekken written by Van Eijk - can you help me?
Click to expand...
archive.org

De nederlandsche scheeps-bouw-konst open gestelt : vertoonende naar wat regel, of evenredenheyd, in Nederland meest alle scheepen werden gebouwd : mitsgaders masten, zeylen, ankers, en touwen, enz. daar aan gepast : soo suit de schriften van ouder, a

Added etched t.p. (with some engraving), signed in the plate: J. Luyken
archive.org

archive.org

Aeloude en hedendaegsche scheeps-bouw en bestier : waer in wijtloopigh wert verhandelt, de wijze van scheeps-timmeren, by Grieken en Romeynen : scheeps-oeffeningen, strijden, tucht, straffe, wetten en gewoonten : beneffens evenmatige grootheden van s

Etched half-title (with some engraving): Scheeps bovw en bestier, door N. Witsen / R.D. Hooghe inv. et fec. 1671
archive.org
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top