Chess trees

[AllanKP69]

I am researching a 44 gun British frigate of 1744 and the contemporary plan does not show chess trees on the hull. It does show two fenders, but no chess tree. I looked at several more plans of fifth rates prior to the 1745 Establishment and none of the ones I saw show chess trees. Those that I saw from 1745 and beyond do show them. My conclusion would be that they came into use with the 1745 Establishment, but, the 1719 Establishment gives scantlings for chess trees for ships of 70 guns and smaller. Does anyone have information based on contemporary sources regarding when chess trees would have been installed on British naval vessels?
TIA
Allan

 

[DAWarden-(Jaager)]

I checked my plans list for 44 gun and found this for a 1741 Establishments Fifth rate Pearl j5475 ZAZ2278



I think I see something that could be a ches-tree - had to look it up in Falconer I just thought of it as being a fixed sheave block.

Pearl has two full gun decks plus possible guns on the Q-deck and F-deck. I am imagining that these things sailed like a slug - being short and fat with too much hull for wind to hit for its length. I like to think of a frigate as being long, low, and sleek. A ship with one full gun deck and additional guns on the Q-deck and F-deck. Blame
FIRST FRIGATES ,THE GARDINER,ROBERT CONWAY MARITIME PRESS LONDON 1992

HEAVY FRIGATE ,THE VOL.1 GARDINER,ROBERT CONWAY MARITIME PRESS LONDON 1994
I am still waiting for vol. 2

 

[DAWarden-(Jaager)]

A deeper search of my files:
positive for ches-tree =
Garland 20 1719
Argyle 50 1719
Centurion 60 1732
Namur 90 1723
Shark 8 1732
Victory 100 1737
Suffolk 70 1739
Yarmouth 70 1745 possible
Royal George 1756

At first I only looked at the ones I have prints - much higher resolution
So it was one example of every class for every Establishment.
The haphazard nature of ches-tree presence had me looking at KB size NMM icons.
When it came up with Namur 90 I stopped.

My opinion has it the the presence or absence of ches-tree on design plans is not a reliable indication of anything. I suspect the the presence on a particular design plan was an affectation of the draftsman and added on a whim.
The captain or shipsmaster? (the details guy for the ship's functioning) could add or remove a ches-tree with an afternoon's work?
I would vote that any ship from 1719 Establishment on could and probably did have at least one ches-tree.

 

[AllanKP69]

I am imagining that these things sailed like a slug

Maybe that is why the one I am researching sunk in a protected bay while towing a capture. I would not have chosen this ship under normal circumstances.

In any case, I wonder which Pearl drawing is correct? I have the one below in high res from RMG and she shows she was built similar to original Roebuck, Fowey, et al. The double tier of stern lights in the drawing above makes her look like Roebuck when they added the faked tier so she looked like a larger ship to the enemy. This drawing shows no evidence of a chess tree but the fenders are very clear.

 

[DAWarden-(Jaager)]

Here is what Winfield has for Pearl:

Pearl 1708 40 1706 Establishment
Pearl 1726 40 1719 Establishment
Pearl 1744 44 1741 Establishment
Pearl 1762 32 Niger class
Pearl 1780 18 sloop ex-French prize

A ship may be a total loser as a design - but it did exist and should be modeled if only to show what was an example of a bad idea.

I have it in mind to eventually build an 80 - a rate that was the worst of all possible choices - yet the RN Suits persisted in building them even after every captain who commanded one informed them about how poorly an 80 performed. My perverse streak likes the idea.

 

[AllanKP69]

Thanks Dean,
There are missing things on the drawing like the anchor lining, hawse holes, et al, so the chess trees may indeed be one of them. The project is for HMS Fowey, that was rebuilt as a 44 supposedly based on the plans above which list Pearl, Roebuck, Lark, Fowey and others in the upper right corner of the drawing. I am working with the National Parks Service on this and want to be as accurate as possible. There are some oddities, including the framing, according to the archeologist I am working with, based on the wreck in Biscayne Bay. Sorting these out is a bit of a challenge.
Thanks again for your input, it is always appreciated.
Allan

 

[DAWarden-(Jaager)]

Allan,

Fowey is the name of two vessels that were almost contemporaries. The name was handed off with the same captain shifting from one to the other.
Fowey 40 1709 1706 Establishment design. Portsmouth built. In service until 1744. In 1744 there was an order for it to be reduced to 24 and renamed Queenborough. Instead, it was determined that the hull had deteriorated beyond saving and it was sold 1746.

Fowey 44 1744 1741 Establishment design. private yard built Hugh Blaydes - Hull. Fowey caused a 24 gun privateer to be run ashore at St. Malouine (France?) 1745. It was wrecked near Cape Florida 1748.

Where is Cape Florida? Looking - at the south tip of the sand bank island that is Key Biscayne hello Tricky Dick - a park.
I am going to do a riff based on this scant data:
Fowey being built at a private yard and that yard is listed as building four of the vessels in this class: Anglesea, Hector, Poole, and Fowey.
The same plan from the Navy Board(?) (there were two committees with less than efficient zones of responsibilities and more jealous competition than cooperation). The plan would probably have been bare bones on detail and not likely to have survived. I bet the written contract was anything but bare bones. You are probably well aware of my cynical opinion of the labor intensive inefficiencies of Navy shipyards. Wall of timber, top timbers chasing around Carter's barn to keep from cutting into one when framing a gun port. Looks like too much make-work to me. NOW - a private for profit yard working under a government contract that was probably far from generous could not afford to build that inefficiently. They would probably push the edge of acceptable and more if they could get by with it. The bones that you are working from probably reflect this.
A choice: do you want a recreation in wood - model size - to celebrate the work of a minimum required private yard? or the ideal hull framing as if it had been built in a government yard?
You know that if I built it - the framing would be stylized and the above the wale the (as attractive as 2x4 house) framing would be totally hidden behind planking - so as to not hurt my eyes. For a government museum that will probably want a half and half planked port and only framing stb. I would vote to go with ideal rather than what Hugh Blades probably built.

 

[AllanKP69]

Hi Dean,
I am working with the marine archaeologist that has written papers on (HMS) Fowey (44) Launched 14 August 1774 see (BISC-UW-20,8DA11948) which sank in the Legare ancherage, (I misspelled ancher so the stupid icon does not show up) in Biscayne Bay in 1748. After she became exposed to a great extent after hurricane Andrew blew through in 1992 the wreck has turned up some interesting things on the framing which is part of an upcoming meeting we are having next month. We will go through the Roebuck contract and drawings to see what is most applicable as Fowey is named on the contemporary drawing along with several others as mentioned above. There are discrepancies between the contract and drawing that we have to resolve if possible. Two papers on her follow, including a paper by Josh Marano with whom I am meeting and a Master's thesis by Cornelia Lowerre, University of Miami. One example in looking at the Roebuck contract is that the keel and false keel are very different than the drawing so more decisions on what to use for scantlings. In the case of the keel, unfortunately there is no sign of the keel still existing on the wreck site. Sadly, many artifacts were stolen before the wreck site was made off limits, and little doubt there are thieves still diving on the wreck on occasion.

Scale size, hull only or fully rigged, etc. etc. are part of the meeting. They definitely want a portion of the framing shown based on the actual framing on the wreck so floors, futtocks, etc, for a portion of the hull will be exposed on the model.

Allan

 

[Bilge Ratt]

Allan;

You, and other members, may well be interested to know that chess-trees go back at least as far as the Elizabethan era, being mentioned sometimes in the records from then. From the context in which they are then mentioned, I believe that they were closer to the bow than was the case in later times.

They were actually done away with in the 18th century, although I can't remember if they were officially abolished. The reason was that they trapped damp against the hull planking, causing rot in what would otherwise be sound timber.

Ratty

 

[DAWarden-(Jaager)]

Allan,
My brain starts to turn to mush if I read too much technical writing.
I see from the drawing of the wreck site that the floor timbers and F1 timbers are near uniform in spacing.
To repeat myself, I believe that there was heavy use scrap space chocks between every timber at the keel level - even if the design plan shows them in direct contact -especially between the two pair members of a bend. It was too mundane and standard practice to be being documented on a plan. The bit about rot from water at the keel level - is true enough except that it was salt water. It would tend to inhibit fungus a bit being hypertonic. These timbers were thick - 12" to 15" - more often square in cross section. Now the vessels that sat on the ways in frame for 10 -20 years before being completed - usually first rate and by far the exception would be well seasoned before launch. For the vast majority of ships, I bet that a year or two of seasoning would be usual - war time for sure. So they were mostly green inside. The water there was not hypertonic. It was a race between water migrating out and fungus migrating in. The out face had planking. The inner face had ceiling (sealing). The only surface for internal water to escape was between the timbers. An air gap was necessary. My measurement has it as being a 1" or 2" gap. My vote is that it was a smaller than moulded dimension square of Pine or other soft wood. One would be at every bolt or dowel connecting a bend pair. These chocks would also be between bends and filling frames and between filling frames. The wood species used for these chocks would probably dissolve in a year or two after a wreck because the bugs would love eating them.
They are too much standard practice to rate documentation, but they had to be there.
They are also something best ignored in model framing. Too ugly.