DE 7 PROVINCIËN (1665) 1:50

Before I could start with determining the lines of the planking I first have reduced what was first part of the bulkhead frame

20180912_201030.jpg

and later standard on which the model was built.

20181123_210549_resized.jpg

I have reduced it to what will be later the actual outline of the stem/keel/stern.

20231001_165818_resized.jpg

BTW this plywood, I call it the keel insert, will later on in the building process be used in several parts, further reduced, that will protrude from the hull a few millimeters and will hold the stem/stern/keel timbers firmly in place while being glued to the model.

With the aid of the stern timber I started with transferring the lines of the two lower including the garboard strake.
With those lines as starting point I have further divided the hull in equal parts.

20231001_170104_resized.jpg

20231001_165834_resized.jpg
 
Last edited:
So there it is. I'm still contemplating which method I will be using:

1) the "Shipyard-method" :
20231005_202001_resized.jpg

2) the "Dutch-method" (I must say, more pleasing to the eye) :
20231007_211401_resized.jpg

3) or even erase all the lines and go freestyling with let's call it the contemporary "Vasa-method" (it might have been the wisest method at the time to economically use the wood available, but by no means easy to execute)
Plank expansion BB VASA.jpg

PS. I invite you to share your ideas as to which method you would prefer. Please disregard my earlier statements regarding the methods, feel free to share your opinion.
 
Last edited:
So there it is. I'm still contemplating which method I will be using:

1) the "Shipyard-method" :
View attachment 398898

2) the "Dutch-method" (I must say, more pleasing to the eye) :
View attachment 398899

3) or even erase all the lines and go freestyling with let's call it the contemporary "Vasa-method" (it might have been the wisest method at the time to economically use the wood available, but by no means easy to execute)
View attachment 398906
Hi Herman. Option 2 looks indeed very nice. How will you make the inbetween joint by that option? I mean in the length of the strokes.
Regards, Peter
 
Last edited:
Mondfeld's "Dutch" method does not convince me at all, especially since it is presented using an example that in no way fits the era discussed here.

Bela
 
Hi Herman,

I think the "shipyard" system and Vasa system are most realistic.
I have seen your "shipyard" system in three wreck of ships with a very blunt bow, in this case fluyts of the second half of the 17th century. You will need this type of planking to create this blunt shape.

The vasa planking leads to a more rounded bow shape. You see this also in the planking layout of the Samuel wreck shown below.
0e21583e-c31b-29c6-c949-7e785ee02350.jpg
f08ee7a1-e122-dddd-010a-43093d24ca8b.jpg

7 Provinciën has a rather blunt bow and the choice of the "shipyard" planking will lead to a selection of more straight planks in the bow being the cheaper choice for the shipyard.
 
I agree with @Maarten here. The shipyard version 1 will be the most efficiënt and more suitable with the shape of the bow.
I'll be honest, version 2 is more pleasing to the eye and perhaps the most beautiful choice.
So using both would be a possibility, with a story behind it; two possible ways of applying strakes, both feasible, also in the historical context of the 7 Provinciën? The idea intrigues me.
 
I would go for the sturdy Vasa look. 3 That's because I like the historical correct methode. Maarten got a point due to the shape of the bow. Pretty blunt. That would for my way of thinking an option.
On the other hand like Ptèr mentioning version 2 is a good choice if you want to have a ship with good looks. I think Paul use this method on the Vasa of him. It gives the model a fancy look. On my Prins Willem is the same netto used.
 
[/QUOTE]
Hi Herman,

I have attached a planking expansion taken from the actual ship (Vasa). FYI: the other side is completely different. I understand you will add more 'structure' to the planking pattern but I at least wanted to share what I have.

View attachment 398659

Hi Paul

Do you also have the planking expansion for the other side of the Vasa?

I am now leaning towards that method. On the one hand it might be more historically correct and more interesting but on the other hand it will not be easy to form all the planks of different sizes into one whole and it will definitely take up a lot more time to accomplish. As I am building from scratch I am not limited to the use of fixed widths of supplied wooden strips and I still have to make the planks for the hull.

I would appreciate it very much if you (or somebody else) can provide me with the starboard side of the planking expansion.
 
Do you also have the planking expansion for the other side of the Vasa?
Sorry Herman, I sent the only information I have.

I see that Stephan found something, but I have never seen that before. Eva Marie Stolt created one of the first belay maps as well as the ship plans (once offered by the museum) so she knows what she is talking about... To my knowledge the museum only produced the full planking expansion for one side of the ship (based on an exchange with Dr. Hocker). I have his personal email so I'll ask him to be sure...

Of course, you are not building the Vasa so the combination of what I sent and what Stephan sent should at least introduce you to the style.

I don't think anyone who has an interest in these Dutch built ships will be surprised to learn that the Vasa is wonderfully asymmetric. I think about 10 inches different in height port to starboard along with other anomalies!
 
I agree with Paul, you can't copy, because the shape of the hull is not the same. Set out the second method you mentioned out on the hull. Only without stealers. Like the planking on the Prins Willem of me. Then past the planking patern of the Vasa in that patern created on the ship. You will come a whole way when you do so. Just take different wide planks and fit them in keeping method 2 in your mind for the direction.
This will be fun doing.
 
Back
Top