French war-ship Saint-Philippe 1693 - scale 1/72 - from Lemineur monograph

My question was else : why the size of back-stern's windows are different that the size of stern-side's windows ?

I wrote today to J-C Lemineur in order to obtain some more explanations about this question
 
Yes I do think this is the right question and location to ask to.

But there are also a huge number of other Errata that should be announced in a booklet given to the newer buyers with the monography and sent to the older ones and being downloadable in the side as a PDF.
 
@Uwek

So we should do it on our self an Errata threat here as a fixed Forums' threat with several plans/monographys to be added? So people can go in there Show the precise problem and the others do the delivery to the solution?
 
My question sent today at the monograph's author :

D'après les plans, il apparaît que les croisées du tableau arrière se composent chacune de seize carreaux,
alors que les trompe-l'œil au niveau des bouteilles sont plus espacés, et correspondraient à seulement
neuf carreaux s'ils étaient reportés sur le tableau arrière :

1629502084022.jpeg

1629502127680.jpeg

J'ai fait un petit calcul approximatif des dimension de carreaux à l'échelle 1/1, dont voici le résultat :

Croisée à seize carreaux : chaque carreau ferait environ 21 cm de côté (croisée 21 x 4 = 84 cm)
Croisée à neuf carreaux : chaque carreau ferait environ 28 cm de côté (croisée 28 x 3 = 84 cm)

Ma question se ramène donc à celle-ci : la fabrication de verre plat de 28 cm de côté était-elle
possible dans les années 1690 (la manufacture de Saint-Gobain a été fondée en 1665, mais je
doute que la technique des glaces vénitiennes ait pu s'appliquer un jour à notre Saint Philippe) ?

Vers la même époque les Britanniques utilisaient encore du verre cathédrale soufflé et assemblé
au plomb, c'est du moins ce que j'ai retenu de la construction d'un kit du HMS Prince (vers 1670) :

1629502170785.jpeg
 
Last edited:
In the beautifully book for the exhibition named also

IMG_20210821_134932.jpgFLOATING BAROUQUE from Priesterjahn are

IMG_20210821_134856.jpg
these original side by side drawings -

IMG_20210821_134909.jpg
and allways the number of rows (horizontally) does fit between transom and quarter gallery...

Hope this helps.
 
There are very little coloured Pictures with trustfully detailling that survied the Last 300 years - so this contemporary picture (of may be LYS)

IMG_20210821_155258.jpg
was and is very important and inspirational to me due to the colourfull appearance and the archetectonial deep and structure.
 
CRI-CRI said:
I received this morning a detailled answer by J-C Lemineur
I resume : I'm an ignorant, who cannot distinguish about naval modelism what's right from what's wrong... Thumbs-Down

I am happy : now, can I do as I want... :)
Click to expand...
Feel free to do so...

It is really a pitty to deal in that way with your customer who bought one of the most expensive new published books of our time. That isn't a way to react on a letter with important questions of a very gifted, talented and enthusiasted modelship builder.
I still have got his light fregat AURORE 1697 in stash but die to this reaction I do not think I will lay my hand in her too soon...
 
My opinion is to keep the windows even small as on the back. In the 17th century glas was expensive and difficult to make. Small pieces of glas seems to be stronger than big ones in those days. And most important, easier to make.
 
CRI-CRI said:
Strange, isn't it ? (it's an ignorant's advice, of course... :))

View attachment 251937
Click to expand...
I do think this is correct as in other ships you will find the very same - and it is an original source...
IMG_20210823_162821.jpg

I do look for the copy of the original drawings of the side view -
IMG_20210823_151729.jpg
and outside:
Polish_20210823_153846766.jpg

here the JCL-drawing instead with exactly the same configuration from INSIDE. But without the gunport in the MD (recoginzable by the appearance balkony) - so I will leaf through the planset to find some other evidence beside the 1693 once. No it stays the very same! The MD gunport beside the quarter gallery is missing at all!

These quarter gallery's windows we're - if we do follow Hubac's Historian, Marc - we're wooden panels that could be dismanteled easily to place a gun through the door of the officer's "room of personal importance".

Here they are not installed in the UD what makes the appearance of this side gallery so light and nice.

In my mind the wooden panels imitating the windows were simply rested in hinges due to bars on their backside (and secured by wedges?) so they we're fixed in bad weather and still easy to dismantel in case of the space for gunnery was in need before a battle.
Polish_20210823_145157749.jpg
There also isn't any hint to the JCL's construction in the transom in the MD in this picture, too.
I did not find the original 1693 side view recently as I do Not have my monography in hand.

EDIT: There upwards the picture of the shematic side view from the Monography was added to keep it more logical. So it is 1/5 of the key pictural outside documents - and it does show the QG's outline but ist drawn before the QG decorational drawing. So in case of if anything was altered than between this drawing and the decorational advises - so this incriminated gunport must have been added.

Now there comes the ignorant's hour to decide what he added to his ship model.

___________
P.S.:
It might be an other discussion as those about the hawse pipes:

IMG_20210823_164316.jpg
Missing in the side view completly.

IMG_20210823_163829.jpg
Found in different position in the decorational drawing of 1693...

IMG_20210823_163851.jpg
...and being moved foreward to the stempost by JCL.
 
Last edited:
They were - but in battle it was okay to use your trousers - in Germany we have got the saying for somebody obvious without any bravery: "He has his trousers got filled." ;)

And we need to know that between Renaissance and Revolution it was usual to use even the staircase of your/somebody's chateau...
 
Last edited:
So when we place both pictures below each other it is obvious that the modern drawing stands for an enlarged officers' accomodation for example with giving away one pair of gun ports for additional staff members.
Polish_20210824_083514086.jpg

So this may have been the 1704 situation for her only battle but does not go aligned with the decorational drawing. By the way due to the deep of the QG the gun port lids is wrongly drawn by JCL- it cannot be opened that far )as the original drawing did show exactly).

The shadows do remind me of the idea to reconstruct the QGs a bit deeper to come closer to the original decoration plan - adding some 1/10 to the deepness.

I do much appreachiate this discussion as I will add this gunports to stay with 45 pices of ordonance at any side and can note it in mind not forgetting it.

What is your idea about it, Christian?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top