Galleries or quarter badges.

Joined
Oct 18, 2020
Messages
118
Points
113

Location
Crib Point Victoria.
Hi Guys.
Opinions needed. Does the vessel closest have quarter galleries (like Pandora) or are the badges. (like Bounty)
The ship is a collier of 1795.

Allan
g w evans2.png
 
The image quality is certainly not the best. You wanted to know if this is in the photo, or whether they were on the ships you indicated?
 
Hi Alexander. I know which vessel it is. I didn't want it to impact members answers. Just an opinion as to whether the ship closest has galleries or badges. I think they are badges. The windows on the side are too low and appear to be on a different level. If they were galleries they would appear more in line with the stern windows. What do you think.
Allan
 
Hi Alexander. I know which vessel it is. I didn't want it to impact members answers. Just an opinion as to whether the ship closest has galleries or badges. I think they are badges. The windows on the side are too low and appear to be on a different level. If they were galleries they would appear more in line with the stern windows. What do you think.
Allan
Perhaps you `re right. And there is clarity, what kind of ship is it? Maybe look for a photo of this particular ship?
 
Hi Alexander. OK ship is HMS Investigator. She was a collier purchased by The Royal navy. Listed as a 3 masted ship with quarter galleries. Converted into Xenephon. Some believe this painting proves that the navy put galleries on the stern. Funny but as a hulk before being broken up 20 years later she was listed as a square sterned ship with badges. I don't believe that she could go through that sort of modification and end up with badges again. If I am correct it will make almost all models I have seen wrong.
Allan
 
This ship has an interesting history. It was renamed 4 times and rebuilt at least 4 times. You need to look for documents exactly for the period for which you plan to build. Not an easy task. Probably it should be looked for in the archives.
 
I have all the documents. There is no admiralty draught. 1 draught showing the lower deck cabins as investigator and 1 showing the green house on the quarter deck. Have a look at the plans on my other posts. There in no reference in any of Flinders journals
There was some plans drawn 30 years ago and just about every model painting drawing since shows galleries. The historian who drew the plans claims that painting shows galleries. I think otherwise.
 
G'day Al, looking at the shape of the stern I would think she has galleries, why would she have such a rounded stern if she had badges, I might be a little bit prejudiced as I have built a model of her from the plans by Robert Sexton which show galleries, but getting back to the photo,

2.png
you can see there are five lights and then on the very outside on each side a blank, your pic enlarged,

1.jpg
and on the model I built,

3.jpg
and a pic of the Endeavor which is almost the same as the Bounty, which has more of a flat at the sides,


.
 
Hi Neptune.
You have highlighted my point exactly. Investigator (Fram) was a collier, similar to Endeavour, Bounty and Adventure. She started as Fram with quarter badges as documented and was documented as having quarter badges after being sold off. If that watercolor is the only reason for having galleries its pretty flimsy evidence. Bob Sexton argued that it was to provide the officers with a latrine. Well why didn't the navy do that on the other collies?. When Bligh lost his cabin to the breadfruit they provided him with a latrine on the quarter deck abaft the rudder post. Oh no wait that's a flag locker, someone else has settled that science. Even though on Providence the second breadfruit ship has similar "2 hole" latrine in the same location.
The point being is that the science is never settled and it is valid to test previous interpretations. I will post a couple of pics soon.
Regards
Allan.
 
Some contemporary etchings of "collier" type ships. All sterns are rounded.endeavour006.jpgscan0001a.jpg
Note the latrine chute circled in red.

scan0005a.jpgStern.png
my reconstruction. Note this is as she left England in 1801. The painting above is after Flinders had the barricade (bulwarks) cut down which lowered the tafrail.


And a bit more controversy.
That flag locker again.
latrines.jpgstern decoA.jpgstern decoB.jpg
 
Last edited:
G'day Allan, maybe we will never know, but it seems funny that you say she was a collier purchased by The Royal navy. Listed as a 3 masted ship with quarter galleries. Converted into Xenephon.

Who listed it as a 3 masted ship with quarter galleries, if it was the Admiralty then I would be inclined to take their word, they were always very specific about things,


stern decoA.jpg
I think on this pic the badge is way too low,

stern decoB.jpg
this seems to fit it a little better,

what is the info you have on the Fram that says she had badges,

best regards John.
 
Hi John.
The info is stated in Bob Sextons own document published in the Mariners Mirror in 1970. Also in G C Ingletons works.
In the pics above I was trying to indicate that the galleries are not a good fit. If they were there they would continue around onto the side at about the same level. But they don't. There are 2 windows indicated much lower, sitting about at the end of the lower counter decoration.
On ships with galleries don't have the decoration piece that runs around the edge of the lower counter.

I guess to me the painting is not convincing enough to disregard the fact that on 2 occasions (1 as Fram and 1 when her name reverted back to xenephon) that she is documented as not having galleries in the first case and having badges in the second.

The problem is that it becomes very controversial and and in the end only the individuals own conclusions.

Food for thought.

Regards
Allan


GALLERIES.jpgScreenshot (166).pngScreenshot (167).png
 
Hi John. Yes a dilemma. That section of the original painting is very small. The 2 ships are pretty insignificant in the whole view.
Never mind I will carry on regardless as I say. Thanks for your help. Regards Allan.
 
From an artistic viewpoint it looks like there may have been some swing on the stern when this was sketched/painted compared to the actual final hull angle and this has meant that a quarter gallery style impression is given.

My first impression was also that it had quarter galleries but then by considering the stern angle as described above leads me to think that both ships were painted and then the stern on the nearest was later finished/touched up/repainted introducing the error.
So by taking these possibilities I would reverse my original observation and say that by going with the stern plate lines this would have had a badge like other colliers at the time.
Just my ‘rusty’ artistic eye opinion :)
 
Hi T1ckL35.
Yes I concur with your comment.
It's a pity that there seems to be no further evidence for such an historically significant ship.
I wish there was because if she didn't have galleries (my thoughts) then it changes the currently held portrayal of her appearance. So many modern paintings etc. have been based on flimsy evidence. As I said earlier this painting seems to be the only evidence and that is flimsy in my opinion.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Regards Allan
 
Hi T1ckL35.
Yes I concur with your comment.
It's a pity that there seems to be no further evidence for such an historically significant ship.
I wish there was because if she didn't have galleries (my thoughts) then it changes the currently held portrayal of her appearance. So many modern paintings etc. have been based on flimsy evidence. As I said earlier this painting seems to be the only evidence and that is flimsy in my opinion.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Regards Allan
Yes I guess as seen in many other paintings, many artists with little or no knowledge of such ships used their artistic license of what they ‘thought’ it should look like rather than an exact representation. We can at least be glad that there were so many paintings for us to look and consider :)
 
WE have every time consider, when and for which reason a painting was done.
Often paintings are decades or even centuries later done, so by 99% the painter never saw the ships in real.
F.e. when you take a look at Soleil Royal or Sovereign paintings - there are so much differencies in the appearance of the ship.
 
Hi Uwek.
This particular painting is contemporary. It was painted ca.1803, watercolour attributed to G. W. Evans. It is the only painting of the era that could be reliable.
I agree that paintings should be examined carefully before accepted as accurate.

Screenshot (174a).png
 
Allan, I still recommend studying archives and documents to create a historically correct model. Artists did not always reliably depict ships on their canvases. And there are many confirmations of this. Check the Naval Archives. Surely there is one in the UK. We need to look for records of the rebuilding of this ship. Construction lists, mentions of repairs. Everything should be indicated in these documents. All ships were built / repaired at the expense of the treasury. And of course they were accountable for the materials. The question is whether these records have been preserved in the archive.
 
Back
Top