Hampton Court 1678 – perfectly generic design

[-Waldemar-]

.​

At the request of my friend Martes, I have just carried out a quick verification of the design method used to draw the frame contours on the Wilton House ship plan (strictly speaking not actually identified with any certainty). Rather as expected, this rapid examination yielded no surprises – the design is a fairly standard implementation of the now well-known English method of forming the frames in perhaps its simplest form: fixed radius bilge sweeps (green), fixed radius futtock sweeps (red), variable radius (lower) breadth sweeps brought to and tangent to the level of the rising line (blue). No sign of the use of additional arcs to smooth the hull surface, such as in Ö3 model (Naseby 1655/Riksäpplet 1663) or in the anonymous design of the 6th rate ship, as shown in other threads on this forum.

I don't normally show these kinds of quick inventories, especially if the results don't add anything new, but maybe someone will be interested in what they look like.

Copies of the plan kindly provided for examination by Willibald Meischl (@schifferlbauer).

​

.​

 

[fred.hocker]

Cool stuff as always from Waldemar! There is a building acocunt (financial data) for Hampton Court in the Pepys Library at Magdalene College, Oxford, as well as for Lenox. These might provide some data, such as block lists, for modellers.

Fred

 

[-Waldemar-]

.​

Thank you, Fred. Perhaps I will also take this opportunity to add a comment to this drawing. Now I am inclined to interpret this draught as being, like the London 1656 plan, decorative in nature, simplified in a conceptual sense. Meaning that the draughtsman correctly applied the general design principles, yet without all the additional procedures that would normally be employed in the designing and construction of a real ship in full size, such as those used in the Ö3 model (Naseby 1655/Riksäpplet 1663).

There is still another possibility that the smoothing waterlines that were just coming into common use made it possible to simplify the design by dispensing with these rather troublesome smoothing procedures (although they are still described as standard by Sutherland in 1711). Indeed, waterlines were already drawn on this plan, however, it is difficult to say with certainty what their actual function was in this particular case.

.​

 

[Magic Mike]

Waldemar, I can't wait for the build log of the Hampton Court. I'm pulling up to my work bench with a glass of wine. Should be fun! Magic Mike

 

[-Waldemar-]

.​

Waldemar, I can't wait for the build log of the Hampton Court. I'm pulling up to my work bench with a glass of wine. Should be fun! Magic Mike

You magically dream best with wine, don't you? Just don't overdo this magic, because it's easy to lose your balance and fall.

.​

 

[-Waldemar-]

.​

In the context of a possible correction of hull shapes obtained by simpler, generic methods (and not always yielding perfectly fair surfaces), with the help of waterlines, it is perhaps still worth showing a relevant example, here in a project of a Russian 54-gun ship from the first decades of the 18th century, designed in English manner (draught kindly pointed out by Martes).

In this case, a correction was made to the shape of the lowest waterline (#1) at the bow, and, following this, a corresponding correction to the second bend, in relation to its original contour drawn in a "generic" manner, such as that described by Deane in his simplified work on ship design of 1670. The originally drawn lines were erased from the design and replaced with new lines.

It should be emphasised that the use of corrective waterlines, introduced widely only in the last decades of the 17th century, is closely related to the adoption of fully graphic designs executed on paper, that is, containing also all bends, or leading (conceptual) frames. Earlier, in the era of non-graphic or partially-graphic designs, the smoothing role was performed by the methods shown, among others, in the threads mentioned in post #1. One of these "automatic" methods of smoothing shapes in ship design is still mentioned by Sutherland in his 1711 work. It can be added that the specificity of this "automatic" method makes it very inconvenient to use in small scale designs made on paper, so it is not surprising that soon after the wide adoption of fully graphic design it has been eventually entirely replaced by verification and possibly corrective waterlines (and diagonals).

​

.​

 

[Foxtrott]

I don't know of this is of any interest for your reconstruction, Waldemar:

Last research refers to the Wilton House Model as the Third Rate 'Essex' 1679-92 with 70 guns.
This is documented in the book "Navy Board Ship Models" of Nick ball and Simon Stephens, London 2018, Page 234

Cheers, Alexander

 

[-Waldemar-]

.​

Naturally, dating some source material on the basis of a variety of criteria is just as important. After all, conclusions regarding both identification/dating and design methods can and must be applied bilaterally, not just unilaterally. Thank you very much, Alexander, for pointing out this finding.

Happily, especially for me, in this case the dates agree to the accuracy of one year, so this identification does not disrupt the narrative in some fundamental way.

It's also potentially important information for readers who don't have this publication (I do, but I missed the reference anyway, and it's probably the result of too much reference material at home ).

Thanks again,
Waldemar

.​

 

[-Waldemar-]

.​

Oh, for the record, it should also be added that the previous identification of this model together with the plan, as Hampton Court 1678, was made by John Franklin and presented in his otherwise excellent monograph Navy Board Ship Models 1650–1750. This particularly valuable work deserves mention at every possible opportunity, and I am thus rectifying this oversight. Sorry.

Thank you again for your contribution, Alexander.

.​

 

[Martes]

Oh, for the record, it should also be added that the previous identification of this model together with the plan, as Hampton Court 1678, was made by John Franklin and presented in his otherwise excellent monograph Navy Board Ship Models 1650–1750.

If I remember correctly, the difference between the model (and the plan) and available data for Hampton Court is in different number of gunports on the upper deck - Hampton Court (as well as Captain and Lenox, see Winfield 1603-1714) having 12, and the model 13, so it is considered to represent a ship of the later part of the 30 ships programme.

The port arrangement here is identical to the model of the Grafton (USNI).

Nothing says they couldn't have identical lines, but the example of the Berwick suggests the implementation of each of the ships could have widely varied.

 

[Foxtrott]

.​

Oh, for the record, it should also be added that the previous identification of this model together with the plan, as Hampton Court 1678, was made by John Franklin and presented in his otherwise excellent monograph Navy Board Ship Models 1650–1750. This particularly valuable work deserves mention at every possible opportunity, and I am thus rectifying this oversight. Sorry.

.​

Hi Waldemar,

The plate at the model in Wilton House is still saying:
(As of May 2023 when I visited Wilton House)

"THE OLD HAMPTON COURT

The Old Hampton Court was a 70 gun ship built at Deptford Dockyard by Jonas Shish. The ornate support of the model has the date 1692 together with the initials JS - this could probably Indicate Shish built not only the ship but also this model.

The Old Hampton Court was part of the 1677 Navy building programme intended by Samuel Pepys "to create the fleet of the future". Pepys said he always desired an Admiralty "Board Model", (such as this), but could never afford one!

Thomas Herbert, 8th Earl of Pembroke, was a great collector who held the titles of First Lord of the Admiralty 1690, (and later Lord High Admiral 1702 & 1709). He may have acquired the model because of the association with his career and interests."

So they have not yet taken these new findings into account at Wilton House either.

In my opinion the make of the model shows in several parts the common hand of John Shish. Also the cradle shows the initials JS. The Essex was built by Sir Henry Johnson at Blackwell who was a commercial shipbuilder (look at Winfield; Britisch Warships 1603-1714, page 65). So the new contribution is at least doubtful for me.
But surely they will have good resons. And the support of the model has the date 1692 not 1687. So it was propably "borrowed" from an other model.

Cheers, Alexander

 

[-Waldemar-]

.​

So the new contribution is at least doubtful for me.

It's very intriguing what you have written and earlier Martes. The criterion of number of gun ports to identify unnamed ships/models should of course be applied, as any other, but I have already found that this can be a very deceptive criterion, taking the examples of Naseby 1655/Riksäpplet 1663, Swedish capital ship ca. 1700 or Danish heavy frigate Stormarn 1703 to name a few.

As it stands, since John Shish's name appears here, and at the same time we have from elsewhere at least some of his design elements (e.g. the shape of the line of the floor he used), it is all too tempting to do a more thorough analysis of the Wilton House plan and, among others, compare this element from both sources or perhaps draw some other conclusions.

However, this would require a copy of the plan of better quality than the one I have so far. In particular, it should be a scan, not a photograph, which introduces rather complicated perspective distortions that are extremely difficult to remove.

It is difficult to promise something in advance in this particular case, but in this way there is at least a chance to apply an additional criterion, in principle not used at all in practice so far.

.​