HIGH HOPES, WILD MEN AND THE DEVIL’S JAW - Willem Barentsz Kolderstok 1:50

Pathfinder65 said:
Nicely done Heinrich. A monumental struggle, a lot of thinking, research, trial and error. But by golly you’ve done it.
Click to expand...
Thank you Jan. Yes, this was a monumental struggle - mainly as far as the research went - but with no plans of how the windlass should look, building it wasn't easy either. Now that I look at its position, I have no doubt that it was the right decision. In the end, logic dictated and logic was proven right - even if I wasn't there. :)
 
RDN1954 said:
Reserving first row, first class seat!
Click to expand...
After this little ordeal and all the research Johan, I am getting more and more critical and no longer just accept something at face value. What I found amazing is the amount of information that is available in non-naval related sources and what I can't help wondering is whether or not those resources were explored when the experts did their research. The only way to address that would be by means of a scratch-build.
 
RDN1954 said:
That would have been very helpful...
Click to expand...
As you can see on the replica - the canopy is open at the front and at the back at this stage. I do not know whether they still plan on closing it up partially though, the only way to find out would be to obtain Koos Weestra's plans or wait for the replica to be completed. Also note that there is a canvas over the canopy to cover it. That seemed to agree with my research as well.

bg.png
 
Hi Heinrich!

Life on these small ships was never comfortable. Everything was very cramped and well thought out for the purpose. The handspike sockets for the handspikes on Koos Weestra's model are provided on each side once with 90 and 45 degree angles (visible on the starboard side of the windlass spindle). Well thought out. So the shaft can be turned well!

The handspikes were only inserted during direct use and then immediately stowed away again. Then the sailors could climb back under the canopy over the windlass. That's why there are no handspikes shown on most of the models.

Relax Heinrich, all is well! :)

Best regards
Thomas
 
Thomas Marocke said:
Hi Heinrich!

Life on these small ships was never comfortable. Everything was very cramped and well thought out for the purpose. The handspike sockets for the handspikes on Koos Weestra's model are provided on each side once with 90 and 45 degree angles (visible on the starboard side of the windlass spindle). Well thought out. So the shaft can be turned well!

The handspikes were only inserted during direct use and then immediately stowed away again. Then the sailors could climb back under the canopy over the windlass. That's why there are no handspikes shown on most of the models.

Relax Heinrich, all is well! :)

Best regards
Thomas
Click to expand...
Thank you Thomas. That is very informative - thank you for that. Yes, I suppose we think too often about these ships from a modern perspective without ever realizing just what a hard life these crewmembers had.
 
Daniel20 said:
Wow Heinrich! I've been away from your classroom for a week and fell way behind. I am up to date now and am glad your windlass has finally found a home. It would seem the two lifeboats have at least short stay accommodations as well. What a fantastic journey.
Click to expand...
Finally Daniel. It has been a long journey - full of pitfalls, sidetracks and misinformation until sanity finally prevailed. :) You are right about the temporary accommodation of the larger boat - I simply had to prove that it could be done with the windlass in that position which allows it to be fully operational.

Tomorrow is off to school - something I'm not very happy about as there is no let-up from Covid - so who knows when I will be able to return to the shipyard. Therefore I'm glad this part is done.
 
An open
Heinrich said:
As you can see on the replica - the canopy is open at the front and at the back at this stage. I do not know whether they still plan on closing it up partially though, the only way to find out would be to obtain Koos Weestra's plans or wait for the replica to be completed. Also note that there is a canvas over the canopy to cover it. That seemed to agree with my research as well.

View attachment 304923
Click to expand...
The open canopy actually makes a lot of sense in terms of access from the main deck to the bow and vice versa.
The canvas appears to be not a half bad idea either, given the typical weather in the northern parts of Europe; lots of wind and lots of rain.
What I find fascinating, again, is that there are a lot of written accounts, archeological finds, deduced dimensions, paintings and as soon as one starts a build, that being a full scale replica or a model it still takes a lot of planning, discussions, sleepless nights and countless hours of building before one reaches a point where one could say: "she might have looked like this and it could have worked." That is especially true in your case Heinrich, where you're no longer willing to accept things at face value.
In all major aspects this turns out to be a very educational build, historical, archeological, ship layout and furnishing, basically on all relevant topics. Thoroughly enjoying your journey!
 
RDN1954 said:
An open

The open canopy actually makes a lot of sense in terms of access from the main deck to the bow and vice versa.
The canvas appears to be not a half bad idea either, given the typical weather in the northern parts of Europe; lots of wind and lots of rain.
What I find fascinating, again, is that there are a lot of written accounts, archeological finds, deduced dimensions, paintings and as soon as one starts a build, that being a full scale replica or a model it still takes a lot of planning, discussions, sleepless nights and countless hours of building before one reaches a point where one could say: "she might have looked like this and it could have worked." That is especially true in your case Heinrich, where you're no longer willing to accept things at face value.
In all major aspects this turns out to be a very educational build, historical, archeological, ship layout and furnishing, basically on all relevant topics. Thoroughly enjoying your journey!
Click to expand...
Johan, first I want to commend you on your command of English and your writing style (are you sure you were not a literary student in a past life? :) ). Secondly - and I know I am repeating myself about your posts - but what a good posting! Your point about actually having to build first and then see what works and what doesn't is particularly relevant. Now I have to be very honest; for the average kit builder who wants to build a representative model of the WB, this is a brilliant kit. It is my own fault for becoming infatuated with this ship (not just as another model), but almost as a mission - not to build a model, but a miniature of the real vessel.

I do realize that one can never possess all information, but I also do know that there is information out there which is relevant and which I have found, that has never been mentioned in any research. This I do not understand. Surely researchers must know that it is between the lines where often the most valuable information lies - and yet this has remained untapped. Or ... conversely ... was not deemed relevant or important enough ... in which case I beg to differ.

What I have found now, is that there were certain interpretations of this ship which almost seemed to have been predetermined and then the rest of the ship was made to "work around" those interpretations. Of that particular phenomenon, I fell foul too. Now that I have begun to really question and really doubt things which do not make sense to me, the whole build of the ship is suddenly making a lot more sense - the placement of the windlass and the open canopy cases in point.

The other thing that I find completely baffling is the name issue - however, given time and given due course I am sure I will get to the bottom of that. But make no mistake, this type of research takes a lot of time and is exhausting. The one thing I do know though, is whose interpretation of what the WB could have looked like, I am leaning towards.
 
Heinrich said:
What I have found now, is that there were certain interpretations of this ship which almost seemed to have been predetermined and then the rest of the ship was made to "work around" those interpretations.
Click to expand...
How true this is in every aspect of our lives Heinrich. We decide up front what OUR truth is and then conform every new thing to that truth. There is no such thing as an 'open mind'...or at least it's hard to get there...
 
Heinrich my friend, i have'nt contributed much in your search of the true Willem Barents, due to the fact that i am always to late reading your ( and other ) posts, but i have a great admiration for your persistence in finding what you want to know.
After my catching up on your forum off the last few days, i have to say that i love how your windlass looks now your yourney has come at this point.
A pitty to hear about you mobile phone bye the way, did you forgot that they can't stand the washing machine??:eek::eek:
I do hope that the trip to your school turns out well, so you can return to the shipyard soon
 
Heinrich said:
Johan, first I want to commend you on your command of English and your writing style (are you sure you were not a literary student in a past life? :) ).
Click to expand...
Thank you for your compliment! Whether or not I'm a reincarnated literary student, I couldn't tell, but professionally I needed to have close to academic-level command of English, both written and spoken.
 
Last edited:
dockattner said:
How true this is in every aspect of our lives Heinrich. We decide up front what OUR truth is and then conform every new thing to that truth. There is no such thing as an 'open mind'...or at least it's hard to get there...
Click to expand...
I'm inclined to think there's no objective truth, only a subjective one. Even two people observing the same object, ie a chair, see a different perspective of that object, which in turn becomes their respective truths...
 
Heinrich said:
Johan, first I want to commend you on your command of English and your writing style (are you sure you were not a literary student in a past life? :) ). Secondly - and I know I am repeating myself about your posts - but what a good posting! Your point about actually having to build first and then see what works and what doesn't is particularly relevant. Now I have to be very honest; for the average kit builder who wants to build a representative model of the WB, this is a brilliant kit. It is my own fault for becoming infatuated with this ship (not just as another model), but almost as a mission - not to build a model, but a miniature of the real vessel.

I do realize that one can never possess all information, but I also do know that there is information out there which is relevant and which I have found, that has never been mentioned in any research. This I do not understand. Surely researchers must know that it is between the lines where often the most valuable information lies - and yet this has remained untapped. Or ... conversely ... was not deemed relevant or important enough ... in which case I beg to differ.

What I have found now, is that there were certain interpretations of this ship which almost seemed to have been predetermined and then the rest of the ship was made to "work around" those interpretations. Of that particular phenomenon, I fell foul too. Now that I have begun to really question and really doubt things which do not make sense to me, the whole build of the ship is suddenly making a lot more sense - the placement of the windlass and the open canopy cases in point.

The other thing that I find completely baffling is the name issue - however, given time and given due course I am sure I will get to the bottom of that. But make no mistake, this type of research takes a lot of time and is exhausting. The one thing I do know though, is whose interpretation of what the WB could have looked like, I am leaning towards.
Click to expand...
It's a frequently returning theme, here on SOS, the possibility of building a historical correct model.
Time and time again we have to face the undeniable; we can't build an accurate model and for a multitude of reasons. I'm suspecting that all the information we have available is subject to the same inaccuracies ánd what Paul @dockattner wrote, we fall victim to our own truth and only look for evidence, supporting that truth, simultaneously disregarding contradicting or unfavorable evidence.
That might even apply to scientists, responsible for collecting and interpreting all kinds of data and evidence; they are still people after all.
I find myself intrigued by the entire process; we are presented with a kit, based on a variety of data, only to come to the realisatio it impossibly could have worked like proposed. And then the search (and fun) begins. Also surprising is the ingenuity of many a modeler, the solutions they come up with to overcome the imposed challenges, brilliant!
 
dockattner said:
How true this is in every aspect of our lives Heinrich. We decide up front what OUR truth is and then conform every new thing to that truth. There is no such thing as an 'open mind'...or at least it's hard to get there...
Click to expand...
This was a harsh lesson that the WB taught me again - go into the build with the incorrect preconceived idea and you will paint yourself quicker into a corner than you can say "windlass"! :)
 
rtibbs said:
You know what they say. “If the theory doesn’t conform to the facts, then change the facts” :)
Click to expand...
And you know Ron - that quip, originally conceived as a lighthearted comment, has been proven true too many times. Here it is not a case of facts that have been changed, there were just too few of them to start with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top