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

Heinrich said:
Oh heck yes, Maarten - I will be out on street before I know it. You are right - it is a British gin - but I see the owner, Micael Claessens? is originally from the Netherlands. With a surname like that he has to be Dutch! :)
Click to expand...
He could be a semi-Dutchie from between the French and Dutch border...
(Just kidding, no offense, my Belgian friends.)
 
Heinrich, what an instalment you wrote a few pages back, and what a research have you done to get this far.
Extremely interresting to read, even reading your instalments is time consuming, let alone doing the research befor you can write it.

Amazing, and an excellent piece of work you have done there.
but now, how are you going to put your efforts into your current Willem Barents??
Or is this for the future???
 
pingu57 said:
Heinrich, what an instalment you wrote a few pages back, and what a research have you done to get this far.
Extremely interresting to read, even reading your instalments is time consuming, let alone doing the research befor you can write it.

Amazing, and an excellent piece of work you have done there.
but now, how are you going to put your efforts into your current Willem Barents??
Or is this for the future???
Click to expand...
Dear Peter. Thank you very much for the kind words and the support. The research that I have done and am still doing (I have just finished reading a response from Ab Hoving) is one of the most difficult but also one of the most fascinating things I have ever done. What I find really difficult is to remain 100 percent objective. As soon as you think that you have found the answer to something, you have to be so careful that the "answer" does not influence the rest of the research. The danger is that you then try to interpret the other facts to fit in with your answer.

As to the current model - once I have finished my research, I will continue building this model as a practice run - that is the idea at least. There are four main areas in which De Weerdt and Hoving differ from each other: 1. the hull shape and lines, 2. The inclusion or exclusion of the helmsman's hut, 3. the number of gunports and 4. the position of the windlass. All four of those things I have already finished on the current model and I cannot change that.

So on the current model I have a hull that follows Hoving's plans, a helmsman's hut which follows De Weerdt's, a windlass which is per the De Weerdt plans and the number of gunports which also follows De Weerdt. And to make things extra difficult Admiral Hans follows neither with the captain's cabin or the number of steps or levels in the rear bulwark build-up. :eek:
 
Hello Dear Friends

This is just a quick update while I wait for Hans to return from his short holiday so that I can finalize discussions with him.

With the majority of the research done, it’s time to decide which configuration to follow – (A) Hoving, (B) De Weerdt or (C) a combination of the two. Ideally, I didn’t want to take option C; if I could manage to stick to either A or B, I would at least be correct with regards to one interpretation. Alas, the best laid plans of men and mice are sometimes just that. The reason? I also had to consider the Kolderstok kit, the way that Hans had designed it and the “limitations” that that brought with it. That brought about certain outcomes that were almost predestined.

Let's just look at two examples:

Example 1 The Windlass

Irrespective of whose interpretation of the windlass position is correct, lack of space means it is impossible to fit a functional windlass into the bow of the Kolderstok model. Therefore, I have no other option but to follow De Weerdt and place the windlass in the same position where I have placed it on my current build. Thus, I have no other option but to follow De Weerdt in this regard.

Example 2 The Helmsman's Hut

Hoving uses a tiller for controlling the rudder which means that there is no helmsman’s hut. De Weerdt uses a whipstaff (kolderstok) and he does include the helmsman’s hut. The way that Hans has designed the Kolderstok model, is based around including the helmsman’s hut. Sure, it’s a nice touch which I like, but that does not mean it is correct. After a nice chat with Ab, I am convinced that the Willem Barentsz did not have such a “hen’s hut” (you have to love Ab's comments) ; but to change it on the Kolderstok kit will be a challenge. Not impossible, but difficult.

Example 3: The Hull Shape and Lines

Hans has designed the Kolderstok kit around the Ab Hoving hull shape and lines. I am very comfortable with this as Ab had the final version of his hull design calculated and moderated by a Navy shipbuilding expert, the late Theo van Harpen, but the point I am trying to make is that I was left with no choice.

Lastly, I want to show you how dangerous interpretation is.

De Veer.png

This is the original drawing from De Veer's journal (the famous Plate 8) which is generally regarded as probably the best drawing to show the ship’s details.

GDW 4.png

Using the same perspective and angle of view as Plate 8, Gerald De Weerdt has created this line drawing based on his interpretation of De Veer’s journal. Where did the helmsman’s hut (circled in red) come from when it is nowhere to be found on the original drawing?

Hoving.png

Until next time folks!
 
Again, what a history/archeology expose on this little, not so little ship. My well meant compliments.
But... (Yes, there it is!) I am most curious about the reasons AB Hoving, @Ab Hoving, has for his conclusion the Witte Swaen was equiped with a tiller instead of a kolderstok. Likewise, I'm also quite interested in the reason why Hans, @Kolderstok, designed his model with the kolderstok instead.
The picture you provided in your latest post, allegedly the most accurate one, is in my humble opinion at least meager supporting evidence for a tiller instead of a kolderstok (or the other way around).
 
@RDN1954 Hello Johan

I looked at my post now and I have probably misled you. The existence of the hut was not dictated by the use of either kolderstok or helmstok. Ab reckons there is nothing wrong with having a hut, except that to his taste "this 'henhouse' on deck seems a bit overdone for such a small ship." And, of course, it is fully borne out by De Veer's drawings.

Warrhaftig 3.png

Note also on this plate that there is no helmsman's hut.

In his book, Ab writes:

We zien boven een als rooster uitgevoerd halfdek het dak van de kajuit met een opstapje van ongeveer een voet uitsteken. Het lijk niet waarskijnlijk dat in de kajuit veel meer staruimte nodig zou zijn als onder het halfdek, waar de roerganger de hele dag stond. Er is echter een zinnige theorie te verbinden aan het verschil hoogte tussen het halfdek en campagnedek; de kajuit moet in zijn geheel ongeveer een voet zijn opgetild zodat de helmstok onder de kajuitsvloer kan draaien."

We see the halfdeck covered with a grating behind which is the roof of the cabin indicated by a small raise in structure of approximately 1 foot. It looks unlikely that the cabin offered anything more than standing room height - the same as the rear canopy where the helmsman stood the whole day. A plausible theory as to the difference in height between the half deck and the campagnedeck is the fact that the cabin needed to be one foot higher to allow for the tiller to rotate underneath the cabin floor.

Ab simply reckons that the ship was too small to necessitate a need for a whipstaff (kolderstok), but a tiller would serve equally well. Obviously, on the big return ships which needed a much greater force to turn the rudder, a kolderstok is needed.
 
pingu57 said:
Heinrich, if you put all your findings in a list, then i wonder if you can find a truly correct interpratation from either 3 men. (Ab Hoving, de Weerd, and admiral Hans)
Click to expand...
Peter that is a very interesting point you are making. But you know, I also want to tell you something else. I have focused on the differences between interpretation, but what about the similarities. I think it is amazing that Ab and Gerald can both research a subject that is 426 years old, both use their own methods and allow for their own interpretations and then arrive at a final answer which is largely the same and which only differs in a few small areas. A big hats off to these men - especially taking into account of how little information is available on this ship.
 
Heinrich said:
I think it is amazing that Ab and Gerald can both research a subject that is 426 years old, both use their own methods and allow for their own interpretations and then arrive at a final answer which is largely the same and which only differs in a few small areas. A big hats off to these men - especially taking into account of how little information is available on this ship.
Click to expand...
I have to agree with you on this point Heinrich, it is amazing that you can make a reproduction or replicaship with so little information to go on
 
Heinrich said:
@RDN1954 Hello Johan

I looked at my post now and I have probably misled you. The existence of the hut was not dictated by the use of either kolderstok or helmstok. Ab reckons there is nothing wrong with having a hut, except that to his taste "this 'henhouse' on deck seems a bit overdone for such a small ship." And, of course, it is fully borne out by De Veer's drawings.

View attachment 306244

Note also on this plate that there is no helmsman's hut.

In his book, Ab writes:

We zien boven een als rooster uitgevoerd halfdek het dak van de kajuit met een opstapje van ongeveer een voet uitsteken. Het lijk niet waarskijnlijk dat in de kajuit veel meer staruimte nodig zou zijn als onder het halfdek, waar de roerganger de hele dag stond. Er is echter een zinnige theorie te verbinden aan het verschil hoogte tussen het halfdek en campagnedek; de kajuit moet in zijn geheel ongeveer een voet zijn opgetild zodat de helmstok onder de kajuitsvloer kan draaien."

We see the halfdeck covered with a grating behind which is the roof of the cabin indicated by a small raise in structure of approximately 1 foot. It looks unlikely that the cabin offered anything more than standing room height - the same as the rear canopy where the helmsman stood the whole day. A plausible theory as to the difference in height between the half deck and the campagnedeck is the fact that the cabin needed to be one foot higher to allow for the tiller to rotate underneath the cabin floor.

Ab simply reckons that the ship was too small to necessitate a need for a whipstaff (kolderstok), but a tiller would serve equally well. Obviously, on the big return ships which needed a much greater force to turn the rudder, a kolderstok is needed.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your extensive response. As I was bicycling this morning, I was indeed thinking why one would build a henhouse for a kolderstok- , but not for a tiller- steered ship.
Against Ab's reasoning one could argue that, given the weather conditions on the northern Atlantic, a little protection for the helsman would have been an added bonus, but that's seen with 21st 'century eyes and since I don't have any supporting evidence, a moot point to boot.
 
RDN1954 said:
Thanks for your extensive response. As I was bicycling this morning, I was indeed thinking why one would build a henhouse for a kolderstok- , but not for a tiller- steered ship.
Against Ab's reasoning one could argue that, given the weather conditions on the northern Atlantic, a little protection for the helsman would have been an added bonus, but that's seen with 21st 'century eyes and since I don't have any supporting evidence, a moot point to boot.
Click to expand...
I asked Ab the same question about the exposed helmsman. He was not exposed though - I quote Ab verbatim:

Hello Heinrich,

On Dutch ships it was a regular habit not to place the helmsman out in the open (probably due to our lousy climate). So there were two choices: one is the one Gerald used. Nothing wrong with it, except that to my taste this 'henhouse' on deck seems a bit overdone for such a small ship. My solution was to place the helmsman on deck, but protected by a grating, which allowed him to see the sails and the effect of his steering and at the same time remaining fairy protected from wind and rain, coming mostly from behind. In bad weather there was always the possibility to cover the grating partly with a piece of watertight canvas.
 
rtibbs said:
Oh my Heinrich. I hope I'm not responsible for all the consternation regarding the windlass, pilot hut etc. etc. by sending you a book. :eek:
Click to expand...
Ron my dear friend - yes you and Frank are the culprits! ROTF Without the book and without De Veer's diary, I would have been blissfully unaware of all these detailed differences. And I simply LOVE it. I have learnt so much, not only about shipbuilding, but also about what the little word "research" really means. As by-products of that, I have had to really brush up on my Dutch (old Dutch in particular) and re-learnt again what the concepts "open mind" and "objectivity" are all about. At the same time it has given me the opportunity of picking two of the finest brains in historical Dutch shipbuilding. What more can anyone ask for.

And like Ab said: The time has come to stop whining about what you don't know and about what information we lack. If we keep doing that, nothing would ever get done in the field of research.
 
Heinrich said:
Ron my dear friend - yes you and Frank are the culprits! ROTF Without the book and without De Veer's diary, I would have been blissfully unaware of all these detailed differences. And I simply LOVE it. I have learnt so much, not only about shipbuilding, but also about what the little word "research" really means. As by-products of that, I have had to really brush up on my Dutch (old Dutch in particular) and re-learnt again what the concepts "open mind" and "objectivity" are all about. At the same time it has given me the opportunity of picking two of the finest brains in historical Dutch shipbuilding. What more can anyone ask for.

And like Ab said: The time has come to stop whining about what you don't know and about what information we lack. If we keep doing that, nothing would ever get done in the field of research.
Click to expand...
Speaking of Dutch, I fortunately found that the Dutch speak English so well! Made it much easier to get arount Utrecht and Amsterdam!
 
Heinrich said:
Generally, the Dutch have a very good command of English, so I am sure it would have made things easy. Thumbsup
Click to expand...
Haha, if nobody speaks your language except Suriname, some carribean islands and South Africa you have to.
Actually I have read once that it was just a view votes short and the USA would have spoken Dutch. Then It would have been easy for us. Now we all have to learn Dutch English German and French. :-)
 
Maarten said:
Haha, if nobody speaks your language except Suriname, some carribean islands and South Africa you have to.
Actually I have read once that it was just a view votes short and the USA would have spoken Dutch. Then It would have been easy for us. Now we all have to learn Dutch English German and French. :)
Click to expand...
That is a really interesting fact about Dutch almost being the official language of the USA, Maarten! These days, however, everybody speaks the same language - it is called "Money"! ;)
 
Maarten said:
Haha, if nobody speaks your language except Suriname, some carribean islands and South Africa you have to.
Actually I have read once that it was just a view votes short and the USA would have spoken Dutch. Then It would have been easy for us. Now we all have to learn Dutch English German and French. :)
Click to expand...
Speaking Dutch would have come in handy for me in Amsterdam. I'm tall, thin, and blond (I look Dutch) so the locals often started conversations with me in their native language. After the look of fear and confusion on my face they all reverted to English and everything was fine after that... ROTF
 
Hello Dear Friends

You will recall that I received a CD-Rom with the book that @rtibbs Ron sent me, but unfortunately my Xiaomi laptop does not include a CD-Drive while the CD-Drive on my old Dell laptop was not working anymore. Well, I had it repaired and the result was spectacular. Not only could I download pictures of @Ab Hoving Ab's model of the Willem Barentsz but I also gained access to the printed plans. The big difference between the plans on the CD-Rom is that they are in 1:50 scale, while the printed version is in 1:75. This, of course, makes a direct comparison between Ab's model and the Kolderstok version (which is also in 1:50 scale) so much easier.

I have shared many pictures with you of Gerald de Weerdt's model, but until tonight I have never had the opportunity of doing the same with the Ab Hoving model. This is what I call the "hardcore" version of the Willem Barentsz - no possible romanticization of anything - just the model based exclusively on the De Veer drawings and Ab's research.

Enjoy!

Barents-09.jpg
Barents-10.jpg
Barents-12.jpg
Barents-13.jpg
Barents-14.jpg
Barents-16.jpg

And just as an example - look at the exceptionally detailed plans on the CD Rom of the captain's cabin and the front wall (schot) of the rear canopy (achterste opbouw) on the drawing below.

Schotten.png

And if I were to take the same drawing and enlarge it accordingly by focusing on the cannon, this is the result:

Cannons.png

Can you imagine how detailed the rigging plans are! :p This is truly phenomenal work Ab!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top