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

dockattner said:
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
Click to expand...
All's well that ends well, Paul! Thumbsup I think if I ever do get the chance to visit the Netherlands, I would be in the same trouble!
 
Heinrich said:
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!

View attachment 306410
View attachment 306411
View attachment 306412
View attachment 306413
View attachment 306414
View attachment 306415

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.

View attachment 306416

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

View attachment 306417

Can you imagine how detailed the rigging plans are! :p This is truly phenomenal work Ab!
Click to expand...
Excellent! I did not realize a CD was included with the book. The one picture showing the forward canopy reminds me of a Sampan. Something of which you are very aware of H.
 
rtibbs said:
Excellent! I did not realize a CD was included with the book. The one picture showing the forward canopy reminds me of a Sampan. Something of which you are very aware of H.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely correct about the front canopy looking like the canopy of the sampan. To be honest, I don't think Ab followed his own plans when he built that part. ROTF As you can see on the plans it looks very different! I will most definitely not be going for the sampan-look.

Vooropbouw.png
 
Ab Hoving said:
Thanks for the praise Heinrich, but the drawings were made by Cor Emke (under my supervision). Unfortunately he died a few years ago.
Ab
Click to expand...

You are right Ab - I should have mentioned the late Cor Emke in particular, but I was also referring to the research that went into creating those plans and then obviously the build of the model itself.
 
Heinrich my friend, thank you so much for sharing this with us.
It is truly beautifull to see how the differences look like now that we can see both ends of the story.
 
@Ab Hoving Dear Ab. Whilst you are online, I want to make the following observations which I'm sure would be of great interest to all those following this log.

Working within the parameters of the Kolderstok kit, I can accommodate most of the aspects of your design.

1. The fact that you did not straighten the orlop (overloop) or the maindeck (verdek) at the rear, but that it follows the curvature (zeeg) in one line, is exactly the way that @Kolderstok Hans has it.
2. I think I can also change the rear canopy (achteropbouw ) quite easily so that I do away with the hen hut and conform to your plans. By the way, the hatch that you have incorporated into the grating (rooster) is a great detail.
3. The captain's cabin that I can add in the right place with its front wall and doors, should also be doable.
4. I can change the number of gunports from six to seven. (By the way, how did you arrive at seven - I see De Veer's drawings vary in that regard)
5. But the one thing I will not be able to do is to incorporate the braedspit where you have it. With Hans moving the foremast slightly further back, the Kolderstok kit just does not have the room for that. So with that I will have to follow Gerald's layout.

Any comments?
 
Last edited:
pingu57 said:
Heinrich my friend, thank you so much for sharing this with us.
It is truly beautifull to see how the differences look like now that we can see both ends of the story.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much my dear friend. It should also explain why it is not just a decision that can be taken lightly. But I think it is important to understand that in his book, Ab did not emphasize the differences - but focused on the similarities and how wonderful it is that we have more than one interpretation. And the one thing that we must never lose sight of is how remarkable it was of these men to trust their lives to a 19-meter long wooden vessel to undertake one of the most - if not the most dangerous journey in history - under the worst possible conditions!
 
Last edited:
Indeed De Veer's drawings are not consistent in a few aspects, like the number of guns. One of them even shows a round stern, where all the others apparently show a flat tuck. If you want to build a model you have to make a decision. I did. But the other choice was just as well. That's how it goes. It's only a hypothetical reconstruction. We are sure of nothing. That's why there is nothing against making a mix out of two possibilities.
Good luck.
 
Ab Hoving said:
Indeed De Veer's drawings are not consistent in a few aspects, like the number of guns. One of them even shows a round stern, where all the others apparently show a flat tuck. If you want to build a model you have to make a decision. I did. But the other choice was just as well. That's how it goes. It's only a hypothetical reconstruction. We are sure of nothing. That's why there is nothing against making a mix out of two possibilities.
Good luck.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much Ab - much appreciated!
 
Heinrich said:
And the one thing that we must never lose sight of is how remarkable it was of these men to trust their lives to a 19-meter long wooden vessel to undertake one of the most - if not the most dangerous journey in history - under the worst possible conditions!
Click to expand...
Amen to that. Definitely a different breed of men.
 
Last edited:
Heinrich said:
And the one thing that we must never lose sight of is how remarkable it was of these men to trust their lives to a 19-meter long wooden vessel to undertake one of the most - if not the most dangerous journey in history - under the worst possible conditions!
Click to expand...

That was quite a trip, you are right about that, but don't underestimate the men on the other wooden sailingships such as the returnships that went to India and other country's on the other end of the world, for instance, rounding Cape of Good Hope ( Kaap de Goede Hoop ) in other words South Africa, that wasn't a pleasure trip as well i believe.
 
pingu57 said:
That was quite a trip, you are right about that, but don't underestimate the men on the other wooden sailingships such as the returnships that went to India and other country's on the other end of the world, for instance, rounding Cape of Good Hope ( Kaap de Goede Hoop ) in other words South Africa, that wasn't a pleasure trip as well i believe.
Click to expand...
You are so right, Peter. It wasn't called the Cape of Storms for nothing and the number of shipwrecks along the South African coastline are plentiful! I have now found the resoluties (the resolutions) that were issued by the Admiralty of Amsterdam for the three trips - and let me tell you, they were strict. The rules aboard the ship and the respective punishments for each breach of a rule are all listed - 42 of them! I have also found something very interesting about the ships names which I will post at some stage.
 
Dear Friends

I have finished my research, I know exactly which way I want to go and what needs to be done. At the moment I am sorting out all the fine details with Hans on a very custom Willem Barentsz.

Now some time ago I read that the name Witte Swaen was discovered by Gerald De Weerdt in the Amsterdam notarial deeds or resoluties. And would you believe it, in the documents and books that @Frank48 sent me, I found the deeds or resolutions ("resoluties") as they were called of all three of Barentsz's trips. These included the instructions issued by the Admiralty of Amsterdam, a description of the ships used, the crew onboard, the position and rank of each crew member; even right down to his pay. In addition, there were also the rules that had to be adhered to onboard and the relevant punishments for each potential breach of a rule. As you can imagine, this makes for fascinating reading.

THE NAME OF THE WILLEM BARENTSZ EXPEDITION SHIP:

In 1594 (The First Trip), there were three ships:

Swaen.png

Under point IV you can see the crew list for the ship De Zwaan, as well as the instructions issued to Brand IJsbrantsz and Willem Barents. That is all we know of the 1594 trip, but we do know that Willem Barentsz sailed onboard a ship called "De Zwaan".

For the 1595 trip there were seven ships as part of the expedition:

1595 2.png

We know that Hendrick Hartman was the captain of a "Jacht" from Rotterdam Admiralty, but the ship remains unnamed.

1595 6.png

Then there was a "bootgen" called Mercurius on which it is widely assumed that Barentsz sailed. (His name, however, does not appear on the crew list.

1595 4.png

Then there was "De Hoope" - a new and big pinas (approximately 80 lasten) captained by Brant Ysbrandtz, who captained De Zwaan in the previous year.

Interestingly, the other ships are not mentioned - thus no names either.

When it comes to the 1596 expedition (the one we are interested in), we read:

Names.png

1. The Council of Amsterdam will pay a reward of 25 000 Gulden for a successful completion of the voyage.

2. In all likelihood, ships were different ones that were used in the previous expeditions. One was of 50/55 lasten and the other 30 - this all gels beautifully with what we know.

But then comes the name issue: De namen der schepen zijn niet bekend!

The names of the ships ARE NOT KNOWN.
 
Last edited:
Dear Friends

I have finished my research, I know exactly which way I want to go and what needs to be done. At the moment I am sorting out all the fine details with Hans on a very custom Willem Barentsz.

Now some time ago I read that the name Witte Swaen was discovered by Gerald De Weerdt in the Amsterdam notarial deeds or resoluties. And would you believe it, in the documents and books that @Frank48 sent me, I found the deeds or resolutions ("resoluties") as they were called of all three of Barentsz's trips. These included the instructions issued by the Admiralty of Amsterdam, a description of the ships used, the crew onboard, the position and rank of each crew member; even right down to his pay. In addition, there were also the rules that had to be adhered to onboard and the relevant punishments for each potential breach of a rule. As you can imagine, this makes for fascinating reading.

THE NAME OF THE WILLEM BARENTSZ EXPEDITION SHIP:

In 1594 (The First Trip), there were three ships:

View attachment 306850

Under point IV you can see the crew list for the ship De Zwaan, as well as the instructions issued to Brand IJsbrantsz and Willem Barents. That is all we know of the 1594 trip, but we do know that Willem Barentsz sailed onboard a ship called "De Zwaan".

For the 1595 trip there were seven ships as part of the expedition:

View attachment 306852

We know that Hendrick Hartman was the captain of a "Jacht" from Rotterdam Admiralty, but the ship remains unnamed.

View attachment 306853

Then there was a "bootgen" called Mercurius on which it is widely assumed that Barentsz sailed. (His name, however, does not appear on the crew list.

View attachment 306855

Then there was "De Hoope" - a new and big pinas (approximately 80 lasten) captained by Brant Ysbrandtz, who captained De Zwaan in the previous year.

Interestingly, the other ships are not mentioned - thus no name either.

When it comes to the 1596 expedition (the one we are interested in), we read:

View attachment 306857

1. The Council of Amsterdam will pay a reward of 25 000 Gulden for a successful completion of the voyage.

2. In all likelihood, ships were different ones that were used in the previous expeditions. One was of 50/55 lasten and the other 30 - this all gels beautifully with what we know.

But then comes the name issue: De namen der schepen zijn niet bekend!

The names of the ships ARE NOT KNOWN.
pingu57 said:
So you can still call her "the ship of Willem Barentsz " and then you will still be correct. Beautifull research Heinrich.:):)
Click to expand...
My friend, I am sure she had a name (she must have) - but the simple fact is that the name is not known - at least not from the documents I have - and I have a few. :) So instead of slapping a name on the ship which we will never know if it is correct or not - I would prefer to just call her WB! :)
 
Last edited:
I just found the name of the third ship in the 1595 expedition - De Griffioen (Griffon) under captaincy of Cornelis Cornelisz! :) He also acted as superintendent on the expedition!
 
And if you look hard enough and cross-reference enough you do eventually find a fourth name too - The Gulden Windhond. - The Golden Whippet. This was in fact the ship that Barentsz sailed on - not the Mercurius. That was my mistake.

Suk6.png
So on this drawing by De Veer we have three of the seven ships of the 1595 expedition. In the front on Port Side you will see "Vice Admiral" - that was in actual fact the pinas De Hoop with Van Linschoten onboard. On the right is the Gulden Windhund of Barentsz and at the back you see "Rotterdam" which indicates the "jacht" of Rotterdam. Not shown is the Mercurius and three others.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top