- Joined
- Jan 9, 2020
- Messages
- 10,377
- Points
- 938
Welcome Peter. Yes - this kit does build into a beautiful model - now it's up to me to do it justice!
HIGH HOPES, WILD MEN AND THE DEVIL’S JAW - Willem Barentsz Kolderstok 1:50
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2018
- Messages
- 885
- Points
- 403
I have that article. That's how I noticed the slight wording difference.
The attached picture is what is adding to my confusion regarding the ship name although at my age is doesn't take much to confuse me.
Kurt Konrath
Kurt Konrath
Looks to a crowd on deck to watch the talented seaman do his work!
I will try to find a spot to watch from
I will try to find a spot to watch from
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2020
- Messages
- 10,377
- Points
- 938
Kurt, my friend, you know you are always most welcome. Come into the kitchen (it's breakfast time now), grab a baozi and while you are munching away, enjoy the build!
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2020
- Messages
- 10,377
- Points
- 938
Good morning everyone from a cloudy Nantong! @rtibbs Ron asked me a great question about the name of the ship as the official website of the replica that is currently under construction, lists the ship as De Witte Swaen (The White Swan). This is an extremely question and one which is debated heavily. As such it has great importance and relevance to this log.
Based on archival material, head-scratching and research, the shipyard believes that this was the correct name and christened the ship as "De Witte Swaen" in 2018.
However, immediately there are two interesting points to note: If you look at the photograph below (which is from the shipyard's website), you will notice that on their banner they themselves refer to the ship "Expeditieschip van Willem Barentsz (Expedition Ship of Willem Barentsz) - not as the "Witte Swaen". Also their website address is: yes, you guessed it ... www.debarentsz.nl
Also ... as a sidebar ... Hans from @Kolderstok who has developed the kit and who has visited the shipyard many times, also mentions the fact that no one at the yard speaks of "De Witte Swaen"; they all refer to the ship as "Barentsz's ship".
Then there is the question of the spelling of the name. The "ae" in "Swaen" is very much an 18th Century spelling and not correct to the 16th century configuration which would peobably have been "Zwaan". In his book, @Ab Hoving Ab does mention the name "Zwane" for a ship (ca 1596), which would certainly be more correct - but whether that ship refers to Barentsz's actual ship, is open to interpretation.
In an earlier PM to me Ab has noted something of great importance when it comes to Dutch ships: I quote him verbatim:
If you want to do a Dutch ship, get used to the fact that there is no absolute truth. These vessels usually lasted 20 years or more. They were battered and bruised, [some were] shot to pieces and repaired, [others] underwent changes in design during their life time so stop thinking there is just one image of a ship and that's it. It is far better to study the ways how ships worked, how they were build, how they were managed, how the sailing system worked and so on, than thinking that there is only one way the ship should look. Look at De 7 Provincien. There is hardly a ship in out 17th century history that was depicted more often than that. Still, I can show you at least three reconstructions of the vessel, all based on sources according to their creators, and all are different. You have to look at these things from a broader perspective and then you will find out that a model is only a side product of a way of looking at things.
The other puzzling thing is the colors that we find on the replica.
Hans comments as follows on the color: Ship captains were allocated a certain amount of money with which to decorate their ships. How this money was applied, was entirely up to the captain. The more money he saved on decorations, the more money he could put in his own pocket. Bear in mind that the Dutch people - by their own admission - does not like spending, so all the colors above are debatable. Furthermore, on no painting of ships of that time is Willem Barentsz's ship depicted like this. (There will be plenty of opportunity to have a look at a few paintings later on).
The last word though, goes to Hans on how he wanted to depict the model:
Seeing that the whole expedition could be at best described as a a barren, miserable failure, culminating in the end with the death of Willem Barentsz, I wanted to depict the ship in a sober atmosphere - almost as if it would point to the futility of the whole mission. As such the hull will reflect a dark oak color, with the below-waterline section painted in a pale, grey-white. There would be no decoration on the stern (except for Amsterdam Coat of Arms) whilst the beakhead will also reflect the bare minimum in decorations. Should anyone wish to deck out his ship like the replica in Haarlingen, it is obviously a case of builder's choice.
As a matter of interest, @pietsan Piet christened his build as the Willem Barentsz ...
... but later changed it to "Witte Swaen"
The ultimate choice is up to you guys!
Based on archival material, head-scratching and research, the shipyard believes that this was the correct name and christened the ship as "De Witte Swaen" in 2018.
However, immediately there are two interesting points to note: If you look at the photograph below (which is from the shipyard's website), you will notice that on their banner they themselves refer to the ship "Expeditieschip van Willem Barentsz (Expedition Ship of Willem Barentsz) - not as the "Witte Swaen". Also their website address is: yes, you guessed it ... www.debarentsz.nl
Also ... as a sidebar ... Hans from @Kolderstok who has developed the kit and who has visited the shipyard many times, also mentions the fact that no one at the yard speaks of "De Witte Swaen"; they all refer to the ship as "Barentsz's ship".
Then there is the question of the spelling of the name. The "ae" in "Swaen" is very much an 18th Century spelling and not correct to the 16th century configuration which would peobably have been "Zwaan". In his book, @Ab Hoving Ab does mention the name "Zwane" for a ship (ca 1596), which would certainly be more correct - but whether that ship refers to Barentsz's actual ship, is open to interpretation.
In an earlier PM to me Ab has noted something of great importance when it comes to Dutch ships: I quote him verbatim:
If you want to do a Dutch ship, get used to the fact that there is no absolute truth. These vessels usually lasted 20 years or more. They were battered and bruised, [some were] shot to pieces and repaired, [others] underwent changes in design during their life time so stop thinking there is just one image of a ship and that's it. It is far better to study the ways how ships worked, how they were build, how they were managed, how the sailing system worked and so on, than thinking that there is only one way the ship should look. Look at De 7 Provincien. There is hardly a ship in out 17th century history that was depicted more often than that. Still, I can show you at least three reconstructions of the vessel, all based on sources according to their creators, and all are different. You have to look at these things from a broader perspective and then you will find out that a model is only a side product of a way of looking at things.
The other puzzling thing is the colors that we find on the replica.
Hans comments as follows on the color: Ship captains were allocated a certain amount of money with which to decorate their ships. How this money was applied, was entirely up to the captain. The more money he saved on decorations, the more money he could put in his own pocket. Bear in mind that the Dutch people - by their own admission - does not like spending, so all the colors above are debatable. Furthermore, on no painting of ships of that time is Willem Barentsz's ship depicted like this. (There will be plenty of opportunity to have a look at a few paintings later on).
The last word though, goes to Hans on how he wanted to depict the model:
Seeing that the whole expedition could be at best described as a a barren, miserable failure, culminating in the end with the death of Willem Barentsz, I wanted to depict the ship in a sober atmosphere - almost as if it would point to the futility of the whole mission. As such the hull will reflect a dark oak color, with the below-waterline section painted in a pale, grey-white. There would be no decoration on the stern (except for Amsterdam Coat of Arms) whilst the beakhead will also reflect the bare minimum in decorations. Should anyone wish to deck out his ship like the replica in Haarlingen, it is obviously a case of builder's choice.
As a matter of interest, @pietsan Piet christened his build as the Willem Barentsz ...
... but later changed it to "Witte Swaen"
The ultimate choice is up to you guys!
Interesting ship! Looking forward to the build!
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2020
- Messages
- 10,377
- Points
- 938
Thank you Dean. The build would not have been the same without you - welcome!
Thank you for the warm welcome Heinrich. You will have quite a fleet in the future!
Last edited:
Today we have spelling rules, Heinrich, but in the old days everybody wrote just the way he liked it.
It is an illusion to think that we can make perfect models (whatever those may be) of specific ships from the past. We can call ourselves lucky if we even approach the ship type. So don't be too hard on variations in names and execution of old days models... (but if one thing is sure, than it is that Barentsz's ship was not named Barents ship.)
It is an illusion to think that we can make perfect models (whatever those may be) of specific ships from the past. We can call ourselves lucky if we even approach the ship type. So don't be too hard on variations in names and execution of old days models... (but if one thing is sure, than it is that Barentsz's ship was not named Barents ship.
)
That is hardly of any importance Heinrich. If the name was the Swan (which I believe because the builder, Gerald de Weerdt explained to me how they discovered that) I still have my doubts if there was a depiction of a swan on the taffrail. To my knowledge that was not the habit in the early days. Probably just the Amsterdam crest was there. And wether you call it the Swan or the White Swan, I don't know if we will ever get the chance to find out what it really was. We simply don't know.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2020
- Messages
- 10,377
- Points
- 938
@Ab Hoving Thank you very much Ab. That clears things up completely as far as the name goes. Hans's interpretation of the taffrail (which he no doubt researched well) is thus a very likely one - if not the most likely.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2018
- Messages
- 885
- Points
- 403
Thank you very much Heinrich, Ab and others for sharing your knowledge and research regarding the ships name. I apologize if I’ve stirred up a hornets nest. In doing what research I could regarding this ship, which I plan to build, I was/am in a quandary as to how it should be named.
Again, sorry for posing the question and thanks again guys. What a great group of individuals with a common interest in recreating history in miniature.
Ron
Again, sorry for posing the question and thanks again guys. What a great group of individuals with a common interest in recreating history in miniature.
Ron
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2020
- Messages
- 10,377
- Points
- 938
Let’s get building. Now from the outset that I want to say that I actually did not intend starting the build of the WB just yet. With the Haarlem on hold for now, I thought let me go through the WB’s checklist and make sure that everything that is supposed to be there, is there. After all, I have had the kit for almost a month and have barely opened the box.
As I have come to expect from @Kolderstok, the kit was superbly packaged.
Box design - classy and clean.
And then you know how things go – I took the keel from the clear wrapping and with that in my hand thought let me just fit one bulkhead. An hour later all the bulkheads were removed from their sheeting and dry-fitted on the keel. Then I thought, let me just see how the first deck fits into its slots and when that went in like butter, I thought I might just as well glue everything in place. Before I knew it, bulkheads 1-6 were glued to the keel and the two bow portions of the deck (there are four separate pieces that make up the deck) were glued into place.
And then I realized two things: Build log and pictures (which I had neglected to take) and maybe it wasn’t such a great idea to start gluing things into place without having checked how the whole deck fits onto all the bulkheads. Oh s*** Well, as the far the rest of the bulkheads and deck go, I need not have feared – they all went together perfectly. And about the pictures – I am fortunate that I can rely on Kolderstok’s own test build pictures and those taken by Piet Sanders.
So at this point I need to backtrack to the start and explain how things SHOULD be done.
The first step is obviously to remove all bulkheads from their sheets. They are manufactured from plywood and are 5mm thick whilst the MDF keel is also 5mm. For someone who relies heavily on pushpins during the planking process, (like me) the 5mm thick bulkheads are a blessing.
Laser cutting is beautifully clean and crisp, but because of the thickness, be prepared to put in a little effort.
Next up, I would advise the dry-fitting of the bulkheads into the keel slots and check how the deck slots align with the respective bulkheads.
Dry-fitting of bulkheads into keel slots. Photo: Kolderstok Test-Build
When seating the bulkheads into the keel, it is VERY IMPORTANT to make sure that the tops of the bulkheads are perfectly level with the top of the keel. In some cases, it may be necessary just to give the slots a slight polish with a fine file or sandpaper to make sure that the bulkheads slide all the way to the bottom and are fully seated. If there are any protrusions here, it will mean that the deck does not lie flat on the keel and bulkheads.
This, for instance, would NOT be good. Here you can see the tops of the bulkheads protrude above the top of the keel. If this is the case, get out the file and/or sandpaper. Photo: @pietsan Piet Sanders.
This is what we want - the tops of the bulkheads and top of the keel are exactly level. Photo: Piet Sanders
When this is done correctly, we can see just how snugly the decks lie on top of the keel. Photo: Piet Sanders
If you are happy with the way that everything fits, remove all bulkheads and grab hold of Bulkhead #1. You will see that there are both an indent and notch cut into this bulkhead. Here we need to glue a 6mm walnut strip onto the REAR (non-marked side) of the bulkhead as indicated below. When this is done, it will create a "mine shaft" which will house the foremast. The semi-circled indent is for the bowsprit.
Photograph: Piet Sanders
Now we can glue all bulkheads (EXCEPT BULKHEAD #11 - the rearmost one that forms the stern) to the keel and fit the deck.
And that is what our assembly looks like at this point. Please please note that Bulkhead #11 is still dry-fit only at this stage.
In my case, I have also glued pieces of scrap plywood into the corners (between the decks and the hull) just for extra stiffness and strength. When doing this, just make sure that you leave the hole for the main mast open (marked with the red line).
And that my dear friends brings an end to proceedings for the day. Thank you all for following and for all the wonderful comments and participation that I have received until now. Until next time, please look after yourselves, take care and enjoy your building!
Heinrich
As I have come to expect from @Kolderstok, the kit was superbly packaged.
Box design - classy and clean.
And then you know how things go – I took the keel from the clear wrapping and with that in my hand thought let me just fit one bulkhead. An hour later all the bulkheads were removed from their sheeting and dry-fitted on the keel. Then I thought, let me just see how the first deck fits into its slots and when that went in like butter, I thought I might just as well glue everything in place. Before I knew it, bulkheads 1-6 were glued to the keel and the two bow portions of the deck (there are four separate pieces that make up the deck) were glued into place.
And then I realized two things: Build log and pictures (which I had neglected to take) and maybe it wasn’t such a great idea to start gluing things into place without having checked how the whole deck fits onto all the bulkheads. Oh s*** Well, as the far the rest of the bulkheads and deck go, I need not have feared – they all went together perfectly. And about the pictures – I am fortunate that I can rely on Kolderstok’s own test build pictures and those taken by Piet Sanders.
So at this point I need to backtrack to the start and explain how things SHOULD be done.
The first step is obviously to remove all bulkheads from their sheets. They are manufactured from plywood and are 5mm thick whilst the MDF keel is also 5mm. For someone who relies heavily on pushpins during the planking process, (like me) the 5mm thick bulkheads are a blessing.
Laser cutting is beautifully clean and crisp, but because of the thickness, be prepared to put in a little effort.
Next up, I would advise the dry-fitting of the bulkheads into the keel slots and check how the deck slots align with the respective bulkheads.
Dry-fitting of bulkheads into keel slots. Photo: Kolderstok Test-Build
When seating the bulkheads into the keel, it is VERY IMPORTANT to make sure that the tops of the bulkheads are perfectly level with the top of the keel. In some cases, it may be necessary just to give the slots a slight polish with a fine file or sandpaper to make sure that the bulkheads slide all the way to the bottom and are fully seated. If there are any protrusions here, it will mean that the deck does not lie flat on the keel and bulkheads.
This, for instance, would NOT be good. Here you can see the tops of the bulkheads protrude above the top of the keel. If this is the case, get out the file and/or sandpaper. Photo: @pietsan Piet Sanders.
This is what we want - the tops of the bulkheads and top of the keel are exactly level. Photo: Piet Sanders
When this is done correctly, we can see just how snugly the decks lie on top of the keel. Photo: Piet Sanders
If you are happy with the way that everything fits, remove all bulkheads and grab hold of Bulkhead #1. You will see that there are both an indent and notch cut into this bulkhead. Here we need to glue a 6mm walnut strip onto the REAR (non-marked side) of the bulkhead as indicated below. When this is done, it will create a "mine shaft" which will house the foremast. The semi-circled indent is for the bowsprit.
Photograph: Piet Sanders
Now we can glue all bulkheads (EXCEPT BULKHEAD #11 - the rearmost one that forms the stern) to the keel and fit the deck.
And that is what our assembly looks like at this point. Please please note that Bulkhead #11 is still dry-fit only at this stage.
In my case, I have also glued pieces of scrap plywood into the corners (between the decks and the hull) just for extra stiffness and strength. When doing this, just make sure that you leave the hole for the main mast open (marked with the red line).
And that my dear friends brings an end to proceedings for the day. Thank you all for following and for all the wonderful comments and participation that I have received until now. Until next time, please look after yourselves, take care and enjoy your building!
Heinrich
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2020
- Messages
- 10,377
- Points
- 938
My dearest Ron - NEVER apologize for asking a question. It was a great question to ask and as you can see one that has been widely debated. Those type of questions are exactly what we need to fuel our passion for the hobby and provide information to anyone who cares to use it. Thank you for the question - I am very glad you asked it!
Another great historical read as you start your log Heinrich. Looking foward to following this one too.
Hey, someone moved my "reserved" seat sign - Jimsky looks guilty! But that's ok because I brought my portable chair with me, just in case
Thanks Jim but I’ll sit a couple of rows back, that way you and Peter get all the difficult front row questions...didn't mean to spoil your view, hence offer my spot in exchange for your folding chair (if Peter @Peter Voogt doesn't mind)
Hallo Heinrich, another great story, another very nice ship. I am really taken and would like to join all the other highly interested observers.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2020
- Messages
- 10,377
- Points
- 938
Welcome Adi. I am so glad that you have joined the build log. I am extremely impressed with the work that you are doing on your Le Coureur. Guys, if you haven't seen Adi's work yet, take a look here:
Le Coureur 1776, model 1:48 by Adi
Pearwood is one of my favorite, if not the most. Adding Pearwood waterways makes a perfect contrast with a maple decking material. But wait, are you covering the entire deck with planks? Are you hiding all the beauty in the hold?
shipsofscale.com
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2020
- Messages
- 10,377
- Points
- 938
I actually forgot to post the last two pictures that will explain the "mine shaft" for the foremast clearer.
Here you can see the walnut strip glued to the rear of Bulkhead #1 (green arrow) and the resultant enclosed space that is created for the foremast.
And viewed from the top. I had to allow plenty for plenty of light to show the hole - otherwise it just comes up as a black square,
Here you can see the walnut strip glued to the rear of Bulkhead #1 (green arrow) and the resultant enclosed space that is created for the foremast.
And viewed from the top. I had to allow plenty for plenty of light to show the hole - otherwise it just comes up as a black square,