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

Daniel20 said:
You will need this for your scratch build of the Mercurius. :D
Click to expand...
Dear Daniel, no matter how much I would like to do that, one has to recognize one's limitations and be realistic about it. I suppose portions of scratch building is possible, but as to a complete scratch-build; I don't think that can or will happen. :)
 
pingu57 said:
But now comes ofcourse the big question, how does this compare to the dimensions of the Mercurius that sailed in the 1595 voyage
Click to expand...
Essentially, one need to be able to reconstruct the ship, based on the wreckage found, to have any confidence in the dimensions, meaning one needs to have access to all material recovered and references used. A next step would be to perform a cross check to validate the reconstruction. When that can be matched with trustworthy references, one can be rather certain that the finds are relateble.
Of some ships much wreckage was found, or even much of the hull was found intact, allowing for rather reliable reconstructions. When the amount of wreckage recovered is sparse, the majorrity of a reconstruction would be based on deduction, supported by old references. An inaccurate cross check, caused by limited inputs or cross references may result in inaccurate comparisons.
 
RDN1954 said:
Well, let's wait and see; 2023 still counts 10 months, so there are still countless opportunities to realise her maiden voyage.
As to being a no-entity, I'm in no position to comment on that, lacking the knowledge and experience to do so.
I am assuming the shipwright in Harlingen did his research, resulting in the current configuration. I don't know why the Russian data were (apparently) not taken into account.
What I want to add in favor of the builder is that he is one of the precious few trying to keep our Dutch sea faring history alive. That fact alone should earn him quite a few credits.

As far as being naive, handsome and young; young, I have no issue with that; we all were young, once. Being naive, that might have been true as well, once. As to handsome, I don't think all the beauty sleep in the world is enough to justify that claim. Maybe the Admiral thinks otherwise, but I don't think she's sufficiently objective. ;)
Click to expand...
Hi Johan. I suppose I am overly critical, but if a project is based on a 30 last ship because it is surmised that a crew of 15 men + 2 (Barentsz and Heemskerck) equates to a ship of 30 last, while the Mercurius of Enkhuizen (a 50-last ship that sailed in the 1595 expedition with 15 men in total), then I start asking questions. And when one bases the name of the ship on the premise that Amsterdam bought a ship for the 1596 expedition, whilst nowhere in any of the resolutions does it state that a ship was bought, then I ask more questions. Indeed, 2023 still has a long way to go, but bear in mind that their "winter break" is until April of this year. That already cuts down the time available by a further 2 months. As to his efforts and initiative, you are correct, Let's hope this replica has a better future than the replicas of the 7P, the Batavia and the Prins Willem.
 
@pingu57
@RDN1954

Gentlemen - both of you make excellent observations. @pingu57 First off, we have to bear in mind that there were two ships called "Mercurius" that sailed in the 1595 expedition. Both were ships of 50 last, but one was from Enkhuizen; the other one was from Amsterdam. Obviously, I am interested in the one from Amsterdam. Other than their tonnage, I have no further information about them. I am still digging though.

@RDN1954 The cross-checks are where the problem lies. There is just no reliable source of information available to cross-check anything. All you have are Hoving and De Weerdt's interpretations who both surmised that the WB was a ship of 30 last.
 
Heinrich said:
The cross-checks are where the problem lies. There is just no reliable source of information available to cross-check anything. All you have are Hoving and De Weerdt's interpretations who both surmised that the WB was a ship of 30 last.
Click to expand...
That's what I feared; no cross checks possible. Then every interpretation is just a possibility, nothing more, nothing less. To go from possible to plausible requires irrefutable evidence.
 
RDN1954 said:
That's what I feared; no cross checks possible. Then every interpretation is just a possibility, nothing more, nothing less. To go from possible to plausible requires irrefutable evidence.
Click to expand...
But with 20 frames and large parts of the keel, the Russians should be able to have a very good idea of what the ship looked like. The frames that they have found, could only have come from Barentsz's ship. Therefore, whatever they have found, and whatever their conclusions are, it does not need to be justified to anyone. They are not working with hypothetical data or surmises; they are working with the real frames and keel of the ship.
 
Heinrich said:
But with 20 frames and large parts of the keel, the Russians should be able to have a very good idea of what the ship looked like. The frames that they have found, could only have come from Barentsz's ship. Therefore, whatever they have found, and whatever their conclusions are, it does not need to be justified to anyone. They are not working with hypothetical data or surmises; they are working with the real frames and keel of the ship.
Click to expand...
Just to play the devil's advocate; even the Russians should cross-reference their ideas, theories and reconstruction with other sources in order to be able to verify and support their conclusions. As far as I understood, the Russian expeditions consisted, amongst others, of scientists. And they, of all people, should be able to trace back their finds to original references.
On the other hand, if carbon dating, type of construction, materials and hardware used, etc. all point to the1595/1596 time frame, there's quite a strong case to be made.
 
@RDN1954 Johan, I hear you and normally I would agree 100%. The question though remains: With what do they cross-reference their discovery? In this case, they are the only actual source. We should be the ones cross-referencing everything against THEIR findings!
 
Heinrich said:
@RDN1954 Johan, I hear you and normally I would agree 100%. The question though remains: With what do they cross-reference their discovery? In this case, they are the only actual source. We should be the ones cross-referencing everything against THEIR findings!
Click to expand...
And here is the issue, currently there's insufficient evidence or cross-check reference material available to support or contradict the Russian findings. I have the utmost respect for all the research done and I have to agree with the conclusion that the finds at Nova Zembla are, with a very high probability, from Willem Barentsz expedition ship. (Especially since I don't have any evidence to the contrary... ;))
 
RDN1954 said:
And here is the issue, currently there's insufficient evidence or cross-check reference material available to support or contradict the Russian findings. I have the utmost respect for all the research done and I have to agree with the conclusion that the finds at Nova Zembla are, with a very high probability, from Willem Barentsz expedition ship. (Especially since I don't have any evidence to the contrary... ;))
Click to expand...
Amen.
 
Dear Friends

I have thoroughly worked through the info that I have re the hull shape and ancillary details of the Mercury according to the Russian drawings and all I can say is that there are differences! As I have said before, I will most certainly complete my build of the WB but is difficult to find the motivation to resume work on the model, when you doubt the accuracy and relevance of your own build.

微信图片_20230219180104.jpg

In any case, I will survive - just have a wee bit of patience with me please ... :)
 
Dear Heinrich, please don't be disgruntled with your WB based on your research. You have provided myself and all who have watched your build log with the most fascinating historical perspective of anyone on this forum that I am aware of. Your skills, your enthusiasm, your dedication to this build have no equal in my opinion and it has been just plain fun to watch. Who among us have built a completely accurate model, even of ships that are afloat today? Stay with it my friend, I just love your two WB's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top