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

RDN1954 said:
That's the funny part: there ís no yardstick.
There are three interpretations and I find it highly likely that it will be close to impossible to establish which of these should be regarded as the baseline.
What one could do is asking you have 6 + 6 guns, what's your rationale? Or you positioned the windlass in front of the fwd canopy, based on what information? Etc, etc. When done without fear to credibility, it could be very informative ánd revealing.

I don't mind the name "Mercury", although I would love to see the information upon which the Russians based their naming, but it's nice to see a next model on the horizon.
Click to expand...
That's why I asked your opinion, Johan as there seems to be no yardstick. It's so interesting that you mention the cannons and the windlass and to that you can add the helmsman's hut. Hoving shows 7 cannons, De Weerdt, Kolderstok and I 6, but the Russians have 5. I have gone for a windlass underneath the front canopy on WB 1 because I thought that was correct, then changed it to the bow in alignment with Hoving - now the Russians show it underneath the canopy again! I included the helmsman's hut on WB 1 like Kolderstok and De Weerdt did, then omitted it on WB 2 in alignment with Hoving and now the Russians have it again!

I just do not know anymore! :mad:
 
At the moment the answer seems to be:

1. Order a third @Kolderstok kit.
2. On frames 5, 6 and 7 glue a 3mm strip on each side to the outside of the bulkheads.
3. Double-plank the hull frame.
4. Enclose the center canopy with two doors as per the @Kolderstok kit.
5. Add the helmsman's hut as per the @Kolderstok kit.
6. Place the windlass underneath the front canopy.
5. Cut out 5 gunports instead of 6.

And voila ... I have De Mercurius. ROTF
 
Heinrich said:
My dearest friend. That sounds like very good advice. I will keep an open mind to the possible build of De Mercurius, but at the moment it just seems like an awful lot of work to do without any definite answers. The question is whether a third build will be any more accurate than the first two?
Click to expand...

I don't think you will ever know that my friend, it is just what Johan said, until you know why the Russians are so convinced that it was the Mercurius, you won't know it.
And even then, there wil not be 100% garantee that it is correct, especially because the Admiralty of the Dutch have no more records of the vessels of Willem Berentsz third trip to the north
 
Heinrich said:
That's why I asked your opinion, Johan as there seems to be no yardstick. It's so interesting that you mention the cannons and the windlass and to that you can add the helmsman's hut. Hoving shows 7 cannons, De Weerdt, Kolderstok and I 6, but the Russians have 5. I have gone for a windlass underneath the front canopy on WB 1 because I thought that was correct, then changed it to the bow in alignment with Hoving - now the Russians show it underneath the canopy again! I included the helmsman's hut on WB 1 like Kolderstok and De Weerdt did, then omitted it on WB 2 in alignment with Hoving and now the Russians have it again!

I just do not know anymore! :mad:
Click to expand...
The simple, though difficult thing here is that all the options which have been mentioned are possible. There was no wrong or right, it all depended on the shipyard master and the wishes of the customer. Six canons? We make six. Windlass behind the canopy? No problem, sir! You name it, we can make it.
And there is no original ship to which we can compare it. Only the original diary with the drawings.
 
Heinrich said:
That's why I asked your opinion, Johan as there seems to be no yardstick. It's so interesting that you mention the cannons and the windlass and to that you can add the helmsman's hut. Hoving shows 7 cannons, De Weerdt, Kolderstok and I 6, but the Russians have 5. I have gone for a windlass underneath the front canopy on WB 1 because I thought that was correct, then changed it to the bow in alignment with Hoving - now the Russians show it underneath the canopy again! I included the helmsman's hut on WB 1 like Kolderstok and De Weerdt did, then omitted it on WB 2 in alignment with Hoving and now the Russians have it again!

I just do not know anymore! :mad:
Click to expand...
There are simply too many unknowns to solve the equations.
My opinion is that the three current main configurations; the Hoving-, the de Weerdt- and the Russian one, cannot be proven to be beyond reasonable doubt. Like I wrote before, each configuration represents a possible solution. We should accept that each party involved has its own rationale for it's preferred configuration.
I think your final conclusion is very true: we simply don't know, we simply can't know, because we don't have reliable resources. It's something we'll have to come to accept. Satisfactory? No! Realistic? Yes.
 
Heinrich said:
At the moment the answer seems to be:

1. Order a third @Kolderstok kit.
2. On frames 5, 6 and 7 glue a 3mm strip on each side to the outside of the bulkheads.
3. Double-plank the hull frame.
4. Enclose the center canopy with two doors as per the @Kolderstok kit.
5. Add the helmsman's hut as per the @Kolderstok kit.
6. Place the windlass underneath the front canopy.
5. Cut out 5 gunports instead of 6.

And voila ... I have De Mercurius. ROTF
Click to expand...
You've gotten your work cut out for you!
 
I may be totally out to lunch, but could you not use the plans of another Dutch ship from the same period to approximate what your ship would look like?
 
Heinrich said:
At the moment the answer seems to be:

1. Order a third @Kolderstok kit.
2. On frames 5, 6 and 7 glue a 3mm strip on each side to the outside of the bulkheads.
3. Double-plank the hull frame.
4. Enclose the center canopy with two doors as per the @Kolderstok kit.
5. Add the helmsman's hut as per the @Kolderstok kit.
6. Place the windlass underneath the front canopy.
5. Cut out 5 gunports instead of 6.

And voila ... I have De Mercurius. ROTF
Click to expand...
Good morning Heinrich. My 2 cents. I am in agreement with Hans’s comments. As much as the Russian expedition has unveiled new information of this ship there is still no defined plans or schematics of this ship. Up to now the Dutch researchers and the guys who built the replica (as per your research way back when you started) had their interpretations of the information available. The Russians now have some more information to add to that and so their interpretation of the WB is made. Is this really exactly what William Barentz left on his disastrous voyage on? Who knows.

Ok after all that blah blah here’s my point. IMHO I think you should complete your wonderful WB according to your original research and findings.

Then if motivation for this famous ship still burns in you, order a third and build it according to the Russian findings and call it Mercurius.

You can then display each model as an example of how the research and new information has evolved and the perception of how this ship looked. Your current masterpiece:Pre the Russian expedition ( ie built according to AB Hovering, De Weerdt and Heinrich’s initial research) and The third to be started : Post the expedition ie according to the Russian findings and your extensive research.
Of course you even have your first one as well.

Your Models will have a story to tell.
Cheers Grant
 
pingu57 said:
I don't think you will ever know that my friend, it is just what Johan said, until you know why the Russians are so convinced that it was the Mercurius, you won't know it.
And even then, there wil not be 100% garantee that it is correct, especially because the Admiralty of the Dutch have no more records of the vessels of Willem Berentsz third trip to the north
Click to expand...
Hi Peter. I don't think the name of the ship comes into this question. I am merely referring to the parts of the wreckage that the Russians found and how that compares to Hoving and De Weerdt's interpretations.
 
Kolderstok said:
The simple, though difficult thing here is that all the options which have been mentioned are possible. There was no wrong or right, it all depended on the shipyard master and the wishes of the customer. Six canons? We make six. Windlass behind the canopy? No problem, sir! You name it, we can make it.
And there is no original ship to which we can compare it. Only the original diary with the drawings.
Click to expand...
Hans I suppose anything is possible, but the fact remains: the Russians found 20 frames, a portion of the keel and parts of the rigging. They should have the best idea of what the hull shape of the ship was at least. Where the windlass was, the number of cannons and other ancillaries, remain open to debate though.

Remember, radiocarbon analysis has shown that this was the original ship - even if it was by default. Barentsz's ship was the only Dutch ship that stranded at Nova Zembla and the results show that the findings belonged to a Dutch ship of the late sixteenth century. There is simply no debate about this. Whatever they have in their possession, is from the original ship.
 
RDN1954 said:
There are simply too many unknowns to solve the equations.
My opinion is that the three current main configurations; the Hoving-, the de Weerdt- and the Russian one, cannot be proven to be beyond reasonable doubt. Like I wrote before, each configuration represents a possible solution. We should accept that each party involved has its own rationale for it's preferred configuration.
I think your final conclusion is very true: we simply don't know, we simply can't know, because we don't have reliable resources. It's something we'll have to come to accept. Satisfactory? No! Realistic? Yes.
Click to expand...
Johan, I disagree that the Russian interpretation can be classified in the same category as De Weerdt and Hoving's. Hoving and De Weerdt based their interpretations on certain assumptions - assumptions which I have shown to be highly doubtful. The Russian interpretation is based on their actual findings. There is a huge difference between the two types of background information.

See my answer to Hans. Ancillary equipment above deck may be open to interpretation, but as far as the basic hull shape goes, the Russian findings must be regarded as the most correct one of the three interpretations - they are, after all, the only ones who have recovered parts of the ship.
 
Jack Sparrow said:
I may be totally out to lunch, but could you not use the plans of another Dutch ship from the same period to approximate what your ship would look like?
Click to expand...
Jack - the short answer is there weren't any!
 
Jack Sparrow said:
I may be totally out to lunch, but could you not use the plans of another Dutch ship from the same period to approximate what your ship would look like?
Click to expand...
That's indeed a possibility and not even too far fetched. The issue you'll face then is that you will be building an era-common ship. More likely than not it will have little resemblance to Willem Barentsz expedition ship and that's exactly what Heinrich is pursuing.
And as I've written before, there's not enough reliable information available to build a model or replica with enough confidence; at best any effort will end up as "she could have looked like this".
 
Heinrich said:
Johan, I disagree that the Russian interpretation can be classified in the same category as De Weerdt and Hoving's. Hoving and De Weerdt based their interpretations on certain assumptions - assumptions which I have shown to be highly doubtful. The Russian interpretation is based on their actual findings. There is a huge difference between the two types of background information.

See my answer to Hans. Ancillary equipment above deck may be open to interpretation, but as far as the basic hull shape goes, the Russian findings must be regarded as the most correct one of the three interpretations - they are, after all, the only ones who have recovered parts of the ship.
Click to expand...
In that case we have to agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:
GrantTyler said:
Then if motivation for this famous ship still burns in you, order a third and build it according to the Russian findings and call it Mercurius.

You can then display each model as an example of how the research and new information has evolved and the perception of how this ship looked. Your current masterpiece :p pre the Russian expedition ( ie built according to AB Hovering, De Weerdt and Heinrich’s initial research) and The third to be started : Post the expedition ie according to the Russian findings and your extensive research.
Of course you even have your first one as well.

Your Models will have a story to tell.
Click to expand...
Grant, I believe you have hit the nail squarely on the head as to your summary. I can use the first build as the basis from which I worked while the second one would be based on the information at hand before I "discovered" the Russian discoveries.

You are also correct about a possible third build. If I do get myself to do that, it will be based on the Russian interpretation and will be called De Mercurius. That way, every possible interpretation is covered, and each person can choose his favorite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top