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

[Heinrich]

I understand completely, Johan. I cannot help but feel that the 1:4 ratio is largely arbitrary and was certainly not applied by Hoving, Kolderstok or myself. The only person who came close to that was De Weerdt. As mentioned, Hoving and Kolderstok are almost identical at 1:3.14 and 3.18 respectively.



Please see the measurements of Hoving's interpretation directly from his book.

 

[RDN1954]

Thanks Heinrich, this explains very clearly the applied 3.14 ratio, however...
I spend a few hours going through Cornelis van Yk's "Nederlandsche Scheepsbouw-konst open gestelt".
Here I found the following:


The first line describes that, whatever length the shipwright decides upon, the width shall be 1/4 of the keel's length. Warships may be wider, due to the space requirements concerning the cannons carried.

From the same source some examples of ships of various lengths, showing (amongst others) length over width ratios of 4 or higher:


The main drawback of van Yk's document is that it was published more than a century after WB's expeditions...

Please don't get me wrong; as I stated before, I'm no expert, nor do I pretend to be one; I simply can't make sense of all the numbers for one and the same ship. I wouldn't even dare argue the ship being a thirty or fifty lasten ship. At the same time I find this study highly informative and intriguing.

Kind regards,

Johan

 

[Heinrich]

Hello Johan. Thank you for that very relevant document - relevant because there are not that many of the specification lists available. Witsen and Van Yk have long been regarded as one of the few sources authoritative sources available and that makes it relevant as well. However, I think there are two main issues that have to be considered here. One is the fact that these lists refer to ships of a much later era (as you have correctly pointed out) and secondly, Witsen's documents are increasingly being questioned as to its validity. If you follow @Steef66 Stephan's build of the Hohenzollern model, you can see more about that.

Again, quoting from Ab's book and I think far more relevant to our issue is this list of actual builds of the same era as the WB and of which we have actual bestekken (actual specification lists) available.


Note these are not calculations, but records of the actual builds of these ships.

The length/width ratios for these ships from top to bottom are as follows:

1567 Buyskarveel 3.12
1578 Karveelschip 3.022
1593 Karveelschip N/A
1593 Pinas 3.288
1594 Karveel 2.93
1594 Vlieboot x 2 3.04
1594 Oorlogskarveel: 3.41
1594 Idem 3.34
1594 Oorlogskarveel 2.93
1597 Buys 3.19
1600 Pinas 3.04
1611 Vlieboot 3.0
1622 Bootschip 4,13
1622 Bootschip 3.80

Looking at these, I am still happy that my calculated ratios (3.14/3.18) are right in the ballpark with ships of the same era. Save for two ships, all the others are very far away from that 1:40 certer.

 

[RDN1954]

Hello Heinrich, based on the presented data the preferred ratio indeed appears to be in the indicated bracket.
Also from the data it seems as if a larger ratio is starting to appear some 25/30 years after WB's exploits.
We'll probably never know WB's ship's dimensions without a shadow of a doubt. A best educated guess?Sure. Undisputed? Probably not. Interesting? Absolutely!
(From my old profession (and very much abbreviated): if you have proof that the as-build baseline equals the as-designed baseline you know that at that particular moment in time the actual product met the design specifications. So when you have the blueprints in your hands, you have some certainty about the dimensions. Only having general descriptions, inaccurate etches, generic guidelines and contemporary shipwrecks and, possibly, parts of the ship herself, it requires a lot of knowledge and experience to guesstimate a possible configuration. I applaud those who dare sticking their necks out doing so.)

 

[Steef66]

When you look at Dutch ships, there will be no blueprints. These ships, you will never find 2 equal ships, are all different in dimensions. Even the list Witse or Yk shown will not work. The examples they mentioning in their books don't compare with the list of building dimensions. These ships where build with material that was bought. And if the wood for the keel was a foot to short so be it. Also for the transom. There was no template they used, only the zeegstrook could be used a second time on a build if adjusted. So when you make a model, you can't mistake.

 

[RDN1954]

So when you make a model, you can't mistake.

Is that why Dutch models are so popular?

 

[RDN1954]

When you look at Dutch ships, there will be no blueprints. These ships, you will never find 2 equal ships, are all different in dimensions. Even the list Witse or Yk shown will not work. The examples they mentioning in their books don't compare with the list of building dimensions. These ships where build with material that was bought. And if the wood for the keel was a foot to short so be it. Also for the transom. There was no template they used, only the zeegstrook could be used a second time on a build if adjusted. So when you make a model, you can't mistake.

The tables in van Yk's work show examples of ships build and some are marked as verified. It is pretty good reference material, as long as you have the time and patience to read old Dutch.
For kit-developers these Dutch ships must be a nightmare to convert to a believable model; every line you draw and every part you cut may (and probably will) be questioned.
In all very fascinating and very informative.

 

[Heinrich]

Hello Heinrich, based on the presented data the preferred ratio indeed appears to be in the indicated bracket.
Also from the data it seems as if a larger ratio is starting to appear some 25/30 years after WB's exploits.
We'll probably never know WB's ship's dimensions without a shadow of a doubt. A best educated guess?Sure. Undisputed? Probably not. Interesting? Absolutely!
(From my old profession (and very much abbreviated): if you have proof that the as-build baseline equals the as-designed baseline you know that at that particular moment in time the actual product met the design specifications. So when you have the blueprints in your hands, you have some certainty about the dimensions. Only having general descriptions, inaccurate etches, generic guidelines and contemporary shipwrecks and, possibly, parts of the ship herself, it requires a lot of knowledge and experience to guesstimate a possible configuration. I applaud those who dare sticking their necks out doing so.)

Dear Johan. That posting of yours has absolutely nailed the conundrum in which I find myself. And in this case, it is compounded by the fact that we do not even have certainty which ship's specifications we are actually debating. The one thing ship that I keep thinking about is the Zeeland ship De Zwane which participated in the 1594 and 1595 expeditions and of which I have so much information. We know for a fact that we had a bestekken recording of that ship which was written by her captain, and which was in the Zeeuws Archives. Unfortunately, that bestekken was in all likelihood destroyed by bombing raids on Middelburg during WWII. If it had remained intact, we would have known exactly how De Zwane was built and would probably have had a much better idea of how ships of this era had been built in general.

 

[Heinrich]

When you look at Dutch ships, there will be no blueprints. These ships, you will never find 2 equal ships, are all different in dimensions. Even the list Witse or Yk shown will not work. The examples they mentioning in their books don't compare with the list of building dimensions. These ships where build with material that was bought. And if the wood for the keel was a foot to short so be it. Also for the transom. There was no template they used, only the zeegstrook could be used a second time on a build if adjusted. So when you make a model, you can't mistake.

Perfectly true Stephan. The free-building style of the Dutch showcased their master craftsmanship, but caused a major headache when it comes to research - especially on the earlier ships.

 

[Heinrich]

Is that why Dutch models are so popular?

Maybe !

 

[Heinrich]

The tables in van Yk's work show examples of ships build and some are marked as verified. It is pretty good reference material, as long as you have the time and patience to read old Dutch.
For kit-developers these Dutch ships must be a nightmare to convert to a believable model; every line you draw and every part you cut may (and probably will) be questioned.
In all very fascinating and very informative.

Things got much better in the later years, but the Dutch never recorded things to the extent that the British did, for example. You are right when it comes to kit development, Johan.

That is why I applaud @Kolderstok Hans who is supporting me to the extent that he is!

 

[Heinrich]

Still continuing my research, I found a most interesting little VOC ship - Avondster. Originally a British ship called the Blessing, she exhibited a few interesting aspects. And contrary to the WB the wreckage allowed for a very comprehensive excavation of the wreck.



If only I had this drawing available of Breantsz's ship ... Sigh ...

 

[GrantTyler]

Still continuing my research, I found a most interesting little VOC ship - Avondster. Originally a British ship called the Blessing, she exhibited a few interesting aspects. And contrary to the WB the wreckage allowed for a very comprehensive excavation of the wreck.

View attachment 392053

If only I had this drawing available of Breantsz's ship ... Sigh ...

Good morning Heinrich. With all the research and information you have gathered on the WB you will be able to make your own drawings one day . Cheers Grant

 

[Heinrich]

Good morning Heinrich. With all the research and information you have gathered on the WB you will be able to make your own drawings one day . Cheers Grant

Grant, I appreciate the vote of confidence! I suppose I need to keep the faith!

 

[Heinrich]

Dear Friends

No actual work - let's see if I can do something about that over the weekend - but plenty of thinking. The biggest problem that I have with the Zhdan drawings, is the fact that it only shows 6 (maybe?) frames for a hull which is clearly bigger than the previous interpretations to date. Keeping in mind that the Kolderstok model with a smaller hull, already has 10 frames and it is clear that it will be very difficult to achieve an accurate hull shape. In my conversations with @Kolderstok Hans, he has suggested filling in the blank spaces with balsawood and then shaping it according to the drawings, but I'm not so sure about that. I know my limitations ).

I immediately thought of Kris Szkutnik who - as you know or may not know - has been producing 3D hulls for the "Impatient Modeler". In my case, it's not so much about being impatient (even though patience is not my strongest virtue), it's about achieving an accurate hull shape. I sent him Zhdan drawings to find out whether they are sufficient to produce said hull. He affirmed that it is indeed possible - he only needs a single measurement around which he can create the hull.

Those of you who are familiar with Kris's work will know that his 3D hull components are produced in resin which are then glued together to form the complete hull.





Whilst there is absolutely nothing wrong with this it does mean that the hull planking has to be done with CA glue. Those of you who me well, will know that that idea does not sit well with me. Next task would be to ask Kris if he could produce a once-off 3D model in wood, like he did with his prototype. See below.



If this is possible, the only that else that then needs to be done is to determine the actual scale.

Bear in mind that all these endeavors are just to achieve an accurate hull shape. The ultimate question is whether or not it is worth it to go to such lengths and costs only to have a bare hull. Everything else will have to be built from scratch.

 

[RDN1954]

Dear Friends

No actual work - let's see if I can do something about that over the weekend - but plenty of thinking. The biggest problem that I have with the Zhdan drawings, is the fact that it only shows 6 (maybe?) frames for a hull which is clearly bigger than the previous interpretations to date. Keeping in mind that the Kolderstok model with a smaller hull, already has 10 frames and it is clear that it will be very difficult to achieve an accurate hull shape. In my conversations with @Kolderstok Hans, he has suggested filling in the blank spaces with balsawood and then shaping it according to the drawings, but I'm not so sure about that. I know my limitations ).

I immediately thought of Kris Szkutnik who - as you know or may not know - has been producing 3D hulls for the "Impatient Modeler". In my case, it's not so much about being impatient (even though patience is not my strongest virtue), it's about achieving an accurate hull shape. I sent him Zhdan drawings to find out whether they are sufficient to produce said hull. He affirmed that it is indeed possible - he only needs a single measurement around which he can create the hull.

Those of you who are familiar with Kris's work will know that his 3D hull components are produced in resin which are then glued together to form the complete hull.

View attachment 392370

View attachment 392371

Whilst there is absolutely nothing wrong with this it does mean that the hull planking has to be done with CA glue. Those of you who me well, will know that that idea does not sit well with me. Next task would be to ask Kris if he could produce a once-off 3D model in wood, like he did with his prototype. See below.

View attachment 392372

If this is possible, the only that else that then needs to be done is to determine the actual scale.

Bear in mind that all these endeavors are just to achieve an accurate hull shape. The ultimate question is whether or not it is worth it to go to such lengths and costs only to have a bare hull. Everything else will have to be built from scratch.

Good morning Heinrich,

With you mentioning the work of Zhdan again, I became somewhat curious, because, looking at the pictures you shared of Zhdan's work, I was left anew with the impression of a somewhat cartoonesk model of the "Mercurius".
So I searched for information on Mr Zhdan and this is what I learned: he is an artist, who started to weave his artistic interpretation of a ship into his models, because he felt he could not just scale down to come to a representation of the real life subject and started to build his AL-FI models instead. The results are baffling, but I am not sure his models can be used as a basis for a more accurate model of your "Mercurius".
Here a link to a website, with a description of his life and his work, illustrated with pictures of his work: http://www.bnk.sobdelo.ru/2021/12/31/artist-vladislav-zhdan/

Six frames on a model this size is way too few. I'd say you need at least around 14/15, with smaller frame pitches near the stem and the stern, in order to get reliable hull surfaces. (My personal opinion, not substantiated.)

Kind regards,

Johan

 

[Heinrich]

Good morning Heinrich,

With you mentioning the work of Zhdan again, I became somewhat curious, because, looking at the pictures you shared of Zhdan's work, I was left anew with the impression of a somewhat cartoonesk model of the "Mercurius".
So I searched for information on Mr Zhdan and this is what I learned: he is an artist, who started to weave his artistic interpretation of a ship into his models, because he felt he could not just scale down to come to a representation of the real life subject and started to build his AL-FI models instead. The results are baffling, but I am not sure his models can be used as a basis for a more accurate model of your "Mercurius".
Here a link to a website, with a description of his life and his work, illustrated with pictures of his work: http://www.bnk.sobdelo.ru/2021/12/31/artist-vladislav-zhdan/

Six frames on a model this size is way too few. I'd say you need at least around 14/15, with smaller frame pitches near the stem and the stern, in order to get reliable hull surfaces. (My personal opinion, not substantiated.)

Kind regards,

Johan

Johan, this posting of yours hit it out of the park. You are displaying a great skill and talent at looking at the drawings, doing the homework and coming to the conclusion that you did. You are absolutely right in saying that Zhdan is more of an artist than a historical shipbuilder and as such he may exaggerate certain elements for the sake of creating a special effect. This is something that Hans and I discussed at length.

You are also 100% right in that six frames are not sufficient to create an accurate hull. On the @Kolderstok model in 1:50 scale and with a keel length of only 35cm, the 10 frames are perfect, so the exact number of frames will vary according to the size of the model. On the Batavia, for instance, the Kolderstok kit has 18 frames.

What I actually should have said is whether it is worth pursuing a hull which is for certain a personal interpretation of the ship and by no means an attempt to create a historically accurate model. With that then, I close the Zhdan chapter and move on to the next set of available Russian plans - that of Captain Naumenkov. Should these also prove to be out of kilter with what I know so far - well, we all know where they will end up!

 

[Heinrich]

Dear Friends. I am in a quandary with regards to this build.

Just by looking at the Naumenkov's plans, I can see glaring errors in the plan, so I am not even going to bother you with pictures or drawings. I will complete the ship but that's it. I have officially called it a day on all further research on Willem Barentsz's ship. Whatever the reasons of the Dutch for hiding the identity of the ship and conveniently "losing" Barentz's journal, they did a very good job of it.

Furthermore, I have now had enough of all the inconsistencies of so-called "experts" who actually have no clue of what they are talking about. I have found a ship that is brilliantly documented, gives me LOTS of detailed information which has all been corroborated by actual archeological research. What a pleasure to reach the archeological reports of people like Robert Parthesius, Thijs Maarleveld and Wendy van Duivenoorde.

And I cannot help but leave you with a parting shot of just how ridiculous some of the "laws" of Dutch shipbuilding were. Below are actual dimensions of an actual English/Dutch VOC (1644) ship of which the wreck was discovered, researched in a meticulous manner and data recorded to such an extent that I can even tell you by how much the spars and masts were tapered.



@RDN1954 Johan just look at this length/width ratio and then compare it to Witsen's 4:1. Nonsense! Now even though this ship was originally British built, the Dutch captured it, because it fitted so perfectly within the parameters of the VOC, i.e., it was exactly what they wanted because it conformed so accurately to their specifications.

 

[RDN1954]

@RDN1954 Johan just look at this length/width ratio and then compare it to Witsen's 4:1. Nonsense! Now even though this ship was originally British built, the Dutch captured it, because it fitted so perfectly within the parameters of the VOC, i.e., it was exactly what they wanted because it conformed so accurately to their specifications.

This is nowhere close to the 1:4 ratio, so Witsen is not an as trustworthy source in this respect as one would like...
I've been following some discussions on other topics of 16th/17th century ships and I am rather inclined to agree with your conclusions; experts/scientists, like modelers, also have to work with the information they have. That doesn't necessarily lead to consistent or indisputable conclusions. I think I'll stick for now with the idea that whatever we model, based on whatever scientific source or other historical data available, at best it portrays our interpretation of how things could have looked. Some modesty in that respect would suit us.

 

[Heinrich]

This is nowhere close to the 1:4 ratio, so Witsen is not an as trustworthy source in this respect as one would like...
I've been following some discussions on other topics of 16th/17th century ships and I am rather inclined to agree with your conclusions; experts/scientists, like modelers, also have to work with the information they have. That doesn't necessarily lead to consistent or indisputable conclusions. I think I'll stick for now with the idea that whatever we model, based on whatever scientific source or other historical data available, at best it portrays our interpretation of how things could have looked. Some modesty in that respect would suit us.

Wisely spoken, Johan!