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

[RDN1954]

The first decision I had to make was the number of gunports, as Ab shows seven in his interpretation whilst Kolderstok and Gerald de Weerdt (replica) show six. I scrutinized every single drawing of Gerrit de Veer and the maximum number of gunports that I could SEE, was six. There were pictures which would actually seem to suggest a seventh, but the seventh port was never clearly visible. There were, of course, drawings that also showed only five as well. Therefore, this is very much a case of the luck of the draw to know which option is the right one. As with WB #1, I chose six as this is the number also shown on the @Kolderstok plans.

While understanding your choice to cut out twelve gunports, since it appears to be justifiable, I'm left with the question on my mind why Ab Hoving (@Ab Hoving) selected to show fourteen ports. He must have had sound scientific reasons doing so...

 

[shota70]

Dear Heinrich
I missed the progress of the last two weeks, you have done great work on the waterline , The painting is very accurate

 

[Heinrich]

While understanding your choice to cut out twelve gunports, since it appears to be justifiable, I'm left with the question on my mind why Ab Hoving (@Ab Hoving) selected to show fourteen ports. He must have had sound scientific reasons doing so...

Hello Johan. In his book "Het Schip van Barentsz", Ab says:

Al eerder is opgemerkte dat op de platen van De Veer over het algemeen zeven geschutspoorten per scheepszijde te zien zijn." / It has already been noted that the plates of De Veer generally show seven gun ports per ship's side."



Five gunports are visible (the fifth one is largely invisible but if you look closely, you can see the open gun port lid where the anchor hangs.) There is a strong possibility of a sixth at the bow, but it is not conclusive.


Six gunports are visible. It is possible that there may have been a seventh port right at the bow, but you cannot see it.



Five gunports with a suggestion that there may be a sixth at the bow, but you cannot see it.



Five gunports are visible. Their positioning would suggest that there would have been a sixth port towards the stern, but it is not shown.



A very definite five gunports are shown.


Six gunports are visible with a very strong suggestion of a seventh at the bow. This is the picture that comes the closest to showing seven.


Only four gunports are shown.

Therefore, I cannot agree with Ab's surmise that De Veer's drawings consistently show seven gunports. Thus, the drawings are most certainly not scientific proof by any means.

My decision is again based on the information that I have of De Zwaan.


Inventory issued by the Equipment and Ammunition Master of Veere, Pieter Reygersberg, 1595.

English Translation: From the magazines of the Admiralty (Zeeland) De Zwaan will be equipped with two bronze cannons of 8 pounds each and two bronze cannons of 1-pound each. The rest of the artillery inventory is as follows: 6 Gotelingen* (Cast Iron cannons) and two Steenstukken (Rear Loaders). From the cannon balls found in Het Behouden Huys, we know that the gotelingen were either 2- or 3-pounders, or both.

This results in a total of 12 cannons (including the two steenstukken). Six gunports per side would certainly have made sense.

 

[Heinrich]

Dear Heinrich
I missed the progress of the last two weeks, you have done great work on the waterline , The painting is very accurate

Thank you, my friend - it is great to have you back! Your kind words are much appreciated!

 

[RDN1954]

Hello Johan. In his book "Het Schip van Barentsz", Ab says:

Al eerder is opgemerkte dat op de platen van De Veer over het algemeen zeven geschutspoorten per scheepszijde te zien zijn." / It has already been noted that the plates of De Veer generally show seven gun ports per ship's side."

View attachment 325067

Five gunports are visible (the fifth one is largely invisible but if you look closely, you can see the open gun port lid where the anchor hangs.) There is a strong possibility of a sixth at the bow, but it is not conclusive.

View attachment 325068
Six gunports are visible. It is possible that there may have been a seventh port right at the bow, but you cannot see it.

View attachment 325070

Five gunports with a suggestion that there may be a sixth at the bow, but you cannot see it.

View attachment 325071

Five gunports are visible. Their positioning would suggest that there would have been a sixth port towards the stern, but it is not shown.

View attachment 325072

A very definite five gunports are shown.

View attachment 325073
Six gunports are visible with a very strong suggestion of a seventh at the bow. This is the picture that comes the closest to showing seven.

View attachment 325074
Only four gunports are shown.

Therefore, I cannot agree with Ab's surmise that De Veer's drawings consistently show seven gunports. Thus, the drawings are most certainly not scientific proof by any means.

My decision is again based on the information that I have of De Zwaan.

View attachment 325075
Inventory issued by the Equipment and Ammunition Master of Veere, Pieter Reygersberg, 1595.

English Translation: From the magazines of the Admiralty (Zeeland) De Zwaan will be equipped with two bronze cannons of 8 pounds each and two bronze cannons of 1-pound each. The rest of the artillery inventory is as follows: 6 Gotelingen* (Cast Iron cannons) and two Steenstukken (Rear Loaders). From the cannon balls found in Het Behouden Huys, we know that the gotelingen were either 2- or 3-pounders, or both.

This results in a total of 12 cannons (including the two steenstukken). Six gunports per side would certainly have made sense.

Thanks so much, Heinrich, for yet again a very extensive explanation on how you reached the conclusion that the WB most likely had 12 broadside gunports. The evidence you presented, both pictorial and written, gives your conclusion at minimums some credibility.

 

[Heinrich]

Thanks so much, Heinrich, for yet again a very extensive explanation on how you reached the conclusion that the WB most likely had 12 broadside gunports. The evidence you presented, both pictorial and written, gives your conclusion at minimums some credibility.

It's a pleasure my friend. In this instance, the final decision as to the number of gunports could have gone either way between six or seven. However, at some point I had to make a call and continue from there.

 

[Richie]

I found it was very heart in the mouth stuff painting over the beautiful wood tones so well done and it's looking fantastic, the depths you are going to for research is amazing so I doff my cap to you sir.

 

[Heinrich]

I found it was very heart in the mouth stuff painting over the beautiful wood tones so well done and it's looking fantastic, the depths you are going to for research is amazing so I doff my cap to you sir.

Thank you very much for the kind comments, Richie! The research has become such an integral part of the build, that it is impossible to imagine going to such lengths on any other build.

 

[Heinrich]

Hello Dear Friends.

Let me show you how I marked out the gunports ensuring their perfect position.

The first step was to butcher WB #1's plans from Kolderstok by cutting out the section between the wales. Yes, I could have had copies made, but I did not want to risk distortion or any discrepancies in size - thus the original plan had to be sacrificed. In my case, it is not such a huge deal as I still have the as yet untouched and unopened set of plans for WB #2.


The section that was cut out from the plans was then glued onto a piece of cardboard which provided relative solidity while still remaining flexible. When the glue had dried the gunports were meticulously cut out with an X-Acto knife, whereafter the relevant section was cut out from the cardboard with a pair of new and very sharp scissors.


Starting from the stern, I made sure that the stern section was exactly aligned to the stern of the ship (perfect match) and that the rest of the template was centered between the two wales before securing the template with masking tape. Thereafter it was simply a case of tracing the outlines of the cut-out gunports with a sharp pencil onto the ship.


Finally, remove the template from the ship and you can see the position of the six gunports clearly marked out on the hull without taking a single measurement. This ensures that they are all identical in size and correctly angled. Once I have finished cutting out the gunports on the starboard side, the same process will be repeated on the port side.

What I found incredibly interesting, is that it is only on the gunport closest to the bow, where a bulkhead interferes with the opening of a port. The other five are all (relatively) good. Some are more in the clear than others, but with care and attention five gunports can be made usable. It is only the one closest to the bow that will have to be closed out of necessity. This compares very favorably to WB#1 where there were only 3 gunports which were not affected by bulkheads.

The caveat though, is that I only ordered 8 cannons from @Kolderstok Hans - two of which have already been used at the stern. That leaves me with only six cannons - so, only 3 gunports on each side will display cannons - the other three will be closed.

 

[Daniel20]

Excellent Heinrich, it cannot get any more accurate than that by using a template.

 

[pingu57]

Nice work Heinrich, but according to the foto you placed, the third bulkhead from the rear, is that not inerfering with your gunport?? or is this a bit distortion from the foto? ( or my eyes )

 

[Heinrich]

Nice work Heinrich, but according to the foto you placed, the third bulkhead from the rear, is that not inerfering with your gunport?? or is this a bit distortion from the foto? ( or my eyes )

You are right, my friend. It does indeed interfere, but if I were to file some of the bulkhead away, it will be OK. I am not going to do it though, as I will only keep the ports open where there is no interference at all.

 

[RogerD]

Firstly, great job on your waterline. That clean line has it’s own appeal but I very much respect the authentic work of Ab Hoving.

Your research into the gun-ports is admirable, as others have said. If there is one thing I have learned following expert builders it is that they will investigate historically, to the nth degree, and then make a well educated decision at what is most likely correct.

 

[Heinrich]

Firstly, great job on your waterline. That clean line has it’s own appeal but I very much respect the authentic work of Ab Hoving.

Your research into the gun-ports is admirable, as others have said. If there is one thing I have learned following expert builders it is that they will investigate historically, to the nth degree, and then make a well educated decision at what is most likely correct.

Thank you, Roger! I agree 100% about Ab's work - it is beyond reproach! In the end, the waterline came down to personality more than anything else. The research to me was a revelation. It started off by looking for some specific information, but I soon realized that nothing stands isolated from one another - everything is integrated and if I wanted to understand the build and really learn about ship's construction, the history and the politics, I would have to do adopt a much more holistic approach. Now I am addicted - hook, line and sinker!

 

[Hoss6262]

Heinrich, thanks for sharing you method for mapping your gun ports. It's nice to find a way to do so confidently and not worry about all the math and measurements. I think as long as your confidence is high with the plans, this is a great method, especially with a ship with significant sheer lines. Did you do any verifying of the plan to determine accuracy or take it on face value. I know you are very thorough with your research. This is why I ask.

Thanks for showing us your approach. Very well done!

Cheers.

 

[Heinrich]

Heinrich, thanks for sharing you method for mapping your gun ports. It's nice to find a way to do so confidently and not worry about all the math and measurements. I think as long as your confidence is high with the plans, this is a great method, especially with a ship with significant sheer lines. Did you do any verifying of the plan to determine accuracy or take it on face value. I know you are very thorough with your research. This is why I ask.

Thanks for showing us your approach. Very well done!

Cheers.

Hi Ken. I have three sets of plans available - that of Ab Hoving, Kolderstok and Gerald de Weerdt (replica ship). In this case, I could not use Ab Hoving's plans as he shows seven gunports while I show six (see my earlier posting on how I arrived at six). Since the Kolderstok plans are largely based on those of Hoving, and since it shows six gunports, I had no hesitation in using them. I also know from past experience just how accurate Kolderstok's plans are.

 

[Hoss6262]

Well, Heinrich the results speak for themselves. Although I will say it. They look great!

 

[Heinrich]

Hello Everyone

I cut out the six gunports on the starboard side and let me tell you straight out - this is not a job I wish on anyone!


Have a good look at this template and the gunports. Not a single one sits square - they are all angled in some way or another and actually they themselves are not square either! Then factor in the curvatures on the pic below, the fact that you are cutting oak that does not want to be cut and is just looking for the first opportunity to make splinters and you have one hell of a headache.



I honestly do not know if I messed up or did an OK job - that I will only find out once the ports that are going to be closed, are closed and the cannons fitted to the others. The other night I said there was only bulkhead that interfered with the gunports - now that I had cut them out, all I can say is how wrong can one be? There are only two gunports that are completely unhindered by bulkheads. The red arrow indicates part of a bulkhead that I had to cut in two in order to cut out the gunport.


Note the bulkhead cut into two. The top half is now suspended in mid-air!

 

[Daniel20]

Hello Heinrich, maybe you could install horizontal knee braces on each side of the cross beam which could be glued to the bulwarks? I assume the bulkhead extensions will be cut off and you will build some sort of box to hold the canons that will be seen.

 

[pingu57]

Heinrich my friend, your gunports are looking very good right now, but did you check the height of the ports with a kanon before cutting ??
Because maiby it is because of the foto ( or my eyes ) but it looks to me that the gunports don't follow the curvature of the dek??