• Win a Free Custom Engraved Brass Coin!!!
    As a way to introduce our brass coins to the community, we will raffle off a free coin during the month of August. Follow link ABOVE for instructions for entering.

HMS Agamemnon by Caldercraft

William1961 said:
I speak both, French is my mother language. I lived in Overijse during 20 years
Click to expand...
Hello,

Have already important question: I soon start the second planking.
The first planking is mentioning to border the gunports.
But question see drawing please : borders of the gunports from the Main Gun Deck must stay visible (off course).
But what with the Gun Ports on the higher Gun Deck?

Marc


1755794043521.png
 
HMSFly said:
I'm asking this question because the Agamemnon is a ship of the line and may have been built (eg the sheaves or other upcoming details) differently than a frigate like the Diana.
Click to expand...
Totally understood Marc :)

After more digging actually a hole, a port (in the waist where there were no lids) or sheaves were used at various point in time for the main tack. On English two deckers and smaller, before 1656, the main sail tacks did lead through a hole in the side of the ship on the upper deck and belayed to a cleat inboard on the bulwarks but this was well before Agamemnon was built. After that chess trees were added to the hull. The tack lead through a hole in the chess tree/fender then through a gun port or a sheave in the hull.

The sheets altered very little during the sail era always running through sheaves in the side of the hull.

From Steel, the diameter of the sheaves was about 12" and they were about 3" thick.

Allan

Examples
1755799689740.jpeg
1755799872310.jpeg

The model below is a 64 gun from 1775 at RMG. Some of the sheaves are clearly shown forward of the fenders
1755800434182.png
 
HMSFly said:
But question see drawing please : borders of the gunports from the Main Gun Deck must stay visible (off course).
But what with the Gun Ports on the higher Gun Deck?
Click to expand...

I am not sure I understand what they mean. The only thing you can see inside the gun ports on any deck are the outboard edges of the stops/linings on the sides and the bottom. The lining was only about 1.5" thick. The planking covers the frames and sills which make up the boarders of the ports so they cannot be seen after the planking goes on. The upper deck ports in the waist that do not receive lids may not have linings, but the outboard edges of the sills and frames are covered by the planking so there is no boarder showing.
Allan
1755801111032.jpeg

1755801332562.jpeg
 
Chris Watton, the designer of this model, as with all his early models, shows some nonsense. The sheet of the spritsail was laid on the top timbers of the forecastle. This is what Marquardt says in his excellent book "Mast and Rigging in the Second Half of the 18th Century", this is what David Steele shows, and this is what you can see in the paintings of artists of that era.

1755791501080.png

Безымянный 1.jpg
 
iutar said:
Chris Watton, the designer of this model, as with all his early models, shows some nonsense. The sheet of the spritsail was laid on the top timbers of the forecastle. This is what Marquardt says in his excellent book "Mast and Rigging in the Second Half of the 18th Century", this is what David Steele shows, and this is what you can see in the paintings of artists of that era.

View attachment 539237

View attachment 539238
Click to expand...
Yes, thanks Iutar. What else will I encounter? I think it's a good idea for me to post the drawings regularly and wait for your feedback.
 
Hi Marc,
Well done !! Tomorow I will give you a sample of Prussian Blue paint I use on my model. Try it, maybe it will give a beter look and probably closer to the original color used in that time.
 
Mark, show me at least a couple of photos, preferably of the interior. And I'll tell you whether the "museum model" has any relation to reality. The thing is that there is a certain "museum model" circulating on the Internet, but it is a pure KIT - a toy and Frankenstein.
 
iutar said:
Mark, show me at least a couple of photos, preferably of the interior. And I'll tell you whether the "museum model" has any relation to reality. The thing is that there is a certain "museum model" circulating on the Internet, but it is a pure KIT - a toy and Frankenstein.
Click to expand...
here the link... and not at all a kit... 8 months of research...professional builder:
julianstockwin.com

Agamemnon: the Darch Model

Devon-based Malcolm Darch has just completed a magnificent 1:64 scale model of HMS Agamemnon. His 57th commission, she was built for a private collector in the UK and just before she was shipped …
julianstockwin.com julianstockwin.com
 
Dear Mark! Don't be charmed by beautiful words. This model has a huge pile of errors. I don't have eight months, but even from the first minutes I found a lot of historical and technical blunders. Most of the errors, oddly enough, are standard and have long been studied. For example, literally on the last page we looked at the correct gun port covers. On this model, the roofs are historically and technically incorrect. There is something stupid about this: there are two hinges on the covers, and one eyebolt for the rope that closes the cover. The eyebolts were on the hinges, there were two of them. Everyone knows this. There are other well-known bloopers: oars on boats are always placed with the blades forward, the insides of boats are always red in the 1780-90s. Never was the cargo davit on a launch placed together with the rudder - it is technically impossible. It would have been better if the author of the model had read the books by Lavery and Goodwin about English shipbuilding during these eight months. He writes that specialists helped him with photographs of drawings and models from Greenwich, but these documents do not and could not contain everything that is shown on the model. Incorrect top timbers, aft forecastle railing, forward quarterdeck railing. Allan asked where the pins on the aft railing came from - and he is right, because there were no pins there. Allan and I have already shown photos of drawings and models in your topic - it is clearly visible that everything is wrong. But the curators sent the author of the model exactly the same photos (you can see them on the walls of the workshop). The author of the model ignored them. Dear Mark! Do not ignore the photos that Allan and I sent you. Another example: in the ship's drawings, the bellfry is shown with two posts, but the modeler made it with four. The author believes that the ship did not have time to receive the new type of paint, but then why is its upper chanel-wales painted black? With such a paint scheme, black chanel-wales is basically impossible - it is the enemy's paint! (French). The copper plating is not period correct, and the rudder hinges placed on top of the copper plating are technical nonsense. This has been discussed a hundred times.
I'm on vacation now, no time, but if you send me more photos, I'll sign each mistake in them later (if you want, of course). I encourage other readers to take part in the "find the mistake" game!
 
iutar said:
Dear Mark! Don't be charmed by beautiful words. This model has a huge pile of errors. I don't have eight months, but even from the first minutes I found a lot of historical and technical blunders. Most of the errors, oddly enough, are standard and have long been studied. For example, literally on the last page we looked at the correct gun port covers. On this model, the roofs are historically and technically incorrect. There is something stupid about this: there are two hinges on the covers, and one eyebolt for the rope that closes the cover. The eyebolts were on the hinges, there were two of them. Everyone knows this. There are other well-known bloopers: oars on boats are always placed with the blades forward, the insides of boats are always red in the 1780-90s. Never was the cargo davit on a launch placed together with the rudder - it is technically impossible. It would have been better if the author of the model had read the books by Lavery and Goodwin about English shipbuilding during these eight months. He writes that specialists helped him with photographs of drawings and models from Greenwich, but these documents do not and could not contain everything that is shown on the model. Incorrect top timbers, aft forecastle railing, forward quarterdeck railing. Allan asked where the pins on the aft railing came from - and he is right, because there were no pins there. Allan and I have already shown photos of drawings and models in your topic - it is clearly visible that everything is wrong. But the curators sent the author of the model exactly the same photos (you can see them on the walls of the workshop). The author of the model ignored them. Dear Mark! Do not ignore the photos that Allan and I sent you. Another example: in the ship's drawings, the bellfry is shown with two posts, but the modeler made it with four. The author believes that the ship did not have time to receive the new type of paint, but then why is its upper chanel-wales painted black? With such a paint scheme, black chanel-wales is basically impossible - it is the enemy's paint! (French). The copper plating is not period correct, and the rudder hinges placed on top of the copper plating are technical nonsense. This has been discussed a hundred times.
I'm on vacation now, no time, but if you send me more photos, I'll sign each mistake in them later (if you want, of course). I encourage other readers to take part in the "find the mistake" game!
Click to expand...
Hi Iutar,

As always, I read your comments with the utmost attention. I have no objections whatsoever.
May I systematically ask for your help:
Which color scheme is the same as it used to be?
See photos 1 and 2.
The second photo resembles the Diana's color scheme (blue). Is this correct? Or is it black, as the kit specifies?
foto 1:
1756996596674.png




Photo 2:
1756996727210.png
 
Dear Marc,
Because I'm building the same model, this is what I know about the colors :
Both are correct. It depends the period.
Prussian blue was a background color if you decide to the paint the frieze.
The Admiralty order to cease frieze painting came through in 1795, and so Agamemnon would have lost her decoration upon the vessel returning to England when she had to undergo a refit in 1796. from that period, side where painted in black.

Of course I leave to Ituar the final answer which will be also very interresting.

kind regards
 
Hello William,

A beautiful ship you are making!
My congratulations, an example for me.

Your answer matches what I believe I know:

The official phasing out of decorations on British warships:
1- Admiralty decision AFTER 1780:
Altough decorations were still common, there had already been an attempt at UNIFORM COLORING since 1715:
The USE of Yellow and Black
But this was often ignored.

2-1780 : key important decisions
The Admiralty issued an ORDER that ships must be painted in yellow and black.
But not a full ban on ornamentation.

After the Swan-class (eg HMS Fly etc..):
Order for minimal decoration largely to cut costs during the long war with France.

But now it comes, the reason for my question regarding the Agamemnon
During the Napoleonic Wars may LARGE ships of the line still carried carved ornamentation......
There was not a single ban but rather a clear trend towards plainer ships...

They started to build the ship in May 1777...and into the water April 1781..... SO COLOR? Ornamentation?

???????
 
Dear friends, You are now making the same mistake as Malcolm Darch.
The thing is, Malcolm Darch for some reason thought that the ship needed to be returned to its homeland to be painted. Malcolm sincerely believes that HMS Agamemnon could not have been painted before 1893, and that is a mistake.
How it really was. Each ship had a supply of wood and paint in case of repairs. Ships in general need to be painted very often, and warships even more so. Something constantly needed to be painted, especially the sides after a storm.
The American War of Independence has begun. English ships are involved in bloody battles and are heavily damaged. But they are far from their naval bases and have no opportunity to receive repairs in the former colonies.
The ships' boatswains had an incredibly difficult task - not only to carry out repairs without shore assistance, but also to comply with the royal paintwork regulations. The friezes were the first to be damaged.
How to paint blue/red/yellow/green/black (these are the colors friezes were painted in according to the orders of the 1760s, not just blue) if you have a limited amount of paint?
And it is even more impossible to restore the beautiful drawings on the friezes at sea. Here, at least the mast should be repaired or the dead buried, no time for decorations!
However, changes in paint or destruction of decorations is an attack on Royal property, everything had to be restored as accurately as possible after the battle, and the boatswains had a very hard time.

That is why, after complaints from captains, the Admiralty, based on the results of battles, in 1780 allowed friezes to be painted over in plain black, regardless of what friezes were there before. It was also allowed not to restore the drawings.

Now, if a ship was damaged in battle, after repairs the boatswain could finally simply paint over everything that had been repaired in black (black and yellow are the main colors and the most abundant on board).

However, these are the rules of bureaucracy: "permitted" in 1780, but documented according to all the rules only in the nineties, "permitted to paint over in black, and to cancel the drawings altogether." And because the war with France began, and there was no time for paperwork.
 
Malcolm Darch says that he studied museum models, but it is the museum models that speak eloquently: after 1782 there are no drawings on the friezes! And on the models of the nineties there are only black friezes and black channel-wels appears.

Let's return to HMS Agamemnon. There is a fact: on April 12, 1782, the ship took part in a battle against the French near Martinique (Admiral Rodney). The ship was damaged, 14 people died (including two lieutenants) and 24 people were wounded.
What do you think happened next? That's right: the ship underwent repairs and, in accordance with the Admiralty's 1780 order, received a simplified paint job on the sides. The friezes became black, the designs on the friezes and in the stern were painted over, and everything near the waterline was also painted black.
 
iutar said:
Dear friends, You are now making the same mistake as Malcolm Darch.
The thing is, Malcolm Darch for some reason thought that the ship needed to be returned to its homeland to be painted. Malcolm sincerely believes that HMS Agamemnon could not have been painted before 1893, and that is a mistake.
How it really was. Each ship had a supply of wood and paint in case of repairs. Ships in general need to be painted very often, and warships even more so. Something constantly needed to be painted, especially the sides after a storm.
The American War of Independence has begun. English ships are involved in bloody battles and are heavily damaged. But they are far from their naval bases and have no opportunity to receive repairs in the former colonies.
The ships' boatswains had an incredibly difficult task - not only to carry out repairs without shore assistance, but also to comply with the royal paintwork regulations. The friezes were the first to be damaged.
How to paint blue/red/yellow/green/black (these are the colors friezes were painted in according to the orders of the 1760s, not just blue) if you have a limited amount of paint?
And it is even more impossible to restore the beautiful drawings on the friezes at sea. Here, at least the mast should be repaired or the dead buried, no time for decorations!
However, changes in paint or destruction of decorations is an attack on Royal property, everything had to be restored as accurately as possible after the battle, and the boatswains had a very hard time.

That is why, after complaints from captains, the Admiralty, based on the results of battles, in 1780 allowed friezes to be painted over in plain black, regardless of what friezes were there before. It was also allowed not to restore the drawings.

Now, if a ship was damaged in battle, after repairs the boatswain could finally simply paint over everything that had been repaired in black (black and yellow are the main colors and the most abundant on board).

However, these are the rules of bureaucracy: "permitted" in 1780, but documented according to all the rules only in the nineties, "permitted to paint over in black, and to cancel the drawings altogether." And because the war with France began, and there was no time for paperwork.
Click to expand...

My problem is solved, I've learned a lot. It's black and yellow...stick with the Caldercraft colors.

Thx agian Iutar
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top