HMS Sovereign of the Seas - Bashing DeAgostini Beyond Believable Boundaries

Still studying resource information regarding the decorations on the Sovereign. So, I start with trying to use blender to make the first decoration, randomly selected from among all the icons on the hull. So, I selected from the McKay's illustrations, the icon from the beakhead, second row from the top, and third one from the rear end of the beakhead. McKay draw this icon panel as a rider on horseback.

So I get Blender, pick out some 3-D models to start out with, and begin to fumble through the tools and modify them to appear like the icon as it appears in McKay's book.
Bow Decorations.jpg

Looks presentable, especially for an icon that will be 1cm wide.
1718843660022.png

Then I dig abit deeper and decide to check McKay's image with the Payne Engraving and with Hendrik Busmann's book devoted specifically to decorations of the Sovereign. It appears that McKay has many errors in the artwork of the decorations as well. The first icon I worked on is wrong. Payne shows a unicorn as the icon, not a rider on horseback. Look at other decorations, I find more and more differences between McKay as firsthand sources like the Payne engraving and va de Velde's drawings. So the first 3-D model I prepared has to be scrapped. How very frustrating. :mad: McKay's interpetation has proven untrustworthy on too many features to be used as a basis for modeling HMS Sovereign of the Seas. Refer to high resolution copies of Payne's engraving and Hendrik Busmann's "Sovereign of the Seas - Die Skulpturen des britischen Königsschiffes von 1637" if you can find a copy, and learn to read German. It's easier than correcting mistakes on the model.

Per Payne: This is a unicorn.
1718843501863.png
 
Last edited:
DARIVS ARCHITECTVS said:
Still studying resource information regarding the decorations on the Sovereign. So, I start with trying to use blender to make the first decoration, randomly selected from among all the icons on the hull. So, I selected from the McKay's illustrations, the icon from the beakhead, second row from the top, and third one from the rear end of the beakhead. McKay draw this icon panel as a rider on horseback.

So I get Blender, pick out some 3-D models to start out with, and begin to fumble through the tools and modify them to appear like the icon as it appears in McKay's book.
View attachment 454338

Looks presentable, especially for an icon that will be 1cm wide.
View attachment 454336

Then I dig abit deeper and decide to check McKay's image with the Payne Engraving and with Hendrik Busmann's book devoted specifically to decorations of the Sovereign. It appears that McKay has many errors in the artwork of the decorations as well. The first icon I worked on is wrong. Payne shows a unicorn as the icon, not a rider on horseback. Look at other decorations, I find more and more differences between McKay as firsthand sources like the Payne engraving and va de Velde's drawings. So the first 3-D model I prepared has to be scrapped. How very frustrating. :mad: McKay's interpetation has proven untrustworthy on too many features to be used as a basis for modeling HMS Sovereign of the Seas. Refer to high resolution copies of Payne's engraving and Hendrik Busmann's "Sovereign of the Seas - Die Skulpturen des britischen Königsschiffes von 1637" if you can find a copy, and learn to read German. It's easier than correcting mistakes on the model.

Per Payne: This is a unicorn.
View attachment 454334
Click to expand...
It's interesting that you have found detail discrepancies in the McKay book. However, that does not negate McKay as a secondary or tertiary reference. Just be careful about the details you use. Cross-check with other sources.

I have found similar discrepancies with other primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. For example, Marquart's book Anatomy of the Ship: USS Constitution has more than a few detail problems that are easily found. Any kind of research, in any field, is painstaking and time consuming. Keep at it as you are doing quite well.

Bill
 
Hi Kurt
Good luck with that, I hope you finish your project. As for a differences between authors I would just focus on making it according to one. The 3d sculpting is time consuming thing on it's own, so just dig deeper into research before making or erasing anything in blender. Good to se you back on the SOTS build
 
WilliamM said:
It's interesting that you have found detail discrepancies in the McKay book. However, that does not negate McKay as a secondary or tertiary reference. Just be careful about the details you use. Cross-check with other sources.

I have found similar discrepancies with other primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. For example, Marquart's book Anatomy of the Ship: USS Constitution has more than a few detail problems that are easily found. Any kind of research, in any field, is painstaking and time consuming. Keep at it as you are doing quite well.

Bill
Click to expand...
There are very few reliable sources for 17th century vessels. So cross comparison of sources is difficult. McKay's book does not contain just a few errors, there are many, and several of them are major hull features. The beautiful artistry belies the amount of incorrect information, and as a result, the book and has great potential to lead many modelers to assume that McKay's interpretation is accurate. Many newer newer builders will look to it as a primary source of information, trusting the research and assumptions within. Please read the reviews of the book at the beginning of this build log. They support the conclusion that if one is trying to build a model of the Sovereign with historical accuracy in mind, it should not be used as a guide.

This should serve as an example that sources should always be compared, and the builder needs to chose carefully between conflicting information, and apply good judgement.
 
Last edited:
DARIVS ARCHITECTVS said:
There are very few reliable sources for 17th century vessels. So cross comparison of sources is difficult. McKay's book does not contain just a few errors, there are many, and several of them are major hull features. The beautiful artistry belies the amount of incorrect information, and as a result, the book and has great potential to lead many modelers to assume that McKay's interpretation is accurate. Many newer newer builders will look to it as a primary source of information, trusting the research and assumptions within. Please read the reviews of the book at the beginning of this build log. They support the conclusion that if one is trying to build a model of the Sovereign with historical accuracy in mind, it should not be used as a guide.

This should serve as an example that sources should always be compared, and the builder needs to chose carefully between conflicting information, and apply good judgement.
Click to expand...
I said that McKay's book has problems; it is Marquart's book that has many problems. I believe that we arein general agreement.

Bill
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top