Hohenzollern-model research

[Rodolphe]

XXX

 

[Steef66]

I think we can conclude that it is not a good idea to use the plans from Winter's book to make a model of a Dutch warship of the 1660s. The actual Dutch warship of the 1660s were much flatter than the plans of the Hohenzollern-model from Heinrich Winter's book show us.

I don't really understand what you're trying to prove here. If you want to try saying Winter did draw it wrong, I have to disappoint you. Winter did a good research job on this ship. Without the research of Winter we would have nothing then a few dark black and white pictures.
It was already very clear that these ships had a flatter bottom and that the Hohenzollern model does not have this. Winter's drawings are based on that model.

So if you want to recreate the Hohenzollern model as it looked in Berlin in the photos you will have to use those drawings. It does have a few flaws if you compare the photos of the model with the drawing. The last 2 frames at the stern are not drawn correctly. But apart from that Winter has provided fine drawings of a model. And not of an actual existing ship.
If you want to build a Dutch 2-decker other than the Hohenzollern model then you should not use those drawings from Winter because they are specific to this Hohenzollern model. You had better look at drawings by Blom or Dik. Those are more close to a Dutch 2-decker. But even that is guesswork, because we know very little about the exact shape of the 2-decker then that what is written in the books of Cornelis and Nicolaes. In fact, I don't think any of those ships were identical in those days because no drawings were used, only certers. Then only the skill of the master, craftsmen, builders and available wood in the different yards. These factors determined the final shape of the ship. The wreckage of the Samuel in Den Helder is a good example how the wood was used.

I myself used these drawings as a guide to reconstruct the ship, I find the beautiful ornaments and construction of this ship very fascinating. For the construction I use the same way as the old masters do. More or less to teach myself what can and cannot be done. In the shell first method you soon become aware that this ship does not have the shape it should have and I also modified the drawings of the hull for my construction in such a way that shell first was possible.
To build a model following that method gives you respect about the craftsmen at that time. Of course I won't be able to replicate many things exactly on the model, but it does give insight into how these ships were built. And there were really no drawings needed for that, the shape of the ship came about almost by itself through proper handling and construction.

 

[Steef66]

Looks like you want to make the same point like this member on MSW.

 

[Rodolphe]

I don't really understand what you're trying to prove here. If you want to try saying Winter did draw it wrong, I have to disappoint you. Winter did a good research job on this ship. Without the research of Winter we would have nothing then a few dark black and white pictures.
It was already very clear that these ships had a flatter bottom and that the Hohenzollern model does not have this. Winter's drawings are based on that model.

XXX

 

[Steef66]

But why is it then that a forum member who wants to build a model of Akerboom, a Dutch warship of the 1660s, is advised to use the plans of the Hohenzollern-model from Winter's book? And why does another forum member who presents a reconstruction of a 'Dutch capital ship of ca. 1665', use the plans of the Hohenzollern-model from Winter's book? And why do you yourself say that 'the Hohenzollern model is not designed for the shallow waters around the Dutch coast line'?

I'm not going to give you an answer to that, because these persons have a good reason to do so. And in my opinion that you asked this is, is not because you want to know why but to just say they are wrong. And that last thing is disrespectful to this person. Ab, the person you talk about is a lifetime working on these ships and wrote a lot of books. If you don't agree with these books, you are free to write one of them by yourself, give your opinion and see if people agree and buy your books.

the same thing is about Heinrich Winter. He did the research somewhere in the 1940. There was no AutoCAD or computers to make beautifull scans of the ship. Everything was done by hand, even the drawings. And when you make a scan of a handmade drawing and work with that scan in AutoCAD you will find a lot of inconsistencies. CAD is to accurate. So when I say he did a good job, I mean what I said, because without him we had nothing.

Please do not use my words to support your rightness with these respected writers. Because I don't share your opinion.

Allow me a question. You say in your reply:
"In the shell first method you soon become aware that this ship does not have the shape it should have and I also modified the drawings of the hull for my construction in such a way that shell first was possible."
I am not sure what you mean with this. I think you mean to say it is impossible to build a model with a hull as shown in the plans from Winter's book with the shell first ship building method. But, since you say that you had to modify the plans from the Hohenzollern-model from Winter's book to make this possible, this would mean that you are not building a copy of the hull of the Hohenzollern-model, but a model of a hull of your own design. On what did you base the design of your hull?

I did choose to build a ship in the way these shipbuilders did in that time and I wanted to use the Hohenzollern as model.
I did discover in my work that the bottom of a shell first is of a typical shape. So my choice of the Hohemzolern and shell first don't match. That there where Dutch ships where build in that era that look like the Hohenzollern is a fact, because not all ships where build in this method. Cornelis v Yk is discribing another way to build a ship. See example below.


In this way it is possible to build a ship whit a more concave bottom like the HZ model.

On what did you base the design of your hull?

I used the book of Nicolaes Witsen to redesign the bottom of the ship. Everything below WL3 was a little adjusted to make a design that fit between the drawing of Winter and a flat bottom ship. So that shell first was possible to use. I did indeed look to the drawings of the 7P of Dik and Blom, but this was more to get a visualisation of the words of Witsen.
And the drawing? I can tell you that you don't actually need a drawing when you build a ship like this. I'm convinced that these shipbuilders on the Dutch yards where never using drawings. When you experience enough you can build these ships just with a certer.

 

[A.Ivanov]

Здравствуйте, господа!
Прошу принять несколько слов от постороннем человека, некоторое время непосредственно работающем со старыми моделями.
1. От моделей Гогенцоллерна изначально не стоит ожидать повышенной точности. Модели классифицируются по манере исполнения. В данном случае модель не является строительной или проектной. Это демонстрационная модель. Следовательно, на ней возможны отступления. И здесь нужно изобретение с паном Гургул, что этой модели достаточно для того, чтобы понять принципиальный проект. Даже с учетом возможных или неизбежных просчетов судомоделиста.
2. Винтеру мы должны быть благодарны - он сохранил для потомков образ старинной модели. Найденные зимой ошибки, на мой взгляд, также неизбежны. Эти ошибки обоснованы тем отказником, который Винтер поставил перед собой. Прибавьте к этому несовершенство методики обмера и прочее.
Я много раз сталкивался с недостаточно грамотной работой реконструкторов, выполняющих обмеры моделей, а затем по этим обмерам - рабочие чертежи моделей. Вот одна из таких моделей - модель 2-мачтовой шхуны адмирала Ноульса, ранее считавшейся моделью "Транспорт Рояля". В 90-х годах два исследователя - Крайнюков и Марквардт - выполнили свои чертежи этой модели. При панорамных чертежей Крайнюкова выявлены основные нарушения. Стало понятно, что он обмерил модель только в нескольких пунктах, а остальное построено по его предположению, не сверяясь с самой моделью. Марквардт («Global Schoner», стр. 14–18) вообще работал по фотографиям моделей. Я разговаривал с человеком, который делал фотографии для Марквардта. Марквард даже не показал вогнутого дна модели, которая была видна на фотографиях. Все это заболевание уже в наше время, когда доступны измерительные инструменты.
Поэтому, и здесь необходимо влияние с паном Гургул - моделью, независимо от ее недостатков, несмотря на посредственную работу Винтера, заслуживает внимание и позволяет судить о голландском кораблестроении этого времени.
Спасибо за внимание.

 

[-Waldemar-]

.​

моделью, независимо от ее недостатков, несмотря на посредственную работу Винтера, заслуживает внимание и позволяет судить о голландском кораблестроении этого времени.

Although admittedly this is not my thread, nevertheless I thank you, Alexander, for stepping in here and reminding of this thread, hopefully also on behalf of its creator, Rodolph, or rather Jules van Beek (with whom I have not always been at ease either ).

I will take this opportunity to say that Jules has indeed found intriguing and at the same time telling material in the archives and presented it here, and in this particular case the content of this material together with his argumentation has convinced me completely as to the reasons for the distortion of the modern Hohenzollern model documentation made by Winter.

You are probably also one of the few people who has recognised, or at least made it clear, that even such deformed reconstruction documentation, together with surviving photographs, can still be very useful for investigating the design logic of past ships (as opposed to specific design parameters such as deadrise height, which are so variable over time or for specific designers and ship types).

Thanks again,
Waldemar

.​

 

[A.Ivanov]

Машинный перевод сделан настолько примитивно, что недоразумение между нами отношусь к этому счету. Думаю, что и эта фраза будет переведена неточно.

.​

Еще раз спасибо,
Вальдемар

.​

Не за что - не стоит благодарности - пожалуйста... Интересно, что будет переведено более-менее точно...

Вальдемар! Внимательно читаю Ваш материал по "Вазе". Пока еще рано задавать Вам вопросы - еще почитаю и пытаюсь понять Вашу мысль глубже. Высказанная Вами мысль - если я не ошибаюсь в трактовке - мысль о том, что просматривается первоначальный проект корабля меньшего ранга - эта мысль перекликается с событиями конца 17 века в Воронеже при строительстве "кумпанских" кораблей. Я постараюсь точно ответить и задаюсь своим вопросом. Не указывайте отреагировать на него. Заранее спасибо.

Как в известном фильме Глеб Жеглов - кто-то, когда-то, где-то уже что-либо подобное произошло; на том стояла и стоит... историческая наука!))

К сожалению, по известному вопросу что-либо обнадеживающее сообщить не могу - никто из любителей пока путешествовать не нашел... Может, у Вас есть кто желающий посетить достопримечательности Ленинграда?

С уважением, А.Иванов

 

[Steef66]

Hello gentlemen!
Please accept a few words from an outsider who has been directly working with old models for some time.
1. one should not initially expect increased accuracy from Hohenzollern models. The models are categorized by the manner in which they are made. In this case the model is not a construction or design model. It is a demonstration model. Consequently, deviations are possible on it. And here one must invent with pan Gurgul that this model is sufficient to understand the principle design. Even taking into account possible or unavoidable miscalculations of the ship modeler.
2. Winter we should be grateful - he preserved for posterity the image of the vintage model. The errors found in winter, in my opinion, are also inevitable. These errors are justified by the rejection that Winter set out to make. Add to this the imperfection of the methodology of measurement and so on.
Many times I have come across insufficiently competent work of reconstructors who take measurements of models and then, based on these measurements, make working drawings of the models. Here is one of such models - a model of 2-masted schooner Admiral Knowles, previously considered a model of "Transport Royal". In the 90s, two researchers, Krainjukov and Marquardt, made their own drawings of this model. Krainjukov's panoramic drawings revealed major irregularities. It became clear that he had measured the model only at a few points, and the rest was built according to his assumptions, without checking with the model itself. Marquardt ("Global Schoner," pp. 14-18) worked from photographs of models in general. I spoke to the person who took the photos for Marquardt. Marquardt did not even show the concave bottom of the model that was visible in the photos. All this ailment is already in this day and age where measuring tools are available.
Therefore, and here the influence with Pan Gurgul is necessary - the model, regardless of its shortcomings, despite the mediocre work of Winter, deserves attention and allows us to judge the Dutch shipbuilding of this time.
Thank you for your attention.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

exactly

 

[-Waldemar-]

К сожалению, по известному вопросу что-либо обнадеживающее сообщить не могу - никто из любителей пока путешествовать не нашел... Может, у Вас есть кто желающий посетить достопримечательности Ленинграда?

There is a good chance that this matter will be happily settled soon, as Martes has promised to send me a copy of your latest publication as a gift, which he had already bought for himself. And I have already visited St Petersburg, although it was quite a while ago (did you really write Leningrad? ).

It is perhaps still worth pointing out here, especially for enthusiasts of English design techniques, that this work contains a transcription of the manuscript on shipbuilding by the English shipwright Lambe Yeames, expected to be confidently included in the canon of other works from this period, such as by Deane (1670), Sutherland (1711 and 1717) and Murray (1757).

.​

 

[A.Ivanov]

Мартес обещал прислать мне макияж

Стоило выйти на контакт - специалистам чаще дарю подлинник. Копия есть копия. Подлинник всегда лучше.

вы действительно написали Ленинград?

Я хорошо помню город, когда он был Ленинградом. Это было хорошее время, мирное... Но мне больше нравится Петроград. От Санкт-Петербурга осталось не так уж и много. Главное, нет духа Санкт-Петербурга. Мое частное мнение.

английского корабельного мастера

Тут нужно уточнить. Предположим, что мы говорим о Вальдемаре Гургуле - польский ученый. Тут все понятно. Но если Вальдемар Гургул, предположим, будет жить по месту жительства в США и продолжит свои исследования, то он уже будет «американским ученым», либо «американским ученым польского происхождения». Я правильно рассуждаю? Ямес в 1737 году принял присягу на верность Российской императрицы. Следовательно, правильнее говорить «русский корабельный мастер английского происхождения», либо просто «кораблестроитель-англичанин». Кстати, его фамилия говорит о его британских выходах, но не о английских. Кто он был национальности, пока не очень понятно.
Чин "корабельный мастер", а также "корабельный подмастерье", "корабельный ученик", "тимерман", "галерный мастер", "-подмастерье" и т.д., "ластовый мастер", "подмастерье" и т.д. - это русская классификация чинов в кораблестроении. В Англии «мастер-кораблестроитель» имел другой смысл — главный распорядитель на верфи. Корабли строили «кораблестроители». Кажется, в Голландии корабли строили «плотники». А "мастер" - главный распорядитель на верфи. У других не помню.
Я понимаю, что "английский корабельный мастер" - это установленный штамп. Но этот штамп не совсем точен. Либо "корабельный мастер британского происхождения" - понятно, что это чин российского адмиралтейства. Либо «корабельный мастер англичанин». Но это так, филологические заметки на полях. Штамп живет и ничего с этим не сделать.

 

[-Waldemar-]

.​

Стоило выйти на контакт - специалистам чаще дарю подлинник. Копия есть копия. Подлинник всегда лучше.

Alexander, thank you very much, however, it is possible that you are again 'clinging' unnecessarily . Martes intends to send me the original of your important work, not a copy (in English the term ‘copy’ also means ‘original’, especially when one item of some batch is meant). Now the book is in some post office in Kazakhstan. I will also take this opportunity to ask you to formulate your thoughts as simply as possible, as I am already sure that various linguistic subtleties are usually annihilated by translation into another language, even by a human translator, let alone by machine translation.

Я понимаю, что "английский корабельный мастер" - это установленный штамп. Но этот штамп не совсем точен. Либо "корабельный мастер британского происхождения" - понятно, что это чин российского адмиралтейства. Либо «корабельный мастер англичанин». Но это так, филологические заметки на полях. Штамп живет и ничего с этим не сделать.

Yes, your comments regarding the precise state status of the shipwright Lambe Yeames, or Иван Васильевич Ямес, are most pertinent, but please take into account that sometimes it is also useful to use mental shortcuts, even to the benefit of clarity of message. In this case, of course, I was primarily concerned with placing emphasis on the English design methods used by Yeames aka Ямес, which he had acquired earlier in England. Detailed information about this shipwright can be found in your monograph, among others, and repeating a whole chapter from your comprehensive study would be rather pointless here and in this particular context, in my opinion.

о Вальдемаре Гургуле - польский ученый

I'm afraid I don't have the status of a scientist sensu stricto, and certainly don't take part in thematic symposia any more. Besides, on the last such occasion I was in a sense robbed of my presentation. Having discovered important and practically unknown material on the Polish fleet in the Stockholm archives (yes, foreigners are also allowed to search the archives there, even in person), I presented it at such a thematic conference with all the details, but even before the publication of these conference proceedings, someone, some time later after the event, as they say, published these archival materials to their own account. You understand the awkwardness of the situation, don't you?

The best,
Waldemar

.​

 

[A.Ivanov]

Да, я тоже заметил некачественный перевод. «Переводчик» желает нас поссорить!

повторение целой главы из вашего всеобъемлющего исследования было бы довольно бессмысленным здесь и в этом конкретном номере, на мой взгляд

Согласен. Моя реакция - реакция против некоторых своих литераторов . Знаете, у кого что болит, тот о том и говорит.

Вы понимаете всю неловкость ситуации, не так ли?

Однозначно. Такие же примеры из моей практики. Если Бог сведет, то о многом можно будет поведать, чего не потерпит бумага. Воруют...