initial Soleil royal using the heller 1/100 scale kit (post prepared in advance)

And it's not accurate compare to berain drawings. So the soleil royal or the royal louis couldn't have this white flag without fleur de lys, noted (if I got it wrong, tell me).
This representation based on tanneron model did the flag with the king's royal symbol
Marine-a-Voiles-12-Louis-XIV-Ce-beau-vaisseau-le-SOLEIL-ROYAL-fut-monte-par-Tourville...-1.jpg

On tanneron, I wonder what was his basis for the sole window ahead of the quarter gallery, I don't see it on representation of the royal louis, la reyne or dauphin royal. I wonder if I can't remove it and use the place left to add a canon.
Soleil_Royal-Gaston_Braun.jpg

lado.jpg

reyne_10.jpg

La reyne again:
reyne_11.jpg
 
Ok, since I'm going for a intial SR, I'll have to have the flag. I think I'll take the updated heller instruction for christmas, it'll be easier than with the original notice I think (who took 600 hours for a team of 3 persons at heller to make before the kit got out while they thought only 180 were neccesary to make it, I got that from jean-christophe carbonel book "Heller-la maquette à la française").
 
GuyM said:
Nice ship drawing:) but a whole lot of errors:))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but on the balance - I respectfully disagree. Artist interpretations always must be taken with a “grain of salt,” or two.

Photographic fidelity, by modern standards, varied significantly by artist. The Van de Velde’s were the most prolific and probably the best. Puget is a close second. Van Beecq is no slouch.

Sure, the ship is not portrayed as mosty-white, and there are numerous other discrepancies from Hyatt’s monograph. Nevertheless, this was likely someone who saw the ship with his own eyes.
 
No:) it is an interpretation from writings...It is influenced by one of the Soleil Royal's drawings and one of the Dauphin royal's drawings:)
Puget was by far the one who drew the most detailed and true drawings since he lived at the time and was one of the most, or even the most talented artist
of the time...Unfortunately with an ego proportional to that; As for Van de Velde, he drew very few French ships unfortunately because as far as technical information on drawings of the hulls he was more precise than others....All the other who came after relied on writings and those drawings.....And interpretations varied quite a lot.....
 
Hubac’s Historian said:
Okay, well, if you have precise information about this Van Beecq portrait; when it was painted, exactly, what it is supposed to represent, etc - I would love to know more about that.
Click to expand...
I don't need to...the drawings show 18 canons on the lower deck............And it's how he gets to 110 canons, or 55 on each side; which the Royal Louis never had...
So he relied on some drawings and the descriptions from documents or/and various testimonies...The decor has errors too, and too many to start a description here.
He arrived in France in 1680/81 so the drawing would not be before that....
 
Strictly on a broadside count, I see 17 lower, 15 middle and 15 main deck, with 9 on the quarter/f’ocsle (assuming minimum 3), and 3 on the poop; total aboard ship, excepting chase ports, 118 guns. Even from a nominal perspective, that excludes chase guns, that is an excessive broadside.

That being said - marine artists of all stripes are notorious for in-accurately representing armament; most, in fact, always show chase guns armed, when they would only actually be under certain circumstances.

What I mean to say, here, is that the representation of armament, however excessive, is more consistent with what would be expected of the RL, as opposed to lesser ships of the Premier-Rang.

As for the ornamentation, it is impossible to document the changes to decor over her first 9 years because they simply are not recorded in any coherent fashion. That is why I suggest this ship portrait resides somewhere in that 9 year period.

We also can never ascertain what Van Beecq saw or didn’t see because writing wasn’t his craft. Artistry was. You are factually right about VB’s appearance in France, but you can’t possibly know his sources.
 
Apart from the “Gilded Ghost” portrait, as I like to call it, there simply are no other full-color representations of French ships from this period that are fully realized and coherent. There is much truth to be gleaned, here, between the lines of Hyatt’s account.
 
I wonder why the artist choosed not to add any blue in its painting of the royal louis and how accurate the flags he did are. Aren't chase guns both on the bow and stern supposed to be closed? What do you guys think of Tanneron window a bit ahead of the quarter gallery? What he did for the canon on the stern is verry different from 1692 SR and I haven't seen this window on drawings of other 1er rang ships.
 
As for the top drawing, the ''portes haubans'' are below the top main battery; that would suggest a period after the refit of 1676; and at that period a lot of the side mermaids had been replaced by low relief carvings on side consoles; the 4 tall statues in the back holding the main board had been removed and replaced by two small statue only holding the top balcony, all this to remove some weight off the stern because of the fact that the ships bottom battery was too close to the water, as Dean had commented when he saw the ship in 1673,and that the ship handled poorly; as for the ''bottle'' top, it is quite possible that it would have been changed in that fashion from the initial top side balconies, but that would have had to occur after 1671. The brownish color of the planking would coincide with the later period of the Royal Louis after 1676.
Notice also what seems to be a round cannon port in that side bottle....
Also remember that Van Beecq arrived in France in 1680/81....

As for the Blue color, it is there in the form of a dark bluish grey; the overall painting has a yellowish atmosphere color so the color may have been used to enhance the the overall lighting of the painting.
The window on the side lighting the quarterdeck's interior is not referenced; however, remembering that the inside of all the ships were very dark and the the use of the oil lanternes was very restricted due to the fire hazard, it is safe to assume that there were openings in that area to create some sort of light inside; those would be mostly close to the top around the quarterdeck so they would not weaken the strenght of the hull with extra openings; the flag is right, and would have been for the red squadron; but the artist made it more subtle so it would not ''overtake'' the whole painting making some sort of an eyecatcher with bright red, I think.....The painting in itself is a very nice one and I'm looking for an image on it in one piece:)
The chase ports were usually closed, but if the ship would be in port or in very calm water not making any headway, they could have been opened to let air in and dry out in humidity inside... Most, if not all gun ports doors would be open as much as possible in order to remove that humidity and smell inside the ship....
 
That is a strong analysis, Guy, and one that I can’t much argue with. Here is the painting as a whole:

7F30ABF3-E680-4397-89E9-B4CB6FF7DF2D.jpeg

By “port haubans” you are referring to the “channels” that support the shrouds/ratlines?

17672D33-79DB-4BC5-95FC-C86207398744.jpeg

Interestingly, the Gilded Ghost shows them in the earlier position - above the main deck battery. This is another feature of the Tanneron model that recalls the earliest time.

The upper finishing of the Van Beecq quarter gallery is definitely a curiosity to me, as it does seem like an alteration to what would originally have been an open, terraced balcony.

So, if the VB portrait actually is more consistent with post-refit alterations, would this be the version of the RL that is eventually re-named RL Le Viex? Could the more rounded bottle sculptures have been preserved, post-refit, but hollowed-out to lighten them, as with SR?

Lastly, would all of that mean that the following is the replacement RL in 1692?

C36176A6-D51C-424E-A78A-7D393DFFD32C.jpeg
 
So for the flag, it'd be red but much bigger, as big as those shown on hubac drawing? The green, white and striped flag are accurate for SR too or only RL?
 
Hubac’s Historian said:
That is a strong analysis, Guy, and one that I can’t much argue with. Here is the painting as a whole:

View attachment 344848

By “port haubans” you are referring to the “channels” that support the shrouds/ratlines?

View attachment 344849

Interestingly, the Gilded Ghost shows them in the earlier position - above the main deck battery. This is another feature of the Tanneron model that recalls the earliest time.

The upper finishing of the Van Beecq quarter gallery is definitely a curiosity to me, as it does seem like an alteration to what would originally have been an open, terraced balcony.

So, if the VB portrait actually is more consistent with post-refit alterations, would this be the version of the RL that is eventually re-named RL Le Viex? Could the more rounded bottle sculptures have been preserved, post-refit, but hollowed-out to lighten them, as with SR?

Lastly, would all of that mean that the following is the replacement RL in 1692?

View attachment 344850
Click to expand...
Let's see...The Tanneron doesn't have any channels, probably because he wasn't sure where they were located at the time; it could also be because the hull is only to support the front and rear carvings.
It could very well have been the refit version of the Royal Louis after 1676, and in order to try to improve on the manoeuvering they placed the channels under the main top battery for leverage and strenght; As for the sculptures, the information is that the sides were prone to acting as hooks when two ships were very close in battle and make a good hook up for the opposite side to tie either their yards into them or throw ropes and use them to ''invade'' the ship. So admiral Almeras was dead set on having the sides ''cleaned up'' and kept hassling Colbert with that subject. Colbert finally relented when Almeras told him the the English navy didn't have those statues on their ships. Colbert was very influenced on what England was doing wth their ships and ordered all statues to be removed from the ships, until other admirals came and together said to Colbert they didn't mind having statues but they had to be smaller and not be in the way of the ships' operations. So it was finally decided to keep the statues which were not indering the ships' operations as long as they would not be too heavy. It is at that point where you have mentions of statues being hollowed out, but the side ones on the Royal Louis were removed because of their inderance on the sides and replaced with low reliefs on vertical consoles showing the same design; Weight saving and removing the protrusions. So the rear ones on the Royal Louis were not touched besides the removal of the 4 tall ones because they were not in the way, but may very well have been hollowed out.
Yes that ship would have been the Royal Louis ''le vieux'' and the bottom image be the 1692 Royal Louis...
 
aurélien wolff said:
So for the flag, it'd be red but much bigger, as big as those shown on hubac drawing? The green, white and striped flag are accurate for SR too or only RL?
Click to expand...
The upper flags were more common flags you would see in the confrontations, however I do not know what each of them mean exactly; from other drawings of ships in battles, they might mean the ships carrying them had a specific task in the ''in line'' formations; they were also common with the dutch navy...
 
Well, that is very helpful information. Thank you, Guy. It also bodes well for my current project because I chose this Puget portrait as the mode for my diorama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top