Le Saint Philippe 1693 after Jean-Claude Lemineur (Ancre) in scale 1:48

[Maarten]

Hi Stephan,

These windows are a fake structure directly placed on the hull. The don't protrude from the ships hull and therefore are invisible from the stern.

 

[GrantTyler]

Paul’s logs and all the discussion related are a shipbuilders paradise…

 

[Steef66]

Hi Stephan,

These windows are a fake structure directly placed on the hull. The don't protrude from the ships hull and therefore are invisible from the stern.

In that case the ornament on top and bottom are flat too. And the difference between left and right from the centerline is correct. Too fake the look from a distance that it is shaped. No artistic look needed.

IceT would say: "Those fake ass French bitches"

 

[dockattner]

I’d actually build a prototype first. I’d start with a 2D drawing, print it out, stick it onto cardboard and adjust it to the hull until it sits harmoniously on it. Then I’d work my way up and down from the centre by adding layers of cardboard; there’s also architectural cardboard available, which is a bit thicker. You can then work on it from all sides and transform the 2D design into 3D. Towards the end, you might use modelling clay to refine the shapes. Once everything fits, recreate the individual segments in wood and keep fitting them to the prototype; the prototype can then gradually be incorporated into the wooden structure. But as I said, that’s probably what I’d do – I don’t know if it’s the best way.

Thanks, Dirk. I have seen this done on other models. I think it is a good idea.

 

[dockattner]

Now these dots you connect with ruler to the lowest point of the gallery as these lines should coverge to this point. Now draw the lines at these angles across the panel. This should result in a panel with lines giving you the orientation of your carvings. Now you can simply draw the carvings radii and start carving.

Brilliant for its simplicity.

 

[dockattner]

Yup, the same problem of a 2D drawing that's actually a 3D form. the way Maarten discribes is a good solution to solve the problem.
I think the part left of the red line and the part on the right are almost equal, the same . Only the right is draw under an angle. It's a difficult thing for a brain to see the 3D shape in a 2D drawing. You need to train that by drawing 3D shapes. For example, draw a circle in a sqare on paper, devide it vertical with a line. Then make a fold along that vertical line and fold that part back. Now look to the left part and see what the right part does when you fold that back. That part will get narrow like the drawing you use. Where the fold possible is between window 2 and 3. Hope that helps.

Good advice, Stephan!

 

[dockattner]

Hey Paul, I had to do some catching up. First of all it’s really taking shape! Good work.
On the issue of the lower section, in my eyes it is leaning to the bow too much and the angle should be more inline with the upper portion. Look for more symmetry about your vertical line, which is a slight angle towards the bow, but is constant through the upper and lower. Hope that makes sense.

Paul, this is what I am refering to...
View attachment 614082

As you can see the vertical center from top to bottom is at a constant angle, however symmetry is not perfectly established in some areas.
If it were me, I would print this and scale it to fit on your ship properly and use it as a template. Mark the angle on your ship and use the pic above as a template to align all features about the center line. And note the carvings you made are at angles too, not vertical. They fan out from the center in both directions.
Hope this helps.

And it seems that angle is the same as the stern angle on both ships. So that’s a good guide IMO. Just figure out the offset distance.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and suggestions, Dean! Much appreciated and all very helpful!

 

[dockattner]

In the SP quarter drawing that Maarten posted, the forward third is also concave, like Lemineur

I guess I see that now - clever use of shadow in that drawing...just too clever for me as a novice.

And thanks for the prompt to re-draw the stern section myself - that will add to my understanding of it.

 

[dockattner]

Paul,

I have not parsed thru much of the above but I this is my view

1 - Kevlar gloves! The least cumbersome style may not have completely stopped the micro spear - diverted it probably.
If you are right handed - just on the left is enough - the economy are probably uni anyway.
I hope that the foreign material the spear took with it into your finger did not make your giant killer macrophages too angry!

I was advised to never go any saw blade wearing gloves - tablesaw, bandsaw, circularsaw, The fabric will pull your fingers into the action.

2. If I have a choice between Lemineur and contemporary - contemporary wins every time.

3. I would not use the contemporary as anything like a blue print. Use it for what was there. Draw your own plan for where.
The original is old - very old - the illustration may be a photo
It is on an organic matrix. Time - temp - humidity oxygen = micro changes -360 degrees of possible twists and rotations of just very small regions within the single picture. Glass lens = imperfect - light wave shift


You went with the existing frame patterns in the monograph so you did not have to deal with the insanity of Lemineur's lines.
Canting every station 1.2 degrees right? - insane - the baseline should be at the 1.2 degree CCW rotation.
Is the Body plan what the shape is at vertical or the foreshortened 1.2 degrees?
The table mortise for the two frames in every bend? No way! Totally nuts! It was one off in 1693 - a failed idea - why continue to embarrass the poor shipwright three hundred plus years later?

Dean

Thanks for this, Dean. A proper reframing of this monograph and my attempt to understand and use it.

 

[dockattner]

Paul’s logs and all the discussion related are a shipbuilders paradise…

As well as my personal nightmare ...

 

[dockattner]

In that case the ornament on top and bottom are flat too. And the difference between left and right from the centerline is correct. Too fake the look from a distance that it is shaped. No artistic look needed.

IceT would say: "Those fake ass French bitches"

But the balcony sections are not a facade so we end up with a single drawing that represents two things.

 

[Steef66]

But the balcony sections are not a facade so we end up with a single drawing that represents two things.

These French ass bitches where not always perfect. We in Dutch have a saying; "Met een Franse slag" that means "half-heartedly"