This is fantastic! Thank you
Here is a link which you might find interesting! This shows the archaeological remains from the Vasa ship of 1628. This particular link points to a console head found in the great cabin.
I just heard back from the library!
Bérain, Jean, d.ä. 1637-1711 Reproduction complète de l'œuvre de Jean Bérain : époque Louis XIV, unfortunately we cannot loan out. The other two books are at the Royal Library, they are closed for the holidays until the sixth of August. I will try again after that date.
Can you view the Berain book invthe reading room?
Below is a deep-dive analysis I made of the aft-cabin drawings in a separate convo with a forum member. I’ve copy/pasted several posts at once for convenience’s sake. Hopefully, the pics are visible to all:
Speaking of corrections! Somewhere in an earlier thread that I am feeling too lazy to comb through we were discussing the order of Soleil Royal’s after cabins.
At the time, I asserted that above the great cabin was the Captain’s cabin, and above that was the Admiral’s cabin. This seemed reasonable and likely to me. Apparently, though, I was wrong!
I’ve been studying these drawings more closely and conferring with my friend Guy Maher in Quebec. The story of these cabins, and some significant story of the original framing of the ship can be gleaned from these drawings.
This first, relatively un-detailed drawing of the Admiral’s cabin is from before the refit:
The dimensions to pay attention to are the span by the windows (25.5’), and at the room entry (28’7”).
Now, consider this other drawing of the Admiral’s cabin that shows the six-window layout:
The room entry dimension is, for all intents and purposes, the same (28.5’ +/- 1”). However, the window dimension has expanded to 26’8”, and the aft tapering of the stern appears to reflect that change.
Now, consider the following drawing of the Captain’s cabin:
This also shows the six window layout of Berain’s design. While the depth of the aft cabin is slightly less than the Admiral’s cabin (8”), below, the width at entry (24’) is significantly less than that of the cabin below, and would seem to indicate the slope of tumblehome. While this drawing has not marked the width of the cabin, by the windows, it is certainly less than 24’, and less than the window width of the cabin below (26’8”). So, apparently, Tanneron placed this forward bulkhead arrangement on the QD with good reason.
I plan to print these drawings out and use the scale rulers to fill-in the blanks, but the existing information does seem to tell something important about the ship; it would appear that, originally, the ship displayed a much greater tapering and tumblehome at the stern, but that the framing, above the great cabin, was widened to accommodate the new 6-window layout. Perhaps this is why Tanneron chose to model such an extreme silhouette at his stern.
Maher asserts that the dimensions of the great cabin did not change:
Presumably, the upper left drawing which is also not detailed, is the pre-refit drawing. At entry, the room width is 34’4”. In this drawing, and the revised great cabin drawing that shows the new window layout, the room depth remains 29’. The revised drawing shows a window width of 29’6”. Again, the scale ruler will confirm whether these window dimensions really do remain identical.
Where it really gets interesting is with the reflected ceiling plan, which we know is a drawing from before the refit.
Let me post this much and I’ll finish in my next post. I’m always afraid I’ll lose the whole thing, if I wait to come back to it!
Report Edit
[IMG alt="Hubac’s Historian"]https://shipsofscale.com/sosforums/data/avatars/m/8/8032.jpg?1580667317[/IMG]
Jan 31, 2023
There are a number of interesting things about the reflected ceiling drawing:
The window fenestration appears to show five full windows with two half-windows at the extremes. Although it isn’t perfectly clear in this copy, the depth of the ceiling matches the depth of the great cabin (29’).
The ceiling width, at room entry, is only 26’. This falls far short of the apparent room width, at entry, of 34’ 4”. Likewise, the ceiling width at the windows is only 24’, vs. 29.5’ on the revised room drawing. So, what accounts for those discrepancies, I wonder; perhaps the coffered ceiling was framed between where there were no hanging or buttressing knees?
If one refers back to the original Admiral’s cabin, the depth of the room is 18’8”, and the entry width is 28’7”. It is, I think, reasonable to presume that the difference in room depth between the great cabin and original Admiral’s cabin (29’ - 18’8”), an additional 10’4”, reflects a reasonable tapering of the hull between these two station points: 34’4” tapering to 28’7”. Keep in mind that this tapering is occurring across two deck levels. So, I think Guy is probably correct that the fore and aft dimensions of the great cabin did not change.
What I wonder is whether there might be an even greater (than 7) fenestration of windows at the great cabin level, on the first version of the ship. The difference between 29.5’ (room width at windows) and 24’ (ceiling width) would yield an additional 2’ 7 1/2” per side. What occupied that additional space, on the outside of the ship, if not more windows?
Perhaps, it is the seasonal figures of Winter and Autumn that are placed at these extreme ends of the console?
Alright - I know - I’m sorry. I need to get a life!
Speaking of corrections! Somewhere in an earlier thread that I am feeling too lazy to comb through we were discussing the order of Soleil Royal’s after cabins.
At the time, I asserted that above the great cabin was the Captain’s cabin, and above that was the Admiral’s cabin. This seemed reasonable and likely to me. Apparently, though, I was wrong!
I’ve been studying these drawings more closely and conferring with my friend Guy Maher in Quebec. The story of these cabins, and some significant story of the original framing of the ship can be gleaned from these drawings.
This first, relatively un-detailed drawing of the Admiral’s cabin is from before the refit:
The dimensions to pay attention to are the span by the windows (25.5’), and at the room entry (28’7”).
Now, consider this other drawing of the Admiral’s cabin that shows the six-window layout:
The room entry dimension is, for all intents and purposes, the same (28.5’ +/- 1”). However, the window dimension has expanded to 26’8”, and the aft tapering of the stern appears to reflect that change.
Now, consider the following drawing of the Captain’s cabin:
This also shows the six window layout of Berain’s design. While the depth of the aft cabin is slightly less than the Admiral’s cabin (8”), below, the width at entry (24’) is significantly less than that of the cabin below, and would seem to indicate the slope of tumblehome. While this drawing has not marked the width of the cabin, by the windows, it is certainly less than 24’, and less than the window width of the cabin below (26’8”). So, apparently, Tanneron placed this forward bulkhead arrangement on the QD with good reason.
I plan to print these drawings out and use the scale rulers to fill-in the blanks, but the existing information does seem to tell something important about the ship; it would appear that, originally, the ship displayed a much greater tapering and tumblehome at the stern, but that the framing, above the great cabin, was widened to accommodate the new 6-window layout. Perhaps this is why Tanneron chose to model such an extreme silhouette at his stern.
Maher asserts that the dimensions of the great cabin did not change:
Presumably, the upper left drawing which is also not detailed, is the pre-refit drawing. At entry, the room width is 34’4”. In this drawing, and the revised great cabin drawing that shows the new window layout, the room depth remains 29’. The revised drawing shows a window width of 29’6”. Again, the scale ruler will confirm whether these window dimensions really do remain identical.
Where it really gets interesting is with the reflected ceiling plan, which we know is a drawing from before the refit.
Let me post this much and I’ll finish in my next post. I’m always afraid I’ll lose the whole thing, if I wait to come back to it!
Attachments
6B84309B-5700-4CC8-839F-6910DC4788A1.jpeg
331.8 KB · Views: 0
Report Edit
[IMG alt="Hubac’s Historian"]https://shipsofscale.com/sosforums/data/avatars/m/8/8032.jpg?1580667317[/IMG]
Hubac’s Historian
Jan 31, 2023
There are a number of interesting things about the reflected ceiling drawing:
The window fenestration appears to show five full windows with two half-windows at the extremes. Although it isn’t perfectly clear in this copy, the depth of the ceiling matches the depth of the great cabin (29’).
The ceiling width, at room entry, is only 26’. This falls far short of the apparent room width, at entry, of 34’ 4”. Likewise, the ceiling width at the windows is only 24’, vs. 29.5’ on the revised room drawing. So, what accounts for those discrepancies, I wonder; perhaps the coffered ceiling was framed between where there were no hanging or buttressing knees?
If one refers back to the original Admiral’s cabin, the depth of the room is 18’8”, and the entry width is 28’7”. It is, I think, reasonable to presume that the difference in room depth between the great cabin and original Admiral’s cabin (29’ - 18’8”), an additional 10’4”, reflects a reasonable tapering of the hull between these two station points: 34’4” tapering to 28’7”. Keep in mind that this tapering is occurring across two deck levels. So, I think Guy is probably correct that the fore and aft dimensions of the great cabin did not change.
What I wonder is whether there might be an even greater (than 7) fenestration of windows at the great cabin level, on the first version of the ship. The difference between 29.5’ (room width at windows) and 24’ (ceiling width) would yield an additional 2’ 7 1/2” per side. What occupied that additional space, on the outside of the ship, if not more windows?
Perhaps, it is the seasonal figures of Winter and Autumn that are placed at these extreme ends of the console?
Alright - I know - I’m sorry. I need to get a life!
Can you please uploaf these jpgs in our forum - for me in moment they are not visible
Can you please upload these jpgs in our forum - for me in moment they are not visibleBelow is a deep-dive analysis I made of the aft-cabin drawings in a separate convo with a forum member. I’ve copy/pasted several posts at once for convenience’s sake. Hopefully, the pics are visible to all:
Speaking of corrections! Somewhere in an earlier thread that I am feeling too lazy to comb through we were discussing the order of Soleil Royal’s after cabins.
At the time, I asserted that above the great cabin was the Captain’s cabin, and above that was the Admiral’s cabin. This seemed reasonable and likely to me. Apparently, though, I was wrong!
I’ve been studying these drawings more closely and conferring with my friend Guy Maher in Quebec. The story of these cabins, and some significant story of the original framing of the ship can be gleaned from these drawings.
This first, relatively un-detailed drawing of the Admiral’s cabin is from before the refit:
The dimensions to pay attention to are the span by the windows (25.5’), and at the room entry (28’7”).
Now, consider this other drawing of the Admiral’s cabin that shows the six-window layout:
The room entry dimension is, for all intents and purposes, the same (28.5’ +/- 1”). However, the window dimension has expanded to 26’8”, and the aft tapering of the stern appears to reflect that change.
Now, consider the following drawing of the Captain’s cabin:
This also shows the six window layout of Berain’s design. While the depth of the aft cabin is slightly less than the Admiral’s cabin (8”), below, the width at entry (24’) is significantly less than that of the cabin below, and would seem to indicate the slope of tumblehome. While this drawing has not marked the width of the cabin, by the windows, it is certainly less than 24’, and less than the window width of the cabin below (26’8”). So, apparently, Tanneron placed this forward bulkhead arrangement on the QD with good reason.
I plan to print these drawings out and use the scale rulers to fill-in the blanks, but the existing information does seem to tell something important about the ship; it would appear that, originally, the ship displayed a much greater tapering and tumblehome at the stern, but that the framing, above the great cabin, was widened to accommodate the new 6-window layout. Perhaps this is why Tanneron chose to model such an extreme silhouette at his stern.
Maher asserts that the dimensions of the great cabin did not change:
Presumably, the upper left drawing which is also not detailed, is the pre-refit drawing. At entry, the room width is 34’4”. In this drawing, and the revised great cabin drawing that shows the new window layout, the room depth remains 29’. The revised drawing shows a window width of 29’6”. Again, the scale ruler will confirm whether these window dimensions really do remain identical.
Where it really gets interesting is with the reflected ceiling plan, which we know is a drawing from before the refit.
Let me post this much and I’ll finish in my next post. I’m always afraid I’ll lose the whole thing, if I wait to come back to it!
Attachments
Reply
6B84309B-5700-4CC8-839F-6910DC4788A1.jpeg
331.8 KB · Views: 0
Report Edit
[IMG alt="Hubac’s Historian"]https://shipsofscale.com/sosforums/data/avatars/m/8/8032.jpg?1580667317[/IMG]
Hubac’s Historian
Jan 31, 2023
There are a number of interesting things about the reflected ceiling drawing:
The window fenestration appears to show five full windows with two half-windows at the extremes. Although it isn’t perfectly clear in this copy, the depth of the ceiling matches the depth of the great cabin (29’).
The ceiling width, at room entry, is only 26’. This falls far short of the apparent room width, at entry, of 34’ 4”. Likewise, the ceiling width at the windows is only 24’, vs. 29.5’ on the revised room drawing. So, what accounts for those discrepancies, I wonder; perhaps the coffered ceiling was framed between where there were no hanging or buttressing knees?
If one refers back to the original Admiral’s cabin, the depth of the room is 18’8”, and the entry width is 28’7”. It is, I think, reasonable to presume that the difference in room depth between the great cabin and original Admiral’s cabin (29’ - 18’8”), an additional 10’4”, reflects a reasonable tapering of the hull between these two station points: 34’4” tapering to 28’7”. Keep in mind that this tapering is occurring across two deck levels. So, I think Guy is probably correct that the fore and aft dimensions of the great cabin did not change.
What I wonder is whether there might be an even greater (than 7) fenestration of windows at the great cabin level, on the first version of the ship. The difference between 29.5’ (room width at windows) and 24’ (ceiling width) would yield an additional 2’ 7 1/2” per side. What occupied that additional space, on the outside of the ship, if not more windows?
Perhaps, it is the seasonal figures of Winter and Autumn that are placed at these extreme ends of the console?
Alright - I know - I’m sorry. I need to get a life!
- will get back to this in a bit
Thank you!
No luck, the library won't load the books out.