Soleil Royal by Heller - an Extensive Modification and Partial Scratch-Build by Hubac’s Historian

aurélien wolff said:
I noticed the monarque doesn't has the same pattern around the fleur de lys as the Berain soleil royal drawings (I thought they were Vary, I see they seem from Berein now) so for a intial Sr, they're not an obligation.
Both Saulnier, and Neko choosed to place the "molures/Frize dorée" (page 29 of royal louis description) on the 3rd battery (wich might've been Tanneron choice given the ports look verry different there than the one below).
soleil13.jpg

sr_mic10.jpg

source: https://5500.forumactif.org/t52p520-soleil-royal-1669-echelle-1-72
My initial SR "molure" will roughly look like what they did.
Click to expand...

By the “golden frieze mouldings” do you mean the draping bell-flower moulding that runs between and over the round main-deck ports?

Or, are you referring to the Crossed-L monogram cartouches that exist between the quarter deck ports?

It is fascinating to note, with this over/under comparison, how remarkably different Marc and Michel’s interpretation of this ship is, despite both building within the same dimensional parameters.
 
I'm adding them on my 1669 SR beakhead, wich ship is that? On the port door ornament, the royal louis had multiple kind intialy, would it be the case for SR too? I guess we don't know their order on the intial soleil royal . By golden frieze muldings, I mean the one on the main deck, not the crossed-L monogram catrouches.
 
I don’t have identification for the ships in either of those portraits. I like them, though, because they show well the timbering of the early head arrangement.

No one knows with any certainty what the port lid ornaments would have been on Soleil Royal 1670. Fleurs are always a safe bet, as seen on Dauphin Royal of 1668:

EC2CB62E-41B6-4C64-8E7E-FD0A19911CCE.jpeg

Even here, though, you can see a theme of alternating fleurs and crowned dolphins, which make thematic sense for the given ship.

When I do get around to designing my SR 1670, my port lids will probably feature sun emblems, as well as fleurs. On this current model, though, I chose to echo the fleur and shell theme of the frieze:

CEBA44AE-2A7A-4E40-A4F3-F7BBF37B373C.jpeg
 
You're planning to do another one? On the ornaments, I'll have to look thrugh Guy M 104 pages documents, tho royal louis was described having multiple things on its port lid so maybe soleil royal had that too to some extent.
 
Guy’s research is extensive and fascinating. It is a good read. He makes a number of compelling arguments about armament, relative to the length of the vessel. I don’t agree with all of what he is proposing, but it is nonetheless full of really good information.

Yes, my long range goal is to do a fully framed wood model of SR 1670, along with an accompanying monograph and plan-set in 1:48 scale. I still maintain the belief that there is a 50/50 chance that the following portrait is either Soleil Royal or the Royal Louis:

BC6893C4-B59B-4A0E-ADFC-0CCE266983B5.jpeg

If I can ever find clearer images of this portrait, I may finally have the answer to that burning question. There is just something about the beamy-ness of this ship that leads me to feel that it may just be SR. If so, it would be the only fully coherent portrait of the ship from any time in her history.

Even if it turns out that this is the RL, it is still - along with the Van Beecq portrait (who’s quarters are notably different, btw) - enough visual information from which I could extrapolate a reasonable portrait of what SR 1670 may have looked like.

I’ll be 50 next August, and the fates be willing, I hope to have 30 years to bring that vision to fruition. That is the plan, anyway.
 
The rear look a bit...odd to me compare to stuff like the Tanneron or Berain drawing, particularly on the chase gun zone. I've seen the interpretation on the itinial soleil royal claiming that the 32 guns could mean 14 on each side (28) and 4 rear chase gun (32), what do you think? Can I do what you did on your port lid on my initial soleil royal(mine having different looking fleur de lys tho)?
 
Keep in mind that Berain does take over as artistic director of the Arsenals until LeBrun’s death in1690. His stern drawing for Soleil Royal is an adaptation of Puget’s original design, for a stern that would have been significantly taller.

Berain brings a more sober compartmentalization and refined classicism to the decoration of the King’s ships. In contrast, the early work of Puget is exuberant and monumental in scale:

FDB96904-CADA-4E1B-82CF-4F7BBCD3A8E8.jpeg
71505783-63C6-4E41-87AE-99D62F8D5C93.jpeg
27ADD7AC-E924-43ED-8298-83DDB1E5F45C.jpeg
3D0820DE-52FE-4383-9FE7-D47D0CD2347D.jpeg

In the early days of the First Marine there was not such uniformity in the artistic styling of the sterns. Unfortunately, what is good for art is not always good for sailing ships of war. Colbert ultimately prevailed upon Puget to greatly reduce the scale and number of figures represented on the sterns.

Soleil Royal remained a sort of outlier with her large continental figures because these were hollowed out to reduce their weight.

As for arming of chase ports, despite almost all marine artists representing the bow and stern hunting ports as always being armed - they were only armed when necessary. To do so, meant shifting the nearest adjacent broadside guns to the chase port locations.

Originally, Soleil Royal is pierced for 16 on the lower battery, but only armed for 15, like La Reyne. I am not clear whether the rebuilt SR was still pierced with a hunting port, but the lower battery broadside is reduced from 15 to 14, at this time.
 
Wouldn't that correspond more with what Tanneron did since his stern is much higher than what berain drew? I'll add the chase gun on the bow too, the modification doesn't seem hard seeing what you did on your. Still look fine to use what Tanneron did as a basis for the quarter gallery, I wonder, if his intention were really to make a 2nd soleil royal, wouldn't he enclose the quarter gallery like he did for le brilliant?
M5026-2001-DE-0043-2.jpg

source: http://mnm.webmuseo.com/ws/musee-national-marine/app/collection/record/38534
 
As I have said numerous times, my observation of the Tanneron model is that it represents a kind of hybrid between what was known of the ships of the early First Marine (tall stern, fully open quarters, three walkable stern balconies, pronounced tumblehome), with the dimensional characteristics, armament and quarter gallery profile of the Second Marine. Why Tanneron made the particular choices he did is anyone’s guess, as even the Musee is unclear of his sources.

Le Brillant was a vessel for which there was a more clearly indisputable set of drawings, and yet Tanneron’s model diverges from these drawings in certain specific ways with regard to the coronation. Again, why he chose these divergences when he clearly possessed the talent to build any form he wanted is anyone’s guess.
 
So the heller quarter gallery are wrong for the 1669 soleil royal, guess I won't be able to keep them and will have to scratch them using magic sculpt then (at least the top and bottom).
 
What I mean is that the Heller QGs have more in common with ships of the 1690s and the first part of the 18th C.

AD8253E5-7316-4790-917A-24D2768FA8E7.jpeg

Above right is the QG for SR2 of 1693, as compared with the Louis Quinze model, circa 1710.

This is the reason that builders who want to represent an earlier time open up both levels.

I don’t see the lower finishing of the Heller/Tanneron QG as problematic for 1669/1670. The upper finishing isn’t bad, either. It is merely my personal opinion, that the upper finishing would likely not have been a covering canopy. Instead, I think it more likely that it would have been a trompe l’oeil amortisement.

More like what you see for the upper finishing (quarter deck level) of the reconstructed Dauphin Royal of 1680.

D2236583-F6CC-4620-B660-6CA487E8B6DF.jpeg
 
Ok so I can keep what heller did (both lower and upper finishing too) since it's not problematic for a 1669 but need to open it, might've gotten a bit confused due to being tired (doing research on the SR at 1 am instead of sleeping). I'm now trying to see where I can add the stern gun, 2 need to be added from Guy M document.
Thanks for clearing the quarter gallerys up!
 
I’m a little stalled on the head construction, this past week; I just haven’t had much evening time to focus on it, unfortunately.

I have, though, been trying to carve the bow angels that sit right behind the headrails. I had the hardest time carving this, considering the scale:

EB80FC65-8299-4638-B638-50EEDB8B4E13.jpeg

As before with the stern angels, the faces are not great, but I can live with them.

1E8F6F39-9053-4BE1-BE6B-210474F17A9A.jpeg
 
Hubac’s Historian said:
I’m a little stalled on the head construction, this past week; I just haven’t had much evening time to focus on it, unfortunately.

I have, though, been trying to carve the bow angels that sit right behind the headrails. I had the hardest time carving this, considering the scale:

View attachment 338473

As before with the stern angels, the faces are not great, but I can live with them.

View attachment 338472
Click to expand...
As usual very impressive Marc, even with the giant sized hand and pen.... :)
Your carving ability is quite amazing.

Cheers,
Stephen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top