anchor cables which You removed ...
they looks a little bit strange for me, at least I have this impression looking at the pictures...
if it is anchor ropes they should be cable -laid (left hand) made rope
it couldn't be made "right hand"from "right hand" strands(hawser laid rope) as well ///as I could see on the photo...
as far as I could understand if You like "right hand cable- laid "rope than it need to be made from "left hand" made strands(which type of anchor cables I didn't see in practice) and vise versa for the standard cable-laid anchor rope?
probably there is a sense to make new anchor ropes - cable-laid(left hand) made from hawser-laid ropes(right hand)?
All The Best!
Hello, Kirill! Yes, you are correct that my cut cables are strange. It seems probable that the right-hand from right-hand lay are the reason these cables never held their tension. The replacements are proper cable-laid rope, and are beautifully uniform and beefy. I just have to bake them and stain them, and then I can install them.
Once those are in, I can begin constructing the head, as I am just now finishing up with the painting of the headrails. This is why I have lately focused on tying up all these loose ends around the beakhead, including color matching the end sections of beakhead decking where the turret seats of ease were.
Aurelien, no, I won’t be adding those upper and lower port enhancements to the beakhead. Spacing in this area is tight, and those accents would displace fleurs and be cut short by the ladders. I understand why this bothers you, but I am more focused on the addition of the fleurs as an authentic detail that elevates the build.
Cheers, Nigel - yes, this was a really solid suggestion and it was not a difficult thing to do.
It doesn't bother me, I was just asking. I'll add mouldings on my SR beakhead with some fleur de lys. I wonder if I shouldn't add the ladder on my initial soleil royal too, it's not on the original heller part, but it is on tanneron model:
Well, I had hedged the Heller panels to the degree that I could, rationalizing that the top edge running parallel with the windows was the most important characteristic. At the end of the day, these panels will be mostly obscured by the balcony rail, but I do value when the forum points out things that distract/detract from the good work on the rest of the part/model.
The only issue I have with the way this document is presented is that he does not annotate his sources throughout the document, and his sources (as listed at the end of the document) are extensive. Consequently, unless you have also read all of those books, yourself, it is impossible to separate fact from inference.
I have a number of those books in my library, and to the degree that I can parse through French texts, I have found Mr. Maher’s observations to be largely consistent with my own. There are certain specific things that I disagree with, but this is the most expansive body of research that attempts to paint a picture of what early SR may have actually looked like.
Apart from Hyatt’s description of the Royal Louis in 1677, there is precious little descriptive information surviving in the archives. That is why the main thrust of my research has always been to try and contextualize the surviving portraits of French ships to the actual time that they represent.
This is an on-going effort, and I have discovered, since the inception of this project, that many of my early suppositions were not correct. For example, I know that the following two portraits definitely represent the Royal Louis. Until very recently, I have supposed that this Puget portrait represents the refit version of the ship, after 1677:
With that in mind, I then supposed that the Van Beecq portrait must represent her at some point before this 1677 refit:
Well, if I may reference a discussion in Aurelien’s log, Mr. Maher makes a very compelling case that the Van Beecq portrait actually represents the refit version of the RL, post 1677, which would be renamed Royal Louis Le Vieux (The Old), after completion of the second Royal Louis in 1692. That, Maher posits, is actually what is represented in the Puget portrait. This discussion begins with post #44:
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 On tanneron, I wonder what was...
shipsofscale.com
What I find most admirable about Mr. Maher and his research is that it is a “living” document. He is continually reading, and digging and challenging his own suppositions, and so this document he has produced is already in its fourth revision. He is not absolutely married to every last conviction he may have, at the moment, and that is the course-correcting path that eventually leads to a clearer and clearer picture of what may actually have been the truth.
Marc , уфф ... I 'm feeling quite clear that my old brain shrinked and sits quite comfortable inside Mr. R.C. Anderson book "Rigging of the ..." fields but what I want to admit! - I like to read Your and Mr. Maher posts very much!!!!
Actually I 'm checking /when have internet excess every day what's new here? ))
...
I’m also cutting cables into the New Year!
. And let’s bring 2023 in with a BANG!
