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

Joined
Oct 3, 2017
Messages
121
Points
68

Location
Groton, CT
I am glad that you like the gratings. Like a number of modifications I have made on this model (everything to do with the guns and port lids, for example), the gratings were time-consuming, but the alteration will pay huge dividends on the finished model.

Well, Bill, I have a number of thoughts on the subject of the Heller kit as it relates to Tanneron’s model.

The Heller kit is a direct take-off of Tanneron’s model, and Heller made some attempt to reconcile the incomplete elements of Tanneron’s model.

The kit creators realized that it would be incongruous with the 17th C.French style to leave the upper bulwarks as devoid of ornamentation.

So, it appears to me, they did two main things: they adapted the Berain/Vary upper bulwark frieze of shells and fleur-de-lis into a simplified form between the drift rails; it is approximate, but the inspiration is clear.

Secondly, they took their cue for the repeating Royal monogram of crossed L’s, between the main deck guns, from the Louis Quinze model, which has its origin at the end of the 17th C., and can be viewed as a representative model for a First Rate of the Second Marine.

While Heller markets their kit as being an original representation of the ship in 1669, the architecture of the head, the quarters and the stern do not really reflect what that reality would be.

As for Tanneron, it seems that nobody can say with any certainty what his precise sources for the model were, however, it seems apparent to me that it is a reconciliation of several primary sources.

Tanneron models the quarter galleries as being open, with a walkable lower stern balcony; these traits are hallmarks of ships of the early First Marine building plan, however, their structural arrangement and representation on Tanneron’s model has more in common with ships built after 1693.

This well known drawing that I exhaustively argue is actually of the Monarque and not the Royal Louis of 1668, is characteristic of the early style and structure of First Marine Sterns:

View attachment 143457
What Heller modeled, vis-a-vis Tanneron, has much more in common with this:
View attachment 143459
This quarter gallery is shown as being fully closed in, which is characteristic of the building directives that were finally enacted from the Second Marine building program, in 1693, and thereafter.

This quarter gallery corresponds directly, in every way, with Berain’s stern drawing, for which it is known that Etienne Hubac re-created this ornamentation for the second Soleil Royal in 1693:
View attachment 143461
It is notable to me that the upper bulwark frieze is much simplified, as compared with the earlier Berain/Vary frieze, which I believe is the re-build ornamentation of 1689.

By the time the Second Marine comes into existence, there was a concrete shift toward reduction of ornamentation, even on a principal ship like Soleil Royal.

So, in summary, I believe that Tanneron was primarily using the Louis Quinze model for structural cues, but he was also attempting to represent the earliest incarnation of Soleil Royal with her taller sheer, her open quarters and her three walkable stern balconies:
View attachment 143458
Nobody I have read or spoken with can definitively say why Tanneron’s representation of Berain’s stern is divergent in so many important ways; chief among these differences is the representation of five stern lights, as opposed to six.

This is curious, but not uncharacteristic for Tanneron who also made similar divergent choices in his stern representations of Le Brillant and L’Agreable - models which originate from signed and dated drawing sets that are absolutely known to correspond with each other. My analysis of all of these differences is exhaustive and can be found on the main build-log of MSW, although I believe I also copied and pasted that same discussion on the first few pages of this SOS log.

Simply stated, Mr. Tanneron appeared to make divergent choices that aren’t easily understood - especially in the absence of any controversy as to what quarter drawing corresponds with Berain’s stern, at any given point in SR’s history.

All models of Soleil Royal are necessarily a reconciliation of the available sources. What I am attempting to do, within the confines of the pre-established Heller kit architecture, is to provide a more representative view of a French First-Rate in 1689, as understood through representations of her better documented contemporaries. I call it a “forensic reconstruction,” but it is really a reconcilliation of construction trends that I’ve been mapping across the progression of the French 17th Century.

My model is an amalgamation of compromises that I would prefer not to make, ideally, and yet it is slowly transforming into something much more interesting than the sum of its parts.

A number of people disagree with what I am doing, and that is, of course, their prerogative. I suspect that some of those people, though, may be somewhat surprised when they can eventually, finally see what I see, as the model rounds into form.

It’s all a process, and we will get there eventually. Thank you for looking in.
I am glad that you like the gratings. Like a number of modifications I have made on this model (everything to do with the guns and port lids, for example), the gratings were time-consuming, but the alteration will pay huge dividends on the finished model.

Well, Bill, I have a number of thoughts on the subject of the Heller kit as it relates to Tanneron’s model.

The Heller kit is a direct take-off of Tanneron’s model, and Heller made some attempt to reconcile the incomplete elements of Tanneron’s model.

The kit creators realized that it would be incongruous with the 17th C.French style to leave the upper bulwarks as devoid of ornamentation.

So, it appears to me, they did two main things: they adapted the Berain/Vary upper bulwark frieze of shells and fleur-de-lis into a simplified form between the drift rails; it is approximate, but the inspiration is clear.

Secondly, they took their cue for the repeating Royal monogram of crossed L’s, between the main deck guns, from the Louis Quinze model, which has its origin at the end of the 17th C., and can be viewed as a representative model for a First Rate of the Second Marine.

While Heller markets their kit as being an original representation of the ship in 1669, the architecture of the head, the quarters and the stern do not really reflect what that reality would be.

As for Tanneron, it seems that nobody can say with any certainty what his precise sources for the model were, however, it seems apparent to me that it is a reconciliation of several primary sources.

Tanneron models the quarter galleries as being open, with a walkable lower stern balcony; these traits are hallmarks of ships of the early First Marine building plan, however, their structural arrangement and representation on Tanneron’s model has more in common with ships built after 1693.

This well known drawing that I exhaustively argue is actually of the Monarque and not the Royal Louis of 1668, is characteristic of the early style and structure of First Marine Sterns:

View attachment 143457
What Heller modeled, vis-a-vis Tanneron, has much more in common with this:
View attachment 143459
This quarter gallery is shown as being fully closed in, which is characteristic of the building directives that were finally enacted from the Second Marine building program, in 1693, and thereafter.

This quarter gallery corresponds directly, in every way, with Berain’s stern drawing, for which it is known that Etienne Hubac re-created this ornamentation for the second Soleil Royal in 1693:
View attachment 143461
It is notable to me that the upper bulwark frieze is much simplified, as compared with the earlier Berain/Vary frieze, which I believe is the re-build ornamentation of 1689.

By the time the Second Marine comes into existence, there was a concrete shift toward reduction of ornamentation, even on a principal ship like Soleil Royal.

So, in summary, I believe that Tanneron was primarily using the Louis Quinze model for structural cues, but he was also attempting to represent the earliest incarnation of Soleil Royal with her taller sheer, her open quarters and her three walkable stern balconies:
View attachment 143458
Nobody I have read or spoken with can definitively say why Tanneron’s representation of Berain’s stern is divergent in so many important ways; chief among these differences is the representation of five stern lights, as opposed to six.

This is curious, but not uncharacteristic for Tanneron who also made similar divergent choices in his stern representations of Le Brillant and L’Agreable - models which originate from signed and dated drawing sets that are absolutely known to correspond with each other. My analysis of all of these differences is exhaustive and can be found on the main build-log of MSW, although I believe I also copied and pasted that same discussion on the first few pages of this SOS log.

Simply stated, Mr. Tanneron appeared to make divergent choices that aren’t easily understood - especially in the absence of any controversy as to what quarter drawing corresponds with Berain’s stern, at any given point in SR’s history.

All models of Soleil Royal are necessarily a reconciliation of the available sources. What I am attempting to do, within the confines of the pre-established Heller kit architecture, is to provide a more representative view of a French First-Rate in 1689, as understood through representations of her better documented contemporaries. I call it a “forensic reconstruction,” but it is really a reconcilliation of construction trends that I’ve been mapping across the progression of the French 17th Century.

My model is an amalgamation of compromises that I would prefer not to make, ideally, and yet it is slowly transforming into something much more interesting than the sum of its parts.

A number of people disagree with what I am doing, and that is, of course, their prerogative. I suspect that some of those people, though, may be somewhat surprised when they can eventually, finally see what I see, as the model rounds into form.

It’s all a process, and we will get there eventually. Thank you for looking in.
Marc,

I will grant that your expertise on French warships of the era is far greater than mine, and that your research is most impressive. However, I have long believed that Tanneron's model is likely based on any sources he may have had concerning LSR of 1693. I know that Etienne Hubac wanted to reflect elements of his father's design into the ship of his own design, but I have no primary sources to back this up. I will be studying this history as much as I possibly can without speaking or reading French.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
129
Points
133

I’m essentially agreeing with you, Bill. I just think that Tanneron was attempting to have his cake and eat it too; to build a model that was more primarily based on the second Soleil Royal of 1693 - because the remaining contemporary source material for this second ship was likely more compelling and consistent - while also representing features of the early First Marine.

Why he wouldn’t choose to go in one direction OR the other, I can not say. Michel Saunier, for one, has modeled a hull based on the original known dimensions in 1670. However, his stern and quarters appear to me to be those of the second SR in 1693. Meanwhile, he has incorporated both the Berain/Vary frieze, as well as the simplified frieze of the second ship, just above. So, again, his model is an amalgamation of sources.

Marc Yeu’s model is still early in its development, but his plan view is a wholly coherent vision of the ship that I personally find to be consistent with her re-build in 1689. It is conjectural in nature, of course, but coherent and consistent with what can be found in contemporary sources of the period - according to my observations and opinion.

Both models are excellent, in their own right, but they each reflect to some degree the preferences of their builder. I don’t think that Tanneron was any different, in that regard.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
129
Points
133

It is known, absolutely, that Etienne recycled Berain’s stern for the second ship in 1693.

It is documented that he also re-used the moulds he made of the stern framing, from the re-build in 1688/89, for the transformation of Foudroyant into Soleil Royal of 1693.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
129
Points
133

It is refreshing, periodically, to shift between the intensive ornamental aspects of the build, and the more constructive bones of the project. I enjoy the ornamental work very much, but it is fatiguing.

So, I’ve been fitting-out the lower gun deck. The first order of business was to scribe and secure the side platforms that will support the dummy carriages.

Clamping these to my “beams” was tricky because clearance between beam and plinth base is very limited. I could get a binder clip on, near the hawse holes, but I needed to develop a system for the rest of the way.

Since none of this will be visible, I decided to drill holes on each side of each beam, through which I could thread ties that I could pull taught over a short length of toothpick (temporarily secured with double-stick tape), and then fix down tight with a drop of cyano:

DAE95C4C-A9C1-44E4-A030-47ED9ED94AFD.thumb.jpeg.fe60308926a24d33795672a3146ed20d.jpeg

This worked beautifully. I then found that I could increase clamping pressure by wedging the end of a second toothpick into the tie-loop:

325C990E-B9E3-4B05-B0A6-7A887A10ADB2.thumb.jpeg.cc34f8ab322f4781c04eec00e15aec97.jpeg

Once the liquid plastic adhesive had cured, I knew that I had solid connection all along the length of the hull.

Next, I wanted to scribe and secure the vertical gussets to which the middle deck “beams” will be secured. I was careful to space them so that they did not interfere with the lower masts.

Simple templates were cut from index cards, and with only slight adjustments one template could produce gussets for that location, on both sides:

3F7CD28F-ACD5-4099-A0C8-0274BD882C38.thumb.jpeg.53365e1d5cbd545a73d26c846e64cf20.jpeg
08ECE100-2A2E-48F1-B9CE-C4AE475449F9.thumb.jpeg.2db64e73bf9fda893822089bdbb334b4.jpeg

This has become a pretty straight-forward framing exercise that I’ve gotten to be pretty efficient at. Here is the full run of gussets in place:

1D8E8568-7733-4D16-AD1C-D1016717A60E.thumb.jpeg.b98fc87ab86d96798c30f645fe37f3da.jpeg

Finally, I wanted to get a sense for where my dummy carriages needed to be placed, in order to have the right amount of gun barrel poking out the side of the hull.

Here is where I discovered a few issues that I did not properly anticipate.

First of all, my early estimate of the gun platform decking thickness, combined with the height of the gunport sills above the decking, was off. So much so, in fact, that a barrel inserted into a dummy carriage was resting on the sill. I drilled the holes too low.

Okay, no problem; I simply shimmed each dummy carriage with a length of 1/16” styrene. In the following picture, you can see these shims (on the left row), which I’ve blacked out with permanent marker, as well as the annealed wire eyelets I made for the port lid laniards:

1BA62CC5-A9BA-42DD-B9F3-006A27E3572C.thumb.jpeg.58b4afa06d301403bbdddafae368467a.jpeg

The other little surprise that I failed to calculate was the sheer length of the lower deck gun barrels, after cutting off the cascabels. My Initial plan was to butt my blocks up against the slight raised lip of the carriage decking, and that would determine the outboard projection of the gun barrels. The trouble is that would place the trunnions (which had been shaved off) and the dolphin handles outside the hull!

Instead, I discovered that I could place the dummy carriages a little further inboard, so that the new 1/16” shim butted up against the raised lip of the platform decking. This provided me with the extra real-estate I needed for a reasonable projection.

A5F98F81-EFB9-413E-9FA5-170E2CCE653B.thumb.jpeg.5488c0959db08a3a89cbd31f4a8102cd.jpeg
I wanted, however, for there to be a little extra support for the carriage blocks, so I made small outrigger blocks that I’m in the process of gluing to the inboard edge of the carriage platform decking.

2510CEB2-E2E9-4F64-99BA-A0201070744F.thumb.jpeg.31a005fbee2ba7c438c83ad0d6a780e6.jpeg

There is a generous 1/4” gap between these outboard gun platforms and the inboard central decking that supports the masts. When it comes time to secure the dummy carriages, they will be cyano’d in-place to both the decking and the out-rigger blocks.

While I won’t glue-in the gun barrels until the model is rigged and nearly complete, here are a few shots that show what that projection will look like:

490BA551-2FDC-4774-B34F-77F1701ACD7A.thumb.jpeg.528d6b8f17dc3eb379b5c2064d7f8f0d.jpeg

E5355A02-53DF-4426-B32E-04B61B193A75.thumb.jpeg.3201a4b43e648b262622853383ce9bf8.jpeg

I think that my efforts to increase the breadth of the cannons provide a better sense of heft and scale than would otherwise be the case.

So, that’s where the work is heading. I still have a fair amount of repetitive work to do before I can place the middle deck beams. I won’t get much beyond that, though, because I need to buy some appropriate anchor cabling from Syren, and it may be a while before Chuck is filling orders again.

Anyway, if I get stuck, I’ll turn my attention to constructing the quarter galleries from the lower finishing, on up.

Until next time, stay well and close to your loved ones.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
129
Points
133

Good couple of days. I have all the lower decking installed, the cable mounts installed, and the starboard dummy carriages glued-in; the barrels are only temporarily placed to ensure they are centered on the port openings:

90B367E9-F70D-4496-A22D-B115FE100491.thumb.jpeg.ddd80acffdf1c23e6be934053d1ef868.jpeg
5ADBC930-EEA3-478C-9510-BB0AF1BCFE1A.thumb.jpeg.e11ec9921babad628ad67c5942fbd851.jpeg

FB861F6D-E5F3-4906-BE8B-4FF04C41720A.thumb.jpeg.5fb9016b70dcf732fa65da9c3b2dffb1.jpeg

You can clearly see, here, the impact of broadening the hull.

2001B9C6-1FD2-4176-B585-D1BC582A5AE6.thumb.jpeg.6e810c84d99474e470cab644c23c31ac.jpeg
The block, at center, is the foremast step (in progress), which will raise the height of the foremast proportionally with the main mast.

3F9E5486-6555-4014-8E9A-E4C8060F7233.thumb.jpeg.4704e16bd3fcd110559c858dc825d0a3.jpeg

49340ADF-F8D3-4EE6-AAB5-9AC5D909FEDB.thumb.jpeg.64420d220eb9660f38b83167a84c1e7e.jpeg

Barrel projection is maybe a bit more than ideal, but it’s not markedly different than Frolich’s L’Ambiteaux:

B79C56C4-6A60-4AD0-8E9E-8D0EB362FB95.thumb.jpeg.5b94da220cd52ec18c34e67b3eaf0a4a.jpeg

99E89259-9457-472B-B021-3E127B47BC28.thumb.jpeg.2e824a42f09e1f4bfb1d16e150af8884.jpeg
In any case, it’s a warship, and the artillery is supposed to feature prominently. I have a good cross-vent going, but I have to take a cyano break for a little while.

Thank you for the likes, the interest, and for looking in.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
129
Points
133

Well, since my return to work, the pace of work has slowed, but I have still managed to make good progress.

This evening, I completed the lower gun deck. Typical of my approach to this build - because I want it to remain fully intact over the next six or seven construction years (hopefully shorter) - I have over-engineered everything.

Once all of the dummy carriage blocks were in place, I decided to add backing blocks for a little extra connection/insurance, so that when I glue in the gun barrels, at the end of the project, I won’t loosen the dummy carriage blocks:

315DA93A-288F-4582-BE85-F778BD6B0EB7.thumb.jpeg.478046550126fbd4150e74c4e9bb9739.jpeg

It’s total overkill considering the grip this particular cyano seems to have, but it makes me feel better.

Likewise the fore and mizzen mast steps, which raise each mast 1/2” respectively, are over-engineered to insure that if the mechanical cyano bond fails, then the welded plastic collar will keep the mast footing in place.

Once all of that was settled, I could fit and secure the middle deck “beams”:

537457F7-04C1-41A5-B91B-1A6B71B1EF42.thumb.jpeg.93b41295004d0b8e09957c5f2f3ecb6a.jpeg

I faired their top surfaces, this morning, which enables me to begin the whole process all over again, with the middle deck. Interestingly, though, I discovered just how much the hull flattened out, when I cut away the bottom, below the waterline.

Roughly, along the waist, there’s a good 8”, or so, where the scribe is tight:

66982CF0-CEC6-4F3D-88F5-B5660DBA6B9F.thumb.jpeg.dcab5c0de5574a82277191d01b15baf6.jpeg

Splitting the difference, fore and aft though, it’s a different story:

D2699CB7-F5FE-41AF-BA7C-E91A6A3004BF.thumb.jpeg.7b3f38ef47fbc83b744d230d36886806.jpeg

D05B1FC1-03A7-47FF-8DFE-45569866969B.thumb.jpeg.582b84d745b2032b19c2c70b2c549808.jpeg

These gaps are too much to scribe without foreshortening the waist depth (of these dummy carriage platforms) so much, that I have to create all kinds of additional carriage support.

I think my better bet is to make these carriage platforms from scratch, out of 1/16” white styrene. This way, I can still use the kit center deck sections, while adding back some of the gap space to the carriage platforms. This will enable me to place the carriages so that they don’t necessarily require as much out-rigger/backstop support.

Thanks to my good friend and mentor, Dan Pariser, I now have anchor cable, which I seized this morning:

C196CC6B-B748-4028-8209-8543521D2835.thumb.jpeg.5b28397fd9cbf6e5d63a9d7d7051beee.jpeg

I’m waiting for the grey acrylic I applied to the inside of the hawse holes to really cure before threading the hawsers. Thank you so much, Dan! These cables look really great and they are just the right scale.

Here’s a broadside view with all of my tapetags pulled through the ports, so that it will be easier to retrieve the port-lid laniards:

9CB86E2A-DAE1-42AF-B6C0-D84CB5ECB612.thumb.jpeg.109efee7c06f2f4c31c8ec8891cdfe52.jpeg

In other works, I made up the stock kit mizzen mast, which I reinforced with a straightened piece of wire coat-hanger. I did also try to turn a wooden mizzen in the chuck of my drill, but the first attempt was not satisfactory. I’ll have to learn how better to do this because all masts and spars above this level will be made from wood.

I also got busy, as a small-work project, making the sprit-mast, foremast, and mizzen tops. Here are the sprit and mizzen tops, which are the same size; I have yet to attach the top banding:

44380082-9C94-4DD0-BF92-7DDEBA9D8D09.thumb.jpeg.297c6919c65ebf91e7287607079709a6.jpeg

As a frame of reference, I found that Lemineur’s masting and rigging plan of the St. Philippe in 1:96 is an excellent corollary to what I am trying to achieve, proportionally. Going forward, as I did with the new top diameters, this will be my guide for proportioning the topmasts and t’gallants.

Here’s a shot of the side work, in process:

E04A46B5-7B22-4514-857B-706777531BDF.thumb.jpeg.7f0273e6c3e5a47bdca4e850329b1775.jpeg

You can really get a sense of the increased scale of the new tops, here.

Lastly, I’ve begun preparing stock for the lower half of the quarter galleries:

F4B015B6-125C-4C2F-8D52-663C033EDBF9.thumb.jpeg.74249dcb5f8bfe8e39b4bc1bfb02186e.jpeg

These are ready for my next shop opportunity to profile them on the bandsaw. I still am not sure what the material is. At one of our club meetings, Dan was divesting himself of various odds and ends in his shop, when he gave me this stick of wood.

It has virtually no grain, a light yellow color (which I thought was oxidation, but remained so after milling), is lightweight, but fairly hard. I think/hope it will shape well and hold fine detail. We will see.

Editor’s Note: Dan responded on MSW that he seems to recall the wood is apple.

I will save any advanced description of my process for making the quarter galleries, until I am actually doing it. Suffice it to say for now, though, that these carved lifts will be sandwiched between moulding strakes of white styrene, that will define the shape and projection of the QGs at each level. The moulding strakes are highlighted, here, in red:

image.thumb.jpg.6496c18daa1571b19d7234e1ef72ba94.jpg

As ever - thank you for your interest and for looking in. Stay safe, sane and healthy, everyone!
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
129
Points
133

Work on the middle deck is coming along nicely.

As mentioned, earlier, I found it much simpler to re-make the dummy carriage platforms from scratch, in order to achieve a close scribe without sacrificing platform depth. I used this simple scribing method to arrive at a faithful pattern for each side:

830AF2AA-A13B-4C69-9E47-00D238A0A56B.thumb.jpeg.3162540a1216722211ce0e58b5626e4a.jpeg

You can see the relative flattening of the ship’s sides, here, with the new pattern mapped-out on white styrene:

40EEDAB2-C6AD-4EC5-AFD2-E0731CD4D8C0.thumb.jpeg.e09c252dd5b705af61a53fe10d440eca.jpeg

Once I had achieved a close scribe for each side platform, and before gluing them in place, I checked for the ideal positioning of the dummy carriage blocks, along the whole broadside. On the lower deck, my blocks all follow a uniform line, as they all butt-up against a raised lip at the back edge of the platforms.

The middle deck presents a somewhat different reality, as the outward re-curve of the hull, in the area of the anchor lining, would make the barrel projection seem too short, if I were to simply place all of the dummy carriages at a uniform distance from the port opening. How’s that for a run-on sentence?!

So, testing the depth from port to port, I discovered that the forward 5 dummy gun carriages needed to be staggered closer to the port openings in increments up to 1/16”. Splitting hairs? Yes. The result, though, will be a finished projection like this, relative to the lower battery:

A737EE99-5A6E-4852-999A-04BDFA1B73D1.thumb.jpeg.50b7b8f537fa808ef3294feb75be89b0.jpeg

5B122427-44EC-4DD9-B33F-951CB662DBF7.thumb.jpeg.02116f64291f1be91f20391446110e41.jpeg
The added benefit of remaking the side platforms is that they are deep enough to adequately support the carriage blocks without any supplemental blocking.

With all of that settled, I glued-in the side platforms and center deck sections, as before - taking care to consider the next step of raking the masts.

Again - because the masts have been raised, their tapered lower diameter no longer corresponds with the openings at each center deck section level. My solution is to make mast plates that will enable me to align each mast on the ship centerline, while also establishing the rake.

With Lemineur’s masting plan of the St. Philippe at hand, I set the rake for the foremast as nearly perpendicular to the waterline as eye and square could ascertain. I will still have some wiggle room to adjust the foremast, if necessary, at the main deck level; the foremast step is not even an inch below this first mast plate, and the fit is deliberately just a hair slack.

The main mast is raked aft so that the main top is sensibly level to the waterline, while also accounting for the upward trajectory of the top and t’gallant masts.

Here are the relative layout of mast rakes and top heights from a variety of angles:

E3FE2902-E75E-4046-9899-2CA588F34A3F.thumb.jpeg.d1ca217380187d5ed3c9d2047de31c06.jpeg

A1141926-9DF1-4AE5-93DE-E4B1302FF6E6.thumb.jpeg.9d3bf3ef2c3bbed69fc4d514e6276343.jpeg

7D5B451A-9858-44E2-852A-EB39C34ADBD9.thumb.jpeg.641b2d3ea7f21b187e0406a03ab48740.jpeg

3F8663BF-B0EC-4EC5-878E-D6141EFD11D3.thumb.jpeg.37c1e362385cd2de7b4797a0b95a2aac.jpeg

6EC62CFD-81A3-492D-BA66-67A6FDA85CF2.thumb.jpeg.737e6cde0ee43870bc8dff8b98bdff0b.jpeg

Without the upper deck and bulwarks in place to complete the picture, these mast heights may appear exaggerated, but I am confident that this impression will trend favorably as the model continues to take shape.

In other works, the sprit, fore, main and mizzen tops are now complete, and I have made up all of the middle-deck dummy carriages - complete with shims for height, and lid lanyards. I will wait to set the dummy carriages until after I have made the gusset supports for the main deck beams.

Placing those beams will require a little thoughtful layout, as they must accurately frame the openings for the main deck hatches and gangway. The beams around the gangway will have to be realistically sided, as they will be partially visible.

So, onward and upward we will go. Thank you for the likes, your interest and for looking in!
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
129
Points
133

So, last night, I ordered a pair of small, brass micro-planes. The quality appears decent, on EBAY, and they weren’t terribly expensive. What I like about them is that the sole is flat for the middle third, but there’s an entry and exit relief that should facilitate light, fairing passes. I will attempt to make the upper masts and spars, by hand, turning squared stock to round, in the traditional manner. We’ll see what comes of that.

I needed a good small-work project, so I have decided to tackle the low-relief Mer-Angels that flank the upper finishing of the quarter galleries. I’m carving these in 1/16” white styrene, and I will begin with the aft-most pair:


It’s good to carve like-figures in tandem, for the sake of consistency. The forward pair require a little re-drafting, so that they don’t interfere with my aft-most octagonal port.

Anyway, this should be a fun little bit of carving.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
129
Points
133

Jim and Bill - I appreciate your sustained interest in and support of the project. I recognize that this is a particularly slow-moving elephant, and that it would be quite understandable to lose interest.

I appreciate you all hanging in there. Sometime, in the not too distant future, I will begin constructing the head, and then we’ll get back to the stern and quarter galleries. And then we’ll have some real fun, bringing the stern to life with colors!

If all that weren’t enough, I expect to soon receive Patrick Villier’s latest book on the St. Philippe and the First Rates under Louis XIII to Louis XIV. Maybe there will be a few exciting surprises, in there, regarding artwork I’ve been searching for.
 
Top