Sovereign of the Seas - Sergal 1:78 (with hopefully many added details)

Kurt:

FYI: Sergal issued cannons from the discontinued bronze examples

View attachment 186829
Those look VERY artistic, but are not realistic in shape. Would that they had cannon barrels that pretty. I can definitely see the Italian influence. Still, a ship using those would appear very fancy. Regarding cannon barrels, I bought a mix of Amati and other makes for my SotS when it gets started. The barrels are in a variety of lengths, and I tried to match their lengths to the list of gunnery SotS was launched with. The DeAgostini gun barrels are nice, but I loathe using false cannon barrels on the lower decks and planned on making full carriages like those made for La Couronne. The use of names like culverin, demi-culverin, saker, etc. means that to buy the right size cannon barrels, you have to estimate the size of the original gun barrel. The gun types overlapped each other in size and shape, so it's hard to size your model gun barrels. Detail like this are worth the hours of research scraping the bowels of the internet and books trying to get a handle on what looks right and what doesn't, and guessing when you have no information.

Here's a real gem for you. This Czech ship modelling forum had a page dedicated to SotS and it's rich with useful information, some of it addressed corrections to be made to the Sergal model, and whether or not SotS had a bonaventure mast or not. Pay careful attention to the corrections in the illustrations to the Sergal model rigging. Mantua/Sergal has not been my favorite model company for accuracy and must be scrutinized carefully against your own research. Be prepared to make many changes by scratch building and modification, and in doing so you will all the more proud of your model. The translation of the page linked below was quite understandable. Tip: After your web browser translates the web page, type CTRL A to select all the content, then copy it using CTRL C. Then open up Microsoft Word, and paste it into a new document by hitting CTRL V. Why? because it saves the whole web page translated for you! Saving the page any other way converts it back to Czech. I have no idea why.
Czech ModelForum SotS
 
Last edited:
Kurt:

FYI: Sergal issued cannons from the discontinued bronze examples
More useful information to help calculate gun barrel size. The guns are described by weight. When you combine that information with other sources describing the shape of a particular gun, you can guess as to its length and buy model cannon barrels that are close to matching. Save this for your notes. I forgot where I found this on the internet:

Sovereign Armaments

When she was first fitted out, the guns of the Sovereign of the Seas were supplied by John Browne, the son of a gunfounding family. His father, Thomas Browne, was the Founder of Iron Ordnance to Elizabeth I and James I. Although not apprenticed in iron making, John took over his father’s patents in 1615 when he was appointed one of the King’s Founder of Iron Ordnance afloat and ashore with a wage of eight pence – 7½p, worth £7.20 today – a day. With ironworks in Brenchley and Horsmonden in Kent, he was aided by a decree in 1619 that confined gunfounding to Kent and Sussex, where he also had interests.

In the 1620s, Browne developed a new cannon known as the drake. Weighing a third less than earlier cannon firing the same weight of shot, these allowed ships to be more heavily armed. Originally a Dutch design, the drake had a shorter barrel that conventional cannon with a bore that was wider at the muzzle than at the back of the chamber. It used only two-thirds of the powder of its conventional counterpart and was easier to handle when firing repeatedly. While the velocity and range suffered, at close quarters it was more devastating than a conventional piece.

Browne received a reward of £200 – £19,000 today – for the introduction of the dake. But in 1635 he had to pay Charles I £12,000 – over £1 million today – for a patent allowing him to make, sell and transport ordinance and shot. Browne was selling guns to the Dutch and Spanish, as well as the crown, and Charles effectively became a partner in his export business. This was tightly regulated. All ordnance could only be landed at, or shipped from, the wharf at the Tower of London. Proving was done in Ratcliff Fields, Stepney, and all sales took place in East Smithfield. Guns also had to carry at least two letters of the founder’s name, the year of manufacture and the weight of the piece.

His arrangement with the king also brought Browne honours. He was granted a coat of arms that consisted of “Gules a passant and a Chief Or” – “Gules” is red, the “Chief” is the top third of the shield and it was “Or” or gold. A Griffin is half-lion, half-eagle and “passant” means that walking, with its face in profile.

His crest was even more elaborate: “Upon a Helm with a Wreath Or and Gules. A Falcon wings inverted and addorsed proper armed legged and belled Or preying upon a Mallard’s Wing Proper, Mantled Gules doubled Argent.”

In 1637, Browne paid out another £1,000 to adapt his foundry to cast the guns for the Sovereign of the Seas. Though the iron works is long gone, the Furnace Pond came still be seen outside the village of Horsmonden. The works were well sited. The River Medway was handy to transport the guns and the area was rich in timber for fuel. However, in 1637, the nearby village of Cranbrook made a complaint that John Browne had purloined most of their woodlands to the detriment of their craft of weaving. But Browne position was unassailable and he was appointed the King’s Gunfounder in 1640.

Browne made the guns for the Sovereign of the Seas by the lost-wax process. He made a full-size model of the piece in wood, including all the decoration and annotation – and the trunnions on either side that rested on the gun carriage. These were placed slightly behind the centre of gravity so that the gun would naturally elevate.

The wooden model was then used to made a mould, which was used to cast a wax replica. This is then smeared with lard or grease and seared with a clay paste mixed with hair, flax and horse droppings. When turned over a fire, the clay harden, while the wax drained away. The shell was then strengthened by iron rods and thickened with the addition of more clay.

A core was made by a similar clay mixture smeared over an iron spindle bound with rope. The outer surface was then smoothed, dried and burnished to the diameter given by a template. The shell was placed in a pit with the muzzle end upwards and the core was inserted. Then molten metal was poured in. Once it had solidified and cooled, the mould was broken and removed. The outside was smoothed with a chisel on a lathe, the inside reamed, and the powder hole or vent drilled.

The guns were seated in a carriage. The sides were usually made of elm which was resistant to splintering if struck by flying debris. The cross beams were oak. Because of the narrowing diameter of the gun, the sides – or cheeks – of the gun carriage sloped towards each other at the fore end. The carriage was strengthened with iron straps. The small carriage wheels were also elm and mounted on an iron axle.

The Sovereign of the Seas had 118 gun ports and only 102 guns. The shape of the bow meant that the foremost gun ports on the lower gun deck were blocked by the anchor cable. Consequently, the fore chase – the guns facing forward – occupied the next ports. There were two demi-cannon drakes – one port, one starboard – some 11.5 feet long (3.5m), weighing together five tons (4,536kg). They had a bore of 6.4 to 6.75 inches (16.2–17.1cm) and fired a shot weighing 32 to 36 pounds (14.5–16.3kg), using around ten pounds of gunpowder.

In the third ports from the bow, there were two 11-foot (3.4m) demi-cannon drakes weighing, together, 4.3 tons (3,901kg). Behind them were twenty VII drakes, nine feet long, and weighing in all 45.7 tons (41,458kg). In the third port from the stern were two more 11-foot (3.4m) demi-cannon drakes weighing, together, 4.3 tons (3.901kg). The last two ports on either side were occupied by the stern chase – four 10.5-foot (3.2m) demi-cannon drakes weighing a total of 11.4 tons (10,342kg).

The middle gun deck had heavy fortified culverins – that is, guns short for their bore – fore and aft. There were two 11.5-foot (3.5m) pieces, weighing 4.8 tons (4,354kg), in the fore chase; four 11.5-foot (3.5m) pieces, weighing 10.2 tons (9,253kg), in the stern chase. Immediately behind the fore chase were two demi-culverin drakes, eight to nine foot (2.4–2.7m) long, weighing some 1.9 tons (1,724kg). Then came twenty-two 9.5-foot (2.9m) culverin drakes weighing a total of 30.4 tons (27,578kg).

On the upper gun deck there were two 10-foot (3m) fortified demi-culverins in the fore chase and two in the stern chase, both pairs weighing 2.8 tons (2,540kg). Between them there were twenty-two demi-culverin drakes, eight to nine feet (2.4–2.7m) long, weighing over 21 tons (19,000kg) in total.

There were eight-to-nine-foot (2.4–2.7m) demi-culverin drakes weighing 7.7 tons (6,985kg) in the forecastle; another six weighing 5.7 tons (5,170kg) on the half-deck. The quarter-deck carried two six-foot demi-culverin drake cutts – a cutt, again, being a shorter version of a gun – weighing 16 hundredweight (726kg). Then there were another two six-foot culverin cutts, weighing 1.3 tons (1,179kg), aft of the forecastle bulkhead. In all, the Sovereign of the Seas carried 155.9 tons (141,430kg) of guns – and that did not include the weight of the gun carriages. Altogether they cost £26,441 13s 6d – or £2,268,695.72 in today’s money – including £3 (£257.50) per piece to have the Tudor rose, a crown and the motto: “Carolvs Edgari sceptrvm aqvarum” – “Charles has established Edgar’s sceptre of the waters” – engraved on them. The gun carriages, made by Matthew Banks, Master Carpenter for the Office of Ordinance, cost another £558 11s 8d – £47,926.45 today.


The shot was made from cast iron or lead cast around a stone core – five parts lead to one part stone. This ratio made the lead-and-stone shot roughly the same weight as a cast-iron cannon ball of the same diameter.

The shot was made slightly smaller than the diameter of the barrel. This difference is known as the windage. During the sixteenth century the windage was kept at a constant 0.25 inches (0.635cm). But in the seventeenth century the bore divided by the diameter of the shot was fixed at 20:21 for English pieces or 27/26 for French pieces.

The gunpowder, or black powder, used as a propellant was a mixture of charcoal, sulphur and saltpetre – that is, potassium nitrate. It was manufactured under licence at Ospringe, near Faversham in Kent. The charcoal was produced locally, while the sulphur came from Sicily and Italy, and the saltpetre from Italy and India. The mills were on a tidal creek, making it easy to bring in the imported ingredient. Running water in the creek also supplied the power to grind the powder. Then it could be transported by boat to London, the arsenals along the Medway and the Channel ports.

Saltpetre was also produced locally from bird droppings. In 1634, Francis Vincent of Canterbury was appointed official “saltpetre man” for Kent, Sussex and Surrey, required to produce six hundredweights (272kg) a week. His main source was dovecotes in Kent. The soil from the floor was mixed with water and filtered through clean sand. Pure saltpetre was then crystallized out of the solution.

Gunpowder was made in Ospringe from 1560 to 1925. The mills there were owned by Thomas Judd who produced two tons of gunpowder a week in 1653. More was made in Chilworth in Surrey from 1635 to 1920.

While the powder was being milled using a large metal mortar and pestles, it was dampened by fresh water, vinegar or brandy to reduce the chance of spontaneous combustion. Finely milled gunpowder was called serpentine and used in the vent to ignite the main charge, or in small arms. The rest of the gunpowder was corned – dampened with water it was pressed through thick parchment with small holes in it to produce grains of a uniform size. These would not be compressed when tamped in the barrel. If the powder was too tightly packed, it excluded the air and, without oxygen, the gunpowder would not ignite. Corned gunpowder produced greater power, resulting in a higher muzzle velocity and greater range.

The powder was supplied in wooden barrels with copper, rather than iron, bands. This reduced the chances of producing a spark. Vinegar or brandy was also added to powder to prevent the powder deteriorating if seawater soaked into the wood.

The Sovereign of the Seas carried 330 kegs of powder, along with 2,850 round shot, 720 double-headed shot, 300 muskets, twenty blunderbusses, 200 pikes and 100 hatchets.

It is not entirely clear what happened to the cannon after the Sovereign of the Seas was destroyed. One demi-culverin drake sat at the northwest corner of Horseguards Parade in London for many years. In 1917, it was in store at the Rotunda, Woolwich, then it was moved to Chatham Dockyard. Since 2000 it has been on display at the Royal Artillery Museum in Woolwich. Engraved on it is: “JOHN BROWNE MADE THIS PEECE ANO, 1638” – along with the rose, crown and motto.

In the Royal Armouries in Leeds, there is a four-pounder with the Tudor rose and the letters C.R. – Carolus Rex – inscribed on it, along with the words: “CAST IN THE PRESENCE OF HIS MAJ OCTO THE FIFTH 1638, MOVNTIOY EARLE OF NEWPORT M GENERALL OF THE ORDNANCE. JOHN BROWNE MADE THIS PEECE.” Thought to be one of the Sovereign of the Seas’ original guns, it also saw service at the dockyards in Deptford in the Dutch attack of 1667.

The Royal Armouries has another piece with similar markings which was exhibited at the Royal Naval Exhibition in Chelsea in 1891. Until 1930 it was at the Rotunda Museum in Woolwich before being transferred to the Royal Armouries. However, neither of these two guns is thought to have been part of the Sovereign of the Seas’ main armament. Rather they may have been signal guns.
 
More info for you, from the Czech ModelForum. For the earliest version of SotS, the color of the ship was as follows, supported by the Lely painting of Peter Pett. Here it is written in the hand of the King himself, Charles I. How the ship appeared after the 1650 refit is less certain, and you have to rely on paintings. So, for your later Sergal model version of SotS, the black may not apply.

King Charles I personally issued the following instructions on March 23, 1636 (transcript of a manuscript deposited in the Public Record Office, London) to carry out the decoration of the ship - gilding and painting.
1603324424123.png


It says:

"The head with all the carved work thereof, and the rails to be all gilt, and no other color used thereupon but black. The stern and galleries to be gilt with gold and black in the same manner, with the rails on them to be all likewise gilt with gold. The sides to be all carved work according to the draft which was presented to his Majesty and that carved work to be all gilt with gold, and all the rails of the sides to be likewise gilt with gold and no other color to be used on the sides but black. Also the figures in the upper strakes to be altered into badges of carved work answerable to the other strake, that runs fair with it, and to be gilt answerable to the rest."

An explanation is needed for the above text - since the 17th century. The English used two terms for the "gold" decoration of ships: "to gilt with gold", literally "to gilt with gold", i.e. to cover surfaces with gold leaf; and the word "to gilt," which meant "gild" with paint. This much cheaper "gilding" with paint was done by varnishing wood painted white or left in natural light color carvings. The varnish had a yellowish to golden color, coating the white background gave the impression of a "golden" color.

To paint the ship, the English used the terms "paid" or "served", which meant painting a mixture of linseed oil, turpentine and tar / tar. To this mixture, usually sulfur ( brimstone ) was added and a resin (rosin). Pitch / tar obtained by distillation from pine wood was thin and yellowish to light brown in color.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_tar

My notes: Seeing as I have a bottle of pine tar sitting over there, I can tell you that pine tar can be much darker than described above. It appears dark brown, almost black. With additional tints, it is possible to make it appear black. Coating the hull of SotS with this instead of paint would not only turn the ship black, but act as a wood preservative.
 
Last edited:
Kurt,
Whoa that’s a lot to digest – thanks for taking the time to add all of this info. I’ve copied and pasted your posts to carefully re-read, as well as saving.

I did post above – the link to the Czech site that you just mentioned. I have been using Google Translate copying each letter in their large amount of criticism of the Sergal kit in those two images from their site (main deck and rigging; slow but interesting work. In the end this project will need to include a lot of "artistic" creativity :)

Apart from the Payne engraving, only two paintings show the Royal Sovereign entirely with all her riggings and sails. On these paintings, she only has two square sails per mast instead of the famous four.

These paintings are:

"Council of War onboard the Royal Sovereign, before the Battle of Schooneveld" by Jacob Knijff 1673 [private ownership]

RS_CouncilofWar.jpg

and;
The engraving of John Payne (after 1651) [National Maritime Museum, Greenwich] is the "official" portrait of the ship:

Sovereign_of_the_Seas J payne.jpg

I did, after-all, order the Amati decorative set from Cornwall in the UK. I will blend the best of Sergal’s solid bronze bits with some of the Amati bits that might work together scale looking wise. I hope that their lanterns will work, as I have not started any work on the stern – it might be a great area to re-design.

Lastly I visited all of the images that you posted of your La Couronne – awesomely well detailed work. Congrats looks brilliant indeed.

PS: I had fully intended to reshape the forecastle bulkhead, thanks. Will also need to move the foremast some centimeters reward as well. On the list of "to-do".
As always thanks so much for your so appreciated interest, and notations in this log

Cheers,
 
John, that beakhead deck looks so much better than the laser scribed one, much more realistic and authentic. Nice work!
 
Stargazer, Ken, Heinrich - thanks for your kind and encouraging words much appreciated. And thanks as well to members who just droby for a look.
 
Jim,
Thanks for your welcoming post. And thanks for the likes....
Added a bit of work – started the installs for the cannon door frames, as well as attaching one upper gun row. Experimental at this point – will learn, from this, for the other three gun templates.
Already missed the chance to overlay the template with pear wood strips – hindsight always 20/20 or (6/6) for the rest of the planet (We are the only county on this planet not using the – so smart – decimal scale hmmm? (Except for aviation altitude worldwide standardized using feet/flight levels also in feet)

PS: Will just stay on ship topic here on out Thumbsup



Regards,

View attachment 183556View attachment 183557View attachment 183558View attachment 183559View attachment 183560View attachment 183561
You still use knots and nautical miles, Captain?
 
Hi oldflyer

On my website schifferlbauer. com you find a lot of pictures of sailing ship models too the Sovereign you need.

The link https://www.schifferlbauer.com/seite40.html guide you directly to the model of Wolfgang Rotters Sovereign.
You can click on more then 50 picture of the model. With the arrows down you can change the pages for and aft
and with a click on any picture you can see it in big size. The only problem it is in German language.
Also in the blog Carving (schifferlbauer) A little bit carving and the model of the Sovereign of the seas.

Kind regards
Willi (schifferlbauer)
Wunderbar!
 
You still use knots and nautical miles, Captain?

Victator,
You will now probably wish you had never asked that question


Yes, those are the standards; distance measured in nautical miles, though visibility is stated or forecast in statute miles.
And for altimetry now commonly uses both values (feet/meters) transmitted (spoken by ATC) to the 1000s of daily drivers who work the long hauls, and also operate in and out of the rest of the world exclusive of the US and the UK.

When I first started in the business a conversion card was used when flying into metric airspace as onboard altitude was usually indicated in feet (depending on the machine to which I was assigned for given cycles).

Imperial feet have been the world standard because of American and English manufactured aircraft in the early years as well as the massive growth of the industry in those same two countries after WWII.

All drivers over the last couple of decades have it much easier with PFD screens (primary flight displays) that can add or remove visual information as needed during a flight. So most of the previously independent gauges that needed to be monitored are now available within one or two screens – duplicated, as needed, on each side.
Note image below from a B737-800 series – altimetry has the conversion on the screen, both for pre-programmed altitude (upper right top) and for current altitude (right side middle scale)

1.jpg

This aircraft is in a descent locked onto the ILS (Instrument landing system) note nose pitch up – as you know that’s how it is during a controlled descent at a slow speed and a bit higher pitch just before a landing.…
The 550m/1800’ in this image is probably the minimum descent legal altitude (MDA) when runway must be in sight. (upper right corner)
Aircraft is flying through 2500’/765m at 134 knots (set on auto pilot) note speed in purple top left. Dialed in from the MCP (Master Control Panel) located at the top center below glare shield.

Sorry for spending too much time answering a simple “yes, no” question lol - I will resist droning on-and-on again especially OFF topic. Will have an SoS update soon.

PS: I needed to go to South America last year – asked permission to go up front before departure (yes I know “sterile cockpit” rules?). Captain, none the less, invited me to buckle into the jump seat for the taxi, take off, and climb to cruise in this B787 – my first flight in one; sweet machine indeed.

Have several other videos – but promised that I would not put them on any social site – for obvious reasons. Here are a few images that add a few details to my notes from above.


2.jpeg3.jpeg4.jpeg






 
I was a radar navigator in the B-52. I just wondered if they still used knots and altitude in feet. I figured they still used nautical miles because of latitude degrees and minutes. I suppose DME is still in nm. Okay, I’ll try not to ask any more off topic questions.
 
Victator

B52s - sweet!!! as you know the original aviator's grandkids are driving these same machines today. And talking about instruments - they win!
Your question -- answer is yes
 
Back
Top