VOC ship The Prins Willem (scale 1:75) Year 1651

[mati.n]

Hi Stephan,

I think we have another fantastic example of how different conclusions, solutions and drawings we are getting from researchers... of course no offense in here to their tremendous work... which is real treasure!
It's just showing us how complex this parts and whole rigging were and how this knowledge disperse over the years to that stage that we can't find one solid interpretation... even if we think we have it... someone will come and show... that this might be not that obvious.
We are always looking for one solution... but it was so many of them... and probably all correct it's just making our life as a modelers tough

But it's super interesting... and can't thank enough to Gents like Ab Hoving for sharing his knowledge through books and forum.

Drawing from Rijksmusem looks to me to be the best of PW existing...
Honestly, never seen them before...

Batavia plans drawn by Willem Vos (if I'm correct) are great too... but yes please I will drop you my e-mail I can take as much as possible of that kind of drawings

Alright.... so getting back to our conversation...

Bonnet on fore and main course seems to be explained with legit evidence from Rijksmuseum plans.
Buntlines... fore and main course has clearly visible lining, which is reinforcement for cringles... and both sails have 2 on each side... no doubts here then....
However, drawing shows topsails and fore has visible lining on the sail... one for each side... but main topsail doesn't have lining on the drawing so no buntlines (???) just kidding... this is obvious by now... it has the same construction and parts as fore... just a little bit bigger

Cringles on the bonet or not? Hmm... in my opinion YES.
...what happens to buntlines when bonnet is detached? Probably nothing... they were simply not rigged to the sail.
Let's keep in mind that buntlines and leech lines were use only to "clear" (handle) the sails from the deck towards yards.... and didn't have any other role when sail was in use... ok maybe to prevent slightly from expanding the sail too much forward... but I guess not really, because other ropes are for that.
So... my conclusion is that bonnet was always attached to the sail before "clearing" sails using buntlines... and if needed it was store together with sail.
...and that's where cringles for buntlines should be

Perhaps bonnet was 99% of time attached but who knows... if I had only DeLorean and some plutonium I could travel to XVII century to find out

Anyway.... another great discussion and attempt to clear some problems

Cheers,
Matt

 

[kirill4]

Good day,
Interesting discussion!
I think buntlines on top and topgallant no need in that time due to specific of this sails handling.
When furled, main body of sail stored on the the top- for that, why need buntline here?
Is it necessary for PW to show reef tackles? Is this will be correct for that period, when PW sailed?
I see some ships on the Van de Velde pictures have reefbants, but not many...

 

[kirill4]

Top sails most probably have only leechlines, and probably, probably only one central buntline... which were ness-ry for sails handling.
Look where blocks for topsails leechlines secured - ot the sail tie, which is more logical,than secure then on stay loop
This arrangements clearly could be seen on old paintings... for that we even don't need modern reconstructions plan ))
And there need to be two long gaskets , one on each side of the topsail.
They used when this sails furling.
Main courses have many gaskets.
But technick/ procedure to furl main courses was difer from that used for topsails.
These details clearly visiable on photografic precise Van de Velde pictures.
Buntlines coud be attached to bonets or to the sails...it doesn't matter, both have cringles...
Best,details description of sails handling in different periods you could find in "enciclopedia " ))
"Seamanship in the age of sail"

 

[kirill4]

By the way, looks loke that perfectly made model of PW, posted early, has wrongly furled topgallant sails...?
...
Oh, no!
For topgallant sails Everything is correct! ))

 

[kirill4]

There are a few Van de Veldes alder and yanger pictures and Dutch yacht reconstruction by Ab Hoving...
All demonstrates different arrangements of topsail leechlines and maincourse s buntlines and leechlines and bonnet... on some pictures there are no leechlines at topsails at all....
Ab Hoving gives 2 buntlines attached to bonnet, but Van de Velde shown them also two ,but only visiable onattached to the fore sail ...
But non gave blocks for them attached to the yards, except couple of permanent blocks firmly attached to both sides of the main( not visiable here) and fore yards for courses sails leechlines

 

[Steef66]

Kirill and Matt thanks again for the input.
What me must not forget is that we are talking about the Prins Willem. The biggest ship ever build by the VOC. A modern ship for that time.
The sails and yards are bigger and heavier than the other ships that where build before. That means more and heavier rigging.

It's just showing us how complex this parts and whole rigging were and how this knowledge disperse over the years to that stage that we can't find one solid interpretation... even if we think we have it... someone will come and show... that this might be not that obvious.

that's true Matt, you can look to things different, that's why we must discuss this part of ships, which I see as art.

Drawing from Rijksmusem looks to me to be the best of PW existing...

Yes, and the only drawing full rigged.

Cringles on the bonet or not? Hmm... in my opinion YES.

Good discussion point, but looking to this picture of the 7P we see that the buntlines (just 2) go between the bonnet and the sail

I think buntlines on top and topgallant no need in that time due to specific of this sails handling.

Harlands Book is gold, it's have a lot of info. Books like Steel or Anderson about rigging are not easy to read, special when English isn't your language you grow up with. But in Anderson I was reading about this, if buntline where in the drawings, and he says this about it:



So I really think there is prove enough to say that they where installed on the topsails even when pictures don't show them. The Prins Willem is build in 1651, updated a lot. Does she have 2 buntlines or 4 buntlines on the courses? I think there are four, due to the drawings of the museum. How they where installed? Nothing to find about it, so I keep holding to the English way .
Parts of the book of Anderson:



picture of the rigging plan of the museum:



The only thing I don't have and I'm searching for is Anderson's Treatise of rigging.

And of course everybody thanks for the many likes.

 

[kirill4]

Good day Steef66,
Regarding topsails buntlines ,
if we are talking of first half of 17th century , and about dutch vessel, than information from Anderson book need to be filtered a little conserning what he says about topsails buntline for certain period.
It is not clear for me why You made such conclusion from the pieces of texts from his book you poster early..
"...So I really think there is prove enough to say that they where installed on the topsails even when pictures don't show them. .."
He says about 18th century when talking about topsail buntlines, but about leechlines only ,in early dates , and says that he should omit topsails buntline alltogether before 1660...and yes, we don't see them on any Van de Velde pictures, or other artists depict ships of that period, but leechlines shown only.
Another famous dutch artist Vroom, often shown topsail buntline as single rope and never as two ,but he depicts vessel of early period, end of 16 - begining of 17th century, I think this is not the case for PW

So I could say there is prove enough to say that they,buntlines, rather were not installed on the topsails than installed! ))
And as I mentioned before, their absence could be explained by specific furling of topsails in that period ...
Look at this pictures how they handle topsail and how leechline and their blocks work... there are no topsails buntlines and they shouldn't be here...
Kalmar Nykel 1625 replica..

 

[kirill4]

Steef,
Could You share with me that museum drwng of PW which You posted, if You have it in highest resolution?

 

[dockattner]

Steef,
Could You share with me that museum drwng of PW which You posted, if You have it in highest resolution?

Me too Stephan - if it would not be too much trouble...

 

[Steef66]

The drawing of the PW

 

[Steef66]

Another famous dutch artist Vroom, often shown topsail buntline as single rope and never as two ,but he depicts vessel of early period, end of 16 - begining of 17th century, I think this is not the case for PW

from the beginning of 16th century till the end of the 17th century there where a lot of changes in rigging. The ships in that picture are clearly from the beginning of the 17th century. looking to the martnets on the courses. These martnets should also be mounted to the topsails. I don't see them. He also makes buntlines on the topsail. Why don't assemble them on a ship of mid 17th century and do assemble them on the early or late 17th century? Exactly what Anderson says about this point in his book.
the ship in your picture is also no comparison in dimensions to the PW, because the PW has a square course that is 27 meters in width and 12 meters in height.

It is not clear for me why You made such conclusion from the pieces of texts from his book you poster early..

Did you read Anderson's book? Most rigging books publish in a later period are inspired by his work. Look in the references of these books and they always point to RC Andersons. When you read the complete capitel of rigging you understand why I made this conclusion.

James Lees wrote this about the buntlines on topsails

James Lees The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War 1625-1860 pag. 137
The topsail had two buntline cloths,
each a cloth wide, sewn on one third
of the foot from each leech like those
on the courses sewn under the middle
band; the topsail bunt cloths were vertical
at all periods. All bunt cloths
were sewn over the foot linings. I have
seen no evidence of buntline cloths
in use prior to the introduction of the
middle band; probably they were not
found necessary when the sails were
relatively small Topgallant and royal
sails were not fitted with buntline
cloths.

 

[kirill4]

Dear Stephan,
Thanks a lot for PW rigging plan - it will be nice add to my collection!))

As per topsails buntlines,
yes, I read Anderson book, and it was the reason of my question , why You decided to show them ...?
As I understood, he supposed do not show them before 1660...
Vroom picture was posted just as example of possible existing buntline as single rope in early days of 17th , Anderson mentioned such possibility,
no more than that... martnets were not supposed to be discussed regarding to PW rigging ))
Actualy, if You decided to show topsails buntlines on your model, than why not to do it?
Ab Hoving ,who is an expert in golden age dutch shipbuilding, also shown them on his reconstruction of dutch vessels!

 

[kirill4]

There is set of nice pictures of PW model posted by dafi

Forum für historischen Schiffsmodellbau und Geschichte

Projektorientierte Quellensammlung und Datenbank für historischen Schiffsmodellbau und Geschichte

www.segelschiffsmodellbau.com

 

[Steef66]

As I understood, he supposed do not show them before 1660...

He mentioned that these fittings appear in a Dutch build French ship of 1626. He don't say that they don't exist before 1660, just that he doesn't find any other pictures of it. The picture you show of Vroom is a ship from before 1645, has buntlines on the topsail. So yes the PW got buntlines on the topsails, even she got 2 because she got big sails. (James Lees says the bigger sail got 1 or 2, depending how big)
Only the way how they are fitted that's is a little unknown, need more research to do about that. Straight to the colar or a block on the yard and then to the colar.

 

[Heinrich]

Stephan you provide fascinating reading when you do research on rigging. As with your Spansk Galleon, the Prins Willem will probably have the best researched rigging of any Prins Willem model out there.

 

[kirill4]

Yes, indeed, he doesn't say they didn't exist before 1660 ... he says he should omit them before 1660...
In this respect, from my point of vew,
I could understand why on the most of Van de Velde elder pictures ,we don't see them but leechlines only...
becouse in that time, for topsails furling, buntlines were not so necessary as on later date...most probably clewlines from aft and leechlines from forward were sufficient to furling topsails...
as a rule topsails foot were not lifted up to the yard by buntlines as in later days, and secured to the topsail yard,
but yard was lowered to the mast top, cornres lifted up to the yard by clewlines, sides of the sail by leechlines and biggest part of the sail was furled and secured and stored just verticaly and only smallest part of the sail was secured horizontaly to the yard.
Look how this process performed on the foto of Kalmar Nykel I posted early.
This is only my private suggestions , consider information from Anderson book and Van de Velde pictures, why better do not show them on the topsails than show )) for the PW period model.
But if You desided to fitt them, than I guess two leading block better attach to the topsail tie same as leechlines block attached , but not to the collar nor to the yard- look at the Van de Velde pictures for leechlines blocks location...
Could be made similar arrangements with good historic prove.

 

[Steef66]

There is set of nice pictures of PW model posted by dafi

Forum für historischen Schiffsmodellbau und Geschichte

Projektorientierte Quellensammlung und Datenbank für historischen Schiffsmodellbau und Geschichte

www.segelschiffsmodellbau.com

Beautiful link, thanks. Needed to make a account but after a day or 2 I was able to look to these amazing photo's.

But it makes also an end on the discussion about the buntlines. The model in the museum have buntlines on the topsails, 2 and they went to the middle of the sail.
See pictures. The courses also need my attention how they are made.

first I saw these cringles


And later I found a picture that makes more sense how they are installed.



It looks that the course has the same construction, I will find out looking more pictures how they're be assembled.

 

[Uwek]

Beautiful link, thanks. Needed to make a account but after a day or 2 I was able to look to these amazing photo's.

But it makes also an end on the discussion about the buntlines. The model in the museum have buntlines on the topsails, 2 and they went to the middle of the sail.
See pictures. The courses also need my attention how they are made.

first I saw these cringles
View attachment 247765

And later I found a picture that makes more sense how they are installed.

View attachment 247766

It looks that the course has the same construction, I will find out looking more pictures how they're be assembled.
View attachment 247767

Due to the fact, that the owner of these photos Daniel alias @dafi is also member in our forum I add him to this topic, so he knows, that you used his photos - maybe he has some more details to show

 

[Steef66]

The course is the same as the tops, little different in the middle


only 2



And it seems that they lead to a block under the top or on the shrouds. It's difficult to see, but sure is not on the colar.

 

[Steef66]

Due to the fact, that the owner of these photos Daniel alias @dafi is also member in our forum I add him to this topic, so he knows, that you used his photos - maybe he has some more details to show

Thanks Uwe, I hope he can show more detailed pictures from below the tops. The rigging under there is hard to see.
@dafi