Was Santa Ana painted or not?

DARIVS ARCHITECTVS

DARIVS ARCHITECTVS

Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
4,800
Points
688

Location
Ramsey, Minnesota, USA
Hi everyone,

I was wondering, from a historical accuracy perspective, was the Santa Ana of 1784 was painted...
1716757922018.png

..or not?
1716757962462.png

Does anyone have any reference information, text, painting, or other, which can shed light on this? I don't think fluorescent yellow was in their color pallete back in 1784. Artesania Latina has upgraded and altered this model, one of their older ones, and added etched brass parts. I still see that the chainwales are wrong, being angled in crazy directions in order to avoid blocking the guns, but the hull form looks good.
 
Would assume it was yellow ochre paint for the decoration. The ship would also have a protective coating on the hull like white stuff to stop worm and barnacle attacks.
 
It's interesting that many of the Spanish Ships-of-the-Line were built in Havana, Cuba. It's possible that these ships were built of Cuban wood. There's no telling about the paints available there.

Bill
 
WilliamM said:
It's interesting that many of the Spanish Ships-of-the-Line were built in Havana, Cuba. It's possible that these ships were built of Cuban wood. There's no telling about the paints available there.

Bill
Click to expand...
it was not paint (the way we know paints) it was called white stuff as Brian mentioned in the above post. The white stuff was made from whale or fish oil, pine pitch (questionable?), and sulfur. Also, lead was used to protect against worms and other life organisms.
 
Bryian said:
Would assume it was yellow ochre paint for the decoration. The ship would also have a protective coating on the hull like white stuff to stop worm and barnacle attacks.
Click to expand...
If those barnacles can attack the hull that far above the waterline in the ochre areas, they're a hell of a lot tougher than I thought... :D
 
Jimsky said:
it was not paint (the way we know paints) it was called white stuff as Brian mentioned in the above post. The white stuff was made from whale or fish oil, pine pitch (questionable?), and sulfur. Also, lead was used to protect against worms and other life organisms.
Click to expand...
I understand that the lower hull was coated with "white stuff" but the upper half was painted.

Bill
 
WilliamM said:
I understand that the lower hull was coated with "white stuff" but the upper half was painted.

Bill
Click to expand...
... yes, it was painted. The paint was very expensive and oftentimes, the ship was painted with only available at that time paint. Oftentimes, painting is done while the ship in the voyage, therefore use only paint available. The ship could be re-painted many times.
 
DARIVS ARCHITECTVS said:
was the Santa Ana of 1784 was painted.....or not?
Click to expand...
I think it depends ......

first of all -> under waterline?

Was she already coppered? when the Santa Ana was launched copper sheating was up to date and already used - I know, that the english navy coppered at this period more or less all vessels, or definitely ongoing to refitt all ships of the line - I am not aware about the spanish ships......

A sistership of the Santa Ana, the Principe de Asturias was coppered in 1798 (I have no other info from the other sisters) so 3 years after her launch

Screenshot 2024-05-27 090215.png

Spanish First Rate ship of the line 'Principe de Asturias' (1794)

Spanish First Rate ship of the line 'Principe de Asturias' (1794). Dates of service, name changes, previous and next incarnations, dimensions, armament, commanders, officers and crewmen, actions, battles, sources
threedecks.org

So means, that, if you want to show the Santa Ana during her Trafalgar time in 1805, I am pretty sure, that she was coppered under the waterline.
Directly after her launching, she was maybe already coppered or had the white stuff.

second -> painting schema above the waterline

I know, that the english had over the time a defined painting schema - or was it only with Nelson who gave Hardy the order to paint the Victory in Occre and black? Defintely later on there was an order to paint black and whit strips
But I think to remember, that such painting schemas were relatively late.......

And the spanish were different, so I am only able to guess - in 1784 she was maybe unpainted, in 1805 maybe painted with this red - black strips
 
bhc0542.jpg

The Battle of Trafalgar, 21 October 1805: 'The Close of the Action' [position of the fleets at 4.30 p.m.]​

This is a small replica of the painting that Huggins executed for King William IV in 1837, when it was also exhibited at the British Institution. It shows the position of the fleets at 4.30 on the evening of 21 October in a rising gale. Huggins had already done a pair of large paintings of Trafalgar for the King, shown at Exeter Hall in 1834. The prime version of this one, which is chronologically the middle of the three subjects, seems to have been a separate commission. It has now emerged that it is an oil copy, with very slight variations, of a watercolour by Lieutenant Paul Harris Nicolas (1790-1860), who served as a 2nd lieutenant on the 74-gun 'Belleisle' at Trafalgar and was also a younger brother of (Sir) Nicholas Harris Nicolas, later editor of Nelson's dispatches.

Inscriptions along the lower edge of the watercolour's frame identify the ships shown: to the left in stern view in the distance the French 'Redoutable', 74, lashed alongside the British 'Temeraire', 98, with the 'Fougueux' 74, on the latter's right but hidden by the dismasted hulk of the 'Santa Ana', 112, taken by the 'Royal Sovereign', Collingwood's 100-gun flagship. This is the principal subject in port-bow view, centre left, with only her foremast standing. To her right are Rear-Admiral Dumanoir and four French ships escaping southward, with 'Victory' in distant starboard-quarter view. An unnamed captured French ship is next, in stern view slightly to port with only mainmast standing, then the bow of the 'Santisima Trinidad', 130, in starboard view with the stern (in port-quarter view) of the 'Nepture' 98 beyond and the 'Leviathan', 74, at the far right edge of the composition.

Nicolas is known to have done at least one other watercolour of the battle, showing the situation of the 'Belleisle' at 1.00 p.m. but the dates of execution are not known. He became full lieutenant in July 1808, served at Basque Roads in 1810 and went onto half-pay in September 1814. He lived to receive the Naval General Sevice medal and also wrote a history of the Royal Marines.

Creator:Huggins, William John
Events:Napoleonic Wars: Battle of Trafalgar, 1805
Date made:After 1837

The Battle of Trafalgar, 21 October 1805: 'The Close of the Action' [position of the fleets at 4.30 p.m.] | Royal Museums Greenwich

www.rmg.co.uk www.rmg.co.uk
 
BTW: Do you know this drawing? Maybe interesting

Santa Ana.jpg

Unnamed 112-gun Spanish three-decker (no date)​

Graduated Bar Scale. Plan showing the body plan, sheer lines with inboard detail, and longitudinal half-breadth for an unnamed Spanish 112-gun three-decker. Spain built a number of 112-gun warships of which five were built at Ferrol, where Julian Martin de Retamosa was the shipbuilder. These included the 'Purisma Concepcion', 'San Jose' (1783), 'Santa Ana', 'Salvador del Mundo' (1787), and 'Reina Luisa'. It is possible that this plan was never approved or used to construct a 112-gun three-decker.

Signed by Julian Martin de Retamosa [Shipbuilder and designer, and Lieutenant General of the Spanish Royal Navy].

Unnamed 112-gun Spanish three-decker (no date) | Royal Museums Greenwich

www.rmg.co.uk www.rmg.co.uk
 
Uwek said:
I think it depends ......

first of all -> under waterline?

Was she already coppered? when the Santa Ana was launched copper sheating was up to date and already used - I know, that the english navy coppered at this period more or less all vessels, or definitely ongoing to refitt all ships of the line - I am not aware about the spanish ships......

A sistership of the Santa Ana, the Principe de Asturias was coppered in 1798 (I have no other info from the other sisters) so 3 years after her launch

View attachment 449719

Spanish First Rate ship of the line 'Principe de Asturias' (1794)

Spanish First Rate ship of the line 'Principe de Asturias' (1794). Dates of service, name changes, previous and next incarnations, dimensions, armament, commanders, officers and crewmen, actions, battles, sources
threedecks.org

So means, that, if you want to show the Santa Ana during her Trafalgar time in 1805, I am pretty sure, that she was coppered under the waterline.
Directly after her launching, she was maybe already coppered or had the white stuff.

second -> painting schema above the waterline

I know, that the english had over the time a defined painting schema - or was it only with Nelson who gave Hardy the order to paint the Victory in Occre and black? Defintely later on there was an order to paint black and whit strips
But I think to remember, that such painting schemas were relatively late.......

And the spanish were different, so I am only able to guess - in 1784 she was maybe unpainted, in 1805 maybe painted with this red - black strips
Click to expand...
The fact that the ship was in Cuban waters at all strongly supports the use of white stuff, and especially copper sheathing if the Spanish could afford it. teredo worms love warm waters.
 
Found some new information. This (flawed) English translation was posted on the Artesania Latina website concerning the hull of the Santa Ana. It suggests that copper sheathing was added or replaced on the Santa Ana after the Battle of Trafalger.

"The Santa Ana in Trafalgar is left with extremely significant damage: the rudder is practically unusable, the stern almost does not exist and its decks are in broad daylight. The British take the ship, but the Spanish with the help of ship Rayo manage to raise their flag again. Known (knowing) the terrible state of the ship, the French frigate Thetis tows it to Cádiz to fix itself. (At) The La Carraca arsenal (Santa Ana) entered the dock on February 20th 1806, where it was completely repaired and even included a new copper lining. On December 9th Santa Ana is ready to sail again."

However this Weapons and Warfare Article states that copper sheathing was applied in September, 1798:

"In 1794 the ship was given a full careen at La Carraca, rearmed in January 1797 and stationed at Cadiz. It was with the fleet blockaded in Cadiz in February 1798. In September that year it was careened again at La Carraca and copper sheathing was applied to the bottom. On 21 July 1799 it grounded at the Rota naval base but was refloated. A new keel was fitted in the course of 1800, and Santa Ana remained on service until 1802, when it was again disarmed. Most of its time until 1805 as spent disarmed either through being laid off or having repairs and maintenance; its periods of activity totaled approximately five years out of twenty-one. Disarming meant the removal of everything not integral to the hull structure, including the lower masts, bowsprit and ballast. Everything else was removed and stored away, including the rudder.

In the Battle of Trafalgar, Santa Ana carried the flag of Vice-Admiral Alava and was captained by Jose Gardoqui. It seems it was painted white with black stripes, though some accounts state it was wholly black. Its position in the Combined Fleet’s line brought it against the British fleet’s lee division, headed by HMS Royal Sovereign, flagship of Vice-Admiral Collingwood, under whose drills the ship’s gunnery was the best in the British fleet. Royal Sovereign crossed just abaft of Santa Ana and fired a double-shotted broadside into the stern, which put 14 guns out of action and caused many casualties. The two ships were then locked together for a time, with Royal Sovereign against Santa Ana’s starboard bow, in a devastating cross-fire that continued for almost two hours. ‘They fought us pretty tightish’, reported a British midshipman. Santa Ana’s mizzen topmast was shot away, and after about an hour and a quarter all its three masts had fallen over. At about 14:20 it struck to Royal Sovereign."

I am leaning toward believing the Weapons and Warfare article, knowing how often ship model companies get their facts wrong, and the stipes on the hull should probably be white, not ocher.
 
Last edited:
IainCleland said:
What is with this blue paint that I see on many kits, where did this idea come from?
Click to expand...
Who knows? People play with colours! Often resulting with a build that looks toy like!! So unless somebody can find a blue one in a contemporary painting it's builders choice (but not my taste!)
 
Hello everyone,
Information obtained from the book: MODELS OF ARSENAL FROM THE NAVAL MUSEUM: EVOLUTION OF SPANISH NAVAL CONSTRUCTION, 17TH-18TH CENTURIES
MuseoNaval1.jpg
About Santa Ana:
SantaAna1.jpg
In the text, it can be read: the hull painted with black and yellow stripes or almazarrón, as was regulated in the Spanish Navy starting from 1810.
Almazarrón is a color red iron oxide.
 
Jimsky said:
The white stuff was made from whale or fish oil, pine pitch (questionable?), and sulfur.
Click to expand...

I think more likely was linseed oil, and pine resin - or copal resin imported along with spices - the linseed- resin mix was boiled together until adding a little while lead oxide and turpentine to a sample made a paint that would actually dry. Without the white lead it made a slow-drying clear varnish. Sulfur is a possible addition, as is arsenic, but sulfur not commonly used since it tends to react very slowly with while lead and produce dirty black lead sulfide. Worth noting that varnish cooking was a common source of fires in paint works, since they used coal or wood-fired ovens with open posts of boiling inflammables on top, The Elf And Safety Elf was yet to be employed.
 
Not sure if this will help but it's an extract from Alejandro Yanez booklet re San Juan Nepomuceno and references Spanish Royal ships of the Trafalgar period. ( :) I used Google translate)

HISTORIA DEL NAVÍO "SAN JUAN NEPOMUCENO"
ordinances of the Corps of Marine Engineers:

"Ordinance of Her Majesty for the best service of the Corps of Marine Engineers in the Departments and on Board of War Ships, Year 1772" San Ildefonso, August 13, 1772.

Article 145. Each Ship will be painted equally every two years,

Frigate and other War Vessels, pontoons and Machines. The Commanding Engineer will observe that no other color is used in the exterior size, and stripes, other than yellow and black; the Entre-Bridges, and Castle with red earth, the Chambers colored porcelain and blue, unless there is a particular order from me to vary it on some Ship.

The Boats will also be painted yellow and black on the outside; inside red, aft porcelain, and her Shield as usual: the masts, Booms, and Vessels of the same colors yellow, and black, the color of the Boats.


In 1776, "His Majesty's Ordinance for the best method of preserving the stores of ships of the Royal Navy and military command of naval arsenals" was published. (Madrid Naval Museum Library, Ref. BMN-2335) In Title XXIII, Article 627 it says:

Each ship will be painted equally every two years,

frigate and other war vessels that need it. The General Engineer will observe that no other color is used in the exterior size and stripes than yellow and black: in the chambers, porcelain and blue; and in the between decks and castle the red earth, unless there is a particular order from me to vary it on a ship.

The feluccas of the General Commander of the department, Mayor and General Engineering, will be painted green; the boats on the outside, their masts, botabaras and vicheros of yellow and black and the interior of roxa unlike the stern which must be made of porcelain with the shield of my Royal Arms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top