Scratch Building the Portuguese Carrack in 1/700th Scale

[callen]

Amazingly the sail survived the crumpling! I had tried to create a film of titebond over the decal to help it stick. The decal remained fused with the paper and came through without distortion. What's more the sail now had a nice wrinkly texture you sometimes see on old sails.

Here it is 'dry fitted' to the ship.

Here it is after experimentation...

The yellow color at the top was part of the pattern of the paper towel.

Ok. Now time for a more serious effort. What would happen if I combined paper towel and tissue paper?

Hmm...

Not working out very well. The tissue paper disintegrated in the water.

[callen]

The next day by chance I stumbled on this product at the local Hobby Lobby:

I had never noticed it before, but it seemed to have interesting properties, and it was on clearance. Something told me I ought to buy it, so I did. I also picked up some of this:

I thought it would be interesting to see how the flat gel worked in combination with these other materials. In addition I knew I needed a flat finish that was NOT a Lacquer so that I could seal and anchor my little superstructure color triangles.

I decided now I would try to make a proper sail with a red Iberian cross on it.

Insignia red decal bits from which I would create the cross.

Separating the 2 plys of the paper towel...

Composing the cross. I took the precaution of hand brushing some Future Floor Wax onto the decal before applying it, in order to give it strength. So far so good...

I decided to use tissue paper for the upper layer this time, in hopes that the decal would show through clearly. It did, but the tissue paper, once again was so weak that it began to break up above the layer of paper towel. I decided this sail was a failure because of the tissue paper breaking up, and set it aside to discard later...

[callen]

Ok... A second attempt at making a sail. This would be another 'scratch sail,' just to see if the materials would work. I also wanted to try adding rigging to the sail. This time NO TISSUE PAPER... a material best left to its original purpose. I decided this time I would use the tissue tape and see how it worked.

Here I actually placed the decal still on the backing paper beneath the tape. I then slid the paper out from under the decal. The face of the decal adhered to the sticky tape!

About this same time I also began creating a second cross sail. This time I wanted the cross to be 'hollow,' which I thought would look 'smarter' but would require more elements.

This was amazingly difficult to do! The hardest decal job I've ever tried. The decals literally disintegrated once they hit the wet paper towel. I don't know if the titebond caused them to break up, or if the stickiness of the surface caused it. However, I was able to maneuver the broken pieces into shape more or less. Not perfect...

Just as I finished this sail, I looked over at the 'discarded' first cross sail and noticed it had dried. It was now very durable, and, except for a few rough bits of tissue paper on the surface which could be knifed off, very workable, both flexible and strong.
I decided to create a jig on which I could attempt to reshape the sails and hopefully give them that 3d round effect that I wanted. Here's the jig:

The idea was to re-wet the sail and shape it to the jig. As I did this it began to wrinkle at the bottom. I decided to cut out little thin wedges in the hopes of reducing the shape there and then fusing the cut edges back together.
I apparently did not take pics of the sail on the jig, but suffice it to say, I was not able to create the 3d effect perfectly with the jig. Some of the cuts did not refuse, and the sail as a whole retains its 2d shape.

Here are all the sails created so far.

The stripe sail combined decal, paper towel, acrylic matte gel (no titebond) and a rigging line. All of it worked. It could be folded and bent without the line working loose. Just to be safe I added another layer of tissue tape on top of the line. The decal was between a layer of tissue tape and paper towel, so I knew it wouldn't go anywhere. There was also tissue tape on the back, and another over the rigging 'seam.' I didn't like the white color though, and decided to go back to titebond. Also, with four layers of material (3 tissue tape + paper towel) it was starting to get kind of thick

I had just enough time in the evening for one more sail...

[callen]

This time I thought I would lay the decal directly onto the measuring cup, in hopes that the decal elements would not disintegrate on application as they had with my other 'hollow' cross. I would then lay the tissue tape on top of the decal, and it would adhere to the decal tape and come right off the cup in one piece. I could then set that layer aside and concentrate on the layer that would carry the rigging line. Also I wanted to make a correct Spanish Cross this time (four equal arms) and do a full rigging line 'seam' job.

The cross came off perfectly on to the tape. I was very happy.
Next step, the 'seam' layer.

Getting these seam lines straight caused me a lot of problems. A little of this and I started to go nuts!

Here the two elements are finally brought together. At this point I had been working on this one sail for more than four hours. Taping down each seam line individually just did not work. I knew if I attempted this technique again I would have to create a jig for the parallel lines.
Here is the completed sail:

[callen]

So, that's the end result of my scratch built sail adventure so far. The sails look pretty good and are both strong and thin. I'm trying to think of a material that has the same consistency. They're almost like plastic paper. They can be torn, but do not tear easily. Both the decals and the internal rigging stay in place and are secure. The only real problem is that I still haven't been able to create the 3d shape I originally set out to do. I have an idea how I could do this, but I'm not sure I can do it and have the internal rigging seams that I do with these. It may be a trade off between the two kinds of details. Also, these are very labor intensive to create so far. I'm a little worried about that aspect. This isn't the only model I want to build in this life.

If anyone has any thoughts on how to create 3d sails, I'm interested!

[callen]

You missed your calling as a cardiac surgeon for fleas sir! What sort of optics do you use?

Hey Cliff!
Thank you sir!
You caught me in the middle of uploading. I use my eyes and don't wear glasses. I don't use a magnifying glass for any of this, though I have a mag/lamp combo. I'm 39 and my eyes are good right now. I hope they stay that way for a while. God willing I'll have a few years at this scale before I have to start buying and building bigger.

[callen]

Another update...

Having carved out a place for a weather deck in the waist of the hull for 'Fatty' (wide beam carrack hull) the next step was to install the deck itself.

Not a particularly good fit, but fixable.

Filling in the cavity beneath the deck...

Now to attempt to make a crescent or 'horseshoe deck' which I had seen Tom Lindsay create plank by plank in his Venetian Carrack build. I thought it would be easier to use the same grooved plastic product I had used for the decks, so I proceeded on that basis.

Here are the two halves layered back-to-back with double-sided scotch tape. This would ensure that mirror halves would be created...

[callen]

Seemed to be working ok. I glued the two pieces to a single super thin piece of styrene so that they became one piece. However, if I do cast a single horseshoe deck for both Fatty and the San Bruno hulls, they will need to be trimmed and shaped differently, due to the different geometry of the two ships.... It may be better to scratch them from styrene on a custom basis after I have cast the completed masters for both carrack hulls.

Cannon ball linear stowage boards using the glass beads...

Time to make a proper carrack fore-castle of the North European type (a la Mary Rose)

Roughed out block posed with the Bruno hull...

Shaping. Adding material to the back.

Adding the 'wales'...

[callen]

A dry fit 'deck up' of the fatty hull with the large forecastle. Problem is, the forecastle is still missing one deck... Already it looks a little on the big side.

'Deck up' on the Bruno hull. The Bruno hull sits lower, so the castle doesn't teeter quite so high in the air. Proportion is a very tricky thing with these ships.

BMK custom parts sent to me by my friend Bruno Gire in France. Can't believe how fine these parts are! Two sizes of cannons, tapered yards and mast-tops plus ribbed breech-loader 'stock' which I will cast and cut into breech-loader cannons later. More shots...

Yes, there is a muzzle in the end of that thing. But will it cast in Resin? Either way, hats off to Mr Burkhardt Masch!

I grew up with a fellow named Kevin Holtan, who is now a jeweler in Texas. We got hooked up this last fall and I showed him what I had been up to. He was kind enough to hand make this cannon for me from silver. I thought I would compare them to the BMK barrels which were done on 'specs' created by Bruno Gire. Kevin's cannon looks like a bombard in comparison to the BMK guns. I am grateful to have both types on hand.

Here is a BMK barrel laid where the completed cannon will be mounted when I am able to complete the builds. Alas... the cannon balls are way oversized. Not sure what I will use to replace them.

The smaller sized BMK cannon perched atop the Beja forecastle. One clutzy move and that tiny perfect custom cannon would have been lost in the carpet abyss... In reality this cannon would probably have been too heavy to mount so high in the ship, but it is very tempting, nevertheless.

[callen]

Two different 'Nao' type forecastles (open deck wedge) one with a base which creates sheer, so that the Bruno hull can have a forecastle sheer option once cast. The 'Fatty' hull has 'built' in sheer, but I am planning to cast several hulls and sand off the sheer in a few cases, in order to create individual variations between the ships. The plan is to make numerous casts of each hull and then model a 'flota' or squadron of some sort. Since each ship is quite small with few parts this shouldn't be too difficult...(fingers crossed...)

Have now added the gunwales and upper level to the forecastle superstructure. In reality the highest level is a separate block which will be cast separately and can be added or left off, again to create options and variations between multiple models. The problem is the forecastle now seems quite large... perhaps too large.

After this shot was taken, I decided to sand down the forecastle block, removing some material from the bottom and making it marginally shorter, but it still seems massive, and perhaps too top-heavy. Opinions would be welcome on this issue.

Fatty with the completed forecastle pieces dry fitted. This is way too high. One option is to sand off height from the hull cast, which I may experiment with.

That's all for now...

[Guido]

Neal-
This is nothing short of S_P_E_C_T_A_C_U_L_A_R!

Well done, indeed!
Guido

[maxim]

Yo, that is really fascinating! Your method to make these decorations is very interesting.

Burkhard also excelled himself with these guns!

[carr]

I love the older sailing ships and to see this rendered in this scale is just amazing. Well done!

I'm not, in any way, a student of this time period but I've always been bothered by the artistic depictions of carracks as having such extreme curvature of the sheer line that the forward and aft sheer lines approach parallel! What I've found is that the paintings and drawings seem to display extreme curvature and exaggerated forecastle and stern heights while scholarly representations seem to be much "tamer".

Here is an example of the extreme type of drawing where the ship almost looks to be folded in half and the angle of decks at the fore and aft ends is such that crew must have been at continual risk of sliding off!

Carrack4.jpg

Here's a somewhat more moderate example of a painting which shows extreme fore and aft height such that it looks like a tunnel was carved sideways through the ship.

Carrack2.jpg

Here's an example of a more researched (before you ask, I don't know the source) representation. Note the much flatter overall look.

Carrack1.jpg

And, finally, here's a middle of the road representation.

Carrack3.jpg

Of course, the term carrack represents a wide range of variations so perhaps all are plausible? Personally, the extreme depictions strike me as topheavy, unstable, and impractical. I'm more inclined to accept the flatter versions but, as I said, I've not made a study of this period to be able to offer any kind of informed opinion.

So, to address your concern about the size/height of your foreward works, I agree that it looks a bit extreme but there's certainly enough "evidence" to take it in whatever direction you wish.

Thanks for sharing and I look forward to seeing more.

[callen]

Neal-
This is nothing short of S_P_E_C_T_A_C_U_L_A_R!

Well done, indeed!
Guido

Thank you Guido! Much appreciated.

Yo, that is really fascinating! Your method to make these decorations is very interesting.

Burkhard also excelled himself with these guns!

Thank you Maxim. The real 'icing' as far as the decorations goes is still yet to come. My friend Bruno Gire is preparing as we speak a custom photo etch set including superstructure paneling. Very excited about this! I will post pics as soon as I get them.

I love the older sailing ships and to see this rendered in this scale is just amazing. Well done!

I'm not, in any way, a student of this time period but I've always been bothered by the artistic depictions of carracks as having such extreme curvature of the sheer line that the forward and aft sheer lines approach parallel! What I've found is that the paintings and drawings seem to display extreme curvature and exaggerated forecastle and stern heights while scholarly representations seem to be much "tamer".

Hello Carr. Thanks for posting. I agree with you. The question is, which one is right? The Artists or the Scholars? On the side of the scholarly representations, they are working from a knowledge of how ships work, hydrodynamically and aerodynamically, and, in some cases have the remains of actual ships to study and determine building practices. Unfortunately, almost always, there is only the lower part of the ship that survives.

On the side of the period depictions we are speaking of people who actually saw these ships in the flesh. The drawback, in regards to the period artist's depictions are 1. Did he have understanding of Naval Architecture and Ship Rigging? 2. Did he have the opportunity to draw, paint, or carve 'from life'? and 3. What are the limitations of his medium, the scale of the depiction, and the purpose for the artifact? In the case of, say a Medieval Cog on a Hanseatic coin, it might look round, to the point of almost literally a banana shape. This may partly be the misconception of the artist, it might also equally be because he is putting a ship on a round coin, and trying to fill a circular space with it.

Here is an example of the extreme type of drawing where the ship almost looks to be folded in half and the angle of decks at the fore and aft ends is such that crew must have been at continual risk of sliding off!

Carrack4.jpg

Here's a somewhat more moderate example of a painting which shows extreme fore and aft height such that it looks like a tunnel was carved sideways through the ship.

Carrack2.jpg

Here's an example of a more researched (before you ask, I don't know the source) representation. Note the much flatter overall look.

Carrack1.jpg

And, finally, here's a middle of the road representation.

Carrack3.jpg

Of course, the term carrack represents a wide range of variations so perhaps all are plausible? Personally, the extreme depictions strike me as topheavy, unstable, and impractical. I'm more inclined to accept the flatter versions but, as I said, I've not made a study of this period to be able to offer any kind of informed opinion.

So, to address your concern about the size/height of your foreward works, I agree that it looks a bit extreme but there's certainly enough "evidence" to take it in whatever direction you wish.

I really appreciate you posting these and beginning this discussion. This is part of the reason I'm posting this build at all, I'd like not only to show what I've done, but to learn and improve. Let me tell you some of my thinking and maybe we can see together if it 'holds water.'

I've been looking at these ships and thinking about them and what they might actually have been like even longer than I've been modeling (as an adult.) My initial impression (like you) was that they were absurd. They certainly look absurd from a modern point of view. But as I began to read about these ships, how they were used, and why they were built the way they were built I began to reconsider the issue of sheer and superstructure height. As I understand it (and anyone with knowledge feel free to correct me) carracks were conceived in an era in which sailing technology and ship design had improved immensely, but combat was still primarily a question of soldiers fighting soldiers, rather than ships fighting ships. The chief aim during the era of carrack warfare was to board and capture the enemy vessel, not to destroy it. On land at the time, the way to defeat an enemy in a fortified position, say a castle or walled town, was to build siege towers and roll them up to the enemy walls. The enemy of course would attempt to repel the attacking towers, but it was very much men on towers fighting men on walls. So these very same soldiers, when it came to thinking of warfare on the Sea, naturally transplanted these ideas to a nautical environment. This means that a carrack, essentially is a siege tower with sails, with the difference being that it is a question of siege towers versus siege towers, rather than towers verses castles.

Now there's no doubt in my mind that most, if not all carracks built during this period were terrible sailers, probably requiring tremendous skill just to keep on course and very very slow. But then again, that wasn't the point. From the point of view of the soldiers (lords and knights and dukes etc.) the only thing that mattered was getting your carrack close enough to the enemy's carrack to board and capture the ship. Not only that, but the 'enemy' was usually one's neighbor, close at hand, which did not require long voyaging, and thus, a great deal of seaworthiness. It also didn't require logical or comfortable accomodations. A high-sheered stern was an easy way to raise the height of the commanding officer and give him a better view of the ship's heading, as well as the surrounding sea. It didn't need to be comfortable. He would be quartered on a lower deck, and, at any rate, only as long as was needed to cross the straits of Gibraltar and fight the Moroccans, or across the Adriatic to fight the Turks, or across the Channel to fight the British, (or the French...) If you think about IJN cruiser designs that went into combat seriously top-heavy, and US destroyers being loaded down with more and more weaponry, with the same results, and that Renaissance Military Commanders had even less understanding or experience with geocentric height and ship stability, and even more motivation to build their ships high, the towering, absurd-looking carrack begins to make sense, not from the point of view of ignorance or tradition, but from the point of view of their needs and expectations. I expect that Lord Admirals of the era would have put sailing qualities very much below fighting qualities, and would have been more than willing to push the stability of a ship to its very limits in favor of men and weaponry. All that mattered was winning the fight. That, after all, is what these ships were for.

From the point of view of late medieval warfare the shape of the high-charged carrack made perfect sense. The wasp-waist is the funnel into which the enemies boarding parties will naturally be channeled in a fight, and, once there, trapped between the murderous overhead crossfire of the fore and aft castles. Much better (but much more difficult) to get atop one of the castles of the enemy's ships, but this requires that your ship be taller... or else a lot of luck... or both.

What is absurd about the Carrack is that the ship itself incorporated two technologies that would eventually transform both the ship itself and the way that ships were used. One of them was the hybrid square/lateen sailing rig that made it possible for the first time in history to build a ship that could sail anywhere in the world, and thus capture, supply and defend territory anywhere in the world. What the builders of the carracks did not realize was that this would require long distance sailing, a navigation revolution, a logistics infrastructure, and permanent standing professional navy. It would also make Global Empires possible.

The other technology was Gunpowder, which, as anyone in our time can see made nonsense of high, lightly built wooden towers filled with pikemen and arquebusiers, etc. On land gunpowder technology changed the shape of cities, from the high curtain wall of stone of the Medieval Castle, to the low star-shaped ramparts of the Renaissance Fort. On water it produced the Galleon. From that point, warship design was evolutionary� the 16th Century Galleon gave way to the 17th Century Great Ship to the 18th Century Man-o-War, which was clad with Iron in the 19th Century, given turrets and boilers and screws, and emerged in the 20th Century as the Dreadnought.

None of this answers the question 'how high' or 'how much sheer.' I have to say though there is a sense of satisfaction in attempting to realize these ships in 3d as they were depicted in their own era. The carrack offends our modern sensibilities for designing ships that are rational and functional� not to mention seaworthy. I think that's what's makes scholars skeptical of period depictions. To us building a ship for long distance travel and long term habitation is a matter of course, but, I suspect for the average Renaissance battle commander, didn't make any more sense than building a posh siege tower� you're only in it as long as you need to be.

Having said that the sheer probably IS often exaggerated, particularly if we imagine an artist in a boat looking UP at a nearby anchored ship as he sketched it. The sheer would naturally seem exaggerated at close quarters looming overhead. Only in places like Malta could an artist really have a good clear view of his subject, looking down from a high hill etc. I think also it's possible that sheer varied from place to place, shipwright to shipwright, and also depended a great deal on the necessities or prejudices of whoever was paying for the ship to begin with. One additional comment I have read from scholars is that rigging is often schematized by non-sailor artists who did not understand the operations of a sailing ship, which means a depiction with accurate rigging (such as a Breugel) is probably more trustworthy in other details as well.

That is the state of my thinking, at any rate. I've gone on at length here because I really want to know if it holds up. I'm not an expert, these are all just assumptions on my part... I guess you would call it 'armchair-shipbuilding...' or something like that.

[kennylibben]

I want to start out by saying that I have always been a huge fan of itsy bitsy teeny weeny models of sailing ships. I just love them! So naturally, I love this thread! Amazing detail!

Perhaps for your next build, you could do a diorama of the Battle of Lake Erie? Or perhaps the Bonhomme Richard taking on the Serapis?

[carr]

Callen,

Your summary of carracks, their design basis, and use was, according to everything I've read, completely correct and I agree 100%. So, the question becomes what level of accuracy to ascribe to the contemporary paintings/drawings. Now I'll tell you how I reconcile the scholarly versions with the drawings, at least in my mind, and you can tell me what you think. The underlying premise is that both are representing a real object, and in fact, the same object so, since they differ markedly, one of them must be wrong. The appealing logic is to trust the contemporary drawings since the artist was looking at the actual ship when he drew it. On the other hand, the researchers, while working off limited physical evidence are making objective (meaning no pre-conceived notion of how it should turn out) extrapolations based on a variety of sources of information. So, why the extreme difference? For the answer, I look to the history of art, in general. Throughout time (meaning from the era of carracks til now) the artistic community has moved from phase (or style, if you will) to phase. I'm not a trained artist so I can't rattle off the various phases or styles that have come and gone. But as an example, consider the term "Ruebenesque" which described an early (Rennaisance? not sure, I'm not an art historian) style of painting of women that greatly exaggerated their size and "roundness". Were women different then versus now? No, just the style of painting was different. Is there any evidence that maritime art underwent similar styles? Yes, various maritime artists and time periods produced differing styles of drawing. If you look at a general ship history book, you can trace out the evolution of drawing from simplistic to stylized (meaning a somewhat caricature-like representation intended to emphasize certain features of interest) to realistic. In fact, drawings from the carrack era are considered to be somewhat stylized versus realistic. For instance, look closely at the persepective lines for a typical carrack drawing and you'll see that the persepectives (vanishing points) are grossly inconsistent, planes of sight are not even close to parallel, etc. In other words, the maritime drawings of the time were stylized to appeal to (or in response to) customer desires. Further circumstantial evidence supports the conclusion of stylization: as mentioned, the decks are too slanted to allow soldiers to stand, wood cannot be bent into the extreme sheer curves in the drawings (planks would have had to be about a foot long to be able to "track" the sheer line which would result in unworkable gaps). Look at the drawing example that I posted and project the plane of the stem back through the stern. If the drawing is "realistic" then the ship is twisted about 45 degrees around its longitudinal axis in order to be able to have the view of the stern decks that the drawing shows. Was the real ship twisted? No, of course not. The drawing is obviously stylized.

As an aside, somewhere around the late 1600's or early 1700's the first artist generally recognized to produce realistic maritime art began drawing ships. I forget his name but I think he may have been Dutch???

Even as recently as the mid to late 1700's, paintings of U.S. and British sailing ships were often far more stylized than realistic.

So, to sum up my long-winded explanation, my belief is that the contemporary drawings are wrong in the sense that they are stylized rather than realistic renderings. Thus, I would be inclined to follow the reconstructions more than the drawings. Having said that, I wouldn't fault anyone for "leaning" towards the drawings although I would suggest avoiding some of the more impossible aspects such as decks that are too steep to stand on.

What do you think? Does that make any sense to you?

Thanks,
Bob

[carr]

Callen,

And of course nothing I've said diminishes the WOW! factor from your modelling skills. WOW! At that scale? WOW!

Regards,
Bob

[callen]

I want to start out by saying that I have always been a huge fan of itsy bitsy teeny weeny models of sailing ships. I just love them! So naturally, I love this thread! Amazing detail!

Perhaps for your next build, you could do a diorama of the Battle of Lake Erie? Or perhaps the Bonhomme Richard taking on the Serapis?

Thank you sir! Very kind comments on your part and much appreciated. I had a suspicion when I started doing this that I wasn't the only one... Of course I had been inspired by Tom Lindsay, Maxim from Germany, Jim Baumann and many of the other 700th scale guys on this board. They were doing this when I didn't think I'd ever try it.

Funny you should mention the Serapis. About three weeks ago I was on the computer looking at some plans I had collected and suddenly had a bad bout of 'Frigate Fever...' I have acquired plans for the Constitution, the Serapis, the Leopard (larger than a Frigate but one of the foes of our tiny navy during the war of 1812) as well as numerous French Frigates... not to mention the AOTS HMS Victory... Yeesh.. there's just so many. I really really want to do some Mediterranean Galleys next, and also the Mary Rose and some contemporary Large Carracks... I also have projects in the works for the Solferino and Gloire classes of French Ironclads with Bruno Gire, which I may be posting soon, plus there is the Colossus Dio... but I do really want to try and do the Constitution this year, if I can get all of that other stuff out of the way. If I do a Frigate soon it will probably be her.

My long term ultimate goal is to have the entire history of Seapower on my shelf, from cavemen paddling logs to nuclear attack submarines� representative ships from all the major eras and maritime nations, ancient and modern� and all in the same scale� 1/700th scale, which makes sense both in terms of selection and in terms of space� no small consideration where I live! That's one of the reasons I'm scratching in 700th, because I want to incorporate the kits and the scratch builds into a single collection. I used to gripe and moan that the model companies lacked the gumption to go into these uncharted areas, and then quite unexpectedly I discovered I didn't need them to get me there� I could go there myself.

[callen]

Callen,

Your summary of carracks, their design basis, and use was, according to everything I've read, completely correct and I agree 100%.

That's good to know! Nice to know I drew the right conclusions.

So, the question becomes what level of accuracy to ascribe to the contemporary paintings/drawings. Now I'll tell you how I reconcile the scholarly versions with the drawings, at least in my mind, and you can tell me what you think. The underlying premise is that both are representing a real object, and in fact, the same object so, since they differ markedly, one of them must be wrong. The appealing logic is to trust the contemporary drawings since the artist was looking at the actual ship when he drew it. On the other hand, the researchers, while working off limited physical evidence are making objective (meaning no pre-conceived notion of how it should turn out) extrapolations based on a variety of sources of information. So, why the extreme difference? For the answer, I look to the history of art, in general. Throughout time (meaning from the era of carracks til now) the artistic community has moved from phase (or style, if you will) to phase. I'm not a trained artist so I can't rattle off the various phases or styles that have come and gone. But as an example, consider the term "Ruebenesque" which described an early (Rennaisance? not sure, I'm not an art historian) style of painting of women that greatly exaggerated their size and "roundness". Were women different then versus now? No, just the style of painting was different. Is there any evidence that maritime art underwent similar styles? Yes, various maritime artists and time periods produced differing styles of drawing. If you look at a general ship history book, you can trace out the evolution of drawing from simplistic to stylized (meaning a somewhat caricature-like representation intended to emphasize certain features of interest) to realistic. In fact, drawings from the carrack era are considered to be somewhat stylized versus realistic. For instance, look closely at the persepective lines for a typical carrack drawing and you'll see that the persepectives (vanishing points) are grossly inconsistent, planes of sight are not even close to parallel, etc. In other words, the maritime drawings of the time were stylized to appeal to (or in response to) customer desires. Further circumstantial evidence supports the conclusion of stylization: as mentioned, the decks are too slanted to allow soldiers to stand, wood cannot be bent into the extreme sheer curves in the drawings (planks would have had to be about a foot long to be able to "track" the sheer line which would result in unworkable gaps). Look at the drawing example that I posted and project the plane of the stem back through the stern. If the drawing is "realistic" then the ship is twisted about 45 degrees around its longitudinal axis in order to be able to have the view of the stern decks that the drawing shows. Was the real ship twisted? No, of course not. The drawing is obviously stylized.

As an aside, somewhere around the late 1600's or early 1700's the first artist generally recognized to produce realistic maritime art began drawing ships. I forget his name but I think he may have been Dutch???

Even as recently as the mid to late 1700's, paintings of U.S. and British sailing ships were often far more stylized than realistic.

So, to sum up my long-winded explanation, my belief is that the contemporary drawings are wrong in the sense that they are stylized rather than realistic renderings. Thus, I would be inclined to follow the reconstructions more than the drawings. Having said that, I wouldn't fault anyone for "leaning" towards the drawings although I would suggest avoiding some of the more impossible aspects such as decks that are too steep to stand on.

What do you think? Does that make any sense to you?

Thanks,
Bob

Well you've hit on the central issue for me... the angle of the decks. All of the other aspects of these ships, wide beam, high superstructures etc., can be rationalized. Creating 'Fatty' was for me a real test because this was the most extreme sheer I had yet built into a hull. In fact if you'll notice, both the Beja and 'San Bruno' hulls have level forecastles. What I wanted to do with Fatty was to simply create the full 'Renaissance Sheer' and just see if I could live with it, if, in 3D it looked completely ridiculous or if it was plausible at all. That's a big reason I'm posting this and desiring input. One thing I have discovered is that adjusting the sheer (for the forecastle anyway) is relatively easy. One needs only to sand down the angle of the gunwales and bow structure, setting whatever superstructure one wants on top is then a simple procedure. I have found evidence in contemporary depictions of forecastles matching the sheer of the hull lines, of reduced sheer, and even of no sheer.

I certainly agree that exaggeration exists in old pictures of ships, particularly from the medieval era. However, I also feel that scholars have been too conservative in their reconstructions. In defense of (a reasonable amount of sheer) I'd like to offer the Wasa, which had a greater amount of sheer than the scholars had believed she would. In fact, the Wasa shape matches in general the depictions of ships from that era in regards to sheer.

I'd also like to offer the following:

Both of these are by a Dutch artist named Breugel. It's kind of hard to tell from the small size of these pics but if you look close you can see some interesting details. Notice the accurate scale of the sailors. Notice also the faithful details of the rigging. The castle on the land, although somewhat stylized is dimensionally realistic. Breugel may be one of the artists you were thinking of. He was famous for the realism of his images, and he painted all kinds of things, not just, or even primarily ships. He had a meticulous approach to detail. I believe these two depictions to be accurate images of the carrack type. They do show sheer in both fore and aft castles, but not to the extreme degree you have rightly pointed out in other images.

So all that to say, we probably agree more or less, though we favor different sources. Having said that, I welcome more discussion on this point though, and by all means share with me any information you think relevant to this issue. I keep hoping some world renowned naval historian renaissance ship expert will post some vital information that will settle the question once and for all... You never know who you're going to bump into on the internet. So far, you're the closest I've found. If you have definite information that would de-bunk my preference for Breugel, I'm ready to hear it. The ultimate goal, of course, is to make these models as accurate as they can be. Thanks again for the commentary and the information.

[bgire]

Both of these are by a Dutch artist named Breugel

I feel very confident of rendering by Pieter Brueghel the Elder. In another completely different field I used his painting of the "Peasant Feast" to design and build an Hummelchen (a small indoor bagpipe) which worked perfectly!
_Bruno