H.M.S. Prince -The Final Modification/ Rex Stewart

It is not surprising to find builders frustrated when it comes to rigging. In my forty-plus years as a professional, this was (and is) one of the principle subjects many have been at odds with. Not just with themselves, but with other professionals and hobbyists.

Many will argue that 'sailing' ships are not attractive with sails because it 'hides' rigging. Yet one of the main factors for this system remains to be the 'sails'! And there is a method for bringing out the best in any model once the science is studied and worked upon. It doesn't happen overnight...And for those who claim they have expertise with this after building a few pieces; well that assessment is void.

Another argument/debate that comes to mind is the theory that ships were built without blueprints. That shipwrights calculated 'everything' in their head. That is sheer foolishness -and not to be embraced by anyone with commonsense. However, this is part of the maritime circles that continue this 'theory'.

Blueprints are the essence of the builder. Without them nothing is accomplished.

History, unfortunately has a universal way of hiding truth and I realize that the only viable way to discover (truth) is to divorce the politics and focus on the purity of research. Real answers are found when biases are quelled. One of the reasons I produce some of the most exciting models today is primarily due to sound doctrine and research from the sources I investigate. 

In this image, the rigging is not obscured by the sails...

Nor in this image.

Below, I show the dynamics of sail setting -where the variations bring realism to the subject. It's in this artificial form that my viewers (and collectors) find the perfect balance. However, this is predicated on research as to how ships appeared in wind under full and/or partial sail. 

With this focus in mind, I return back to rigging tables -exploring areas of rig that I found questionable relative to belay systems; especially at the quarter and mizzen decks. There seem to be much confusion in these two areas

There exist no drawings and/or paintings that clearly defines this. And of the contemporary work(s) I reviewed, I wasn't able to acquire correct fall lines that were compatible to the ship's design. That alone, pushed me to rewrite the script concerning their true location(s) from a logical stance. Of course I tossed 'debates' to the wind because those were distractions which was based on "cognitive dissonance". And of such I have, nor take no part.

In this image I am resizing the plastic lateen sail which I will later customize from treated paper. I am also locating the various rigging points on this sail to transfer to the custom sail so that the lines will fall accurately to the belays pins on deck. Much of my concern are on the brail system, as I have not found any satisfactory model showing this to be compatible to the Prince design. There had to be leeway and room for hauling up this large sail so not to conflict with the large topsail above it.

Percival Marshall's 1937 plan is the best reference that makes any sense to this perculiar design of the poop and quarter decks. From his perspective, it made sense that the forward brails would lead from the spar to the last shroud and down to the belay pin rail 'within' the ship -not on the actual top rail as seen on many contemporary models. Builders are not taking the time to assess scale to embrace this truth. Percival , being notably famous for his engineering proved this finding to be correct...and it is shown on my model, in kind.

This waterline view show the lateen sail set in a swift breeze with the forward brails leading through the blocks and connecting with the blocks on the last shroud. Notice that there are no pins on any of the rail area at the main mast to the stern area where the ensign is flying.

Port stern profile showing the brail leads to the main shroud. The lateen mizzen sheets also fall to the pin rail within the quarter deck bulwarks (away from the guns). Based on scale, it would be impossible for crew to reach and effectively secure these lines to pins on top of the bulwark. However, at the forecastle such was possible as I have shown in prior images.

Before rigging is complete, gallery windows are prioritized; especially since some lines will conflict with gold leaf in those areas where shrouds, sheets, lanyards and braces are located. Not to mention the backstays and halyard tackles.

Here the gallery windows are displayed in good order -placed and readdressed with gold leaf. 

As aforementioned, lines should not conflict with each other -leading through and around the tops down to their proper pins without fouling (as shown in this image). Also, based on the railing system (and scale)...notice the pinrails at the companionway before the stairs. The lines are clean and fall there without fouling. Furthermore the scale of the bulwark rails are too high for any crew member to actually secure a line. In Admiralty models much of this is ignored -or was never considered, being that the primary focus was on the structure of the ship. This is conclusive based on the many profile drawings stored in museum archives. None show total belay processes (of any kind) from that era.

Even when VASA was raised, there were no factual documentation(s) conclusive to her rigging...None. Every aspect of rigging was actually explored in the 19th century and pieced together by scholars who visited various museums/libraries to obtain 'limited' data. These facts can be validated by another contemporary builder in his quotation below:

This builder place emphasis on the PRINCE model at the Science Museum in England. From his perspective it is worthy; but from a rigger's point of view, one has to question the findings... And, I duly agree from a curatorial view, misguided information should not be passed on to any generation seeking truth. It's wrong.

Below are the final images of the PRINCE which conclude this build. There will always be PRINCE models which will differ in presentation. No one model can claim accuracy; that's a fallacy. However, each model has its place because of its reputation -and this piece is no different. I just brought it to another level based on my experience and research. So now, I provide you, the viewer, these finale images.

 

As a professional, I take my work seriously which is shown in each and every model I produce. I take no shortcuts, but rather place as much detail possible in these work(s). This model is no exception.

For those who appreciate and seek this type of art, I can be reached at Caseships@yahoo.com or by phone 1-774-757-7137.

Thanks for viewing! 

 

  

 

Ship Model VASA -The Details/ Rex Stewart

This photo represents the next procedure of the VASA build which are the masts and rigging. The next three photos show how the plastic masts are substituted with wood -while keeping and modifying the tops as shown below.

First stage...

 Second stage...

The comparison and distinction between plastic verses wood. The masts and crosstrees are birch, while the mast cheeks and caps are bass. Both items are custom-stained and varnished with spar urethane; the actual substance applied to sailing vessels.

Third stage...

Joining same materials together will assure longevity, re: wooden mast to wooden deck.

After stepping masts in holes, I secure them with needlepoint glue application to make areas clean for  rigging, especially since coiled ropes are needed in this area.

Port profile show all VASA masts aligned and secured properly. Of note, both sprit topmast and foremasts extend straight up, while the main and mizzen masts are raked backward. This was the rule of Swedish and Dutch ships of that period.

Full starboard profile showing stepped masts...

One point that I missed in this area of build, and that is the anchor scrub swabs. These were important to the ship for removing barnacles, seaweed and other debris as the anchor(s) were fished and secured to the channels. I've received 'arguments' from others as this being 'tow rags' for the toilets. But given the scale and the stiff appearance of this feature in various drawings I concurred with the findings of Bjorn Landstrom.

This apparatus (tow rags) would have been in the bow/beakhead location of the ship. But surely, not at the scale featured in contemporary drawings of that period. Those artists took painstaking effort to scale those swabs accurately. To further support my findings, the period and contemporary illustrations below are evident relevant to scale.

The first drawing created by artist Willem van de Velde show the swab hanging outboard at the stowed anchor on the fore channel. The drawing below the first show two swabs on another ship hanging below the beakhead gratings near the area of the anchor cables.

And finally (to scale), Bjorn Landstrom's drawing showing the same system below.

The next three photos will show how I positioned the swabs on the model based on those references:

After addressing the swab feature, I pushed the focus toward all the areas that involved the masts and rigging -including the deck furniture that supported it.

Engineering is very effective here because it's not that simple to expect quality rigging if it isn't properly planned. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the lines will correctly belay based on common generics... Rigging will be uniform -provided the masts and yards are set correctly, as there are no shortcuts.Therefore, expect complicated lines (and their falls) to be belayed with a clean, professional appearance which will be based upon establishing correct belay points.

Notes and early diagrams of these belay points must be planned  -with room to make corrections as the process continue. There are no hard or fast rules to 16th and 17th century rigging. Accuracy should be the foundation but it's not always the rule; so any builder who venture here will have intense homework to pursue.

A few of those assignments lie in the area of halyards, parrels, topropes and tackles. These are seldom applied on good models and I must conclude it was a challenge rigging them, or limited knowledge of them. One thing is certain; without these features, very little can be said about 'accuracy'. And for ships of this period to not have these is like a boat not having oars.

This port profile deals specifically with what's been written. Notice the halyards, tackles and topropes. These principle lines make up the major functionality of the 16th and 17th century ship. Unfortunately, this detail will be hidden behind the shrouds and ratlines -and will only be noticeable when viewing the model from behind looking forward.

The next step in this process is rigging the stays...I use one of my rigging chopsticks to hold up the mainstay so that the shrouds can be rigged beneath the collar.

This closeup view show details of tackle, toprope and halyard lines which are roped and coiled at their belay points. This type of rigging gives more depth and authenticity to the VASA...Also in this closeup I discerned that there were no bits to take on the fore sail bunt lines -lines which assisted the clews to raise the sails and reef them to the yards.

Such bunts could not have been belayed on the side bulwarks due to the positioning of the cannons. Therefore, the other alternative would have been to secure those lines to bits at the base of the mast. The remaining pins behind the mast (as shown) were to secure the clews and lifts of both fore course and fore topsail. All other lines relating to this ship either went to the tops or the side bulwark pins.

 Another closeup (starboard view) showing the miniature falls and rope coiling on deck. And finally,  I show a portside overview of the tackle systems in the image below.

The model is coming along nicely...

In this image I am drafting a layout for belay points on the VASA fore deck. As I continue to build, I discover new points that general models don't feature -such as deck bitts that take on the tackles for principle lines that are frequently used on the ship. In this case (as shown) -the bunts.

Much of the drafts begin this way to make it easier for future references, should a (scratchbuilt or kit) model be requested. And yes, it is very time-consuming; but from a Scriptural perspective it is written to "let patience work its perfect work." So yes, my perfection concerning these projects are based solely on patience.

I conclude this segment on the premise of rigging procedure. The images give the viewer a visual perception of high quality that can be obtained from a mere kit. The only ingredients for this is patience, research, and the exploration and experimentation of materials that work best.

Each builder has their niche which will set that builder apart from others. Therefore, kindly abolish the comparison rule on this -or any endeavor...There are different levels that exist to get an artist to the next (level). In otherwords, what you own is yours, alone -and it becomes very personal to 'you'...which brings a question to you which is: "How bad do 'you' want it?"

So, if you are attempting to acquire excellence in a thing, then you must be prepared to endure the pitfalls. Don't be discouraged, just enjoy what you do and you will be fine -guaranteed.

For those who are limited in their resources and are unable to commission a scratchbuilt model. The second option would be a kit (regardless of medium). Whether it be wood or plastic, I have the ability to make it most impressive and worthy -since accuracy and detail are the formulas for my creations.

If interested, write: Caseships@yahoo.com or call 1-774-757-7137 for details. You can also view my profile and other supporting images at https://www.linkedin.com/in/rexstewart and https://youtube.com/c/RexStewartoriginals

Building, or rather modifying this vintage Airfix kit has been quite an experience...and the journey continues. Thank you for viewing!