HMS Victory - informations about the side entrance port - McKay's drawings

kekserica

kekserica

Joined
Jun 7, 2022
Messages
8
Points
23

Hi,

what is your opinion about this:

1) pillars instead knees
2) entry ports 1805.
3) no evidence for interlocked scarphs on deck beams
4) ventilations trunks (1922.-1970.) on McKay's drawings of Victory from 1805.

IMG_20220817_140732.jpg

IMG_20220817_145810.jpg

IMG_20220817_150004.jpg

IMG_20220817_150303.jpg

IMG_20220817_150436.jpg
IMG_20220817_150807.jpg


IMG_20220817_151048.jpg
here is the german web site with english option:

https://www.hmsvictory.de/web/index.phtml/Kurzfassung-id_2381.html

Question for all who was build, build right now or will build HMS Victory (complete ship or cross section), what is your choice, entry port or not, ventilation trunks or not, pillars instead knees, what kind of scarphs on deck beams?

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
To start with, I would not accuse McKay of being false. He did a wonderful job with his drawings, thanks for this work many modelers had a good start into such a complex theme like a first rate. of course these are no building plans and in plenty of places there are omissions, simplifications and - we know today - outdated informations.

The same goes to Mr. Siemers webpage. Personally I find it far too polemic and black and white. The question is not: " Did the Vic have an entrance port?", it is much more "At what times did she have one and how did it then look like.". On top of it many of the facts that Mr. Siemers quotes were not correct already at the times he wrote and many new information turned up that changes the outcome of his presentation quite a lot.

XXXDAn
 
Last edited:
dafi said:
To start with, I would not accuse McKay of being false. He did a wonderful job with his drawings, thanks for this work many modelers had a good start into such a complex theme like a first rate. of course these are no building plans and in plenty of places there are omissions, simplifications and - we know today - outdated informations.

The same goes to Mr. Siemers webpage. Personally I find it far too polemic and black and white. The question is not: " Did the Vic have an entrance port?", it is much more "At what times did she have one and how did it look then like.". Then comes that a lot of the facts that Mr. Siemers quotes were not correct already at the times and many new information turned up that changes the outcome of the discussion quite a lot.

XXXDAn
Click to expand...
I hope that when you find time, you will introduce us to your knowledge.

Thank you :)
 
Let me start with the first picture of the webpage, the sources.

McGowan is far more then superflous book. It has to be seen as an addition to McKays AOTS. Both book base on the work of Bugler, who recorded the ship after the transformation to a quasi-Trafalgar state. All 3 of them did the first time a great effort to give in depth information about the vessel. I think we modelers owe them a lot of respect for that.
On the other side these books have plenty of anachronisms, simplifications and omissions. But one has to see, these drawings were NOT meant to take them as plan to construct a 1:1 copy of the ship. This would have been a lifetime work and not makable, as soon as one part is drawn, new research would erase the already done parts ;-)
What was the situation when these books were done? In 1920 the Vic was a completely different ship in her appearance. After being put in drydock research started to retransform her into her Trafalgar state. For this they took the plans "as build"! and added some cosmetical bits like the closed stern and the today known color sceme. Out came a hybrid, this one was documented in these books and still can be seen today, dispite the minor changes and additions, especially in the colors.
 
Last edited:
Laughton was already nearer at the things. As far as I know, he was in the comission when the Vic was retransformed. Already then the build buklkwards of the forecastle were known, but it was too late and no more budget for the change left. That is how facts were created. Facts like these actual timberheads, that is now "the truth" for many modellers. Laughton even comments that there is no known source of the crown on the cathead´s end - another detail to be seen on almost every build (but mine ;-). But still he is not a contemporary source and to be trusted as Siemers thinks, as Laughton relied on the documents that were just accesible at those days.

Now resaerching for more than a decade upon the ship, I have some surprising new interpretations, and the nice thing is, some other researchers come indipendently to an similar result. But for this I need to see my sources to not mess up with the things :)

XXXDAn
 
Hi Dan, having followed your model build for a couple of years now, it is most definately the best and most detailed replica of Victory ever made in my opion. The amount of research you have put into it is astounding. Regards, Pete in RI.
ps, if you need any photo's etc of Constitution, give me a shout, I live fairly close by.
 
Thank you Pete, very appreciated!

But even my model has a lot of flaws as I know by know. If I was a critic critic, I would polemicly order the model to be scrapped ;-)

No, to be serious, only by building a model like this, one can understand many of the aspects, and that is my reason for building.

What Siemers did not know, there are some sources that proof the state of the entry port at Trafalgar. But to keep it suspenseful, I will start with the clear facts :)

XXXDAn
 
Last edited:
As Siemers is right, the Victory was quite sure build with two entry ports. The original Plans and a contemporary model in the NMM show that. Supported this is by a second model, but I doubt a bit when it was build (only a gut feeling) and by a sketch of 1779, as described with the small platform, and the cross barrel vaulting roof with two pillars. So far so good.

The mentioned beautiful model in the Portsmouth museum is as far as I know not contemporary, but I have no idea to when it was build. I know of no contemporary model in waterline with wild seascape and all sails set. Beautiful to see, well researched and executed, a joy, but not really a proof.
 
Last edited:
I agree, being a Porsche Tech for most of my working life I tend to like to study the technical side of my models and make sure they are "correct", as in details look like they should, pipes/ropes/ linkages are all connected properly, etc.
 
Now comes the information, not mentioned at Siemers even though the NMM it was in the list of his sources: The set of plans of the 1788 middle repair. In the whole set of drawings there is no sign of a entry port to be seen, see ZAZ0122 and others. Also the famous paintings of Dodd and Swaine that were done after that date and all other sources do not show the entrance port any more!

What happened? The statistic Siemers shows are mostely correct for the date of build. But from the 1760ies on, almost ALL sources of first and second rates have the entry port omitted :-O

I have not yet detected an order telling this, but my best educated guess (and nothing more it is) is that the Seven Years' War and the American War of Independance forced the Navy to be out more and for some practical reasons the port was omitted. If this was for structural reasons, for having one more gun port, to have one more gun, or to move one gun from the wardroom to make space there, or for the still unsolved reason of who the door was closed, I do not know.

But really do look for alle the plans, paintings, sketches and models that were produced between 1770 and 1805 and you will be surprised. Rare to see a gunport there.
 
Now comes the exciting bit. The drawings of Turner and Constable!

Those show clearly no entrance port before Trafalgar (Constable) and after (Turner). Plenty of the details in these drawings are quite illegible, but the question of the entrance door is clear: There was none :)

Also the drawings after Trafalgar from Todd in 1807 and others show no entry port. So the sources are quite clear in that regard.

The last source that show the Vic without the entry port are the drawings of John Christian in 1824 and 1827 [year?]
 
Last edited:
Then it would appear that our models of her around Trafalger should not have the ports. Will look at those paintings and drawings you suggest. This whole process is rather interesting, I find the research process just as rewarding as the model making.
 
Then comes the drawing of William Cooke in 1828 and the entrance door is back :)

What repair this was done I still do not know yet. But one thing changed. The entry port was replaced by one port to the aft, fitted a new canopy with pilasters as the one today and also got the gangway. This is to be seen from the first photographs on and quite well documented.

In 1922 when the ship was retransformed the 1828 canopy was taken of and replaced at the former place of the then new entry port and there it is still today :)

Hope that cleared a bit.

XXXDAn
 
I am soooooo glad I have not started the model yet, as all this info will get organised and sorted to make the model more accurate and help me not have to change things halfway through.
 
So short ececutive version is:
Entrance port with pillars until 1788, no entrance port until 1828 and then for 100 years the port one more port aft with the new canopy with brackets, from 1922 onwards the entrance port at its traditional place with the 1828 canopy.
 
But still there is plenty of other things to be organised to get this hybrid into 1805 state. Build forecastle bulkwards and poop hammock crane covers are already known, the replacement of the Feathers of Wales, the new fighting tops, yet another painting sceme and especially the new and slimmer bow ...

But even if one builds a model of todays museums ship, it is tough with all those changes going on ;-)

Suspence still stays up :)

XXXDAn
 
Last edited:
Here are some collections of sources from our german forum:
Facts about the Vic: https://www.segelschiffsmodellbau.com/t5759f198-Fakten-zur-Victory.html
historical documents as plans, drawings and models https://www.segelschiffsmodellbau.c...der-Zeit-in-zeitgenoessischen-Dokumenten.html
research about the Turner drawings:

Gemälde, Zeichnungen und Pläne » HMS Victory - Spurensuche

Ich denke irgendwie an den Tasmanischen Tiger und die verpasste Gelegenheit, mich vor dem letzten seiner Art ablichten zu können - und dass ich nicht der
www.segelschiffsmodellbau.com www.segelschiffsmodellbau.com

Turners Deckszeichnungen der Victory reloaded

Der Thread ist als Ergänzung der bestehenden Untersuchungen zu William Turners »Large Drawings« gedacht und soll das gewonne Bild um den Blick
www.segelschiffsmodellbau.com www.segelschiffsmodellbau.com

HMS Victory nach Trafalgar - ein letzter Zeuge

Es ist jetzt schon ein paar Jahre her, dass ich bei wahooart.com über ein relativ unscheinbaresnBild stolperte. Die Bestellung als Druck auf Leinwand schl
www.segelschiffsmodellbau.com www.segelschiffsmodellbau.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top