Sovereign of the Seas, a reconstruction

The sources currently reading and analysing.

There are a lot of books partly written about the SotS but some of them are key for building a proper model of her.

The first and contemporary source is the Biography of Phineas Pett in which he writes a complete chapter on the build of the SotS.
This biography is published in a book in 1918 and contains all the contemporary available data of the ship in tables and text. Even a center frame reconstruction, both part of my previously posted excel file. A very valuable resource and freely accesable via a pdf provided by internet archive of the Canadian library.
Screenshot_20240122-232158_Chrome.jpg

The second source is James Septhon's wonderfull book Sovereign of the Seas, a must have for every sots builder.
The complete history of the ship is discussed, from the building process to her service during sea battles.
This book also contains the data as provided by Pett in his autobiography. It is easily available.
20240122_183455.jpg

The third source is mainly discussing the appearence of the ship. Hendrik Busmann's Sovereign of the Seas. Very detailed the complete ornamentation of the ship is analysed and duscussed with plenty of pictures and drawing. Again a must have but hardly available and therefore an expensive book. And only available in German.
20240122_183619.jpg

Sovereigns of the Sea by Angus Konstam deals with the arms race in the 16th century and development towards the modern ship of war being the SotS. It provides a lot of background information.
20240122_183420.jpg

Of course John McKay Sovereign of the Seas.
A source with a wealth of information and realy fantastic drawings. However McKay went to my opinion too far away from the contemporary data leading to an unrealistic hull shape. But for the SotS builder a must have.
20240122_183530.jpg
See the book review here.

Koningen, Scheepsbouwer en Zeevaarders by A Vreugdenhil deals with the development of the English navy in the early 17th century and about the buld of the SotS in particular.
The book is easily available, cheap but in Dutch.
20240122_183354.jpg

Next are the 17th century books about ship building to fill out the missing pieces.
Sofar I have Edmund Busnell The Compleat Shipwright. Dealing with shipbuilding and design.
This is a real 17th century book in 17th century English which actually reads suprisingly easy.
Screenshot_20240102-181503_Google Play Books.jpg
It is freely available via google books.

Ofcourse Deans Doctrine, a must have.
20240122_183317.jpg

Last but not least Werner Bruns work on his reconstruction. A wealth of information available on his site.

For the rest the drawings and paintings available by Van de Velde and others.

I am still looking for a copy of te 1620 treatise on shipbuilding by an anonymus source.

If you have any additions they are always welcome.

Next time contemporary data.
 
Last edited:
I am still looking for a cope of te 1620 treatise on shipbuilding by an anonymus source.
I have that copy, it is easy to download. I will look it up in my archive. There is also a copy in the book of Peter Kirsch Die Galeonen. The last chapter is the copy. A treatise on shipbuilding : and a treatise on rigging, written about 1620-1625 ; Authors: W. Salisbury, R. C. Anderson
 
The Library of Congress is having a free download on the treatise of shipbuilding. This is the download LINK. (MSW alert :cool: )

When it is free to download, there is no copyrights. So here it is in the attachment.
 

Attachments

  • A treatise on shipbuilding 1620 W Salisbury and Anderson RC 1958.pdf
    22.3 MB · Views: 34
The Library of Congress is having a free download on the treatise of shipbuilding. This is the download LINK. (MSW alert :cool: )

When it is free to download, there is no copyrights. So here it is in the attachment.
Thx Stephan,

Extra reading material for on the e-reader. These old books are normally copyright free so thanks for posting.
 
The next step I have taken is set out the major contemporary parameters from the Phineas Pett biography in Fusion360 and compare these with the Boston drawing as claimed to be made as the original design for the SotS by guidence of Peter Pett.
See below this well known painting.
SC28819.jpg

With this I want to check if this drawing is accurate with the provided contemporary data as provided in the Phineas Pett biography.

To start I have set up the major dimensions. The outlines of the ship, keel rake of the stem and sternpost and overall height.
Initial frame.jpg

Then I have drawn the stem according the radius of the rake provided by Phineas Pett. The sternpost was set out with a rake of 9ft also provided by Phineas Pett with two angles between 18-22° as provided by the 1620 treatise of shipbuilding. We have now the keel setup.
In this I have drawn the design waterline as provided by Pett.
Now the Boston drawing is imported into Fusion and scaled to the overall length of the ship as provided in the Sephton s book comming from measurements after the build.
On the center frame at 1/3 of the keel I projected the maximum draught and on top of that the three decks, all contemporary data.

Next is fitting the painting on the keel and the designed waterline and to a suprise she fits.
Contemporary dimesnions on Boston drawing.jpg
You see the stern is not exactly fitting but the stern is drawn at an angle which I measured from the side to the centre lantern, this size I have copied to the stern and it nearly fits confirming the keel size matches the painting.

Next are the details. I have set of the sizes of the gun ports as provided again in contemporary data and they match perfectly. Even the 10 ft between the gun ports is close.
The deck height seem to fit very well also.
Contemporary dimesnions on Boston drawing detail.jpg

Does this means yhis painting is painted on a design draught of Peter Pett? We don t know but all parameters are pretty close to the real thing so can we use this drawing to take data missing in the Pett biography, probably yes.
The contemporary communications state models were made of the ship and provided to the King and admirality. Models in those days seemed to be not allways real models but also drawings, this could be one of those drawings.

Werner Bruns used this drawing to create the top side of his design and probably it is the best source available.

Next time the stern of the Lely painting.
 
Interesting stuff Maarten having trod down this path myself, albeit in not so much detail. I must have spent an 18 month period debating the outer design details and found Sephton's book most useful. In fact when I started my build, I was a member of the Deagostini forum and I wouldn't like to guess how many copies were sold to builders of that partwork at the time.
 
Interesting stuff Maarten having trod down this path myself, albeit in not so much detail. I must have spent an 18 month period debating the outer design details and found Sephton's book most useful. In fact when I started my build, I was a member of the Deagostini forum and I wouldn't like to guess how many copies were sold to builders of that partwork at the time.
Hi Nigel,

It is a inspiring process to check historical sources and see a ship shape growing from it. I am certainly not the first and won't be the last doing this on this great ship. Did you change the complete hull shape on your deagostini kit base?
 
Hi Nigel,

It is a inspiring process to check historical sources and see a ship shape growing from it. I am certainly not the first and won't be the last doing this on this great ship. Did you change the complete hull shape on your deagostini kit base?

I corrected the upper hull width, tumblehome, deck heights and shear plus added the round tuck.Below the waterline the hull looked pretty good to my references.
The angle of the stern face was also changed.

Pretty much out of the box ROTFROTFROTF
 
The second step in the contemporary comparison is the Lely Painting. This well know painting shows our ship seen at the stern next to her builder Peter Pett.
thumbnail_IMG_0476.jpg

From the high resolution scan from the NMM I have cut out the ship uploaded and scaled it into Fusion 360. Put in straight up as it is slightly heeling on the painting.
Now it is positioned next to the Boston drawing on the same waterline.
Between the two paintings I have drawn reference lines to mark the same spots in both paintings and they are spot on in most of the cases.
Stern Lely vs Boston.jpg

Secondly I have set out the contemporary data in the painting. For instance the transom breadth at 28 feet, the maximum width at 46'6", the total height from top of lantern to keel of 76'.
All these data fit remarkable well to the painting showing the knowledge of the ship by the painter.

I have drawn the centre frame based on the Phineas Pett provided data and if you drawn this from the keel it doesn't match the painting. But the painting is painted in perspective which means the lowest point of the keel at great distance is higher up in the painting because a perspective drawing is drawn towards a vanishing point. If I move the centre frame up, see below it again fits the contour of the hull precisely.
Main frame projected at Lely Painting.jpg

Again this painting seems very acurate and could be a valuable resource for missing data.
My idea is to retrieve data from these and compare these to the 1620, Busnell and Dean treatise and see the different results or confirmations.
 
Love all this research, guys! I have not gone into the detail of making such precise measurements on my model, but have reshaped things in the proper direction using estimates. Thanks for sharing this valuable data, Nigel!
 
The Library of Congress is having a free download on the treatise of shipbuilding. This is the download LINK. (MSW alert :cool: )

When it is free to download, there is no copyrights. So here it is in the attachment.
Hi Steef,

This is a different treatise then the 1620 one. The cover of this one mentions 1820. They are in the text referring to cat ships also which were developped late 17th century and sailed into the 18th century.
I have to keep looking for the 1620 treatise. :)
 
Hi Steef,

This is a different treatise then the 1620 one. The cover of this one mentions 1820. They are in the text referring to cat ships also which were developped late 17th century and sailed into the 18th century.
I have to keep looking for the 1620 treatise. :)
I have the 1620 in the book of Peter Kirsch, it is in the appendix attached. Of that book I have also a digital version from a Russian site include the copy of the transcript from Anderson and Salisbury. Your right about the link, reading the comments on MSW they refer to the 1620 book. That's wrong. I send you a pm.
 
Last edited:
Today in naval history

29th January 1696 – HMS Sovereign of the Seas burnt by accident to the waterline
 
Back
Top