A Privateer in Art

Recently, I undertook work on a series of pieces showing the the construction, fitting out, and sailing of a privateer from the late 17th century. The ship itself is of Dutch design, fairly typical in fact for many Low Country vessels of the time. These are the final products. As our fictional vessel grew, so did the technique. I proceeded from pencil to pen to paint.

Concerning Blackbeard's Ship

Edward Teach, also known as Blackbeard the Pirate.
Certainly looks like a pleasant enough fellow.

"Queen Anne's Revenge."

While many experts have spoken about the identification of the shipwreck found in Beaufort inlet, speaking for myself, I have lingering doubts. And they won't readilly go away.

First is the location of the wreck. It was found in what many scuba would be considered fairly shallow water, over twenty feet. That is actually plenty deep for a sailing ship of that size. Historically, Blackbeard is said to have run the Queen Anne's Revenge aground. In other words, this is simply too deep.

The easy response to this would be that perhaps the ship could have shifted into deeper water in time. But there are problems with this. If that had been the case, the wreck would have been scattered over time. What we have here are aritifacts that are fairly concentrated. This implies a ship that sank in deeper water, thus not matching the records.

While there is much in the wreck that seems to indicate that this is Edward Teach's flagship, the questions that are raised by these little problems seem to point to just two possibilities - 

1. This is the Queen Anne's Revenge and the historical record is wrong.
2. This is simply not the Queen Anne's Revenge.

I, for one, remain skeptical.

Columbus' First Voyage Reconsidered

It's Columbus Day again here in the United States, which means of course that this very polarizing figure is celebrated in some circles, reviled in others, and more than likely completely misunderstood by both. That there were many terrors visited upon the aboriginal peoples during his governorship of the islands he landed upon is tragic enough, and while there is ample evidence to support that he was implicit, the truth is probably more complicated.

But my interest in Columbus lay not in his skill as a governor, for clearly, he was awful, but in his skill as a navigator, his vessels, and most importantly, how he managed to sail across one of the widest points in the Atlantic, why he chose that path, even in the face of skepticism. 

Many scholars were convinced that he and his crew would probably die at sea. It must be remembered that the old knowledge that the Norse (and perhaps earlier) voyagers had about the lands to the west was all but forgotten, and where it was remembered, was assumed to only point towards strange lands in the north, possibly a large island. What most scholars assumed was that there was no land here at all. 

There were many stories about lost islands in the Atlantic, but Columbus wasn't looking for just islands; he was looking for a path to the Orient. 

Take a globe. In this map, we'll include some of the areas of North America that are believed to have been known by the Norse.

Now, imagine that there is no North or South America, just that large group of islands the Norse discovered.. What you have now is a truly vast ocean, the Ocean Sea, and it stretches for many thousands of miles, and depending upon the route you choose, you might not see land again until you reach the east coast of Africa.

If we look at the sea route for his first voyage, it must have seemed like certain death indeed for those cartographers and philosophers who didn't buy Columbus' ideas. 

So why did he take that route? Why those corrections? It was very well known at that time that China was further north than that, though the position of Zipangu (Japan) was mostly speculated.

One possibility is that another European had found the islands before Columbus.

This is not beyond the realm of possibility. On the 4th of November, 1493, during his second voyage, his crew found a sternpost on the shores of the island of Guadalupe. There is also a tale of an iron pan being found later. It is possible that the sternpost might be accounted for by currents, though this is doubtful. The iron pot, though, is a mystery altogether.

Perhaps it was the Portuguese. If anyone could have accomplished a voyage like this, the Portuguese are the most likely suspects. They also kept many of their voyages secret. We can only speculate.

Regardless, the route he took flew in the face of what was known and agreed upon in most of Europe at the time. If there had not been a continent there, he might have indeed ended up sailing on, lost in a seemingly endless sea, to vanish from its surface and from history as well.

Sea Witch Update

I've spent part of this evening repairing some of the smaller parts, bits and what have you, and then turned my attention to the hull.

As I lamented before, the person who undertook this model such a long time ago used a lot of glue. So much, in fact, that I doubt that I will be able to remove all the vestiges of it. Still, this model is worth the effort, and I am working, cautiously, to remove as much of it as I can. I suspect that plenty of sandpaper will be used here shortly. 

Another problem has to do with any long, thin parts. As Lloyd McCaffrey complained about in his diatribe against polystyrene models, I see here; this model is exhibiting all of the deterioration that he predicted. Interestingly, I've got older models that don't show any problem like this. As recent experience with some model railroad equipment has taught me, though, is that the quality of polystyrene seems to vary. Some of the older models I have are rock hard brittle, others still fairly soft, none of them showing signs of warpage. 

Not so here. While the plastic has become brittle somewhat, the masts are now completely unusable, having become twisted and severely warped. As I normally do, they will be replaced with wood, probably birch and cherry. 

This is much harder than simply picking up a kit, granted. What makes this worthwhile isn't just that it is such a rare model, but the scale (about 1/120). This makes for a great compromise, not too big, not too small. I might one day pick up the Aoshima (Imai) Cutty Sark (1/120, though very pricey), or the slightly smaller Airfix kit (1/128). 

In the meantime, work proceeds, slowly.

The Aurora Sea Witch

Before I became interested in the ships of discovery, I had a long love affair with the clipper ship, those greyhounds of the sea that set records and would define the future of ship design. Of those, my long favorite was the ship they considered to be the first, the Sea Witch. 

I won't cover the history of that wonderful vessel here; you can either go to the Wikipedia page, or check out Howard I. Chappelle's "The Search for Speed Under Sail". Regardless, its impact was notable, and still retains a record, the fastest time from Hong Kong to New York for a single hulled sailing vessel, 74 days, set in 1849.

The Aurora model is one of their better sailing ships, if not the best. It is in the same group as their whale ship "Wanderer" and Revolutionary War "Bonhomme Richard", both of which are rather questionable in detail (especially the latter). This model is also some what controversial in model ship circles because of its fate. After Aurora went out of business, many presumed that the Sea Witch that was produced by Lindberg was in fact the same. It isn't. The Lindberg kit was derived from the Marx kit, with changes being a plastic deck instead of a lithographed sheet metal one. This has led some to speculate that the Marx kit and the Aurora kit are also the same. Again, they are not. The Marx/Lindberg model is 1/96 scale and dates to the 1950's. In appearance, it is simpler in hull and deck detail when compared to the later Aurora kit. The 1966 Aurora kit, on the other hand, is around 1/120, and has a hull that features planking, if somewhat oversized, though no attempt to replicate the coppering has been made.

My model was started a long time ago, and judging from the amounts of glue, by someone who was probably a novice. The masts are more than likely a write off, having warped. I've only seen this once before, and is one of the primary reasons I replace plastic masts with wood.

The rest of the kit appears to be there, but again, many of these pieces will be set aside when construction commences.

One of the nicest aspects of the kit, though, is the box art. This example's box is in great shape.

The painting of the Sea Witch underway is one of the nicest representations from that period I have ever seen.

I am not sure as to when I will begin this little project. One thing is for certain, though, This kit has plenty of potential, and should produce a fine model of the first true clipper.

Maritime Research via Google Maps

I use Google Maps quite a bit, and seldom for finding my way. Normally, I use it in satellite mode to look for large geological formations, such as meteor craters.

One thing I had never thought of using it for was maritime research on an individual ship. In this case, the vessel is a replica of the Niña, based upon the work of Professor Luis M. Coín Cuenca, Cadiz. This is replica has fascinated me since I read about it in the late John Dyson's "Columbus: For Gold, God & Glory". I won't go into the book, as it deals with something of a controversial subject ("The Unknown Pilot"). The Niña used in this book (and television special) was built in the early 1990's, and subsequently sailed across the Ocean Sea; it graces the book's cover.

I lost track of the ship in my research very early, knowing that while it did make it across, the question was did it sail back?

My reason for being interested in it has to do with its design. This Niña is very lightly built, almost an open boat (an old theory about Columbus' caravels, long since discredited for over a century and a half). It looks almost frail, and compared to the Sarsfield Niña/Santa Clara, is downright small.

Nevertheless, it is still a caravel, and true to my nature, must be researched.

Enter Google Maps.

I decided to look up the aforementioned book, and re-discovered the historian involved, Professor Coín Cuenca. After that, it was a matter of time. 

I found a picture during a search. It was somewhere in El Puerto de Santa Maria, Spain. Once the location was pinned down, I used Google Maps to locate the caravel.

She was located in a traffic roundabout on the N-IV, on the south side of the Rio Guadalete.

MAP LINK 

This is where the research comes in. The overhead satellite view gives us the deck layout - 

Google indicates that there are plenty of images from the location, but instead I chose to use Google Street View to "drive" around the caravel and get images - 

(Side note - I can't help but marvel at how much this part of Spain looks like south Florida!)

These images, combined with information gleaned from the City of El Puerto de Santa Maria's website, give us a better idea of the vessel. This particular replica Niña is 21 meters long, 5 meters in beam; 68' 10 3/4" in length overall, 16' 4 7/8" in beam.

There is still some more research needed, and with any luck I will be able to reach out to Prof. Coín Cuenca for more information.
One thing to keep in mind; when the images are first pulled up in Street View, there is a bit of distortion. The moment you begin to zoom in, the distortion is minimized; you are going from a forced wide-angle image to a more standard view.

In the mean time, the images gained give us a little more information as to how this little caravel appears. They may not be blueprints, but they provide us with more insight into this small caravel.

It also provides us with another use for the maps program in basic research, lacking the means to be there ourselves.

Models, Replicas & Interpretations - How Do You Proceed?

There are plenty of different model kits of historic sailing vessels, in both plastic and wood (as well as more unusual materials like metal, card and even paper). Most of these models can be traced back to research done by maritime historians and artists. Some of the models that are produced of some historic vessels can be traced to replicas based upon the work of the aforementioned historians and artists.

This is where the conundrum comes in, especially in the case of even older vessels; in most cases, these are not models of the vessel per se, but of an interpretation, even a full sized replica. You are building something based upon someone else's work.

This isn't a bad thing at all, but can be a little confusing. 

Many of the model builders I run into endeavor to "correct" the vessel. Things like rigging, deck and hull details, color scheme, et cetera. They  research how vessels should be rigged for the period and try to include these in the model. Many times, they draw from multiple sources to complete the model.

The question is, are they really building the model as it was meant to be, or as they think it should be?

Again, this isn't a bad thing; much of what the model builder as artist really comes down to what they want, they apply their own artistic license to the product. 

When you encounter vessels like the Santa Maria, or other vessels from the 16th century and earlier, you run into real problems. While there are only a few different interpretations of vessels like, say, the Mayflower (four that I am aware of, and two are very similar), the Santa Maria has around ten different interpretations. 

Aside from the wooden kits, the two most common Santa Maria interpretations found in kit form are the Fernandez Duro/Spanish Commission version from 1892 and the Julio Guillen y Tato version from 1929. If you pick up a Santa Maria kit from the Duro design, say one of those fairly simple wooden kits from Scientific, and want to correct or enhance the rigging, how do you proceed? Do you pick up a copy of Wolfram zu Mondfeld's "Historic Ship Models" and study the rigging section? Do you do a Google search for "Santa Maria"?

Unless you know which version you're building, this can be a conundrum. You're building this version, but you're finding rigging information for ships that don't look like the same. The manufacturers seldom include notes about the origin of the design (some exceptions are the original 1/75 Heller Santa Maria, where they thank Julio Guillen y Tato for his assistance). The Scientific kit is the Duro 1892 version, and is significantly different in appearance, let alone rig, to the Guillen 1929 version.

It can be done, and oftentimes the end result is lovely.

Possibly incorrect, but lovely (though I will admit that "incorrect" is a bit of a harsh term; after all, we really know nothing of the Santa Maria's true appearance). 

In a way, you end up with your own interpretation when you go this route. This is neither right nor wrong; again, it is up to you how you wish to proceed.

But if you want to build the model based upon the work of that original design, you need to know which one it is.

The end product is a model of that interpretation. It can be thought of as a model of a model.

If that's what you want. It's all about choice, I suppose.

And that's a good thing.