And Yet, Another "Santa Maria"

Whilst doing my daily Internet dig for obscure, possibly forgotten maritime historical data, I stumble upon this -

"Reconstrucciones de la Nao Santa Maria" (LINK REMOVED - SEE NOTE)

The designer is none other than Professor Luis M. Coín Cuenca, the person who designed this replica of the caravel "Niña". Here is his "Santa Maria" - 

The Newest Santa Maria, courtesy Cadiz Capitana del Mar

 I like the sail plan and the sheer. While the sheer may seem excessive, it would not be entirely unexpected for ships from this period, based upon the art and the model of the "Mataro Nao". However, this elevation view is a bit deceptive. It does not appear to be built on the traditional 1:2:3 formula (with 1 being the beam, 2 being the keel length, 2 x beam, and 3 being length between the perpendiculars, 3 x beam). This appears to be an effort to improve the sea keeping capabilities of the small ship. Based upon the information gleaned from the page, it appears as though they took inspiration from Diego Garcia del Palacio's 1587 work "Instrucción Náutica". 

In short, his interpretation of the "Santa Maria" is rather narrow in beam. 

Understandably, Prof. Coín Cuenca had his reasons for making this startling new design, but this seems, to me at least, the wrong way to go about it. Ship design changed vastly in the intervening years between 1492 and 1587. While I believe that his version of the nao will probably be a lot more seaworthy, certainly better at sailing the Atlantic, it seems to me to have more in common with the later galleons, and less with the 15th century stock from which it originated. 

Unfortunately, at this time I do not have access to his research to see the reasons. There was a conference held in Cadiz in 2012 where this was discussed at length, and sadly the author could not attend. I do hope to find more information about this version of the "Santa Maria", and you may expect that I will share it here. 

EDIT - (May 2023) The links and images from the works of Dr. Cuenca's research have been removed, as that page has been determined to be involved in suspicious activity. 

Санта-Мария - The 1973 "Моделист конструктор" Santa Maria

A few years back, whilst looking for additional information on Heinrich Winter's research of Columbus' ships, I happened upon a website, since gone, that featured the Russian text of his book "Die Kolumbusschiffe von 1492" ("The Ships of Columbus of 1492"). On the same page was a set of drawings of the Santa Maria, also in Russian, that I assumed to be associated with Winter's work. 

Nothing could be further from the truth. 

Until this point, it had been assumed that Winter's work had simply served as an aggregate for the various studies. His book shows some of the various interpretations. But I could find no other data verifying that this Santa Maria was in fact his.

I decided to approach the problem once again, this time using Google Image Search, and I discovered something. 

The image was not from Winter's work after all, but a Soviet era hobbyist magazine, "Моделист конструктор" (Modelist Constructor), in the 5th edition for 1973. The article was titled "И ВСЕ-ТАКИ — КОЛУМБ!" ("And Yet - Columbus!")

A little more searching led me to a site where I could download a DjaVu version of that issue. Finally, I had found my source.

The article, written by "Б Тимофеев" (B Timofeyev) had plenty to say about the actual journey, but apparently very little about the ships themselves, from what I could discern. In other words, looking at the Russian text, I saw very few numbers. Searching further, I discovered a page with the text that allowed me to use Google Translate. 

Within the article, there is scant information on the origin of this interpretation, how they came up with this design, nor what evidence they followed. It does mention that the "Santa Maria" was not a caravel, but a "hundred ton carrack" (стотонную каракку). Beyond that, no dimensions were given. 

Looking at the drawing, which I find to be rather well done if a little unclear, I immediately was reminded of the second version of Monleon's interpretation, with some adjustments. 

The rake of the masts is certainly similar. The shape of the forecastle is strikingly similar as well, as are the placements of the fender cleats and wales, though there is one wale on the newer design. The real differences are in the stern and sails. The stern on the Monleon II version is flat, whilst the "Моделист конструктор" version (henceforth the MK version) has a round tuck, perhaps a bit more appropriate. The Monleon II version has a larger lateen mizzen and a trapezoidal topsail, whilst the MK version has a smaller lateen mizzen and rectangular topsail. 

Dimensions wise, they are very similar - 

Monleon II - 

Beam - 7.86m

Keel - 19.6m

Length between perpendiculars - 23.72m

MK (note - all dimensions are estimates derived from the drawings) -

Beam - 7.8m

Keel - 19m

Length between perpendiculars - 24m. 

In many ways, the MK version is like an evolved Monleon II interpretation. Unfortunately, there is little else to be found about it. I would truly like to know what sources they used, and how they produced this intriguing interpretation of a late 15th century Iberian nautical workhorse, the nao. 

The last page of the "Моделист конструктор" Columbus article has this wonderful illustration of their Santa Maria underway. In my opinion, it certainly is lovely. 

Plastic vs. Wooden Models

This, my first post on this blog, is bound to rankle a few.

I've been building model ships long enough to say that I am fairly comfortable with technique and material. More than anything else, I am an adamant researcher. Perhaps more than anything else I do, I care about how my ships are going to look, regardless of whether or not they are two or three dimensional. I've worked in a variety of materials, and am comfortable working in many mediums.

Which is why what I am about to say is bound to rankle.

If I have to build a kit, I prefer plastic ones over wood. 

Quelle horreur!

Why?

Certainly, most wooden kits can be built to represent the prototypes admirably. It depends upon the skill of the modeler, certainly, but many so called beginner's kits can be built up into lovely models. 

However, the question is, do they represent the vessel being modeled?

This is where I have problems. 

Too many of the wooden kits out there are poorly researched. For instance, I've seen models of caravels with wheels. Not likely; the great age of the caravel was ending about the same time ship's wheels started coming into use, the late 17th century. I've seen all manner of vessels purporting to be this or that ship, and be completely wrong. With the interest of late in pirates and various scallywags of the sea, the number of these ships has gone accordingly up. Many of them are simply relabeled large man-o'-war (something some plastic companies are guilty of as well), something these buccaneers sometimes simply wouldn't have. 

Scales are all over the place. If you can afford to by and build a few models, you'd probably like them to be in the same scale, for the sake of comparison. Too many are in scales that leave one scratching their head. 

Then there is the price. 

Often, these models are very expensive, and I question their value. 

This isn't to say that all wooden kits are bad. There are some very well researched kits out there, and truly remarkable models can be made from them (Caldercraft, Billings, and JoTiKa immediately spring to mind). But too many of them are simply not well thought out.

Certainly, there are many (a great many) plastic models that are horrific, poorly researched, poorly designed, I could go on. But, from experience, I can tell you I have seen a plastic model of the clipper Cutty Sark that was far and away superior to any wooden model of the same I had ever seen, barring examples in museums (and even then, there have been exceptions). 

Soon, I am going to put together a table of the various Santa Maria kits out there and the interpretation they representative. A couple of those plastic kits are truly beautiful and look superb when in the hands of a talented builder, and are superior to many of the wooden versions, again with exceptions. It comes down to what you want; a scale replica of a ship, or a lovely display piece that might not be grounded in reality, and probably set you back quite a bit.

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.