Golden Hind

Greetings, Trevor and welcome.

You indeed have a strong connection to the GH, being an experienced hand aboard her modern replica. That vessel was a valiant effort to resolve how she looked/was designed. But, as the earlier posts on this thread show, she was still only an educated guess, and some of us here on the FSM website have worked out what we believe to be a more accurate estimate. 

The Gowland and Gowland mini model of the GH in around 1/250 scale was the first model I ever built--and after 60 years I still have it. I built the larger Revell model a couple of decades later, but that was shipwrecked recently by grandkids on the loose. The Aeropiccola model you are building is as good as any, iirc. For plastic kit replicas, the consensus seems to be that Imai's version comes closest. 

Jim

Hi there,

I've only just discovered this website but I have quite a connection to it.

I sailed on the Golden Hind replica in the UK, pictured on this website,  in the 80s for several months , then left her , met an English girl and got engaged , she gave me an Aeropiccola model of GH for our engagement . After nearly 25 years of marrage I'm still building the model , now approx half way as I'm just about to start on the rigging, upper masts, yards and sails .

Trevor ( New Zealand )

May 2012

Never built the Imai GH, nor have I seen a build from the kit. However, I've seen a number of quite different hull forms for the GH in wood kits, ranging from tubby merchantman to sleek race-built galleon. However, GH also was quite nimble and maneuverable as she had a large spread of sail for her size.

I'd say that she had some more girth than the race-built galleons that Hawkins and Company built to fight the Spaniards closer to home as Drake commmissioned this ship to be able to store considerable booty on a long-range mission to the Pacific as well as carry a number of knock-down pinnaces for raiding parties in the hold.

As for ships the GH fought, I know of only one that has been documented to some extent, and that's the Nuestra Senora de la Concepcion (or Cacafuego, or fire-sh-tter, in the Spanish seaman's crude vernacular). That latter vessel has been described as being about 120 tons burden, most llikely only marginally larger than GH in terms of bulk, but most likely having heavier weight of broadside, although in the shorter-ranged Spanish cannon of the era. GH could stand off and deliver crippling blows beyond the NSdlC's guns.

Hope this belated reply helps a bit.

Forum, Anyone built the Imai Golden Hind kit? The catalogue picture makes her look more squat and beamy than any other image or kit. It gives her a cargo vessel look to me rather than that of an attack vessel. How big were the biggest ships she attacked? Specifics??? Thanks very much, Paul V Revell Kearsarge and Alabama

That illustration looks pretty much like a generic English "race-built" galleon of the end of the 1570-1610 period. I can't read the caption at the bottom but it doesn't seem to purport to be the GH per se.

I have recently ordered a set of plans originally packaged with the Scientific Models wood solid-hull kit of around 1960. I couldn't locate the kit itself as it's long out of circulation and it looks like Scientific is limited to marketing model-making tools. From what I can tell ( the plans are on their way) the Scientific kit was pretty much based on the Hoeckel drawings. At around 20 inches overall, it appears to be in true scale of around 1/62. I wonder if anyone has built or seen the Scientific Model of the GH. I wonder if it's "close enough for government work".

Here's a picture of a built version being offered on Ebay

when i was in Savannah Georgia a couple of years ago I ate dinner at the Pirate House. It's where Robert Louis Stevens wrote part of Treasure Island. on the wall they had this painting so i snapped a picture

Well, yes, now that I have the book in hand with the larger illustration, I can see that the painting does have that mizzen fighting top and the mizzen topmast, as well as the little raised half deck. By the way, the book is quite good. Nice text and illustrations. The Robinson book is interesting and informative as well, though the author's style there is a bit archaic, almost Victorian. 

I just won the following on ebay and once I get the booklet from the UK, I'll be glad to report on it:

I suspect that it follows the Hoeckel plan and profile drawings. I think that this configuration has some staying power, as it does make for a beautifully balanced jaunty ship model, even it a bit inaccurate as far as one might tell. My article will appear in the June SEA CLASSICS issue which should be on the stands in another month. 

Best,

Jim

His paintings of Sovereign, Prins Willem, 7 Provincien and Prince Royal are excellent.   It looks like he drew upon the Hondius map when making up the Golden Hind painting.   But the painting does a great job of showing a small ship in a large sea, thousands of miles away.  

Is there an understanding as to how the Golden Hind may have been painted? I see very different depictions by each artist. The bottom would be white as lime was the standard of that period. But I have seen black sides and others with quite ornate patterns as well.

Mike T.

The de Vries book IS available, in English translation, and for very reasonable prices (used but good condition) from Amazon.com and ABE.

Classic Sailing Ships With Paintings by Cornelius de Vries by Kenneth Giggal.

You can purchase the book for between $5 and $10. I ordered a copy for $5.50. 

As I mentioned above, this book should be of use to modelers making a wide variety of sailing ships. 

Hoping to help,

Jim

Here's another painting of the GH by Dutch artist Cornelis de Vries from his book, De Klassieke Zeilschepen. (Classic Sailing Ships). It seems to have corrected the most egregious errors ( the captain's cabin, extra deck on the poop and the captain's walk).

Oh, well, it wouldn't post, probably copy protected or something, according to the warning on the web site. Here's the link to view it:

http://www.imagenetion.com/imagenorg/cdevries1/pages/012%20Golden%20Hind%20-%20Great%20Brittain.htm

He also has a painting of the Revenge, but that wouldn't load properly when I tried enlarge itl

He seems to have done some careful research, as his specialty is reproducing the images of famous saiilng ships. I would suggest that his book is worthwhile for modelers but have no idea what the asking price might be. Plus, the text is in Dutch, but the images are the important aspect.

Jim

The Ashmolean model is one of the very few ship models known that predates the classic "board model."  Lavery dates it to ca. 1630.  

It represents salient details without being a scale model.  The model's current rig relates it as a large ship, with topgallants and a spritsail topmast.   

I'm wondering how much bigger and smaller the ships were that the Golden Hind took as prizes? Was this sometimes a David and Goliath thing? Paul V Revell Golden Hind

Crackers correctly notes my incorrect use of the term "reefed" in describing the GH's fore topsail. 

Reef points were introduced in the 12th century by the Norman descendants of the Vikings. The bonnet came from the Mediterranean area (whether from Italy, Spain or Portugal is not clear), and by the beginning of the 15th century it had displaced the reef. The latter was reintroduced in the middle of the 17th century and had, in its turn, virtually superseded the bonnet by the end of the 17th century . 

So Crackers is correct in saying that during the period that the GH was built, or roughly from the early 1400s to the mid-1600s the bonnet had temporarily replaced the reef points as a method of taking in sail. Upon looking again at the illustration by Robinson, it does not appear that any sail whatever is fixed to the fore topgallant. I only see the bare yard. Since the topgallant rig was apparently stored and (very cumbersomely) only set up when required for extra speed--as in chasing down or eluding an armed opponent---it is likely that the yard is, in fact, bare. 

My use of the term "reefed", in any event, was incorrect, as I can now see. Thanks for pointing it out.

    Modelshipnut writes that the fore sail of the illustration of the GOLDEN HIND is reefed. Please correct me if I am incorrect, but I thought that reef points were not in vogue during the late 16th century at the time of the GOLDEN HIND. Instead, like the illustration above of the DUYFKEN  (LITTLE DOVE), the Dutch VOC  vessel of exploration of the Northern Coast of Australia by Captain Willem Janszoon in 1606, carried bonnets which were a smaller sail canvas laced to the foot of the sail to increased the sail area. Bonnets were replaced by reef points during the 17th century. Does any person in the Forum have accurate information about bonnets vs reef points ?

            Montani semper liberi !  Happy modeling to all and every one of you.

                                           Crackers     

Robinson portrait of the GH. This is not the illustration I referred to in the post above but another done by the same artist (Gregory Robinson) that I mentioned. It is more difficult to see the features I mention in this portrait because it's on the bow quarter while the other is more nearly from abeam. 

However, the ship is closer to the Boazio concept from the 1590 illustration than the usual jaunty little light galleon of the model kits. Note the main and forward top-gallant sails, the fore is reefed. 

JIm

Since reading Woodburner's excellent survey of the evidence, I have gone back to research for my article. I did find a few things not mentioned before. There was a bit of misdirection in identifying a model in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford, made shortly after the death  of Queen Eliabeth I as the Golden Hind, since disproved. However the model is thought to represent a merchant vessel of circa 1600.

This is probably the same size as the GH, but, as Woodburner remarked, the use of the stern gallery on smaller vessels was not adopted until perhaps 20 years after the GH was built. It had been "positively" id'd as the GH in an article by Naish Prideaux in the Mariner's Mirror, vol. 34, 1948, but since then his conclusions have been refuted. I believe that this model might also have inspired kit marketers to copy it's lines. I have even seen a watercolor of the "Caga-Fuego", the large Spanish treasure galleon looted by Drake off the Mexican coast that replicates the model.

One possible reliable guide---which seems to follow the Boazio illustrations pointed out by Woodburner--is a sepia portrait of the GH done by Gergory Robinson. This painting is reproduced in the 1973 book by T.W.E. Roche, "The Golden Hind", in the illustration section between pp. 40 and 41. Robinson wrote a careful investigative piece, " The evidence about the Golden Hind" in the Mariner's Mirror, vol. 35, 1949, fully discussing the vessels dimensions and armament. It---and Roche's commentary--pretty much corroborates what Woodburner said. I can't scan/reproduce the image here, but anyone interested in modeling the GH might refer to that illustration. The book is readily available through ABE. The illustration shows topgallent sails on the fore and mainmasts, but I believe that Spanish (or English?) sources mention that the GH would mount the topgallant yards at sea when needed for a chase, etc. They could be taken down and stored otherwise.

By the way, Woodburner, I would like to give you credit in my article for your research. If you'd email me (Jimmyjb@concentric.net) with your name, I'd be pleased to note you as a source in the article. Unless you'd rather me not.

Jim

Jim,

many thanks for your review of evidence relating to the GH. It is an era that interests me but I know very little about it except in the context of Pepys' later interest in the period. (the 17th & 18th century is my primary period of interest)

Thanks for the links to the Baozio maps, it is brilliant to have access to them online.

Will

The Boazio map shows ships of similar size and type to Golden Hind, also some larger ones.  The ships have no poop cabins or galleries, several have visible gun decks, and the mizzens are mounted far aft, worked by outrigger booms.  

Crackers,

I'm a bit confused as to whether the Brixham GH replica is the same as that which was displayed in London since 1973---or at least it was built in 1973, at Appledore, to the specifications of the California shipwright. Some sources say that the Brixham version was built in 1963 and never intended to sail, unlike the Appledore version. Is it possible that the same replica was at first displayed in London then moved to Brixham? 

Thanks for any clarification. My article assumes that these were two different replicas, the Brixham version designed as a stationary museum boat rather than a sailing replica. Then there was the Disney-fied version that graced the amusement pier at Southend from around 1950 to the 1970s. 

There was even a "half scale" pond model built and sailed by the Royal Marines stationed near some town in England where there was a "Drake Hotel", the model being built in accordance with images from paintings and etchings appearing on the walls of the hotel lobby. This was in the late 1920s or early 1930s. I recall there having been one replica (full scale) built near the end of the 19th century, but can't find my notes on it right now. 

Modelshipnut (Jim)

I recall watching  a TV series in the late 60's here in Canada that featured the Golden Hind - I can't remember the name - great stories and a lot of fun to watch.

Anyone remember the title and perhaps details of the ship featured?

   Woodburner gave such  an indepth history of the GOLDEN HIND, that I doubt anyone could perform a better detail of this famous ship. The GOLDEN HIND served as an exhibit at the Deptford Dockyard for almost 100 years before she rotted away. One would think a drawing or sketch of Drake's vessel, perhaps drawn by .the Van de Velde father and son Dutch marine artist team, could have survived for prosterity as an aid for model makers. The Elder and Younger Van de Veldes were a prolific drawers of mid-17th century English Restoration battlefleets of King Charles II.

  The Brixham Golden Hind Museum has a replica of the GOLDEN HIND. This replica is just about as good as possible of what the original vessel might have appeared in the late 16th century.

     Montani semper liberi !      Happy modelibng to all and every one of you.

                                              Crackers       

Breadth, depth of hold and length of keel (multiplied, then divided by 100 or so) are the measurement methods employed at the time to determine the capacity of a ship.  

The Imai kit is based on a 1970s replica, which was a sincere effort at representing the ship.  Like many reconstructions of Golden Hind, it has the poop cabin and stern gallery which are unlikely in the face of current evidence, but the designers deserve credit.

Thank you Jim for your comprehensive treatise on the GH and meticulous  efforts to extrapolate it's image and dimensions. My own research did not get as far as your detailed consideration, but the readership for Sea Classics shies away from scholarly digressions and just wants the bottom line. Your mini-dissertation will help me immeasurably in that regard. My own estimation of the overall length is abnout 102 feet, estimating the overhang of the stern transom and the projection of the bowsprit---but perhaps I have been too cautious here. I thought the 120 foot figure a bit high, as I figured the bowsprit to angle upwards at about 45 degrees and may have under-estimated the overhang of the transom.

I recall that G. Laird Clowes, the curator for the ship model collection at the Science Museum (London)  in the 1930s and 40s, gave an overall length of 75 feet, which is rather small. Bawlf, in his work on the alleged  "secret mission:" of Drake claims to have uncovered Admiralty records in which Drake ordered the construction of the Pelican--which name it probably kept until ex post-facto, Drake "named" her the GH. HIs figure estimates the overall lenght at 102 feet , beam of 20 feet and draft of 13 feet. He gives the likely "full load displacement" of the Pelican as 250 tons, the "tons burthen" figure having to do more with cargo capacity than wieght of the vessel, with stores and cargo. He showed his formula for deriving the displacement, which looks convincing enough.

You have provided a wealth of information and some new lines of inquiry. I was unaware of the Hoeckel GH . I agree that the lines would have been close to those set down by Baker circa 1586. The iillustration by Wheatley looks about right. Landstrom didn't illustrate the GH per se but his drawings of English race-built galleons (taken from Baker) show the likely hull lines. His galleons were the larger variety that were utilized in the counter-Armada campaign, such as the White Bear, Lion, etc., but the hull shape and configuration looks close to a conceivable GH. Your information sends me back to the proverbial drawing board--- a good thing.

Again, thanks,

Jim

Several reconstructions of Golden Hind have been made in the past seventy years, mostly good intentions hampered by limited research.  New information is appearing so new reconstructions are due.  

The original Golden Hind was between 110 and 120 tons burden.   The ship was measured when new in 1574-75 by a government inspector at 110, and in June 1577 Hawkins gave the measurement at 120.  Only a month later, Drake claimed 150, but this was for a bounty list which provided compensation - based on a ship's size - in event it was called into government service.  Notably the tonnage of a 114 tons burden ship is around 150.  Drake's brother restated 120 a few years later.   

Golden Hind was described as fast and responsive to the rudder by a captive on board, so we know the ship had fast lines.  Drake's service as a youth with Hawkins in raiding probably gave him a keen appreciation of a ship which could claim a victim as easily as escape a large warship, and its logical that he would commission a vessel that would retain these properties.  

Golden Hind would look much lower, a little plainer and much more dangerous and uncomfortable.