Heller Victory Research - JMW Turner Painting

You are absolutely right! Turner was above all a symbolist, and a creator of mood. So many don't understand this and think they should be looking at a photo. IMHO his artistry in using light to create symbolism is incomparable!

Looking at this painting with a 20th-21st century eye, one can appreciate the symbolism.  Comparing Turner's version of Victory with Swaine's, coupled with the early model provided on the "Heller" thread, illustrates the confusion of trying to model her.  It seems that Victory was built either with or without the entry port (the model clearly showing one; Swaine's painting clearly without), she had open stern galleries early in her career but, by Trafalgar, they were closed, and, finally, she was built with low forecastle bulwarks and was provided with higher ones by Trafalgar. Today, she has the low bulwarks and an entry port.

Do I have it correct?

Bill Morrison

I've been wondering about those entry ports for many years.  I raised the question when the Heller kit (without entry ports) was originally released, back in 1978 or thereabouts, and I reviewed it for Model Shipwright magazine.  (I mentioned in that review both the Turner painting and the model in the National Maritime Museum - which differs from the real ship's current configuration in quite a few interesting respects.)  I've brought up the question quite a few times since, in print and on the web.  So have quite a few other people. 

One interesting aspect of the issue:  I've never seen it addressed by any of the scholars who are associated with the ship herself.  Quite a bit of high-powered research was undertaken during the restoration project leading up to the 2005 bicentennial.  The researchers concluded, among other things, that Nelson actually died at a different spot than the one long celebrated by the "Here Nelson Died" marker; that she had a couple of long guns, in addition to the carronades, on her forecastle in 1805; and that the forecastle bulwarks probably were raised to shoulder-level prior to 1805.  (That one, as a matter of fact, was pretty well known in some circles already.  Dr. R.C. Anderson, in a book review in The Mariner's Mirror, called the lowering of the forecastle bulwarks "a mistake for which I must take my share of the blame."  It seems that, back in an earlier, major restoration project in the 1920s, they got reconstructed, and lowered, just before R.W. Bugler's book about the ship's history was published.  Bugler figured out that the bulwarks had been raised before 1805, but Dr. Anderson, who was one of the administrators of the project, decided not to scrap the work that had just been completed.  Money always plays a role in ship restoration projects.)

My own opinion, for what little it's worth, is that the Victory was built with entry ports (probably considerably more elaborate ones than those she has now), but that they were removed during one of her pre-1805 refits.  (Probably well before 1805 - and it's certainly possible that she never had them during her active career.  H.M.S. Victory:  Construction, Career and Restoration, by Allan McGowen and John McKay, contains good color reproductions of quite a few contemporary paintings of her at various dates.  Not one of them shows the entry ports.)  Just when they were installed (or re-installed) I have no idea; my guess would be during the 1920s.  (The Bugler and Longridge books, and the plans by George Campbell and Basil Lavis, all show them.  Photos of her sitting at Portsmouth prior to the '20s restoration project don't.) 

And I think it's fairly widely accepted now that the forecastle bulwarks were raised before 1805.  It's interesting that the excellent 1/72-scale kit by Calder/Jotika was originally issued with plans and parts representing them in their knee-high configuration, but it's since been updated with shoulder-high forecastle bulwarks.  (Caveat:  I base that observation on the photos on the company website.  The kit is far beyond my hobby budget.)  I know of only one other Victory kit that shows the raised forecastle bulwarks:  the tiny, but remarkably detailed, cast-metal one from Skytrex.

So yeah, Bill, I think you got it right - but I may well be mistaken.

The McGowen/McKay book contains another feature that's relevant to this discussion:  a copy (in black-and-white) of one of the sketches Turner made (apparently quite shortly after she returned to England after Trafalgar) on board her.  It's a watercolor sketch showing the break of the poop, from a vantage point on the quarterdeck.  It shows one more gunport under the poop than is present today (but is present on the NMM model), and a hefty railing along the forward edge of the poop itself - with a swivel gun mounted on it.  As I understand it, Turner made several such sketches that day.  I wonder where the others are.

When I was younger (a lot younger) I built so many models of the Victory (all of them, I'm sure, pretty awful) that I got thoroughly sick of her as a modeling subject; I'm not seriously thinking about doing another one.  If I were, I'd probably start with the Heller kit.  Even bearing in mind the various things that need to be changed in order to make it look like she did in 1805 (and the necessity of throwing out all the blocks and deadeyes, the hammock cranes, the poop skylight, the belaying pins, and probably quite a few other pieces that I've forgotten), it is, in my opinion, the best representation of the ship in kit form - with the possible exception of the huge Calder/Jotika one.  (It's worth noting that the latter kit - if the photos on the website are to be believed - makes no attempt to represent the "anchor stock" planking of the wales, which Heller got just right.  And the guns on all the lower decks of the Calder/Jotika kit are "dummies," with no carriages.)   The Heller kit certainly has the potential to be turned into a spectacular scale model,  and anybody who undertakes it has my best wishes.

John,

As always, thank you for your analysis!  I, too, am tired of modeling Victory as she appeared at Trafalgar (which most kits have gotten wrong.)  I believe that she is a far more interesting ship when one looks at her long history; indeed, she was present for many significant events not just Trafalgar.  Hence, my interest in her in an earlier configuration.

Back in the late 1970's, I was stationed in La Maddelana, Sardinia, Italy.  My wife bought the Aeropiccola POB kit of HMS Victory for me as an inexpensive way to try that form of construction.  The kit was manufactured with the image of her at Trafalgar in mind, albeit with the short forecastle bulwarks.  Given the overall mediocre-poor quality of the kit (the builder was to draw the gunports in pencil and the gratings were simply printed sheets of wood, among other flaws), I never really knew just what to do with the kit.  I recently became inspired to attempt a build of her in 1793 as she appeared in Swaine's painting, as being something out of the ordinary.  This forum has given me much useful information!

One regretable point that I would like to make . . . I attempted to get the Victory's current curator's points of view but he/she never answered my several emails.

Interestingly, your observation about having built so many models of the Victory that you became sick of her as a modeling subject reflect the same point of view expressed by Howard Chappelle concerning the USS Constitution!

Bill Morrison

Hello Bill...

I am certainly in the camp that believes the Victory did not have entry ports at Trafalgar as you can readily discern from my Heller research posts.  Basically all of the books/references cite 28 guns on the middle gun deck - which entry port proponents point to in defense of their position.  And of course the restored ship presumably had all of the finest researchers and nautical minds determine that the entry ports were indeed present.  

I just can't shake the fact that all of the contemporary sources that exhibit any credibility (at least veterans of the battle were still alive at the time  and could comment/influence them) definitively show the ports missing.  I am also comfortable in thinking that a room full of arguing experts constrained by limitations of time, treasure, and other resources did the best they could in the last "great repair", but ultimately produced a restored ship full of compromises.  

As you discovered, the curator staff at the naval dockyard seem to never respond to outside inquiries to give their perspective - there have been others who posted their failed attempts.

For my money, the Clarkson Stanfield painting is as close to a photograph of Trafalgar that is out there and it provides the basis for my current build.

By the way - the contemporary block model in the NMM that I reference in my Heller research clearly shows no side entry port:

EDITED: Removed reference to no step cleats up the side.  They are clearly visible amidships.

"The McGowen/McKay book contains another feature that's relevant to this discussion:  a copy (in black-and-white) of one of the sketches Turner made (apparently quite shortly after she returned to England after Trafalgar) on board her.  It's a watercolor sketch showing the break of the poop, from a vantage point on the quarterdeck.  It shows one more gunport under the poop than is present today (but is present on the NMM model), and a hefty railing along the forward edge of the poop itself - with a swivel gun mounted on it.  As I understand it, Turner made several such sketches that day.  I wonder where the others are."

Professor Tilley

I too have found the Turner sketch of the quarterdeck intriguing... I'm not too confident in the scholarship in the McGowen book and I'm therefore a bit dubious regarding the assessment of Turner's sketch in that book.  They seem hung up, for example, on the rope wooldings and don't make any mention of the swivel guns on the rail!  If we assume the Turner view represents a whole truth at that moment in time, then the rope around the mast may represent a post-battle/storm jury rig effected by the folks at Gibraltar to allow Victory to limp home... The swivels are more of a puzzle.  The break of the poop would not seem to be the ideal battle position.  My best guess (again assuming it is a whole truth) is that the rail served as a storage rack and the Marines redistributed these swivels to the tops when going into battle.

I don't feel at liberty to post the actual sketch unless I can find it out on the web (which I have not).  However, the NMM does have this Benjamin West (?) painting which is unabashedly/unrepentantly based on the Turner watercolor sketch in question - rope wooldings, swivel guns, and all:

Interestingly, Turner's painting of Nelson's mortal wounding shows no swivel gun railing at the break of the poop:

I also wonder where the Turner notes and sketches reside - and what other details they hold.  More importantly, I think the notes behind Clarkson Stanfield's great painting would hold some crucial insights - particularly since they should include correspondence between the painter and veteran's of the battle including Sir Thomas M Hardy.  They are probably in the NMM collection somewhere (Stanfield was one of the original curators of the Naval Hospital art collection) or perhaps in the Huntington Library here in Southern California.  Hmmmm...

Finally - here are two preliminary studies of the Turner Trafalgar painting now displayed on the Tate Gallery website:

Force9

By the way - the contemporary block model in the NMM that I reference in my Heller research clearly shows no side entry port - not even steps up the side:

My eyesight isn't the best, and my monitor is pretty small.  But it sure looks to me like there's a row of step cleats running up the side of that model, just forward of the break of the quarterdeck.

I feel obliged to come (sort of) to the defense of the current staff of the Victory - and of the National Maritime Museum, which has come under some similar criticism in this Forum recently. 

I used to work in a good-sized maritime museum (the Mariners' Museum, in Newport News, Virginia), and was one of four people (three curators and a curatorial assistant) who were responsible for answering queries (phoned or mailed in - there being no such thing as e-mail in those days) from the public.  It was often a frustrating job.  Some of the questions we got were extremely knowledgeable and interesting; others were pretty tiresome ("Why the heck hasn't your museum bought the S.S. United States?"  Or "Why didn't my model win a medal in your contest?"), and still others ("What was the name of the ship that brought my great-great uncle over from Ireland on in 1906?") were simply beyond our capacity to answer.  In those days (the early 1980s) that particular museum's policy was that every such query deserved an answer.  If the letter came from a professional academic or a staff member at another museum (on letterhead), we'd take as much time as necessary to answer it as thoroughly as we could.  As for questions from the general public (including model builders) - well, my boss's policy was that anybody who took the trouble to write a letter deserved at least ten minutes of our time.  And we bent that rule frequently.  I think we had a pretty good reputation among modelers and other enthusiasts for answering questions courteously, knowledgeably, and reasonably promptly.  But there were times when we were swamped with mail and/or with other responsibilities (when, for example, a new exhibition was going up).  At those times the mail from the public piled up pretty high, and I fear some of it may not have gotten answered in good time.

Shortly after I left the place several things happened:  the curatorial staff lost some positions due to budget cuts, and the museum started a major expansion project.  I recall seeing a copy of a form letter that my boss's successor developed; it simply informed people who'd sent in queries that the staff didn't have the time or means to answer them.  That's one of several reasons why I'm glad I left the place when I did.  But I do sympathize with the problem. 

Outsiders frequently don't understand how the staffs of museums are made up.  When I worked at the Mariners' Museum it had a total staff of about 100 - including groundskeepers, security guards, clerical people, educators, PR folks, janitors, etc.  Exactly three of those people were curators, and we had one excellent curatorial assistant.  (She had a master's degree in Spanish, which came in handy rather frequently.  One of the curators specialized in small boats, one specialized in marine art, and one - me - was responsible for all the other three-dimensional artifacts, including ship models.)  Those four were the only people on the staff who were competent to answer the sort of questions that would come from a ship modeler, marine artist, or antique boating enthusiast. 

Plenty of maritime museum have smaller staffs than that one.  I don't know how many people with the credentials of maritime historians work at either the Victory or the NMM nowadays but, in view of the economic crunches that have afflicted most museums in the U.S. and Britain during the past few decades, I'm sure those people are kept extremely busy.  And I rather suspect that the volume of queries from the public is considerably higher than it was thirty years ago.  (I think the number of ship modelers and other enthusiasts has gone up, and e-mail has made it far more convenient to contact such institutions than it used to be.)  If the curators at those places have reached the point where they simply can't answer all the questions they get - well, that's extremely regrettable, but I can't say I'm surprised.  And I don't feel I'm in a position to blame them for a situation that, in all probability, is beyond their control.

Prof Tilley -

Of course you're correct about the steps/cleats and your eyesight is fine... I jumbled my references - it is the Stanfield painting that shows no steps up the side...

You're also correct about extending sympathy towards the museum folks.  It must be a burden to even scratch the surface on correspondence - particularly something very visible like the naval dockyard in Portsmouth.  It would, however, be nice if someone someday actually reported success in getting some sort of chirp back from their inquiries... If the newspapers were to be believed times got so tough it looked like they considered handing the Victory over to the private sector for a bit (emphatically denied by the Royal Navy).

Force9, in the two Turner studies, assuming that the ship in both is Victory, why does she only have two gun decks?

I certainly did not mean to impugn the people serving HMS Victory today! I was simply disappointed at having received no response. If I came across as being overly critical, I rescind my remark with all due apologies!

The NMM model is interesting. Does anyone know the period that it is intended to depict? It shows the higher forecastle bulwarks as at Trafalgar but no copper bottom.  It does not seem to have open stern galleries as seem apparent in the Swaine painting.

Bill Morrison

Bill -

The model represents the period following the "Great Repair" of 1803.   This should generally represent her Trafalgar configuration, but there are, of course, nuances to explore...  The Swaine painting shows her in an earlier period and should not be the basis for a Trafalgar representation. 

Here is the link to my earlier thread specific to this model:

Heller Victory Research - 1803 Block Model

It all makes for interesting speculation...

I wasn't sure the world needed another Victory and that is partly why my model sat around in the attic for so long waiting for some unique "hook" that would make the effort worthwhile.  It pretty much took the rise of the internet before I got access to enough research to inspire me to re-enter the hobby and take this on.  My twist is to try to rely more on contemporary sources rather than the restored ship to model her Trafalgar configuration.  Here will be some of my "enhancements" based on this research:

Add the built up bulwarks to the Fo'c'sle (agrees with Turner and Stansfield paintings, and the block model)

No entry port. (agrees with Turner and Stanfield paintings, and the block model)

Replace the rail at the break of the poop with a solid railing. (based on the Turner sketch)

Paint the lower masts AND the tops yellow ochre. (Stanfield. Turner paintings)

Paint the bowsprit up to the jib boom yellow ochre -no black. (Stanfield painting)

Add crows feet. (Stanfield painting)

Extend the yellow ochre bands up forward around the cutwater. (agrees with Turner and Stanfield paintings)

Certainly I am veering off the beaten path and differing in some ways from the standard sources (Longridge, McKay) that are tied to the restored ship.  Where no credible contemporary sources provide enough insight, I'll fall back on the Portsmouth configuration.

I expect to absorb a bit of healthy ridicule along the way!

I don't think Bill or anybody else "impugned" the present-day staff of the Victory - and I certainly didn't mean to imply that its ok for museums to ignore inquiries completely.  And my relationship with my former employer is...well, less than ideal.  (I used to take the students in my museum studies classes on field trips to the Mariners' Museum.  I quit doing that when my wife, who was along for one of the trips, said to me the following day, "do you realize that you were in a good mood before you set foot in that museum, and you've been an insufferable crab ever since?"  She was right - and I haven't set foot in the MM for about seventeen years.  I probably ought to get over it; I don't imagine any of the 1983 staff members are still there.)   But I do sympathize with the small group of people who work in such places, and the difficulties they have keeping up with correspondence.

Personally I've always gotten good, reasonably fast responses from queries I've sent to the National Maritime Museum, and most other maritime museums (though I don't think I've ever had occasion to correspond with the people at Portsmouth.)  University letterhead undoubtedly helps.  But I'm also careful, whenever  I send a query to a museum, to make it short and specific - and define it in such a way that I figure the curator in question can answer it in a few minutes. 

I firmly believe that the vast majority of those folks are genuine, conscientious enthusiasts.  (I can't imagine any other sort of person going into that profession.  Heaven knows they don't go into it for the money.)   But a modeler who expects a museum curator to do original research for him/her (and quite a few modelers do just that) just isn't being realistic. 

For better or worse, if you really want to mine the informational resources of a museum or archive, the only way to do it right is to visit the institution yourself.  For best results, let the folks at the institution know you're coming - and ask them what a convenient day and time would be.  (And don't expect them to open up their archives or storerooms on a weekend just for you.)   And bear in mind that such places do place restrictions on what can be seen - and by whom.  I went to the National Maritime Museum for the first time when I was in graduate school.  I was working on my little model of the frigate Hancock at the time, and asked if I could see the Admiralty draught of her (after she was captured and renamed H.M.S. Iris).  David Lyon, who was in charge of the Draught Room, was the soul of courtesy; he brought out a small film transparency of the original drawing and let me study it with a magnifying glass to my heart's content.  But he also explained that the museum doesn't get its original, eighteenth-century drawings out of storage for people to look at, except under extraordinary circumstances.  Did the fact that an American grad student was building a model rise to the definition of "extraordinary circumstances"?  Mr. Lyon obviously didn't think so - and, objectively, neither do I.

I firmly believe that the vast majority of "maritime museum types" are first-rate folks.  But modelers need to bear in mind all the other things on those people's agendas.  And if you really want to mine the resources of the major artifact and archival repositories - well, you'd better have a considerable amount of money in your travel budget.  I wish things weren't that way, but I'm afraid they are.

I agree with John completely about the qualities usually found in maritime museum types.  I had an uncle who served as a volunteer onboard the battleship USS Texas; the people I met there were exceptional! The tour they willingly gave me after hours was the best tour I have ever received (including climbing the tripod masts into the observation tops!)

Anyway, I definately do not want a Trafalgar HMS Victory; I am interested in her earlier career as being somewhat out of the ordinary. Most models I have seen of her represent the ship as she appears either today or at Trafalgar. I am trying to convert her into an earlier period. This thread, coupled with the Heller thread, are most interesting and helpful!

Bill Morrison

"Force9, in the two Turner studies, assuming that the ship in both is Victory, why does she only have two gun decks?"

Bondoman - Nice catch!  I hadn't clued in to that subtlety.  I'd chalk it up to very preliminary studies from a landlubber artist... The second picture is the earliest study and was Turner's first exploration on how to position the Victory for best effect.  The other study is obviously closer to the final version - he basically added more wind in the sails and increased the drama by adding more symbolism (falling foremast, signal flags, etc).

He does show the three painted bands, but is clearly missing a row of guns - I guess on the quarterdeck.  Interestingly neither Turner or Stanfield bother with tapering the bands toward the stern as we see on the restored ship (and the guide moulding on the Heller kit).  Both of those artists generally run the bands along the upper and lower edges of the gun ports.  It seems to have passed muster with the Veterans who influenced these paintings...

"Anyway, I definately do not want a Trafalgar HMS Victory; I am interested in her earlier career as being somewhat out of the ordinary. Most models I have seen of her represent the ship as she appears either today or at Trafalgar. I am trying to convert her into an earlier period. This thread, coupled with the Heller thread, are most interesting and helpful!

Bill Morrison"

Hello Bill...

If you have not done so already, please join the Pete Coleman Victory forum.  It is not devoted only to the Heller kit - woodies are welcome and you will find many exchanges associated with a build that replicates an earlier configuration of the Victory.  I think the figurehead treatment is the toughest part of making a model that represents a pre-Trafalgar Victory.  Most folks end up becoming ad hoc sculptors.

This may be duplicative, but this build is terrific:

viewtopic.php?f=55&t=1226&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&sid=ece88517a3f31c82b6cabcd7b5db461f

Made all the more so because it is a card model (and the builder is a woman - she's got game!)

Very interested to see your approach - hope you will eventually post some photos.

Cheers

Force9,

WOW!  Thanks for the link (and the recommendation!)  I will check it out.

Bill

Force9,

By the way, I am also fascinated with your approach as well. Please keep me posted.

Bill