HMS Victory rigging question

I still do not know how to post a picture of my build.. oh well working on the ships boats.. The 34 ft launch, 28 ft pennice and 32 ft Barge are complete... Working on that pesky little 12 ft dingy... Had to slice and dice to get a boat down to 1.44 inchs... .. The 30 ft sea cutters should be easier..

Looks superb, amazing build, I will never get to that stage, hats off to you

[URL=http://s1266.photobucket.com/user/Hipper14/media/IMG_17951_zpsvkda7yej.jpg

cerberusjf just gave you a most succint explanation of how to post here using Photobucket.

One thing I might add is that Photobucket has, in the not too distant past, had their website problems where clicking on "img" did not copy the address (URL). When you do click on "img", be looking at the window where you should see it change - momentarily - and show the word "copied". That only happens for a second, so if you missed it, try again. If it doesn't say "copied" simply copy the address in the window as you would normally and paste it where you want it in your post.

A quick way I do it i to upload an image into photobucket, then left click on the box next to "img" and the image link is copied automatically. 

Then you can go to your reply in Finescale and once you have the curser in the location in the message you want the image to appear, then right click and paste, or use "CTRL V" to paste the link.

go to forums , scroll down to the last site , testing , 1943mike , has excellent adice on how to post pictures . but first you have to have a hosting site , like photo bucket , down load your pic's to it , then follow mike's advice

How do I add a picture to a post on this site ??? I see the insert image button ,but when I click it it takes me to a screen asking for sourse .. I  dont know what it means..  Do I have to type in C/ my pictures or something ??

Thank you all gentelmen for the aid and assistance freely given when I needed help. I've built the Revell 1/96 U.S.S. Constitution; Cutty Sark and Thermopylae clippers and I had a superb time in researching and building them. I'm going to give your ensign method a go JT, thanks.

I turn 69 in a few weeks so I may not start a 5 year plus project this time. But, with my love of all sailing ships and the whole time period as well, who knows. As a retired police officer, (30 years) and an Air Force vet, I still need to build to create. Anyone else feel that way? Thanks again gents!

For the design of the ensigns I would not go for the modern versions. There is a bunch of contemporary flags still existing and the diagonal stripes line up a bit differently than today, even if it looks strange to our eyes. Here some samples from the NMM:

past 1801 version

A British White Ensign (post-1801 pattern). Date made 1801-1804. It is made of hand-sewn wool bunting with a rope and toggle attached and is made up in the irregular manner characteristic of flags of this period. This ensign was used only by the Royal Navy throughout its history but, before 1864, it would have been worn by ships under the command of an admiral of the white squadron. Sir Andrew Mitchell was Vice-Admiral of the White between 1 January 1801 and 23 April 1804. The ensign is said to have belonged to Admiral Sir Andrew Mitchell (1757-1806).

flag: 2235.2 x 3454.4 mm

And the Jack:

British Union jack (post-1801 pattern). A hand-sewn, wool bunting flag with a linen hoist and a rope and toggle attached. The flag has been repaired and the design is inaccurately made up in a manner characteristic of early Union Flags. If used at sea, the flag would have been flown in harbour from a jackstaff on the ships bowsprit and is therefore a 'Union Jack'. The flag is said to have belonged to Admiral Sir Andrew Mitchell (1757-1806). AAA0575 http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/575.html

flag: 1295.4 x 2336.8 mm

Very interesting discussion, thank you all for it!

It even got some points further than the titel suggests :-)

The position of  the flags and ensigns is quite well discribed by the contemporary sources, both for the regular use as for the "Trafalgar set up".

But other sources are less clear. Interestingly Lavery writes on Arming and Fitting page 255:

"The top lantern was used by flagships, and ships in charge of a convoy. It was fitted to the [...] appropriate top, according to the rank of the admiral concerned: the main top for a full admiral, the fore top for a vice admiral, and the mizzen top for a rear admiral."

Fixed my lantern there for on the mizzen top as Nelson was Vice of the White and Mr. Westphal, midship man, is dreamingly looking at it.

But never found a confirmation about this passage, until lately I learned after again and once more nagging the others researchers, that the Sailing and Fighting Instructions for His Majesty's Fleet, 1775 points out:

Signals by Day. Distinguishing Lights for the Flags.
[...]
The Vice-Admiral, or he who has the Second Post, to have two on his Poop, and one on his Main-top.
[...]

So Mr. Westphal, please take down the lantern and fix it on the main top ...

Or was there a change in handling the lanterns in between 1775 and 1805?!?

So I think that all reasearch is quite in a state of flux lately. In our german forum I did a collection of all the contemporary sources of the Vic, and it is amazing, there is quite a bit of stuff existing, the Turner drawings closing quite a gap. If interested feel free to register (stupid german laws and lawyers ...), you will find a switch for english translation in the bottum left corner but the pictures anyway tell their own story: http://www.segelschiffsmodellbau.com/t4729f198-Victory-im-Wandel-der-Zeit-in-zeitgenoessischen-Dokumenten.html

As GMorrison already pointed out, no entry port to be seen on Turners drawing, just like all contemporary sources I found from 1788 on :-) It just reappeared in 1828 and then one port more aft. And on top the Vic is not the only one to show this phenomenom: From about 1770 onwards the all proofs of the side entry port on all the three deckers disappear - possibly in the wake of the war of independance and the mess with the french - just to reappear in the Dreadnought in 1801.

Also by the sources now available, there should be a lot of things changed on the "display" in Portsmouth. But most people only would recognise a new color and if the entry port was missing ;-)

XXXDAn

 PS: WONDERFUL model stoney!

Very true. It's occurred to me that one reason for making such flags out of coarse, netting-like material may have been to keep them from interfering with the ship's navigation.

I imagine the biggest reason for the coarse-woven fabric, though, was simply to make the flag last longer.

The museum where I used to work had a huge Blue Ensign from the liner Queen Elizabeth. It looked like a colored fishing net.

The ensigns could easily be the same size as a topgallant sail. They were absolutely huge. Considering the amount of gunsmoke produced in a full-up fleet action they had to be big to work properly as IFF.

So what now, golf?

on finishing. That really is something.

It looks great, Stoney. In finishing that kit you've entered a small, elite group of ship modelers. (I'd be that not more than one in a thousand that get bought actually get finished.)

I think you're perfectly up to the job of making your own flags. I recommend acrylic artist's paint (you only need two colors: red and blue) on white tissue paper (the kind that'd used to wrap things inside packages).

The British ensign is more complicated than it looks at first glance. Here's a link that provides the proportions: http://www.enchantedlearning.com/europe/uk/flag/Flagbwhugethumbnail.GIF .

Caveat: I'm not so certain that Nelson's navy used exactly the ratios for the overall flag that are used now. But the ratios for the stripes should be the same.

I suggest you print out a copy of that drawing, and use the "reduce/enlarge" function on your printer to make it whatever size you want. (For the big white ensign, of course, the drawing needs to be only a quarter the size of the whole flag. And you'll need to draw the big red St. George's Cross that runs across the whole flag. Here's another link: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj-8-u6nvHMAhVQKlIKHYfHCA8QjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.crwflags.com%2Ffotw%2Fflags%2Fgb-ensig.html&psig=AFQjCNGDNbXdfk8aWCEJjsSpoZfbIoQFBg&ust=1464128550117159. ) Then tape the print down to a piece of wood or something. Cover it with wax paper.

Tape a piece of tissue down over the drawing. (The wax paper will keep it from getting stuck to the drawing by the paint that soaks through.) Then paint the design on the tissue. Let it dry, then untape the tissue. The red and blue will show through to the other side. Lay the flag on the waxed paper (painted side down) and paint the other side.

A tip: eighteenth-century flags were made of a fabric that looked like very coarse gauze. The old master marine painters often made their flags almost transparent. You may want to thin the paint quite a bit.

It's worked for me. I say, give it a try. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

" target="">Well, all done! Seems really odd not going down to the workshop to work on the Victory model. Trying to find a correct sized ensign as the kit supplied one seems to large.

Ah, the British ranking system... It dates back to the mid-1600s, in Cromwell's time. At that time - the Dutch wars really - the Royal Navy generally operated en masse, almost 100 ships of the line (both proper Navy ships and sufficiently big rented/commandeered merchantmen) taking part in a single battle sometimes - and as many on the enemy side too! To keep some semblance of control this large fleet was organized into an advance guard, the main body, and a rear guard, all of roughly equal strengt; rather similar to how an army was organized. And indeed, the admirals tended to be ex-generals from the New Model Army.

Anyway, obviously the van, main and rear bodies of the fleet all needed an admiral in charge. Each of the three admirals had two subordinate admirals, one rear and one vice admiral, to command the rear and advance parts of his subfleet respectively. This gave each admiral about ten ships under his immediate command which was more or less manageable even with the rudimentary signalling systems they had to work with.

So, three sets of three admirals, one set for each part of the fleet. For identification purposes each part of the fleet was given individually coloured flags, the rear body had a blue flag, the main body a red flag, the van a white flag, and the relevant admirals' command flags had the same colour as their fleet body's colour. The sailing order of the admirals, counted from the rear of the fleet was thus:

Rear body - all ships using a blue flag
-Rear admiral of the blue
-Admiral of the blue - overall command of the rear body
-Vice-admiral of the blue

Main body - all ships using a red flag
-Rear admiral of the red
-Admiral of the red - overall command of the main body AND of the whole fleet
-Vice admiral of the red

Advance guard - all ships using a white flag
- Rear admiral of the white
- Admiral of the white - overall command of the van
- Vice admiral of the white

So the red admirals were superior to the whites which were superior to the blues, and admirals were superior to vice admirals which were superior to rear admirals. A white vice admiral would be superior to a blue vice admiral but inferior to a red one.

The "fleet body" flags evolved into the familiar red, white, and blue ensigns we know from the Napoleonic era. The simple nine-step system of admirals obviously broke down once they appointed a tenth one (well, the eleventh, there was an Admiral of the Fleet but he was generally supposed to stay in his office in London rather than go to sea with the fleet; James Stuart, I am looking at you!), so that in the eighteenth century they would have any number of rear-admirals of the white running around the place at any given time. As long as they were not in the same fleet at the same time this was not an issue.

CapnMac, your comment about officers is quite correct - for the Army. The Navy was different; officers were rather more middle-class than nobility and certainly did not purchase their commisions. It must of course be said that having friends in the right places has never hurt anyone! Promotion in the Navy was based on ability (and connections - although all the "interest" in the world would help the truly incompentent only so much) and, past a certain point, seniority. Once you made "post" rank, captain, further promotion was a matter of stepping into dead men's shoes unless the powers that be increased the number of admiral's billets. Promotion from midshipman to lieutenant was one point where having friends came in handy; promotion from lieutenant to captain even more so. After that it was all on autopilot while hoping for "a bloody war and a sickly season" to kill off the old geezers ahead of you on the ladder so you could move ahead.

Admirals Nelson and Hood were sons of lower grade churchmen; Rodney was born into a poor, if well-connected family; John Jervis was the son of a barrister. They ended up with titles and money to go with their flags but they made it there the hard way.

My undestanding orf RN doctrine was that admirals were "of the White" or "of the Red" or "of the Blue"--and the flags of the Admiral's squadrons followed suit appropriately.

But, I also want to remember reading that the 'color' system was breaking down by about 1800, just from the size of the RN at the time and the number of squadrons raised.

Somewher eabout this time, the White Ensign becomes the default Ensign for the Royal Navy.  But, some units kept with the Red Ensign as the unassigned flag.  Not that means so very much--I want to remember Cook sailed nder a Blue Ensign, and Bligh under a Red--go figure.

This is all messy; we have to remember England's officers were from the nobility, they purchased their commissions.  They were free to use their personal wealth as they saw fit.

A question on Victorys flags... I am depicting Victory departing the Medway at the completion of her  1803 great rebuild..  I would have her flag pole stricken and placed on the boat skids with  her flag displayed on the mizzen gaff boom.. What flag should I have flying ??  I would not think the White ensign as this was used for battle ?  Any help appriciated ..

Very nice work on this Heller 1/100 scale Victory... I have been working on and off on this Kit for more years than I care to count.. I too am done with the standing rig and just started the 34ft launch..  Keep up your good works !  regards BC

Very true.

There are several parts to the story of Turner and Trafalgar.

When Nelson's body was returned to England in 1805, Turner made an absolutely exquisite series of pencil sketches of her, that have been posted here in the past.

http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/turner-the-victory-port-side-d05489

Can't see any entry ports...

Of course he wasn't commissioned to paint the great The Battle of Trafalgar until 1822, completed in 1824. Since his earlier sketches did not include much rigging, or at least the ones we still have do not, he drew from other sources for those details. Primary among those, sketches by another maritime artist , J. C. Schetky.

The painting was a bit of a failure in that it took a lot of repainting to satisfy the "literal- minded" naval contemporaries, including substantially raising the waterline. The artist also took some license in compressing events that took place over about 18 hours into a single moment, in order to tell the story.

"sea dogs versus artists". Ah some things have never changed...

Source: The Life and Masterworks of J.M.W. Turner by Eric Shanes.

Very interesting thread and discussion.  The build of the Victory looks like it will be a superb piece and you should be rightly proud of it.

In my teens I built many of the Revell sailing ships, and to my knowledge they have probably all reached the trash pile by this time.  The largest were The Spanish Galleon and the USS Constitution with sails.  (the early smooth sails not the horrid burlap texture they now have)

Gentlemen, thank you so very much for your kind answers to my question. more or less confirms my thoughts and research on the subject. I've spent hours on the net trying to find contemporary paintings on this issue and it was amazing how little there was I was confident in.

About another week and I'll be finished with this multi year build of this famous ship. Longridge's book was my bible for the entire effort.

I'll include some photos when finished, Again Thanks for the help gents.

Stoney, just magnificent. This is the type of work I can only dream of. I want to thank all of you contributors for one of the most interesting and informative threads I have come upon.

The Vice-Admiral's flag with the red dot (or ball) dates from 1864 according to "Flags at sea" by Timothy Wilson.  Hopefully it's clear that Nelson's flag was without the red dot..  Maybe I should not have posted the image with the red dot, but it's the only one I could find at the time, sorry.

Here is the 1804 image from "Nelson's navy", "F" (centre) is Vice-Admiral of the white, showing the white flag+red cross on the foremast.  You can see the white ensign on the Admiral of the white's image "C" (centre-top), white with a red cross.  As John Tiley says, it gets complicated as these flags changed slightly over time and finding out when they changed can be difficult, especially when trying to find it.

Maybe it's me, but I never considered the Royal navy as being an informal organisation, I always thought the reverse tbh. :)

I'm a bit surprised about the absence of the pennant as it is something that is always present in kits of "Victory".

I haven't looked closely at Turner's position for the flags until now, I hadn't noticed the union jack on the main topmast stay, I has thought it was supposed to be on the fore topgallant stay.  But this was only for the battle and not a normal position for the flag.

I thought this was going to be an easy one to answer. I was wrong.

British flag etiquette was considerable less formal and consistent than in the modern Royal Navy - and the modern U.S. Navy is even stricter. The Royal Navy, for instance, has always been careless regarding the use of the jack. (In the U.S. Navy, the jack is flown while the ship is in port, but taken down when the ship gets under weigh.) I've seen several slight variations of the Victory's flag outfit.

One thing is certain: since (in 1805) she was part of a squadron commanded by a vice admiral of the white, she would have carried the white ensign on her stern flagstaff - or, if the flagstaff wasn't in its usual position (i.e., had been removed to let the driver boom swing) from the driver gaff. The union jack might have been flown from the ensign staff at the bowsprit cap - but that fitting might or might not be there, depending on the circumstances. If not, the jack might be flown from the fore royal stay. Modern photos of the ship rarely show the jackstaff on the bowsprit. And most of them seem to show the white ensign being flown from the driver gaff.

I've seen three versions of the 1805 vice admiral of the white's flag. Sometimes its a white rectangle with a red cross on it - period. Sometimes it's got the red disk in the upper left quadrant, as Cerberus showed it. Sometimes the disk is blue. Take a look at this reference: https://flagspot.net/flags/gb%5Enrank.html .

And if you want to get really mixed up, look at what J.M.W. Turner had to say about the Victory's flags at Trafalgar: http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/6b/b0/03/6bb0036e92f13be9b2ba91ee0ae35223.jpg .

 I'm not about to pronounce any permutations of those flags "wrong."

Good luck.