SS Xantho, Western Australia's First Steamship - Scratchbuild - 1:100

[ArnoldAmbrose]

Oh well, if not actual action then at least good intentions and motivation, even if they are the 'electric cattle-prod' type. Regards, Jeff.

[Bandsaw Steve]

  Marquette Part 2; Does My Stern look big in this?

 

Before I start on part two of building the maquette, I think I should include this text and diagram from Alex Kilpa's Masters thesis. The main things to note is that he refers to this display as a 'concept plan' for 'future exhibition'. He has to, because most of what is shown here, the stern, rudder, propeller and boiler was never recovered.  I'm also including this because this draft of the diagram is much clearer than in the previous equivalent picture and in this one you can see much more clearly the offset to starboard of the rudder and many other details.

 

So that's all very interesting and useful, but the main thing I want to show you is the ongoing progress towards building the maquette.  Once again this will be mainly photos - not much text as most of these are self explanatory. 

 

Let's start by adding some panel-beater primer putty. Great stuff this, it primes and fills minor gaps in one pass - it also makes everything a very business-like shade of grey.

 

Then fill and sand...

 

Build a bunch of little boxes and things to represent the superstructure.  Note the small boat upturned on the hatches. This is a 3D printed piece left over from the Carpathia project. It scales out to almost exactly the same length as the dingy in the auction.

 

Here's a profile view. 

 

Slap some of this clear  finishing resin on the balsa. This stuff hardens the wood up a bit and makes it beautifully smooth and easy to sand.

 

Just slap it on.

 

Now spray all the superstructure bits white.  I suspect at least some of these should be varnished wood on the final product - happy to hear opinions - but for now it's all white. 

 

The hatches are a kahki brown representing tarpaulins, and the funnel is a 'buff' colour with a black cap. On reflection I note that one of the rock-drawings very clearly shows a stripped funnel - so on the actual model I'm thinking a white funnel with black stripes. Again - If anyone has an opinion or interpretation just sing out.

 

Now for the masts. Xantho was definitely a 'topsail schooner' which is what I believe this rig is.  This ship is the very 'Xantho-ish' 'SS Margaretta Stephenson' Another Denny Bro's product - yard number 75. Built in 1869 as a tender for the 'Marie and Stephenson' during the survey of the St Lawence River - Quebec.  According to 'The Denny List' this ship’s lines and profile are available from Greenwich. Maybe I should drop them a line and spend some money; after all @Gorby tells me I'm loaded. 

 

Start up the soldering-iron and make some stepped masts out of fine brass tube.  In real life masts are tapered toward a thin point - that's going to be a challenge on the model that I will not replicate on the maquette...

 

Add some booms.

 

Drill some holes and stick the masts in them.  Make sure that the masts are parallel to the funnel (or the other way around if you prefer)...🤔  Something that I have noted in practically all of the profiles I have seen is that the masts and funnels were parallel back in the early days of steam.

 

OK - that's about it for now. The fo'ard mast still needs a couple of booms on it - but you get the idea.

 

As always I'm happy to take any feedback, criticism, observations, opinions or queries.  

 

The main thing that I take away from this exercise is that I think Xantho's butt looks big. 

 

The whole ship, when viewed from above is sort of 'tear-drop' shape. it has a very nice sharp bow but a big blobby round stern area. it looks like a weevil with a big long snout and bulbous bum. I think it looks wrong and think that - especially in the light of the plan view drawings above - the stern needs to be redesigned to prevent this 'big butt' look.  

 

the main reason I drew the hull like this was because there was a written description by one of the divers in Mac's book that described the hull as 'reaching full width just 10 m from the rear of the ship'. I also drew it with a generous behind in part because this photo of 'William Miskin' reveals a generous toosh...

 

 

However, this diagram at least suggests a finer stern profile with a maximum beam about 2/3 fo'ard.  Now I realise that the 'interpreted hull lines' in the diagram could be deceptive because we do not know whether they are interpreted at a consistent height as they advance along  the hull - are they truely at the waterline for example?  

 

 

 

Nevertheless, I still think there's enough evidence here to design a finer line to the rear third of the ship, complete with a sharper (but still elliptical) stern.

 

Yes Xantho dear - I think your butt does look too big in these photos.  😱

 

Bandsaw Steve

 

[Gorby]

44 minutes ago, Bandsaw Steve said:

Maybe I should drop them a line and spend some money; after all @Gorby tells me I'm loaded. 

I can't remember why I came to that conclusion, although no doubt I was entirely correct (as I always am in my version of reality). 

 

I haven't been on BM much recently so I hadn't seen that you were making a mini-me Xantho first – very nice work! Perhaps you could say to the museum staff “No, I definitely said it would be in 1/144.” Then you can get back to making tracks for the tanky thing.

[Bandsaw Steve]

7 minutes ago, Gorby said:

 “No, I definitely said it would be in 1/144.” Then you can get back to making tracks for the tanky thing.

Actually, now that you mention it, there has been quite a lot of progress on the tracks for the Tanky thing. 
 

When I last wrote in the armour forum I said I had absolutely no idea how to make the tracks. Now I have three completely different sets of no ideas to apply to the problem. I’m hoping that ‘No idea no. 4’ works a bit better.

[Dave Swindell]

Hi Steve

I wouldn't usually comment on the size of a lady's bum, but seeing as you ask, yes it does look a little on the plump side on your maquette.

The hull line on the wreck drawing looks a fair curve, so I'd say it's a representation of  "a " (not necessarily "the") waterline section, and not an outline of the remaining shell plating. The line intersects the rudder stock, the lines do this at two places, bottom and top of the rudder, and it's not the bottom one (which would fair in to the centreline ahead of the propeller) so I'd take it as a representation of the hull around about the top of the rudder/ where the stock passses into the rudder trunk. 

The propeller is supposedly 6 foot diameter, the keel extends under the propeller and there would be clearance between this and the propeller, There is also a larger clearance above the propeller  under the sternframe where it curves around to meet the rudder stock, I'd therefore put this hull line at around the 8 - 9 foot draft mark, which would appear to be around or slightly above the deep load draft.  

Your maquette appears not to give very much room for the propeller, I'd suggest cutting away best part of half the lower depth of the stern and using the hull line from the wreck drawing to fair the hull forwards at the top of the rudder, then fair in the counter to match. 

Have you found the document with the illustrations of the model that was made of the stern section? It showed a fairly square / only slightly curved transom, not the rounded cruiser stern you've modelled - not saying either is right, just think it may be worth more consideration, I'd have to go back, find the doc and read it properly.

[Bandsaw Steve]

Maquette Part 3: Paint

 

Thanks for the comments above @Dave Swindell all duely noted and will inform my next set of drawings.  I agree that there's more thought to do around the stern of this vessel including thinning it down a bit and making more room for the propeller. I have seen that article on the reconstruction of the ships stern previously (I have a copy of the proceedings from the Iron Steamship Archeology Conference 2006 in which it was published).  I was very surprised that Gilman chose to model a transom stern because the registration papers record an 'elliptical' stern which I interpret to rule out a transom. As always though, I'm happy to discuss.

 

For now though let's put some paint on this maquette.   I briefly discussed colours with Ross Shardlow and he said that it was impossible to know what colour was on the original ship so I could paint it anything at all - as long as I chose black. Fair enough. I made a half-hearted plea for grey but was aware that steamships of the day were primarily black if no reason than it helped hide the staining from loading coal and spewing out smoke.

 

This image convinces me that Xantho sported false gun-ports and a striped funnel. 

 

 

Mac did discuss the possibility that the large squares along the ship's length were sizable windows sometimes cut into Scottish paddle steamers, especially ferries and pleasure steamers to allow fresh air into the passenger quarters. I have decided against this suggestion for the following reasons:

 

• The Xantho was a sea-going ship and large openings along the hull would have markedly reduced it's sea-worthiness.
• The 'openings' are depicted as an unbroken line along the whole length of the ship. These openings could never have run along the entire length of the ship given that the center of her was originally given-over to the paddle wheels and machinery. In any case Xantho had been lengthened and presumably the insert would not have sported windows.
• Most of the 'openings' in the picture above would have opened onto the boiler, machinery space and cargo holds.
• To my knowledge, in the court of enquiry, there was no discussion of the role of such large openings in the ship's sinking and if they had been present they would have been very important in the demise of the vessel.

Anyhow; false gun ports it is...  I've decided that Xantho will wear colours a bit like this famous ship...

 

 

 

I think that my hull's red will be a bit darker than that shown here. Many of the hulls in my book on Glasgow's Museum's model ships have a pale almost orange hull underside that I struggle to reconcile with my mental image of the 'correct' deep oxide-red colour for the underside of a ship's hull.  

 

Before we paint though, I have to deal with the tricky issue of the rudder. Here I've just cut a slot in the relevant spot and am checking that a bit of relevant brass, from which the rudder assembly would be cut, will fit.  Terrible photo - out of focus and so forth - but you get the idea.

 

 

Now spray some white all over the ship. BTW so-far the best white spray that I have found for large areas is 'MR Hobby - Mr White Surfacer'. Although this is technically speaking a primer I find it a very good general white paint with very good coverage and leveling properties. 

 

And now just get masking - you know the drill...

 

Spray black and then use a very fine demarcation line tape to determine the edge of the next colour.  Really burr it down hard to prevent bleed-under and then paint black over this line again. That way if there's any residual bleed-under it's black on black.

 

 

Now apply the final masking and you will be ready to paint the underside.

 

As an experiment I decided to paint the underside using 'Scale Model Supplies' (SMS) paints.  This stuff is made by an Australian owned and operated company and the paints are manufactured in Australia. They are apparently 'Acrylic Lacquers' which I thought was a contradiction in terms but apparently not....

 

 

Anyhow I am happy to report that my trial of this paint was very successful! I have to say that this is the first time that I have used these paints but it will not be the last.  I am not always best friends with my airbrush, but this paint - which comes ready to airbrush straight from the bottle - made airbrushing a pleasure. 

 

(Just a bit of full-disclosure here... I am on the WASMEx committee and SMS is one of our sponsors so you could claim that I have a conflict of interest if you like, although I don't know why anyone would bother as the paints really are very good! ). ✅

 

To me this is about the correct colour for a ship's hull. Any feeback welcome.

 

 

And back to a rattle-can for the decks...

 

Not bad - but I think I'll probably use actual wood on the decks on the final model.

 

Strip back the masking tape... (best part of the hobby I reckon)...

 

Yeah baby - get it off...

 

And here she is. Note that I've also added two steering positions;  one just ahead of the boiler house (for maneuvering in tight ports under steam power) and one at the stern for use during pure sailing operations. Consensus is that Xantho was primarily used as a sailing ship and used her auxiliary steam power only when needed; generally to enter port or to deal with adverse weather.

 

Here's another view.

 

So that's the maquette mostly finished.  Please note that none of the details on the deck, the funnel and superstructure etc, are glued down so this is easy to reconfigure to try out other layouts.

 

I still intend to add a lifeboat, some rigging and a few other details but I think this has advanced far enough to illustrate to  any interested parties what the final model might look like and thereby stimulate some discussion and critique.  Feel free to comment and criticize to your heart's content I won't be offended - honest.

 

Just one thing.  I know that the white stripe on which the gun ports are painted should extend at full width to the bow and the around the stern.  I can't actually say why I didn't paint them that way - but I didn't. I will on the final model though.

 

Oh yes; and the funnel will get stripes.

 

Stay safe everyone.

Steve

 

 

[ArnoldAmbrose]

19 minutes ago, Bandsaw Steve said:

Yeah baby - get it off...

Gidday Steve, Now the truth's coming out! Try not to revert to type. Impressionable and sensitive viewers here, you know, me for one. (If you believe that you'll believe anything. 😀)

     But I agree, peeling off masking tape to reveal a nice sharp demarcation between colours is very satisfying - I did it myself a couple of hours ago. That maquette is quite a nice model in it's own right.

Regards, Jeff.

[Courageous]

The marquette looks fab and sets the bar the real build.

As for:

10 hours ago, Bandsaw Steve said:

They are apparently 'Acrylic Lacquers' which I thought was a contradiction in terms but apparently not....

I believe the pigment is acrylic and the carrier is lacquer but then again, I could be talking out of my butt.

 

Stuart

[Cuppa_joe]

Fantastic work here mate, and a very interesting subject to boot. Well canvased on the details. Hope to see what is next for this story!

Subbed and following you too!

[Bandsaw Steve]

What fine taste in both subjects and following you show Mr Joe Sir.

 

I can assure you that this project is definitely still live, it’s just having a little sleep at the moment. Currently most of my efforts are directed at my daughter’s ‘Hogwarts Express’ project and my own ‘PZH 2000’ project- both of which I want finished by The first weekend in May 2021. 
 

Then it’s back to the Xantho and the path to fame and glory when she -hopefully- goes on public display.

[Cuppa_joe]

@Bandsaw Steve cheers mate! 

Oh right, i came late to the party as i didn't know about the hogwarts project other than in others passing comments, best of luck, and may is almost 3 months away, which is a matter of blink and it's here. Great to hear that this is moving forward!

[Bandsaw Steve]

Back from a deep sleep

 

'I can assure you that this project is definitely still live, it’s just having a little sleep at the moment.' So I wrote on 21 January 2021... Oh dear... 🙄

 

In fact this project fell into a very deep sleep indeed, as has my poor languishing PZH 2000.  However, as there is a family holiday to Albany looming very soon and I will be catching up with my friend Ross Shardlow (a leading maritime artist and historian), I thought I should make a concerted effort to make some progress on this thing.

 

Here's where we left this project. A rough 3D marquette finished and...

 

a set of archeological drawings that came to light that seem to have been overlooked when the museum gave me 'all the documentation available'. 

 

 

The new map essentially proves my suspicion that the lines used to create the hull on the marquette were incorrect.  In particular the ship's stern is too wide.  The contour's used in the marquette were based a scuba diver's report that the 'hull reached full width some 10m from the stern' but - in the absence of any other information I took that far too literally and gave the ship a very bulbous rear-end.  The orthographic drawing above proves at least three really important things:

1. The widest point on the ship's hull the was about 1/3 of it's length from the bow.  Having read a little on this subject now I am aware that this was an almost universal standard on British ships for several centuries. So it's no wonder the hull dimensions on the marquette look so wrong.
2. There are only two spillages of galena on the sea floor and both are forward of the boiler.  This suggests two distinct holds and hatches amidships and none (or at least none that was used to carry minerals) towards the rear.  Please note that in the image below I have outlined the galena spillages on the seafloor in red)
3. The funnel on my model is about 1.5 m forward of its correct position.  (please note that in the archeological drawing the circular feature in the center of the square boiler is definitely the steam-dome and not the funnel; the funnel was definitely mounted immediately aft of the boiler).

 

 

Anyway - with this new information in mind I decided to re-draft a new set of plans. Plan set number 5 as it happens.

Here's what the workspace looked like for most of today.

 

This time I've decided to take a much more rational approach to this work.  What I've done here is draft a set of lines that I'm proposing to be 'final' or 'settled'. In other words these are features that I am highly confident of.  (Actually now that I look at it I think I've made the rudder too small again, but that can be fixed). 🙂

I've now photocopied this set 10 times and will use it as a basis for sketching various possible superstructure layouts and detailed deck arrangements, fittings etc.  Hopefully Ross Shardlow and I can thrash out some likely layouts on these in a few weeks when I'm down in Albany.

 

There's just one thing really bothering me about these drawings though and I'm all ears if anyone can help me.

 

In the Xantho gallery, right next to the boiler is what appears to be a recovered section of the ship's side (the bit in the red circle). and I can't work out how to work this into the drawings.  

 

It appears to me to be bulwark adjacent to the boiler and curved inward (see the yellow stripe) creating a very marked amount of tumblehome. I would expect either bulwarks, or the structural sides of a ship's hull, to be either upright or leaning slightly outboard as seems to be the usual case in this period of shipbuilding.  I have not included any sign of this tumblehome in my line drawings, but this worries me as it means that my model - which I'm hoping will one-day be displayed just a few m away from this object - will be demonstrably in conflict with this prominent and large piece of primary evidence.

 

 

Here is a closer view showing six very prominent attachment points for... something?  The ratlines perhaps? But why would the ratlines be adjacent to the boiler and not a mast?

 

 

Frankly I'm confused by this piece of iron-mongery and am not sure how to incorporate it into the model.   Any thoughts will be most welcome. 🤔

 

Best Regards and sorry for the long silence.

 

Bandsaw Steve.

 

 

[Malc2]

Can't help with your questions as I don't do floaty boaty things.

But I can say I have followed this thread almost from the beginning and enjoyed the unfolding of the investigations very much and the way you have told the story.

I was only wondering yesterday when the next update would appear - and as if by magic........!

Great stuff, please keep going!

 

M.

Edited July 4, 2021 by Malc2

[Bandsaw Steve]

On 04/07/2021 at 21:05, Malc2 said:

 

Great stuff, please keep going!

 

M.

Thanks Mate!

 

Will do. 👍

 

I think we are getting towards the end of this very prolonged research phase. I’m really looking forward to actually bashing this thing together; should be easy compared to getting these drawings sorted.

 

I am very grateful for all of the technical help and moral support that has come through these pages. 
 

Steve

[JohnWS]

Steve, great to see this build is alive & awake. 

 

My first guess regarding the mystery section was that it looks like part of a boiler fire box.  So, I'm afraid I'm not much help. 

 

John

[Dave Swindell]

1 hour ago, Bandsaw Steve said:

Frankly I'm confused by this piece of iron-mongery and am not sure how to incorporate it into the model.   Any thoughts will be most welcome. 

Hi Steve. good to see this project back on the bench. a few quick thoughts on your conundrum

1 - We're assuming that the object in question is an actual part of the Xantho, it's positioning in the display and the sign entitled the wreck of the Xantho would lead one to assume that it is, however parts of it (porthole & surround, and black plating below porthole) looks like reproduction material being too new  and smooth compared to the rest of the plating. I've not had a good look through the dig documentation, is there any record of sections of hull plating being recovered or shown where from in  the drawings? Where it was recovered from on the seabed would give a useful clue as to it's location on the ship.

2 - I don't think we're looking at bulwarks with tumblehome here, There may be a bit of tumblehome involved ( a couple of degrees or so) however the amount of curvature in the top section looks more like a rolled deck edge to me - ie instead of the deck meeting the ships side at a sharp angle it is rounded down into the ships side. As exhibit A I'll present a book cover you posted on page 3

 

 

 

Note the white section of ships side amidships with the row of porholes curves over into the line of the deck above, also note the lower line of the bulwark either end of it. I suspect that the section of plating shown in the exhibit had a similar position/ relationship to the ships side on Xantho.  This feature isn't unusual where there's a raised focsle, poop, or midships deckhouse or bridge. To modify the maquette you'd need to round off the deck edge / ship side joint all the way round, and lower the bulwark below the curvature in way of the well deck forward.

3 -  the six brackets along the curved edge would appear to be the securing points for the shrouds supporting one of the masts (note what appears to be the remains of deadeyes in the brackets with eye shackles attached ), this would position the section abeam or slightly aft of abeam one of the masts - assuming that we're right with the position of a well deck around the fore mast with a cargo hatch fore and aft of it, then this section is from the vicinity of the engine room with a porthole to allow light into this space (so maybe no skylight on deck). The positioning of the section in the exhibit appears from the photo to put it on the port side of the boiler, if the mast is aft of the boiler, then this section should be further aft than displayed.

4 - If the section isn't including the aft mast shrouds, then was there a bridge structure athwartships in the region of the fore mast? The porthole if there was one originally in the structure as shown would indicate it was an enclosed structure. Given the size of the ship I think this scenario unlikely but have included it as a possibility 

[PAUL67]

Dave has made some very interesting points .Good luck with your 

research it's all part of the fun...

Paul

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

8 hours ago, Bandsaw Steve said:

It appears to me to be bulwark adjacent to the boiler and curved inward (see the yellow stripe) creating a very marked amount of tumblehome. I would expect either bulwarks, or the structural sides of a ship's hull, to be either upright or leaning slightly outboard as seems to be the usual case in this period of shipbuilding.  I have not included any sign of this tumblehome in my line drawings, but this worries me as it means that my model - which I'm hoping will one-day be displayed just a few m away from this object - will be demonstrably in conflict with this prominent and large piece of primary evidence.

 

 

Here is a closer view showing six very prominent attachment points for... something?  The ratlines perhaps? But why would the ratlines be adjacent to the boiler and not a mast?

 

 

Frankly I'm confused by this piece of iron-mongery and am not sure how to incorporate it into the model.   Any thoughts will be most welcome. 🤔

Hello Steve, not really an expert here but going off the two photo’s you have. Could it be an inner wall ? Looks as if there is a break just below the circular opening and the inner piece is separate from the outer. Could it have been a fancy cradle to minimize vibrations in the hull ? The boiler being suspended by those series of mounts. Also being she was rebuilt at some point before going to Australia could that be bits of the original hull still inside of the new hull ? Im just throwing what are my best two guesses out and maybe I’m just way off ? 
 

Dennis

[Bandsaw Steve]

Thanks guys,  all grist to the mill.

 

I think the key to this is the realisation (that really only fully dawned on me as I typed the post above) that this problematic object might not be located in its correct position or orientation relative to the rest of the ship.

 

I’m not in a position right now to post a full response- maybe tomorrow night- but I’m keen on the idea of a rolled deck edge with this as the attachment for the shrouds. However I am not sure exactly what this would look like. If anyone has a close-up photo or diagram of what the rolled deck edge would look like that would be great. 
 

I might do some sketching tonight to see if I’ve understood @Dave Swindells comments correctly.

Of course the actual logical thing for me to do is re-establish contact with the museum and discuss this with someone ‘in the know’, but for some irrational reason I’m hoping to have a set of plans that I’m pretty confident in before I go back to them.  It’s kinda putting the cart ahead of the horse perhaps but that’s how I’m feeling at the moment. 

 

 

Thanks,

Steve.

 

 

[JohnWS]

I'm just grasping at straws here, but here's a photo of the stern of Falls Of Clyde.  She was built  in 1878 by Russell and Company in Port Glasgow, Inverclyde, Scotland as a iron-hulled, four-masted full-rigged, sail-driven oil tanker.  Note the curved section of the hull around the edge of the raised quarter deck that includes rigging connection points & portholes.

 

 

Steve, I hope this doesn't add to the confusion, but it does look similar to the artifact in your photo.

 

John

[Bandsaw Steve]

That’s actually very good! 
 

Combined with a rolled deck edge I think that’s a compelling piece of evidence! 👍😀👍
 

Actually - now that I’ve looked carefully, I think that is a rolled deck edge! Look at the stern to see how the top part of the stern has a rolled profile. 👍

[Dave Swindell]

2 hours ago, Bandsaw Steve said:

I’m keen on the idea of a rolled deck edge with this as the attachment for the shrouds. However I am not sure exactly what this would look like. If anyone has a close-up photo or diagram of what the rolled deck edge would look like that would be great. 
 

I might do some sketching tonight to see if I’ve understood @Dave Swindells comments correctly.

 

13 minutes ago, JohnWS said:

I'm just grasping at straws here, but here's a photo of the stern of Falls Of Clyde.  She was built  in 1878 by Russell and Company in Port Glasgow, Inverclyde, Scotland as a iron-hulled, four-masted full-rigged, sail-driven oil tanker.  Note the curved section of the hull around the edge of the raised quarter deck that includes rigging connection points & portholes.

Thanks for posting that photo John -  Steve that is exactly what I had in mind.

 

If you've still got access to Waine Coastal Steamers check out:-

Stockton in the Preface p5

Bridges of Collier P46, Tanfield p53, Velinheli p60b, Edith p63a

Focsle on Shotton p71

Deckhouse between holds on SS Wans Fell 73b

and in McCluskie's Harland & Wolff book:-

Midships on Castilian & Catalonian

Focsle on Celtic

Focsle and poop on Thurland Castle, Steelfield; Slieve More, Bawn & Roe; Star of Italy & France; British Queen & King; Arabic & Coptic; Winnebah & Akassa; & Lord Downshire

A lot of tankers and bulk carriers still have a rolled deck edge along the maindeck.

[Bandsaw Steve]

Brilliant!

 

Yes I do still have access to those books and will get to each of these tomorrow night. (It’s bedtime now and work tomorrow)

 

Dave, you will be pleased to know that as I re-read your post carefully while working on the drawings tonight, your meaning became much clearer to me. I think I’ve interpreted what you have said fairly accurately now and the photo of ‘Falls of Clyde’ seems to confirm that I finally got the idea.
 

I’m really starting to like this particular interp. Its less ‘generic’ than my previous attempts (and much less so than the interp on page one of this thread) but is still a conventional-looking ship. I believe we are getting much closer now to a final set of drawings that are better supported by primary evidence than any that have come before! 
 

It’s kind of exciting! 🤩
 

 

 

[ArnoldAmbrose]

Gidday Steve, although I've been silent for a while (and it was difficult when you mentioned wide rounded sterns 😀) I've still been following this. Although I don't know a lot about this era of ship the photo from John above does look rather convincing, particularly regarding the dead-eyes for connecting the shrouds. Regards, Jeff.

[Iceman 29]

Some HD pictures to complete JohnWS' message.