# Minnie - 87 ton topsail schooner 32'=1"



## Shipbuilder (Jun 30, 2005)

Completed two days ago, but I still need to make the display case.
Bob.


----------



## Shipbuilder (Jun 30, 2005)

Another "damp squib" as far as viewing figures are concerned! I have now put it in the sea and display case! The whole thing has taken 24 hours to build so far. The carrying case is almost complete.
Just built from bits & pieces with all-metal masts and rigging. 
Never was able to cope with kits(Jester)
Bob


----------



## stein (Nov 4, 2006)

I made a model brigantine with all rigging working, and I made a pinrail around the mast like yours, with one piece athwart behind the mast. But then I found out that with a boom above there was not room for any ropes going up from this piece. And when I looked at my three masted square riggers I found that they had the athwart piece in front of the mast on the mizzen mast pin rail, if they had one. Of course with a hand winch and pump wheels things get a bit complicated, but I wonder about fore and aft masts, whether their pinrails ever had this form. It might of course increase strength, and so have a function without being pierced for belaying pins, but I lean towards that being wrong in a sailor's eye.

Lovely model, incredibly detailed at that size, and my thoughts here does of course not relate to this model, but I would indeed like to know.


----------



## Shipbuilder (Jun 30, 2005)

I did not think too much about it when building the _Minnie_, as I had the plan. I have just looked again, and the cross piece of the fife rail, abaft the mast, does not show any pin holes. But there is not much coming down the aft side of the mast anyway. The throat & peak halliards go off to the sides. Looking at the shipyard plans of the steel barquentine _Maracaibo_, the cross piece abaft the mast is pierced for pins. The lateral movement of the boom where it joints to the mast would not be all that much, so maybe they used some chaffing gear. On the shipyard plans of steel barquentine _Mary Isabel_, (Attached) there is no cross piece to the fife rail at all! 
I will look out a few more plans and see what they have.
Bob


----------



## stein (Nov 4, 2006)

Yes, with a brigantine you got a few more braces to find a pin for. I observe that Underhill left the after part of the pinrail open in his reconstructed Leon. I think I will have to go through these contemporay portraits and see if the pinrail is observable on any of them: http://europeana.nialloleary.ie/index.php?navigation_function=3&europeana_query=Skonnertbrigg

Consider room for lateral movement of boom and sail in the painting in my posting "possible?" in the "Tall Ships" category.


----------



## Shipbuilder (Jun 30, 2005)

The plan for the _Minnie _came from Schooner Sunset, by Douglas Bennet, so as you say, it was mostly reconstructed. Quite a few authors "reconstructed" plans, which is really just another way of saying "I made it up!" 
I did not know the _Leon_ plans were mostly "reconstructed!"
But the plans I mentioned of the _Maracaibo_ and _Mary Isabel_ were actual builders plans, and as they were steel vessels, built in the 1890s, the plans would be correct. So _Maracaibo_ did have pins across the back of the rail.
Moving on to the painting that you put on in Tall Ships. It seems completely impossible. The main peak halliards are going to the fore lower mast and would certainly not hoist the gaff. Also, how would the main gaff topsail come down so low, as the hoops would have to pass the doublings. And why would a gaff topsail have reef points anyway? On first glance, it appears to be an excellent painting, but I cannot see how that rigging arrangement would stand a chance of working.
Bob


----------



## stein (Nov 4, 2006)

Yes the Leon is a reconstruction based wholly on a single photograph. And I have got a small reproduction (somewhere) of one of the sheets of the plans made by Colin Archer, her builder, that shows a different ship. But I sometimes, like now, feel a little brutal in saying so, as so many have trusted Underhill to be accurate and have put years into their Leon. 

Underhill also has some unlikely details on many of his sail plans, like putting steel clover leaf blocks for the sheets of the sail above underneath the yards, all the way up, even on small wooden ships.


----------



## stein (Nov 4, 2006)

Leon profile and lines by her builder, above, and by Underhill below. It might of course be called excellent guesswork, but still.


----------



## makko (Jul 20, 2006)

As always Bob, a joy to behold. And to Stein, thank you for an interesting exchange which makes me marvel more at Bob's detailing and craftsmanship.
Rgds.
Dave


----------



## Shipbuilder (Jun 30, 2005)

I can see differences in both plans. I never realised how little he had to go on - just a lines plan and a photograph! _Leon_ was the first serious model I ever made! I have only ever seen the one image of the actual ship and that is the one he used in the book. I don't know if he actually saw the vessel at some time - probably not, or he would have photographed it!
Attached is a sail plan of the _Kate_, that I drew up recently for my latest book, but I didn't go as far as "reconstructing" a deck plan. I did have a painting to supply the main details, plus dimensions from Lloyds register.
Bob


----------



## Barrie Youde (May 29, 2006)

Beautiful, Bob - and thank you!

As retirement, long winter evenings and duff television beckon, you are an inspiration!

B


----------



## stein (Nov 4, 2006)

I think Underhill made a serious mistake when he thought the lack of correspondence between yards and sails in his photograph to be the result of receving second hand yards, instead of the more common occurrence, second hand sails. A painting is not that dependable, even if contemporary, but I do find the sail plan here much more believable than Underhills. (Notice the Dolphin Striker pointing forwards, a Norwegian fancy!)


----------



## Sister Eleff (Nov 28, 2006)

This is a stunning model Shipbuilder and I too enjoyed the exchange between yourself and Stein, whose knowledge of these things is incredible.


----------



## Robert Hilton (Feb 13, 2011)

Lovely model. As a small boy sailing my model smack on the Round Pond in Kensington Gardens, I saw an old man with three sailing models. One was a sloop the size of Minnie or perhaps a little smaller. One was a schooner not much bigger and the largest was a square rigger, brig, barque or ship, I forget, but still small enough to fit into his hand. They would sail steadily across the pond in fine style and he used a pair of tweezers to trim the sheets.


----------



## caledonia2006 (May 28, 2012)

Sorry for the late response Bob, have been busy with DIY lately. Beautiful model as always, especially at that scale. Derek


----------



## SimonChristmas (Nov 10, 2015)

Wow Mr Shipbuilder that model of Minnie is amazing! I have asked the goodwife if she will get me a model kit as my present for putting up with her another year. It is the jolly boat from the mutiny on the Bounty. I have no idea how I will get on with it as I have only ever completed plastic kits and that was some 40 years ago. If it comes out half as impressive as Minnie I will be pleased!


----------



## Shipbuilder (Jun 30, 2005)

Thanks, the _Minnie_ was nothing special though! Not all that difficult because there are no knots in the rigging, it is all just fine copper wire glued on. I find miniatures far easier than larger models, and they take less time. 
Bob
PS
Attached is _Lord Ripon_ - now that is a complicated one, but tedious and repetitive rather than difficult!


----------



## makko (Jul 20, 2006)

Tedious and repetetive.........Hmmmm.......A TRUE JOY TO BEHOLD! It may be T&R but you are building joy for the eye of the beholder, Bob!
Best Regards,
Dave


----------

