Nelson & His World

Discussion on the life and times of Admiral Lord Nelson
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:49 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: How were warships painted?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:41 pm
Posts: 151
[Topic split from HMS Victory's 'Hideous Orange' Paint: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1620 ]

Forgive me for going off on a slight tangent here, but, how often would ships have been repainted? The article says that the experts discovered there were 72 layers of paint, so I was wondering, would a ship have been repainted every time it was repaired after a battle? I imagine they might look a bit odd and patchy if not, but would repainting them all the time have been too expensive and time-consuming, or did it not even matter? 72 layers of paint kind of suggests to me that maybe they were, or would the flagship have been an exception and smaller vessels would have been left with damaged paintwork?

_________________
Vicki


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: HMS Victory's 'hideous orange' paint: painting ships
PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 3:17 pm
Posts: 217
Hello Vickie!
The navy calculated that ships which had been sheathed in copper could remain at sea for three years before they would need docking and a refit. Indeed it was this increase in cost-effectiveness (previously it had been every six months) which the Navy Board saw as the main reason for introducing coppering in the 1780s and 1790s (though naval officers regarded the increase in speed due to the fact that copper deterred the growth of weed as the real justification). The evidence suggests that three years between refits was a good average, though some ships need it earlier and some later depending on whether they had been deployed in stormy northern waters or in less challenging southern ones. To dock and refit a frigate took two months and a 74 gun ship four months – and would obviously end in a thorough paint job.
When ships left the dockyard however, until roughly the post 1805 period, they were not painted in a uniform manner. At the Nile for example, ‘Goliath’ was black and yellow with black ports, ‘Alexander’ was yellow, and ‘Zealous’ red with yellow strakes!
Painting was not of course confined to dockyards. Once at sea, wooden ships received continuous punishment from wind and ocean, so that there was continual re-painting of one part of a ship or another to cope with the latest problem. All ships therefore carried large supplies of the appropriate paint with them. On the days before Trafalgar for example, HMS ‘Africa’ (a 64) used 180lbs of yellow, 56lbs of black and 90lbs of white paint mixed with 12 gallons of linseed oil to ‘Repaint the weather works in and outboard’, and 24 gallons of black paint and varnish to ‘Re-black the waist.’ Thus as much of the way a ship was repainted was necessarily in isolated bits, I am not sure what ’72 layers of paint’ in the article you refer to means.
Repainting was not done just done for smartness. Much of the paint was lead-based and, when mixed with turpentine (to thin it) and varnish, provided an important protective function to the fabric of the ship. That is not to say that appearance was unimportant. It is well known that at the beginning of the Trafalgar Campaign, for example, some captains repainted their ships in ‘Nelson colours’ – that is, black hull with yellow strakes and black ports – to please the admiral. This was done at sea and there seems to have been no problem in finding the necessary paint.
After a battle, all ships had to patch themselves up and get to the nearest dockyard for serious repairs. Strangely, (if the carpenter’s accounts of ‘Africa’ and ‘Britannia’ are anything to by) this post battle patching up did apply to painting. Presumably the crews were exhausted and had better things to do and left painting to the dockyard.
Brian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HMS Victory's 'hideous orange' paint
PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:00 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:06 am
Posts: 2830
Location: mid-Wales
Thanks, Brian, and all the experts here who add so much to our understanding. You remind me of the amazed yokels in Goldsmith's 'The Deserted Village' who were astounded at the learning of the village schoolmaster:

'And still they gazed, and still the wonder grew
That one small head could carry all he knew'.

A further contribution on this subject appeared in The Times a couple of days ago, penned by Justin Reay, Editorial Director of British Naval History.com. Oxford, and an occasional contributor to this website.

There is a paywall at the Times website so I can't provide a link. I think a direct quote would breach copyright. I'll do my best to paraphrase:

Ships' hulls were painted with a mix of tar and black paint, but wide bands were also painted along the wales in 'English yellow', somewhere between light ochre and a reddish yellow. Analysis of paint is useful but not the only evidence; the returns of naval carpenters and dockyard stores are also studied. Contemporary paintings clearly show that in 1805 the Victory had yellow bands along her hull.....

He also points out that the decoration of cabins reflected the taste and status of the occupants whose houses were typically decorated in light blue, yellow, pale grey and ivory white. The dark varnish in Victory's grander cabins is Victorian and should be rectified.

The suggestion that Victory's hull should be painted all-over black would ruin a beautiful ship and would be historically incorrect.

_________________
Anna


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HMS Victory's 'hideous orange' paint
PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 11:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:41 pm
Posts: 151
Thankyou so much for your reply, Brian :)

Anna, 'amazed yokel' is a very accurate description of me every time I come to this site! :D

_________________
Vicki


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: HMS Victory's 'hideous orange' paint
PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 11:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 10:40 pm
Posts: 1088
Thanks Brian and Anna for that info.

I wonder if ships actually carried paint in their stores.

Back then and in fact right through to the middle of the 20th century a lot of paint was made of just 3 or 4 ingredients.

1. A Resin/varnish as the base
2. Pigment powder to give it the required colour
3. A thinner (normally turpentine) to give it the required consistency
4. White lead powder to give it additional body.

Because 1 and 3 could presumably be used for other purposes I am guessing that the ingredients were requisitioned and stored separately and only made up into paint as and when required.

But that is pure guess work on my behalf. Would be interesting to know the reality.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: HMS Victory's 'hideous orange' paint:painting ships
PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 5:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 3:17 pm
Posts: 217
1, My impression is that Mark is right and that some ingredients (notably linseed oil and varnish) were supplied separately and mixed with the paint on board. However I don’t think we will ever know the exact answer to painting practices in the navy since the documentation is so sparce. This was not however unusual. Often when practices and rules were widely known they were often unmentioned in official correspondence unless something went wrong or someone wanted to do something different. As a contribution to the search for evidence, I give below the gist of the only ‘paint-related’ correspondence which took place between the Navy Board and the Admiralty in 1801, 1802, and 1803 (I once catalogued the seven huge volumes of this stuff in the NMM):

“18 Aug 1801. Copy letter from Lord H Paulet of Defence complaining about the quality of the black
varnish supplied by Portsmouth and Chatham yards

8 Nov 1802. Copy letter from Sir Charles Saxton at Portsmouth reporting difficulties with Captain
Cumberland who was supplied with the established allowance of black paint but who then demanded
more so that he could paint the weather cloths himself instead of having them done in the yard

27 Jan 1803. To Evan Nepean, enclosing letters between Captain Gore and the Naval Officer at
Gibraltar concerning the former’s request that Medusa is supplied with white paint in place of
venetian red. In the Home Yards this is not permitted

Encl. 31 Oct 1802. Copy letter from Captain Gore to E Pownoll, Storekeeper at Gibraltar requesting
supplies of paint, including large quantities of white as well as black and yellow, for Medusa to repair
the damage done by recent heavy rain

Encl. 11 Nov 1802. Copy letter from E Pownoll to Captain Gore stating that the supplies of white
paint requested by him for Medusa exceed his entitlement

Encl. 31 Oct 1802. Copy letter from Captain Charles Sydney Davers of Active requesting supplies of
paint, including large quantities of white as well as black and yellow.”

2. Points of interest are:
a. Of the scores of hundreds of letters in these ledgers, only 3 touch on paint – all problems or complaints – which seems to demonstrate the point made above.
b. Even if linseed oil was supplied separately, the wording of these letters suggests that black varnish and basic black, red, white and yellow paint were supplied already made up
c. It is clear that there were established allowances and proportions of each colour - dominated by black and yellow. The request to use white in place of red (possibly to paint the interiors of Medusa and Active) obviously challenged the system.

3. On other matters that have come up:
a. Captains could no doubt paint their cabins and elaborate their figureheads etc if they wished, but I doubt if they had a free hand in deciding how their ships was painted. First they would have been received from the yards already painted: any expensive and unnecessary repainting would have received a sharp reprimand from a cost conscious Navy Board. Second by Trafalgar, paint was clearly supplied in set quantities and colours implying there was a commonly held understanding as to how a ship (more or less) should be painted.
b. I find it difficult to believe that British ships were deliberated painted in a way that distinguished them from the enemy. Paint manufacture was universal and the colour pallet limited. Were French ships painted differently? In illustrations of eg Trafalgar they look the same to me. And American ships in the war of 1812 and before look identical in terms of paintwork. As far as I know, it was different national design (captures apart) which made ships distinguishable and not their paint-work. And by the 1820s, warships of all navies seemed to be painted identically in black with white along the gun decks – even following the same fashion of having the white paint continued over the stem.
Brian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HMS Victory's 'hideous orange' paint
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 3:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 7:11 pm
Posts: 1258
Location: England
My impression is also that paint was supplied as powdered pigment to be mixed by the painters with linseed oil and turpentine. I think the paint was mixed by the painters, whether on board, in the dockyard or elsewhere. "Paint" was measured by the pound, rather than the gallon, and I think the word paint in the captains' letters may perhaps refer to the powdered pigment rather than mixed paint. I will have to try to dig out a reference to back that up!

I have come across mentions of paint from around the end of the Napoleonic wars that suggests that it was commonly known that the paint allowance issued to ships was insufficient, and some captains may have supplements it out of their own pocket just for that reason, and not a desire for individuality. I think that parts of the ship exposed to the weather were supposed to be painted every three or four months, so at that rate it wouldn't take too long to build up 72 layers of paint.

And according to Dudley Pope in 'Life in Nelson's Navy', "the tiny allowance of paint allowed to each ship led Captain Sit John Phillimore to
to ask the navy board whether he should use it to paint the starboard side or larboard".

Peter Goodwin and his partner Katy Ball now have a website at http://seaphoenix.com They promise an article on his research on paint soon:
Quote:
Peter has just finished researching the types and quantities of paint used on various Napoleonic period ships, research that will reveal that the colours we automatically associate with iconic ships such as Victory may not be quite as we imagine.

Working with renowned marine artist Gordon Frickers Peter has worked from original sources to produce this fascinating new piece of research. The full article will change the accepted view of types and colours of paint used in British men-of-war during the late 18th and early 19th centuries and give a broader understanding of how ships looked externally and below decks. To be published soon, watch this space for details.

_________________
Tony


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HMS Victory's 'hideous orange' paint
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 3:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 7:11 pm
Posts: 1258
Location: England
On the question of the captain's freedom to paint his ship, my research touches on Captain Seymour Finch, who evidently went considerably further than that. Northcote-Parkinson in his 1934 biography of Edward Pellew suggests that "all captains had considerable latitude in rigging, painting, and manning their ship":
Quote:
The last captain to command the Arethusa had been one of the few well-born officers the Service at that time boasted. Captain the Hon. Seymour Finch was a son of Lord Winchelsea. Now, all captains had considerable latitude in rigging, painting, and manning their ships, but Finch's social position seems to have allowed him to treat his frigate as though she had been his own yacht. He was thought (97) to be 'very clever but very mad,' and Pellew found the Arethusa transformed, bearing evident marks of her late captain's ingenuity, and perhaps of his insanity also. She was beautiful to look upon, but quite unfit for service. There was 'not a block to be seen in the ship - all gins or other contrivances for the ropes.' Finch had refused, when on peace-time service, to enter any man under six feet high. As nearly all seafaring families tended, and perhaps tend, to shortness of stature, this selection of seamen on the principle governing the choice of footmen must be classed as a symptom of extreme eccentricity. But the absentmindedness which left his successor to pay for the 'gins and other contrivances' can be regarded in a different light.

Pellew did not, however, pay for Finch's mechanical devices. Instead, he hurled them all out of the ship and declined to pay the bill.
Pellew took command of Arethusa after Finch's premature death in 1794, hence the unpaid bills. Unfortunately there is no source reference quoted.

_________________
Tony


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HMS Victory's 'hideous orange' paint
PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 1:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 10:40 pm
Posts: 1088
Tony

Very interesting what you say about the paint being measured by the pound rather than the gallon. That immediately reminded me of something very similar I had seen re. a paint manufacturer selling a product by weight rather than volume - this being from the early 20th century. What that was was a sort of "premixed" paint. i.e. the pigment ground and mixed into some sort of medium to make a very thick paste. When it was required for use it was diluted with turpentine by the painter to produce the working consistency.

I feel far more comfortable that might have been what the ships carried on board. i.e. a half way house between the raw pigment powder and the paint in its final usable form.

Still only guesswork on my behalf but based on something I know for certain that I have seen from about a century later.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: HMS Victory's 'hideous orange' paint
PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 4:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 7:11 pm
Posts: 1258
Location: England
Mark, you may be right that the paint was stored as a thick paste. If so, the pigment would have been ground with oil as the medium, and would have needed mixing with more linseed oil as well as turpentine before use.

The following is from the 1869 Pocket book of useful formulæ & memoranda for carpenters, Royal navy, but may still be informative (N.B. ignore most of the quantities because I'm afraid this is full of OCR errors):
Quote:
RULES FOR THE NEW ESTABLISHMENT OF PAINT MATERIALS, AS ADOPTED IN THE NAVY IN 1869.
The basis upon which tho calculations are made for the quantity of Paint materials to be supplied to H.M. Ships, is as follows:—
1st.—That the painted surface of a Ship, outside and inside, be calculated under the following heads,—
Weather-work, outside.
Weather-work, inside.
Main Deck and Cabins.
Lower Deck and Cabins.
Below Lower Deck.

2nd.—That all the weather-work bo painted one coat every four months, and the inboard work one coat every twelve months.
N.B.—This basis is considered to give enough paint for the Boats, (j mi.;, &•., i,c.
3rd.—That a pound of stiff white paint, and a pound of stiff black paint, plus the necessary thinnings, as given in the "Table of Proportions for Mixing Paint," will cover on an average, the white about 5J square yards, and the black about 8 square yards.
4th.—That in order to supply sufficient Linseed Oil, Turpentine, &c., for paint and other purposes, the following proportions are allowed,—
For every 112 pounds of black paint, 3 1/4 galls. of raw Linseed Oil.
For every 112 pounds of black paint, 2 3/4 galls. of boiled Linseed Oil.
For every 112 pounds of white, yellow and red paint, 3 galls. of raw Linseed Oil.
For every 112 pounds of white, yellow and rod paint, If galls. of Spirits of Turpentine.'
For every 112 pounds of cither of the above paints, 6 Ibs. of Dryers.

In order to test what surface a pound of paint would cover, when used by Ship's painters, the following results were obtained by experiments on a ship :—
On the "waist netting" inboard, which was smooth. 1 lb. of white paint, plus the necessary thinnings and dryers, covered about 5£ square yards: but the same quantity, put on the white streak outside, only covered about 4 square yards. One pound of yollow paint, mixed in the proportion of 3 of yellow to 4 of white, plus the necessary thinnings and dryers, covered about the same surface as the white on tho rough and the smooth surfaces; and the yellow for masts, mixed in the same proportion, with the addition of a small quantity of Venetian red, was found to cover about the samo surface as the white.
Tho weight of black paint, when mixed for use, increases about J; and that of white, yellow, &c, about ith of their weight previous to being mixed; that is, 1 lb. of black paint becomes 1£ lbs., and lib. of white, &c., bocomes li lbs.
N.B.—Litharge should always be ground in oil, and on no account should it be put in paint in a dry state; it also should not be mixed with paint until it is about to bo used.
For an accurate rendition and additional tables, see here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LlUD ... utput=html

_________________
Tony


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HMS Victory's 'hideous orange' paint
PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 4:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 10:40 pm
Posts: 1088
Tony

Wow - how interesting. What I was calling a "paste" is almost certainly what they called "thick paint". You have taken it back another 40 years so it would not surprise me at all if this went all the way back to Nelson's day.

I bet we have all learnt something new from this thread!! If nothing else that the guys back then didn't just flip the lid off a tin of non-drip gloss - as we have become accustomed today!! :D

MB


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: HMS Victory's 'hideous orange' paint: painting ships
PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 9:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 3:17 pm
Posts: 217
I must say that I am finding these exchanges most interesting! The question here is – whether the word ‘paint’ in naval documents mean paint powder, liquid paint (already make up) or paint paste (ie concentrated liquid)?
1. As a preliminary, the 1807 revised paint regulations are given in Robert Gardener’s book on Frigates and lay down that a ship of that class on home service is entitled to an annual supply of 12 gallons of oil, 100lbs of white, 20lbs of black, 60lbs of yellow and 14lbs of red paint - ie an average of 1 gallon of oil to 16lbs of paint.
2. Tony’s point that the fact that paint were supplied in pounds weight suggests that it was in powder form is interesting - but it ain't necessarily so. By 1806 lemon juice was also supplied in pounds weight – and that was certainly not in powder form. As we know, much in Nelson's Navy is not what it seems!
3. I saw Peter Goodwin at a conference yesterday and asked his opinion. He admitted that he was principally interest in the colour and did not know in what form the paint was supplied, although liquid and powder were both technically possible since it was stored on board ship in lead lined bins.
4. I also saw Peter Dawson of the Chatham Dockyard trust. He has never seen reference to the way paint was supplied either but made two good points: a. the process of lead paint making at Chatham resulted in a paste towards the final stages; and b. wooded ships did not have designated ranks or pay for ‘paint specialists’ - which implies that whatever they did on board to produce the final paint had to be fairly simple process and do-able by non-technical people.
3. I find Mark’s point about the possibility of paint being supplied in concentrated liquid form ie paste, and then thinned on board ship before use pretty convincing – especially now that Tony has reproduced the 1869 Instructions with their references to ‘stiff white paint, and a pound of stiff black paint, plus the necessary thinings.’ The 1869 proportions for supply of course give an average of 1 gallons of oil to every 37 pounds of paint – half as much oil as was used in 1807. But presumably the difference is because ironclads needed denser and thicker paint than wooden ships.
Brian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HMS Victory's 'hideous orange' paint
PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 10:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 7:11 pm
Posts: 1258
Location: England
Yes, I certainly agree that my suggestion that paint measured by the pound implied powder was over-simplistic. The 'paste' would definitely also be measured by weight, and there's no reason liquid can't be measured by weight. And thanks for all that extra information, Brian.

Moving across the Atlantic, I have come across a list of contracts for paint purchased by the US navy in 1823. Some colours were purchased 'dry', some 'in oil', and some in both forms (and both priced by weight). In most cases there is a fairly small price premium for paint in oil, which suggests to me that this is the 'stiff paste', as thinned paint would be cheaper. (See here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?pg=RA1- ... utput=html )

Ready mixed paint doesn't seem to have been manufactured commercially until the 1880s in the US, and even later in Britain. It seems to have been difficult to mix paint that could be stored successfully.

Mixing the paint from the basic ingredients does seem to be a more skilled job then I had realised, so I would agree that it was more likely to have been carried on board in 'paste' form as per Peter Dawson's point. Your figures from 1807 certainly suggest enough oil was carried on board for the final stage of mixing.

I think we can probably conclude that the word 'paint' in naval documents can refer to any of powder, 'paste', or liquid!

_________________
Tony


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HMS Victory's 'hideous orange' paint
PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 11:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 7:11 pm
Posts: 1258
Location: England
And just to add to the point about liquid paint sold by weight, this Google snippet appears to be part of an advertisement or announcement of the first American ready mixed paints in 1884:
Quote:
These Paints are packed in 1 lb, 2 lb, 3 lb, 4 lb, 7 lb, and 14 lb tins, and will be found of great advantage. Being mixed ready for immediate use, no further preparation is needed. This prevents the waste of carrying stiff Paint, Oil, Turpentine, &c.

_________________
Tony


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HMS Victory's 'hideous orange' paint
PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 3:17 pm
Posts: 217
Tony
A magisterial and pleasing conclusion.
I hesitate to mention it to one who is as expert on internet sources of original documents and manuals as yourself, but are you familiar with a little number called
“Observations and Instructions for the Use of the Commissioned, the Junior and other Officers of the Royal Navy on all Material Points of Professional Duty including also, Forms of General and Particular Orders for the Better Government of His Majesty’s Ships;Together with a Variety of New and Useful Tables including……1804” by 'a Captain in the Royal Navy.' (books.google.co.uk/booksid=eVwMAQAAMAAJ).
Chapter XI is on ‘Painting a ship.'
Brian


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 93 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by p h p B B © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 p h p B B Group