Michael Witt writes:I would agree ...one thing or the other, and suspect that the notion that RH rope was used on one side and LH on the other originates with Wolfram zu Mondfeld. Perhaps someone can confirm this, and give us chapter and verse....had a small conversation on a fair this weekend about the twist in the shrouds ropes.Roger Derby responds:
Basically from historical point of view the opinion is that the shroud lines were made of right handed ropes on starboard and left handed ropes on the other side.
Is that correct?Not according to my literature. Whether right-handed (shroud-laid, with-the-sun, four strands) or left-handed (cable-laid, against-the-sun, nine/three strands) depends on the service (Royal Navy used cable-laid, merchant service used shroud-laid). If cable-laid, the tails lie aft on the larboard side and forward on the starboard side; shroud-laid the opposite. All shrouds, port & starboard, for a particular mast were formed from one piece of rope.Ståle Sannerud comments:AFAIK your informant is wrong. My information is that shrouds could be made from either left or right handed rope, with no 100% rule one way or the other - but with all the shrouds on any individual ship being one or the other. Stays were almost invariably left handed rope, as was the anchor cable. Other than that basically everything was right-handed; so the kits are not very far off when they only include right-handed thread for rigging. (Stays should generally be served all over anyway so the lay of the rope underneath it all is not terribly important even if we should want to get into that degree of detailing :)
The idea is not completely crazy, since as Roger points out, there is bound to be an unpleasing asymmetry, if the deadeyes are turned in the same way on both sides, in order to suit the lay of the rope.
Deadeyes can be turned in three ways: When wire shrouds were fitted with deadeyes, the end came straight up without crossing the standing part ....the 'obvious' way so to speak. However, the traditional method of fitting a hemp shroud was to cross the end across the standing part, securing it with a throat seizing. Later on, it became customary to fit the shroud 'cutter's stay' fashion, the end being taken round the standing part, and doubled back. This allowed the thing to function as a sort of running noose, but meant that there was a vicious twist or kink in the rope. In this case, it really was important on which side of the standing part was passed, if the twist of the rope were to be maintained.
Sir W S Gilbert in The Mystic Selvagee, [Bab Ballads], writes:
And RODNEY, honoured sir, would grinTwo things concerned the rigger ....keeping the twist in the rope, to keep water out; and sheltering the vulnerable end of the shroud against rot. When this was pointing up, it was best protected against the weather when forward of, and inside the standing part of the shroud.
To see you turning deadeyes in,
Not UP, as in the ancient way,
But downwards, like a cutter's stay -
You didn't oughter;
Besides, in seizing shrouds on board,
Breast backstays you have quite ignored;
Great RODNEY kept unto the last
Breast backstays on topgallant mast -
They make it tauter.
Were shrouds cable- or shroud- laid?: Some years ago, Ron Streater found an article in Mariner's Mirror about H.M.S. Victory, which mentioned Admiralty Orders dealing with this [I regret I don't have the exact citation):
On 16 Dec. 1807 it was ordered that hawsers instead of cablets were to be demanded for shrouds. This implies that shrouds in 1805 were cable laid.My opinion would be that the modeler is safe in using RH laid rope. Although shrouds were commonly made of shroud-laid rope ....four strands surrounding a central core....the construction is not evident from the outside.
On 23 Jan 1815 this order was reversed, and cablets were again ordered to be used, for all standing rigging.
As Ståle points out, if the stay is served along its length, it is irrelevant
to the modeler whether it is right- or left-hand laid (cable-laid). This detail
will be invisible.
{John H Harland}
Back?