Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Zevene Proven 1723

Recommended Posts

Zevene Proven  [1513 Tonnage]

source found on the internet

would it not be great to have this ship in the game? 


its a india man by Chapman (?~ not sure ) and also a 74 gunner  suited in the navy for the dutch

something about the name it is called the zevene proven (what is a french name for the ship ) and it is also the name for the 7 th provence groningen and  Ommelande because it was the 7th province to become the republic .(all the provinces had their own number)

it was a ship from the admiralty of the seventh province GRONINGEN , at that time the provinces had a number in this case the 7 th province was( Provincie)  Groningen and Ommelande

about the ship:

it seems that it was 1150 burden 

At the VOC, a load in the 17th century was about 1250 kg, later rising to 2000 kg. [1]
From comparative tables follows: 1 last = 1926 kg. Later the load was replaced by weight ton: 1000 kg load capacity.

1150 m3 x 1.250 =1438 tons (?)

or 1150x1.926= 2214 tons (?)



In 1678 Thames shipbuilders used a method assuming that a ship's burden would be 3/5 of its displacement. Since tonnage is calculated by multiplying length × beam × draft × block coefficient, all divided by 35 ft³ per ton of seawater, the resulting formula would be:

\text{Tonnage} = \frac {\text{Length}\times \text{Beam} \times \frac {\text{Beam}}{2} \times \frac {3}{5}\times {0.62}} {35}


  • Draft is estimated to be half of the beam.
  • Block coefficient is based on an assumed average of 0.62.
  • 35 ft³ is the volume of one ton of sea water.[2]

Or by solving :

\text{Tonnage} = \frac {\text{Length}\times\text{Beam} \times \frac \text{Beam}{2}} {94}                  = 1513 tonnage

In 1694 a new British law required that tonnage for tax purposes be calculated according to a similar formula:

\text{Tonnage} = \frac {\text{Length}\times\text{Beam} \times \text{Depth}} {94}

This formula remained in effect until the Builder's Old Measurement rule was put into use in 1720, and then mandated by Act of Parliament in 1773.

NMM Greenwich UK collection SLR0418
Description Scale: 1:33. A contemporary full hull model of the 'Zeven Provincien'   [   wrong categorized by the museum]  its mechant  ( zevene proven)(french pronounced name french language time era) (1723), a Dutch East Indiaman cargo vessel, built plank on frame. Model is decked, equipped and fully rigged (modern). At this scale the ship measured 147 feet along the deck by 44 feet in the beam and an approximate tonnage of 1150 burden. Although this model cannot be identified to a ship bearing this name, it is one of seven of the period 1715-1725 that are among the earliest representations of merchant ships in existence. The Dutch East India Company was founded in 1598 to open up trade with India and the Far East. Other countries had similar fleets operating around the world from the 17th-19th centuries, and as such had to be armed against attack from pirates or the enemy during times of conflict. The ships were generally ‘fully built’ with large holds for carrying cargo and provisions for many weeks. They carried an armament similar in size to that of a warship but with a much smaller crew.




I thought it was about time I post something here again – especially considering all of the incredible models I’ve come across in the last couple years.

I have always been fascinated by ship evolution and development over time. This is a subject that is both incredibly and meticulously researched in certain time periods and practically ignored in others. Take the last quarter of the 18th century into the first quarter of the 19th – an era where very little can be added in research because of the mountainous volumes of literature on the subject for the last two centuries. I guess this is one of the reasons I find it somewhat boring. There is no doubt that maritime architects had honed their science and art to their apex and achieved efficiency and beauty captured in hundreds of sleek designs that are the epitome of simplicity.


I do not begrudge those who enjoy this era their favored subject of study, I just believe that they have become garden variety scholars in their discipline. I see this among historians constantly – a historian who is an expert on one single decade or war, and mostly ignorant of everything else before or after. To me one cannot be an expert in anything unless they understand the full context of the firmament that their favored area of study fits into.

My last decade in the military I became so sick of military officers who believed they had a little historical knowledge making fun of French military prowess. This has always been one of my pet peeves – something that sets me off so to speak. I knew I had fully matured when I would laugh off the comments and move along without a response, but knowing what sort of idiot I was dealing with. When I was younger, I would go into an Aspergers dissertation on French military history and achievement and how many of those key developments not only contributed to modern warfare as a whole, but also to our own military’s development and evolution.


I digress, but will say that my examination of Chapman has always been kind of a secondary (somewhat dry) pursuit/study when instead I could choose to peruse the many works including illustrations and commentary from Landstrom, Pett, Deane, Witsen, or Cornelius van Yk. I remember discovering Landstrom’s many illustrated works as a boy. I have them all now and most are out of print. I was overjoyed in reading them. Not only did Landstrom research the history of European exploration, he also paid particular attention to the ships. His landmark work “THE SHIP” is still one of my favorites to browse through.

I have used the illustrations and examples and his meticulous notes to find the original sources of the figures. There are so many of these that it could send one on the journey of a lifetime. Landstrom did such a wonderful job in this work of noting subtle changes in shape, form and architecture over time. However, he still missed quite a number of evolving developmental changes which I contend are both mentionable and significant. In my continually expanding manuscript on Piracy: A Story of European Expansion, I have dedicated an entire very lengthy chapter on ship evolution from the mid 16th through first quarter of the 18th century.

I trace the evolution of the sailing frigate much further back than most modern authorities do. I document the evolution of the galleon form into the 18th century as I gave a taste of in my recent Galleons for Dummies post.

One of the reasons I started our modeling contest here was in the hopes I could actually find people who want to be challenged by something different – not the usual easily obtainable late era plans (“low hanging fruit”), and tired ole Chapman. But only a handful have stepped up to show any interest. I am guessing that this may be due to Naval Action continuing to encourage all modelers to churn out easily managed garden variety models. Guess the pay out must be good. Oh well. We will keep going with our own and see what happens.


With all of the above in mind, I present to you a model of the Zevene Proven of 1723 which can be found (but not on current display) within the large NMM Greenwich UK collection. They have incorrectly labeled the ship the Zeven Provincien (or Seven Provinces). This name is particular to warships and what we have here is NOT a warship. The ship is from an antiquated Dutch notation that contemporaries of that time would have instantly recognized as Zeven(d)e Proven(z) (The Seventh Province). In other words, she was a trading ship – a Dutch East Indiaman from the 7th province of Groningen and Ommelande (yes the provinces had numbers assigned to them).


I find this ship simply fascinating in every way. The old retourschip design is now long gone and she is now a clearly recognizable “Indiaman” class ship. When she was built, the glorious age of piracy had less than a decade left before its end. YES she is indeed new when comparing her to her earlier galleon-esque sisters (many of which would have still been seen surviving and working the seas – sailing in and out of all of the world’s great ports during her own first decade at sea). She is lower, more simply decorated, her stern has been cut down and her lines are more modern, HOWEVER – just look at all of the earlier era’s influence and design cues in her construction.



Yes her decoration is less and arranged in the now popular wide rounded-top tafferel/taffrail. However, it is still much more significant than that found on ships just a decade later. Also note the gilding and sculptural forms – clearly more at home on her earlier sisters than upon her sisters yet to be built. In many ways she is the last of her kind in this respect. She also still has a “galleon-esque” flat tucked “notch back” stern instead of the rounded dove-tailed sterns popularly seen on other Indiamen built by other nations (French/English) at around this same time.  While she may be lower and her stern cut down, she still has a noticeable difference in vertical height from her much lower waist in comparison to a significantly higher foc’sle, quarter-deck, and poop. One could almost get away with calling her a galleon and some architects would even argue that SHE IS.

Variety is the spice of life my friends. I would welcome such a ship in Eras. I bring you these awesome pictures for education and your consideration. I love vanilla. But I love Vanilla and Chocolate even more. What’s that? You say that Baskin Robbins has 84 flavors! Damn – I’m goin man – as long as no one messes everything up and mixes all the flavors up into ice cream slurry!  MK





Edited by Thonys
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing about Dutch merchies from the era was that they were always available to the navy as auxiliary war vessels and often fought in the line with the purpose built warships.  You can see how heavily gunned she is and she can be easily mistaken for a SOL.  About the only difference would be strength of hull.  I wouldn't want to tackle this "Trader" with a Frigate!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites


This is a Dutch East Indiaman used by the VOC as well as the GWC, it is a general model as to how these ships were constructed and it is supposedly drawn by Matthieu Casto. It is NOT the exact ship Thonys has depicted above however I believe it can be used as a general blueprint. A little bit of history on the Dutch East Indiaman:

The Dutch East Indiaman was a trading vessel used by the VOC (Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie) and later the GWC (Geoctrooieerde West-Indische Compagnie), they were primarily used to ship cargo however when needed the companies (Who had a monopoly on military use throughout the east and west indies) could use them as SoLs as they were fitted with 50 - 54 Guns (Lower deck 24Pdr or 18Pdr , Middle deck 12Pdr and top deck Long 9s (9Pdr)) These ships are also the ships which were eventually associated with The Flying Dutchman as these ships match the armament of such a ship. (Although it is argued that it could have been an older model of the East Indiaman where they still had a high fore and aft castle). These ships were designed to transport precious cargo and would often sail in groups of 2 to 3 and due to their SoL like armament would have been able to defend themselves quite well.

Note on the crew on such a ship: Exact crew numbers often vary between 350 and 500 where 400 to 450 are the most common numbers (Not counting the contingent of marines that was common to be carried (Around 50 marines).

Edited by Abraham van Riebeeck
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 7/6/2018 at 1:24 PM, Abraham van Riebeeck said:

Note on the crew on such a ship: Exact crew numbers often vary between 350 and 500 where 400 to 450 are the most common numbers (Not counting the contingent of marines that was common to be carried (Around 50 marines).

Im curious to your statement that a regular contingent of crew could go up to 500 men, excluding marines.

Which period are you referring to?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 7:00 PM, SteelSandwich said:

Im curious to your statement that a regular contingent of crew could go up to 500 men, excluding marines.

Which period are you referring to? 

As I did state the crew numbers vary from  350 - 500 but most common were 400 and 450 (This would be the amount of crew that was necessary te be carried during war time to man the cannons and maintain an effective crew that could defend the cargo). Regarding the time period this would be during the Franco-Dutch War and Third Anglo-Dutch War (1672–1702) as the first designs for these Indiaman came around 1650 if I'm correct

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, CaptainSparckles said:

It's like Wappen.

yes,  it is the (sort of) old school chapman build.(1723)

the main difference is,  this is a freighter.[with guns]


here is some info about the wapen of  hamburg


the armament of the zevene i  could not find,  but the Admiralty ordered that all trader should have 24 dutch pounders as normal gun type


the Wappen von  Hamburg is 54 guns 

this trader  is 74 guns

Edited by Thonys
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Thonys said:

yes,  it is the (sort of) old school chapman build.(1723)


Uhm, what?

Af Chapman (the guy in the retro hoodie in my profile pic, btw) was 2 years old in 1723.

And he built 3 or 4 Indiamen, the first one in the 1760s, the last one in 1803.

Edited by Malachi
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 months later...
On 1/14/2019 at 10:52 PM, Intrepido said:

I disagree.

I feel much more interesting from every point of view the ships known as Manila's Galleon (while they werent galleons btw).




It is really nice aswell. Perfect symmetry and proportion and gunned ships.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...