The Ship Model Forum

I did not want to pre-empt a properly researched revision/extension of my 1914-1950 paper. Due to Covid The National Archives are shut so what follows is from stuff I had already taken copies of. If that photo shows a brand new, unladen Superb riding high in the water in 1909 (it is said to be at her trials), and if her light load line was at the XXVI ft ft mark (not visible in this photo - just in the dark zone) and her heavy load line was at the XXXII ft mark then I can offer the following.

In exchanges during the drafting of the November 1902 order introducing the “all over” grey painting of RN ships there is a note from Portsmouth to the Admiralty of that October suggesting it was “desirable that the grey colour should extend to within a few inches of the light waterline, and if this be approved it is proposed to stop the protective and anti fouling coatings say 6” above the light line and paint the whole of the topsides down to this line with ordinary paint”. Portsmouth advised that the protective and anti fouling (ie the bottom paints) quickly became damaged in the vicinity of the waterline and they were considered wasted there. The Admiralty’s perhaps rather optimistic response was that “the belt of grey usually below the waterline could probably be kept clean by the ships company by scrubbing and fouling prevented.”

The November 1902 order to paint to “all over” grey defined “all over” as “every part of the ship visible from the outside” and read as follows on the waterline area: “The grey paint is to be taken down to within six inches of the light load waterline and a special quick drying composition will be provided as soon as possible for touching up the hull near the waterline.”

This would have meant that when fully laden not even the bottom composition would have been visible at the waterline.

In December 1902 the Controller wrote a background note to a draft reply to Malta Dockyard stating that “Enquiries are now being made….as to the possibility of obtaining from composition firms a suitable grey boot topping”.

In January 1903 a subsequent order read: “Ships’ waterlines should be painted with compositions of the same manufacture as used on the bottom, wherever obtainable of the right shade colour; otherwise the waterline should be coated with a suitable grey paint.”

I infer from all this that there was no special grey boot topping composition at that time that the RN first painted to “all over” grey. They realised there was a problem at the waterline but the wish was for that waterline area to be painted grey, either a grey bottom composition if the relevant manufacturer supplied in grey, otherwise the normal grey paint.

The next document I have a copy of is a 1913 Fleet Order that refers to the June 1912 introduction of black boot topping on ships painted the new shade of grey. But that leaves a 9 year interval, which includes the 1909 date of your Superb photo, as uncharted water.

One can speculate that the belt of ‘paint’ sometimes seen in the waterline area in photos of ships of that period (1903-1912) riding high in the water (or out of the water), a ‘paint’ lighter than the bottom composition below but seemingly of a slightly different tone to the grey paint on the hull above also, is evidence of the early attempts of the composition suppliers to produce a boot topping composition in a grey that was meant to match the topside grey but didn’t quite; or perhaps, although of the same grey, because of its glossy composition, it caught the light in a different way when photographed.

This is therefore a speculative guess as to what you might be seeing in that photo of Superb pending my ability to check if there is any additional documentation from the 1903-1912 period that might throw more light on the matter.

Now I know why I was confused about this ship's painting scheme.
It is this photo, or in particular that bit of paint between the arrows which is clearly different to the black lower boot topping (or is it black hull bottom) and grey upper works.

Any theories? The picture of Superb is from RA Burt's book which I own. It shows her as completed at launch trials.

I gotcha. So boot topping should be in place perhaps. I am inclined to copy the Dreadnought directions, but by the time I get to Superb may be the archives are reopened and we will get more info. Thanks, Jamey.

Regarding boot topping pre war, that Richard wrote that the September 1914 order discontinued supply of boot topping, that first requires that boot topping composition was in use prior to that order (or there would be nothing to discontinue).

Guys, read the paper from Richard Dennis.

Would HMS Superb ca 1909-12 have any boot topping? Would it have red hull bottom? If she did not have boot topping, would the anitfouling paint be painted as of lower waterline or full load waterline?

Appreciate any insight into this build...

These are relevant quotes that I need help interpreting:

Boot topping:


Nothing about pre-war. No boot topping then?



Antifouling paint:

This means I guess "get the logbooks and find out who made the paint, dont assume it is red, it can be anything"... It says nothing about pre-WW1 though.


My own research:

These are pictures of Superb:
Here she has no boot topping (based on the distance from torpedo net booms and water).


And here she has boot topping:


So it would appear that the ship had not had boot topping at launch but got something painted up later. Was it hull bottom red sticking out or black boot topping? Don't know..

Combrig (who uses RA Burts drawings - with wrong beam) - advocates for the boot topping to be added, but even thicker than in any pics I see of the ship in earlier form her: http://combrig-models.com/index.php/170 ... superb1909

Interesting.