• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Borborygm

  • Birthday 05/09/1948

Contact Methods

  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Maryland, USA
  • Interests
    Ship Modeling, Photography

Recent Profile Visitors

165 profile views
  1. My subscription to Ships in Scale is active; in fact, I just renewed it. There is a phone number for subscriptions listed in the magazine: 888-798-2194 ext. 701, weekdays 9:00 AM to 5:PM ET. Hopefully, it hasn't "expired". Good luck.
  2. I read this thread again and now agree with Derek's suggestion--remove number of posts from icon but show it in the profile. Cy
  3. I think Pat put it exactly right. The really important concept here is quality of contribution and neither number of posts or likes has anything to do with that. I definitely think likes should be turned off and the whole idea of trying to rate "reputation" abandoned. Members will know valuable contribution when they see it. I'm torn about number of posts however. I have been a member of MSW for years but have few posts for a number of reasons. I only have one completed model in my signature, a novice one at that, but I have many more in various stages of completion and have many learned many lessons and tricks that I believe would be of benefit to MSW members. Up until recently, career and family have kept me from my workshop and making contributions to the forums, but I am retired now and am getting back to it in a major way. I only have 12 posts and sometimes feel impelled to increase this number simply so people won't assume I'm a total novice. But I don't want to make non-useful posts for the sake of increasing my number; I want to post something only when it makes a meaningful contribution. Not showing the number of posts would eliminate my concern, but on the other hand, I appreciate the insight into other members that their number of posts provides me. You can't help but subconsciously assign greater knowledge and credibility to long-time members with thousands of posts. I guess in the end I would come down on the side of continuing to show the number of posts.
  4. Doug, While the first kit I bought back in 1992 was the Willie L. Bennett, I shortly thereafter bought the AL Bluenose II because, like you, I was struck by its sheer beauty. I devoted most of my attention to the Bluenose. I had no idea what I was doing and the instructions were almost non-existent, but I muddled through, got the hull built and painted--glossy blue and red, glossy being my second big blunder. As I was admiring how beautiful the paint job was, I noticed my first blunder. The forward fourth of the hull was bizarrely misshapen and asymmetrical, looking much like an over-the-hill boxer's nose. I knew there was no way to fix that but I decided it didn't look too bad on the port side so when I put it in a display case, I would put the starboard side against the wall. But like a marriage bad from day one, things got worse. The end came when I followed a tip I read somewhere to simulate caulking between deck planks by gluing black cotton thread between the planks when installing them. I did so, and then obliviously proceeded to sand the deck. In retrospect, I should have sanded the planks before installing them, because the sanding ripped apart the upper parts of the threads and it proved impossible to get them back to looking like black lines between the planks--it was a "salt and pepper" deck. At that point, annoyed with myself, AL, and the anonymous "glue black thread" tipster, I abandoned all hope and scuttled my Bluenose, a hundred hours or so of work sinking into oblivion. This gives me an idea for a new thread on MSW--fatal blunders! Unfortunately, I have a couple more I could talk about. Anyway, I'm sure you will do much better with your Bluenoses than I did. For one thing, there are so many more resources available today, none better than the help, encouragement, and friendship you have on MSW. So good luck, and I look forward to seeing your Bluenoses in the gallery. Cy
  5. Hi Doug, Just curious--why are you building two versions of the Bluenose II at the same time? Good luck with your choice. Seems like you can't lose. Cy
  6. The model is 3/16" to the foot. 2 mm thick planking would equate to 5 inches, which is not realistic. This doesn't really matter though; the issue is whether to change the outer hull dimensions or not. Going with 1 mm planking on each side would reduce the maximum beam of the model from 100 to 98 mm (equivalent to going from 21 ft to 20 ft 7 full size), a slight difference. As Rick pointed out, this model is not based on a real cutter so there is no accuracy to adhere to. At this point, I am leaning toward using the thinner planking stock instead of trying to carve a stepped bevel. Thanks for the input, everyone. Cy
  7. Perfect, and so easy. Thanks, Richard. I think that my modeling problem-solving skills have gotten rusty.
  8. Now that I am largely retired, I have the time and inclination to get back to my long-neglected in-progress models. I am working on the Victory Models' Lady Nelson. I am nearly done fairing the hull but have encounterd a problem I could use some advice on. The LN is double-planked and the kit includes 1 mm X 4 mm limewood strips for the first layer and 1 mm X 4 mm walnut strips for the second. I am at the point in the fairing for drawing a bearding line at the stern and tapering the false keel to create a rebate (correct term?) for the plank ends to rest in. The problem is that the false keel and the sternpost are both 3 mm thick, but the thickness of two layers of planking is 2 mm on each side. Obviously, 2 mm of rebate on both sides is not possible. The sketch shown below illustrates the problem. I'm a bit stymied on what to do. I do intend to replace the kit's 2nd plank walnut strips with boxwood which I wll cut myself. One possible solution would be to replace both the limewood and walnut with thinner strips, say 0.5 mm. That would allow me to carve a proper rebate and still leave 1 mm of thickness in the false keep (and have the added benefit of making the strips easier to bend). My concern with this is, would losing 1 mm of planking thickness on each side of the hull degrade the accuracy of the hull shape? (Assuming the kit was designed with such accuracy.) Has anyone else encountered this problem? Suggested solutions for addressing it would be most welcome.