Kishmul

Members
  • Content count

    113
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kishmul

  • Birthday 08/28/1958

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Inchlaggan

Recent Profile Visitors

220 profile views
  1. My introduction to wooden model ships came out of the blue when the Admiral bought me AL's "Scottish Maid" as a Christmas present. What a mess I made of it! Thirty years later I have learned much, but have much more to learn. Watching the posts here - those looking for help- reminds me of my early struggles. Planking and rigging problems appear regularly from the novice or first-timer and still trouble experienced builders. So, is there a place for and introductory series of kits? The first would concentrate on planking- a half-hull model, POB, mounted on a stout board (MDF) with some nice, complicated lines. Such a kit could concentrate on the planking alone and offer detailed instructions and decent wood at not too great a cost. The end result to be hung on the wall as your first step into the art. For an introduction to rigging, a section of deck around a mainmast. An MDF block extending to the width of the deck, fore and aft to encompass the required standing and running rigging, and depth to include the attachment of the chain plates, veneer planking. Full-height mast and, again, the novice learns a lot and ends up with a displayable object. With such skills acquired relatively cheaply, our newcomer can approach a complete, POB, vessel with much more confidence than many of us have on our third or fourth build. Or, is the desire to start with a full-on, 1:96, HMS Victory, too hard to resist? Even when (as has been suggested elsewhere) the majority languish uncompleted. Just an idle thought-what do you think? Ken
  2. A digital journal would certainly persuade me to join (from the UK). That a significant proportion of my subscription would be absorbed by printing and postage rather than the work of NRG is the only thing holding me back. Ken
  3. I am a moderator on another forum (The Wild Fishing Forum, based in the UK). We run a similar donations system, but our costs are only £600 per annum. Inept as I am in such matters, I can see little difference in functionality. Ken
  4. I am not a member of NRG (yet) but appreciate the work done and the benefits available. Resident in the UK, I am well aware of our regulations regarding donations to charity being a retired charity director. UK law makes a clear distinction between a "charity" and a "corporation", I am happy to explain UK law but doubt anybody would be interested! I have no knowledge of US law in this respect. Accordingly, I too would ask for clarification before making a donation to MSW, or like Greg in the opening post, stipulate the use to which my donation was to be put. In the UK, the recipient is bound by that stipulation or must return the donation. I suspect that these differences in national legal practice and terminology are the cause of the comments above, rather than a put-down of the excellent work of the NRG. Ken
  5. You are not nuts, We all get this. We hit a problem and realise that, if we had done things differently earlier, the problem would not have arisen. Carry on, it is part of the learning curve. Complete the project, you will uncover more errors and learn from them. Chucking it out means you lose the investment AND the opportunity to learn more. My first effort (AL Scottish Maid) was an abomination, but I knew that. Second (AL Dallas) slightly better, third (AL Harvey) slightly better, fourth (AL San Juan Nepomunceno) passable to the untrained eye but not mine- from a novice who would have proclaimed "0h. how lovely" I had become a critic "ratlines are over scale". And so it goes. That you will never satisfy your own critical eye is inevitable- next time I will do better is the impetus that drives us. I will never, ever, produce a flawless model but, having completed the last- screwing up along the way- I am 100% confident that the next will be better.
  6. Casting the net further around the world, check out www.pandaw.com for some contemporary rivercraft (built as recently as 2013) based on sternwheeler designs from the 1880's. This is where I am headed for this year's project. Ken
  7. I don't know, but as ratlines are the means of getting aloft and the crew need to get aloft I'd say yes.
  8. Just to muddy the waters..... Clydeships.co.uk has Rebecca as a three-masted ship. Then, when describing her fate adds "by which time barque rigged"!!! The Howard article notes that she underwent a major refit in 1841. Ken
  9. Though unrelated to this thread, the Howard article mentioned above ("The Barque Rebecca at King Island, 1843-1844") is well worth looking up. It cost me $4 Australian to download. It is a great tale, comprehensively researched and well written. Shipwreck, marooned, survival all the classic elements. Ken
  10. The Archives of Tasmania did not get us any further, unless there is a forum member in Hobart who could call in personally. Ken
  11. Article purchased and read. It is a fulsome account of her grounding in 1843, re-floated in 1844. But we do get her dimensions- Length 95'2", beam 26'11 1/2", depth in hold 18'2". And two further references to chase up- David R Macgregor's "Merchant Ships 1775-1815, Their Design and Construction" (page 127) Anyone own a copy? The dimensions are from the Archives of Tasmania- let's see how I do there. Ken
  12. Thank you. This is getting fun. There is more to be found when we use the term "barque Rebecca". A Mark Howard put out an internet request for information on her some years ago. He gives her dates as 1816-1843, making two voyages a year to Quebec from launch to 1838. She later carries migrants to Melbourne, Australia in March 1843. A Mark Howard (the same surely) later publishes an article for a Tasmanian Historical Society entitled "The Barque Rebecca at King Island, 1843-1844". This is available to buy online for a few pounds. Guess where I am off to next! Ken
  13. Nice work. Number eight on the list of Rebeccas. And another misspelling. The owners are variously given as "Laurie" or "Lowrie" depending on source. Ken
  14. Now (to make matters worse) we discover that she was the first vessel built by Robert Steele and Company described as a "single decked, three masted barque". Google "Robert Steele and Company" go to the Wikipedia entry, and click through the references for more information. Ken