Blue Ensign

Well she certainly looks better, and these things we fixate on tend to fade as more detail is put on the model to divert the eye.
Glad you feel happier about her now.
 
I like the colour contrast you are achieving.
 
Cheers,
 
B.E.

I'm rather with Greg on this one, and prefer the bare stick look on stand displayed models, and there is a great precedence for this with contemporary models of the eighteenth century. A ship in harbour for any length of time would have the sails taken down so it's not inconsistent to display a model 'bare stick'
 
The problem with kit provided sails is that the material is mostly way over scale and lacks the detail that sails should properly have such as the reinforced areas. Out of scale stitching and poor reef points can further detract from the overall look.
 
On the other hand fitting sails does allow the modeller to show the function of the running rigging and I do like to see sails on waterline models in a diorama setting, but that's the only situation I would personally fit them.
 
In the end tho' it's all down to personal preference and what individual modellers like.
 
B.E.

...

OK, I'm BACK!!!!!!!!  The relatives have headed back East with Syren none the worse for wear.  She did manage to survive a Tsunami started by an errant can of Coke.  Whew
 
But you folks have been having so much fun in my absence that I feel I must contribute something --- even a minor update.
 
So here are the mainmast lower yard buntlines and falls.  Yes, they're hard to see. 
 

 
I know I promised an overview shot but I want to finish the buntlines on the foremast first and set the next yards.
 
And tomorrow I simply MUST go catch some fish    
 
But it's great to be back tying knots and herding the spiders !
 
 

not by me you ain't...
 
M.

Well she certainly looks better, and these things we fixate on tend to fade as more detail is put on the model to divert the eye.
Glad you feel happier about her now.
 
I like the colour contrast you are achieving.
 
Cheers,
 
B.E.

Hello fellow hobbyists,
 
I would like to, firstly, thank all of you who have been so kind in taking the time to post comments, letting me know how much you appreciate my version of this Wasa build.
 
Your kind words have continued to be a real source of encouragement. I also thank those of you who were also kind enough to add a "thumbs up" to certain posts or jpg's. There is so much art to appreciate on MSW, that I am touched that you have found the interest, and the time to look at, and respond to my efforts.....Again thank you......OK.. An update.
 
 
 
 It's hard for me to believe, but the stern, and galleries in their entirety, are actually almost completed. This part of the build was very labor intensive. In retrospect, I would have done some things differently but as we say here "put a fork in it - it's cooked" and so it is. Oh what is missing are the two wood trim timbers that appear on each side of the flag and lantern spar, just above the upper gilded curved carving on the stern. I will try my first attempt at sculpturing those two pieces of wood.
 
Speaking of doing things differently; I SO regret not indenting the hull canon port framings as I was framing those. I tried to initially indent the four small pieces of wood in each port, but I didn't have enough of a lip, if you will, and nothing was aligning correctly. So I flushed them all flat along the hull. This work was done before joining the MSW community. I have since learned of a great technique. Always hindsight isn't it? So, that detail failure just glares at me now.  It will be an issue when adding canon doors. Hmmm. On the plus side only hobbyists such as us would even notice such a glaring error. I thought of pulling them all out. But I think that I would make a mess of things.
 
Segwaying forward with this posting, I enclose "full body shots" (pardon the pun) to offer a better perspective of the project as it looks so far. I also include a few other pics. as partial updates on side tasks that have been completed to date; for example deck, and hull figures were (some removed) painted and attached.
 
I'm will be taking a break for a while. I have to do some traveling again. Hmmm, and I thought that I was finally retired. I'll tune in, from wherever I happen to be, and continue to admire builds that I very much enjoy following.
 
When I find myself back on my side of the world again, I will continue with deck details that need to be added. I also plan on removing the existing ladders. (Not correct). I will also re-work the front bow cross railing that leads to the bowsprit. That is also not correct. And I removed the most stern ladders. Those will be replaced with a "bench" type looking thing with a wooden sculpture on each side above the "benches" So it goes. And then onto the masts....
Again thanks for your kind words...Always, always appreciated.
 
Regards,
 
Michael
 
 

Sorry you've hit this problem hamilton, it's so frustrating when a desired plan fails to work.
 
I think the question you have to ask yourself is which is the most important feature that will contribute to a successful look or otherwise to the completed hull.
 
If I may venture an opinion, I would say the positioning of the wales; if the run of the wales isn't correct then the graceful sheer lines and balance of the hull will never look good.
 
You are not that far advanced, would it not be possible to blank off the sweep ports and redo the wales first, which will allow for a decent run of planking up to the topline, and a better proportion to the below waterline hull.
 
You would then be in a better position to gauge the line of the sweep ports which if re-cutting them proves too testy could at least be represented by closed blanks.
 
I do hope you resolve the problem to your satisfaction.
 
Cheers,
 
B.E.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Sorry you've hit this problem hamilton, it's so frustrating when a desired plan fails to work.
 
I think the question you have to ask yourself is which is the most important feature that will contribute to a successful look or otherwise to the completed hull.
 
If I may venture an opinion, I would say the positioning of the wales; if the run of the wales isn't correct then the graceful sheer lines and balance of the hull will never look good.
 
You are not that far advanced, would it not be possible to blank off the sweep ports and redo the wales first, which will allow for a decent run of planking up to the topline, and a better proportion to the below waterline hull.
 
You would then be in a better position to gauge the line of the sweep ports which if re-cutting them proves too testy could at least be represented by closed blanks.
 
I do hope you resolve the problem to your satisfaction.
 
Cheers,
 
B.E.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Hi Force9,
 
Thank you for that.
I still remain unconvinced regarding the heavily built up front bulwarks. Again, most of the paintings and drawing I have do not show them. In fact, the evidence I have is in Peter Goodwin's book Nelson's Ships, which has a drawing with a dotted line the possible built up area (including the poop area). I have seen paintings of the Victory at Trafalgar with not only heavily built up front bulwarks, but mid-ship bulwarks too, some paintings show her with a round bow. I know that Geoff Hunt has done some recent paintings of Victory, and I know he researches his subjects thoroughly, and opts not to include enclosed front bulwarks.
 
If heavily built up front bulwarks (which would be quite a prominent feature) were added in her 1803 rebuild, I would have thought that there would have been a lot more evidence to suggest this. I do accept that built up bulwarks became more fashionable (for very practical reasons) after the lessons learned from Trafalgar - as did the round bow. There seems to be no mention of this in any of the repair notes, too.
 
Could it be that if the forecastle did have protection, it was a 'ad-hock' solution before the battle, once realising how exposed the front would be because of the tactics implemented? But even then, that still leaves the front bulwark and timberheads exposed..
 
The problem is, that if I went solely on the Clarkson Stanfield Trafalgar painting for the United Service Club 1833 (which I have always loved since a small boy), then the front would also have enclosed bulwarks, and the yellow bands from the lower and middle deck would extend right out to the bow. I have to think, is this accurate, or, by this time (almost 30 years later), are they now so used to seeing these details (especially the continued yellow lines, which I believe came into vogue once bow railings were abolished and became completely planked and enclosed. The painting doesn't seem to show the side entry port on the starboard side, too.
 
You see, it's a very difficult call to make - do I fully subscribe to that painting (which incidentally, shows only 8 shrouds for the foremast..), or go by convention? I did think long and hard about this, believe me - the decision was not made on a whim.
 
I even thought about including a set of forcastle bulwarks (laser cut) in the kit - but again, if I do this it may still not be accurate, as I would need to include the front bulkhead bulwarks too - and the only evidence I have to go on is that painting, and it shows no detail about what's happening with the fittings on the deck-side. I decided I did not want to speculate for such an important subject. If I use that painting as gospel (always dangerous to use a limited number of resources for important projects), and if I accept that she looked like that, then I also have to leave off the entry port - and then I have to explain to lots of bemused kit buyers the reason why - and I simply cannot do that based on one painting. I have a lot more valid reasons why to leave them off than on. Or - if I include the bulwarks but keep the entry port and someone askes me where I got my info for this, and I steer them towards that painting, they may turn around and say "well, OK, if that is accurate, then why include the entry port, and why have 11 foremast shrouds and not 8, like that very accurate painting?" What do I say?
 
I understand that the crew would remember important events on the ship, even the spars sticking out of the lower gun ports - but if I'm honest, I tried to remember some aspects of my first car, which I drove virtually every day and owned for almost 8 years. I remember vividly some events in that car, but now, as for details of that car, I can't even remember what side the fuel filler cap was or visualise the dash with any clear accuracy - and this was only 15 years ago!
 
 
I hope this explains more clearly why I didn't include them.
 
Chris

The first 8 starboard gun port lids are in place.
 

 

...

...

...

...

A lot of interesting deck detail there Michael, the replacement capstan looks excellent.
 
Regards,
 
B.E.

A lot of interesting deck detail there Michael, the replacement capstan looks excellent.
 
Regards,
 
B.E.

1:48 is the classic scale for scratch ship modelling and it does allow for realistic detailing. However, models at that scale can be very large and create accommodation problems.
 
1:64 I think is a reasonable compromise, and for kit builders especially, there is a good range of quality fittings  now available at that scale. There are also some of the best kits on the market at that scale.
 
I do know that the older I get the bigger the scale required
 
B.E.
 
 

these will look better on the build, I have some clear plastic to place behind the openings , will give some reflection and depth

Hello,
 
after I put off my Triton build I started a new project. Now I want to build the 50-Gun Ship HMS Leopard 1790 (POB) ,1/64 scale
Therefor I bought the book The 50-Gun Ship from Rif Winfield. At this are the plans of the Leopard drawn by John McKay.
I don’t make many words about the build of the frames because that’s often described here on MSW.
 
Instead I show some photos.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Juergen
 

Hi Niklas and Adam, thanks for the kind words.
 
It's going on with the Main Wale. I done it in the same manner as John McKay is shown at his plans.
I made two templates at first because I must produce many equal pieces.

 
Also it must drawn the postion of the Main Wales to the Frames.

 
Thereafter began the agony

 
Here's the result

 
Juergen

Just catching up Ferit, beautiful work on the deck details, I love that last photo particularly.
 
A pleasure to follow your build.
 
Regards,
 
B.E.

Just a minor update, barely worth a photo.  The lifts and leech lines for the lower yards have been completed on both masts :
 

 
As busy as it has been, it's about to get worse!  Picking up some family from the East Coast at the airport today and we'll be spending about 10 days out and about in the Colorado high country.  So no updates for a while.
 
I will be checking in to keep an eye on everyone so STEADY THE COURSE.
 
Everyone stay well and, where appropriate ----- Happy Mother's Day!!!

1:48 is the classic scale for scratch ship modelling and it does allow for realistic detailing. However, models at that scale can be very large and create accommodation problems.
 
1:64 I think is a reasonable compromise, and for kit builders especially, there is a good range of quality fittings  now available at that scale. There are also some of the best kits on the market at that scale.
 
I do know that the older I get the bigger the scale required
 
B.E.
 
 

Original installed piece. Hmmm wrong !!Vasa original (the only one, of the three, to survive)Ferit thanks
Thank you JPett and Joachim
 
A minor update, but apparently a significant one, I owe this change to Blue Ensign and Ferit.
 
They were discussing the spectacular capstan that F installed on his Berlin (If you have not visited his build log you are really missing an astonishing upgrade for the basic kit).
 
So it turns out that the "parts bin" capstan supplied by Corel for the Wasa is period inappropriate. Something I had no knowledge of, not surprising in that I am just now learning so much...
 
Pulled the piece and rebuilt a more period looking example. I learned how to do square cuts from Ferit  (not to his level, but...)
 
So I include these updates. Again thank you B E and F you own this change. THANKS
 
Michael