Louie da fly

Well, some of us use metric. My previous model was 1:50, and now my current (restoration) is 1:200.
 
Finished size of the model has to come into it - if the model is too big for the place it's to be displayed you should be looking at a smaller scale. On the other hand if it's too small to see, maybe you need it to be bigger. Stellar exceptions to this are Javier Baron's tiny models of Mediterranean sailing vessels, and some amazing battleships at 1:1500 scale by Joe100.
 
Steven

Ok, the model itself is finished, and now I've done the stand. The wooden part, painted gold, was done ages ago. The base is made of a piece from a broken slab of marble that was in the garden when we bought the house. Marble - Byzantium; of course they belong together!

 
I was going to paint a fairly elaborate decorative border - vines curling around and all that. Then I decided the focus should be on the ship, not the stand, so I've kept it simple. Just the description and date in a readable font.
 
Unfortunately after all the work I did on carving that beautiful golden stand, it's almost invisible behind the oars. 
 

 

I got into building design after the change to metric. But there were still plenty of house plans at 1:96 (8 feet to the inch) which had to be converted to 1:100 - an almost insignificant difference - but not quite!
 
And then you'd find a site plan where the lengths of the boundaries were in links (100 links=1 chain=66 feet - the length of a cricket pitch - because there are 100 links to a surveyor's chain) which had to be converted to metric = 201.168 mm. Close to 0.2 metres - but not close enough!
 
The area of a house is still quoted in squares by salesmen = 100 square feet. But when you are drawing it, you convert to square metres - 9.54 square metres to the square. This one I have by heart, just like a foot is 304.8 mm.
 
Hours of fun!
 
Steven

I got into building design after the change to metric. But there were still plenty of house plans at 1:96 (8 feet to the inch) which had to be converted to 1:100 - an almost insignificant difference - but not quite!
 
And then you'd find a site plan where the lengths of the boundaries were in links (100 links=1 chain=66 feet - the length of a cricket pitch - because there are 100 links to a surveyor's chain) which had to be converted to metric = 201.168 mm. Close to 0.2 metres - but not close enough!
 
The area of a house is still quoted in squares by salesmen = 100 square feet. But when you are drawing it, you convert to square metres - 9.54 square metres to the square. This one I have by heart, just like a foot is 304.8 mm.
 
Hours of fun!
 
Steven

Well, some of us use metric. My previous model was 1:50, and now my current (restoration) is 1:200.
 
Finished size of the model has to come into it - if the model is too big for the place it's to be displayed you should be looking at a smaller scale. On the other hand if it's too small to see, maybe you need it to be bigger. Stellar exceptions to this are Javier Baron's tiny models of Mediterranean sailing vessels, and some amazing battleships at 1:1500 scale by Joe100.
 
Steven

I got into building design after the change to metric. But there were still plenty of house plans at 1:96 (8 feet to the inch) which had to be converted to 1:100 - an almost insignificant difference - but not quite!
 
And then you'd find a site plan where the lengths of the boundaries were in links (100 links=1 chain=66 feet - the length of a cricket pitch - because there are 100 links to a surveyor's chain) which had to be converted to metric = 201.168 mm. Close to 0.2 metres - but not close enough!
 
The area of a house is still quoted in squares by salesmen = 100 square feet. But when you are drawing it, you convert to square metres - 9.54 square metres to the square. This one I have by heart, just like a foot is 304.8 mm.
 
Hours of fun!
 
Steven

Kit bashing is a very loose term. The common factor is starting with a kit. The "bashing" can mean adding details the kit doesn't provide because of cost factors, correcting inaccuracies in the kit, changing the way it's presented (say with the sails partly furled rather than all on display), or with (say) battle damage (rare) or weathering, or as you're intending, turning it into a different ship. 
 
Bulkheads shouldn't warp after assembly unless you leave it for awhile before adding the planking, decking etc, which adds stiffness and support. If they do warp - or they're already warped when you take them out of the box, contact the manufacturer - the ethical ones will replace the warped parts. If that doesn't work, you can make your own - one of the advantages of working in wood.
 
Steven

Well, some of us use metric. My previous model was 1:50, and now my current (restoration) is 1:200.
 
Finished size of the model has to come into it - if the model is too big for the place it's to be displayed you should be looking at a smaller scale. On the other hand if it's too small to see, maybe you need it to be bigger. Stellar exceptions to this are Javier Baron's tiny models of Mediterranean sailing vessels, and some amazing battleships at 1:1500 scale by Joe100.
 
Steven

Well, some of us use metric. My previous model was 1:50, and now my current (restoration) is 1:200.
 
Finished size of the model has to come into it - if the model is too big for the place it's to be displayed you should be looking at a smaller scale. On the other hand if it's too small to see, maybe you need it to be bigger. Stellar exceptions to this are Javier Baron's tiny models of Mediterranean sailing vessels, and some amazing battleships at 1:1500 scale by Joe100.
 
Steven

Convergent evolution, I'm sure. The guy's wearing what's called a "barrel helm" or "great helm" - at about 1215 this is quite an early one - they were in vogue for a couple of centuries. Despite appearances, the visibility through the eyeholes is pretty good, and you'll note the many breathing holes in the lower half - very important when you're exerting yourself. 
 

 
Steven
 
Steven

I like the logical and systematic way you're approaching this. I think making a model is always a bit of a tension between accuracy and practicality, and when you're "bashing' a kit to make it more historically accurate there's always the question of how far to go. And really, it's your choice - whatever seems right to you. This isn't going into a museum to be scrutinised by academics, it's your relaxation and enjoyment.
 
I've hit the same problem with my Great Harry because I built it before the Mary Rose was recovered, so it's full of details which later turned out to be inaccurate. So I'm always up against the issue of how far to change it from my original concept. My idea in restoring it was to just return it to the way it would have been had I finished it at the time, but I've been very inconsistent, changing some things in line with what I know now and leaving others as they were when I first built her.
 
Like I said - your decision - do what you think is right for you. And maybe one day you will revisit and build another one more in line with what you know now.
 
Steven

Beautiful pieces - they'll add a very good air of reality to the whole thing.

Beautiful pieces - they'll add a very good air of reality to the whole thing.

Beautiful pieces - they'll add a very good air of reality to the whole thing.

Beautiful pieces - they'll add a very good air of reality to the whole thing.

IPMS (International Plastic Modelers Society) has very strict definitions for "out of box" and "scratch".  Pretty much anything that doesn't meet those two categories is considered a "kit bash" or simply "not out of box".  I use IPMS in this conversation because as far as I know they are one of the largest modeling organizations around the world, and wooden ships have been allowed in all of their official competitions for many years now.
 
For a wooden ship model, you could replace rigging line and a couple other very minor bits and still meet the definition of "out of box", but if you've replaced crappy kit wood with anything other than identical type (like to replace a warped piece), for example replacing the kit basswood deck with Holly or Boxwood, you have entered the "not out of box" realm, which is pretty much what I consider to be a kit-bash.

My build of the "Carmen" qualified as out of box by the IPMS judges (but just barely - the replacement blocks were debated as to whether they were part of the rigging or not), while my AVS was clearly in the kit-bash (not out of box) category because I replaced so much of the kit wood and parts.
 
However a 'bash' can go far beyond that.  I could start with the kit for the Pride of Baltimore for example, but modify it in such a way to create a model of the "Californian" and that would not be a scratch model since I used the kit as my basis, it would be a kit-bash.

Where the line is crossed from kit-bash to full scratch has been an item of much debate over the years, so I won't even go into that. 
 

Thanks Steven and ccoyle. Thought thats what it was but wanted to make sure I was picking up the lingo correctly

Beautiful pieces - they'll add a very good air of reality to the whole thing.

Kit bashing is a very loose term. The common factor is starting with a kit. The "bashing" can mean adding details the kit doesn't provide because of cost factors, correcting inaccuracies in the kit, changing the way it's presented (say with the sails partly furled rather than all on display), or with (say) battle damage (rare) or weathering, or as you're intending, turning it into a different ship. 
 
Bulkheads shouldn't warp after assembly unless you leave it for awhile before adding the planking, decking etc, which adds stiffness and support. If they do warp - or they're already warped when you take them out of the box, contact the manufacturer - the ethical ones will replace the warped parts. If that doesn't work, you can make your own - one of the advantages of working in wood.
 
Steven

Here are a couple more photos -
 
Waterways added to the aftercastle deck (absolutely vital -  to cover up gaps at the edge of the decking which you can see through down to the gunports below).
 

 
 
masts and bowsprit dry fitted. Still sanding the underwater planking.
 
   
 
 

 
 

Beautiful pieces - they'll add a very good air of reality to the whole thing.

Beautiful pieces - they'll add a very good air of reality to the whole thing.

I can see the “cods head, herring tail” shape of the immersed body.  
I rather suspect that this saying was not published till a century or so later, but I expect that the lessons were being learned and acted upon earlier
I find it interesting how blunt an entry can be without too much harm to the drag, but how sensitive the ship is to the aft run.
And maritime growth!

Looking good Steven.
 
cheers
 
Pat

Very cool!