David Lester

I always have an internal debate about attaching the deck furniture. I believe the better practice is to leave openings, adding supporting "beams" where necessary and install the items, all before planking the deck, planking around them. I have done that in the past, and it works really well, but this time I thought I'd try the simpler approach and I just glued them down on top of the planked deck. I think the result is not quite as good, but it's ok. It seems to work so long as you get a good tight fit accommodating the shape of the deck and you have to double check the height of the coamings, as they should be a shorter height when glued on top than when installed before the decking goes down.

My masts, booms and gaffs are pretty much ready and it looks like I'm into the rigging now. All of the blocks on the Bluenose were internally stropped and it appears from old photos that they were all painted white. This is a detail that I wanted to include. There seem to be two options for internally stropped blocks: one is the wooden ones from Syren and the other is the cast metal ones from BlueJacket. I weighed the pros and cons of each and in the end settled on the BlueJacket ones for two reasons. The first is the Syren ones are not available in the smallest size that is called for on the Bluenose plus they are so exquisite that I didn't think I had the heart to paint them. On the other hand, the BlueJacket ones are available in all the specified sizes and they are intended to be painted, so they seemed the right choice for this project. Many of the blocks on the Bluenose were attached with shackles. I have no confidence in my ability to replicate them skillfully enough at this scale, so I have opted to seize the blocks to eyebolts which I know will look better in the end. The bowsprit is installed and rigged, including my fake turnbuckles - The foremast is held in place with temporary "stays" while I start in on the lower shrouds That's it for now. Thanks, David

Paul, I think mine was the same as yours. You have to essentially scratch build everything on the deck. I just measure the plans, make a note and transfer the measurements to the wood. I have my own quirky little system. I measure everything in 32s of an inch and make a note, ie: width 12, height 14 which of course means 12/32 x 14/32. If something is over an inch, my note reads, for example, 1-15 which means 1" + 15/32". Just be careful with the detail insets on the plan. They are usually double the scale. I have been know to mistakenly build the odd very large hatch or two!

That forward wall fits nicely. I found that to be a particularly finicky thing to do on mine. Did you make a cardboard template? I must have gone through ream of cardboard until I had a template that fit. Looks great! David

Hi, They're kinda on a par, but I suppose the Bluenose is the easier build. I have found the MS plans for both kits to be very accurate. I visited the Pride of Baltimore last summer and took many photographs, and I found almost no discrepancies between the plans and the actual ship. For the Bluenose I am having to rely on the old photographs that I have found on line, but again, the plans seem to reflect reality very closely. Photos of the Bluenose II are not of any help, because the details are considerably different. So, to answer your question, it probably makes sense to begin with the Bluenose. It's an easy hull to plank and the rigging is relatively simple. In addition to the build logs on the forum, have you discovered this website: https://suburbanshipmodeler.com/ This guy has a pretty comprehensive build log of his Bluenose. Most old pictures of the Bluenose can be found at the Nova Scotia archives - https://novascotia.ca/archives/bluenose/ but the site is not much fun to navigate; you have to wade through page after page to find the pictures, but it's worth it. They can be quite helpful when something is not quite clear in the plans. Anyway, those are my thoughts for what they're worth. I hope they're of some help to you. David

Continuing work on the masts. I'm simplifying much of the hardware on the masts by using paper strips and eyebolts, but at the same time not eliminating any of it. That will allow me attach all of the rigging yet stay within my comfort zone. Nevertheless it's not possible to avoid all of the metal work and I soldered brass strips for the mast caps. This is not my forte, nor of much interest me, but I thought the mast caps needed to be structural. I have also learned from experience not to use basswood for the crosstrees when they are quite long as they are on the Bluenose; they are quite likely to break during rigging and then of course, they're very difficult to repair or replace. Some walnut will work better. The fore mast in particular has a lot of points of attachment. I have always had trouble attaching futtock shrouds to the mast without making a big oversized mess, so I have developed my own, (not entirely authentic) method, that leaves a neater appearance. Instead of wire, I use rigging line. (I can never seem to get wire to stay straight or taut.) At the point of attachment, I drill a largish hole all the way through the mast. Once the lines are attached to the bullseyes or deadeyes on the crosstrees, I draw every line all the way through the one hole and out the other side. In this case, two lines passing through left to right and two lines passing through right to left. I glue them in place and then trim them flush. Another hardware feature on this model is a number of turnbuckles. If I had noticed them on the Bluejacket website sooner, I would have just bought them and added them to my last order. However, I didn't so I had to figure out how to represent them. I have seen a few builders making quite realistic ones out of brass and Tom Lauria has a video where he makes unbelievably detailed ones. This was out of the question for me, but nevertheless I wanted to represent them. The main objective for me is to get them small enough. If they are oversized, I think it ruins the look. Id' prefer to have them look a bit fake, rather than be oversized. I decided to use two small eyebolts attached to a central "cylinder" but I couldn't come up with what to use for a cylinder that was small enough yet still allowed me to drill holes for the eyebolts. The central part of the turnbuckle should be just 5/32" long. Here is what I came up with. The cylinder is a piece of solder. I drilled a hole in each end and glued in the eyebolts. I then gave the solder a squeeze with my pliers to slightly flatten them. I think when these are incorporated into the rigging they will be ok. They aren't perfect, but at least they are exactly the right size which I think is half the battle. That's it for now. Many thanks for checking in, "like" etc. David

With respect to the "unidentified object" on the deck, I emailed the people at Bluenose II and received an answer this morning. They confirmed that the object is the lazarette hatch. You were right on the money, jamcdonel! This made me curious about the word lazarette which seems like an odd word. I was surprised to discover that it is a reference to Lazarus. If Wikipedia is to be believed, on old ships this area below deck was originally where bodies of "important" passengers and crew were stored rather than being buried at sea. More recently, it refers to the area where the steering mechanism is located.

Good Morning All, A little progress to report: I've now finished all of the deck details and all have been added except the boom crutches and the catheads, for fear of breaking them. I'll add them at a later point. I built new catheads, because the included cast ones are too fragile and it's almost impossible to attach the various items to them. I'll paint these white and add them a little later. There is a lot of metal work on all the spars of the Bluenose, so I had to make a decision as to how best to replicate it. I know that many modelers have done very impressive brass work to recreate all the bands, shackles and the like. That is not a good option for me because I know I could not do a good enough job at the necessary scale. A lot of messy overscaled brass work would not be an asset, so I've chosen to simplify it considerably and represent the metal work with construction paper, eyebolts and in some cases, brass wire. While not completely accurate in every case, I know the overall effect will be better. My first inclination was to use black construction paper for the bands, but I noticed that the plans indicate that the bands are supposed to be all either galvanized or painted white. So I went searching for photos and while there are many of the hull and deck available, there are almost none of the masts and rigging that are clear enough to be an indication. However I did find this one: To my eye it looks like the bands are a little darker than the white spreaders but certainly not black. I took this as an indication that they are galvanized metal, so that's how I chose to represent them. I painted black construction paper with aluminum metallic paint. While looking at these pictures, it also appeared to me that the mast hoops are white, so I painted mine. (They are a nightmare to paint by the way.) I attempted one other detail with the mast coats. The plans indicate that they are covered with canvas, so I applied teflon plumbers' tape, then painted it off white. It doesn't show up in the picture, but I added a little texture to it by pressing it with sandpaper. The overall effect isn't especially great, but on the other hand, it's not terrible either. The shiny metal piece around the mast mast is a piece from a coffee can seal. It was just the right weight for the job. So that's it for now. It's nice and cool in my basement. The outside temperature is in the low 30's today, so it's too hot to do too much out there. David

I think it might be a big cookie tin. To be honest I haven't really paid it too much attention, although I thought it was pretty odd for even the plans to call it "unidentified object." It reminds me of the time in public school when I assembled a rock collection for a science project and labeled most of the specimens "unknown rocks." The lazarette hatch idea seems feasible. It appears to be about the size of a manhole and seems to have a lid. Being elevated would prevent water from getting down. I think I'll email the people at Bluenose II and see if they can shed any light on it. They were very helpful when I was tracking down the Masonic and Odd Fellows connections. David

Great pictures! I'm definitely going with "dory buff" for my dories. g

Thanks for the comments guys! Schooners - still one more bit to add to the machinery. There is a guard that goes over the big gear on the windlass. So I have that yet to do. Per - I like these deadeyes too. They're cast ones from BlueJacket and they're authentic in style to the ones on the Bluenose. I know many other builders have made this style themselves by bending wire in a loop on each side of the deadeye and attaching the chainplate directly to it with a pin, they even articulate when made this way. They're very cool, but I knew in my case "that way madness lies." So I opted for this alternative. But I have to be very careful with them. Too much bending and they can break off. Thanks again, David

That's not a bad idea. I always struggle with whether a model should look "showroom" or weathered. I notice that railroad modelers always go for the weathered look, but ship modelers more often go for the pristine look. If you look at my previous post, maybe the effect you're talking about is more like the way I did the vent on the cabin. I painted it black and then applied a "watery" coat of aluminum paint. I did that because in the old black and white photos I have, the vent does not appear to have been black at all, but rather a metallic colour. I think I'll give that a try on these gears etc. Thanks for the idea! David

Hello All, I little more work on the deck details. Here is the mechanism that operates the windlass. This is a little bit tricky, mainly because the cast parts are so poorly done. I like MS kits on the whole, but I have to say that these parts are not really very good. It's odd to me that a number of the gears are all molded on the axle as one piece. This would be ok, except for the fact that one gear is molded separately but needs to be located on the axle between two of the already molded in place gears. So, the piece needs to be cut. Probably for the best anyway. The axle is so small and fragile that it's easy to break it in any case. I ended up cutting off all of the gears and drilling holes through them and using brass rod as the axle. I was worried about the placement of all the components, but the trick was to start with the bowsprit and get it and its post correctly located, then simply work backwards from there. I used a piece of fine copper chain that I had for the chain drive and I built up the starboard side of the windlass with wooden pieces and the port side with small styrene strips. David

They say that in life there are only two certainties - death and taxes. Well, I think there are four - death, taxes, you will get an email today from Model Expo and your fife rail will crumble at even the lightest touch. Obviously, I've been working on the deck details and for some reason, even though there aren't all that many, it's been slow going. I've all but finished them now except for the complicated bit of machinery that connects the motor to the windlass that looks like it was designed by Rube Goldberg. It may be simpler than it seems; I haven't quite given it my undivided attention yet. Apart from having to build the fife rail from scratch, the components have all been straightforward to build. The skylight in the old pictures was quite different from the one in the plans. Mine more closely matches the photos rather than the plans and I've use black rigging line for the bars. So, here's how I arrived at my painting scheme for the parts. I rely on the notes in the plans to a large degree and everything is indicated as being either "white" or "burnt umber." Burnt umber is a paint colour, so I took it to mean that it's painted dark brown, rather than left a natural finish. I'm pretty sure that the plans would have said "natural mahogany" or "douglas fir" or something like that if it was meant to be a natural finish. I have gathered together a number of old photos of the Bluenose and for the most part the plans are very consistent with the photos. In a couple of cases where there are discrepancies, I've opted for the paint scheme in the photos. I don't think it means the plans are wrong but rather that the details were painted slightly differently at different times. The dories were not difficult to build. The little framing system that the kit provides works very well. There are eight dories provided, but I think I will only use four of them - two stacks of two. They looked a bit odd to me stacked four high. Of course, it's only the top two that need to be finished inside. So, that's it for now as I try to figure out the conglomeration of gears etc that go together at the bow. Thanks for looking in! David

Looks like a good start, Tim. It sounds like you're planning to plank the hull. I don't think you'll have too much trouble with that. On a "plank on bulkhead" model, I think the hard part is getting the hull faired correctly. Although I've never done one, I imagine on a solid hull model, getting the hull shape correct will also be the hard part. I also guess that planking a well shaped solid hull will be easier than planking a POB model. (Although a little harder to remove a plank, should that need arise.) If you look at Nic's Red Jacket build, you'll see that he uses quite a bit of filler when shaping the hull, so that's clearly part of the process. Does the kit come with wood to use as planking, or are you going to get some extra to do that. David

John, have you found this website: www.charleswmorganmodel.com? It's primarily a build log, but what I found most helpful was the many excellent pictures of the actual ship. They're found under the "gallery" link. David

Hi Gregory, Yes, I now believe it is a question of perspective. My picture of the stern is from a low angle and isn't straight on. I think that angle distorts the appearance of the curve. Even the picture of the Billing Victory is from an angle, so the same thing occurs. The pictures of the Caldercraft are straight on. I've since gone on line trying to find pictures of the stern that are straight on. They are few and far between, but I did find one. It's from a lower angle, so it doesn't match perfectly, but it's straight on and when I superimpose it over the Caldercraft profile, the curves nevertheless line up really well. So I think that answers my question. Thank you. David

Your CWM is looking great. These old Marine Model kits look like they were fairly decent kits. From my (limited) knowledge of the CWM, I'd say this is a pretty accurate representation. I also think you've nailed the yellow colour of the bulwarks and other fittings perfectly. David

So here's a question. I'm not ready to pull the trigger just yet, but neither can I shake the idea of a Victory model in my future and I've been looking at many builds of all the different kit manufacturers and have noticed differences in the shape of the stern. On the real ship, as it currently looks, the counter area of the stern has a very pronounced curve to it, like a bell curve. However, the models don't seem to all reflect this in the same way. It looks to me that in the Caldercraft kit, this curve is flattened somewhat: And I've noticed that on the Mamoli and Panart versions, it's flattened even more. It's almost dead straight across on the Mamoli. The Billing version, however does seem to capture the steeper curve of the actual ship - Are my eyes playing tricks on me? Is is just the different angles of the pictures? Or did the stern have slightly different profiles at different times and the various models reflect those different profiles? On the Mamoli version, which is virtually straight across, I suspect it's simply a matter of inaccuracy. But I would be interested to know about the Caldercraft version, because it does look slightly different to me than the real thing, and I'm curious to know why that might be. Can anyone shed any light on this question? Many thanks, David

I'm looking forward to this build log. I believe it's the first Alfred on the forum, which is surprising because it's such a handsome model and interesting subject. It's on my shortlist for my next kit, but I'm a bit worried about tackling a solid hull. I'll be watching your progress with great interest. David

I’ve started working on the dories for my Bluenose build, and I’ll include that in my build log. In the meantime I thought I might share a bit about another dory that I have. This one is painted yellow, which I understand is referred to as “dory buff.” I’m not sure what colour the dories on the Bluenose were. There is some rare colour footage of the Bluenose, but it’s very faded and difficult to make out the colours. In that footage the dories don’t appear to be buff, but it’s hard to say. The MS plans indicate “buff” so it might be safe to assume that they could have been this colour. In any case, here’s this dory. ” It’ about 16” long and it was scratch built by someone I used to work with named Fred. This started as a little hobby for Fred, but through a friend, he soon found himself supplying them to a gift shop in Vancouver BC. He had to bring that to a fairly quick end however, because he couldn’t keep up with the demand and making them became an onus, not a pleasure. So once he gave that up, he continued to make them upon request for friends and acquaintances. There are two interesting stories about Fred’s dories – He learned from someone who had been to the gift shop in Vancouver that the owner of the shop was telling people that they were made by “an old salt from Newfoundland.” Fred found this amusing because while he conceded that he was old there was certainly nothing salty about him. He was born and raised in Brandon, Manitoba which is on the Canadian prairie, just north of the North Dakota border. I guess it wouldn’t have been as effective to say “an old salt from the prairie.” Also, Fred had a unique source for the wood he used. We worked at a funeral home which was located not too far from a major casket manufacturer. We had a great relationship with them and Fred would make the occasional trip there and bring back all the free scrap lumber he could use. And I don’t know how he did it, but he even sweet-talked them into planing it down for him to the dimensions he needed! He always used either poplar or willow. Sadly, I haven’t had this useful connection for 20 years now, nor would I have had Fred’s ability to finagle custom planing in any case. David

That's probably a good idea. The davits are a bit fragile and I broke more than one. However, make sure you know ahead of time exactly where they're going to go. They have to be spaced a precise distance apart to fit the length of the boats and if you're not very careful, you'll find, for example, that one needs to go exactly where one of the channels is! I cut strips of masking tape the same width as all the various components and stuck them on the hull and moved them about as necessary until I had placements that worked. If your hull is like mine there will be some minor variance from the plan in places.

Coming along nicely. One word of warning - there is an incredible number of items to be added along the side of the hull - davits for the boats, standards for the roof etc etc. It's a bit of a challenge fitting them all in around the deadeyes etc. Be sure of your spacing before gluing anything on. If you just move from one end to the other, there will be some error creep. There will be a need for small adjustment as you go. Don't ask me how I know this! David

One idea that can help is to first glue a piece of paper to the underside of the wood. Afterwords, you can either leave the paper there or scrape/sand it off. David

Dave, those pins look pretty good to me. I have also found it virtually impossible to make decent frames out of 1/32" material. It can be done without too much trouble with 1/16" wood and it will probably look ok, but if you thought it was too thick you could make the frame up including the pins and then sand the whole thing down on both sides, in order to keep the pins centered. I don't think you'll have any problem with ca glue doing the job. There will be no tension on them and a friction fit alone would likely hold them. Your base is looking great. David