amateur

Pretty worn out that ship. They should put a couple of men to work with a brush and a can of paint Did the real Z25 one ever reach that state, or is this "pure artistry"? (and artistry it is, as usual) btw I like the pic where you hold her in your (at least, I think it is yours ) hand, because that is the only one where she really shows her real size. Jan

Hi Henry, you will have to make a decision on what your goal is: quite a lot of the kits of Statenjachten are based on Hoeckels "reconstruction" of the Brandenburger Jacht. Problem is: Hoekel did his work early 20th century, in a period he had no access to written sources, no body of academic knowledge to start from, so quite a lot of what he did was pure conjecture, often not in line with contemporary models. So: absolutely not useful to getyour model 'historically correct', but useful toget an idea of what the kitmaker had as a starting point. But now you have a "problem" you have a historically correct solution, you have Hoeckels not so historically correct picture of that, you have the kitmakers not so faithfull translation of that not so historically correct picture into a kit, and you have the builders interpretation of what the kitmaker suggested. In other words, your starttingpoint is a long way off from the historical model. So: are you going to restore the model 'as model': take the drawings of Amati as example and keep to those. Are you going to improve on the model: skip the drawings, skip Hoeckel, and take a better suited source as example a contemporaneous model, a reconstruction (like the Utrecht) or a book that is better equipped, like the one by Werner Jaeger. any mix-up between those will lead to 'problems' as the one with your bowsprit, but will also arise with deck-layout, the sidewindows, the steering, the rigging..... with respect to the bowsprit: the solution shown in the book is essentially the same as used in the Utrecht, and very much in accordance to the contemporeneous models of Dutch yachts: not a pinrail, but a very heave cathead-timber, used to secure the end of the bowsprit. Knightheads and pinrails do not belong to the Dutch set-up, and are invented by a kitmaker. Jan

Bit late to join, but I will follow the remainder! Jan

That discussion pops up over and over again: was a pronounced transition always present when the bottom-first method was used. I believe I have read somewhere that Wasa was build shell-first, and there is not a visible chine there. Are chine and shell-first one-to-one connected? Even in Witsens book, part of the illustrations show a chine, and part does not. Jan

That's a pity. Is there a number on the spool. indicating colour/type? At least, the nubers on the sewing-spools more or less identify the type of thread (together with the length on the spool) I can only find the 200 meters hand-quilting, and 300 meters machine-quilting spools. (which sounds like a lot of meters, but with a four-rail railing, that will wear out pretty quickly I guess ) Jan

The original was a fold-out plate in a large folio-sized book. And even the resolution of the original wasn't too high. Reproducing that in smaller reprints and copying that again (not from the original from 1702, but from the previous reprint is just asking for readability issues..... Jan

Added two pics of the Utrecht, a full-scale sailing reconstruction of a Dutch Statenjacht: the bowsprit is resting on a wooden rest at the stern, and butts against the "catheads". There is some kind of gammoning to keep the bowsprit down in its rest. This was, at least in my quickscan of models, a common solution. Kingposts and knightheads were not used, and the bowsprit of these ships were not 'retractable' The cathead self is attached to the inner side of the stern, so the strap you see is actually fixed on top of the railing (wich is rather heavy, as the railing is formed by the upper frame parts. So, in the pic above it is not the bowsprit that is wrong, but it is the pinrail and knighheads that are out of place

I have been looking at quiliting-thread. Looks more even than gutermann-thread. The amount of variety in thread thicknesses however is rather large. Which size/weight do you use? Can't go to my local shop to get a feel for it , because quiliting is not much of a business on this side of the pond, so you have to buy online, even pre-corona. Jan

In addition: if you want to get a feel for the models, before going to buy them all: there is a number of models available as free downloads. Go to the free downloads section: https://www.papershipwright.co.uk/category/free-downloads/ and don't forget this one (that did nog make it to the free downloadpage): https://www.papershipwright.co.uk/product/hmvs-cerberus/ Jan

I only discovered this 'log' because of the pics you uploaded in the gallery. What kind of thread did you use? I tried the thread method, but before gluing it, it is too thick, and once covered in glue, it ends up a bit blotchy, uneven, and the individual strands of the thread very pronounced. Jan

I was referring to the stern: chearfull has a rather bluff bow, jolie a rather sharp one. I agree with you that the underside is rather straightforward, the interesting part is the stern, and the transition from keel to stern Jan

Does Artesania give a cross-section of the planked hull somewhere, so that we can see what their i tention was? Actually, I keepthinking that they use the same method the older Billing kits used: just plank it all over, and glue the keel to the outside of the planking, without too much (none whatsover) bothering of rabbets. The 'chucklike' rabbet as shown by Gregory will takes a bit of trial and error in this case, as in his example the planking sits at almost 90 degrees at the stern, in the case of this ship, the planking has an angle of 40 ? degrees. In that case, your rabbelstrip needs to be thicker than the planking, and getting a nice transition between planking and keel can be a bitmore tricky. With due respect to everyone: AL-kits arenot made to represent actual building practice, nor for people who want to show their technical skills. They are made to have some building fun, that ends in a rather goodlooking model. Only problem: their instructions are not always clear to their targeted customer group... Jan

As Henry writes, the letters and numbers are all there. the problem is: the original was way larger, Andersson made a copy of the original which was included into his book inreduced size, and the current edition is a photographic reset (and again made smaller) of the first edition of Anderssons book. Inother words: in terms of resolution and readability, quite a step back On the bright side: once you have read the book, you should be able to point out all parts in the figures: the book does not rely on those illustrations. Jan

I guess that you making things overcomplicated: when the bulkheads go all the way to the keel, you can also starting the planking at the centerline, so that the planks of both sides touch each other. After planking, sand it flat so that you can put the keel on it. (Essentially the situation shown i fig 2c, but without the centerpiece visible from the outside. As far as I understood the other buildlog, youhave to sand both stern and deadwood in order to have the planks running smoothly, and and make sure that at the aft end the total thicknes of planks and centerboard do not exceed the width of the keel. Final result will be almost the same as shown inthe post of Gregory above, but it is easier to get it clean: the method he shows need the keel put on before planking, AL let you put it tothe hull after planking. Preventing glue spilling to unwanted places Jan

That is true, but there isno reasonto keep customers waiting for something that you will never deliver. Keeping your website up-to-date should be part of your business, like swiping the shop floor and arranging your products on the shelves was in the days of yore. Jan

There are -as far as I read the logs here - differences between kitmanufacturers. Amati and Corel being 'intermediate quality' , more modern kits (Syren and Vanguard) being quite above average. My onw experience with Corel: it is not always the historical incorrectness, but a rather instructions that are quite dificult ro read. At first thoughtthat my Prins Willem was way off, I started researching, and doing it my own way. Lookingback, I see that had understood the instructions right away, the endresult would have been more o rless the same. Differences only tobe seen by people that did their own research Jan

Also: kitmakers are not providing very many spares, so it may be that using AOTS for your rigging may result in shortage of some block types and/or rope. Make sure you have acces to additional blocks of the same design: blocks by different firms look very much different, resulting in an awkward looking rigging of your ship..... Jan

Nope. I don't like oils for small models: too shiny, and too much on top on the sufprface. If anything, use whipe-on poly. That gives a nice surface look. Jan

Masts were made of pine, and oiled (at least: back in the 1600dreds, in the Netherlands.). That results in a orangy look. However, when times go by, he wood starts greying, and thecolour turns brown. and above all: lighting conditions do wonders :). Check pictures of eg Duyfken in Freemantle or Batavia in Lelystad. Hard to tell what colour they have I would go for a slightly toned down version of 2. Jan

I guess that was pretty common: quite a number of those where the paint on the doors, the body and the wings did only closely match: faded wings, bright red hood (or the otherway round). Today the ones remaining are painted better than when they left factory (btw quite a lot of those 2cv's (better known as 'lelijke eend' (ugly duck) around here, as somefirms rent them out for a day out (like they do with Trabants, VW Beetles, and some other old fashioned modes of transport). Jan

Looks very much like the real thing! In my memory the wheelbolts were never painted, but perhaps, that is faulty memory. Jan

Triggered by your question I have been looking, but to no avail.... only black-white pics avaliable Here: https://nimh-beeldbank.defensie.nl/foto-s/?fq[]=search_s_mediatype:"Foto's"&mode=gallery&view=horizontal&q=OJR&page=1&reverse=0 or (partly the same pics) here: https://www.maritiemdigitaal.nl/index.cfm?event=search.getsimplesearch&database=ChoiceMardig&needimages=true&searchterm=higginsboot&allfields=&title=&keyword=&creator=&collection=&shipname=&invno=&museum=&startrow=1 No colourpicsof course, and as these boats were bought of the shelf, even no drawings in the online archive. And as the all had a rather unheroic existence, no paintings or other info at all in the net. Jan

As far as I know Kirsch does not include the rigging part. Het is focussed on the shipbuilding part (especcially the design of the hull) Jn

I can't recall ever seeing a 'official' colourchart of the Dutch navy. would be very interested when you find one. I know that there was rather some variation, also the 'koloniale marine' used a different scheme from the 'nederlandse marine', and during the war most of the Dutch ships were attached to the English navy, and started using their colours. Even 'official paintings' show a wide variety (check all paintings of eg Java or De Ruyter) of colours..... Jan

Do you have the book (including Cd) of the Tasman-ships? There is a rather extensive rigging table on the CD. (At least, I guess that is were mine came from). Essentially the system in Dutch ships is comparable to that of the English: rope size (actually: weight) relates to the size of the mainmast (or the mainstay). You can 'rescale' the table in the book. Gives a reasonable outcome. (At least, I am still rather content with the result ) Jan