dafi

Thanks for your comments. Part of the interior of the ship can be seen, since I will leave the cargo hatches open and the door of the cabin half-open. In addition, one of the reasons why I build part of the interior carpentry is to give the hull greater rigidity. In the system that I use, the most delicate moment is just when the false bulkheads are pulled, since the hull only has 0.6 mm walls in its raw state, that is, before sanding.

Hello Javier,
 
it was a great pleasure to meet you and see your little marvels at Rochefort!

All the best, DAniel
 
 

Thank you Gary, as a good example for the possible color - I always saw this as white and not the creamy tint that it actually is - I would just renew my suspicion about the identification of the model. 
 
See https://modelshipworld.com/index.php?/topic/6044-wrong-identified-models-of-hms-victory-in-nmm/&do=findComment&comment=175377
 
XXXDAn

Thanx Gary and OC, I will come back to this!
 
Smoothed up every thing and did the port frames.
 

 

 
XXXDAn

Thank you Gary, as a good example for the possible color - I always saw this as white and not the creamy tint that it actually is - I would just renew my suspicion about the identification of the model. 
 
See https://modelshipworld.com/index.php?/topic/6044-wrong-identified-models-of-hms-victory-in-nmm/&do=findComment&comment=175377
 
XXXDAn

Thanx Gary and OC, I will come back to this!
 
Smoothed up every thing and did the port frames.
 

 

 
XXXDAn

The really cheapest way is to make them out of paper like the card-board-specialists do. Basically some paper wrapped several times around a core. Have a look at the cardboard forums if no-one ever presented it here 🙂
 
XXXDAn

Thanx Gary and OC, I will come back to this!
 
Smoothed up every thing and did the port frames.
 

 

 
XXXDAn

Thanx Gary and OC, I will come back to this!
 
Smoothed up every thing and did the port frames.
 

 

 
XXXDAn

Thanx Gary and OC, I will come back to this!
 
Smoothed up every thing and did the port frames.
 

 

 
XXXDAn

The really cheapest way is to make them out of paper like the card-board-specialists do. Basically some paper wrapped several times around a core. Have a look at the cardboard forums if no-one ever presented it here 🙂
 
XXXDAn

Funny enough most modelers build the version that: 
- existed the shortest time
- that is the least documented 
 
But on the other hand modelers have the tendency to be stubborn to new research. But still these changes often contradicted with other knowledge or was soon to be revised like the stern davits on and off and other features. But on the other side, do not forget that we all here are rivet counters and the job the curators did since 1920 really succeeded in bringing the feeling of the old seafarers to the "normal" people, to keep the history alive, no matter all the details we say "THEY" did "WRONG". 
 
XXXDAn

Just patches, to be omitted in the final version 🙂
 
 
 

Thank you for the great discussion, quite sure we will follow this still for quite a while, it might stay intriguing 🙂
 
So to not loose the fine nuances for colors as a contrast some black and white thinking.
 
To spread some light into why the port holes were planked over 🙂

Next thing first planking trials.

Still quite topsy-turvy but one can see the direction 🙂

XXXDAn

Many thanks Gary!

Funny enough most modelers build the version that: 
- existed the shortest time
- that is the least documented 
 
But on the other hand modelers have the tendency to be stubborn to new research. But still these changes often contradicted with other knowledge or was soon to be revised like the stern davits on and off and other features. But on the other side, do not forget that we all here are rivet counters and the job the curators did since 1920 really succeeded in bringing the feeling of the old seafarers to the "normal" people, to keep the history alive, no matter all the details we say "THEY" did "WRONG". 
 
XXXDAn

Many thanks Gary!

Many thanks Gary!

Just to update on the latest discussion here on Dafi’s thread I’ve posted some information from the Curator of HMS Victory on the following thread which details how the researchers established the new colour scheme.
 
Gary
 

Funny enough most modelers build the version that: 
- existed the shortest time
- that is the least documented 
 
But on the other hand modelers have the tendency to be stubborn to new research. But still these changes often contradicted with other knowledge or was soon to be revised like the stern davits on and off and other features. But on the other side, do not forget that we all here are rivet counters and the job the curators did since 1920 really succeeded in bringing the feeling of the old seafarers to the "normal" people, to keep the history alive, no matter all the details we say "THEY" did "WRONG". 
 
XXXDAn

Across a number of threads there has been considerable debate about the new colour scheme for HMS Victory, most recently on Dafi’s Victory build.  There are supports and doubters.  Doubts as to the change mainly arise because of the there isn’t much material out there other than to say we looked at some old paint samples and worked out what’s what.
 
To see if I could get some further information to help inform the debate and assist in members deciding which colour scheme to go with I thought I’d go to the man who should know, Andrew Baines, Deputy Director of Heritage and Curator at the National Museum of the Royal Navy.
 
I emailed Andrew with the following queries:
 
‘Firstly, there is a degree of scepticism as to the voracity of the research behind the new colour scheme.  Despite the information in the public’s domain from Crick-Smith the opposition to accepting the result centres around extrapolating the tests from the various samples to the entire ship. Is there any data that could be shared to demonstrate the applicability of the tests across the fabric of the ship?

Secondly, how does the certainty arise to say ‘this layer’ of a given sample is from c1805?’
 
Andrew kindly responded in some detail earlier today with the following:
 
”I'm afraid that anything associated with Victory tends to be subject to significant debate, much of it ill-informed.

I think the first point to bear in mind is that Victory has changed colour innumerable times since 1922, we have simply been honest about what we have done, and based the change on all available evidence.

From 1816 or so until 1922, Victory was painted black and white. During the 1922-1927 restoration, the SNR and RN desired to return the ship to her Trafalgar appearance. It was believed that Victory's sides were painted 'bright' yellow, and so the brightest available yellow - chrome yellow- was used. Unfortunately, chrome yellow became available only in the second decade of the twentieth century, so this colour was demonstrably incorrect for 1805. Through the twentieth century, the colour changed slightly as the use of heavy metals in paints became unacceptable. When manufacture of the paint for Victory ceased to be undertaken in the dockyard, a trade paint was adopted, and the nearest available colour to that provided by the dockyard recipe was adopted. It was actually quite late into the 1990s before the colour was fixed to a RAL. This colour was not arrived at by archaeological or archival evidence.

We undertook the archaeological paint research not with the intention of changing the colour in which Victory was painted, but to better understand the way in which the ship has been repaired over her long life; there are approximately 33,000 individual elements in the ship, and some 800 rase marks - marks cut into timber as part of the conversion process, and which frequently include the date at which the timber entered the yard, or was converted. As we know the dates of Victory's repairs, we are able to discern the date at which these pieces of timber was placed into the ship. The first layer of paint on that timber element can therefore be dated with some degree of accuracy. We are then able to extend the paint stratigraphy across other timber elements that do not carry a date mark - if those timber elements have paint layers under the layer identified on our dated piece of timber, we know that they date to an earlier repair, if later, we know they date to a later repair. By extending this technique to other dated timbers, one is able to build an extensive timeline of paint treatments for each part of the ship, accurate to a period of five years or so. This accuracy can be improved on by understanding dirt between layers and similar - when the ship is laid up, the dirt layers tend to be very thin, or indeed negligible, when she is at sea, the dirt layers can be quite thick. It's also possible to understand when several coats of paint have been applied in short succession, as dirt layers do not exist.

In addition to the extensive historic paint surfaces on board the ship, we also have the archaeological archive of material removed from the ship between 1960 and 2005. This material can help fill in gaps or give greater understanding where areas on board have been subjected to extensive stripping in preparation for new coats of paint.

Beyond the archaeological evidence, we have details of what paint was carried on board Victory, and the quantities in which it was consumed. The accounts of carpenters stores for Victory in the run up to Trafalgar also gives details of use of paint, and some indication of how it was mixed, but this is actually quite difficult to decipher due to the manner in which the quantities are recorded against the work undertaken.

Further afield from Victory, there is archival evidence for paint used by other ships, and indeed how other ships were painted at the time of Trafalgar. Captain Duff of the Mars, wrote to his wife on October 10th 1805, that ‘I am sorry the rain has begun to-night, as it will spoil my fine work, having been employed for this week past to paint the Ship à la Nelson, which most of the Fleet are doing.' We know from Mars' carpenter's accounts: ‘Painting ship double sides, and repairing the paint work of the Captain’s cabin: paint, white, 109lbs; yellow, 100lbs.’ Allowing 9lbs paint for repairs to the captain’s cabin, this indicates a ratio of 1:1 for the mixture of yellow: white. One can argue that more than 9lbs was needed for the captain's cabin, but the figures are, nevertheless, indicative.

From the surviving carpenters' accounts of British ships at Trafalgar, we can discern that ship's sides were either painted with pure yellow (Prince, Temeraire), used a mix of two or three parts yellow to one part white (Ajax and Revenge prior to the battle) or used a mixture that was (or was close to) equal parts yellow:white (Mars, Thunderer).

Specific to Victory, a survey of carpenter’s stores dated 12th May 1804 records that Victory carried 2cwt 3q 15lb of Venetian (presumably red) paint, 3cwt 0q 17lb of yellow and 2cwt 2q and 1lb of Port Red (dry) paint. Ten months later, in March 1805, a further survey records identical quantities of Venetian and port red, 93lbs of yellow paint and 1,137lbs of white lead paint.

I am sure you will be aware of Peter Goodwin's 2013 article in Mariner's Mirror, in which he documents Nelson's desire to see the ships of his fleet painted in a pale yellow: Goodwin states ‘…Nelson authorised a six-to-one mix of white and yellow, which would be so light as to verge on the colour cream.'. Unfortunately, this is not entirely accurate, as Nelson was not at liberty to authorise such a change. Rather, in late September 1805, Nelson submitted a proposal to Commissioner Middleton at Gibraltar Dockyard that private ships were to be painted three, and flagships four, times per year, the proportion of white paint to yellow to be 6lbs to 1lb.; This proposal was referred to London where it was reviewed in December 1806. The Navy's decision was that the old regulation was to stand, and Nelson’s proposal was not to be carried into effect.

In summary, the manuscript evidence is as follows:
1. Yellow ochre as supplied to ships was a dark colour that was commonly mixed with white (1804 handbook of instruction for RN officers). It must be borne in mind that this was an earth pigment and the actual colour varied widely.
2. The shade of yellow paint employed by the British fleet prior to Trafalgar appears to have varied from ship to ship. Some ships used yellow neat, others mixed yellow with white in a ratio of 2:1 or 3:1, whilst others mixed yellow and white at 1:1.
3. Whilst there is primary source evidence of Nelson’s desire to employ a pale yellow on the topsides of the ships of the Mediterranean fleet, the evidence is also conclusive in confirming that the proposal was rejected. No manuscript evidence supports the mixing of a shade with more white than yellow.
4. The evidence from Victory’s carpenter’s accounts suggests very strongly that the shade of yellow employed was obtained by mixing white and yellow in equal parts.

The archival evidence when combined with the archaeological material provides, therefore, compelling evidence that Victory's colour in 2013 was not correct to the time of Trafalgar (I don't know of anyone who seriously suggested it was) and that we were able to say with some degree of confidence that it was possible to return to a Victory much closer to that Nelson would have known (admittedly he wanted it lighter, but didn't get his way).

All of the available evidence was reviewed by the Victory Technical Committee, then chaired by Martyn Heighten the then Director of National Historic Ships UK, also a member (and still a member) was Jonathan Coad, who had served on the Victory Committee for almost forty years at that point. The recommendation to change the colour was not, therefore, made on an ad-hoc basis, but subject to extensive scrutiny before the Board of the HMS Victory Preservation Company took the decision to change colours when the ship was next repainted.

We do intend to publish a paper on this subject, but our priority at present is resupporting the ship in order to arrest her structural movement - within the next few days the first of the old cradles will be cut out as we move Victory onto her new props”.
 
This certainly changes some of my thoughts, and corrects some misinformation.
 
I thought I’d post this information here rather than on a specific build thread to make it easier for people to search for and retrieve the information.
 
Gary

Funny enough most modelers build the version that: 
- existed the shortest time
- that is the least documented 
 
But on the other hand modelers have the tendency to be stubborn to new research. But still these changes often contradicted with other knowledge or was soon to be revised like the stern davits on and off and other features. But on the other side, do not forget that we all here are rivet counters and the job the curators did since 1920 really succeeded in bringing the feeling of the old seafarers to the "normal" people, to keep the history alive, no matter all the details we say "THEY" did "WRONG". 
 
XXXDAn

I agree, I very much doubt people would have been inspired by a true 1805 wartime Victory reconstruction, such an austere brooding apparition would not have the grace or beauty of the ship as she is, the 1920’s reconstruction whilst not accurate certainly brings the crowds flocking.
 
That said I’ll be looking to build as true an 1805 version when the Amati 1:64 kit becomes available.
 
Fot those who haven’t seen the NMM 1803 half block model the here it is, this is a fair approximation of what she would have looked like.
 
Gary

Funny enough most modelers build the version that: 
- existed the shortest time
- that is the least documented 
 
But on the other hand modelers have the tendency to be stubborn to new research. But still these changes often contradicted with other knowledge or was soon to be revised like the stern davits on and off and other features. But on the other side, do not forget that we all here are rivet counters and the job the curators did since 1920 really succeeded in bringing the feeling of the old seafarers to the "normal" people, to keep the history alive, no matter all the details we say "THEY" did "WRONG". 
 
XXXDAn

Chemical interaction with the vehicle or other paints? It is more than 200years now. 
 
But the most important question to me still is where is the provenance of the sample(s). And how this small sample gave reason to be applied to the whole outside of the ship?
 
Always open for new finings and input, as long as they are explained properly and seem logical to me. Good research is one thing, judging the results the other.
 
XXXDan