Jump to content
MSW Spring Donation Drive

Bill Morrison

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    646

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Bill Morrison

  1. Bill Morrison
    Your HMS Mercury is STUNNING!!! I am inspired to try building this ship. Bill
  2. Bill Morrison
    My father got this kit for me back in the 1990s. It's a fun kit to build but there is one glaring error to me. It has no cannons. It is only an impression to me, but I believe that this type of ship did have some defensive armament. Bill
  3. Bill Morrison
    There is an interesting thread where the issue of belaying pins is discussed. I recommend it as an interesting read. introduction of belaying pins By hamilton, July 31, 2019 in Masting, rigging and sails
  4. Bill Morrison
    Credible representations are what the hobby is about. Marc is building a fantastic conversion of the Heller kit and painting it in an interesting and beautiful fashion! His model might or might not be a specific ship, but it certainly appears to be a French ship-of-the line, which he has based on credible plans. CRI-CRI is doing the same, as is the other Marc in France. Does this answer the question about belaying pins? We have conflicting information. Lees states explicitly that belaying pins first came into use around 1750. Was he talking specifically about English ships? Does he include French practice? Marc in NYC has provided some references about French warships of the period and paintings of Dutch ships. Looking at what appear to be belaying pins on the Dutch ships, I would not want to try to pick them up; their tops appear as large as my head (if not larger!). The Heller 1/100 scale plastic version has molded pins on the sheer rails. Unfortunately. these are sharply pointed, shaped badly, and fragile. Most wood plank on bulkhead kits don't seem to include them but I could be wrong. The Artesania Latina kit includes them on fife rails, which seems incorrect. I suppose the correct answer is to go with whichever the builder believes is authentic. Bill
  5. Bill Morrison
    Credible representations are what the hobby is about. Marc is building a fantastic conversion of the Heller kit and painting it in an interesting and beautiful fashion! His model might or might not be a specific ship, but it certainly appears to be a French ship-of-the line, which he has based on credible plans. CRI-CRI is doing the same, as is the other Marc in France. Does this answer the question about belaying pins? We have conflicting information. Lees states explicitly that belaying pins first came into use around 1750. Was he talking specifically about English ships? Does he include French practice? Marc in NYC has provided some references about French warships of the period and paintings of Dutch ships. Looking at what appear to be belaying pins on the Dutch ships, I would not want to try to pick them up; their tops appear as large as my head (if not larger!). The Heller 1/100 scale plastic version has molded pins on the sheer rails. Unfortunately. these are sharply pointed, shaped badly, and fragile. Most wood plank on bulkhead kits don't seem to include them but I could be wrong. The Artesania Latina kit includes them on fife rails, which seems incorrect. I suppose the correct answer is to go with whichever the builder believes is authentic. Bill
  6. Bill Morrison
    NekO, You gave an outstanding explanation of your point that the Tanneron model is "false". I appreciate your point of view. I suppose that we can look at all models of this period as being "false" if we cannot back up our models with documentation. At best we can use a medical description that the Tanneron model," . . . morphologically resembles . . ." French warships of the 17th-18th centuries. Indeed, the same description can apply to many ship models. Without specific evidence the Tanneron model is a facsimile. Concerning the belaying pin issue, we are all relying on secondary and tertiary sources. I am using Lees' book that was first published in 1979. Given that we are all using such sources we are all discussing based on very scanty evidence at best. Given this, I am open to everyone here offering an opinion. I would love to find primary sources to add to this discussion. Bill
  7. Bill Morrison
    Marc, Good morning. Okay, I see what you are pointing to. They certainly look like belaying pins at a glance, but they are far too large to be used as such. Even on the models, pins of that size couldn't be easily handled. They appear to be larger than a man. Maybe we have an answer to the mysterious "turnpins"! 😀 Bill
  8. Bill Morrison
    Marc, I will certainly look tomorrow. I discovered a similar discussion on MSW in August 2019 that sources Lees. The participants can point to a reference as early as 1750 in smaller ships but no reference before that date except for a reference to something called a "turnpin" that no one could define. They tried to pin i t down by using logic and reason, but no one was sure. Again, it does make an interesting discussion. Bill
  9. Bill Morrison
    Marc, Just as respectfully, I am inclined to believe just the opposite. Perhaps it's my age but I don't clearly see belaying pins in the paintings. The red arrow is pointing to what seems like carvings, but I could be wrong. But, I am enjoying this conversation. Thank you! Bill
  10. Bill Morrison
    According to my sources, the use of belaying pins did not occur until the 1790s. Granted, these sources might be talking about English ships, but they do not differentiate between navies. I have carved off all of the pins from the Heller kit and sanded the sheer rails smooth. But, again, there might be other opinions. Bill
  11. Bill Morrison
    Marc, Thanks. I appreciate it. Also, the Artesania Latina has quite a few problems. One issue is that they have used belaying pins in their advertisement, while the use of belaying pins came about almost 100 years later. Another is the lack of external decoration, her reputation being of a highly decorated ship. There are others commented about in the comments section for the model on You Tube. The kit has been around for about a month. Thanks for the reference. I will look it up and purchase of copy. Bill
  12. Bill Morrison
    Marc, Fair enough. May I have the specifics about the reference? Which book? Which author? Thanks! Bill
  13. Bill Morrison
    I'm confused. I thought that this is a model of the first SR but you say that she is pierced for 104 guns. The first SR carried 110 guns, the second carried 104. The gun displayed had to be of the first because of the sign claiming that it was off of SR in 1670, which is appropriate for the first. The second ship wasn't built until she was started in 1692. Could you please clarify?
  14. Bill Morrison
    Josh, I honestly don't know. It is probable that others have done so given that you found one. But, you really made out on that deal! Good job! It's also interesting to note that the Revell transom for the Constitution is also inaccurate for the 1812 period but not for the 1924 refit on which the kit is based. Bill
  15. Bill Morrison
    I'm extraordinarily impressed by CRI_CRI's effort with the Saint Phillipe, which also looks in many ways like SR. He would be an excellent person to talk with. Bill
  16. Bill Morrison
    Marc, I agree most emphatically! It is an interesting point that I found perusing Les Vasseaux de Louis XIV that there seemed to be common features among most ships of the line similar to virtually every model of French naval ships of the period. The drawings in that book are quite explicit about many features common to the war ships of the time. Unfortunately, it is written in French. I do not speak French (to my immense sorrow). Bill
  17. Bill Morrison
    By the way, I counted the gunports on the Tanneron model. The ship is pierced for 104 guns, not 110. Bill
  18. Bill Morrison
    I agree to a point. It is possible that some features of the older ship were carried over to the new. But, we simply do not know since plans are lacking. It is likewise possible that you are correct since Tanneron was working somewhat blindly as we are. It makes for a fun discussion. Bill
  19. Bill Morrison
    I do not believe that the Tanneron model is "false". It simply does not represent the first SR. It is much closer to the second ship of that name t was built beginning in 1692. In fact, the Tanneron model is also not complete given that he died while the model was under construction. The infamous "hole in the knee of the head" bears testimony to this fact, as does the alleged lack of deck furniture. Look at the Berain paintings and compare the different details of the decorative carvings. Even the quarter galleries are different in shape and detail. Count the gunports: the first ship carried 110 guns while the second carried 104. The third ship is not in consideration as she was an 80-gun ship. I saw the Tanneron model in Paris and was impressed by his attention to detail in other models, It was clear to me that had he been able to finish the model, it would have been fantastic. Bill
  20. Bill Morrison
    Good luck! Please let me know if I can be of any help. Bill
  21. Bill Morrison
    Kevin, They are similar only on a glance. Kearsarge has a much larger armament. Her masts are almost vertical while Alabama's are raked aft. Alabama is 20 feet longer. Their deck arrangement is very different. Kearsarge was built in the USA while Alabama was built in Liverpool, UK. Unfortunately, Revell used many of the same parts to manufacture both ships. The USS Kearsarge is a well-detailed version of that ship as she appeared in 1874, well after the US Civil War. The CSS Alabama kit does not represent the real ship at all. Revell chose to simply use the Kearsarge's hull, the same cannons as in their Kearsarge kit. They cannot be used in a model of the Alabama. In my Alabama Model, I modified the hull, drilled out all the hull openings as the appeared on Alabama, scratch-built a correct deck, and layout, used the Cottage Industry after-market armament correct for Alabama, and scratch-built the correct deck furniture. The model is now roughly 98% accurate. I have the Kearsarge waiting in the wings. Unfortunately, Revell had this tendency to create an excellent kit, then rebox it as something else with ever-so-slight modifications. They manufactured the excellent USS Kearsarge, then reboxed it as Alabama. They manufactured the outstanding Cutty Sark, then reboxed it to Thermopylae and Pedro Nunes. Their USS Constitution was reboxed as the USS United States with the addition of a Roundhouse aft and a fictional second level to the quarter galleries and an equally fictional transom. Their excellent smaller sailing ships carried on with this practice. But, I have discovered the fun that I can have trying to modify them and detail them according to their real designs. It can be challenging. Bill
  22. Bill Morrison
    One more comment; the Revell kit of the United States includes the lower gallery molded on, with a separate part for the upper level. It is easy to leave it off. Bill
  23. Bill Morrison
    Yes, I have paintings of both the quarter galleries, which were single level like the Constitution and the President, which was more rounded at the top. The kit's transom is flared out unlike any of the paintings. Of the two kits, that of the Constitution resembles reality than does the kit's. Note that the transom for the United States should be higher than that on the Constitution because of the roundhouse aft. There is a nice illustration of the ship in the Osprey publication American Heavy Frigates, 1797-1860. Bill
  24. Bill Morrison
    I have a question. Are you planning on building her out-of-the-box or are you going to modify the kit to more accurately reflect th Frigate? There are contemporary paintings that can be sourced to change her quarter galleries and transom. Unfortunately, there is little else to research. I will follow your build with great interest. Bill
  25. Bill Morrison
    Yes, that is the hole in the knee of the head. Bill

About us

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research

SSL Secured

Your security is important for us so this Website is SSL-Secured

NRG Mailing Address

Nautical Research Guild
237 South Lincoln Street
Westmont IL, 60559-1917

Model Ship World ® and the MSW logo are Registered Trademarks, and belong to the Nautical Research Guild (United States Patent and Trademark Office: No. 6,929,264 & No. 6,929,274, registered Dec. 20, 2022)

Helpful Links

About the NRG

If you enjoy building ship models that are historically accurate as well as beautiful, then The Nautical Research Guild (NRG) is just right for you.

The Guild is a non-profit educational organization whose mission is to “Advance Ship Modeling Through Research”. We provide support to our members in their efforts to raise the quality of their model ships.

The Nautical Research Guild has published our world-renowned quarterly magazine, The Nautical Research Journal, since 1955. The pages of the Journal are full of articles by accomplished ship modelers who show you how they create those exquisite details on their models, and by maritime historians who show you the correct details to build. The Journal is available in both print and digital editions. Go to the NRG web site (www.thenrg.org) to download a complimentary digital copy of the Journal. The NRG also publishes plan sets, books and compilations of back issues of the Journal and the former Ships in Scale and Model Ship Builder magazines.

Our Emblem ®

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research

Nautical Research Guild ® and the NRG logo are Registered Trademarks, and belong to the Nautical Research Guild (United States Patent and Trademark Office: No. 6,999,236 & No. 6,999,237, registered March 14, 2023)

×
×
  • Create New...