Apollo

What other model ships does Amati have in development besides the Victory?

Hi Denis, How difficult would it be to do the sails by hand instead of using a sewing machine?

This kit is superb, you will thoroughly enjoy constructing it. Looking forward to your build

I’ve been continuing research on this topic on my spare time and I think I’m more inclined to accept the image I linked to in my original post above as showing a plausible capstan arrangement for a large Elizabethan galleon. That is, with both capstans on the gun deck as opposed to the main capstan on the gun deck only. The following excerpt from A New Universal Dictionary of the Marine (p. 650) has some interesting information: To get up an Anchor in Ships which have not a Jeer Capstan Ships without a jeer capstan have no voyol, but heave in their cables by the messenger, which has an eye spliced in each end; one of which ends is passed with three or four turns round the capstan on the upper deck, and the other end passed forwards round the rollers, at the fore-part of the manger; then brought aft to the other end, and lashed thus: several turns are passed through the eyes crossing each other in the middle, then a half-hitch is taken round the parts, and the ends stopped with spun yarn. The remainder of the operation is performed as by the voyol, with this exception, the messenger is applied to the outside of the cable; and, when the nippers are insufficient, the messenger may be hitched thus: the bight of the messenger is fastened round the cable at the manger with a rolling-hitch, and the bight seized round the cable before the hitch. This practice is by no means so good as the others. When getting under way in a sea-gale, the voyol is better than a messenger, as the sending of the ship carries all the strain to the main capstan, and endangers the men at the bars; whereas, with a voyol, the strain is taken to the voyol-block, and the men at the fore-jeer capstan heave in safety. This information states that ships without jeer capstans heave their cables with a messenger cable. In the era prior to the introduction of the messenger cable, the viol cable was used but don't know when the viol was introduced. The article infers that viols are used with jeer capstans, which is essentially the same concept as the messenger of utilizing a smaller cable nipped onto the anchor cables for easier application around the capstan. However, this dictionary dates from the early 1800s several centuries removed from the Elizabethan period and practices change over time. The model I'm working on has the jeer capstan situated on the upper deck according to the manual. If heaving the anchor required a viol cable and associated proprietary viol block attached to the foot of the main mast, doesn't this also require the jeer capstan to be on the gun deck in line with the hawse holes? Seems logical to me as the image in the OP depicts that capstan arrangement. The only other option I can think of is the jeer being a double capstan with bars on the upper deck and whelps on both. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I would like to situate the jeer capstan on the proper deck on my model.

Hi Blue Ensign, Thanks very much for the book recommendation. It's hard to find a good book concentrating on the galleon. With all the books I have been adding to my list of future purchases lately, the collection will have me reading for years. I glanced at your Pegasus build thread and was floored by the rigging attention to detail. Stunning to say the least. Since rigging is my favorite part of the build, I might also have to pick your brain eventually when I get to that stage. The sails in particular I'm having trepidation about getting right. These are going to be with bonnets; the lateens and courses will have them. If you have no issue with later rigging practices you should find that galleon rigging, although somewhat different than later periods, is less complex than 18th century rigging convention, for example, despite the additional mast in this model. There are a lot less sails for one thing. Rigging became steadily more complex until the steamship arrived when there was a shift from fully square-rigged vessels to an increasingly more simplified fore-and-aft arrangement to reduce crew compliment. Well, as far as the cannon are concerned, there are only two sizes for armament in this kit, unfortunately. They look identical except for size. I can’t tell for sure which gun class they supposed to represent. I know that the larger vessels in the English Navy of 1588 definitely had more than two types on board. The highest armed decks might have had lighter guns than the pieces designated for those decks in this kit, because the same units are used for the main deck and the quarter deck above it. Another thing that might deviate from reality is that even on the same deck, there may have been more than one size present on English galleons of that time. Thus, it’s more of a challenge to strive for full authenticity than ships of later, more recent centuries where information is abundant. If one yearns for these kinds of challenges in an already fantastic kit, then this model is ideal. The 1500s and early 1600s were a time of rapid change in naval architecture, similarly to what occurred during the 1800s albeit to a significantly lesser degree, but there was a pronounced transitional period. Many aspects of ship design were in the process of transformation then. This forum seems to focus on model ships of the 18th century from the threads I've been browsing lately, or most individuals here are interested in this century above other periods. My focus lies primarily between the 1560s and 1660s, give or take a few years, notably at or near the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries. I like the high stern look and rigging styles prior to the introduction of jibs and stay sails with an aesthetic preference for four masts. I find in later centuries, ships had an overly 'razeed' look, not to mention the staidness of naval design incurred by a drastic reduction in ornamentation also mandated for weight reduction and improved handling. Some like this, I lean towards the former eras. Although I fully understand the rationale behind the evolution of ship design during later periods, I hunger for the passion and artistic liberty of late Renaissance navies. There was nothing like it before or since.

Hi Martin, I honestly don’t know all that much about naval history compared to others on this forum, but I have read a good deal since my youth although not on a continuous basis. It has been decades actually, and much of what I had previously known is now forgotten or in the process of being relearned. Lately, I have delved deeply into the matter per my requirements for this project. I didn’t expect anywhere near this amount of research but this kit warrants it. It’s that good and deserving of the best from the builder. The English had an advantage over other nations’ navies for a very long time, basically from the Armada to Trafalgar, which comprises several centuries; arguably, all the way until the maturity of the American Navy sometime in the 1800s. The advantage was largely attributable to superior firepower from better gunmanship. If you recommend any documentaries to look for concerning the Armada besides the excellent one mentioned earlier in the thread, I’d want to watch it. I totally agree with your sentiments about the aesthetics of this model being the greatest draw over the stock detail level. It really exemplifies the ‘race-built’ galleon with its sleek lines in a fast sports car sort of way. One can always add or subtract the amount of detail to any model and make changes where one desires. This model has great potential for those who are master builders. I sometimes regret not having completed several additional models before attempting this one, not out of inadequate experience, but knowing that my work would have been that much better and more worthy of this kit. As of now, I’m quite satisfied with the results but I have not yet tackled the more difficult stages. Concerning the cannon, I think you should at least rig them partially (option 1) with the breeching lines. The more advanced option might be a tad busy for the smaller cannon on the upper decks, I'm undecided about this. Keep in mind that even the more advanced option 2 is simpler than real life would likely have been. The problem encountered by rigging cannon with many kits is the out of scale blocks provided for the task requiring purchasing appropriate ones. After browsing many completed kits over the years, it becomes apparent that manufacturers often supply incorrect scales of components for rigging cannon. I haven’t closely looked at the parts supplied by Amati and cannot tell from the pictures because Chris rigged the prototype employing the simplified option which doesn’t utilize any blocks. I’m thinking of purchasing additional blocks no matter the case, because it doesn’t seem that Amati has provided a sufficient number if one desires to increase the detail level of the mast/sail rigging, which is more important to me than almost anything else. I’ll have to see about this, it won’t be until next year at my leisurely pace, LOL. On a more philosophical note... in my opinion the level of detail a builder should provide for any model is dependent on two major criteria: skill and scale. If you have the time and patience and sufficient experience to spend on either, add as much detail as you want. Ultimately, the scale of the model should "ideally" be the limiting factor, and I am one of those people who believe there is a limit for everything. The Delphic maxim, moderation in everything, excess in none, comes foremost to mind when discussing detail. We’re not working on infinite fractals after all, but works of fine art. I find high detailing such as treenailing every plank as on real ships, actually takes away from a model rather than enhancing it, unless provided to models with scales of ~1/48 or greater. There are exceptions of course, but those are exceptional models. Looking at the completed decks on both our models and I cannot imagine how treenailing them could possibly improve their appearance. Maybe some will disagree and I respect all opinions. It’s a very personal thing and will not belabour it further. There’s already a thread on this subject over here and worth a read even if one disagrees with some of the posts. Opinions vary greatly it seems.

Hi Blue Ensign, Looking at the cannon in my kit I'm almost certain they are not era-specific, even if that is what Chris may have set out to accomplish at the onset. They seem to resemble those found in other Amati kits, but not being in possession of another, I cannot say with absolute certainty. Unless one is highly knowledgeable about naval armament of the period, I think they should do fine for an Elizabethan galleon. However, if you have a source for a more historically accurate item in the right scale, I'm definitely interested. I'm not overly concerned about the historical accuracy of this kit though, because we'll simply never know without plans, paintings or actual components of the Revenge being discovered. The entire kit as with most kits, is hypothetical and largely based on material of contemporary ships with similar dimensions. For example, I recently came across information that claimed most English galleons of this era did not have stern galleries! Yet, there isn't a single Elizabethan galleon kit I've ever seen without one including my ancient Scientific Golden Hind. Now, I can't verify if this info is true or not, but it reveals how much is not known with certainty about both the appearance and to some extent the fitting of these ships. That said, I have made some changes to this kit in an attempt to increase 'realism' as much as can be accomplished without going wild with aftermarket items and materials. I have some additional ideas that I might go ahead with in later stages as well, depending on how much time I want to invest for the project. Unfortunately, this has involved a great deal of research amounting to as much reading as actual building. A lot of information from this period is rather vague or incomplete but I've limited my research to online resources at the moment. The few books I own concentrate on the history of naval architecture of the post-Elizabethan eras and therefore of limited relevance to this kit.

Hi Martin, Looking at your Revenge with its nearly completed hull reminds me why I chose this kit above all the others I was considering at the time. It is truly a beautiful model, its appearance is breathtaking. You did a masterful job. Regarding the coat of arms, they are correct in representation and exactly what Blue Ensign stated the figures are. The Welsh dragon was a Tudor symbol and never used again after Elizabeth I, since the Tudor dynasty ended with her reign. Regarding the relief, I'm not sure if 16th Century galleons even approaching the 1600s had much if any stern carvings. It is very possible the coat of arms could have been merely painted and I believe that on some ships it was. For the Revenge, I would not expect anything beyond a low relief if even that, but we're likely never to know. I think heavy decorative elements such as high relief carvings on sterns did not become common for English ships until several decades afterwards, well into the Jacobean Era if not later. Moreover, the arms if they were actually carved would likely have been painted anyway, not gilded, if I'm not mistaken. Gilded stern carvings are also something that became commonplace with the abundant adornments of the following century. On Elizabethan ships, emphasis of decoration was on the painted hull. So, I believe Amati is not that displaced from historical reality here but I welcome more informed opinions.

Hi Martin, I'm doing quite well, although I'm only at the point of the build where all the lower decks are planked. It's very slow going, I can only devote about 2-3 hrs a day at most and I'm overly methodical about everything to my detriment. The changes and revisions I've made slowed the pace to a crawl and it looks like I won't make the target date I've set, which was around the end of the year holiday season. In retrospect, that was a highly optimistic and unrealistic goal. It's all good though, the setbacks have a silver lining in that they allowed me to rethink and alter the direction of the project for a better outcome.

Hi Martin, I'm really astounded how quickly your build is progressing! At that pace, it would not have come out anywhere near as well for me. Your Revenge is looking even better than the prototype. Granted, this is a kit and not a scratch build, but compared to my own progress it seems you already have the power tools handy, LOL. Would the tools you're looking at greatly improve building a model from kit since most of the parts are already pre-cut or supplied? I'm tempted as well, but would prefer to spend the resources on another kit (possibly a second Amati Revenge) knowing that I don't have the ability to create a quality model from scratch yet. What are you considering for your next project, another kit or something from scratch? Very interested to know more on your thoughts about the masts now that you started on the rigging.

Hi Jack, Thanks for the description of the book's historical coverage, I figured as much when there’s a dearth of information to be found on the web on such a watershed vessel like the Prince Royal of 1610. I looked up your research suggestion and although I could not find anything, the NNM led me to a museum site which then linked to a thread on a German forum. I would not have come across this revelatory thread had it not been for your post. Although I don’t know to what extent this individual’s model is historically accurate, there is far more information (whatever I can glean of the translation) there than I’ve been able to retrieve thus far. From a cursory glance at his model compared to Vroom's famous painting of this ship shows, he seems to have a lot of the details and proportions of the vessel right. The model is very well done and the interior details especially at the stern are astonishing. You mentioned the Sovereign of the Seas of 1637; do you mean that the oldest extant plans we have of the SOS including artistic depictions are from rebuilds years after her launch? From my limited knowledge of her, each successive rebuild reduced ornamentation on the ship; would this indicate the original design was even more ostentatiously adorned than the most accurate models built of her suggest since they’re based on these later rebuilds?? No wonder Charles I lost his head…!

Wow, talk about circuitous routing just for weighing anchor...! And, I thought the messenger cable setup of more recent vessels complicated enough. Thanks for that bit of information, I didn't know about the viol cable prior to reading your posts; something new is learned every day. It's a good thing I'm not intending to rig the anchor cables, there's no way I'd get it correct especially since I'm not certain of the actual capstan arrangement the Revenge or other large Elizabethan galleons had (exact deck positioning, single or double, etc.) I've been wanting to acquire the book you recommended for some time. It's on my purchase list. I wish some of these out of print books were available in digital format. That would make things much easier and faster to purchase. Too much required knowledge, too little time.

Hi Dave, Thanks for the reply. Yeah, that's what I've been reading in my research. It's odd that many of the pictures and cutaway galleon models seem to indicate the jeer not the main capstan was used for that job. So, it's a bit confusing, unless there was no fixed convention at that period and it varied from ship to ship. I'm taking the textual research as more factual over any artistic representations, since artists are far more likely to err than historians steeped in nautical lore. For example, nearly every Revenge model or painting I've ever seen has a stern gallery, yet from the information I've been gathering, stern galleries weren't common on English ships until some time later. Out of curiosity, would you happen to know where the anchor cable was generally stored on the larger ships? If the capstan aft of the main mast was used to weight anchor, was the cable then led back around to the hatches amidships?

I am currently working on my Amati Revenge kit and have a couple of questions regarding anchor cable routing on large English ships or galleons in general. The model has two capstans, a forward capstan (jeer?) on the upper deck and a second capstan (main) on the gun deck between the main and mizzen masts. From what I've been reading in my research the main capstan was generally used for weighing anchors. Cutaway diagrams of a very similar ship such as this one show the forward capstan on the gun deck instead of the upper deck, in line with the anchor cable, riding bitts and hawse holes. This arrangement makes more sense because the anchor cables are stored through the hatch just aft of the forward capstan down to the orlop deck below. The Amati kit has only the main capstan in line with the anchor cables but it's way back suggesting the cables were stored near the stern, which contradicts the research I've been reading. On later ships, a messenger cable setup was employed because the anchor cables grew too thick and capstans could no longer handle them among other reasons. Messenger cables were routed to the main capstan and the anchor cables hauled in through modified hatches aft of the riding bitts. However, The research I've come across states that messengers weren't implemented until the early 17 Century, several decades later. Neither were double capstans for that matter if what I've read is accurate, which could have been a solution for the forward capstan if modification will be required to the model. I could easily lower the forward capstan in line with the main capstan on the gun deck like the linked picture above, but want to make certain that this is a more likely setup. I'm not intending to rig the anchor cables but want to be sure both capstans are logically positioned on this model. I don't want the forward capstan on the upper deck if it was actually used for weighing anchor. Most kits will have historical inaccuracies to a lower or greater extent but minimizing them is an effort worth undertaking, especially if easily applied. Thanks in advance to all replies.

Hi Jack, Does this volume show details on the Prince Royal of 1610? I'm interested in views from various angles or plans would be even better. Apologies for the off-topic post but I've been trying to acquire detailed information on this vessel for years. TIA

Hi Janet, I'll post another recommended change to the Revenge kit herein. Regarding the gratings, I used the Amati provided gratings for all the decks so far but probably won't for the upper decks. In the event I decide not to use the Amati gratings for the upper decks, I will replace them with wooden gratings made by kit most likely purchased from Chuck. I would have gone with a total wooden replacement and nearly did, but I managed to find a workable solution that was satisfactory to my eyes and didn't cost extra. If you decide to use the Amati brass gratings, turn them upside-down and paint them on the reverse side. The bottom side is flat-faced and when painted well, will appear much closer to the look of a wooden grating than the top side ever could. I used Vellejo acrylic paints for a realistic effect but you can also use Citadel paints by Games Workshop. I made several attempts to paint the top side of the gratings but could not achieve a satisfactory result because of the relief. I nearly went full wood until I tried painting the reverse side and was surprised by the improvement in both ease of painting and final appearance of the gratings. Fortunately, I have ample miniature painting experience and this helped.

Hi Juancar, I had no issues with any of the bulkhead installations on the false keel in regards to deck fitting thus far. However, after the long delay and being a generally slow modeler, I am not at the point of the build yet where the bow deck (part 42) is glued to the hull, unfortunately. I did try fitting it between the bulkheads several times once I had the hull frame assembled to determine any potential fitting issues and did not detect any problems. Although, the bow deck does require quite a bit of bending to get it through the bulkheads to its intended position because of the pronounced tumblehome on the forecastle, it was resting on all four bow bulkheads evenly. To be sure I'm understanding the extent of the problem correctly, do you mean 5cm or 5mm?

Hi Martin, Your project is turning out superbly, very interesting to read through your thought process and direction for this build as you are progressing on each step. I'm sure I'm speaking for others who bought this kit when I say you are guiding and inspiring us on our own projects to accomplish something better than we would have otherwise. Your Revenge is looking stunning already. You posted about the 5mm strip originally speced for this kit possibly being a better choice for the hull side planking. It happens that I have some 6mm mahogany wood strips, would that be better than the 4mm strip or too wide for this model? If so, I can order more for this model and use that instead of the 4mm supplied with the kit. Καλές διακοπές in Crete!

Hi Jan, Absolutely, Chris and Amati did an amazing job with this kit. I don't see how anyone can be disappointed especially if the buyer is specifically seeking a large Elizabethan galleon to build, which isn't easy to find. I concur with Martin and rate the Revenge kit at least a 9/10 myself solely on the merits of fit accuracy and material quality let alone instructions, given what I've seen of other kits both in person and on the web. You're right that one can go further if one desires or alternatively, if you prefer less work and want to expedite the build you can also forego planking the lower decks altogether, so it's a highly flexible kit both ways. I could envision an expert builder able to transform this kit into one of the other large English ships of the 1588 fleet with some plans and additional materials. Thought about getting a second kit for this purpose but my skills aren't at that level yet and detailed historical info is rather scarce on the other big English vessels.

Hi Juancar, I was on the fence whether to purchase the Amati or Occre Revenge model and decided on the Amati kit for its larger scale plus lower deck details even though it was less affordable. I'm glad I made this choice after reading your post. I'm sure you'll thoroughly enjoy building this kit. Which Occre kit did you build?

Welcome to the forum. The kit is fairly straightforward with the included detailed instructions and very accurately fitting components, much easier than other kits with spartan manuals and/or poor-fitting parts requiring significant modification to get everything properly worked out. Amati released a fantastic kit, one which was sorely needed for this historical period. That said... Regarding the decks, in hindsight, I highly recommend Martin's approach to plank the two halves of the gun deck starting from the center-line whether you decide to plank on or off the hull. It is my only regret thus far in my build. If you follow the instructions to the letter, the end result will be a gap running down the middle of the deck. This is evident in Chris' prototype as pictured in the manual. If you're skilled you might manage to minimize or even avoid a gap, but in my opinion it won't be an easy affair and won't look as nice as having a seamlessly planked deck instead. Compare manual pictures on p.7 to Martin's excellent work in the beginning of this thread. Some people might not mind the gap since the upper deck will largely conceal it, however there will be open gratings directly above, so it will be visible when peering through unless you cover it with deck furniture. If you decide to plank the gun deck from the center-line as one piece off the hull, it will be very difficult to insert it between the bulkheads once planking is completed. The deck is considerably wider than the top of the bulkheads due to tumblehome, and it will force them out of conformity risking breakage. I was compelled to modify my deck to reduce the unsightly gap by removing some material where the two MDF halves meet in order to close the gap as much as possible. Then I glued the two halves to ensure the gap remained minimal before I inserted the deck into the hull. To get the gun deck acceptable in my eyes, the project was delayed several weeks. You'll find that even if you don't have much of a gap, it might worsen once it is inserted in the hull because the pieces are still separate, necessitating the application of force from both sides as well as the top to ensure proper seating whilst gluing therein. All of this is avoidable if one proceeds as Martin did. I followed the manual's instructions and planked the deck off the hull because it is much easier to sand the deck down after planking is finished. Also, any other work done to or upon the deck such as adding the gratings, fittings, etc. and detailing work is also easier when there are no bulkheads to get in the way. If I was to redo this Amati kit, I'd plank the gun deck as a whole unit from the center-line just like the orlop deck beneath it, and cut the section of the gun deck forward of the planked portion where the bowsprit opening is located under the forecastle, for far better ease of installation between the bulkheads (and less risk) after all work on the deck is completed. Then simply glue the previously cut unplanked forecastle sections with part 4b on the hull to finish the gun deck off. Part 4b will hide the cut and joins the previously removed forward part to the rest of the gun deck once everything is in the hull. In my lengthy ordeal to have the gun deck reworked, I removed the forward unplanked section and the glued planked halves went in the hull as a single piece with much less hassle. I have other opinions about suggested changes to this kit but I'll leave that for another time until I'm further in the build. Thanks Martin for this great thread on the Amati Revenge kit!

Hi Martin, Your planking work is flawless and beautiful. I agree with the other replies not to paint the hull. I decided even before embarking on my own project not to paint any planking. I am not aiming for full realism on my own model, and always prefer a balance of the aesthetic and authentic.

I ordered my kit from a local shop and the owner had expressed past grief over wooden ship kits which more often than not had missing parts. He related how difficult and frustrating it was to order the missing parts from manufacturers. If retailers have frequent issues one can only imagine the ordeal customers might go through. I don't know what I'll do when it comes time to plank the hull. Honestly, I thought the second bundle was additional deck planking since it looked the same. I'm just past the beginning stages of the build, having planked only up to the main gun deck that's divided into two halves. In retrospect, I should have done what you did and planked that section as a whole unit (my initial thought was to do it this way), with a plank on the centerline rather than proceeding by manual instruction that states doing each half seperately. It didn't come out well at all because it still looks like two seperate parts, and will need lots of work to get it even barely acceptable. Also, by planking in sections as was done on real ships, it not only looks better but you probably had less difficulty due to the much smaller strips handling easier even if took more time. I had difficulty getting the full deck length strips to align well and glue simultaneously. Fortunately, most of it will be covered by the upper deck. Regarding the non-included ship's boats, if I were inclined to add them to this model, are there boat kits or complete boats in similar scale that I can order?

I believe the figurehead is a wyvern or drake although it may be a griffon, hard to tell from the illustration in the manual. I'm not certain what the figurehead on the actual Revenge was but all the illustrations I've ever seen show something dragonesque. I'm definitely missing the figurehead, but that's OK because I never intended to use any that may have been included with this kit. I'll probably adapt some of the fantasy castings I have in similar size, which are nicer and more detailed in any event. Concerning the planking, I also have a second bundle that looks identical to the deck planking. I measured the strips and they appear to be the same width as the deck planking (1x4mm) but I can't measure in increments of a fraction of a mm, unfortunately, and my sight isn't the best. I'll take you word for it that they're slightly thinner. So, it seems that we have a problem unless the manual is in error about the width of the planking. How difficult would it be to find or order proper planking at a shop if need arises? I can't find the mast bit castings on p 75 either.

Hi, very good work thus far on your Revenge, quite impressed! I recently acquired this kit and started it about a week ago myself. I'd like to know if your kit included the figurehead mentioned on page 83 of the manual because I can't find it. None of the completed model pictures show it either. Also, being a bit picky here, but Amati didn't include any boats or a stern lantern with this kit. Most likely neither of those items were ever speced for this particular model. Also, do you find there to be sufficient wood for the second planking to finsih the ship from the keel all the way up the sides? It seems a little sparse to me unless I'm not estimating correctly by eye.