Hubac's Historian

There’s no doubt, Bill, that the speed of your build has been pretty astonishing! Your standing rigging looks very crisp and taught - CONGRATULATIONS on this major milestone!!

Hi John! Thanks for the kind words. Yes, that is the primary problem with the kit head; the sprit-mast angle is too shallow. I have seen one builder I know correct the angle, in the first place and then all of these gymnastics were not necessary. Unfortunately, this did not occur to me until it was too late to do that. I’m not disappointed, though, as I thought the headrails could do with re-working anyway. I never really liked their sweep, even though they closely follow the Tanneron model. Lastly, even the supporting knees on the SP monograph are at a rather shallow angle, so I think my mods will present well, in that regard.

Good evening, Amalio. Will your model ultimately be on public display at a museum somewhere?

She’s coming along beautifully, John! Let me know whether you come up with anything for scale figures.

As always, David, your perceptions are right on! For one, the following pic is more representative of the space available to me: I would like to have more space, but then I’m compressing the width of the three headrails, between the upper cheek and the beakhead grating. The three headrails also require interspaces; slightly less than a half inch at the forward end (after revision) isn’t a lot to work with. The fact remains, though, that this design process remains fluid, because I haven’t even gone to the vellum, yet, to delineate the rails and position the stiles and figure out what to do with the aft medallion. As always, this kind of feedback is welcome!

I’m beyond words, here, Kevin! Simply incredible! You may not think so, but I certainly do.

I had a series of epiphanies in the grocery store. First of all, the exact positioning of the aft medallion matters a great deal, because it determines whether the cathead timbers will clear the headrails. Last night, when I was positioning the stock headrail to take a measurement at the figurehead, I was looking at it from the outboard perspective; I had failed to consider that one of the modifications I made was to recess the beakhead bulkhead into the upper bulwarks, so that there would be an “actual practice” plank overlay of the beakhead bulkhead. When I got home, after putting away the groceries, of course, I positioned the stock headrail piece where it actually needs to be. I discovered that the shortage is much closer to 5/16”, rather than the heavy 1/8”th I had previously based my pattern on. It also dawned on me that I had not even bothered to place the sprit-mast to even see whether the forward medallion was actually now below it. What was I thinking?! Anyway, these were not difficult alterations to make. Here is headrail pattern 2.0: The other important consideration is that the beakhead grating has to flow into the headrail on a steady incline, so the top edge of the headrails can’t dip below the line of the grating. Of course, the next question is whether I will have room for the pixie figure that I drew, just aft of the headrail: I’m not sure about that: Although, it could simply be a matter of re-scaling the figure. When I drew her, it still had not dawned on me that the Berain bow drawing does not account for the forecastle deck. The figure I drew is “stretched” in order to accommodate that reality: Perhaps she can be somewhat reduced in scale to fit comfortably between the headrails and that first port opening. I may, ultimately, need to alter the aft medallion to copy the actual Berain design because the Heller version adds width to this critically tight spot. That’s a problem for another day. At least I have the length and sweep worked out.

A lot of small odds and ends have been happening. I’ve smoothed-over and re-touched the upper bulwark joint. I painted and installed the starboard spirketting and the quarter deck beam. I’ve fitted and installed the last little piece of the frieze, where it bridges the bulwark joint. I’ve also installed all of the starboard channels. One aspect that has provided a series of mis-steps is the buttressing knees of the channels. First, I could not locate the card template I had made for the port side, so I made a new template. Then, the first knee I fitted was made from slightly thinner styrene than what I used on the port side. After the second knee, I found my original template! So, even though I will remove the first too-thin knee and replace it, I manually faired the first two knees to the correct profile. The third knee I installed was too tall! I decided to take a break from that frustration, for a moment. The port side gallery bracket is well-underway and coming along nicely. Last night, I was in the mood to take a stab at a pretty challenging re-design. As previously discussed, the kit head rails are now a generous 1/8” too short, after increasing the hull width at the stem. To attempt to use them, anyway, would result in a visual compromise that would only serve to draw heaps of attention to its wrongness. Even on the stock kit, there are numerous problems with the way these rails were designed. Most significantly, the forward escutcheon rises above the level of the sprit-mast, where it becomes an encumbrance to the rigging. Secondly, the low-sweeping arc of the rails makes it very difficult to craft plausible supporting knees, which the kit omits, in the first place. Since, I have to re-make the rails, I thought I’d try and solve these two additional problems, while also improving the grace of the arc. My plan is to extract the forward and aft medallions, as well as the acanthus stiles that connect the three rails. The pattern I arrived at, I think, does a reasonably good job on all of these fronts. The three rails taper, gradually, from 3/4” across the rails at the aft medallion, to 1/2” at the forward medallion: Arriving at this pattern was just a matter of holding the stock part to the model and taking a measurement for the increased length, as well as figuring out the point at which the arc could transition into a slightly more shallow curve (just aft of the cathead support). Then, it’s just a process of drawing and erasing arc segments with a set of French curves. The stock rails on the model: The sweep is so low, your supporting knees must be practically flat in profile. The forward medallion is also way too high: By contrast: There is, now, at least some elevation to create a cyma-curve for these supporting knees. I think the curves are more fair now, as well. There is a lot of work in these, to bring them to fruition, but I think this is a solid starting place.

I am amazed that you have three full-frame builds happening, at once!

This is brilliantly done and a fascinating insight to your process. Thank you for sharing!

I would also like to know the secret, but I wouldn't necessarily mind if you made it for me. Lanterns = scale difficulty to 11.

Perfectly well-said.

Tremendous job on the plating - the patination looks very good!

Extremely helpful, I would say, Shipman, and full of interesting knowledge of ships.

Thank you GpP!

Thank you EJ! I am honored that you guys continue to follow this build and it is immensely gratifying that you are able to take something away from it. As I told, from the start of this build, the kit I’m building first belonged to my next-door neighbor, who served as an important mentor in my life. Mark Hansen spent countless hours of his personal time, teaching me how to do things. I enjoy posting the build log because I view it as an extension of that goodwill to other builders who might want to play around with this stuff. I do spend an embarrassing amount of time looking at Puget portraits and studying models, but I think that much of this model’s charm has to do with the fact that it has a-symmetries and imperfections and it is full of compromises. It does consistently represent, though, the best that I was capable of at any moment in time. Hopefully, the project won’t plateau, and I’ll keep learning from all of you and your own fantastic builds, and it will all just get better and better. A big thanks to everyone for sticking with this project. It really means a lot to me!

Rabbit hole - perfectly expressed. I’m inclined to jump-in, because I know I will eventually build models that really deserve perfect scale rope.

I think you will find, Kevin, that there is definitely a difference with the Syren rope. This past October, I watched Chuck demonstrate his technique at the Joint Clubs mtg in New London. His rope is superb. The best I’ve seen, really. Personally, I’m torn between learning to make rope, myself, where I’m in complete control of the quality, or buying rope. The Amati rope looks very good. For the price, it is - I think - hard to beat. Chuck’s rope would be ideal, but I need a lot of it, and it would be cheaper to make on my own.

Wow, Kevin - that is such a very nice thing to say! Thank you very much!

Just gorgeous.

Your decking is really nice, and you have achieved that super-rare, scale-rarity which is realistic grain patterning on individual planks. This really stands out to me.

Yeah, a serving machine seems like an absolute must-have.

This will probably sound absurd - HOWEVER I personally like to believe that my particular instant obsession with this ship when I was 8 or 9 years old is rooted in the mere possibility of past lives. I like to think that maybe I served on this ship, or at least saw it with my living eyes. It is a nice fantasy 😜, and why my wife refers to her as the other woman. No divorce is not yet imminent; so far, it is a happy poly-amory.

Right you are, Bill! The reason that I will not labor to remake the bracket is illustrated right here: The figures’ vestments will completely obscure the stool that they sit upon. In fact, those pesky clothes will obscure most of the detail I have labored to create on the forward side of the archway bracket. That is perfectly okay with me, though. Vic, I suppose that a real-time video of me “whittling,” as my work friend likes to quip, would be intensely boring; ever watch a termite bore through wood? As a near-sighted person for most of my life, I am adjusting to the mid-life reality of constantly removing my glasses for close work, while simultaneously resisting the pressing need for bi-focals/transition lenses. This is the status of my mid-life crisis. I’ll post a picture of the three main brushes I use, a little later. They are great, but not especially spectacular; all synthetic, and totally in-expensive.

The more I consider your specific point about color saturation, Marc, the more I can appreciate the truth of atmospheric conditions and the way that they impact our perception of color, in real life. Once again, when it comes to diorama ships, Herbert Tomesan comes the closest I’ve seen to getting this right. Your point is well-received and I will do my best to tone it down a bit more. And, yes Vic - one does need to be careful with clearcoats. So, the process of making this first starboard bracket has been highly educational! Anytime I’m making a part like this, I am designing a process to arrive at a level of detail with the least amount of difficulty. For these brackets, one of the primary details that I wished to capture is the pierced filigree of the false canopy. This, much like the trailboard at the head, can only be arrived at through careful piercing and paring, from one side to the other and back again. As always, though, I like cleanly delineated shoulders and panel reliefs, so I thought it would make the most sense to build the bracket up from three primary layers of .028 styrene sheet which, I will show later, gives me just nearly enough part thickness to mount the Four Winds mascaroon. Carving the filigree into a larger supporting lamination is far easier than carving it as an independent insert piece. Above, I’ve already carved the filigree and laminated the aft layer to the center. The edge that joins with the hull is also about a 1/32” oversize, to allow for precise scribing to the hull, a little later. The bottom of the scroll, where it mounts to the bulwark rail, has been left deliberately overlong for final shaping, once the three layers have been laminated together. I was mindful, at this stage, that the back-raking angle of the bracket would necessitate a raking angle for the scrolled foot, as well; were I to shape each lamination to size, before gluing, I would end up with a significant gap, at the forward face of the foot. After lamination and initial scribing to the hull and gallery rail, the foot looks like this: With the bottom angle of the foot established, I could proceed with shaping the scroll and fairing the leg to it’s final form. Here is a montage that shows the evolution of this process: One thing I have found to be true; it is much easier, at times, to “draw” with the tools, than it is with a pencil. I was able, for example, to emphasize an elegant sloping transition into the foot with my files and a sanding stick. Now, when I position the bracket on the model, the negative space of this archway is at a more complementary angle to the adjoining windows than my initial drawing/template. It’s a little hard to read in the following picture, but I have introduced a slight taper to the scroll foot from bottom to top; this is the first step along the detailing path of a scrolled volute. I will show the relief work, in this area, in the next post, after I have attached the acanthus brackets. So, with this much established, I could focus on fitting the mascaroon that I had retrieved from the kit quarter gallery. Given the difficulty of carving convincing faces, it is always worthwhile to see whether one can salvage the kit sculptures. The mascaroons are oversize, but I thought I could make it work. What I am trying to achieve: After much fettling, the mascaroon pares down quite a bit from where it began: Now - the head is unavoidably wider than the bracket, but I will show a little later how simply softening these hard edges makes the sculpture look more like a deliberately rounded relief. I was able to retain just enough of the headdress, so I consider this sculpture experiment a success! Next, I turned my attention to the mouldings which are really just a continuation of the top and bottom rails of the upper gallery bulwark. My idea was to simply profile a piece of scrap 1/16” styrene and then “rip” the moulding off the blank: After truing the back edge, it was a simple task to profile the ends and secure them to the bracket: This approach results in a generous perch for the seated figures: I am currently adding-on the final layer of appliqués: paneled headers, bell flower escutcheons, filigree accents, and acanthus brackets. Here you can see how softening hard edges helps turn a shortcoming into an advantage: Honestly, I don’t think I can do a better job of satisfying the design and artistic challenges of this complicated part. Nevertheless, it did dawn on me that my approach resulted in a fundamental architectural flaw that would never have found its way onto the actual ship. Can anyone spot it? I’ll give you all a little time to mull it over, and then I’ll explain why it won’t matter for this model, and is not worth the monumental effort of remaking the part. I got lucky, this time, but the insight has only deepened my appreciation for these 17th C. shipwrights who managed to knit the whole structure together seamlessly. As always, thank you for your support! More to follow..