Hubac's Historian

Glad to see you back, but your pics don’t seem to be showing.

Coming along beautifully, MD - nice, clean work!

I agree completely with Kirill. To be clear, I am not arguing against blue and gold. Blue will still figure very prominently in what I am going to do. My main argument, here, is that it would not likely have been a dark ultra-marine. I have chosen this lighter Cerulean shade as my primary blue, mostly because I like the way it looks against the yellow ocher. Strictly speaking, though, I do not think this is a period-correct color for 1689. All models are a pastiche of correctness and stylistic choices. Some of the paint choices I am making are deliberately to emphasize all of the work that was put into the ornamental program. As a finishing touch, I will buck orthodoxy and make the style of lanterns that I would like, as opposed to what Berain drew. That doesn’t necessarily make them “correct” choices; just my choices.

Hello Chris, For a variety of reasons, I have had nothing to do with FB, from its inception. Mark Zuckerberg’s apparent willingness to promulgate dis-information and propaganda under protection of “free speech,” in recent years, has cemented my conviction to never create a profile. Indirectly, he has infected the minds of millions with straight-up nonsense, while simultaneously eroding their ability to discern objective reality. It is a real problem in America, in particular. That being said, I don’t condemn anyone else’s use of the platform. Live and let live; just don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining 😉 If you would like to publish pictures of my model on the SR page, you are free to do so. I’m more than happy to engage with anyone who then decides to join our community at MSW. I don’t know that I will necessarily take on the mantle of “leader of the reds.” What I am doing, I think, is historically plausible; the faded evidence of red exists on Berain’s original drawing, as you noted. I would never say, though, that what I am doing is absolutely the truth. It all remains an educated guess.

The objective reality - through microscopic paint analysis of the ship’s timbers - is that she was painted red. Deep, ultra-marine blues were cost prohibitive throughout the 17th Century, as they are made from ground pigment of lapis. Our tendency to want to paint models that color is a conditioned preference, resulting from popular depictions, like Landstrom’s work - as noted by Bolin. If you don’t like red, there is nothing to stop you from painting the ship blue. It is your model, after all, and you only have yourself to answer to. If you absolutely want to know the truth, though - the truth is red.

That really helps a great deal, Michael - thank you!

Red is the correct exterior color and it makes an excellent backdrop, if you intend to paint polychromatic figures. On the other hand, blue is a more striking backdrop, IMO, if the figures are to be done all in gold. Gold gets a little lost against red.

You have to remember that SR has a gangway that connects the forecastle and quarter decks, thus overhanging and obscuring any view of the waist. The upper bulwark thickness could be a little heftier, but the view through the ports does not particularly bother me. I’ve found it useful to make some hard decisions about what to modify; the butcherblock table of a cutwater, with its wholly unrealistic engraving of timbers was worth spending the extra time. Respectfully, I have to say that the upper bulwarks thickness is not for me. I will add spirketting at the deck level, and a vestigial waterway.

All the same, this simplifies things for me. Thanks for the pics!

Your deck distressing looks very good.

Siggi, I like the way your sheave blocks stand just proud of the surface. You have given me a very useful idea for simulating this in plastic.

In order to do something about the upper bulwark thickness, I decided to increase the sheer cap thickness by a 1/32” - about 3”, at scale. This will be your primary visual reference for the upper bulwark thickness. I thought about planking the bulwark interior surfaces, but decided it wasn’t worth the extra effort because of the way that the bulwarks join with the lower hull

Thanks, Michael. Kirill and Dafi are very talented, and I watch those guys as well. Nice tip on the bobbin thread. I remember when sewing stores used to be a thing, and thread was easily obtainable and discernible, in person. The other thing that I wonder about is what type of CA glue - super thin?? - and whether you wait to fix with glue until all of your lines are up and set, so that you can adjust tension. The worst, for me, is when one line going taught causes another to slack, when it shouldn’t be.

The main thing that intimidates me about ship modeling is the rigging; in particular, neat servings, and lashings make such a huge impact on the model’s final appearance. Do you have any advice, Michael, with regard to how you first learned to approach these techniques.

Clever sanding forms - can’t fail.

Brilliant time-lapse. I love the clarity!

This is an interesting presentation of sistered pairs of spindles. I really like the uniqueness of the design, and I may find a way to incorporate this into my ship’s quarter deck companionway.

Thank you, John. It is the challenge of figuring out how to do something, and present a picture of the ship that is both functionally practical and beautiful. I am determined to show a coherent marriage of the Berain stern to these quarter galleries, in the hope (perhaps vain) that some may finally see that they have more in common, than not. It is a passionate argument that propels me forward in a way that is hard for me to explain. Yes, I will incorporate a radiant burst of sun energy emanating from all around Apollo and his horses, against a deep ultra-marine ground; this will be a nod to the artistic portraiture of this particular subject that I think will be a fitting coronation to this magnificent work of art that LeBrun/Puget/Berain evolved over time. I sympathize with you, re: Brexit. I have a hard time understanding how insular politics benefit anyone in the modern age.

I have always thought that La Reyne was the most suitable subject for a Heller SR conversion project. The three broadside drawings of the ship, together with the survey drawing of the stern provide more than enough information to represent her with a pretty high degree of accuracy. Cedric has chosen an interesting and extremely challenging path; he is re-locating decks, guns and wales. Much of that effort is in anticipation of creating the particular head structure of these First Marine ships, which is quite different from that of the late 1680’s The head will be quite difficult to construct, given the existing Heller architecture, but not impossible. The other significant decision is whether to scrap the kit upper bulwarks, and simply construct everything above the main deck from scratch. It can be done either way, I think, but it may actually be easier to go the full-scratch route. It would be great to see where Cedric is at with all of this, but I know he is quite busy with professional and family life.

Your Katherine is the Vale portrait come to life. She is truly a remarkable achievement. Nobody “has it” quite like you, Doris. Thank you for sharing your talents, here, on MSW! I extend my sympathies to you in this sad and trying time.

Tom - I’m glad to hear that you are recovering and that your determination, resourcefulness and resilience are vying to carry the day. Obviously - not too much too soon. I am wishing you luck!

They are one and the same. The ship was launched as Le Royal Duc, and re-named La Reyne in 1671. At that time, I think it likely that the entire stern and quarter galleries might have been altered for a more sober ornamental program.

I understand the confusion because the presentation of the stern and quarters is so similar, among these ships, but the ship you are picturing in the post above is the 102 gun La Reyne. So, just to be clear: Almost certainly Le Terrible of 1670: Probably also Le Terrible of 1670: Possibly Le Terrible of 1670????: Definitely La Royal Therese: Definitely La Reyne: As a side note: La Reyne is the closest known corollary to Soleil Royal. Same yard, same designer, built a year apart, and only slightly shorter in length and breadth. The sheer presence of SR would have been very similar to this vessel. Perhaps, she was a little bit taller at the stern in 1670, if she carried a poop royal deck.

I realize, now, that I did not answer your question, Chris. I am not fluent in metric, so I will explain my thinking in imperial measure. At 1/96, 1/8=1’. On the lower gun deck level, the exterior planking, framing and interior planking would amount to something like 14-16” thick. When I was doing this, I used 1/8” square styrene for the lower deck ports. Strictly speaking, if the hull plastic is about a 1/16” thick (6” at scale), I ended up with 18” hull thickness, at scale. This is maybe a little heavy, but that is not so critically important at 1/96. Then, when I did the middle deck ports, I used .100 square stock. What matters is the sense of depth and the apparent graduation, in frame thickness, from the lower deck to the middle deck. Often, when I think about these issues of scale, I have Dan Pariser’s voice in my head: “if it looks right, it is right!” So, an 1/8=1’, a 1/16”=6”, a 1/32”=3”, a 1/64” is completely and utterly irrelevant! Nobody is splitting hairs beyond a 1/16”. If you want to scale interior planking, .030 would be just fine. When in doubt, go a little lighter. As for port framing... Sometime in the past year, I noticed on Andre Kudin’s magnificent Fleuron that the port sills were visible through the exterior planking. I had never seen this detail before, and so, it looked egregiously wrong to me. I also know, though, that Andre is not someone who would arbitrarily do something that wasn’t grounded in actual practice. Subsequently, I have come to understand that this is, indeed, an element of French practice; with the port sill extending over the top edge of the exterior planking, it creates a better gasket for keeping water out of the framing. It makes good sense! For all practical purposes, this would be the only visible port framing convention that anyone might represent on a model. At 1/48, and maybe 1/72, it makes sense to show this on a wooden model. However, I don’t think that engraving this into textured plastic, at 1/96 makes any practical sense; it would be a significant labor, and it would be very difficult to make it look good. As for aligning port openings with the SP plans, this is another monumental labor. I think it is useful to keep in mind that the height between decks, on the Heller kit, is pretty exaggerated; a 7’ tall person would be quite comfortable manning the guns. So, if you truly feel compelled to move port openings, then that will necessitate re-locating decks, and completely relocating the run of the wales; you will, invariably run into problems where the pre-existing kit architecture is not amenable to this kind of reverse-engineering; so, for example, your port alignment and broadside deck heights may look right, but the stern chase ports have been re-located too far up the transom and your hawse hole entries are now on the middle deck level. Maybe not exactly these problems, but something significant like that, for sure. If you choose to accept it, the beauty of the Heller kit architecture is that it is consistently wrong, in this regard, across all of the decks, and the spacing between the ports is sufficient that this doesn’t look so wrong, in isolation. It is only when you place the Heller kit right next to something credible, like the SP monograph, that these exaggerations jump out at you. Consider, also, that legions of serious model people adore the Tanneron model, as they should. Yet, many of those same are quick to point out the flaws in the Heller kit, which are real. They are not making it up. However, very few of those critics acknowledge how closely the Heller kit mirrors the Tanneron model, structurally. It is a very close copy. In my opinion, Heller did an admirable, if seriously flawed, job of reconciling all of the fragmentary primary sources for SR and filling in the blanks. The Heller Victory is still the gold standard for an accurate plastic sailing ship model, but the Heller SR is not such a poor consolation prize. SIDE NOTE: If anyone has an unbuilt Heller Victory laying around (mine is in PA, at the moment), it would be interesting to measure the distance from moulded decking ledge top to the underside of the next moulded decking ledge. There are approximately 70 years between these two first-rates, and it seems reasonable that the height between decks - even among separate nations - would not have changed much, if at all. Because the Heller Victory is based on something concretely measurable, it would be interesting to note the difference. So, I guess what I am trying to say is that struggling so hard to try and make the Heller kit conform to reality will ultimately be a frustrating experience. I think you will have more fun with this, if you embrace certain realities of the existing kit architecture. If you have simply increased hull depth, through the ports, you have done more than enough to improve the scale realism of the model, IMO.

that sounds like an organized way of working through the port lids.