Jump to content
MSW Spring Donation Drive

Hubac's Historian

NRG Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,997

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Hubac's Historian

  1. Hubac's Historian
    It really is amazing, EJ, how the ship has come together. You are doing an incredible job!
  2. Hubac's Historian
    Well, that will be a very interesting project, indeed! Later, when I have a minute, I will write a bit, in the “carving techniques” thread, about my personal approach to scale carving - which is quite new to me, but I have found it to be as effective as carving in full-size.
  3. Hubac's Historian
    Okay, so I replied to your post in carving techniques. Is it your intention to upgrade this kit by making the carvings from scratch?
  4. Hubac's Historian
    Hello Joachim, The Realle is certainly an interesting subject, and as you say, quite a challenging one from the carving perspective. My presumption, here, is that you are building a model from scratch, and not the Heller or any other kit. My first piece of advice would be to obtain or draw good plans that show a clear layout of the ornamental work, such that the carving is in scale, and proportionally consistent with the carving style and norms of 17th C. France. If the layout isn’t good, to begin with, the finished carvings will reflect that. Fortunately, original gilded and carved works from a French Realle still exist at the Musee de la Marine in Paris, I believe, although the following images are tagged Rochefort. This is as good a primary source as one could hope for in attempting to capture the exuberance and the artistry of the French Baroque era: That would be my starting point suggestion for such an involved project as this. I certainly look forward to your build log and will happily follow along, once youhave begun.
  5. Hubac's Historian
    I’m sorry to hear that you’re having a rough time, Mark. I hope you’ll be able to find your way again, soon, and we will be here when you do.
  6. Hubac's Historian
    This is one of the things about the SP monographie that does not add up for me. Although I do not have access to it, at the moment, I think that Lemineur references his waterline from an original draft that is of the same class of ship as the SP - the Tonnant class, if I remember [not sure about that]. Necessarily, though, his hull is a composite of a number of closely related sources - chiefly among them a slightly smaller class of ship that was, in many respects very similar, and better documented. I’m not sure how one would reconcile this problem, if they were using the plans to scratch-build the SP, in wood. Fortunately, with the Heller kit, the gammoning does not dip below the water line - not even if you raise the waterline to improve the apparent depth of the hull.
  7. Hubac's Historian
    Really well done Dan! It was a treat to see her, with all the progress you have made, the other day. I look forward to your next update.
  8. Hubac's Historian
    You know who might have a clear and practical answer to this question? Henry - AKA Popeye2Sea. He serves aboard the U.S.S. Constitution, and has a tremendous working knowledge of rigging, and of gun rigging. Maybe send him a message.
  9. Hubac's Historian
    Got it! Well, it certainly warrants some experimentation on my paint samples. This pastel route may also be the way to achieve the streaky algea look that I want for the thin strip of white stuff, at the waterline.
  10. Hubac's Historian
    Kirill, what purpose does the dishwashing detergent serve?
  11. Hubac's Historian
    Well, Druxey, that is a very good question. The actual number I settled on is somewhat arbitrary, but I based my decision to include more, rather than less, on my observation of various Van de Velde drawings, as well as the models of Herbert Tomesan; those models are very close studies of VDV drawings. Then, there are re-constructions, like Batavia, that have four scuppers along the lower deck. I see your point, though, about the weather deck - where it would make more practical sense to have more than less. In fact, the monographie models of Le Saint Philippe, show fewer along the lower deck. Perhaps, on future models, it would be more accurate to show fewer scuppers, here.
  12. Hubac's Historian
    I’ve been thinking about dry pastels/powders because I want to simulate the water staining beneath the scuppers, and maybe also run-off from the channels. Do you have any advice here about particular products, application techniques and sealing?
  13. Hubac's Historian
    FYI - I’m working right now, and decided to test a crease where the wale joins the hull. There was some accumulation of VDB in that crease, so I pressed hard with a Q-tip, and it didn’t pick up any VDB paint residue. Maybe the Windsor and Newton has more/better driers in it? I don’t know, but it seems to have cured.
  14. Hubac's Historian
    Hi Kirill, Yes, I’ve been using Windsor and Newton’s Van Dyke Brown oil paint for artists. This is part of Herbert Tomesan’s weathering protocol, in which he advises to brush it on heavy like shoe-pollish, and then wipe away as much as possible. Really, the paint effectively stains the underlying acrylic, and there is very little paint left on the surface. Now, yes, in the planking seams there will be a heavier accumulation, and this may take relatively longer to cure. But the wiped and burnished (with a coarse chip brush) surface is not at all tacky; you can handle it without leaving prints, etc. When I met Herbert in 2003, he showed me the models he was making for the Texel Roads diorama; his results were astounding. I felt like Gulliver holding these perfectly crafted plastic ship models that looked like real weathered wood. The process is so simple that I was skeptical that it would work, and yet, with very little effort it yields a surface with great depth and character. I think one could create even more depth with a somewhat streaky application of two different but complimentary brown acrylics, before applying the VDB. For my purposes though - SR’s deadworks would have been painted with this ventre-de-biche color - this is perfectly satisfactory. I’m probably overdoing it a little, but I like it. I had thought about using a fixative top coat, but I don’t want to lose the surface sheen that I have achieved. Given enough time, the paint will cure fully on its own. Because I can handle it without any problems, I’m not too concerned about it. In fact, a topcoat before the paint has fully cured might cause other problems. I think that once I have blacked over the wales and the boot-topping, I will brush over them with acrylic dullcoat because the acrylic is a little too shiny for these details. Other than that, though, time is your friend.
  15. Hubac's Historian
    Weathering and distress effects coming to life: The scratch pattern is more regular and subtle than my paint samples. These artist’s acrylics, though, are really tricky to work with. I found that you have to water the paint down, and apply multiple thin coats; four complete coats, and another spot coating to get even color saturation. The coarse dry-brushing - after the bulk of the Van Dyke Brown oil paint has been wiped away - leaves a nice patina on the surface that evens out the weathering, IMO.
  16. Hubac's Historian
    Well, Dan, with my research errors and oversights - your system has not been completely wrong. She’ll be coming to stay with you soon; move date is 2/21.
  17. Hubac's Historian
    Haha, thanks EJ! No, I still have ornamental work to do on the upper bulwarks, which I’m not yet sure how it will be attached; the amortisement of the QGs, the mermaid figures, etc. Those parts can wait, for now. In fact, I messed up a little because I meant to mask a section, on the lower hull, for the lower section of the QG - which I also am not sure how I will make and how it will attach to the hull. No biggie, though; I’m a pro at scraping plastic, at this point.
  18. Hubac's Historian
    It has been my style to document every little step forward, and I will not change course now. I primed the shells tonight, and it is quite gratifying to see all the detail and different color plastics coalesce into one thing. The bow and stern extensions have blended-in smoothly. The iron work is prominent enough to notice, but not so much that it’s distracting. Painting is going to be FUN!
  19. Hubac's Historian
    I totally agree, EJ! Adding to the confusion, in this case, is that the Monarque portraits show her with a forcastle deck, but it is not armed. But, then, the deck and it’s guns were removed in 1670, immediately after the Candia mission. So at exactly what point in the brief timeframe between launching and revision that these portraits represent - I cannot say.
  20. Hubac's Historian
    Stunning carved work, Drazen! Also an excellent tutorial on prep and paint for wood surfaces. Is another purpose of the gesso to sort of smooth any irregularities in the carved surface?
  21. Hubac's Historian
    Lovely ship-building you are doing here, Aviaamator!
  22. Hubac's Historian
    You, know - I’m a dope! There’s a reason Winfield and Roberts is such a good source - perhaps I should read it a little more closely, from here on out! Especially, the passages I caption in this particular thread!! They explain, just above, that the Monarque’s forecastle was initially intended to be armed, and that it was, in fact, armed. Take away those six forecastle guns, the deck itself, and four more from the quarterdeck - done deal; reduced weight, better balance and navigation. All this time, I’ve been laboring under the certain “knowledge” that ONLY Soleil Royal and Royal Louis were graced with armed forecastle decks - so even though W&R explain it, and my own eyes read the passage [several times, honestly] it did not register. So, mystery solved. Through reading, and the help of my MSW friends. Did I mention I’m a dope? Sometimes, really, it’s embarrassing. And yes, Heinrich, from here on out I will set sail with dry eyes, vision corrected and with a good reading light, as I attempt to resurrect Soleil Royal from the catacombs.
  23. Hubac's Historian
    Hi Mark! You know, it’s really confusing to me. The port broadside drawing of the Monarque has the foresail set, which partially covers the view of the forecastle, but it doesn’t seem outrageously high. Added to that fact is that there isn’t any artillery on that deck, and that’s where real weight would come into play. It isn’t as though she was a carrack, and I have no idea how those things remained upright on their keel. The one thing that can be said of the Monarque is that she had an especially high stern; the tafferal of this ship would have been something like 35 feet above the water! And all of that loaded with massive sculptural statuary - albeit “dug from within” to reduce weight, but it would seem more likely that the navigation problems with the Monarque owed more to her stern. The trouble is that I find the Winfield and Roberts book to be a particularly insightful and reliable source, so I have to assume that they know what they’re talking about, even if I do not understand it.
  24. Hubac's Historian
    Well, today was a bitter/sweet day. After 37 years together, it was finally time to part ways with SR1. Santa gave me her for Christmas, when I was eight, and I worked on her off and on (mostly off in the teen years) for the next 16 years. And I’ve been moving her around with me from one New York apartment to the next, ever since. However, there can’t be two Soleil Royals at the next (smaller) apartment in Brooklyn, so today SR1 set sail for her new home in Westchester. My childhood buddy, Brian, always liked the model, and always joked that it’d be welcome in his home. So, now it is. Bon voyage, mon ami! Brian will take good care of you. My father reminded me, tonight, that the base and case for this model were made by the man who did all the model case work for the New York Yacht Club (in the roaring 90’s). The case is plexi, but the base is a nice sapele veneered plinth that looks as good today as it did 21 years ago. Although he is long retired, my father had interesting friends in all corners of New York. And now, Heinrich, I would like to say that I have to agree with your assessment that it does seem a “cheese-paring” exercise to essentially re-cycle ornamental allegories in this particular age of excess. And, yet, that does appear to be exactly what the French did with quite a number of the great first rates. Consider that the tafferal tableau for Le Royal Louis 1668, is remarkably similar to the conceptual Louis XIV model of 1693[?]. This is why I think there is plausibility to the theory that some of SR1’s original ornament was preserved and re-incorporated into Etienne Hubac’s re-construction of his father’s great ship. In fact, the French loved Berain’s adaptation of the original LeBrun/Puget allegory so much, that they re-created it almost exactly for SR2, in 1693. The quarter galleries change, and the upper bulwark frieze becomes significantly more restrained, but the ornamental elements have their origin in earlier designs. Moving onto the question of the scuppers. Initially, I had placed my scuppers at the lowest run of the sheer of wales, where structurally, they would intersect with the deck line. I spaced them evenly, on my drawing, without considering the port lids. When the St. Philippe monographie came, this comparison shot brought to my attention the fact that my scuppers were maybe positioned incorrectly, and that there should also be wider scuppers, in line with the pumps: The next picture of the St. Philippe illustrates the scuppers relative projection beyond the wales. Mine project, too, but not quite as much as these. In any case, it seemed counter-productive for there to be any impingement of the lid or impairment to the function of the scuppers As for the Monarque/Royal Louis debate, I’ve read enough source material to feel pretty confident that these were two distinct ships. Consider the synopses of Winfield and Roberts: Peter’s book, Puget et la Marine makes it pretty clear that work was happening on these two ships simultaneously. If anyone is interested, I would be happy to mail the full translation of Part 1. Just P’M me, and I’ll send it along. Chapman, I hope you will find that the Pheonix kit is suitable for your model - that would be an exciting project, indeed! Bon soir, mes amis!
  25. Hubac's Historian
    Well, today was a bitter/sweet day. After 37 years together, it was finally time to part ways with SR1. Santa gave me her for Christmas, when I was eight, and I worked on her off and on (mostly off in the teen years) for the next 16 years. And I’ve been moving her around with me from one New York apartment to the next, ever since. However, there can’t be two Soleil Royals at the next (smaller) apartment in Brooklyn, so today SR1 set sail for her new home in Westchester. My childhood buddy, Brian, always liked the model, and always joked that it’d be welcome in his home. So, now it is. Bon voyage, mon ami! Brian will take good care of you. My father reminded me, tonight, that the base and case for this model were made by the man who did all the model case work for the New York Yacht Club (in the roaring 90’s). The case is plexi, but the base is a nice sapele veneered plinth that looks as good today as it did 21 years ago. Although he is long retired, my father had interesting friends in all corners of New York. And now, Heinrich, I would like to say that I have to agree with your assessment that it does seem a “cheese-paring” exercise to essentially re-cycle ornamental allegories in this particular age of excess. And, yet, that does appear to be exactly what the French did with quite a number of the great first rates. Consider that the tafferal tableau for Le Royal Louis 1668, is remarkably similar to the conceptual Louis XIV model of 1693[?]. This is why I think there is plausibility to the theory that some of SR1’s original ornament was preserved and re-incorporated into Etienne Hubac’s re-construction of his father’s great ship. In fact, the French loved Berain’s adaptation of the original LeBrun/Puget allegory so much, that they re-created it almost exactly for SR2, in 1693. The quarter galleries change, and the upper bulwark frieze becomes significantly more restrained, but the ornamental elements have their origin in earlier designs. Moving onto the question of the scuppers. Initially, I had placed my scuppers at the lowest run of the sheer of wales, where structurally, they would intersect with the deck line. I spaced them evenly, on my drawing, without considering the port lids. When the St. Philippe monographie came, this comparison shot brought to my attention the fact that my scuppers were maybe positioned incorrectly, and that there should also be wider scuppers, in line with the pumps: The next picture of the St. Philippe illustrates the scuppers relative projection beyond the wales. Mine project, too, but not quite this far. Anyway, it seemed clearer to me that any projection would still be an impingement to the lid and/or the function of the scuppers: Lastly, with regard to the Monarque/Royal Louis debate - I have read through enough source material to feel confident that these were two distinct ships, each with their own service history. Consider Winfield and Robert’s synopses of the two ships: I would be happy to mail you, or anyone else that is interested, the full translation of Peter’s Puget et la Marine. It is clear, there, that work on both ships is happening simultaneously. Just P’M me and I’ll send it along. Chapman, I’m excited for your model of La Reine, and I hope that you will find the Pheonix kit suitable. Bon soir, mes amis.

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...