Matrim

Another thought: larger scale, but with topmasts sent down, or in the process of rigging the lower masts only?

Between 1 /192 up to 1/24 scale, the main difference is: as much it is difficult to hold and to work with a small piece at 1/200, it is a lot easier to work and to hold a part in his hand.
 
The smaller the scale, the more  the details will literally disappear.  Duration is relatively similar  for 2 different scale. 
 
Space is a major factor; the largest  and easiest scale to easily manipulate a model is 1/48. If you go larger, you will need few larger tools to cut  and sand, Dremel will not  be enough.
 
Each scale has different challenges and need different tools. By opposition, to build a model at 1/200, yo will do a lot of work with magnifying glasses. To wear these require much more concentration; the smaller will be the scale, the greater will be the level needed and there will be almost no space to move the knife. Most of your energy will go on concentration.
 
At 1/24 scale, you do not to spend your energy only on concentration. You can discover new kind of happiness which is impossible to discover at small scale.  You will see more clearly, a lot of new details and you will be able to understand more how a real ship was build.
 
Depending of the challenge you want to try, you can choose a different scale. You should not limit your choice of the scale, to the space it will fill. Nobody has space for a 1/24 model of 8 feet long. My house is surely not  a big house, nevertheless, I have 3 models at that scale and every time,  I begin a new one, I never know where it will go in the house.
 
 

It may be helpful to actually build a mock-up of the case which would hold the model out of sticks or cardboard using a hot glue gun ("Martha Stewart style,") similar to the "story poles" they use on proposed building sites to actually see what the building will look like in place. I have been unpleasantly surprised on more than one occasion by the great difference in mass between a model on the bench and a model in a case in the house! Such a "quick and dirty" case is also a good thing with which to cover the model on the bench when you are not working on it during the building process. It protects it from dust, dirt, and damage during the sometimes long periods of time when you can't get to it.

I am probably going to go for 1:48 because it will simplify construction - though I will have to set the yards to reduce space, not have the royals up etc etc. 

If I was just going for something to fit then the smaller the better but I eventually decided that it is the journey of making the model that is fun so even if I cannot display it then 'so what' - at worse it could stay in the workshop...
 
This decision may change once I have measured it out fully as I am almost ready to start on building.

I am probably going to go for 1:48 because it will simplify construction - though I will have to set the yards to reduce space, not have the royals up etc etc. 

If I was just going for something to fit then the smaller the better but I eventually decided that it is the journey of making the model that is fun so even if I cannot display it then 'so what' - at worse it could stay in the workshop...
 
This decision may change once I have measured it out fully as I am almost ready to start on building.

I very much agree. I have found this to be the case, too.. The overall size of the finished (and cased!) model is a decisive factor for considerations of display space, but if "the sport in the game" is pushing the limits of one's "personal best" in terms of workmanship and skill within the the limits of the materials, then the scale is irrelevant. Given that, the scale really affects the amount of work, more than anything else. It may be easier to make some parts at a larger scale, e.g. rigging details, but then you've got that same level of detail to deal with elsewhere on the model, e.g. thousands of treenails to drill and drive in place!  

I personally find that irrespective of scale, I tend to pack as much detail into it as is physically possible with the available materials and tools. So building at a larger scale does not really change much in terms of dealing with miniature bits and pieces. It is true, however, that the standard marlinspike seamanship items are easier to make at larger scale ...

Hi Allen, Happy New Year everyone! I am just finishing the rigging on a very old "Aristo-Craft" 1815 Baltimore clipper 1:75 scale. I had decided to also rig the cannons even though the kit did not call for it. I must say it has been, let's say challenging! As I retired last Feb. I thought I could rip through the rigging and complete the kit in short order. As it turned out there is so much going on with all the static and running lines I can only work on it for a couple hours at a time and my eyes give out. I for one (at least for a clipper style) will look for larger scale ships in the future. Good luck and have fun on your new project.

Thanks to each and everyone of you.   Room in the shop is not a problem, but in the house for display, it could be.   1:72 is definitely out. 
Thanks again and Happy New Year.
Allan

Allan, I am currently building at 1:72 but am finding it more and more difficult to add the level of detail I would like (although EdT   seems to be able to accomplish it  ) All future builds will be at 1:40 for the reasons already given, PLUS there is a much larger 'after market' for some bits and bobs you may wish to purchase rather than scratch build.
 
cheers
 
Pat

I go along with Druxey.  I'm building everything to 1:64 as I just don't have room for even one at 1:48.  It is a compromise especially with tiny details.

Yes but they could be even smaller.....LOL    I ran out of space too, so now I just give them away when they are done.    I am sure you will find a good home for yours Allan!!!!

If you have space to build at 1:48, go for it. The reasons given by Chuck are ones to consider. There will still be many small parts!

Allan, I usually work at 1:96, but a larger scale certainly is easier to work with and makes a very impressive model - providing you have the space to display it!
 
John

After building the Winnie at both 1:64 and 1:48, I am always leaning towards the larger now.   Its just more enjoyable given the there are fewer teeny tiny parts that lack detail.  Building quarter galleries in both scales sealed the deal for me.
 
Chuck

I hope to start construction of Litchfield (50) 1695 this coming year.   Her gundeck is 150 feet.  Over all length, rigged she is about 200 feet thus about  50" at 1:48,  37" at 1:64 and 33" for 1:72.     I am still wavering on scale, be it 1:48 or 1:64 or 1:72 .  As I hope to fully rig her and show good detail, I am leaning to 1:64 (or possibly 1:72) but nothing smaller after discussions with Ed T.   I really want to be able to get the detail, yet not have a monster to display but 1:72 worries me.   Old eyes and all that need to be considered.   I am looking for any advice from anyone that cares to share,  based on successful or not so successful experience.
Thanks to all
Allan

I  like TurboCad. The version under a hundred quid does fine at any ship plan cad work.

This is wonderful to see happen and the parties involved (Chuck/CAF/Kerry and Ancre) all deserve credit for working together to resolve this. It's nice as well as CAF is one of the best quality producers in China so getting new kits will help the hobby.
 
 

This book is very good, with a very detailed structure introduction

William James's early works are now considered by modern historians to be some of the first true, modern-type histories, since the author consulted primary source documents (logbooks), interviewed participants (friends with Philip Broke, for example) and included footnotes, graphs and appendixes. If you can look past his Anglophilic and Ameri-phobic snarks, you can still used his information today. His six volume series on the history of the British Navy during the Napoleonic period cannot be much improved upon, and many subsequent historians either quote or plagiarizes James's work. It is very scholarly work given it's early date.

Although I only have one plastic kit under my belt since my return to modelling I have came close to knocking over the Tamiya Extra Thin glue a couple of times narrowly avoiding destroying my cutting mat, which prompted the purchase below.
 
I really like the Dspiae products and think they have found a niche, providing well engineered products with quality packaging that Apple would be proud of.
 
The glue bottle holder comes in a nice solid thick walled box (although mine looks like its well travelled!), with an internal lid with a Thank you and some basic instructions.  The lid has high density foam on the underside which is handy for rolling photo etch and paper parts into curves. Bonus!

 
The box holds the glue bottle holder and underneath is a sheet of  very thin self-adhesive plastic like material (but behaves like rubber) which is required to be stuck on the bottom providing a great deal of slip resistance when placed on a cutting mat.

 
Rubber stuck on the base and a bottle of glue inserted.  There is a fair bit of space round the Tamiya bottle but bear in mind this is designed for other manufacturer’s products such as Mr Hobby, Ammo etc who have all seemed to go down the square glass bottle route.

 
Is it worth the A$30 it cost?  Not really as there are dozens of zero cost DIY options such as hacking a square in a block of foam or making it from card etc.; but to me Yes it is worth it.  Who doesn’t love a chunk of beautifully machined and red anodised aluminium doing nothing more than holding a bottle of glue.  I smile to myself whenever I look at its extravagance.
 
Cheers
Slog

Not really all that many options, really, and most all of them are really worthwhile. I'd suggest the following in descending order of importance:
 
Micrometer stop. There's no point in owning a saw that is as accurate as this one without this convenience.
 
Extended rip fence. It really is important because the stock fence is really low. It's nice to have something more substantial to lean the workpiece up against when cutting larger stuff, cutting rabets and grooves, and such.
 
Miter bar gives you more control. The miter gauge comes stock with the saw and is very accurate. The bar is $8 and worth it. If you get the sliding table, you probably won't be using the miter gauge as much, but the added length is handy.
 
Miter gauge adjustable extension. It's just a stick of aluminum, but for the price, handy to have. I don't own a miter gauge that I haven't put some kind of extension on and I think I have four or five of them.
 
Sliding table. Yes, it's really worth the money... it expands the saw's utility tremendously and is super-accurate.  For repetitive cross-cuts, you gotta have it. This is the most expensive of the "must haves." If all you are going to be doing is ripping strip wood, you can do without it, but any sort of cross-cutting, making gratings, super accurate miter cuts for case building, lots of little short pieces all exactly the same length, and so on makes this a "gotta have" for me. It's really solid and accurate and slides as slick as greased goose poop. The integral blade cover is also a really nice safety feature. 
 
You should also get a selection of saw blades and zero clearance inserts, because they do make a big difference depending on the application. You can make your own inserts, if you want, but for eight bucks, you might as well get the perfectly-fitting ones from the factory. I don't know that the blades are available for much less anywhere else. I'd ask Jim Byrnes which blades he recommends for the work you expect to be doing. He won't steer your wrong.
 
Same goes for the "spare parts package." For eight bucks, it's worth having an extra of all the little screws that you know you're going to need when you drop and lose one every so often. You'd spend more than eight bucks in gas driving around trying to find someplace that had them in stock locally. A replacement belt is worth having handy as well. Keep in mind that if you order all this little stuff at the same time as the saw, you'll probably save a bundle on shipping costs over buying them piecemeal.
 
As you can see, that doesn't leave much not to buy.   Everybody seems to agree that the tilting table is really not something anybody uses all that often, for ship modeling, at least. maybe the model railroaders do, or whatever. You can always make your own taper gauge, but I bought one of Jim's because they're just so damn pretty. 
 
I guess the accessories are pretty much essentials, although optional, depending on the use to which a buyer is going to put their saw. 
 
Like the man says, if you can afford a BMW, you'd be nuts not to pay a few bucks more for the leather seats!
 
 

I recently took delivery of Tom’s HMS Enterprize kit.  Wow!  I saw the built up version at his home in Shanghai and was smitten.  Tom regularly upgrades the kits as he figures out a better way or gets customer feedback.  He tries to replicate the look and materials of the Admiralry models, even producing some of the carvings in bone.  Quite an amazing product.  Good quality wood, cast brass cannon, wooden carvings, etched brass, the list goes on.  The kit came in seven boxes and weighed several kilo.  
 
I hope the arrangement with ANCRE gets done soon.  I once tried to build Le  Salamandre from the plans.  I got a long way on it and just ran out personal steam.  I’ve seen his kit and can say it will be a lot easier to realize a ship in frame and far more precisely than I could ever do.  This model has been upgraded too, he changed how the cant frames are cut and assembled to make them easier to build and replicate actual construction.  The method of building the cutter is also improved with a resin cast jig to lat frames and planks.  
 
Welcome Tom, and thank you Chuck!
 
cheers,
 
Kerry
Vancouver, Canada
 

This is true. Saying that some historians today still try to claim otherwise. No other nation with stronger ships had the same run of victories in single ship actions and that in itself is impressive.
 
I don't subscribe to nationalistic reasons for victories in any war. Man for man all men are equal and it is training, leadership, equipment and logistics that tends to make the difference not 'a ship with 10 brits will easily beat one with 200 french' etc etc versions of history (replace with whatever war you fancy). It doesn't stop such assertions being made mainly to increase confidence and sometimes nationalistic fervour/pride. Therefore the system shock when it sometimes proves to be incorrect can be extreme. It is one reason why incorrect history can and has killed people and will probably continue to do so. 
 
 
 
 

This is true. Saying that some historians today still try to claim otherwise. No other nation with stronger ships had the same run of victories in single ship actions and that in itself is impressive.
 
I don't subscribe to nationalistic reasons for victories in any war. Man for man all men are equal and it is training, leadership, equipment and logistics that tends to make the difference not 'a ship with 10 brits will easily beat one with 200 french' etc etc versions of history (replace with whatever war you fancy). It doesn't stop such assertions being made mainly to increase confidence and sometimes nationalistic fervour/pride. Therefore the system shock when it sometimes proves to be incorrect can be extreme. It is one reason why incorrect history can and has killed people and will probably continue to do so.