Matrim

Here are the anchors from the Anatomy of the Ship " The Armed Transport Bounty
 

Hi Matrim, yes I used Lego blocks  quite a lot while building my Benjamin Latham. See here. The advantage is that it minimizes the use of pins which leave holes.
 
As I mentioned, I did some minor adjustments on the bulkheads before gluing them in place. As I am preparing for the planking, it is clear some of them are clearly out of whack, in particular frames 2 and 5 which, if left as is, will give a weird looking  pinch to the bow, which was clearly not on the original model.  From what I concluded, the foredeck and quarter decks are the reference to use, and the frames have to be adjusted accordingly so that the planking follows a fair line. Some bulkheads will need some wood to be added, but most will require a good filing and tapering. Again, much easier to do with all the bulkheads firmly  in place.
Pictures of work in progress to be posted soon.

lol, nice to see other people had the same reaction. Interesting that it appears to be his 'thing' to write in this way..

On the first question there is no tie in between the characters used to tell the story.
 
On the second it is not supposed to be historical fiction. It's trying to provide historical information with a fictional interpreter providing 'color'. It is certainly different to any of the standard approaches ever seen. I doubt you could quote it directly as it is never quite obvious which is which though he does give extensive foot notes so these could be used to track down the original if anyone ever wanted to re-use.
 
As a note of extra caution it uses secondary authors in the main text more than you would expect and direct quotes from secondary authors as opposed to referencing their arguments. In some cases (lists from James) it makes some sense (though I would prefer the list to appear and James to be footnoted) whereas in others the quote is direct. That is only because I prefer history to be the historians view and not regurgitated opinions from others (no matter how 'decent' the other is). Footnotes are Historians friends..
 
As an aside when I was finding that quote from Rodgers concerning the war of 1812 I also checked Latimer as I remembered one or both of them making an argument of that nature. I found it in both but was surprised that the words used were almost identical. Since Rodgers wrote three years earlier and Latimer references the relevant work in his bibliography I just used Rodgers but did wonder if Latimer realised he was essentially re-using Rodgers comment (without reference). Perhaps he agreed so deeply it was a co-incidence but it looks like the same re-written with slightly different words. Just a curiosity. Perhaps I missed the acknowledgement..
 
 
 

On the first question there is no tie in between the characters used to tell the story.
 
On the second it is not supposed to be historical fiction. It's trying to provide historical information with a fictional interpreter providing 'color'. It is certainly different to any of the standard approaches ever seen. I doubt you could quote it directly as it is never quite obvious which is which though he does give extensive foot notes so these could be used to track down the original if anyone ever wanted to re-use.
 
As a note of extra caution it uses secondary authors in the main text more than you would expect and direct quotes from secondary authors as opposed to referencing their arguments. In some cases (lists from James) it makes some sense (though I would prefer the list to appear and James to be footnoted) whereas in others the quote is direct. That is only because I prefer history to be the historians view and not regurgitated opinions from others (no matter how 'decent' the other is). Footnotes are Historians friends..
 
As an aside when I was finding that quote from Rodgers concerning the war of 1812 I also checked Latimer as I remembered one or both of them making an argument of that nature. I found it in both but was surprised that the words used were almost identical. Since Rodgers wrote three years earlier and Latimer references the relevant work in his bibliography I just used Rodgers but did wonder if Latimer realised he was essentially re-using Rodgers comment (without reference). Perhaps he agreed so deeply it was a co-incidence but it looks like the same re-written with slightly different words. Just a curiosity. Perhaps I missed the acknowledgement..
 
 
 

Last installment!
 
Have you ever watched the show Pawn Stars on the History Channel? In this show, clients bring their treasures to the Gold & Silver Pawn Shop in Las Vegas, Nevada. The viewers then learn about the history of the item brought in and, ultimately, how much the item is worth. Most of the time, the owner hears that their treasure is not worth as much as they thought. Every once in a blue moon, though, some lucky owner discovers that their item is actually worth more than what they had estimated -- occasionally far more. But these instances are rare.
 
Such is the case with model ships. There are lots of model ships out there in the world, but only a relative few of them are worth some serious scratch. A large number are essentially worthless, at least in monetary terms. In this episode, we'll look further into the question of what makes a model valuable.
 
Let's suppose you have a model and that you took my advice in my previous post to have a hard look at it. You've decided that your model looks like a real scale model and not a piece of mass-produced decor or a Lego pirate ship. You can easily envision Russell Crowe at the helm. Now you're hoping that since it's a real scale model, it must surely have value.
 
Not so fast! There are models, and then there are models that people actually want and will pay good money for. To illustrate this point, I'm going to show you two real scale models. One is worth some money, and the other, sadly, is not.
 
First take a look at this model. It's a model of a real ship, the English revenue cutter Sherbourne, built in 1763 (the real ship, that is -- not the model).

Now, you're probably thinking, "Hey, that's a nice model. I can see why it's worth something."
 
Except this is the cheap model. If you or I were to take my model -- I mean, ahem, this model -- to a gallery thinking we've got a treasure, we'd be headed for disappointment. To you, this model might look great, but to the keen eye of a discriminating collector or knowledgeable gallery owner, it's got some problems. First, it's made from a kit. You, the novice, probably couldn't tell that by looking at it, but savvy modelers, collectors, and gallery owners know. Because it's built from a kit, that means it's not unique -- there's dozens of Sherbournes out there. Besides being made from a kit, it's made by a modeler with middling talent. Again, you might think the model is done very nicely, but experts will see right away those aspects of the model that were not built true to the original and the techniques that were used to make the model easier to build at the expense of scale fidelity. All of these things are knocks against the monetary value of the model.
 
But there's an even worse thing about this model: it's simply not what most buyers want.
 
There are exceptions, of course, but the really pricey models out there, the ones that collectors are willing to shell out several thousand dollars for, generally have three things: 1) lots of guns, 2) lots of rigging (sails and cordage), and 3) lots of fancy ornamentation. Oh, and did I mention lots of guns? My model -- I mean, ahem, the previous model -- has none of these things. It has few guns, little rigging, and essentially no ornamentation. What should a seller expect someone to pay for a model like this? If the seller is lucky (really lucky) and can find an actual buyer for the model, he might be able to squeeze a couple hundred dollars out of it, barely enough to cover the cost of the kit and certainly not enough to make modeling a lucrative or even profitable enterprise.
 
Guns, rigging, fancy stuff. That's what collectors want. Something like this model of HMS Thunderer:

Why is this model worth some dough? Consider the following: 1) It's got lots of guns (well, at least the ports for guns), lots of rigging, and lots of fancy decoration. 2) It's scratch built, not from a kit. That means it's a unique piece of art, not one of dozens of built-up kits. 3) It's built to a high standard of workmanship. Someone who builds models like this has spent a lot of time honing their skills. 
 
Model ships are like most any other commodity. The prices they fetch are based on two factors, demand and availability. Well-heeled collectors demand fancy models built to high standards. The number of builders who can build that kind of model is low, and it takes a lot of time to build such models, so the builder's output is low as well. For a model like Thunderer, it's a case of high demand (because everyone would like to have a model like Thunderer) + low availability = high prices. For a model like Sherbourne the equation is low demand + high availability = low prices.
 
So, that basically it in a nutshell. Like the folks hoping to strike it rich at the pawn shop, most model ship owners are going to experience a letdown when they hear what their 'treasure' is worth. But cheer up - that unwanted model will still look good on your mantel, which can't be said for a Trabant.
 
Cheers!

In this next installment of How to Spot a Cheesy Model, I want to show you the difference between a mass-produced model and an actual scale model built by a master modeler. Once you know what to look for, the cheap stuff is not hard to identify (and by 'cheap' I mean poorly made, not inexpensive). We're going to examine the stern of each model, so that we can see close up what separates class from crass.
 
Both of the models I'll show you are of the famous American warship, the USS Constitution. First, let's look at the quality model. This particular model is built from scratch in 1/48th scale. It's currently listed for sale at a reputable maritime art gallery. The price of the model is not listed. It's kind of like shopping on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills -- if you have to ask the price, you probably can't afford it.

The word I always think of when seeing a model like this is fine, as in fine wine or fine car. In this case, we're talking about fine craftsmanship. Note the detailed carvings, the meticulously neat painting, the clean run of planking, and the intricate web of rigging. True modelers endeavor to create models that are replicas of the original in every detail, with every part correctly proportioned. A great model looks like a real ship, only much smaller. Try picturing a 1/48th scale Russell Crowe (as Captain Jack Aubrey in Master & Commander) standing by the rail with a quartering wind filling the sails and the Connie with a bone in her teeth as she easily makes twelve knots.
 
Now let's look at the expensive kindling. This model is available on-line for $535. The owner of the site says this model is built by 'master craftsmen' using 'original plans'. It is purportedly 'highly detailed' and built from 'high-grade wood' using 'plank on frame' construction.

In reality, this model is none of those things. It is probably built in either the Philippines or Viet Nam by laborers who have never seen any plans of the actual Constitution; otherwise, they would have recognized how little their work resembles the real ship. The 'high-grade wood' includes western red cedar and mahogany, which are great for full-sized projects but not good modeling woods. When they say 'plank on frame' it is quite likely they mean 'plank on bulkhead', which might sound nit-picky to the uninitiated, but it's actually two substantially different construction methods with significant differences in both cost to produce and value of the finished product. And as for 'highly detailed'? Puh-leez! Just look at the incorrect hull shape, cheap metal castings, prison bar-like window frames, coarse-grained wood, and stick-on (stick on!) name badge. And are those supposed to be ship's boats hanging from the sides? Really?? Remember what I said about fine craftsmanship? This model is the opposite of that in every respect. It is crude, clunky, and misproportioned. Instead of Russell Crowe, there's a Lego sailor at the rail (and I have seen better-looking models made out of actual Legos). If these were cars, the first model would be a Ferrari. The second one is a Trabant.
 
So, if you have a Mystery Model, take a good, hard look at it. Does it look like a finely crafted miniature ship? Or does it look crude and clunky? If it looks crude and clunky, it probably came from an unscrupulous dealer. Maybe the original buyer didn't do their homework before whipping out the plastic, or maybe they knew going in that they weren't really getting a unique piece of art. Either way, on the resale market it's value is likely to be decidedly less than what you hoped it might be!
 
Next: It's a real model, but so what?

Okay, let's delve into this subject a little further by examining a few Mystery Models and discussing what makes them something less than what they often claim or are thought to be.
 
Take a look at Mystery Model #1.

Hopefully, this one doesn't need too much explanation, since it is obviously a curio, something a kid would buy at the gift shop at Mystic Seaport. When the child outgrows it, it might be lucky enough to end up in a yard sale, but more likely it will get round-filed.
 
But not all cheap models are so overtly cheesy. How about Mystery Model #2?

This one looks nice -- from a distance. Once you get up close, you start seeing the chunky, over-sized fittings and less-than-stellar craftsmanship. This is clearly a decor piece. If you have a nautical theme in your office, and you don't want to shell out big bucks for a scale model, you might get something like this at the local home decorating store. Good luck selling it to someone else, though.
 
Mystery Model #3 is something we see a lot of around here.

It looks old. It looks antique. It must therefore be valuable, right? Wrong. This is a classic example of an older style of decor model, probably made in Spain. Columbus' ships were especially popular subjects. Some might have a plaque bearing the name "Fregatta" (fregatta is Spanish for 'frigate'). Unfortunately, unlike perhaps a matched pair of Holland & Holland shotguns, these models don't appreciate in value with age. They just get old, like shag carpet and avocado green appliances.
 
Now, to mix things up a bit, let's look at a model that supposedly represents a ship still in existence. First we have the model:

 
And now we have the real deal, the bark Star of India, the crown jewel of the San Diego Maritime Museum.

At first glance, the model does kind of look like the real ship. But once again, the devil is in the details. Look closely at the real ship. Now look at the model. Notice the difference in the cut of the sails and the way the sails are set on their yards. Notice how fine the rigging looks on the real ship and how chunky it looks on the model. Notice how the model doesn't even have the proper rig (it has square sails on the mizzen mast, the mast at the rear of the ship; the real Star does not). If you could see the model up close, you would see that the lack of fidelity to the original extends to the deck fittings as well. In short, the model is only a crude likeness of the real thing.
 
Now, here's the kicker. This Star of India model is available to purchase on the Internet for (wait for it) -- $999.99. I kid you not. And, sadly, it's kind of like a new car in the sense that once you drive it off the lot, its value plummets. "But wait," you might say, "I bought this model for $999.99, so it must be worth at least $999.99, right?" Um, no. In the first place, no one is going to pay $999.99 for your now-second-hand model when there are tons of brand-new ones available on the Internet. Second, I, at least, am certainly not going to pay that much for it, because I know where I can get a brand new model just like it for less than 1/10 of what you paid for yours (ouch)!
 
In the next installment, I'll cue you in on what model ship buyers really want in a model and how much they might be willing to pay for it. Until then!

Hi!
 
On a fairly regular basis, we here at MSW receive requests from new members for help with identifying a ship model, such as something like one of these:
 

 
The request usually looks something like this:
 
 
Now, we are happy to help you with this request, but since we get asked so often, I thought it would be good to finally put some info on mystery models in one topic thread so that you can maybe find your answer before you post. Here are some basic things you should know:
 
1. Many, many models have been built over the years for the sole purpose of serving as decor or memorabilia. This would be a model purchased at, say, Sea World or Home Goods. These models are usually built to low standards in parts of the world where labor is relatively cheap. Once upon a time, southern Europe was a hot-spot for their manufacture. Nowadays most such models are coming out of Southeast Asia. These models usually have little, if any, historical or resale value. If you shelled out for one at an auction, you are probably stuck with it. Unfortunately, the vast majority of models we get asked about fall into this category.
 
2. A similar category of models could be classified as folk art. These are, as the name implies, locally built models that are an artistic representation of a ship rather than a scale model. Like the decor models, these also usually have little value other than sentimental value.
 
3. Then there are models that are actual attempts at scale model building, either scratch built or from a kit. Maybe your dad or grandpa built one. The value of these varies widely depending on the subject and the quality of the build, but the number of builders whose work is actually worth a large chunk of change is very, very small. The number of prospective buyers for such models is even smaller.
 
4. It is an extremely rare model that will turn out to have real value, either due to its artistic merit (built by someone who's a recognized master modeler) or historical value (e.g. a genuine prisoner-of-war bone model). Trust me, there are builders who are good (you would probably ooh and aah over their work), and then there are the builders whom those 'good' modelers look up to - the Stradivaris of our art, if you will. Those builders are few and far between, and grandpa probably wasn't one of them.
 
5. No matter what kind of model you have, the only people who can give you a true estimation of its worth (meaning, what a real person might actually pay) are those who make their living by doing such things, i.e. museum curators or owners of maritime art galleries. What you get from MSW should only be considered an informed opinion. If you do decide to go to a gallery, just let me prepare you well in advance for the shock you will likely experience upon hearing the appraised value of your model. In our hobby, 'valuable' and 'finely crafted' are not necessarily synonymous.
 
Nine times out of ten, mystery models shown at MSW are, sad to say, essentially worthless in terms of monetary value. Some of those models, to be sure, still have sentimental value for their owners, and that is not to be taken lightly. If you have a model like that, then do what you can to preserve it. If, on the other hand, you were hoping you found an overlooked treasure at a boot sale, well, you most likely didn't. Sorry.
 
Cheers!

I thought the author's name sounded familiar. I reviewed one of his books here. I had the same reaction to the use of fictional characters for providing historical context -- rather off-putting, in spite of some otherwise valuable content.

I take it you like setting yourself planking challenges. I find normal planking hard enough

After soaking the keel in ammonia, followed by a lot of steaming, I was able to reduce the warp to something acceptable. Once held in by my square aluminum support, there is no warp noticeable.
Because there is no mention of cutting a rabbet in the instructions, and to facilitate the planking later on, I added a 1/16 thick  band along the bow and the bottom of the keel, sanded so that the keel is now about 1/4. This will also allow to tapper the bow as per the original model. I will do the same on the sternpost later on.
 
After some adjustments, I glued all bulkheads in sequence, starting from the stern. I added 3/16 spacers between each bulkheads. Their purpose is twofold, first to improve integrity of the hull over time, and second to provide a solid bulkheads foundation  so that I can file and tapper the bulkheads “in situ”. I prefer that method by far as it is much easier to tapper them to a fair line that way. I started from the stern, and I use a small right angle metal bracket along the way to ensure the bulkheads are perpendicular to the keel.
 
Both decks were then glued per the instructions. Note that the idea of using Lego blocks while the glue is drying should be credited  entirely to Elia, a member of this group!
 
Here are some pics of work in progress.
Next, I’ll work on the stern part.
 

Started the deck planking.  Nice pattern of alternating wide basswood and narrow walnut, with curve following the line of the boat.  Will look nice when sanded and finished.  The rough spot at the stern will fortunately be covered.
 
Now the trick will be to get the other side lined up exactly with this one where it butts at the center line.
 
Regards,
David

Shannon? Shannon who? 🙄

The Royal Navy in the Napoleonic Age - Senior Service
Mark Jessop
Pen and Sword Bopoks 2019
180 pages, hardback,
U.S $39.95 UK £19.99
Order:  https://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/The-Royal-Navy-in-the-Napoleonic-Age-Hardback/p/16787
 

This is an unusual book. The best analogy I can make is that it is like Horrible Histories mainly focusing on the British Navy during the Napoleonic period but without the comedy. If follows the relatively new concept of utilising fictional stories to 'enhance' the history but in this case taking up the entire book coupled with large information dumps. So you get an awful lot of ,'
 
"hey up mate hows it going.", I said as I looked at the papers describing the Nile [big description of the Nile], when finished I told him so but he told me he knew a carpenter who knows a thing about oars and said [big info dump on oars]. I looked over the bay and meditated on this until a frigate appeared which reminded me about an article about Nelson [info dump about Nelson]
 
For the entire book. To a certain degree it works and the information covered is rarely repetitive and in some cases struck some unexpected new ground (which is nice in a historical area I know a reasonable amount about) . I should also note that the author is a much better fictional writer than me so his actual examples are not as bad as my pretend example above.
 
Here is an actual example from the book
 

The book is more intended for a lay reader who does not have a lot of historical knowledge and wants bite sized chunks of easily digestible information. Alternately someone who is not a fan of pure history (and pure history can be extremely dry). Therefore I strongly doubt I am the intended audience also as a historian by training I dislike fiction in history intensely. 

Simply put to me without evidence it has no place in a history. The potential problems get worse because in fiction the person 'thinking' does not have to know the full picture and that is dangerous. It allows people to potentially lie and hide information in an attempt to almost re-write history as they can ignore normal historical evidence restrictions because the fictional character does not have to understand balance, reliability or truth allowing non-historical spins to be be placed on something that might be used as history. Now there is little evidence of that here though the author does spend an inordinate amount of time (in a book about the Royal Navy, two chapters out of nine) describing  US Navy victories and how the US was fighting against the press and strangely neglects to mention the Shannon, or of the actions when the Royal Navy fought successfully back (beyond a single paragraph listing some of the ships captured) or even the fact that the US primary war aim was the land conquest of Canada. Now the fictional characters reporting probably would not know (or perhaps would not care but would care about single ship losses which is another example of my main issue with fiction in history). He has read Mahan, Roosevelt and James so is presumably well aware of the various counter arguments.
 
Personally I tend to follow N.A.M Rodgers view of the single ship actions,  'in the case of 18-pounder frigates in action with 24 pounder ships the disparity of force is a sufficient explanation' and perhaps more interestingly ,'Contemporaries, however, and to a surprising degree subsequent historians, have tended to interpret these actions in moral rather than technical terms, as indicators of national virtue or decline, which is to load them with far more significance than they can possibly bear' [p567 and 568 The Command of the Ocean N.A.M.Rodger]. 
 
So 'War of 1812' digression aside if you enjoy fiction to as a way of making History more easy to understand then this is an interesting book that covers several areas of that Navy that are not usually covered in a frankly  innovative way.

Thank you Martin.

The Royal Navy in the Napoleonic Age - Senior Service
Mark Jessop
Pen and Sword Bopoks 2019
180 pages, hardback,
U.S $39.95 UK £19.99
Order:  https://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/The-Royal-Navy-in-the-Napoleonic-Age-Hardback/p/16787
 

This is an unusual book. The best analogy I can make is that it is like Horrible Histories mainly focusing on the British Navy during the Napoleonic period but without the comedy. If follows the relatively new concept of utilising fictional stories to 'enhance' the history but in this case taking up the entire book coupled with large information dumps. So you get an awful lot of ,'
 
"hey up mate hows it going.", I said as I looked at the papers describing the Nile [big description of the Nile], when finished I told him so but he told me he knew a carpenter who knows a thing about oars and said [big info dump on oars]. I looked over the bay and meditated on this until a frigate appeared which reminded me about an article about Nelson [info dump about Nelson]
 
For the entire book. To a certain degree it works and the information covered is rarely repetitive and in some cases struck some unexpected new ground (which is nice in a historical area I know a reasonable amount about) . I should also note that the author is a much better fictional writer than me so his actual examples are not as bad as my pretend example above.
 
Here is an actual example from the book
 

The book is more intended for a lay reader who does not have a lot of historical knowledge and wants bite sized chunks of easily digestible information. Alternately someone who is not a fan of pure history (and pure history can be extremely dry). Therefore I strongly doubt I am the intended audience also as a historian by training I dislike fiction in history intensely. 

Simply put to me without evidence it has no place in a history. The potential problems get worse because in fiction the person 'thinking' does not have to know the full picture and that is dangerous. It allows people to potentially lie and hide information in an attempt to almost re-write history as they can ignore normal historical evidence restrictions because the fictional character does not have to understand balance, reliability or truth allowing non-historical spins to be be placed on something that might be used as history. Now there is little evidence of that here though the author does spend an inordinate amount of time (in a book about the Royal Navy, two chapters out of nine) describing  US Navy victories and how the US was fighting against the press and strangely neglects to mention the Shannon, or of the actions when the Royal Navy fought successfully back (beyond a single paragraph listing some of the ships captured) or even the fact that the US primary war aim was the land conquest of Canada. Now the fictional characters reporting probably would not know (or perhaps would not care but would care about single ship losses which is another example of my main issue with fiction in history). He has read Mahan, Roosevelt and James so is presumably well aware of the various counter arguments.
 
Personally I tend to follow N.A.M Rodgers view of the single ship actions,  'in the case of 18-pounder frigates in action with 24 pounder ships the disparity of force is a sufficient explanation' and perhaps more interestingly ,'Contemporaries, however, and to a surprising degree subsequent historians, have tended to interpret these actions in moral rather than technical terms, as indicators of national virtue or decline, which is to load them with far more significance than they can possibly bear' [p567 and 568 The Command of the Ocean N.A.M.Rodger]. 
 
So 'War of 1812' digression aside if you enjoy fiction to as a way of making History more easy to understand then this is an interesting book that covers several areas of that Navy that are not usually covered in a frankly  innovative way.

Yes I’ve used that service many times. Just wondered if I was missing something. Looked thru logs and saw nothing similar so I suspect bad pieces. Replacements requested.  
thanks for the advice and for the likes. 

I keep working

I have started the hull and rear deck area.
Dry fits together well.
What I REALLY like is the laser etched wooden deck.
It is stunningly thin. It took me a while to realise it actually has some backing paper that you peel off and then just stick the thing done.
It's pretty fragile and you need to be careful about getting positioning just right, and also don't get your tweezers stuck to the back.
But in about 5 mins you have this microscopically detailed Ultra thin deck planking in place. I reckon it's about 0.1 to 0.2mm thick. 
Result is very pleasing. See below.
What you need to remember is this is 1:700 scale. The whole hull is about 25cm or 10" long. 
 

The errata sheet included with the kit indicates the correction to bulkhead 4a.
 
I used a a couple of strips off the basswood planking sheets to build up material on the curved section.  Then glued a small piece of scrap from the keel sheet to the bottom.  
 

 
Off to the sander to shape it and reduce to template dimensions.


Final adjustments will be accomplished during fairing the hull.
 
 

The sanding will clear out a lot of those level deficiencies, it looks like you have very few 'gaps' so that should turn out quite nicely.

Thank you for posting, comments from professionals concerning high quality work and the trade offs involved by people who are involved in the practicalities are particularly useful.

If a kit manufacturer produced a visually accurate model to every detail then it would cost so much that the query would be 'why spend four thousand pounds on that when you can get close enough with Manufacturer B and pay a tenth of the cost'
 
Some of it is scale and some of it components and some of it is simplifying to make the process of building easier. As a practical example correctly sized belaying pins are not easy (for me) to belay so I will probably make them even more out of scale in future just to make it easier to tie rigging. 
 
 I personally dislike kits with obvious large inaccuracies but these are easily avoidable. Small inaccuracies you can kit-bash yourself if there is a specific problem/problems you dislike and if you dont know of the problem well there is nothing further to do.
 
 

It is a gorgeous looking model kit...