Snug Harbor Johnny

Thank you for sharing. Your work is both sensational and inspirational !

'Figured it was likely a 'temporary' glitch ... and reminds one how quickly things could just 'go away' in the event of some cyber-war, gigantic solar mass ejection event aimed directly at earth (one knocked out all telegraphs in the 1800s) or some global catastrophe (don't want to imaging one right now) . The convenience and scope of information available at one's fingertips through this and other forums is awesome, though, and it sure beats the 'old days' of scrounging through municipal libraries - which never had the sort of 'builders' techniques' laid-out with such clarity. I'm doing things I never thought practical (or even possible) with present technology ... from complex spreadsheets to Photoshop wizardry to sound editing and desktop publishing. 'Guess the rewards justify the risks, and one can always try to minimize those with multiple thumb drive AND paper backups.

Yeah, 'guess the major East Coast maritime museums have all been previous sites for the NRG ... and I'm a recent new member. So what about ... The Erie Maritime museum and U.S. Brig Niagara in Eire, PA The Maritime Museum of Sandusky, OH - just west of Cleveland The U.S.S. Cairo Museum in Vicksburg, MS

Possibles ... The Mariners Museum in Newport News, VA. - many artifacts on display including the Monitor remains, close to Colonial Williamsburg and other historic attractions The Independence Seaport Museum in Philadelphia - exhibits plus the U.S.S. Olympia, close to the Museum of the Revolution & historic sites, travel by Amtrak is possible due to the proximity of Pennsylvania station The Mystic Seaport Museum in Mystic CT Baltimore 'Inner Harbor' area (would need a hotel venue close to the harbor exhibits)

A very resourceful solution you've employed, and I'm a fan of laminating layers for bent shapes needed - and I'm also a fan of veneers. You could consider applying veneer 'planks' between the stanchions of the bulwarks to simulate planking (rather than just leaving the solid surface of the supplied plywood bulwark provided in the kit). If done before the stanchions are applied, then single, long strips are easier to work with - but one can still add shorter lengths of typical 1/80" veneer between the stanchions. The Endurance was built with multiple layers of planking that added up to a VERY thick hull (something like a couple of feet in places where the ice pressure would be greatest).

I wonder what the model's sails are made of ...

Given that Steve lives 'down under' in Australia, how about pineapple upside down cake?

'Saw this interesting story with a connection to Admiral Nelson ...

'Saw a nice photo of a clipper under good sailing conditions ... and the sails are angled as they should appear for models under sail, with a breeze coming from the stern quarter. Since she's riding high in the water, there's no cargo.

Kudos to you, sir ! You've finished a tour-de-force of a fine smaller scale model of what was a substantial ship. A much larger scale project is more compatible with my skills these days. Thank you for such a detailed log ... a great reference to those who may follow with this ship.

Roger, You're 'right on' about all the expertise on the forum (for those who invest the time to search and learn) ... in my 2 years so far I've learned more about sailing (and also steam) ships than I had up to that time. And every niche has specialists with much to offer. You're also right about the Anthony Roll sketches - and there are still a number of other paintings & other artwork that shed light on these relatively early ships. I say 'relatively', in that the 4,000 + yr old Khufu barge is REALLY early. BTW, I watch builds of ancient galleys (how 'bout that Mycenaean reconstruction) and other boats the the 'Galilee' with great interest. 'Guess I'm not a 'specialist' but one with a love of learning, as all the eras are fascinating to investigate. So now (for the moment) I'm drawn towards Henry VIII's big ship, and once agin, you are spot-on with the advice to look into the lines below the surface of the water. It is very fortunate that we have as much of the Mary Rose as we do, and there are excellent hull lines in the 'Anatomy of the Ship' book on the MR. The Sergal kit (given its 70's antiquity) has inappropriate lines, and I've already started working on frames that will be a lot closer to the ones on the MR. The logic being that the HGaD was built shortly after, but 'manned-up' a good bit, as if the Mary Rose 'grew a set'. The MR represented the cutting edge of warship development when construction began in 1509, and the HGaD likely followed suit. Nice work on the Revenge, Grandpa ... Johnny

'Looks like the Science Museum Group model has heavy beams to support the overhang in the prow area of the model - something mot seen in the Anthony image ... but then one does not see a dragon (or monster) figure head mounted on a stempost, as was typical on carracks of that era. Hmmm, I don't imagine that they'd have taken it off in 1536. The Anthony drawing does not show a cutwater either, and I doubt THAT would have been removed. This shows the challenges of trying to interpret 'too much' into any piece of artwork. How lucky are those who have either photographs or recovered hulls to guide them ... noting that the forecastle of the Mary Rose has (to date) not been found (and may never be). I don't think that there were vertical curves on the forecastle, as straight timbers were most likely used to build the 'fort'. Yet the Anthony picture has a curved profile of the back ... and if combined with the reverse curve near the bottom ( IF one posits that there was no cantilever at the gunwale), there would be a 'S' curve to the back profile of the fore castle (unlikely). Once again, there is a lot to think about. I'm in the process of making an entirely new set of framing pieces (what Sergal uses for the kit is actually a nice structural design) in a smaller scale to work with as part of the considerations. Obviously, modifying and otherwise proving-out the frame and concepts BEFORE doing any planking is advisable. And I can cut-to-fit or remake portions as part of the discovery process. This is likely how the build log will have to start.

If you are using 'real' metal 'plates', adhesion problems on the underside may be due to a smooth surface on the metal. Many types of glue hold much better to a surface that has some fine roughness (referred to as "tooth") to it. That makes for a better 'mechanical' bond. Wood generally has this property due to the wood fibers, but that can be negated by 'filling' the pores and crevices with sealer and turned into a smooth, glossy surface. Then one has the problem of trying to glue TWO smooth surfaces together. Going over the hull area to have plates glued with a fine sanding paper will impart the necessary "tooth" to that side. The plates (while flat) before forming can be roughened in a similar way, or with a fine jewelers' file. Then both surfaces will be more 'grippable' by whatever glue you are using. Many have used copper 'tape' using a variety of techniques found here and there on the forum, but I wonder about the long-term stability of 'soft' or contact bonding agents ... they may peel away after enough time goes by.

Great Scott, that's a nice little boat ! 'Love the Martian - a miniature of the one Bugs Bunny always foiled.

I totally get what you're saying about the 'order of assembly' of various details (like the capstan). Now on every build (of anything), I'm straining my brain to 'see past the instructions' (having read all of it at the outset) to see how everything has to come together - and what should REALLY go in ahead of something else. This stretches out a build, but avoids (or at least limits) the frustration of un-doing anything or working harder to fit something in. Yeah, that's called 'working smarter, not harder'.

Thank you for all the info in your reply ... This new distraction is a break from the Vasa for perhaps a couple weeks. I know that 'conclusions' are hard to draw from the Anthony roll depictions, and that the is a certain amount of subjectivity to what one thinks he's seeing in the drawing. Yeah, and most of what has survived are mostly stern quarter views. But ... my eyes think they're seeing at least some sideways cantilever' at the forward break of the 'waist' (exposed weather deck) - the back face of the fore castle. It's the 'shading' under the Anthony fore castle going forward from there that also gives the impression of 'overhang'. I'm no artist, but I've made a quick (and crude) sketch (not even as good as the Anthony roll) to try and depict what I'm seeing. My pre-1536 concept is a 2-decked fore castle with railings on top that will have shields affixed to said railing. The stern castle would have 3 decks with railing (plus shields on top). I figure when modified in 1536, the stern castle was likely reduced for a 2-deck configuration, then a partial 3rd 'deck' built onto the fore castle in the back half (per Anthony). The pre-1536 would not have top gallants. I'm a bit overwhelmed at the TOTAL dimensions of the model 'out of the box' ... like 50" stem to stern pole and as high from keel to pennants. It IS a whopper of a project, and when I look at the size of the brass turned guns, they are really at a smaller scale. The likely solution is to make all new framing at 1:88 scale (halfway between the 1:75 of the kit - apart from its length, which is more like 1:65 - and the 1:100 that I'm used to working with. The provided cannon seem consistent with an adjusted size of hull at 1:88. I'm mindful of the display case to protect the finished model. As supplied, over 50 sq. feet of glazing material would be needed for the larger size, versus 27 sq. feet for the adjusted size. I'm also mindful now that Australia is in a much different time zone (our days and nights are effectively reversed) - so please forgive my earlier oversight time-wise.

I find that research 'old kits' and looking for them (often at a bargain price) on the internet a pastime ... 'Guess contemporary catalogs - like the gardening ones with pictures designed to make the gardener 'green with envy' - are a way to generate interest. Did that start with the Sears "Wish Book" - with all the Christmas goodies for the entire family that came out before the end of Summer ... in time to start all those lists for Santa !

SO far no opinions offered, so I'll have to be 'Captain of my own ship' ... subject to Admiralty directives. 'Seems the HGaD represented the cutting edge of the naval battleship at the time in so many ways ... and the MR was the immediate precursor (so its lucky we have what we have of her). A very notable thing was the bow shape and lines BELOW the waterline, which were anything but 'bulbous' as earlier carracks often were. A gentler transition to the 'fatter' middle sections would lessen resistance and provide speed superiority over any comparably sized (or lesser) vessels. This is a key tactical advantage since (after battle assessment) an opponent could not 'get away' if the decision was to engage - nor could an otherwise superior force catch-up if the decision was not to engage. The advantage to the development of a 'square' stern was to support a larger stern castle as well as creating room for ordnance much further back in the hull (allowance for recoil and reloading requires enough breadth on the gun deck) - and a stern rudder w/tiller saw the elimination of the vulnerable steer-board (on the starboard side). The lines in the stern had to be modified so that the stern rudder would be effective - simultaneously providing a speed advantage as strong eddies were mostly eliminated Perhaps this inspired some streamlining in the bow. The full-round (or 'apple') bow would return as 'Castles' disappeared and space was needed for heavy ordnance to be in the forward part of a warship, and more displacement was also needed to support the increased weight in that area. So you see, form follows function - which is at the core of my considerations about the HGaD's for castle shape and size. Most contemporary depictions are from a stern aspect (or profile), and many models have defaulted to a 'pointed' forward castle. There is another reason why this would be a disadvantage ... as the sides go down to a 'point', there is almost no internal space for anything. Carrack castles started out as mostly square fighting platforms on either end of a double-pointed hull. There ARE pointed forward castles where they are 'open- topped fighting spaces. In the case of the HGaD, a fore castle starting out at least a little wider than the gunwale beam would serve better as a 'mini fortress' if the forward face were not so narrow. Below are some images for comparison: The earliest castles: A flat forward face (but no overhang) A 19th century engraving depicting what sure looks like a relatively wide front-faces castle: A more modern piece of artwork: Once again, these are different opinions through time - so the concept of 'form follows function' should be my guiding principle whatever route I go. BTW, here's a nice stern view of a model showing the narrowing of the back ... but the shape goes too deep to afford the 'clean' water needed to make the rudder more effective, as the reference books on the recovered MR show. I found a good enough piece of birch plywood (2' x 4') just a few thousandths over the Sergal kit frames. There's plenty there to make all the modified frames I'm likely to need. I searched through the whole stack at Home D to find one that was flat enough. Regarding the Sergal frames supplied, I noticed that the keel piece was kinked enough to be not good to use as it sat - so I got out my iron (set on high for linen) and used dry hear and cautions counter bending on a wooden work bench to reverse the kinks. It worked! I've used wet heat for 'solid' (non-plywood) stock and dry heat for plywood before (it can loosen the glue bond) - and wrecked pieces (some time ago) while learning. The deft touch and 'wood sense' not to over-bend (once learned) is helpful. It's like when I was a kid and 'stripped' a metal nut when over-tightening on a bolt. That helped 'calibrate' me how not to strip a nut - and the lesson has stayed with me all the intervening years.

Steve, I agree ... but there are certain 'details' that are of interest, as there are things that any attempt to picture the GH will have unique features and some other features found in other art. Now there is ONE feature that draws my attention from the Anthony Roll, and that is the 'overhang' of the fore castle that shows a curved support. Whereas the view 'from the deck' looking forward in the Anatomy Book on the Mary Rose (MR) shows the base of the fore castle flush with the hull (thereby making for an distinctly 'skinny' shape not seen in Anthony'd depiction of the MR) one can see in the image section below that the GH (or HGaD if you prefer) forecastle has a WIDER base than the gunwale below. Some models have this overhang, while some do not. Many of those that do, have a flat projection, that is, no curving planking from below. The Sergal kit has the curve underneath ... but also an overly wide 'snout' where the bowsprit emerges (more on snouts later). There would be a distinct Military advantage to having the fore castle wider at the base than the gunwale leading up to it. 1.) Just like in land forts that were beginning to evolve (eventually leading to the 'star' fort), having a section of defensible wall at an angle to a main wall will allow defenders to fire down at attackers who may have been able to get up to the main wall - thus would be underneath defensive fire from that wall (unless someone exposes themselves by leaning over the main wall). The guns in the Anthony image (crude as they may appear) represent anti personnel guns along the edges of the fore castle that hang slightly over the hull to afford those weapons a direct line of sight to small vessel that might get close to the ships side - and NOT (as some have supposed) meant to fire into the deck area to repel boarders, as such fire would harm friend as well as foe. 2.) A wider for castle is needed to have enough room inside for sufficient attack/defense personnel, and as the forecastle has to taper anyway toward the point of the bow, one needs to start wider rather than narrower. Soooo, the reason there is a CURVE under this 'overhang' is because there are knees beneath (attached to the futtocks there) to prevent sagging. This 'under-curve' lessens as the bow tapers, so that the overhang in the forward part of the forecastle projecting beyond the bow IS flat, but supported by the extension of the keel (my terms are lacking right now) sprouting out from the bow (that is seen just under the bowsprits of clippers) that is NOT shown on the Anthony picture - also missing is a dragon or monster head on the end of said projection. Now I suspect (just my opinion) that they may have had multi-hole toilets (with so many men, there might have been a three-holer on either side of the keel ... but no Sears catalogs yet) in the front part of the fore castle where the 'waste' would just drop below through gaps in the short support beams or through holes if the understructure was otherwise planked. BTW, I've found a 'pirated' version of the Sergal GH (well, a duplication of the design) in a heavy 'paper' kit listed in some ads as 1:100 available now from 'Eastern Europe" ... Below is an image of the Sergal (with it 'gallionization' previously mentioned). The under curve is not easily seen in the picture, but it's there - as well as to overly wide 'snout' ... something I have to change. The treatments of the tops of both castles need to be different to better conform to contemporary images. There is an image (artwork) where the under curve is better seen. Now a good compromise in a flat snout can be seen below ... an all to familiar build on our forum. Compare that with a 'pointed' version - that its own problems relating to accommodating the bowsprit. And there is a model that tries to more closely resemble the 'Embarcation' picture (with all its 'cloned' ships having the same prow beast with extended arms) ... but does depict the shields seen in the original art. Any input, opinions, etc. would be appreciated. There's SO much to think about, and another challenge is making replacement frames to provide more accurate line (similar to what we know the MR had) ... just as we're beginning the yard-work, exterior maintenance, Honey-do cross-offs (thats really a game of 'Whack a Mole'), etc season. Well, one can cut all sorts of trial frames and pieces as time permits. There is still the possibility of doing it slightly 'less large' ... we'll see.

I've done a bit of looking, and (aside from Steve's fantastic model) found two relatively recent depictions of the GH ... there are elements from each I like, so what I end up doing may be an amalgamation from all 3 of the above. Doing careful measuring and scaling, the conclusion is that the Sergal kit may not be far off in OAL (less bowsprit) after all. The two images below both have a ratio of length at waterline to maximum beam of about 3.42 - 3.44 - considering the larger size and tonnage (originally as high as 1,500 per some sources, reduced in 1536 to about 1,000 - 1200 ?) the higher ratio seems justified. That would put the OAL (less bowsprit) scaled at 1:76 (all other calculations of the model's drawings and fittings fall into a 1:76 - 1:80 range) to about 33.4" compared to just shy of 35" as drawn. Perhaps discretion may be the better part of valor in this case and I may go with the provided hull ... the largest I've attempted so far, but by no means unusual in our hobby. For instance, all the Cutty Sarks at 1:75 (215' on deck) will have that dimension represented by 34.4", with the entire model over 40". The 1:75 Vasas have nearly 32" hulls (less bowsprit), and there are two big version kits at 1:65 ... with nearly 37" hulls !! ... 'Chunkey monkeys to be sure ! I've started to cut out a couple of frame pieces needed for dry fitting - and also to figure out how I'm going to re-engineer the fore castle. This will be something to be done "hands-on", versus trying to pre-draw everything. Cardboard templates may come into play, and once worked out this module can be set aside until the rest of the beast if dry fitted. I don't want to think about glue until I know everything is going to fit correctly. Some thinking ahead before even cutting out pieces showed that a modification for two frame pieces would be better (considering what would have to go on later) even if the kit were to be built as provided (which I knew I wouldn't do). As mentioned before, Sergal (in the 70s) had "galleonized" the GH ... (that's term I coined as I love word-play in the English language ... including puns). So the process of 'galleonizing' would be 'galleonization'. Hmmmm, so the process I'm involved with now is 'reverse-gallionization'. Like was exclaimed in the movie 'The Mask' , "Somebody, STOP me !" So here (at last) is where my occasionally verbose review of the subject kit should end, as I've now 'cut some wood'. 'Look like I'll be doing some on this WHILE going back and forth trying to do more on the Vasa. But they are only about 100 years apart, and the masting/rigging will not be entirely dissimilar - actually relatively similar. The next step (when there's something to show) will be to start a build log - which I hadn't planned on doing for a while. But when the 'bug' bites ... BTW, Steve, I also did a few Hastings re-enactments a rowdy bunch of us would do annually on the hilly Chapel lawn of the University of Maryland. We also would do Stamford Bridge elsewhere as a prelude, as well as march in parades and hold feasts (the beer would flow).

Your work with this plane takes me back to building similar models as a youth, alongside my dad who built large RC planes. Nicely done.

'Love the detailed pictures that will help me with my 'somewhat larger' project at 1:78 ... You've done a SUPER job, and I marvel at the tiny figures you carved. I think I'll be able to get some pre-made figures at 1:72 scale that will fit in.

Ahoy Steve, 'I forgot to address the color & decoration scheme you inquired about. I'll have to give much weight to the Anthony roll, yet I want to depict the pre-1536 version ... actually as it might have looked being prepared (sans sail cloth or netting) prior the the 'Cloth of Gold' voyage. The diagonal design across seems to be diagonals of red and yellow separated by white. And there should be shields atop the castles like in the picture (as well as the 'wedding' picture depicting the same time) - and the heraldry used is likely accurate, and 4 principal designs are used in sequence (one can also see a 5th design in places). I'll want 3 full stern castle decks and will not have top gallants. Some good news - in that the vertical measure (keel to waterline, waterline to weather deck and the relationship of the lowest row of gun ports to the waterline) are all consistent and at the desired scale of about 1:78 (+/- 2) - so its only the overall length that is just about 4" long. This means that I can likely engineer a way to shorten just the stern area without affecting all the stuff forward of that. The exception is some MAJOR re-work of the fore castle geometry, which constitutes a 'module', so can work on that (and rework it) until I get something that looks right. The framing of the hull is like a 3D jigsaw puzzle, and I've not seen anything quite like it. There will have to be a LOT of thought to strategize how the build will go 'from the guts out', and I anticipate a number of months (on and off) fooling around with it as I still want to make foprward progress with the Vasa.

Rick, I've had a chance to look at the components more closely - and was wondering if the frames had been CNC nilled from stock, yet a mill doesn't make square corners milling from the face. More clues came when I found several thinner ply pieces still in 'matrix', and they were definitely die cut ! So my guess is that the major frames were also die cut - super nice with only slight teeny vertical striations where the blade(s) descended. So there was definitely dedicated tooling to make the limited run of kits - ergo fewer units to spread the development and tooling costs - ergo my initial estimate for retail of something comparable in quality in limited quality was low - and should be bumped-up to something like $1,200 today. So the revised estimate (unless someone can find catalog data from the 70s) of the original retail may have been in the $300 to $400 range - a hefty price for a kit even then. The plywood has three plies plus a face veneer on either side ... really nice stuff. I trial fit some pieces at the bow, and they are nice and snug with no 'wobble' - really precisely cut and a modeler would have a lot of trouble to scroll saw them so perfectly. Below is a dry fit of a few pieces - also one of the printed stock that I will have to cut out myself ... could be the tooling budget reached its limit. Now it appears that the fore castle is really different from the Anthony roll and other contemporary art. My first challenge will be to alter or re-fabricate that entire sub assembly before going any further.

Greetings, Steven ! Since this is the unbuilt kit review section, the build won't be posted on this thread. I wasn't planning on doing the Great Harry for some time, but my imagination is stoked a bit ... and at the very least I want to see how I can reduce the length a little to more accurately fit the proportions (waterline length - which is essentially 'between perpendiculars' to maximum beam) of 3.25 like on the Mary Rose. For that I'll have to dry fit the extensive framework provided to see where pieces can be sequentially removed from the keel pieces (its not a single piece anyway) to change the spacing between frames - and also there is the need to alter the shape of the frames to conform (more or less) to those of the MR. The kit ratio is 3.6:1, and it might be hard to change that much now that I'm looking at the 'honeycomb' design of how everything goes together. We'll see ... 'Seems there was an 'evolution in this ratio, where earlier Carracks were around 3:1, 3.25 for the MR & GH, 3.6 or more Galleons and up to 5 - 6 in the Clipper era. There are things modelers of early ships don't have to deal with like jackstays, studding sails, belaying pins, metal railing & such. I'm seeing sails as problematical, especially if set versus furled. Fore one thing, set sails tend to block the view of the hull and deck details depending on the point of view. Since a majority models traditionally were not fitted with sails - at the dock or in the harbor so to speak, there is a lot of running rigging that can be omitted - reducing the 'spaghetti ' of all those lines running everywhere (my taste, though) - especially with later ships. As an addendum to my kit review, I note that there appears to be a sort of building jig (if I'm not mistaken), but one must devise a suitable stand for the ship. The one in the wall poster is shown with acrylic pieces supporting the hull - definitely NOT included in the kit. Looking at the drawings (which are massive in size - a little too big for convenient handling), the notes are in Italian, so I'll have to get out my Google translator to see what they say. As mentioned earlier, the 'instruction' book is merely a gloss - and even in Italian, the notes on the drawing are brief. Ergo general experience will have to be relied upon, as well as current source books. There are several cloth flags (not pictures in the review) that are printed fabric. They seem OK. Some other quirks came to mind about the box contents, but since my RAM often dumps overnight I can't recall those observations. I've always been process-oriented and I focus on the problem at hand and how to solve or work around it with the materials and tools available. Later, I often can't recall how I did things ... like a few years after making a scratch-built 6" reflecting telescope, I wanted to do a larger one. So it was back to the books to refresh myself on the grinding, polishing and testing procedures (which are very fussy ). A couple years later I did another, and had to re-aquaint myself with the procedures. Everything 'came back' alright, but not without consulting notes and references. Thank the Lord that there are some things that automatically 'stick with' you once learned, like riding a bike or driving a car.