Snug Harbor Johnny

Thanks, Shipman ! More news - today the Monogram issue of the 1:120 CS (first made by Imai) arrived. A few Imai and Aoshima issues were also seen on Ebay, but I went for the Monogram because I figured there would be English instructions - versus the Japanese only one the other issues ... and my hunch proved correct ! Also it was the lowest price - about $125 plus $15 UPS from New Jersey to my small town well West of Philadelphia (by no means a suburb, as farms are nearby ... but 'civilization' is slowly creeping as we are on the road to Reading PA). 'Seems a little steep for a plastic kit, (as much or more than one can come by a Revell 1:96 CS or Thermie) but ... my opinion (as expanded below) is that it it worthwhile. With anticipation I examined the box with the original cellophane wrapping almost completely intact - the seller did picture a small slit on one side of the plastic, but it did not go to the corners - so the contents were as manufactured and sold. The cellophane was removed and the box opened, and I had to do a few double takes at the contents - some sprues were in their own thin but sealed plastic bags, and some not. At last I figured it out by both counting masts and yards PLUS looking through the instruction booklet. BTW - the instructions are mostly line drawings with cursory text, and there is almost no advice on rigging. So if someone gets a version with Japanese text, they are not missing much - its easy to see whats going on from the pictures and the Japanese use arabic numerals anyway. The woody Joe Khufu barge kit I built had a LOT more text and other stuff, so I got a Google translate Ap for my 'somewhat smart' Tracphone used only occasionally - and I could translate almost all of the Japanese into English. In light of the above, Noel Hackney's book on building the Airfix CS will be VERY useful for building this (or any reasonably sized CS kit). Noel did a fantastic job explaining certain details on modifying the kit before diving into construction, and this 1:120 kits can use many of them. Of course, one has to do a bit of cross referencing to get through the book - but in the process I've learned a great deal. I note that in terms of hull length, this 1:120 kit is halfway between the 1:168 Airfix and the 1:96 Revell. The Monogram kit has about a 22" hull not counting all of the keel projecting forward of the hull. The quality of the tooling and molding is excellent. I note that the deck has negative space between the planks instead of positive caulking as some other kits have (no joggling, though). The masts and spars have some springiness to them - but not too much. That means that they are not too rigid either, so should not be subject to stress breakage. Counting SIX masts threw me at first ... yes - 2 fore, 2 main and 2 mizzen masts (the three mast sections of each are molded together as a unit). Some of the yards had studding sail booms extended, and some did not. Then I saw the model built EITHER way in the instruction booklet - one version with extended booms and one where they are retracted. So I counted ALL the yards and realized that one sprue has the three masts PLUS seven yards with extended booms - and this sprue was not in a plastic bag. Other bagged sprues have the masts and all the spars with retracted booms (plus the yards with no booms that are common to both versions) ! The kit is molded in 4 colors (like the 1:150 Academy CS ... but THAT kit only has extended booms - which forces one to either have it in full sail with studding sails, or having to cut-off and remount the booms inboard on the yards). 'Haven't looked on all sprues, but one said "Made in Japan". Yet the booklet stares in BOLD type, "Plastic parts in this kit are molded in the United States from IMAI molds without any modifications". The deadeyes/ratlines are molded, but doing them properly with actual deadeyes and thread seems doable at 1:120 scale. The beads proposed for a possible build at 1:168 (oversized for the small scale, and I've given up on it anyway) are pretty close at 1:120. Thin molded plastic sails are in the kit (typical for several kits) - I'd never use them, but they could be forms for much thinner material treated with thinned water-based glue. For 'harbor rig', they aren't needed at all. A couple parts were off their sprue from whatever handling occurred in at least 40 years of existence - and this is not uncommon for plastic kits in general. A couple railing stanchions were not fully 'filled out', and one was broken off but in the box. One of the topgallant mast molded ratlines is a bit deformed, but bendable and likely re-formable ... that is, if one wanted to use the provided molded ratlines. No blocks were ever molded, but I saw one report of an early Imai kit that had some blocks bagged inside the kit. My guess is that they may have thrown some plastic blocks in the first release, but economized soon thereafter ... and they were probably out-of-scale. What I'll have to do is take pictures and put a "kit review" together in the kit review section of the forum. It would likely apply to any version of this kit, since the same molds were used by all. I note that there are reports that late-issue Aoshima kits have more flexible yards due to softer plastic ... just saying. Fair sailing ! Johnny

You've cracked the case. Per Occam's Razor, most often the simplest explanation is the right one.

Ahoy Shipman and 72Nova ... The text from a much larger history of Airfix was 'quoted' as a 'review' (I didn't write any of it myself, and wanted to respect the originator by only reproducing a small portion in our forum in the spirit of 'fair use' - for informational purposes only), and a specific sub-list of 'large' Airfix ships (per our scope of interest) was also pasted 'as is' - warts and all. This info was found by repeated 'googling' (e.g. Airfix collectors, Airfix model shows, etc.) until stumbled upon - in that there seem to be Airfix collectors, and an EXTENSIVE list of every model ever produced by that manufacturer can be thus viewed by the public. You are quite right (my oversight) that Hackney specifies the issue scale of the CS as 1:168, and certainly the original effort at details such as 'pierced' fretwork at the bow, sub-miniature molding of CS scroll work at the bow (and a 3-piece sections inserted in the stern with 3D scrollwork, so no decals were needed), deadeye groups for the pin rail that have chainplate going through the rail and down at an angle to the water way - as well as separate mast segments, tops, caps & cross trees for assembly (permitting shroud loops at the option of the builder as the masts and yards are built in the order that a real ship was built per Hackney's book) was a masterful work of mold-making 'back in the day'. The state of my eyes and less-than-nimble fingers made dealing with the shortcomings of the 'Vintage Classics' version overly daunting. I imagined that bonding spring wire to the tops of the yards (after replacing the top and topgallant mast sections with relatively firm wood) would limit selection of the yards - and would be completely disguised by having a little folded material grommeted on top of the yard to represent furled sails. Once I've learned more (and other obtain an original issue kit or get a good buy on a PAIR of latter-day kits - to assure the likelihood of 'one good kit' in terms of non-deformed, fully-molded components) I might be tempted to try it someday ... I've no idea what the codes on the right hand side represent, and presumed them to be meaningful only to diehard kit collectors. As a former train collector (Marx 3/16 'scale' freight cars that ride on O-gauge track), I realize just how far 'into the weeds' as collector of anything can go. If it exists, there seem to be collectors of it. I sold-off my train stuff a while back - as well as a bunch of astronomy gear and also U.S. Civil War small arms used for live-fire in the N-SSA (North-South Skirmish Association) ... can't hang onto everything. Airfix seems to have dabbled in a bunch of different "actual" scales (moldmakers' whims ?), as opposed to doing them all in, say, 1:144. I see the 'ladder' now with how English (and American) scales bear a relationship - twice 1:24 and you have 1:48. Twice that and you have 1:96. Add 24 more and you have 1:120. 24 more and you have 1:144. So 1:120 would (sizewise, as volume is a different calculation) would be right between a 1:96 CS and a 1:144 version (if that existed). Well, for the hell of of it, I found a 1:120 Monogram CS on Ebay (U.S. 'branding', so maybe there will be English instructions versus the Japanese found with Imai or Aoshima releases of the same components). The flat black beads for blocks will be just about right in that scale. We'll see ... Fair sailing, mates ! Johnny

'Did some digging into Airfix history, and there are collectors of kits. Yup, just the unbuilt kits - and they go by the box numbers of the release. That goes for all sorts of kits - but we're interested in ships on this forum. An excerpt from a history indicates that many molds had to be remade at a certain point in the many sales of the Airfoil name: By 1981, Airfix had released over 800 models ranging from aircraft to dinosaurs and claimed to have, “The Largest Range of Construction Kits in the World”! In January 1981, however, the Airfix Company called in the Receiver largely caused by problems at its Meccano subsidiary and most of the toy divisions were closed for good. The kit division along with Airfix Model Railways (GMR) and, ironically, Meccano and Dinky were purchased by General Mills a U.S. company, and placed under its U.K. subsidiary, Palitoy. Production of Airfix products was transferred to General Mills’ Miro-Meccano factory in Calais. It was owned by General Mills under the Palitoy label until 1985 when General Mills closed its U.K. operation when it withdrew from the European toy market and was put up for sale again. It was then purchased by Humbrol, the model paint manufacturer in 1986. Humbrol was based at Marfleet in Hull but production was transferred to the Heller factory in Trun, France, because Humbrol had recently purchased Heller. In 2006, Humbrol got into difficulties, when the Heller subsidiary, which had been bought out by its management, closed and Humbrol was unable to access its Airfix moulds. Humbrol and Airfix were purchased by the present owner, Hornby Hobbies Ltd, based then in Margate, Kent. Since then there has been a renaissance at Airfix with new tools being produced at a rate not seen since the 1950s-1970s with kits like the magnificent 1:24 Mosquito being modelled, and in 2014 we had an incredibly detailed 1:24 kit of the Hawker Typhoon being moulded. Many ‘tired’ old kits, like the Defiant, have recently been replaced by new ‘state of the art’ models and many new subjects added to the range, such as the Whitley and Shackleton. Recently, Hornby sold the Margate site and moved to a new Headquarters at Sandwich, Kent, with stock being held at Hersden near Canterbury. Most production is carried out in India, but some models, including the Quick Build range are moulded in the U.K. Financial difficulties experienced by Hornby following the move resulted in a culling of the kit range. However, in May 2018, Airfix announced it is to bring back many of the older pre-Hornby models in a new range entitled “Vintage Classics”. The models will appear in the new Type 17 box top and will bear their old box illustrations with the year of original release being shown on the box, ensuring that modellers realise that it a ‘legacy’ kit. The company moved back into its old Margate site in early 2019, alongside the Hornby Visitor Centre which had remained there. The original CS nominal (1:130) of 1967 had a box number 09253-903, and the Wasa of 1972 (1:144 - likely the actual scale of their CS as well) was kit# 09256-906 per the pasted section of the relevant kit list of Airfix sailing ships characterized as "large". If one wishes to hunt down any of the 'good' original issues, perhaps finding out where there might by a collectors' show of Airfix or similar items might be of some uses. Lots of luck.

You are Soooo right on the poor plastic (pale tan) used on the so-called Airfix "Vintage Classic" 1:145-150 (claimed to be 1:130 on the box) Cutty Sark. The thin upper mast sections and the yards ben almost like rubber ! 'Can't see how they an be rigged without deformation. And I suspect that not all the molds are the original ones as well. Hackney's modification of the tops to make lubber holes and fairleads do not agree with the pieces in the example I acquired to 'see for myself' just 'what's in the box' being sold today. The spindly top and topgallant masts are WAY smaller than the holes in the caps, making assembly problematic unless one fabricates time replacement caps - as well as make wood or metal upper mast sections to both fit properly AND avoid the deflection problem. The yards have to be re-made as well due to the bendy nature. And a fair number of parts are deformed or not fully molded, with flash present as well in many areas - so the mold was run 'hot' and some of the sprues were therefore soft upon ejection and subject to deformation. Also, photos of the model in the Hackney book show the fore and aft guardrails - that are not in the latter-day reissue. If one can find a genuine 'original issue' kit in much better black plastic, I suppose it might be worth building, but I simply 'binned' the above described re-issue as not being worth the time and effort to correct all the deficiencies.

'Just gave up on the "Vintage Classic" edition of the Airfix Cutty Sark 'nominally' 1:130 BUT the true scale is about 1:150 ... somewhere between 1:145 and 1:150 depending on how one figures it. First off - the plastic used is lousy and bends terribly. Just trying to get the foremast components together proved that the parts are just not made right. The topmast and topgallant mast sections are way smaller than the holes in the caps, trestle and top - just no way to get any semblance of fit without remaking all the parts above the first mast section from scratch. In frustration, it went out with the trash. Many parts had flash, or were not filled and also misshapen by poor handling after molding OR the mold rate was too fast so the parts were too hot coming out. Way too many problems, so it makes me wonder if the latter day production was even made from the same molds ... In short, I consider it unbuildable without investing WAY too much time for a difficult scale to do with finesse - and not even suitable for a young builder. 'Makes me wonder how half the stuff in the Hackney book could even have been done on an 'original' Airfix English-made example. Yet I note that the same book can be a GREAT learning tool for the Revell 1:96 models (or many other clippers) as far as rigging goes. This makes the second kit I've binned at 1:150 scale - the first being the Academy CS, supposedly a 'shrunk down' version of the Imai/Monogram/ Aoshima (all versions from the same molds) 1:120 CS, which is well-regarded by those who parted with the $130 - $160 (US) for what is considered to be a 'rare' kit (which it is). The Academy 1:150 is molded in 4 colors and is at least buildable, and might be suitable for a youngster wanting to give ship modeling a try. I note that all the studding sail booms were molded fully extended (just as with the 1:120 version), a very limiting choice on the part of the designers - and most builders cut them for moving to the retracted position (or discard for depicting her in the 'wool trade' years when the studding booms would have been stored below. 'Don't know how you've managed, mate, with the Great Harry at 1:200. My hat's off on what you've done ... perhaps enough to attain Jedi mastery of the miniature !

Since its too late to have a filler block in that 'deadly' gap between the fist frame and the keel (you have too many first planks in place to go back), there is another approach you might try. It involves pushing so-called wood putty down into the void and pack it in good with a dowel so that the putty completely fills the void and even 'bloops' or oozes out of the gaps in the planking. You can also use a common product found in hardware stores known as 'plastic wood'. To help limit the amount of oozing, you cam apply blue 'painters tape' to the exterior to hold back the product bing packed inside. Then allow plenty of time for a hard cure. Removing the painters tape part way during the cure (the outside hardens first) will allow you to scrape away some excess on the outside. Since there is some gapping in the planks between the first and second bulkhead, you might fill that void too. Once cured, you can continue planking. Then when sanding down to fair the hull prior to the second planking - done with thinner wood that will conform more easily to the hull shape - even if you sand completely through one or more planks in places, there will be a substrate in place and not a void. Just a thought.

I have the Billing 1:25 kit in stash, which has some very good aspects to it. Yet Pavel's version (also 1:25) has some really good aspects: like MUCH better shields - I love the little shield bosses that come in the kit, and making/decorating each shield is like its own 'little kit' within a kit. The same is true for the sea chests used as seats to down on. Seriously, the rowers didn't sit with their butts on the deck. The woods Pavel uses are nice, whereas the Billing kit is all plywood (I've considered bonding walnut veneer to the sides that will show). Pavel also has a flatter deck amidships in the vicinity of the mast fish. Having served aboard a reproduction Knarr a few times over 3 years (building a 12' Viking dinghy in the process), having a big bulge in the deck amidships would be very inconvenient - not just for movement fore and aft, but also for rowing. I believe the deformation of the original grave ship due to settling under tons of earth exaggerated any 'bulge' (there may have been some close to the 'fish'). If money is no object, one can buy BOTH kits and incorporate the best aspects of each into a fine project indeed ! On a similar note, I came upon a Lindbergh plastic Robert E. Lee kit recently at a rock shop (of all places - must have been in a relative's stash) and snapped it up to compare with the Scientific wooden kit of the same riverboat that I already have. Son of a gun, both hulls turn out to be EACTLY the same length and width, ergo the models (despite some discussion elsewhere as to exactly WHAT that 'real' scale of either kit is) are the same scale. There are positive aspects to BOTH kits, and since each was affordable at $60 each, the plan is to eventually combine both (perhaps with the aftermarket laser cut wood decking available for the Lindbergh -also sold under the PYRO brand) and get the best of both worlds by using whatever individual component is best.

Hmmmmm ... let's see, 0.25mm x 100 (I use 100 instead of 96 for scaling, since the math is easier and it seems 'close enough') = 25mm in diameter - which is about an inch. That seems fair for most lighter ropes. Now 2.0mm x 100 = 200mm - which is about 8" ! I didn't think that there would be 8" diameter ropes even used for shrouds or forestays - but correct me if I'm wrong. Then again, many (including myself) may tend to use 'slightly' out-of-scale ropes, blocks and deadeyes since that makes things easier to work with. So representing 6" diameter rope with 2.0mm cordage (whether purchased or home-made on a 'Rope Rocket' or other rope spinner) should be OK. A small 6" block (e.g. bunt blocks) "in scale" at 1:96 would be a mere 1.5mm - (devilish to try and make, much less work with). The smallest blocks I've been able to purchase are 2.0mm (From HIS Model), and they are still quite small. I wouldn't blame anyone for going with 2.5mm blocks as the smallest. Thus 0.25mm thread (one can't 'spin' 3-strand rope that small) need not be sought, when 0.5mm can do just fine. The above is why attempting a clipper in smaller scales gets more difficult, and the degree of over-sizing some of the components becomes greater due to necessity. The Sergal 1:124 Thermopylae being an example - yet photos of completed ones lend a 'cuteness' to the model when held in one hand. Now the 1:150 versions of the Cutty Sark (plastic kits by Airfix or Academy) - now there's a challenge! My thoughts there are to attempt to follow the Hackney book (just to see if it CAN be done), but use flat-black beads for blocks and deadeyes. If I fall on my face, there will be no attempt to post anything, but I likely can learn some lessons useful on larger scale modeling. I was able to find a few flat black beads at Hobby Lobby in '6/0', 8/0 and 11/0 - corresponding to 4.0mm, 3.0mm and 1.6mm respectively. That would be 24" large deadeyes or hearts at 1:150 scale (about 240% of ideal, but no 7/0 beads are available), 11" small deadeyes (180% in that application) or large pulleys (only 110% for triple blocks or 140% for doubles) and 9" small blocks (about 150%). Such are the difficulties of small scale, but finding flat black beads (instead of the usual shiny ones) will not draw attention to them - and they'd be fine at around 1:125 scale.

'Love this SO much. Its amazing to see what can be done with card !

I wanted to do a test with a piece of paper in roughly the proportion of a clipper's upper top sail bent (taped) to a piece of brass tubing representing a yard. Yes, the clew lines pulls the corners of the sail up the back side - as the buntlines pull the lower edge of the sail up the front. In real life, a canvas sail is REALLY thin in proportion to the yards and overall clipper dimensions - so my paper test was still well 'out of scale', but suitable for an Origami test to see if a sail can be folded so the clews hang below a furled sail as 'mouse ears' (or dog ears). There are photos of this test in Bruma's CS log on page 8 - so no need to re-post those pictures here. The concept is that sailors were standing on the foot ropes behind the yard (the bunt blocks flipped to the back of the yard as Rob noted) and after the above mentioned raising of the lower edge both behind and in front of the yard, there will be natural 'fold lines' that the canvas finds. The crew in unison bend over the yard to grab the front of the sail an arms length below the mast, then pull it up and just over the top of the yard (as they lean back - both hand have a purchase on the sail, so there is little danger of falling). Then they lean forward to 'pinch' that fold of sail to the yard with their bodies, so they can lean forward again to grab another bunch. Photos of clippers with furled sails atop the yards show how compact real sails become. Canvas that is 1/32" thick (about .030) would only be .0003" (three ten-thousandth of an inch !) at 1:100 scale (which I use for 1:96 since the math is easier and it's 'close enough'). My sheet of paper was .005" - 16 times thicker than it were 'in scale' ! Anyway, I finally ended up with a compact folded 'sail' atop the yard - so to reduce the 'bunching', I cut out a piece (shown in the series of photos) and re-folded on the pre-existing fold lines, added grommeting rope, and - shazaam - I got exactly the look ... realizing that there are several ways this can look as different pictures of furled sails do show variation in application. I wanted to do a test with a piece of paper in roughly the proportion of a clipper's upper top sail bent (taped) to a piece of brass tubing representing a yard. Yes, the clew lines pulls the corners of the sail up the back side - as the buntlines pull the lower edge of the sail up the front. In real life, a canvas sail is REALLY thin in proportion to the yards and overall clipper dimensions - so my paper test was still well 'out of scale', but suitable for an Origami test to see if a sail can be folded so the clews hang below a furled sail as 'mouse ears' (or dog ears). There are photos of this test in Bruma's CS log on page 8 - so no need to re-post those pictures here. The concept is that sailors were standing on the foot ropes behind the yard (the bunt blocks flipped to the back of the yard as Rob noted) and after the above mentioned raising of the lower edge both behind and in front of the yard, there will be natural 'fold lines' that the canvas finds. The crew in unison bend over the yard to grab the front of the sail an arms length below the mast, then pull it up and just over the top of the yard (as they lean back - both hands have a purchase on the sail, so there is little danger of falling). Then they lean forward to 'pinch' that fold of sail to the yard with their bodies, so they can reach down again to grab another bunch (single thickness of canvas - not both). Photos of clippers with furled sails atop the yards show how compact real sails become. Canvas that is 1/32" thick (about .030) would only be .0003" (three ten-thousandth of an inch !) at 1:100 scale (which I use for 1:96 since the math is easier and it's 'close enough'). My sheet of paper was .005" - 16 times thicker than it were 'in scale' ! Anyway, I finally ended up with a compact folded 'sail' atop the yard - so to reduce the 'bunching', I cut out a piece (shown in the series of photos) and re-folded on the pre-existing fold lines, added grommeting rope, and - shazaam - I got exactly the look ... realizing that there are several ways this can look as different pictures of furled sails do show variation in application. The last photo in the series is shown below: Once grommets have been removed (and the clew lines un-belayed), crew on deck give a tug on the sheets and the sail will practically set itself as it 'falls off the yard' and unfolds by aid of gravity. As I always say, "Work smarter, not harder."

In nearby Wilmington Delaware, there is a full sized reconstruction of the Kalmar Nyckel (trans: Key to Kalmar). I was present for the cermonial laying of the keel, re-enacting the role of a soldier with a matchlock musket (there's a picture of me in that garb somewhere). Below are pictures of her stern decoration, under sail and at dock. At dock, I note that the topsails are furled in period manner with the central part of the sail 'bunched' around the mast.

A wooden filler block of basswood (or even balsa) in the space between the last frame (bulkhead) and the keel astern that is faired would go a long way to preventing an 'acute' angle the plank wants to make over the last frame when there is nothing else to support it over the last gap where the curve is considerable. Some go so far as to put filler blocks in all the gaps - but having them in the last couple of gaps fore and aft can be sufficient. Wetting and heating the plank more in that area (plus a little 'pre bending') will make it behave better when applying to the hull. You are not so far along that you can't put in end blocks, even if it means taking off a plank or two before proceeding.

Injection molds for all sorts of plastic products have 'ejector pins' that push the entire item out of a mold half with sprues still attached. Many times one can see various sized circular evidence on the plastic where these were located. I wonder if at those points on some yards there was an ejector pin. I used to work in a factory where plastic hard hats, bump caps and welding helmets (among other plastic parts) were made. The molds can rather complex and the entire injection molder is a sophisticated device. The molds have to absorb the heat from molten plastic, and generally have a coolant running through them under pressure that is refrigerated by a 'chiller' and recirculated. When ejected from the mold, the plastic can still be warm - and if the production rate is set too fast, deformation can occur after the product has been removed if not carefully handled. This can be seen in some components of plastic models. BTW, if you search 'Cutty Sark by Bruma' on our site, you can see a build of the 1:96 kit that is not too long - and not too far into the build there are very good photos of how he re-did the martingale in metal and did the chain rigging. The model (due to the way the mold was made) has a pair of rings for the chains facing sideways at the bottom (along the mold parting line), which can be satisfactorily used as-is. Note that the martingale and the whiskers projecting from the catheads are easily subject to breakage. Actually, dropping any model can ruin your day. Bruma showed how to reinforce the bowsprit when assembling.

Rob didn't use styrene for the jackstay, but a straight piece of wire laid across the small vertical projections - glued with a small dab of gel CA (applied with a pin ?) so it would cure (relatively fast compared to plastic glue) and resemble a real jackstay support once painted. He started at one end, and progressed going out from there. BTW, I rather think that there should be a vertical support in the "gap" you depicted.

A few posts up I mentioned making chainmail back in the day (while in College, between classes) - and I finally found an old picture of me wearing it prior to a mock Battle of Hastings re-enactment (the 'vest' of mail had not yet been fitted with sleeves, and would also be lengthened - and a fine mail coif was later fashioned - all eventually sold). That time I portrayed a Saxon archer with long bow (there were some at the battle). My arrows were blunt and padded, and only fired (after notice of a volley was given) when the Normans raised their shields. The melee weapons were a plywood axe and a strap iron short sword with wooden handle & cross guard. The helmet frame was bent aluminum, still awaiting metal quadrants to be formed and riveted in place. Saxons lost ... as usual, but I did not flee the field so died a brave 'death'. That evening, the victors and the raised dead all feasted in a Church hall - eating roast meat and lentils served on bread 'trenchers' and home-brewed 'short mead' quaffed from cow horns or grails ... a beer-like fermented concoction of honey, water plus wine yeast allowed to work a few days in a plastic garbage can. Like in Valhalla, songs were sung and tales were told, and there was some fine wenching as I recall.

G'Day, mate ! Thought you might know about the famous (infamous?) Aussie referred to in the picture below.

I love the scale of your deck planking !

Here's a crowded and confusing view inside a German WWI U-boat ... what an array of valves and stuff !

'Gosh - I forgot about how I used to make rings for chain mail ... That was to wrap coat hanger wire around a 1'2" rod to make a coil, then cut off links with aviation snips. Yeah, the ends weren't flush - but a couple passes with a file would smooth things. Now TINY rings are another matter, but using small 'flush cutters' on brass wire would leave one side nearly flat. But if the best flatness is desired, the sawing method sounds like a plan. There are fine saws for cutting 'tubular' (or other) metal model train tracks that are rigidly backed.

Aside from split rings for jewelry/beadwork sold in craft stores such as Hobby Lobby or JoAnns - there are also specialty stores FOR these crafts. Still, there are limits as how small JUST split rings are made. BUT, there are VERY fine chains sold that are made up of ... rings that can be disassembled (as they are split). So find chain having circular links the size you want, and use 2 very fine needle nosed pliers to separate the links. You'll likely nee a head held magnifier and steady hands - but then those are needed for a lot of the work we do.

Before using a center punch on any piece of metal, a 'prick punch' is lightly tapped to get a very small dink where layout marks or scratched indicate. A prick punch looks much like a center punch, except that the angle of the tip is much more 'pointy' than the angle of a center punch - which corresponds to the standard angle for drill flutes. The end of a piece of drill rod (or a shank broken off a drill) can be ground (dipping the end frequently in water to avoid losing the hardness) to a sharp point, then it would be a miniature prick punch that might be safe to use on the item in the photograph. If the concern is that the fragility of your work piece won't hold up against any sort of impact, you might slip the brass ring off the yard and support the ring with a brass rod that just fits through the ring. Then a prick punch would be safer - and a 0.6mm drill will 'bite' without needing further punching. If ring removal is inconvenient, then a thicker (relatively) metal collar that has already been crossed drilled and just fits over the brass ring you want to drill through will act as a 'drill bushing' to guide the drill - no punching is needed in that case. For multiple sizes of brass rings, multiple bushings would have to be made.

Alas, no. But my brother said I could have it back the next time I travel to visit ... and he'd also have to find which box he packed it away in - what with two estates (my parents - but not at the same time) he was the executor for.

I've always learned from mistakes and also by observing others. I used to watch my dad build RC aircraft the old 'stick built' way - and after a while he built me a small work bench to try and put what I observed to use on a rubber powered plane. 'Seems whether wooden airplane or boat, learning to cut with either X-Acto or saw is essential - as is pinning, gluing and using files or sandpaper. Finishes/painting is yet another area to experiment with. Learning how much one can bend various thicknesses of different woods without breaking comes in handy - as well as effective use of soaking. But that knack wasn't acquired until I broke a few pieces, or over-soaked wood for wet bending. And 'thinking through' how something has to go together can allow one to get by with less reliance on instruction sheets. Only by doing things in note the best order imparted the insight of how to do better next time. As mistakes were made, I learned likely remedial actions/reworking as needed. The results were not always 'pretty', but the journey of learning was engaging. So I'd say that for most anyone past their teens, one 'middle sized' intermediate ship kit can be enough to tackle something big - perhaps even a 'dream ship' ... for that journey will likely take a couple-three years or so (depending on life's demands). I remember one day when I was servicing my Schwinn bicycle - you know, the old-school 'one speed' kind (three-speed on the handlebar was for girls). I'd taken the rear wheel off to free the chain for cleaning and re-oiling, then I had to replace the wheel and tighten the nut onto the central bolt. But how 'tight' is tight supposed to be? I kept tightening, noting how much force it took ... then tightening some more ... then it was much harder to get it any tighter until ... it suddenly got looser! What just happened, I thought, as I took the nut right off in my hand. The threads inside the nut were 'stripped', as the manufacturer wisely designed the shaft's external threads to be harder than that of standard nuts for 3/8 UNC. That way, the NUT would be the thing to fail - which is much easier to replace than the wheel axil bolt. EPIPHANY, it truly was, so I went through my dad's jar of spare nuts and bolts to find one that would suit. Then I tightened the replacement - remembering the force it took to get the nut tight, but NOT so much as to strip the replacement. From that happy afternoon, I was 'calibrated' as to just how much to tighten common sized fasteners without stripping the threads ... and since then it hasn't happened again. That's how one learns, and not letting failure dampen enthusiasm - but rather letting it point to wiser ways going forward.

Steven, I did one ship in a bottle some years ago. Perhaps once is enough. One of my brothers currently has the bottle.