Snug Harbor Johnny

I've been thinking about a clipper for a long time, but first wanted to try and educate myself about nautical terms and all the building practices that can be found on MSW if one looks around a bit and watches the builds in progress. Now complex rigging seem a bit daunting - not just learning about the ropes, what they do and the blocks involved, but the care and skill needed to accomplish (and difficulty is influenced by the scale chosen) with eyes and eye-hand coordination that is not as good as it used to be. And it seems that rigging a model is easily half the work of the entire project. From a learning standpoint, I love the Forum for the wealth of information available (if one looks) and indeed have made some progress useful in multiple time periods. Given that ships had to address practical aspects of sea navigation and ever changing weather conditions, there is a logic and purpose to everything as the art evolved. Halyards, lifts, braces, bunt and leech lines, reef tackle out-haul, in-haul, etc. all start to make sense when one imagines actually working the ropes on a real ship. I have also acquired some useful books mentioned here and there on the Forum. My decision on the Vasa (Wasa on the suspended log) is to get it to a point representing construction where the first mast sections are in place with shrouds/ratlines, and try to get the decorations acceptable (even with short cuts & simplifications) however I'm able to do it. The original ship in Stockholm has only the first mast sections. The first edition (ca. 1970) Billings kit got a lot wrong, and many corrections have been cobbled to date on my project. All the decoration at 1:100 must be scratch - another challenge. Its been an on&off thing for a long time. The clipper I've thought about is the Thermopylae, and I was able to come by a complete Revell kit for $60 (an early version from the crispness of the parts and the age of the crumbling box) ... yet we all know the shortcomings due to cloning the CS kit by the manufacturer - as well as fragility/springyness of the masts, spars, whiskers and martingale. Soooo, there would have to be some bashing to get close enough to what is seen on the Hume model of the big T. That will negate some of the advantage in not having to build a hull from scratch via commonly used means - yet I won't have to worry about manually applying metal plates or copper tape. Studying the CS build by Bruma, ands also several builds by Rob R. (not just the Glory of the Seas) show a lot of useful improvements that can be done, including using wood for sturdier masting/sparring. Popeye the Saillor's build of the Sergal Thermie showed the challenges of working in too small a scale - as well as challenges with that particular kit. One must also deal with sheer model size if a large ship is done at 1:72. At present I have a final big winter task of installing hardwood flooring in our family room (the LR & DR already done before Christmas). After that what I'll probably do is work on BOTH the Wasa and the Thermopylae concurrently - each on a different build table in what the Admiral considers my 'man cave', that is partitioned off on one side of the basement (since a pal will occasionally visit, its more like a bud hole). Whatever I want to work on (time permitting as there are always seasonal chores and per-diem work at a hospital as a Pharmacy Tech), whether in wood or plastic with wood enhancements, I'll just hack-away with. I have the H.I.S. Model Thermie laser-imprinted decking (to cover the annoying deck joins of the plastic parts that will become a false-deck - as well as not having to imitate wood with paint ... a PITA), a set of wooden blocks/deadeyes plus resources from parts-kits that will never be built - so maybe I can do a fair job of it as a first go. Rob's technique of having furled sails atop the yards will eliminate the need to bother with jackstays - although doing a few for yards w/o a furled sail may be a sleight-of-hand that suggests the same details are on the covered yards. Whatever works. Fair sailing ! Johny

Once again, these are extremely helpful photos.

Ahoy, George ... a VERY nice build you have there. I'm noting all kinds of details to learn about before starting a clipper build, and the mizzen forward advice seems practical.

Funny thing about photos ... it seems there's no shortage of people who like to slap a "copyright" on anything they can get their hands on - whether or not others have done so for the same old photo ! The idea is, their own copy (or print) - say, of an old postcard from early in the 20th century - has 'unique identifiers' such as postmarks, notes, folds, tears, spots, foxing ... whatever. And they want to claim exclusive 'rights' to the image that happens to be in their possession. Once an item is in the public domain, its there permanently. Old books containing illustrations (we're talking over 76 years) have become public domain under laws then in effect. Now the revised laws effectively allow stuff published or in print since the revision to get (effectively) permanent protection from commercial use due to the intricacies of the legislation - designed to permanently protect, say, Disney material - which are also registered trademarks. But the old postcards mentioned above weren't issued with copyrights at all, since they were sold as ephemera (often printed abroad) - ergo became public domain from the time they were sold. Of course, these days someone can take any old picture and apply "filters" and effects to make whatever changes they want and then copyright it as new. Its all very confusing. However, anything one can see on screen over the internet can be 'captured' (various operating systems have various names for duplicating the pixels within a 'box' you drag over the screen - such as 'grab it') for personal use under 'fair use'. And a forum such as ours can equally fall under the fair-use allowance, since we're not charging, branding or making claims other than 'hey, I saw this on the internet'. Speaking of something I saw on the internet, I'm posting a juxtaposition of photos below. Using screen shots is better than relying on 'links' that can later go haywire.

If all else fails, buy some more mini-files. I think it was Gertrude Stein who said, "The easiest way to change a typewriter ribbon is to buy a new typewriter."

Buccaneer = expensive corn?

How about this 'build' (incomplete, as many of ours are ...)

National Geographic's "History" magazine just came out, and includes an interesting article on Greek triremes.

'Guess "links" sometimes go off into Neverland. A safe way to post an image is to take a 'screen shot' of it (a form of WISIWIG that merely duplicates pixels), then drag the image onto a post.

A popular degreaser until about 20 years ago was 1,1,1 trichloroethylene (aka 'Tri-chlor'), and there were open bins of it all around one factory I used to work for. You could buy it in cans at the local hardware store as well. Due to various toxicities (as well as VOC concerns), it has been replaced with something else. (For how long?) Also, I remember lead (or tin-lead) tinsel for Christmas Trees. We'd all play with the stuff, but never ate any.

'Brings to mind an old yarn ... There once was a man from Nantucket, Who kept all of his cash in a bucket, But his daughter, named Nan, Ran away with a man, And as for the bucket, Nan tuck it. Then he followed the pair to Pawtucket, The guy and the girl with the bucket, And he said to the man, He was welcome to Nan, But as for the bucket, Paw tuck it. "Nantucket" - It rhymes in our head, With something that shouldn't be said, Around mothers and Vicars, And those with weak tickers, (Unless you've invaded their bed !) 😉 What arrrrrrr ya doing?

'Just saw a post of a Norske Love build that has the 'transitional' tuck we've been pondering. Picture below:

The pictures in the previous posts seem to have 'vanished', but i just found something of interest to throw in ... By early 1942, it was determined that Oklahoma could be salvaged and that she was a navigational hazard, having rolled into the harbor's navigational channel. Preparations for righting the overturned hull took under eight months to complete. Air was pumped into interior chambers and improvised airlocks built into the ship, forcing 20,000 tonnes (19,684 long tons; 22,046 short tons) of water out of the ship through the torpedo holes. Twenty-one derricks were attached to the upturned hull; each carried high-tensile steel cables that were connected to hydraulic winching machines ashore. On 28 December, Oklahoma was towed into drydock No. 2, at the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard. Once in the dock, her main guns, machinery, remaining ammunition, and stores were removed. The severest structural damage on the hull was also repaired to make the ship watertight. US Navy deemed her too old and too heavily damaged to be returned to service. Disaster struck on 17 May, when the ships entered a storm more than 500 miles (800 km) from Hawaii. The tug Hercules put her searchlight on the former battleship, revealing that she had begun listing heavily. had begun to sink straight down, causing water to swamp the sterns of both tugs. As the battleship sank rapidly, the line from Monarch quickly played out, releasing the tug. However, Hercules' cables did not release until the last possible moment, leaving her tossing and pitching above the grave of the sunken Oklahoma. The battleship's exact location is unknown.

True enough, Steven ... I forgot how SHORT some of those doublets got ... plenty of ventilation for the (uh) 'bits', and the historic precedence for the micro-skirt. Now your model of Henry VIII's flagship fits right into the 'padded codpiece' era - and Henry liked to boast of his prowess.

Thats German for 'excellent' .

After poking around I found two images (one above the other) that appear to show that wooden framing was 'skinned' in steel (by the looks of the rusting patterns) ... perhaps this is why the Billings kit has a plastic hull - after all, the metal was painted and there would be no plank or grain marks. There seem to be slight bumps where fasteners of some type attach the metal skin to the internal ribs. Check out the available build on MSW, and builders seem to use the material provided (with all sorts of enhancements for equipment on deck, etc.).

Ausgescheishnett

Don't for get the codpiece ! 😉

There was a brand with red tinted glass called 'Red Head' extinguishers - and one old factory I worked for had a few upstairs.

Note how the tie is tucked between the second and third buttons to keep the lower part out of the way when working. Now when I started as an industrial/manufacturing engineer, the factory supervisor said that only 'clip on' ties were permitted on the shop floor ... due to the potential hazard that a loose end could get caught in a machine and cause a serious or fatal accident. A clip-on could get yanked away without taking the wearer's head with it. Still, even with a clip-on, the ends had to be tucked between the second and third button OR held close with a horizontal tie bar. However, removing the tie when going to the production floor was tolerated - if the tie was worn once coming back to the office. We also had to wear safety shoes (having steel inside the toe area), and our glasses had to be safety rated. Those not wearing glasses had to don nonprescription safety glasses provided by the office. Professional staff had to come in wearing a proper suit (where the trousers, and suit coat were of the same material - a dark color, perhaps with pin stripes - but NOTHING gaudy). Management had vests, whereas engineers, planners, etc. did NOT wear vests - as that would be presumptuous. Also managers did not take off their suit coats, whereas staffers DID remove the coat on arrival - and often rolled up long shirt sleeves if going to the floor in the machine shop to work on a process or problem. Oh yes, those were WHITE dress shirts. A few years later, a very light blue or yellow shirt became passable, but ties were still required. Many years later, the idea of "dress down" Fridays came into vogue - where non-suit slacks and other colors of shirt (including short sleeved) were OK. This evolved into jeans and totally casual clothes - and everything went 'down hill' from there.

The Admiral does beadwork, and has 'bead reamers' that are pretty narrow - they can be found in craft stores that sell beading supplies - or on line.

Worth salivating over !

You're doing just fine, mate. I know the challenges of building a kit that has variations form 'reality' ... as the Vasa exists nearly fully restored in a Swockholm museum - so we KNOW what the original looked like ... and I'll have to 'bodge' through as best as I can, given the work already done in my youth. In the case of the Mayflower (also true of the Golden Hind and other ships of that era), we DON'T know what is 'right' or 'wrong' because we do not have the originals, there are no photographs (not invented yet) and the artwork is often conjectural. You are certainly free to exercise some leeway in artistic license.

Ahoy! The supplied planking does look a nit thick for the scale of the kit... but you can still 'plug away' to get used to working with wood. (The rigging will be a challenge unless your deadeyes and blocks are larger than for scale.) One thing that can help you 'fair' there hull is to glue balsa or basswood 'filler blocks' between the frames (bulkheads), and then plane/shave/sand down to the level of the frames so the hull curvature is smooth. If any frame is to low (as the smooth form develops ... note that you should bot be planking until the hull is faired), strips of wood can be glued to the edge off the frame to 'bring it up' to the needed level. When planking, get some wood strips around half the apparent thickness of what we see in the photos. You can soak a little (not too long), heat with an iron or blow drier, and rough bend the plank while still warm. There are several logs showing alternative planking techniques. Since you will be painting the hull, don't fret about 'perfect planking', but get your feet wet in the building process. You can likely have a nice 'standoff scale' model when done. I can recommend the Endurance by OcCre (Shackleton's ship), which could be a good 'next step' There is a review of the kit in the kit review section, and a complete build by HakeZou, plus a build in progress by Clearway. Don't worry about kit modifications, as you can build it 'out of the box' and get a very nice model - in approximately 1:72 scale. The building and rigging is much easier in this scale. The instructions are pretty good AND there is a video on line made by the kit manufacturer showing EVERY step of building it ... nearly in 'real time' (some breaks for repetitive actions). There are no guns (thus no gun ports and tackle) needed, no need to copper the hull - as the original was painted with newly popular anti-fouling paint (rust red). There are many pictures of the original on line if you want to look. Only the fore mast has square sails, as the other two are fore-and-aft rigged - a real time saver. And there are now a few picture available on line of the actual ship as she lays on the bottom in Antarctic water. Best of luck ! Johnny

Ahoy Dave ! I just received the Underhill Clipper book (great condition other than some clear tape to reinforce the paper jacket) priced at $27 and change (plus $5 shipping) - and it is an excellent investment, possibly tied for the best rigging book I've found to date. It was certainly great advice from Rob Reiderrich, who is justifiably a clipper 'guru'. When one takes ALL the detail into account, I can see why undertaking a clipper project smaller in scale than 1:96 is not practical unless one omits or simplifies a few things. But there are well rendered builds at 1:96 and larger with virtually all the 'bells and whistles'. There are an arguments in favor of building an 'early' clipper (e.g. the Sea Witch of 1846 - prior to significant changes in her rig post 1850) ... 1.) The hull length is 40+ feet shorter than the Cutty Sark or Thermopylae, so a 1:72 scale will about about the same size as a 1:96 version of the other ships named. 2.) This was prior to Howe's split top sails (or split top gallant that is seen on later clippers), so the early ships sported four sails per mast (as seen on contemporary artwork) instead of the 6 sails often seen on later ships. 3.) The masting and sparring was all wood on the early ships, and there were fewer complex metal fittings that would arise as the art of the clipper developed. An interesting note is made in Underhill's book (which he admits focuses on the later clippers - often having steel hulls), on page 163 which talks about bunt lines ... There is a variation clearly shown (fig.150 on the same page) where two bunt lines can be worked with a single running line (via two 'helper' single blocks rigged to the shroud above the yard). That way, the number of lines having to go through fairleads and down to belaying pins on bulwark pin rails can be significantly reduced. The 'more common' way is to have every bunt line find its way down as shown in plate 34 (page 188) ... a veritable 'jungle' of lines below the the course (main sail). For a modeler's sanity, the leech lines (one on either side of each sail) might be omitted, but the reef tackle should remain. One can also consider (in lieu of individual leech lines) variant A. or B of figure 151 (page 169), where the outer bunt line is either bent to the leech of the sail (after passing through a 'bulls eye' at the base of the sail where a 'typical' buntline would fasten) - or the bunt line can pass through a bulls eye at the leech point (after routing through a thimble on the sail face) and then down to the normal bending place at the foot of the sail. Either way, this could satisfy a builder who does not want to entirely omit leech lines - but would appreciate not having to rout individual leech lines to the deck. It is a relief indeed, to realize that 'slab lines' (that duplicate bunt lines on the back side of the sail, shown in figure 16 on page 17) are optional - as the text in the paragraph below the figure notes ... "the rest of the sail (is) gathered up by the bunt-lines and slab-lines (when rigged)." WHEW, so one by no means need incorporate slab lines, as that would add to the jungle of rope to be routed down and dealt with below. Rigging for 'early' clippers can be assisted by Peterson's book 'Rigging Period Ship Models' - that deals with a man-of-war in there late 1700s and early 1800s. Need to build a much earlier vessel? Try Anderson's 'The Rigging of Ships in the Days of the Spritsail Topmast'.