Gregory

My experience with them is that they are just wax crayons.. 

They work up to a point, but I think you would do better to work with some of the original stain.

You might look at some of the Cheerful logs, as well  as Chuck's  instructions,  available on the Syren website. 

Chuck references several sources, including the contemporary model.

There are several contemporary models in the gallery. 

You are doing a great job..  Don't get bogged down in minutiae..

What are the dimensions of your brass piece?

Do you plan on using the outside of the frame, and just replace the small square panes?

Looks really great, and makes me feel better about not getting much done in the last few months.

Harry12,

I wouldn't be obsessed with precisely following the establishments for 17th century ship rigging.

There is always the rule of " what looks good, is good " ..

Take a look at some of the contemporary models in the gallery here..

Gallery of Contemporary Models from Museums and Private Collections

Try to maintain a sense of proportion.  The standing rigging will be heavier on larger masts, and will get smaller the higher up on the masts.

For the running rigging; heavier on the larger yards, and getting lighter as it goes higher.

The rat lines are probably the smallest ropes, and something modelers often make too large.

I like to go to Chuck's Cheerful as a great example of rigging that looks proportional.

While your three masted ship will have a lot more lines, the principles of look and proportion will remain the same.

Full size is the size of the actual ship..

If you are working in a scale of 1:12,  1 inch on the model would be 12 inches' on the full size ship.

If the full size rope circumference is 4 inches, then it would be 4/12 = .333 inches on the model.   for diameter, divide circumference by 3.14

Are you working from plans, or just pictures, and have decided on a size for the model?

If you are able to enter data, then you would have entered your scale on the strt page.

With this in mind, all measurements you enter would be full size.

2 hours ago, Altduck said:

They sure are pretty little tools.

Which size did you get, and how did you decide?

I got the little 8mm blade.

Want to see if it helps making molding strips and other details, and because it's hard to resist pretty little tools.

@gwish

Thanks, you just cost me a hundred bucks..  Couldn't resist..😁

Don't want to clutter up your log, but how did you get the elephant and lion shots?  Are they telephoto?

In any event, they are stunning!

One more reason why those box blocks are problematic.

Note how the sheave holes are close to the center on a lot of them.

Again, this is what you get in most kits, and they really spoil the look of the rigging.

You can use a tumbler like the Block Buster.

I have my own little version  that works better for me..

I have a pretty good stash of Chuck's blocks so I wouldn't go to the trouble of making the kit blocks work these days.

But there was a time when it was all the kit builder had.

Of course there are some kits like Vanguard, that come with pretty decent blocks. 

On 9/21/2023 at 4:42 PM, tmj said:

"How were those stanchions/pillars, etc. actually 'anchored' in place?"

A little late to this, but I think they would have been hammered in place with a very tight fit.

It seems I remember that some of the pillars on the gun deck could be swung up, out of the way, so that would have involved some sort of hinge.

Good info.  The finish really looks good.

2 minutes ago, Dr PR said:

After washing and drying I used a 50:50 mixture of Birchwood Casey Brass Black to finish it.

What was the other 50 ?

I've stained those 'bargain' blocks with Fiebing's Leather Dye.. I'm satisfied with results..

You can see I ended up with some variation, but i think that image is light overall, because my rope is darker than seen in the image.

Just a note, based on another user's experience.  If you use shellac on the rope and block after it is in place, the dye can leach out into the rope..

Thanks for sharing.

Last visited in 2001 with my son.

Besides being very high quality, your blocks are very competitively priced.   Any chance they are being re-sold?

Thanks for the info.

12 minutes ago, allanyed said:

But, this is a topic circa1805 so turned pillars may not be apropos

Is there good reason to believe Victory's pillars would have been replaced between 1765 and 1805?

( I am still looking for some apropos examples )

Just to keep the discussion going.

Here is a draught of "  'Dorsetshire' (1757) Scale: 1:48. Plan showing the capstans, lanterns, turned columns,

A snip from that drawing.   Did someone not follow the 1750 establishments? 😁

Medea 1778

One More:

Prudent 1768  .  The shading would seem to indicate the centers are turned.

P.S.

I realize, without further evidence, we cannot assume the ship was built as drawn.

1 hour ago, allanyed said:

It is written that the pillars were square, but I imagine the four corners in the middle 3/4's square section were chamfered. 

Chamfering the corners would not reduce the square diameter from  16" to 13".  Besides, you would now have an octagon and not a square.  Are octagonal pillars described anywhere for these ships?

Are "square" pillars found in any contemporary drawings?

This is an illustration from " Navy Board Ship models".

Of course it doesn't prove anything about Victory during the time in question, however in the absence of contemporary drawings to the contrary,

I think McKay's opinion is as good as any.

P.S.

Here is an illustration from Lavery of " Early 19th Century First Rate " ..

I guess those pillars could be square, but they don't give that impression.

On 9/18/2023 at 7:25 AM, allanyed said:

According to contemporary information in David Steel's 1805 Elements and Practice of Naval Architecture, the pillars in the hold were not round at that period of time.

Pillars under the orlop beams and gun deck -

13" square along the middle 3/4 of the overall length

At the lower 1/8 of the length they are 16" fore and aft, and 14" athwartships

At the upper 1/8 of the length they are 14" fore and aft and 13" athwartships.

Allan,

Do you know for a fact that Steel, in giving the square dimensions, that they were not rounded in any segment?

Making them 'square' in the middle would have been a lot more work than rounding them off with the given dimensions.

Just a thought.

8 hours ago, Srenner said:

Does anyone know can you get glass encrusted thread or some sort of file approx 0.6mm that you can thread through and clean out the cleats?

Round Abrasive Cord

The linked item is ~.457mm   They have a variety of sizes.

The AOTS Blandford also shows double + single for 6 pounders.  I guess Goodwin didn't read Caruana.😁

Lavery in " The Arming and Fitting, etc... " .. without regard to caliber.

Takakjian  in AOTS 'Essex'  shows double + single for 12 pounder.

Was Caruana's data part of the establishments?

Did armorers always follow this practice?

Double + single has become a modeling convention, particularly with kits, and most builders will never be shown anything to the contrary until after they have done all the work. ( ....hours of fiddly work. )

I agree with Thukydides that the aesthetics come into play with ship models, in many areas that are contrary to contemporary full size practice.

With that said,  Thukydides,  your Alert sets a high standard in ship modeling.

I apologize if I have cluttered up your log with this distraction.