allanyed

For a first ship model I would have to recommend the Model Shipways "Shipwright Series" of three models.  This series was designed by renowned ship modeler David Antscherl.  The modeling series begins with a dory followed by a pram which is a little more challenging and ending with a shipjack.  Model Expo has these kits on sale now.  They are also offering the "Shipwright Series" as a combo which includes a basic set of tools, glue and paint.  Once you successfully complete this series, you'll be ready to take on something more challenging.
There are a number of reputable wooden ship manufacturers such as Syren, Vanguard, Bluejacket and Model Shipways.  Be careful of some disreputable manufacturers who use other manufacturer's designs without permission to make their own kits.  Checkout the list of banned manufacturers elsewhere on MSW.
 

 Welcome to Model Ship World and the wonderful hobby of ship modeling.
 
 

I am going to give a different perspective on the cost.  I have two hobbies.  Golf and model ships.  I spend $60 on a four hour round of golf ($15 per hour) and I spend $300 - $400 for a ship kit that I spend 500 - 1000 hours building (yes I am not very fast).  Add $200 for some basic tools and that works out to less than $1 an hour.  You certainly don't need power tools to build a kit.  I have spent some money on some tool upgrades, but those are nice to have and not need to have items.  The money an individual spends on tools can vary greatly, but there is no reason you can't get the basics for a couple hundred dollars.  The only power tool I don't think I could get by without is a power drill that I use when tapering a dowel for a mast or yard.  

I bought this and find it very instructive and straight forward.  A great place to start and learn the basics before a tougher model.
 
Which ever model you start with, buy the best tools you can afford.

I was so tired of Victory builds, UNTIL NOW.  Just tuned in and catching up.  I love that it is the Victory when built in 1765 as it is rarely modeled as she looked then.
Allan

As mentioned above I am pretty sure there are no qualifications to join the NRG.  
 
I am also pretty sure no one is obligated to research a kit before giving a review.  There is nothing wrong with pointing out the things you like about a kit, but by the same token there is nothing wrong with others pointing out mistakes they find in those same kits.. The way I have learned so many things about ships of old are from those that, thankfully, pointed out the mistakes in my own work, and so it should be with the kits.  
Allan
 
 

Hi photo Victory .
 

Welcome to MSW Doug!
From the photos the model looks lovely.   Maybe some closeups would be better if you are looking for input on anything specific. 
Allan
 

Coming soon.   Resin cast barrels.
 
I have three sizes of cast resin barrels that will soon be available on my site.  Currently I have the 11/16" tall and the 1" tall barrels.  I am waiting for my casting guy to make the third smaller size.  I may even make a fourth smaller size later as well.
 

 
I have the two smaller sizes and I am waiting for the last larger size not shown. They are cast in white resin or a light tan like my carvings for the ship models I make.   This makes it so much easier to prepare than building my laser cut versions.   Those will still be available but these resin versions will give you guys more options.   These can be prepared in minutes...
 
Just clean whatever flashing which is minimal.   And remove the small vent hole plugs with a sharp #11 blade.   
 
Then brush on some gel stain...in my case pictured,  I used General Finishes Fruitwood gel stain as usual.   I have one coat of stain on these.  You can add more to deepen the color as you see fit.  Then I just used a black sharpie to color the raised iron hoops.   You could use any color you want for those as well.  You could use a copper leaf pen for example.   It isnt difficult....and takes just a few minutes vs. a much longer time to build my laser cut versions.
 
Each size will be sold two per package.
 
Its unfortunately too late for me to add these in the hold of Speedwell....but when you need to make a dozen or more barrels for the hold its nice to not have assemble them one at a time.
 

 
And Buckets...crates...and other items will soon follow.   And whatever else I can possibly think of...please let me know if you guys fancy something in particular.

It means it qualifies to be sold in the gift shop of a museum..😁
 
Regarding comments on historical accuracy,  if that were something most kit builders were concerned with, most kit manufacturers might as well close up shop.
 
For those who don’t care to lower their standards to build a kit, much less one with some historical inaccuracies, we shouldn’t discourage those who want to enjoy the hobby by building these kits.
 
Thanks for the review Kevin.
 
 

If MSW is going to review ship model kits, I wish that there was more comment about historical accuracy of the kits.  MSW is owned by the Nautical Research Guild that supposedly attempts to improve ship modeling through research.
 
Roger

Good point Chris.  There is so much contemporary information available on line today I assumed (maybe a bad idea, I know) AL invests at least a little time doing some research.    
Allan

Price seems right, but caveat emptor.  I am likely completely missing something here but I wonder where they found this information on the guns.  Looking at other sources, including the contemporary plans of HMAT Supply 1759 (https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-85220) she only had ports  for four 3 pounders plus her 1/2 pounder swivel guns when used as a yard craft.  When she was used as an armed tender she carried four 3 pounders plus four carronades.   The three pounders were likely Armstrong pattern guns.  The one in the photo is quite different than any English cannon. The below shows what these looked like compared to the one in the photo above.  I am unsure if the 3 pounders would have had the badge. 
Allan

 

You're assuming they looked for such information.

Great piece of information Dafi!!!
 
It took me a little while but I did find this in his Elements and Practice of Rigging and Seamanship, Volume I, page 283, 1794 edition
 SLINGS have a long and short leg, and a large thimble seized in the bight. The long leg passes round the after-part of the mast, and reeves through the eye in the short leg; it is then brought back, and securely seized to its own part in several places. By these the yard is retained at the mast-head with a laniard, that splices in the thimbles in the slings, at the fore part of the mast and then reeves through the thimble in the strap upon the yard, and so alternately till the laniard is expended. The end then fraps round the turns, and makes fast with two half hitches. In time of action, the yards are slung with chains.
 
Looking at Lees, he conjectures that rope slings came into use about 1773 and the use of chains in time of action appeared about the same time.   He goes on to say chain was used at all times as of about 1811.  
 
Allan

A warm welcome to MSW Brent!!
Allan

... and already Steel is a mere collection*** of earlier works that were simply updated.
 
XXXDAn
 
And those earlier works the same ...
 
... and later works too ...

Yepp, it is Lees where I found it first, then being confimed by the find at Steel. By this resaerch it became quite obvious that Lees uses quite a lot of Steels informations, sometimes word by word. (This is not a moan 🙂 ). These details can be found in Part III "Progressive Method of Rigging Ships" in the article of "Rigging the the Lower-Yards" in the passage about Fore- and- Main-Braces, Preventer-Braces and Slings.
 
Also most of these details are repeated in the "Tables of the Dimensions of ..." in the sections for lower fore mast and lower main mast.
 
XXXDAn

Great piece of information Dafi!!!
 
It took me a little while but I did find this in his Elements and Practice of Rigging and Seamanship, Volume I, page 283, 1794 edition
 SLINGS have a long and short leg, and a large thimble seized in the bight. The long leg passes round the after-part of the mast, and reeves through the eye in the short leg; it is then brought back, and securely seized to its own part in several places. By these the yard is retained at the mast-head with a laniard, that splices in the thimbles in the slings, at the fore part of the mast and then reeves through the thimble in the strap upon the yard, and so alternately till the laniard is expended. The end then fraps round the turns, and makes fast with two half hitches. In time of action, the yards are slung with chains.
 
Looking at Lees, he conjectures that rope slings came into use about 1773 and the use of chains in time of action appeared about the same time.   He goes on to say chain was used at all times as of about 1811.  
 
Allan

Great piece of information Dafi!!!
 
It took me a little while but I did find this in his Elements and Practice of Rigging and Seamanship, Volume I, page 283, 1794 edition
 SLINGS have a long and short leg, and a large thimble seized in the bight. The long leg passes round the after-part of the mast, and reeves through the eye in the short leg; it is then brought back, and securely seized to its own part in several places. By these the yard is retained at the mast-head with a laniard, that splices in the thimbles in the slings, at the fore part of the mast and then reeves through the thimble in the strap upon the yard, and so alternately till the laniard is expended. The end then fraps round the turns, and makes fast with two half hitches. In time of action, the yards are slung with chains.
 
Looking at Lees, he conjectures that rope slings came into use about 1773 and the use of chains in time of action appeared about the same time.   He goes on to say chain was used at all times as of about 1811.  
 
Allan

Someone over in Deven, England needed a pair of 2-banded Brooke rifls for a 1:48 scale model of the Confederate ironclad Neuse.
I hadn't printed either of the Brookes as yet, so I soon discovered some bits were missing, ie, I forgot to mirror a part to the other side of the gun, actually, just the slide. 
I fixed the STL on Thingiverse, but to fix the already printed models, I printed that part and a couple of eye-bolts separately, attached them to the models with resin zapped with UV light.
They're carefully packed and off to England, making me an International Arms Dealer    It's very expensive shipping a 95 gram box to the UK from the US, over $30 USD in fact, but he was adamant there was no one local to 3D print them for him.

A warm welcome to MSW Brent!!
Allan

And another little tid bit that is not normally seen on models. According to Steel, the rope slings were replaced by chain slings in wartime. And if "the road to Trafalgar" doesn't count as wartime, what does ?!?

 

 
Here you can also see that the chain sits on a wedge at the back, whereas the rope slings is passed over the bolster of the mast head.
Until 1760, the braces were supported by preventer braces, whereby the hanger was doubled.
 

 
However, as this proximity was certainly not as effective when under fire, the preventer brace was later brought to the front of the yard.
Consequently, since the chains are attached here, the forward-facing preventer braces should also be attached. For this purpose, the standing part of the brace was attached to the rearmost shroud of the foremast, ran to a block on the front of the yard, back to a block on the rearmost shroud and from there to the forecastle.
 

 
Exciting.
 
XXXDAn

One of the many positive things to me about the thoroughness Chuck puts into his kits is the taper of the knee of the head both fore and aft as well as vertically.  This is a pretty basic design item and something seen on virtually all British naval vessels, (and maybe merchant or nations' vessels as well), yet, for whatever reason, the majority of other kit manufacturers seem to ignore this completely.  
Allan

Very interesting point and your test group is a great idea.   To add to any confusion that there may be James Lees mentions that the footropes or horses were 2 feet under the yard on page 69 of The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War, but then on page 70 goes on to say that the stirrups should allow the footropes to hang 3 feet below the yard.  Looking at the photos below, this makes some sort of sense.  Where as the stirrups were probably pretty much the same on a given ship, not all seamen were the same height so maybe topmen assignments were partially based on their height just as strength was a consideration in assignments.  The below are photos thus obviously more modern times, but may fit the discussion.  Hopefully the sailors between the stirrups were the taller ones.  😀
Allan

A 15th century cannon as found on the Mary Rose.  Scale 1 : 1. Construction, description and research.
1
As some of you will know, I have built a model of the city of Zutphen, where I live, as the city looked like in 1485. It took me five years to build on it and, together with two other people, I also did the long-term research. The construction took 6500 hours and the result is a large model on a scale of 1:500 which also gave us a lot of the history of the city.

This model will be given a permanent place in a heavy artillery tower from 1457. A tower with a wall thickness of 4 meters, the Burgundy Tower.  The interior of the tower is currently being modified to accommodate the model. In this way, a new museum is being created around the model.
There have been a number of gun emplacements in the tower. One of those  will now house a full-size replica of a 15th century cannon.
This also required a lot of research. Good examples were found in museums in the Netherlands and especially in England. We also looked at the various cannons of the Mary Rose. Obviously, there was no standardization in such artillery. Each cannon was different, but all according to the same principle. I started building that cannon and made drawings in advance.
From accounts of the city around about 1450 we know that they were ordered and also what they looked like. They were referred to there as “ Slang” (snake), the name that the replica will also be given. Afterwards, especially after 1500, these cannons were referred to as culverein. But we are not going to use that name because of the specific name in the Zutphen archives.
 
First, the drawing of the cannon in its entirety. The black lines all around are the exact dimensions of the existing gun emplacement from 1457. Within that, I had to stick to the dimensions. The embrasure is round with a diameter of 20 cm. So the barrel had to be able to pass through that. As a result, the caliber of the barrel was also roughly fixed. It looks like one of the cannons of the Mary Rose, but smaller.
It should be clear that the cannon may have looked different, but the working method, the caliber, the construction of the gun carriage and the use of stone balls are certain. It is mainly intended to give visitors an idea about a cannon from the 15th century.

A photo of the niche in which such a cannon stood. In the background the loophole with a short slit above it.
 
A photo of such a cannon in the National Military Museum in the Netherlands.
 
Constant