chris watton

Thank you, Joe. Not sure when it'll be released, as I am still working on the development. I have been informed that my laser and PE files for the ship's boats and other stuff, including the 100 full length cannon are on their way to me from Italy. I hope I have designed it for those who really love building the kit (it is a long build, twice as long as anything I have done before) - but I think this is due to all of the deck detail, and nothing to do with having to make the parts, as it is all pre cut. Even every hatch combing and shot garland - I hated doing these on older kits, took ages and never looked 100% right anyway, and it was so mind-numbingly boring. With this in mind, I even did the gun port opening sills in laser cut wood, along with the lids. Same with the gratings - they are photo etched in this kit (and Revenge, Golden Hind and Bellona - this way, they can be exactly the right scale size, rather than having to make the combings (which themselves are restricted by the dimensions of the wood strip used) fit the off the shelf gratings - another little pet hate of mine. I hope I have designed it so that it's fun to build..

Great thread! Styrene strip is an absolute godsend for both plastic and wooden models...

@chris watton OK, I am in the middle of spraying the hull in matt varnish, before I add the rope railings. This is what I am using: A compressor, a crappy old spray gun (I do have a Badger airbrush, but all I want is a good overall spray of the whole thing) 75% varnish and 25% white spirit: The hull is still slightly wet, as I have just finished the third light spray: (Sorry about the state of the garage/workshop - we haven't long moved in and getting the large double garage sorted will be done next year...) The poop isn't fixed in place - am waiting for new poop bulkheads bits to arrive.... These are the old ones (hull shown before cleaning up and dusting...) Also, Although you can't see it very well, the sides of the gangway and steps are panelled as per the original - using PE parts. Sharp eyed amongst you will also see only 4 belaying pins on the forward most rack on the quarterdeck bulwarks. This is because I realised that with the cavil cleat in place, there wasn't room for the 5 holed rack - I have since redrawn the rack so the kit will have 5 pins, and not 4 as shown.

Nice work. I find it funny that when building a wooden kit, I do my utmost to hide the planking when painted - so it almost looks as smooth as plastic. But plastic kit manufacturers do their utmost to show the planking, to make the surface look like wood!

The quality of the materials and components in Corel kits is on the whole very good - up there with the best mainstream manufacturers.

That is a very neat job, especially when considering the relatively small scale. This has clearly been quite a labour of love for you, and it shows. Well done. Chris

I use it mainly for bow rails and on occasion, the curved stern and side gallery rails, and upper hull rails too. I remember building a Billings Bounty - the ships boat was just a block of wood you had to carve out yourself! lol

Thank you, and you are very welcome. If I had my way, I would use the profiled plastic ship in with the kits, as it is by far the best and easiest to use/manipulate, as well as paint. But some think that seeing nice shiny strips makes the kit worth more. I always used to throw it out when making kits. As far as I am concerned, it is the overall finish of the completed model, not what materials were used - more so with a model that is predominantly painted. (was the real thing planked with lime and walnut anyway, and were the rails made of brass/white metal)? It is always the end result that matters. For the poop bulkhead colour, (and other 'dark wood' colours on the decks) I used Vallejo leather brown (147), followed by Vallejo Woodgrain (Transp - 182). After studying the photographs of the real thing, this combination seems to get pretty close, scale-wise. I find that just using wood stain makes the grain show too much, even on good plywood, which then looks way over scale. The poop window frames were painted in the same way and colour. Chris

This is my take on this area too. I am designing a 64th scale version, and this area has given me the biggest problems. Do I follow John McKay's drawings, or follow what I see on the real ship today? I think that the fact that the decorative pillars extend all the way down to the upper gun deck level confirms that this was the bow deck's original position - it makes no sense to take the roundhouses and decoration down two feet further than they needed to be. (The same profile in the book HMS Victory - her Construction, Career and Restoration by Alan McGowan show this also (although again, John McKay did the drawings in this book) One thing I have noticed with the bow deck at lower gun deck level is the run of the extended rail moulding, which extends to the underside of the catheads. On the real Victory now, it is quite a soft curve, due to the extra 2 feet in height of the bow. But on my model, the curve is slightly more acute, as the level is lower. Also, I am not sure if it's me, but I think that on the McKay drawings, the lower stern counter frames are angled too acutely, they seem to be a little more 'vertical' than shown, compared to the real version. Chris ETA - Almost forgot to say - Great work, a hugely enjoyable thread with great pictures.

A fellow petrolhead! (Although for me it's little 2-seater cars...

You could use very thin plasticard (as it's painted black anyway). I find that this material (and the strip) invaluable in a lot of instances. [ shaped strip is very good for the lower bow rails, as well and the one that curves and extends up to the catheads. I always think - why fight with inappropriate materials when much better solutions are available.

I honestly cannot remember the last time I bought either Model Boats or Marine Modelling magazines! The only ones we see are when someone sends us one with a relevant review - and that's very rare.

Keith Julier is my friend and we still keep in contact - although I have heard nothing since Christmas. He is a great guy, and is getting on a bit now and unfortunately, cannot really model any longer. It was his review of Euro Model's Royal William that inspired me to try the Sovereign of the Seas - and before that, it was his reviews that got me started with wooden ship kits - it is fair to say that Keith has been my biggest inspiration, and the nicest man you are ever likely to meet. @Mike Draper - Bellona was used as a 'test bed' for new design techniques, of which Victory is the result. Bellona will certainly become a kit, but I do need to implement substantial re designs after the further lessons learned from Victory. Bellona will be like HMS Fly on super-steroids!

Thank you again, Nigel. I will have to build prince (third time!) all over again - but I don't mind. I also found some scans (when looking for SOTS scans) of my Panart Victory build from a later magazine article. Krick commissioned me to make it when I worked for jotika for their showroom - I think this was back in 1995/6:

Thank you! Here you go: I think I completed this in 1994, the year I started designing for money (although not much money...). I remember saving up for this kit and paid £545 for it. I hid it in the cupboard for a while, but my then girlfriend (no ex wife) found it and went mad - but was quite happy at the price I got when I sold it... This was my forth attempt at a wooden ship model (first being Billing's Will Everard, then Billings Bounty, followed by the then just released Mantua Le Superb - by that time, I felt ready to give this a good kit-bashing. Regarding prince, I have re designed it from the original re designs, and I hope I can get my teeth into that one once Victory is complete. I think I will commission a whole ne set of carvings for it, too (Ideally the kit castings will be in high quality resin, I don't like the cast metal fittings so much)

Whilst double checking everything for the poop bulkheads, I noticed that what I designed (from the sources mentioned) didn't quite tally with the pictures I had taken on the real Victory. I spent yesterday re-designing the poop parts to match as closely as possible to the photographs: The rear bulkhead has three window frames, and not 2 as I had first drawn: Notice the hinges at the top of the side bulkheads/screens, to allow the sections to be lifted up when not in use: My prototype will look slightly different, but the kit will have all the right parts as shown in the simple line drawing.

Fantastic work - you have quite a talent.

I think you have me confused with another company.

Thank you Kevin - and a fine job you're doing on that model, too. The main sources I used for design and detail are: Scanned original plans from NMM (not too much use, to be honest) Anatomy of the Ship - Victory - Mckay Anatomy of Nelson's Ships - Longbridge HMS Victory - Her construction, Career and Restoration - Alan McGowan Seeing the actual ship herself and taking hundreds of photographs For minor and period detail: Construction and Fitting of the Sailing Man of War - Goodwin The Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War - Lavery Old ships figureheads and sterns - Laughton Masting and Rigging - James Lee ..And many more books for cross-reference, as some areas are conflicted. Much fun...

Thank you, I wasn't too happy about doing yet another Victory too, if it's any consolation. I figured that if I were to do this, it would have to be totally different (in design) to all others. I am guessing it won't be cheap, but it has taken me double the time compared to Vanguard, both to design and building the prototype (I thought I'd finish this model by June, but am not even close to completion)! This will translate into something like at least two years to build for most good modellers. We did think about selling the hull and mask and rigging details separately - but I am not sure about this - most of the cost in buried in the hull detail, not the few bits of dowels and laser cut mast fittings. If you enjoy the hobby and the building process, I think it may be quite a bargain... Chris

Thank you, WackoWolf. I am trusted to design the models following my own research, which usually means relying on others. I could develop the kit with no entry ports and fully built up bulwarks, and Amati wouldn't mind - but I would have to be darn sure I had the weight of evidence to back my decisions up- and this is exactly what I don't have. When I designed Golden Hind, with the kind help of a 16th Century ship design expert, I was quite happy to answer certain questions put by Amati regarding the differences between the Golden Hind replica and my version, because I had the evidence, hard evidence to back it up, and Amati accepted this. If I decided to develop Victory the way some would like, without entry ports and fully built up bulwarks - I may be able to show Amati a some pictures to prove it, but they will quite rightly turn around and show me dozens more pictures and drawings showing different. It has to come down to balance of evidence - I would be a fool to go against it. For most seasoned modellers, this is moot anyway, as most will stamp their own mark on the kit, and if you want to add or remove certain parts, it isn't difficult. Chris

.. And I was trumped by this contemporary drawing: In the end, it comes down to this - Do I follow a couple of examples out of hundreds (relatively) in a development that costs hundreds of thousands of Euros, and ignore experts and their drawings and known findings, pretending that I know better than them, or do I go with accepted convention and trust the experts - baring in mind that I am trusted with a large budget and there must be a healthy return? I will say again - If I was 100% convinced and had hard and irrefutable evidence to back it up, I would do it - but when even Peter Goodwin can only qualify the bulwarks with a 'possibly', I stay with what most drawings by experts who know more than me - always best to err on the side of caution when in my position. As a modeller who has bought his own kit, like you, you have every right to model your Victory however you see fit. I do not have that luxury, I have to develop it based on the evidence available - a large part of that is still sitting in Portsmouth dry dock, otherwise I'd be spending the rest of my life answering letters and emails from experts and amateurs as to why I decided not to follow the experts who have studied the subject in a lot more detail than most. I would be opening myself up to (deserved) ridicule. Finally, as Blue Ensign pointed out, if the stern on that particular model is that inaccurate, it could well be argued that the rest is equally inaccurate (I also note it has 7 gun ports cut in the quarterdeck sides). Cheers, Chris

Hi EG, I have done further reading up regarding the entry port. I would strongly advise you leave both in place. I have a photograph of Victory still in water and it shows the port side - complete with entry port. I cannot believe for a second that they removed it when it was most needed, and then re-opened it. It seems to me that the masts and tops were painted a unified colour at this late stage, and the bulwarks are built up (if you took away the waist bulwarks, the ship in the photograph would look remarkably similar to the William Clarkson Stanfield painting). painting should always be treated with caution - although they are excellent for decorative styles and colours. The famous painting by Monamy Swaine depicting Victory in 1793 shows no entry port of the starboard side! It is universally accepted that all capitol ships from the mid 17th Century onwards had the entry port on the right Reading the Haynes manual (!!), which is quite a new book, it seems that Peter Goodwin isn't 100% convinced regarding the forecastle - it states that the 'great repair' included raising the open bulwarks on the quarterdeck and 'possibly' her forecastle. Hmm. It then states that, between 1814 and 1816, Victory underwent a large repair at Portsmouth, during which she was very much altered and rebuilt - this included the more practical round bow and her bulwarks were raised and built up square and solid. I'd wager that this is the time the yellow (or white) strips went all the way to the forward edge of the bow, and the forecastle bulkheads were enclosed, as shown in many 19th Century paintings. Cheers, Chris (Nothing wrong with plastic kits, I love them!)

Nor me - I have half a dozen plastic kits that I'm itching to build!

Looking through this thread, I had a smile on my face. What great work, and great subject, too. I love the details and the execution of the model. I do like the lines and curves of ships of this period - not as overtly pronounced as the earlier galleon type vessels, but not so relatively constrained of the later 18th Century ships.