chris watton

Chris -

 

Thanks for your response... I suppose any good discussion of the great ship will inevitably find its way to the entry port discussion.  I'm in the camp of those who think it wasn't there at Trafalgar.  Course, I'm also in the camp of those who think the bulwarks were built up and the gun stripes were carried up around the cutwater.  Makes me the fringe element.  I've made a pitch for the accuracy of the Stanfield painting across several forums now and I have yet to make a convert to my point of view...(!)  I know those veterans may have been frail and feeble by the time they provided input for the painting, but I still have to think that collectively they must have gotten the big details right.  I've always thought it interesting that the restored ship had black painted iron mast hoops up until the 1970s.  Somewhere in that period they painted them out - likely because of the entry in the Victory signal log on the eve of the battle that noted Nelson yelling at two of his captains to paint over their @#$$%^&* mast hoops to conform to the rest of the fleet.  If not for that entry, the hoops would probably still be black to align with the historical yard records and admiralty directives.  Yet here are the JMW Turner and Clarkson Stanfield paintings attesting across all these years to the painted out hoops.  And so I figure that the painted stripes are something similar.  Nelson had that done as an additional IFF step, but there is no written record to confirm this... If we jump to the assumption that Stanfield's painting is 99% accurate, then the later British practice of extending the stripes around the bow would trace to Nelson and the battle of Trafalgar - similar to the "Nelson's Chequers" scheme.  That sits well with me.

 

I'll admit to having little credibility in this space.  I'm not a scholar or even a researcher... I'm just a hack ship modeler trying to learn the craft as I go along.  And to compound things I am only a plastic ship modeler at this point - generally considered a lesser citizen in the ship modeling world.  I do hope to grow up one day and advance enough to take on something as magnificent as your Victory.

 

BTW - I've always thought that the restored ship should make allowances for both entry port viewpoints.  Those who believe they were there at Trafalgar can start their tour by meandering up the ramp and thru the ornate entry.  Those of us who think otherwise can walk around to the other side and stand in a long queue waiting our turn to get hoisted aboard in a bosun's chair.

 

Thanks again for your fine effort and I hope it is a great success.

 

EG

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.

Hi Jax,

Colours do not bother me so much, if I'm honest. There are/were so many variations on shade that no-one can make a definitive statement regarding colour - especially shade. The yellow (or any other colour) could be darker or lighter, depending on weathering, how much water was added to the paint etc.

The blue I used was Vallejo Royal Blue (054), and this is as good a match of what's on Victory now than any other (Humbrol matt 25 is almost identical in shade)

I used Humbrol for the black and yellow purely because I am well aware of its properties and can be sure it will not crack (after many coats and much sanding/filling in-between coats) I would have preferred to use Vallejo shades, but was too apprehensive about how it would react over a number of years (I even bought 12 bottles of Vallejo yellow ochre for the job!). I have to be aware that the model will travel frequently, shows, distributer offices, photography, all of which will have temperature variations - I decided I'd go with what I know works. (I started to use it on the lower cannon carriages, and you can just about see the colour in some shots)

For the red, it is a mix of Humbrol standard red and brick red, which seems to be a good match for the dull red.

Obviously, the modeller is free to choose whatever paints they prefer and are happy with.

Chris

ETA - If I was building this model for myself, I would have gone with the Vallejo colours.

Hi Force9,

Thank you for that.

I still remain unconvinced regarding the heavily built up front bulwarks. Again, most of the paintings and drawing I have do not show them. In fact, the evidence I have is in Peter Goodwin's book Nelson's Ships, which has a drawing with a dotted line the possible built up area (including the poop area). I have seen paintings of the Victory at Trafalgar with not only heavily built up front bulwarks, but mid-ship bulwarks too, some paintings show her with a round bow. I know that Geoff Hunt has done some recent paintings of Victory, and I know he researches his subjects thoroughly, and opts not to include enclosed front bulwarks.

If heavily built up front bulwarks (which would be quite a prominent feature) were added in her 1803 rebuild, I would have thought that there would have been a lot more evidence to suggest this. I do accept that built up bulwarks became more fashionable (for very practical reasons) after the lessons learned from Trafalgar - as did the round bow. There seems to be no mention of this in any of the repair notes, too.

Could it be that if the forecastle did have protection, it was a 'ad-hock' solution before the battle, once realising how exposed the front would be because of the tactics implemented? But even then, that still leaves the front bulwark and timberheads exposed..

The problem is, that if I went solely on the Clarkson Stanfield Trafalgar painting for the United Service Club 1833 (which I have always loved since a small boy), then the front would also have enclosed bulwarks, and the yellow bands from the lower and middle deck would extend right out to the bow. I have to think, is this accurate, or, by this time (almost 30 years later), are they now so used to seeing these details (especially the continued yellow lines, which I believe came into vogue once bow railings were abolished and became completely planked and enclosed. The painting doesn't seem to show the side entry port on the starboard side, too.

You see, it's a very difficult call to make - do I fully subscribe to that painting (which incidentally, shows only 8 shrouds for the foremast..), or go by convention? I did think long and hard about this, believe me - the decision was not made on a whim.

I even thought about including a set of forcastle bulwarks (laser cut) in the kit - but again, if I do this it may still not be accurate, as I would need to include the front bulkhead bulwarks too - and the only evidence I have to go on is that painting, and it shows no detail about what's happening with the fittings on the deck-side. I decided I did not want to speculate for such an important subject. If I use that painting as gospel (always dangerous to use a limited number of resources for important projects), and if I accept that she looked like that, then I also have to leave off the entry port - and then I have to explain to lots of bemused kit buyers the reason why - and I simply cannot do that based on one painting. I have a lot more valid reasons why to leave them off than on. Or - if I include the bulwarks but keep the entry port and someone askes me where I got my info for this, and I steer them towards that painting, they may turn around and say "well, OK, if that is accurate, then why include the entry port, and why have 11 foremast shrouds and not 8, like that very accurate painting?" What do I say?

I understand that the crew would remember important events on the ship, even the spars sticking out of the lower gun ports - but if I'm honest, I tried to remember some aspects of my first car, which I drove virtually every day and owned for almost 8 years. I remember vividly some events in that car, but now, as for details of that car, I can't even remember what side the fuel filler cap was or visualise the dash with any clear accuracy - and this was only 15 years ago!

I hope this explains more clearly why I didn't include them.

Chris

Hi Jaxboat. Thank you

I will ask about Revenge. As far as I know, they were getting it (Revenge) ready for release a few months back, after I did a final check of the plans and instructions.

sorry Chris, didn`t mean to be brash, its just that at the mo i am myself constructing the stern on my 1/72 scratch Victory, and digging around found it very difficult to find info, the best i could find was on page 94 in john mckays book, i must say at this point that your stern is the best i`ve seen, i am a complete novice and this is my first build and the time it takes is unreal, so when it came to scale my balustrades i counted them and as a cross reference i counted other models, when i counted jokita`s i noticed there was only 67 per row but didn`t think much of it till i counted yours, so then started to think is there a drawing of the stern that i haven`t seen, so again i am sorry i was just curious.

 heres a pic of my balustrades

Hi Willz,

Don't be silly - you have absolutely no need to apologise! Thanks to you I have been able to enhance the kit further and now I will be able to sleep soundly tonight knowing that what I have done is correct and matches the real subject. I know that my initial designs were for 0.75mm photo etch, so 69 would have been a struggle. I have since changed the thickness and designed the parts in two separate layers so I have a lot more leeway with small tolerances.

Your stern looks fantastic, and it's your first attempt! You are a natural.

Thank you,

Chris

OK, have just finished updated the stern balustrades, so they now have the correct number, 69 per row. I just did a quick drawing to see how they look (after 12 hours solid work)!:

To be honest, they don't look that much different to what they replaced..

Thanks chris. Fair enough. Bring on both the victory and Bellona I say!

I just read what I wrote - sorry for the ramble  - tired....

I know where you're coming from, though. I remember how I felt when asked to develop a large Victory - if there was a model I'd least like to do, it was that - much better to do a Royal George/Royal Oak, Thunderer, Achilles - cool sounding names - but not another darn Victory. However, if you're going to do it....

Cheers

Will have to see how the Victory is received, regarding the size. I remember well the market research Amati undertook regarding sizes, and at the time Vanguard was considered the largest we'd want to go to please the largest percentage of model kit builders - any bigger then you get a lot of modellers say "Yes, it's very nice, but too big for my workspace". vanguard has sold very well, partly due, I'd wager to the size - it's not overly huge and yet big enough to add a lot of detail. I am sure that if I had done it in 64th scale, the sales would have been half of what they have been.

 Victory is different, as it has been been developed as Victory Models/Amati's Flagship model and something to aspire to - with plenty of scope for seasoned modeller's who want to add a lot more of their own detail, especially on the decks and in the cabins without having to chop away half of the interior just to get to that stage.

No model will ever be perfect and you will never be able to please everyone - people will always moan that it's either too big or too small (very rarely do we hear/read that the model is just the right size). All we can do is minimise the complaints by doing as much homework as possible, never think that you know it all (I certainly don't) and accept constructive criticism and implement when and where possible. The moment you think that you're infallible and believe yourself better than the rest is the moment you start heading downhill. Personally, I try out outdo the last design with every new kit, with ease of construction and even more detail a priority. The alternative is to keep plodding on with the same type of designs and ultimately die of abject boredom...

Chris,

 

do you think that's possible to buy only the drawings and the lasercut bulkheads? Is it right, that the scale is 1/64?

If I look at your pictures I think that the design of your kit is a very good source to realize a very old dream of mine, a model of HMS Victory in her 1775-1785 appearance.

The plans will be available to buy separately when the kit is released, but not sure about selected laser cut sheets. The scale is 1:64.

OK, have been up working all night. The designs for the lower tier of stern balustrades is complete - 69 of them and 9.25mm high. The top tier will have the same amount and will also be 9.25mm high. This worked out fine, as there were a couple of slight changes I wanted to make anyway.

@ Willz,

I have to ask though, there are so many obvious errors in some kit versions of this vessel (way oversized castings, odd shaped sterns etc..) that are visibly noticeable just by cursory glances, why does one balustrade less per side irk you so much?

just been looking at this wonderful prototype model, and no disrespect but can i ask why like Jokita you only have 134 balustrades on the stern instead of 138, every wooden model I have ever seen seems to get the stern wrong, for some reason or other they all have the top balustrades smaller than the bottom ones (even the plastic heller) when in fact they are the same size at only 2 feet

I think that perhaps most use the same resources, which are treated as gospel and blindly followed.

Just like I did.

However, as you have pointed this out, I checked, double checked and triple checked with the photos I have. there are indeed 69 balustrades per tier on the rear.

I now have no choice but to add the two extra per tier - a lot of work as each balustrade is different due to the curvature and angles - but, if it means that this kit will be the most accurate to date (on this aspect, at least), it's certainly worth doing. What will be in the kit will be the full fat 138 balustrades, with both tiers the same height.

Edited to add:

I think that perhaps there is an issue to gap tolerances, especially with photo etched versions. You see, if the etched part is made from 0.7mm sheet, then there cannot be any gap in-between the parts smaller than 0.7mm, and 0.9 must have a gap of 0.9mm, otherwise they may not be produced properly in the etching process. Now, the gap I now have with the full 69 balustrades is 0.6mm, and this is at 64th scale, so smaller scales with have even less tolerance.

Chris

OK folks...After I complete this post I know I'm going to hear from Shipyard Sid who will probably rip me up a bit because I didn't take his aadvice and prime the hull of Victory before beginning the copper plating...  

 

What do you think?

 

Looks good. I'll let you into a secret, I never have even thought about priming the hull before coppering - superglue absolutely loves sticking to wood, I see no reason to put a barrier in-between.

Absolutely a gorgeous build, Chris!  

Thank you! But I am very much looking forward to see what others do with the kit.

Another little dilemma I had was the cleats on the inner bulwark of the upper gun deck, for the sheets and tacks. Some sources show Stag horn cleats (Longbridge) and others (including the Victory herself) show standard cleats. As with the stern davits, I will include both options in the kit (The Stag horn cleats would have looked nicer, as they have photo etched panel detail)

ETA - the cleats (on the inside of upper gun deck bulwarks) on my model are too small, as I had intended to use stag horns - but after visiting Victory and seeing cleats, I felt I had no choice. the ones in the kit are the correct size. Also, I have added more window frames to the stern, so the modeller has a choice of opened or closed upper windows, as well as middle and lower.

I took a few more pics for myself (rather than the construction sequence pics) today. This is where I am up to:

The skid beams were a bit of a dilemma - do I design them in two halves, as per the original, or do I just draw a curved beam. I settled on the former, as I figured that most can shape the curve for the beams, but it is more difficult to simulate the scarfing. (I also remembered to add the belaying pins to the beams, as well as the blocks for the fore topsail braces..)

A lot of parts have been modified whilst building, so the kit parts will have more accuracy than my prototype.

Unfortunately, I had to put the top deck on before I received the cannon barrels, so I couldn't add the detail to the upper gun deck cannon assemblies (In the kit, you'll be able to fully assemble the cannon and carriages before fixing the top decks in place) - but I couldn't wait, otherwise I'll never get it finished.

Chris

(The catheads do have end decoration - I just haven't glued them on yet..and I have made all of the gun port lid assemblies - but will leave them off for now as they're quite delicate.)

If you haven't yet planked the model, then the best thing to do is modify the bulkhead at the offending gin port position. Cut out a space in the bulkhead that is the same size and as deep as the dummy cannon.

If you have already planked over the bulkhead, use a Dremel or similar and cut away the exposed bulkhead so that the barrel can fit unimpeded.

I have utilised both methods over the years.

Thank you very much for the pictures Chris (makes me want to go back to Portsmouth even more...) ! This will be helpful as a reference for building the kit. One thing I noticed also on the deck planking is that treenails do not show, actually.

 

What will you do for the rigging : full rigging or her present lower-masts only restauration stage? 

I would never show treenails for something as small as 64th scale, not even caulking. I notice that caulking is actually only slightly darker than the planks themselves, sometimes as near as damn it the same colour. The only two models I have ever 'caulked' is a 24th scale cutter and the 32nd scale Scottish fishing boat - even then I used a wood filler and sanded it back. It looked a lot more natural and realistic, being a slightly different shade than the planking. Black thread or lining the edge with a black pen isn't for me....

Yes - full rigging. The main mast is about 520mm long...

I feel I must edit this post to add that what I wrote regarding treenails and caulking is entirely my own personal opinion - this is a very subjective area - I have seen many models that look superb with caulking and treenail effects added, and in no way does it detract from the overall finish of the model, if executed well.

Great photos Chris. Thanks for sharing them with us. I too like the Launching of HMS Warrior.

 

Do you know what scale that's built in ?

 

David

The Victory as launched model is definitely 48th - but I can't remember the scale of the excellent Warrior diorama.

Note that there is no inner lip to the lower inside edge of the gun ports:

I actually traced around the finer details of a lot of the decoration detail from pictures taken head-on. I did this for the lower quarter gallery detail and stern detail (coat of arms, figures and surrounding relief) and then resized them to the correct scale.

And finally, I also added the photo etched depth numerals. I have done them from I-XXX (feet)- in both 64th and 72nd scale.

More on these nice models...:

I LOVE this model:

 And this:

Look how wide the deck planks are:

Chris,

 

What would be great would be to have a picture of the Victory Hull that you are building with a human reference next to it: a hand or a person holding it. I think it would provide a perspective that is missing from the pictures you gave us.

 

Thanks

Yves

I'll do that once the masts are in place.

One thing I meant to add - after visiting the Victory a few weeks back and taking loads of pics, and seeing details close up, I realise that most kits (and I would have done the same) use planks for the decks that are way too wide. From looking at the upper deck planks, they equate to something like 3mm wide in 64th scale, so 3mm wide tang is what I'll use.

I just added some gun port window frames for the ports under the poop - I realised that with the poop/quarterdeck removable bulkheads in place, the cannon wouldn't have been run out (probably..), and perhaps were placed parallel to the bulwarks - also after seeing the real thing, I added hinges for the removable/foldable bulkheads..

A few pics from Portsmouth (It was the only nice day we had last month - a day later we had snow!):

Since studying this and other photos, I changed the pillars of the bulkheads to resemble the ones in the pic, and added the bulkhead hinges at the top:

Wow. Finally a model that is over 5 feet long so that you can get real good detail. The size will make the job of rigging more enjoyable and allow it to be rigged better. One I would love to see and think it deserves this type of treatment would be the HMS Prince from the 17th century. At a scale of 1:50, this would be a kit to die for. With the modern technology, what was almost impossible for normal modelers can now be achieved through laser cutting and the like. Love the the Amati castings. They are so well done. Even if I was artist or great carver, I would still use their castings to save time and effort.

I have just stepped the bowsprit and lower masts, just to make sure they fit smoothly through all of the decks - it is then that I realised how big it's going to be..

I have redesigned the 64th scale Prince (which happens to be my favourite ship model), and that, until Victory was the largest model I have done. 1:48 would definitely be too large - I think 64th is the limit for 1st Rates. The length of the Prince hull is only 100mm shorter than Victory at around 965mm (without the bowsprit)