chris watton

I won't start a new thread on this, as I am not sure who the kit will be for, so may be restricted in what I can give away. I don't think it'll have a corvus, the Romans tried these in the 1st Punic War - although quite successful, they were also successful in making the vessels very unstable and many ships were lost because of this. (from what I have read, at least..) As for ballista/scorpion/harpax/onager or two - it would be rude not to! Not sure about oar arrangement yet - still researching.... Regarding an ironclad - I personally like them and would love to develop one (I remember with fondness helping to develop and built the prototype of a 96th scale pre-dreadnaught almost 20 years ago now) - but I don't think it will ever happen. Even Warrior is often met with luke warm enthusiasm at best - and that's one of the prettier and well known transitional vessels. The rest are interesting, but ugly when compared to the vessels they usurped - the Victorian period just isn't that romantic when it comes to ships - most kit modellers aren't interested (although I know there will always be niche's within niche's), especially when compared to the earlier periods. In my own humble optional, of course..

There may be some news regarding Bellona soon - in the meantime, I have to start work and research on a 32nd scale Roman war galley.... Roma Victor!

Cheers I did in fact weigh the Victory when at Amati. We placed bets on its weight. I was convinced it weighed around 20kg, and so were some others. It actually weighed 8kg! I was very surprised. Vanguard did feel a lot lighter, though, so that must be perhaps 5-6kg. As for complexity, Victory is much more complex than Vanguard, but that doesn't translate as difficult. I guess if you have no plans/instructions for Vanguard, there's a good chance you could still build it, being a fairly conventional kit. For Victory, you will need to follow the instructions and drawings, as there are many parts that look similar, but are not. Revenge is quite easy to build, the easiest of the three, I think - but when I say 'easy', I really mean less time to build - there is nothing too difficult about any of them - not like the old days when you had to shape a lot of the parts yourself. I did ask about Cutty Sark - this will be a kit at some point, that's all I know.

I have always rigged them so they are parallel with the waterline - makes the most sense to me.

Oh - forgot to say, the masters for the cherubs on each side of the figurehead were made using a 3-D printer!

No - no model making for me for at least the next four months as I now have to concentrate of the drawings and photographs - and in all honesty, after spending 10-12 hours per day on the PC doing this, the last thing I want to do is start another in my 'free time' - I'd go mad! lol. I have a couple of future projects I have to research, though, this aspect I never tire of, so I shall probably do a bit of that in the evenings. @amateur - there was no way I was going to spend so long developing a new model in the same scale as other's out there. It is one of those models that some aspire to build one day, like I used to aspire to build the Sovereign. I guess if people are prepared to buy a 72nd scale Victory, they would also be prepared to go for one slightly larger - at these scales, they cannot be built in small spaces anyway. having said that, I managed to build the prototype just using our humble dining room table - it's displaying it afterwards that could cause the problems. I have mentioned before that the hull alone is impressive, I think it would look almost as good with just stump masts. ETA - it is nigh on impossible to please everyone - if I make one at a smaller scale, one group will moan that it's too small, and if too big, another group will moan that there's no room to build it. From experience, I would hazard a guess and say the optimal size would be no more than 40" long - Fly size is almost perfect for most, it seems - but how boring would it be having all small scale First Rate ship models - in any case, Victory at smaller scales is more than catered for..

I am not sure what other company's kit scales have to do with the choices I make - I simply concentrate on the developments I am asked to do and have never really been interested in what other's do (although I know the kits you mention quite intimately..) What would have been the point of another 70-ish scale model of Victory? This new one is meant to be the 'Flagship' of the range, so it had to be special and set apart from the sea of other Victory's out there - worrying about whether or not it would suit other manufacturers scales never once entered my head!

Tens of thousands of different fittings! That is part of the kit packing table, there are three in total and they're huge!

Cheers We missed the storms completely! However, it was raining hard in the UK and France all the way there, and raining hard in the UK last night, but still quite warm in Northern Italy..

Hiya! Got back from Italy last night - never get used to the drive, it's so long! They loved Victory, and I shall be left alone to complete the drawings and instructions for the model, which is good. After Victory, I have couple of different projects to start work on, as they have enough period ships in the pipeline for now. The frigate will have to wait a while longer.. Revenge is almost ready, this should be followed by the RC capable Scottish fishing boat. After this, I don't know. Anyway, I took a couple of (bad) pictures of Victory next to Vanguard. It wasn't until I seen Vanguard again for the first time since starting Victory that I realised just how big it was - I always thought Vanguard was large, but is dwarfed by Victory! Oh yes - Victory now has her figurehead (exact scale - not as big as you see on other kits...) - and some flags...

Thank you, guys The Victory is now safely secured in the van, so I don't have to worry about that any longer.... I must remember to sabotage the ABBA CD's, perhaps change them with the Sex Pistols!

Cheers, Rusty The part I am dreading the most is carrying it down a flight of concrete steps to our driveway, to place it in the van - been having nightmares about tripping up halfway down and the model going flying!

Just thought I'd let you know that the model is going to Italy this Sunday, we have hired a van and will drive there (safest option for something this large and delicate) - not looking forward to the 14 hour drive, though. There will be no models in our home once more, when we get back! I have now finished numbering up every part and the parts list runs to 29 pages! Just hope Amati like it when they see it on Monday morning...gulp....

It is surprising, isn't it, just how many details on this ship are in grey area territory. If the ports were present, I am pretty sure the men would have used some kind of ad-hoc method of covering it/them - canvas, leather or wood perhaps. But the question remains, why only 28 cannon for the middle deck? They were certainly designed with the entry ports in mind, I think. But in the real world, in the midst of all out war, long blockades and thousands of nautical miles away from home, I guess anything goes.

I too have thought long and hard about this. My conclusion was that I think the entry ports were there, but the top and bottom were built up to resemble the adjacent gun ports when out of harbour, and perhaps even a 'jury lid' made, ready for a lengthy sea commission. However, all the records show that the middle gun deck had 28 cannon, and not the 30 of the decks above and below. Could the captain have ordered an extra two cannons while the ship was being victualed - thus not being shown on official records?

I think it is better to stain the planks before introducing them to even a sniff of glue. Another alternative is to paint them 'wood colour' - there are so many good paints now that you can get a really excellent scale colour effect.

A truly excellent, and inspirational thread.

Hi Mike, No problem - here you go: And this is the model in her crate, almost ready to be shipped - Victory would be too large (500mm longer and much wider) which is why we have to hire a van and drive...

Hi Mike, As far as I am concerned, the scroll work is fine as is. I know the frieze work should really be painted on, so a colour paper template would be more in keeping - but the very thin brass is more 'resilient', whereas paper, no matter how good the quality, isn't. One small scratch can ruin it. (I know this from experience) I was referring to the actual hull design, the bulkheads and deck beams - it is this area which needs 'beefing up' - it may be too delicate for some, so it will need re-designing as per the Victory method (which is a progression from the Bellona designs anyway) The stern main decoration is cast resin - it is way too 'frothy' to work well using multi-layered photo etch. The resin is great though, as it is much more pliable than metal. Laser cut decoration I am not so keen on. It is too easy for the parts to crumble to nothing, if not 100% careful, and edges have to be carefully rounded off if it's to look like the real thing. There's nothing worse than having the tiny part break just as you finish an hours work on it..

Hi Mike, I made the designs way too 'delicate' - if it came out in kit form without change, many modellers would have problems (although I am stone cold sure you and many others on here would have no problem) If I get the go-ahead to buff the designs to general retail standard, I will be very happy - but it will be quite a lot of work. Would be worth it though as, looking at the pictures I had taken (I haven't seen it since shipping it over to Amati), it is a very nice looking model and would do well, sales-wise I think. It's like a Fly/Pegasus kit but on steroids, decoration-wise.

It would make a very nice kit, I have to agree. I will mention this when I see them.

Bowsprit looks fine, Kevin.

That is of course up to you to decide, isn't it? Stub masts is an accepted way of displaying a model, as it depicts the subject at a particular stage in it's life/construction, as do 'missing planks' -the latter also shows off the internal detail and extra work carried out - leaving the ratlines off just smacks of 'couldn't be bothered to do the necessary but mundane aspects' and detracts from the overall effect. The two examples you mention do not, especially when executed correctly. If you have a full set of masts however (including top and topgallants, even royals), then not adding ratlines makes no visual or historical sense - once the lower masts were stepped, the lower shrouds and ratlines would have been rigged, otherwise how would the men climb to the tops to aid with the stepping of the upper masts? This is only my personal opinion, and not gospel, of course.

At the end of the day, it's your kit/model, you are free to do whatever you see fit. However, a 'scale model' should have the ratlines rigged if it had them, otherwise it will always remain an unfinished scale model. IMOHO.

I know - you have no idea! lol Sausage dogs are staying, step son is staying at home (my God!) while we're away - they were all born in Italy though.. I think Cutty Sark is still on hold as we're waiting for a technology that allows us to replicate the two deck houses in fine detail (many different layers of panelling of the real version) - but I shall ask.