chris watton

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.

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.

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..

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...

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?

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