chris watton

Thank you for your kind words, they are much appreciated. I designed a 72nd scale Victory in 2001, and I certainly didn't want to do the same thing again regarding the usual and fairly simple designs - and I figured what would be the point in spending time developing such a hackneyed subject if when released, it's just the same as all the rest - why chose this over others?. I had to be sure that, after spending so much development time and Amati's money, even people who are sick to the back teeth of Victory kits (me included) would think twice about this one. Regarding the bow platform, I think I explained that in an earlier post. My primary sources for the main designs were/are the original plans from the NMM, John McKay's Anatomy book of Victory and Alan McGowan's HMS Victory: Her Construction, Career and Restoration. All three show the bow platform at upper gun deck level, although I am fully aware that Bulger, Longridge and the Victory herself show the raised platform. I have researched this area more than any other, and I still don't know which is correct. With this in mind, I had to think what would be easier for the modeller to change, if he/she wanted to changed the height? I concluded that It is much easier, even for relative novices to add the extra height than lower the deck. Thank you. Unfortunately, this is a commercial kit and cost of parts does have to play a part. I would prefer the Jerzy/Chuck type blocks as I feel this kit deserves them. However, although we did that for Mercury, there are so many blocks for Victory that they would add at least another £200 to the cost of the kit - that would be commercial suicide, as the kit will be quite expensive anyway. Plus, we are not sure whether the outside sources who manufacture them would be able to make enough (initial kit runs are 500-1000 kits - having all of the parts for every kit is vitally important) This, unfortunately is one of the compromises we have to make for commercial kits - most will not care about the blocks, but people like me and you do - but we are in a small minority. For everything else that I has a personal control over, I do try and make sure the parts are as accurate as they can be, though - I have even turned new belaying pins (the fat 'hour glass'-shaped ones would have looked entirely out of place) as well as the cannon barrels. There are very few 'off the shelf' fittings with this kit - ladders and the ship's bell is all that's used for the hull, I think. The rest is bespoke. There will be a full set of sail plans and sail material for those who like to add them.... I will ask if the proper blocks can be added as an optional extra, though - this may be the best compromise. Even perhaps 'Special Edition' kits in fewer numbers with the blocks! Thank you! You could leave one side open, yes, or just parts of the side left open. I am about to start on the mast now - pretty boring stuff.. Chris

Very impressive - someone after my own heart. Well done.

I do wonder if they based the model on the French Royal Louis. As far as I can ascertain, Spain was in decline for most of the 17th Century, and the largest ships she produced seemed to have no more than 70 guns at most. San Felipe certainly looks like it is based on a vessel built during the last quarter of the 17th Century.

I was going to suggest having the boats on the display base. If the Victory I am doing now was my own, that's what I'd do, along perhaps, with two of the anchors also sitting on the base with the hawse rope leading upwards. I also thought about rigging the pinnace to the quarter davits and have the keel resting on the display base. So many options - your head could explode! lol

Hi Kevin, After doing much research whilst developing a different Victory, I would not put the 34 and 32' carvel-planked boats on any of the stern davits as they would never have been hung there due to their size and weight. There are even some reservations as to whether Victory had 30' cutters, as some see these as almost too much for the quarter davits, and perhaps 28' or smaller were used. But that is a grey area and there's no hard and fast evidence regarding the size of the extra 2 cutters (When Bulger mentions them, he is only quoting the Navy Board Standing Order, which permitted the use of 8-oared cutters instead of barges) I think the pinnace and 18 footer are OK, though.

I would personally use thin card and PVA for all 'iron' rings for masts and yards - plastic can too easily come away from the part it's glued to.

Thank you! And if it's any consolation, I too have made quite a few of these in the past, and wasn't too enamoured at having to develop yet another one. Have to say though, I have thoroughly enjoyed doing this one thus far.

Thank you, Len . This one's taken me so long that I wonder if I'll be around to finish it, too! The paints for the boats were as follows: (Vallejo) White spray primer 121 - Yellow ochre 004 - Off-White 169 - Black For the wood simulation: 147 - Leather Brown (could be any shade shade of brown, to be honest) 183 - Wood grain (Transp) (This is the paint that makes the difference) 204 - Brown glaze - Helps give the 'wood' a 'heavier' and more natural appearance. Black glaze is also useful to add an extra dimension to some of the black painted parts - especially cannon barrels and belfry. I must remember to add the fore topsail brace rope to the belaying pins on the skid beams before adding the boats permanently.. For wood colours, no special techniques were used, just trial and error - and the above were what seemed to be the best combination for scale appearance

Cheers They're OK - but a little rushed, I have to admit. I painted the yellow in Vallejo yellow ochre - it's what I was going to use for all of the model.. The oars are photo etched, yes. The thwarts are laser cut in 1mm ply and then painted with Vallejo colours, as are the knees of the thwarts - about as small as you want to go with laser cutting... These are basic frames - I always found that trying to plank the frames without a base a little fiddly..:

OK, I got back this morning from a few days away. I completed the boats before I went and here's the results (I made a mistake of the 34' launch - the stern goes too high because I designed the stern board with the top strake incorporated into it, but because I'm an idiot, I had forgotten this when it came to planking. I have since re-designed the stern board so it's more obvious where the upper hull planking should go - but I simply haven't the time to rectify it..) The Vallejo paints really seemed to work well in hiding the fact that these parts are photo etched brass: I know the rudders would not be hung in place on the stowed boats (and impossible for the 18' cutter), but I included them anyway: Cutter was 'clinkered': All four boats done: And dry fitted in place: With hindsight, I should have been a little more careful regarding the placement of the stanchions near the boats, they are a little too close to the edge, so the boats are bunched up a little more than they should be... ETA - I did think about adding another two cutters, but there seems to be conflicting info on these, plus they are clinker planked, too...

Yes, it is quite exciting to realise what can be produced on the 3d printers. However, with the economy in the state that it is, right now I still prefer giving the work to talented individuals who can carve by hand - which I am sure will soon be a dying art due to the new technologies becoming more mainstream and affordable. (That is of course, if our governments don't bankrupt our nations first and send us all back to the Stone Age....)

Yes, I did, that's great news. The mid to late 17th Century ships are amongst my favourites - I love the curves, lines and slightly more modest decoration, compared to the overblown froth to help sate king's complexes that dominated the earlier century (Yes, Sovereign, I'm looking at you!)

I think more than anything it is the amount of carvings that put manufacturer's off. To do them well (as opposed to nothing more than oddly shaped blobs of metal coated in crappy bright paint) costs a lot of money. I want the new carvings/castings to be resin, as this shows more definition and the parts are easier to manipulate if need be, to follow the hull lines - although I am sure that when some open the box of cheaper kits, they'll still think they're getting more for their money because the bright shiny blobs of nothingness look like jewellery (from Claire's Accessories for the UK readers....)

Not accurate at all. I used the plans taken off the original 48th scale model in the Science Museum. I am not sure what was used to get the lines off the old Amati plans - but I don't think it was prince....

I have more than considered doing the Lenox, I have bought no less than two copies of The Restoration Warship for just a future project - I also have Prince to do, which may in fact be next on the list. (I have recently re designed that one so that it has the same method of gun port construction as Bellona and Victory) Side and rear profiles: ETA - Thank you so much for your kind comments regarding the website.

That was my idea and I updated it. I guess I can just use this site to do the same - not to advertise kits, I'm not really into that at all, but just to show new and upcoming developments.

If I can find enough details for the class, especially Shannon, that is what I shall do - a Leda Class frigate. Hope there are good lines and profiles, deck layouts etc. Thank you. Bellona will be released, as will the Cutty Sark, Revenge and Golden Hind. I work for Amati, so they produce them. Unfortunately, we also do a lot of part work (magazine) developments, and they have, at times, taken production priority - hence the delays and backlogs caused with some of my finished work. (in-between the standard kits, I have developed a Japanese sail training ship, the Black Pearl with half the hull open to show the innards of the ship, the ocean liner France and have had a hand in a Bismarck and a few others). It is very good news that I have been left alone for quite a while to develop the Victory without having to break off to do other stuff, which is usually the case. As for the size of Victory, to be honest, I am thinking of making one for myself, but just having stump masts or flag staffs instead of the full masts and bowsprit - saves a lot of space and still looks quite impressive.. Thank you, Kevin. Ah ha: http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/84700.html Have emailed the NMM for a pro-forma for lines, profile and deck drawings...

Shannon sounds like a good bet - I just hope there are good plans available....

I have to concur.

So - either a Leda Class or Artois Class frigate - the earlier ones are prettier (from a aesthetic point of view) with the exposed forecastle timberheads instead of the plain looking planked bulwarks.. Anyway, I have now added all of the cannon and depth markings to Victory (which is starting to get very dusty again... ..And I have just realised that I haven't made the carronades yet.. I received my updated quarterdeck bulwark hammock cranes with the cannon barrels and boats. I re designed them after studying the pictures I had taken of the real thing, and realised they had brackets holding them into position on the insides of the bulwarks, like this: I haven't rigged any of the cannon at all for this model. This is because I can never get them to look quite right, and when taking close ups, all you see is the stringy bits. Plus of course, I'm crap at rigging them anyway.....

Lots of food for thought, I do like the name Phoebe.....

Thank you, guys. A snow! hmm. I am thinking of revisiting the Cruizer Class but at 48th scale at some point. I think anything other than a USS Constitution won't sell that well (outside the US, that is ), and that subject is well covered - although I don't think there are any large scale versions... The problem with HMS Anson is that it's a raze, and doesn't have the classic frigate lines - plus it has a poop... I like the names of: Apollo/Euryalus Class - 1798 (36 guns) Boadicea Class - 1795 (38 guns) Artois/Apollo Class - 1793 (38 guns) Leda Class - 1794 ( 3 8guns) Arethusa Class - 1778 (38 guns) Something like that... (I did once suggest the Indefatigable - but Sergio, my boss, couldn't even pronounce it.. lol)

I use Ronseal multi purpose wood filler. It is water based and I find it perfect for wooden model applications (Have even used it to simulate deck caulking!), as it can be thinned into a paste using water - plus it is very easy to sand. I find standard olde-type filler too hard - almost like concrete when set.

I have decided that I want to develop a super detail heavy frigate next - haven't done one since my first PoB design, Diana. (Have done Surprise, but that doesn't count, too small) Any suggestions? (would prefer one without solid front bulwarks - they just look nicer and more interesting...)

Love this thread.. Makes my 1:64 scale effort look positively bereft of detail!