chris watton

@chris watton I do know that, while researching and designing the Endeavour (13 years ago now, cripes!), it did state in the Anatomy of the Ship book that the hull colour was in fact nearer to brown (I think I even wrote this in the instructions, if memory serves - but that's 18th Century). So I guess it can vary - although off-white is by far the safest bet if no sources tell you otherwise.

LOL, but for us Brits, I felt I was in the process of photosynthesis it has been so bright! Three days of hot weather so far this year - things are looking up...!

LOL, Cheers I will have anything laser cut or photo etched I can possibly think of to make my, and the modeller's life as simple as it can be. Essentially, anything I can get away with. (I had a good moan about the tab positions on my prototype parts - been a nightmare releasing some of the parts..) I do wish we could find a company to make the masts and yards pre-shaped, as you really do need a lathe to make them properly..

Have started on the masts while I wait for the new poop parts. Initially, I tried to rush this as I went into auto-pilot - and made some stupid mistakes (bowsprit gammoning cleats in the wrong place due to me not pushing the bowsprit in right to the end - so had to remove and start over - no extended cheeks on the mizzen, when it clearly has them - what an idiot!). I decided to slow down and complete the mast plans before going any further, which I have now done. The lower mast are almost complete and have been primed: (My wife is re-decorating around me!) I did make sure I had laser cut mast and yard cleats in various shapes and sizes - saves a little time... (Pity I couldn't have had the gammoning cleats laser cut...) And that's where I am right now - I spent all of yesterday (Sunday, in the sweltering heat) turning the upper masts.

Hi Daniel, Thank you! I am not sure at all regarding the history of that particular model (I assume you mean the one with one too many gun ports on the quarterdeck and the odd stern)? Perhaps it was a model made by a builder and submitted to the Admiralty for approval, for how she should look after the 'great repair', I don't know. I do know that when studying both models and paintings can throw up massive discrepancies between them. Prince for example. The beautiful model in the Science Museum is definitely of Prince, but when looking at the Van De Velde drawings (These are almost as good as photographs for the Restoration period, IMOHO), they show a small open stern gallery on the real thing, and this seems quite consistent with other contemporary drawings, and some paintings - but it is not there on the actual model. I assume it was added during the build and after the model was made. For Victory, being 'only' a couple of hundred years old since the rebuild, you'd have thought there would be pliantly of correlating material relating to how she looked - but this hasn't been the case, I have found... Chris

The lighter the model, the less damage it will take if dropped, it could be argued. Dropping a heavily laden model with 2kg worth of needless material could spell catastrophe, as opposed to a few things to repair and touch up. The only concessions I make it to do with the rigging, and none of it is glued/fixed permanently in place (from experience..)

I have this book and can confirm it is very good, especially for very detailed and sharp colour photographs. There is also a lot of input from Peter Goodwin.

You could buy the kit, and cross out the 'Victory' and write 'HMS Temeraire' underneath - she'll never know! The Vallejo paints are water based and produced in Spain, I think. If you're painting large areas, they need to be airbrushed, as acrylics don't seem to be as forgiving as enamels. For smaller parts they are great, though.

I remember adding extra weight to my Airfix Victory to make it sit correctly in the water - just before blowing it up with a French Banger! Those were the days - probably get arrested on some kind of terrorist charge if we were to try that today....

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.