chris watton

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

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.

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.

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:

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:

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)

Hi Mike, Of course! First planking is 1.5x6mm limewood and second is 1x5 walnut: Second planking: Followed by wales: And while the hull is free from clutter: Chris

I don't think the MDF would add too much more to the weight than ply, to be honest, as most parts are not too big or thick - the hull is mostly a very strong but hollow shell. One thing you may be pleased about is the gun port inner linings - they are all laser cut in 1mm ply (No sill on the lower inside edge of the ports, just top and sides) - and all of the gun port lids are laser cut.

What a fantastic job! Miles better than my prototype, that's for sure. Very well done. Chris

Thank you The length of the hull, from stern to figurehead is 1066mm. With the bowsprit and mizzen boom, it increases to 1582mm, or there about. After working on it for so long, it doesn't look that big anymore.....

Thank you Chuck! That means a lot coming from you. I had anticipated finishing this one by June/July - but there is so much to it that for the first time, I have grossly underestimated the development time and looks like this will go on until September at least! I must weigh it when complete...

Hi, Yes, it is the same model. It seems to have took an age to get this far due to all of the internal work. I have added PE window frames to the kit version of the area in front of the stove, after my trip to Portsmouth

Phew - that looks like my stern! Thanks for that, B.E. Even with a ship as famous as this, there are still many interpretations. For the most part, I have been using Alan McGowen, John Goodwin and John McKay for most of the detail. There are no castings for the stern and side gallery decoration - I was pleased with how the Mercury layered PE decoration came out, so did the same for Victory. This allows me to draw them as good and as accurate as they can be, and they will never change in size or look too thick - and being easier to paint well.

I think I have to disagree regarding the stern's appearance... But correct about the stern davits - but perhaps in another 10-20 year's time, further evidence will suggest that Victory did indeed have davits. This is how research seems to ebb and flow, I have noticed....

Hi BE. The stern davits are purely optional. (No holes cut into the stern, so leaving them off isn't a problem). It is important to note that if I were to design the stern as per her Trafalgar configuration, the stern would look very different to how it looks today, on the real thing. If I did design the stern as per 1803/05, too many people who don't know what it actually looked like would complain and say it's wrong. Also, I don't buy the built up bulwarks for the forecastle. I have only ever seen these on Victory on paintings of her taken years after Trafalgar, where the artist has incorporated configurations contemporary to the artist, and not of 1803/05 (one famous painting even shows Victory with a later round bow with continuous front bulwarks). With a 'square' forecastle, build up bulwarks does not look right, perhaps looking a little awkward - But that's just my own personal opinion based on many drawings and paintings I have studied over the years. More drawings/paintings than not show stern davits and timberheads at the forecastle, so this is what I include - but as I said, the stern davits are entirely optional.