wefalck

I welcome everyone!
  The painting process took some time.
The photo shows the hull of the model after covering it with primer.

Note: This is not a product endorsement, and I have no connection to anyone selling this product. I just got one and have no idea how long it will last.
 
I do a fair amount of macro photography and close up photography. Lighting is always a problem. I have been using everything from sunlight coming in the window to various desk lamps and such. Each required a different white balance and low light intensity and harsh shadows were always a problem.
 
I have seen several "professional" (synonym = high price) units but never wanted to spend hundreds of dollars on one. I recently found a relatively low cost unit at a local camera store and decided to give it a try. It is a Godox Ring 72 and it cost US$75.00.
 

 
The "72" refers to 72 white LEDs in the assembly. It runs on four AA cells. They also offer a rechargeable lithium battery which I do not have.
 
There are three parts to the unit. The ring light is connected to the controller with a coiled cord. A metal adapter ring screws into the filter threads on the front of the lens.
 

 
The unit comes with eight adapter rings for 49, 52, 55, 58, 62, 67, 72 and 77mm filter threads. After the adapter ring is attached to the lens the ring light just slips in place over the ring. The controller has a "cold shoe" that fits into the camera's flash unit "hot shoe" - but the ring light adapter has no electrical connection to the camera. The controller does not have to be attached to the camera, but it is very convenient to have it right in front of you.
 
One interesting feature is that the light is divided into two banks (left and right) of 36 LEDs each. Each side can be turned on/off independently. Also, each side has a dimmer in 10 increments so you can create shadows and control light intensity. I haven't experimented with this yet, and I can see from the photos below that this may be a useful way to create shadows in closeup pictures.
 
Here is a sample photo. This is a photo stacked image from eleven shots. The first thing I noticed is the light is very bright, so I was shooting at f/40 and 1/16 second with ISO 640! In the past I have been using something like f/8 and 1/30 second at ISO 640.
 

 
I always had problems with Photoshop photo stacking when I used the wider apertures (shorter focal distances). The program had trouble determining where the edges of things like ropes were, and left a blur on either side where it chose the wrong out of focus photo. This required a LOT of editing to correct! The photo above had no editing! If you look very closely you might see a couple of places with background blur along the ropes, but if I hadn't mentioned it I'll bet you would never notice. All in all, this is a much clearer image than any I have gotten before with photo stacking. Also, you can clearly see the dust accumulation over the past few weeks when I have been working on sails and a lot of non-modelling projects!
 
This next photo is even better!
 

 
This is just three images photo stacked, with no further editing. In the past I would have used at least eight shots for this picture. It was shot at f/36 and 1 second and ISO 640. In fact, the middle photo that was focused on the bell has no noticeable blurring near or far unless you blow up the image, and then it is only slightly out of focus at the bulwark caps. With the bright light and very small apertures the depth of field in each image is about as great as the width of the model.
 
Here is another extreme photo stacking example, using nine photos.
 

 
The over all depth of the model is about 27 1/2 inches (about 700 mm). In the past I used 12 photos and there were a number of blurry places. The picture also shows that the jib boom is a bit misaligned to the starboard side (left in the photo). Shortly after rigging the bowsprit and bib boom I accidentally caught my shirtsleeve on the bowsprit and broke the freshly rigged port stay! Looks like when I re-rigged it I didn't pull it tight enough to pull the jib boom back in line.
 
This photo does show one shortcoming of the ring light. All surfaces perpendicular to the line of sight have a lot of glare where the light is reflected back. Another problem is the lack of control of the light angle to create shadows. Maybe adjusting the relative brightness of the two banks of lights can be used to create some shadow effects - for further experimentation.
 
This thing is new, and I have no idea how long it will last. But it was relatively inexpensive and worth trying. It is much brighter than the lights I have been using so it does allow better depth of field in the pictures.
 
The light output is said to be 8 Watts and 5600 Kelvin (daylight color). It weighs 245 grams without batteries.
 
Here is one more picture made from five photo stacked images shot at f/36, 1/16 second and ISO 640. Notice the very soft blurred shadows on the background. This is a lot less distracting than harsh shadows from a single distant point light.
 

CAUTION: esoteric camera nerd stuff!
 
We sometimes obsess about how many pixels our camera sensors have (mine is bigger than yours ...). But are more pixels ever worse than fewer?
 
I have two principal camera bodies, the Nikon D850 and the Nikon D5600. The D850 camera body sensor has almost twice as many pixels as the D5600 sensor. It would seem the D850 should create higher quality images. But I was curious about the difference in actual image sizes for subjects photographed with the D850 FX camera body and the D5600 DX camera body, using the same Nikon Micro Nikkor 105 mm macro FX lens (a "prime" or non-zoom lens).
 
The full frame (FX) D850 image sensor produces images with 8256x5504 pixels, or 45.44 megapixels. The crop frame (DX) D5600 produces images with 6000x4000 pixels, or 24.00 megapixels. So the D850 images have 1.89 times as many pixels as the D5600 images. This seems like an obvious advantage for the D850, producing images that can be cropped smaller to get the same number of pixels as a similar D5600 image that is cropped much less. But this isn’t the end of the story!


 
 
Full frame (FX) lenses can be used on crop frame (DX) camera bodies. Because the DX sensor is smaller, if used with a FX lens only the center 75% of the image produced by the lens is used (for Nikon cameras - other manufacturers have different full/crop fame ratios). This narrows the view angle, and  increases the effective focal length of the FX lens on the DX camera body by about 1.5.
 
 
 
 

 
This means you can take a picture of an object to fill the DX picture area from about 1.5 times the distance as needed to fill the FX picture area. So from the same distance the image of an object will be much smaller in the FX camera picture than in the DX camera picture (using the same FX lens on both camera bodies). Which camera and lens combination actually gives more pixels for the object being photographed? A simple 1.5:1.0 comparison doesn’t work. The calculations are complicated by the fact that the pixel density on the FX and DX image sensors is different (the D5600 sensor has about 1.2 times as many pixels per mm2 as the D850 sensor).
 
To answer this question I took some pictures of a test pattern with the D850 and D5600 camera bodies mounted on a tripod. I used the Nikon Micro Nikkor 105 mm macro FX lens on both camera bodies. On the DX D5600 body the lens is equivalent to a 157 mm lens.


 
 
First I positioned the tripod so the test pattern image filled the D5600/105 mm picture vertically (left). Then I cropped the picture to include only the test pattern image (the outside of the outer black rectangle). The resulting test pattern picture was 5180x3904 pixels, or 20,222,720 pixels (20.22 megapixels).
 
 
 
 
 

 
Then I shot the test pattern with the D850/105 mm setup on the tripod at the same position as for the D5600 shot. As you can see (left), the test pattern image does not fill the picture. After cropping the image to include only the test pattern, the resulting picture was 4632x3496 pixels, or 16,193,472 pixels (16.19 megapixels). This is 0nly 80% (0.800756) as many pixels in the test pattern image as the D5600/105 mm body and lens combination.
 
 
 
 
From the same position, with the same lens on the two different camera bodies, the DX/FX D5600/105 mm setup produced 1.25 times as many pixels for the same object as the FX/FX D850/105 mm combination! So for more distant objects the DX body and FX lens gives greater magnification and more pixels for the objects being photographed.
 
****
 
But what about close-up and macro photography? This is normally of more interest for model photography. For these situations you can position the camera close to the subject and fill the picture area with the subject. How much closer does the D850/105 mm combination need to be to fill the entire picture area with the test pattern?
 
For this test I measured the distance from the initial tripod position where the test pattern filled the D5600/105 mm image picture. The distance from the test pattern to the focal plane was 146 cm (57.5 inches). Then I moved the tripod closer until the test pattern filled the frame on the D850/105 mm setup. The distance was 108 cm (42.5 inches). The DX body/FX lens combination fills the image with the subject at 1.35 times the distance for the FX body/FX lens combination.
 
To fill the picture with the subject the FX/FX body/lens has to be only 0.74 times as far from the subject as the DX/FX combination. The D850/105 mm cropped test pattern had 7344x5499 pixels, or 40,384,656 pixels (40.38 megapixels).
 
At this closer distance the 40.38 megapixel test pattern image in the D850/105 mm has twice (1.99699) as many pixels as the 20.22 megapixel picture on the D5600/105 mm at the longer distance when photographing the same object. So the D850 and 105 mm lens combination is much better for macro photography than the D5600 and 105 mm lens setup.
 
****
 
I normally carry the MUCH lighter D5600 camera body (and FX telephoto lenses) when I am hiking and photographing distant subjects like birds and animals. The D850 is used in the "studio" (my kitchen) when I am doing macro photography of ship models, wildflowers and such. However, on special wildflower expeditions I will carry the D850 and the 105 mm macro lens into the field.
 
Hope this is of interest to someone.

Yes, I don't understand why people drill holes or provide for them in their CAD-files at both ends of the blocks. There is no need for this and the sheave should almost touch the slot on one end.
 
I gather there is a tendency to make the sheaves/holes wider than the textbook dimensions, because it makes it easier to fiddle the ropes through. In theory, the sheaves would only be a tad wider than the rope for which they are meant.
 
It would make sense to make the sheaves to scale in 3D-printing and then to leave to the buyer to open up the hole with a drill or a watchmakers reamer, if needed.

Yes, I don't understand why people drill holes or provide for them in their CAD-files at both ends of the blocks. There is no need for this and the sheave should almost touch the slot on one end.
 
I gather there is a tendency to make the sheaves/holes wider than the textbook dimensions, because it makes it easier to fiddle the ropes through. In theory, the sheaves would only be a tad wider than the rope for which they are meant.
 
It would make sense to make the sheaves to scale in 3D-printing and then to leave to the buyer to open up the hole with a drill or a watchmakers reamer, if needed.

Do things always have to have names? Sometimes people just make something that seems useful to them, without thinking that someone else wants to 'classify' it.
 
It's an unusual rig anyway, with a lug that has boom etc.

I gather such parts are not (die-cast) zinc, but rather white-metal ... However, they shouldn't be black anyway, but painted in whatever the colour the ship would have been painted in, often white or green for instance.
 
Railway or figure modellers have a lot of experience with white-metal parts and there is a lot of information on the Web, how to work with such parts.

I gather such parts are not (die-cast) zinc, but rather white-metal ... However, they shouldn't be black anyway, but painted in whatever the colour the ship would have been painted in, often white or green for instance.
 
Railway or figure modellers have a lot of experience with white-metal parts and there is a lot of information on the Web, how to work with such parts.

The Crew
 
The WESPE-Class had a complement of around 80 crew, of which 3 where officers. This seems to be quite a number for a ship of only 46 m length. Unfortunately, there is no information on the different duties and the distribution of ratings. There are some crew photographs from the 1900 to 1910 era, but they manly show officers and petty-officers and in addition, they come from the short periods during which the boats were commissioned for exercises in groups and may show crew from a whole flotilla.
 
Gun drill on the WESPE-class around 1900
 
The intention was to show some gun-drill on the boat, as in the historical photograph above. There are about ten ratings visible and a couple more or so may be hidden behind the gun. There would be probably also a petty-officer in charge. On the bridge there would be two men at the helm and a couple of officers. In total, I estimated that about 15 figures would be needed to present a reasonable picture of activity.
Below the gun there would some ten men or more manning the cranks with which the gun is trained. In the boiler-room, some further ten crew would be working hard on stoking the fires, trimming coal etc. The same number of crew, would be on the off-watch. The machine would be tended by perhaps three to four engineers and petty officers. I am sure there are other duties, such as maintenance, signalling, plus a certain number on off-watches, but there is no information available on how these ships were ‘run’.

Officers of SMS HERTHA 1874-1877. Source: https://senckenbergarchiv.de/kolonialesbildarchiv/.
 
Uniforms
The 1870s were a time of transition as far as the naval uniforms are concerned. In the early years of the Empire much of the features of the uniforms of the Prussian navy were retained. To a certain degree the uniforms also followed the general fashion in terms of the height of the waste-line, the width of trousers and blouses, the shape of the caps etc. By the early 1880s the uniforms of all ranks were quite consolidated and were changed only in details until the early years of WW1. There is abundant information on these later years and on officers’ and petty-officers’ uniforms, but information on ratings in the early years is quite scarce in the primary and secondary literature. In particular, information on working kits is not very detailed. Normally, a certain ‘kit’ would be ordered for certain duties, but photographs show a certain variety of items worn and how they were worn, for instance some men would have the sleeves rolled up, while others would not.

Helmsmen on SMS HERTHA 1874-1877. Source: https://senckenbergarchiv.de/kolonialesbildarchiv/.
 
Photography was still rather new then and it was difficult to take ‘action’-pictures with the cumbersome equipment of the day. When a sailor had his likeness taken in a professional photographic studio, then it was in his Sunday-best parade-uniform and not in workaday fatigues. The same applies actually to all ranks. There are fortunately a couple of photo-albums from training-cruises in the mid-1870s (e.g. of the cruise of SMS HERTHA to the Far East in 1874-1877) which on purpose show the real-life of the crew, as much as was possible with the equipment of the day, thinking of heavy tripods and large-format cameras with wet glass-plates. These photographs are an important source of information on how the uniforms really looked like and how they were worn for different duties, although virtually all situations were ‘posed’.

Gun drill on SMS HERTHA 1874-1877. Source: https://senckenbergarchiv.de/kolonialesbildarchiv/.
 
Apart from photographs, there are a number of printed works can be considered as primary sources, as they were published at the time, and just two or three secondary publications, which mostly reproduce the plates from earlier publications:
 
ANONYM (1872): Uniformierungs-Liste der Königlich Preußischen Armee und der Kaiserlich Deutschen Marine. Zweite bis zu Gegenwart fortgeführte Auflage.-  114 p., Berlin (E.S. Mittler & Sohn).
 
ANONYM (1887): Die Uniformen der Deutschen Marine in detaillierten Beschreibungen und Farbendarstellungen (Reprint 2007, Melchior Verlag, Wolfenbüttel).- 61 p., 18 Taf., Leipzig (Verlag von Moritz Ruhl).
 
BURGER, L. (1864): Uniformierung der preußischen Marine, Originalzeichnungen.- Über Land und Meer, Bd. 12, Jg. 6, Nr. 31: 487 u. 489.
 
HENCKEL, C. (1901): Atlas des Deutschen Reichsheeres und der Kaiserlichen Marine einschließlich kaiserlicher Schutztruppen in Afrika in ihrer Uniformierung und Einteilung.- 32 pl., Dresden (Militär-Kunst-Verlag MARS).
 
Lintz, G., Raecke, K.-H. (1978): Die königlich preußische Marine.- Z. für Heereskunde, 275: 20-21.
 
Marineamt [Ed.] (1984?): Die Geschichte der Matrosenuniform.- 79 p., Wilhelmshaven (Marineunterstützungskommando).
 
NOESKE, R.,  STEFANSKI, C.P. (2011): Die deutschen Marinen 1818–1918. Organisation, Uniformierung, Bewaffung und Ausrüstung.- 2 vols.: 1336 p., 304 pl., Wien (Verlag Militaria).
 
RUHL, M. [Ed.] (1887): Uniformen der deutschen Marine in detaillirten Beschreibungen und Farbendarstellungen, nebst Mittheilungen über Organisation, Stärke etc., sowie einer Liste sämtlicher Kriegsfahrzeuge und den genauen Abbildungen aller Standarten und Flaggen.- 98 p., 26 pl., Wolfenbüttel (Reprint 2007 by Melchior Historischer Verlag).
 
RUHL, M. (18936😞 Die Deutsche Marine und die Deutschen Schutztruppen für Ostafrika in ihrer neuesten Uniformierung.- 78 p., 20 pl., (Faksimile Fines Mundi).
 
RUHL, M. (1892): Uniformen der deutschen Marine.- Starnberg  (reprint 1989).
 
SCHLAWE, K. (1900): Die deutsche Marine in ihrer gegenwärtigen Uniformierung.- 98 p., (M. Ruhl).
 
WALDORF-ASTORIA [Hrsg.] (193?): Uniformen der Marine und Schutztruppen.- 14 p., 8 pl., München (Waldorf-Astoria Zigarettenfabrik).
 
ZIENERT, J. (1970): Unsere Marine-Uniform – Ihre geschichtliche Entstehung seit den ersten Anfängen und ihre zeitgemäße Weiterentwicklung von 1816 bis 1970.- 451 p., Hamburg (Helmut Gerhard Schulz Verlag).

Gun drill on SMS HERTHA 1874-1877 – note the high heels of the shoes at this time. Source: https://senckenbergarchiv.de/kolonialesbildarchiv/.
 
Preparing the Figures
Starting point is a set of unpainted figures by Preiser in 1/160 (N-scale). Compared to HO-scale the selection is much smaller and the sets of unpainted figures are not so easy to find. Individual figures were selected on the basis of their poses, but very few had vaguely useful dresses. Some of the railway officials formed a suitable a basis for the officers and petty-officers.
Fortunately, the figures are small, some 10 to 11 mm in height, so only a rather summary representation of their attire needs to/can be achieved.
All figures required quite a bit of carving and sculpting with ‘Green Stuff’. The single-breasted jackets of the railway staff had to be converted into the double-breasted, longer frock-coats of the time. The peak-caps of 1960s officials (many of the figures were originally modelled by Preiser in the early 1960s) looked quite different from those worn by naval officers in the 1870s – German (naval) peak-caps underwent a significant change in appearance between the 1870s and the early post-WWII years. 
Naval ratings required more substantial carving: jackets had to be cut away and blouses tucked into high-waist trousers had to be carved. Safety helmets were cut away and the characteristic sailor’s cap sculpted with ‘Green Stuff’. Shovels etc. were cut away and hands drilled for more appropriate implements. The sailors also got their traditional large collar.

The crew-member at various stages of modelling
 
Unfortunately, I forgot to take a ‘before’ picture, but the one above shows the 15 figures at various stages of the carving and sculpting exercise. Amputations and reassembly à la Dr. Frankenstein are difficult at this small scale and were not attempted with few minor exceptions.
 
Again, a text-heavy post, but it serves myself as a memo of my deliberations and what I did.
 
To be continued ....

The Crew
 
The WESPE-Class had a complement of around 80 crew, of which 3 where officers. This seems to be quite a number for a ship of only 46 m length. Unfortunately, there is no information on the different duties and the distribution of ratings. There are some crew photographs from the 1900 to 1910 era, but they manly show officers and petty-officers and in addition, they come from the short periods during which the boats were commissioned for exercises in groups and may show crew from a whole flotilla.
 
Gun drill on the WESPE-class around 1900
 
The intention was to show some gun-drill on the boat, as in the historical photograph above. There are about ten ratings visible and a couple more or so may be hidden behind the gun. There would be probably also a petty-officer in charge. On the bridge there would be two men at the helm and a couple of officers. In total, I estimated that about 15 figures would be needed to present a reasonable picture of activity.
Below the gun there would some ten men or more manning the cranks with which the gun is trained. In the boiler-room, some further ten crew would be working hard on stoking the fires, trimming coal etc. The same number of crew, would be on the off-watch. The machine would be tended by perhaps three to four engineers and petty officers. I am sure there are other duties, such as maintenance, signalling, plus a certain number on off-watches, but there is no information available on how these ships were ‘run’.

Officers of SMS HERTHA 1874-1877. Source: https://senckenbergarchiv.de/kolonialesbildarchiv/.
 
Uniforms
The 1870s were a time of transition as far as the naval uniforms are concerned. In the early years of the Empire much of the features of the uniforms of the Prussian navy were retained. To a certain degree the uniforms also followed the general fashion in terms of the height of the waste-line, the width of trousers and blouses, the shape of the caps etc. By the early 1880s the uniforms of all ranks were quite consolidated and were changed only in details until the early years of WW1. There is abundant information on these later years and on officers’ and petty-officers’ uniforms, but information on ratings in the early years is quite scarce in the primary and secondary literature. In particular, information on working kits is not very detailed. Normally, a certain ‘kit’ would be ordered for certain duties, but photographs show a certain variety of items worn and how they were worn, for instance some men would have the sleeves rolled up, while others would not.

Helmsmen on SMS HERTHA 1874-1877. Source: https://senckenbergarchiv.de/kolonialesbildarchiv/.
 
Photography was still rather new then and it was difficult to take ‘action’-pictures with the cumbersome equipment of the day. When a sailor had his likeness taken in a professional photographic studio, then it was in his Sunday-best parade-uniform and not in workaday fatigues. The same applies actually to all ranks. There are fortunately a couple of photo-albums from training-cruises in the mid-1870s (e.g. of the cruise of SMS HERTHA to the Far East in 1874-1877) which on purpose show the real-life of the crew, as much as was possible with the equipment of the day, thinking of heavy tripods and large-format cameras with wet glass-plates. These photographs are an important source of information on how the uniforms really looked like and how they were worn for different duties, although virtually all situations were ‘posed’.

Gun drill on SMS HERTHA 1874-1877. Source: https://senckenbergarchiv.de/kolonialesbildarchiv/.
 
Apart from photographs, there are a number of printed works can be considered as primary sources, as they were published at the time, and just two or three secondary publications, which mostly reproduce the plates from earlier publications:
 
ANONYM (1872): Uniformierungs-Liste der Königlich Preußischen Armee und der Kaiserlich Deutschen Marine. Zweite bis zu Gegenwart fortgeführte Auflage.-  114 p., Berlin (E.S. Mittler & Sohn).
 
ANONYM (1887): Die Uniformen der Deutschen Marine in detaillierten Beschreibungen und Farbendarstellungen (Reprint 2007, Melchior Verlag, Wolfenbüttel).- 61 p., 18 Taf., Leipzig (Verlag von Moritz Ruhl).
 
BURGER, L. (1864): Uniformierung der preußischen Marine, Originalzeichnungen.- Über Land und Meer, Bd. 12, Jg. 6, Nr. 31: 487 u. 489.
 
HENCKEL, C. (1901): Atlas des Deutschen Reichsheeres und der Kaiserlichen Marine einschließlich kaiserlicher Schutztruppen in Afrika in ihrer Uniformierung und Einteilung.- 32 pl., Dresden (Militär-Kunst-Verlag MARS).
 
Lintz, G., Raecke, K.-H. (1978): Die königlich preußische Marine.- Z. für Heereskunde, 275: 20-21.
 
Marineamt [Ed.] (1984?): Die Geschichte der Matrosenuniform.- 79 p., Wilhelmshaven (Marineunterstützungskommando).
 
NOESKE, R.,  STEFANSKI, C.P. (2011): Die deutschen Marinen 1818–1918. Organisation, Uniformierung, Bewaffung und Ausrüstung.- 2 vols.: 1336 p., 304 pl., Wien (Verlag Militaria).
 
RUHL, M. [Ed.] (1887): Uniformen der deutschen Marine in detaillirten Beschreibungen und Farbendarstellungen, nebst Mittheilungen über Organisation, Stärke etc., sowie einer Liste sämtlicher Kriegsfahrzeuge und den genauen Abbildungen aller Standarten und Flaggen.- 98 p., 26 pl., Wolfenbüttel (Reprint 2007 by Melchior Historischer Verlag).
 
RUHL, M. (18936😞 Die Deutsche Marine und die Deutschen Schutztruppen für Ostafrika in ihrer neuesten Uniformierung.- 78 p., 20 pl., (Faksimile Fines Mundi).
 
RUHL, M. (1892): Uniformen der deutschen Marine.- Starnberg  (reprint 1989).
 
SCHLAWE, K. (1900): Die deutsche Marine in ihrer gegenwärtigen Uniformierung.- 98 p., (M. Ruhl).
 
WALDORF-ASTORIA [Hrsg.] (193?): Uniformen der Marine und Schutztruppen.- 14 p., 8 pl., München (Waldorf-Astoria Zigarettenfabrik).
 
ZIENERT, J. (1970): Unsere Marine-Uniform – Ihre geschichtliche Entstehung seit den ersten Anfängen und ihre zeitgemäße Weiterentwicklung von 1816 bis 1970.- 451 p., Hamburg (Helmut Gerhard Schulz Verlag).

Gun drill on SMS HERTHA 1874-1877 – note the high heels of the shoes at this time. Source: https://senckenbergarchiv.de/kolonialesbildarchiv/.
 
Preparing the Figures
Starting point is a set of unpainted figures by Preiser in 1/160 (N-scale). Compared to HO-scale the selection is much smaller and the sets of unpainted figures are not so easy to find. Individual figures were selected on the basis of their poses, but very few had vaguely useful dresses. Some of the railway officials formed a suitable a basis for the officers and petty-officers.
Fortunately, the figures are small, some 10 to 11 mm in height, so only a rather summary representation of their attire needs to/can be achieved.
All figures required quite a bit of carving and sculpting with ‘Green Stuff’. The single-breasted jackets of the railway staff had to be converted into the double-breasted, longer frock-coats of the time. The peak-caps of 1960s officials (many of the figures were originally modelled by Preiser in the early 1960s) looked quite different from those worn by naval officers in the 1870s – German (naval) peak-caps underwent a significant change in appearance between the 1870s and the early post-WWII years. 
Naval ratings required more substantial carving: jackets had to be cut away and blouses tucked into high-waist trousers had to be carved. Safety helmets were cut away and the characteristic sailor’s cap sculpted with ‘Green Stuff’. Shovels etc. were cut away and hands drilled for more appropriate implements. The sailors also got their traditional large collar.

The crew-member at various stages of modelling
 
Unfortunately, I forgot to take a ‘before’ picture, but the one above shows the 15 figures at various stages of the carving and sculpting exercise. Amputations and reassembly à la Dr. Frankenstein are difficult at this small scale and were not attempted with few minor exceptions.
 
Again, a text-heavy post, but it serves myself as a memo of my deliberations and what I did.
 
To be continued ....

I gather such parts are not (die-cast) zinc, but rather white-metal ... However, they shouldn't be black anyway, but painted in whatever the colour the ship would have been painted in, often white or green for instance.
 
Railway or figure modellers have a lot of experience with white-metal parts and there is a lot of information on the Web, how to work with such parts.

I gather such parts are not (die-cast) zinc, but rather white-metal ... However, they shouldn't be black anyway, but painted in whatever the colour the ship would have been painted in, often white or green for instance.
 
Railway or figure modellers have a lot of experience with white-metal parts and there is a lot of information on the Web, how to work with such parts.

Thanks for the tips! While I slowly advance on the hinges, I turned my attention to the mast.
 
Looking over photos, I saw there was a wide range of thicknesses of Canoa masts. I ultimately decided to go with one made of a 3/16‐inch dowel, corresponding to a mast with a 6-inch diameter at the widest point. This is towards the skinny end for the examples I've seen, but my model is of a relatively small Canoa de Rancho, and I think the thinner mast looks better for this size.
 
For the mast height, I looked at 17 photos showing canoas from the side and compared the number of pixels of their mast height to their overall length. The height/length proportion varied from as low as .57 to as high as .99, but all but a few outliers were between .67 and .79. The average proportion was 72% of the overall length. On my model, that comes out to a hair over 8-1/4 inches long, which I marked on the dowel.
 
I've been using a mini block plane to taper the planks on my peapod build, and was curious to see if it would help with tapering the mast. I quickly discovered that, although the grain pattern was practically imperceptible to me, planing against the grain was a recipe for gouging the wood. Nonetheless, I decided to continue making the mast as at least a testbed. After planing a bit more with the grain--which I could only discover through trial-and-error--I finished the taper by hand with sandpaper. Some photos show the mast capped with a sphere, forming a ledge for the backstays to be tied off around, so I used a combination of an exacto knife and sandpaper (for the top of the ball) and files (for the bottom half of the ball and the ledge) to shape it. Then, I drilled out the holes to mark the sheave at the top of the mast. I drilled from both sides, which reminded me to be more careful, on the actual mast, with making sure I'm lining up the drill properly.
 
Here we can see the top of the mast. I have not fully carved the sheave, but I might as practice for the real one.

 
And here is the other side. The gouge is visible running along the mast, even after a good bit of sanding.

 
I then sawed the mast to the proper length, and drilled out the bottom to accept the 1/16‐square peg that holds the mast into the step. The peg, placed separately in the step, is visible below.

 
Unfortunately, I drilled out the hole slightly off-center, more on the aft side of the mast than it should be. This compounded an earlier error--way back when I originally placed the mast step (or the aftmost crossbeam? I forget which came first) I set the mast for a slightly steeper rake aftward than I wanted.

 
Despite these issues, the mast does fit in the model. Here we see it with the excessive rake aft.

 
So, redoing the mast will allow for a better-raked, smoother mast without an ugly gouge. Alternately, on a whim I reshaped the bottom of the mast (which was angled for the rake) and reversed it, which corrected the rake, as seen below:

(Apologies for the bad lighting)
Much better, but there's still that gouge, which also will make it difficult to stain the masts if I decide the natural wood is too jarring. That said, if I leave the masts natural, the gouge would be mostly covered by the sail on the finished model....
 
So, there's where I'm at. I suppose the question is whether the gouge will bother me if I leave it.

Huh...I'd never noticed that despite staring at those photos over and over as I designed my version. You're right, that second photo looks like they extend quite a bit out. Which would give me leave to do the same and help with my problem.
 
Did the whole forward deck change shape at some point? Both versions look to me to have a similar spacing between them, but one version looks like it's snug against the deck curve and the other extends outward by a noticeable amount.
 
Shouldn't have gotten ahead of myself and glued them on before asking for ideas. Not the first time eagerness has bitten me! Shouldn't be a big deal to pop them off.
 
Thanks for that observant insight!

Just a small amount of progress to report. May is not cooperating in terms of free time to work on models. 
 
I added the longitudinal hog chains based on some blurry historical image details and logical assumptions about their natural location. I used thin wire, which I couldn't get perfectly straight, but it's another quirk that the camera captures but the eye doesn't really see.



Then I got to work on the...not quite sure what to call them, but the timber frames on the bow used to push tows. You can see them pretty clearly here:
 

This is where I found I hadn't thought ahead enough. Those are pretty widely spaced across the bow, which means the bow has very little curvature. When I went to install mine after making them, I found that my bow curves away more sharply than I thought when I first laid it out, so now if I placed them that far apart their fronts fell well behind the bow and wouldn't be able to push anything. 
 
So I had the choice of either placing them accurately far apart, but too far back from the point of the bow, or too close together, but accurately forward enough to extend just beyond the bow. For better or worse, I chose the latter, though now I'm wondering if it was the wrong decision because they're more noticeably "wrong" compared to the original photos than if they were properly spaced but a bit too far back. Anyway, see what you think (compare to same photo angle in background):

Another view, with comparable angle in background and separate photo below:
 


Changing them would mean popping them off the deck and hopefully not leaving too much glue stain; I could always cover those with a few random timbers or something. Thoughts?
 
In the above photos, you'll also notice I built a version of the capstan that sits just behind those whatever-they're-called braces.
 
Finally, I added the two thick diagonal braces that lead aft from the chimneys to the pilot house:

 
I think I'm getting close to done with the basic details. There are some more thin guy wires supporting the chimneys, though they're very hard to see in the historical photos. I need to figure out where I'm going to get that big locomotive headlight that's so prominent on the front edge of the boiler deck.
 
The biggest single project remaining is the paddlewheel, which I'm going to need some quiet focused time to concentrate on designing. Not going to happen in the next week, that's for sure. But I started this log on June 17, 2023, and there's an outside chance I'll have her done one year later. Thanks for sticking with me!

I gather such parts are not (die-cast) zinc, but rather white-metal ... However, they shouldn't be black anyway, but painted in whatever the colour the ship would have been painted in, often white or green for instance.
 
Railway or figure modellers have a lot of experience with white-metal parts and there is a lot of information on the Web, how to work with such parts.

Do things always have to have names? Sometimes people just make something that seems useful to them, without thinking that someone else wants to 'classify' it.
 
It's an unusual rig anyway, with a lug that has boom etc.

Do things always have to have names? Sometimes people just make something that seems useful to them, without thinking that someone else wants to 'classify' it.
 
It's an unusual rig anyway, with a lug that has boom etc.

😲 I remember the excitement when around my 6th birthday this time 62 years ago Lego came up first with wheels. Several family members gave me wheel sets - a bit boring, but then you couldn’t have enough of them. I think Lego went down a contraproductive avenue educational wise, but perhaps not revenue wise …
looking forward to more progress on the Renault …
 

Yep, nothing matches that old-time mahagony 👍🏻

Never tried that and it depends on the chemistry of the solution. Some products may not work with certain metals.
 
I would get myself a small plastic beaker, big enough for the biggest part and pour just enough of the solution to cover the parts. Let it react and take it out, when ready. Process one piece by one piece, so that you can control the process better. If possible use plastic tweezers, not metal one. If you don't have/cannot get hold of plastic tweezers, two toothpicks will do the job as well. In this way, you minimise the amount of solution used.
 
BTW, never pour used solution back into the original container, that should only contain fresh, unused solution (that is standard good chemical lab practice to avoid contamination).

You will be using a few ml at a time only. Don't dunk your parts into the bottle! You probably won't even consume the chemistry in these few ml with your parts. So get a small chemicals bottle from the chemist, lable it properly and you are good for a few more parts.
 
Once the blackening process takes too long, this is an indication that the solutions is becoming spent. You can let it dry then (out of reach for children and pets, of course) and dispose of it in the general waste. The quantities of Se etc. from a fre ml of solution are minute and will not harm anyone. Even if there were rubbish scavengers on the tips of Mexico, the material will be dispersed in the general waste.
 
I know, certain people would throw their arms into the air about the above, but one has to be reasonable and practical. 

Thanks, Nils. I did see those before, but apart from the hefty price they also did not offer a suitable variety of poses.
 
I have not (yet) worked with these resins coming out of 3D-printers, but understand that they are rather brittle, so difficult to carve etc.

The Crew
 
The WESPE-Class had a complement of around 80 crew, of which 3 where officers. This seems to be quite a number for a ship of only 46 m length. Unfortunately, there is no information on the different duties and the distribution of ratings. There are some crew photographs from the 1900 to 1910 era, but they manly show officers and petty-officers and in addition, they come from the short periods during which the boats were commissioned for exercises in groups and may show crew from a whole flotilla.
 
Gun drill on the WESPE-class around 1900
 
The intention was to show some gun-drill on the boat, as in the historical photograph above. There are about ten ratings visible and a couple more or so may be hidden behind the gun. There would be probably also a petty-officer in charge. On the bridge there would be two men at the helm and a couple of officers. In total, I estimated that about 15 figures would be needed to present a reasonable picture of activity.
Below the gun there would some ten men or more manning the cranks with which the gun is trained. In the boiler-room, some further ten crew would be working hard on stoking the fires, trimming coal etc. The same number of crew, would be on the off-watch. The machine would be tended by perhaps three to four engineers and petty officers. I am sure there are other duties, such as maintenance, signalling, plus a certain number on off-watches, but there is no information available on how these ships were ‘run’.

Officers of SMS HERTHA 1874-1877. Source: https://senckenbergarchiv.de/kolonialesbildarchiv/.
 
Uniforms
The 1870s were a time of transition as far as the naval uniforms are concerned. In the early years of the Empire much of the features of the uniforms of the Prussian navy were retained. To a certain degree the uniforms also followed the general fashion in terms of the height of the waste-line, the width of trousers and blouses, the shape of the caps etc. By the early 1880s the uniforms of all ranks were quite consolidated and were changed only in details until the early years of WW1. There is abundant information on these later years and on officers’ and petty-officers’ uniforms, but information on ratings in the early years is quite scarce in the primary and secondary literature. In particular, information on working kits is not very detailed. Normally, a certain ‘kit’ would be ordered for certain duties, but photographs show a certain variety of items worn and how they were worn, for instance some men would have the sleeves rolled up, while others would not.

Helmsmen on SMS HERTHA 1874-1877. Source: https://senckenbergarchiv.de/kolonialesbildarchiv/.
 
Photography was still rather new then and it was difficult to take ‘action’-pictures with the cumbersome equipment of the day. When a sailor had his likeness taken in a professional photographic studio, then it was in his Sunday-best parade-uniform and not in workaday fatigues. The same applies actually to all ranks. There are fortunately a couple of photo-albums from training-cruises in the mid-1870s (e.g. of the cruise of SMS HERTHA to the Far East in 1874-1877) which on purpose show the real-life of the crew, as much as was possible with the equipment of the day, thinking of heavy tripods and large-format cameras with wet glass-plates. These photographs are an important source of information on how the uniforms really looked like and how they were worn for different duties, although virtually all situations were ‘posed’.

Gun drill on SMS HERTHA 1874-1877. Source: https://senckenbergarchiv.de/kolonialesbildarchiv/.
 
Apart from photographs, there are a number of printed works can be considered as primary sources, as they were published at the time, and just two or three secondary publications, which mostly reproduce the plates from earlier publications:
 
ANONYM (1872): Uniformierungs-Liste der Königlich Preußischen Armee und der Kaiserlich Deutschen Marine. Zweite bis zu Gegenwart fortgeführte Auflage.-  114 p., Berlin (E.S. Mittler & Sohn).
 
ANONYM (1887): Die Uniformen der Deutschen Marine in detaillierten Beschreibungen und Farbendarstellungen (Reprint 2007, Melchior Verlag, Wolfenbüttel).- 61 p., 18 Taf., Leipzig (Verlag von Moritz Ruhl).
 
BURGER, L. (1864): Uniformierung der preußischen Marine, Originalzeichnungen.- Über Land und Meer, Bd. 12, Jg. 6, Nr. 31: 487 u. 489.
 
HENCKEL, C. (1901): Atlas des Deutschen Reichsheeres und der Kaiserlichen Marine einschließlich kaiserlicher Schutztruppen in Afrika in ihrer Uniformierung und Einteilung.- 32 pl., Dresden (Militär-Kunst-Verlag MARS).
 
Lintz, G., Raecke, K.-H. (1978): Die königlich preußische Marine.- Z. für Heereskunde, 275: 20-21.
 
Marineamt [Ed.] (1984?): Die Geschichte der Matrosenuniform.- 79 p., Wilhelmshaven (Marineunterstützungskommando).
 
NOESKE, R.,  STEFANSKI, C.P. (2011): Die deutschen Marinen 1818–1918. Organisation, Uniformierung, Bewaffung und Ausrüstung.- 2 vols.: 1336 p., 304 pl., Wien (Verlag Militaria).
 
RUHL, M. [Ed.] (1887): Uniformen der deutschen Marine in detaillirten Beschreibungen und Farbendarstellungen, nebst Mittheilungen über Organisation, Stärke etc., sowie einer Liste sämtlicher Kriegsfahrzeuge und den genauen Abbildungen aller Standarten und Flaggen.- 98 p., 26 pl., Wolfenbüttel (Reprint 2007 by Melchior Historischer Verlag).
 
RUHL, M. (18936😞 Die Deutsche Marine und die Deutschen Schutztruppen für Ostafrika in ihrer neuesten Uniformierung.- 78 p., 20 pl., (Faksimile Fines Mundi).
 
RUHL, M. (1892): Uniformen der deutschen Marine.- Starnberg  (reprint 1989).
 
SCHLAWE, K. (1900): Die deutsche Marine in ihrer gegenwärtigen Uniformierung.- 98 p., (M. Ruhl).
 
WALDORF-ASTORIA [Hrsg.] (193?): Uniformen der Marine und Schutztruppen.- 14 p., 8 pl., München (Waldorf-Astoria Zigarettenfabrik).
 
ZIENERT, J. (1970): Unsere Marine-Uniform – Ihre geschichtliche Entstehung seit den ersten Anfängen und ihre zeitgemäße Weiterentwicklung von 1816 bis 1970.- 451 p., Hamburg (Helmut Gerhard Schulz Verlag).

Gun drill on SMS HERTHA 1874-1877 – note the high heels of the shoes at this time. Source: https://senckenbergarchiv.de/kolonialesbildarchiv/.
 
Preparing the Figures
Starting point is a set of unpainted figures by Preiser in 1/160 (N-scale). Compared to HO-scale the selection is much smaller and the sets of unpainted figures are not so easy to find. Individual figures were selected on the basis of their poses, but very few had vaguely useful dresses. Some of the railway officials formed a suitable a basis for the officers and petty-officers.
Fortunately, the figures are small, some 10 to 11 mm in height, so only a rather summary representation of their attire needs to/can be achieved.
All figures required quite a bit of carving and sculpting with ‘Green Stuff’. The single-breasted jackets of the railway staff had to be converted into the double-breasted, longer frock-coats of the time. The peak-caps of 1960s officials (many of the figures were originally modelled by Preiser in the early 1960s) looked quite different from those worn by naval officers in the 1870s – German (naval) peak-caps underwent a significant change in appearance between the 1870s and the early post-WWII years. 
Naval ratings required more substantial carving: jackets had to be cut away and blouses tucked into high-waist trousers had to be carved. Safety helmets were cut away and the characteristic sailor’s cap sculpted with ‘Green Stuff’. Shovels etc. were cut away and hands drilled for more appropriate implements. The sailors also got their traditional large collar.

The crew-member at various stages of modelling
 
Unfortunately, I forgot to take a ‘before’ picture, but the one above shows the 15 figures at various stages of the carving and sculpting exercise. Amputations and reassembly à la Dr. Frankenstein are difficult at this small scale and were not attempted with few minor exceptions.
 
Again, a text-heavy post, but it serves myself as a memo of my deliberations and what I did.
 
To be continued ....