rybakov

@jimvanlan99
Hello thank you for your positive Feedback, and to the others also thanks for the LIKES.
So now the starboard battery is complete.

Maneuvering the anchor cable to the main hatch and messenger to the main capstain, fixed to the cable with the nippers
Messenger ready to pull the cable.
nippers fitting (black thread)
 
The manger (caja de aguas) has a special provision that you will not be used to seeing if you only read Ancre books, or follow Lavery or Goodwin. is taken from some models of this time of the Naval Museum of Madrid, which I advise you to visit









 




 

The Tiller ( barra del timon) , tiller rope (guardines del timon), sweep ( descanso de la caña del timon) 
 
according to the Spanish system of the mid-18th century.
 
If you have seen the MONTAÑES sweep of my friend Amalio, (which can be seen in the MSW), you will notice that the system is different. in England there are also differences from 1773 when the Pollard´s system begins. 
 
In this model, the system is simpler, as corresponds to a Spanish ship from the mid-18th century. the last pulley is fastened in the stern of the entrance to the cabin of the midshipmen
note
you can see the bulkhead of the Santabarbara on starboard, raised to the beams of the second deck in the penultimate photo
 
 

if we continue forward we reach the bulkhead of the "santa barbara" that separates the ranch from the santabarbara from the rest of the ship.
 
the "santabarbara" is a camera for officers of the sea, who has the hatch to go down to the dustbin, the hatch of the powder lantern.
 
In the English ships, the powder room is in the bow and everything is different to what you will be used to.
 
the name of santabarbara comes to be a saint, patron of the artillery  
 
That bulkhead is folded upwards in case the commander gave the order: "ZAFARANCHO DE COMBATE"  Combat duty? 
zafa  means clear
rancho means camera
combate means fight
 
the hinges are made with gravure and are a couple of millimeters this bulkhead only has one door on the port side

In the stern the cabins of the chaplains that in the Spanish navy of that time in addition to carrying out the religious services are in charge of the care of the sick or wounded crew, doing the functions of nursing and helping the surgeon. the starboard side only has the structure of the staterooms, the port side has the stateroom cabin

By all means:

1372 Lorenzo Veneziano - Miracle of St Nicholas

12th century San Pietro in Ciel d'Oro - Pavia. Note the ship at the top has its rudder swung into the "up" position.
 

Giotto di Bondone (1226-1337) - Navicella 

Milano - Church of Sant'Eustorgio, chapel of St Peter the Martyr - 1339

12th century mosaic - translatio of St Mark - San Marco, Venice

14th century Greek Romance of Alexander
 
Plus the one at https://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/news-photo/rib-vault-with-the-navigation-of-st-peter-by-andrea-di-news-photo/494733296 which I hit upload trouble with, so I've given the URL.
 
And this is the kind of thing you get from Byzantine representations (unfortunately!). No detail at all of the suspension method.

I hope this is of help. I find it fascinating.
 
Steven
 
 

This in my concept of the swing mount used to attach the quarter rudders. The rudders had to be removed and given to the port authorities as a safeguard against sneaking out without paying port fees. So the rudders ahd to be easy to remount. Also, loss of a rudder was not uncommon at sea and mounting a new rudder had to be straightforward. (and a sight easier than remounting a stern post rudder. The quarter rudder had to be able to swing horizontally out of the way in shallow water to prevent damage. Also the weather rudder could be withdrawn if the ship was heeling. The ship was steered then by the lee rudder. There were many different variants of swing mounts. Here is a contemporary illustration showing a swing mount.
 
This how it is on my ship:

 

 

 

 
This the rudder rotated up ( this would be done by a rudder hoist) and would be even more horizontal when fully raised.

 
Dick

Like everything else aboard ship there are definite trends in the development of rigging.  The steeve of the bowsprit initially was much greater and gradually became lower over time.  At first the bowsprit was intended and used to rig bowlines to and so it needed to be very high to give a proper lead to those lines.  It started to become more of a supporting structure for the fore mast, and so longer, when additional sections were added to the fore mast to increase sail area, but it still retained it's high angle.  Next the spritsail top mast was added to increase head sail area and the bowsprit steeve started to come down.  Additional lowering of the steeve of the bowsprit was done to increase the head sail area when stay sails and jib sails were added following the era of spritsail topsails.
 
I believe that most of the changes that occurred were due to trial and error on the part of shipwrights and captains and only adopted generally when shown to give some advantage in real world use.  For example, the spritsail topsail was eliminated because it proved to be too cumbersome and useless on most points of sail and the benefits derived from it were able to be provided by triangular stay sails and jibs.
 
Regards

View of the exterior in different stages.
 

Here I put some drawings of my book that explain some pieces of the model. the pieces are taken from the regulation of 1752 oak woods, which has drawn all the silhouettes of the pieces.
the regulation of oak woods is a complete book, but in my book of the ship of 68 cannons I digitized and cleaned it, I put a picture of the set of pieces.
These regulations were always ignored by non-Spanish researchers. and they are a great source of knowledge

And here he is in full panoply complete with axe over the shoulder and along with his companion in arms, whom I've given the other escutcheon from the above ikon.
 
 
 
Steven 

Moving onto the axe:
   
Drilling a hole in the figure's hand to take the axe-shaft:
 

And starting on  the mail
 
I discovered that this is about the limit I can manage with the tools I have; I think it looks much more like the real thing than the previous version. But it's very labour-intensive and fiddly and I ended up wondering why I'd started. Merciful oblivion covers the next 8 hours or so:
 
And here's the figure with the mail all complete.
 
 
Next - painting!
 
Steven

It has been my style to document every little step forward, and I will not change course now.
 
I primed the shells tonight, and it is quite gratifying to see all the detail and different color plastics coalesce into one thing.
 
The bow and stern extensions have blended-in smoothly.  The iron work is prominent enough to notice, but not so much that it’s distracting.  Painting is going to be FUN!
 

Young America - extreme clipper 1853
Part 317 – Upper Yards - Main
 
On the fore upper yards, I attached most of the rigging, including the long lines of running rigging, to the yards before erecting the assembly of the pole mast with the royal and skysail yards mounted.  This was a bit of a mess, due to of the number of lines and also because many needed to be coiled to avoid tangle.  This left some kinked and fuzzy.  For the main upper yards pictured below, only the standing rigging, and not all of that, was attached at the bench.
 

 
In the picture, the royal stay and royal backstays go down at the bottom of the picture.  Standing lifts were installed over a grid to help level them.  I noticed later the missing footropes on the skysail.  These will have to be fitted later on the model.  Can't wait.  The next picture shows the above assembly erected on the mast.
 
 
Despite best efforts at the bench, the port, royal standing lift had to be removed and installed in place to level the yard.  Some loose ends need to be clipped off and the wire sheet chains are still on the loose.  The next picture is closer.
 
 
The next step was to run the falls from the two skysail sheet chains dangling below the center of the royal yard.  That has been completed in the next picture.
 
 
The upper arrow points to one of the skysail sheets.  These run all the way down to the main deck, passing through fairleads in the main top.  After belaying, these lines get a lot of tension adjustment to pull down evenly on the yard and make the standing lifts – lower arrow – taut.  To do this, I pull down on the fall with tweezers above the pin, then haul on the loose end.  No glue on the belaying point until all the lines are run and adjusted.  The next picture shows the fore and main upper masts.
 
 
The height of these masts is impressive – the main extends 180 feet above the deck.  The fore royal stay has been run in this picture.  The tension between that and the two backstays sets the straightness of the mast.  The last picture shows the lower end of the main royal stay.
 
 
The 4 1/2" stay descends from the upper left corner of the photo through a bullseye strapped to the main topmast head.  The loose ends of the splice between the masts have not yet been clipped off.  The free end of the stay is clamped taut above the picture so the seizings may be tied at the lower end where it is fastened to an eyebolt under the leathered stays.  The gang of stays and shrouds made this a difficult connection.  I had to resort to a hook to the barely reachable eyebolt.  A shackle on this would have made life easier, but too late for that.  Drawing/Rigging List revision is pending for those that follow.  An alternative sometimes used was to strap an eye to the top forward stay collar, but this would have had to be done before setting the collar.
 
Ed

Continuation. 
 


 

 
Pawel 
 

Started work on the pseudopation (forecastle), making use of the lessons I learnt making the xylokastra - such as making the deck and parapet before I make the supports.
 
Here's the cardboard mock-up (version 2) along with the lion's head which forms the outlet for the nozzle of the siphon for Greek Fire (which will be added after the structure is complete and in place).
   
Deck structure,
 
  
Decking added
  
And in the meantime for a break, a bit of carving - the Emperor's second Viking bodyguard.
 
  
   
More to do, but coming along nicely. I believe the faces are getting better as I gain more experience, but the magnifying headpiece has made a big difference as well.
 
Steven
 

Across a number of threads there has been considerable debate about the new colour scheme for HMS Victory, most recently on Dafi’s Victory build.  There are supports and doubters.  Doubts as to the change mainly arise because of the there isn’t much material out there other than to say we looked at some old paint samples and worked out what’s what.
 
To see if I could get some further information to help inform the debate and assist in members deciding which colour scheme to go with I thought I’d go to the man who should know, Andrew Baines, Deputy Director of Heritage and Curator at the National Museum of the Royal Navy.
 
I emailed Andrew with the following queries:
 
‘Firstly, there is a degree of scepticism as to the voracity of the research behind the new colour scheme.  Despite the information in the public’s domain from Crick-Smith the opposition to accepting the result centres around extrapolating the tests from the various samples to the entire ship. Is there any data that could be shared to demonstrate the applicability of the tests across the fabric of the ship?

Secondly, how does the certainty arise to say ‘this layer’ of a given sample is from c1805?’
 
Andrew kindly responded in some detail earlier today with the following:
 
”I'm afraid that anything associated with Victory tends to be subject to significant debate, much of it ill-informed.

I think the first point to bear in mind is that Victory has changed colour innumerable times since 1922, we have simply been honest about what we have done, and based the change on all available evidence.

From 1816 or so until 1922, Victory was painted black and white. During the 1922-1927 restoration, the SNR and RN desired to return the ship to her Trafalgar appearance. It was believed that Victory's sides were painted 'bright' yellow, and so the brightest available yellow - chrome yellow- was used. Unfortunately, chrome yellow became available only in the second decade of the twentieth century, so this colour was demonstrably incorrect for 1805. Through the twentieth century, the colour changed slightly as the use of heavy metals in paints became unacceptable. When manufacture of the paint for Victory ceased to be undertaken in the dockyard, a trade paint was adopted, and the nearest available colour to that provided by the dockyard recipe was adopted. It was actually quite late into the 1990s before the colour was fixed to a RAL. This colour was not arrived at by archaeological or archival evidence.

We undertook the archaeological paint research not with the intention of changing the colour in which Victory was painted, but to better understand the way in which the ship has been repaired over her long life; there are approximately 33,000 individual elements in the ship, and some 800 rase marks - marks cut into timber as part of the conversion process, and which frequently include the date at which the timber entered the yard, or was converted. As we know the dates of Victory's repairs, we are able to discern the date at which these pieces of timber was placed into the ship. The first layer of paint on that timber element can therefore be dated with some degree of accuracy. We are then able to extend the paint stratigraphy across other timber elements that do not carry a date mark - if those timber elements have paint layers under the layer identified on our dated piece of timber, we know that they date to an earlier repair, if later, we know they date to a later repair. By extending this technique to other dated timbers, one is able to build an extensive timeline of paint treatments for each part of the ship, accurate to a period of five years or so. This accuracy can be improved on by understanding dirt between layers and similar - when the ship is laid up, the dirt layers tend to be very thin, or indeed negligible, when she is at sea, the dirt layers can be quite thick. It's also possible to understand when several coats of paint have been applied in short succession, as dirt layers do not exist.

In addition to the extensive historic paint surfaces on board the ship, we also have the archaeological archive of material removed from the ship between 1960 and 2005. This material can help fill in gaps or give greater understanding where areas on board have been subjected to extensive stripping in preparation for new coats of paint.

Beyond the archaeological evidence, we have details of what paint was carried on board Victory, and the quantities in which it was consumed. The accounts of carpenters stores for Victory in the run up to Trafalgar also gives details of use of paint, and some indication of how it was mixed, but this is actually quite difficult to decipher due to the manner in which the quantities are recorded against the work undertaken.

Further afield from Victory, there is archival evidence for paint used by other ships, and indeed how other ships were painted at the time of Trafalgar. Captain Duff of the Mars, wrote to his wife on October 10th 1805, that ‘I am sorry the rain has begun to-night, as it will spoil my fine work, having been employed for this week past to paint the Ship à la Nelson, which most of the Fleet are doing.' We know from Mars' carpenter's accounts: ‘Painting ship double sides, and repairing the paint work of the Captain’s cabin: paint, white, 109lbs; yellow, 100lbs.’ Allowing 9lbs paint for repairs to the captain’s cabin, this indicates a ratio of 1:1 for the mixture of yellow: white. One can argue that more than 9lbs was needed for the captain's cabin, but the figures are, nevertheless, indicative.

From the surviving carpenters' accounts of British ships at Trafalgar, we can discern that ship's sides were either painted with pure yellow (Prince, Temeraire), used a mix of two or three parts yellow to one part white (Ajax and Revenge prior to the battle) or used a mixture that was (or was close to) equal parts yellow:white (Mars, Thunderer).

Specific to Victory, a survey of carpenter’s stores dated 12th May 1804 records that Victory carried 2cwt 3q 15lb of Venetian (presumably red) paint, 3cwt 0q 17lb of yellow and 2cwt 2q and 1lb of Port Red (dry) paint. Ten months later, in March 1805, a further survey records identical quantities of Venetian and port red, 93lbs of yellow paint and 1,137lbs of white lead paint.

I am sure you will be aware of Peter Goodwin's 2013 article in Mariner's Mirror, in which he documents Nelson's desire to see the ships of his fleet painted in a pale yellow: Goodwin states ‘…Nelson authorised a six-to-one mix of white and yellow, which would be so light as to verge on the colour cream.'. Unfortunately, this is not entirely accurate, as Nelson was not at liberty to authorise such a change. Rather, in late September 1805, Nelson submitted a proposal to Commissioner Middleton at Gibraltar Dockyard that private ships were to be painted three, and flagships four, times per year, the proportion of white paint to yellow to be 6lbs to 1lb.; This proposal was referred to London where it was reviewed in December 1806. The Navy's decision was that the old regulation was to stand, and Nelson’s proposal was not to be carried into effect.

In summary, the manuscript evidence is as follows:
1. Yellow ochre as supplied to ships was a dark colour that was commonly mixed with white (1804 handbook of instruction for RN officers). It must be borne in mind that this was an earth pigment and the actual colour varied widely.
2. The shade of yellow paint employed by the British fleet prior to Trafalgar appears to have varied from ship to ship. Some ships used yellow neat, others mixed yellow with white in a ratio of 2:1 or 3:1, whilst others mixed yellow and white at 1:1.
3. Whilst there is primary source evidence of Nelson’s desire to employ a pale yellow on the topsides of the ships of the Mediterranean fleet, the evidence is also conclusive in confirming that the proposal was rejected. No manuscript evidence supports the mixing of a shade with more white than yellow.
4. The evidence from Victory’s carpenter’s accounts suggests very strongly that the shade of yellow employed was obtained by mixing white and yellow in equal parts.

The archival evidence when combined with the archaeological material provides, therefore, compelling evidence that Victory's colour in 2013 was not correct to the time of Trafalgar (I don't know of anyone who seriously suggested it was) and that we were able to say with some degree of confidence that it was possible to return to a Victory much closer to that Nelson would have known (admittedly he wanted it lighter, but didn't get his way).

All of the available evidence was reviewed by the Victory Technical Committee, then chaired by Martyn Heighten the then Director of National Historic Ships UK, also a member (and still a member) was Jonathan Coad, who had served on the Victory Committee for almost forty years at that point. The recommendation to change the colour was not, therefore, made on an ad-hoc basis, but subject to extensive scrutiny before the Board of the HMS Victory Preservation Company took the decision to change colours when the ship was next repainted.

We do intend to publish a paper on this subject, but our priority at present is resupporting the ship in order to arrest her structural movement - within the next few days the first of the old cradles will be cut out as we move Victory onto her new props”.
 
This certainly changes some of my thoughts, and corrects some misinformation.
 
I thought I’d post this information here rather than on a specific build thread to make it easier for people to search for and retrieve the information.
 
Gary

Peter Goodwin sheds some light in his paper ‘The Application and Scheme of Paintworks in British Men-of-War in the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries’ he says:
 
“Concerning the yellow currently used for the ship’s sides and other applications in the Victory, a letter dated 6 December 1805 from William Marsden, Secretary of the Navy Board, states that Commissioner Middleton, ‘submitted a proposal from Lord Nelson that the private ships in the fleet are painted three times a year and the flagships four times a year. The proportion of white paint to yellow is to be 6 lbs to 1 lb’.14 In short Nelson authorised a six-to-one mix of white and yellow, which would be so light as to verge on the colour cream.

The Victory in my time received many enquiries from enthusiasts and model makers concerning paint colours. There was particular interest in the exact shade of ‘yellow’ for the ship’s side and external works, and many thought that the current ‘ship’s side buff’ was ‘too orange’. It is understood that the decor experts at the Victoria and Albert Museum advised on the correct shade of yellow ochre some 35 years ago, though the exact shade may have ‘evolved’ since then.15 It has been noted that the current paint shade is remarkably similar to that used on the superstructures of Admiralty tugs and ancillary dockyard craft. 
 
Following the information disclosed in William Marsden’s letter, experiments in collaboration with the marine artist Gordon Frickers were undertaken to determine the resultant colour from a six-to-one mix in oils, employing different base tints of yellow ochre oil paint. The results confirmed suspicions that ‘ship’s side buff’ is too orange, and he has since applied this more accurate pale yellow to a new work entitled ‘Nelson at Gibraltar’.”
 
Like a lot of the 1920’s restoration pre-conception ruled the thinking despite evidence to the contrary (you see the same with the Trincomalee restoration). Someone probably said ‘they used yellow ochre’ without thinking about shade and we end up with the deepest yellow! If you look at contemporary artists like Constable and Tuner who saw the ship you get a pale yellow / almost cream. If you look at artists like Pocock he seemed to paint from the 1765 model so you get something entirely different and wholly wrong for 1805. Interestingly Turner took a lot of stick for his Trafalgar painting (waterline wrong, ships positions wrong, wrong time of day, etc.) a lot of which was from naval officers, but no one ever said you got the colour wrong.
 
It is also worth looking at Gordon Frickers work that Peter Goodwin mentions, his experimentation shows something between the yellow we all grew up with and the paler Turner / Constable colours, but again this is just hypothesis.
 
Gary
 
 

Thank you Sirs, very indulgent 🙂
Others were not. "Too uneven", "roasting spit too thick" and "handles meant for giants"
So out the scalpel and flattening all uneven surfaces and corners, getting the soldering iron out and eliminating the oversized spit.
 

 
Filed a new squared and tapered spit onto some 0,5 mm brass wire.
Inserted a new smaller bearing into the spits driving wheel ...
 

 

 
... and mades some more ergonomic handles.
 

 
The result looks like this:
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Hope that is fine now 😉
 
XXXDAn

Young America - extreme clipper 1853
Part 313 – Mizzen Lower Topsail Truss
 
I mentioned in the last post my plan to complete all the remaining spars at one go.  That work has been progressing with minimal diversion to other tasks.  Shaping all the remaining yards was described in the last post.  That work passes quickly – unlike fitting of all the ironwork that is the most time-consuming part of the work on the yards.  This post describes an interesting piece of that ironwork found on all three masts - the Howe bracket truss for the lower topsail yard - in this case the last of these, for the mizzen.
 
The truss bracket pivots on a pin through a boss on the lower topmast cap.  A horizontal bolt on this bracket engages ears fixed to the central yard band.  The truss allows the yard to be rotated around the mast and "topped" to raise one side or the other.  Since it is fixed to the mast cap, the yard cannot be raised or lowered, so the lower topsail is set at fixed size and not able to be reefed.
 
The first picture shows copper plates cut for the parts of the sling band – and also the drawing detail for the truss assembly.
 

The larger piece will become the ¾" thick band.  The smaller, thicker piece will form the two ears for the bracket bolt.  The band was first fitted around the yard, silver-soldered and stretched to fit tightly around the octagonal center of the yard.  The method I use for making these copper bands was described in earlier posts and will probably be repeated in one of the next posts.  A single U-shaped piece was formed, fit and soldered to the band as shown replaced on the yard in the next picture.
 

Making the ears as a single piece facilitates drilling and alignment of the through-bolt holes.  The next picture shows the assembly fitted to a wood strip that will support it for drilling.
 

The diameter of the (5") bracket bolt is being measured in the picture for sizing of the drill bit. This bracket was made earlier with its fore and main counterparts.  In the next picture the piece is held in the vise by the wood strip and a smaller pilot hole has been drilled through both sides of the U-bracket.  The drill bit has been replaced with the larger final bit.
 

After drilling, the top part of the U-bracket was sawed off with top section joining the two ears held in the vise.
 

The wood strip steadies the work for this step and prevents bending of the ears.  The next picture shows the rough truss assembly after removing the excess top piece.
 

  In the next picture the ears have been rounded and the truss test fit on the mast.
 

The last step was to add a tight-fitting retaining ring to the end of the bolt and remove the excess length.  The final assembly is shown below.
 

After this piece is blackened after the rest of the "ironwork" is added to the yard, a drop of CA will keep the retaining ring from slipping off.  The picture also shows the first of the other yard bands added.
 
 
Ed

Despite all this  X-Mess-stress I found a small space for some advent tinkering 🙂
 
Started as usual in the smaller scale ...
 

 
... and then scratched the fitting Brodi-Stove for it by some scrap materials.
 

 
Then some trials ...
 

 
...for the BBQ-skewer holder and some brass nibbling ...
 

 
... bent ...
 

 
... and the skewer itself by filing a round brass into a pointed square section.
 

 
Some trials in soldering but finally it fitted :-).
 

 
The exhaust air propelled skewer drive was easy ...
 

 
... but fitting a 1 mm hole for the external axle bearing into a 1 mm brass profile needed the magical trick of flattening the material before drilling :-).
 

 
Then some handles and the handrail around and soon some paint could be applied.
 
I think I will go for a nice eloquent black 😉
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Always remember: no food - no fight 🙂
 
XXXDAn

I am usually overly verbose, but this time I will let the pictures do most of the talking.
 
Following are a series of pictures for the cabin windows beneath the poop-royal deck.  I tried several approaches - at first attempting to cut a loose framework of half-round moulding that I would assemble directly onto the bulwark pieces.  I scrapped this plan because I found it extremely difficult to reliably cut 22.5 degree angles every time on such tiny stock.
 
Instead, it was much easier to cut a tracing template for a backing plate onto which I could glue thinner segments of styrene rod, which I sanded a back facet onto the extrusion, with an emory board, before cutting my moulding segments.  It was fiddly work, but the joints are actually tight and cyano filled any remaining discrepancies.
 

It proved easiest to cut oversize segments, at the corners, and then miter them back to the corners of the back plate with a chisel.
 

I made more openings than I needed, and it took some doing to create these tiny little facets into the inside corners.
 


The halo effect around the frames is the coat of cyano that I brushed over each assembled frame, but then scraped into the corners, around the perimeter, with a chisel.  If you don’t scrape into the corner, the buildup of cyano will prevent a crisp demarcation of the moulding after paint is applied.
 






For now, I will hold off on actually piercing these openings.  While I like their scale (relative to the nearest round gunport) and placement within the frieze, their location would technically interfere with the placement of the poop-royal deck beams and beam clamp.
 
I may decide to ignore this fact and simply represent some form of glazing on the ship exterior, or I may decide to shorten the poop-royal deck so that it begins aft of these ports.  The ports would then become auxilliary gun ports.
 
In either case, I will set these parts aside, for now, so I can focus on painting and assembling the lower hull.  Later in the project, when I’m feeling more refreshed and confident, I’ll pierce for the QG openings and figure out what to do with the amortisement and all of the accompanying figures.
 
Damn - still verbose!

After nearly 5 years and many hours in the workshop, my Constitution is completed. In the course of building her I lost my brother and my father, so this build has been dedicated to them. I hope they were following along wherever they are. I really had fun building this kit and for $300 or so that I spent on it I sure got my money's worth. I am going to leave this build log open, as I plan to take some glamor shots of the model soon, as well as build a case for it when the weather warms up again next year. In the mean time I will build a poster board cover to keep the dust off it. Here are some quick shots I took of the completed model.





I really appreciate those of you who have been following this build, especially the comments and advice. I could not have built this without the logs of those who came before me or started after me and finished before me (yes, I'm talking to you Ken). I hope this build log will be helpful for current and future builders of this great kit. Thank you all.

At least the deck was not fixed yet as I have to fix some details still.
But in order to be looking smart, neat and tidy, the stern needed some attention. Great o the outside but the inside ...
 

 
... still quite worn, so I ground down the old paint and rediscovered the two square holes on the top that I added eons ago to fix the stern quarter davits, but scraped them later as newer research omitted them.
 

 
Looking more cute. See the two metal bits on the top?
 

 
Then had to fit the stern part. Great to have good tools.
 

 
Never thought to use a plain on my plastic tub 🙂
 

 
To be able to still look inside later on, I hid two magnets in the side galleries, fitting the two metal bits 🙂
 

 
Then came the cover of the tiller head ...
 

 
... build the box ...
 

 
... removable of course 🙂
 

 
And to give a good fit, a frame on the deck was to be build. Quite tricky in that size, so did an external work on some paper, that was removed by being made wet later on.
 

 
Searched for the wheel and the binnacle, made in February 2012, made a small base ...
 

 
... and also smartened the anchor cable for protection ...
 

 

 
... and the deciples came to praise her!
 

 
And then simply he simply took the model with him ...
... I needed to be strong then ...

Started early playing with rope. Me, over 60 years ago on my Cayuse Mare. Had to run her in a corner and rope her to catch her. Enough bad habits and tricks so no one but me would ride her, we got along fine. Bucked Dad off 3 times in a row before she had him properly educated that she was my horse, not his.