Beef Wellington

That's some really nice carving, well done!

Post 13
Fixing the Wales
The 5/32" x 3/64" milled Boxwood Strips provided by Jason, are a pleasure to work with.

5002
The forward end was given a little  water/heat treatment to impart a tension free curve around the bow, but along the sheer the strips sat down on the guide strip without much pressure.

5062
I left the guide strips in situ during fixing the lower wale strip which I found to be useful. The push pin heads held the wale strip close to the bulkheads whilst the glue set, and wooden pegs held the strip down tight on the guide.

5069
The second upper layer of the wale is added.

5124

5125

5122

5121

5119
Paint considerations
At this time painting around and inside the gun ports is suggested, mainly I suspect because once the moulding strip  below the ports, and the bulwarks are planked, painting the small rebate around the ports without marring the Boxwood would be difficult.
This doesn't fully address the issue tho'  as I can imagine there will need to be a fair bit of touching up following the thinning down of the bulwark interiors.
 
I have used the paint mix I used for my Long boat build to lay down an initial coat of paint, but doubt I have enough for Cheerful . These days I am always careful to make sure I have enough to finish the job when using a mix, something that has caught me out on a previous project.
 
I've ordered a few paint samples to run a test, if I can find a ready mixed paint that fits the bill, all the better.
 
B.E.
12/02/2018

My prefered carving school of technique - Praying Mantis/Tingling Fingers - has slowed my progress in recent weeks.  I’ve been experimenting with an assortment of elbow and wrist braces, in the hopes of relieving the cubital and carpal tunnel symptoms I am experiencing lately.  Wearing the wrist brace while carving, tonight, made the work more challenging, but less uncomfortable.  So, that’s an occupational work in progress.
 
But, at least now I have a castable pair of port accents, and I have satisfied my curiosity as to whether carving styrene would produce results I like.  I think that if I were carving in boxwood or pear, the lines would be a little more crisp; I carve the styrene with shaving cuts, but much of the shaping is done by scraping micro bevels that the eye reads as a domed surface.  However, you can also scrape a hard crease.  The surface just isn’t as cleanly cut as it would be with wood.  For my purposes here, though, it is more than adequate.  With paint, it will show light and shadow, and that will give the carvings shape and dimension.
 



So, next I just need to buy some casting clay and resin, and we’ll see if my next experiment works.

Here is the lower port enhancement carved to shape, with the un-carved upper enhancement for comparison:
 

Carving styrene is interesting.   I was a little apprehensive because the black styrene of the kit is comparitively hard and difficult to scrape and work.  This white stuff cuts easily.  There’s so little material to remove, and yet it takes just as long as it does to carve wood - I think because there is so little margin for error, so consequently, every cut is measured very deliberately.  But this one was comparitively small, so the upper carving should be easier.
 
The volutes of the scrolls aren’t carved so much as suggested.

Post 14
Deciding on the paint colour
There is a fair amount of paint on this build, more so than my previous builds, so I was concerned to get a shade that both suited my eye but reflected the more subdued tones of the early 19th c.
I had mixed paints for the Pinnace and Long boat builds that gave a brighter shade than the Admiralty brand Red Ochre (as I used on Pegasus) but I was hoping to find a ready mixed paint that suited. I am not too fussed about whether the paint is enamel(as with Humbrol) or water based.
The paints I am trialling are:
Humbrol 14ml Matt Scarlet enamel paint # 60
Caldercroft Admiralty water based Vermillion
Vallejo 031 17ml Flat Red Acrylic  Paint # 957
Vallejo 029 17ml Dark Vermillion Acrylic Paint # 947
Windsor and Newton Indian Red oils.
 
I made up paint samples on a Boxwood strip for comparison purposes.

5202
Taken outside, bright daylight.

5204
outside close -up

5216
indoors natural light

5218
Indoors  natural light/warm white leds.
 
The W&N oil was too dark and has the disadvantage of taking a long time to dry.
The Admiralty Vermillion, and Vallejo Dark Vermillion were too bright and altogether the wrong shade of red.
The choice came down to Vallejo Acrylic Flat Red and Humbrol  matt scarlet enamel.

5219
Vallejo on the left, Humbrol on the right.
 
Colour of course comes down to individual perception, varying light, and monitor differences, but on balance I have decided to go with the Vallejo acrylic flat red.
 
It is slightly darker than the Humbrol and has the advantage of quicker drying and water clean up. It feels better to me, and small amounts can be delivered into a pot for use.
 
I can now proceed.
 
B.E.
 
15/02/2018
 
 

Post 15
Preparing for planking
The ports have now been painted,
A tip for those who may not have thought of it; those little pill organiser boxes you can get from the chemists make very nice paint mixing boxes.

5383
Very useful using Vallejo paint where small quantities and some dilution is required. The lid keeps the paint useable for a while and dust free.
Fixing the moulding strip below the ports is next up.
The requirement is that the rail should lay 1/64" below the sill. That's (0.397mm) the thickness of a fine pencil lead!
I was far from sure I could get that close without it looking more like error than intention. I think I will have to gauge this by eye,with 0.5mm about as close as I can practically get and to give a clearly defined rebate.
Starting on the Starboard side I positioned the moulding at the centre port of the hull having marked the point along from the Bow rabbet, and fixed it in position using pva and many clamps.
However once it was done I could see one or two bulges at port sill level where my fairing was not quite enough, so off it came again along the area of the hull affected.
This is quite easy to do with pva, a slight wetting and away it comes. I much prefer to use pva for the woodwork than ca which tends to make the wood brittle, and mark it. Acetone is also required to remove ca. much less friendly than water.
After two or three goes I eventually got a look I could live with although I have not taken it as close as 1/64".

5423

5425

5415
I was keen that the mouldings appeared level on each side, and fortunately this appears to be the case.

5422

5426

5429
 
The first planking above the wale now beckons.
B.E.
20/02/2018

Thank you Ken,
 
Post 16
Planking above the Wale
The first plank above the wale is done using 3/16"wide  x 3/64" thick strip.(4.7625mm x 1.2mm)
There is a taper required both fore and aft on the first plank to even out the widths with the second plank.
I started my fore taper just aft of the second port, and the aft taper just past the third port from aft. These were quite shallow tapers.
With the tapers done I clamped the first plank in place and gave it the heat treatment to impart a little curve memory around the bow.
Trialling the fit some tweaking was required to get the strip to lie  flush to the rail, a couple of high/low spots on the bulkheads.

5582

5581
It was then a question of gluing progressively along the hull clamping it both to the bulkheads and the Wale. I initially glued to the first six bulkheads, then worked aft at three at a time.

5627

5630
I fitted the lower strip on both sides before moving on.
Note:
Looking at photo's of Chuck's prototype build there are three butt joints along the first plank. 1 just aft of the first port a 2nd just aft of port 3, and a third just forward of port 6.
Strangely on the plans (Plan 1) only two butt joints are shown?
I didn't cut the planks into scale lengths, but replicated the 'joint'  with a shallow micro saw cut, and then marked it with a pencil lead.
The second plank above the wale was done using 7/32" wide by 3/64" thick strip (5.56mm x1.2mm)
This strake to fill in up to the moulding rail required some fettlin' with tapers both fore and aft.

6078
I used Tamiya 10mm tape to give me a template along the hull for the shape of the upper plank which gave me the rough top line of the plank beneath the moulding rail.
It was then a question of using a scalpel blade to pare the strake down progressively to fit. As it turned out it was more of a spile than a simple taper.
I use a Pilot broad chisel waterproof marker to represent the tar line between planks.

5752
Fixing the upper strake in place.

6369
Got a little fettlin' to do around the fore port sill line.

Moving on now to working out a strategy for the planking between the ports.
B.E
02/03/2018
 

I admire your passion for the subject, turning over every stone and sharing with us.  I wonder if its possible to reconcile some of the visual elements to other sources to get a sense for how these reconcile and the reliability of the artists eye portraying what was there - for example using sources for masting dimensions for the period (if any?) to get a gut check.  I always think of a classic painting by Turner - clearly impressionistic to highlight the majesty of the ships, containing a lot of detail that could arguably be relied upon based on his familiarity with ships of his day.  However, the proportions and scale of the figures, ports and small boats are incredibly misleading.  Looking at the masts, he has made them too short in proportion to he height of the hull which is greatly exaggerated, this seems to be a trend in all his works.  Just food for thought.
 

Hi, nailing
 
 

Hi, and tanks, Alberto
 
 
 
 

Hi, another pictures:
 
 

Hi , another pictures:

Started my first steps with CNC machine. Still a lot to learn, especially 3D modeling, but like the challenge. 
After a few basic projects I started with most difficult part of stern decoration. This is no. 3 in row- still not
best and need some improvements regarding 3D shape and machining parameters... Learning...learning...

OC, Thomas, Eamonn, thanks for kind words.
 
@ BE - jury is out on a rudder coat, I've seen the great result you achieved, what I'm wrestling with the aesthetic and the quality of the result I might achieve.  In the event I don't, I did simulate the end of the tiller 
@ Carl - You reiterated my dilemma   1:64 is a scale where it seems sometimes that details are a question of compromise.  The downside of using raise pins is that to my eye, they appear more obvious and overscale - and also runs the risk that it would be hard to get these positioned accurately  Staying with the indentations, from typical viewing distance it is not obvious to the eye that the indents are in fact indentations rather than raised (think of the classic 'hollow face' optical illusion).  The rudder straps were unaltered and show how these parts came.
 
Anyway...I was very excited to finally receive my copy of the Diana plans from NMM.  WOW!  I've never had a chance to see these types of plans before and I'm very impressed, not only will it hopefully become a nice decorative piece, but its very informative.  Even though the plan indicates it's 'Diana' (non-contemporaneous pencil annotation), it appears to me that these should be considered to be more generic to the Artois class as a whole - there contemporary are annotations indicating that the foremast on 'Jason' and 'Diamond' were moved forward 6 1/4" - but, I'm not going to make any changes at this point as its quite subtle.
 
There are so many details that are much clearer than in the AOTS or kit plans, but few items just for starters...(the poor quality of my photos do not do justice to the print and colours didn't come out well.)
 
Given I'm building roughly 'as designed', I will need to reconsider a few things:
The position of the mizzen channels, these are placed lower than the kit plans and AOTS which reflect the 'as built' higher position.  Looking at the classic Diana models, I now see this is indeed where they are positioned.  The structure of the chains is also very different to what is provided in the kit.  This view also shows evolutionary changes to the positions of the cannon and carronade ports.  
To hopefully resolve a discussion/dilemma experience by Diana builders...my opinion estimating from these plans (and assuming plans to be correct scale) is that the kit stern frame are too wide at the top of the rearmost bulkhead by about 5mm.  Not too significant, but enough to cause the misalignment with the stern fascia and light positions experienced by all builders it seems.  Correction of this and other bulkheads would not be hard when starting out on the kit, but would need to be done prior to planking.
 

 
The main channels are shown positioned below the sheer rail 'as designed'.  Unfortunately I've been working to have these in line with the sheer rail (as built it appears), but am not going to make changes as the difference is quite subtle.   The built up bulwarks are also clearly shown, the kit provides for, and reference made in AOTS to Diana having a more decorative style consistent with the open bulkhead profile - the plans show these as the more standard, utilitarian square profile that later became standard.
 

 
The bow sections shows a number of interesting aspects:
Changes to positions of timberheads to accommodate evolving cannon/carronade compliment Inclusion of a forward port (as built) which I suspect would have been for access to the cathead/anchor rather than including a cannon.  This would have been a nice feature to add, but would require significant rework earlier in the build (more than I did) to allow this as it aligns with the foremost bulkhead Also seems that there was some variations on the profile of the stem, and position of the cathead
 

Catching up Jim, everything looks really good especially the rigging.  Which manufacturer made the anchor kit from? -  it looks well formed and very clean.
 
Just noticed you're in Edinburgh, I used to live in a tiny flat on St Stephen St in Stockbridge many years ago.

Happy New Year to all!
 
Not too much to show for a little bit of extra time in the shipyard, but have put a bookend on the work at the stern and quarter galleries for now.  Basically, all I've done is glue the quarter gallery sections in place together with the various rails (Upper stool, rim and lower stool rails).  This took much longer than expected as  I had so many pieces of rework, either because if breakage when shaping, fitting or by trimming a little too much (despite reciting 'don't take off too much' continually under my breath) and needing to restart.  It was also challenging as the quarter gallery rails needed to match as well as possible to the upper and lower counter rails.  Anyway, don't think the pictures need much additional explanation - other than that some are taken without any touchup, but the extra time afforded by the site outage allowed me to get a little more done.
 
Suffice to say, I'm very pleased with the way the quarter galleries turned out, definitely challenging, but worth the extra time.  The PE lights still require some work and these will not be put in place yet, but I wanted to get a sense for the overall look and the lines.  Of course final judgement is left to others 
 

 
The kit supplied console brackets  proved to be a little oversized, to keep the same feel as the plans I wanted these to fit snuggly between the upper stool and the rim rails.  For comparison, you can see the adjusted starboard side bracket to the not yet adjusted port side on the left.
 

 
Taking a step back to compare to the plans and assessing varied angles I think I've done as much as can be done to bash any provided parts into something a little more consistent.  As always, the human eye is a little more forgiving in person.  The plan profile is enlarged from the AOTS book.  The quarter gallery sculptures now have a definite 'ledge' to visually support them and I'm glad I invested the extra time here.
 

 
 

OC, Thomas, Eamonn, thanks for kind words.
 
@ BE - jury is out on a rudder coat, I've seen the great result you achieved, what I'm wrestling with the aesthetic and the quality of the result I might achieve.  In the event I don't, I did simulate the end of the tiller 
@ Carl - You reiterated my dilemma   1:64 is a scale where it seems sometimes that details are a question of compromise.  The downside of using raise pins is that to my eye, they appear more obvious and overscale - and also runs the risk that it would be hard to get these positioned accurately  Staying with the indentations, from typical viewing distance it is not obvious to the eye that the indents are in fact indentations rather than raised (think of the classic 'hollow face' optical illusion).  The rudder straps were unaltered and show how these parts came.
 
Anyway...I was very excited to finally receive my copy of the Diana plans from NMM.  WOW!  I've never had a chance to see these types of plans before and I'm very impressed, not only will it hopefully become a nice decorative piece, but its very informative.  Even though the plan indicates it's 'Diana' (non-contemporaneous pencil annotation), it appears to me that these should be considered to be more generic to the Artois class as a whole - there contemporary are annotations indicating that the foremast on 'Jason' and 'Diamond' were moved forward 6 1/4" - but, I'm not going to make any changes at this point as its quite subtle.
 
There are so many details that are much clearer than in the AOTS or kit plans, but few items just for starters...(the poor quality of my photos do not do justice to the print and colours didn't come out well.)
 
Given I'm building roughly 'as designed', I will need to reconsider a few things:
The position of the mizzen channels, these are placed lower than the kit plans and AOTS which reflect the 'as built' higher position.  Looking at the classic Diana models, I now see this is indeed where they are positioned.  The structure of the chains is also very different to what is provided in the kit.  This view also shows evolutionary changes to the positions of the cannon and carronade ports.  
To hopefully resolve a discussion/dilemma experience by Diana builders...my opinion estimating from these plans (and assuming plans to be correct scale) is that the kit stern frame are too wide at the top of the rearmost bulkhead by about 5mm.  Not too significant, but enough to cause the misalignment with the stern fascia and light positions experienced by all builders it seems.  Correction of this and other bulkheads would not be hard when starting out on the kit, but would need to be done prior to planking.
 

 
The main channels are shown positioned below the sheer rail 'as designed'.  Unfortunately I've been working to have these in line with the sheer rail (as built it appears), but am not going to make changes as the difference is quite subtle.   The built up bulwarks are also clearly shown, the kit provides for, and reference made in AOTS to Diana having a more decorative style consistent with the open bulkhead profile - the plans show these as the more standard, utilitarian square profile that later became standard.
 

 
The bow sections shows a number of interesting aspects:
Changes to positions of timberheads to accommodate evolving cannon/carronade compliment Inclusion of a forward port (as built) which I suspect would have been for access to the cathead/anchor rather than including a cannon.  This would have been a nice feature to add, but would require significant rework earlier in the build (more than I did) to allow this as it aligns with the foremost bulkhead Also seems that there was some variations on the profile of the stem, and position of the cathead
 

Catching up Pat, great progress.  I'm similarly pondering the rudder chains so will be interested to see what you uncover.  I wonder how much history there is of rudders becoming unshipped, intuitively it just seems very improbable considering the length of pintles and the fact that the motion would need to be perfectly in line with the hinge line.  The photo of the chains with multiple attachments is very interesting, way more than I've seen on most ships.  Is it to minimise drag caused by the chain being in the water?

Looking very fine with that rudder installed Jason.

Really impressive work Jason.  Top notch, masterful joinery, painting, etc.  Incredible!
 
On the rudder coat, I saw that Micromark now carries “leather paper” - I think it’s a kind of textured paper that simulates leather.  I’ve never used it so can’t vouch for it, but just throw that out there if you are looking for potential materials.

Very nice work on the rudder and fittings Jason.  It bodes well for a very nice model with the care and attention to research you are doing.
 
For consideration only, I invested in a punch kit plastic modellers use which can punch many sizes and styles of head from a very thin foil.  A bit tricky positioning but they do provide a more realistic result when painted.  Not trying to get you to change your current work, just for the future if that is what you are trying to achieve.
 
I have a set of the the Small Shop - The nutter set - for blind, bolts and rivets which I got from Historex - I have no connection with them whatsoever, simply where I got mine
 
cheers
 
Pat

Thanks all for the nice words, likes and continued interest.  Know its been a while, seems as if I hit some sort of 'modelers wall'.  Before I can really continue with the topsides, I needed to turn my attention to mounting the rudder.  This is something I've been putting off for quite a while, and proved to be a very frustrating experience.  I had initially delayed doing this to allow the copper to oxidize as much as possible just in case of any errant CA glue and prevent shiny spots.
 
The kit provides PE rudder and pintle straps, but for some reason I couldn't get comfortable with them.  On Snake, the staps come with holes and pins were inserted, but this was something that in retrospect look a little too clunky and out of scale.  Looking at pictures of period ships, the bolts/nails are quite a subtle feature similar to treenails in visibility.  I experimented with card and styrene strip  to make these from scratch, but in the end decided to go with the supplied PE parts.  I forgot to take a picture, but instead of premade holes, these have rather large circular indentations in them, I'm guessing to simulate the bolts.  To my eye they looked to far apart, and the holes too big.  I made a slight alteration to increase the number of bolts/nail heads by drilling additional indentations to simulate what was already there.  The rudder straps also needed to be shortened quite considerably to eliminate overhang at the rear of the rudder.  These were painted with "Admiralty copper" paint after experimenting with other similar Tamiya colours.
 
The main challenge I found was to attach these without marring the copper plates, and this proved to be quite the challenge as at first the CA glue wouldn't provide a good bond and needed to be reapplied.  Scratching the hull plates and inside surface of the PE seemed to get things strong enough. The rudder proved quite the challenge to mount as this had been made with a low (for me) level of tolerance following the AOTS plans which is documented earlier in the log.
 
Interestingly, the box artwork shows a spectacle plate, but there is nothing in the kit nor instructions.  This was simulated using painted card and eyebolts, but interestingly there is very little room for this, however this seems consistent with AOTS diagrams.  The ironwork on the lower counter ports used some PE parts from the "Badger" set which I had bought a number of years ago.  These looked a little more in keeping scale wise than what is provide in this kit.  I may add ring bolts and rings to these, but will likely not rig with line as I'm concerned this may be a visual distraction - personal preference of course.  Next up will be to attach the rudder chains which, nicely, are provided in the kit.
 

 

Yes, it should.  I don't think the step should be quite so pronounced, and the right stepped section should thin gradually as well.  I think you're clearer than the plans at this point so just ignore them!

Mike - I think its a view from above, and it looks to be correct.  The widest part is where the bowsprit sits, and the thinner part is the top of the knee of the stem.  The reason for the jump rather than smooth transition is that it accounts for the difference in width between those two points.  Hard to describe, but clear in my mind :-)
 
Nice work BTW, good to see some progress.

Hi Mike, I'd really suggest you do a little research before you start     I think your approach to build the kit following the plans and your heart is definitely the way to go, people may have opinions but nothing can be proven.  Sure this will build up into a beautiful model.  Definitely following this one.