Beef Wellington

And some end-of bank-holiday-tinkering: blocks mounted, topmast pendants set and the main cap´s round hole padded with leather - what does a modeler´s heart need more?!?
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
XXXDAn

She's looking really good Christian and those overall shots are testament to your work! The reworked coils look to have much more of a scale weight to them which greatly enhances the effect. 

Looking very nice BE, the run of the planks looks great.  Now you are able to compare, do you think the pinnace is just fundamentally more challenging because of its shape, or was it simply your recent experience that allowed you to complete this more satisfactorily?

Awesome work Jesse, everything has already been said!

Those close up shots of the stern look great Bob, nice job on the lantern brackets.

continuation
 
Glad I'm almost done with the rigging part

Looking very nice BE, the run of the planks looks great.  Now you are able to compare, do you think the pinnace is just fundamentally more challenging because of its shape, or was it simply your recent experience that allowed you to complete this more satisfactorily?

Thanks Steve and Jason.
A bit of a tricky question Jason, no doubt after a six year absence of hull planking I was ring rusty when I started my Pinnace and following on immediately with the Longboat I did find it easier, particularly in relation to having a better appreciation of the necessary plank shapes.
I think the Pinnace is a tad more difficult with its finer lines and greater length, and in retrospect I think I should have made the Longboat first, not that I think I made a particularly good planking job on the Longboat even with it being a second bite at the cherry.
I did make things somewhat harder for myself by using very fine Boxwood strip (0.6mm thick) which leaves very little room for sanding adjustments.
 
I took these two builds on as deliberate warm up to Chuck's Cheerful cutter, and I'm going to have to seriously raise my planking game before I start, but at least I have the correct Boxwood timber sizes for that build. 
 
B.E.
 

Looking very nice BE, the run of the planks looks great.  Now you are able to compare, do you think the pinnace is just fundamentally more challenging because of its shape, or was it simply your recent experience that allowed you to complete this more satisfactorily?

Univers played crazy - it concentrated lust, leisure and time in one single small space and as this happened to be my tinkering corner there was no more way to say no ...
 
I was busy for quite a while understanding the real construction of the fighting tops and researching the relating measures in between mast and topmast and so on. Found the Heller parts in acceptable tolerances so made up a plastic dummy to set things straight for a wooden replacement later on.
 
A long missing piece for the puzzle was the small wooden chock, that sets the distance on the lower end of the topmast and defines the distance from the mast head to the topmast. Difficult to spot in the plans, not easy to spot it in the descriptions as it was too easy as a solution ...

So I shortened the rubbing paunch to fit in the chock, shortened the bolsters in the front side, detailed the main cap ...

... build in the sheaves, the fid and the iron loop ...

... and also worked the top.

Nice to see the chock that sets the distance and the rake of the topmast.

The main cap got its splitlines.


Another question arose: The cleat for the jeer block lashing are shown in Portsmouth as a clamp, but most of the literature shows a shoulder piece. What is the correct setup?

Here both of them together for comparison ...

... and here the shoulder its the right place.


Then made he functional tryouts ...

... pushing the topmast through the trestletrees ...

... placed the fid ...

... and fits :-)
XXXDAn

Looking very nice BE, the run of the planks looks great.  Now you are able to compare, do you think the pinnace is just fundamentally more challenging because of its shape, or was it simply your recent experience that allowed you to complete this more satisfactorily?

Thanks for your support guys. 
Planking is now completed.
I planked alternatively from keel and Gunwale with the aim of getting the final strake  just below the waterline level.
1206

1207
Worked out fairly evenly along the hull for the final spiled plank.

1208
The final plank shape was marked on tape over the hull and transferred to a broader plank to cut out.
It was then a case of sanding/scraping by degrees to fit it along the hull.

1209
Final strips in place.

1210

1212
The hull now needs fine sanding and a little fettlin'  to fill any hairline cracks along the plank joints.
Relieved that this part of the build is completed, still not overjoyed with the planking, but it has turned out somewhat better than the Pinnace in that there is greater thickness of material left on the hull at this stage, just as well perhaps as the starting thickness was only 0.6mm.
 
I will now spend some time cleaning up the hull before I remove the bulkhead centres.
 
B.E.

A concern is avoiding the rigging of the driver boom fouling the lights. Exactly where the rigging is attached to the hull is far from clear. Actually installing the lights is about the last thing I will do as their attachments are very fragile indeed.   Protruding as they do is an invitation to disaster.  However to get an idea of the best place to attach the boom rigging I have dry-fitted the light supports - shown below.  This entails drilling holes in the decorative surface of the stern - something I was not keen to do.  However needs must ...  (With hindsight I would have drilled the holes before painting and off the model, but there your are.)
 
In the process however, I discovered that it is just possible to drill the appropriate holes without damage to the painted figures.  Obtaining the distance between the holes from the light supports, I used a pair of dividers to search places on the decorative surface where I could drill without damaging the figures. The only places are shown in the unfortunately rather unclear photos.
 
 

 

 

 

Nice start, hope the planking continues easily!

Will follow along with the usual fascination Nils, interesting subject and can't wait to see how she comes together.

Hi mates - another update. 
 The main stay & preventer  stay are now done,as well as the snaking. The fore & main top crowsfeet are done also. 2mm rope was used for the main stay & 1.6mm rope for the preventer stay.
 
 

 

 

 

 
As always,thanks for looking in.
 
Mark

This has been an interesting discussion, gentlemen. There is still a considerable debate of push-and-pull in conservation circles. However, conservation is just that; retaining as much of the original object or artifact as possible. This, to me, is distinct from restoration, where original or missing material is replaced by new. It should be clear to a practised eye what is original and what is not. Also, any treatment should be fully reversible without damage to the original. All work should be fully documented as well. Full disclosure: my own views are consonant with Maturin's.

Well Im not trying to sway you.   Merely trying to present you with a bit more of the nuance of the nuance of the work.   It is not insistence that drives my want to save the original material but really the core of the job.  If I cannot within my skill, ability and materials knowledge do so, then I will find someone or some way to; or if left with no other option, describe, document and ultimately as you suggest replace it.   However your advice to just go ahead and replace it based on nothing more than the fact that it is degrading would lead (if followed broadly) to a lot of lost material.   Honestly, that was the attitude of many restorers of the earlier part of this century and now widely viewed as good-hearted but misplaced.    Again... context plays an extremely important role.   
 
To your analogy: there are many examples of contemporary artistic works which pose the very same problem you point out.  Digital photographic prints come immediately to mind, but yes even the work of the artist you describe.  To follow your analogy, re-rigging the ship is more or less the same as repainting the painting rather than trying to save the original canvas.   In many instances we conservators deal with such problems by replacing the carrier, or in this case the rotting canvas if only to save the larger work.  By utilizing methods to face, relaminate and transfer the painting to a new carrier.   BUT ONLY if the artist allow, if they are dead then ownership and provenance are the next priority.   However I would say that it is hard to make the comparison between a painting and a ship model, especially when considering the rigging versus the blank canvas material.  They are not, to my mind, inherently the same.
 
Also, I didnt mean to suggest that a restorer COULDNT duplicate the rigging as it was done, but more questioned wether they would attempt to do so at all.   If you can save it, you must and if you cant then every attempt must be made to preserve artistic intent.     If you choose otherwise, then your practice would not stand up to the stringent ethical standards and peer-review that we American conservators must abide by, and one step further you would not at all be legally allowed to work as a conservator in Europe, let alone be certified.  Being a European trained, American peer-reviewed conservator means I have this conversation daily with the work and clients I have.  I love this kind of debate...   I think ship models provide an extra layer of complexity to the issue...
 
 Truthfully, there is very little room for ambiguity on this, which is why there are conservators and there are restorers.   (Incidentally, some european languages translate conservator as restaurer).  

Well...   I wish it were as easy as inventing a scenario and applying blanket treatment protocols.    We are often faced with treatment problems that push the limits of what we would wish to do, and in those instances we would as you suggest, replace the rigging that needed it, as Ive already said.   My guiding principal is not made up, and is not one that was developed in a vacuum.   It is what guides all conservators of all things...   Each object and in this case, each ship-model, would be evaluated independently and treated on an individualized basis.  
 
Your original advice to simply not attempt to save any original material without regard to context, individual condition of rigging or even process would be viewed widely among conservators as an incorrect or even irresponsible approach.  We/You simply do not have the ability to say that the rigging of all old ships is rotting and not worth saving, BUT we/you do have the ability to evaluate each model on a case-by-case basis utilizing the guiding principal that we would save what we could.   I understand that you view threads/cords used in rigging as somehow in some kind of shockingly quick state of decay, however I am here to tell you as someone who has spent many years studying, writing and researching the decay of cellulosic based materials such as flax, linen and cotton that with care, consolidants and environmental control we can actually slow some of these processes down.   I teach a graduate course on this very subject at a major university, so trust me when I say: saving the original materials is possible and well worth the effort if the right circumstances exist; which is more often than you would think.  
 
Further...   I regularly see materials of this sort happily live into their 500 and 600th year of use.   It all depends on the individual item.   The original project posted discussed rigging that was 250ish years old, and in my experience could concievable be in a state that with the right conditions and repair, might live another 250 years happily.   If it were a situation where the rigging on this project were in such a state that they would only last another year, then Im sure the conservator would choose to replace the rigging, but only AFTER carefuly documenting, saving and very carefully archiving the patterns, knots and materials used in the original.  Believe it or not, I have spent days unraveling and drafting sewing patterns for original structures...   its part of the job. 
 
Now...  to answer your question.   The first thing I would do is manage expectations and explain all this to the Board.   I would share many examples of treatment scenarios and other work which would closely communicate what they are likely to receive from me; a conservator.   I would explain to them (as I would hope their curators would have already done) that much valuable information is at risk of loss and/or found in original materials and this is why a conservative approach is preferred.  Now...  if that is not enough, they are free to go somewhere else but they would be warned that they are not likely to get something else from another reputable conservator.   A private citizen with no formal training, accreditation or peer-review might happily do it; and I wouldnt stop them.   But I have my career and reputation to protect.  I am not bound to them and their models and they are not bound to my guiding principal.   However...   if I worked for them they would get what I recommend and no more.    I have regularly told clients (mostly dealers) No, I wont do it and walked away from thousands of dollars in work, that is the life.   A ship-model restored sells better than one that has been conserved precisely because restoration replaces much of the signs of age, leaving little of the original work behind. 
 
In the case of incomplete rigging, it may very well be that I choose to literally fix loose ends and leave the lost rigging lost, it really depends.  
 
Again...in some cases, replacing the rigging is the only option Im sure, but SHOULD NOT be the go to practice.   I hate the feeling that Im in some kind of argument here, is there no value as you see it in attempting to save original components?   The nice thing is, truly, that you are not bound to a conservators approach.   You could do whatever it is you want, but be warned, monetary value is often lost in inappropriate restoration activities which is why I ALWAYS tell people to slow down, call a conservator and THEN make a decision.   

Thanks all for the "likes" and looking in.  Think a point has been reached where all of the known big challenges have been addressed, or at least an approach developed, so I can start to have a bit of fun tackling some of the other odd pieces on the deck.
 
I am starting to seriously consider not rigging this model... the reason being that I certainly still have plenty ahead of me (and I still haven't even finished rigging 'Snake' yet) even without rigging, also the size of the hull is already quite large and adding the masts and spars will increase the needed space significantly.  Curious on other's thoughts on this, hopefully it is not anathema.  The other consideration is that I would like to move onto another build sooner than I realistically would if I were to fully rig.  What this means is that I may spend a little extra time adding some details that I otherwise wouldn't, as I'm also wanting to leave my options open to possibly leave open some of the upper deck planking/scuttles.
 
4 additional standards have been added, 2 fore and 2 aft (still in process on larboard side) as these will be visible when the upper deck is in place.  You can see the kit supplied riding bitts in place.

 
The scale of these bitts is actually pretty accurate, but I didn't like the shape so decided to make up my own...and while I was at it also made up some fore riding bitts following guidance from TFFM as the AOTS book is a little sparse on detail.  These were fun little projects.  I believe the forward elm battens were nailed on for easy replacement but I haven't tried to simulate that, not sure how this would be done however, or whether this is a "less is more" situation.

 
Previous mods allowed the bowsprit to be secured within the hull on a bowsprit step so this was also constructed.  Going a little crazy some manger boards were also made up, these will not be readily (understatement) viewable but I think could add to the sense of depth when undergoing close inspection through a gun port , and help mask the obvious edge of the bulkhead against the deck.  The dimensions of the bowsprit step are a little ambiguous, in retrospect I would have made it 2-3mm narrower, but given the likely visibility, this will not be redone. 
 

 
The placement of the bowsprit step is a little dependent on some of the foremost beam, to be obsessive this should be a little further forward, but think it will be just fine where it is.  The foremost deck beams required modification to work around some of the other alterations made up to this point but this was simple enough.

And with everything in place a couple of deck shots to get a feel for things...

Cheers gents.
 
Christian - I'm being consistent in using the Admiralty paints yellow ochre which I quite like.  Constant handling of these parts seems to be no match for any paint and paint rubs off the high spots despite an undercoat.  Should not be a problem to get looking OK when the time comes.
 
Cannon Conundrums (or "Armament Angst")
 
I felt I needed a bit of a change of pace while continuing to work slowly on the stern, and decided to get a head start on the cannons as I foresee these being a rather repetitive activity.  Psychologically, it feels like I'm getting a head start on things a little by commencing work on these now rather than waiting until I have to do them.
The first decision was to finally decide on which barrels to go with.  Photos below show 3 options, specifically left to right, Chuck's Syren offering, RB Models and the kit supplied barrels.  I know I posted these pics in Andy's Diana log, but can't remember if I did here so pls forgive any repetition!
Kit provide barrels - Painful as it is, the kit provided ones just don't cut the mustard with the bore being too large, the muzzle not being the right shape and the pommel just way too big. Chuck's barrels are very nice indeed, while the length certainly works, the bore seems a little small and for a 1:64 18lb'er and overall the barrel is a little dainty to my eye RBs Models (44mm) are also very nicely shaped and to my eye seem to fit the needed proportions best.  Each barrel is also supplied with a scale precut trunnion of high quality, so some labour would be saved there.
Next up, carriages.  I had ordered a set of Chucks Syren carriages a while ago and finally got round to building one up in addition to a kit carriage for comparison.  Pictures are self explanatory and show the kit carriage with kit barrel (left) with Syren carriage and RB models barrel (right).  Making these up allowed all the possible permutations to be tried, but these are best comparison.  Note - these were built over a number of very brief 10 minute sessions when I could escape to the boat yard, i.e. very quick and dirty, with quick paint job and no fittings. 
 
Couple of things are apparent:
The kit walnut is not great, being very splintery with pronounced grain, and would require a lot of work to get an acceptable finish.  The carriage is noticeably a little more squat, and the 2mm thickness of the ply looks less substantial, and the trucks a little on the small side. Similar level of finish work on the Syren laser cut parts gives a much better result.  Dimensions all around look a little more pleasing to my eye.  
The width of the Syren carriage were made slightly wider than the plans indicate to try and better scale to the RB barrel.
 

 
Final comparison was to place in situ.  The RB/Syren combination seemed to sit nicely mid port.  Placement of a quoin will need to be thought about as the barrel is probably already at approximately the right elevation.  Feel the RB/Syren combo is  clear winner, despite the additional investment that will be needed my view is that this will ultimately provide a more enjoyable building experience, especially as 28 of these puppies will need to be made up...
 

 
 
 
 

Gents - this is why this site is so great, everything has suddenly become clear (or at least clearer), so thank you!
 
Carl - All beautiful, but maybe a little fancy for the late 18th century and undoubtedly beyond my ability to carve!
 
Dirk - I see you had the exact same 'problem'.  Despite being an avid follower of your beautiful Confederacy I somehow missed that, so shame on me!  That shows the situation very clearly and was a huge help in thinking this through.
 
B.E. -  You raise a good potential issue with the arm, I think the casting is sufficiently soft to allow that to be bent, but experimentation will be needed.  In photos below you can see I've bent the arm tentatively, will need more attention but I want to wait until final profile is known to reduce the risk of it breakage due to repeated bending.  BTW, I repeatedly admire your custom Pegasus stern and added figures - much better than the kit provided knights - but maybe a little too ornate for these later frigates (I may be wrong, but I believe the Artois class may have been among the last 5th rates with full figureheads)
 
Photos of a quick-and-dirty proof of concept, so think I know where I'm going with this...trying to ignore the horrible paint finish on the casting but there is no point in making it look good at this point...
 

Not much progress, but I want to ask a question, so felt obliged to post  a few photos 
 
Progress made on the upper and lower counter rail.  These need to follow quite a curve, more so than they appear, and were pre-bent to shape using a failed counter template I had kept.  Seems very important visually to get a smooth curve.  The ends of these rails will need to butt up against the side gallery rails and so were angled to approximately 45% in preparation.  Using a single pin amidships proved to be the ticket here ensuring that the rail could be consistently placed while the ends were fine tuned - the small hole should be pretty easy to mask afterwards with filler.  The top rail is not glued in place yet, but its possible to get a feel for the run of these rails.  Overall, I'm rather relieved and pleased with how this turned out with the name placement.  
 

 
So, to my question.  The Diana kit provides two 'ladies' at either side of the stern fascia which are pretty good castings (represent the goddesses Hera and Athena from Jason's story) which I'd like to use.  The tafferal is quite thick, and when compared to the AOTS diagram, the female figures appear to have some depth.  I thought that by this time, complex carvings in the round would not be in vogue for economic reasons, so I'm wondering if what is illustrated is a simpler relief carving on an angled corner.  If so, then the approach could be to simply angle the corner.  The hesitation here is that after so much work on the stern, I'm wary of making a mistake...but I do like the more 'fitted' look in the AOTS picture as it seems to gradually transition the thickness of the tafferal in a visually pleasing way.  Angling the corner would be easier with the upper counter rail off, but until that's decided its a roadblock to moving forward with the rest.
 
Opinions, thoughts and recommendations sought...
 

All, thanks for the support, kind words and likes from such an accomplished group.  I noticed that I'm just past my 3yr anniversary for this model...I'm hoping things can start accelerating a little from here now all the foundations are in place.
 
@ Michal - its a simple solution I learned from others, the batten is simply a 1x1mm strip glued to the waterline.  Given that the hull shape requires this to bend through a number of convex and concave surfaces, especially at the stern, my experience was that it is easiest to thin by sanding to around 0.5mm or less and then glue in position with PVA glue.  The moisture in the glue adds to flexibility of the woods and sets quickly so fingers can be used to hold in place.  This was done in manageable strip lengths rather than trying to do the whole waterline with one piece.  Once this had dried fully, I then reduced the thickness a little more by careful sanding until it looked to be at the appropriate scale.
 
 

Hi all, trying to get the shipyard going again.  Decided to put some additional paint friezes on the lower finishing pieces which are all now glued in place and touched up.  Tried to make these a bit subdued, and mirrored a design appearing in one of the moldings at the stem.
 
Also made up what I think is technically the 'drop' proper, or alternatively the "round thing" which I'd been pondering for a while after committing to not to use the kit white metal parts.  The technique devised proved to be pretty easy to execute by simply gluing some 2mm think spare stock onto the end of some 4mm dowel. Using that as a guide to shape to be round and domed - these were then soaked in rubbing alcohol to separate again.  I'm waiting to glue these on as I suspect they will be too easy to knock off with the other work remaining to do at the stern.
 
Next up, I think I'm in a position to start getting some trim on and find out if there are any issues with the placement of the painted letters...