juhu

Hi Don, I would be very surprised to hear they were coppered. Am also not sure where (which country , navy) is referenced when mentioned 1807-1812 as a period for coppered hulls Baltimore clippers were often built hastily and probably they were not supposed to last long, Copper is extremely expensive. I think that even the best (= not built in rush during the war) of Baltimore clippers built before the 1812 war outbreak would be treated with white or black stuff, rather then copper.

Hi, actually no need to travel to Greenwich. You can purchase the copy of the plans. But as said, unless you plan to heavily modify the kit to match the original, maybe not needed. http://prints.rmg.co.uk/index.cfm?searchstring=musquidobit&event=catalogue.qsearch Yes, the image you posted is well known, it is from Smithsonian's Museum and indeed, it is very nice representation of the Lynx.

I do have also Chapelle's "Baltimore clipper " book. It was also my starting point. But as said, the original full scale plans from Greenwich Maritime museum brings the whole new view on the things. Anyway, exactly as you wrote it will be the best just to go on with the kit as it is - after all, it shall be all about fun and a joy from the hobby. Authenticity search may be sometimes really frustrating Looking forward to see more photos!

Hi, I will watch this topic closely. You are fighting bravely so far. I have got the same kit but not started it and probably never would. May I ask, what plans are you using for your build? I have taken the copy of the original preserved plans as taken by British Admiralty after Lynx was captured and taken as Mosquidobit. Unfortunately, the plans show so many kit's issues in shape and dimensions, that I found it would be easier to make it from scratch than to rebuild it to match the plans. Am curious about your experiences! Good luck!

You are fighting bravely with the kit shortcomings. This aft partition is also in my focus. It is very often omitted or poorly described detail, usually represented by unrealistic flat wooden "deck" just like in this kit. I also search for some good looking solution that would make the overall hull planking continuous to the mirror and naturally looking. Good luck!

Nice bit of research, looking forward to reading more. Just to be sure, have you got Canney's US coast guard and revenue cutters book? Quite useful here I believe.

You are welcome. As you say, the plan price is not so high. They contain lots of detailed drawing for all those cabins, winches, rigging, ship boats etc etc.... everything you would need to get answers.

Hi Glenn, if you would like to build the ship, I strongly recommend to get the original plans for her from here http://www.aamm.fr/boutique/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=65&products_id=216 I have got them and they are well worth help for any serious builder. Both the kits (BB and Dusek) are in 1/50 scale and somehow based on these plans. But only if you first time see the plans you will realize the difference. Of course commercial kits need to be somehow simplified, but with the help of the plans you can really upgrade your buildto other level! Also beware, the ship appearance changed through her carrier and the plans shows her as in service in late 40ies I think....

Hi Rob, I cannot comment directly on this kit. But there is a very similar kit made by Mamoli (named "Leudo" ). Actually, it is quite common to share the plans, give different names and scales to the identical model across the European companies. One model builder is building this Mamoli thing (unfortunatelly build log is not in English http://www.modelforum.cz/viewtopic.php?f=177&t=100656)and found the kit quite problematical. Not only the bulkheads does not match the plan, they are not even symmetrical! The supplied timber was of the low quality too. He decided to build it actually a new like from scratch. Is such a kit worthy to be built? If you have some special attraction to this particular vessel type, go for it. If you look for some good starter kit, I would be very cautious here, if not directly look elsewhere. Just my opinion. While I was living in US I had too very good experience with Model Expo. Ended with them due to the very bad experience regarding overseas orders though. But If I were you, would probably stick with them, possibly try BlueJacket Shipcrafters as other option?

Hm, photo rendered colors can always deceive. But if this should by Victory's ocre color, then I would say neither of them is very convincing. Just MHO.

Excellent work! And as noted above, those darker planks (or strenghtening beams, do not know the shipmaster naming for it - much thicker and stronger wooden constructions to strenghten the hull & deck) are very interesting detail - historically fully accurate but very seldom seen included on models here! Great job!

I vote for no guns in those ports. I know my opinion has no value, still IMHO it looks strange: as already said, there is no space for recoil, manipulation, loading etc. To me such a configuration does not look better if it does not reflect reality. And conteporary models may be wrong too, unless we have something like Admiralty drawing for the period. I know on bigger ships with more decks those front ports, often missinterpeted as gun ports (!), were used to assist anchor manipulation and not for placing the guns. Still, even here I would close them with the lids and leave them without the guns. I seriously doubt, particularly during the sail over the high seas, they would leave these ports open, right?. And if you consider placing there the gun, how would you then move them back to close the lids? There is no space. To me such a configuration is not realistic and therefore not attractive.

Hi Jack, looks very promising. Relatively unknown company focused on local boats. Probably they will not be so popular as all those Victories and Bluenoses, but still these vessels have lot of charm. I used to sail in Croatia for one week in summer on a chartered yacht - so somehow this subject is a little bit closer to me than any other ship. And will watch your progress. Please do mention higlights but also minuses, if you find any. I would like to learn how is the kit good and possibly worthy to get. Good luck. Juraj

Okay, just few notes. I have just had a look into my copy of Admiralty plans for Williams: - One noticeable thing missing is the presence of gratings and ladder just aft the main deck opening. It is really weird that the whole boat as presented by Caldercraft has no ladder or any way how to access the lower deck from the main deck! - Different chimney / stove position. -Armament. [EDIT]: The one provided in the kit features proposed fitting from 1795. The boat was rebuilt in 1796 and has different armament (two carronades, one for, one aft). The question is, how is the Caldercraft's representation real and if the boat ever operated with such a configuration? Caldercraft's configuration comes form plan "as proposed to be built" which does not automatically mean it was also build upon it. Plans showing the boat with final configuration look different. - If you will attach the flag to the boat, use the Blue ensign (not red or white). According to rank of the Admiral to whose competence the boat (or her station) belonged The thing is that Caldercraft uses Admiralty plans as the base for the kits. But these plans are very different. Several of them depicts just ships "as proposed" , not "as fitted". If the producer takes as the base the incomplete plan which do not show really all the details of the ship, well, then it may look quite different. It is very interesting to compare Caldercraft's kits with the contemporary Admiralty plans. One will often find it is not as shiny as one would imagine just from the pure claim "built on Admiralty plans"

Good luck with William. I believe there used to be at least one build log, even finished one, but all before GMC (Great Modelshipworld Collapse ), so lost... Anyway... I am not familiar with the review you are mentioning, but I would love to!! I was planning to build this one on my own and purchased original Admiralty plans from Greenwich (luckily they do exist). They are great source of information. You will find the kit way too simplified and missing several very important features (not so difficult to add, if one knows them) but it depends how much is the historical accuracy important for you. Juraj

Danke Johann, das war meine Frage : especially in close combat, I wonder if they could use those swivels at least once (providing that the opposing site uses also grape shots). Nevertheless. Beautiful work.

Wonderful as always. To have the patience to bring the model to this level of realism, well, that is something. And the results well pays off! One question, not to the build but rather functionality of the real ship. Those two small guns aft look really strange: how were these positions accessed by the gunners? And yet, this "battle positions" look so unprotected compared with the main gun deck. I would not want to be the one standing on that opening during the fight ?

Hi Elmir I have just came accross your thread and also had a look at your Bracera - which is great in my opinion. I will gladly follow your progress on Jacinthe and wish you good luck Juraj

Thanks Gregor, I can imagine that building two siblings might prove to be challenging - wish you good luck and would watch the progress. Thanks for the link, I came across that french forum the other day, unfortunately, I cannot read it due to my language barrier Still you confirmed my thoughts: La Jacinthe as portrayed in Boudriot Monography may be the simplest choice to build, but well possible it does not reflect the real ship overall look (Those open bulwarks made me suspicious from the beginning) If possible, what is the knowledge status of La Mutine? Is the kept plan sufficient proof of her appearance or is La Topaze the only of the three that can be documented thoroughly? Thanks J.

Hi Gregor, while eagerly waiting for your progress on these beautiful ships, one basic question came to my mind: If I remember correctly, originally you wanted to build La Jacinthe as one of those two. Have you abandoned this idea in favor of Mutine/Topaz for some specific reason? Did you find anything during the research that made La Jacinthe less interesting? I think you just wrote something about the research and then changing your mind, but if possible, I would be very interested in what have you found (Just a blind guess: maybe she was never really built with her bulwarks open as depicted on the plan and Mutine and Topaz are more real ships then?) Thanks Juraj

I vote for Caldercraft, at least they use Admiralty plans for design. Unfortunately the non-scale fittings etc. can be problem also here. Manufacturers just save the costs and offer "general" stuff for various models rather than providing special design for particular vessel. Still, as a kit, CC would be my choice.

Hi Gregor, thanks for the answers, I accept the one for my Question 2, but for the first question, I am confused: I do not speak French, have not read the description for the item 36 on the plans. But if you check the Monography La Jacinthe by Ancre, on p. 25, where La Mutine is described (I have purchased English version) you read : "... Modest improvements to the comfort of the crew in the form of lead-lined latrines abaft the catheads, and on the starboard side aft a seat of ease for the officers..." So if you are right, then the La Jacinthe monography is wrong (or vice - versa?) Juraj

Hi Gregor, very nice progress. 2questions: 1. how do you make the "seats of ease" located fore? I assume there shall be also some holes through the bulwarks? I cannot imagine how it shall look like - I assume that the schooner sides may had then occasionally some not so nice "decoration", while there is no "overhang" as for the officer's seat.... 2. How do you interpret this strange railing sitting on the top of the bulwark? - looks like some carved thin wooden rail tapered towards fore and aft. I cannot imagine what it was good for and why on plans it is carved only from inside! It looks like some addition to the bulwarks, but does not seem to have the same thickness juraj

Equally low together. Compared to kits from e.g Jotika, Victory Models, Model Shipways As said, if you just want to build something, does not matter which one of AL/Cons you choose. You will get what you pay for. Whether it is enough for you is up to you.

What do you mean by "quality" ? Material, instructions, historical accuracy and research behind the model? Nevertheless I would say both are equally low - may be it is better to speak of a particular kit from their range than just general talk, otherwise there is not much to recommend .