juhu

Will follow. When I saw those pics of Mamolis's cutter in preview I first believed it is already finished Cheerful, great craftsmanship!

If I remember correctly, BJ offers two very different kits: the larger one POF (being built here) and the smaller one which is POB (or solid hull?). The key point is that the smaller one is not a "native" BJ production, but overtaken kit from some other no more existing producer (cannot recall the name). Therefore the kits are not just resized coppies of each other but two different designs. And the smaller one is supposed to be very inferior in all aspects. No personal experience, just repeating what studied elsewhere.

I can look through these pics over and over again, just amazing! (Although I must admit, boat layed on the beach with set sail? Would be strange if not dangerous in case of wind blow... ? )

Just amazing. Again and again I am learning that these small boats are so appealing to me. Thanks for sharing.

Hi Don, no exact publication, I have just hit the google for the fastest solution. And now I see I should have looked more carefully: Here is the lynx with this type of gunport lids http://ids.si.edu/ids/deliveryService?id=NMAH-2007-13914 The only thing missing is the centre hole. Or I just cannot imagine how would be the gun secured inside, if this representation is correct The scuppers could have been leaded pipes also on 1812 privateer I guess... But as said previously, I would not call current Lynx "replica" (= exact copy of the original)

Hi Don, you can choose - see attachment. More experienced shall correct me but I would call for the marked option. I assume, on this kind of ship the gun was not retracted fully in and not then elevated as was done on "multideckers". As I learnt, for such an option the bulk wards with no deck above would not allow this. I believe the contemporary era solution was double lid, split horizontaly. When closed, the gun protrudes through the hole in the middle. Sometimes, to save weight, cost, only the lower half of the lid was installed. I have seen mane model featuring this or that, just have not any pic by hand now.... (Does not also well-known MS Syren kit feature this?)

Hi Don, no scuppers either in her Admiralty plans... But I assume they were there, at least around the lowest main deck section / masts? I do not believe gun ports would serve as scuppers, or? I would like to learn if it was a practise. Anyway, it seems they were covered by double lids, one down one up, gun protruding through the hole in the middle. I would assume during the sail they would be secured as tight as possible, not to let the water in - and out too!

Hi Jean, actually, no surprise here and very little to say: Kit producers are just doing businness. They simply make and sell, while people are willing to pay for what they offer, why to improve quality? You are writing about gun carriages - in kits they have parallel sides, because this error does not stop people to buy them and are easier to produce and the guns are easier to be build for modeler too. Anchors? Same type and size for several models, way out of scale but again, who cares? When you look through this forum, there are lots of builds for ships that never existed or do resemble the original only from a distance. Kits with ficticious names, history, out of scale etc. etc. If people are willing to spent money on them, hours building them and are happy with them, why shall be they bothered with some innacurate details, if they do not mind that the whole thing is simply out? How many perdiod ships kits shows curved deck planks or mention plank joggling? Period ship kits are not easy and some things are simply engineered to simplify the builds. If people were demanding accurate models and not buing what is available, the situation would be different. See the world of plastic scale modeling. There you have reviews, very critical views, sometimes actually too critical counting every single milimeter or rivet on the plane or tank, comparing them with blueprints. Of course, for period ships we have rarely such accurate resources to compare with, true. Still, the technical aspects are known, researched. Why are we so tolerant to simplifications and innacuracy, if we pay for wooden ship models much more than our fellows for plastic kits? That's the question. Maybe for the majority just the wooden big thing with sails is enough, no need to investigate and spent even more time on it. Also, I believe, there would be possible for producers to make every kit a unique, to have dedicated all those details just for one particular model, and make them more accurate. But then the price would go automatically higher. And who would buy such a "perfect" kits? Were few people. As said, majority simply does not care and is happy with the current status. That is not a criticism, just a fact. Actually, kits offer what they could offer to keep the ratio between price and content. So you have some "general" deck furniture, fittings etc. Still it is possible to find a kits were these things are set to higher than avarage level. If you wish more, scratch build is the way.

Hi Don, in my opinion, there are more differences, not only at stern. Actually, due to the all safety regulations, I believe it is not even possible to built a modern replica of these fast but also quite unstable vessels. Still. I believe Pride of Baltimore (II) looks more like original built "Baltimore clipper" (although the first (doomed) of this name was probably closest ). See attached picture of the now and then: Regarding the transom, yes, it is incorrect in the kit, you need to do something with it to make it look more real. As I do have the original plans from Admiralty (copy of course), as I wrote, this is not the only issue, the overall proportions simply do not match (length, width), none of the deck opening positions matches the original etc etc.... actually, after hours spent over the plans with the ruler and calc I have decided to putt this kit on a shelf.... I am not sure it will ever come to realization. Wish you good luck with yours, she rises up to a beauty!

But beware, this nowadays Lynx has very little in common with the original 1812 privateer. Although the connection with her surely looks interesting, the design is very different. Actually, only common maybe a name and written story of the original....

Hi Frank this is beautiful build. I admire your eye for "functional" detail. Those winches and all the hardware returns me couple of months back when sailing in Netherlands and spotted one of Johan Anker's design: Iduna laying in our harbor. Although different class of boat, wooden beauty and graceful lines are so similar and appealing! Will keep an eye on this build!

Splendid metal work and great details!

Wonderful and clean. I like the busy look of the deck of these modern schooners. Eager to see it finished

Thanks to USS Frolick as said, am surprised and have learnt something new. Indeed, I cannot find any note on coppering in my books (sadly only old Chapelle's "Baltimore clipper") and although Kemp's Lynx was a very fine vessel I did not expect so high level of construction. Even for a Mosquidobit under british flag, no note on coppering, at least as I have found so far....

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!