juhu

I have a bit more info about the Dikar Roger B. Taney, but since Basic's build log is sort of getting off-topic, I added it to Charlie's kit discussion thread:

 

http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/8403-albatros-baltimore-clipper-scale-question/

 

 

Basic - I thought you might get a kick out of how your kit's description appeared in an old 1986 Model Expo catalog. Click photo for easier reading.

 

IMG_1214.JPG

Fun to read :)   ... nevertheless, did not know the kit is dated back to 80ties....

Interesting, looks a bit like what the Harvey was based on (I say that because of the outhouse looking things in the front). Proper POF is something I'm not quite ready for yet however something I may get to when I feel I'm ready for it. Beautiful model!

 

So what you are saying is that the model is wider than it should be? And the aft is the wrong shape.  I suppose when the time comes I'll have to kitbash a bit something I imagine ill be doing quite a bit down the line as some of the kits out there seem more "suggestive" of the real thing lol.  Model Shipways makes great kits I also like those jokita kits.  It's also a matter of the model maker guys like Chris Watton who look like they do their homework

Well, as you are saying, if seeking a historical aacuracy, there are ways to go and ways better to be avoided... Yes, I have got somewhere the paper with my measurements, with Lynx kit there is a problem with the hull proportions and shape particularly aft - it was more difficult than I expected all those comparisons and measuring. Everything is correctable, one just needs to know it is worth for him

The Dapper Tom was a great MS kit as well, would be nice if they brought it back, maybe in a larger 1/64 scale.  Yeah both Albatros and Harvey seem ficticious even more so by their insistence that the kit represents clippers from the 1830-40's?? Plus the scale of the Albatros makes no sense 1/40 at 27" total? Of all of them Lynx seems the closest to the Mosquidobit plans though the kit would need some modification for sure. It seems that the older kit companies from the days of yore were less concerned about accuracy and more about giving someone a nice shelf piece, though tbf look how the internet has made researching so much more efficient.  Also what do you mean by length/beam ratio?

Albatros and Harvey are totally ficticious. No reason to think about those dates etc. Still they are nice looking models when finished. When historically accurate schooner is desired, as said earlier, check Model Shipways / BlueJacket...

Ratio: if you measure the Panart plans and compare it to the dimensions of real ship, you will find that while the length of the kit may be in let's say 1/61 scale, the beam is in 1/58. Just an example. That means not only the scale but the kit proportions are not OK. The most problematic part of the kit is the aft hull, that overhang above the rudder - totally out compared to the real plans in shape. That would mean you need to modify aft sections. That would require to check whether bulkheads shape is on par with plans etc. etc... and suddenly we are talking about full scratch build instead of the kit :)  . Of course, this is just a talk, the kit can be build as it is, just when discussing the accuracy, should be mentioned.

Amati also has Roger Taney in 1/60 though I think that's a resin kit closer to the scale I like and not sure if that is a Clipper or Cutter?  Will probably give it a go at one point but I didn't know about that Dikar kit so thanks for the info!  I do wonder what lovely kits are out there from defunct companies that have been buried and forgotten

If interested in these revenue vessels of "Baltimore look" check also BlueJacket "Jefferson Davis" kit - I would suppose this is an excellent kit, although may be a bit pricy and more challenging? Yet, much more accurate than European counterparts... In general, for these vessels Us based companies are much more reliable producing better kits - my opinion. If had a choice and funds, would probably go this way...

http://www.bluejacketinc.com/kits/jeffersondavis.htm

Interesting and very true! If you post your work on this site I'll be very interested to see your progress as I've been thinking about building the Lynx myself at one point.  It seems to be (other than the Pride of Baltimore II) the only Baltimore Clipper style kit that's close to the 1/64 scale which is my scale preference for smaller ships. 

 

Charlie

Unfortunately yes, Baltimore built schooners, being probably the most beautiful sail ships ever, are somehow overlooked by kit makers. We have dozens of Victories, Bountys etc, but just a few of these.... But sure you will find something more: Albatros by Constructo for example, but these are totally ficticious.... PoB by Model Shipways is superb, if being from US, I would be considering her - although nowadays vessel, the kit is of very high quality. Lynx is very appealing but as said, it lacks more in terms of accuracy.... and some of the things like the wrong hull shape, length/beam ratio etc are quite challenging (if possible at all ) to be fixed.

Will create some build log, but probably only after New Year....

You mean you don't trust Mr Chapelle's estimate?? yes I've seen the admiralty plan so I know what you mean. Regarding the hull size the Rattlesnake hull is supposed to be 89' historical length and the model is 18-19.5" depending on if you count the front piece. The Syren at 94' is about 19.5-21" est. so assuming the Lynx model is true to the 95' historical length 50cm or 19.5" falls in around what it should be at 1:62-1:64 scale.

That has nothing to do with a trust. Just a fact. Remember that Chapelle's work is quite old, in some of his books you can find some innacuracies simply because byt he time there were written current knowledge and research was not known. I am not sayin this is that case, just stating, planking is not what has been preserved on the real plans. Yes, I do have this Chgapelle's book, and if you have more of them, you will find another and more detailed plan of "Lynx" made by Mr. Chapelle, this time without planking. Just one question: do you think plank joggling as shown on the drawing from "The Baltimore clipper - its origin and development" is on par with the period practise? I do not think so.

Concerning the kit: I bought it, am going to modify it slightly. The length is not the only concern, there is also beam and other dimmensions, positions of the deck openings and many others... According to my measurement, the ratio length/beam does not really match the plans and if you will try to find a true scale, it would be somewhere around  1:58- 1:60  .... Check the plans of the kit, you will see.

The Lynx aka Mosquidobit is on page 84-85 in the Howard Chapelle book "The Baltimore Clipper. Even has number of deck planks.  Btw just curious what is the size of the model hull without masts?

 

Charlie

Do not take into account the planks number on Chapelle's plan - this is just a possible reconstruction I think. The only preserved faithful source is the historical plan preserved in Greenwich museum - and these admiralty plan does not show any planking (spent some time over these plans )

The model hull, although being presented as 1/62 scale, it does not match. The hull length is somewhat less than 50cm (I am too lazy now to open the box, but was measuring this many times to determine the scale of the kit which definitely is not given 1/62, but this is another story)

On the post about the USS Constellation, the model depicts her as she was setup until the 80s or 90s in Baltimore Harbor.  It was not until more recently that she was rebuilt to resemble her as built. The ship was originally claimed to be built in the late 1700s, research later proved that she was built in the mid 1800s, configured as she now is. So while the kit does not show her as built, it does show her as she was when the kit came out.

That is an interesting info. I would be interested in reading more details, could you provide some more info? To be honest, after my experience, I am very skeptic regarding any Artesania Latina research regarding the historical ship. On the kit box they are selling 38 gun frigate of 1798, which is definitely not true. I have found this interesting article on Connie, may be somebody would be interested:

http://www.baltimoremd.com/monuments/sea02.html

Somehow I have doubts when reading of all these changes and uncertainties AL's has got some special access to plans or materials in order to create some accurate model particularly in this case, considering level of other their products... But will gladly learn more and correct my thoughts! Thanks in advance.

BTW does anyone know if the Black Prince by Mamoli is accurate?  I know that Ben Franklin had a ship called Black Prince but is the kit off some sort of plan or is it just a generic clipper that has no direct connection.

Check Mamoli's "Newport" kit. Looks like the same model, just reboxed and at best slightly modified. Mamoli's common nasty practise. In my opinion, no real ship, just someone's invention?

Hi,

the plans for the links are preserved in NMM in Greenwich, London. These are the plans as taken of and depicts the HM schooner Mosquidobit (under this name was Lynx taken ino RN service). Beware! As in many cases, these plans shows the ship with alternations made by RN. This is common in many cases and often overlooked: Plans of captured vessels may show them AFTER refit, not how they actually looked originally. For example, it is stated that the original Lynx dod not have a capstan on the deck. But there are many more thinks missing in anyway...

As far as planking size is considered, this is not the part of any plan, I would suggest you to use general size of planks appropriate of this model scale. I would say (am using metric system) some 5mm width and 100mm in length would make some 310 mm x 620mm on the real ship. That could be quite reasonable? I would take the real plank length around 20-24' .   But I think, if you use slightly modified size, (reasonable, not like 200mm long plank ), nobody can blame you for innacuracy.

I have seen the original plans of Mosquidobit mentioned above. The listed Length on the deck is given as 94' 7" There are also other data, but this one may be very easy to check on you model. Could you do that? You will see how it is with the scale. 1:62 is quite odd, I read somewhere it is more like 1:60, you will see.

Something for inspiration: veri nic model of Lynx

http://amhistory.si.edu/onthewater/assets/object/full/2007-13914.jpg

and the one built from the kit. I must say I do not like the chosen color finish, but added details make the model more realistic. What catches my eye immediatelly is the transom shape, different from the plans and also the rudder angle and the aft hull section. I mentioned that earlier:

http://shipsofscale.com/gallery/mmacdonald/lynx/lynx04.jpg

Non-Historical (Fake) kits as far as I can tell (only researched American ships atm)

 

Any of the Baltimore Clippers (Harvey, Albatros, Dapper Tom) do not appear to have historical counterparts with exception of Pride of Baltimore II by Model Shipways 

 

Gunboats/Cutters (like Dallas, Alert or Ranger) probably from some unidentified ship plans? - The plans are well-known, check this web site. They do exist and they are true preserved historical plans from 1815. Alas, the kit makers did not follow these plans, with the exception of Dallas just created fictive ships. At least, these kits are based on real vessels.

 

Mamoli's Blue Shadow which is just a redress of the HMS Portsmouth and Valiant model with Colonial era flags looks nice though. Mamoli is in my opinion the most notorious cheater among the kit makers. Do you remember times when famous movie Master&Commander was introduced? Mamoli just repacked their La Gloire "french frigate"of dubious origin and sell it for huge sums as HMS Surprise. Now that is the business.

 

 

Then there are ships that did exist but the kits do not accurately portray them

 

Lynx by Mantua doesn't look much like the current replica - Well, that is because Mantua's one shall represent the original 1812 privateer, not the current replica!! which has very little in common with the historical vessel (design wise) apart from the name. Although, probably to be more interesting, it is offen referred as replica. Just check the plans, you will see. The only problem is that even Mantua's kit has some very obvious problems when compared to the preserved Lynx / Mosquidobit plans...

 

The Constructo Enterprise which tbf I love that kit I grew up with it as a kid I had the 1986 Model Expo catalogue that I'd read over and over again I want to believe it's as least reasonable accurate to the historical Enterprise - Ok, sometimes belief is more important than the fact, I will leave it as it is

 

Aeropiccola kit Bonhomme Richard doesn't look anything like the plans I've come across and looks more like the Revell plastic kit. 

 

Artesania Latina's Constellation accurate but not it has gunports on the top deck making it look more like a frigate and they seem to market it with the idea that the sloop was the 1797 frigate refitted. Well, I would say AL Constellation represents something that nobody know what it is (I dare say AL cares the least about that), but you mentioned that and it is also discussed elsewhere.

 

Hope this helps

 

Sorry for corrections, but cannot help, spent too much time trying to find "holy grail" = proper "historically accurate model"myself, hope it helps

I spent literally years searching information for the period ship kit, commercially available. It is very interesting. Those knowing the world of plastic model kits (aircraft) know very well the discussion about exact number of the rivets on the pilot's seat, measuring the kit to tens of millimeters and arguing about the best one. Here we are quite lucky, if the kit at least represents something "real".

What I found is not 100% accurate - please correct and add whatever needed, just my opinion:

1. By far I consider the best producer I know in terms of quality and accuracy American Model Shipways. Not the perfect - surely many minuses will be found by more experienced, but the best available in general. (And being from Europe, where these kits are hard to get, must be sorry for that).

2. Victory Models - offers currently only limited number of kits, but of great quality. Apart from Lady Nelson cutter (which if not the real name, is very nice representation of a British period cutter), all other are historically documented, Russian brig Mercury may be one of the best kits available at all (how many kit producers offers you a deck with correct, bent planks instead of incorrect straight planking seen on 99% of the models??) comparable to the very popular MS brig Syren. What to say - former designer of famous Jotika kits is behind this - since he moved to Amati / Victory Models, in my opinion Jotika is going little bit down and Victory Models shines...

3. Here in Europe very good reputation has Jotika/Caldercraft. One big plus is that most of its models are based on Admiralty plans of the real vessels. This sounds great! Unless you get one of those plans and realize, that plans may not be complete or show the vessels in general lines and many details on the kits are missing or too simplified. But at least you have here no "fictive" ship. Ok, may be apart from HM schooner Pickle, that represents modern ship , not the historical Pickle to which no plans are preserved as far as I know. Still you may found some interesting stories: Try to search something about the HM Mars / Orestes - you can see there are some "problems"with this beautifully  looking kit anyway. Then very popular HM brig Badger - by no means Nelson's first command as advertised!!  (I spent much time till I got the final confirmation for that), but what sells, that helps obviously.... etc. etc. For sure, vessels like Victory, Bounty, Endeavor, although produced by many others are the best offer, where the competition is in terms of accuracy many miles behind.

4. Then other European kit manufacturers producing all sort of fictitious / semi-ficticious or real ships:

Some of them are said to be quite nice and said to be quite accurate  (Mantua/ Panart Royal Caroline). Some of them bears the name of the real ships, but has nothing in common with them (Mamoli "Beagle"). Most of others them are just more or less good "general type" of the vessel (Most of the Artesania Latina, Occre etc. etc). What I consider to be the nastiest things are the kits with not only fictitious ship name but also totally fairytale story behind it. Like Mamoli's Black Prince. I am not saying it is wrong to have a kit of the ship that never existed. Some manufacturers produce ships that are referred as "typical representation of <vessel type>" which is perfectly ok I think, but trying to sell something wrapped in fictive story, well, no, thanks. So, as mentioned here somewhere, it is not the question, whether Artesania Latina Constellation was "mistaken", by error mixed frigate of 18ct with later vessel. The question is whether AL really CARES about that. I would say, while we are buying the kits first and only then desperately try to pair it with some real vessel, convincing ourselves that it must be "that ship" (alas, for all those money paid!), till that time we will have many kits that represents nothing but somebody's fiction in the market.

5. One last thing mentioned already somewhere above: One thing I do not like here in Europe (please let me know how it is with US kit makers) is so called "common jewellery". Even the best producers like Victory models offer for example cannons, anchors, blocks of one type for more than one / all models. One is than surprised, why are those anchors so unrealistically big for my yacht? Or what type of strange gun barrel shape is this?

But nothing is perfect, who wants perfection builds from scratch. What I think we can do is either resign on historical accuracy and just enjoy the build of the ship we like or make proper research BEFORE purchase and pick something that ,if not up to our expectation, at least resembles closely what we want and can be bashed to our joy. Have a nice day.

Excellent, being an oyster or other creature, would be almost happy to be in there

Hm, if I understand it correctly, the massive block would be an option - to fix the bulkhead and then make a hole for the mast. Although may be not necessary. If you keep the bulkhead in place with some soft wood block or better balsa framing, you ma just need to make a cut for the mast in the bulkhead, just like it is done in the keel... difficult to explain in words

Hi

well, photos may be good, as I understand the problem, yes, your solution may work, I quite liked the one proposed also in the kit - cut in the keel to fix the mast. But softwood box may also suit.

Hm, do you think it would be possible to share some photos of this plan_ just to get an idea_ I think I do not have this one. At least I see for example scuppers on the side - nice detail omitted in the klit and also all plans. I do have three Doughty§s plan of +á+ť, but the cover art of our plans looks great and much better than for example the one on the Alert§s box - I believe these plans are very fine. How much pages is there in them? What is the content?

Edited: sorry, I was blind, I see this is somewhat different plan that the original "triple" we were talking about. Ok, anyway, any info of the content is welcome

Greetings and congratulation! Sent you a p.m., those plans are of my greatest interest!

Hi Chris,

well, your supply of Chapelle's books is much larger than mine . Yes, I do have a copy of American sailings ships plus some other newer sources regarding these particular vessels. Just one correction: I am not saying there was no SMALLEST 31ton cutter built. Fact is, we have no full list of vessels built on those plans. Fact is also, that those vessels we know are based on Doughty's plan are all of the two larger designs.

One interesting point: only the smallest of the Chapelles plans calls for a carronade as armament. Both larger plans had drawn long guns. I am just thinking why, lets speculate a bit, since we have no clues:

Carronade is in general lighter in weight than long cannon, more suitable for a very small boat. However it has also lower shooting  range, is less accurate. It is more devastating in close combats. But look at this plans. No bulkwards, just rope railing. Doughty's design can hardly be called a fighting vessel. It is built for a speed and agility. I also guess, for this purpose the long range gun is more appropriate equipment, if the ship size allows it. If you are going to rebuild this kit to a larger design, I would definitely not use a carronade but a long gun on the deck. Actually, this was also my plan, to "enlarge" the design.... but. Now I see the main problem. If you search here on a forum, you will find beautifully built Alert. But the hull lines comparing to the plans looks very  "strange"  . I am just hasitating to construct the whole new hull to make it look somehow more realistic... Also not sure what to do with the kit. Will send also PM...

This is a gem. I love to see that modeller's "surgery" when the cabin , doorway etc. is open - it makes the ship more lifelike. Will follow the thread closely.

Hi Christian,

thanks for a nice welcome. Actually, I have been present on modelshipworld for some time. But was inactive for a period and after the web was redesigned some time ago, my account with posts was deleted? Shame, there were some interesting discussion and threads regarding other kits'historical accuracy. And before that I was active on now dead drydockmodels, where I have posted my research regarding these revenue cutters... also lost. Nevertheless, I am here and now more watching than writing

Regarding the Krick's Alert, this is really old model kit and yes, if one seeks the historical accuracy, better to go elsewhere. But this is pretty same with ALL available commercial kits of this vessel type (they all seem to be based on those same old plans). So yes, making a firewood out of it is an option. On the other hand, if you take proper literature (mentioned Peterssons book for rigging etc.), you can improve many errors at least as far as the sails and threads are concerned. Some of the other things are easier to correct (wrong masts height), some can be more of trouble (problematic hull lines as seen on your shots comparing to the plans). But then again, from the sources it is clear that even if the particular vessel was built on Doughty's plans, it can vary in dimensions, tonnage etc. In turbulent post war times I think this is nothing special. So you can use this kit as a base and build the model of the smallest Doughty's schooner and your representation can be quite faithful due to the above mentioned deviations of the real vessels. To say the truth, there is no evidence (I am not aware of at least) that there was a ship built upon this SMALLEST 31t Doughty's plan. I have my theory that it is possible that only those two larger designs came into the life, but this would be another discussion. Anyway, decision is up to us, personally I also think of putting this kit away and to buy some better kit of another nice schooner (what a shame Model Shipways is not easily obtainable here in Europe!) or may be at the end I will try to make something out of this one. 

If possible, I would be very interested to see the Doughty's plans from Chapelles book to be compared with bulkheads from the kit. As I see from the photos, keel seems to be pretty off? I am afraid if the bulkheads are too, correcting the kit may be like a total scratch build I am also keen on seeing how you rebuild the hull - if you make a new bulkeads and bash the keel to match the plans, then also the deck piece from the kit will not probably fit etc etc.... quite a lot of work...

Juraj

Hi, found this topic and as I am also the "happy" owner of this kit, I would like to share some thoughts. First of all,I am really keen on history of the real vessels. I spent literally months comunicating with various people and institutions including historical department of US coast guard (former US revenue service). Once upon a time I published my research on already dead drydockmodel forum, may be some of you remember it. So, just a very very short summary, if interested, I may provide more details on request:

- let's distinguish once for all between the BRITISH cutter Alert on 18ct (described in ship's Anatomy book in the first post of this thread- this was one mast vessel of french-origin cutter design)  and here discussed US revenue cutter based on Doughty's plans- this is an example of two masted topsail schooner, extreme type of so called Baltimore clipper.

- Italian plans used by Krick (and alas, more other kit manufacturers) are very old, innacurate and contains many errors in (not only!) rigging, hull lines etc

- W. Doughty created three designs of plans upon request as correctly mentioned here. The plans are preserved. But beware of the two facts:1. The list of vessels built on these plans is not known. Although we do have some evidence that particular ship was built on the plan, the list is not fully complete and because of fact two: in turbulent years after the War of Independance, the plans, although given and ordered to follow, were not followed strictly. This can give us "advantage" : nobody shall blame you when your model does not represent the exact Doughty's design, although it should have been built upon it.

- Nevertheless, the italian plan of Alert contains many factografical errors in rigging and other stuff, that you can hardly excuse it just by this explanation.

- Italian plan of your "Alert" (and also mine ) is based on the smallest 31 ton Doughty's design. I will skip now my research regarding the fact if ANY real ship was built on this smallest design and will focus on Alert:

- Although you may find some POSSIBLE references to USRS cutter Alert in older resources (e.g. Chapelle's American sailing ships), this is wrong and corrected by later literature (Caney)

- As you correctly observed, Alert of 1818 does not match your plans (75 tons, 4 ports per side...), nor Alert of 1829 matches (sorry, but that is the fact, can provide you with resources, if tyou wish)

Summary:

1. Krick's Alert is based on very old and full of errors italian resemblance of W. Doughty's plan

2. Due to the fact we have no exact vessel naming list, if you study carefully the literature and various guides (again, may offer some good resources), you can build up a good representation of 31 ton Doughty's revenue cutter out of this kit. It is marvellous!

3. If you care about historical accuracy, do not try to connect your kit and built with any particular vessel (and by no way with any "Alert" ) of USRS

4. By no means do I want to discourage you, I own the same kit, unassembled, and spent too much time searching informations from various sources, I am just sharing my knowledge, nothing more. Will be interested in your build log and will gladly help with any info I can provide.

Hi,

well, just some summary. Please, mind, I am just keen on history of tall ships and so I always try to find out as much historical background as possible. I was thinking of this kit for a long time, then decided otherway (with a pity!) for various reasons:

Lynx had rather short career, no chance she fought on any "Great Lake battle", as stated on many sellers web page. She was a trader, not a warrior taking prizes, unless the circumstances were extremely favourable. Presumably she made just one journey to France and back prior her capture. But thanks to this short career, she was taken and most importantly her lines were taken off by British and to these days it is then one of the best documented Baltimore clippers. And truly beautiful one. Mind, there was also another schooner Lynx built during Revolutionary war, but this is another story...

So, some points:

1. there is a sailing replica named Lynx (search web, sure will find it), but other than the name, there is little resemblance, the hull is totally differnet, althought the famous name is probably a good selling point Just to be aware, it hardly can be used as a reference for built of the historical Lynx http://www.privateerlynx.com/. Search also for "Mosquidobit" - under this name she was used by Britain and you may find some references.

2. There is a lot of details missing on the model, the most eye-catching are no ship boats I guess. As a reference, I would recommend old but still very helpful book by H.I Chapelle "The Baltimore Clipper - its origin and development" where one can find detailed drawings and description of this very ship.

Also, for a good looking model you can ask Smithsonian's, I guess they do have a plans for this boat and can provide you weith a copy? One vay or another, here is a a nice representation:

http://amhistory.si.edu/onthewater/collection/TR_323263.html

As you can see, boats are there, missing in the kit, the deck cabinets, ladders etc does not match the kit, gunport lids are missing, capstan was fitted by British and should not be visible on the deck when building american Lynx etc etc....

3. What I see as the most problematic part, it is the aft section, just hull around the rudder. It is hard to explain, I do have some copies of the original Lynx plan, just comparing them to the kit reveals the angle of the rudder is off and am afraid, the hull shape is than somewhat weird compared to the plans. May be you could compare it with your plans from the kit box? Please note, this is the original plan as taken in England, so already fitted for RN service with capstan etc.

Please, do not take this as a criticism, I am aware no kit is perfect, I am just too focused on accuracy of the kit, where it is possible to compare it with the real ship or its verified plans, prints etc. If any questions, feel free to ask.

Good luck

Okay, will check my resources when back at home and post my thoughts soon ...

Will be watching this thread. I was considering this kit for such a long time. It is a shame that Baltimore clippers, probably the most beautiful tall ships, are so rarely represented by wooden ship kits. Unfortunatelly, comparing this particular kit with the blueprints reveals some problematic parts that differs from the original. Particularly aft section. Anyway, I am interested in deck fit, particularly the carvature, from what I have seen earlier. Good luck, if interested, can provide some materials on this ship, although probably you have got them already...