Thermopylae by My Fathers Son - or as near as I can get it

[My Fathers Son]

Made a start on the frames this morning. Still experimenting with ways to secure them to the former. 

Old fuse wire fed through a hole in the frame and twisted to keep the piece in place. 

 

These had come from a hot bath so they were soft and eand easy to bend into shape. Nothing is glued yet. 

Simon

[Baker]

 

Maybe you can find some build info here, 

 

[My Fathers Son]

That is not a bit of guidance, that is a master class in microplanking, producing a museum quality exhibit. Just wow, 

 

I haven't tried the rubber bands idea yet, I have a few around, so will have a go. 

 

Simon

[Scottish Guy]

On 6/14/2024 at 4:01 PM, Baker said:

Maybe you can find some build info here, 

 

This is a piece of art what he archived there but sometimes I ask myself, should it really look like that? Did the real ships and boats really look that acurate and neat or were they just work items and no one spent so much attention to the details as we do in our models?

 

Don´t get me wrong here, I really like the build he did, I like this build here and I like being as neat, acurate and perfect as my skills allow me but sometimes I really ask myself if this would be authentic? Just buy a new car, even Mercedes or Rolls Royce have a clearance between their adjacent parts which is not always acurate (especiall Mercedes recently has massive quality issues with that) and that with computers and quality control mechanisms in place which definitely not existed in the early 20th century and definitely not earlier.

 

My humble 2c to this topic...

 

Micha

[Baker]

6 minutes ago, Scottish Guy said:

 

This is a piece of art what he archived there but sometimes I ask myself, should it really look like that? Did the real ships and boats really look that acurate and neat or were they just work items and no one spent so much attention to the details as we do in our models?

 

Don´t get me wrong here, I really like the build he did, I like this build here and I like being as neat, acurate and perfect as my skills allow me but sometimes I really ask myself if this would be authentic? Just buy a new car, even Mercedes or Rolls Royce have a clearance between their adjacent parts which is not always acurate (especiall Mercedes recently has massive quality issues with that) and that with computers and quality control mechanisms in place which definitely not existed in the early 20th century and definitely not earlier.

 

My humble 2c to this topic...

 

Micha

His model participates in competitions, the aim is to follow the plans you have as faithfully as possible.
He succeeds well in this and has already won several prizes.

No one knows whether the model is completely historically correct, no detailed construction drawings were made during the era of 16th century period.

[My Fathers Son]

On 6/16/2024 at 7:29 AM, Scottish Guy said:

 

This is a piece of art what he archived there but sometimes I ask myself, should it really look like that? Did the real ships and boats really look that acurate and neat or were they just work items and no one spent so much attention to the details as we do in our models?

 

Don´t get me wrong here, I really like the build he did, I like this build here and I like being as neat, acurate and perfect as my skills allow me but sometimes I really ask myself if this would be authentic? Just buy a new car, even Mercedes or Rolls Royce have a clearance between their adjacent parts which is not always acurate (especiall Mercedes recently has massive quality issues with that) and that with computers and quality control mechanisms in place which definitely not existed in the early 20th century and definitely not earlier.

 

My humble 2c to this topic...

 

Micha

I think a lot of people think the world has gone health and safety mad but in some ways we have gone backwards. I think life on board ship would have switched from abject boredom to manic action in a heartbeat and an untidy ship would have been a nightmare, not just for the risk factors, but for controlling the ship as well. 

The idea of have to change tack in a force 8 gale at night and having to stumble about in the dark trying to identify what ropes you needed or if they were left tangled by the last person to use it would likely result in the loss of the ship. 

Discipline aboard ship, not just in the Andrew, but on commercial vessels as well was of the utmost importance. 

There was one voyage on Cutty Sark well documented where a Bosun used excessive force to discipline a sailor and killed him. The captain, an alcoholic, let the Bosun escape before they made port and to avoid a trial for himself, was suspected of going overboard to avoid the shame for his own misconduct and the loss of his masters ticket. 

So do we go overboard on detail, probably not, most models are of a ship in port, so would be spick and span in preparation for the next voyage. 

We do however get the opportunity to decide to what level of detail we go to. Personally, I will go as far as I am able, recognising my own limitations on capability and affordability and will be proad of my achievement. It might not be even close to the model used as your example or models by many here such a Rob, Keith or Chuck but it will be my choice and by my hand and hopefully recognisable as a representative of the ship it's modelled on. 

Not a rant, just my 2 penny's worth. 

Simon 

Edited June 19 by My Fathers Son

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

[Scottish Guy]

9 hours ago, My Fathers Son said:

The idea of have to change tack in a force 8 gale at night and having to stumble about in the dark trying to identify what ropes you needed or if they were left tangled by the last person to use it would likely result in the loss of the ship. 

 

I crossed the Atlantic ocean twice in a sail boat and I know what you are talking about. I also get your point of going as far as possible about building a scale model. I think I made my point not clear as I don´t judge anybody, especially not for being super acurate or trying to be as perfect as possible.

 

I just tried to make a point that in the past not one boat or ship has been build with such a perfection that the planking was mirrored perfect or the planks ended equally at the same point. I dare even to say that they never had the tools to be that perfect and I doubt that they had the time to be that perfect, so I was wondering why we try to reach perfection in our scale models. That was all I tried to explain.

 

I get the point that people try to get to the most perfect point, I try to be perfect in skills I know well in skills I don´t know well I try at least my best. But does a scale model have to be looking more perfect than the original? But that´s just my humble opinion and I definitely don´t judge anybody that tries to deliver a perfect scale model, I adore people that can bring a model to museum level perfection. SO don´t get me wrong folks, I just stated an opinion.

 

If I made someone feel uncomfortable or even felt attacked by my comment I deeply want to apologise and hope you will accept it. Thank you all for your kindness.

 

Micha

[Keith Black]

1 hour ago, Scottish Guy said:

I just tried to make a point that in the past not one boat or ship has been build with such a perfection that the planking was mirrored perfect or the planks ended equally at the same point

 Micha, I disagree. Please view the below as Leo (Sampson Boat Co) planks the Tally Ho. (I highly recommend watching the entire series.) There are videos of them planking the deck, both are nothing short of perfection. I've watched other wooden boat builds on YouTube where the builders are making near perfect vessels. 

 

 Now, maybe one doesn't often or ever see perfection in glass hulls coming off a factory floor but one off wooden hull boats is a different critter. 

 

   Keith

[My Fathers Son]

Oops, a nerve has been touched, I will also take the opportunity to say that no offence was taken nor intended in my reply, and if it was taken, then I apologise unreservedly. 

I will say that my planking will definitely not be mirror perfect, nor would I expect that a commercial construction such as these clippers would have been. But I stand by my point that they would have been run with almost fanatical precision as so much was at stake. 

 

So, the fun part. The life boat mkii was a bust, it would have turned out as a boat, just the wrong shape for a lifeboat. I will review my mantua CS plans as this is the same scale and their lifeboats would have been stock. 

 

Got back to the main event. I found some Balsa and managed to fill in under the stern, I need more but am not paying £5 for 1/4" * 4" * 24" length, bah humbug. That's half of what I paid for 1sq meter ply I used for the base. 

Keel has been planked over and garboard strake is done on both sides. I might be making my life difficult using 5" lengths, but there were very few trees that produced 215' planks so it's my little bit of realism. 

 

Simon

[Baker]

Scratch modeling is fun. And you are doing a very good job.

And yes, those little life boats are actually a model in themselves. I always enjoy following the construction of one of these, but starting building one myself...🤔 😉

[Keith Black]

5 hours ago, My Fathers Son said:

there were very few trees that produced 215' planks

 Simon, I dare say it was the length of the steam box that controlled plank length more so than tree height. I think 24' would have been the limit in plank length?

[Keith Black]

16 hours ago, Keith Black said:

Please view the below as Leo (Sampson Boat Co) planks the Tally Ho. (I highly recommend watching the entire series.) There are videos of them planking the deck, both are nothing short of perfection.

Well, duh. I didn't post the link, sorry.

 

 

  

 

[My Fathers Son]

5 hours ago, Keith Black said:

 Simon, I dare say it was the length of the steam box that controlled plank length more so than tree height. I think 24' would have been the limit in plank length?

So my planks are running at approximately 18cm long by 5mm wide. 180mm is about 56 feet long by 1.5ft wide so maybe not quite to scale. 

 

I have to take an accurate measurement of the edge of each frame from the lowest strake after the garboard strake to the intended run of the top strake. There are 23 strakes in the central area.

I suspect the rear will take more and will be requiring stealer. However, forward of the central area needed 3 less strakes. 

 

I will measure frames 2 to 12. That measurement will be divided by 23 to get the correct width of the strake at that point. This will be unique to each strake section so may take a while. 

Nothing glued, just counting planks. 

Simon

[My Fathers Son]

Making slow progress but I know patience is key with this. 

One thing extending the time scale is I am not using CA, but PVA. Keeping glue to minimum but coating all areas of contact. Thus is resulting in firm boards just making the hull stronger. 

 

Simon

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

  Being a Thermie Groupie, its wonderful to see how you are doing this scratch build.  There are many photos of models that bristle with cannon, drip with ornate carvings and have a vast spider's web (or spaghetti bowl) of rigging - and they are wonderful to behold - yet I find great beauty in the clean lines of a well planked hull with enough additional detail above deck as needed to represent the original.

  Rather than be distracted by a display of modeling virtuosity I'm incapable of (but there's no harm in that, just as there is no harm in listening to a virtuoso rendition on a musical instrument ... a man can dream, can't he?) I find as much enjoyment from good basic modeling work, and there is much to find (and learn form) on MSW !

[Keith Black]

 hear, hear 

[My Fathers Son]

Yeah, warships are not for me. Don't get me wrong, a visit to Portsmouth and drool over Warrior or Victory would be a fantastic day out but I have no desire to model one. Similarly, I can wonder walking over Belfast on the Thames at Tower Bridge and admire her design, or that from her moorings, she could drop a shell on my home town of Oxted out past the M25. 

If I were to tackle something smaller, it might be fun to do Orca from Jaws, but Big T is my current task, getting her built before the weather turns back to the usual cold, wind and rain that blesses old London town. 

Speaking of Big T, I finished up the internal mount for the lower Jib so can probably mount the foredeck tomorrow, unless I leave it of until I have created the channels for the anchor chains. Should probably plank the main deck below the foredeck with Cherry while I still can. 

Have I forgotten anything else under there, I know the pig pens were below there on CS and there were Sail lockers on the Starboard side but not sure I have enough space under there at this scale for me to do it justice. 

One thing about planking, you don't have to put your clamps away when you are done for the day. 

Hopefully, this looks a bit more even, there were a lot of adjustments to make. 

Simon

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

  There are a couple of things I've wondered about regarding Thermopylae - these relate to the model by Hulme (some text pasted below)

 

This magnificent model of the famous tea and wool clipper "Thermopylae" was made by one of Australia's most important maritime historians, authors, ship modellers, and experts on clippers, Cyril Hume (1900-1984). Clippers were extremely fast sailing ships of the 19th built to carry expensive perishable cargo quickly around the world. They were low in the water and carried enormous amounts of sail. The term clipper, coined in 1830, was used because such ships clipped or moved swiftly.

 

Cyril Hume first became interested in clippers when he was unemployed in Sydney during the Great Depression. He began ship modeling as a hobby to occupy his enforced leisure hours, but it quickly developed in to a lifelong pursuit. He combined to an exceptional degree, the technical skill of a craftsman and the historical accuracy of a scholar. Even in the late 1930s he sought out former sailors from the actual "Thermopylae" to ensure all the details were meticulously correct and true to scale. The rigging on his model is so painstakingly accurate in scale that a single strand of human hair was used for the signal halliards. Tiny water barrels on deck have individually-coopered staves and one of the blocks, which is less than 1/16th of an inch in length, has a working sheave. Cyril Hume became a world authority on the clipper ship era and gained international acclaim. "Thermopylae" took some 8,000 hours to complete and is believed to represent the crowning achievement of his model making career.

 

  There are many images of this model available, and I note that the anchor chains drape on the deck very far astern before going below deck.  Of course there is a capstan located aft of the main mast that may have taken up the chain.  I've not seen this sort of arrangement on any other clipper thus far, and wondered what your opinion was.  I also note there is no cargo hatch aft of the main mast, in agreement with deck plans from other sources.  The shape of the companionway covers on the aft cabin differ from what is seen on other models.

 

  So the question is, should the Hulme model be considered 'definitive' on Thermopylae?   With respect,  Johnny

 

Edit:  This makes the prospect of busting (somewhat) the Revell 1:96 version even more daunting.  'Very difficult to extend the aft deck the way it should be while trying to use the HIS Model wood deck overlay (I've never been able to paint plastic decking well enough to resemble wood the way the best practitioners have).

 

 

Edited June 24 by Snug Harbor Johnny

[My Fathers Son]

John, I have seen  this image of that model and the builders model in the museum in Aberdeen, I think, don't quote me, and these images are informing my model. I had noticed that the chain lockers were set a long way back. 

Whilst I am doing my best to produce a ship recognisable as Thermopylae, I don't have the skill levels of Mr Hulme nor 8000 hours. The skill to make, shape and assemble a barrel 8mm high in individual saves and metal rings is, well I am lost for words, incredible. 

I won't be using my hair for rigging material, there are no lines on her that short, and I need to keep the little I still have. 

I am on strake 7 on both port and starboard sides, on the port side 

Also on the port side I have started the top two rails so that the uppermost 4 or 5 strakes will be a full run from stem to stern. 

I have steamed a single strake for the gunwhales around that curved stern but I have to admit that I am not looking forward to that section. 

I am not finding planking difficult at this scale, just slow and it is hard to see progress when the sides only increase in size by 5mm per strake. 

My inventory of coffee stirrers is dwindling, and my usual source has changed the spec on their supplies. I have about 60 left. Each strake uses 4 and I have at least 14 strakes on each side to complete. That's at least 112 and does not allow for recuts. 

I think I need another Coffee. 

 

Simon

 

[rwiederrich]

Is this antique model of Thermopylae....one you are speaking of?

[rwiederrich]

Notice the difference between Cyril Hume's forecastle and that of the one of this antique model............There is no windless...visible.

Edited June 27 by rwiederrich

[My Fathers Son]

42 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Is this antique model of Thermopylae....one you are speaking of?

Hi Rob, 

 

Not sure, but that is a much better than the one that I can find at the moment. The only thing I can find is at emuseum.aberdeencity.gov.uk/objects/27267Thermopylae-clipper-ship

The images there are of a rather crude model simply rigged with boats that are completely out of scale.  There is a prototype model object number 13563 which is what I was originally thinking of.

The virtual tour of Aberdeen Maritime Museum only seem to have Ariel.

I will have to wait till I get home and look on my PC. 

The above pics are of a much more skilled modeller. 

There are some nice paintings on Doric columns and a couple of photos as well. 

Also, powerhouse collection have Cyril Humes model which I would presume to be reasonably accurate. 

Many thanks for the update and images. 

 

Simon

[My Fathers Son]

27 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Notice the difference between Cyril Hume's forecastle and that of the one of this antique model............There is no windless...visible.

No, and the fore castle is walled with a central door and hatch over. No knighthead in the Antique either. 

 

[rwiederrich]

Notice the difference between Cyril Hume's forecastle.  She has Wiskers on her catheads......sail locker, head houses......

You have your homework ahead of you.   To filter out the inaccuracies.

 

Rob

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

   I've seen photos of the antique model before, and questioned a number of details that don't seem right for the 'Big T' ...  yup; the completely walled in forecastle with no windless is definitely not typical,  there is an aft cargo hatch (that is, an opening for a hatch - the model is mostly not decked) where there is none on the Hume model (or line drawings - plans that are available) where there should be a capstan,  the entries (companionways) have flat tops (instead of bowed to either side) on the rear cabin are 'offset' from each other (rather than be on the centerline) ...

 

  ... there is something that looks like a chicken coop ( a-la the one on the C.S.) behind the forward cabin as well as some other structure in front of the main cargo hatch,  There are slight channel extensions to the gunwale for the deadeyes (which are not on the Hume model ... and the entire gunwale may have been a little wider than average, so any rubbing against anything would not affect the deadeyes) - and they are 'mirrored' by mini-channels below them where the chainplates pass through, which are not on the Hume model.  Note also the nice angle of the stern right up to the gunwale.

 

 

  ...  there should be some bulwark around the poop deck (what, 'knee high' or a little less, and you can see big differences what is on deck.

 

[rwiederrich]

I'm sure you have a good set of hull drawings.

[My Fathers Son]

1 hour ago, rwiederrich said:

I'm sure you have a good set of hull drawings.

I don't know about good set, I used Cambells drawings, as these are reputed to be fairly reliable. I am also more likely to follow Hume's model, I read that he interviewed former sailors who served aboard her. 

As good as the Antique model is concerned, I don't know what the provenance is and there are significant differences where Cambells plans and Hulmes model have things in common. 

The all green model in the museum was made circa 1900, at that time she was re rigged as a barque and tramping around Africa. 

The builders prototype only has one image and you can't see the deck, but what you can see is missing key details, was probably done deliberately to make the deck seem bigger and uncluttered. 

So time to start comparing images to plans. 

 

Simon

[rwiederrich]

17 hours ago, My Fathers Son said:

So time to start comparing images to plans. 

Indeed.  When you see 2 or 3 different representations of the same vessel....this is your clew to prepare to dig into your research mode.   I wouldn't completely disregard the first images of the antique model.  It was evidently done by an extremely skilled model shipwright.  This suggests he was probably also skilled at his research.  His attention to detail, suggests this skill overflows into his maritime research skill as well.

 

Remember, just because you see 1 or 2 different renderings of a model...doesn't mean the vessel didn't go through some up...or down grades itself...thus being represented in the model depicted.   My own Glory of the Seas is the perfect example.  Both mine and Vlad's models faithfully represent Glory of the Seas....though they are nearly unidentical.  He, modeled her as built....mine models her over 8 years later, after some major additional construction.

 

This being said..... means you need to dig.....validate what is verifiable and reject what is not.  And DO NOT mix time period details.  I found this error being made as a regular practice, when I researched my Great Republic.

 

Good luck and keep searching for the truth.

 

Rob

Edited June 28 by rwiederrich

[My Fathers Son]

15 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Indeed.  When you see 2 or 3 different representations of the same vessel....this is your clew to prepare to dig into your research mode.   I wouldn't completely disregard the first images of the antique model.  It was evidently done by an extremely skilled model shipwright.  This suggests he was probably also skilled at his research.  His attention to detail, suggests this skill overflows into his maritime research skill as well.

 

Remember, just because you see 1 or 2 different renderings of a model...doesn't mean the vessel didn't go through some up...or down grades itself...thus being represented in the model depicted.   My own Glory of the Seas is the perfect example.  Both mine and Vlad's models faithfully represent Glory of the Seas....though they are nearly unidentical.  He, modeled her as built....mine models her over 8 years later, after some major additional construction.

 

This being said..... means you need to dig.....validate what is verifiable and reject what is not.  And DO NOT mix time period details.  I found this error being made as a regular practice, when I researched my Great Republic.

 

Good luck and keep searching for the truth.

 

Rob

Hi Rob, 

Thank you for your comments, I certainly would not just disregard the Antique model, as you say, the maker had significant skills. 

I also get the point about timeliness, T like CS went through changes over the time of service, both ending their working days rigged as Barques. 

When built, I don't believe either had stunsails, both improved on sailing times so expect these were installed in the early 70's.

My plan, such as it is, is for CS and T to both be on display in my living room but that was as far as it goes. If I were to choose a date, if I did, the most reliable time would be the period were I actually have drawings of her deck plan. 

However, those plans are not the best quality image wise and just blowing them up does not improve things. There are a few photo's and paintings but for some reason the artist prefers to depict her from the front quarter with sails straining in the wind instead of convenient overhead views of the deck. The nature of the gunwhales prohibits sight of the deck when pictures were taken in side profile. 

The deck plans I have set out the basics but say nothing of essentials such as the chicken coup nor is there any reference to a pig pen. Voyages of 100+ days would make the provision of fresh meat essential. 

Also. With only one deck house forward, we're are the crews quarters. Perhaps that is why the forecastle is walled in with a door. 

Hume's model has the anchor chain run almost the full length of the main deck. The damage to her wooden deck, not to mention the risk to sailors when the chain is deployed would be horrendous. But lifting that anchor without a windlass would be impossible and it has to go somewhere up forward. 

CS had bunks deep inside the forecastle, perhaps T did as well or on the deck below. 

As much as I want to make an accurate model, I think I might have to be like a journalist rather than an historian, and not let the facts, or lack thereof, get in the way of a fair model that is a reasonable facsimile of T. 

I know this approach is not the preference of everyone but I hope to create a model that stretches my ability, is aesthetically pleasing and to people who can tell the difference is recognisable as T. 

If, and I sincerely doubt it, I get anywhere near as accurate and pleasing to the eye as your Glory, I will be proud as punch, and in truth, I would love to be able to do that. 

By the way, I enjoyed your piece on the representation of detail pertaining to scale in your blog, I agree that it is better to use less detail and do it well than to go to far and do it poorly. Of course if you can do that detail and do it well, such as Cyril Hume's barrel! 

 

Simon