HMS Victory by dafi - Heller - PLASTIC - To Victory and beyond ...

[dafi]

Final spurt for the 1920 slice.

 

Prepared the bolts for the irons.

 

 

Double-Twin-Spin-Technology, first the diameter and then the hight of the head.

 

 

Then toothpicked the wrong holes of the deadeyes ...

 

 

... fixed, marked, center punched and drilled ...

 

 

... and grooved.

 

 

Tried different window settings.

 

 

Got the irons, tinkered on and finally ...

 

 

... got it done 🙂

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Still have to smoothen a lot to be prepared for color.

 

And here the update of the nice comparison: Just a mere 100 years apart 🙂

 

 

XXXDAn
 

[dafi]

Not 1920 but a lot earlier, but quite nice as a picture

Me thinks ...

 

 

XXXDAn

Edited March 20, 2019 by dafi

[dafi]

And my 1920 slice is moving towards the finishing line.

 

 

 

 

 

And some small comparison, the look of 1765

 

 

Look of 1805

 

 

Look of 1920

 

 

 

 

And some details

 

 

 

 

Cheers, DAniel
 

[amateur]

So do I!!

Which year is next  ?

 

Jan

[dafi]

Thank you folks 🙂

 

Ok time to go back to THE Vic, 21 Oktober 9:17 o´clock in the morning. 

The base are the Turner drawings done after Trafalgar and the model SLR0513 (Victory (?)/Boyne 1810 - https://www.segelschiffsmodellbau.com/t2690f198-Falsch-zugeordnete-Victory-Modelle-im-NMM.html) and some other sources from the time of 1800 to 1805.

First the new build forecastle barricade, with the openings for the timberheads.

and the rough state is done 🙂

XXXDAn

[dafi]

Ok, time for some heretic thoughts. 

After some great basic work from Maik.L in our german forum analyzing the Turner drawings I tried those thought digitally on my small slice.
https://www.segelschiffsmodellbau.com/t7042f1475-HMS-Victory-Spurensuche-4.html#msg155257
Important: This is not about the shade, this is only about the width of the stripes.

 

First the classical V1, as to be seen our days in Portsmouth.

 

 

 

Turner saw and drew the ship before and after Trafalgar. Those scribbles are difficult to evaluate, bat they give some interesting hints.

As there are in his drawings and paintings no signs of the black checkers after Trafalgar, that leads to V2 

 

 

 

In most of Turner´s drawings and paintings the yellow stripes appears larger than the black one that gives V3

 

 

 

Without the checker V4

 

 

 

And if the hinges were painted too, that would give V5

 

 

 

So if you want to crucify me now, you may.

 

Whistling greetings, XXXDAn

 

PS. Everybody only one cross, please.

[amateur]

On second thoughts, i like v4 better than v2

 

Jan

[Morgan]

Hi Dafi,

 

V5 -I think the Nelson Chequer relates to the open gunport, not painting them a different colour - and is probably a metaphor for the ship 'showing her teeth', Turner and other contemporary artists don't show the gunport lids a separate colour, or painting the hinges.

 

BTW - going back to an earlier subject, the entry port, I know Turner shows no such structures, and neither do other first hand witnesses Pocock & Constable.  Have you also considered earlier paintings as evidence for this?  There are the 2 earlier paintings by Robert Dodd and Monamy Swaine from the early 1790's - neither show entry ports, both show the ship's port side, which is where ports were fitted out of preference if only fitted on one side (Lavery).  There was no significant refit in the 1790's, so probably reinforces the Turner evidence.  Both paintings are held by the National Maritime Museum.

 

Gary

Edited May 27, 2019 by Morgan

[dafi]

Thank you Jan and Gary. I still do not know yet, still putting all informations together to at least get a well educated guess.

 

For the side entry port there are some very interesting observations I made over the last years. 

 

First the Vic. She was most certainly build with one most possibly both sides. All contemporary plans and models show this, also the drawing of 1779, „Sailing by the White Cliffs of Dover“. All of these show the old fashioned version with two columns and the groin vault.

 

There was a major refit in 1788 and from this point on ALL plans, drawings and paintings are omitting the side entry port.

See https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/79913.html and the well known paintings of Dodd and Swaine. It is also omitted in ALL post-Trafalgar drawings and paintings.

 

On the Vic the side entry port just reappears on the drawing of Edward William Cooke from 1828. But then it is situated one port more aft 🙂

 

So to me the sources upon the Vic are very robust and consistent in this sense, no port in between about 1788 and 1828. 

 

Very interesting is too, that I realised the same happening to most all first and second rates. They are missing this port from about 1760  onwards. To be seen on plans, drawings, paintings, models. Perhaps as it was the time of the american war of independence and the ships were send overseas more often ? That is the only guess I have as far as I can see know.

 

Funny enough the Vic lost the side entry port for a gun port but the number of guns was not increased on this deck. I do not have sources to see if this happened too to other three deckers.

 

The side entry port first reappeared for other vessels on the plans for the Ville de Paris 1795, Temeraire Class 1798 and Ocean Class 1805, but not completely consistent yet, but became standard again soon after.

 

But another question I do have about the use of this port. The german name for it translates with "Admiralty port" and was believed to be just for the admirals or other high rated officers. In all the sources of the time of Trafalgar and earlier I never found any hint about this sole use. Just in much later times there are some hints about this restricted use. So what was the use of this port? Also the missing information about the doors, blinds  or bulkheads is puzzling me. No signs of it and people having their hammocks nearby ...

 

Was it really there for protocol reason? Or was it for more? Or - heretically question -  did it simply provide a way to empty the potties from two lower decks? And was therefor open and no guns placed? 

 

So as usual, questions above questions.

 

All the best, Daniel

Edited May 27, 2019 by dafi

[paulsutcliffe]

V5 In my opinion

[Morgan]

Dafi,

 

I agree with your view on the period Victory was without entry ports, the ones fitted in the 1820’s were for when she was fitted for harbour service, and as you say one port to the rear of the as-designed location.

 

When Victory carried 28 Nr. 24 Pounders the rear most ports were probably left vacant as this was in the Admirals quarters thereby allowing more space, the gunport would have had half-ports and sashes fitted (windows).  

 

I have always been intrigued by the fact that William James states at page 93 of Volume 4 of his ‘The Naval History of Great Britain’ states “Those of the Victory [guns]consisted, in equal divisions upon her first, second, and third decks, of 90 long 32, 24, and 12 pounders, and of 10 long 12-pounders and two 68-pounder carronades on her quaterdeck and forecastle”.  It is worth noting that James was a meticulous researcher, and would have spoken extensively with officers from Trafalgar, and probably the Victory to establish his facts.  His first foray into naval history was to establish respective armaments and weight of broadsides as between British and American ships to dispel allegations concerning British ships succumbing in battle to inferior American ships and rested his entire tome of work on getting his facts such as this right.  Therefore, some weight should be attached to his comments.

 

Obviously James is at odds with current received wisdom as to the number of guns Victory carried.  So, I recently visited The National Archives at Kew and looked at ADM 160/154 Returns of ordnance on H.M. Ships1803-1812, and the entry for 28 April 1803 has Victory as having 30 Nr. 32 Pounders, 28 Nr. 24 Pounders, 32 Nr. Long 12 Pounders and 10 Nr. Short 12 Pounders. Additionally, I also looked at the log books held there, and there are several copies, Hardy, Quilliam, and one other, and they record that at the same time that Victory received her 68 Pounder carronades from the Kent on 17 August 1804 she also received 2 Nr. 24 Pounders.  She also gave up in exchange 6 Nr. 12 Pounders!  I have seen parts of this entry recorded by Goodwin and Lavery in their works but have never seen the full entry.  So that is 30 No. 24 Pounders - all ports occupied.

 

This leaves an even larger discrepancy with current and historic views.  Peter Goodwin draws his data from the Gunners monthly records held at the Royal Navy Museum in Portsmouth, unfortunately their archives are currently being re-housed in a new facility and won’t be available until the spring of next year, so at present I can only account for 96 guns leading up to Trafalgar, any other exchanges were not mentioned in the ships logs.  I’ll go look next year when the records are available, you can actually track individual guns from their makers marks.  

 

Interestingly, the Returns of ordnance on H.M. Ships also records that when Victory was downrated in 1807 to a second rate she received 30 Nr. 18 Pounders per side (taken on board on 5 March 1808) , so consistent with the number of ports available at 15 per side.  I think we can dismiss the chase or bridle ports as being armed as this would have been unusual.

 

Gary

 

Edited May 27, 2019 by Morgan

[mtaylor]

Interesting research and discussion.   I wish I could find the reference but supposedly, the doors were cut in for Nelson as he had a hard time climbing that ladders.  The artwork that Vossie showed in Caroline's cross-stitch log shows a door at Trafalgar.  So is this just a myth being perpetrated?  Gary's post indicates it is which raises the question of why do so many pictures show the door? Curiouser and curiouser... 

 

[dafi]

@Gary: many thanks! 

 

When I started my Vic some 10 Years ago, everybody was of the opinion: OH NO, not another Victory, how boring. Today I know it is one of the least known ships and it is always a real treat to throw some lights into the dark corners of this ship´s history. Today I am happy to build the Vic, as it shows par excellence, how little we really do know about the ships of this time and how much research is still necessary!

 

Cheers, Daniel

[dafi]

11 hours ago, Morgan said:

and the entry for 28 April 1803 has Victory as having 30 Nr. 32 Pounders, 28 Nr. 24 Pounders, 32 Nr. Long 12 Pounders and 10 Nr. Short 12 Pounders.

In our german forum I have a accumulated list with all the data I found in chronological order. It states that the Vic undocked on the 11.04.1803 still with 2 24-pounder carronades. So it fits well into the scheme 🙂 On the 14.05. she went to sea. I added already the new data. Thank you for those informations.

 

https://www.segelschiffsmodellbau.com/t5759f198-Fakten-zur-Victory.html#msg117794

 

XXXDAn

 

 

Edited May 28, 2019 by dafi

[Morgan]

3 hours ago, mtaylor said:

Interesting research and discussion.   I wish I could find the reference but supposedly, the doors were cut in for Nelson as he had a hard time climbing that ladders.  The artwork that Vossie showed in Caroline's cross-stitch log shows a door at Trafalgar.  So is this just a myth being perpetrated?  Gary's post indicates it is which raises the question of why do so many pictures show the door? Curiouser and curiouser... 

 

Mark,

 

One of the problems with perceptions of Victory’s appearance is the current configuration which came out of the 1920’s refit, at that time records were scattered and some simply unknown, in today’s connected electronic world much has been digitised enabling much better research. The 1920’s refit relied on the original drawings, there were also conflicts between time, cost and pre-conceptions centred on restoring the original beauty of her appearance, so we get a compromise. Interestingly a contemporary article in the Mariners Mirror discussing the research for the 1920’s refit shows they got very close to uncovering her real Trafalgar appearance with built-up bulwarks on the forecastle etc. but they couldn’t corroborate it so did not go down that route.

 

Another source of misconception is that many 19th Century artists show Victory at Trafalgar in her pre 1801/3 refit guise, probably using the original build models with their open galleries or by copying other artists. Nichols Pocock was a prime example, he saw and sketched Victory in life after her pre-Trafalgar refit but his paintings constantly show the old open stern galleries, simply look at his Nelson’s Flagships. In part you can understand this as the original configuration is far more aesthetically pleasing than her war austere war guise.

 

Gary

[Morgan]

39 minutes ago, dafi said:

In our german forum I have a accumulated list with all the data I found in chronological order. It states that the Vic undocked on the 11.04.1803 still with 2 24-pounder carronades. So it fits well into the scheme 🙂 On the 14.05. she went to sea. I added already the new data. Thank you for those informations.

 

https://www.segelschiffsmodellbau.com/t5759f198-Fakten-zur-Victory.html#msg117794

 

XXXDAn

 

 

Dafi,

 

The 24 Pounder carronade (single) was for the ships Launch according to the ordnance records, Peter Goodwin does say they there were 2 on the forecastle, but until I can access the gunners monthly returns I’m not sure when they were acquired.

 

I've inserted a copy of the record, note the number ‘2’ in the gun number and not the number of guns. So no number 1 carronade, these are all individual entries and not groupings.

 

Gary

 

[dafi]

If I remember well, the information about the carronade(s) either came out of "Nelsons ships" or "Ships at Trafalgar" from Goodwin. Have to double check the entries there, to see if I misunderstood or if possibly he could have misunderstood the entry you have shown.

 

Thank you for the as always well researched information!

 

And especially a big thank you for sharing it!!!

 

Cheers, DAniel

Edited May 28, 2019 by dafi

[dafi]

22 hours ago, Morgan said:

nd the entry for 28 April 1803 has Victory as having 30 Nr. 32 Pounders, 28 Nr. 24 Pounders, 32 Nr. Long 12 Pounders and 10 Nr. Short 12 Pounders. Additionally, I also looked at the log books held there, and there are several copies, Hardy, Quilliam, and one other, and they record that at the same time that Victory received her 68 Pounder carronades from the Kent on 17 August 1804 she also received 2 Nr. 24 Pounders.  

I found my reference that I relied on: Goodwin Ships of Trafalgar.

He also refers to the inspection and accounting of the ordnance on the 28.04.1803, so most possibly the same source. The numbers he states are  30 32pdrs, 28 24pdrs, 30 long 12pdrs for the upper deck, 12 short 12pdrs quarter deck, 2 medium 12pdrs and 2 24pdrs carronades on the forecastle. The 6 18pdrs carronades of the poop were said to be removed.

 

XXXDAn 

[Morgan]

And here is part of the conundrum. We start at re-commissioning with 100 long guns, but loose 6 and gain 2 long guns on 17 August 1804, so now at 96 long guns.  So using Goodwin’s Figures as the record by Trafalgar there are 102 long guns, with 2 No. medium 12 Pounders added and 2 No. short 12 Pounders also having been added, yet no mention of the 2 No. 24 Pounders added which leaves another 2 12 Pounders to account for, never mind the 6 lost to the Kent, I assume these would have been from the quarterdeck short guns unless the upper deck was also reduced in number.

 

Goodwin’s tally of 12 Pounders looks a lot like the March 1808 tally of 12 Pounders, which could be Victory retaining most of the the upper and lower deck ordnance at that repair and only the 24’s being swapped out for 18’s.

 

However, it leaves a lot of ordnance changes between April 1803 and Trafalgar to account for, and why give up 6 No. 12 Pounders only to recover them and loose the 2 additional 24 Pounders again between August 1804 and October 1805?  That’s why I want to see the Gunners monthly returns when available to track these changes and verify what was on board by Trafalgar.

 

Then there are the carronades! Another story to uncover.

 

Gary

Edited May 28, 2019 by Morgan

[dafi]

But me too I messed up ...

 

Goodwin states 28.04.1803 and you the the Kent 28.04.1804 ...

 

Have to put this clear for my brain still ...

[Morgan]

It does take some getting you head around, but the Kent was 17.08.1804 - Victory log books, the Ordnance returns on re-commissioning are at 28.04.1803 - so I agree with Goodwin’s date but not the detail, as you can see from the copies I sent you 👍🏻.

 

Gary

[Morgan]

For those trying to keep track of this exchange here is a table summarising what we know - or rather showing what we are seeking to better understand!

Gary

[mtaylor]

Thanks for the explanation, Gary. 

And another question.... Were carronades counted as "guns"?  That's one of the points of contention not just on Victory, as I understand it.  But then there were 24 and 26 gun frigates that only had carronades.

[Morgan]

2 hours ago, mtaylor said:

Thanks for the explanation, Gary. 

And another question.... Were carronades counted as "guns"?  That's one of the points of contention not just on Victory, as I understand it.  But then there were 24 and 26 gun frigates that only had carronades.

Hi Mark,

 

No, carronades were not counted in a ships armament until after the Napoleonic wars.  So whilst a frigate may be rated as a 38 she could also carry 8/10 carronades as well, so really 46/48 guns.  So the term ‘38’ became a nominal or ‘class’ term, the boundaries became further blurred as the wars progressed and the carronade became more popular, a 38 could conceivably carry 30 cannon and and 16 carronades, but she was still a 38.

 

This led to Captains exaggerating their captures, so it was not unknown for a Captain to say his 38 (actually 46 guns overall) captured a larger opponent of say 42 guns, which was in fact a ship of lesser force say a 36 gun frigate with 6 additional carronades (or French equivalent).  This happened in British, French and US navies, the attempt was to influence the captured ships value and amount of prize money, not to mention enhancing the Captains reputation.  This led to bitter arguments over how difficult won ship actions really were, so eventually Admiralties came clean and re-classified ship ratings to reflect the actual number or overall number of guns carried.

 

Hope this is clear.

 

Gary

 

 

[dafi]

Thank you Gary and Mark.

 

As long as I still keep gathering the input for 1805, I kept working on the version of 1765 to 1788 (great repair) or 1797 (decommissioned).

 

Luckily I did 2 slices in the old and long forgotten days :-).

 

 

One was fitted with deadeyes and chains, but proved to have some inaccuracies, that is why I decided to keep on working on the other one.

First came the frieze. First the base with the medium color then the shadows and the highlights.

 

 

One can see that the chain board was removed. was atop the whales and not on them. The good thing on the painting technic that I use is, that repairs can be nicely done.
First the priming with the classical small pots from Humbrol/Revell.

The 2 shades of brown with the casein paint and blended with the mostly dry brush. As the knees will be on the same place, I took it easy on that part 😉

 

 

Replaced the chain boards and gave it a new color suiting the 1765 model.

 

 

As it was too easy until now, I decided to open one gun port. So back to the heavy machines do dig deep ...

 

 

... cleared the back too ...

 

 

... and faked the inside boards.

 

 

Yes I mean faked 😉 ...

 

 

Also the port with the half lids was updated.

 

 

And then some paint and the reason for the opening. The model shows an interesting color scheme for the middle deck: White insides of the ports with a red rabbet.

 

Cheers, Daniel

Edited June 3, 2019 by dafi

[Mikey 772]

I'm changing my Heller Victory kit into the 80 gun, "Foudroyant", a 2 decker !

[dafi]

Slow progress ...

 

Next came the frieze:

 

3 colors ...

 

 

... first the middle one ... 

 

 

... then into darkness they dwell ...

 

 

... then come the highlights ...

 

 

... gonna be fine enough 🙂

 

The same way the cherub was done.

 

 

Then tried some shading for the bronze guns.

 

 

The huibrol bronze was the first test. Some brown already helps a lot 🙂

 

 

From the museums one knows green or polished in brass-look. But how did they look in real life when in use?

 

 

Questionmarks!!!

 

XXXDAn
 

[druxey]

Fine friezework at that scale, Dafi. Well done!

 

The guns were iron, not bronze. Bronze was too expensive for the government coffers. The last ship to be fitted with bronze cannon throughout was the previous Victory, sunk in 1737. Most of her cannon are still on the sea bed in the English Channel.

[Papa]

Fantastic work. Amazing craftsmanship and patience. 

[dafi]

Thank you Sirs,

 

@druxey My understanding was, that the Vic of 1765 was first fitted with brass cannons and those being replaced by iron later on? Is this not correct?

 

Have to look at my literature again.

 

Cheers and Thank you, Daniel