Newsworthy updates from Chris Watton

[willz]

sorry Chris, didn`t mean to be brash, its just that at the mo i am myself constructing the stern on my 1/72 scratch Victory, and digging around found it very difficult to find info, the best i could find was on page 94 in john mckays book, i must say at this point that your stern is the best i`ve seen, i am a complete novice and this is my first build and the time it takes is unreal, so when it came to scale my balustrades i counted them and as a cross reference i counted other models, when i counted jokita`s i noticed there was only 67 per row but didn`t think much of it till i counted yours, so then started to think is there a drawing of the stern that i haven`t seen, so again i am sorry i was just curious.

 heres a pic of my balustrades

Edited May 21, 2013 by willz

[chris watton]

sorry Chris, didn`t mean to be brash, its just that at the mo i am myself constructing the stern on my 1/72 scratch Victory, and digging around found it very difficult to find info, the best i could find was on page 94 in john mckays book, i must say at this point that your stern is the best i`ve seen, i am a complete novice and this is my first build and the time it takes is unreal, so when it came to scale my balustrades i counted them and as a cross reference i counted other models, when i counted jokita`s i noticed there was only 67 per row but didn`t think much of it till i counted yours, so then started to think is there a drawing of the stern that i haven`t seen, so again i am sorry i was just curious.

 heres a pic of my balustrades

Hi Willz,

 

Don't be silly - you have absolutely no need to apologise! Thanks to you I have been able to enhance the kit further and now I will be able to sleep soundly tonight knowing that what I have done is correct and matches the real subject. I know that my initial designs were for 0.75mm photo etch, so 69 would have been a struggle. I have since changed the thickness and designed the parts in two separate layers so I have a lot more leeway with small tolerances.

 

Your stern looks fantastic, and it's your first attempt! You are a natural.

 

Thank you,

 

Chris

[Jaxboat]

Hello Chris

Good to hear from you. Can you let us know what is up with Revenge?

Best

Jax Boat

[Jaxboat]

Great Photos. How lucky we are to have the real ship to study   As always, your models are excellent and well designed. I look forward to following your development of this kit. Based on the dimensions you discussed, if I build her, I am going to need a bigger house to display her!    

Edited May 21, 2013 by Jaxboat

[chris watton]

Hi Jaxboat. Thank you

 

I will ask about Revenge. As far as I know, they were getting it (Revenge) ready for release a few months back, after I did a final check of the plans and instructions.

[Kevin]

Chris - the last couple of posts between you and Wilz are the reasons why this ship will be a sucess- 

that's because you are prepared to listen and and adjust, for that alone i am very thankful

[Force9]

 

Also, I don't buy the built up bulwarks for the forecastle. I have only ever seen these on Victory on paintings of her taken years after Trafalgar, where the artist has incorporated configurations contemporary to the artist, and not of 1803/05 (one famous painting even shows Victory with a later round bow with continuous front bulwarks). With a 'square' forecastle, build up bulwarks does not look right, perhaps looking a little awkward - But that's just my own personal opinion based on many drawings and paintings I have studied over the years.

 

Hello Chris

 

I'd have to say that I am hesitant to dismiss all of the paintings of Trafalgar. The famous Turner work and the Clarkson Stanfield scene are in some sense "eyewitness artifacts" - albeit decades downstream. Turner absorbed much criticism in his day - particularly from veterans of the battle. So much so, in fact, that he had to retreat to his atelier for 11 days to make corrections demanded by his naval critics - mostly related to the rigging details. Presumably, they would've demanded he modify the fo'c's'le bulwarks if that was warranted. The Clarkson Stanfield painting was commissioned by the surviving officers of Trafalgar - including Sir Thomas M Hardy himself... Stanfield utilized their input every step of the way and had all galley proofs approved by the supervising committee. And unlike Turner, Stanfield was no landlubber artist. He had served as a midshipman in HM navy during the Napoleonic era and would know a mouse from a lizard. The painting clearly includes the built up bulwarks. Hard to fathom that the collective memory of all those veterans would result in such an obvious error.

 

 

 

 

Regardless, your wonderful prototype inspires lustful/impure thoughts - surely this'll align nicely to the target modelers that you folks had in mind... Perhaps some of us will only build the hull (and maybe expose some beams/structure) to save some space.

 

I will be saving my pennies...and nickels...and take out a second mortgage...

 

Thank you for your terrific efforts - we modelers are greatly appreciative of your talent!

 

(Any thoughts towards a 1/64 US Frigate Constitution more aligned to her 1812/1815 appearance?)

 

Evan Gale

Edited May 22, 2013 by Force9

[chris watton]

Hi Force9,

 

Thank you for that.

I still remain unconvinced regarding the heavily built up front bulwarks. Again, most of the paintings and drawing I have do not show them. In fact, the evidence I have is in Peter Goodwin's book Nelson's Ships, which has a drawing with a dotted line the possible built up area (including the poop area). I have seen paintings of the Victory at Trafalgar with not only heavily built up front bulwarks, but mid-ship bulwarks too, some paintings show her with a round bow. I know that Geoff Hunt has done some recent paintings of Victory, and I know he researches his subjects thoroughly, and opts not to include enclosed front bulwarks.

 

If heavily built up front bulwarks (which would be quite a prominent feature) were added in her 1803 rebuild, I would have thought that there would have been a lot more evidence to suggest this. I do accept that built up bulwarks became more fashionable (for very practical reasons) after the lessons learned from Trafalgar - as did the round bow. There seems to be no mention of this in any of the repair notes, too.

 

Could it be that if the forecastle did have protection, it was a 'ad-hock' solution before the battle, once realising how exposed the front would be because of the tactics implemented? But even then, that still leaves the front bulwark and timberheads exposed..

 

The problem is, that if I went solely on the Clarkson Stanfield Trafalgar painting for the United Service Club 1833 (which I have always loved since a small boy), then the front would also have enclosed bulwarks, and the yellow bands from the lower and middle deck would extend right out to the bow. I have to think, is this accurate, or, by this time (almost 30 years later), are they now so used to seeing these details (especially the continued yellow lines, which I believe came into vogue once bow railings were abolished and became completely planked and enclosed. The painting doesn't seem to show the side entry port on the starboard side, too.

 

You see, it's a very difficult call to make - do I fully subscribe to that painting (which incidentally, shows only 8 shrouds for the foremast..), or go by convention? I did think long and hard about this, believe me - the decision was not made on a whim.

 

I even thought about including a set of forcastle bulwarks (laser cut) in the kit - but again, if I do this it may still not be accurate, as I would need to include the front bulkhead bulwarks too - and the only evidence I have to go on is that painting, and it shows no detail about what's happening with the fittings on the deck-side. I decided I did not want to speculate for such an important subject. If I use that painting as gospel (always dangerous to use a limited number of resources for important projects), and if I accept that she looked like that, then I also have to leave off the entry port - and then I have to explain to lots of bemused kit buyers the reason why - and I simply cannot do that based on one painting. I have a lot more valid reasons why to leave them off than on. Or - if I include the bulwarks but keep the entry port and someone askes me where I got my info for this, and I steer them towards that painting, they may turn around and say "well, OK, if that is accurate, then why include the entry port, and why have 11 foremast shrouds and not 8, like that very accurate painting?" What do I say?

 

I understand that the crew would remember important events on the ship, even the spars sticking out of the lower gun ports - but if I'm honest, I tried to remember some aspects of my first car, which I drove virtually every day and owned for almost 8 years. I remember vividly some events in that car, but now, as for details of that car, I can't even remember what side the fuel filler cap was or visualise the dash with any clear accuracy - and this was only 15 years ago!

 

 

I hope this explains more clearly why I didn't include them.

 

Chris

Edited May 22, 2013 by chris watton

[Jaxboat]

I would like to bring up a topic about authenticity that I suspect may cause some controversy and that is paint pigmentation  . I would be very interested in comments from you as well as others. The colors of your prototype are gorgeous, especially the blue.  . Your blue, which looks to me to be what would be today characterized as "Ultramarine Blue", would be possible with inorganic pigments albeit expensive. However, I have always been under the opinion that a light stable bright red was not possible at this time. At this period in time, I do not think there were any organic red pigments with maybe the exception of carmine which is not light stable. Iron oxide reds are darker (blue shade)

 

The main light stable color pigments I can think of for this period would be: black (carbon black), white (white lead), gold leaf, blue (ground lapis lazuli) and red, yellow and brown ochres (based on iron oxide heated to various temperatures with differing degrees of oxygen). I suspect there was also a inorganic green but not sure of the chemistry. Today, you can get a Chrome oxide green but not sure during this time period. Look forward to comments. Your build is awesome  . Thanks for sharing it and comments on your development process with us.

Jaxboat

Edited May 22, 2013 by Jaxboat

[chris watton]

Hi Jax,

 

Colours do not bother me so much, if I'm honest. There are/were so many variations on shade that no-one can make a definitive statement regarding colour - especially shade. The yellow (or any other colour) could be darker or lighter, depending on weathering, how much water was added to the paint etc.

 

The blue I used was Vallejo Royal Blue (054), and this is as good a match of what's on Victory now than any other (Humbrol matt 25 is almost identical in shade)

 

I used Humbrol for the black and yellow purely because I am well aware of its properties and can be sure it will not crack (after many coats and much sanding/filling in-between coats) I would have preferred to use Vallejo shades, but was too apprehensive about how it would react over a number of years (I even bought 12 bottles of Vallejo yellow ochre for the job!). I have to be aware that the model will travel frequently, shows, distributer offices, photography, all of which will have temperature variations - I decided I'd go with what I know works. (I started to use it on the lower cannon carriages, and you can just about see the colour in some shots)

 

For the red, it is a mix of Humbrol standard red and brick red, which seems to be a good match for the dull red.

 

Obviously, the modeller is free to choose whatever paints they prefer and are happy with.

 

Chris

 

ETA - If I was building this model for myself, I would have gone with the Vallejo colours.

Edited May 22, 2013 by chris watton

[Force9]

Chris -

 

Thanks for your response... I suppose any good discussion of the great ship will inevitably find its way to the entry port discussion.  I'm in the camp of those who think it wasn't there at Trafalgar.  Course, I'm also in the camp of those who think the bulwarks were built up and the gun stripes were carried up around the cutwater.  Makes me the fringe element.  I've made a pitch for the accuracy of the Stanfield painting across several forums now and I have yet to make a convert to my point of view...(!)  I know those veterans may have been frail and feeble by the time they provided input for the painting, but I still have to think that collectively they must have gotten the big details right.  I've always thought it interesting that the restored ship had black painted iron mast hoops up until the 1970s.  Somewhere in that period they painted them out - likely because of the entry in the Victory signal log on the eve of the battle that noted Nelson yelling at two of his captains to paint over their @#$$%^&* mast hoops to conform to the rest of the fleet.  If not for that entry, the hoops would probably still be black to align with the historical yard records and admiralty directives.  Yet here are the JMW Turner and Clarkson Stanfield paintings attesting across all these years to the painted out hoops.  And so I figure that the painted stripes are something similar.  Nelson had that done as an additional IFF step, but there is no written record to confirm this... If we jump to the assumption that Stanfield's painting is 99% accurate, then the later British practice of extending the stripes around the bow would trace to Nelson and the battle of Trafalgar - similar to the "Nelson's Chequers" scheme.  That sits well with me.

 

I'll admit to having little credibility in this space.  I'm not a scholar or even a researcher... I'm just a hack ship modeler trying to learn the craft as I go along.  And to compound things I am only a plastic ship modeler at this point - generally considered a lesser citizen in the ship modeling world.  I do hope to grow up one day and advance enough to take on something as magnificent as your Victory.

 

BTW - I've always thought that the restored ship should make allowances for both entry port viewpoints.  Those who believe they were there at Trafalgar can start their tour by meandering up the ramp and thru the ornate entry.  Those of us who think otherwise can walk around to the other side and stand in a long queue waiting our turn to get hoisted aboard in a bosun's chair.

 

Thanks again for your fine effort and I hope it is a great success.

 

EG

[Blue Ensign]

......... I am only a plastic ship modeler at this point - generally considered a lesser citizen in the ship modeling world.  

EG

 

not by me you ain't...

 

M.

[Kevin]

nor by me, there are some fantastic looking plastic builds on this site

 

all the best

[chris watton]

Nor me - I have half a dozen plastic kits that I'm itching to build!

[chris watton]

Chris -

 

Thanks for your response... I suppose any good discussion of the great ship will inevitably find its way to the entry port discussion.  I'm in the camp of those who think it wasn't there at Trafalgar.  Course, I'm also in the camp of those who think the bulwarks were built up and the gun stripes were carried up around the cutwater.  Makes me the fringe element.  I've made a pitch for the accuracy of the Stanfield painting across several forums now and I have yet to make a convert to my point of view...(!)  I know those veterans may have been frail and feeble by the time they provided input for the painting, but I still have to think that collectively they must have gotten the big details right.  I've always thought it interesting that the restored ship had black painted iron mast hoops up until the 1970s.  Somewhere in that period they painted them out - likely because of the entry in the Victory signal log on the eve of the battle that noted Nelson yelling at two of his captains to paint over their @#$$%^&* mast hoops to conform to the rest of the fleet.  If not for that entry, the hoops would probably still be black to align with the historical yard records and admiralty directives.  Yet here are the JMW Turner and Clarkson Stanfield paintings attesting across all these years to the painted out hoops.  And so I figure that the painted stripes are something similar.  Nelson had that done as an additional IFF step, but there is no written record to confirm this... If we jump to the assumption that Stanfield's painting is 99% accurate, then the later British practice of extending the stripes around the bow would trace to Nelson and the battle of Trafalgar - similar to the "Nelson's Chequers" scheme.  That sits well with me.

 

I'll admit to having little credibility in this space.  I'm not a scholar or even a researcher... I'm just a hack ship modeler trying to learn the craft as I go along.  And to compound things I am only a plastic ship modeler at this point - generally considered a lesser citizen in the ship modeling world.  I do hope to grow up one day and advance enough to take on something as magnificent as your Victory.

 

BTW - I've always thought that the restored ship should make allowances for both entry port viewpoints.  Those who believe they were there at Trafalgar can start their tour by meandering up the ramp and thru the ornate entry.  Those of us who think otherwise can walk around to the other side and stand in a long queue waiting our turn to get hoisted aboard in a bosun's chair.

 

Thanks again for your fine effort and I hope it is a great success.

 

EG

Hi EG,

 

I have done further reading up regarding the entry port. I would strongly advise you leave both in place. I have a photograph of Victory still in water and it shows the port side - complete with entry port. I cannot believe for a second that they removed it when it was most needed, and then re-opened it. It seems to me that the masts and tops were painted a unified colour at this late stage, and the bulwarks are built up (if you took away the waist bulwarks, the ship in the photograph would look remarkably similar to the William Clarkson Stanfield painting). painting should always be treated with caution - although they are excellent for decorative styles and colours. The famous painting by Monamy Swaine depicting Victory in 1793 shows no entry port of the starboard side! It is universally accepted that all capitol ships from the mid 17th Century onwards had the entry port on the right

 

Reading the Haynes manual (!!), which is quite a new book, it seems that Peter Goodwin isn't 100% convinced regarding the forecastle - it states that the 'great repair' included raising the open bulwarks on the quarterdeck and 'possibly' her forecastle. Hmm.

 

It then states that, between 1814 and 1816, Victory underwent a large repair at Portsmouth, during which she was very much altered and rebuilt - this included the more practical round bow and her bulwarks were raised and built up square and solid. I'd wager that this is the time the yellow (or white) strips went all the way to the forward edge of the bow, and the forecastle bulkheads were enclosed, as shown in many 19th Century paintings.

 

Cheers,

 

Chris

 

(Nothing wrong with plastic kits, I love them!)

[Jaxboat]

I agree on "plastic" ship models.   These days they are a multi media affair with PE, turned brass barrels, real wood decks and resin castings. I am currentlyt following a build of a 1/200 Trumpeter Bismarck on Model Shipwrights. The modeler is a master of PE parts and his build to date is awesome. Check it out if you would like to see what is possible in "plastic" these days.

Jaxboat

[Stockholm tar]

I have a book, 'Fighting Sail' in the Seafarer series, published in 1978, which has a section on Stanfield's painting. Besides showing the whole painting, in quite small scale, it also includes blow-up sections of it. One of them shows the area of the Victory in question and it does show, if you look closely, that she does indeed have an entry port on the middle gundeck, situated just forward of the main channel. The roof and support brackets are clearly visible. There would also appear to be a gun poking out of it – but that's another question!

 

I have never believed, heard or read, that the Victory's original entry ports were removed and then reinstated. To me that would seem pointless, and quite an uneccessary expense in time of war.

 

However, Stanfield's painting also shows the built up upper deck bulwarks, including that of the disputed fo'c's'le. I'm not sure about this however, and it might just be artistic licence. I tend to go with Peter Goodwin on this, that there is no actual evidence for the extension. It would seem strange too that there seems to be no written evidence about them, even from someone writing to say just how effective these bulwarks were over the old ones in preventing injuries, or otherwise. It would be interesting to know what Goodwin's successor as curator thinks on this point.

 

Chris, one final point. I was rather surprised at the colour scheme you have given the Victory, which is much lighter than on the actual ship. It has always been stressed that the Victory's appearance today is 'as she was' at Trafalgar, even down to the colour scheme, and the Admiralty paints sets have been devised for modellers who wish to get as close to that as possible. Are you now suggesting that this is wrong, or do you just think it's too 'heavy' for the model?

 

I have read that much of the upkeep of ship was down to the Captain, and how deep his pocket was, thus the variations in the basic colour scheme, from light to dark. Neither Nelson or Hardy were actually that well off, so they tended to go for darker colours which weren't so expensive, and this particularly shows in the yellow ochre. The blue of the beakhead bulkhead was I believe, and rather ironically perhaps, known as French Blue.

[Force9]

Chris -

 

I can't resist (sorry!):

 

Here are some more pictures of the 1803 model you referenced earlier for the stern:

 

 

Hmmm... I'm just sayin'...!

[chris watton]

.. And I was trumped by this contemporary drawing:

 

 

I am aware of that model Chris but I rather think the contemporary drawing by Livesay has to have greater credibility.

 

 

But regardless of all that it is a very fine Victory you have designed, we are lucky to have you

 

Regards,

 

B.E.

 

In the end, it comes down to this - Do I follow a couple of examples out of hundreds (relatively) in a development that costs hundreds of thousands of Euros, and ignore experts and their drawings and known findings, pretending that I know better than them, or do I go with accepted convention and trust the experts - baring in mind that I am trusted with  a large budget and there must be a healthy return?

 

I will say again - If I was 100% convinced and had hard and irrefutable evidence to back it up, I would do it - but when even Peter Goodwin can only qualify the bulwarks with a 'possibly', I stay with what most drawings by experts who know more than me - always best to err on the side of caution when in my position.

 

As a modeller who has bought his own kit, like you, you have every right to model your Victory however you see fit. I do not have that luxury, I have to develop it based on the evidence available - a large part of that is still sitting in Portsmouth dry dock, otherwise I'd be spending the rest of my life answering letters and emails from experts and amateurs as to why I decided not to follow the experts who have studied the subject in a lot more detail than most. I would be opening myself up to (deserved) ridicule.

 

Finally, as Blue Ensign pointed out, if the stern on that particular model is that inaccurate, it could well be argued that the rest is equally inaccurate (I also note it has 7 gun ports cut in the quarterdeck sides).

 

Cheers,

 

Chris

Edited May 24, 2013 by chris watton

[WackoWolf]

Chris,

 

     Thank you for the replay. I agree with you as to what you have said. You have to do it the way the company wants it to be like you said it is not your model or you would do it you way. I will still be waiting for this to be finished and release to the public. I feel you are doing an excellent job and it will be a wonderful model because of the way you have done it. Thank you for keeping us updated with this project.

[chris watton]

Chris,

 

     Thank you for the replay. I agree with you as to what you have said. You have to do it the way the company wants it to be like you said it is not your model or you would do it you way. I will still be waiting for this to be finished and release to the public. I feel you are doing an excellent job and it will be a wonderful model because of the way you have done it. Thank you for keeping us updated with this project.

Thank you, WackoWolf.

 

I am trusted to design the models following my own research, which usually means relying on others. I could develop the kit with no entry ports and fully built up bulwarks, and Amati wouldn't mind - but I would have to be darn sure I had the weight of evidence to back my decisions up- and this is exactly what I don't have.

 

When I designed Golden Hind, with the kind help of a 16th Century ship design expert, I was quite happy to answer certain questions put by Amati regarding the differences between the Golden Hind replica and my version, because I had the evidence, hard evidence to back it up, and Amati accepted this. If I decided to develop Victory the way some would like, without entry ports and fully built up bulwarks - I may be able to show Amati a some pictures to prove it, but they will quite rightly turn around and show me dozens more pictures and drawings showing different. It has to come down to balance of evidence - I would be a fool to go against it.

 

For most seasoned modellers, this is moot anyway, as most will stamp their own mark on the kit, and if you want to add or remove certain parts, it isn't difficult.

 

Chris

Edited May 24, 2013 by chris watton

[ChrisLBren]

Chris - I think this is an amazing design.  Personally i've never considered a build of a Victory or building another kit.  But this one has me re considering - the modeler has so many options to fully frame out decks, and add a ton of detail to customize.   I do think the price tag will be high - i cant imagine this one selling for under 1600 USD

Edited May 24, 2013 by ChrisLBren

[WackoWolf]

ChrisLBren,

 

   I feel the same a you do about kits, but like you this one is different. There is so much a person can do with this you do have to think twice about it. I also agree the price will be up there, but to me I do want this one. Oh well only time will tell.

[chris watton]

Chris - I think this is an amazing design.  Personally i've never considered a build of a Victory or building another kit.  But this one has me re considering - the modeler has so many options to fully frame out decks, and add a ton of detail to customize.   I do think the price tag will be high - i cant imagine this one selling for under 1600 USD

Thank you,

 

I wasn't too happy about doing yet another Victory too, if it's any consolation. I figured that if I were to do this, it would have to be totally different (in design) to all others.

I am guessing it won't be cheap, but it has taken me double the time compared to Vanguard, both to design and building the prototype (I thought I'd finish this model by June, but am not even close to completion)! This will translate into something like at least two years to build for most good modellers. We did think about selling the hull and mask and rigging details separately - but I am not sure about this - most of the cost in buried in the hull detail, not the few bits of dowels and laser cut mast fittings. If you enjoy the hobby and the building process, I think it may be quite a bargain...

 

Chris

Edited May 24, 2013 by chris watton

[Kevin]

Chris at present i am doing the Caldercraft Victory, i doubt i will do another version of the same ship, but i love the work and the investigation you put into this, The Euromodel Royal William is/was to be my next build, but there are quite a lot of new more accurate kits around waiting to be built. Again thankyou for the research you do into keeping the non scratch people happy

[chris watton]

Chris at present i am doing the Caldercraft Victory, i doubt i will do another version of the same ship, but i love the work and the investigation you put into this, The Euromodel Royal William is/was to be my next build, but there are quite a lot of new more accurate kits around waiting to be built. Again thankyou for the research you do into keeping the non scratch people happy

Thank you Kevin - and a fine job you're doing on that model, too.

 

The main sources I used for design and detail are:

 

Scanned original plans from NMM (not too much use, to be honest)

 

Anatomy of the Ship - Victory - Mckay

Anatomy of Nelson's Ships - Longbridge

HMS Victory - Her construction, Career and Restoration - Alan McGowan

Seeing the actual ship herself and taking hundreds of photographs

 

For minor and period detail:

Construction and Fitting of the Sailing Man of War - Goodwin

The Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War - Lavery

Old ships figureheads and sterns - Laughton

Masting and Rigging - James Lee

 

..And many more books for cross-reference, as some areas are conflicted.

 

Much fun...

[Force9]

Thank you Chris for indulging us on our thoughts...

 

I do apologize for stirring up the conversation and getting us off track from what is really important - the unique opportunity to look in on your process as you develop this fine prototype.  My original intent was really only meant to highlight the thought that a few of these paintings are not so easily dismissed - they have more behind them than meets the eye.

 

I heartily agree that folks in charge of maintaining these historic ships (and building kits for wide production) need to adhere to a tighter set of criteria than those of us who can freelance our way through our own interpretations.  It is obvious from even these small exchanges that there is much passion around the Victory from the modelling world.  I doubt you see much feedback when doing Bellona, or Revenge, or almost any other ship... It is interesting to see so many changes coming forth in recent years for the great ship - all this talk of stern davits and nameplates and Prince William feathers... Certainly the entry ports have been a hot subject on the forums and the bulwarks have percolated up in the conversations just over the past few years.  It does stand out that the folks at Jotika felt compelled to offer alternatives in their kit to accomodate different emerging viewpoints.  I think you are right to follow your own instincts to create something that can stand firmly on known fact without adapting to pure speculation.  I can easily leave off the entry ports if that is still my inclination... And most modellers who would tackle this kit should have the requisite skill to add their own bulwarks if that was their preference.

 

By my own count I am now 0-10 in convincing others to come to the dark side.  I expect to be 0-20 by the time I am done.

 

Thank you again for humoring our perspectives and a huge thank you for continuing to push the limits on what can be done with these incredible kits.

 

I will enjoy seeing your hard work come to fruition!

 

EG

[sharkscanner]

Whatever happened to the planned 1/64 scale 74-gun ship? I was waiting for that one!

[chris watton]

Whatever happened to the planned 1/64 scale 74-gun ship? I was waiting for that one!

I think you have me confused with another company.

[chris watton]

Whilst double checking everything for the poop bulkheads, I noticed that what I designed (from the sources mentioned) didn't quite tally with the pictures I had taken on the real Victory. I spent yesterday re-designing the poop parts to match as closely as possible to the photographs:

 

 

 

The rear bulkhead has three window frames, and not 2 as I had first drawn:

 

Notice the hinges at the top of the side bulkheads/screens, to allow the sections to be lifted up when not in use:

 

My prototype will look slightly different, but the kit will have all the right parts as shown in the simple line drawing.

Edited May 26, 2013 by chris watton