Newsworthy updates from Chris Watton

[ChrisLBren]

Chris - the Bellona would be your best bet in terms of interest.  If I were producing the kit - I would offer it with cherry wood (very affordable/cuts well) and a lighter inexpensive wood for the decks.  The kit bashers can adopt as needed.   You can't please everyone - but a nicely designed kit with costs under control will keep you in business - especially with this subject - a British 74.

[chris watton]

7 hours ago, vossiewulf said:

Chris I understand, but one of the (thankfully few) disappointing things concerning the ship modeling hobby is the lack of variety - go to the top 10 kit manufacturer web sites and you find the same ships over and over again as if manufacturers have talked themselves into a fear of doing anything else. It leaves huge numbers of important and interesting ships only available to scratchbuilders.

 

Captain was a suggestion but I won't begin to say I really know which ships are best for you to do, the only point I'm making is that you're a creative designer and I at least would like to see that creativity expressed in interesting ships that don't yet have a model.

 

I already have Vanguard in the closet, so I'm a hard sell for a RN 74 anyway. The one that would definitely get me to jump for another 74 is as I mentioned once, the USS Independence I'm not aware of any kits of the few US SOLs, and despite the lack of battle honors I still think it would sell well, everyone has seen 600 RN and French and Spanish SOLs.

 

Talk to the Naval Academy and get them to judge a competition of Independence builds two years after release with the winner being displayed in the Rogers collection for a year and you won't be able to keep them on the shelves. 

 

Then again as noted it's always easy to imagine such things working flawlessly when you're not buying thousands of dollars worth of materials yourself.

 

I know - but I have to make sure that what I choose, for the first few kits at least, have quite broad appeal. This will allow me to then do more developments, one of which is a 70 gun Restoration warship (cannot do that yet as it would take all of my investment money). I would also love to to do a US subject at some point, and if things work out, I most certainly will - but this is very early days, and I am saying all this assuming I sell what I have planned already.

 

I will not be doing another Victory though, so that's a plus!

[flyer]

Hi Chris

A Bellona kit in Chris Watton quality would be great - however...

Space for the finished model would be a big problem for many of us. My Bellerophon will be use a lot of it and she is 10% smaller (1/72) and I still don't know yet where to berth her. I think the price will not be the biggest problem. If you want spend 3 to 6 years to build a big, great model you could save a year longer for the kit.

But how about a smaller frigate for your next kit? The only frigate kit available is Diana and nobody knows if Surprise will ever be launched. For example the graceful Lowestoffe (32) of 1761 had an interesting career, is well documented - including a contemporary model -, was a Slade design and would be rather unique in the range of available kits.

Cheers

Peter

[Kusawa2000]

On 3/14/2019 at 3:17 AM, chris watton said:

Oh, what would you guys think of a 64th scale model of Bellona, designed in the same style as Victory with all deck detail - although it would not be cheap?

Chris: I have been waiting for a Bellona kit of quality for a very... very.. very.. long time. I know you had done some work on a version years ago and the only question I would ask is.. when will it be released..

 

[Morgan]

On 3/13/2019 at 1:04 AM, chris watton said:

As for the next model I am already working on it, as I need the figurehead and stern decoration sorted, and will feel better when I already have these areas sorted. It is over well over twice the size of Alert, and quite pretty with 50 guns..

But before Bellona you have teased a 50 gun ship .... can you say which one or do we start the ‘guess the next kit game’? 😉

 

Gary

[chris watton]

27 minutes ago, Morgan said:

But before Bellona you have teased a 50 gun ship .... can you say which one or do we start the ‘guess the next kit game’? 😉

 

Gary

Portland Class 50 gun two decker is the next kit after Alert

 

I am quite sure that there are no other kits currently on the market for such a vessel. (HMS Bristol)

Edited March 15, 2019 by chris watton

[chris watton]

2 hours ago, flyer said:

Hi Chris

 

A Bellona kit in Chris Watton quality would be great - however...

 

Space for the finished model would be a big problem for many of us. My Bellerophon will be use a lot of it and she is 10% smaller (1/72) and I still don't know yet where to berth her. I think the price will not be the biggest problem. If you want spend 3 to 6 years to build a big, great model you could save a year longer for the kit.

 

But how about a smaller frigate for your next kit? The only frigate kit available is Diana and nobody knows if Surprise will ever be launched. For example the graceful Lowestoffe (32) of 1761 had an interesting career, is well documented - including a contemporary model -, was a Slade design and would be rather unique in the range of available kits.

 

Cheers

 

Peter

 

I do understand the problem of space, but to be honest, there are already countless smaller kits on the market to choose from. I decided from the off to try and stick to 64th scale, as I feel this is the best for such models. I do have a couple of smaller vessels in the pipeline (Have already got all of the plans for the first 6 kits) - but I would like to do another heavy frigate, as the last one I did was the first I ever did. That was two decades ago.

 

I did do a 72nd scale Surprise for Amati a few years' ago, but nothing ever came of it, don't know why.

[Morgan]

1767 class? If so most interesting, the Leopard and Leander are 2 well known of the 1767 class, the Leander being one of the last 50 gun ships to stand in the line of battle at the Nile, and the Leopard of the fictional Aubrey and the actual Chesapeake affair.

[chris watton]

2 minutes ago, Morgan said:

1767 class? If so most interesting, the Leopard and Leander are 2 well known of the 1767 class, the Leander being one of the last 50 gun ships to stand in the line of battle at the Nile, and the Leopard of the fictional Aubrey and the actual Chesapeake affair.

Yes, 1767 class, the second of that class, Bristol. It should be a very nice looking model, and the best part for is the fact that I now get to keep the finished prototype models for myself!

 

I guess I could do another in the future for Leopard, as that is sufficiently different to warrant it, if shown in its later builds.

[Morgan]

That will be a real departure from what’s on the market. Makes sense to take a ‘class’ approach as per your Vanguard / Elephant / Bellaphron if you produce other ships of the class later, but offered as separate kits, keeps the development costs down after the initial model, but increases the range and appeal.

[chris watton]

23 minutes ago, Morgan said:

That will be a real departure from what’s on the market. Makes sense to take a ‘class’ approach as per your Vanguard / Elephant / Bellaphron if you produce other ships of the class later, but offered as separate kits, keeps the development costs down after the initial model, but increases the range and appeal.

I know that in Rif Winfield's book, Leopard is shown as she was in her later career, with gangways around the waist, Bristol has an open waist, so I thought I would just do one (nice looking) pinnace for the ships boat, resting on the spare spars. If I do Leopard at a later date, because that has boat beams, I would do the full compliment of boats. I figure one large decorative pinnace sitting along the waist for Bristol will suit the overall aesthetics of the finished model, as it does for Bellona.

[Thunder]

Bellona-yes would be interested but due to size would have to build as a hull only kit. Would want her as built rather than later in career.

Victory - yes interested but only of the as built version.

50 gun Portland class - definitely and now I know the date of vessel proposed would be a good compliment to Mordaunt instead of wanting to sell her. I would like as in the painting of the model of Portland i.e. decorative stern gallery and frieze / ginger bread work. 

 

I have been in the process of buying a new side board for the lounge. The wife has not worked out yet that the size I have asked for is to accommodate a very large model on top. She will be pleased!! 

[Morgan]

From Wikipedia "HMS Bristol was a 50-gun Portland-class fourth-rate ship of the line, built for the Royal Navy in the 1770s. She served as a flagship during the Battle of Sullivan's Island, Charleston, South Carolina in 1776 during the American Revolutionary War and later participated in the 1783 Battle of Cuddalore during the Anglo-French War of 1778–83. By 1787 the ship had been converted into a church ship. Converted into a prison ship in 1794, Bristol instead served as a hospital ship until she was broken up in 1810".

 

HMS Bristol below:

 

And then the class ship HMS Portland - better quality than the Bristol photos and can definitely see where the Fly / Pegasus 'on steroids' view comes from from (Kenthistoryforum.co.uk):

 

[chris watton]

The copies of the original NMM plans have all the decoration included, which is what attracted me to this ship, so I am hoping it will look more or less like those two bottom photographs when finished, but with a white hull below waterline, and either Tanganyika or Pear wood for the second planking - that will compliment the blues and reds perfectly.

[chris watton]

33 minutes ago, Thunder said:

Bellona-yes would be interested but due to size would have to build as a hull only kit. Would want her as built rather than later in career.

Victory - yes interested but only of the as built version.

50 gun Portland class - definitely and now I know the date of vessel proposed would be a good compliment to Mordaunt instead of wanting to sell her. I would like as in the painting of the model of Portland i.e. decorative stern gallery and frieze / ginger bread work. 

 

I have been in the process of buying a new side board for the lounge. The wife has not worked out yet that the size I have asked for is to accommodate a very large model on top. She will be pleased!! 

I have to admit, I think the larger models like that look just as good without the masts, yards and rig. I wonder if it would be worth doing two versions, with the one just hull only but with special mast holes for the large flag poles, and include those and the flags. I think that would look really nice.

[Morgan]

If you did a 'launch' model with flag pole masts how about a Georgian style launch cradle? That would set it off nicely.  You could do a base model with optional mast and rigging or launch flag poles / cradle - that would help with costs. Again, a departure from the norm would help with market attractiveness.

 

 

Edited March 15, 2019 by Morgan

[Thunder]

Those bottom photographs are the paintings of the model commissioned for the king of the time and this model would be top of the list for me. I am wondering if would be ready for my big 50 birthday so I can ask the good lady now (18 months time).

[chris watton]

16 minutes ago, Thunder said:

Those bottom photographs are the paintings of the model commissioned for the king of the time and this model would be top of the list for me. I am wondering if would be ready for my big 50 birthday so I can ask the good lady now (18 months time).

I am hoping it will be this year!

[Kevin]

please please please do a masted version, of what ever (Portland or bellona) 

[Bob Cleek]

On ‎3‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 1:05 AM, vossiewulf said:

I don't see how you could make common parts across different ships unless it's deck/hull fittings and yards/masts and even then you'd have to offer a series of say 32/38 gun RN frigates from the 1780s for it to make sense.

 

What I hope for in the long run is Chris and Chuck or people like them have reasonable cost access to excellent laser and zillion axis CNC milling machines and highly accurate stereolithography 3d printers. With a (reasonably significant) amount of CAD work, you could offer multiple decorations and figureheads for ships in a class, or offer POB and POF versions of the same model. Line and some fittings and strip wood is stocked, the rest of the parts are produced when an order comes in and the person has chosen this particular ship's decorations and the POF version and selected any other options like wood or quality of fittings. That way they wouldn't have to maintain large part inventories, and the flexibility for the customer leads to more orders.

 

But since none of us are actually doing it for a living, we just have to see whether any of it makes sense to Chris and Chuck, who are the people putting out money to produce kits.

All valid points, indeed. What I was contemplating, but not clearly expressing, was a line of models selected to offer the opportunity to build a fine model from the standpoint of quality of materials and craftsmanship, but not a "gingerbread palace" that requires lots of unique parts like carved figureheads and trim for each model. In retrospect, I think it comes down to how much prefabrication a "kit" is intended to provide the buyer. What I see in kits like those offered by Syren is an opportunity for buyers of all levels of experience to work through basic construction, gaining experience along the way, and end up with a high-quality finished model. That's what I consider building a model. On the other hand, many large manufacturers offer kits that provide (or claim to provide) a broad spectrum of finished components so that the model isn't built, but rather simply assembled. If a kit provides a full set of spars cut to length and tapered, instead of leaving their shaping to the builder, the cost of the kit has to go up and the builder doesn't acquire the experience that goes with doing it themselves. (Which is okay, if they want to pay for it.)  I also was talking about a line of models that would all be the same scale, so parts like blocks, cannon, rigging line, and such would be relatively interchangeable, much like the Admiralty dockyard stores were maintained. I wasn't talking about large, complex models, but rather relatively simple, but exquisite, models. For example, good wood provided in sheets, from which the builder cuts from patterns, allows a lower price than a kit with every part lazer-cut.  I'm assuming that buyers would be willing to wait a bit longer and work a bit more for such a "packaged scratch-built model" kit. If they didn't have the patience for that, I doubt they'd have the patience for modeling anyway. But what do I know?

 

I have no experience in the kit selling business beyond being a former consumer. Like most, kits were my "gateway drug" and they led to the "harder stuff." Once "hooked" on scratch-building, kits lost their attraction for me. Everybody thinks they have a better mousetrap when they don't know much about mice.

[chris watton]

Well, I think I have now had the whole spectrum of suggestions, from CNC'ing all carvings from exotic woods to just supplying a load of wood and a set of drawings and leaving the modeller to it! Both would be financially disastrous, I have no doubt (in the West, at least).

 

As long as I (and others like me) can keep the people in the middle of the spectrum relatively happy, I'll be happy.

49 minutes ago, Bob Cleek said:

I wasn't talking about large, complex models, but rather relatively simple, but exquisite, models. For example, good wood provided in sheets, from which the builder cuts from patterns, allows a lower price than a kit with every part lazer-cut.

This so much reminds me of buying my very first wooden kit, a Billings Bounty - this had exactly as you suggest (except for quality wood). Hell, it even had a large block of obechi, this was the ship's boat that you had to carve out yourself! I would like to think we have 'evolved' the kits a little more since then.

 

[Thunder]

16 hours ago, chris watton said:

I have to admit, I think the larger models like that look just as good without the masts, yards and rig. I wonder if it would be worth doing two versions, with the one just hull only but with special mast holes for the large flag poles, and include those and the flags. I think that would look really nice.

Chris,

 

I wouldn't go to the bother of causing extra work by having two versions for that and two versions of box artwork etc. Just provide an inner and out ring to be cut out on your false deck and add the alteration and flags. The dowel for the topgallant masts could be used for the flag staffs. I recently finished my Royal Caroline with stub masts. They are not glued in so if I want to return to her and complete the rig they just need pulling out. The bowsprit just needs modifying and gammoning is in place.

 

 

[Thunder]

9 hours ago, chris watton said:

Well, I think I have now had the whole spectrum of suggestions, from CNC'ing all carvings from exotic woods to just supplying a load of wood and a set of drawings and leaving the modeller to it! Both would be financially disastrous, I have no doubt (in the West, at least).

 

As long as I (and others like me) can keep the people in the middle of the spectrum relatively happy, I'll be happy.

This so much reminds me of buying my very first wooden kit, a Billings Bounty - this had exactly as you suggest (except for quality wood). Hell, it even had a large block of obechi, this was the ship's boat that you had to carve out yourself! I would like to think we have 'evolved' the kits a little more since then.

 

Definitely do not go back to that idea. It will just mean lots of half finished models and despondent people leaving the hobby. We left that behind long ago and need to encourage people back. 

Edited March 16, 2019 by Thunder

[chris watton]

1 hour ago, Thunder said:

Definitely do not go back to that idea. It will just mean lots of half finished models and despondent people leaving the hobby. We left that behind long ago and need to encourage people back. 

Definitely not! If anything, I have always tried to make the kits easier (and more fun) to build. For me, it is not a willy waving contest about who is the most skilled at making something from a block a wood - there are plenty of plans and a vast selection of nice woods for people who are into that already.

1 hour ago, Thunder said:

Chris,

 

I wouldn't go to the bother of causing extra work by having two versions for that and two versions of box artwork etc. Just provide an inner and out ring to be cut out on your false deck and add the alteration and flags. The dowel for the topgallant masts could be used for the flag staffs. I recently finished my Royal Caroline with stub masts. They are not glued in so if I want to return to her and complete the rig they just need pulling out. The bowsprit just needs modifying and gammoning is in place.

 

 

Very nice model, definitely one of Panart's best, and you have certainly done the kit justice.

 

When I worked for Amati, we toyed with the idea of splitting the kits up to try and cut down the cost to the modeller. The problem was that most of the cost is in the hull and fittings. The masts, yards and rigging make up a much smaller cost to the overall kit.

 

[chris watton]

One more thing, the only thing that I have never liked about the masts is that really, you do need some sort of lathe to turn the topmasts and topgallant masts (You can easily use a plane and sanding block and file for most yards and lower masts).

 

At Amati, we did try and get these parts pre made, but they always came back wrong - the samples were fine, but when we received the bulk of the masts and yards, they could not be used, they were that bad. It is a shame, as when building the hull (the more complex of the two stages of hull and masts and rig), my main tool is just my trusty Stanley Knife, but for the masts, I need a lathe! Although when I first started, I did used to put a full size electric drill in a bench vice and turn the wood using that - although that is clearly something I could not recommend!

[hollowneck]

Chris,

 

All my models (a majority of them of your design), are masted and fully-rigged. On my most recent ones, I DIDN'T use the dowels provided in the kits. I have chosen to make all masts and yards with square stock. I use my power-challenged Proxxon mini-lathe for other parts, but NOT for mast components or yards. One can achieve a properly tapered and octagonal shaped center section spar with a simple hand plane - and a simple jig to hold square stock - and, of course, with lots of sand paper. There are a couple different techniques for sanding/finishing (after planing), including using a power drill, which works fine if one exercises patience.

 

Like Chris mentioned, the topmasts and top gallants can be made from round stock, but for me, these are still best shaped by hand, with sandpaper. Indeed, these are the most fragile to fabricate.

 

I realize not everyone shares my passion for masting and rigging, especially on large sailing ships of the 17th and 18th centuries. But, I have also realized that observers of my models (casual and informed) do pay a lot of attention to detail(s) on elements other than the hull.

 

Rigging Rocks.

 

Ron

 

 

Edited March 16, 2019 by hollowneck

[druxey]

Thought: would producing spars to four- or eight-square shape by machine be a practical proposition? It is then easy for the modeler to round off eight-square spars using strips of sandpaper. The spar is held in a vise and the sandpaper 'sawed' back and forth, rotating the spar every few strokes. No lathe or electric drill required!

Edited March 16, 2019 by druxey

[chris watton]

I would love to use octagonal dowel for the yards (so you just have to taper both ends and that's it), but never found any. If things ever take off, I may just try and get some produced by a supplier. Anything to make it easier for me too is good!

[paulsutcliffe]

How about further down the line one of the earlier victories, ie 1744 100 gun four Decker, nobodies made that one, flat stern with balconies and lots of red paint,  awesome

Regards

Paul

 

[vossiewulf]

Is that the logo for you new company Chris in your profile image? If so can we get a better view?