Revell Thermopylae..nostalgia build

Generally Artist had a sketch of the vessel to be painted and at times when rigging was concerned did use that proverbial license.  However many lesser model versions created, opt to side with a more Cutty version...when in fact they had many things uncommon .  I tend to defer to older models built by master model shipwrights who applied enormous amounts of time in research, prior to building.  (I tend to think I lean in that direction).

The best exploded model I have ever come across of the Thermopylae had her deadeyes atop her monkey rail and supporting chainplates ran down 2 channels. The top channel being part-n-parcel the monkey rail itself.  Revell did the best they could with the mods they did on the Cutty

I completely agree JT.  If anyone has followed any of my builds..they will soon discover that a moment in time can be captured in a particular build.  I built the Ferriera...aka Cutty Sark..

From clipper to barkantine.  From elegance to fodder.

When researching my build of the medium clipper Glory of the Seas......I had numerous challenges...namely to create her as McKay originally built her...or during her many reriggings and deck furniture/house additions?  I chose the former.  Knowing full well that someday an astute admirer might try to make corrective comments.  One can dig deeper and find locally published news articles about the ship they are building and glean much from the reporters first hand experience...though it be written only.

Many clippers where herald publically in local news clippings and complete descriptions could be found...even of the interiors.

As far as paintings go...I have found Montogue Williams to show the greatest accuracy and emotion in clipper ship renderings.

Clear sailing.

Rob

Yes i was just surprised at allthe negative comments and assertions at how "wrong"I was building my model.Rest assured that I will never solicit advice on a ship model again and will just build the model the way I have always done...my way.

There's box art too which is a completely separate subject.

The magnificently talented John Steel has a painting of our ship (the big kit) with every stitch of canvas up , in the fairway in Shanghai surrounded by junks, sampans and the like. Beautiful picture.

The box art for the subject of this poor old thread seems ok, shows those deadeyes up where they belong.

There of course have been some truly awful museum restorations done as well.

Multiple sources, just like journalism, are a must.

One last comment and I'm out of everyone's hair here.

Chaos and creativity are not the same thing. It's a very unfortunate habit people have, owning desktop publishing software for instance and thinking that they are the second coming of Claude Garamond.

Ire is raised in we creative types (architect) when it's used as an excuse for a lack of thought or care about the task at hand. Philo you've put up a couple of models now that are just so off hand and careless that they frankly sort of defy comment.

I should have followed my own original inclination.

I'm a big fan of Mr. Steel too - with the caveat that, since he had to crank out several paintings per week, he rarely if ever had time to do real research. And any model box art artist is constrained by the need to make the painting look like the kit.

Rob, do you maybe mean Montague Dawson? He was another fine commercial artist. I used to have a print of his "Thermopylae Leaving Foochow" hanging in my living room. And his "the Ariel and the Taeping" has been reproduced many, many times. The museum where I used to work had several of his originals - WWII sea battle scenes destined to become magazine illustrations. They were painted in shades of grey, for monochrome reproduction.

I don't know what to say in response to Philo's last post, beyond the observation that I hope I'll always be receptive to comments and suggestions about my models. If somebody finds a mistake in one of them, I want to know about it, so I can do better next time.

.

Montague Dawson!  Right...that's it.  I just couldn't come up with his name off the top of my head....well I blew that out of the water.  Yes...his image of Thermopylae in heavy seas is outstanding.

Well...I  hope Philo completes his model and that he is satisfied with the results.  That's all anyone can ask.

Clear skies and calm sailing.

Oh...JT.  I stole your tag line........I use it all the time with the kids.....HeeHee   Still waiting for the hard work, and enthusiasm.......:)

Dawson painted the Thermopylae several times, it seems. Here's an inspiring link: https://www.google.com/search?q=Montague+Dawson+thermopylae&biw=1324&bih=898&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=7LckVaL5EIPRsAXYpoSgBg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg

Obviously not all those paintings are of the same ship. But several clearly show the Thermopylae. The one I had was "The Thermopylae Leaving Foochow," in the upper left corner. I think I bought the print from Bluejacket, which sold such things in those days. (That was close to forty years ago.)

Yeah..I still have some of their catalogues.  the Foochow image is beautiful, but the open ocean, high seas is my fave.

Yes..I have viewed that link many times and have my folders full of images from it.

Philo,

Please don't hesitate to ask for advice.  There is simply a huge bank of knowledge here.  Sailing ships are quite complex, and, as John pointed out, one should loathe the days in which he would reject advice. I know that I want to improve my own model building skills, and having the advice of experts is a great way to go.

That said, Montague Dawson was always my favorite maritime artist. I like John Steel as well, but his depiction of Bismarck with an elaborate camouflage scheme on the Aurora model box places him second on my list.

Bill

Indeed...but who painted this image...it is amazing.  I have several others by this same artist...

Another....the emotion and effect is stunning.

Rob

Montague's best of the Thermopylae...I think.

Those two paintings look to me like the work of James Buttersworth (sometimes spelled Butterworth). He was an extremely prolific British/American painter of the nineteenth century. He moved from England to America in 1845, just in time for the peak of the clipper era. Many of the famous Currier and Ives engravings of clipper ships are based on Buttersworth originals. His original oils get very high prices at art auctions.

I don't have any idea how many canvases he painted, but the number must be way up in the hundreds. Those old marine artists had to crank out a painting every few days in order to make a living.

Here's a link:  en.wikipedia.org/.../James_E._Buttersworth

Here's a bunch of his paintings: https://www.google.com/search?q=james+e+buttersworth+paintings&biw=1324&bih=898&noj=1&site=webhp&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=O2ElVZ74A4qWsAWr64FQ&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ

The second site illustrates the point I was making earlier about primary vs. secondary sources. Among all those paintings of clipper ships and yachts is a view of the battle between the Chesapeake and the Shannon, which took place three years before Buttersworth was born. He presumably saw many of the clipper ships and yachts he painted; those pictures are regarded as primary sources. But he never saw either of those two frigates. That painting is a secondary source; it's not to be trusted much when it comes to details.

JT...I don't mean to be argumentative...but if you notice, Buttersworths strokes are heavier and not as refined and Opaque.  I'm familiar with many of his works...and a fan....but this artist captures an almost photographic....translucent effect with no dramatic demarcations within the elements...(ie..the sky and clouds).

You are a history student...and a credible art representative..........possibly you can help in the identity of the artist.?

Rob

Attempting to stay on subject.....Here is a magnificent exploded representation of a superbly crafted model of the Thermopylae.  Note the location of the deadeyes.......on the monkey rail and slightly outside the chainplate(the 2 are one in the same).

Rob

Another view

I can't identify those paintings on the basis of Web images. (Even if I had the paintings in front of me I wouldn't be qualified to identify them definitely.) The water techniques are mighty similar. But there were several marine artists working in New York in those days who had quite similar styles. It's entirely possible that we're talking about two different artists.

The model looks great, but I have to question its accuracy. I don't think any contemporary deck plans of the Thermopylae have surfaced. (Mr. MacGregor identifies his drawings as reconstructions.) And the real ship was composite-built - i.e., wood planked on an iron frame. The model has wood deck beams. And its bulwarks are made of wood planks, rather than the sheet iron that would be normal for a composite-built ship. This looks to me like the work of a highly skilled woodworker who didn't feel up to tackling scale composite hull construction. (For the record, neither do I.) 

I do think that modeler got the shroud/deadeye arrangements right, though. Two channels - one a widening of the monkey rail, the other fastened to the planking several feet below it. And the deadeyes on top.

Rob,

I don't have a link to the model of the Thermopylae.  Can you send one?

Thanks!

Bill

That would make sense. There's a frame model of a steel freighter hanging in a lobby around here- a lot of ship models in building lobbies in this town and I should go find them and photograph them..

It's a beautiful thing, made out of wood.

You've seen where Bluejacket has dipped their toes in the water with their Kearsarge, using brass etch for the iron braces.

Yeah Bill.......here it is.

www.shipmodel.com/.../thermopylae-antique-mode

I would assume the composite elements were artistically replicated in wood...to keep continuity.  In the models description, it clearly states the frames where iron and the deck and outer hull were wood

The important element I wanted to point out was the location of the deadeyes.  Revell wasn't far off.

Rob.

Rob,

Thanks!  I noticed that the general layout and the hull lines seem to be consistent with those of the Scientific Models version, so I am gratified that the Scientific kit can be made into a serious model.  Of coarse, it will take a lot of planning and detailing, but I believe it can be done.

Bill

Indeed...I personally like to utilize older models as references..and if you make sure the cutwater is correct and the poop cabin and forecastle are correct and the deadeyes and such...you could paint your Thermopylae white and still be accurate.

Research, research, research.  And when you've done all you can do...you have the best representation anyone could produce.  I contend with ship evolution all the time when I research my builds of Donald McKay clippers.  The Glory of the Seas went through a plethora of deck changes and rigging changes.  So if you model her as she was built(As I did) or as she was in her seasoned years...you would still be correct...though the changes would almost make her an entirely different vessel.

Rob

I can agree with all those statements except one.

Any competent historian knows that research is never definitive. I wouldn't claim that any model I've ever built is "the best representation anyone can produce."

I spent about six years (with plenty of interruptions) reading everything I could get my hands on about eighteenth-century American frigates. And my model of the Hancock is as detailed and accurate as I could make it at the time. In the years since then I've learned some additional tidbits (not many) that would cause me to do it differently if (gawd forbid) I were to build another eighteenth-century American frigate. That's how historical research works.

Indeed....however, my mistake is, that I meant, what the builder themselves could build...not withstanding skill, aptitude, temperament...etc.  Clarity of thought, at times gets the best of me.

Great thing about sailing ship model building....we are drawing together information that sometimes no one can truly substantiate as definitive......since these vessels are gone and first hand accounts are non existent.......so what we do is draw the best educated guess we can.  This very thread topic has demonstrated the many inconsistencies that can be discovered within several examples of the same subject.  Either through the fault of poor research or execution.

I'd very much like to see your frigate example.

Rob

I posted several photos of it on this Forum back at the end of July, 2013. If you do a Forum search on "frigate Hancock" the links will come up.

I've also posted photos of my HMS Bounty, based on the old Revell kit. A Forum search on "HMS bounty" will bring them up.

I suspect some Forum members are thoroughly sick of those models.

Cool...I'll check them both out...and I'm sure nausea won't even come up......:)

Laced on some sails and test fit a couple yards.  

Are you going to install the studding sails as well?

Rob

John,

Amen, Brother, Amen!  All too often we forget that we need to define the limitations of study in our research in order to keep our focus.  This axiom applies equally to academic research and ship modeling, with the frustrating part being that our source data is often incomplete. But, we do what we can.

Your Hancock, though, is most impressive. I'm still waiting to see what you do with that Model Shipways USS Essex I gave to you!

Bill