SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Lindberg "Jolly Roger"

5868 views
31 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: Camas, WA
Lindberg "Jolly Roger"
Posted by jamnett on Wednesday, October 5, 2005 12:07 AM
There was recently a brief discussion of this kit and reference to a ship (I think it was French) which it appears to represent somewhat accurately. I couldn't search it out and was wondering if somebody could name it and possibly direct me to a source of info on the real ship.

I believe it might be something like "Le Flore" but I'm not sure of the spelling. The Lindberg kit is in a small scale which makes it hard to get into extreme detail on rigging and fittings but I would like to be as correct as possible for the period when the real ship was in service.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Wednesday, October 5, 2005 8:11 AM
It's an old, mid-sixties kit that originally appeared under the name La Flore. Given its age, and the inevitable limitations of the plastic molding process on such a small scale, it's not a bad kit - quite competitive in most respects with what other manufacturers were producing at the time. It's a reasonably accurate representation of the real La Flore, a French frigate of the late eighteenth century. Lindberg's choice of that rather odd subject may have been influenced by the fact that President Kennedy owned a model of that ship.

It's a nice old kit, and a good basis for a serious scale model. Good luck.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: Camas, WA
Posted by jamnett on Saturday, October 8, 2005 2:30 PM
Thanks for the response Prof Tilley. I found a model ship collection at the JFK library site but as soon as I go there I lose my web connection. I was going to try to enlarge the photo of the La Flore model. Just curious.

I was wondering what color(s) to use on the hull. Should it be "light" below the waterline like an "ochre"? Should it be a dark color above, like U.S. frigates of that period, or more of a natural wood color?

Out of the box, the hull is a dark brown, I call it chocolate brown. My first thought was to paint with a medium brown above the waterline, let it cure, then use very fine paper to produce a subtle wood grain look. Would that be correct, or should I use black with a couple of drops of white in it so it looks like the old US frigates?

Any help would be appreciated. I've read a lot about the ornate work on the hulls of French ships, but haven't heard much about paint colors.
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Harrisburg, PA
Posted by Lufbery on Saturday, October 8, 2005 4:43 PM
My local hobby shop has two of these. It looks pretty good, actually.

What are your impressions of the kit parts, jamnett?

Regards,

-Drew

Build what you like; like what you build.

  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Switzerland
Posted by Imperator-Rex on Sunday, October 9, 2005 5:40 AM
I would paint it white! I was told the French hoped that this colour would repel marine growth...
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Sunday, October 9, 2005 8:04 AM
Hooo boy. This is a pretty complicated topic. I'd better start with the large caveat that I've never done much research about the French navy. I've got quite a few books about British practice, but not as much on the French. So take the following with a large grain of salt.

I've bumped into several articles about La Flore over the years, but I'm afraid my senile brain doesn't remember much about them. I do remember that there were at least two French frigates of that name. A book I happen to have at hand mentions a Flore that was launched in 1728, but I think the one represented by the Lindberg kit is a later ship - from about the time of the American Revolution.

My guess is that the topside planking was unpainted, but treated with some sort of oil as a preservative. Contemporary paintings show unpainted hull planking in a variety of shades, ranging from light beige to dark brown. Some folks have suggested that the variation was connected with the aging of the oil treatment; that it started out almost transparent and turned almost black as it got older. I have my doubts about that one, but you can paint the above-water hull almost any shade of brown you like and few will be able to argue.

It seems to have been customary to treat the wale - the belt of thick planking just above the waterline - with a darker-colored substance (probably tar, perhaps with something else mixed in with it). Most contemporary pictures seem to show dark - almost black - wales, and the documents (at least the British ones) contain lots of references to "tarring the wales."

The underwater hull is a trickier subject. In La Flore's day both the British and French navies were in the process of adopting the copper-sheathed hull, applying copper to the bottoms of ships when they were in drydock facilities. I have a general impression that the British were a little ahead in the race. (At the Battle off Cape Henry, Virginia, on March 16, 1781, five of the seven British ships-of-the-line had copper bottoms; three of the eight French ones were coppered.) But I have no idea when - or if - La Flore got a copper bottom.

If I remember correctly (I haven't seen the kit for many years), the Lindberg mold makers didn't provide any indication of copper sheathing but put raised lines on the underwater hull to suggest the edges of the planks. That may well be correct. If you want to represent an un-coppered hull of the period, there actually are several options.

The general practice prior to the introduction of copper sheathing, especially if the ship was headed for a tropical climate (where the teredo worm would be a menace), was to paint the underwater hull with an repulsive substance containing tar and horse hair, and then nail on a layer of thin "sheathing planks." That treatment was supposed to discourage the worms. (It certainly would have that effect on me.) The sheathing was then painted with one of several concoctions that were intended to discourage the growth of weeds and other parasites. "White stuff" was a mixture of train oil, rosin, or sulphur, sometimes with a coat of tallow applied on top. The overall appearance of it probably was a slightly yellowish off-white. Brian Lavery, one of the senior current experts on the subject, says that "black stuff," a mixture of pitch and tar, was actually more common - at least in the British navy during the first half of the eighteenth century. In about the 1740s, Mr. Lavery says, a third treatment came into use: "brown stuff," which was "black stuff" with the addition of sulphur.

Just how any of this stuff actually looked - especially after the ship had been in the water for some time - is an interesting question. A really accurate rendition of an uncoppered hull that had been submerged in salt water for several months would not be something I'd care to put in my living room. Some modelers deal with that problem by simply painting the underwater planking white. (That approach is quite common among the beautiful contemporary "Board Room" models.) Another approach, which I happen to like, is to paint the planking an off-white color and gently "weather" it with dry-brushed strokes of slightly darker shades of grey, beige, and green. To my eye that gives at least an impression of a hull that's been in the water for some time - without involving me in the scale reproduction of barnacles and seaweed.

That's how I painted the bottom of my little model of the Continental frigate Hancock. Here's a link to some pictures of it: http://gallery.drydockmodels.com/hancock . I'm afraid none of these shots shows the bottom really clearly, but they should give at least a hint of what I was aiming at. (The topsides of this ship, incidentally, are known to have been painted yellow.)

One of the great aspects of sailing ship modeling, in my opinion, is that it allows more range for personal taste than most other forms of scale modeling. Those old ships didn't follow rules like modern ships, airplanes, and tanks do; sailing ship modelers don't talk in terms of Federal Standard color numbers and camouflage measures. My suggestion for any sailing ship modeler is: do all the reading you can to find out what the real ship looked like, and when the reference material runs out, do what looks best to your own eye.

Hope this helps a little. Good luck. It's a great hobby.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Sunday, October 9, 2005 8:21 AM
One more thought. The AAMM (Association Amis Musee de la Marine) publishes a set of plans for La Flore. I imagine that package contains good information about the color scheme. The plans are available through Taubman Plan Service ( www.taubmansonline.com ). They're in the alphabetical listing under (choke) L. Unfortunately the price is steep: $105.00. I think one or more of our European forum members may know of another, cheaper source. (Michel - are you there? If so, please have mercy on my barbaric French.)

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: Camas, WA
Posted by jamnett on Sunday, October 9, 2005 12:29 PM
Thanks again. I believe I'll go with the off-white hull. I like the weathering effect also and will give it that treatment. The going rate for the plans seems to be around $90-$110. That's a little steep for my budget especially for a scale this small on a $16 kit.

Lufbery asked about this kit. I paid $16 for it at my LHS. I've seen the price range from $12 up to $20. Depends on the source. I like it. It's pretty small, but there is very little flash, and considering it's age, the quality is very good. I built one several years ago and was very happy with results. The parts fit together nicely. On both copies I've had there was no need to tweak out any warpage anywhere. The frustration factor is not a factor at all. Some of the yards are a little flimsy as is expected in a plastic sailing ship kit on a small scale. It is not perfect, but then what kit is?

I'd love to see this kit offered, with a few minor improvements, in a larger scale, but considering the cost of tooling, etc., I don't think that will ever happen. This is a small scale kit that won't exhaust your blue word vocabulary. At this scale, it looks good on a small shelf, a desktop, or wherever you have about a 2 foot wide open space.

Ok, end of unpaid commercial endorsement.

Ron
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, October 9, 2005 1:26 PM
You can see pictures of "La Flore" built by Bruno Rimlinger from AAMM plans here :
http://www.chez.com/rimbr/sommaire.html
This is a generic link, click "les modèles" on the left.
Sorry, but $105.00 for the plans, that's too much. Price from the AAMM shop is just 25 euros (maybe $30.00). Unfortunately, and I asked it Mr Rouanne some weeks ago, you can not buy in the AAMM online shop with a credit card. But soon this will be possible.
And here is the link to "La Flore" in the JFK collection :
http://www.jfklibrary.org/jfk-manofsea-17.html
Michel
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Sunday, October 9, 2005 2:56 PM
The photos to which Michel has linked us seem to confirm my guesses about the ship's color scheme - with the addition of black paint on the bulwarks as well as the wales. There's probably enough information in those photos, if carefully studied, to do a reasonable job on the Lindberg kit.

I agree with Jamnett: this is a nice kit. It has its limitations (all plastic sailing ship kits do), but it's certainly one of the better ones on the market.

Lindberg also sells a kit labeled "Captain Kidd." It is in fact a reboxing of another kit that came out at about the same time La Flore did: the German ship-of-the-line Wappen von Hamburg. It's on just about the same standard; looks like it was designed by the same people. It's one of the few plastic ships of the line with genuine, full-length gundecks and a full complement of genuine guns, with separately-cast carriages, to mount on them. This kit also could be made into an eminently respectable scale model - and Taubman's offers a set of plans for it, too.

Michel - I really like your Nelsonian gundeck. Could you give us the details?

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Harrisburg, PA
Posted by Lufbery on Monday, October 10, 2005 9:11 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by jamnett
Lufbery asked about this kit. I paid $16 for it at my LHS. I've seen the price range from $12 up to $20. Depends on the source. I like it. It's pretty small, but there is very little flash, and considering it's age, the quality is very good. I built one several years ago and was very happy with results. The parts fit together nicely. On both copies I've had there was no need to tweak out any warpage anywhere. The frustration factor is not a factor at all. Some of the yards are a little flimsy as is expected in a plastic sailing ship kit on a small scale. It is not perfect, but then what kit is?


Ron,

Thanks for the mini-review. And thanks, also, to Mr. Tilley for his comments on the kit.

Does the kit come with any figures, like the Revell Constitution does? If so, are they pirates? Smile [:)]

I think I read that this particular kit would make a great H.M.S. Surprise, which was a French frigate taken into British service.

Regards,

-Drew

Build what you like; like what you build.

  • Member since
    December 2003
  • From: 37deg 40.13' N 95deg 29.10'W
Posted by scottrc on Monday, October 10, 2005 9:41 AM
I have built this kit and a few things come to mind that I would do differently:

1. Replace the upper top masts (Fore, Main, and Mizzen) with wood dowels. The plastic ones are too soft and when the weight of the yard and sails are added, will bend and be a royal (no pun) pain to try to keep strait, no matter how much adjusting you do with the running rigging. Do the same with the bowstprit.

2. Replace the Taff and side rails with smaller ones made from either wood or plastic strips. The kits are horribly too large and look out of place on the model.

3. Make sternsheets or just cover the ships boat since it lacks detail inside.

4. Build window frames from .031 plastic squares and add them to the stern windows.

I used the kits shrouds since I found them to look pretty decent for being plastic. I also painted the lower hull a dark walnut. I didn't like the way all that white on the lower hull created a distraction from the rest of the ship.

Scott

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Monday, October 10, 2005 11:47 AM
Scottrc's ideas sound like good ones - though it's been so long since I've actually seen the kit that I can't really comment on them beyond that.

When I bought La Flore and the Wappen von Hamburg in their original boxes, back in the sixties, they came with "shroud and ratline assemblies" that were molded in a flexible, slightly stretchy plastic. (I don't know about the current piratical issues.) The deadeyes, lanyards, and chain plates were molded inegrally with the shrouds. The top of each gang of shrouds, as I recall, had a T-shaped fixture that hooked into a T-shaped slot in the top, and there were slots in the channels to hold the lower deadeye strops. The chainplates were to be bent under the channels and plugged into holes in the hull halves. It was quite ingenious - and it worked without adhesive. My recollection is that these things did indeed look a good bit more believable than the hideous plastic-coated-thread ones Revell supplied with its kits. I seem to recall, though, that the Lindberg ones were were slightly too long to work right. The idea was that the shrouds would get stretched a little when they were installed, so they'd be tight. I wasn't able to get them to do that.

The Great Ratline Problem, which we've discussed on several other threads, has been a plague of the plastic sailing ship industry since its inception. Frankly I sometimes wish the manufacturers would give up on it. Rigging ratlines with real thread isn't nearly as difficult as some people seem to think - and to my eye omitting the ratlines altogether is preferable, especially on small scales, to those awful things that come with Revell kits.

My recollection is that the Flore and Wappen von Hamburg kits did come with figures - some of the smallest in any kit. And there were quite a few of them (I don't remember the exact count). They were, as I remember, sort of generic sailor types - not identifiable as "pirates" or anything else. Their heads were a little too big, but most of them were in good, lively poses that could be modified fairly easily. I think both kits used the same figures. I have no idea whether they're included in the current reissues.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Switzerland
Posted by Imperator-Rex on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 10:41 AM
They are. The kit contains 12 figues in various poses, some looking through a field glass, some climbing the ratlines, and others apparently dancing.
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Harrisburg, PA
Posted by Lufbery on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 10:54 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Imperator-Rex

They are. The kit contains 12 figues in various poses, some looking through a field glass, some climbing the ratlines, and others apparently dancing.


That's great! That really appeals to my whimsical side and almost makes me want to buy the kit just to get the dancing sailors. Smile [:)]

It seems like a sound kit, it's cheap, and available. I may have to ask Santa for that one.

I'd love to see some photos of a finished kit, or one in progress. Does anyone have any?

Regards,

-Drew

Build what you like; like what you build.

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Monterey Bay, CA
Posted by schoonerbumm on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 1:28 AM
There is a large (1/4" plank on frame) model of La Flore at the Ventura County Maritime Museum at the Oxnard Harbor, about 1/2 hour east of Santa Barbara.

Jean Boudriot's book "History of the French Frigate" lists a La Flore built in 1769, carrying 26 X 8 pdrs. with no Fo'csle or Q'deck armament. She was struck from the lists in 1785.

Alan

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." Benjamin Franklin

  • Member since
    December 2003
  • From: 37deg 40.13' N 95deg 29.10'W
Posted by scottrc on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 8:39 AM
Here is a not so great pic of mine.
http://images4.fotopic.net/?iid=y1ofmx&outx=600&quality=70

Scott

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Harrisburg, PA
Posted by Lufbery on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 8:55 AM
Scott,

She looks great; thanks for the photo.

Regards,

-Drew

Build what you like; like what you build.

  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Switzerland
Posted by Imperator-Rex on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 10:23 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Lufbery

I'd love to see some photos of a finished kit, or one in progress. Does anyone have any?


Here you are:

QUOTE: Originally posted by michel.vrtg

You can see pictures of "La Flore" built by Bruno Rimlinger from AAMM plans here :
http://www.chez.com/rimbr/sommaire.html
This is a generic link, click "les modèles" on the left.
[...]
And here is the link to "La Flore" in the JFK collection :
http://www.jfklibrary.org/jfk-manofsea-17.html
Michel

  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Switzerland
Posted by Imperator-Rex on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 10:32 AM
JTilley, just to be curious, I was wondering what the original box of the "Jolly Roger" looked like when you bought it in the 70s, if your memory can go back to those times... (I know you often like to complain about your "senile" memory Wink [;)] - just kidding!). Was it the same as the actual one, with the words "La Flore" instead of "Jolly Roger", or was it a painting and not a picture?
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 9:22 PM
Wow. I think I bought it in a hobby shop (or maybe it was a department store) in New York City, on a family vacation trip in either 1965 or 1966. It quite definitely was labeled La Flore. The "Jolly Roger" and "Captain Kidd" labels are relatively recent - a pure merchandising stunt.

I don't remember much about the box. I'm pretty sure it had a painting of the real ship on it; that was the norm in those days. I have an extremely vague recollection that the painting was a bow view of the ship under full sail - I think from off the port bow.

I remember thinking it was a pretty good-looking, well-detailed kit (to my 15- or 16-year-old eyes); it had separately-cast gun carriages, a full-length maindeck, a new solution to the Great Ratline Problem (a better one than Revell or Airfix offered), and those remarkable little people (though my father, who had extensive training in art and a fine eye for such things, pronounced that their heads were out of proportion). The instructions consisted of a series of black-and-white in-progress photos, with multi-lingual captions (far less common in those days than now). The whole kit had a distinctly European flavor to it.

I don't remember whether I ever finished it or not. I do recall getting discouraged when the flexible plastic shroud/ratline assemblies turned out to be too long.

I'd bought the Wappen von Hamburg a year or two earlier (I don't remember where, but I imagine it was in my home town, Columbus, Ohio). At the moment I can't remember anything whatever about the box that one came in. I do remember coming to the conclusion that the same people must have been responsible for both kits. The methods of assembly, the layout of the instructions, the people, and some of the other parts were identical.

I wonder where the molds for those kits came from. They were utterly out of character with anything else I've ever seen from Lindberg - or any other company that's familiar to me.

I saw both kits - "Captain Kidd" and "Jolly Roger" - at the local Hungate's hobby/arts and crafts chain store here in Greenville, NC yesterday. That suggests they're still in production.

That's about all I can remember at the moment. The last time I saw the inside of either of those boxes was forty years ago or nearly so; take everything I've said about them with an even bigger grain of salt than usual.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Switzerland
Posted by Imperator-Rex on Thursday, October 13, 2005 4:31 PM
Your memory never fails to impress me... Thanks for the feedback JTilley!
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, October 13, 2005 7:07 PM
Blush [:I] Oops! Sorry, I am late!
- The Nelson figure is the Andrea 54 mm one ; the base is an old Artesania Latina "H.M.S. Victory's 1805 cannon".
This was a quick project, the figure was first painted with a coat of acrylic, then with oil paints. More pictures can be seen here :
http://gallery.drydockmodels.com/album267

- About "La Flore", may I ask you two questions? :
1° : Aren't you sick to see historic vessels sold as "pirate ships"? Heller does it too, they sell a model in a box called "pirates et corsaires". The model in the box is maybe the Revell "Golden Hind.
http://kitbox.free.fr/ouvreboite/OB0510_P/page2.html
(bottom of the page)

2° : Could the first American frigates be inspired by "La Flore"? (oops!)
Michel
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Thursday, October 13, 2005 9:59 PM
Imperator Rex - the really impressive thing about my memory is its utter inconsistency. I can remember idiotically trivial things about plastic kits I bought 40 years ago. But this afternoon I got a phone call from an honors student who took two of my courses last year, and I when he told me his name I had no idea who he was. I hear this is what routinely happens when brains start getting old. I don't think I have Alzheimer's yet, but I do detect a creeping case of Halfzeimers.

Michel - in answer to your first question - gawd yes. The vulgarities and indignities inflicted on plastic sailing ship kits border on obscenity. (I think that Lindberg Wappen von Hamburg made a brief appearance under the name "Flying Dutchman," cast in glow-in-the-dark plastic. Or maybe that was one of the Revell kits. In this case my memory is mercifully vague.) The conscientious artisans responsible for making the original molds must have recoiled in horror.

The kit in the Heller "Pirates and Corsairs" box does indeed look like the old Revell Golden Hind - a remarkably fine kit in its original guise. One curious point: the kit is on 1/96 scale, but the Heller box says 1/200. I wonder if Heller bothered to take the crew figures - including Sir Francis Drake, complete with helmet and breastplate - out. If not, those gents will be about twelve feet tall on 1/200 scale.

Part of the problem is that the word "pirate" seems to have a hypnotic effect on the public. When I was working in a maritime museum my colleagues and I got thoroughly sick of answering questions about Captain Kidd, Captain Hook, etc. The tentative identification of a shipwreck here in North Carolina as "Blackbeard's Ship" has excited more interest - and funding - than any other underwater archaeology project in the history of the state. And the National Maritime Museum's blockbuster exhibition on piracy some years back was, I believe, the most popular in the institution's history. (I confess to having enjoyed it myself; I walked out of the gift shop with an inflatable plastic parrot on my shoulder. One of my stepson's friends later stole him. DCensored [censored]n.)

With regard to your second question - I don't think there's enough documentary evidence to establish a firm link between French practice and the first American frigate designs. Of course this depends to some extent on what's meant by "first American frigates." So far as I know, there's virtually no contemporary documentation about the design process behind the Raleigh, Hancock, Randolph, or other vessels of the American Revolution. (I'd have to check to be sure, but I don't recall that anybody's even pinned down the identity of the designers for certain.) It's been a long time since I've read what Howard I. Chapelle wrote about Joshua Humphreys, the designer of the first frigates built under the new republic, but I don't recall any discussion of what treatises or other designs he may have studied. It's an interesting question, certainly worthy of more research in primary sources.

I really like your Nelson. Andrea products are hard to find around here; a hobby shop in Richmond, Virginia (four hours from here) used to stock them, but went out of business a couple of years ago. I just may order that one. I'm no expert at military miniatures, but I do enjoy doing one now and then.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, October 15, 2005 12:40 AM
I remember aquiring the same "JOLLYROGER" kit in 1980 at the LHS for $5.00. I'm not 100% committed to aircraft. After all, what is life without variety?
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 2, 2005 11:46 AM
Hi all ~ my name is Olaf from Flensburg, Germany ~ please allow me to chime in here. I got the Lindberg Jolly Roger a few weeks ago and I'm faced with the same colouring problems ~ 'paintmares', ha! The underwater hull is molded as if wooden planked only.
As given in the French link of the model, the ship also served under the British flag after being captured by HMS "Unicorn" in 1761. Does that mean that I can't paint her yellow at gun port level, because this scheme was applied later in the Napoleonic Wars? From what I know the ship was captured by the Royal Navy a second time - if I remember correctly in 1789. How it was named (if this is really true) or how it was painted is still a mystery to me. Maybe the copper plating could have been applied late in the carrer of the ship.
Another interesting paint topic could be the insides of the gun decks. How come that so many think that these bulkheads were painted red so that blood wouldn't be visible? (BTW, the instruction of the Lindberg Jolly Roger kit depicts red, also...). From what I know, today the Victory's gun deck insides are painted white, maybe for lighting reasons?
Ok, back to the kit: I built the model years ago, it was Revell's "Flying Dutchman" which was made from the same moulds. Lindberg tried to sell it under the same name - together with Revell's "Wappen von Hamburg". It seems to be correct that the renaming into something pirate-related for both of the kits was made for merchandising reasons. I guess the American market wasn't ready for more or less unknown European sailing ships. BTW, Revell offered the "Wappen von Hamburg" also as "Captain Kidd('s Pirate Ship)" - both kits were parallel available. To make the confusion perfect, the former Revell "Jolly Roger" is the same kit as nowadays "Ghost Ship"....

One idea I had was to represent the model as a fictional vessel, maybe Hornblower's "Lydia"... (will have to re-read to find out the specifications of this ship...) ~ this would mean to add copper plating and to alter the mizzen mast slightly. Or does someone have a screenshot of the “Lydia” from the old movie with Gregory Peck as Horatio Hornblower?

Best ~ Olaf
  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: 29° 58' N 95° 21' W
Posted by seasick on Wednesday, November 2, 2005 3:28 PM
To make any 18th or 19th century ship authentic make sure it stinks of rotten wood, rotten meat, and human perspiration. A strong odor of salt and brine helps too. Mischief [:-,]

Chasing the ultimate build.

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 2, 2005 4:02 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by seasick

To make any 18th or 19th century ship authentic make sure it stinks of rotten wood, rotten meat, and human perspiration. A strong odor of salt and brine helps too. Mischief [:-,]


Mark ~ do I have to take the scale effect into account for all of that smelly stuffQuestion [?] ~ Olaf
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Thursday, November 3, 2005 10:58 AM
Olaf - welcome to the Forum! Your comments on the European incarnations of those old Lindberg kits are most interesting. I wasn't aware of a link between Lindberg and Revell, but it doesn't surprise me.

There's plenty of evidence that the British navy did paint the interior of ships' bulwarks (along with varioius other deck furniture and fittings) red.
Current thinking among researchers is that the lead-based red paint of the period was considered a good, durable primer for protecting wood from the elements. (The inboard works of many old "Board Room" models are painted bright red, but current thinking is that a dull "red ochre" probably would be more accurate.) I suspect somebody figured out that it would also come in handy for camouflaging blood, but that probably wasn't its primary purpose. In any case, the practice seems to have originated late in the sixteenth century, and was going out of fashion by the start of the nineteenth.

The last time I was on board the Victory the insides of her bulwarks were painted yellow ochre - I think. (That was quite a while ago - 1992, I think. I'm hoping to get back next summer.) Her website has a fairly detailed description of her current color scheme. The people responsible for maintaining and restoring her are working on a very high-powered research project, attempting to establish her 1805 configuration as accurately as they possibly can. I suspect they may come to some surprising conclusions about her color scheme. (They've already concluded that Nelson didn't die in the compartment where the "Here Nelson Died" plaque is located.) I imagine the project is near completion by now; I hope all the results of it will be published in some convenient format.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Thursday, November 3, 2005 11:08 AM
I just checked the Victory website ( www.hms-victory.com ). The interior color scheme is interesting:

"Interior:

"Inboard surfaces of bulwarks on the Poop Deck, Quarter Deck, Forecastle and Upper Gun Deck to be Yellow Ochre with black mouldings and fittings (Kevels, Cleats, Pinrails etc.)

"Inboard surfaces of bulwarks on the MIddle Gun Deck, Lower Gun Deck* and Orlop Deck - to be a matt dull White to represent whitewash.

"*NB: Ship's side on the Middle and Lower Gun Decks not to be painted yellow ochre as previously believed - new evidence supports this amendment.

"Deckheads - matt dull white."

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.