Rigging question for Big Jake

Here goes the biggest problem we ship modelers face. I'll do the Constitution first. The rigging materail they give with the kit is O.K. but you can do better by using the Coats and Clark brand of thread for "Buttons and Carpet' it is super tough to break and will be just the right size for all the sizing items you need to do. You use the kit supplied heavy stuff and finish off the the C& C brand.

The Heller Victory is a bit of a problem to get the 100% correct size lines because what we see as small thread it about 2" cable in 1/100th. scale. The rigging material they give you with the Victory is alright, but it does not look quite the correct shade of tan. It seems more white than anything else. Because the scale is close to the Revell Constitution and Cutty Sark I use the same stuff in the Victory as the Revell kits. You can contact the Dromedary Ship Modelers in El Paso, Texas supply for a selection of different size rigging material, or do a search on the web for Ship Modelers supplies, here are a few I found.


An article on rigging marerials;
http://www.naut-res-guild.org/services/shopnotes/ropewalk/thread.html

Sources of linen:
http://www.naut-res-guild.org/services/shopnotes/ropewalk/linen.html

Jake

Thanks for the info, I'll try those links.
Later
Richard S

Model Expo (modelexpo.com) has a very good selection of rigging line in black, tan and gray. Unlike mill produced sewing threads, these lines look like real rope.
As far as determining the proper size(s) to use, it depends upon how close to scale you want to get. If you're not particular just use 3-4 different sizes, using smaller sizes as you get higher into the rigging. My preference is to always use the proper scale size. I use references such as "Elements of Mastmaking, Sailmaking and Rigging" by Steel, Biddlecombe's "The Art of Rigging" os Lees' "The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War 1650-1860". All have tables that help you calculate the correct size line to use and Model Expo may have them for sale.

Long Island Ed.

Another problem for us "riggers" is trying to find the appro. sized blocks to go with the smaller line, a majority of the plastic kits usually only give one size. The heller kits give you several sizes. The beauty of the Heller kits is the you HAVE to create the block just like they did in the original days. I love it but they take 3 times as long to rig. The customers ask me "Why so Much?" and I show them they usually agree.

If you want true scale contact heller and see if you can purchase the rigging block kit from the HMS Victory.

Jake

If you are realy keen try Plank on
frame Models and Scale Masting and Rigging by Harold A Underhill. Not cheap but will stand you in good stead.
Dai

Mty personal favourite for period ships is "Historic Ship Models" by Wolfram zu Mondfeld. Discusses all aspects of rigging down to making your own lines and blocks, and including proportionate sizes of rigging lines. I can testify that block making is not as hard as it seems, and you get the correct sizes for the different applications.
There is also a good discussion on options for showing the sails; not at all, or furled or brailed, as opposed to 'all sails set'.
Good luck!
Bruce

Another good reference is Seaways' Ships in Scale (Sorry Kalmbach). The articles and links are inexhaustible. I especially admire the work of Rev. George Romero. If you can contact him via email or whatever I imagine that if he doesn't know the answer to your questions, nobody alive does. Also try the curators of the actual ships. As for the color, the tan can be light because the line was quickly bleached in the sun. Unless the ship was newly rigged, the running rigging would be lighter rather than darker tan. I am a member of the crew of the Mary Constant out of Jamestown and her running rigging is nearly white.

Fair winds and following seas
Paul

Another method I have used to portray small blocks is to use small glass beads that you find in Habidashary shops (Them what sell dressmakin stuff). Ignore the strange looks from the ladies and ask the assistant for what you wanr. I find that the black or dark brown ones are the best.
I used them on my Cutty Sark and my Flower HMS Pollyanthus.
Dai

I too have used those small glass beads. But I had to replace the ones a previous modeler used so I could restore the 75 yrs old model for the client. I tried to get them to let me fix these things but they said that they "like it wrong" oh well, as long as the check cleared!

big jake
do you use bees wax on your rigging to keep it from becoming fuzzy? thanks jmt

Yes, but I do not heat it with a flame, I simple run it through my thumb and forefinger 2-3 times, that generates enough heat to do the job.

Jake "sticky fingers" Groby

Does anyone know how to build a rigging loom?

Seconds:
Depends; are you referring to a rope walk to make cables out of threads, or a jig for specific rigging such as shrouds?

If a rope walk, plans would be a bit long to detail here, Edwin Leaf gives a nice description of one on page 95 of his book 'Ship Modeling from Scratch'. You can also try the 'Nautical Research Guild' web site. They have published articles on making similar machines as well.

Personally I don't use a lot of rigging jigs, I prefer to build on the model, so if that is the information you need then perhaps others can help out.
Regards,
Bruce

The question of what material is best for rigging is an interesting one, with no simple, universal answers. I used to work in a maritime museum, and got to work with quite a few old models, including the rather well-known collection by August Crabtree. The durability of their rigging was utterly inconsistent. The
linen rigging of the Crabtree models, the last of which was finished in 1949, is starting to deteriorate (or was when I worked on them), especially in the vicinity of highly-acidic wood parts. Some old steamship models seem to have been rigged with silk. Sometimes it seemed as good as new, even if more than fifty years old; in other cases it disintegrated when touched. I've also seen linen thread that's fallen apart for no apparent reason. I've built several models with silk rigging, and the stuff seems as good as new twenty years later. I also have several spools of silk thread in my shop that I bought twenty or thirty years ago (I would have no idea where to get it now). Those spools have been through some environmental changes, but all of them have gotten exactly the same treatment. The thread on some of them snaps as soon as you yank on it; others seem fine. I wish somebody with the necessary scientific knowledge would do a thorough study of rigging line. At the present time I don't think anybody really understands it.

Regarding color - during the 18th and early 19th centuries, as a matter of regulation, all rigging line supplied to the British navy was coated with Stockholm tar. That gave it a rich, rather dark brown color, which I think is appropriate to running rigging. Standing rigging, after it was in place, was given an additional coating of a concoction containing tar and lampblack, which, if it wasn't pure black, must have been close to it.

One of the other members gave some good advice on books. An encyclopedic source that covers rigging line diameters is The Masting and Rigging of British Warships, by James Lees. It's published in England by the Conway Maritime Press, and in the U.S. by the Naval Institute Press. (I think it's still in print; if not, you probably can find a used copy on the web.) Lees gives the diameters of virtually every line in a ship's rigging - though sometimes it takes a little arithmetic to figure them out. (He'll tell you that a given line is "half the size of the main brace," for instance.) The book concentrates on British ships, but would work just as well for American ones.

Another excellent source for late-18th/early-19th-century vessels is David Steel's Elements of Mastmaking, Sail Making, and Rigging. That's an old English text originally published in the 1790s. Original copies can only be found in auctions and the rare book rooms of libraries, but a number of cheap reprints have come out over the years. In the back of the book is a long series of tables giving the diameters and lengths, along with the dimensions of all the blocks, deadeyes, etc., for all the rigging components of ships of varioius armaments and tonnages.

Later in the 19th century a merchant mariner named George Biddlecombe did an update of Steel's book. The new one was titled The Art of Rigging; it also is available in modestly-priced reprint form.

A very useful contemporary source - and one that's easily and cheaply available - is Darcy Lever's The Young Officer's Sheet Anchor. I don't believe it includes any tables of rope sizes, but it does contain a vast amount of reliable contemporary information on rigging in the the British navy during the sailing ship period. A particularly valuable edition of it was published in the mid-19th century, with updates on then-contemporary practice as it applied to merchant vessels. A really nice, hardbound reprint is available from (of all places) Lee Valley, an excellent dealer in woodworking tools. They have a website, <www.leevalley.com>. If I remember right, that one costs less than $20.

I found out a long time ago that much of the fun in period ship modeling comes from these old books. If you haven't looked at any of them you're in for a treat.

Regarding "rigging looms" - I suspect what you're referring to is a gadget that's been invented to help rig ratlines. Please forgive me for getting on a soapbox for a minute, but the "Great Ratline Problem" is one of the sillier aspects of ship modeling. The kit manufacturers, with their molded plastic "shroud and ratline assemblies," plastic-coated thread, and "rigging looms," seem to have convinced lots of modelers that rigging scale ratlines is impossible. It isn't; it isn't even particularly difficult. Anybody who has enough dexterity to build the rest of a model can rig ratlines to scale - at least on 1/96 scale or larger. It takes a good pair of tweezers, a tube of Elmer's glue, and a fair amount of time - but probably less than you think. Start out by drawing a series of parallel lines on a file card that will fit between the channel and the masthead. (The lines determine the spacing of the ratlines.) If you're right handed, tie the ratline to the extreme lefthand shroud, using a reef (square) knot. Then tie a clove hitch around the next shroud, then the next one, and so on, finishing off with another reef knot on the last shroud. Touch each of the reef knots with a drop of the Elmer's glue, and when it's dried cut off the excess. I think what discourages many people is the learning curve. The first ratline may take you ten minutes or longer, but by the time you get to the top you'll be doing about one ratline per minute. A model of the Victory or Constitution can be "rattled down" in about a week of evenings (if you choose to do it all at once, which I don't recommend).

A slightly simpler trick, perhaps better applied on smaller scales, is to use a small, very sharp needle and actually run the ratlines through the shrouds. That isn't difficult either, but doesn't look as good.

Either way, you'll end up with a model that's immeasurably better-looking than anything rigged with any of those gadgets.

I shall now descend from the soapbox - in the hope that I haven't insulted your intelligence. Maybe you already knew all this. Sorry to have run on so long, but this is one of my favorite subjects.

I can endorse jtilley's recommendation on "The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor" and for my US friends there is an appendix to the original giving changes to US practices which Lee Valley has worked into the main text.

There is also a table of line sizes in zu Mondfeld's book ...

Also jtilley's method of rattling down shrouds on the model is what I use. I found that this method of building the shrouds on the model and adding the ratlines later is the only reliable way to get consistent tension on the shrouds without screwing up the deadeye alignment or warping the mast.

For scales smaller that 1:92 I have also used and recommended the needle through the shroud method; a drop of glue will simulate the knot.

Also on the soapbox, I think the problem with silk thread is that pure silk is organic and so differetn spools will react differently over time and depending what they are exposed to ... ?

One last comment on ratlines; contrary to what a lot of model kit manufacturers would have you believe, these lines were not tarred like the shrouds. They were the same colour as the running rigging. This was so the seamen would not leave tarry footy prints all over the decks, which severely annoyed the mates!


BTW, I haven't seen jtilley's posts before, so welcome to the forum!
Regards,
Bruce

That analysis of silk thread is new to me - and it makes sense.

One problem that ship modelers have had for a long time is that stories get repeated so often that they get accepted as fact - without any firm basis. For a long time the experts asserted that linen was the ONLY "legitimate" material for rigging. My own experience suggests that it's nice, but hardly the universal solution. Furthermore, all the linen I've been able to find recently has a coarse, uneven texture that, though not terribly objectionable in the larger diameters, looks pretty awful for small-scale work. Those good spools of silk have lasted more than twenty years now; that's good enough for me.

I like the appearance of the stuff Model Shipways sells. If I remember right, it's nylon (or some other synthetic). It has a nice, rope-like color, the strands are spun up in such a way as to look like rope, and it seems to tie knots pretty well. The experts have raised doubts about the permanence of nylon (and styrene, and CA adhesives, and practically every other material that's been introduced in the last century). They may have a point, but I have yet to see a study by a chemist or a physicist that supports it with actual, scientific evidence. And I've done enough restoration work on old models to assert that plenty of traditional materials are NOT particularly durable. For instance, anybody who thinks wood is inherently more stable than styrene needs to take a look at C. Nepean Longridge's famous model of the Victory in the Science Museum. The thing is practically falling apart, due to warping.

My suggestion is to use some common sense. Reject materials that have been genuinely established to be unstable. (I'd never put anything made of lead in a model.) When it's feasible, use materials you know are durable. (Brass certainly fits in that category.) Otherwise, use what works best. And keep the model in a stable environment. Put it in some kind of case, in a part of the house that has reasonably stable temperature and humidity. Don't let direct sunlight hit it on a regular basis - especially if the case is made of plexiglas. And hope for the best. How a model is treated has a far bigger effect on its longevity than the materials you put in it.

I have no problem using modern materials. For threads I find the fine threads used for tatting lace or sewing on buttons, from sewing shops, lay up into nice rope or cable. Cheaper than the Model Shipways, although I agree there is nothing wrong with their quality.

It used to be that serious (?) modelers and authors used to rail against hobby shop ship supplies as being out of scale, wrong colour, poor quality, whatever ... but I find lately that this has changed and there are several good suppliers out there. As i get older (passing 51 ...) I no longer have the energy or time to push out several hundred blocks when I can get most of them after market.

You are also quite right in advising people to keep their models under glass and out of the light. UV has killed more contemporary models down the ages ...

Regards,
Bruce

Good discussion. To get very specific, would someone post the thread sizes & colors and the block sizes they've ordered for the Heller Victory? I'm just about ready to tackle this project and the info would be a terrific help!

Man that's a job! The VIC. instruction should have them all listed with the correct sized blocks (in Metric), you just meed to convert.
Jake

The best source on rigging diameters (and much else) is James Lees's The Masting and Rigging of English Warships. It contains tables for virtually all the lines on British naval vessels throughout the sailing ship period. I'm not sure whether it's still in print; if not, a good library should have a copy - or you probably could find a reasonably-priced used one on the web.

Steel's Elements of Rigging and Seamanship, which I referred to earlier in this thread, also contains tables of rigging sizes.

If you're going to tackle the Heller Victory you owe it to yourself to get hold of at least two books on the subject: C. Nepean Longridge's The Anatomy of Nelson's Ships and H.M.S. Victory, by Allan McGowan and John McKay. Both contain sets of drawings that will be far easier to follow than the diagrams in the Heller instruction book. The Heller designers seem, for some reason, to take delight in making the rigging of a square-rigged ship considerably more complicated than it needs to be.

Thanks for the advice, jtilley. I have indeed learned from experience that it's wise to consult multiple sources when attempting such detailed construction. I already have "100 Gun Ship Victory" as an additional source, but welcome the other references.

Being the lazy guy I am, I hoped to tap into someone's recently compiled shopping list of upgraded blocks, rigging and fittings from Model Expo or other such dealer for this model that I could plagiarize. Shouldn't be too difficult to figure it out in any event considering the wealth of info available for this magnificent ship.

Thanks again!

There has been alot of great advise passed along in this thread. All of the books are important references for all ship modelers if you are striving for scale accuracy. There are shortcuts that would be advocated by some, but they are not for me. I think that the 2 things you have to keep in mind are the scale of the model and the period of the protoype ship. The sizes and leads of the rigging lines, even whether they were actually present or not, and the sizes and types of blocks used are all dependent upon the date of the ship. I wouldn't use Lee's book to rig a Mayflower (the ship is too early for the book) any more than I would use an Underhill's to rig an American schooner (he is strictly British practice and large ships at that). So shop around in used book store and the web and build up your reference library to turn out not only terrific looking models, but accurate ones as well.

Ed.
Long Island Ship Model Society
Nautical Research Guild
Long Island Maritime Museum

Regarding books about H.M.S. Victory -

The one in the "Anatomy of the Ship" series, The 100-Gun Ship Victory, is by John McKay, who also did the drawings for Dr. McGowan's book. Mr. McKay is, in my humble opinion, one of the most distinguished masters of the art of nautical drafting in the world. His drawings are, in artistic terms, magnificent. Beware of one point, though. The 100-Gun Ship Victory appears in two editions. The first one contained a number of errors regarding the ship's construction. (I'm not sure any of those goofs would have much impact on a model built from the Heller kit, but some of them - e.g., the construction of the wales - were pretty significant. The review of the book in Model Shipwright magazine concluded, "Ten out of ten for the drawings but six out of ten for research.") Mr. McKay did another set of drawings - this time with no mistakes whatsoever that my admittedly none-to-knowledgeable eye could catch - for the McGowan book. (That one also goes into much more detail regarding the ship's rigging than the first one did.) The Conway Maritime Press (bless 'em) then published a revised version of The 100-Gun Ship Victory, with revised drawings to correct the earlier goofs.

The older book, Longridge's The Anatomy of Nelson's Ships, probably would be a more convenient guide to rigging a model. It contains a beautiful set of drawings by George Campbell, a fine British draftsman of the old school. In the copy I have the larger drawings are foldouts, and are on 1/96 scale, close to the Heller kit's 1/100. There's one big drawing of the standing rigging and one of the running rigging, and there are lots of perspective drawings of rigging details in the text. Longridge also includes narrative descriptions of how each line leads - extremely helpful for model-building.

Modelers of this vessel are lucky: she's a well-documented ship, with several excellent, easily-available (if not inexpensive) publications about her in print. The biggest problem with her as a modeling subject is sorting out just what her configuration was at any given point in her career. As she's preserved today she most emphatically does not look like she did at the Battle of Trafalgar. But that's another story.

Good luck. Hope all this is of some use.

Hello All!

I've got my Heller Victory in the garage, and I'm going to start it as soon as I finish my Revell 1:96 Constitution. Just curious - what are the differences between how the HMS Victory is preserved today and how she looked on that fateful day in 1805?

As an aside, a company called Jotika looks to have a near definitive model kit of the Victory; see details here: http://www.jotika-ltd.com/Pages/1024768/index.htm . Lots of pix of the building of the prototype.

It costs a pretty penny, but if you can afford it, it looks like it's worth it!

Jose Gonzales

Thanks once again, jtilley. Fortunately, I do have the revised edition of the "100 Gun-Ship" book and think I'll pick up "Nelson's Ships" as you suggest. Never can get enough guidance on this complex project -- and if one is going to be spending the next 1 to 2 years on a project, it ought to be right!

Regards

I'm not competent to make a comprehensive list of the differences between the Victory's current and 1805 configurations. As I understand it some excellent researchers are currently digging into this problem, with a view toward restoring her to her genuine Trafalgar condition in time for the 2005 bicentennial of the battle. I suspect they'll come up with some interesting and surprising stuff.

I do know of some differences that are worth mentioning. Some of them are related to structural and safety concerns. The Victory's lower masts are made of steel tube, and aren't stepped on the keelson. The stress of the rigging is born by a set of heavy steel rods, which are welded to the heels of the masts, pass through the hull planking either side of the keel, and are imbedded in the concrete of the drydock. (That's an ingenious and effective method of relieving the old hull timbers from the stress.) The current "Brodie stove" is, I believe, a wood replica of the iron original. And in 1805 she did not, of course, have fire mains and electrical conduit running between her deck beams. This sort of thing is irrelevant for model-building purposes, but makes the task of a modern draftsman trying to produce a set of authentic plans (such a project as Mr. McKay undertook) all the more challenging.

In terms of visual differences, the most obvious one concerns the forecastle bulwarks. They're about knee-high, with the two carronades firing over them. There's an article in The Mariner's Mirror (I don't recall the date) in which Dr. R.C. Anderson, who was on the committee that supervised the Victory's restoration back in the 1920s, describes that configuration as "a mistake for which I must take my share of the blame." It seems that the committee's researcher, R.W. Bugler, was undertaking a detailed study of the documentary evidence at the same time the early stages of the restoration were going on. Bugler established that the forecastle bulwarks had been raised to shoulder height during one of the ship's pre-Trafalgar refits (in 1802 or 1803, I believe), but by the time he came to that conclusion the carpenters had already finished work on the incorrect, lower versions and scrapping that work would have been prohibitively expensive.

Two other details that have attracted my own attention (though I don't know if anybody else has gotten interested in them) are the conspicuous, ornamental entry ports in the Victory's sides. The decorated canopies over them have become visual symbols of the ship in many people's eyes, but they don't appear in any contemporary pre-Trafalgar painting or drawing of her that I've seen. The enormous painting of her at Trafalgar by J.M.W. Turner in the National Maritime Museum doesn't have them - and Turner is known to have gone on board her to make sketches shortly after she got back from the battle. (Turner's of no help regarding the forecastle bulwarks. He inconsiderately draped a damaged sail over the forecastle.) I don't have any firm evidence about this point, and I haven't read anything about it from the experts, but it looks to me like those entry ports may have been added after the ship was taken out of active service - perhaps while she was doing ceremonial duty at Portsmouth.

The Heller kit, by the way, has the lower forecastle bulwarks but doesn't have the entry ports. I'm inclined to think it's incorrect on the former point but quite possibly correct on the latter.

My recollection (it's been a long time since I was there) is that there are two contemporary models of the Victory in the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich. One shows her in her 1765, "as built" configuration; it of course doesn't look much like she did at Trafalgar. (As I recall it does have entry ports, but they're quite a bit different from the ones she has today.) The other model is labeled as having been built at about the time of the aforementioned refit (i.e., shortly before Trafalgar). It's disturbingly different from the ship as she looks now. It has high bulwarks around the quarterdeck and poop as well as the forecastle, the stern ornamentation is different, and the structure of the bow, if I remember right, is different as well. Just how reliable that model is I don't know. I suspect we'll hear something interesting about it when the current research project in Portsmouth is finished.

I took a look at the website with the photos of the CalderCraft kit on it. On the basis of the pictures that kit looks outstanding. It has the raised forecastle bulwarks - and the entry ports. (It's entirely possible - nay, downright likely - that the folks who designed it know something I don't.) As I understand it, each purchaser of the kit gets added to an e-mail list and will receive an update whenever the researchers come up with some new tidbit. What a refreshing attitude for a manufacturer of sailing ship kits! If I happened to have a thousand bucks lying around I'd buy one.

Seriously, that price sounds hideous but, considered as an investment in leisure-time activity, it isn't unreasonable. To build that kit and do it justice would take at least a thousand hours, probably spread over a period of years. Compare the per-hour cost of that entertainment to the price of tickets to a thousand hours' worth of major-league baseball, football, or basketball tickets. I object to paying such huge amounts of money for those continental European kits, with their lousy materials and non-existent research, but Calder seems to be of a totally different class.

Since we're talking about Victory kits, maybe it's worth mentioning one at the other end of the spectrum. A British firm called Skytrex offers a range of 1/700 sailing ship kits, including a really nice Victory, for about $20.00 apiece. I bought their Victory via mail order a couple of years ago. The white metal hull casting is really remarkable; it has the raised forecastle bulwarks. (I don't remember about its entry ports.) My intention, when/if I get around to building mine, is to replace the white metal spars with wood, and I don't care for the photo-etched brass sails. (Thin paper, I think, is preferable on that scale; among other virtues, it's transluscent.) The kit seems to be targeted primarily at wargamers, but serious scale modelers with limited budgets and good close-range eyesight might want to give it a look. A 1/700 diorama with, say, the Victory anchored alongside the Hood would be great fun. Or maybe the same firm's Constitution alongside the Skywave Aegis-class cruiser....