SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

New Build: Lindberg Jolly Roger *Finished 7-7*

40526 views
45 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Saturday, April 3, 2010 9:02 PM

kazubb

Most of the kits marketed as a "Pirate Ship", while they are nice models, are not accurate as a pirate ship. But we can never really be 100% sure of what they looked like. None of us are standing in the 18th century. Even research doesn't help much sense older documents are not very detailed enough to show us exactly what they looked like. Hollywood hasn't helped over the last century either.

The QAR project is a very time consuming effort and it is estimated to take up to another 15 years. Since it's discovery, there hasn't been any concrete evidence saying that it was the Queen Anne's Revenge or formerly Le Concorde. It hasn't been as fortunate as the Whydah wreck.

The QAR museum I'm sure will no doubt have second thoughts in a few years of the model on display.  Most Pirate model kits seem to be huge warships. History records that most pirates actually sailed in small sloops. Blackbeard had three of these at one point I believe.

The Jolly Roger kit is a fun kit. trying to make a 100% accurate kit out of it can't be expected right now as there is little information of the QAR. But this is not the point. The point is it's a HOBBY. A fun way to unwind! No historian is probably gonna ever come into your house any tell you, your ship is all wrong so who cares! I'm still planing on building both of my Jolly Roger kits, having lots of fun with the build, and when it's done I'm proudly displaying it in my living room!

I've made this point before here in the Forum, but it seems relevant to this discussion as well so I'll make it again.  I firmly believe that, since model building (for most of us, at any rate) is a hobby, the individual modeler has every right in the world to build models for whatever purpose, and according to whatever standard, he or she thinks is appropriate.  I do, however, take exception to the marketing tactics of certain kit manufacturers, who use deceptive labels and descriptions in a blatant effort to squeeze more sales out of a set of molds. 

The notion of the Sovereign of the Seas operating as a "pirate ship" under a captain who hadn't been born when the real ship was built is ridiculous; it makes about as much sense as selling a model of the U.S.S. Arizona as a twenty-first-century Somali pirate vessel.  In any other segment of the plastic kit world, such tactics would produce howls of protest.  Imagine a model of a Spad, or a Sopwith Camel, being sold as the aircraft of a Korean War ace.  Or a Sherman tank posing in Operation Desert Storm markings.  Or a Model T Ford dressed up as a participant in the 1965 Indianapolis 500.

It's not for me to tell hobbyists how to spend their time; heaven knows there are purists who wouldn't approve of some of the projects I do.  (At the moment I'm working on a thoroughly fictitious tugboat, from about 1900, that's named after my wife.)  But I do think potential purchasers are entitled to know the difference between a serious attempt at scale modeling and a marketing stunt.

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

  • Member since
    November 2009
Posted by santa on Saturday, April 3, 2010 3:16 PM

Very nice build thred, I enjoyd the picture posts very much.  Hope to see more.

  • Member since
    December 2009
  • From: Seattle, WA
Posted by kazubb on Saturday, April 3, 2010 11:17 AM

Most of the kits marketed as a "Pirate Ship", while they are nice models, are not accurate as a pirate ship. But we can never really be 100% sure of what they looked like. None of us are standing in the 18th century. Even research doesn't help much sense older documents are not very detailed enough to show us exactly what they looked like. Hollywood hasn't helped over the last century either.

The QAR project is a very time consuming effort and it is estimated to take up to another 15 years. Since it's discovery, there hasn't been any concrete evidence saying that it was the Queen Anne's Revenge or formerly Le Concorde. It hasn't been as fortunate as the Whydah wreck.

The QAR museum I'm sure will no doubt have second thoughts in a few years of the model on display.  Most Pirate model kits seem to be huge warships. History records that most pirates actually sailed in small sloops. Blackbeard had three of these at one point I believe.

The Jolly Roger kit is a fun kit. trying to make a 100% accurate kit out of it can't be expected right now as there is little information of the QAR. But this is not the point. The point is it's a HOBBY. A fun way to unwind! No historian is probably gonna ever come into your house any tell you, your ship is all wrong so who cares! I'm still planing on building both of my Jolly Roger kits, having lots of fun with the build, and when it's done I'm proudly displaying it in my living room!

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Friday, April 2, 2010 11:19 PM

Unfortunately the model companies have embraced the current (and long-lasting) public obsession with piracy as an excuse to recycle old kits that originally had nothing to do with the subject. 

The kit that Lindberg is marketing under the name "Blackbeard" is a reissue of the old (and not very accurate) Pyro Sovereign of the Seas kit from, I believe, the 1960s.  Launched in 1637, the Sovereign of the Seas (later renamed Royal Sovereign) was the largest, most elaborately decorated ship in the navy of England's King Charles I.  She was, in fact, so expensive that Parliament balked at paying the bill; that was one of the factors that eventually cost Charles his head.  The notion of such a vessel operating as a pirate ship is absurd.  No pirate - nobody other than a government - could afford to buy such a thing - or pay the several hundred men required to operate it.  Besides, a great warship like that was notoriously slow, and pirate vessels had to be fast in order to do their dirty work. 

The kit Lindberg is currently calling "Jolly Roger" is a reissue of a reasonably accurate (for the 1960s) scale model of a French frigate named La Flore, from the 1780s.  (We've had a number of interesting discussions about that ship here in the Forum.  The kit apparently is based on a model in the Musee de la Marine, in Paris; just what ship that model represents is a matter of some controversy.  Jean Boudriot, the current dean of the history of French naval architecture in the sailing ship era, is of the opinion that the model in the museum represents a ship that was never actually built.)  In any case, it also is far too big to represent a pirate ship.

Edward Teach ("Blackbeard") was born in about 1680 and was killed in 1718 - too late for the Sovereign of the Seas and too early for La Flore.  The unfortunate truth of the matter is that, unless I'm forgetting about one of them (always a possibility in the case of my poor old, Halfzeimer's-afflicted memory) not a single plastic sailing ship kit on the market can be said to be a reasonably representation of a pirate vessel.  (I guess we could, by stretching the point, count the various Golden Hind kits, since Francis Drake was, by many reasonable definitions, a pirate.  And the old Aurora American privateer Corsair might, just conceivably, represent a ship owned by an extremely wealthy pirate of the late eighteenth century.  Those are the only ones I can think of that might fit the bill.)

Several people in the Maritime Studies Program at East Carolina University, where I work, have been intimately involved in the Queen Anne's Revenge project.  (I need to be careful here.  The truth is that the shipwreck in question has not been positively identified; there's no firm reason to believe it actually is the QAR.  But there's no firm reason to believe that it isn't - and so far as I know nobody has suggested any other specific identity for it.)  Not enough of the wreck has been excavated yet to establish in any detail what the ship looked like.

The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources has a nice website about the QAR project:   http://www.qaronline.org/ .  There's not enough here to give much of an idea about the ship's overall appearance, but the site is useful for stripping away the considerable load of nonsense that's been written about "Blackbeard's flagship" over the years.  The North Carolina Maritime Museum at Beaufort also offers some material on the subject.  Some years ago the museum bought a model of the QAR that's the most reasonable reconstruction of her I've seen - though I have some doubts about it (and I suspect the continuing study of the wreck will cause the gentleman who built the model to have some second thoughts).  There's a photo of it on the museum's website:  http://www.ncmaritime.org/Blackbeard/qar.htm . 

I think that model probably was the basis for another reasonably serious modern reconstruction of the Queen Anne's Revenge:  a poster published by, of all places, the Raleigh News and Observerhttps://miva.nando.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=TNOS&Product_Code=PQRM&Category_Code=P .  I have the same reservations about this one, but it does strike me as one of the most reasonable versions I've seen.

 As you can see, the NCMM model and the N&O poster look absolutely nothing like the Lindberg "Blackbeard," and only slightly similar to the "Jolly Roger." 

I have to admit that I personally am thoroughly jaded by the whole subject of pirates and piracy.  (Twenty-seven years at a university whose athletic teams are known as the ECU Pirates haven't helped.)  I guess I can understand at least some of the ongoing public fascination with the subject.  But I have to suggest that (a) every model kit sold under the label "Pirate Ship" is a marketing scam of greater or lesser proportions, and (b) there are lots of more interesting, and better researched, model subjects out there.

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

  • Member since
    December 2009
  • From: Seattle, WA
Posted by kazubb on Friday, April 2, 2010 9:22 PM

Awesome!!! A recent idea came to me to try building a replica of Blackbeard's Queen Anne's Revenge out of Lindberg's Jolly Roger kit. It would look great with his flag flying from it and it would look a lot closer to the recent theories of what the ship might have looked like. Lindberg's Blackbeard ship is great, but they think it may have looked more like the depicted Jolly Roger.

  • Member since
    June 2006
  • From: Netherlands
Posted by Grem56 on Monday, July 7, 2008 1:03 PM

 A nice build. The ship looks like it has seen quite a bit of action Pirate [oX)]

Cheers, Julian

 

illegal immigrants have always been a problem in the United States. Ask any Indian.....................

Italeri S-100: http://cs.finescale.com/FSMCS/forums/t/112607.aspx?PageIndex=1

Isu-152: http://cs.finescale.com/FSMCS/forums/t/116521.aspx?PageIndex=1

 

  • Member since
    February 2008
  • From: San Bernardino, CA
Posted by enemeink on Monday, July 7, 2008 12:20 PM
 sumpter250 wrote:

Funny how not hand tying rat lines can cut build time down to almost half.

Not to mention the time needed to mount the lower deadeyes, with chainplates, and rig shrouds. I'm still in that process.

  Very nice model indeed!, looking forward to your next project. 

thanks sumpter,

I'll be doing this on the Royal louis. I've just ordered some 2.5mm deadeyes and blocks for this so it's be awhile before that one is done. I might have to do some in between builds to keep my mind from going crazy....

"The race for quality has no finish line, so technically it's more like a death march."
  • Member since
    February 2008
  • From: San Bernardino, CA
Posted by enemeink on Monday, July 7, 2008 12:17 PM
 RTimmer wrote:

Hi "Enemienk",

Awesome!  I have really enjoyed your build progress and pictures - thanks very much for sharing. I can't remember if you mentioned earlier in the thread, but where did you pick this kit up from?

Keep 'em coming - looking forward to your Bounty or La Flore!

Cheers, Rick 

Thanks Rick!

I bought two of these at my LHS in the discount bin for about $9.00 a piece. It seems like every month his dicount bin has a themed clearance sale. Right now it's old airliners.

"The race for quality has no finish line, so technically it's more like a death march."
  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: vernon hills illinois
Posted by sumpter250 on Monday, July 7, 2008 12:00 PM

Funny how not hand tying rat lines can cut build time down to almost half.

Not to mention the time needed to mount the lower deadeyes, with chainplates, and rig shrouds. I'm still in that process.

  Very nice model indeed!, looking forward to your next project. 

Lead me not into temptation ..................I can find it myself

  • Member since
    May 2007
  • From: Atlanta, Georgia
Posted by RTimmer on Monday, July 7, 2008 11:21 AM

Hi "Enemienk",

Awesome!  I have really enjoyed your build progress and pictures - thanks very much for sharing. I can't remember if you mentioned earlier in the thread, but where did you pick this kit up from?

Keep 'em coming - looking forward to your Bounty or La Flore!

Cheers, Rick 

  • Member since
    February 2008
  • From: San Bernardino, CA
New Build: Lindberg Jolly Roger *finished 7-7*
Posted by enemeink on Monday, July 7, 2008 11:16 AM

Finished! Funny how not hand tying rat lines can cut build time down to almost half. Of course when I start the Royal louis I hope to have that one done by christmas.... There's nothing too fancy with the rigging. I just used the same gold chain that I used on the Wasa to do some of the rigging instead of using the thick plastic ones that came with the kit. I decided to leave the sailors off and use them on another build maybe the HMS bounty or the La Flore. I haven't decided yet. anyway if anybody has any questions please ask away......

thanks for looking.

 

"The race for quality has no finish line, so technically it's more like a death march."
  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: vernon hills illinois
Posted by sumpter250 on Friday, July 4, 2008 2:20 PM

 Thank You Professor!

I have come to appreciate the positives of styrene strip, and sheet, in the model railroading, and modern ship model construction, and had thought of using styrene strip for sailing ship planking. Your "Hancock" shows the validity of its use. Your use of the old revell "type S", reminded me of using the current "user safe" tube glue to attach a plastic building to a basswood foundation. Applying the glue to the wood, and "working it into" the wood grain, and letting it dry, then, a second coat on the dry, and a light coat on the plastic formed a reasonalby good bond. For this use, however I have found that silicone adhesives work better, although taking much longer to set up, and harder to control.

Lead me not into temptation ..................I can find it myself

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Wednesday, July 2, 2008 11:59 AM

Ok.  The big advantages to styrene as a planking material are that it's flexible and it doesn't have any grain, so it's easy to trim to any required shape.  The big disadvantage is that it doesn't have any grain, so it doesn't look like wood unless it's given some sort of treatment in the way of paint, texturing, etc.  That makes it appropriate for planks (e.g., exterior hull planking) that are going to be painted, but less so for unpainted decks.

I worked from a copy of the plans by Howard I. Chapelle, which I bought from the Smithsonian.  I checked them frequently against copies of the original Admiralty drawings; Chapelle was a great man, but he's somewhat infamous for his habit of making changes, some justifiable and some not, when he redrew old plans.  But he saved me the trouble of "fairing up" the lines in the Admiralty drawings. (They were made on linen, and stored in rolls for almost two hundred years; those old plans invariably have stretched and/or shrunk.)

I started out by carving the basic hull shape, up to the level of the maindeck, out of laminations of basswood - in two halves, to fit the plywood "keel plate."  (I cut the latter out of birch plywood with a scroll saw.  It runs up to the level of the underside of the maindeck at the centerline, with notches cut in the top for the deck beams.  Amidships the keel plate is cut down to the level of the berthdeck, which I wanted to be visible through the hatches in the waist.)  I hollowed out the two halves of the hull to a thickness of about 3/16", then secured them to the keel plate.  I built up the bulwarks above the maindeck with basswood strips - the first one being the height of the gunport sills.

I then laid in a stock of Evergreen strip styrene (which, if I remember correctly, had recently come on the market) in the appropriate dimensions.  (I'd have to measure to see just what those dimensions were; I think the thickness of the "common plank" was .010," but I'm not sure.  The wales, of course, are thicker.)  The adhesive was old-fashioned Revell "Type-S" styrene cement in a tube.  I wish that stuff was still on the market; I continue to think that tube glue has its uses.  In this case it worked quite satisfactorily, softening up the surface of the styrene and soaking into the basswood.  (Basswood is far from the best wood for many ship modeling purposes, but it's great for things that have to be glued.)  I worked alternately from the wale down and the keel up.  I was surprised at how little tapering was needed on the planks between them to get the planking lines to run fair on this particular ship.  I expected to need a couple of "stealers" at the stern, but they were in fact unnecessary.

The flexibility of the plastic, and the speed with which the glue dried, were such that no preparation of the planks was necessary and they didn't need to be clamped - even on the sharp curves around the bow.  Just holding them in place with finger pressure for a minute or so was enough.  I finished up with a little judicious sanding and scraping of the plank edges, but not too much; I wanted the edges of the planks to be faintly visible through the paint.  I covered the visible parts of the keel plate - the keel itself, the sterpost, the stem, and the knee of the head - with styrene sheet.

That styrene has now been held to the basswood hull by the Revell cement for just about thirty years, and, contrary to what some of my traditionalist friends predicted, shows no sign of coming loose.

There are several decorative moldings, with rather delicate T-shaped cross-sections, above the gunports.  I ground a female version of the cross-section in an old X-acto blade.  The height of the molding worked out to .040" (if I remember right), so I clamped a sheet of .040" styrene in a vise and scraped the profile on the edge of it.  Then I sliced off a strip of the right thickness and cemented it to the hull.

The last step in the planking process was to plank the insides of the bulwarks.  That was easy.

Styrene sheet really came into its own in the construction of the headrail assembly, the quarter galleries, and the transom.  That's another story, though, and this post has gone on more than long enough.

If I were building the model again (gawd forbid) I'm not sure whether I'd use this method of planking or not.  Since then I've acquired a good stock of nice holly veneer, which I really like; I suspect it would be just about as easy to work with as styrene in this context.  I do think, though, that if I were building another model with one of those complicated, basket-shaped headrail assemblies I'd use styrene for that part again.

Hope that helps a little.  

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

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: vernon hills illinois
Posted by sumpter250 on Wednesday, July 2, 2008 11:19 AM

The hull was built on the "bread and butter" system from laminations of basswood, with a plywood "keel plate."  The hull planking is styrene strip.  (That's a somewhat unusual method of hull construction that I used largely because I wanted to see if it would work.  I'm generally satisfied with it, but I'm not sure I'd recommend it to anybody else.)

I've given some thought to using styrene strips for hull planks, on a keel and bulkhead/egg carton form. Would you be willing to post the benefits, and disadvantages to this method of hull construction? Where most of the sailing ship models here are styrene, it might be beneficial for all to hear about this process, especially where it might aid modifying a kit hull. Yes, it is a somewhat unusual method, but it just might be a technique that can be developed into something very useful. ( If you've already done this.....please post a link to the page. ) 

Lead me not into temptation ..................I can find it myself

  • Member since
    September 2005
  • From: Groton, CT
Posted by warshipguy on Wednesday, July 2, 2008 9:24 AM

jtilley,

And, the answer is . . . "d. All of the above".  Thank you for your detailed answer! I will look into that article.  Perhaps we could recommend some of the Revolutionary War ships to Revell of USA for future projects.  Ships of that period are exceptionally beautiful to me and are all too underrepresented as modeling subjects.  Thanks again!  You do beautiful work.

Bill Morrison

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Tuesday, July 1, 2008 11:17 PM

Many thanks, warshipguy. 

It's what might be called "semi-scratchbuilt."  The hull was built on the "bread and butter" system from laminations of basswood, with a plywood "keel plate."  The hull planking is styrene strip.  (That's a somewhat unusual method of hull construction that I used largely because I wanted to see if it would work.  I'm generally satisfied with it, but I'm not sure I'd recommend it to anybody else.) The decks are planked with 1/16" x 1/32" basswood.  (I got access to some nice holly while I was working on this model; if I'd had it earlier I would have used it for the decks.  I did use holly for the planking of the tops, and for the hulls of the boats.)  The masts and yards are turned from degama wood; the gun barrels are turned brass and sit on styrene carriages with brass wheels. 

The manufactured parts are the Bluejacket britannia metal blocks and deadeyes (I have the means to make such things, but I figured six years on one model were enough) and the crew figures, which came from various plastic kits. (Some of them were subjected to rather brutal modification.  The Continental Marine on the forecastle started out as the guy with the helmet and breastplate in the old Revell Santa Maria, and the one on the spritsail yard footrope is the captain of the old Revell tugboat Long Beach, with a new hat.  Captains Cook, from the Airfix Endeavour, and Bligh, from the Revell Bounty, are standing on the quarterdeck, disguised in Continental Navy uniforms.)  The figurehead started life as a Preiser HO railroad figure.  (The real figurehead was larger than life-size; by pure coincidence putting the model on 3/32" scale made the HO figure right for the figurehead.  He got a new hat, jacket, and legs from styrene stock.)  All the other "carved" detail on the bow and stern was made from Milliput epoxy putty.  Most of the rigging is silk thread, made up on a crude "rope-making machine" that I put together from parts in a Lego set.  The exceptions are the ratlines, which are nickel-chromium wire.

In the unlikely event that anybody's interested, the British quarterly Model Shipwright published a series of four articles about this model, with some in-progress photos (the negatives of which have long since disappeared) back in 1983-84 (issues 45-48).  I think those articles may have been reprinted in one of the magazine's bound anthology volumes, but I'm not sure about that.

The photos on the website that I linked in the above post were taken a couple of years ago.  I'm pleased to say that the model has held up quite well during the 24 years since I finished it (and, for that matter, the 30 years since I started it).  It, along with several other models from our ship model club, is currently on display at the visitor center alongside the U.S.S. North Carolina, in Wilmington. 

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

  • Member since
    September 2005
  • From: Groton, CT
Posted by warshipguy on Tuesday, July 1, 2008 9:48 PM

jtilley,

I really admire your Continental Navy Frigate Hancock.  You did a really fantastic job!  Did you scratch build her or convert her from another kit?

Bill Morrison

  • Member since
    February 2008
  • From: San Bernardino, CA
Posted by enemeink on Tuesday, July 1, 2008 10:49 AM
Thanks woodburner!
"The race for quality has no finish line, so technically it's more like a death march."
  • Member since
    December 2006
Posted by woodburner on Tuesday, July 1, 2008 1:45 AM
Emeneink, your work is going nicely and great pictures. I noticed the rigging issue too, like the lines that should be prepped before the decks and hull are assembled. You did a good job on the catheads, too, they really jocky for position with the rails there.

jtilley, thanks for the explaination about the gunport lids. Its something I would not have thought of, but it does make sense - a sea large enough to broach them would also be knocking through the quarter galley lights. I was going on faith following the Kennedy model, and your example allows me to go with confidence - thanks.

The La Flore discussion on the other thread is very interesting, and the Peabody-Essex paintings are great to see.

Thanks again, Jim
  • Member since
    February 2008
  • From: San Bernardino, CA
New Build: Lindberg Jolly Roger *update 6-30*
Posted by enemeink on Monday, June 30, 2008 10:57 AM

thank you Cosmic J. with a good base of primer and all of the painting plus clear coat it really helps with the size of the wood grains. Just regular applications and it helps.

I started to rig this last night. The rigging diagram for this whip is a little out of hand. I like you they show all of the blocks that are not included and they don't even bother to show where the lines are tied off.... good times though. i'm enjoying the learning experiance. I added some brown at the bow of the ship where the anchors will be hung to add a little bit of crud that the anchor would hual up and whatever else would run off. Also as part of the ratline assembly you are supposed to bend the plastic peice and stick it into the side of the hull. this looked pretty goofy so I cut those off and just ran some string instead. This looked much better than bent plastic. Thanks gain to everybody that has given advice and tips.

 

"The race for quality has no finish line, so technically it's more like a death march."
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Saturday, June 28, 2008 2:38 AM

Woodburner - many thanks.

I have no idea what evidence may exist about the gunport lid arrangement of La Flore.  As we established recently in another thread, the Lindberg kit is a model of a model - of a ship that, apparently, was never built.  I'd have to look up some photos of the "prototype" (i.e., the model in the Musee de la Marine).

I thought quite a bit before adopting the port lid configuration I did for the Hancock.  There are two contemporary pictorial sources regarding this ship:  the "Admiralty draught" made by the British after they captured her, and a series of four oil paintings, probably by Francis Holman, now in the Peabody-Essex Museum in Salem, Massachusetts.  (The paintings depict the action in which the Hancock was captured.  One of the ships involved in that fight was H.M.S. Flora, a frigate that, under her original name Vestale, had been captured the French.  They re-acquired her much later and named her La Flore.  That, at least, is M. Boudriot's conclusion. Unfortuately that's not the Flore represented by the Musee de la Marine model, or the Lindberg kit.)  [Later edit - I screwed  up the last sentence originally.  Sorting out all those Flores is enough to give anybody a migraine.  I think I've got it right now.]  While I was working on the model I had occasion to take a trip to England (actually to do dissertation research), and spent several weeks working in the National Maritime Museum.  I used my lunch breaks to study the museum's collection of eighteenth-century frigate models (more of which were on public exhibit then than are now). 

On the basis of those models, and a considerable number of contemporary paintings of other frigates, I concluded that it was common (though by no means universal) practice to install lids only on the ports that were well under the quarterdeck and forecastle.  The thinking may have been that any sea high enough to reach the port sills probably would come over the bulwark anyway.  In the Hancock's case, another factor is the configuration of the fore and main channels.  There's so little space under them that gunport lids would be barely workable, if at all.

At any rate, I eventually decided to put lids on the two foremost and three aftermost ports on each side.  I can't prove that arrangement is correct for that particular ship, but I'm convinced it was fairly typical.

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

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Louisville, KY.
Posted by Cosmic J on Friday, June 27, 2008 11:28 PM

I just bought this kit at Hobby Lobby about a month ago, thought I'd try it out.

I was hugely disappointed in what was in the box. All those raised lines on the wood grain... I thought there was no way I was ever gonna get a nice model from that kit.

Then I discovered this thread. Your model is inspirational. It made me realise that w/ a little work, it can be a really good looking piece.

Thank you, thank you.

  • Member since
    December 2006
Posted by woodburner on Friday, June 27, 2008 11:20 PM
Holy cow, I'd forgotten how beautiful that model is, its really inspiring. Thanks for posting the link again, jtilly, I've added it to my favorites list. The detail is spectacular - even the letters are shaded.

I notice something on the Hancock that's also on the Kennedy LaFlore model - the absence of gunport lids. This has puzzled me, since gunport lids would be a good thing to have in a heavy sea, and they come in the Lindberg kit. But the Kennedy model, and now yours, show no lids at all. What's going on there?

Jim
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Thursday, June 26, 2008 9:02 PM

Many thanks, enemeink.  I worked on that Hancock model for about six years, but that figure is deceptive; there were periods of months when I didn't touch it.  And I changed jobs twice (from grad school at Ohio State to the Mariners' Museum to East Carolina University) and residences (from Ohio to Virginia to North Carolina) while it was in progress - which meant taking the workshop apart and and setting it up again twice.  I think the total number of hours I spent on the thing - not counting research - was somewhere in the neighborhood of a thousand, but I wasn't counting.  And when I was working on it I certainly wasn't in a hurry. 

I'd undoubtedly have taken a different attitude if I'd been building the thing for money.  That's one big reason why I am a committed, permanently amateur modeler.  I vividly remember several times in grad school when, staying up late at night fighting deadlines for papers, reading assignments, dissertation, etc., I'd look at that unfinished model over in the corner and think, "well there's something I don't need to worry about, because nobody but me gives a dCensored [censored]m if it ever gets finished."  That knowledge helped keep me sane (to the extent that anything did - which of course is highly debatable).

I recall a conversation with a guy who'd spent some time working on models in a booth at a museum.  He said he the visitors usually had two questions for him:  "How long?" and "How much?"  He'd gotten those questions so many times, he said, that he'd started wondering whether he was a ship modeler or a prostitute.

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

  • Member since
    December 2006
Posted by woodburner on Thursday, June 26, 2008 7:09 PM
This is coming along very nicely and has a very effective weathered look to her.

Of all things, I'm building one as well right now - a boardroom style hull model as a graduation gift. Its weird building such a modern ship, but she has beautiful lines and it will be fun to actually get to paint the insides red for a change.

The problem with the head rails is inherent in the kit. They should go all the way to the figure head, but if you do so, they do not mount against the side of the hull where the blank space suggests they should go. BUT - they should not actually mount against the hull. The Kennedy model shows the aft end of the head rails forward of the hull - they curve out to accomodate the catheads. So the head rails are actually correctly proportioned, but someone molded the hull with the blank space by mistake. Se la vie.

All in all, its a dandy model - a handsome subject and nicely done. It has a few problems typical of kits of this type, but not many, and all easily solvable.

Keep up the good work,

Jim

Current:

Tijger, a Dutch jacht of 1617 (modified POB)

Statenjacht Utrecht 1743, an Artitec resin model

In planning:

A jacht of Willem Barants, 1597 (scratch POB)

An Anglo-Danish Pinnace, ca. 1613 (scratch POB)

Matthew Baker's "Fish Drawing" ca. 1586 (scratch POB)
  • Member since
    February 2008
  • From: San Bernardino, CA
Posted by enemeink on Thursday, June 26, 2008 3:05 PM
it helps plenty. thanks for the help. also I've said thie before but that is a bueatiful ship. just out of curiosity, how long did it take to build?
"The race for quality has no finish line, so technically it's more like a death march."
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Thursday, June 26, 2008 1:51 PM

That one has a pretty straightforward answer - and it's an important point.  In an eighteenth-century square-rigged ship, when the sails are furled all the yards except the lower ones fore and mainyards and the crojack yard) are lowered.  The topsail yards rest on, or a couple of feet above, the lower mast caps; the topgallant yards rest on, or a couple of feet above, the topmast caps.  The royals, if any, were generally "set flying" during this period - that is, the yards were hoisted into position only when the sails were set.  Otherwise they generally were lashed, with the sails furled to them, inside the topmast shrouds.

Remember that, during this period, there was no sail on the crojack yard (the lowest yard on the mizzenmast). 

With allowances for some nationalistic differences in the details of the rigging, the way the yards are arranged on my little model of the American frigate Hancock should be a reasonable guide:   http://www.hmsvictoryscalemodels.be/JohnTilleyHancock/index.html .

Hope that helps.  Good luck.

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

  • Member since
    February 2008
  • From: San Bernardino, CA
Posted by enemeink on Thursday, June 26, 2008 11:47 AM

just a small update. I haven't been able to put vry much bench time in the last couple of weeks. I've started to assemble the masts. once done with the mast's and yard's I'll give this a nice dull coat finish to seal it all up. I used the plastic ratlines on this because it's just a quick run through and will not use them on the La Flore build. And I didn't want to spend the next 2-3 weeks doing them. I want to leave the sails off of the model and was wondering what the correct yard position on the masts would be for this. If anybody could lend me some insight I would be greatfull. thanks,

 

"The race for quality has no finish line, so technically it's more like a death march."
  • Member since
    June 2006
  • From: Netherlands
Posted by Grem56 on Wednesday, June 11, 2008 11:58 AM

Another nice looking build coming along on your production line Enemeink ! Like the weathering you are adding very much.Take heed of the Kapudan's advice though: with the figurehead all alone without support like that it will go AWOL at the first bit of bad weather your ship runs into Wink [;)]

cheers,

Julian

 

 

illegal immigrants have always been a problem in the United States. Ask any Indian.....................

Italeri S-100: http://cs.finescale.com/FSMCS/forums/t/112607.aspx?PageIndex=1

Isu-152: http://cs.finescale.com/FSMCS/forums/t/116521.aspx?PageIndex=1

 

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.