Grem56
Hello John and hello Crackers, feel free to hijack the thread 
Both your mails are very informative. I think John sums the problem up nicely: I have the model, ( and to be honest more models in my stash than I will ever be able to build in this lifetime), I have the tools, the space, I even have Longridges "anatomy" sitting on the shelf grinning at me 
The thing is that if I start this model I will be drawn into a build that will take years to do justice to and I am not sure that is what I want to do 
It's a sheer luxury problem bothering a spoiled model builder 
It's also very frustrating that the longer I wait starting the less chance there is I will finish it..............................
Cheers,
Julian 
Julian, I know just what you're talking about. I spent about two and a half years on my little H.M.S. Bounty and slightly more than six years on the frigate Hancock. Please note: those figures represent total elapsed time from beginning to end. Particularly in the Hancock's case there were months when I didn't touch it; those six years included a two-month research trip to England (with the hull of the model in my suitcase), one academic degree, and two changes of residence (from Ohio to Virginia to North Carolina), with the inevitable tearing down and reconstruction of workshop space.
Some years ago I started another big, time-consuming, scratch-building project: the clipper Young America. I got the hull about halfway finished before I realized that I was getting more frustration than fun out of the exercise. I don't have a great deal of time to spend on model building (though I'm sure I'd have a good deal more if I pushed myself), and there are so many attractive, interesting subjects out there....A few years back I made the conscious decision to concentrate on shorter-term projects for a while (probably until retirement, which is probably four or five years down the road). I had a great time with the little Model Shipways pilot schooner Phantom, the beautiful Revell Viking ship, and several 1/700 warships. My current project is a little tugboat, based (loosely) on the old Model Shipways Taurus kit. It's going to be a thoroughly generic vessel from around 1900, named A.M. Tilley (after my wife) and home-ported in the great metropolis of Beaufort, North Carolina. I'm embarassed to admit that I've now been working on it for over a year - but I've had a great time with it. I think it will be done (really!) in a few more weeks. I think my next model after that will be a 1/700 U.S.S. North Carolina (a favorite subject in this neighborhood, and the subject of both an excellent kit from Trumpeter and a fine set of detail parts from White Ensign). After that I may do a generic, early-twentieth-century American fishing schooner and name it after my father. And after retirement - well, maybe I'll dust off the Young America.
Oh - and I've got a Heller Reale in the attic; I picked it up quite a few years ago for about $25, in a hobby shop that had gotten sick of looking at the box. I agree with Julian's comments - including his observations about the flags. (I'm wondering if the solution to that one may lie somewhere in the world of computers.) My only other significant reservation about it concerns the oars; Heller represented their handles as nondescript plastic blobs. Adding more detailed handles to one oar wouldn't be much of a problem, but....
One of my old violin teachers said to me once, "You don't know how lucky you are to be an amateur. You have the luxury of personal taste. You only have to play music you like." I feel the same way about ship modeling. It's the sort of hobby that can be enjoyed many ways - through scratch-building, through wood kits, plastic kits, resin kits, paper kits; enormous models and tiny ones; models that take weeks, months, or years.
As for the Heller Victory - I probably should come clean and make it clear that I've never built it. When the kit was new, back in about 1977 (I think), the British magazine Model Shipwright sent me one to review. Since the publisher's schedule wouldn't allow me time to build the thing, what I submitted - and MS published - was strictly an "in the box" review. I gave the kit away prior to one of the aforementioned changes of residence; that was in 1983, and I haven't seen the kit outside the box since. So my comments undoubtedly deserve to be taken with several large grains of salt.
I will, though, mention two other points relating to the kit's accuracy. It claims to represent the ship as she appeared in 1805. It probably doesn't. In the past few years a good deal of high-powered research into the Victory's history has been done. The historians still aren't absolutely sure what she looked like at Trafalgar, but it's fairly widely accepted that the bulwarks on the forecastle deck were shoulder-high (rather than knee-high, as the kit - and the McKay and Campbell drawings - represent them). There are other differences, but that's the most conspicuous one.
Then there's the matter of the entry ports on the middle deck. They're quite prominent features of the ship today, they appear on all the published drawings, and lots of modelers have criticized the Heller kit because it doesn't have them. (Instead, it has a simple, vertical row of narrow step cleats running up the ship's side all the way to the quarterdeck.) There's plenty of room for argument here, but I'm among those who are inclined to think Heller got it right this time. The McGowen/McKay book contains reproductions of quite a few contemporary paintings of the ship from that period; none of them shows the entry ports. Neither does the famous painting, "The Battle of Trafalgar," by J.M.W. Turner (who is known to have gone on board the ship shortly after the battle to make sketches): http://www.nmm.ac.uk/collections/nelson/viewObject.cfm?ID=BHC0565 . Neither does the contemporary model in the National Maritime Museum that apparently depicts the ship after her 1803 refit: http://www.nmm.ac.uk/collections/nelson/viewObject.cfm?ID=SLR0513 . There have been several discussions of this point in ship modeling web forums; I don't pretend to know the answer. If I were building the Heller kit (heaven forbid), I'd probably be inclined to give it the raised forecastle bulwarks (with a couple of long guns as well as the two carronades), and leave the entry ports off. (And, of course, I'd throw out the plastic "sails" before leaving the hobby shop, and replace all the blocks, deadeyes, stanchions, eyebolts, belaying pins, etc.). Would I really rather do that than the Young America? Well, I'm not sure - but probably not. But I reserve the right to change my mind.
One other point about that kit. The example I reviewed seemed to be molded from high-quality styrene (albeit in some rather garish colors). But I've read complaints in recent years of more recently manufactured examples suffering from rubbery and/or overly-brittle plastic and serious warping problems. I have no idea whether the most recent incarnation of the kit (Heller seems to be back in business now, after several years' hiatus) have such problems or not. But if I were in the market for one (heaven forbid) I'd want to look at it carefully before parting with my hard-earned cash.