Revell HMS Victory

Great looking build.  Everything about your model looks to scale and well balanced.  

White glue and fly tying cement are the only two adhesives I use.    I hear you about trying to rig to the pin rails on plastic ships of this scale.  I have built many models from Revell and Heller and now that I'm older, and maybe wiser, am moving onto wood and larger scales.

As was said above, great build.  Love the look of the sails and flags.  I always have trouble making flags look good.  Don't be afraid to try wooden ships.  Start with a small easy kit.  It's almost like the learning curve on building plastic kits.  Each one gets easier as you learn all the little tricks.  

Jim 

Try solid hull models. They work just fine and eliminate a lot of construction.

Also that Heller Victory is about a 5 year minimum investment.

I think this model looks wonderful, very well done.

Wow, what scale is that?  One of these days I am going to have to try a sailing ship.  I love seeing what you guys accomplish.  I can't get over the sails, they look like fabric.

Groot

Nice looking model!  I have an extra Revell HMS Victory that I can let you have. It is one of the older kits.  Also, planking wooden hulls is not that difficult. They just require a little patience.

Anyway, let me know if you want that kit.

Bill

Mighty nice looking model. Rigging a model to such a tiny scale isn't easy, but this one looks impressively to scale. And I like the sails. (Those who frequent this Forum know I don't often say that.)

In a lot of ways that old Revell kit is a classic. The molded detail on it is quite amazing. It's worth noting that Revell managed to reproduce the hull and deck planking (complete with "wood grain" on the decks remarkably accurately. The external wales on the hull have countersunk edges to the five-sided "anchor stock" planking. Every wood Victory kit I've ever seen, including the huge 1/72 one from Calder-Jotika, ignores that. (Heller got it exactly right. The old Airfix kit has raised lines that vaguely represent the "anchor stocks.")

According to Dr. Graham's book, the kit was initially released in 1959. It was one of those that I came to think of as the "$3.00 series." I have a real soft spot in my heart for it. My mother bought it for me when I was in the sixth grade, and I'd never heard of Nelson (or the Napoleonic Wars for that matter). Mother checked a couple of books about Nelson out of the public library for me, and I devoured them. Then one day I got sick with the flu or something, and she went to the library and checked out Lieutenant Hornblower. I'd read all the Hornblower books by the time I was through the eighth grade, and I've been fascinated by eighteenth- and early-nineteenth-century British naval history ever since. For better or worse, that Revell kit really struck a nerve.

Nice model. I do hope you stick with it till all the yards are up and rigged.

Thanks for the comments, I'm really glad you like the model!

As for solid hull wood models, I've considered them, and I guess the day I decide to try wood it will be with one of those. Maybe a schooner, or something simple in a larger scale.

The scale on the Revell Victory is stated as 1/225, though I made some measurements that indicate the scale is actually closer to 1/256 - but I might be wrong.

Warshipguy, I'm definately interested in that kit if it's vintage. If you'd ship to Spain plase PM what you want for it :)

jtilley, thanks a lot, your contributions to this forum over time have helped a lot and will continue to do so. The fact that you like the sails is a huge compliment indeed! I believe i've represented the "cloth strips" quite wide to be in scale, but other than that I was impressed to see how well shoe box paper worked for sails. I might stick to it even on larger scales...

And I do plan to go through the build till the last line is rigged, be it a test bed or not!

BTW, I have edited the original post with simple things I added to the original kit, which might be of interest for those building it.

Thanks all :)

Hey, Rdiaz....thanks for the idea about using *shoebox paper*...I don't have any lying around right now, but it does seem like it would be about the right consistency to use as scale sailcloth!  I recently tried using coffee filter paper and got decent results, but coffee filters are only so big....shoe paper can be found in much bigger pieces!

The next time I go to the shoe store, I'm making sure that, not only do the shoes need to fit well, but they better have a good supply of paper in the box!  :)

Good call!

And oh, by the way...your Victory looks sweet!  Well done, sir!

Dave

I haven't tried shoebox paper either; on the basis of Rdiaz's model it looks like good stuff.

I did find what certainly seems to be a limitless source of silkspan (or something mighty close to it) in, of all places, a pet store. Puppy owners buy packages of "Puppy Training Pads" to housebreak the little critters. A Puppy Pad is a fairly thick piece of absorbent material, with a layer of plastic on the bottom and a layer of soft, tough tissue on top. Peel the top layer off and you've got a nice, big sheet of silkspan.

Even if you don't have a puppy, a package of these things will be a good investment. Ten bucks will buy you enough for a lifetime's worth of furled sails. Just prepare for some strange looks from your wife when you walk in the door with them.

That sounds good too, I guess they sell those things here as well, I just need to find out how they're named in Spanish :)

Shoe paper might look like it won't work at first, because it's a bit shiny in one side, but once soaked in the witch's brew of glue, water and paint the sheen will be gone. It does get that rubbery consistency ideal for furling when wet, but I think it is somewhat more fragile than silkspan, so you need to make sure boltropes are strong and in place. I haven't really used silkspan to compare, though - at least not for sails. I did use the stuff many years back for covering balsa wood plane wings, but that doesn't involve needles and thread.

I also have found a brick and mortar place here that suppossedly sells "modelspan", which I believe is the same thing as silkspan - at €1,40 per big sheet it's not a huge investment either!

I'm so happy!

Unexpected news from work just allowed me to order the 1/100 Heller kit, and thanks to the gratitude of a fellow forum member I'll have a second opportunity to do the Revell kit justice (this time with bare yards or furled/drying sails)

I just can't get enough of the Victory, it's my favorite ship ever, and the subject of 18/19th naval warfare is  so fascinating  I wish there was a plastic kit of a Spanish ship such as Santisima Trinidad or San Juan Nepomuceno...

A copy of Longridge's book is on the way as well!

That Heller kit is a beaut, but a very involved, long term project. I have been working on my Soleil Royal for about ten years now. It is kind of a sister kit to the Victory.

Very well done for its size. Kudos!  I've always loved the Victory, but never put together ANY kit of it.

The last plastic ship kit I tried was the Bounty, which is on the ships forum here. I've built a couple of wooden kits and they all have their own unique challenges and assembly problems but well worth it as far as the look of "real" sailing ships.

rdiaz

One interesting thing is that Amati makes a set of plans and ornamentations for a 1/100 Victory. I know it's one of those HECEPOB companies, but maybe some of the fittings they make specifically for that model could be of use. 1/100 parrals would be useful (I've read the Heller kit doesn't provide any part to attach the yards to the masts, what a shame!)

But oh well, I'm at least a year away from even starting it, so I guess it's not the time to begin considering AM parts!

But its a good kit and a test of skill.

It really would be unwise to buy too much AM ahead of time.

I started mine about four years ago. I bought cordage to set up the cables and messengers, to rig the guns on the upper deck where visible through the waist and some wood and plastic to clean up the lower decks and replace the poor little deck "beams" with cambered brass shapes. That alone cost me $ 75.00 and I'm still using those supplies.

I'm pretty sure I'll only complete her as far as the lower masts and their standing gigging, so I'm really glad I didn't pre purchase hundreds of $$$$ worth of rigging supplies.

I'll go out on a limb and say I think it's the best plastic sailing ship kit on the market (though the big Revell Constitution gives it a run for its money). But the Heller kit does have more than its fair share of problems.

The blocks and deadeyes may as well be thrown out. Ditto the silly jigs for setting up deadeye lanyards and ratlines. As noted, there are no parrels to attach the yards to the masts. The ship's boats are hollow shells, with no detail inside. Some (not all) of the belaying pins have sharp point. (Real belaying pins don't.) Etc.

Then there's the question of the entry ports. The big, ornamental entry ports that are on the ship today aren't on the model. I'm among those who think Heller was probably right on that point - but I can't claim to be certain.

There's lots of evidence that at the time of Trafalgar the ship had shoulder-high bulwarks around the poop and forecastle. The Heller kit doesn't.

That's quite a list. And I have to say that I balk at paying that kind of money for a kit and immediately junking several hundred of its parts (and spending hard-earned money for aftermarket replacements). But the good old Longridge book will clarify how all those things (except the entry ports and the poop and forecastle bulwarks) are supposed to look.

That book will also give cause to think about the relative merits of plastic kits. Longridge's model is generally regarded as one of the finest ever built. It has stern lanterns cast from silver and oxidized, so they're black. Heller cast the lanterns in clear plastic; the modeler paints the tops, bottoms, and frames. So which is more accurate - Longridge or Heller?

I was prepared to replace deadeyes, belaying pins and blocks, and of course clove hitch the ratlines, but I had no idea about that forecastle problem. I'm not sure I'll have the skill or guts to scratchbuild that!

One thing that does need to be made from scratch is the chainplates - same for the detail on the ship's boats, and the -too thick- frames on the stern windows. Dafi makes some nice photo etched ones for that purpose.

The lack of entry ports I can live with, as it's probably accurate :)

Anyways, I have three more kits to finish before I start with this one - I hope I'll learn a thing or two in the process, otherwise more kits will have to be done. I really want to do the Heller kit justice.

I really do think plastic ships have their merits - they're generally much more accurate than wood kits, are easier to build, and with the right painting they may look just as nice. The problem is that the need for A M parts skyrockets the cost, but it still shouldn't be as expensive as a high end wood kit.

Thanks for the insight!

Some progress on the Revell kit - finally decided to ditch the ugly plastic stand and epoxy the model to a pair of metal pedestals , courtesy of our HECEPOB friend Artist in the... well, that thing 

I think it would be interesting to note that the flags are also made from shoe box paper. The ones that come with the kit are too thick and I just can't understand why they're printed as if they were waving and billowing in 2D. The shoe box paper was taped to regular paper and printed on a laser printer. To make them hang limp I brushed on some water and gave them shape. They're printed in one side, folded and glued, much like kit flags, but if you manage to print them on both sides you'd have nice lightweight, shapeable flags.

There's some doubt about those poop and forecastle bulwarks. Changing them would not be terribly difficult; if you want to do it, I'm sure there's a website somewhere with ideas on how to do it.

The Calder/Jotika 1/72 wood kit has raised bulwarks on the forecastle - but not on the poop. (That's one possible interpretation of the evidence.) Here are some pictures: http://jotika-ltd.com/Pages/1024768/CKit_Victory_01.htm

By the way - that kit costs well over $1,000. It doesn't have the "anchor stock" planking on the wales (like the Heller, Airfix, and Revell ones do). And the guns below the weather decks are "dummies" - stub barrels that plug into chunks of wood behind the ports. (To my knowledge, the Heller kit is the only one on the market that has a complete armament.) To be fair, Longridge's model doesn't have guns on its lower decks either. The port lids are shut.

Another Heller part I'd suggest replacing is, of all things, the ship's wheel. It has scarcely any detail on it. On the other hand, it's not in an exactly conspicuous location.

If there's room for speculation about the height of the bulwarks, I think I might leave them as they are - though it makes sense that they would be higher and built up in war times. Maybe when the time comes I'll have gathered enough courage to make them, who knows...

The wheel, on the other hand, would be a minor addition - plenty of aftermarket, better looking items. That's the kind of stuff I'll add to the model without a doubt!

I remember doing this kit as a kid in the late 60's. Yours is a damn site better than mine. Looks great......

Rdiaz take a look at Pete Coleman's Airfix Heller Victory site. It's got all kinds of great information about the model and what the possibilities are.

Beautiful build!

Mike

RDiaz,

I think your model is really beautiful! You've done a great job on the painting/weathering look and it just sings to me.

Mike

Thanks a lot gentlemen!

I'm concentrated on stern painting right now, it's so small I can't do it cleanly, even using toothpicks! Guess magnifying glasses are in order...

Yeah, the building order I'm following is total chaos, but I did it to break up the monotony. 

On my way to work and my Heller kit is already waiting for me there!  

There is an interesting feature on the Heller model.   It does not contain the entry port found on virtually every other plastic kit of the Victory.  I do wish, however, that Heller would have included the higher forecastle bulwarks carried by Victory at Trafalgar.  These are a feature of the Calder Craft kit, but that kit is so @#&%$ expensive. Anyway, good luck with the Heller kit!

Bill

I am probably on the minority, but I prefer the aesthetics of the ship without entry ports and lower forecastle bulkheads. The moulded timberheads, however, don't look that good - I think they should be replaced. But after inspection I think I really like the Heller kit. It's more intimidating than I expected (man, those cannons.I thought they were comprised of less parts!) but I'm really looking forward to building it. The 1/147 Constitution and 1/75 Pinta come first though, and I intend to get both fully rigged...

RDiaz, you're not alone. I'm inclined to agree, in fact. The entry ports she has now are beautiful, but it looks to me like the weight of the evidence is against their having been there in 1805.

I know there's been a lot of argument in various quarters about them. A lot of people seem to believe in them rather emotionally. But I've looked at quite a few paintings and photos of the ship prior to her restoration (in the early twentieth century), and I have yet to find a contemporary picture that shows the entry ports.

The big model in the National Maritime Museum, apparently built after her refit shortly before Trafalgar, doesn't have them. (It does have several other notable features I haven't seen elsewhere, though.) The big painting by J.M.W. Turner doesn't have them. The Clarkson-Stanfield panorama of Trafalgar doesn't seem to have them (though there's a brushstroke that just might be an entry port, but looks more like a wisp of smoke). Not one of the old paintings reproduced in Basil Greenhill's and John McKay's book shows them. The McKay drawings show them, but Dr. Greenhill's text doesn't mention them.

The one primary source I know of that shows the entry ports is the other contemporary model of the ship in the National Maritime Museum - the model that apparently shows her in her "as-built" condition. That's a rather dubious source. It's an established fact that not all actual ships matched their "Board Room Models" (which often were built before the ships were), and we know she underwent lots of modifications between 1765 and 1805.

I lean in the direction of believing that the ornamented entry ports were added in the 1920s. But I have no proof of that whatsoever.

An interesting point: the people responsible for the upkeep of the ship herself have been remarkably silent on this matter. I know they hired a carver who (superbly) made new canopies over the entry ports for her pre-2005 restoration. And several publications issued by those folks show the entry ports.

Dr. R.C. Anderson, who supervised the restoration in the 1920s, admitted flat out that the low forecastle bulwarks were "a mistake for which I must bear my share of the blame." He said that research had established that the bulwarks were raised during the refit shortly before Trafalgar, but the researchers revealed their findings just after Dr. Anderson and his team had finished building the low, knee-high ones. They hesitated (understandably) to scrap work they'd just finished, and "the result, while wrong historically, is certainly pleasing to the eye."

I wonder if those entry ports resulted from some similar circumstances.

That Calder-Jotika kit is a remarkable one. (Big caveat: I've never seen it outside the box.) The original release had the low forecastle bulwarks. But everybody who bought it was invited to subscribe to an information service, in which Calder/Jotika sent out pieces of new information about the ship as it was discovered. (Now that's what I call a real scale model company!) The kit as it's being marketed now apparently has the raised bulwarks. (Both new and old versions have the entry ports. That subject seems to be something that manufacturers and the people responsible for the ship are careful to avoid.)

Lots of people know a great deal more about H.M.S. Victory than I do, and if one of them happens to read this post and offers some evidence I haven't heard about I'll be delighted to read it. (How about it, Forum? Does anybody out there know of a piece of actual evidence that those entry ports were there in 1805?)

As for building a model of her...well, I think I'll leave that to somebody else. Even if I could afford that Calder kit, I'm not at all sure I could finish it (to an acceptable standard) in this lifetime. The grand old magazine Model Shipwright sent me one of the Heller kits for review when it was initially issued, in the late seventies; I kept it for several years, but when I moved from Virginia to North Carolina I gave it away. I built lots of models of that ship when I was a kid, and I'm really more interested in less popular (or, to be less courteous, less hackneyed) subjects these days. But anybody who tackles either of those kits has my very best wishes. Either of them has the potential to be turned into a magnificent model.

What Dr. R.C. Anderson said about the bulwarks is what pushes me to leave them knee high. They are just more pleasing to the eye IMHO. I can live with historic inaccuracies which are not 100% certain to be actual inaccuracies, if they make the model look better... I guess that depends on the standards of each individual modeler. Perhaps the higher bulwarks were added at the end of the 1803 refit and at some point in history the ship looked like the Heller model, though not floating -who knows?

Thanks a lot for the valuable information!