HMS Surprise- The movie version

Another great virtue of Conrad, from the purely practical standpoint, is that, because his works have long been out of copyright, paperback versions of them are cheap.  There's a wonderful paperback volume called The Portable Conrad (from Penguin Books, I think) that contains most of his major works between two covers.  It's undoubtedly more expensive than the $5.00 I paid for it thirty years ago, but still a huge bargain. 

The first Conrad book I read, back in high school, was The Nigger of the Narcissus.  I don't know that I'd recommend it for starters; it's a masterpiece, but loaded with symbols that literary theorists still argue about.  I think I'd recommend starting with the longish short story "Youth," then the short novel Typhoon.  I have that one in the form of an audiobook.  I listened to it in my workshop once, on a beautiful, clear evening in May.  By the time it was over I had to look out the window to convince myself it wasn't raining - or worse.

Another one that's worth reading is The Mirror of the Sea.  It doesn't get as much attention as some of Conrad's other works; it's sort of a casual anthology of stories and articles, some of them non-fiction, about various maritime-related subjects.  It's available in paperback, though somewhat harder to find than the more famous volumes.

You MUST read both 'Youth' and 'Typhoon'. Conrad is one of my all time favorites. What style!

But I must throw my oar in here and say that as much as I revelled in Hornblower in my youth, Aubrey/Maturin takes the bell for me now. I am happy to follow PO'B on whatever digression he chooses, it's all good. 150 word sentences don't faze me, mate, I've read Mervyn Peake's 'Gormenghast', where a sentence can consume the better part of a page (!).

The only time PO'B let me down was ( SPOILER ALERT   SPOILER ALERT) when he summarily and off-handedly killed off two important characters.

I finally decided not to add camber to the deck, I have to scratchbuild too much of the details, and with far more years behind, than I expect ahead, well, anyway. This is the spar deck, with some of the deck furniture placed where it will be attached after painting.

This one is the quarterdeck area.  , and this shows the new capstan, and wheel.  It's been fun with the deck furniture, as I've had to use what "known" measurements I could determine from the photos, and use them to "guess" the dimentions of all the parts I've had to build so far. I've exercised my Chopper extensively. The gratings are photoetched brass mesh, stk no.02714 from K&S Engineering. Evergreen strip, sheet, rod, and quarter round were used to fabricate the rest. The nine pounders on the quarterdeck, will be reworked to include tackle, and a repaint of the cannon to a more bronze color. The trucks will get new wheels, and quoins, for elevation adjust. I still need to build waterways, steps to the quarterdeck, pin rails (at the masts, and on the bulwarks), the binacle cabinets, and on, and on.  

Did the kit come with carronades?

Unfortunately, no. I'm going to have to scratch a set of four, two for the bow, and two for the forward part of the quarterdeck.

Hey Sumpter,

You probably already know this, but try this place.  Its in England and sells some very small scale wood deadeyes and other things that might be of help.

http://www.jotika-ltd.com/Pages/1024768/Fitting_Front.htm

I don't know what the shipping is like to the US though.

Bluejacket's britannia metal deadeyes go down to 3/32".  Model Expo offers some nicely turned walnut ones; I'm never quite sure how these companies measure their fittings, but the smallest in that range is smaller than the smallest Bluejacket ones.  Model Expo sometimes sells them in bulk quantitities.

The two or three smallest sizes of blocks from Bluejacket are about right for a model on that scale.  The smallest ones - nominally 3/32" - are really tiny.  They take some time and effort to clean up; a knife-edged file is a big help in cleaning out the grooves.  It's also relatively easy to cut them down a little; chop off  1/32" or so from the long end and you've got a block that many observers will barely be able to see.  For anything smaller than that, you're probably better off with a knot covered with a drop of glue and painted.

Hope that helps.

LHill,

Thanks for the link to jotika ltd. checked it out, smallest deadeyes are 2.5mm, very very close to 3/32", which I can get through my local hobby shop. I will keep jotika in mind though, for some of my other projects.

Jtilley,

  Of course I'll attempt to make the scale blocks before I use the knot/glue/paint method, but that is an option, and one I had considered.

   The new trucks for the carronades are about finished, and it's about time to sling some more paint.I'll post some pics after the painting is done.

There's nothing wrong with using glue blobs for blocks on small scales.  I'm pretty sure that's essentially how Donald McNarry does it - though he makes his rigging of wire rather than thread.  (He describes it as "glued up rather than rove in the usual manner.")

Try the brown version of Franklin Titebond - the stuff that's made for dark woods.  It dries in a hurry, and shrinks slightly when it dries.  Just before it hardens off completely, a little prodding with a toothpick will give it a thoroughly convincing block-like shape.  For best results, use enamel paint; acrylic may soften up the glue and put you back where you started. 

Oh! It's 11. The first pic is an overhead shot of the spardeck:

The next, is a starboard side shot. This far along in construction, I realized that because I am not using the kit shrouds/deadeye assembly, I needed to remove the kit channels, and replace them. Not a wise thing to do with this much detail in place.

   Next is a closeup overhead of the quarterdeck: 

The cannonballs, are the smallest shot found in a .22 cal. birdshot round. They are still a little large, but about the same size as came with the kit. Last, the foredeck. There are two pinrails, in the bow, for spritsail, and jib lines.

      There's still all the pins to install in the fiferails, and pinrails to install at the bullwarks, along with any other eyebolts in the deck. I got some .015" X .024" flat brass bar stock, to make the through channel links between the deadeyes, and the chainplates. The chainplates are a rectagonal link made of round bar stock. I'll have to determine the size of these, and begin building them. I will probably use .012" brass wire for these.

Here's a trick for making cannonballs of any size you like.  It relies on trial and error, but doesn't take more than a few minutes. 

Chop a piece of brass wire into short, identical lengths.  (The exact length is what has to be determined by trial and error; it obviously depends on the diameter of the wire.)  When you've made a dozen or so little pieces of wire that way, spread them out on a fireproof surface (you probably have a soldering pad of some sort) and hit them with a torch.  In a few seconds the laws of physics will go to work; the brass will melt, and each length of wire will coagulate into a sphere.  Drop the spheres into chemical blackener, let them dry, shoot them with clear flat lacquer, and you've got your cannonballs.  Once you establish the initial measurement you can crank out a hundred of them in half an hour.

Chain plates are difficult.  Each assembly has to be of a different length, due to the changing angles of the shrouds.  In the early nineteenth century the chainplate assembly typically had four components:  the iron strop around the deadeye, two long, open iron links (the descendents of the actual chain that was used for the purpose in earlier centuries, and the backing link, an iron loop that was forged into a dumbbell-like shape and spiked into the hull at both ends.  The spike that went through the upper opening in the backing link also went through the lower end of the lower "chain" link, which was "pinched" together at that end to form an eye for the purpose.  In a warship with lots of shrouds, the aftermost chainplate assembly in a gang had to be considerably longer than the foremost one.  The discrepancy was taken up in two of the components:  the backing link and the upper "chain" link.  The lower links and the deadeye strops didn't vary.  On a good set of plans or a photo of the real thing, the points where the links overlap, and the upper and lower spikes in the backing links, form straight lines.

On small scales like this, making all those individual pieces would be quite a challenge. The appearance of the finished product can, however, be pretty effectively faked by using one piece of wire, or even smooth-surfaced thread, and a simple jig.  Drill holes in the channels for the deadeyes (or, if you really want to replicate prototype practice, cut notches for them in the edges of the channels and make a molding to close the notches and cover the edge).  Mark two lines on the hull below, and parallel to, the channel, to establish the heights of the two rows of spikes in the backing links.

The jig consists of a strip of  plastic sheet, about .020" thick and as wide as the opening in the upper link of the first chainplate assembly.  Start by twisting or knotting the wire or thread around the deadeye and passing both ends through the first hole in the channel.  Then make a half hitch in the wire or thread, at the point where the deadeye strop would hook into the upper "chain" link.  Hold the plastic strip there, and make another half hitch in the thread or wire just below it.  Drill the two holes in the hull for the backing link spikes.  Shove both ends of the wire or thread into the upper hole.  Make the backing link out of similar wire or thread.  Make the spikes from brass or steel pins, paying close attention to the diameter of the heads.  Shoving the pin into the hole on top of the wire or thread will hold the latter in place. 

As you make your way aft, the jig will ensure that the "joints" between the "links" (i.e., the half-hitches in the wire or thread) are lined up right.  When you're done, pull the plastic strip out and paint the whole business black.  (If you used thread, try mixing a little Elmer's glue in with the paint.) You'll find it's difficult to tell that the "chain plates" aren't made up of individual links.

That's the trick I used on my models of the Bounty (1/110 scale) and the Hancock  (1/128).  I don't think I'd recommend it on any larger scale than that, but on smaller scales the illusion is pretty effective. 

Disclaimer:  this post has been edited.  I initially typed it in a hurry, and realized later that I'd made some errors in it. 

The chainplate configuration in the picture obviously doesn't match what I described.  The builders of the Rose made lots of compromises due to financial pressures; this looks like one of them.  I suppose it's conceivable that the French made chainplates like that, but I've never seen such a configuration in any British (or American) plans or artwork of he period. 

If your target is to reproduce the ship in the movie, though, that's irrelevant - and the chainplates in the picture certainly would be easier to reproduce.

and the chainplates in the picture certainly would be easier to reproduce.

I built one deadeye-strop-link-chainplate-backing link combination from brass wire, and shim stock.......there is a simpler, quicker way of doing this...I will find it !

Building the "movie version" has its benefits. There are some decent photos to work from, and, for the most part, dimensions are "computable", it just takes time. Needless to say, there's not much of the original "Jolly Roger" that is usable. The only things on the spar deck that came from the kit are the cannon, and one of the boats. Everything else had to be scratchbuilt to "best guess" measurements. Mostly, because of the difference in hulls, things have been built proportional to the kit hull, as opposed to being exactly scaled from the movie "surprise". I'll be very satisfied with a "good looking reasonable facsimile", of the compromise between the "Rose rebuild", and the "tank model".......besides, I'm having fun !!

This may be old news here, but this is from the latest HMS Rose newsletter:

Interested in model ships?  Newsletter Reader Mark Goodman sent this in:

   You might be interested to know that the Spanish company Artesania
   Latina (they make model wooden ship kits) is about to release a
   detailed model kit of the Surprise.  Apparently they have been
   working with the Greenwich Maritime Museum to produce it.  It will
   be released in Europe shortly.  Email them direct if you want more
   info.  I have already made two of their kits and they are
   excellent quality.

You can email them from this page:
at http://www.artesanialatina.net/contactar.php

I've always made it a matter of policy to avoid disagreeing violently with, or criticizing the work of, other members of this Forum.  I don't think that's what it's for.  In this particular case, though, since the gentleman being quoted is not (I assume) a Forum member, I'll take the liberty of offering a personal observation.

I've reviewed a couple of Artesania Latina kits for publications (quite a few years ago, I admit), looked at some others in the boxes, and seen many photos of models built from them.  In my opinion, AL (known in Nautical Research Guild circles as "Artist in the Latrine") is one of the more objectionable of the HECEPOB (Hideously Expensive Continental European Plank-On-Bulkhead) companies, about whom I've ranted at considerable length here and elsewhere.  It's unfair to generalize too much, but the AL products I've seen have been characterized by ineptly drawn plans, utter lack of research, mediocre materials, impractical construction methods, a general lack of interest in historical accuracy, and utterly outrageous prices.  If somebody from that firm has indeed paid a visit to the National Maritime Museum, that's good news.  Maybe somebody at AL has finally learned what the term "scale ship model" means.  I'll reserve judgment till I've seen the kit, but every other product from this source that I've seen has been just about useless for anything but firewood.

I've made the following point before, but I'll make it once more:  my disgust with the world of the HECEPOBs is not in any sense unique to me.  It's a common viewpoint among serious, experienced ship modelers.  If my comments seem harsh, take a look at this article:  http://www.naut-res-guild.org/piracy2.htm

Dr. McDonald wrote that article more than twenty years ago, but the situation hasn't changed much since then.

Maybe Artesania Latina is genuinely trying to turn over a new leaf.  (At least one other HECEPOB company, Amati, seems to be doing so; its new range of "Victory Models" appears to be excellent.)  I certainly hope so.  But I'll believe it when I see it.

jtilley wrote:

I've always made it a matter of policy to avoid disagreeing violently with, or criticizing the work of, other members of this Forum.  I don't think that's what it's for.  In this particular case, though, since the gentleman being quoted is not (I assume) a Forum member, I'll take the liberty of offering a personal observation.

No need to apologize for sharing your opinions.  I must confess that I've never built a wooden ship model, but everything I've ever heard or read about the european kitmakers is consistent with your description above.  Its my impression that their market consists of two groups: amateurs fated for disaster and advanced builders who are essentially using the parts as a base for scratchbuilding.

Given that, I wonder if there's any chance they are turning over a new leaf.  Perhaps with competition from Amati and Model Shipways there's starting to be an incentive to build quality kits.  Probably not, but either way I thought it was interesting news and wanted to share.

Dan

I am aware of four wood sailing ship kit manufacturers whose products are designed by people who know what they're doing, and are intended to produce genuine scale models.  Three are long-established American firms:  Model Shipways, Bluejacket, and the recently revived A.J. Fisher.  The other is British:  Caldercraft, aka Jotika.  (Caveat:  I've never seen a Calder kit in the flesh; they aren't widely distributed here in the U.S., and their prices - over $1,000 for the 1/72 scale H.M.S. Victory - are beyond my reach.  But on the basis of their literature and the reviews of their kits that I've read, it's pretty clear that Calder models are high-quality products.

The "Victory Models" line from Amati seems to be a new venture, mostly, if not entirely, headquartered in Britain.  As I understand it, the driving force behind these kits is a designer who used to be affiliated with Calder/Jotika; there's some interesting information about the company, and him, on www.modelshipworld.com .  Amati apparently is supplying the money and the marketing machinery, but little if anything else.  I haven't seen any of these kits either, but if the photos on that website are any indication they occupy a completely different planet than the HECEPOB trash that serious modelers have come to associate with the parent company over the years.

It would be nice to think that the combination of quality products from the U.S. and Britain, plus the ongoing screeches of protest from people like Charlie McDonald and me, are finally leading the HECEPOB companies to mend their sinful ways and either learn what a scale ship model is or go out of business.  That, however, probably is wishful thinking.  But I'll be interested to see what this Artisania Latina H.M.S. Surprise looks like.

These are pics of a project started in late 1970, and completed in 1977. I laid down the lines for this 40" gaff rigged cutter in November '70, lofted and cut the twentyeight double sawn frames, erected room double space, and planked with mahogany strips, shaped and fitted to the hull. The only commercial parts used were blocks, deadeyes, belaying pins, and chain. It is a 1/64 scale model, 7-1/2" long on deck.

   Now that you've seen my "business card", you know where I am coming from. Prof. Tilley's comments about "hecepob" kits are fully supported by me. I have seen them in the store where I worked for a time, and at the industry shows in Rosemont. Il. I am not impressed with the quality, and assembly. I can loft frames and plank a hull, why should I spend the small fortune for a kit, that I can build from scratch, and produce a more accurate model, not to mention the immense satisfaction of the build. Can these companies produce something of value? Why not? As a model railroader, I remember the names Bachmann, and LifeLike. They still produce things that can be found in the slime under the trash can, but they also have new lines. Bachmann Spectrum, and LifeLike Proto 2000 Heritage, are among the top of the line in HO scale. Beautiful detail, and excellent running qualities. If these two companies can do it, then the hecepob manufacturers could also come out with a quality line. Most of the hobby shop people, in the Chicago area, came to expect that when I purchased a plastic kit, I usually purchased a new razor saw, to do the modifications. To the extent that if I didn't get a new saw, they'd ask. I can make a nylon purse out of a sow's ear(I haven't quite mastered silk yet). There are some kits that do not lend themselves to improvement, and, when they are too expensive to start with, I'll go the scratchbuild route. I still look at all kits, with an eye to what I can make out of them.

Hi all,

This post has nothing to do with the subject being discussed. I just want to keep this thread about HMS Surprise alive, since I'm still seriously considering building one.

I have one simple question: all my sources about the "movie version" of Surprise appear to show the quarterdeck raised slightly above the main deck; the main deck is continuous to the bow. That is, there is no raised foc'sle deck. Nor is there a "three-deck" arrangement, as seen in some models on-line.

OK, another question: where can I buy plastic wood-grained deck stock to replace the Lindberg decks?

Thanks much.

Weasel

The ship used in the movie, as I guess most enthusiasts know, is a reconstruction of H.M.S. Rose that was built quite a few years ago and bought by the movie makers.  I've only been on board her once - and that was a long time ago, when she was a "museum ship" (not a very good one) moored at Newport, Rhode Island.  My recollection is that, indeed, her waist was planked over, making her virtually flush-decked. 

The explanation, as I recall, was that this arrangement enabled the owners "to make better use of the ship."   They acknowledged, in other words, that the flush-decked configuration was completely bogus in terms of historical accuracy.  (The Admiralty draught of the Rose exists; it shows her with separate, raised forecastle and quarterdeck - like every other British eighteenth-century frigate.) 

I confess that, in all the times I've watched the movie, I didn't notice that point.  I think the movie makers may have deliberately - and largely successfully - camouflaged the discrepancy.  (They built their own "duplicate" of the Rose, which they floated in a giant tank; maybe the tank model has properly-configured decks.)  There's a scene in which Dr. Maturin is operating on the sailor with the injured skull.  If I remember correctly, we're given the impression that the operation is taking place in the ship's waist, with a gang of sailors gaping down from the break of either the forecastle or the quarterdeck.

This is the sort of thing that comes up when one decides to build a model of a movie prop.  In many ways the ship in the movie doesn't actually look like a frigate of 1805. 

I'm not aware of any manufactured plastic product that has "wood grain" molded into it.  Evergreen, however, makes some nice styrene sheets with grooves molded in them to represent planking seams.  There's considerable disagreement among modelers about whether wood grain ought to be visible in three dimensions at such a small scale.  If you do want to represent it, it can be done pretty convincingly by scratching the surface of the plastic with either a stiff wire brush or a sheet of fairly fine sandpaper.

Hope that helps a little.  Good luck.

 The scene, in the movie, where Dr. Maturin is shot, is done looking forward, and there appears to be no step in the fo'c'sl.  In light of "the movie version" the full size "tank" model is the most used version, and is the one I return to for the details I model. The spar deck and almost all the deck furniture, are Evergreen styrene. When using a wire brush, or sand paper to create woodgrain, try to keep the strokes all in the same direction. Don't try to gouge too deeply, at this scale you only want a hint of grain. Remember, these decks were holystoned fairly regularly, and were smooth in texture. More important than "grain" would be color difference board to board, and a hint of caulking between the planks.

 Construction is currently on hold, as I'm preparing modules for Trainfest, in Milwaukee, and I have some new projects with GC Laser, that need to be done by Trainfest. "Surprise" may just show up, in the drydock of my Ntrak module, I have some "logistics" issues I have to address before that happens.

To JT and Sumpter,

Thanks for the response. But JT, am I to interpret your comments as saying that the movie version of Surprise is NOT accurate, in that it lacks a raised foc'sle deck (quote: "...like every other British eighteenth-century frigate")? Seems like a fairly easy task to add one to the Lindberg JR, but it looks just fine without it. Please forgive my naivete, but I'm still just trying to figure out which "version" of HMS S to model.

And Sumpter, the railroad bug is alive and well in me too. I feel your pleasure/pain. (Where does the time go)?

Thanks again for all the help.

Weasel505

I think there's some confusion over vocabulary here.  There's good reason for it to be confusing; it's not entirely rational.

A frigate, as the term was defined in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, had its main armament on one, full-length deck, variously called either the gundeck or the maindeck.  The typical first-generation British frigate, in the mid-eighteenth century, had, in addition to that deck, a raised forecastle deck and quarterdeck, leaving the maindeck/gundeck exposed in the waist. 

It wasn't long before somebody figured out  that everybody's life would be simpler if it were possible to walk directly from the forecastle to the quarterdeck, and vice-versa. So frigates started to be fitted with narrow wood "gangways" connecting the two raised decks.  When I was working on my model of the Hancock I made a mighty effort to figure out just how the gangway evolved; I became convinced that it developed inconsistently.  There was a period, about the time of the American Revolution (i.e., when the real H.M.S. Rose was in service), when some frigates had no gangways, some had gangways that were only a couple of feet wide, and some had wider ones.  (I base that statement on having looked at quite a few contemporary frigate models in the National Maritime Museum.)  Generally - but not always - the gangways during that period were portable; some Admiralty draughts from the 1760s and 1770s have platforms jutting out from the quarterdeck and forecastle labeled "fixed part of the gangway."

As time went on, the gangways got wider - not only in frigates but in larger vessels as well.  And the gangways came to be permanent fixtures.  They in fact became, to all intents and purposes, extensions of the planking of the quarterdeck and forecastle deck.  H.M.S. Victory, for instance, is generally said to have a separate, raised quarterdeck and forecastle, connected by permanent gangways.

Eventually the gangways got so wide that the space between them, through which the main deck/gundeck was visible, amounted to an oversized, elongated hatch.  (Example:  the U.S.S. Constitution.)  At about that time, people started referring to the whole "assembly" of forecastle deck, gangways, and quarterdeck as simply the "spar deck."  Literature about the Constitution generally refers to the full-length deck with the main armament on it as the "gundeck," and the uppermost deck as the "spar deck."  When somebody on board that ship talks about the "forecastle" or the "quarterdeck," he's talking about the forward or after section of the spar deck.

The Lindberg "Jolly Roger" is a reissue of an old kit representing a French frigate, La Flore.  I haven't seen the kit in a long time, but as I remember it has what amounts to a spar deck - a single piece of plastic that stretches from bow to stern, with a big opening in it through which the gundeck can be seen.  As I recall, the gangways (or, if you like, the central section of the spar deck) are fairly wide strips of  "planking" with gratings molded in them.  (I think that's a fairly distinctively French feature.  I can't recall seeing a British or American frigate with gangways built like that.) 

The replica of H.M.S. Rose (the one used in the movie) was built with a (sort of) spar deck - one that doesn't look anything like anything on a real eighteenth-century frigate.  Rather than a separate raised quarterdeck and forecastle, she has a simple, full-length deck, with no big hatch in the middle (at least that's how I remember her), stretching from the bow to the stern and completely covering the main deck/gundeck.  To put it another way, the space between the forecastle deck and the quarterdeck was planked over.  (The explanation for this obvious deviation from historical accuracy was that it "enabled us to make better use of the ship.")

I haven't seen the Admiralty draught of the real H.M.S. Surprise (there actually was a frigate of that name, though the Patrick O'Brian buffs think he modified her a little in his imagination), so I don't know just what the configuration of her decks was.  It's a fairly safe bet, though, that she had a separate quarterdeck and forecastle deck, with either temporary or (more likely) permanent gangways connecting them - and a big open space in the middle where the main deck was exposed to the weather.

I'd have to take a look at the Lindberg kit again to make an intelligent recommendation, but one possible approach would be to cut off the gangways, thereby leaving the forecastle deck and quarterdeck separate.  That wouldn't make the model look like the ship in the movie - but might make it look more like the real Surprise.  To make the kit look more like the ship in the movie, you'd have to fill in the space between the gangways - and thereby make the result look unlike an eighteenth-century frigate.  All of which constitutes one of the many reasons why I haven't been attracted by the proposition of building a model of the ship in the movie.

Hope that helps a little.  Good luck.