Hella HMS Victory - Shrouds

To begin with, we should emphasize in any discussion like this that it's your model, and how you build it is entirely up to you.  Nobody (I hope) is going to pronounce that anything you do to it is "wrong."

If you look through the various Forum threads dealing with this kit (and there are quite a few of them), you'll see that there's been a lot of criticism (much of it from me) of many of the kit's parts.  In most cases, though, the problem is not how they look, but that the way they've been designed isn't practical. 

Some of that situation is not Heller's fault.  Styrene plastic is a wonderful material, but there are some purposes for which it just doesn't work well.  Eyebolts made out of styrene break when threads are tied to them and pulled taut.  Hammock netting stanchions made out of styrene break when they're accidentally bumped - which they almost certainly will be when the model is being rigged.  And the rigging blocks and deadeyes in the kit are just about unusable.  A real block or a deadeye has a groove around it and a hole (or several holes) through it.  A two-piece rigid mold cannot produce a part with a groove around it and a hole through it.  As I recall, the rigging blocks in the big Heller kits have little bumps molded on their edges; the modeler is told to tie a piece of thread around the block in such a way that the thread sort of zigzags around the little bumps.  That isn't just unrealistic; it's utterly impracticable.  The deadeyes aren't quite as bad; they don't have grooves around them, but they do have little "steps" molded in them that, at least in the case of the bigger sizes, probably could be made to hold the lines in position (though I'm not so confident about the smaller sizes). 

That's why so many serious modelers replace the eyebolts, blocks, and deadeyes with aftermarket or scratchbuilt parts - not because the replacement parts look so much better, but because they work so much better.  I speak from experience:  rigging a cast metal block from Bluejacket (www.bluejacketinc.com) is a whole lot easier than wrestling with those Heller abominations.  And it takes less than a minute to make an eyebolt from brass or copper wire - an eyebolt that will withstand any yank that's administered to the rope attached to it.

I am unaware of any aftermarket parts designed specifically for the Heller Victory - or any other plastic sailing ship kit.  In any case, changing the figurehead would only be one step toward making the Heller kit represent the ship's 1765 configuration.  In the first forty years of her life she went through several massive refits that changed her appearance quite substantially.  To reproduce her 1765 configuration you'd have to rebuild the stern galleries, the entry ports, and some of the bulwarks in addition to the bow; the position of the mainmast would have to be altered, the "copper sheathing" would have to be removed from the hull bottom, and the armament would have to be changed.  The kit does a pretty good job of showing what the Victory looked like in 1805 (though there's room for argument about that).  My suggestion would be to let well enough alone - unless you're prepared for a project that would be almost as complex and time-consuming as starting from scratch.

All the foregoing discussion of "how bad (or good) the model would be if built from the box" makes me wonder about something.  Over the years I've seen quite a few Constitutions and Cutty Sarks built more-or-less straight from the boxes of the 1/96-scale Revell kits.  The Revell designers, as we've discussed above, knew what they were doing; they figured out how to simplify some of the tricky parts in a practical way that enabled a competent modeler to obtain a nice-looking, impressive result - whether or not he really knew what he was doing.  A significant investment in aftermarket parts, and the acquisition of some reference materials beyond those in the box, certainly would make a Revell Cutty Sark or Constitution into a better-detailed and more accurate model, but they aren't necessary to produce a model that most observers would find really impressive and satisfactory.

On the other hand, I've never seen a completed Heller Soleil Royal or Victory that hadn't had a great deal of extra attention lavished on it.  We've had discussions of several that are in progress here in this Forum; most of the builders are adding lots of aftermarket parts, and so far as I know none of them is finished.  Has anybody out there ever built a Heller Soleil Royal or Victory without replacing any of the kit parts - and using at least one book or set of plans to augment those gawdawful "instructions"?  Has anybody even seen a finished Heller Soleil Royal or Victory with its yards dangling unattached to the masts? Or fitted successfully with hammock nettings made on that ridiculous "loom"?  Or with deadeyes, lanyards, shrouds, and ratlines successfully "rigged" on those silly, complicated jigs?  Or with the rigging lines actually zigzagging around the little bumps on the blocks?  Quite apart from the question of why anybody would try to build those kits that way, I have my doubts as to whether it could be done.

It seems this topic will run and run.

The Heller kit is no doubt one of the most complex plastic kits of its type, but with the potential for superb results. In the end  tho' modellers should only build to their own satisfaction and enjoyment.

How far the tips and recommendations found in forums like this are taken on board is entirely up to the individual. The rub is, as Mr Tilley has touched on in an earlier post, that faced with this information an element of disillusionment can creep in which can spoil one's pleasure in the build, perhaps a case for ignorance is bliss for newcomers to the art.

One of the problems doing the rigging ala Heller is that they don't really explain what many of the lines (particularly running rigging) are for. It can therefore be difficult to understand the sense of it without some knowledge of model ship rigging.

That is why people such as Mr Tilley and myself advocate books such as those by C.N. Longridge which are invaluable  at whatever level of completion one is prepared to undertake.

I certainly agree with Mr Tilley that the Revell Cutty Sark and Constitution are large scale ship models that do have clear explanations and can be built  with a high personal satisfaction level, without the torture presented by Heller instructions.

Had I not built these two model first, my builds of the Victory and Soleil Royal would have been a much less pleasant experience.

So George, you have built all 4 kits then?  Could you post some pics for us?  I am especially in need of pics of a completed Soleil Royal.  Perhaps I could get you to take a series of pics for me?  I would be very grateful.

Hello all,

I don't know if a link to the following forum has been posted before:

http://www.chumster.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=83&mforum=bobbie

These are some pictures of an impressive Soleil Royale build.

The forum and website are dedicated to builds of the Heller Victory, and there are also threads for other sailing ship models. Those gents across the pond do some great work.

Jose Gonzales

Well, what I'm looking for is someone who has built the kit and can take a series of pictures of it for me, pretty much of just the rigging.  Say, like several pics of each mast with some closeups.  That way I can get a better feel for how this monstrosity is rigged up...

I just can't find any pics like that on the web...

As JTilley said, starting from scratch to build the Victory in her 1765 configuration would be the only way to go except, through some late night parousing I found that Airfix has a 1/180 Victory model as built in 1765.  Has anyone other than me even seen this kit?              

Hi CC where's the pics then?

The only Airfix 1:180 model I know of is the1805 configuration (including Entry port) that has been around for a long time.

I think we'd all be interested in a  1765 configured model with open galleries etc; do keep us posted.

You had me going for a moment CC, the kit refers to 1765 which is the launch date of the Victory, but the portrayal is of the Trafalgar era configuration. Note the closed in galleries on the stern. I have built this model in the long distant past, it is not as originally launched.

Shame tho' it would have been nice.

The wire provided by Heller is to represent the gunport lid ropes. You will see above each port that has a lid  two  guide marks that are to be drilled out into which the 'ropes are fitted.

A lot of modellers  including me don't use this but prefer to rig the lids with line. That wire does come in use tho' I used mine to make the side tackles for the cannon.

I know this has been discussed many times before, but could somebody go through in detail the 2 best ways to assemble the shrouds and ratlines?  There is no need to degrade that "loom" or "jig" or whatever the heck that thing is called anymore because it makes good material to practice refining my airbrush techniques with.  I just want a simple, easily understood explanation.  Another non sequitur, Revell of Germany is releasing a 1/96 Constitution in August, but its 4 1/8 inches longer and $21.00 more expensive than the currently available kit from Revell.  Its first on my "to do" list after finishing the Victory.  Has anybody heard any news regarding this kit?

Re shrouds and ratlines - I'll accept CrazedCossack's invitation to refrain from another diatribe against that ridiculous jig/loom gadget, and try to explain two extremely old-fashioned, but far better-looking, ways to do it - as modified slightly for use in plastic kits.

The first step is to set up the shrouds.  For that, in the case of the Heller Victory kit, I strongly recommend ditching the plastic, grooveless deadeyes in favor of aftermarket parts, either metal (www.bluejacketinc.com) or wood (www.modelexpoonline.com).  The rigging of the deadeye lanyards is, for me at least, the trickiest part of the job.  Some folks have had success with simple jigs to hold the deadeyes the appropriate distances apart while the shrouds are seized to the upper deadeyes and hove taut.  But I'm afraid there's no way to make that part easy. 

Once the shrouds are in place, you need to make yourself a simple guide to the ratline spacing.  Different sources give slightly different spacings - anywhere from 11" to 16".  Take your pick.  Cut a piece of stiff, white paper or cardboard to fit just inside the shrouds, between the channel and the bottom and the masthead at the top.  Draw a series of horizontal lines on the paper at your chosen spacing.  (Or use your computer.)

At this point you have a choice.  Before making it, understand how the real thing was rigged.  On the real ship, each end of each ratline has an eyesplice worked into it.  The eyesplices are seized with light line to the foremost and aftermost ratlines, and the ratline is tied around each intervening shroud with an extremely simple knot called a clove hitch.  So far as I know, nobody has ever attempted to make the hundreds of necessary eyesplices in fine thread that would be necessary to replicate all that on a 1/100-scale model.  In deference to practicality (and the limited time granted us on the Orb), some simplification is necessary.

Probably the best compromise between accuracy and practicality is to tie each ratline around each shroud with a clove hitch.  (The clove hitch is one of the simplest of all knots; learning it takes about a minute.  Knot-tying is notoriously difficult to describe verbally, so I won't try; any website that contains pictures of knots will show you how to do it.)  Start at the bottom.  If you're right-handed, tie the first ratline around the lefthand shroud at the point where the line on your piece of paper tells you.  (Starting at the left is, at least, easier for me.)  Then tie it to the next shroud, and so on.  Put a tiny drop of white glue on the first and last knots, for safety, and when the glue's dried snip off the ends with a small, sharp pair of scissors or an Xacto knife.

I find the finished impression is a little better if on the first and last shrouds, instead of a clove hitch, I use a reef knot (aka square knot).  That creates a little visual difference between those two knots and the others - not enough to make anybody think I actually made all those eyesplices, but at least a difference.

Method two is the "needle-through-the-shroud" method.  For this one, get yourself the thinnest, sharpest needle you can find at your local sewing store and load it up with the finest thread you can get.  (It's unlikely that you'll make the ratlines too thin.  We've discussed the question of color elsewhere.)  With this method I find it easier to start with the righthand shroud.  (I'm right-handed.)  At the point indicated by your paper guide, shove the needle right through the middle of the first shroud, and through each of the others in sequence.  As before, put a tiny spot of white glue on the first and last intersections, and trim off the excess thread when the glue's dried.  Initially you'll probably find it a little awkward to shove the needle through in the oppposite direction, but once your fingers get the hang of it you'll probably find the job goes quicker if you put a couple of feet of thread through the needle and zigzag back and forth - the first ratline from right to left, the second from left to right, etc.

As you can see from any batch of photos of models, there's just no substitute for individually clove-hitched ratlines.  But the "needle-through-the-shroud" method, done carefully, can produce extremely neat, clean results.

As I've preached more than once before, I urge everybody to try the "clove hitch method" first.  Most modelers are pleasantly surprised to discover that it isn't as hard, or as time-consuming, as they thought.  Give your finger muscles a fair chance to get some practice with it; don't give up after the first try.  I firmly believe that most modelers, if they have enough dexterity to build and rig such a model at all, have what it takes to rig ratlines with clove hitches.  Such things as arthritis and close-range eyesight can, however, create problems.  If it does prove too much for you, try the "needle-through-the-shroud" trick.  It's a little easier, and considerably quicker.

Re plastic kits of the Victory  in her as-built configuration - folks, I hate to say it, but I fear you dream.  The economics of the plastic kit industry are such that manufacturers aren't impressed with the opinions and aspirations of dozens; they think in terms of thousands.  That's why, as of 2006, the plastic sailing ship model kit business is almost dead.  The chances of any manufacturer releasing a kit that duplicates, in subject matter, half a dozen that already exist are just about zero. 

And in all honesty, there are quite a few subjects that I personally would give a higher priority.  How about a 1/96 (or 1/00) H.M.S. Prince?   Or a Sovereign of the Seas?  Or a Wasa?  Or an American clipper ship?  Or a good, state-of-the-art American whaler?  Or a British frigate?  Or some American sailing warship other than the Constitution?  (I'd be willing to bet that "new" Constitution from Revell Germany is just the old one in a different box with a higher price.  That company is notorious for botching up its descriptions of scales and measurements.)  I could easily make up a wish list of twenty or thirty subjects - but the sun is going to rise in the west long before any of the manufacturers asks for my opinion. 

I do find myself wondering whether anybody who works for Heller, Revell, or Airfix ever bothers to look at forums like this.  Personally, I've been pleasantly surprised by the number of folks who are working seriously on plastic sailing ship kits - both currently-available ones and golden oldies that get bought at swap meets and via e-bay.  That Chumster website suggests that the number of purchasers of the Heller/Airfix 1/100 Victory is actually pretty substantial.  Maybe, one of these days, some adventurous model company executive will decide to take a risk and put his/her people to work on a new, large-scale sailing ship kit - an accurate, well-conceived one that (a) can be built to an acceptable standard by a reasonably dexterous newcomer and (b) can serve as a starting point for the more experienced modeler who wants to turn it into a more serious scale model.  That fine Japanese company, Imai, proved that it could be done - but went out of business.  The Russian firm Zvezda issued a medieval Hanseatic cog a few months ago that, though I haven't bought it myself, appears to be a well-designed, reasonably accurate kit - and an excellent newcomer's project.  (I'll be interested to see what else comes from that stable.)  I think the other manufacturers are assuming that the market for such kits just isn't big enough to justify the staggering expense of producing them.  But maybe, just maybe, things are changing enough to tempt one of them into taking the plunge.  I sure hope so - but I'm not holding my breath.

JTilley is correct.  The best two methods are the clove-hitch and shroud threading.  But, don't throw out the loom.  I've been using it.  For some reason, while rigging the shrouds/ratlines on my Cutty Sark using the Clove Hitch method, my ratlines caused the shrouds to twist about halfway up.  I'm assuming this is do to the fact that if you tie each row of hitches in the same direction, the tension from the knots cause the shrouds to twist, causing the problem.  Now, I'm sure as I get better at this the problem will go away, but it is really frustrating right now.  So I'm practicing with the loom, but instead of glue (I haven't found a 100% sturdy glue yet), I'm using the shroud-threading method and so far I am pleased with my results.  I can still use the loom's numbers as a guide for spacing, the shrouds stay taught and don't twist, I don't get my finger caught in the ship trying to do the lines, and I can sit downstairs with my wife while I do it.  So, in my own way, I found a way to make the loom work.

Here's how I've done it.

1) Set up your loom as per the instructions.

2) Set up the shrouds as per the instructions.  Use a line larger than what is supplied by the kit for this.  The kit-supplied line is too small anyway.

3) Use a thin line for the ratlines and a small needle.  Begin on the left or right, at the bottom and just thread the line through each shroud, using a little white glue on each end to hold it in place. 

4)You can make small adjustments in the line if necessary, but not too much, else you'll loosen the shroud line itself, causing it to unravel.

That's it.  It's really quite simple. 

Hope this helps.  I'll post some pics when I can...

Grymm

Grymm, as I understand it, you haven't reached the point where you're ready to transfer your loom-rigged shrouds and ratlines to the model itself.  When you do, I'm afraid you're going to find out why the loom doesn't work.

Heller did do something clever in making the masthead parts separate, so the shrouds can be seized to the mastheads more-or-less accurately while they're still on the loom.  That puts the Victory kit ahead of the Soleil Royal.)  But there are two problems at the lower end of the shrouds.  First, those who've tried it (I haven't) report that the spacing of the lower deadeyes as indicated in the instructions doesn't match the spacing of the holes in the channels.  Second - and more seriously - that system just doesn't provide adequately for setting up the deadeye lanyards.  The shrouds have to be among the tautest lines on a ship model.  The lanyards running between the deadeyes are the mechanisms that make them taut.  When the shrouds are taut, the upper deadeyes are supposed to end up in a nice, straight row, parallel to the channel.  There's just no way that's going to happen if the shrouds and ratlines are rigged off the model.  (Maybe it's physically possible, but it's far easier to do if the shrouds are set up on the model in the first place.)

If you're going to use the needle-through-the-shroud method to rig the ratlines, I can't see any earthly advantage to rigging them off the model.  (Well, ok, with your reference to being able to set up shop in the living room, you've got me.  But my wife doesn't want to be around when I'm working on a model.  She says I emit a wide variety of strange noises, including some that vaguely resemble singing and upset the three household cats.)  The physical motions entailed are exactly the same.  And if the shrouds are set up on the model to begin with, they'll be taut before you start rigging the ratlines.  Most experienced modelers rig the shrouds before they do any other rigging; there shouldn't be any other lines in the way.  And in any case, that piece of paper inside the shrouds, in addition to showing you where the ratlines go, will isolate your fingers (and your needle) from everything else.

Over the years quite a few individual modelers and kit manufacturers have tried to work out methods of "pre-fabbing" various rigging components.  They almost invariably don't work - or they turn out to be more complex than the traditional methods.  As the typical ship modeler gets experience, he discovers pretty quickly that (admittedly with some exceptions) the traditional methods aren't just more accurate; they're easier. 

Get back to us when you've got the standing rigging of the model finished.  I have a feeling your enthusiasm for "rigging looms" will be considerably less then. 

Your reference to shrouds twisting when ratlines are hitched to them is utterly new to me.  I've tied several thousand clove hitches in ratlines and never had such a thing happen.  Maybe the shrouds aren't set up taut enough, or maybe the line you used for them has something wrong with it.  But that shouldn't happen.

CrazedCossack - please take all these posts in the context of the others.  You're getting some slightly conflicting suggestions; try all of them before you conclude that any of them is the best.   

Here's another vote for the clove hitch method. I've finished the foremast port and starboard lower ratlines on my 1/96 Constitution, and am working on the port mainmast lower ratlines now.

A couple of observations:

The difference in diameter between the shroud and the ratline can be important. The thicker the ratline thread, the less realistic the ratlines will be if you use the clove hitch - the knots will appear huge. If you look at any photos of ratlines on real ships, the ratlines are much smaller than the shrouds they wrap around. If I were to start all over again, I'd make a much greater effort to locate some fine wire

Be careful when tying the knots, don't make them too tight. I was pulling hard on the ratline when tying knots, trying to take up excess slack between the shrouds, and ended up distorting the shrouds.

Quality of thread is important. I started off with cotton thread from my wife's sewing box, lightly waxed it, and strung several ratlines. The next day the threads had expanded unevenly and what I though had been evenly spaced ended up sagging badly in random spots. Perhaps again a result of pulling too tight on some and not on others. I removed what I had done and switched threads.

I did not lose heart. Once I got into a rhythm, I was able to achieve consistent technique for each knot, and the results drastically improved. Slack and spacing between shrouds are now more consistent as I go along, and the shrouds are less and less distorted. The difference between the first ratlines on the model and the ones I'm working on now are noticeable, and I find myself tempted to re-do those first several lines with my newfound skill.

I don't spend more than a half an hour at a time stringing the ratlines. It is a repetitive motion, and while I do tend to get on a roll and lose track of time, in the interest of my eyes and my wrist tendons, I force myself to switch to something else on the model - there's always plenty else to do. The fore and mainmast have 9 sets of shrouds on each side and that makes for at least 8 knots for each ratline, but I'm cranking - from the first sets which took 15-20 minutes per row of knots, I'm down to <5 minutes per ratline.

Finally, I am comparing the ship I'm building now to the one I built in my early teens (another 1/96 Constitution), in which I used the kit-provided plastic-coated shroud/ratlines, and I am happy with my accomplishments on my current build so far. It'll never match some of the works of art I've seen by other builders, but it is the best work I've done so far as a model builder.

Amen to what both both John Tilley and Jose say.

This is a job to do in stages with breaks in between.There is satisfaction to be gained seeing the progress of the rattling down, and in truth I quite enjoy it.

It is more tiring to do the topmast shrouds as inevitably your arms are held up in a more uncomfortable  position. I understand that Dr Longridge  (my ship modelling guru) built some sort of frame around his model to rest his arms/elbows on when working on the higher rigging. When I get to that point I may have to figure out something similar.

Having set the shrouds up on the model with the deadeyes and lanyards, I rig all my ratlines using a pair of tweezers in each hand. The time is mostly taken up by the gradual tightening of the clove hitch to the point where there is a slight sag in the ratline but the shroud  remains unmoved.

Personally I've always found that the card behind the shrouds method for marking the spacing to be more trouble than its worth. I use a piece of styrene or wood of the right width to use as a gauge for checking my spacing as I go along.

Beginning ship modelers seldom take my suggestions, but I'll take the liberty of offering one more here.  Print out Mr. Gonzales's last post, frame it, and hang it over your workbench.  Pay particular attention to what he says about how his fingers have learned the skills of rigging - and how the amount of time he spends per ratline has already been reduced by at least 70%.

I always rig my shrouds on the ship. Having fixed the lower deadeyes to the channel I rig the shrouds in pairs around the masthead in proper sequence, and turn the upper deadeye into the shroud using a piece of wire as a jig to space the deadeyes the correct distance apart. This distance varies the further along the channel you go and more than one jig is required. The aim is to keep the top deadeyes level.

This is why the Heller shroud contraption is a poor idea. I don't finally seize and trim the deadeye turning on the shroud until I am happy with the overall look, at which point I secure with a spot of superglue

The sequence I normally use is:

1.  Make the rope needed for all the shrouds on one mast, and prepare the necessary number of lines in about the right lengths.

2.  Seize one deadeye in one end of one shroud pair (i.e., one piece of line that's long enough to make two shrouds).

3.  Pass the other end of the shroud around the masthead and seize it, with the deadeye hanging slightly above the right height. 

4.  Rig the lanyard between the upper and lower deadeyes for the first shroud.  Pulling the lanyard taut brings the upper deadeye to the correct height - i.e., the correct distance from the lower deadeye.

5.  Seize another deadeye into the other end of the shroud, at a point where that deadeye hangs slightly above its correct height (i.e., level with the other upper deadeye). 

6.  Rig the lanyard for the second shroud, using it to bring the two deadeyes the correct distance apart.

7.  Repeat for all the other shroud pairs.

8.  Rig the futtock staves and sheer poles (if any).

9.  Rig the ratlines.

On my little Hancock model I added one other step.  The upper end of each shroud is supposed to be wormed and served for a distance of about eight feet on either side of the masthead.  (The foremost shroud is wormed and served all the way down.)  In photos of old ships the bights of the shrouds and stays where they pass around the mastheads have a distinctive appearance, caused by the serving and the tar that was applied afterward.  I represented that on the Hancock model by coating the upper ends of the shrouds with a mixture of artist's "modeling paste," white glue, and acrylic paint.  That had the effect of fattening the line slightly and smoothing the surface of it.  When the concoction dried it was brittle and chipped off easily, but that didn't matter much; it was fairly easy to avoid scraping or bruising it till the model was done.  I don't know that I'd recommend that trick on a large-scale model, but I was pretty happy with it on 1/128 scale.

That's a pretty old-fashioned way to set up shrouds.  I've tried various tricks to get around some of the awkward parts (e.g., setting up deadeyes and lanyards in advance), but in my experience none of them really helped much.  My observation has been that the more experience a modeler gets, the less he/she relies on jigs and shortcuts - not because there's anything "improper" or "lazy" about them, but because they usually don't work as well, or as quickly, as the old-fashioned methods.  Getting the deadeyes the right distance apart, without introducing either too little or too much tension on one or more of the shrouds, does take a little practice - and, every so often, the willingness to scrap a line or two and start over with it.  But once my fingers get into gear on such a project, I suspect I can work faster than I could with any sort of jig or other gadget.

I should say that I do know of a few outstanding modelers (Donald McNarry and John Wilson come to mind immediately) who get outstanding results by pre-assembling shrouds and ratlines (and various other block and tackle assemblies) separately from their models.  Those modelers work on very small scales, and use wire instead of thread for their rigging.  (Mr. Wilson gets beautiful results by making shrouds and ratlines on a jig and soldering the joints with liquid solder and a torch.  And Mr. McNarry's models, none of them bigger than 1/192 scale, are exquisite works of art in every sense.)  The whole process of rigging a ship model changes a great deal when you use wire instead of thread.  I've never had much inclination to go that route - except in the cases of extremely fine lines, like ratlines. 

Several days ago I asked if anybody on the Forum had built, or knew of anybody who had built, either the Heller Victory or the Heller Soleil Royal "out of the box" - i.e., without fastening the yards to the masts, without replacing any of the plastic blocks, deadeyes, stanchions, eyebolts, etc. with aftermarket parts, and without augmenting the instructions with books or other references.  So far I haven't seen any responses.  For a while Heller was selling its Victory with a photo of a completed model on the box top; it looked pretty awful (even my wife thought so, when she saw one of those boxes in a hobby shop), but I didn't look closely enough to see whether the builder had in fact used the blocks and deadeyes that came with the kit.  At any rate, the model in that picture was the only one I've ever seen that came anywhere near demonstrating that the kit could be built "out of the box."  Apart from the question of why anybody would try to do that, I continue to question whether it can be done.

To illustrate Mr Tilley's point here is a picture of that box art, a photo of the completed model which presumably Heller thought would attract potential customers.(well I bought it I suppose)

Many of the faults identifed in previous posts are apparent - the lack of any attachment of the yards to masts, the deadeyes virtually touching each other, no difference between shroud and ratline thickness; and the awful looking hammock netting in stark white thread.

(Actually the netting on the real Victory is pretty white, but it doesn't sit right on a model of this scale.)

To answer Mr Tilley's question, yes the builder did use the kit deadeyes and blocks, but they obviously thought that it was not necessary to show any of the lower deck ports open, which suggests a quick build job.

It's fortunate for Heller that some of us had some vision as what could be done with the basic kit, although on reflection their marketing people probably didn't really care. Why should they it still seems to be selling all these years later.

It's rather interesting that even the person who built the model on the boxtop omitted what is arguably the worst feature of the kit:  the hideous vac-formed "sails."  And much of the rigging associated directly with the sails (sheets, tacks, buntlines, leechlines, etc.) doesn't appear to be there.  That picture doesn't meet the criteria of my original challenge; it doesn't prove that the model can be built "out of the box."

A friend of mine once got hired to build some warship kits to appear in photos on Airfix boxes.  (At that time the plastic kit industry was coming under some pressure to use model photos instead of paintings, apparently because some authorities claimed the paintings were deceptive.)  The Airfix people told him "not to do too good a job."  They were afraid of scaring off potential customers.  Maybe something like that was involved in the photo on the Heller Victory box - but somehow I doubt it.

None of this should obscure the fact that, by any reasonably objective standard (and especially by comparison with what else is on the market), it's an outstanding kit.  My suggestions to anybody contemplating it would be:  (1) Don't make it your first ship model.  Learn the basic terminology and skills of ship modeling on something simpler and less time-consuming.  This is a kit for people who have at least half a dozen ship models under their belts.  (2) Throw out the "sails" before you leave the hobby shop.  (3) As soon as you get home, throw out the rigging and hammock netting "looms," the blocks, the deadeyes, the eyebolts, and the hammock netting stanchions.  (4) Throw out the rigging instructions.  (5) Reconcile yourself to spending a considerable sum on aftermarket parts, such as blocks and deadeyes, and some time scratchbuilding some details, such as the yard parrels.  (6) Buy, beg, borrow, or steal a copy of Longridge's Anatomy of Nelson's Ships.  (If you can't find that one, the revised edition of John McKay's The Hundred-Gun Ship Victory makes an excellent second choice.  Better yet - get both, and throw in a copy of Alan McGowen's H.M.S. Victory.)

Having taken those steps, you'll have before you the basis for a serious scale model of a great ship.  Building it will take a long time (at least two years, I suspect), but when you're finished you'll have a model that you and your descendants can be proud of.

You're a true wordsmith Mr Tilley, you've just described in one paragraph exactly my approach to building this ship

Now that is a paragraph to cut out and pin on the wall.

I'm seven months into this build at a fairly intensive rate, and I'm just reaching the basic hull completion stage.  I fully expect the job to take two to three years to completion.

If nothing else the kit represents extremely good value for money on a leisure time / cost basis.

I agree:  as an investment in leisure-time entertainment, it's a bargain.  On the other hand, I can't blame any innocent purchaser of it who, having spent about $200 on a plastic kit, balks at the thought of discarding several hundred pieces of it - and spending at least another $200 replacing them with aftermarket parts. 

I'm a big believer in the value of the plastic sailing ship kit, but there ought to be a better way.  Imai was moving in the right direction; by the time of its demise its engineers had figured out how to cast excellent styrene blocks and deadeyes in rigid steel molds.  I hope some company picks up the technology where Imai left it.  At the moment, however, I'm not optimistic.

Well JTilley, let me be the first to tell you that I intend to build the Victory straight from the box, with the exception of some of the rigging line.  Why somebody may ask?  Well, it's about money to put it simply.  I just don't have the money right now.  3K move-in expenses for my daughter's apartment and new job 450 miles away has kind of drained my "play money" for the time being.  But, being the eternal optimist that I am, I do believe that I can still complete this kit without any significant degree of additional difficulty.   Call me crazy, call me stupid, but that's just what I believe. 

Can aftermarket parts make a build easier?  Sure they can.  Do aftermarket parts look better?  In most cases, yes they do.  Can a build look good without spending money on aftermarket parts?  Of course it can.  Now, believe me, I would love to get some real nice blocks and deadeyes, as well as some other parts that improve the build or (as some people say), make the build easier.  I do agree with JTilley that the two Heller kits (Soleil Royale and HMS Victory) are kits that should be tackled by experienced builders.   They are complicated.  But these kits can still look very good when built from the box.  To the trained eye there will be screams.  "Those lines are out of scale!" "Those kit blocks look like crap!"....but...to the 99.9999999999% of the world, or as we call them, the "untrained eye".  like my friends, family, neighbors, guests....pretty much everyone who will ever see this kit with the exception of photos I put on here for you guys to (hopefully constructively) criticize, will look at what I've created and not notice that I built it without all the aftermarket stuff and appreciate a beautiful ship that adds to the look of the room...and I beam with pride that I actually made it myself.

There are times (few times that is) that I would feel modellers who are excellent at the craft in their own right would be scared away from kits that are well within their ability simply because they get intimidated when told they "need" to buy all these sometimes expensive third party parts just to build this kit.  Now, this in no way is meant as an insult to anyone.  To the contrary, I have nothing but the deepest respect for everyone on this forum.  But there are many skill levels here and most of the people on this forum always think less of their own skill than it actually is.  It's just me, but I just think that aftermarket "requirements" have the potential to scare modellors away, and keep them from taking their craft to the next level.

HMS Victory can be built from the box.  Will it be the same as with all the aftermarket parts?  Of course not.  Will the kit still be something to look at and be proud of?  Of course it will.

As for the shrouds, which was the subject of the forum to begin with, use whatever method works best for you my friend.  There is a vast wealth of knowledge here at FS and everyone will be more than happy to help you.   I have found a glue that works, if you choose to go that route.  JTilley can go into detail with the best ways to approach the clove hitch method.  I'm still practicing with the Loom, and my results so far have been...improving.  I just need more practice.  But it is working, and my wife likes that I'm downstairs with her, and my cats love batting the spool of thread around...

PM me so we can get together on our builds of the Victory.  If anyone else is building either the 1/96 Constitution, 1/96 Cutty Sark, or the Heller Soleil Royal, give me a PM also....