SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

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

40792 views
45 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    February 2008
  • From: San Bernardino, CA
New Build: Lindberg Jolly Roger *Finished 7-7*
Posted by enemeink on Monday, June 2, 2008 10:51 AM

Next up on my work bench is the LIndberg Jolly Roger, a.k.a. La Flore. I bought 2 of these from my LHS and thought that it would be fun to build my own dirty Privateer ship. This is also helping me to learn how to weather and do pin washes. I figure that if I mess this one up nobody will really njotice. The other kit I will build as a La Flore when I get around to starting it. I'm only using paint and supplies that I already have on hand. Anyways I hope you all enjoy.

so to start this I decided that this is going to be a well worn ship. so I weathered the decks where there would be more foot traffic and left the lower deck a little bit more dirty and worn.

"The race for quality has no finish line, so technically it's more like a death march."
  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: Thailand
Posted by Model Maniac on Wednesday, June 4, 2008 10:22 PM
Nice touch!

Impressive Songs:

All 10 Playlists that I created on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ModelManiacThailand/playlists

Pan Flute Music (300 songs) (Most Popular, over 100K views):

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUNb2zPxGTZO7alagEPsEMzgBkWt4-vKV

El Condor Pasa (Top 50) (World's most famous and my most favorite song):

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUNb2zPxGTZOLKHbju350mLle4HkMhsb8

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by RALPH G WILLIAMS on Thursday, June 5, 2008 12:17 AM

The finish really looks good. Nice idea to weather the deck in relation to foot traffic and movement of equipment on deck. Note taken.

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Thursday, June 5, 2008 9:33 AM
Well, as this is going to be a fairly 'rough and ready' privateer, you might take note of the gun-trucks.  When cannon are fired repeatedly, the trucks rumbling back and forth with the discharges will wear grooves in the deck, which with a lack of naval cleanliness, will attract dirt.
  • Member since
    September 2005
  • From: Groton, CT
Posted by warshipguy on Thursday, June 5, 2008 10:01 AM

Good point about the lack of cleanliness. If this were the naval version, the ship's crew would regularly holystone and swab the decks to a light gray / white finish. But, we all know this.

Bill Morrison

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Thursday, June 5, 2008 10:18 AM
Actually, it wasn't just privateers (many of whom were run very much on naval lines), as the French navy was infamous for filth and very poor hygiene generally....... The Brits kept things VERY clean on a daily basis (and that included the crew and their effects as well!).
  • Member since
    September 2005
  • From: Groton, CT
Posted by warshipguy on Thursday, June 5, 2008 10:30 AM

That lack of cleanliness on French national ships was particularly true during the Revolutionary period, when discipline went by the wayside as a general rule. Some order and professionalism was restored during the Napoleonic era, but French ships were less clean than British ships. Worse still, Spanish ships were well know to the British and French for their foul oders. But, it is harder still to imagine any pirate keeping a clean ship.

Bill Morrison

  • Member since
    February 2008
  • From: San Bernardino, CA
Posted by enemeink on Thursday, June 5, 2008 11:03 AM

Sad to say that I cheated on the weather of the gun trucks. I only weathered around the ones that you would be able to see from the top deck. So I did not weahther the trucks at the bow and the stern. But if you look closely at the second photo you can see that I did add some weathering to where the truck wheels would travel. But now I know that i need to make the detail longer, thanks! 

The hull is assembled I just need to finish painting and weathering. I hope to have that finished by this weekend. I want to add some scrapes and bumps to the hull to show some wear and tear from rubbing against other ships while boarding.

Also is there a special way to attach the gun ports? or do you just glue them to the side of the hull? I'm asking becuase the last two ships that I have done had a tab or something on the part to help with assembly. These have nothing.

"The race for quality has no finish line, so technically it's more like a death march."
  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Thursday, June 5, 2008 11:26 AM

Well, although there was certainly a fair bit of overlap, privateers (especially the later ones) were NOT necessarily pirates, but businessmen.  The ships were often owned by a consortium, and they hired the very best captain they could find.  And certainly, the crews on privateers (especially a very large privateer as your model suggests) were often the best seamen to be found anywhere ('cuz there was a LOT more money to be had on a privateer, and if you could dodge the press-gang to get on board, you could make a big wedge of cash!), and of course, the more efficiently a warship operates, the better its chances of finding and subduing valuable prey..... No prey, no pay!

As for the French Navy, while there were certainly problems with the revolutionary navy, the problems of filth and hygiene on French ships goes back much further, with particularly bad examples during the French and Indian War (Seven Years War).  One one occasion in 1757, a fleet sent from France under Bois de la Motte to relieve the great fortress of Louisbourg in Canada consisting of 19 ships of the line and several frigates arrived at Louisbourg in three squadrons.  Unfortunately, one of the squadrons had first made a stopover in the Caribbean and besides being racked with scurvy, yellow fever and other tropical problems, also picked up a Typhus epidemic, which not only spread to the rest of the fleet, but got on shore as well.  In a matter of days, 400 of de la Motte's crewmen were dead, another 1,200 sick, and the squadron was forced to return to France.  On arrival in Brest, the epeidemic spread to the town, and over 5,000 civilians also died as a result, but the epidemic didn't stop there, as it was then spread to Rochefort and the surrounding area as well.  At the end of the day, nearly half of the 12,000 irreplaceable officers and crew that had sailed to Canada died of the disease, which is spread exclusively by lice, which should give you some idea of the state of things aboard the French ships!

While the British Navy also had its periodic problems with disease, the scientific efforts to deal with problems like scurvy and other diseases reaped enormous benefits.  One ritual for all new men reporting aboard was for all their clothes to be stripped and destroyed, and the men washed down on the fo'c'sles by the bosun and his mates (and you can bet it was a pretty rough scrub too!).  This, plus weekly inspections and cleaning of the crewmen and their gear, daily washdown and scrubbing of the ship kept things remarkably clean, and in many ways, living aboard a British man o' war could be considered far healthier than remaining ashore just about anywhere..... The nascent US Navy picked up many of its traditions and 'modus operandi' from the British Navy, with equally gratifying results (the Spanish Navy STILL hadn't figured out how to deal with scurvy until the end of the Napoleonic war!!)

Another thing to note; given the level of filth aboard French ships, it should come as no surprise to find out that one of the standard British practices on the capture of a French ship was to deliberately sink the vessel at the first opportunity, leave it on the bottom for a few days, then raise it and pump it out and scrub it from stem to stern (thus destroying all the resident vermin...).

  • Member since
    September 2005
  • From: Groton, CT
Posted by warshipguy on Thursday, June 5, 2008 3:35 PM

. . . a practise described very well in Patrick O'Brien's Nutmeg of Consolation.

Bill Morrison

  • Member since
    February 2008
  • From: San Bernardino, CA
New Build: Lindberg Jolly Roger *update 6-10*
Posted by enemeink on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 10:45 AM

i finished the hull for the most part over the weekend. no real reasons for the color selections. i just figured that it looked good and went with it. thanks for looking.

 

"The race for quality has no finish line, so technically it's more like a death march."
  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 12:49 PM
Truly, a scurvy ship for a scurvy crew!
  • Member since
    January 2006
  • From: istanbul/Turkey
Posted by kapudan_emir_effendi on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 1:50 PM
 enemeink wrote:

i finished the hull for the most part over the weekend. no real reasons for the color selections. i just figured that it looked good and went with it. thanks for looking.

 

By no means I have intention to criticise excellent work, but, err, the beakhead rails which must joint right on figurehead's back seem to be staying a bit behing [:/] By no means a serious fault tough and I think if you like, you can easily corect it Smile [:)]

keep up the good work !

Don't surrender the ship !
  • Member since
    July 2006
Posted by Michael D. on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 3:12 PM
I'm liking it...keep em coming.

Michael
  • Member since
    February 2008
  • From: San Bernardino, CA
Posted by enemeink on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 5:14 PM
 kapudan_emir_effendi wrote:
 enemeink wrote:

i finished the hull for the most part over the weekend. no real reasons for the color selections. i just figured that it looked good and went with it. thanks for looking.

 

By no means I have intention to criticise excellent work, but, err, the beakhead rails which must joint right on figurehead's back seem to be staying a bit behing [:/] By no means a serious fault tough and I think if you like, you can easily corect it Smile [:)]

keep up the good work !

The funny thing about this is that I first glued that rails to the hull by the upper anchor supports as it shows in the manual. when the glue dried I bent the two pieces together and that's where they met. funny that I didn't even think of that. Blush [:I] I guess I can just carve some sprue and fill out the gap.

"The race for quality has no finish line, so technically it's more like a death march."
  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 6:01 PM
check to see how it works with the bowsprit first.....
  • Member since
    February 2008
  • From: San Bernardino, CA
Posted by enemeink on Wednesday, June 11, 2008 10:19 AM
it should clear the bowsprit becuase it's lower than the figurehead. unless i'm missing something....
"The race for quality has no finish line, so technically it's more like a death march."
  • Member since
    June 2006
  • From: Netherlands
Posted by Grem56 on Wednesday, June 11, 2008 11:58 AM

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

cheers,

Julian

 

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

"The race for quality has no finish line, so technically it's more like a death march."
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Thursday, June 26, 2008 1:51 PM

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

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

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

Hope that helps.  Good luck.

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

  • Member since
    February 2008
  • From: San Bernardino, CA
Posted by enemeink on Thursday, June 26, 2008 3:05 PM
it helps plenty. thanks for the help. also I've said thie before but that is a bueatiful ship. just out of curiosity, how long did it take to build?
"The race for quality has no finish line, so technically it's more like a death march."
  • Member since
    December 2006
Posted by woodburner on Thursday, June 26, 2008 7:09 PM
This is coming along very nicely and has a very effective weathered look to her.

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

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

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

Keep up the good work,

Jim

Current:

Tijger, a Dutch jacht of 1617 (modified POB)

Statenjacht Utrecht 1743, an Artitec resin model

In planning:

A jacht of Willem Barants, 1597 (scratch POB)

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

Matthew Baker's "Fish Drawing" ca. 1586 (scratch POB)
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Thursday, June 26, 2008 9:02 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, thank you.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Saturday, June 28, 2008 2:38 AM

Woodburner - many thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

Thanks again, Jim
  • Member since
    February 2008
  • From: San Bernardino, CA
Posted by enemeink on Tuesday, July 1, 2008 10:49 AM
Thanks woodburner!
"The race for quality has no finish line, so technically it's more like a death march."
  • Member since
    September 2005
  • From: Groton, CT
Posted by warshipguy on Tuesday, July 1, 2008 9:48 PM

jtilley,

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

Bill Morrison

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.