|
**VIEW THREAD HERE** |
, and your frontwall is not that bad, it just needs a bit of extra attention my friend
Thank you, Peter. That is good to know.Not necessary in my case my friend, i voted straight away for the open canopy
For what it is worth, the open look makes that portion of the deck stand out more and is suggestive of something in the interior. The ships boats will look a lot more natural than having their sterns up against a wall. Just my thoughts!!Thank you very much my friend. Your input is highly valued. I am now just worried that everyone chooses the open canopy because of how terrible my front wall looks!
You make a good point and I agree the open canopy looks better but only, at this point, because I think it looks “cleaner”. The closed bulkhead and door/s is still, to me, more practical. However, a few posts back you talk about (#4495) the drawings of Gerrit de Veer and the proven two options. As you imply no matter what you choose you will be correct. With your modelling experience there is no doubt that front bulkhead will turn out really well if you stay that course. Since you can choose either option is it now also a matter of aesthetics?…..l.I am now just worried that everyone chooses the open canopy because of how terrible my front wall looks!
Good morning Heinrich. Oh Boy. I go away for 4 days and you have progressed fantastically. Your winch, levers, knighthead are very authentic- some of us make these things very model like, however I really enjoy what you achieved here.@pingu57 ; @Pathfinder65 ; @Frank48 ; @Don Case ; @RogerD
Dear Peter, Jan, Frank, Don and Roger
I am truly blessed with the best friends I could ever have hoped for. The fact that I can ask you what you think, thereby formulating my own thought process, helps me tremendously with this build. Thank you all for your inputs - they are highly valued and taken into serious consideration.
So let me explain my thought process and hopefully I will have a clearer mind after this.
These are the two pictures that I base my comment on that both options are historically correct.
View attachment 336331
Open Front Wall
View attachment 336330
Closed Front Wall
But now it gets even more interesting. Just look at this picture.
View attachment 336332
Here we also see that the front canopies show a difference - with one being fully open and one closed. (Note the single arched door.) This what I meant by saying that you simply cannot underestimate the value of these pictures. What simply seems like a generic drawing, in actual fact shows a remarkable amount of detail. Also notice that the two transoms are drawn completely differently. This drawing though, raises an important question. Can we assume that the ship with the closed front canopy would be the one with the closed center canopy too? Conversely, can we then also assume that the one with the open front canopy is the one with the open center canopy? It would certainly seem logical. The problem remains though: there is absolutely no way of knowing which one of the two was Barentsz's ship.
I have said from the beginning of this build, that aesthetics, should not play a role, that it should be function over form at all times. But ... seeing that both options are plausible, aesthetics can come into play. I have relied heavily on the picture with the closed front wall during my build. My mind's eye sees the WB a very stout and stocky little ship, which is very much accentuated by the front wall. With the front wall open, the ship appears too long and elongated compared to the picture. Therefore, I think I owe it to myself and the little ship to give the front wall another try ... sigh.
As @dockattner Paul often says: he is humbled by the thought that you would all take the time out to follow his build and to give your inputs. I can only say "Amen" to that. Thank you, gents.
Thank you very much for the generous praise, Grant! As far as the winch, levers and knighthead went, a working ship was the aim, and I am happy with how that came out. The front wall is simply that I have to give my best shot - if I then honestly can say that it does not look as good as an open canopy, I will discard it - but not before then.
I believe that this discussion has cleared your mind, by the looks of your last written line my friend.
Thank you for the support my friend. Attempt No 5 has started.I believe that this discussion has cleared your mind, by the looks of your last written line my friend.
Good luck on your next attempt
Did I miss a mention of a Cathead for the anchor, looking. at all the portraits and drawings I don't see any. Were those a later "invention?"
Good observation Jan - no cathead on the WB.
)
(I know, stay off of it then )
In my estimation there is no place truly safe on this vessel. I'd fall overboard pulling away from the dock... wild men indeed!The rear canopy deck looks mighty dangerous without any railing or freeboard bulwark
(By the way, if you decide after these pics to doubt the ultimate success of this project, you do so at your own peril!
I fully agree Daniel! I find it very strange that there is no kind of protection whatsoever on that deck. On my favorite picture the railings look far more convincing - an option that has by no means discarded (even if no one else - including Ab - has included railings). De Veer must have had a very good reason for drawing those railings - it is too fine a detail simply to have thumb-sucked.The rear canopy deck looks mighty dangerous without any railing or freeboard bulwark
Like I said to Daniel, Paul, I agree fully. How that open deck could have been worked on without any railings (we know there were no bulwarks), is beyond me. I agree about being "wild" (I can fully understand that) but the lack of railings borders on stupidity - and that is hard to believe.
My friend, I do not blame you one bit for not being overwhelmed at this stage - neither am I . But I promise you the fit is very good and that is all I was trying to achieve at this point. The finishing off and making pretty part has not commenced. Watch this space 
