Your gallery looks great. It doesn't appear to be above your pay grade at all.
Bill
Bill
-
SUBSCRIBE TO SHIPS IN SCALE TODAY!
The beloved Ships in Scale Magazine is back and charting a new course for 2026!
Discover new skills, new techniques, and new inspirations in every issue.
NOTE THAT OUR NEXT ISSUE WILL BE July/August 2026 -
Win a Free Custom Engraved Brass Coin!!!
As a way to introduce our brass coins to the community, we will raffle off a free coin during the month of August. Follow link ABOVE for instructions for entering.
Very nicely done !
What he said!
This evening was spent getting her nameplate on which was straightforward with the help of Tamiya masking tape.
I measured the nameplate on the 1-1 plan and cut a strip of paper to compare it to the hull. I then cut a length of Tamiya 6mm masking tape and removed a lot of its tackiness by sticking it to my t-shirt until it was very low tack (don't go too far or your letters will not stick). I then marked the tape on the sticky side into equal sections for each letter. Using a steel ruler, I aligned the letters (back to front) very lightly in the centre of each box and made sure the bottom of each letter was touching the steel ruler underneath. Once I was happy with the alignment of each letter I pressed them onto the Tamiya tape.
I should say that I prepared the letters by priming, then painting and most importantly - varnishing well in advance. The varnish stops the tape from peeling the paint off when removing later. I also used an old pin vice with an old 0.4mm drill bit to apply tiny drops of superglue to the back of all the letters in one go (there was no squeeze-out whatsoever) and I applied all the lettering to the hull one by one carefully getting the alignment of each letter right (there is a very slight curvature towards the centre which doesn't look right if you go straight across). Also, as I applied the next letter, I removed the tape from the previous letter (before any superglue has a chance to fully bite and stick to the tape) in a rolling effect. Done correctly the Tamiya tape should never touch the hull, just the back of the varnished letter.
This left neat, evenly spaced lettering in about 30 mins.
I also added the arched stern gallery window support decorations which I had entirely overlooked. Was really hard to get my broken screen, no-sim, scratched and crappy iPhone 7 camera to focus on the detail, so used a flash to illuminate a little better.
I measured the nameplate on the 1-1 plan and cut a strip of paper to compare it to the hull. I then cut a length of Tamiya 6mm masking tape and removed a lot of its tackiness by sticking it to my t-shirt until it was very low tack (don't go too far or your letters will not stick). I then marked the tape on the sticky side into equal sections for each letter. Using a steel ruler, I aligned the letters (back to front) very lightly in the centre of each box and made sure the bottom of each letter was touching the steel ruler underneath. Once I was happy with the alignment of each letter I pressed them onto the Tamiya tape.
I should say that I prepared the letters by priming, then painting and most importantly - varnishing well in advance. The varnish stops the tape from peeling the paint off when removing later. I also used an old pin vice with an old 0.4mm drill bit to apply tiny drops of superglue to the back of all the letters in one go (there was no squeeze-out whatsoever) and I applied all the lettering to the hull one by one carefully getting the alignment of each letter right (there is a very slight curvature towards the centre which doesn't look right if you go straight across). Also, as I applied the next letter, I removed the tape from the previous letter (before any superglue has a chance to fully bite and stick to the tape) in a rolling effect. Done correctly the Tamiya tape should never touch the hull, just the back of the varnished letter.
This left neat, evenly spaced lettering in about 30 mins.
I also added the arched stern gallery window support decorations which I had entirely overlooked. Was really hard to get my broken screen, no-sim, scratched and crappy iPhone 7 camera to focus on the detail, so used a flash to illuminate a little better.
Wow! From whence did you source the letters? Those look vastly better than the press-on letters for decorating fingernails that I was forced to use on my Fair American
They came as standard as part of the kit. It helps that they are quite thick - 0.9mm brass etched.
The kit also has the brass etched lettering for ELEPHANT and BELLEROPHON which I am happy to send to you if you can use the individual lettering. I would also try https://www.woodysmodelworks.co.uk/#/
Contact Neil, he provides brass etched nameplates for HMS Victory as part of his upgrade kits and I am sure he is able to accomodate whatever your nameplate needs are. I can vouch for the quality, I have a couple of his HMS Victory upgrades already.
Thank you!
The starboard side gallery went together smoothly as I applied everything I learned from constructing the port side gallery. This generally meant fewer disasters.
The instructions are a bit flaky at this point as to the next logical steps in the build process and jump around to different parts of the build, showing things that could be done now and things that definitely should NOT be done now. Concomitantly, I have been giving a little thought as to how I want to tackle things.
Generally the aim is to ;
First up a disappointment. I was hoping to replace Victory models rather poor 'stock' white metal cast cannon carriages with some of Vanguard models rather lovely 1:72 carriages.
It turns out that Victory models idea of 1:72 is a little different to Vanguard models idea of 1:72 (I would rely on the latter) and the deck/floor height of the upper gun deck relative to the height of the gunports on the hull prevents the cannons (when sitting on a Vanguard models carriage) from being able to protrude though their respective gunports (the cannons sit about 2mm too high). The upper gun deck and gun port patterns sit at pre-determined heights; in pre-determined places and are pre-determined sizes so it was not bad alignment on my part.
My best guess is that Victory models probably wanted to use as many 'stock' parts in the kit as possible to keep the overall retail cost down (and it is really competitively priced for all that you get in the kit). There are 74 guns on this little dinghy and that must have chewed up a reasonable chunk of their production costs for the kit, so I can understand a commercial decision in wanting to use stock carriages/guns which lowers costs and retail price. The kit designer therefore had to make necessary compromises to the kit design to ensure that the overall design still fitted the stock parts, hence slight variations in sizing the gunports relative to the deck height at 1:72. That's my conspiracy theory.
So I am left with the rather horrible cast metal carriages but take solace from the fact that the quarterdeck, waist and forecastle entirely obscures all but 8 of the carriages (and they are mostly further obscured through the waist cutaway by four large ships boats). As I cannot muster much enthusiasm for these carriages and you cannot see much, if any of them, I probably will not rig them at all.
I have though, replaced the 18 x 9 pounder cannons for the forecastle and quarterdeck (also stock white metal castings) with 1:72 Vanguard models 9 pounder carriages which are lovely. Vanguard unfortunately do not make 9 pounder cannons at 1:72, so I tried one of their 6 - pounder guns at 1:64 sitting on their 1:72, 9- pounder cannon carriage. I am reliably informed by Professor AI :-; that, a 1:64, 6-pounder cannon is between 1 and 5% larger than a 1:72, 9-pounder cannon. I would love a set of eyes that could spot a 1-5% difference at this scale so it passes my 'does it look OK' eye test. The historians out there amongst us may be digging their toenails into the floorboards in outrage about now but I think it is a reasonable 'stunt double' for a 1:72 - long 9 pounder? What do you think, snog, marry, avoid?
All that said, this is a small gripe in what has been, so far, an excellent kit of excellent quality and value and I am having a boot load of fun (despite flaky instructions - which possibly may just be my ever diminishing world of synapses).
After canonising (perfect word for installing all the guns on a deck; no..........not you Vicar) the upper gun deck, I then need to complete and install the upper gun deck fittings (capstans x 2, stove, bits x 2, shot garlands, companionway stanchions and guide ropes).
At that point, I think I am ready to seal up the upper gun deck by installing the deck beams, skid beams and then quarterdeck, waist and forecastle decks.
Sounds like a plan..........
The instructions are a bit flaky at this point as to the next logical steps in the build process and jump around to different parts of the build, showing things that could be done now and things that definitely should NOT be done now. Concomitantly, I have been giving a little thought as to how I want to tackle things.
Generally the aim is to ;
- Install upper gun deck cannons and all upper gun deck fittings
- Install deck beams and then forecastle, waist and quarterdeck
- Plank F,W,Q decks and install their respective deck fittings
- Install beakhead, roundhouses, pointy end stuff, etc.
- Install gunport covers (I want this to be the last thing to do on the hull before rigging/masting)
First up a disappointment. I was hoping to replace Victory models rather poor 'stock' white metal cast cannon carriages with some of Vanguard models rather lovely 1:72 carriages.
It turns out that Victory models idea of 1:72 is a little different to Vanguard models idea of 1:72 (I would rely on the latter) and the deck/floor height of the upper gun deck relative to the height of the gunports on the hull prevents the cannons (when sitting on a Vanguard models carriage) from being able to protrude though their respective gunports (the cannons sit about 2mm too high). The upper gun deck and gun port patterns sit at pre-determined heights; in pre-determined places and are pre-determined sizes so it was not bad alignment on my part.
My best guess is that Victory models probably wanted to use as many 'stock' parts in the kit as possible to keep the overall retail cost down (and it is really competitively priced for all that you get in the kit). There are 74 guns on this little dinghy and that must have chewed up a reasonable chunk of their production costs for the kit, so I can understand a commercial decision in wanting to use stock carriages/guns which lowers costs and retail price. The kit designer therefore had to make necessary compromises to the kit design to ensure that the overall design still fitted the stock parts, hence slight variations in sizing the gunports relative to the deck height at 1:72. That's my conspiracy theory.
So I am left with the rather horrible cast metal carriages but take solace from the fact that the quarterdeck, waist and forecastle entirely obscures all but 8 of the carriages (and they are mostly further obscured through the waist cutaway by four large ships boats). As I cannot muster much enthusiasm for these carriages and you cannot see much, if any of them, I probably will not rig them at all.
I have though, replaced the 18 x 9 pounder cannons for the forecastle and quarterdeck (also stock white metal castings) with 1:72 Vanguard models 9 pounder carriages which are lovely. Vanguard unfortunately do not make 9 pounder cannons at 1:72, so I tried one of their 6 - pounder guns at 1:64 sitting on their 1:72, 9- pounder cannon carriage. I am reliably informed by Professor AI :-; that, a 1:64, 6-pounder cannon is between 1 and 5% larger than a 1:72, 9-pounder cannon. I would love a set of eyes that could spot a 1-5% difference at this scale so it passes my 'does it look OK' eye test. The historians out there amongst us may be digging their toenails into the floorboards in outrage about now but I think it is a reasonable 'stunt double' for a 1:72 - long 9 pounder? What do you think, snog, marry, avoid?
All that said, this is a small gripe in what has been, so far, an excellent kit of excellent quality and value and I am having a boot load of fun (despite flaky instructions - which possibly may just be my ever diminishing world of synapses).
After canonising (perfect word for installing all the guns on a deck; no..........not you Vicar) the upper gun deck, I then need to complete and install the upper gun deck fittings (capstans x 2, stove, bits x 2, shot garlands, companionway stanchions and guide ropes).
At that point, I think I am ready to seal up the upper gun deck by installing the deck beams, skid beams and then quarterdeck, waist and forecastle decks.
Sounds like a plan..........
Cannon Update.
Not content to have to rely on the stock white metal 18-pounder carriages, I decided to whittle away at the Vanguard Models 1:72 18-pounder trunnion seats on the carriage sides. This lowered the overall sitting height of the cannon barrel and allowed me to squeeze it through the gunport. I could also give the carriage wheels a slight flat spot to lower by another mm if needed.
Whilst it does look a little like a LA gang lo-rider cannon from the side, it will only ever be viewed from above.
So, I will fully rig the 8 cannons slightly visible in the waist and partially rig the rest.
Not content to have to rely on the stock white metal 18-pounder carriages, I decided to whittle away at the Vanguard Models 1:72 18-pounder trunnion seats on the carriage sides. This lowered the overall sitting height of the cannon barrel and allowed me to squeeze it through the gunport. I could also give the carriage wheels a slight flat spot to lower by another mm if needed.
Whilst it does look a little like a LA gang lo-rider cannon from the side, it will only ever be viewed from above.
So, I will fully rig the 8 cannons slightly visible in the waist and partially rig the rest.