• 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.
  • PRE-ORDER 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 FIRST ISSUE WILL BE JAN/FEB 2026

Liburnian model...scale 1:72...trying to build...

Любитель

Любитель

Joined
Nov 30, 2025
Messages
151
Points
103

Hello everyone... I'm looking to build a collection of three models... a Galleon, a Drakkar, and a Liburna. I'll be starting with the Liburna here. I'll use simple plans as a base, then modify them slightly to suit my needs. The model will be very simple. Scale 1:72. The length is 34 cm...



МАСКА 11.jpgМАСКА 12.jpg
 
Very interesting project! What are you using for historical research on these ancient vessel types? There's been a continuing increase in our knowledge of the ships of these types, thanks to the many discoveries made by marine underwater archaeologists in recent decades. When I started modeling, about all we had of that period were a couple of Scandinavian burial ships and what little was preserved after the Nazis got finished destroying the Nevi Ships of Lake Como (perhaps the worst criminal maritime historical vandalisms of the Twentieth Century.) Were I to be building anything in this period myself, I'd make sure I had all the latest archaeological reports to insure my model's accuracy. At this point, the "plans" you've illustrated above appear to be pretty sketchy. A lot has probably been discovered since those (probably mainly conjectural) plans were drawn.
 
I don’t mean to be rude, but give it a rest Bob. There does not always need to be millimetric precision to our hobby. Sometimes fantasy and artistry should take precedence over a “model’s accuracy.” I’m sure any model you make will have “all the latest archaeological reports to insure my model's accuracy”. Many of us ( and I include myself) enjoy the process of building and fabricating, many other people, I’m just as sure, enjoy researching and making sure their models represent as accurately as possible the original ship… I firmly believe there is room for both philosophies on this forum and if I’m out of line I apologize in advance.
Have a great evening and Merry Christmas.
 
Last edited:
OlivierF said:
I don’t mean to be rude, but give it a rest Bob. There does not always need to be millimetric precision to our hobby. Sometimes fantasy and artistry should take precedence over a “model’s accuracy.” I’m sure any model you make will have “all the latest archaeological reports to insure my model's accuracy”. Many of us ( and I include myself) enjoy the process of building and fabricating, many other people, I’m just as sure, enjoy researching and making sure their models represent as accurately as possible the original ship… I firmly believe there is room for both philosophies on this forum and if I’m out of line I apologize in advance.
Have a great evening and Merry Christmas.
Click to expand...

No offense taken, Oliver. Any person is always free to "set the bar" of their endeavors at whatever height suits them and, certainly, it appears to be the culture of this forum that the decision of what goal one sets for themself is by their own definition acceptable. My comment was made in the context of my presumption that the original poster was "looking to build a collection of three models... a Galleon, a Drakkar, and a Liburna." It is an indisputable fact that for a variety of reasons, most notably the limitations of the existing historical record, we knew far less about the three types of vessel he named than most vessels commonly modeled from later periods and that, while there have long been conjectural "plans" for such vessels, within the last fifty years of so, underwater archaeology has revealed a tremendous amount of additional information about them. For that reason, when the original poster told me he was "looking to build a collection of three models... a Galleon, a Drakkar, and a Liburna," and posted a photo with two pages of "plans" of a type that I recognized as most likely dated and, shall we say, "rudimentary," I told him, "Hey, that's cool. Be sure your plans are up to date because there has been a whole lot about these types of ships discovered by the archaeologists in recent times." In the absence of any further information, it was not unreasonable for me to understand that it was his intention to build a relatively accurate a model of those vessels and the plans he would work from necessarily are the threshold determining factor in that respect.

I am well aware that there are those such as you describe yourself who believe "There does not always need to be millimetric precision to our hobby." and that "Sometimes fantasy and artistry should take precedence over a “model’s accuracy.” Those who hold such beliefs make the mistake of mixing apples and oranges. Without going down a rabbit hole trying to define what you mean by "our hobby," suffice it to say that this forum universally embraces the subject of building miniature ships, but within that concept there exists two separate endeavors which in many ways overlap, but are, nonetheless quite distinct.

"A high-quality scale ship model provides a compelling impression of an actual vessel within the constraints of historical accuracy." [Napier (co-crediting Hoff) Caring for Ship Models - A Narrative of Thought and Application (2022) Seawatch Books]

To the extent a miniature ship builder decides that "fantasy and artistry should take precedence over a "model's accuracy," he is not making a scale model. He is making a sculpture. And that's a good thing, too.

Building miniature ships is no different than fine art pictures. It's a big tent and there's plenty of room for all. You can look at the Van de Veldes' highly realistic paintings of ships in storms and battle, William Turner's proto-impressionistic maritime paintings, and Wassily Kandinsky's abstract sea battles, all quite different and, at one end of the spectrum, we have "millimetric precision" sufficient to rely upon as an historical record of a long-gone ship's true appearance, while on the other end, we have "fantasy and artistry." Yet all of it is pictures of ships.

While certain craft processes and evaluative considerations may overlap, there is no valid qualitative distinction to be made between a scale model of a ship or a sculpture of a ship. Both are recognizable representations of ships. Both take skills, often similar, to fabricate. Both are intended to please the eye of the beholder. One is not "better" than the other on account of being different. Both have their own value for sometimes different, sometimes overlapping, and sometimes the same reasons. But they are not the same thing at all. Speaking for myself, I appreciate the virtues of a "high-quality scale ship model" as much as I do the virtues of a "high-quality ship sculpture."

I never said there wasn't "room for both philosophies on this forum." Your perception to the contrary was born of your own demons, not mine!

I consider you to be the luckier of us. The "artistic" guys always got more dates on Saturday night than the engineering majors did! :D
 
Last edited:
I would like to build a model — just as a souvenir to place on a shelf. It will be an amalgamation of different vessel types: liburnae, biremes, and uniremes. There won’t be any perfect resemblance or precision…



 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top