French war-ship Saint-Philippe 1693 - scale 1/72 - from Lemineur monograph [COMPLETED BUILD]

Было бы странно, если бы автор монографии написал что-то другое. Например: извините, я был неправ. Лучше бы он написал, чем руководствовался, когда рисовал якорную подушку.

google translation:
It would be strange if the author of the monograph wrote something else. For example: sorry, I was wrong. It would be better if he wrote than was guided when he drew the anchor pillow.
 
Было бы странно, если бы автор монографии написал что-то другое. Например: извините, я ошибся. Лучше бы написать, чем ориентироваться при рисовании анкерной подушки.
 
CRI-CRI said:
Have you the real french plan of year1693 ? It would interest somebody, including myself.... Question-Mark
Click to expand...
There is. But I will not show it to you, because it is a military secret. (This is a joke). Of course there is no such plan, but I agree with the opinion of Mr. Deep, that there is no such thing on any model of ships in museums.
 
Uwek said:
Yes - and he is following the design of the author of the monographie
According the Naviga rules this detail would get 100%.
Many Thanks for the additional explanations given by @CRI-CRI
Click to expand...
Well, sorry, this is also wrong.One person writes a monograph, makes mistakes.It does not justify them in any way.Another person convinces of the correctness of his model by referring to a monograph written by the first person.The navigator will require, at least, an archival drawing, and not a modern monograph.
 
An "archive" can get an "historical" status, because it is the unique known document, and be entirely wrong...

In a domain I know well - the music - the "historical truth" of interpretation before the World War II would be considered today as ridiculous

All absolute judgement is more often wrong than a moderate one, and can constitute therefore the right way to ignorance
 
Last edited:
Mr.Deep said:
Well, sorry, this is also wrong.One person writes a monograph, makes mistakes.It does not justify them in any way.Another person convinces of the correctness of his model by referring to a monograph written by the first person.The navigator will require, at least, an archival drawing, and not a modern monograph.
Click to expand...
@CRI-CRI sorry for off top

Уважаемый Мр, Дип. @Mr.Deep

Вы бы могли предоставить доказательства обратного? На чем собственно базируется ваше утверждение? Модели из музея не являются убедительным доказательством того как надо, так как строились такими же интузиастами как мы. Если вы берёте за основу чью-то модель, то строите копию этой модели, а не корабля.

В качестве примера приведу постройку вашей Св. Катерины. Если кто-то захочет строить такую же модель, ссылаясь на вашу, то обязательно допустит массу ошибок, одной из которой неправильное нагелирование палубы. Если понмится, я и Увек критиковали вашу работу указывая на те места где неверно. Как же быть с музейными моделями?

Искренне полагаю, что прежде чем учить кого-то, нужно сперва научить себя...Каждый из нас строит как умеет, и самое главное как хочет!
Давайте обойдемся без снобизма.
 
Yes, I agree with your words.But!I admitted that I made mistakes.I do not prove that this is correct, because I,as the author, see it that way.If you do not focus on the museum models, built, I note, at the time of the ships themselves,then what should you focus on?There are drawings in the archives,there are old models in museums.I repeat, I have never seen such anchor pillows anywhere.I pointed out the error, corrected the author of the model,why start a war on the forum again?If he doesn't want to,let him leave it as it is.His right .as an author.
 
Mr.Deep said:
Yes, I agree with your words.But!I admitted that I made mistakes.I do not prove that this is correct, because I,as the author, see it that way.If you do not focus on the museum models, built, I note, at the time of the ships themselves,then what should you focus on?There are drawings in the archives,there are old models in museums.I repeat, I have never seen such anchor pillows anywhere.I pointed out the error, corrected the author of the model,why start a war on the forum again?If he doesn't want to,let him leave it as it is.His right .as an author.
Click to expand...
I applaud you. You as the author of your model, build the way you see it. However, he is the author of his model and builds the way he sees. Just because we didn't see such a part built this way, it doesn't mean it is wrong. Only research and archival documents would be a prof (if they exist). Contemporary models can serve as the reference, not prof. No need to fight..agree. :)
 
I am not a specialist, but, I found another anchor pillow near of ours (M. Lemineur and myself...) :

It's the Royal Sun, same type and same time :

Suite L.jpg

I cannot think that Mr Deep ignore our "Soleil Royal"

In that case, M. Lemineur is more credible : its proposition is vertically cut :)
 
I don't understand it a little.I pointed out this element, which is made on the Soleil Royal model.The shape is curved on it-this is correct.But the boards are located along the barkhout, not across, up.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20210629_225256.jpg
    IMG_20210629_225256.jpg
    121.1 KB · Views: 16
A graphic explanation about logic utility of a vertical planking of pillow :

Suite U.jpg

Why did others differently ?

Because it's simply easier to built... and anybody (except myself...) noticed such a small detail.... :D

My question was : Why the pics joined to the monograph are without any anchor pillow ?, and
M. Lemineur answered that's the plan which must be followed - No comment, please - Thanks
 
Last edited:
The book (very well done) attached to the monograph brings an interesting explanation to know: the Saint Philippe is in fact a transformation of the Ambitieux, a three decked vessel with poor nautical quality, by removal of the third deck, and the forecastle, and above all, a 10% increase in the hull to improve finesse and stability in navigation. The Saint Philippe, who had a long career, thus proved to be superior to his three most famous contemporaries: the Soleil Royal, too high, the Ambitieux, too short, and the first Royal Louis, very mediocre vessel in maneuvering
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top