Congrats Grant on 33 years…that is always nice to hear. Divorce is too common these days! So you got it right the first time! 
Grants Xebec 1:60 (using Jabeque Cazador Occre1:60 kit)
- Thread starter GrantTyler
- Start date
- Watchers 90
-
- Tags
- cazador-xebec occre xebec
Thank you for these congratulations everyone.Congrats Grant on 33 years…that is always nice to hear. Divorce is too common these days! So you got it right the first time!
Good morning.
The foremast carling : All WIP plenty still to do.
Many changes to the kit. I have reflected these as blue arrows. They are all very small. The biggest change visually is the size of the wood is smaller from a 5x5 to a 4x4. I found the kit scale very bulky for Grants Xebec.
I made these to fit under the railing and not on top. Used a crude plum line to ensure the mast fits easily and straight prior to fitting.
All is made from walnut however some parts have a coat of poly while some do not so there is a colour variance at present. E.g the little knees I made.
The railing is not fitted just plonked in so you can see what it will look like. I had to scratch make the railing as the kit doesn’t fit due to the hull shape changes I made.
Cheers Grant
The foremast carling : All WIP plenty still to do.
Many changes to the kit. I have reflected these as blue arrows. They are all very small. The biggest change visually is the size of the wood is smaller from a 5x5 to a 4x4. I found the kit scale very bulky for Grants Xebec.
I made these to fit under the railing and not on top. Used a crude plum line to ensure the mast fits easily and straight prior to fitting.
All is made from walnut however some parts have a coat of poly while some do not so there is a colour variance at present. E.g the little knees I made.
The railing is not fitted just plonked in so you can see what it will look like. I had to scratch make the railing as the kit doesn’t fit due to the hull shape changes I made.
Cheers Grant
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2021
- Messages
- 4,240
- Points
- 688
Looking at a) the quality of your build and b) the speed at which you're building, I wonder what your next real project is going to be; this looks to me too much like an interlude of sorts.
The four-mast bark "Peking" perhaps?
So nicely done Grant. The photos make everything look big but I am very aware how small these details are and how difficult they are to get looking right. Bravo!
Good evening. Thank you. Cheers Grant
Good evening Johan. Thanks. After the Victory I wanted a simpler ship (no such thing in this hobby) and she had to be a certain size to fit into a space in my bar. I’m having fun with her, sometimes too much and getting into trouble. Building a contemporary model is rewarding however I do miss the research and striving to get things exactly how they should be. Next ship…..who knows.
Cheers Grant
Good evening Paul. Thank you. I’m attempting to get my woodworking a tad better. Concentrating on clean joints and accuracy in measurements etc. My precision is still not spot on as the little knees reflect but improving. Symmetry especially on the “scratch” built aspects is also an issue. It all looks perfect to the eye, until I add the parts for the next stage and what looked spot on isn’t. Perfection is not one of my strengths
. Cheers Grant
His next project will be a full-sized Endeavor
Grant, perfection is not realism! They did not have CNC milling machines or any wood working equipment other than crude milling machines to rip logs into boards , therefore most all work was hand crafted and would have some variance. At smaller scales, the variance would be less noticeable, however I don’t think variance hurts your build as long as the joints are clean and tight. Gaps at any scale are what you should avoid. But I am a stickler for symmetry myself. 
They did not have CNC milling machines or any wood working equipment other than crude milling machines to rip logs into boards , therefore most all work was hand crafted and would have some variance. At smaller scales, the variance would be less noticeable, however I don’t think variance hurts your build as long as the joints are clean and tight. Gaps at any scale are what you should avoid. But I am a stickler for symmetry myself.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2021
- Messages
- 4,240
- Points
- 688
If anything, ships in those days were often build with what was available. My guess is that symmetry was at best a secondary or tertiary requirement. "Make it work" may very well have been the mantra, back in those days.Good evening Paul. Thank you. I’m attempting to get my woodworking a tad better. Concentrating on clean joints and accuracy in measurements etc. My precision is still not spot on as the little knees reflect but improving. Symmetry especially on the “scratch” built aspects is also an issue. It all looks perfect to the eye, until I add the parts for the next stage and what looked spot on isn’t. Perfection is not one of my strengths
The scale at which we're building doesn't help us either, as @Dean62 pointed out. I am definitely not a craftsman, so like you, I am constantly struggling when it comes to fabricating new parts. At least this keeps the swear-jars and dustbin filled to capacity...
I'm playing catch up here. Wonderful pictures Grant, I really like your Xebec especially the wide deck you could play tennis on. Oh, and congratulations on 33 years, you two make a handsome couple.Good morning. I don’t take enough pictures of the whole ship….so here is a whole pile of Grants attempt for a Xebec for “Simon the dancer”.
View attachment 376973
View attachment 376974View attachment 376975View attachment 376976View attachment 376977View attachment 376978View attachment 376979
…..and a fun photo…
View attachment 376980
Cheers Grant
Well, I for one appreciate your efforts toward getting things just right, Grant. Naturally, perfection is not possible - but we build at scale so this means not only are the parts smaller, but the visible errors should be smaller as well. A 10 mm 'misfit' on the real ship would be a 0.17 mm 'misfit' at 1:60 scale. That's pretty small and requires our very best efforts if we are shooting for realism.
Of course, the materials we work with can't accomplish those tolerances (a joint filled with PVA glue is probably 0.17 thick) - and realism may not be the goal of every modeler - or the effort may not be worth the time needed - or shooting for that might take the joy out of the process - or there may be physical barriers limiting the builder - or - or - or - or...
Anyway, keep it up Grant - you're OWNING this build!
Of course, the materials we work with can't accomplish those tolerances (a joint filled with PVA glue is probably 0.17 thick) - and realism may not be the goal of every modeler - or the effort may not be worth the time needed - or shooting for that might take the joy out of the process - or there may be physical barriers limiting the builder - or - or - or - or...
Anyway, keep it up Grant - you're OWNING this build!
Paul, excuses, excuses! But you forgot mine: Git ‘r dun!
Grant, perfection is not realism!
Good morning Paul,Dean and Johan. A “perfect” synopsis of this conundrum
. I’m going to have to make this a very busy ship to hide all those little oops’ which are rearing their ugly head. So far she is coming along nicely though….Good morning Daniel. Thank you. This contemporary Xebec has a Heli deck some alien lines and now a tennis court
. Boy I have over achieved here. Seriously - thank you for the congratulations.Cheers Grant
Grant, my take on perfection is that grey area between obsessive compulsiveness on the one hand and 'meh, looks about right' on the other. In technical terms, I consider 82% a reasonable benchmark for full acceptance. Anything less will niggle constantly and eventually require a re-do and several contributions to the swear jar. 82% and higher is good, no re-work required, no criticism tolerated and damn the consequencesPerfection is not one of my strengths
Last edited:
Good morning Mark. Thanks- getting more doggy by the dayNice wedding pic Grant, and nice bride. Not sure about the dodgy looking guy standing next to her?
.True story. I’m in the “good enough” phase right now. That is a very specific percentage,82%….did you code an algorithm to achieve thatGrant, my take on perfection is that grey area between obsessive compulsiveness on the one hand, and 'meh, looks about right' on the other. In technical terms, I consider 82% a reasonable benchmark for full acceptance. Anything less will niggle constantly and eventually require a re-do and several contributions to the swear jar. 82% and higher is good, no re-work required, no criticism tolerated and damn the consequences
. Cheers Grant