HIGH HOPES, WILD MEN AND THE DEVIL’S JAW - Willem Barentsz Kolderstok 1:50

I have no doubt Daniel‘s well written and heartfelt post reflects what many of us feel about your thread, posts and builds. You are near completion of an excellent WB that may not totally reflect your new found research but it certainly leaves many of us in awe of your historical knowledge and skills. As you look at your model think about how much pleasure it has brought to so many others.
 
RogerD said:
I have no doubt Daniel‘s well written and heartfelt post reflects what many of us feel about your thread, posts and builds. You are near completion of an excellent WB that may not totally reflect your new found research but it certainly leaves many of us in awe of your historical knowledge and skills. As you look at your model think about how much pleasure it has brought to so many others.
Click to expand...
ABSOLUTELY
 
I would guess that close to 99% of all models built are not historically accurate. New information pops up up and all of a sudden all the previous models are wrong. Just because you were the one that discovered the new information doesn't mean you should be disgruntled. It was probably going to happen anyway. it's the nature of the hobby. Just be proud of what you have accomplished.
 
The previous speakers are absolutely right Heinrich, you are comparing your WB now with the ship made by the Russian modellers, but who says that they are absolutely right in their interpretation???
Nobody knows it, because all this played roughly 400 years ago.
Nobody that lives today knows exactly how it has been, also because there are no accurate drawings of those days.
So don't be dissapointed, just keep smiling and look back with pleasure to what you did discover about Willem Barentsz and his crew
 
Daniel20 said:
Dear Heinrich, please don't be disgruntled with your WB based on your research. You have provided myself and all who have watched your build log with the most fascinating historical perspective of anyone on this forum that I am aware of. Your skills, your enthusiasm, your dedication to this build have no equal in my opinion and it has been just plain fun to watch. Who among us have built a completely accurate model, even of ships that are afloat today? Stay with it my friend, I just love your two WB's.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much for the very kind comments, my friend. Rest assured; I will stay with her and finish her. :) Then I suppose, it is up to me whether or not I want to try again. ROTF
 
RogerD said:
I have no doubt Daniel‘s well written and heartfelt post reflects what many of us feel about your thread, posts and builds. You are near completion of an excellent WB that may not totally reflect your new found research but it certainly leaves many of us in awe of your historical knowledge and skills. As you look at your model think about how much pleasure it has brought to so many others.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much, Roger! You are right about many things - @Daniel20 Daniel's post is certainly a heartfelt one as is yours. I think your suggestion to look at the model for what it is, is a very wise one. Thank you for that!
 
Don Case said:
I would guess that close to 99% of all models built are not historically accurate. New information pops up up and all of a sudden all the previous models are wrong. Just because you were the one that discovered the new information doesn't mean you should be disgruntled. It was probably going to happen anyway. it's the nature of the hobby. Just be proud of what you have accomplished.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much for your comment, Don. I suppose I have to take solace from the fact that the new information that popped up, was entirely because of my own doing. I suppose if I truly wanted to find new information, I can't very well be disgruntled when I do. :) Thank you for the kind words and support!
 
pingu57 said:
The previous speakers are absolutely right Heinrich, you are comparing your WB now with the ship made by the Russian modellers, but who says that they are absolutely right in their interpretation???
Nobody knows it, because all this played roughly 400 years ago.
Nobody that lives today knows exactly how it has been, also because there are no accurate drawings of those days.
So don't be dissapointed, just keep smiling and look back with pleasure to what you did discover about Willem Barentsz and his crew
Click to expand...
Thank you, my dear friend. You are right when you say no one knows for sure - there are things on the Russian models that I question as well, but I do think their hull shapes are much closer to the truth. I will finish the WB and then look at her as part of the "evolution" process! :)
 
Heinrich said:
Dear Friends

I have thoroughly worked through the info that I have re the hull shape and ancillary details of the Mercury according to the Russian drawings and all I can say is that there are differences! As I have said before, I will most certainly complete my build of the WB but is difficult to find the motivation to resume work on the model, when you doubt the accuracy and relevance of your own build.

View attachment 361030

In any case, I will survive - just have a wee bit of patience with me please ... :)
Click to expand...
Once again, it’s model building. We build models for the enjoyment of the hobby, at least I do. So accuracy’s of historical nature, right or wrong, shouldn’t dampen your spirits. It’s a nice representation of the ship in question. And even if it was a fictional ship, it would be nice enough to display. I guess it all depends why you build… ;)
 
Peter Voogt said:
Don’t ‘Russh’ with the Russian interpretations in comparison with what your plans where before you discovered there interpretations. Your 2nd WB is much better then your 1st and deserves completion.
And when it tickles, you can always build a Russian WB. Then that can be a nice scratch-build exercise.
Regards, Peter
Click to expand...
Thank you for the advice, Peter. You are right - rushing into anything now is the last thing I will do. I will complete the WB, so no worries there. Initially I also thought that WB 2 was much better, but now I'm not so sure. Apart from the hull shape, the Russian drawings actually seem to be more in line with WB1. The winch placement, enclosed cabin and helmsman's hut, all point to WB1.
 
Good morning Heinrich. I totally share the other members feelings and thoughts. In particular @pingu57 whose advice and opinion are my thoughts exactly.

Your oak WB is one of a kind and a beautiful rendition of the WB, of that there is no doubt. The most important thing (well for me anyway) is to enjoy your research (which you undoubtedly did) and have fun building your your WB. Cheers Grant
 
Dean62 said:
Once again, it’s model building. We build models for the enjoyment of the hobby, at least I do. So accuracy’s of historical nature, right or wrong, shouldn’t dampen your spirits. It’s a nice representation of the ship in question. And even if it was a fictional ship, it would be nice enough to display. I guess it all depends why you build… ;)
Click to expand...
Deasr Dean. Thanks for the encouragement. I agree wholeheartedly with the fun aspect - but this build is different as I had set out from the beginning to aim for historical accuracy. In fact, there were certain aesthetic elements (cabin doors and helmsman's hut that I have forfeited in the quest of "accuracy". Now it would appear that was unnecessary.
 
GrantTyler said:
Good morning Heinrich. I totally share the other members feelings and thoughts. In particular @pingu57 whose advice and opinion are my thoughts exactly.

Your oak WB is one of a kind and a beautiful rendition of the WB, of that there is no doubt. The most important thing (well for me anyway) is to enjoy your research (which you undoubtedly did) and have fun building your your WB. Cheers Grant
Click to expand...
Thank you, my friend. I will continue the build and finish her. The research stood central to the whole project - I'm not sure if it was always fun, but it was necessary.
 
Heinrich said:
Thank you, my dear friend. You are right when you say no one knows for sure - there are things on the Russian models that I question as well, but I do think their hull shapes are much closer to the truth. I will finish the WB and then look at her as part of the "evolution" process! :)
Click to expand...

Heinrich my friend, while you finish your WB2, i suggest you keep searching for answers, and then you can bring the "evolution " of the WB ships a step further, and perhaps closer to how they should have been, in a WB3, a Russian version with your newest interpretations
 
Well Heinrich,
Based on what I've read here and on other fora, I have to come to the conclusion that it is impossible to build an accurate (scale) model of ships from basically any era, with the remark that the further back you travel, the less accurate the information becomes and the larger the variations may get. Adding to the mix is the scale in which we work, complicating matters even further.
Any model, I argue, is an interpretation of, firstly, the kit-designer/-manufacturer and, secondly, the builder of the available information of the subject. What you have done is nothing more, nothing less than your interpretation of the data you had at your disposal, using Kolderstok's kit as your starting point.
It would be very interesting to have an evaluation of the currently three interpretations of the expedition ship of Willem Barentsz.
With regard to your WB-modelling exercise; I'm looking forward to a) the completion of your second build and b) your interpretation (in solid hardware) of the data, collected by the Russians.
 
RDN1954 said:
Well Heinrich,
Based on what I've read here and on other fora, I have to come to the conclusion that it is impossible to build an accurate (scale) model of ships from basically any era, with the remark that the further back you travel, the less accurate the information becomes and the larger the variations may get. Adding to the mix is the scale in which we work, complicating matters even further.
Any model, I argue, is an interpretation of, firstly, the kit-designer/-manufacturer and, secondly, the builder of the available information of the subject. What you have done is nothing more, nothing less than your interpretation of the data you had at your disposal, using Kolderstok's kit as your starting point.
It would be very interesting to have an evaluation of the currently three interpretations of the expedition ship of Willem Barentsz.
With regard to your WB-modelling exercise; I'm looking forward to a) the completion of your second build and b) your interpretation (in solid hardware) of the data, collected by the Russians.
Click to expand...
Johan, to use a @GrantTyler Grant-"erism", you have nailed it. I would love to do an evaluation of the three variations, but what do I use as yardstick? I would like to hear your opinion in this regard. As said before, I will complete the build, but I will not build a third WB. If I build another ship, it will be as De Mercurius - a standalone ship based on the Russian interpretation.
 
Heinrich said:
Johan, to use a @GrantTyler Grant-"erism", you have nailed it. I would love to do an evaluation of the three variations, but what do I use as yardstick? I would like to hear your opinion in this regard. As said before, I will complete the build, but I will not build a third WB. If I build another ship, it will be as De Mercurius - a standalone ship based on the Russian interpretation.
Click to expand...
That's the funny part: there ís no yardstick.
There are three interpretations and I find it highly likely that it will be close to impossible to establish which of these should be regarded as the baseline.
What one could do is asking you have 6 + 6 guns, what's your rationale? Or you positioned the windlass in front of the fwd canopy, based on what information? Etc, etc. When done without fear to credibility, it could be very informative ánd revealing.

I don't mind the name "Mercury", although I would love to see the information upon which the Russians based their naming, but it's nice to see a next model on the horizon.
 
pingu57 said:
Heinrich my friend, while you finish your WB2, i suggest you keep searching for answers, and then you can bring the "evolution " of the WB ships a step further, and perhaps closer to how they should have been, in a WB3, a Russian version with your newest interpretations
Click to expand...
My dearest friend. That sounds like very good advice. I will keep an open mind to the possible build of De Mercurius, but at the moment it just seems like an awful lot of work to do without any definite answers. The question is whether a third build will be any more accurate than the first two?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top