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

Daniel20 said:
Just for grins I checked the Vasa's ratio; prow to stern is 47.5m, max width 11.7m. Looks like 4.06:1.0.
Click to expand...
Hi Daniel. I believe that 1:4 ratio is more in line with the bigger merchantmen or warships. However, one of the architects of these parameters, Nicolaes Witsen's findings are now being questioned.
 
RDN1954 said:
I think I'll stick for now with the idea that whatever we model, based on whatever scientific source or other historical data available, at best it portrays our interpretation of how things could have looked. Some modesty in that respect would suit us.
Click to expand...
A nice thought here my friend.

Personally, I enjoy building toward something because I know less about historic ships than most people on this forum. To that end I liked building the Vasa because, well, I could pull it up on the internet. The Kingfisher isn’t all that different as there are plans (and even a series of books that function much like a monograph). But I also recognize my limits as a modeler as well as the limits of building at scale. These limits find comfort in the freedom to interpret free from an absolute fixed standard.
 
dockattner said:
A nice thought here my friend.

Personally, I enjoy building toward something because I know less about historic ships than most people on this forum. To that end I liked building the Vasa because, well, I could pull it up on the internet. The Kingfisher isn’t all that different as there are plans (and even a series of books that function much like a monograph). But I also recognize my limits as a modeler as well as the limits of building at scale. These limits find comfort in the freedom to interpret free from an absolute fixed standard.
Click to expand...
I love it, Paul and I have NO problem with free interpretation and artistic licence as long as there is a fixed (widely agreed upon) set of plans and/or monographies available for the modeler who wants to attempt to build a historically accurate model. Then it comes down to the individual choice/limitation (call it what you will) of the builder.

However, if you try to build a historically accurate model based on the plans of so-called experts, and you are successful in achieving a 90% or higher accuracy according to those plans only to find out AFTERWARDS that they are questionable, is not nice. When all is said and done, I should have stuck to WB1 and be done with it. To that end, @Kolderstok Hans's plans of the WB are any day just as accurate as anything else I have come across!
 
dockattner said:
A nice thought here my friend.

Personally, I enjoy building toward something because I know less about historic ships than most people on this forum. To that end I liked building the Vasa because, well, I could pull it up on the internet. The Kingfisher isn’t all that different as there are plans (and even a series of books that function much like a monograph). But I also recognize my limits as a modeler as well as the limits of building at scale. These limits find comfort in the freedom to interpret free from an absolute fixed standard.
Click to expand...
Yes, for sure this feels more comfortable, know what and how you build with clear drawings and better pictures. Before you know your only reading a lot of books instead building and playing with wood.
 
Heinrich said:
And with my tongue firmly in my cheek, I have to ask this question: "Is anyone?"
Click to expand...
Wow, experts, history fact or fiction, great arguments for and against, but over my lifespan I've found that 20/20 hindsight versus historical records/interpretations , etc. usually cause quite bit of consternation. It always seems to come down to the "interpretation factors"--translation of documents in different languages, different and unique to the time measuring systems translated to modern day metric, etc. So... thirty or so years from now someone will stumble across your log with whatever information highway program that exists then and include a reference to your log in their Thesis on historical ship model building.ROTF
 
Heinrich, again this was a wonderful piece of arguimenting of how it could have been, but as long as there comes no further proof of the how and what, it remains just something how it could have been.
I am afraid that you are running around in circles without getting anywhere.
But again, it was a nice try, my friend.
 
Steef66 said:
Yes, for sure this feels more comfortable, know what and how you build with clear drawings and better pictures. Before you know your only reading a lot of books instead building and playing with wood.
Click to expand...
Very true Stephan, BUT there is one problem with that. We will not be building models of any new ships, if we adopt that approach. I am not sure if I will build another ship, but one thing is for sure - I will not build another existing model. If I build again, it will be of a ship that has never been modeled before (or at least not to my knowledge).
 
Pathfinder65 said:
Wow, experts, history fact or fiction, great arguments for and against, but over my lifespan I've found that 20/20 hindsight versus historical records/interpretations , etc. usually cause quite bit of consternation. It always seems to come down to the "interpretation factors"--translation of documents in different languages, different and unique to the time measuring systems translated to modern day metric, etc. So... thirty or so years from now someone will stumble across your log with whatever information highway program that exists then and include a reference to your log in their Thesis on historical ship model building.ROTF
Click to expand...
Jan, I can save them trouble of reading through a 300-plus page build log. ROTF It may teach them something about researchers, but as to what it actually adds to the history of the WB (insofar as to new information on the ship), remains highly debatable.

I did learn something though - unless you do the research yourself, sources are everything!
 
Heinrich said:
Absolutely true my friend! And that is why I will call it a day!
Click to expand...
Wow, I'm truly at as loss for words. Many pages ago I tossed around the word obsession regarding your outlook on the WB. Today I feel you've gone beyond that.
While no one can fault you for your superb building skills I think you have lost the enjoyment of the hobby. And yes, it's still a hobby for most of us.
We are all motivated in different ways and not everyone fits into the same mold.

I once built RC model aircraft for a friend who was 'bug nuts' for fit and finish on his models. These were not necessarily scale models, show models (although everyone qualified as one) or hanger queens but flying models which for the occasional unforced landing were reduced to a pile of rubble. I always wondered, what was the point.

Whatever awaits you on your journey, I wish all the best. Maybe you need to grab your paddles for some time out on the water. I know my cycling clears my head.

Ron
 
rtibbs said:
Wow, I'm truly at as loss for words. Many pages ago I tossed around the word obsession regarding your outlook on the WB. Today I feel you've gone beyond that.
While no one can fault you for your superb building skills I think you have lost the enjoyment of the hobby. And yes, it's still a hobby for most of us.
We are all motivated in different ways and not everyone fits into the same mold.

I once built RC model aircraft for a friend who was 'bug nuts' for fit and finish on his models. These were not necessarily scale models, show models (although everyone qualified as one) or hanger queens but flying models which for the occasional unforced landing were reduced to a pile of rubble. I always wondered, what was the point.

Whatever awaits you on your journey, I wish all the best. Maybe you need to grab your paddles for some time out on the water. I know my cycling clears my head.

Ron
Click to expand...
Thank you very much for this, Ron. I truly appreciate the wisdom and insight and also the courage to say it like it is. You are absolutely right in saying that the "enjoyment factor" has gone out of the window a long time ago - but that only pertains to this build - I still love the hobby with a passion and I would still like to be part of it. My tardiness on the actual building front should not be seen as a lack of motivation - time unfortunately still plays a major factor in as far as that is concerned.
 
Oh dear ... I have only realized now that me "Calling it a day" may have been very misleading. I only meant to say that my research on this ship has come to an end, not model building per se. I am sure that somewhere in the future there is another ship (thoroughly researched by someone else) waiting for me! ROTF
 
dockattner said:
Yes. Calling it a day had an ominous feeling to it. I was waiting for emotions to subside... Glad to hear you're still in the game. Build cuz' it's fun!
Click to expand...
Paul, who are you kidding - building is not always fun ROTF (have you forgotten about your sanding ordeal of the boxwood frames?), but it should always be enjoyable at the end of a session with a sense of satisfaction/achievement. That's why the next ship, (when the WB is properly finished), will be just for the fun for it.
Maybe I should build the Flying Dutchman and really give my AL-Fi free wings!:) (Now that's an idea ...)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top