Thanks for posting this. These old eyes cannot make out the information on the bottom of the frame. Is this depicting HMS Victory at one of the two battles of Ushant?
Allan
-
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.
Hms Victory by Caldercraft
- Thread starter mallacoota
- Start date
- Watchers 16
Allan
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2021
- Messages
- 37
- Points
- 58
No.. it was at Spithead - giving a salute I suspect. Spithead is the area of the Solent between Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight and where fleet reviews were/are traditionally held by Royalty etc.
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2022
- Messages
- 591
- Points
- 258
Hey guys,
Maybe this will help:
Colour design in the 17th century depended on how cheaply they could be obtained. This also meant that they had to be easy to produce. The most expensive colours were primarily ultramarine, purple and a rich, permanent black, which was very difficult to produce. These colours were very expensive due to their natural sources or complex production and were regarded as status symbols. I.e. the nobility or, depending on the case, prestigious, expensive warships. However, it should not be underestimated that the colours were not particularly durable, so they faded very quickly.
At sea in particular, salt water and the sun were hard on the colours or the colour gradient and the ships almost always had to be touched up. In other words, it's quite possible that ochre looked like pig pink afterwards. I don't like it either, but it sounds logical. I love there bee maya look. But I think it's more out of necessity and use that it didn't look quite as colourful as it does now in Portsmouth. I even thought I read that Nelson really did change the colour to distinguish it from the French-ships. But in the end, this is all speculation. The artists' interpretation is also always questionable, as they had to make a living from selling their work. I think we model makers have to differentiate between whether we are building historically and scientifically accurate models or whether we are doing a bit of artistic work. The fact is, we build beautiful ships, don't we?
Explanation:
Ultramarine:
This bright blue was extracted from the gemstone lapis lazuli, which made it very expensive.
Purple:
Purple, a red-violet colour, was extracted from the glands of purple snails. The complex extraction process made this colour very expensive and exclusive.
Black:
A rich black colour for textiles was not easy to achieve in the 17th century. It required a combination of different substances and repeated dyeing to achieve a permanent colour.
Other colours such as red, white and some earth tones (such as ochre or umber) were more accessible and were therefore used more frequently. However, depending on their purity and intensity, these colours could also be expensive, especially if they were needed for the nobility or to produce high-quality works of art.
Best regards
Günther
Maybe this will help:
Colour design in the 17th century depended on how cheaply they could be obtained. This also meant that they had to be easy to produce. The most expensive colours were primarily ultramarine, purple and a rich, permanent black, which was very difficult to produce. These colours were very expensive due to their natural sources or complex production and were regarded as status symbols. I.e. the nobility or, depending on the case, prestigious, expensive warships. However, it should not be underestimated that the colours were not particularly durable, so they faded very quickly.
At sea in particular, salt water and the sun were hard on the colours or the colour gradient and the ships almost always had to be touched up. In other words, it's quite possible that ochre looked like pig pink afterwards. I don't like it either, but it sounds logical. I love there bee maya look. But I think it's more out of necessity and use that it didn't look quite as colourful as it does now in Portsmouth. I even thought I read that Nelson really did change the colour to distinguish it from the French-ships. But in the end, this is all speculation. The artists' interpretation is also always questionable, as they had to make a living from selling their work. I think we model makers have to differentiate between whether we are building historically and scientifically accurate models or whether we are doing a bit of artistic work. The fact is, we build beautiful ships, don't we?
Explanation:
Ultramarine:
This bright blue was extracted from the gemstone lapis lazuli, which made it very expensive.
Purple:
Purple, a red-violet colour, was extracted from the glands of purple snails. The complex extraction process made this colour very expensive and exclusive.
Black:
A rich black colour for textiles was not easy to achieve in the 17th century. It required a combination of different substances and repeated dyeing to achieve a permanent colour.
Other colours such as red, white and some earth tones (such as ochre or umber) were more accessible and were therefore used more frequently. However, depending on their purity and intensity, these colours could also be expensive, especially if they were needed for the nobility or to produce high-quality works of art.
Best regards
Günther
Hi Everyone, love this discussion as I too am build my Caldercraft Victory. From a few paintings I looked at it I too believe the gun port lids were also the yellow ochre (whatever shade that might be).
I will put paint the gunports yellow ochre and have them closed. I like the closed look, maybe just on the port side. Question, would the gunport lids hardware be black or would they too be painted yellow ochre.
Any thoughts?
Thanks Grant
I will put paint the gunports yellow ochre and have them closed. I like the closed look, maybe just on the port side. Question, would the gunport lids hardware be black or would they too be painted yellow ochre.
Any thoughts?
Thanks Grant
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2022
- Messages
- 591
- Points
- 258
Hey Guys,
I always think the discussion is great. But you shouldn't forget the circumstances that played a role in the colour scheme. It was simply a question of cost. Since the Victory is so famous, there is also a lot of interpretation by the so-called artists. Whether this is true (as Tayler said: "I only paint what I see..."), I strongly doubt. I think we have to say goodbye to the great colour scheme of the Victory. Not because of science, but because of use and weather conditions. The war also played an important role. I have posted a few photos that roughly reflect the Victory's colour scheme. Firstly the Victory when she first sailed, ca. 1765-1770, then a picture on the high seas: HMS Victory 1793 by Swaine and what I consider to be the most realistic, as this shows a snapshot of the repairs in Portsmouth: the Victory undergoing repairs in William Lionel Wyllie's dry dock. Here I would be in favour of these being coherent, as all the layers of paint have been roughly accounted for. The renewal of the bow also shows the colour of the new wood. The artist had the good fortune here to work his way through all the colours. He therefore did not have to use his own artistic judgement. Here we can see all the colours. How you finish them is up to you. I'm sure it will be great. I'm really looking forward to your pictures ...
Cheers, Günther
I always think the discussion is great. But you shouldn't forget the circumstances that played a role in the colour scheme. It was simply a question of cost. Since the Victory is so famous, there is also a lot of interpretation by the so-called artists. Whether this is true (as Tayler said: "I only paint what I see..."), I strongly doubt. I think we have to say goodbye to the great colour scheme of the Victory. Not because of science, but because of use and weather conditions. The war also played an important role. I have posted a few photos that roughly reflect the Victory's colour scheme. Firstly the Victory when she first sailed, ca. 1765-1770, then a picture on the high seas: HMS Victory 1793 by Swaine and what I consider to be the most realistic, as this shows a snapshot of the repairs in Portsmouth: the Victory undergoing repairs in William Lionel Wyllie's dry dock. Here I would be in favour of these being coherent, as all the layers of paint have been roughly accounted for. The renewal of the bow also shows the colour of the new wood. The artist had the good fortune here to work his way through all the colours. He therefore did not have to use his own artistic judgement. Here we can see all the colours. How you finish them is up to you. I'm sure it will be great. I'm really looking forward to your pictures ...
Cheers, Günther
Grant, here's my Vic with the lower ports closed, & scratch built brass anchors - the kit 'monkey-metal' ones are like liquorice; they're not straight & bend if you s much as look at 'em. I would say the hardware on the port lids were black.
Stuart
Great pictures - all new ones to me. Looking at the 'yellow' in these pictures, it appears to be somewhat near to that of my 'mix' for Vic.Hey Guys,
I always think the discussion is great. But you shouldn't forget the circumstances that played a role in the colour scheme. It was simply a question of cost. Since the Victory is so famous, there is also a lot of interpretation by the so-called artists. Whether this is true (as Tayler said: "I only paint what I see..."), I strongly doubt. I think we have to say goodbye to the great colour scheme of the Victory. Not because of science, but because of use and weather conditions. The war also played an important role. I have posted a few photos that roughly reflect the Victory's colour scheme. Firstly the Victory when she first sailed, ca. 1765-1770, then a picture on the high seas: HMS Victory 1793 by Swaine and what I consider to be the most realistic, as this shows a snapshot of the repairs in Portsmouth: the Victory undergoing repairs in William Lionel Wyllie's dry dock. Here I would be in favour of these being coherent, as all the layers of paint have been roughly accounted for. The renewal of the bow also shows the colour of the new wood. The artist had the good fortune here to work his way through all the colours. He therefore did not have to use his own artistic judgement. Here we can see all the colours. How you finish them is up to you. I'm sure it will be great. I'm really looking forward to your pictures ...
Cheers, Günther
View attachment 536268 View attachment 536269
View attachment 536270
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2021
- Messages
- 37
- Points
- 58
These paintings are very interesting. The first 2 are remarkably consistent with my painting, previously posted, by Capt. Elliot RN in 1790. The last picture in the Dockyard, from the style of dress etc. and identity of the painter is more likely the 1923 restoration. So historically the earlier pictures are better - but it is the modeller and his/her friends who will look at it day in day out so a bit of artistic license can always be allowed.
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2022
- Messages
- 591
- Points
- 258
Hey Spree,
thats right. The last picture is about 1923. I mean the colors.
Cheers Günther
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2022
- Messages
- 591
- Points
- 258
Hey Stuart,
what great anchors. How did you make them? I would be very interested to know. How big are they and how thick? Have you done a build report on them? The Vic looks really nice ...
Cheers
Günther
Love the anchors! It is so nice to see the extra effort to make high quality pieces rather than settling for poor quality parts.
Allan
As would the settings , time of day of the video in the attachment. I like the more yellow version but the ship atm is far from that to the naked eye.
Don't think I said he was.I had no idea Turner was at the battle of Trafalgar
Survivors of Trafalgar who saw this painting when it was completed in 1824, 20 years after the battle were not happy at all. At least one critic explains how it is closer to a rendition of the painting The Raft of Medusa with the Victory thrown into the background.
Allan
Sorry for any confusion Enjay, I took Turner's comment, not anything you wrote, that he "only painted what he saw" to mean he was there. As that was not the case, the painting may not be accurate. An example are the forestays either in the wrong place or missing, it is hard to tell.
Allan
That's alright, Allen. No he wan't there, but he did see her on her return. From Royal Museums, "he did an unusual amount of research" and "the painting provoked court criticism for its non-chronological approach to Nelson’s victory". Guess we'll never know for certain!
Thought i would mention early in the build that the quality of the Caldercraft kit cf. OcCre Montanes is an order of magnitude better. Full sized plans, three layers of hull material..Lime, Mahogany and Copper. Just finished the first layer and it can actually be bent around the bluff bow without heat and doesnt break...i did use heat to make fixing it easier but this is the best wood I have ever had in a kit.
I have done some paint trial mixing and settled on a blend of two Admiralty paints Yellow Ochre (approx 55%) and Matt White (45%)...maybe 50/50 but then i put a little more white in ...I guess it is just pale yellow..? At least it isnt pink. The "black" which wasnt actually black I have found Vallejo Dark Grey (#175) which is a good charcoal colour, and the masts are Vallejo Cream White (#021)...so I am happy to move on from the colour issue with my choices made.
I have done some paint trial mixing and settled on a blend of two Admiralty paints Yellow Ochre (approx 55%) and Matt White (45%)...maybe 50/50 but then i put a little more white in ...I guess it is just pale yellow..? At least it isnt pink. The "black" which wasnt actually black I have found Vallejo Dark Grey (#175) which is a good charcoal colour, and the masts are Vallejo Cream White (#021)...so I am happy to move on from the colour issue with my choices made.