That pic was actually from Gm 4, but it is pretty illustrative of my mood after Gm 5.
-
SUBSCRIBE TO SHIPS IN SCALE TODAY!
The beloved Ships in Scale Magazine is back and charting a new course for 2026!
Discover new skills, new techniques, and new inspirations in every issue.
NOTE THAT OUR NEXT ISSUE WILL BE MARCH/APRIL 2026 -
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.
Le Saint Philippe 1693 after Jean-Claude Lemineur (Ancre) in scale 1:48
- Thread starter dockattner
- Start date
- Watchers 98
-
- Tags
- 1:48 ancre saint philippe
Work has continued on the lower portion of the quarter galleries. I confess that I am really struggling with alignment issues. The question has been asked: press on or start over???
I am going to step away for a few days and see how I feel after a little break.
Here in the US we celebrate Father's Day this Sunday - so to all the dads: Happy Father's Day!
I am going to step away for a few days and see how I feel after a little break.
Here in the US we celebrate Father's Day this Sunday - so to all the dads: Happy Father's Day!
Happy Father's Day, Paul. Take a breath. Clear your head, and enjoy the weekend.
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2021
- Messages
- 135
- Points
- 213
Paul, Happy Father's Day to you too.
That's probably the hardest question.
But whatever you decide, it will be your best decision because you're doing it mainly for your own pleasure.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed for you, good luck!
Miro
That's probably the hardest question.
But whatever you decide, it will be your best decision because you're doing it mainly for your own pleasure.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed for you, good luck!
Miro
It’s a impressive puzzle, Paul. And for sure it’s difficult to let it look fine, with all the curves, from all the different angles.
A good idea to take a brake and enjoy your Father’s Day.
Regards, Peter
Hmmm I think the addition of the new parts look fine - what throws me a bit is the level with the carving and the molding - that throws everything a bit off balance. Not as much on the starboard side. Looking at it again the carving's images need to follow the over all flow of the galleries a bit more - meaning - the "horseshoes lean forward at the front of the structure, stay vertical in the center between the blue tape, then lean a bit backward as it approaches the stern.
It such a complex shape - you will get there - step away and enjoy Fathers Day.
It such a complex shape - you will get there - step away and enjoy Fathers Day.
Answered... Let's start over...
The carved portion will also come off but that will take a bit more effort...
@Maarten, @Hubac’s Historian, @CLB (having previously expressed your concerns...).
And others with proven artistic vision (@Dean62, @Steef66, @Peter Voogt...).
***And anyone else who would like to help me out...
My problem is I am more of a craftsman than an artist so I'm not entirely sure what I am not seeing/doing. As I want my next attempt to also be my last attempt I could use some help. I think where my first attempt got off the tracks was there were too many lines vertically.
The top half seems fine - but the bottom half is wrong.
Is that what you see as the problem as well?
As an 'attachment' see the drawing from the monograph (I'll necessarily delete this in a day or so). The vertical red line appears to be the controlling line. But then each of the structures circled in yellow are 'skewed' - or is that because I am looking at a 2D depiction of a 3D structure?
Having asked that, the very top portion is mostly flat relative to the hull, so it seems the drawing shows the actual anatomy - at least there???
The image Maarten posted shows a bit less skewing, but close:
My thanks.
And others with proven artistic vision (@Dean62, @Steef66, @Peter Voogt...).
***And anyone else who would like to help me out...
My problem is I am more of a craftsman than an artist so I'm not entirely sure what I am not seeing/doing. As I want my next attempt to also be my last attempt I could use some help. I think where my first attempt got off the tracks was there were too many lines vertically.
The top half seems fine - but the bottom half is wrong.
Is that what you see as the problem as well?
As an 'attachment' see the drawing from the monograph (I'll necessarily delete this in a day or so). The vertical red line appears to be the controlling line. But then each of the structures circled in yellow are 'skewed' - or is that because I am looking at a 2D depiction of a 3D structure?
Having asked that, the very top portion is mostly flat relative to the hull, so it seems the drawing shows the actual anatomy - at least there???
The image Maarten posted shows a bit less skewing, but close:
My thanks.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2021
- Messages
- 621
- Points
- 403
I’d actually build a prototype first. I’d start with a 2D drawing, print it out, stick it onto cardboard and adjust it to the hull until it sits harmoniously on it. Then I’d work my way up and down from the centre by adding layers of cardboard; there’s also architectural cardboard available, which is a bit thicker. You can then work on it from all sides and transform the 2D design into 3D. Towards the end, you might use modelling clay to refine the shapes. Once everything fits, recreate the individual segments in wood and keep fitting them to the prototype; the prototype can then gradually be incorporated into the wooden structure. But as I said, that’s probably what I’d do – I don’t know if it’s the best way.
Hi Paul,
What I would do is make the lower panel first without the carvings.
Than dry fit it the the gallery.
At the top of the panel devide the number of carvings needed just by simple pencil strokes/dots.
Now these dots you connect with ruler to the lowest point of the gallery as these lines should coverge to this point. Now draw the lines at these angles across the panel. This should result in a panel with lines giving you the orientation of your carvings. Now you can simply draw the carvings radii and start carving.
Hope this helps.
What I would do is make the lower panel first without the carvings.
Than dry fit it the the gallery.
At the top of the panel devide the number of carvings needed just by simple pencil strokes/dots.
Now these dots you connect with ruler to the lowest point of the gallery as these lines should coverge to this point. Now draw the lines at these angles across the panel. This should result in a panel with lines giving you the orientation of your carvings. Now you can simply draw the carvings radii and start carving.
Hope this helps.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2019
- Messages
- 5,740
- Points
- 738
Yup, the same problem of a 2D drawing that's actually a 3D form. the way Maarten discribes is a good solution to solve the problem.
I think the part left of the red line and the part on the right are almost equal, the same . Only the right is draw under an angle. It's a difficult thing for a brain to see the 3D shape in a 2D drawing. You need to train that by drawing 3D shapes. For example, draw a circle in a sqare on paper, devide it vertical with a line. Then make a fold along that vertical line and fold that part back. Now look to the left part and see what the right part does when you fold that back. That part will get narrow like the drawing you use. Where the fold possible is between window 2 and 3. Hope that helps.
I think the part left of the red line and the part on the right are almost equal, the same . Only the right is draw under an angle. It's a difficult thing for a brain to see the 3D shape in a 2D drawing. You need to train that by drawing 3D shapes. For example, draw a circle in a sqare on paper, devide it vertical with a line. Then make a fold along that vertical line and fold that part back. Now look to the left part and see what the right part does when you fold that back. That part will get narrow like the drawing you use. Where the fold possible is between window 2 and 3. Hope that helps.
Hey Paul, I had to do some catching up. First of all it’s really taking shape! Good work.
On the issue of the lower section, in my eyes it is leaning to the bow too much and the angle should be more inline with the upper portion. Look for more symmetry about your vertical line, which is a slight angle towards the bow, but is constant through the upper and lower. Hope that makes sense.
Paul, this is what I am refering to...
As you can see the vertical center from top to bottom is at a constant angle, however symmetry is not perfectly established in some areas.
If it were me, I would print this and scale it to fit on your ship properly and use it as a template. Mark the angle on your ship and use the pic above as a template to align all features about the center line. And note the carvings you made are at angles too, not vertical. They fan out from the center in both directions.
Hope this helps.
As you can see the vertical center from top to bottom is at a constant angle, however symmetry is not perfectly established in some areas.
If it were me, I would print this and scale it to fit on your ship properly and use it as a template. Mark the angle on your ship and use the pic above as a template to align all features about the center line. And note the carvings you made are at angles too, not vertical. They fan out from the center in both directions.
Hope this helps.
- a few things. In the SP quarter drawing that Maarten posted, the forward third is also concave, like LemineurYou are correct that the QG’s are ordered around a central axis. When I began to rework Berain’s QG for SR, I established a central axis that ran directly through the upper finishing, the 1/2/3 window arrengement, and down through the center of the lower finishing:
With that much blocked-in, I could draw all of the supporting detail:
On this ship, the lower finishing overhangs the stern counter (dotted line).
That single central axis organized all elements at the same raking angle.
You are correct that the QG’s are ordered around a central axis. When I began to rework Berain’s QG for SR, I established a central axis that ran directly through the upper finishing, the 1/2/3 window arrengement, and down through the center of the lower finishing:
View attachment 614184
With that much blocked-in, I could draw all of the supporting detail:
View attachment 614185
On this ship, the lower finishing overhangs the stern counter (dotted line).
That single central axis organized all elements at the same raking angle.
And it seems that angle is the same as the stern angle on both ships. So that’s a good guide IMO. Just figure out the offset distance.
Indeed, these were small oversights in my drawing process. Fortunately, I caught the mistake in the making of the ornament:
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2025
- Messages
- 442
- Points
- 128
Paul,
I have not parsed thru much of the above but I this is my view
1 - Kevlar gloves! The least cumbersome style may not have completely stopped the micro spear - diverted it probably.
If you are right handed - just on the left is enough - the economy are probably uni anyway.
I hope that the foreign material the spear took with it into your finger did not make your giant killer macrophages too angry!
I was advised to never go any saw blade wearing gloves - tablesaw, bandsaw, circularsaw, The fabric will pull your fingers into the action.
2. If I have a choice between Lemineur and contemporary - contemporary wins every time.
3. I would not use the contemporary as anything like a blue print. Use it for what was there. Draw your own plan for where.
The original is old - very old - the illustration may be a photo
It is on an organic matrix. Time - temp - humidity oxygen = micro changes -360 degrees of possible twists and rotations of just very small regions within the single picture. Glass lens = imperfect - light wave shift
You went with the existing frame patterns in the monograph so you did not have to deal with the insanity of Lemineur's lines.
Canting every station 1.2 degrees right? - insane - the baseline should be at the 1.2 degree CCW rotation.
Is the Body plan what the shape is at vertical or the foreshortened 1.2 degrees?
The table mortise for the two frames in every bend? No way! Totally nuts! It was one off in 1693 - a failed idea - why continue to embarrass the poor shipwright three hundred plus years later?
Dean
I have not parsed thru much of the above but I this is my view
1 - Kevlar gloves! The least cumbersome style may not have completely stopped the micro spear - diverted it probably.
If you are right handed - just on the left is enough - the economy are probably uni anyway.
I hope that the foreign material the spear took with it into your finger did not make your giant killer macrophages too angry!
I was advised to never go any saw blade wearing gloves - tablesaw, bandsaw, circularsaw, The fabric will pull your fingers into the action.
2. If I have a choice between Lemineur and contemporary - contemporary wins every time.
3. I would not use the contemporary as anything like a blue print. Use it for what was there. Draw your own plan for where.
The original is old - very old - the illustration may be a photo
It is on an organic matrix. Time - temp - humidity oxygen = micro changes -360 degrees of possible twists and rotations of just very small regions within the single picture. Glass lens = imperfect - light wave shift
You went with the existing frame patterns in the monograph so you did not have to deal with the insanity of Lemineur's lines.
Canting every station 1.2 degrees right? - insane - the baseline should be at the 1.2 degree CCW rotation.
Is the Body plan what the shape is at vertical or the foreshortened 1.2 degrees?
The table mortise for the two frames in every bend? No way! Totally nuts! It was one off in 1693 - a failed idea - why continue to embarrass the poor shipwright three hundred plus years later?
Dean
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2019
- Messages
- 5,740
- Points
- 738
Wwhy is that top part not vissible in the vieuw from the back
The part above the windows on the balcony is not vissible on the drawing from the back. It should be there to in my opinion. Are there more views available? From above maybe? It looks to me with these 2 drawings the 3 top windows and the ornament above it, is just flat. That could not be right. Strange drawing.
The part above the windows on the balcony is not vissible on the drawing from the back. It should be there to in my opinion. Are there more views available? From above maybe? It looks to me with these 2 drawings the 3 top windows and the ornament above it, is just flat. That could not be right. Strange drawing.