Le Saint Philippe 1693 after Jean-Claude Lemineur (Ancre) in scale 1:48

[dockattner]

One question: you mentioned the difficulty in carving the end grain. It is something to be avoided if at all possible. Did you end up making it two pieces with a cove joint at the corner? It is just a form of crown moulding after all.

Indeed, I did try to make this replacement with a joint at the corner. I failed because I was too concerned with hiding the joint within the carving itself.

 

[dockattner]

I love this log because it's not just a log of building a model; it's also a log of many thoughts, doubts, and reflections that we all, or at least I often ask myself.
Keep it up!

Miguel.

Thanks, Miguel. We are on a journey together...

 

[dockattner]

Hi Pual
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the new structure isn't entirely correct. Please don't do anything stupid, I don't want you to have to reassemble this structure and waste another month of your life.. Just notice it and accept it you'll do it better next time. Each time I look at Saint Philippe QG, I discover new details that I hadn't noticed at first glance.

It's very important to look at every element from diffrent plans top, bottom, left, right, carved, uncarved. Even the sculpture drawings are helpful despite being only a vision. Do you want to play a little game, or should I get right to the point? I'll show you a couple of images—maybe you'll get it right away.

Tip: Look at shadow
View attachment 615572

View attachment 615569
View attachment 615570
View attachment 615571
View attachment 615573

Thanks, Wojtas. I do see the shadow and the step it reveals. The Villiers text seems to show this structure quite differently from Lemineur. I am at work so I don't have the plates in front of me - but I believe the drawing that shows the platforms from above (the one that shows the details of the quarter gallery framing) presents a smooth curve (similar to what Igor shows in his digital model) rather than an abrupt step.

 

[dockattner]

Looks much better Paul - in my mind well worth the effort - this is a good proving ground for all that will demanded later with more complicated shapes and carvings.

Good morning Paul. To my untrained eye I can see a marked difference and improvement in the carving and shape. Whether it is correct or not I have no idea however it came out really well. Cheers Grant

Thank you, gentlemen!

 

[dockattner]

Hi Paul,

Certainly a huge improvement and worth all the efforts.
Indeed @WojtasS is correct.
Even the model shown by him is not representing the drawing completely, as also the jump in the freeze is present in the carving below it.
View attachment 615589

I can imagine in your line of work protruding parts is a frame are not wanted and a straight line is aimed for.

But your current works fits the other shown model so it will give a good appearence on the final gallery.
Job wel done.

Thanks, Maarten. As I mentioned to Wojtas above I believe there is a disagreement between Villiers and Lemineur. Or perhaps I am once again misunderstanding the monograph drawings (which I am necessarily obligated to follow) which is entirely possible.

 

[Albert Mary]

Hi Paul,

Certainly a huge improvement and worth all the efforts.
Indeed @WojtasS is correct.
Even the model shown by him is not representing the drawing completely, as also the jump in the freeze is present in the carving below it.
View attachment 615589

I can imagine in your line of work protruding parts is a frame are not wanted and a straight line is aimed for.

But your current works fits the other shown model so it will give a good appearence on the final gallery.
Job wel done.

I think marteen is right. It looks a lot like the middle part of this "bow-window" protrudes with sharp angles, as well the freeze beneath it. Most respect in any case... whatever decision you will be making, it's a talk on science-fiction skills...

 

[WojtasS]

platforms from above (the one that shows the details of the quarter gallery framing) presents a smooth curve (similar to what Igor shows in his digital model) rather than an abrupt step.

Yes, and I agree. To me, the middle section looks a little too flat, if done correctly, the shadow in your photo should be much smaller, but maybe it's just a matter of the photo.
If you look at the plan I marked with red lines(in my previosus post), you'll see that the background belt almost touches the rail in the middle and tapers off on the left and right sides+ with the added carvings, the shadow should be minimal, like in Igor's design or the Rochefort model.

It's no big deal to me, but you've always been a perfectionist, so I thought I should mention it. If you're fine with it, so am I.

On plans the gap between carvings and rail is very very small

 

[Der Alte Rentner]

I know that I'm way over my ski tips on this subject, but one thought that comes to mind is

Let not the perfect become the enemy of the good.