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.
-
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 July/August 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
Thanks, Miguel. We are on a journey together...
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.
Thank you, gentlemen!
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.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.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2022
- Messages
- 800
- Points
- 353
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...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.
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2022
- Messages
- 991
- Points
- 403
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
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.
Let not the perfect become the enemy of the good.
I'm not so sure, Maarten. At least Lemineur does not envision this section with a vertical jump/step as depicted in the Villiers drawing. Here is the platform just above the frieze: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.
The form is smooth not stepped (yes, there is a raised panel shown above (I have modeled that) but the platform itself is not stepped).
I cannot say you are wrong, Wojtas. But the difference between what you envision and what I have made is perhaps not as much as you think. Here is my frieze from above:
I would say I am quite close to what Igor modeled - though I am reluctant to appeal to his example - looking too much at his digital model is what got me in trouble in the first place
.As always, I appreciate your interest in my work.
The wisest man in the room...
Indeed, I'll be keeping what I have even if it is not quite perfect. As we discussed over lunch I struggled with the notion of a do-over in the first place. To keep going back to the same well seems unhealthy.
Still, I do very much appreciate that people have questioned my construction. It is only because they care and have my best outcome in mind that these challenges are raised. I am not diminished or hurt by sincere criticism - after all, this is just a hobby for me.
Last edited:
For what it is worth - the Tuset model agrees in full with what Maarten and you are suggesting.
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2022
- Messages
- 991
- Points
- 403
Like I said, it can be a matter of a photo. I never intended for you to redo this. This is a matter of interpretation, so the maker has the greatest influence and final wordI cannot say you are wrong, Wojtas. But the difference between what you envision and what I have made is perhaps not as much as you think. Here is my frieze from above:
View attachment 615726
I would say I am quite close to what Igor modeled - though I am reluctant to appeal to his example - looking too much at his digital model is what got me in trouble in the first place
As always, I appreciate your interest in my work.
Thanks for keeping an eye on me, my friend. You have been very helpful throughout.
I agree that these differences are negligible and not worth sweating over.
Work has continued on the (re)fabrication of the carved band of the quarter galleries.
I've decided that I'm just not that great at geometric/shape carving
- and since I previously demonstrated that I'm also not that great at figure/anthropomorphic carving while building the Kingfisher 
- it would seem this current project faces some significant headwinds .
Nevertheless, onward we go...
I did apply a finish to this carved section just to see how it would look.
I've decided that I'm just not that great at geometric/shape carving
- and since I previously demonstrated that I'm also not that great at figure/anthropomorphic carving while building the Kingfisher - it would seem this current project faces some significant headwinds .Nevertheless, onward we go...
I did apply a finish to this carved section just to see how it would look.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2024
- Messages
- 87
- Points
- 143
There are people who wouldn't even know what to do with a hammer. So, simply don't give up. We are operating in the top tier of shipbuilding here. Just don't give up—it’s going to be great.
Thanks, Andreas. I won't give up. Expectations easily run ahead of outcomes in this hobby but I'll keep trying to do my best work and enjoy the process. With that in mind... do-overs and re-dos are not my favorite part of ship modeling
.You're most recent post of your model was breathtaking - what a beautiful finish!
Don't be hard on yourself. The carving looks great. It is uniformly consistent, which is most of the battle, IMO.
Thanks, Marc. As I wrote to Andreas my vision was not fully realized - and you know I can be quite self-critical. But of course you are right - the carving is not that bad. I did try to make things as uniform and flowing as I could.