Occre HMS Beagle Build Questions

[Mikey]

I bought the Occre Beagle kit and then I bought Anatomy of the Ship book by Marquardt for the Beagle. I found numerous scale errors in the kit. The forecastle is built flat in the kit whereas the actual ship had a rise towards the bow. The sides of the kit hull do no curve in at the top like the real ship. The width of the deck planking was more than twice the scale width; which tends to throw off the scale of the rest of the ship. There are other details along the same lines where the kit does not match the actual ship. I bring this up not as an outright complaint against Occre, but I was wondering if there are any other kits out there that started out a little more true to scale?

I plan to do some serious kit bashing otherwise.

 

[Jimsky]

I am not surprised, Mikey. What you experience is common for most commercial kits (not to mention the names). This is because of the poor research done as well as production costs. These days, when more small shops manufacture kits, it gets much better, but oddly enough, the big game names, still making the same errors remaking their kits. There is nothing we can do about it; therefore the term 'bashing' comes into the play. Basically, you have only 2 choices: build the model strictly as per kit's instruction manual, and possibly make small modifications. Or...bash the kit: use structural parts if possible and modify the construction as per book drawings. Following the second choice will definitely make you feel much better, but it may create troubles as the modifying parts may not feet anymore as per kit's manual, therefore you may need to make other parts from scratch.

The choice is yours, but I am pretty sure we have both Occre Beagle models: out of the box (as is), or heavily bashed.

 

[Mikey]

I am not surprised, Mikey. What you experience is common for most commercial kits (not to mention the names). This is because of the poor research done as well as production costs. These days, when more small shops manufacture kits, it gets much better, but oddly enough, the big game names, still making the same errors remaking their kits. There is nothing we can do about it; therefore the term 'bashing' comes into the play. Basically, you have only 2 choices: build the kit as strictly as per kit's instruction manual, and make small changes. Or...bash the kit. Use structural parts if possible and modify the construction as per book drawings. Following the second choice will definitely make to feel you much better, but it may create troubles as the modifying parts may not feet anymore as per kit's manual, therefore you may need to make other parts from scratch.

The choice is yours, but I am pretty sure we have both Occre Beagle models: out of the box (as is), or heavily bashed.

Thanks!

 

[Kurt Konrath]

The difference in kit accuracy all goes back to the saying "You get what you pay for!"

As Jimsky said the new smaller companies building highly detail accurate kits sell at higher price.

So you either build as is, or spend more cash to fix the errors, the issue is do you want a historically correct build or a model that resembles the ship the box says it is supposed to be.

 

[Mikey]

The difference in kit accuracy all goes back to the saying "You get what you pay for!"

As Jimsky said the new smaller companies building highly detail accurate kits sell at higher price.

So you either build as is, or spend more cash to fix the errors, the issue is do you want a historically correct build or a model that resembles the ship the box says it is supposed to be.

I would be willing to pay more for a more accurate kit; does one exist? I thought there was an Artesania Latina kit; but could not chase it down.

 

[Smithy]

I would be willing to pay more for a more accurate kit; does one exist? I thought there was an Artesania Latina kit; but could not chase it down.

There is/was a Mamoli kit in 1/64. I have no idea of its quality.

bought the Occre Beagle kit and then I bought Anatomy of the Ship book by Marquardt for the Beagle. I found numerous scale errors in the kit.

I had the same experience, found the same discrepancies years ago. There is, or was a ‘replica’ Beagle somewhere in S America which wasn’t sea going but just a tourist attraction inland. I can’t now remember the details. I found photos of it online and began to suspect that the Occre kit was partly modelled on the inaccurate replica.

 

[Smithy]

Mamoli kit in 1/64. I have no idea of its quality.

Looking at their box cover photo, it has issues of its own.

 

[Mikey]

Looking at their box cover photo, it has issues of its own.

Also found the Nain model. It appears to worse than the Occre. The Occre appears to have the most fidelity to the book. Even the author says the book is based on the Cherokee class drawings, written descriptions of the modifications for the 1831 retrofit and the few pictures and drawings available. Since the original is not around anymore, the author admits they are a SWAG on some details.

 

[Frank48]

I am not surprised, Mikey. What you experience is common for most commercial kits (not to mention the names). This is because of the poor research done as well as production costs. These days, when more small shops manufacture kits, it gets much better, but oddly enough, the big game names, still making the same errors remaking their kits. There is nothing we can do about it; therefore the term 'bashing' comes into the play. Basically, you have only 2 choices: build the model strictly as per kit's instruction manual, and possibly make small modifications. Or...bash the kit: use structural parts if possible and modify the construction as per book drawings. Following the second choice will definitely make you feel much better, but it may create troubles as the modifying parts may not feet anymore as per kit's manual, therefore you may need to make other parts from scratch.

The choice is yours, but I am pretty sure we have both Occre Beagle models: out of the box (as is), or heavily bashed.

Hi Jim, just a thought of mine, whether from Kit or monograph to have a historical model there is a need for further documentation otherwise it is just an overmobile.Kits will never be of a real fidelity of the ship. This is my personal reflection.Frank

 

[Jimsky]

Hi Jim, just a thought of mine, whether from Kit or monograph to have a historical model there is a need for further documentation otherwise it is just an overmobile.Kits will never be of a real fidelity of the ship. This is my personal reflection. Frank

I agree, Francesko. Scale Modeling in general is just a hobby (for the majority of us). For some of us, building any model is just fun, it doesn't matter if it is from scratch or kit. While for others, historical accuracy is the most important aspect, and the research. may take more time than the actual building. Also, such builders may or may not participate in various international competitions were authentically correct model taking in to account alone with other criteria.

 

[OlivierF]

There is/was a Mamoli kit in 1/64. I have no idea of its quality.

I built the Mamoli Beagle a few years ago. It was a fun build but the ship built was The Beagle in name only and general shape of the hull. As others have said most of the model kit suppliers are interested in selling kits and don’t necessarily care about accuracy…

 

[Smithy]

I built the Mamoli Beagle a few years ago. It was a fun build but the ship built was The Beagle in name only and general shape of the hull. As others have said most of the model kit suppliers are interested in selling kits and don’t necessarily care about accuracy…

I guess most of the buyers don’t care much either? The ones who don’t join forums like this I mean.

 

[Hermies]

Simple answer is NO.

You must find scales .. use them … sparingly.

Ultimately it must look good within reason.

Kits are commercial with corner cutting. Some are better than others. Some are very good: they cost fantastic money mainly due to materials.
But
Scratch you control everything to a finer point.

Please remember!
Scaling does not work …
Example
1/100th size man hand - does not look the same in reality. Or 1/40 scale machine piston not give same output as original.

 

[Steviedean]

I agree with Hermies.
When building in various scale sizes not everything will look correct kept to true scale.
I've been scratch building a 1/16" scale barn using scale size lumber I made from cheap 1X pine. Hopefully, I get it finished for Christmas.
I'm working on creating a realistic shingle, I felt that 60 grit wet or dry sand paper had the correct texture and appearance. Now in scale size on a 3 tab shingle in 1/16" scale each tab is 3/4" wide, tab slot length is 5/16" and the 1/4" wide slot would be about .015 or 1/64". Well - you cannot "see" a slot at all and the 5/16" slot length looked too short. So my solution was to cur 1" wide x 11" long stops as blanks. Then I made a clamping fixture to hold about 60 blanks, I cut 3/8" high slots, 3/4" apart on my micro mark table saw in the fixture, added the blanks then changed the blade to a cut off grinding disc. I ground all the slots through the sandpaper blanks using the fixture slots as a guide. These slots are about 1/16" wide, which look correct as the eye can pick up the offset pattern that a 3 tab shingle would give. BUT at 1/16 scale, that slot is 1" wide, four times too much.
Hope that's not to muddy of a description.
Good evening to all.
Steveidean

 

[Steviedean]

And,
Good 'ole Elmers Carpenter's glue adheres them wonderfully!
Steveidean