Sovereign of the Seas-Deagostini Partwork-1/84 TOTALLY Reworked

Hi Bill

I totally agree regarding kit manufacturers.Even when presented with the facts though,they still cut corners.Take Amati's Vanguard for example Chris Watton spent an age on design and research when developing the kit only for Amati to spoil it all by using those horrible cast solid gun carriages and generic cannons.I know many builders anticipate their release of Victory in 1/64.Chris spent a long time on research again and many are familiar with the pictures of his prototype.I will be suprised if the kit matches this when and if it comes to market.
Returning to Sovereign,I know you have mentioned to me the shortcomings of Sergal's design.Trouble is,how do we start from complete scratch?No credible plans exist.The NMM drawings Arthur Molle based his model on don't tally with artwork of the day.The only way is to start with something physical and massage it to match the limited information we have.This means eyeballing things like gun positions,tumblehome,heights of bulwarks and above all else with Sovereign,the Lely portrait showing her stern.It was this view that led me to alter the cross section of my model's stern once all the internal structure have been removed.Alas pictures of this operation have been lost to the ether over time.
Other than making sawdust the only way you could develop workable drawings would be to develop a 3D model on CAD to conform to the available information.In that way it could be rotated and viewed from all angles.That is beyond my ability and to be honest,interest.It would take me many,many hours to get up to speed in how to use a sophisticated 3D solid modelling program not to mention the cost of the software and license etc.Yes there are cheap systems out there,but you get what you pay for.Ones like Rhinocerous that Alexey Banarov uses are not cheap,but then again,he builds comission work and is well paid for his models so it is justified.I have been deliberating for five years as to whether I really NEED a Proxxon planer,thicknesser:rolleyes:

Kind Regards

Nigel
 
Historical arguments aside, as I'm far from even a journeyman in that regard, this build I some of the most intricate work I have ever seen. I try to follow builds to learn one thing or another but this is so far beyond the pale that this is strictly amazement at this point. Your skills are unreal, sir. Looking forward to the progress Thumbsup
 
NMBROOK said:
I know many builders anticipate their release of Victory in 1/64.Chris spent a long time on research again and many are familiar with the pictures of his prototype.I will be surprised if the kit matches this when and if it comes to market.
Click to expand...
Nigel - I had forgotten about this one - yes the earlier prototype photos were indeed excellent. Great thread here - learning a lot about the industry

Cheers,
 
NMBROOK said:
Hi Maarten
Yes Deagostini REALLY stretched the clause of 'the manufacturer reserves the right to change specification etc etc'.

Mamoli took over the Aeropiccola Prince and to my knowledge replaced the fibrewood ornaments with metal castings.Now Daniel Dusek bought Mamoli's rights when their factory burnt down and is slowly rereleasing Mamoli's kits with his improvements.He has started with the mini Mamoli range which included Prince.We will see if this is rereleased.It was a small model but it was the most accurate wooden kit produced of this vessel.

Chris Watton was well on with developing a 1/64 kit of her for Amati,but now no longer works for Amati and has severed all ties with them.I doubt that kit will ever happen now.He is starting his own kit business.

Kind Regards

Nigel
Click to expand...
It breaks my heart to know that the expensive Deagostoni SotS has departs so much from what the ship model should appear as. When I get started on that project in a few years, I hope you guys can help me bash the hell out of that kit and bring it back to where it should have been, a realistic representation of the actual vessel. Realism is an important aspect of the ship model. If you can't do it right, why spend such a huge amount of time doing it at all?
 
DARIVS ARCHITECTVS said:
If you can't do it right, why spend such a huge amount of time doing it at all?
Click to expand...
...how it is doing right? Who knows how it is right? Are you talking about the authentic representation of the model? If the answer is yes, then you mostly-likely should not build from a kit, and bash the hell out of it!! Scratch built from the original plans, would be my big guess! ;) Else, don't forget, there are Modelers and the rest of us, in fact also modelers, but our skills are way different! All of us enjoying building those models despite the fact that they do not look like their originals. Oh...by the way, how the originals look? :p
Why and how to build is a personal taste\preference. The most important is enjoying what you do to the acceptance level of yours!!! Unless you are a Modeller...:)
 
Jimsky said:
...how it is doing right? Who knows how it is right? Are you talking about the authentic representation of the model? If the answer is yes, then you mostly-likely should not build from a kit, and bash the hell out of it!! Scratch built from the original plans, would be my big guess! ;) Else, don't forget, there are Modelers and the rest of us, in fact also modelers, but our skills are way different! All of us enjoying building those models despite the fact that they do not look like their originals. Oh...by the way, how the originals look? :p
Why and how to build is a personal taste\preference. The most important is enjoying what you do to the acceptance level of yours!!! Unless you are a Modeller...:)
Click to expand...
I agree with everything you said, Jim. Kit bashing can be fun, but it does drive the cost up in terms of research time and money. Some of the features of an expensive model were made noticeably different than what the common sources of information, such as the Pett painting, show them to be. Like you said, we all have different skill levels, and speaking for myself, one who has not even completed ONE wooden ship, having to reshape and redesign major features on a kit is not encouraging, even though it is easier than the alternative, building from scratch. It's reasonable to to expect that reshaping the entire stern quarter of a kit, when we have an EXCELLENT historical image of that portion of the vessel, is something a model company should have taken into consideration. That's really what I meant by doing it right, not that we always know everything about how it would have been, rather, when a kitmaker does know what something looks like, they don't go off on a wild artistically inspired tangent. Luckily there are lots of forums, in several languages, that have answers for those looking for them. Yes, the research is fun for many, but not everyone, since it is very time consuming. When you start with a kit, you want to believe it is well thought out and accurate based on information available. Often it is not.
That being said, It's great to have resource from experienced builders like yourself and other to learn from in modifying a kit.
 
Last edited:
That a kit designer gives their own interpretation of a model is their good right, but what deagostini did is that they advertised with a different model then their own kit, to me that is deception.
Kit bashing is fine and offers a lot of fun, and I think thats what I have to do also with my deagostini sots in the future.
 
Maarten said:
That a kit designer gives their own interpretation of a model is their good right, but what deagostini did is that they advertised with a different model then their own kit, to me that is deception.
Kit bashing is fine and offers a lot of fun, and I think thats what I have to do also with my deagostini sots in the future.
Click to expand...

Maarten has hit the nail on the head.That is our gripe.The model sold in the advertising is no where near that in the partwork.I would never have considered this partwork if I knew the finished design.The marketing images portrayed a model that was closer to that of the Sergal kit and the now discontinued Amati offering(available as plans and fittings).
Many years ago,I was in Westbourne Models in the UK,sat in front of me was Sergal's Sovereign of the Seas,their Soleil Royal and Euromodels Royal WIlliam.I chose the Soleil Royal.I loved all three kits but dismissed Sovereign as it was way off what I interpreted the original to look like and Royal William because I was inexperienced then.I had the advantage of knowing what the finished model looked like.
When I started collecting the Sovereign Partwork,I planned to build straight from the box(or packet in this case).The stern as advertised addressed all the inaccuracies comparing Sergal's kit to the Lely Portrait.I was up to about issue 60 when I cancelled my subscription and had already spent a heap on issues.At this point it had become obvious that I would end up using nothing further from the partwork,in fact there are only two inches of the bottom of the bulkheads that remain now as my model stands.
I am sure someone would have a reasonable case if they had the time and financial backing to persue this legally with Deagostini,this is akin to putting a downpayment on a BMW 5 series and being given a 3 series.

Yes you are quite correct Jim,modellers build whatever makes them happy.If not happy with a kit,work from plans,yes you are correct.That is not how my story with Sovereign unfolded.I was a big player on Deagostini's ModelSpace forum in the earlier stages of my build,the first to be presented with a"gold Medal".My continual frustration and disgust with how the partwork was playing out led to me falling out with the moderator and demanding that my build log be taken down.To me,my model was making their product looked better than it actually was(that does sound big headed now but it was true).

Artesania Latina make some half decent kits,there designer must have been on long term leave when they produced this partwork for Deagostini.

Kind Regards

Nigel
 
It is a shame that kits ‘in general’ are not historically accurate, in most cases, but they do serve a purpose to those who do not have the skills to build from plans. That said, The Sovereign is perhaps in its own class as there are not any known surviving contemporary plans to build from. You are left with historical depictions by artists who viewed the ship in their minds eye and left us with the closest look at the ship we have. We are left to use our skills to try and reproduce that in a model.

I believe that anyone who tries to build this ship, either from a kit, bashed kit or from scratch is worthy of some kudos as it is truly a challenge. Any depiction deserves some respect and the modeller cannot be held to account as to how it turns out.

Regards,
Bill
 
Last edited:
Hi Bill

I take it as a given that most actually aren't.I accept that and make a decision based on what is on offer.Below are marketing images of the Partwork.Given how much we have both learnt from our research,would you not say that this a very plausible rendition?Yes the red between the wales is wrong,that belongs on the outside of the bulwarks on a 17th century English ship.I know the carvings are amiss a little compared to Busmann's book but I did not have the book or know of it's existence when I subscribed.I would have built straight from the box instead of a virtual scratchbuild if it looked like the model in the pics.
On another note,someone must have listened.Deagositini then released the Twelve Apostles,a Russian ship of the line.That builds into a brilliant and accurate model produced by Artesania.Sadly this was never released in the UK,just Italy and Russia to my knowledge.Now they offer the Wasa which so far looks like it should be a nice accurate model,billed as based on Fred Hocker's research.This is also an Artesania produced model.

In my mind,my Royal Caroline is following the format that is as far as I should push a kit without it be more viable to start from scratch.I deliberately used all the skeleton,first planking and castings otherwise I knew I would be better to start from a clean sheet of paper.To buy the castings and laser engraved details separately nearly cost what I paid for the kit so it made financial sense.Yes I spent the cost of the kit again on Pear,Ebony and boxwood but I would still have had to buy that if scratchbuilding as well as the carcass materials.

Kind Regards

Nigel

Marketing pictures,plenty of pics on the net of the actual partwork as supplied.I feel it inappropriate and disrespectful to post images of people's builds.They are happy with their models.That isn't the point,the point being about a product being wrongly marketed.

sov133.pngsov134.jpgsov135.jpg
 
Well... It is it a shame that kits manufacturer using wrong (un-honest) marketing material to sell their kits. But there is nothing new, they always do that, and still. Don't get me wrong, I am no way defending them, but the manufacture of kits is no different from the manufacture of the cars where the main driving point is to get as much revenue as they can. For them, it is just a business, to begin with.

The kits are designed for a wide audience of modelers. Most of them will never pay attention and will be happy to pay and assemble the kit as is. Only some will bash the kit and redo most (if not all) of the parts. The manufactures, don't rely on those few. There will be always good kits and better ones. There will be always a disappointment (or will not, perhaps) at the kit's arrival. A poor\missliding instruction, bad castings, crooked\damaged wood oh... almost forgot - missing parts just a few to name. But in the end, it is always us, who is constantly challenging with all those discrepancies, and because of them, we are becoming better modelers.
 
Jimsky said:
Well... It is it a shame that kits manufacturer using wrong (un-honest) marketing material to sell their kits. But there is nothing new, they always do that, and still. Don't get me wrong, I am no way defending them, but the manufacture of kits is no different from the manufacture of the cars where the main driving point is to get as much revenue as they can. For them, it is just a business, to begin with.

The kits are designed for a wide audience of modelers. Most of them will never pay attention and will be happy to pay and assemble the kit as is. Only some will bash the kit and redo most (if not all) of the parts. The manufactures, don't rely on those few. There will be always good kits and better ones. There will be always a disappointment (or will not, perhaps) at the kit's arrival. A poor\missliding instruction, bad castings, crooked\damaged wood oh... almost forgot - missing parts just a few to name. But in the end, it is always us, who is constantly challenging with all those discrepancies, and because of them, we are becoming better modelers.
Click to expand...


Jim you are so correct in that it is not unique to model ship kits.I don't know about the US but in the UK,BMW and Mercedes are always plugging models on TV commercials,then the small print at the end says the model shown is an Msport or AMG variant!Turns out the model in the video is twice as expensive as their advertised 'from price'
I do also agree that 'bashing' kits makes you are better modeller.You end up challenging everything and have to think forward as to the impact of any alterations.You generally develop a deep understanding of what you are hoping to achieve instead of solely relying on following stages in the instructions,which may or may not be of any use anyway.Some have criticised Artesania's instructions,believe me when I say that they are very thorough compared to the one's I got with Sergal's Soleil Royal over twenty years agoROTF

Kind Regards

Nigel

Kind Regards

Nigel
 
Yep, I think both Beemer and\or Mers (shorter for BMW and Mercedes) are world leaders in pristine\prestidge car models, including the USA. But wait...are we nominating Diagostiny to be plugging kit manufacturer? I don't have experience working with this kit manufacturer, but don't think so. We have way better kits companies to be nominee such title.

Kits, IMHO, are a great way to involve and learn this hobby. It is like developing a kid: you start with a sounded and really colorful toy. As they grow, you will give them a Lego (b.t.w. my all time favorite, and still :p). Once a modeler assembles one kit, he\she may want another...a better, or more challenging. The ideal, I called 'Aha moment' there will be a time when all parts from a kit will be re-manufactured so-called 'correct way'. If this happened, most-likely the next project will be a scratch build, or I am wrong. Perhaps, at the older edge people still can be kids and play with a coleful\sounded toy. We are all different!!!!
 
Yeah Jim,Deagostini are just a partwork publisher.Artesania,Occre and Amati to name a few are the kit companies who have produced these partworks for the likes of Deagostini and Hachete.
I love kits in general and am now undertaking my first scratchbuild but have absolutely no intention of becoming one of the scratchbuild 'snobs'.It is all about fun and yes kits can be 'fun'.In some ways modifying a kit can be more challenging than scratch.

I think the biggest challenge for most budding scratchbuilders if you contemplate working from one of the monographs is you must have an in depth understanding of 'engineering' drawing,otherwise be prepared to ask lots of questions.I say engineering because modern 'Nautical' drawing is nearly non existent.I work with several people who have worked on building modern vessels and the drawings are little different from what I use in my day job.I had a friend who went the Marine route in Engineering in the hope to work in yacht design.3D modelling software and GRP and aluminium 'egg box' construction makes this a world apart from what most of us build.
Finally I loved Lego and my wife wants a Lego millennium falcon,great till I found out how much the originals go for :rolleyes:She can carry on wanting at that price!

Kind Regards

Nigel
 
NMBROOK said:
I think the biggest challenge for most budding scratchbuilders if you contemplate working from one of the monographs is you must have an in depth understanding of 'engineering' drawing,otherwise be prepared to ask lots of questions.I say engineering because modern 'Nautical' drawing is nearly non existent.I work with several people who have worked on building modern vessels and the drawings are little different from what I use in my day job.I had a friend who went the Marine route in Engineering in the hope to work in yacht design.3D modelling software and GRP and aluminium 'egg box' construction make this a world apart from what most of us build.
Click to expand...
Absolutely Nigel. I can sign on each and all words. For the most part, this is one of the reasons I am still building from kits. Luck of knowledge properly read plans\drafts make me apart from this method of building models. I grasp a better idea after watching Dr. Mike's video, but still not completely ready. I think, I just need to start it, however afraid it becomes an unstressful adventure. Who knows!??!

NMBROOK said:
Finally I loved Lego and my wife wants a Lego millennium falcon,great till I found out how much the originals go for :rolleyes:She can carry on wanting at that price!
Click to expand...

You certainly can do better for your Admiral! Always remember there will be another tool you may want to buy, and it may cost more than Falcon... :p Shhh... Hope she didn't read our posts.
 
Wow... I have learned a LOT from this thread. I wish I knew just how much of this kit would have to be replaced before buying it. I may have gone with scratch building from plans at the start, despite the high learning curve. The prospective cost of the model just tripled. I have the Amati plans and the complete Deagostini kit, but do not have the carving experience or tools to make the hundreds of small carvings. So what do you guys think of the Amati cast parts being mixed in with the Deagostini parts to try to get closer to the scant few historical depictions of the ship? How much of the kit can be salvaged? I am closely watching Nigel's photos for ideas on how to bash this kit since he is in progress building it.

First off, if massive changes to the kit need to be made, information on the best known features will need to be gathered. The best sources I have found are build logs from other model builders and the few internet pictures of historical paintings on the internet. Any suggestions would be welcome. Thank you all for being here!
 
DARIVS ARCHITECTVS said:
Wow... I have learned a LOT from this thread. I wish I knew just how much of this kit would have to be replaced before buying it. I may have gone with scratch building from plans at the start, despite the high learning curve. The prospective cost of the model just tripled. I have the Amati plans and the complete Deagostini kit, but do not have the carving experience or tools to make the hundreds of small carvings. So what do you guys think of the Amati cast parts being mixed in with the Deagostini parts to try to get closer to the scant few historical depictions of the ship? How much of the kit can be salvaged? I am closely watching Nigel's photos for ideas on how to bash this kit since he is in progress building it.

First off, if massive changes to the kit need to be made, information on the best known features will need to be gathered. The best sources I have found are build logs from other model builders and the few internet pictures of historical paintings on the internet. Any suggestions would be welcome. Thank you all for being here!
Click to expand...

Where do I start.Firstly if you want a model that is a representation of the period artworks then there is no plan in existence.Everyone I know of is incorrect in some way or another.I have Amati's and Sergal's plan.both are incorrect.Amati's is way too tall and out of proportion.Sergal's stern is incorrect and also lacks gunport sheer.There are plans in the NMM in the UK which are a 19th Century interpretation,these are incorrect to the artwork although Arthur Molle did build an exceptional model to these.The stern does not tie in with the Lely portrait,it is similar to Sergal's.

Much of my build is based on proportion.There are no hard and fast dimensions to follow,it is guesswork.I altered the following in relation to the partwork;
Gunport position and sheer
Deck sheer
Deck heights
Change of hull cross section at stern
Angle and position of the rear stern face
Changed the hull profile at the stern to a round tuck(this is much debated as the Lely portrait is inconclusive)
Size of the gunports
Overall profile in side elevation due to revised deck heights.

In some respects,it is a shame that my log on Modelspace has long gone,in that I discussed every change and the reasoning behind it in a step by step way and also the dimensions of everything.I don't remember all the details.I do remember though I printed a A4 copy of the Lely portrait and scaled everything for the stern cross section by working from the width across the wales of my model.The hull from lower gun deck upwards was gutted inside and pulled to conform to this new sectional elevation I created from the portrait.The height of the hull had to be increased slightly at the stern to match this.The partwork stern is too shallow and square,it also has insufficient tumblehome.
If you are serious about going the whole hog with your build I recommend you buy one book that Bill Short recommended to me.It is long out of print,I had to wait a few months for a copy to come up on the German Amazon site second hand.It details the vessel in respect to the historic artwork.Then you have to choose if you wish to model her as Van de Velde the elder depicted or Payne.Both are different.Oh and by the way,the book is only available in German.However the large pictures of these works are indespensible.Only then could you make an informed decision of what to use in the way of fittings.

Kind Regards

Nigel

THE Sovereign reference book

sov136.png
 
See I started a nice discussion.
Just to make it complete see below a picture of the finished model coming from the manual of the deagostini kit. You clearly see it is a totally different model then displayed in their adds, and not just the kit with some extra additions.
Ok still a nice model but of far less quality then the model in the advertisements.
For me this was te reason to buy the RC from Luhai Quing Kong via ZHL.
20190428_223307.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top