Kurt,
That is perfect indeed - should be a great project!
I had also looked at DeAgostini as a possible (one time) purchase. The one I really searched for was an old Amati kit no luck, but yes Amati still sells the plans, but not the decorative bits.
The Deagostini is a 1/84th - I thought that the Amati fittings are 1/64th?. Would those scale differences still work out?
PS: I so much more like the Amati example - a shame that it went out of production. It would have been my very first choice.
OH - do your Amati plans also include complete rigging sheets? from what I understand I need to toss the Sergal rigging sheets. I may buy the Amati plan sheets.
Regards,
I am not sure if the Amati fittings will work, being about 20% larger according the scale. What's confusing is the overall length of the Amati ship is 110cm, and the stated length of the DeAgostini model is 43.3" or 109.98cm, which is scary close. So, is the DeAgostini model actually 1/64? It is advertised as 1/84 scale. When I open the DeAgostini packages and inspect the frame and keel parts, I'll have to compare them to the Amati plans and see if the two ships are close in scale.
Many of the decorations for both Amati and DeAgostini do not match those of the Peter Pett painting on the stern, or the Payne depictions on the sides of the ship. Many decorations may have to be scratch built in order to be accurate to those sources. Some of the Deagostini decorations will be used in lieu of the Amati ones when choosing the more correct decoration, and vice versa.
The Amati plans do have rigging sheets, one drawing for standing rigging and one for running rigging. However, there is no belaying plan! The drawings will show lines belayed to the after forecastle rail, for example, but not the specific transverse location on that rail, and no belaying pin location for the few pin rails that are shown in the plans. Sergal rigging sheets or other sources are required. On the La Couronne build, I mixed rigging sources, Corel and Vincenzo Lusci's and that can result in a lot of conflicts you have to puzzle out. Lusci did not have rails abaft the foremast, while Corel did, resulting in belaying areas on the forecastle railings that went unused for the Lusci design. Lusci's belaying plan showed all lines for sail running rigging, Corel's plan did not include fitting of sails and much of the sail rigging was omitted. Suffice to say, it can be a mess. You have to compare the run of each line from two sets of plans, determine if there are conflicts, and choose which plan to use for about half of the lines.
Please excuse me for going off topic, when we should be discussing how to accurize the Sergal (Mantua) ship model, which appears based on the 1650 renovation of the ship, not the design of the ship as of its launching in 1637, which is what I am striving for. Below is a belaying plan I came across for the HMS Royal Sovereign of 1651. You might want to compare this to the Sergal belaying plan and see which you like better for many lines, then look at John McKay's book and see where he ties lines off if you truly want to be confused.
It just occurred to me that on my early version of SotS, according to this belaying plan, there may have been a bonaventure mast. Perhaps there exist other sources that support its existence.
