.
wonderful work, it going to be beautiful model , well done my friendHi Mates,
So here are images of my errors - I'm very "angry" about this - given that this build on and off - is pushing three years this coming Father's Day.
It was intended to be the best work that I am capable of.
As I added notes to each of these images I also borrowed the Admiral's Sea Salt and tossed a bit onto my shoulder wound with each image.
PS: Yes I know about the round or square tuck stern debate - round is very most likely how she was built..
View attachment 361095View attachment 361096View attachment 361097View attachment 361098View attachment 361099View attachment 361103View attachment 361104View attachment 361105View attachment 361106
Not to mention the cost of all the extras. One well place cannon ball and down she goes.
Hi Mates,
So here are images of my errors - I'm very "angry" about this - given that this build on and off - is pushing three years this coming Father's Day.
It was intended to be the best work that I am capable of.
As I added notes to each of these images I also borrowed the Admiral's Sea Salt and tossed a bit onto my shoulder wound with each image.
PS: Yes I know about the round or square tuck stern debate - round is very most likely how she was built..
I do. This ship was a lot more than a warship, it was a symbol of dominance to all nations of the sovereignty of the English monarch over all others who float a navy. This was the KING'S SHIP, and hence, it was a national symbol, so huge amounts of money were poured into the wooden carvings which were gilt (covered in gold leaf OR painted in gold... gilt meant either back then). The carvings DID add a lot of weight, but for a national symbol, one of a kind, that was part of the plan, and it was also the chief reason why the maritime aristocrats wanted the ship cancelled. It actually sailed failry well considering its weight, but of course it was relatively slow. But, it had a maximum of 102 bronze guns, the heaviest armed ship of its day. No ship dared let it get too close to them! But the King thought it was a great idea to built it, and since the Pett family had such influence with the King, it was built anyway. After the rebuild of 1658-1660, many of the carvings were removed, and also much of the upper structures were lightened, and the interior gun deck heights adjusted to make it more seaworthy. Later on, some of the carvings were reinstalled... remember: NATIONAL SYMBOL. Other nations also built what I call a heavily decorated "royal man-of-war". French: La Couronne 72 guns. Sweden: Wasa 64 guns. Europeans LOVE their pageantry.
If this were my model, oldflyer, I'd invest the time and money to buy some more basswood for new structure, and hardwood for planking, gut the bottom of the stern, and rebuild it, then graft in new planks, chiseling out carefully chosen hull planks to install new ones such that the end seams are staggered, effectively hiding the rebuild. Huge setback, I know. You saw what I did to the stern on my Sovereign build. Your rebuild will be similar. For devoted modelers, THIS is where the rubber meets the road, my friend! It's up to you if you want to put in the effort. It's really gonna suck, but the experience you gain will make you fearless at scratch building.Hi Mates,
So here are images of my errors - I'm very "angry" about this - given that this build on and off - is pushing three years this coming Father's Day.
It was intended to be the best work that I am capable of.
As I added notes to each of these images I also borrowed the Admiral's Sea Salt and tossed a bit onto my shoulder wound with each image.
PS: Yes I know about the round or square tuck stern debate - round is very most likely how she was built..
View attachment 361095View attachment 361096View attachment 361097View attachment 361098View attachment 361099View attachment 361103View attachment 361104View attachment 361105View attachment 361106
Good morning John. Oh boy...! If you did not point out these errors I certainly would not have noticed. You have produced a beautifully crafted model. It is decision time.....Everything you pointed out can be remodeled but it will mean a lot of restructuring IMHO. Hey you are 3 years in what's another 3.Hi Mates,
So here are images of my errors - I'm very "angry" about this - given that this build on and off - is pushing three years this coming Father's Day.
It was intended to be the best work that I am capable of.
As I added notes to each of these images I also borrowed the Admiral's Sea Salt and tossed a bit onto my shoulder wound with each image.
PS: Yes I know about the round or square tuck stern debate - round is very most likely how she was built..
View attachment 361095View attachment 361096View attachment 361097View attachment 361098View attachment 361099View attachment 361103View attachment 361104View attachment 361105View attachment 361106
. Cheers Grant
Very well said Kurt, it explains a lot.I do. This ship was a lot more than a warship, it was a symbol of dominance to all nations of the sovereignty of the English monarch over all others who float a navy. This was the KING'S SHIP, and hence, it was a national symbol, so huge amounts of money were poured into the wooden carvings which were gilt (covered in gold leaf OR painted in gold... gilt meant either back then). The carvings DID add a lot of weight, but for a national symbol, one of a kind, that was part of the plan, and it was also the chief reason why the maritime aristocrats wanted the ship cancelled. It actually sailed failry well considering its weight, but of course it was relatively slow. But, it had a maximum of 102 bronze guns, the heaviest armed ship of its day. No ship dared let it get too close to them! But the King thought it was a great idea to built it, and since the Pett family had such influence with the King, it was built anyway. After the rebuild of 1658-1660, many of the carvings were removed, and also much of the upper structures were lightened, and the interior gun deck heights adjusted to make it more seaworthy. Later on, some of the carvings were reinstalled... remember: NATIONAL SYMBOL. Other nations also built what I call a heavily decorated "royal man-of-war". French: La Couronne 72 guns. Sweden: Wasa 64 guns. Europeans LOVE their pageantry.
After redesign, the ship was considered much better at sailing, even though by then the vessel was badly obsolete compared to other large ships in the British Navy. Still, the Sovereign had an exceptionally long life...59 years, until it sat for the final years at anchor, with money meant for it's upkeep stolen by corrupt persons in charge, and after lack of maintenance had taken its toll, it is rumored some feckless watchman allowed a candle to spill over one January night in 1696, burning the ship to the waterline... a total loss. La Couronne only lasted about 8 years. Wasa, less than 21 minutes.
Take a look at the carvings of the Wasa. They were made the same way. Gilt wood, in that case, painted.
– I will initially send a communication to Mantua in Italy requesting the two kit’s upper gun deck templates (they run the entire length of the hull) in order to perfectly match what’s been installed, then adding the short cut-off bits, along with all other needed fixes. I am, however, not willing to go to the lengths you rightfully suggest.
The pure artwork of early 17th century vessels is why I build them.
I knew Kurt would know and answer to this post! He is the Man, of course. Glad you feel better Kurt!I do. This ship was a lot more than a warship, it was a symbol of dominance to all nations of the sovereignty of the English monarch over all others who float a navy. This was the KING'S SHIP, and hence, it was a national symbol, so huge amounts of money were poured into the wooden carvings which were gilt (covered in gold leaf OR painted in gold... gilt meant either back then). The carvings DID add a lot of weight, but for a national symbol, one of a kind, that was part of the plan, and it was also the chief reason why the maritime aristocrats wanted the ship cancelled. It actually sailed failry well considering its weight, but of course it was relatively slow. But, it had a maximum of 102 bronze guns, the heaviest armed ship of its day. No ship dared let it get too close to them! But the King thought it was a great idea to built it, and since the Pett family had such influence with the King, it was built anyway. After the rebuild of 1658-1660, many of the carvings were removed, and also much of the upper structures were lightened, and the interior gun deck heights adjusted to make it more seaworthy. Later on, some of the carvings were reinstalled... remember: NATIONAL SYMBOL. Other nations also built what I call a heavily decorated "royal man-of-war". French: La Couronne 72 guns. Sweden: Wasa 64 guns. Europeans LOVE their pageantry.
After redesign, the ship was considered much better at sailing, even though by then the vessel was badly obsolete compared to other large ships in the British Navy. Still, the Sovereign had an exceptionally long life...59 years, until it sat for the final years at anchor, with money meant for it's upkeep stolen by corrupt persons in charge, and after lack of maintenance had taken its toll, it is rumored some feckless watchman allowed a candle to spill over one January night in 1696, burning the ship to the waterline... a total loss. La Couronne only lasted about 8 years. Wasa, less than 21 minutes.
Take a look at the carvings of the Wasa. They were made the same way. Gilt wood, in that case, painted.
Good morning John. Super effective. Pity the videos didn’t load- would have been cool to see. Cheers Grant
