|
|
 Rank: Amateur Level 1 Groups: Registered
Joined: 02/06/2018 Posts: 39 Points: 126 Location: Sweden
|
This model is great, no doubt about it. But there are some things I wish were different. I tried to mention some of them in my attempted build diary “Amateur building Editions Atlas Vasa”, but I got the comment that my thoughts were mostly unfounded. So, I found (no pun intended) some more information to support my case. I hope it is allowed to discuss them. I don’t know anything about copyrights, so I will not attach pictures from books or internet, There are many fact sources but I will only refer to a few books well known by Vasa enthusiasts. There will also be some pictures of my own, and maybe a few links. FYI: Editions Atlas was a part of the deAgostini company, so the Editions Atlas model is identical with the deAgostini model. Both produced by Artesania Latina. So, I start with my first worry: The size of cannons C2 and “half” cannons C174 C2 and C174 are the 24-pounder cannons, so they should be similar in size. As you can see on my pictures the C2 cannon is too short and stubby and the C174 cannon is not much larger than the 3-pounder cannon C1. Actually the C2 cannons barely passes through the hull thickness when put in place (see pictures at stage 123). What to do about it? The C2 is very special with typical handles and engravings, are there any useable replacements on the market? Suggestions to make them longer? Build instructions: Stage 2, 48, 68, 81, 93, 100 Fact: The 24-pounder cannon is about 2850 mm in length, so in 1:64 scale it should be about 44 mm in length. The C2 cannon is approx. 25 mm in length. Fact sources: The book “Vasa I”, page 249/fig. 8-23 (drawing with measure line), the book (Landström) "The Royal Warship Vasa": page 133/ill. 197 (drawing), internet page https://digitaltmuseum.se/011024611375/kanon with some measures. File Attachment(s): Per Ca attached the following image(s):
|
|
|
Rank: Amateur Level 1 Groups: Registered
Joined: 02/06/2018 Posts: 39 Points: 126 Location: Sweden
|
Something went wrong with my pictures. Now I discovered that there is a maximum size, and most of my own pictures are high resolution. So now I know why I couldn't add pictures to my build diary even when I had them... Here are my cannon pictures again: Per Ca attached the following image(s):
|
|
|
 Rank: Pro Groups: Joined: 24/08/2009 Posts: 48,051 Points: -13,308
|
Just to repeat what I has previously been noted to you...
The model has been designed by Artesania Latina under guidance of the Vasa Museum and 'Frederick Hocker', who since 2004 as Director of Vasa Research, has been responsible for the comprehensive publication of the find.
Fred has provided the most current information of the ship and assisted in the kit design.
Fred has also openly noted this information: "There are four wooden kits of Vasa on the market. The Corel, Mantua and Billings kits are all rather old, and were developed before the ship had been completely reconstructed, so they all have errors.
The closest overall is the Billings kit, in terms of hull shape, but the sculptures are plastic and much simplified. The Mantua kit has the best sculptures and fittings, but is larger and more expensive. The Corel kit has a reputation of being difficult to build.
We assisted in the development of this kit, and so it is much more accurate and buildable than the older kits. I can recommend it highly."
What I suggest is that contact Fred via the Vasa Museum with your thoughts, as ultimately it is he that has approved the Artesania design under his guidance.
Also in terms of instructions and content, the ModelSpace version is the most current version of the two.
|
|
|
Rank: Amateur Level 1 Groups: Registered
Joined: 02/06/2018 Posts: 39 Points: 126 Location: Sweden
|
I don't really understand your comment. Of course it is a top quality model. Of course it is the best on the market. But is it flawless?
I will try to get in contact with Fred Hocker, but do you really think he is that interested in discussing if Artesania Latina has made the cannons C2 too short and stubby? Or the cannons C174 too thin? Or if they have simplified the sculptures, or the variations of them? Surely that is just business decisions.
I take it that critisism of the Vasa model is not very appreciated. If not banned, I will continue with a few more details. I am sure Fred Hocker doesn't mind.
|
|
|
Rank: Amateur Level 1 Groups: Registered
Joined: 02/06/2018 Posts: 39 Points: 126 Location: Sweden
|
When it comes to differences between the Edition Atlas version and the deAgostini version (which I guess is the ModelSpace version) I have compared my Swedish EdAtl instructions and the English deAgo version (on their homepage) using a magnifying glass. I found no differences, maybe the are only in the printed English version.
|
|
|
|
|
All kits are flawed in some way but that's the joy of modelling is that you can change or scratch build your own parts , that's why I love doing my own thing. Martyn Building ?
Completed. Soliei Royal . Sovereign of the Seas . Virginia . Scotland . San Felipe . Corel vasa , Santisima Trinadad X section , Vasa
Next Build ?
When sailors have good wine, They think themselves in heaven for the time. John Baltharpe
|
|
|
Rank: Amateur Level 1 Groups: Registered
Joined: 02/06/2018 Posts: 39 Points: 126 Location: Sweden
|
Thank you Martyn. That is what I am trying to do, so I need advice from others building this ship. As you may remember I am an amateur in building small ships, but that does not mean that I am not trying to make it the best I can. Even the details. But I make mistakes. I decided to stain the hull, but made it too dark and also didn't realize that even small glue drops on the surface is visible on stained parts. I have to reconsider. Now I will try to attach a photo.... Per Ca attached the following image(s):
|
|
|
Rank: Amateur Level 1 Groups: Registered
Joined: 02/06/2018 Posts: 39 Points: 126 Location: Sweden
|
When it comes to the build of the hull I have mainly to things that concerns me. First, the planking of the lower part of the stern, and also the area at the bow in front of the main deck. Stern planking: I think that the model makers should have used another method, or planking order, at the lower stern. At the original ship the hull side planking passes the rear planking, not the opposite as on the model. I tried to fix it on my model, but my build had advanced too far so the result wasn’t very good. However, I think others will do better, if they wish to do it right. Build instructions: Stage 43 (but the side planking must not be cut earlier) Fact: Hull planking ends are visible from the stern. Fact sources: Landström, "The Royal Warship Vasa": page 82/ill. 100, p.107/i. 150 and "Vasa I": page 48/ill. 1-5. Also several pictures on the internet, although pictures from the Vasa Museum is mostly dark. The second objection is about the flat small deck in the front of the main deck on the model. I have not found any pictures of the real ship with that deck. All pictures show a rounded construction. I have a couple of pictures showing the original build as instructed, and how it looked when I changed it. Please note that it is very unfinished, no steps or stairs, and no finetuning. Build instructions: 69, 70 and more Fact: The area in front of the bow is a rounded construction, not with a flat deck. Fact sources: Landström, "The Royal Warship Vasa": page 81/ill. 96-97, p.84-85/i.105, p.88/i.111, p.89/i.115, and "Vasa I": page 452/ill. 18-35. Again there are several pictures on the internet, although only a few from the Vasa Museum showing this part of the ship. Per Ca attached the following image(s):
|
|
|
 Rank: Superelite      Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/05/2010 Posts: 2,608 Points: 7,519 Location: Lincolnshire
|
I think the point people are trying to make is that, in Fred Hocker’s expert opinion, this kit is the most accurate currently on the market. No one states it is 100 % accurate. Due to modelling and cost constraints I think that would be vertually impossible on a ship that was built so long ago.
What Mark says is correct. If we, as model builders, wish to build a model differently, then that is down to the individual builder and their skills.
As is, this kit will provide an excellent example ‘out of the box’ that 99% of builders will be pleased to own. There will always be differences of opinion, but that shouldn’t mar the experience.
|
|
|
Rank: Pro Groups: Joined: 24/08/2009 Posts: 48,051 Points: -13,308
|
Per Ca wrote:I don't really understand your comment. Of course it is a top quality model. Of course it is the best on the market. But is it flawless?
I will try to get in contact with Fred Hocker, but do you really think he is that interested in discussing if Artesania Latina has made the cannons C2 too short and stubby? Or the cannons C174 too thin? Or if they have simplified the sculptures, or the variations of them? Surely that is just business decisions.
I take it that critisism of the Vasa model is not very appreciated. It depends on what you mean by 'flawless' and in fact perhaps the word your looking for is compromise. Criticism is fine, on the basis that your actually talking from factual knowledge of Vasa rather than what you think, hearsay or the plethora of conflicting information from books. Once again I'll remind that the Vasa Museum assisted in the development of this kit, and so it is much more accurate and buildable than the older kits, and that Fred recommend's it highly.
Of course commercial decisions have to be made about any kit and there are many features that cannot be depicted on a model because of the confines of being a model, and worse still if it is a subject that is still under investigation or if the real thing no longer exists or original plans not survived.
A model being truly accurate because of it's confines means that changes or omissions have to be made. For example if you had true scale blocks, you would find it almost impossible to rig them because they would be too small or that a design is changed to make a model easier to construct. All model kits have compromise in one way or another.
You've said yourself that you are taking from the stance of a novice, therefore if you want to find out what's what rom a factual source, the only person that can provide this is the very guy responsible for the Vasa find - Fred Hocker, who will gladly respond any question you might have.
Also depending on which book you read, you'll find that many things are not the same from one book to another, for example much of what is noted in the Landstrom book was later found to be inaccurate, simply because Vasa is an ongoing investigation and many things came to light after the book was compiled and even more is yet to come - even the 1/10 Vasa museum model is inaccurate in a number of ways, many things have been discovered since it was constructed, it also has missing sculptures.
The simple fact is that its unlikely you will ever end up with an accurate Vasa model, simply because what you construct now may have later changes waiting to be discovered.
|
|
|
Rank: Amateur Level 1 Groups: Registered
Joined: 02/06/2018 Posts: 39 Points: 126 Location: Sweden
|
I beginning to see that there is no point trying to make myself understood. My aim was to get help and suggestions from other builders to get a better model. Other builders, not connected to ModelSpace as administrators and such. Even if you build the ship yourselves.
I have started finding a way to contact Fred Hocker, although I am doubtful he will respond if I find his contact address.
Resistance is futile, as the Borg said to the humans... *
So, being human, I quit this post, and try to find fellow builders another way.
* for those who have seen Babylon 5. :-)
|
|
|
Rank: Superelite Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/05/2010 Posts: 2,608 Points: 7,519 Location: Lincolnshire
|
If you were to ask ‘ how can I .....’ then I am sure people would be willing to help you achieve what you are trying to do. We rally are a friendly and helpful bunch of like-minded enthusiasts 
|
|
|
Rank: Amateur Level 1 Groups: Registered
Joined: 02/06/2018 Posts: 39 Points: 126 Location: Sweden
|
CaptnBirdseye, in my first entry I actually ask for suggestions how to make the cannons more "life-like".
In my second entry I inform how I made an alteration from the original model, maybe I should have asked "what do you think about it?". Sorry.
But there seems to be very few who comments, except very few "regulars", so what's the point?
|
|
|
Rank: Pro Groups: Joined: 24/08/2009 Posts: 48,051 Points: -13,308
|
Per Ca wrote:I beginning to see that there is no point trying to make myself understood. My aim was to get help and suggestions from other builders to get a better model. Other builders, not connected to ModelSpace as administrators and such. Even if you build the ship yourselves.
I have started finding a way to contact Fred Hocker, although I am doubtful he will respond if I find his contact address.
Resistance is futile, as the Borg said to the humans... *
So, being human, I quit this post, and try to find fellow builders another way.
* for those who have seen Babylon 5. :-)
Many of your references are from a book which I have informed that since its publication, has been found to be inaccurate in many instances and Fred will tell you just this.
If you email the Vasa Museum, Fred will respond with factual information of all you could ever want to know about the real ship and also many things that even he does not yet have answers for.
|
|
|
Rank: Super-Elite    Groups: Official Builds, Administrators, Moderator, Global Forum Support, Registered Joined: 04/06/2011 Posts: 4,224 Points: 12,817 Location: ipswich
|
You should give the forum a chance before giving up on it.
Yes, so far you've only had a few comments which might not be an 'answer' you are looking for, but it's all just trying to help.
Also, bear in mind your posts so far have all been today - it's a Thursday, and the vast majority of members here are probably at work until late this afternoon, or this evening.
You aren't likely to get a lot of replies just yet.
See if you hear something more along the lines of what you are hoping for, later today or even over the coming weekend.
Not everyone visits every day...
Roy.
|
|
|
Rank: Amateur Level 1 Groups: Registered
Joined: 02/06/2018 Posts: 39 Points: 126 Location: Sweden
|
I don't seem to be able to leave this thread...
To Tomick, I would say that the items I have written about so far is well documented by photos, not only early drawings.
Suddenly you tell me that Björn Landströms book is full of faults, and yes, he interpreted some things in his own way and later finds showed different.
But my references to it doesn't mean that he is the only source, and I also refer to Vasa I. Two books, both well known. I have also compared with other (newer) books to watch out for different views.
Still, can anyone deny that the cannons are looking odd? A multitude of photos show the long-nosed barrels of the 24-pounder.
There are also photos of the real ship showing what I am talking about regarding the stern and bow. Anyone can confirm them by googling, or not confirming them if they find other info. As I mentioned, I avoid adding photos that can involve copyright.
And Fred Hocker.... Couldn't get his mail address, trying to get to him through the museum registrator. If he answers, I will publish his answer here.
|
|
|
Rank: Pro Groups: Joined: 24/08/2009 Posts: 48,051 Points: -13,308
|
Per Ca wrote: I would say that the items I have written about so far is well docomeented by photos, not only early drawings.
The actual fact is that Fred has provided the latest Vasa drawings for creation of the DeAgostini Vasa model., But as mentioned previously, for one reason or another, compromise has to be made.
|
|
|
Rank: Amateur Level 1 Groups: Registered
Joined: 02/06/2018 Posts: 39 Points: 126 Location: Sweden
|
Tomick, I have said all along that I understand that decisions must be made about simplifying details, for production reasons or economical reasons.
This can not be the fault of Fred Hocker, of course. It is not even the fault of Artesania Latina.
I accept quite a lot of simplifications, to build a totally correct model would be difficult and expensive.
But I don't accept all. It can not be 100% true, but if I feel that my heart and mind feel better if I try to make it better, I'll do it. And for those small details I can't do anything about, which annoys me.... well, I guess I have to stay annoyed.
An example: the twentyfour emperors on the beakhead are not anything like the original. Also the port side emperors are mirror images of the starboard side, which they aren't in reality. But they are small, I will maybe only try to enhance some differences by colour or whatever. But of the twentyfour emperors it is only one I can't consider wrong. It is the one they didn't find....
|
|
|
Rank: Pro Groups: Joined: 24/08/2009 Posts: 48,051 Points: -13,308
|
Per Ca wrote:Tomick, I have said all along that I understand that decisions must be made about simplifying details, for production reasons or economical reasons.
This can not be the fault of Fred Hocker, of course. It is not even the fault of Artesania Latina.
I accept quite a lot of simplifications, to build a totally correct model would be difficult and expensive.
But I don't accept all. It can not be 100% true, but if I feel that my heart and mind feel better if I try to make it better, I'll do it. And for those small details I can't do anything about, which annoys me.... well, I guess I have to stay annoyed.
You are of course free to construct and enhance your model as you please as these are personal choices., Good luck with your efforts and I am sure Fred will be happy to provide all you are seeking in terms of accuracy, as this is the best source there is.
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
US
