The Ship Model Forum

I am in agreement, but, there are things that people need to be told about, as Dave says in private, so lets hope others have learned from this experience, especially the manufacturers, me being one of them.

Paul...

Thanks Guys now we can get on with what we enjoy
Dave Wooley

Victorious wrote:Thank you Ron. I wish I had never started this build in some ways, all I was doing was trying to explain why I had to alter things and it's turned into a slanging match.
I just hope the matter will now be dropped.

I would not worry Geoff, you had to explain, thats understand able, just get back to the build, there,s a lot looking in.

Thank you Ron. I wish I had never started this build in some ways, all I was doing was trying to explain why I had to alter things and it's turned into a slanging match.
I just hope the matter will now be dropped.

Dave I have deleted page 11 of the build of the Vic, in my opinion it was getting out of hand, I have deleted from Deans letter and all the replies, we should now get on with the build. ARH

Dave, I think you are right in what you say and maybe I should have brought the matter up with Dean's. Once I started to strenthen this model, I found that in order to get it looking like the plans I have, I would need to do a certain amount of altering as people on this site have seen for themselves.

I commited myself to doing a build article on the Victorious, like I have with my other build under construction, namely the scratchbuilt Marlborough.

As these articles include quite a number of photographs of the build, I could hardly hide the fact that I have had to do certain alterations, to arrive at what I have so far.
If I had not explained what I have done, I would have had lot's of replies as to why I had cut certain parts from the hull, built up other areas to the correct dimensions and even modify ( rear gun platforms ) as they were completely different from each other.

This is no fault on my part. One expects a manufactured hull (if not exactly correct ) to be done properly, without having to apply body filler to make the starboard rear gun sponson match the port rear gun sponson. This was a fault of the manufacturer and should have been rectified, before the first ever hull was sold, back in 1986 or whatever.

I don't want to cause any more arguments as to what people think. I accepted the product in all fairness to Deans, when I could have cancelled the order, but I was unaware of some of the faults until I arrived home.

Thankfully, everything has been put right on the hull by myself and I now hope that this matter be closed. I am not praising Dean's neither am I condeming them. I bought the product as seen so really have no comeback's. I have only shown and explained what I have had to do to the hull.

CAN WE PLEASE STOP ENOUGH HAS BEEN SAID

Otherwise, I will withdraw this build from the forums and continue it alone.

Victorious.

I feel I must comment about the criticism levelled at Deans Marine. Like others I have been as critical of what a manufacturer produces as any one and in some instances more so whether they be Deans or any other. Fleetscale and Sirmar included. However I prefer to contact the manufacturer direct and possibly arrange a meeting. Armed with a list of faults and photos of were the problems lie and some possible ways of correcting the problem. I will not go into an open vitriolic slinging match that serves no purpose other than to drive people away from the site and created a bad atmosphere. Be as critical as you like if you are building a kit or semi kit but don't put the heads of the manufactures on the block. Speak to the manufacturer, express your concern and usually you will get results. Criticize in private praise in public.
Dave Wooley