The Ship Model Forum

In case you didn't already know, the 1/700 model previously discussed by finewaterline is now available at Dorking Models, as HMS Caesar, in the Mole Maritime Miniatures label. Mine has been ordered.

Sent off for two just before. Late war RN destroyers is a strangely neglected area.

Mike

_________________
Starling Models

http://www.starling-models.co.uk

Gents:

Any photos of the unassembled kit posted anywhere?

Please advise.

Thanks!

Mike E.

_________________
Mike E.

First impressions are a little disappointing. This is only a partial kit, providing hull and superstructures with turrets, but no TT, boats, davits, masts etc. OK that's understood, that's what keeps the price down and it has to be judged by the standards of what is provided. The various superstructure platforms look good on the wafer - although it would help if the box was long enough to get the wafer in without bending it, this does not seem to have affected anything. Sidewalls to the platforms are commendably thin.

However, the hull is a disappointment, in particular the bow. There is far too much strake, and no flare - if anything a slight convexity rather than the strong concavity. My example has an airbubble at the tip, but that will just serve as a locating point for the saw cut needed to introduce a plasticard former for the correct bowline, before filing away to get better curves. I think the deck tip is in the right place, but not the waterline. At least this is a straightforward carving job. There is however very little deck rise to the bow, sadly reminiscent of the Trumpeter Eskimo but less easy to correct. The scuttles are irregular in line and bear little resembance to those in the photo of Caesar in Friedman, or indeed other to those of WE destroyers.

I presume the transom stern went to the same length as the J/K hull, so it may by a tad short, but that's comparing it to the Matchbox kit so don't consider it gospel. It's not noticeably short.

A strip of fine brass rod is included for guns and masts. Better you than me to attempt a lattice mast, but the guns said to be 0.5mm long. Ah well, it adds to the amusement of the nations! Presumably 0.5cm?

This kit was advertised as a craftsman kit and was done as such to keep the price significantly low.

The hull was based on a set of drawings that I felt were sufficiently accurate therefore I feel the dimensions are correct.

However if you are dissatisfied witht the kit then please bear in mind I will fully support the product and should you wish to obtain a full refund, feel free to contact me directly.

Best regards,

Rob

_________________
IPMS Fine Waterline Special Interest Group

I've bought all of these so far, and I think they are real value for money, and a great effort in bringing to the market subjects that no one else is going to do.

I can understand the interpretation of the shape and proportions but I've seen these built, and they really are superb in the right hands hence the "craftsman" label that is the ethos of FWL.

Also, I would rather have a cheaper model with the basics, and fit it out myself than the usual overpriced resin plus pe where most of it serves as a template for replacement - you effectively pay twice!

I haven't contributed to the masters built by FWL yet but will do in the future and then we'll really have something to question!

Regards to all

Peter F

_________________
Peter F.

Rob. I'm not looking for a refund, but not rushing for another example either. I'm describing what I have in my hands. If you say the dimensions are correct I believe you, but would point out that as the bow angle is clearly different from both photographs and the drawings provided with the kit, the overall and waterline lengths are inconsistent.

We are perhaps on shaky ground (choppy seas?) with labels such as "craftsman" and terms such as "in the right hands". There's no doubt that a superb model can be produced from this kit. Indeed it could from a block of styrene, in the right hands. The model is a very long way from being that basic, indeed the superstructure platforms are very nice. However, the bow does need considerable reshaping, and this should not be necessary.

The scuttles are a lesser matter. In my opinion, they are better omitted than in the wrong place. The concerned modeller, craftsman or otherwise, will have to redrill them anyway. The unconcerned won't care.

10 out of 10 for the concept, and the subject matter, but realisation need a little more work.

Just about any kit is open to criticism in one way or another, I think it then comes down to the opinion of the purchaser/builder of the kit. This can, of course, differ to that of whoever mastered the kit. There is little doubt in my mind that anyone who buys a kit will alter it in some way, as to what they do, that's up to them. Personally, I consider the kit to be very good value for money and does compare well with the HP kits that are over double the price.

As regards the concept of the craftsman kit we at FWL feel this is a realistic alternative with our low prices to spending 3-4 times as much on a kit and wanting to alter it anyway, thus spending even more. That way we can make a subject available to anyone's budget. We are also committed to our kits and I reiterate will refund any purchaser who is not happy with the kit. I don't think you can say fairer than that.

Rob

_________________
IPMS Fine Waterline Special Interest Group

The D07 on the side should be R07, as the ship is in its WW2 configuration, not the configuration when it was D07.

I am building a 1/200th HMS Saumarez based on the card model but adapted to her configuration at the Battle of North Cape in December 1943. The main difference from as completed is the change from tripod to lattice mast best shown by the IWM photo A021337 and I bought a high definition photo from the IWM to get as much detail as possible plus a side profile plan for HMS Teazer to get the dimensions.

The plan shows only a short vertical mast with a Jacobs ladder rising from the radar platform at the top of the lattice section while the photo shows several aerials attached which I have identified as shown below but am still unable to identify what the tallest aerial is which is mounted at the front of the short vertical mast section. It appears to have a small bulbous end at the very tip which might suggest a light perhaps but I have never heard of that being standard practice in that period. The IWM photo FL 5479 for Verulam is slightly clearer and there are plenty other examples in other S class and subsequent Emergency class destroyers of the same arrangement being fitted.

Can anyone help identify what this aerial was for and what is at the tip please?