Just wondering if anyone has built these kits. Both are 1/150. I’ve seen the box art, but not any build photos. Is the detail good? Overall opinion?
Thanks,
Grymm
These two kits are almost identical – only the decoration is different. I have Le Superbe and, IMHO, it is decent, well detailed kit. Of course, it has some drawbacks, which has been already described by John Tilley in some another thread. Here is the link:
/forums/437885/ShowPost.aspx
I must say that Mr. Tilley’s memory is remarkably good and that his information is 100% correct.
Stefan.
Thanks for the link to the older post. JTilley has always been an incredible wealth of information, especially if you’re into making truly “scale” models. JTilley, I’d love a few hours in your library…
I have looked at the Heller kits I have. The Soleil Royale (at least mine), does have camber in the deck. Not a lot, but it does have it, as does the Victory.
I’m probably going to pick up one of the kits for a future side-build (I’m still knee deep in Soleil Royale rigging…AAAUUUUGGGGGHHHH!!!). But, regarding the wood-grain issue on the hull, I wonder if it would be possible to somehow create the appearance of planking. I do like the ships. Both are very decorative.
Grymm
I consider Heller’s Le Superbe as the biggest contribution of this company into the sailing ship market. It’s a decent and accurate rendition of the napoleonic naval beau-idéal, the 74 gun Téméraire class ship-of-the-line. Designed by Jacques Noel Sané in late 1780’s, more than a hundred ships of this class were built between 1786-1826 and some members even soldiered in the Crimean War. They were extremely in high esteem in the Royal Navy too, and dozens which were captured in action eventually found their way to the senior service, some became very famous. Heller Superbe has a completely undecorated transom and a French royal coat of arms figurehead, which was supposedly to be the standart bow decoration of all forthcoming warships. In the end very few of them were ever installed. Thus, the merry modeler who has confidence to his detailing skills can sculpt suitable decorations for particular ships and can create a good many of famous warriors from the “Boney’s War”.
a couple of weeks ago I was in London and I had the chance to visit the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich. When I saw the transom and the figurehead of HMS Implacable, ex-Duguay-Trouin from the French imperial navy captured at Trafalgar, hanging on the wall of the museum; my breath was taken away. I later learned the fate of Implacable and deplored deeply her unglorious, unfortunate and unnecessary end.
Those two kits probably are capable of being turned into decent scale models. I have to say, though, that their flat decks and that ridiculous “wood grain” on their hulls (which makes each ship look like it was hacked from a single log) rule them off the list of kits I want to build during the limited time left to me on the Orb. Fixing the planking detail (or lack thereof) on the hull would be practical; adding camber to the decks - and all the bulkheads and other parts that they cross - would be a major project.
As I’ve said more than once in this Forum, I generally have a pretty low opinion of Heller’s sailing ship kits. These two certainly are among the better ones. I would, however, have to give higher marks to several others, the 1/100 Victory and the 1/75 Reale being rivals for the top spot (and the “Viking ship,” the Syrene, and the Soleil Royal close to the bottom). If I remember correctly, the big Gorch Fock is also an extremely nice kit. To be fair, there are (or were) quite a few ships in the Heller line that I’ve never bought or seen up close. I’ve heard good things from knowledgeable people about the St. Louis, the Belle Poule, and the Chebec - among others.
Mr. Tilley
I’ve read that ships like the ‘Superbe’ were prized by the ‘British’…
If they had “Acquired” any what would have been the names?
Jeff
I’m building one right now (and doing a pretty horrible job of it, since I’m a beginner, but, hey, it’s the process, not the result that matters! 
) I’ve got a couple of pics of what I have:
Can make more, if you want. "Glorieux"and "Superbe"are one ship, struts and hull are marked “Glor-Sup”, with only one strut with decorations marked “Glorieux”.
For my beginner’s opinion, quality of details is very good, although I don’t have a lot to compare it with.
Nice photos. I can’t seem to find any build photos anywhere, so if you could, I would love to see photos as you build. The more photos the better. You’re build looks good so far.
JTilley, I see what you mean about the lack of planking detail on the hull. Annoying, but I can overcome it. I just want to paint and build for my kids. I get the relaxation, focus, and therapy, and the kids get something made just for them by “dad.” That’s worth a mint to me. Plus, I’ve got the Soleil Royale that will be downstairs in the living room. That’s enough for me right now. Maybe one day I’ll have a showroom.
Thanks again for the pics. Keep them coming…
Grymm
It has been a long standing tradition across all navies to retained the original names of captured ships whenever possible. When the captured ship is lost or scrapped, very often their names are retained with the captor and passed onto new ships. Thus there are many ships in the RN with French names, both captured and domestically built. For example, HMS Foudroyant, HMS Ville de Paris, HMS Afrique, HMS Temeraire were all french names originated when the French ships were captured by the British. The names Foudroyant, Ville de Paris, and Temeraire were all passed onto new British built warships when the original was lost or scrapped.
There are instances when the captured ship’s name were changed for various reasons. Some times the name was Anglicized. For example, the Spanish 1st rate San Jose captured by Nelson was entered into RN service as the Saint Joseph. Some times the captured ship’s name was changed because an essentially similar name was already being used by another RN ship. This sometimes occurs when French ships named after mythological characters were captured at a time when another British ship already used the very same mythological character name. During the French revolutionary war, some captured French ships had their names changed because the original names were conceived in high revolutionary ferver and were considered to be seditious by the British.
Le Superbe (c. 1708) - Captured by Britain 1710 and renamed Superb
Glorieux 74 (1756) - Captured by Britain at the Battle of the Saintes, 1782, renamed Glorious
As you see, both of them were.
Nice…!
That would explain the “Nelson Colors” on some of the kit boxes? In keeping with that time period?
"The first Superb was a captured French vessel. The 64 gun 3rd rate fell into British hands in 1710 due to HMS Kent. It was broken up in 1732.
The second Superb was 60 gun 4th rate that was launched in 1736 and broken up in 1757.
The third Superb was a 74 gun 3rd rate, launched in 1760. In 1783 it was wrecked off India.
The fourth Superb was also a 74 gun 3rd rate, launched in 1798 and broken up in 1826."
Thanks Grahor
Jeff
Then I’ll post photos of parts here, with commentaries.
Masts, yards, and miscellaneous. Masts are very good, yards and thin thingies are quite nicely made, but relatively brittle (I’ve already managed to snap one in half). I’m thinking about replacing them with steel wire or thin iron rods/needles. If I’ll be able to find something that’ll go…
Guns. Nearly 400 pieces, with a number of spares. I’m drilling barrels and thinking on how to paint them all. Don’t really want to paint each one by hand.
Assorted details. White details are the ONLY unique for Glorieux; all other are shared with Superbe.
My much troubled boats. Three boats of NICE quality plastic; unfortunately, as I’ve mentioned in the “painting” forum, I’ve botched flat coat. Polly Scale flat finish sold to me by shop was old, so it have dried up HORRIBLY, in specs. That was a hit, nay, tragedy, nay, humanitarian catastrophy! I’m working on fixing them, but it’s hard, oh so hard… I don’t want to re-paint them, in parts because of hard time white color gave me.
I’m painting with Vallejo acrylics, and I have to say that their range of colors are most excellent, most excellent indeed, especially their “game colors” (as different from “model colors”) lines, although model colors still excellent. However, white color of “model air” series is not good. Yep, not good. I had more problem with white than with all other colors in that line together by far. It simply refuses to behave in the same way as other colors; it doesn’t lay thin, doesn’t set, doesn’t react good to masking, et cetera.
I’m going to paint hull copper, we’ll see how good Vallejo metallics are.
Grahor’s pictures are most interesting. My recollection of the one I bought (a long time ago) are pretty vague, but I’m fairly certain it was molded completely in black. I remember being impressed with the spars - which, appropriately, offered the modeler the choice of a lateen or gaff-rigged mizzen. The photos showing the gun carriages show the problem they have: the cheeks are parallel. (They should be tapered, to follow the shape of the guns. Fixing that probably would be a waste of time in most cases, since most of the guns are pretty thoroughly hidden, but might be worth the trouble for the ones on the weather decks). Mention of the copper sheathing jogged my brain into remembering another problem that (I think) I noted those years ago: the molded “copper sheathing,” as I recall, followed the bottom of the lower wale, rather than the waterline. That shouldn’t be too hard to fix.
Brian Lavery’s excellent, two-volume work, The Ship of the Line, contains, in the appendix to Vol. I, a list of all ships of the line that served in the Royal Navy during the sailing ship period. (Contrary to what the title might lead one to expect, the books are about the British navy - though the author does mention some foreign ships in passing.) Ships captured from foreign countries are listed in separate categories. Mr. Lavery lists fifteen French 74-gun ships as having been captured and placed in British service between 1757 and 1815. He includes basic dimensions; I’ve only copied the lengths on the gundecks. Here they are:
Seven Years’ War:
Courageux - 172’ 3"
Centaure (renamed Centaur) - 175’ 8"
Temeraire - 169’ 2"
War of American Independence:
Pegase - 178’ 1 3/4"
French Revolutionary War:
Formidable (renamed Belleisle) - 184’ 5"
Genereux - 185’7"
Napoleonic Wars:
Duquesne - no dimensions
Duguay-Trouin (renamed Implacable) - 181’ 0 7/8"
Mont Blanc - 183’ 2"
Scipion - 183’ 2"
Brave - no dimensions
Jupiter (renamed Maida) - 181’ 9 7/8"
D’Hautpool (renamed Abercrombie) - 182’
Royal Hollandais (renamed Chatham) - 177’ 7"
Rivoli - 176’ 5 1/2"
The names Glorieux and Superbe are conspicuously absent from the list. When I went through it I was only looking for 74-gun ships; maybe those two were listed differently. Or maybe I just missed them. I’ll take another look. When it comes to things like that, Mr. Lavery doesn’t make many mistakes.
Later edit - I took another look at Mr. Lavery’s book. He lists a French ship-of-the-line named Superbe of 64 guns as having been captured by the British on July 29, 1710 (during the War of the Spanish Succession). She was 143’ 6" long, and was broken up in 1732. This clearly was not the ship represented by the Heller kit.
According to the same source, a new, 74-gun H.M.S. Superb was built at Deptford Dockyard, launched on October 27, 1760, and wrecked in 1783.
I looked up several accounts of the Battle of the Saintes (or Saints, depending on which source one looks at). They agree that a ship-of-the-line named Glorieux was indeed part of DeGrasse’s fleet; that she was captured by the British during the battle; and that, having been mauled severely in the process, she sank with most of her crew shortly thereafter - before she had time to be taken into British service. (That would explain why she isn’t listed in Mr. Lavery’s appendix.) I wasn’t able to find any reference to a British sailing ship-of-the-line named Glorious.
Most of that is consistent with the posts above. It seems we do have a couple of cases here of minor contradictions between sources. I don’t have the credentials to either explain or resolve those contradictions, but my strong inclination is to trust Mr. Lavery unless there’s a compelling reason not to do so.
Of course one of the most famous (or is it infamous) French prizes and of interest to our cousins in the US of A was the Guerriere (name unchanged) a 28 gun frigate (18Lbs) originally taken from the French in 1806, and then taken by the ‘Pocket Battleship’ [;)] ‘Constitution’ in 1812, not brought in a prize as she was burnt and lost on 19th August 1812.
It was kind of funny…While looking for the ‘Le Superbe’ They never mentioned she was a ‘Prize’,just that " A great war machine with 74 guns; she foundered in a storm in 1795."?
So,yes it seems that you can get different descriptions from different sources’.
But this does help me in the fact that I’am in love with part of ‘British Naval History’.
Thanks Mr.Tilley
Jeff
I noticed in one of the pics the sometimes “infamous” Heller Shroud/Ratline Loom. I’m currently practicing with the two that I have, to see if they are actually worth it. While the look of a hand-done clove-hitched shroud/ratline is impressive, it is also daunting and truly time consuming.
Do you intend on using the loom? If so, what adhesive will you be using? I have yet to find an adhesive that is 1-unnoticeable when dry, and 2-strong enough to hold the lines together.
Grymm
Nope. I’m thinking about either doing a proper rigging, with cloves and such, or, if my patience will fail me, just gluing ratlines by hand to already installed shrouds (using, say, a paper card with parallel lines just behind the shrouds to ensure parallelness and spacing of ratlines). As for glue, I will either use water-diluted PVA (not very strong, though), or superglue. In any case, I plan on adding a matt coat afterward, either enamel or acrylics, to add strenght to the construction as a whole and to remove all the possible differences in texture and looks any glue will give.
I’ll have to experiment on it a bit.
I’ve also replaced all the… err… small plastic loops, don’t know how they are called in English, with wire loops. Surprisingly, it is extremely easy to make them from wire, I’ve made 20 rather impressive-looking loops in 15 minutes, including a couple of false-starts. Glued with epoxy, they are much better in all areas than plastic ones.
I guess the fittings to which Grahor is referring are the ones known in English as “eyebolts.” Replacing plastic eyebolts with wire ones is always a good idea - and, as Grahor found out, they’re ludicrously easy to make. (I’ve always rebelled at the thought of paying good money for preformed ones.) Plastic belaying pins are also good candidates for replacement. The aftermarket companies sell nice, turned-brass replacements.
With regard to ratlines - you might try the “needle through the shroud” method. Rig the shrouds first. Mark the spacing of the ratlines on a piece of white card that fits just inside the shrouds. Take a length of the finest black thread you can find, and thread it through the smallest, sharpest needle you can find. Shove the needle through the aftermost shroud of the gang, at the location established by the bottom line on the card. Then shove the needle through the next shroud, and so on. Secure the ratline at the first and last intersections with a tiny drop of white glue; let it dry thoroughly and trim off the excess.
That technique takes a little while to master. (Ship modeling is full of short but steep “learning curves.”) My guess is that the first ratline will take you fifteen or twenty minutes. The second will take ten, and by the time you get to the top you’ll be doing one per minute - and wondering why people make such a fuss about ratlines. The results won’t quite match the authentic clove hitches, but will come close. And I rather suspect the total time expended won’t really be much more than it would take to do the job with those ridiculous “looms” (or jigs, or whatever they’re called).
I hope Mr.Grymm isnt’ upset that we as in us…[:D]…Have hijacked this thread!
But it has become very interesting and informative post!
Sorry Grymm…
Jeff
As JTilley can tell you, I love when a thread goes awry. Good stuff going on here. We’ve had extensive discussions over the looms, threading the shroud, and clove hitches.
Grymm