First one completed that I've seen. Nice job.

http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/cv/ijn/akagi-350-pvb/pvb-index.html

Yeah. really nice job.

I'd go for a bit more weathering though (still awaiting my kit. My hobbyshop isn't exactly in the fastlane )

I've really speculated about adding personel to a displaymodel (non-waterline). When a ship is presented as full-hull I see it as a displaymodel, and I'm not sure, if I feel that personel is misplaced on such a model.

On the other hand I really like the life and atmosphere it gives the model, and why should I miss that, until I feel ready to tackle some water-effects.

Any thoughts or suggestions?

Sorry, if I'm hijacking the thread... just say the woerd, and I'll move my question to a new thread

I would have to agree with you.The figures look a bit odd in that configuration, plus if you want to really add more ''life'' to a display then you will have to weather a bit more convincingly at least in my opinion.Otherwise it would be better to just leave it ''clean'' as a full hull.This particular example is neither, and although the overall finish is very good the ''feeling'' is not there.And of course the price you pay for finishing a project so big so fast ,is that you can't use every aftermarket that is designed for it.Still impressive without all the extra etched, and that shows how good the base kit is.

Seems he used the super set PE and added his own railings. I'm no expert but I've never seen any depiction, pictures or otherwise, of the aft section, where the six 20 cm guns are located, having linoluem and railings. He also added a fair amount of detail (machinery, ammo boxes, etc.) along the gangways and catwalks.

I plan to leave mine a full hull. Since I'm a ship model newbie I don't really know the protocol in regards to weathering a full hull model. I really like a more realistic weathered look (on all my military models). Do I weather the under-water section of the hull to the same extent as the above water sections? Any suggestions would be welcomed. Also, Kostas, you mentioned that you would weather a bit more. Can you show me some examples? I was going to use the box art on the 1/700 Hasegawa full deck kit as a guide, depicting her around the time frame of the Battle of Midway.

Haven't decide what to do in regards to figures yet but I like the figures. They give the model some additional scale. The model at the Arizona Memorial is a full hull model but also has figures. Haven't decide what to do in regards to figures yet.

As for the hull weathering take a look at my Kongo http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/bb/ijn/kongo-700-k/k-index.html
or http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/bb/hms/nelson-700-k/k-index.html nelson in case of waterline.
Of course as the kongo kit is old is not very accurate but still it will give you an idea of my idea of full hull weathering.The waterline nelson ,being in a small diorama is different story altogether.The promblem with 1/350 is that is so huge that in irder to achieve such a realistic result you will need to spend 2 or 3 times the amount of time spend on assembling the kit just on painting it afterwards.And very few if any ppl i have seen so far bother to do that , thats why i am not getting very impressed easily with 350 stuff and also tend to built 1/700 myself.I prefer realism and ''feeling'' instead of size.

I agree on the weathering. Particularly IJN subjects, not so much in early war but late war, weathering is essential. On the other hand, RN subjects may not enjoy as much (as if the Brits will let their pride to bear any rust stains!)

The Akagi looks good and I think some shading has been done as the angles and curves do look sharp. For me, the planes were the weak points as they look hastily done.

Kostas, I think something like this will be more to your liking.
http://www.sonicmodel.com/topicdisplay.asp?BoardID=31&Page=2&State=4&TopicID=2441574

Oh. Kroko likes to

cant see it.All i get is japanese text but no pics.

Actually, the Akagi would have never experienced very much weathering. It was the flagship of the Kido Butai and as it appeared for Pearl Harbor it was VERY clean. Even by Midway, it wouldn't have been terrible looking. This was not a ship left to rust and look terrible by war's end, mainly because it never even made it anywhere near the end of the war. The Akagi was very well taken care of (Yamamoto had a very strong place in his heart for the her).

That said, the Akagi as she appears in the linked build is pretty accurate. In all honesty, she was probably even cleaner-- remember, this is Pearl Harbor. The Kido Butai hasn't officially entered a war situation and Japan's paint supplies are still pretty good at this point. The IJN is still essentially a "peace time" navy, with the deck being holy stoned daily, and constant upkeep to her paint, etc.

Yes and no.Yes it might have been a clean ship for the reasons you state.No as you have to remember this is a model and if you take into account the scale effect all the details have to look real and that you can achieve only with a bit of weathering, if you going to have a life-like display.Of course there are different types of weathering and i think in that case since no major patches in the paintjob or too much rust was evident then all you can do really is to apply repeated washes to create the shading.That doesn't nessesarily means the ship is meant to be dirty but as a model in scale has to bring out and project the details.Remember also that being the major material plastic ,even painted still looks and feels plastic if you dont apply weathering and you have to avoid that.I dont think 350 is big enough to allow the modeler to get away without puting a bit of weathering in any model he or she does ,namely at least a couple of washes , in contrast with the big scale models in museums .Besides their construction materials are different than plastic most of the times and that alone helps a lot to their realism.Lastly no ship even if it is active for a few months and has been taken care of very well but their crew would still have the usual signs of usage.

EDIT: Actually, I just saw that this is apparently a conversation that is already happening on modelwarships.com so I've deleted my thoughts on the subject here. Perhaps it would be better for all criticisms to be posted there, where the builder can see and respond to them, rather than here. No need to criticize the man (or me to defend him) in a place where he's not even involved.

Yes you are right.Only thing is there is no real discussion going on there, just congratulations list which is fine .When i tried to put my objections on the matter purely on a technical side of things ,without insulting anyone personally my comments were erased .So i just wont bother from now on commenting on other ppls work at all.

A most impressively sized and pretty well done model from my perspective. A lot of work went into it and I am sure the modeler is pleased with his result, as he should be. Aside from any quibles about the weathering, population on board or anything else, to each his own, IMHO.

Kostas, I didn't mean to offend. Simply that I didn't want to discuss the model without the builder present. I can understand your point if you tried to share a critique and it got erased. For me, if someone wants a critique, I give it. But only if they ask as many times a builder can identify problems right away with his own build and his feelings may be hurt by the magnifying process of others. Of course, some people don't even care if they get a critique because they feel good either way. I can't say, as I'm only an observer. Take care.

I don't know the history of model ship forum sites but it seems that this site, Model Warships, and to a lesser extent, SteelNavy, are the ones that pops up most often when Googled (at least for English). I see a lot of the same names on all three of them. I've seen the Akagi builder's other work and have been generally impressed with them. To tell the truth, it was his work, Dade's, Kostas, and others that I can't name off the top of my head that inspired me to try my hand at ship modeling; and really taking the time to do it right (the Kongo is a fantastic build and I really enjoy looking at the details of Kostas waterline models). Of course, the release of the Akagi (one of my favorite subjects) had something to do with it as well. Weathering seems to be an aspect that gets a lot of attention; in all genres.

So my question is this (and its okay if I don't get an answer): why is the builder of the Akagi not posting on this site?

Moderators: let me know if this subject should not be discussed here.

Hi Dave,

I've been following PvB's work for years, his models have inspired me greatly. My opinion is that the man obviously is a prolific builder and he probably enjoys building models over browsing web sites. As for how the man decides to display his models and to what degree he weathers them,... his model, his time, his choice. We can give constructive criticism, but in this case, the thread was not started by him, and therefore it's a bit unfair to criticize (positively or not) his work. With this said, if Peter ever decided to grace us with his presence, we'd gladly welcome him.

Frank

I ll just say that is was someone elses comments before me that in my opinion were a bit personal unnecessarily(''i would expect better from Peter'')!! that provoke the moderator to erase his comments as well as mine as i was the only other person trying to discuss or perform some criticism never in a personal level though, in that thread.

Yikes! The thought of *me* helping to inspire somebody to try something is terrifying! But seriously, thanks for those kind words, Dave.

I used to be on Steel Navy a long time ago as a regular, then lurked on Model Warships, but finally found a home here. I really like the crowd here and the set up of the site- this also goes for the entirety of the Kitmaker network. It may sound sappy, but I really love this bunch and the site feels right for me (not saying the others are bad, just that I fit in here best).

I post exclusively to MSW now- in fact, the only overlap are my escorts that were also posted to MW a long time ago, and were my first posts here at MSW as I was getting my feet wet. Everything from there on has been exclusive to MSW, including the newer, better shots of my Mikasa (the lower res, weird lighting originals appeared on SN years ago). So while others may "make the rounds" with their builds, sending them to every site out there, I just stick with MSW (of course, I still have friends from lots of other sites). This isn't a judgment on what others do, just my own thing. I like the idea of my "home" maybe having something a little different than the other guys...

PS: Of course, I post shots on my own web site too, but I figure that goes with the territory.

Thanks for the answers. Its always interesting to see why a modeler prefers one site over another. The talent posting on this site and Mddel Warship are outstanding, SteelNavy seem to be the Wild West of the three.

He registered at Modelwarships.Com 15-16 month ago and has posted 43 times in that time, so roughly three posts per month. You might get a sense as to why he's so prolific with his building. Each web site you check out takes time away from other activities.

I've heard from other modelers that this site is too busy graphically for their tastes, and these are some good modelers. One was a moderator here for a bit with me.

If you look at pictures of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau entering Brest in early 1941, you can see what 3 months at sea can do to a ship. They aren't looking too hot.

Speaking of web design i will have to agree with Tracy, my eyes are hurting every time i have to navigate in modelshipwrights.The steelnavy structure is too simplistic on the other hand and too many ppl spent rather most of their time on talking about it ,instead of building it,last modelwarships seems to have harness all elements as far as shipmodeling goes so far.

This isn't a relevant comparison. Different conditions, different navies, different modes of operation. Because I can always throw up a picture like this:



The Hornet is looking pretty clean here... But this shot wouldn't support my argument because we're not talking about the Hornet at some point in time.

Instead, show me a picture of the AKAGI (since that is what we're talking about) at the time just before Pearl Harbor where it looks dirty and messy. You can't because none exist-- I say again, the ship was kept very clean up until that point. I can't stress enough how important spit and polish was on the flagship of the Kido Butai at that point!


As for how this site looks, it's basically the standard look of many Web 2.0 sites, but I understand how people who cut their teeth on BBS boards and such may not like it. I, for one, do like it-- but different strokes and all.


PS about weathering... I think some of the talk that Kostas and I were having may have been more about a semantics issue rather than a disagreement. When I think of "weathering" I think of things like aging the subject with dirt, rust, chipped paint, etc.

Washes and dry brushing to enhance lines and things like that for scale effect-- I always think of as "finishing". In other words, stuff that would bring out the details of an item while not necessarily aging it.

A case in point would be a modern build (like my Hatsuyuki ) where washes are used to bring out the lines and details, but things like rust and paint chipping appear much less. So in that respect, yes, I'm on the same page. The Akagi doesn't have to be dirty and rusty, but you can still use washes to enhance lines and such (this isn't my thought about Mr. Van Buren's work, just an observation about modeling in general).

But with that, I think I'm going to duck out of this conversation as it's getting kind of stressful and I'm already taking medicine for my blood pressure...