Time for me to eat some crow...

[Diamondback]

Well, guys, if my rescaling figures from Greenwich draughts are right, I'm in the embarrassing position of having to reverse myself.

ASSUMING latest rework on comparative sizes is right...
SGN111 Meregildos, Salvador del Mundo should have near-parity with SGN108/201, about 1mm longer.
SGN112 Bahama should have near-parity with SGN104, San Juan Nepomuceno with SGN102. The sculpt was specifically based on Bahama's shape but the size of her as-built sister San Pedro de Alcantara, so my amended recommendation is to re-card as SPdA and other Spanish 64's.

I found some bugs in the chart, so decided to start over from completely-uncropped originals. The new Line Chart is in the Robs' hands for a prelim review, and eventually I'll upload it here and announce in this thread so we can see exactly which ships do and don't measure up. (Other than Concorde, Swan, Mahonesa and BHR, none of which have Draughts in Greenwich's holdings.)

[Bligh]

I am just amazed that you can hold all this information in your head with all the changes and realignments of the models with appropriate others. I have lost the plot completely now.
Rob.

[Diamondback]

Rule 70: Keep digging until you hit bottom. So, I follow the rabbit hole as far down as it goes...

Re prior, the "near parity" comments assume both ships are correctly scaled, which with Waves 1/2 believed oversize means they will seem small, doubly so in the Wrong Length used to scale Bahama. Easy way to check for yourself, once the Chart is signed-off, will be to just hold the miniature in front of its draught--if you see drawing around the ship other than below waterline it's under, if not it's OK or over.

[Naharaht]

To err is human. Thank you for all your efforts to keep the models accurate, Diamondback.

[Diamondback]

This is also why I have a standard disclaimer in my professional works about "The analysis in this document is the best I can give with the sources available to me at this time; further availability of new tools, data and other resources may necessitate revision of these findings at a later date." Usually I like to go back and revisit things every year or two just to make sure nothing's changed... well, unless you opt for the "Cheapass" Service Level Agreement. lol (While I don't have a signed SLA contract with Ares, I try to give them a solid upper-mid-tier level of support with the occasional samplings of "Premium," trying to convince them that I'm worth opening a position for.)

[Bligh]

Re prior, the "near parity" comments assume both ships are correctly scaled, which with Waves 1/2 believed oversize means they will seem small, doubly so in the Wrong Length used to scale Bahama. Easy way to check for yourself, once the Chart is signed-off, will be to just hold the miniature in front of its draught--if you see drawing around the ship other than below waterline it's under, if not it's OK or over.

That makes it a lot clearer DB.
thanks. Rob.

[Diamondback]

Checking Bahama against the rescaled draught, she comes out almost bang-on 1/1000, which seems to confirm the Oversize on Waves 1/2.

The bad news is, we're now probably locked into a mixed-scale game... and I distinctly recall that when other lines have found themselves in the same situation it Has Not Ended Well.

As far as salvaging the early sculpts, SGN104 might fit as a Large 74, like the Invincible that Bellona was scaled down from. 108 and/or 201 might be divertable to represent the later huge tripledeckers like Caledonia and Impregnable--not sure, most of my collection's in Remote Storage so I can't check, I only have 111 and 112 with me because my aunt couldn't be arsed to move them inside from the car (for all these MONTHS!) and suddenly decided she needed more room. Ain't relatives fun? *snort*

EDIT: 105 might fit as the bigger Virginie and Pallas variants, too, I'd need to check. IF 102, 104, 105, and 108 can all be diverted that means we have to figure out what if any the oversize 32's can pass for. The Oceans were the biggest of the big, so I don't see any pass-for on them unless you deliberately exaggerate L'Orient's size to highlight its importance at Nile. Not sure if the Swans can pass for a smaller flush-decker Sixth Rate, but down at the bottom of the Size Chart a little exaggeration may be good for practical considerations anyway.

[Capn Duff]

:surrender:I give in

[Diamondback]

Chris, at this point I'm just trying to figure out the lowest-cost and -labor fix for all possible sides now that the hard evidence is in. If you think having to replace obsolete miniatures is expensive, imagine what it's like on the manufacturing side when one tool-set has to be turned into scrapmetal--and trust me, if you guys think it's been confusing for you all the reversals derived from faulty data, then correct data, then new tools to manage that data, then glitches with the tools and finally debugging... it's been like a bloody corkscrew with all the twists and turns, but I think that IF I've developed tools and processes right we're finally looking at definitive answers.

There were some 18-pounder 32's and 36's that were a bit but not much bigger than Amazon and similar looking, so those might be repurposes for 103. The French didn't build very many 18# 32s, or a lot of purpose-designed 36's, so 101 will take some more digging.

[CSherrange]

You do work i could barely even hope to scratch the surface of, so keep up the amazing work

[Dobbs]

So what scale are the original ships?

[Dobbs]

I'm inclined to favor the 1st and 2nd waves, as they are more common ship types, and accept their scale.

[Bligh]

I can never overestimate the debt which we owe to DB for unscrambling all this in order to get more variations on the existing models to keep our hunger for new ships alive.
I would have thrown in the towel some time ago.
All I can do is marvel at his resolute pursuit of the best solution and say thanks.
Rob.

[Diamondback]

For the curious about what Waves 1/2 are supposed to be for game scale...

101 Concordes no draught available
102 Temeraire http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/80819.html resize to 3.36"x1.03"
103 Amazon http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/460844.html resize to 2.41"x0.97"
104 Bellona http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/81148.html resize to 3.14"x1.02"
105 Hebe (drawing is clone Leda) http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/84700.html resize to 2.88"x1.02"
106 Ocean http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/79834.html resize to 4.27"x1.24"
107 Swan no drawing available
108 Victory as-built http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/79912.html resize to 3.49"x0.95"
201 Victory 1803-rebuild (1811 Union copy) http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/80037.html resize to 3.70"x1.21"
202 Humphreys Superfrigate (President) http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/87565.html resize to 3.29"x1.06"

Once resized, print and plop mini on top of drawing.

Methodology: I took the stated dimensions for each of these drawings, multiplied them by 48 (mathematically enlarging the drawing to an "imaginary sheet" the size of the actual ship) then divided by 1000 to reduce to nominal SGN scale. From there I divided by 25.4 for the mm/inch conversion.

Bellona should be about 51mm, her bigger Large 74 ancestors around 52 and the Ajax "stretch model" around 55, Temeraire and most Spanish 74's before Bahama in the 55mm range.

[Diamondback]

Also, I just checked SGN111: it's the right overall size along waterline, but the stern gallery is too vertical (at least for Salvador del Mundo in RN service, though we can't rule out a sternboard tip-out and gallery extension) and there are some minor deviations at the bulwark top-line.