"1/6000 Model Maker" Topic

I was talking to one of the owners of the 1/6000 scale Figurehead line of ships a few months ago and when asked when they'd be coming out with some new ships (I'm interested in seeing their pre-dreadnought period expand) told that the company would be willing to do so in a NY minute if they could find someone to sculpt a master.

Is there anyone out there qualified to make masters in 1/6000?

Dan

I did hear a buzz that someone else was contemplating kicking off a 1/6000 range to complement the Figurehead ranges. Sworn to secrecy at the moment but there may be an alternative along soon(ish)

I'd actually be willing to pay a decent fee if someone could create some custom models in ths scale.

HMS Vanguard anyone?

Dave, as long as I've got you in a thread, I believe you're the guy behind the alternative rules for various periods of naval warfare using VAS rules?

If so, and I apoligize if I'm wrong, I noticed when reading the rules for sailing ships the other day (which are nice) that full sail speeds go up the smaller the ship (i.e., a frigate is faster than a SOL and a brig is faster than a frigate, etc.). Really?

Its my understanding that the larger the ship, the more sail she "could" put up, so the faster the ship could go. Also, that as the wind went up, smaller ships had to reduce sail as they could not carry the sails that a larger ship's masts, spars and rigging could handle.

Not to side track my own thread (smile), but I'd be interested in your comments.

Dan

How about HMS Tiger and an angle-decked USS Essex too?

There are a fair number of ships out there that existed in the real world, as well as might have beens, that have not been modeled for 1/6000. Trying to find an artist to craft masters seems to be the issue.

Dan

Well David, I guess the message to your friend is that yes, there is a market and in fact, some of we hard core 1/6000 types might be open to a Eureka 300 type thing.

I second McKinstry's idea. I especially would like to see a expansion in the pre-dred period (Span-Am, for instance).

I'd second the HMS Tiger and an angle-decked USS Essex as well as the The Falklands Fort Austin.

Span-Am would be great to. I have a lot of 1/2400 Span-Am but still missing a few. I find Figure Head to have great detail for the size.

If Figure Head did that, I would buy both Span Am fleets, but I still want HMS Tiger, an angle-decked USS Essex, and the Falklands Fort Austin first.

I woulf love more late cold war allied and enemy navies (Italy, france, JMSDF, China) plus 60-70 USN ships (especially the hybrid missile cruisers)

Ok so how do we do this.

I think if David can pass on the potential market interst to his contact, maybe the Eureka 300 style approach would ease the decision to enter the market.

I would also guess we would need to list the ships by period. Modern, Pre Dread, were there others?

In WW2, the late war battleship Vanguard for the British is a glaring omission.

For Span-Am, the Spanish could use the 3 cruiser class plus Pelayo and the Furor torpedo boats. The US could use Brooklyn, New York, Olympia and then the Baltimores and Charlestons along with the monitors.

Well, McKinstry, I'll agree with you on the Spanish-American War ships (smile) as I'm interested in that period. Would love to see the ships of the 1895-1905 period for the South American navies, China and Europe.

Dan

And, not to be picky, I'd really like the ships to "match" the Figurehead ships in size and detail (smile).

Dan

I am onboard with this and I also agree that the ships should be of similar sculpt style and assemble similar (separate ship and sculpted base) to the Figurehead ships.

The following vessels should be included (per my wants):
Vanguard
Tiger
Angled-Deck Essex

Art

Id add the RFA Fort Austin

In WW2, the British war destroyers 0-S, the Battles, Darings, Ca and Weapons classes. Both the US and Brits need a true APA and not just Victory conversions, the allies need a type 2 tanker and both the US and Brits need fleet oilers. The Germans could use an Altmark style merchant and raider and the IJN should have the 6" Mogami's.

You'd certainly want the US missle conversions of Baltomores and Clevelands such as Boston, Canberra, Little Rock and galveston along with the more radical Albany and Columbus.

The modern range also needs the newer stuff in the form of the UK Darings and their new CV, the US Zummwalts and the modular inshore boats Freedom and ? that are about finished. The modern JDF is large and unsupported in 1/6000 and the PRC and Indian navies could badly use support as well.

Funny how many ships are out there yet to be modeled, but no one has produced a new model in years.

I'm all thumbs, but I'd think that someone, somewhere would get in touch with Figurehead and offer to do some.

Dan

Drool!

Okay, I admit that I am a niche scale gamer. 1/600th airplanes (1950 – 1973) and 1:6K ships in general are the stuff of fantasy!

I have (finally) started painting the ships for 1941 Java Campaign…

And I am weakening on the 1950's thru 1970's ships now that Dan Cyr has woken the sleeping dragon of 1:6K naval. I have Mal's 'modern' adaptation of the old GQ rules 'somewhere' I believe… Modern Naval/Air rules that don't play as Harpoon's level of complexity will posh me over the edge for naval as Air War C21 did for air…

Gracias,

Glenn

"HMS Tiger" Are you thinking about the WWI Tiger or the 1959 Tiger? Figurehead makes the WWI Tiger.

I was thinking of the postwar HMS Tiger, along with the HMS Vanguard battleship from the same time, myself.

Anyone who did this would be doing it for love, not money, of course. I might be willing to try my hand at a Vanguard. I believe I have the skills to produce equivalent or superior quality, but do not currently have any means to duplicate subassemblies. I could probably cannibalize existing models (15" turrets, for example).

On the subject of compatibility, note that most Figurehead ships are not actually 1:6000 scale, but vary; I have calculated a "working average" of 1:6300. This is weighted towards the larger models, since the DDs have so far been easier to modify.

Isn't 1/6000 a little small for predreadnoughts (and a lot of moderns)? Space constraints are obviously important for naval battles, but what's the point of doing miniatures if you can't tell them apart from more than 6"? (Or you end up mounting them on giant bases with nameplates – which seems to defeat the purpose.)

This is off-topic, but if you are knowledgeable about ship identification, you can tell them apart from proportional gaming distances. Note the following image:

picture

I am pasting in one of my comments from 2005:

As to 1:6000 models being small, well they are in an absolute sense. However, note the following:

I started out around 1970 with Fletcher Pratt and 1:1200 Alnavco models. Games were played on a gymnasium floor. Normal viewing distance for the whole battle must have been 20 feet or so.

Now I use 1:2400 GHQ or 1:6000 Figurehead, depending on the size of the battle and my mood. Games are played on a table. Normal viewing distance for the whole battle is 6 feet or so. For a small-to-moderate-sized battle, in 1:6000, you can play on a card table, where normal viewing distance is 3 feet.

My point is that the relative size at normal viewing distance is about the same. Therefore, it can be worth it to physically "set up" (bend, carve, file, etc.) and paint these models carefully.

I wonder if there would be a market for "unbased" destroyers? One would need to make new ones, of course; here are some of Figurehead's removed from bases (with Hood for contrast); very time-consuming…

picture

I would love to have unbased 1/6000 destroyers. I'm not a big fan of the Figurehead bases, and I like making my own bases with ship names and the national flag.

Peter

"if you are knowledgeable about ship identification, you can tell them apart from proportional gaming distances."

I agree on WWI and WWII models – but predreadnoughts are much smaller and in many cases have less obvious differences. Plus ranges are a lot shorter.

@hindsTMP

What is the material used for your tabletop surface in your pic, above? Looks very good and very much like water at altitude.

gregoryk

It's just sanded 3/4" plywood, primed and painted with non-flat latex paint. The wood grain is unintentional, and I would get rid of it if I could (it's out of scale). The plywood is also heavy, and tends to sag at the joint (I'm using two 4x7' plywood sheets perched on cardboard barrels).

My favorite thing about the photo is the chalk wakes; idea described at:

TMP link

Back on topic, I'm thinking of trying a home-made unbased destroyer. If it's any good, I could offer it to Figurehead. I will post pictures here if I do this.

A good candidate would be a UK Battle-class DD from late WWII.

This may be a bit of a dumb question, but why not ask the guy who did the original range?

The report is that he's no longer interested, per a TMP post whose location I now forget. I'm sure that the new owners would have contacted him if he were.

Per a converstion I had at Salute! (some years back) with the original owner of Hallmark, the original model maker decided to leave the ship market for other miniatures.

Just a random thought (with zero research to support it): Has anybody looked into the idea of rapid prototyping for making ship masters?

Yes, but the resolution of the semi-affordable unit I looked at was way too low for this kind of thing.

When I make ship models in scales this small I use a micrometer for at least overall length, beam, and key heights on the superstructure.