The Ship Model Forum

Very nice painting indeed, thank you for sharing. The configuration of the bridge though (no prominent wheelhouse) makes it look more like Queen Mary than Lion. And we're back to the exact colour vs. what your mind's eye sees, so modellers choice I suppose

_________________
Vlad

Hi George (and Vlad),

No, I think the artist painted exactly what he saw (and maybe others too; and maybe some of the photos were not so badly wrong either http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205027952 ).

With a little steer from Michael Brown, I am confident that I have found the file that was the source for Dittmar and Colledge’s 1972 chronology. I’m afraid that their early war summary is both significantly incomplete and partly incorrect.

The orders detailing the painting changes were not Admiralty Fleet Orders but Confidential Interim Orders (CIO). The order that directed painting to “a light grey colour” (1:20) was CIO 59 “The painting of H.M. Ships in Home Waters” dated 11 Sept 14 not 19 Nov 14 as stated by Dittmar and Colledge. (There was a CIO dated 19 Nov 14, CIO 187, but that was “Distinguishing Markings of Destroyers” and mainly concerned funnel markings.) (These two CIOs are glued to the same page in the file and D or C must have accidentally mis-noted the date.)

However they completely ignored CIO 174 of 10 Nov 14 “Visibility of Ships – Method of diminishing” which had a very significant and widespread impact. As a result, Dittmar and Colledge then go on to fail to mention the prime content of the subsequent CIO 317 dated 6 Apr 15, “Painting of H.M.Ships and Destroyers” which countermanded CIO 174 and restored order.

CIO 174 was a letter from Prof Graham Kerr on the theory of camouflage and contained some advice on methods that might be employed. In the words of the CIO: “The trial or adoption of the proposals made therein is left to the discretion of Flag officers &c concerned.”

The result as evidenced by various papers on file is that CIO 174 gave licence for a total free-for-all. Some choice phrases:

“..ships are painted in every conceivable way – Admirals and Captains seem to paint their fleets according to anyone’s idea or fad…during the Heligoland affair some of our ships did not open fire until they were fired upon as they could not be sure…”

“the Indomitable joined up recently and was painted in such a marvellous way that one ship was sure she was German and nearly opened fire"

“all sorts of fancy schemes”

“blotch schemes”

“patchy schemes”

“mottled schemes”

“different colours being shaded at the edges”

Inspired by Kerr a ship might be painted in places any shade “from the ordinary grey to pure white”. He also advocated “strongly contrasting shades” to “break up the regularity of outline”.

A battlecruiser captain writing in early 1915 complained trenchantly about the difficulty of telling friend from foe and argued strongly for adoption of a standardised scheme with “the dark part amidships….the two ends for at least 100 feet being painted as light as possible”

After all these concerns had reached the Admiralty a decision was taken to re-impose uniformity and CIO 317 of 6 Apr 1915 was issued:

“The Hull and upper works of H. M ships other than Destroyers are to be coated with a mixture of black and white paint in the proportion of one pound of black to twenty pounds of white. The masts and funnels are to be coated in a mixture of black and white in the proportion of one pound black to twenty-three pounds white.

Destroyers are to remain dead black but their masts are to be painted a very light grey.

A false bow wave is to be painted on the cutwater of all ships.”

But to summarise, between November 1914 and April 1915, or for however long afterwards it took to repaint, a British warship could have employed any shade of grey “from the ordinary grey to pure white”.

Best wishes.

Dick,

Congratulations on your discovery and thanks very much for sharing the news. CIO's are new to the lexicon and it makes you wonder what else is in hiding. Very interesting on CIO 174 and Prof. Kerr's work. This would explain the wild camouflage on HMS Royalist. http://www.clydesite.co.uk/clydebuilt/viewship.asp?id=4558 It is a shame that not more has been written on the work.

Thanks for updating the chronology.

Cheers,
George

George,

I have just found this on the internet... http://www.cnrs-scrn.org/northern_marin ... 71-192.pdf

The authors clearly did not find (and do not reference) the file I found at TNA as this would have helped them understand why Kerr's method was dropped by the Admiralty in Spring 1915.

But their paper confirms an impression I had got reading the files that fleet practice with paint in that era often tended to be ahead of official Admiralty sanction/record in the AFO's.

Best wishes.

Another one for the list of acronyms and orders. This website talks of CIOs and AIOs i.e. Admiralty Interim Order.

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/gb-ensw.html

A quick search for those on the Kew website also comes up with > Confidential Admiralty Interim Orders!

Having caught up with the happenings here, I have mixed the colours in a less scientific way than George by simply calculating the amount of black to add to a new 14 mls tinlet of Humbrol Gloss White. My reasoning being that George’s method is way too complicated for my poor brain and I’m trying to get colours for my club members who build in 1/72 and need more paint than a little tin. I was hoping that I could either find a standard colour to use or have it computer matched at my local shop ideally to a paint company’s “standard” colour.

I used small syringes which my local friendly chemist let me have a box of which measure down to .5mls and only cost 10p each. This meant only using them once and throwing them away wasn’t a painful idea.

The results are interesting also slightly confusing. Looking at them, I can’t see the point of AP507C in WW1 as it is very close to 507B. The post WW1 507B and C are definitely different to each other.

After painting, I tried matching these colours using the Mk 1 eyeball to:
1) WEM’s paints. Only one colour I have is similar. Their 507C looks to be midway between 507B & C. More B than C.
2) Various British standards. I have several cans of paint made up to British Standards and originals of BS381 for 1930, 1964 and 1968, BS2660: 1955. BS5252:1976 And BS4800:2011 as well as Australian Standard colours in the AS2700 range. The results:
[list=]a. British Standard 381C 632 Dark Admiralty Grey and 638 Dark Sea Grey are similar but darker than 507A in both paint and the standard’s sample colour.
b. British Standard 4800 18B25 is similar to 507A and 18B17 is similar to 507C.
c. British Standard 5252 18B23 is similar to 507, 18B25 is similar to 507A, 18B19 is similar to but darker to 507B and 18B17 is similar to 507C. Note: There is no 18B19 or 18B23 in my 4800 charts, so I couldn’t compare. These numbers have been deleted in that series.
d. British Standard 2662 9096 is similar to 507, 9097 is similar to 507A, 9095 is similar to but darker to 507B and 9094 is similar to 507C.[/list]

Now my 381C Standard states that no BS2660 colours are a close match to the 381C colours. However, the BS2660 Standard that I have states that 9097 and 632 are similar! Go figure.

3) Humbrol’s paints:
[list=]a. #5 Dark Admiralty Grey is similar but lighter to 507A. The opposite to the Standards review.
b. I tried the following greys but no match or close match at all: 27, 106, 126, 147 and 165.[/list]
4) FS paints. I tried the following FS colours but again, no match >16081, 36125, 36440, 36375, 36231, 16270.
5) RAL paints. I compared the samples to the colour swatch set which I have and nothing close.

I thought that modern vivid white paint would adversely affect the colour mixing, so I mixed up 507 using a can of premade 100mls gloss white paint from the local hardware chain. I was right. Do not use modern/fridge white, it results in a much paler version of the colours. 507 starts to look close to 507B.

FYI, on our models for “old white” as in WW2, we use BS4800 10B15.

I’m now trying to get up the enthusiasm to mix the colours using 10B15 but first I’m going to have to decant some 10B15 into another smaller container.

I’m trying to get good matches for club members who need the colours as there are a few WW1 destroyers underway and also Invincible as at the time of Jutland. So far, the paint guy is having problems computer matching to the pure greys which is driving him mad.

I’ll try getting the 18B colours made up first to see what they are like and see if any paint companies have the colours in their range and see what computer scanning at the shop brings up.

Hi Michael,

I believe the destroyers at Jutland where all painted 'Dead Black' so that might solve your problem for the destroyers. Larger ships where Grey or 1:20 Black to White by weight which corresponds to 3:4 Black to White by volume. So for example, in your 14 ml tinlet you could add 6 mls of black and 8 mls of white to get the correct Grey colour. May I suggest you use hobby paints for this. Many commercial white paints used in the home actually contain blue to prevent the white from yellowing over time. As such they will never be able to make a neutral grey. This may also be what is giving your paint guy so much trouble.

All of the AP507 series after 1919 used blue pigments so these as well can not be used for WW1 RN neutral greys.

You do not know, what it is, you do not know.

Because of this I had no idea what actually is in commercial or hobby white and black paints. As I did not what to end up with 80 odd pounds each of white and black paint if I followed the original paint formats, I used an analytical balance to make up representative samples of white and black using the same ingredients as used by the original painters. When these were then blended by weight I was able to see the correct greys. As blending by weight is a true pain, I then used commonly available hobby paint to blend the same greys by volume.

My thought is that blending white and black by volume is drop dead easy as compared to matching to other colours or modifying other colours. Not only that but you also get to use your favourite make of paint as well.

Cheers,
George

Naming Convention

507, 507A, 507B and 507C
For neutral grey paints used from 1902 to 1919

AP507A, AP507B and AP507C
For blue grey paints used 1920 to 1940's

It turns out that in RN paint formulations everything has a Pattern No.. For example White lead is Pattern No. 409, Zinc, White is Pattern No. 104, Black in oil is Pattern No. 110c and on it goes. By following the formulation you ended up with an end paint that also has a Pattern No. The paint component Pattern No.s seem not to change over time. Unfortunately the end product pattern No.s also do not change even though the formulation can be significantly altered by a variety of order types.

So are we talking about neutral grey or grey with Pattern No. 8 Egyptian Blue, dry in it? May I suggest the above naming convention to try and avoid confusion.

Cheers,
George

George,

Whilst I understand what you are trying to do, a WW1 or earlier paint is no less an Admiralty Pattern no. paint than is a later one. It seems wrong to create a nomenclature that suggests this.

Nor is it as straightforward after WW1 as you suggest. The blue pigment was introduced in 1927 and the formula for the 507s was changed again in 1936.

Could we not put the date of the introduction of the paint we are talking about in brackets after the number? eg 507c (1927) or AP507c (1927)

Best wishes

George/Dick,

My calculation sheet is attached along with a scan of the syringe used. I added a set amount of black to new 14ml cans of gloss white. I’ll have to use a commercial house paint for the projects because of the sheer volume needed and Humbrol enamels are starting to get scarce here.

I do actually know what some WW1 paints look like, as back in 2001, I got into the Australian War Memorial’s Annex where restoration work is carried out and had a long chat with the guy who had recently restored the Emden & Sydney exhibits of WW1. An artist by profession known as the “Conservator Painted Surfaces”. I’ve scanned the notes I sent to John & Randy on the visit.

The TBD of the RAN River Class were painted black at one stage per the attached instruction but pre war, early war and later on in the war, they were various shades of grey. Just for good measure, the pendant numbers don’t seem to have a set standard font presumably varying from dockyard to dockyard.

“Patterns” have always intrigued me because I can see no rhyme or reason in the numbering and have never found any documentation showing how or why they were numbered or even a master list of numbers. As they are stores items, I would imagine there has to be a listing somewhere in the archives. I’ve been compiling the attached list as I have found patterns mentioned. Interestingly, 507B & C were still listed as stores paints in 1960. Also that 507B in the 1947 AFO is described as Dark Grey. 507A seems to disappear around about 1940/41.

Michael,

Please check again George's first post on May 17 (above) and the original post on this thread. From your spreadsheet it seems you are converting weight ratios to volumes. Since modern paints have different densities to the historical ones, your volume ratios don't hold true. As George said, 1:20 by weight is about 3:4 by volume.

This would explain your confusion in matching, you are mixing too light, hence your 507B looks like WEMs 507C. I actually found WEMs 507C looks too light on completed ships, I now use Humbrol 127 to match 507C.

AP507A should be darker than extra dark sea grey, I've used Humbrol 32 and 112 for this on some current projects.

_________________
Vlad

Vlad,

I looked at the various on line available conversions and they all seem to have different calculations and none came up with conversions for paint either modern or old let alone something as exotic as “White lead oil paste”. So, having weighed the Humbrol tinlets, I went for a simple conversion based on weight. My logic being that as a 14mls Humbrol can of white paint weighs the same as 14mls black paint, then they weigh the same. Hence I was quite happy to mix by volume.

They are actually darker than they appear in the photos as I didn’t attempt to make any compensation for sunlight. I thought of using the PC and the Mk 1 eyeball to match the on screen colour with the sample. Then I figured as screen settings differ, the match would only work on my PC.

I’m not too sure about them being too light as “my” 507B does look like WEM’s 507C and as I said back in 2001, Sydney’s colour was like S&S 507C. “The decision on the grey to use was based on the Curators feel that as the Emden was light, so would Sydney have been a light grey. However, the photos of her en route show her dark grey (see attached). Again couldn’t get a sample of their paint. Very near to the S&S AP507C paint sample. The note he sent to the paint shop was “try Methuen 26 1B Pale Grey first”. I can’t find a copy of that book. He had a copy but the paint shop hadn’t sent it back yet. The fascinating thing is that 507C might have been introduced as an official named colour post WW1 but Sydney was wearing it or a very similar colour from 1915 to her end in 1928. They have not matched the darker grey which should have been the WW1 dark grey. The interesting part again is the shade of it. Not as I would have thought dark like 507A but actually lighter than 507B (didn’t have any other pure greys with me as samples). Darker than 507C but not as dark as 507B.”

What I’d like to see is the Methuen colour (Methuen 26 1B Pale Grey) mentioned by them. Our State Library says it has a copy but couldn’t find it for me.

On 507s, has anyone seen an AFO issued after the end of WW1 stating what colours ships should be in? The first I have sighted is in 1926 when RAN destroyers in reserve were to be two toned. Hull Pattern Number 507B and superstructure 507C. That makes me wonder if Sydney was still wearing 507B post war as the colours on the chips were very close to her wartime grey.

Interestingly it says Pattern Number not Admiralty Pattern Number. So when did they start being called Admiralty Pattern Number?

But historically white lead was very dense whereas the black was not. The final colour depends on the relative volume of pigment not the density of each pigment particle. As an analogy, if you could use 8lb of white lead to paint a wall then the same weight of modern white would probably cover the whole room with some to spare.

The weight ratios are probably there for ease of measurement and accounting for stock. If you had the original materials then the weight ratios would hold. But the modern colours have more or less the same density as each-other. So to get the correct ratio by volume, you would have to find the densities of the paint components and work out how many litres 1lb of black and 1lb of white would each have been in WWI. That's the ratio you need to scale down to your 14ml tinlets.

I have tried mixing Humbrol black and white in the weight ratios as you did and the colours don't look right to me. They looked absolutely nothing like the colour patches George made on page 1 of this thread. Even the pre-war 1 black to 8.75 white by weight, when mixed in those ratios by volume, looked lighter than WEMs 507B.

_________________
Vlad

Michael,

Thanks for posting the colour guide for HMATBD Huron dated 21 Mar 1916, it confirms the standard destroyer paint scheme from "British Warships 1914-1919" by FJ Dittmar & JJ Colledge and the ship models that were once on display in the Science Museum in London.

May I confirm Vlad's thought that your issue is density. In the early 1900 final colour paint was not available. The on board ship painter or if in dockyard hands the 'maties' made the paint they required, as needed, in batches on the spot. This was done by weight as ships had scales so it was easy. This is confirmed in various editions of “The Ship Painter's Handbook”, by George S. Welch. Paint was made up to the orders issued by the Admiralty. The order usually made reference to Admiralty Patterns when considering the overall work but the individual materials and resulting paints were always referred to by Pattern No.; I do not know where the AP convention came from.

So the original materials the the ships painter worked with was white lead carbonate, white zinc oxide and black carbon black. When you pick up a bottle of lead carbonate it is heavy. A similar sized bottle of carbon black seams to have no weight at all. These radically differing densities play a significant role in forming the colour of the paint. When blended with linseed oil, turpentine and dryers to form the paint there is a small mound of lead and a huge pile of carbon black.

Modern paint is completely different in its composition, most have titanium dioxide which is a remarkable strong white pigment, a little goes a long way. Because of this I abandoned any thought of blending by weight. Instead I determined the volumetric based equivalents.

May I quietly suggest you go to volume mixing for your needs. If you need a lot, then add 1.5 pints of black to 2 pints of white in a gallon container and blend. It is art, it should be fun, enjoy the ever too many shades of grey. You will always be OK as the batches were made by hand so it is very likely that different batches were of differing shades.

Cheers,
George

George,

Quietly! Make it as loud as you like. As you would have worked out I know nothing of the science of making paint, then or now.

Good timing though, I was about to ask how you got to the 3:4 or 60:80 ratio for 507B. The only way I could work it was to assume that you multiply the black paste amount by 15 to bring it up to an equivalent weight for the white lead. That would result in the attached formulae to add to a 14mls tinlet for the 507s. That won’t work as the tinlets would rapidly overflow. Bugger.

Sounds like I may have to try and talk my paint guy out of some 250mls empty tins. Then again, maybe I should recalculate working out how much white to add to black for some of them. Coffees are needed.

I’m still puzzled by your 507B and 507C as they both look way darker than the light grey that Sydney was wearing in WW1 per the paint chips I saw. Also, these monitors in 1915 ought to have been 507B but look quite light.



Michael

Hi Michael,

I did not make the volume mixtures by math, I did it with successive iterations with paint chips. I would make small volumes of various blends of black and white and paint on card stock. When I got close I would do a batch of closer blends around that region. I would then view that batch of volume based shades to the original card in varying light, sun and shade. I would then make a three larger volumes and paint on a card. If these all matched then I was satisfied. This resulted in the choices made for the volume matches.

The Mark 1 eyeball solved the problem but I did end up with a mound of colour chips.

Photos are great for where things where positioned on the ship. There are so many variables in film type, exposure, developing the negative and exposing the print that photos are typically useless for colour determination.

Paintings are ideal for capturing the mood around a vessel but most artists get upset if you insists on an exact colour match because that is typically not what the eye sees.

Cheers,
George

George,

So how are we to mix up RN greys from WW1 if not using a formula?

I've seen the original greys on Sydney and the main "darker" grey is not very dark and the light greys painted after it were close to S&S 507C chip (no paint then). It was quite a light grey. The darker would have to be her commissioning colour which ought to be 507, the first lighter greys should be 507B and if she was painted into 507C, the last grey would be it. I'm not sure she or any ships were 507C back then as the standing orders at the end of the war were still 507B.

BTW, the first post war RAN order re the mixture for 507C I have found is in 1927 and different to the RN mixture of 1927. The RAN were issuing ready mixed white paint for use on ships unlike the RN and smaller vessels were receiving 507X ready made up.

Photos might not be accurate but I think that ones like Sydney in Portsmouth 1919 where the crew's white collars and the clock's face show a contrast to show how light the colour was. However, we seem to think that ship models were using the actual colour which means we have something to compare to such as the attached. The Nelson one I had to use flash on as she was sitting in an unlit corner. A beautiful model and, unless orders had been issued to change the mix, painted in WW1 507A. The others are Science Museum models. Antelope in 1929 showing a very light grey hull.

Regards,

Hi Michael,

I did use the original formulas to make up the original colours by weight. I then made up new formulas to make the same original colour but by volume. I agree that formulas should be used but I do indeed prefer a formula based on volumes.

The first purpose of a builders ship model is 'Marketing'. Your photo of Tobago is a classic, it is large, it is perfectly constructed, it has impressive use of brass. So now that you are impressed how can you not place an order for a ship with that builder? But are the colours correct or modified to impress - only marketing knows for sure.

Here is a shot I took of HMS Glasgow, in a similar location aboard, the colours are completely different to your photo. Now what is the correct shade???

Photos are great for position, but questionable for colour.

I will stick to the colour formula for the base colour paint which can then be knowing modified by the modeller to achieve the correct look in the diorama. It is art after all.

Cheers,
George

George,

I’ve been trying to prepare a timeline of the 507s and would the RAN’s 1927 formula assist in preparing a conversion from weight to volume? The RAN used the RN’s 507C colour but instead added white enamel paint to the mix. Whereas the RN used a combined Lead and Zinc weight of 80lbs, the RAN used a combined 37.50 lbs and 2 gallon, 3 pints, 12 fl oz (19.75 pints) of white enamel. Can’t you then conclude that 42.5lbs of white in volume equates to 19.75 pints? Does the comment on AFOs that the formulae make 1 cwt/5 gallons of paint assist in the conversion as well?

I never thought of the shipbuilder’s models as marketing as they were normally given to the ship owner for free. The shipping company I used to work for had a lovely collection of ship models that way. In the case of a warship, the navy was the owner. The RN also commissions a lot of models, so wouldn’t they be a good indicator of the correctness of colours? After all, they did pay for them and did provide the colour schemes too. Glossop’s made many ship models for the RN to use in their offices as well as recruiting offices. The IWM has some and others have been coming on the market recently too.

The colours in the photos might differ but don’t they both show a lighter shade of grey than the mixes?

Similarly with photos, the Sydney one of 1919 shows the lightness of the ships colour by comparing the deck (holystoned timber which was a light grey) to the superstructure. The Magnificent one to me shows the contrast between the darker Magnificent and the lighter monitor. We don’t know if Magnificent was still pre-war 507, 507B or had painted to 507A but there is a distinct contrast in the colours.

What I might do next is to slowly add some more black to my mixed up 507B. After all, I’ve seen the original and it was a very similar tone to the S&S chips. I know approximately what it should look like. Theoretically, I should then be able to calculate how much to add to the other mixed paints to balance them out.

Regards,

Michael

Hi Michael,

Given that weight equals volume times density then I think you are trying to relate the density of a single solid to the density of a mixture of solids and liquids. As the densities of the solids and liquids vary your assumption is invalid.

Terribly sorry, but I simply do not understand the requirement to use weight to blend model paint.

George