The Ship Model Forum

.

So, 210-plus years and 72 coats of paint ;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... shade.html

.

Mariner's Mirror has an article on RN paint from the period: http://snr.org.uk/application-scheme-pa ... centuries/

I have a PDF version if anyone's interested.

Not sure if this is the source that they used to make the decision on the repainting.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

I've read several articles on this controversy and it seems to me that modern scientific analysis of paint and wood samples from the Trafalgar time period should be fairly conclusive as to the matter. You may not like the answer the scientific method yields, but it is what it is. Yes, the "mustard" color was in place for many years and I suspect it is what most people envision in their mind's eye when "Victory" is mentioned, but I also think that when that ship is mentioned, most people make the immediate association with Trafalgar and Nelson. Therefore it seems to me that it is only proper that the ship be painted in colors appropriate and accurate for the time, even if some do think it looks a little "pink". I recall reading in one article that while many of the more well off captains sprang from their own pockets to paint their ships in colors they liked, Capt. Hardy was not a wealthy man and may well have been stuck using the stuff the Royal Navy handed out for free, which was probably some of the cheapest stuff they could get hold of.

All of this being said, if the color scheme is accurate for the Trafalgar period, which it indeed seems to be, then that is how she should be portrayed. History is not for us to "like" or "dislike", it simply is.

Bob

_________________
Give me a fast ship, for I would like to get out of harm's way!

Oh my... Does this mean Dafi is going to have to do a repaint?

_________________
Bill Livingston
Cambridge

.

Just to note that today is Trafalgar Day - 210 years ago.