Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies

Gold Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5,122 Excellent


About Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies

  • Rank
    Boss Man

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Aberdeenshire, UK

Recent Profile Visitors

3,742 profile views
  1. Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies

    What have you purchased / been given

    A cinema ticket. I have just returned from watching the new Spitfire film. Very good it was too. The complete lack of CGI in it was both obvious and welcome.
  2. Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies

    HMS King George V 1941

    Hi Ian, I'll need to check the file name on my desktop PC, but it was either Resolution or Revenge - I can't remember which! EDIT: It's HMS Resolution
  3. Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies

    HMS King George V 1941

    Please allow me to check how on Earth I achieved that... Edit: Post #15 on this thread has the file linked correctly - or at least it seems to be! https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235035483-royal-navy-colours-of-world-war-two-the-pattern-507s-g10-and-g45/
  4. Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies

    HMS King George V 1941

    Hi, I don't know whether you got around to having a read of the research paper in particular, but this is the image I wanted you to see. The Testors dark grey is slightly darker than the render the red arrow points to. Snyder & Short's 507A is overly age-darkened (and slightly greenish for a paint made from black, white and ultramarine blue - a result likely due to the strong tendency for linseed oil based paints to yellow with age). I'd recommend that, particularly for small scales, you want to lighten that colour to get to the lighter end of the Home Fleet Grey range. To put this another way, the darkest camouflage paint used by the Royal Navy, often described as "near black" and indeed looking that way on many images e.g. HMS Rodney below was MS1 which measured around 6% Light Reflectance Value. The next darkest was Home Fleet Grey at nominally 10% but 13% was acceptable. If you use the Testor's 4869 as it comes out of the jar, you're going to end up with a ship that looks almost black. The little image below has some shades not relevant here but it does show how MS1 and 507A should look together, and how they look together if you do go with an unadjusted Testor's 4869. We have invested a small fortune writing off Snyder & Short based products and remaking corrected ones, but when looking at the evidence we felt we had no choice; the Snyder & Short ones just don't work together. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Rodney_(29)#/media/File:HMS_Rodney_after_refitting_at_Liverpool.jpg This here was a little mockup I did a few months ago showing the 13% Home Fleet Grey product applied to a scrap of MDF with a black faux-boot topping added. I wanted to show how the 13% LRV blue-grey looks in colour versus black and white. From there, we can see that this is indeed the paint seen in so many photographs between 1936 and 1941ish: This is the 13% paint chip against the MDF to demonstrate that the following aren't cheating Taken from up-sun Taken from down-sun Up-sun image greyscaled Down-sun image greyscaled Indeed HMS Hood was painted in Pattern 507A Home Fleet Grey between 1939 and 1941. You've perhaps seen the colour cinefilm reel the above stills came from (it's on Youtube). Hood still has her foretop mast so it's not 1941 here, but you get the idea. Most people want to paint all RN ships light grey for some reason but that really wasn't the case. Again even if it matched Snyder and Short, it would not be particularly good as Snyder & Short's 507C is already too light. And, once again, it might seem no great shakes but as with 507A, 507C was regularly used in disruptive camouflage schemes also and when the tonal values are wrong, the whole thing goes to pot as can be demonstrated here. Snyder & Short's 507C is lighter than their MS4A, which was in fact the lightest camouflage colour used, besides white and there should have been a 10% LRV gap between 507C and MS4A at that. The Testors 4870 product render places it closer to white. (note 507A and B were nominally the same colour. They're listed separately because Snyder & Short shows them as distinct and very different shades - I've used these two boxes under the correction column to show 10% (darkest) and 13% (lightest) tolerances for either) And all the above does infact lead quite nicely in to here, would you believe? The simple truth is that I don't know for sure what colours exactly were on Warspite. As a fairly early camouflage scheme, it is entirely possible that the greys used were custom-mixed; a practise halted by the Admiralty in 1941. You will find many authors claiming the colours were 507A and 507B. Hopefully by now you've read that paper linked to above and will recognise that as nonsense in terms of fact, but it may be that those authors pulled off the old school exam trick of arriving at the correct ultimate answer but scoring zero marks because the workings were flawed throughout, arriving at the answer by accident. By that, I mean that there was an emergency mix grey approved by the Admiralty from 1942 onwards at least, made by mixing 507A and 507C in equal parts, arriving at a tone approximately equal to that of Mountbatten Pink or MS3. That would be 20% Light Reflectance Value. Now, the reason this wasn't recognised before may be due to lack of affordable colour measurement technology for amateur researchers, but with the old idea of MS3 actually measuring out at 30% LRV, the following would have gone unnoticed. The medium tone bluish grey which Snyder & Short thought was 507B actually measures at approximately 20%. Alan Raven claims that Claude Muncaster (a prominent figure working on camouflage paints in the Admiralty mid-war, according to archive records) told him in the 1990s that 507B was a 50/50 mix of 507A and 507C. This is directly contradicted by multiple 1930s and 1940s vintage Admiralty documents recorded in the archives. It is possible that someone along the way got their wires crossed, applied a bit of layman's logic and arrived at the conclusion that 507B must sit between 507A and 507C. That even makes sense, providing you don't know the history of the 507 family and haven't mapped out the timeline from their origins. It's a bit like waterboarding in Guantanamo Bay sounding brilliant, providing you don't know what either of those things are! All that rambling background aside, there were many RN ships in 1940-1941 painted in two tone grey like Warspite was: If you correct 507A and correct 507C, the tonal gap between them narrows down significantly. In practise, black paint is normally around 4% LRV whilst white paint is about 80% LRV. That's a total scale of around 76% to play with in paint terms. When both your 507A and 507C are too dark and too light as per Snyder & Short or any model paints copied from that source, you have 46% between the two. When they are corrected to their proper tonal values, that contrast is reduced significantly to 32-35% between them, a figure approximately 2/3 of the previous one. Suddenly, 507A and 507C, two completely standard off-the-shelf paints look pretty sensible together.
  5. Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies

    Z-25 Kriegsmarine colours

    My understanding is that the standard Kriegsmarine greys, Hellgrau 50 and Dunkelgrau 51 which were used on superstructure and hull respectively remained in use throughout the war. Indeed they were used continuously from WW1. Steel decks on Kriegsmarine ships would be default be Schiffsbodenfarbe III Grau 1 unless you have specific information to the contrary.
  6. Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies

    LCVP in British service on D Day

    Have you ever seen this? It's quite long but from around 25 minutes in the watery stuff begins to appear. For clarity "Dazzle" is a system of geometric shapes designed to confuse estimation of size and inclination angle. The British WW2 schemes were simply disruptive pattern designs. The above footage shows many different LC variants. Most of the medium size and big British ones at least are wearing white with either G5, B30 or B15 blue disruptive patterns. Some LCVPs are either dark grey or white. There are many LCx on show at 30mins.
  7. Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies

    Marketing 'headology' is there a way to defeat it?

    A few points in no particular order: Despite newness, there are many examples of modern parts being demonstrably much worse than old parts. This is best compared on a like-for-like basis, e.g. a classic car. An old British Leyland built MG Midget with the venerable A-series engine was never a bastion of reliabililty, but some parts did work just fine - e.g. the ignition coil. It is alarmingly easy to buy an equivalent ignition coil manufactured today to replace an old one which every owner can tell you is utter rubbish and will fail in short order. Only a moron would compare old car to new car but here we compare old electronic component to new electronic component made to the same spec but cheaply in China and it simply doesn't work properly. That is one cherry picked specific, but the classic car market is rife with absolute junk on the market made nowadays to replace things which worked fine for 40-50 years when made back in the day. Modern technology only helps when used correctly. Next, things like modern Range Rover versus old hatchback. My day job is overseeing design of very complicated things e.g. oil and gas production platforms with thousands of tagged items working in harmony. It's second nature to me but anyone involved in design engineering will relate - reliability is intrinsically related to functionality. A Range Rover is a much, much, much nicer car which has many, many, many more features than an old Renault. By virtue of having so many more design nodes, it numerically has many more modes of failure. In other words, the more complicated something is, the more opportunities there are for a fault to develop. When people buy a Range Rover, they are getting multi-zone climate control with temperature sensors for each zone. It has variable ride height as part of its off-roading capability. It has multiple control modes of the differentials and brakes to work together to give class-leading capability on poor terrain whilst still being quite and capable on road and luxurious. A typical hatchback has none of this, and thus there's less to go wrong. It's more reliable, sure, but you don't have any of the nice or useful things about a Range Rover either. A reasonably priced Renault has front wheel drive through an open differential and a manual gearbox. Nice and simple, but you won't tow 3.5 tonnes up a steep incline on wet grass whilst sitting on a heated seat, holding a heated steering wheel whilst listening to your favourite song on a rather brilliant audio system with it either. Hence, not a great lesson against buying a Range Rover unless none of those things matter to you. It's not a marketing decision, it's a value decision. Range Rovers are expensive because they have all those features. The cheaply built Chinese "Land Wind" rip-offs do not have all those features - and nor do they perform well in crash tests because despite copying the shapes of bits of metal the engineering JLR invests in which allows quantifiable selection of different material grades in different parts of the structure to control deformation characteristics is ignored by the copy.
  8. Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies

    HMS King George V 1941

    Easy peasy. Yes, and it's wrong anyway. That is Standard Scheme A, introduced in 1944 and using the April 1943-onwards B&G series paints G45, a light grey, and B20, a medium blue shade with G10 on horizontal surfaces - the hull was not light grey with a dark grey panel. There are countless colour photographs and cinefilm reels showing this, and furthermore the scheme is presented in Confidential Book C.B.3098 1945 edition. The right combination are shown on the image below Right, that dealt with, HMS King George V was Admiral Tovey's flagship of the Home Fleet in 1941. Ships of the Home Fleet were painted in the predictably named Home Fleet Grey. It's a very simple concept yet bizarrely some authors managed to cause untold confusion by getting that wrong two. There were two main formulations of actual ingredients to make Home Fleet Grey, one an interwar formulation with enamel content giving a hardwearing attractive glossy finish, the other being a cheaper matt finish better suited to war time economy and avoiding glare which is bad for being discreet when baddies are out to get you. The interwar formulation was called Admiralty Pattern 507B. In 1939 Admiralty Pattern 507A was introduced (the names 507, 507A, 507B and 507C date back to 1902 as the basic greys used on British warships - that's why in WW2 context 507B existed before 507A) and in 1940 enamel use was banned. In May 1941 HMS King George V (and pretty much every other warship in the Home Fleet) was wearing Home Fleet Grey on all vertical surfaces. A slightly darker non-slip grey was used on horizontal steel surfaces. Decks were darkened either with the non-slip paint or stained with a turpentine dilution of Japan Black - which for all intents and purposes leads you back to a dark grey. Here's Home Fleet Temporary Memorandum 288 dated 20th August 1940 (a facsimile - the original resides in The National Archives, Kew, London but I suspect you don't want to travel half the world for a commission build of an Airfix KGV!) on the matter, both reiterating the order to paint Home Fleet ships in Home Fleet Grey, but also stating the instruction to darken the decks and suggesting Japan Black for that job: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0730/0927/files/HTFM_288_20Aug1940.pdf?10927326570092329013 Unlike all other colours in the RN WW2 colour palette which have a single set of colour values/properties, Home Fleet Grey is quoted in several different official sources (i.e. primary source documentation between Admiralty, fleet and individuals officially engaged in camouflage matters actually at the time - not some post-war distillation of what someone remembered or thought they heard) as being between 10% and 13% Light Reflectance Value. You can download this here to see how much difference that makes. It also compares the correct shade (or tolerance thereof) to what most people will sell you as being the right colour: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0730/0927/files/Royal_Navy_colours_of_World_War_Two_-_The_Pattern_507s_G10_and_G45.pdf?6399082584985931582 The Humbrol 145 colour is acceptable in character ( a bluish grey) but light at 16% LRV - it might look ok on the model. Model Master 4869 Dark Grey is matched to Snyder and Short 507A which you will see in the PDF above. Model Master 4870 claims to be 507C but public domain renders have colour coordinates lighter than any colour ever used by the Royal Navy except white.
  9. Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies

    Royal Navy WW2 Camouflage Designs

    Here's another taster:
  10. Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies

    Cheap airbrush and compressor set

    It's an AS-18 and you can get them a little cheaper with different stickers on. I have one and can't say I've EVER noticed the above. What I have done a few times is overheated it running continuously for 45mins or so on some paint job. Unless your paint is excessively thick there should be no reason to ever go above 20psi for modelling and usually I'd expect to be well below that - and it that sort of range the little AS-18 runs against the pressure regulator continuously until it thermally cuts-out after a fairly long time. It will struggle if you're asking for a constant 30psi from it - but I'd never need to go that high. I couldn't say it was a great compressor, but if you're running out of air with it, it sounds like your paint is too thick and you're relying on high pressures to move it?
  11. Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies

    Royal Navy WW2 Camouflage Designs

    Thank you both Troy and Gary, it's nice to hear that other aviation modellers (about 90% of my output is aircraft) are following, and if it helps inspire someone to dabble in a subject outwith their usual area of interest then so much the better!
  12. Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies

    Royal Navy WW2 Camouflage Designs

    All Gill's work there Not to dimish her efforts at all, but our intention here is merely to trace and replicate the hand-drawn illustrations which were printed and contained in the originals. These are very readable, but the paper of CB3098 is yellowed quite a lot whereas CAFO679/42 is only available in The National Archives and whilst in good condition, it's in a bound book of fleet orders and thus it's not possible to scan the pages flat without damaging the original. Our reproductions get around all of that. So far, Gill has completed all of the line drawings and we've just started colouring them in together. It made sense to do it that way as the same classes feature around 3 times in each document, and Gill isn't comfortable trying to identify which listed colour is which - as that's been my project. The National Archives also hold a heap of correspondence back and forth discussing the creation of the first of the two fleet orders; who should draft the text, the requirements of the drawings etc. On the latter point, it's recorded that the illustrations need only contain appropriate detail to relate the class of ship, and that small details such as boat davits etc were superfluous. There was a war on afterall, the team working on designing all camouflage schemes for the RN was surprisingly small in number and they had to not only write the text for the publication but produce all the drawings in a short space of time - it would benefit nobody drawing portholes on the ships! We did consider this back and forth and decided not to try to draw more detail, but just stick to replicating the original publications.
  13. Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies

    Ship kit recommendation?

    This is available now White Ensign Models PE35185: WEM 1/350 scale German destroyer set for the Revell and Zvezda kits of Z-17 Diether von Roeder. Set contains: Railings, Yardarm Footropes, Motor Boat Fore Deck Railings, FuMo21 Radar Antenna Assembly, FuMo23/24 Radar Antenna Assembly, Funnel Cap Grill (Aft Funnel), Yardarm Footropes (Fore Mast), Mine Rail Tracks, Cordage Reels, Capstan Handwheels, Torpedo Control Position Asembly (Early), FuMo63 Radar Antenna Assembly, Goal Post Fore Mast Base Assembly, Bridge Wing Supports, Bridge Wing Supports (Altenative), Motor Boat Cradles, Propeller Guards (Large),Torpedo Loading Gantries, Funnel Cap Grill (Fore Funnel), Fore Funnel Cap Handrails, FuMb 7 Radar Sensors (Sumatra), Fore Mast Aerial Spreader Rails, Fore Mast Aerial Spreader, Foremast Footropes, 3.7cm DoppelFlak Cannon, Deck Hatches, 2cm Single Flak C38, Life Raft Plates, Inclined Ladders (Bridge Wing), Motor Boat Canopy, Flak Veirling Assembly, Cable Reels , Inclined Ladders (Aft Deck Step and Aft Gun Deck), Gun Deck Side Netting, Watrtight Doors, Anchor Chain and more.
  14. Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies

    Royal Navy WW2 Camouflage Designs

    On 9th April 1942, the Admiralty published Confidential Admiralty Fleet Order 679 entitled "Sea-Going Camouflage Designs for Destroyers and Small Ships" which described the principles of camouflage, the appropriate use of standardised camouflage paints and how they were to be used. Furthermore, details are given on how to conceal shadow by use of counter shading. It was particularly noteworthy in that it contained no fewer than 50 colour illustrations of approved, standardised camouflage designs for many classes of small ships in categories of Western Approaches, Light Admiralty type and Dark Admiralty type designs. Following the renotation and rationalisation of standardised paints, which were officially promulgated in Admiralty Fleet Order 2105/43 in April of 1943, the Admiralty produced as a Confidential Book a revised camouflage manual, recycling much of the material in CAFO 679/42 but for use with the new B&G series paints. This new publication, CB3098/43 was issued in May 1943 one month after the new paint colour palette was issued. Like its predecessor, CB3098/43 contained a multitude of standardised camouflage designs for application to small ships using the new paints. Sovereign Hobbies Ltd is about to make both documents available with digitally reproduced illustrations using the very latest information available on the Royal Navy's WW2 paint colours. A practical example of the Light Admiralty type Hunt class destroyer design shown on CAFO679/42 plate 54 is HMS Chiddingfold, of which the Imperial War Museum holds good quality photographs of both port and starboard side demonstrating the symmetrical application of the pattern as described in the fleet order text. https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205120663 https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205145391
  15. Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies

    ACRN36 - US Equivalent Sky

    You're absolutely correct Graham. It was perhaps a bit naive of me two years ago to jump to this request, but as I say we've got it now and I'll give it another go. Gill is becoming handy with digital line drawings (watch out for a teaser announcement sometime this weekend) and that will allow us to start sketching some graphics to go with our products which might help increase exposure on Google images etc and give potential customers a steer on what to use some of our less-mainstream colours on. I am very critical of our sales performance - it's just how I am, and to be fair it does annoy Gill who is more laid back than I. I do need to keep in mind that we've only been trading 3 years and I'm still learning how to do this!