Day Nineteen

I was not in the ball park, hook-wise. I was in many ways deluded and misguided. I made a proper review. Firstly I got a proper working surface. The back of my mirror, neutral grey, is matte. It is not variegated, pitted, and soft like my cutting mat. The mirror is hard and flat. Why did I persist for not hours but days with a totally inadequate tool?

Much better.



























Have I ever shown you my tweezers collection?

I use these two exclusively; they were very expensive but they were presents. The points meet properly, they are sharp and precise.



















I do some testing. This was bent perfectly to ninety degrees and then left overnight. Look at how much it's given, must be at least five degrees.

I think properly about what I am doing, in detached fashion. Sometimes it can take me quite a while to get to this point. I see that I am holding the part with the forceps any old how. I realise that I must hold the part in such a way that when I make a bend, existing bends are not stressed by the operation. So, for example, when I put the next bend in this part above, to make a U shape, I must hold the part on the inside, the top of the U, so the stress of bending is stemmed by the tweezers and not communicated to the bends I have already made. I work out the best order in which to do the bends, and for each one the best side to come from. I even determine that, what with the sections of sprue all having their inherent slight curve, I should bend against that curve to 'pre-compensate' for the material's springiness, rather than aiding and abetting it such that my hooks' straight sections come out extra-bowed. Finally I somehow see that my material is not fine enough; I go down a few notches diameter-wise.

I start producing much better hooks. This one, whilst not perfect, is actually good - the first really good hook - and I would be happy to have another nineteen just the same. This is good enough to be my standard reference hook. There has to be such a thing, a reference.



























I will leave this hook for a few hours then we'll take a photo, that will show how much it has opened up.

But still I have qualms, reason to question. This one scaled up is about 35mm long. From all my photos I am guessing they were no more than 30mm. I do not consider inches; I must only think metric. It would be a mistake to look at the photo and think 'that looks like it's probably around an inch'. It was conceived in millimeters and the last thing I want is my hooks scaling up to exactly an inch long. I refer with great care to the brass parts but then dismiss this activity as misleading. I have photographs of those hooks, of the vehicle itself. I look through my book carefully and make what is known of reality my reference. Duh.

I want the next size down, meaning a thinner diameter.

That said, I do just make the comparison. Eduard and I seem to be nearing some accord. The Eduard hooks are based, I am sure, on the rows along the top of the hull side that we know were basic and standard, common to and present on all versions of the vehicle, early through late. What I have made is in between the putative 'standard' that Eduard chose and some of the photos I have which show a 'squarer' shape, the hooks' legs not so short.

The Eduard hooks are over 35mm; I have already established that this is too long, at least I think I have. Hooks almost always are shorter than they are tall, as a matter of function. These Eduard hooks are stylised, are approximations; is that what's happening here?