Columbus' Sailing Vessels

This is a complicated question - mainly because so little is known about the three actual ships in question.

I haven't seen the three Heller kits "in the flesh" in quite a few years, but my recollection is that they're reasonable kits for their time (the mid-1960s).  Quite a few researchers have published reconstructed plans for Columbus's ships over the years.  Those people tend to be at each other's throats in terms of what's "accurate" and what isn't.  About all I feel confident in saying is that the Heller versions look believable.  The hull forms are reasonable; they don't feature a great deal of sophisticated detail (the small boats they carry call out for some additional work, for instance), and the rigging instructions, of course, are extremely simplified (as are the rigging instructions of almost all plastic sailing ship kits).  But an experienced modeler probably could turn any of them into an eminently respectable model.

One big point that's worth remembering:  the Nina and Pinta kits use the same hull.  Heller was notorious for recycling hulls in those days.  In many cases the results were pretty silly looking, but these two aren't so bad.  Since we don't know what the original hulls looked like, it's not fair to say that either of them is "wrong."  Personally, I wouldn't want to put the two of them on a shelf side-by-side, though.

 

Hi Rick,

The Heller Santa Maria is based on an obsolete 1920s reconstruction, riddled with serious errors. The hull form is bizarre, the upperworks do not resemble contemporary 15th century images (but do resemble 1920s ideas of old time ships), and most significantly, it does not have a head. The best thing to say about it is that scholarship was still in the learning curve 80 years ago, but that does not help the model.

The Heller Nina and Pinta are less anachronistic, although the Pinta has ridiculous baulstrade railings and an exaggerated bow. They might share the same hull, but there are additions to make the two distinct from each other.

If you were to build any of them, go for the Nina, which "does the least harm" in that it has the least number of problems and has the greatest number of consistancies with what we know of vessels from the period.

It terms of construction, the Santa Maria has a very tricky main deck, which will want major fiddling to get right. But the rest will go easily enough, and you can build a head from styrene that will improve it slightly, although the hull will still be off. The hull does have a period rounded stern, so thats in its favor.

The same 1920s plan was used for the 1960s Revell model, although I think the Heller version is larger and assembles differently.

Ironically, the best reconstruction of a ship of this type and era is an English ship, one of the two full size Matthew replicas, the one in Newfoundland. It actually has the look and feel of the 1480s and 90s, which none of the Santa Maria reconstructions have achieved, and might actually be closer to Santa Maria, as its carvel planked (maybe required by modern maritime regulation) than the clinker planking of a 1490s English ship. Depending on how serious you are, you could take advantage of a wood kit and practitum for building the Matthew. Here is a link:

http://www.modelshipbuilder.com/models/the-matthew-project.html

Alternately, you could build the Hellers and just have fun. Whatever route you take, I strongly recommend "The Ships of Christopher Columbus," which discusses the 1920s reconstruction along with an earlier, even more obsolete 1892 reconstruction and a more recent 1990s reconstruction. Do an Amazon search and you will have it.

Have fun,

Jim

Woodburner's right in that the Heller (and Revell) kits are based on old reconstructions (even earlier than the 1920s I think - at least in the case of the Santa Maria).  So little is known about those ships, though, that even the most current efforts to reconstruct them can only be labeled the latest in a series of speculations.  (It's certainly true that most of the more recent reconstructions have given the Santa Maria a triangular-shaped, overhanging forecastle deck, but no historian in his right mind would say he was sure the real ship was built that way.)

I think the book Woodburner mentioned is the one by Xavier Pastor in the Anatomy of the Ship series, published by the Conway Maritime Press.  I don't have a copy of Mr. Pastor's book, but it's described in Cogs, Caravels and Galleons, the relevant volume in the Conway's History of the Ship series, as containing "the evidence available for the tentative reconstructions of Columbus' three ships."  That sounds to me like a fair description.  (Reading between the lines, the fact that there's nothing negative in that bibliography entry can be considered a pretty strong endorsement.  The editors of those History of the Ship volumes tended to be pretty ruthless.)

But there just aren't enough contemporary representations of such ships to enable more than an educated but highly speculative guess.  That's one big reason why, personally, I've never been particularly attracted to them as modeling subjects.  There have been lots of learned arguments about them over the past century or so, but I frankly question whether the arguments are worth the trouble.  The one thing of which I'm fairly certain is that if we were transported back to Palos in 1492, we'd be surprised at what those three little ships looked like.

To my eye (based on memory of models that I haven't actually seen "in the flesh" for a long time), the fact that the Heller Nina and Pinta kits use the same hull makes the idea of displaying them alongside each other impractical.  (We don't know what either of the real ships looked like, but it's a pretty safe bet that they weren't identical from the main rail down.)  That's just my personal taste, though.  If I were picking one of the three kits, it would be the Nina. 

I have a little soft spot for the Revell Santa Maria:  it was the first sailing ship model I built.  Dr. Graham's history of Revell gives its release date as 1957, making it and the Flying Cloud, which was released the same year, Revell's third and fourth sailing ship kits.  (The first two were the Constitution and the Bounty.)  It represented the state of the art at the time, and some of its features can stand comparison with much more recent kits.  The decals for the shields that hung on the bow and stern, whether authentic or not, were exquisite, and the crew figures were magnificent tributes to the sculptor and Revell's amazing pantograph machine.  (Two of them also shipped on board the Bounty.  I do think there's pretty general agreement that they make the Santa Maria look like a considerable bigger ship than she actually was; they're certainly on a much smaller scale than the 1/60 Heller claims for its kit, which is about the same size.) 

I hate to think what that first one I built must have looked like.  I was seven years old at the time.  I think my dad helped me with the decals, but I did the rest myself - probably over the seemingly interminable span of two or three days.  My parents, and even my older brother, thought it was beautiful.  At least that's what they said.  Ah, memories.  If I could just remember the stuff I was supposed to do today as well as I can remember building that model - fifty years ago....

One feature of the old Revell kit I never understood:  the way the gummed paper flags were designed.  Some highly talented, meticulous individual rendered them as pictures of wind-blown flags in perspective, complete with elaborate "ripples."  Given the complex designs on them, that must have been quite a challenge - and the artist had to do it twice, so the flags could be folded over and stuck to themselves, with the two halves lining up precisely.  The flag sheets in later Revell kits (and some from other companies) were done the same way.  My question is:  why?  What was the rationale behind mounting a two-dimensional picture of a flapping flag on a three-dimensional ship model?  Drawing the things "flattened out" would have been a lot easier, and anybody capable of building the model surely could put genuine, three-dimensional ripples in a flag in a few seconds.  I guess most 1957 modelers didn't mind, though. 

Close examination of those old Revell sailing ship kits suggests, over and over again, that the artisans responsible for them were trying to push the capabilities of the new medium of the plastic ship model to their limits - whether the typical purchaser was aware that they were doing it or not.  (How many 1950s modelers noticed that the seams between the deck and hull planks on the Constitution and Bounty were raised lines, whereas those on the Santa Maria and Flying Cloud were countersunk?) 

Revell Europe currently has a "new" Santa Maria in its web catalog.  Given the way plastic sailing ship molds travel around, and given Revell Europe's demonstrated penchant for reissuing old sailing ship kits without taking much interest in what they actually are, I wouldn't want to bet money on whether this "new" kit is the old Revell version or the old Heller one.  (As I remember, the Heller Nina and Pinta turned up in Revell boxes for the 1992 anniversary.)  If it's the former, my sense of nostalgia is strong enough to make me feel inclined to welcome it back.

Later edit:  I just took another look at the Revell Europe online catalog.  It contains some photos of the "new" Santa Maria kit.  If the kit matches the photos, it's unquestionably the old 1957 Revell one - complete with decals, perspective pictures of flags, and crew figures.

Landstrom :

Pinta is a Caravelle Redondo: square rigged.

Nina is a Three masted lateen Caravelle.

 

 

 

I have been aboard one of the reproduction ships might have been the Santa Maria. All I have to say is Columbus had a serious case of stupid crossing the Atlantic in that tub.

Many thanks to all who replied, especially Woodburner and Prof. Tilley!

I think I will give the Heller kits a go, and as a first approximation just try to have fun with them without too much anxiety about accuracy.

Thanks again, Rick

So are the Heller and Revell kits the same?

 

 THANKS

Unfortunately the answer seems to be:  well, sort of.

Revell released its Santa Maria in 1957.  So far as I know, that's the only kit representing any of Columbus's ships that actually originated with Revell.  It's been reissued many times - and is currently being sold by Revell Europe.

Heller initially released its Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria sometime in (I think) the mid- to late sixties.  The Heller Santa Maria was quite similar to the Revell version in size and overall shape, but was a different kit.  The other two used the same basic hull parts, but differed from each other otherwise.  The Nina, as I remember, was represented in her original form - i.e., as a lateen-rigged caravel with no square sails.  All three kits were reissued numerous times (and Heller recycled the hulls with other, fictitious names attached to them). 

Then things get complicated.  Revell and Heller had some sort of arrangement in (I think) the eighties and early nineties; a fair number of Revell kits turned up in Heller boxes here in the U.S., and some Heller kits got sold in Revell boxes by Revell Europe.  In 1992 there was quite a bit of public interest in the Columbus story, and lots of old kits got reissued in fancy, up-to-date boxes.  I don't remember all the kits that got that treatment, but I believe Heller offered a big box containing all three of its old "Columbus ships."  I think (I'm honestly not sure) I also remember seeing ads in British magazines for a full set of the three from Revell.  I'm reasonably certain that the Nina and Pinta, at least, in that set were in fact Heller kits.  Whether the Heller Santa Maria ever got sold in a Revell box or not I'm not sure.

Bottom line:  there are two simililary-sized versions of the Santa Maria floating around out there, one from Revell and one from Heller.  (Maybe the easiest way to differentiate between them is by way of the crew figures.  The Revell kit has them; the Heller one doesn't.)  Any version of the Nina or Pinta you see is probably the Heller one - regardless of what the label on the box says.  (Exceptions:  Lindberg made a set of small-scale "Columbus ships" briefly, and I think one or more of the smaller European firms, such as Occidental, just may have.  But the Heller versions are by far the most common.)

I think that's the straight story - but I'm telling it strictly from an American viewpoint.  European Forum members may be able to shed some more light on it.

Wasn't the sailing rig of the Pinta changed when Colombus reached the Canary Islands? I believe from reading articles that she was changed from a lateen rigged vessel over to the square rigger.

So it depends when you want to make your building refence, as when they left Spain or made landfall in the new World.

Mike T.

True.  Come to think of it, I guess one could label a model of a small, three-masted "caravella redondo" (square-rigged caravel) either the Pinta or the Nina (post-re-rigging).  It's known that the Pinta was a little bigger than the Nina, but since we don't know exactly how big either of them was....

Hi Rick,

Happy to help, I think you will have fun building them, and they will give a good start in building sailing ships of any type. The book I mentioned on Columbus's ships is the same as John Tilley mentions, and will give a very good read as you build. It might also show some details you could scratch build, if you're inclined.

This era of maritime history is geopolitally vital, and the ships are fascinating. Happily, despite gaps, scholarship continues and follows the same conservative and established principles as any other field of inquiry. Better still, the knowledge base is growing: an archival discovery has led to the possible presence of a fourth mast on the Nina in 1498, for example. This is discussed in Conway's History of the Ship series, Cogs, Caravels and Galleons, on pp. 96-97. A helpful introduction to the value and methods of iconographic interpretation can be found in the same book on pp. 169-174.

Perhaps the most vital new information is coming from maritime archeology. For example, excavations of a ship identified as Lomallina, a very large Genoese "nau" or "nave" that sank in late 1516 from a sudden storm while anchored in Villefranche Harbor, has revealed the form and lines of the hull, the construction of elements such as the capstan, jeer bitts, masting, rudder, artillery and notably, the presence of gun ports. Another wreck in the Baltic sea has been identified as a Polish-built "kravel" built in the 1510s, which has preserved intact the entire framing structure of the stern in addition to many other elements.

Here are some links to the two ships which might be of interest. Feel free to navaigate around the sites for more information:

http://www.archeonavale.org/lomellina/an/l_7a.html

http://www.archeonavale.org/lomellina/an/l_5a.html

Here is data on the gun ports and structural elements:

http://www.archeonavale.org/lomellina/an/l_101a.html

http://www.archeonavale.org/lomellina/an/l_102a.html

and here is the Polish vessel in the Baltic :

http://cma.soton.ac.uk/Research/Kravel/index.htm

Have fun building,

Jim

Okay, coming in on this topic rather late, but I'm new here...

The Heller Santa Maria is more like !/70 - 1/75, while the two caravels (the Nina and Pinta) are more like 1/90 - 1/100. The Revell Santa Maria, on the other hand, is more like 1/90 - 1/100, and their caravels scale just fine, being very similar in size to the Heller kits though markedly different.

The Santa Maria of both companies is based on the Dr. Julio Guillen version built in 1927, as a caravel. This is the most copied version in plastic, both large and small. The problem is, most evidence points to the Santa Maria being a nao, a small carrack. In the 1950's, Juan Maria Martinez Hidalgo researched Columbus's ships (and published his findings in the 1960's in a book of the same name). Dr.  Guillen even agreed with his research, and the replica was modified based upon the research (though its length to beam ratio is still too large). It was Martinez-Hidalgo's research  that Xavier Pastor consulted when he executed his book.

So, if I were to tackle these ships today, I would use the following...

Revell Santa Maria, with new forecastle and head based upon the Martinez-Hidalgo data.

Revell Pinta

Heller Nina (slightly smaller than the Pinta)

There are still issues to be addressed, and it has been years since I touched any of those kits. But that's the path I'd recommend.

Incidentally, the only plastic kit that comes close to the Santa Maria's appearance is the little Imai 1/200 model, based upon Bjorn Landstrom's version in his masterpiece "The Ship".  Very simple little model, has plenty of room for detailing. Pity they don't make any caravel's in that scale (discounting the old Pyro/Life-Like/Lindberg kits).

 

Rob 

Welcome to the forum, Vagabond.

Thanks, happy to be aboard (built one or two sub models in my life, BTW... probably more... yeah, more...).
After writing earlier, went over to a certain online auction site to see what Columbus models they had available. Listings were dominated by Revell and Heller kits, with the newly released Aoshima 1/350 kit.
Yes, the new 1/350 Aoshima kit is the classic Imai 1/200 model, a few times what I paid for mine just a few years back. You'll also find a 1/350 Heller Santa Maria, which is neither new nor 1/350.
Sigh...

Landstrom is my guide on this subject, and Vagabond too. It's apocrapha at this point, but it's a good idea to see the little expedition as having at least one ship in Lateen, if only because if you look forward to the record and then backward to the imagination, the ships would not have been pristine caravelles, and rerigging was pretty common over a trip from Spain/Africa/ Azores/ Carribean.

There's a good body of literature about whether CC was an actual figure. I believe he was.

If you consider that Revell has a good medieval ship, and a great if top 3 Elizabethan ship, then why are the 1) Normans; and 2) voyages of discovery; not modeled?

Thanks for posting those links, Jim. On the French side, there is one article that mentions lead sheathing!

 

Bondo,

Good point. Revell (though I think Zvezda actually is producing the model) had tooled da Gama's ship San Gabriel, but in my opinion the design is dead wrong (like too many designs, based on either iconagraphic evidence from later periods or, in one person's words, tradition). Landstrom and Martinez-Hidalgo had great designs, based on ship paintings and other artwork from the period, yet the model companies chose to ignore them.

That's not to say there aren't great ships from the period of exploration out there. Occidental produced a Portuguese caravel in 1/100 that was simply gorgeous, and later reboxed it as the Nina. I think Zvezda may have obtained that tooling, though I can't be certain. The Heller Nina is not too bad, nor is the Revell Pinta (their Nina has the mizzen and bonavanture supported only by the deck, as opposed to running through and down; it also has common parts with the Pinta, a' la Heller). During Heller's prime, they tooled a number of fascinationg ships. One of them was a carrack that used their Santa Maria as a basis but went on to include a fo'cstle and other new parts (BTW, the main mast on their Santa Maria is horrible). They also made their own interpretation of the Mataro Nao, but used their tried and true "let's use the Nina/Pinta hull" method, which produced a ship that looked sort of period, but with a square stern where there should have been a round one. Heller also made a La Grande Hermine, but this has some features that are just odd, including the most out of proportion masts I have ever seen.

Since Airfix is doing a lot of retooling, perhaps they may surprise us yet. 

Then again, maybe not...

When Dr. Roger Smith and his team led a team to a couple of wrecks on the gulf coast of Florida (possibly the remnants of Tristan de Luna's expedition from the early 16th century), they discovered that the area below the waterline was sheathed in lead. I wonder when the practice began?

The Revell Columbus ship set was definitely issued by Revell Germany in Europe - I've seen it for sale at model shows. I haven't seen inside the box so I've no idea of the origins of the kits; it would make sense to package the Revell Santa Maria with the Heller caravels, seeing as they're about the same size.
From what I've seen, it it looks like virtually every plastic and wood kit of Santa Maria is based, directly or indirectly, on the Julio Guillen reconstruction - including the larger, 1/60 scale, Imai kit (the difference between this and the small 1/250 kit is very obvious even from the small photo in their catalogue).

Regarding the Imai 1/250 Santa Maria, there actually is a caravel kit available in this scale, from the Portuguese manufacturer "Occidental". It closely resembles a scaled-down Heller Nina and is quite a nice kit considering its small size. I believe Occidental kits are still in production, but availability is sketchy even in Europe, let alone outside it!

BTW, [url=/forums/978509/ShowPost.aspx]here's[url] my build of the Heller Nina - I built this a few years ago, if I built it now I'd have put a bit more work into the rigging and deck fittings, but it's still a nice model.

Finally, Airfix also produced a small Santa Maria as part of their original "Historic Ships" series. This one actually does scale out at around 1/350 scale, if I remember correctly!

 (EDIT: fixed link to Heller Nina build thread)

Oh, yes, I do remember the little Airfix Santa Maria! That was actually the first one I built years ago, and I think you're right about the it being close to 1/350. It was also based on the oft copied Guillen version, though I seem to recall that the packaging showed it with a different bow (old Airfix Series 1/Historical Ship series; still have their Revenge).

I just pulled out my old copy of "The Ship" and plan on finishing up that old Imai kit. Interestingly, when Landstrom did his book "Columbus" a few years later, his Santa Maria changed, not only in shape but also in rig. The latter version had a more southern European style in rigging for the late 15th century; no ratlines, just shrouds. Because of where the Santa Maria originated, both styles of rigging are a possibility.

Just need to start on the model... I'm letting the pursuit of "perfect" be the enemy of "good"! 

Just going to keep this thread going...

In doing a little research, I discovered that the Zvezda 1/100 Nina is the old Occidental kit; found an image of the sprue online and it is a match, right down to the separate keel and lower deck pieces (http://www.zvezda.org.ru/images/sets/photoes/9005/1.gif). Sadly, the fabric sails are gone, though in 1/100 they were overdone. 

So, that means that in the 1/90 to 1/100 range there are really three choices for plastic caravels; Revell and Heller, which are pretty similar in appearance though the Heller model is finer in lines (remember that their Nina and Pinta have common hulls), and the Zvezda kit. 

Vagabond_Astronomer wrote:

When Dr. Roger Smith and his team led a team to a couple of wrecks on the gulf coast of Florida (possibly the remnants of Tristan de Luna's expedition from the early 16th century), they discovered that the area below the waterline was sheathed in lead. I wonder when the practice began?

Apparently, the ancient Romans used lead sheathing, but I do not know whether the tradition was continuous until the 16th century or interrupted and rediscovered.

Heller's Santa Maria is the same thing as Revell's Santa Maria (simply reboxed). Scale of "both" - 1:90 and not 1:75 as Heller state for "his" Santa Maria.

Revell's Pinta is the same thing as Heller's Pinta (simply reboxed). Scale of "both" - 1:90 not 1:75 as Heller state for his Pinta.

Revell's Nina is slightly modified Heller's Nina - Heller's Nina is two masted, Revell's - three masted. All other parts Revell leave with no change of Heller's one. Scale of "both" - 1:90 not 1:75 as Heller state for his Pinta.

The story of the Heller and Revell "Columbus ships" is complicated, and I don't claim to understand it completely. 

According to Dr. Graham's book on the history of Revell (Remembering Revell Model Kits, revised second edition, 2004), the Revell Santa Maria was originally released in 1957.  He gives its scale as 1/90.  It's been reissued many times; Dr. Graham lists two such re-releases, in 1958 and 1972, but his coverage stops in 1979.

Heller issued its first Santa Maria some years later - I think in the mid- to late 1960s (but I'm not sure).  As noted earlier in this thread, it seems to have been based on the same research project, but was an entirely different kit.  At that time Revell and Heller were entirely separate companies - one American, one French.  (In its early years Heller "borrowed" several American sailing ship kits and issued them with spurious, Francophized names, but the Santa Maria wasn't one of those.) 

Heller issued a Nina and a Pinta either at the same time as the Santa Maria or a few years later.  My first recollection of them is when they appeared in American boxes under the Minicraft label, in the very late sixties or the very early seventies.  The two kits were based on the same hull, with alternative parts that made them look quite a bit different from a distance.  Catalog listings show the Pinta as being longer than the Nina; that's because the Pinta kit had a bowsprit.  (The Nina was represented in her original, "caravela lateena" rig, with no square sails and no bowsprit.)

Dr. Graham's book on Revell (which I regard as quite reliable regarding such things) doesn't mention a Revell Nina or Pinta.  (His book, remember, only covers releases up through 1979 - and doesn't list ship kits that originated with Revell Germany or Revell Great Britain.)  I think they first appeared in 1991 or 1992, in conjunction with the 500th anniversary observances.  By this time Heller was selling a number of ex-Revell kits in Heller boxes - and a few ex-Heller kits were turning up in Revell Germany boxes.  Both Revell and Heller issued several kits and "gift sets" commemorating Columbus in 1991 and/or 1992.  I didn't buy any of them, so any comments I make about them are based on what I remember (which isn't much) from looking at the ads and the boxes.  My impression was that Revell was reissuing its old Santa Maria, and that its Nina and Pinta were reboxings of the old Heller kits.  But I could well be mistaken.  I gather Vagabond Astronomer has actually compared the Revell and Heller Ninas and Pintas side-by-side and concluded that they're different kits.  That's news to me, but I have no grounds for disagreeing.

Regarding scales - the scales those companies have listed on the boxes and instruction sheets seem to have little relation to reality.  (If the Revell kit was intended to be on 1/90 scale, the beautifully-sculpted crew figures in it must represent midgets.  Two of them in fact did double duty as members of the crew of H.M.S. Bounty, Revell's representation of which is - really - on 1/110 scale.)  If I'm not mistaken, the two companies have been inconsistent in the scales they've listed for the kits over the years.  The truth of the matter is that, since nobody knows the dimensions of the real ships, it's not possible to determine the scales of the models accurately.  Any set of dimensions for any of the three represents guesswork by some historian or ship modeler.  We just don't know how big those ships were; in fact we know almost nothing about them for certain.  I wouldn't be willing to assert that any of the kits we've been discussing here "is" on a particular scale.

My posts in this Forum over the last few years demonstrate, I think, that I don't often defend plastic kit manufacturers.  (Forum members are, I'm suspect, thoroughly sick by now of hearing what I think about the Heller Soleil Royal and the Revell "Beagle.")  In cases like this, however, I think it's appropriate to cut the manufacturers a good deal of slack.  Despite the enormous amount of skilled, meticulous research that's been done over the past century or so, we just don't know what Columbus's ships looked like.  (I confess that, until I read this thread, I'd never heard of a serious assertion that Columbus himself wasn't a real person; that's a new one to me, and I find the notion untenable.  But it demonstrates just how meager the hard information about this period in maritime history is.)  It's certainly true that a modern expert's reconstruction of any of the three ships would be substantially different than the Heller and Revell kits.  But there's a big leap between that fact and the assertion that any of the earlier reconstructions is "wrong" - or,for that matter, that the more recent ones are "right." 

At various times in the past several decades archaeological expeditions have gone looking for the remains of the Santa Maria.  (If the journal of Columbus is to be believed, her remains, in some form or other, ought to be on the bottom of the Caribbean, somewhere near Haiti.)  So far nobody's had any luck whatever.  If the wreck (or any fragment of it) ever does get recovered - or, for that matter, if any other late-fifteenth-century southern European shipwreck ever turns up - I'm virtually certain of only one thing:  it will contain lots of features that the researchers didn't expect.    

Yes, the Heller and Revell caravels are definitely different ships; in the early 1990's I was seriously involved in research into Columbus and his vessels (this at a time when Columbus had ceased to be a heroic figure and had become a villain of sorts in the eyes of many). I was doing a number of models for the local maritime museum. At that time, my specialty was 1/384 miniatures, not plastics. But the sudden surge in Columbus plastic models got my attention, so, all in the name of checking them out, I purchased them all. Interestingly enough, in my critical eyes, not one of the wooden kits were worth their price; they had numerous details just dead wrong. Pretty to look at, wrong in appearance.
Anyway, there were a number of smaller publications out there at the time that were comparing model aircraft by literally doing side by side comparisons of the components, I set out to do the same, though sadly I took no photos. I got the Revell kits for a song from the local Michael's Arts & Crafts (like $1.99 each). My local hobby shop ordered the Heller kits at considerably greater costs, of course. Years before, I had built the Heller Nina, and knew that the scale label of 1/75 was simply dead wrong, that it was more like 1/96.
When the models were finally all gathered up, the most obvious problem was the fact that the Heller Santa Maria was perhaps actually 1/75, and completely dwarfed the caravels, as well as being based on the Guillen version of the 1920's. The Revell Santa Maria, also the Guillen version, was closer to 1/96 if I recall(my old maritime research journal was lost 10 years ago; dear God how I wish I still had access to all that hard work).
The Revell and Heller caravels were very similar to one another, with the Heller kits slightly smaller and finer in line. The Revell caravels had a couple of features that I simply did not like, such as rope coils molded to the decks. Their Nina carried three lateen rigged masts, but had the mizzen and bonaventure stepped directly to the quarterdeck, and not going through (one stiff wind, and CRRRRRRAAAAACCCKKK...). The Heller Nina carries two masts only.
Both the Revell and Heller Pinta carry identical rigs, however, and like their respective Ninas use common parts, namely the hulls.
Then there is the Zvezda (nee Occidental) Nina. Beautiful model, apparently based on the Boa Esperanca replica (though, again, not certain).
As for the real Santa Maria; after being wrecked on Christmas, 1492, it was stripped down and somewhat gutted to build the fort at La Navidad (the mast was cut away first to lighten the nao, but to no avail). My guess is that the remains of the ship, now significantly lightened, probably slipped further offshore and away from the reef, and in all likelyhood never completely settled and allowed to be buried as most wrecks. The remaining exposed wood, left to open ocean, would have decayed to nothing, leaving no trace of the much vaunted Santa Maria. They may find scattered ballast, but little else.
Of course, I want very badly for this ship to be found and me proven wrong!

One point I was trying to make (and failed to in my rambling!) is that Revell's caravels were apparently new tooling for the 500th anniversary.
Need to lay off the coffee...

I have both of Pinta made by Revell and Heller, and i have both Nina made by Revell and Heller - the same parts, the same stirene, the same plastic sails and the same rigging thread (not the same, as use Revell in their original kits) and almost the same instructions of assembly. Shall i post pictures?

By the way, for "Revell's" Pinta and Nina stirene is dark brown - as Heller use; for Santa Maria - light brown, as Revell use.

I have the 500'th aniversary kit from Revell (all three ships) - stirene diferrs for Santa Maria and for Pinta and Nina.

P.S. I have kits made by Revell Germany.

I wonder if the later Revell Germany kits were repackaged Heller kits? I notice that in another forum a few months back you were looking for the instructions to the Revell kits; a few months back, I could have helped you.

At any rate, I have the Heller Nina in route and am picking up one of my old opened Revell Pinta's tomorrow. Could you do this, though? Place the ships side by side and get some shots. That is basically what I'm going to be doing with the unbuilt models once the Heller Nina and Zvezda (ex Occidental) Nina arrive.  Like to see how they square up.

Vagabond_Astronomer wrote:

I notice that in another forum a few months back you were looking for the instructions to the Revell kits; a few months back, I could have helped you. At any rate, I have the Heller Nina in route and am picking up one of my old opened Revell Pinta's tomorrow. Could you do this, though? Place the ships side by side and get some shots.

Yes, i was looking for the instructions to the Revell kits (or strictly speaking for Nina), because in the 500'th aniversary kit i bought in e'bay (all three ships) was all instructions missing. Because i have "separate" other kits - Santa Maria and Pinta with instructions, i was needing only instructions for Nina.

I got Nina instructions from Revell Germany by post and these instructions are almost the same as Heller instuctions, only few differences: other painting schema and Revell's Nina is three masted... All other parts the same.

OK, i will post photos of both Pinta's (Revell's and Heller's) tomorrow.