SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Revell Missouri-WIP

12065 views
15 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    June 2008
Posted by lewbud on Sunday, January 25, 2009 7:13 PM

Not much to report this week.  Filled and sanded some spots along the deck/hull join seam, then hit it with another thin layer of putty.  Sanded the deck flush with the stern.  Think I've got just a few spots to fill, then sand the mold parting lines on the stern gun tubs and fill the gaps around them and the hull should be ready to paint.  Now I just got to figure what measure to paint her.

EDIT:  Sean,

You really should get back to her.  She's not that far from being done.

Buddy- Those who say there are no stupid questions have never worked in customer service.

  • Member since
    October 2007
  • From: Inland Northwest
Posted by Summit on Friday, January 16, 2009 11:04 AM

jtiley- Thanks for the Great post about Revell 's early ship  History.

lewbud - I have the 1987 issue of this kit. I bought it back around '89-'90 as I had always drooled over those big boxes ( at that time they were) as a youngster. I started it several years ago and still dust it off and work on it between projects . Mainly building it OOB, I did however sand and file the "figure 8" shaped sixteen inch barrels to more of a somewhat round shape and drill out the ends.I also shaved off the molded anchor chains and replaced them . Oh yes and sanded off and filled many pin marks off the deck.  I am looking forward to seeing some more progress of yours Thumbs Up [tup] on this long ago forgotten kit.

 MO-1

MO-3

Sean "I've reached nearly fifty years of age with my system." Weekend GB 2008
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Friday, January 16, 2009 7:34 AM

According to Dr. Graham's book (which, I feel I should emphasize, is the source of all the info I've been talking about in this thread; I haven't done any of this research myself), the "Admiral's Fleet gift set" was released for Christmas, 1954.  It contained the battleship Missouri, the submarine Nautilus, the heavy cruiser Los Angeles, the destroyer The Sullivans, and PT-212.  (I guess the first Revell carrier, the Franklin D. Roosevelt, arrived a little late to make it into the set, though Dr. Graham lists its release date as 1954 too.)  The box also included several bottles of paint and tube of cement.  Dr. Graham says that set is particularly prized among kit collectors; he puts its value (as of 2004) at $500-600.

There were several other Revell "ship gift sets" in the fifties.  The "Victory at Sea" set (1955) contained the FDR, The Sullivans, and PT 212 ($500-600).  Three were released in 1956:  the "Merchant Fleet" (Hawaiian Pilot, J.L. Hanna, and tug Long Beach, $500-600), "Guided Missile Fleet" (Nautilus, Norton Sound, and Boston $500-600), and "Let's Take a Trip" (United States, DC-7 airliner, and 1956 Cadillac El Dorado convertible, $600-650).  Two more hit the stores in 1958:  the "Famous Sailing Ships" (Constitution, Santa Maria, and Flying Cloud, $400-500) and "Naval Academy Gift Set (Ranger, Canberra, and Forrest Sherman, $700-800).  Part of the profits from the last-named one went to building the new football stadium at Annapolis.

I remember those big, flat boxes sitting prominently in the Christmas displays of the hobby section of the toy department at the F&R Lazarus department store in Columbus, Ohio.  Far too expensive for the likes of my family at the time, though.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Philippines
Posted by constructor on Friday, January 16, 2009 6:24 AM
jtilley thank you for that very informative piece on Revell and its fighting ships. I was a big fan of them. By the way the kit of the four Iowa class BBs was called by Revell as "The Admiral's Fleet. It came in a box with all the ships in line. I was not able to buy it because it was expensive. It was nice to remiinisce about these kits. I recently got a reissue of the PT 212 which is the Higgins boat. I had one before and I intend to build it exactly how I did many, many years ago.
  • Member since
    June 2008
Posted by lewbud on Tuesday, January 13, 2009 4:36 PM

John,

Thanks for the history on the Missouri as well as some of the other classic ships in the Revell line.  Sorry for not posting any update pics recently, work over the last couple of weeks has left me to the point of not having the energy to check emails over the last week (won't do that again over a 1000 emails to go through).  Will get back to the drydock soon.  I am left with a dilemma, on the port bow there is a deck overhang (visible in the pics posted earlier).  I'm leaning towards towards leaving it alone and then putting that side closest to the wall so it can't be seen, but still keep the deck detail.  Will let you know.

Russ,

Thanks for the support.

Buddy- Those who say there are no stupid questions have never worked in customer service.

  • Member since
    June 2005
  • From: Biloxi, Mississippi
Posted by Russ39 on Monday, January 12, 2009 4:46 PM

John:

I can say, with a straight face, that this particular model was one of my favorites back in the 1970s. I built it in 1976 when I was 10 and I thought it was great because the turrets rotated and the gun barrels went up and down. For a 10 year old that was big stuff. :)

I think this kit still has a place, if only as a simple kit to get youngsters interested in ship modeling. That is just an opinion, though. It does bring back some fond memories.

Russ 

 

 

 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Monday, January 12, 2009 12:09 PM

That flat-bottomed hull concept produced some rather odd results.  The Missouri at least was intended to represent the full hull (though it didn't do so with much accuracy).  If memory serves (beware:  it may not), the kit contained some crude propellers that were supposed to be glued to one of those strange "steps" near the stern.  (Or maybe I have the Revell kit mixed up with the Aurora one.)  [Later edit:  I took a look at the instruction sheet for the current version; it's available online via the Revell Europe website.  No screws.  But it does have a rudder.  The real ship, of course, has two rudders - but hey, what the heck.]

But with the liner United States, the freighter Hawaiian Pilot, the tanker J.L. Hannah, and the attack transport Randall, somebody on the Revell staff took leave of rationality.  The hulls of those kits, in addition to having flat bottoms, were sliced off at the waterline (or slightly below it).  Several of them had stub-like rudders that plugged into holes at the sterns - and were sliced off at the waterlines.  None of them had screws.  If painted nicely and set directly on a table, any of those models would have looked fairly reasonable - waterline models riding high in the water because they were "unloaded."  But the kits also contained the characteristic Revelll "trestles," like full-hull models did. (The trestles had semi-circular cutouts, so they could be screwed down to a wood baseboard.)  With 20/20 hindsight it seems remarkable that nobody remarked on the absurdity of mounting a waterline model on a stand like that.  But in those days modelers didn't think about such things.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    April 2004
  • From: Windy city, US
Posted by keilau on Monday, January 12, 2009 11:41 AM
 jtilley wrote:

The story of Revell and the Missouri is kind of interesting. 

Thank you for your wonderful account of the MIssouri story. I understand that there are some very high quality 1:720 kits for the Iowa class. But I am 1:350 only now and would like to see a modern update of the Iowa class in 1:350.

I broke my constant scale rule with the Trumpeter 1:200 destroyers and am very tempted by the 1:144 Fletcher by Revell.

Yes, I remember the "flat bottom" of the Missouri from Revell vividly from the years past.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Sunday, January 11, 2009 9:44 AM

The story of Revell and the Missouri is kind of interesting. 

My memory about such things is extremely unreliable; I'm relying here almost entirely on Dr. Thomas Graham's fine book, Remembering Revell Model Kits.

The story of the company's founding is kind of complicated.  It issued the first product under the Revell name - a lady's compact - during World War II.  The first model kits to appear with the name "Revell" on them actually originated with another firm, Gowland:  a series of antique cars (the "Highway Pioneers") and a group of tiny sailing ships in bottles.  The cars, in particular, were a big hit, and made considerable profits for the company.  The management decided, after considerable debate, to start developing scale model kits of its own design.

At this particular time (the early fifties), American warships of World War II were popular subjects in the public eye.  The year 1952 saw the debut of the TV series "Victory at Sea," which everybody who had a TV set watched.  Several small hobby companies (including the newly-formed Monogram) were selling balsa wood warship kits; the more sophisticated ones offered cast lead-alloy parts.  The Navy was selling simplified sets of "official" plans to people who wanted to work from scratch, a few books about warship modeling were on the market, and the firms that had made the thousands of "recognition models" for the navy during the war were now selling them to the general public (sometimes finished, sometimes in kit form).  The guys running Revell figured the time was right to try out the concept of the plastic warship kit.

There's some room for argument about just what was the first plastic warship model.  A few years ago FSM carried an article about the Gato-class submarine kit that was initially released by a model railroad company called Varney in, if I remember right, 1948 or 1949 (and, in a slightly modified form, is still being sold under the Lindberg label).  I think Lindberg's grand old Essex-class carrier was at least in the planning stages when Revell was working out the details of its new warship line.  (I wish Dr. Graham would give us a book about Lindberg, to go along with his works on Aurora, Revell, and Monogram.)

At any rate, though, the very first Revell kit (ship or otherwise) designed and produced in-house was the Missouri.  It was originally issued with the kit number H-301 in the summer of 1953.  Partly because of skilled marketing, it was an instant hit with the public.  (From the management's standpoint, it had to be.  Revell consisted at that time of about half a dozen guys, who had invested all the money they had in the project.  If the Missouri didn't sell, they'd go bankrupt.)

The designers ran into a big problem when they discovered that the U.S. armed forces had no interest in helping them.  (Sculptor Dave Bulone is quoted in Dr. Graham's book as remembering that "the military wouldn't give us the time of day.")  The kit was designed entirely on the basis of published photographs and the tiny drawings in books like Jane's Fighting Ships.  The underwater hull lines of just about all commissioned American warships were still classified, so the designers invented a simple, flat-bottomed, boxlike underwater shape for the Missouri and hoped for the best.  The purchasers apparently didn't mind (or notice).

Over the next couple of years the Revell ship line expanded into a small fleet.  Another subject much on the public mind was the brand new, super-high-tech, nuclear-powered submarine Nautilus.  Three model companies, Aurora, Lindberg, and Revell, got into a race to get the first Nautilus kit on the hobby shop shelves - without having any idea of what the real thing looked like.  The Revell Nautilus hit the market later in 1953.  In the following year came a PT boat, a Fletcher-class destroyer, a Baltimore-class heavy cruiser, and the flagship of the fleet, a Midway-class carrier (complete with air group).  From then on throughout the fifties, modelers could figure on getting a new Revell ship every few months.

In 1955 the company figured out a marketing tactic that it later used repeatedly (and sometimes more than a little deceptively):  the reissuing of a ship kit under the name of another member of the same class.  The Revell U.S.S. New Jersey was, of course, a slightly modified version of the Missouri kit.  As the New Jersey it was given a pair of helicopters, rather than the floatplanes and catapults of the Missouri.  And, for some strange reason, the New Jersey came with instructions for painting it in an elaborate dazzle pattern - similar to the one that the Missouri had worn during her trials.  (The Missouri, of course, lost that scheme before she sailed for the Pacific - and no other battleship ever wore it.  And the New Jersey didn't get helicopters until after the war, when all dazzle schemes disappeared.  Oh, well...in 1955 purchasers of plastic kits didn't worry about such things.)

The old battleship kit eventually was released with the names of all four members of the class (Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri, and Wisconsin) at least once.  Dr. Graham's book lists and dates all the reissues prior to 1980, when his coverage (at least in the "revised and expanded second edition" I have) stops.  He says it "may be Revell's all-time best-seller."

To my knowledge the kit has only undergone three changes during its 56-year career.  In addition to the swapping of catapults for helicopters (some reissues included one option; some the other), Revell issued a version with an electric motor and provisions for batteries, etc. in 1954.  And a 1961 reissue under the Missouri name added a 1"-diameter reproduction of the plaque that's mounted in the ship's deck on the spot where the Japanese surrender was signed.  [Later edit:  I just took a look at the instructions for the current version; they're available online via the Revell Europe website.  They show one more change.  In the original kit and the first several reissues (the ones I built when I was a kid), the modeler was told to flatten the mounting pins of the 16" turrets and the aircraft crane with a heated knife or screwdriver.  (I still remember the smell of burning plastic in the kitchen.)  The "new" kit contains plastic retaining discs for that purpose.  I don't know when those were added.]

Otherwise it's the same old, 1953 kit.  Revell has promoted it as a "new" product so many times I'm not sure anybody could count them (especially if the reissues in foreign countries are included).  As a scale model it is, by the objective standards of 2009, pretty awful.  But it's easy to understand why so many modelers (especially Olde Phuddes like me) retains so much nostalgic affection for it.

Since 1979 (when Dr. Graham's coverage stops) the Revell label has appeared on at least two other Iowa-class battleship kits.  I'm not a hundred percent sure, but I think the 1/350 version was originally produced by Otaki; Revell issued it (I think) in two guises - in WWII configuration as the Missouri and in more-or-less updated Vietnam-era configuration as the New Jersey.  (My senile brain may be at work here; I'd be interested to hear other folks's recollections on that point.)  And Revell briefly, sometime in the eighties, offered a 1/720 Missouri as part of its "constant scale" line.  I never got around to buying that one, but I suspect it was a great deal more accurate than the poor old 1/535 fossil.

Revell, of course, eventually got access to the molds created by Aurora and Monogram.  Aurora did an Iowa-class battleship in 1/600 scale (lots of warship modelers forget that Aurora was one of the pioneers in the "constant scale" concept) in the early fifties; it was, if memory serves, of about the same quality as the old Revell one.  And Monogram made a brief foray into plastic warships during the seventies - including an Iowa-class battleship.  I don't think I ever bought that one either, but I suspect it was more accurate than the old Revell one - if for no other reason than that, by that time, accurate plans of the real ship were widely available.

Assuming all those old molds exist (maybe some of them don't), Revell has plenty of options if it wants to issue a model of an Iowa-class battleship.  But it continues to crank out re-releases of that old stalwart from 1953.  (I think the company was promoting it as a "new" kit, in a new box, just a few months ago.)  One wonders whether the current management of Revell understands what a low-quality product it is by modern standards.  Or maybe, just maybe, the nostalgia factor is at work.  If I were thinking about building a model of an Iowa-class battleship, or picking out one to give my grandson for his birthday, I have to say the Revell version would be the very last one I'd consider buying.  On the other hand, it's hard to imagine the American plastic kit industry without it.

 

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    July 2005
Posted by caramonraistlin on Sunday, January 11, 2009 7:28 AM

Greetings:

I used the Tamiya kit a couple of years ago and converted it into the USS Montana. With the addition of the 2 GMM detail kits and a resin copy of one of the turrets, it built into quite the impressive display. I'm presently using another one to build another what if ship (one of the Tillman maximum battleships) that had three funnels and 6 18" gunned turrets with 3 guns per turret. It is an old model but I like it.

Sincerely

 

Michael Lacey 

 

  • Member since
    April 2004
  • From: Windy city, US
Posted by keilau on Saturday, January 10, 2009 7:52 PM

Revell made two kits of the Missouri, in 1/535 and 1/350 scales. From your picture, it looks like the 1:535 kit. In 1957, it was the biggest thing in plastic model that hitted the local shop in Hong Kong. I went to my favorite hobby shop every now and then to just look at the box in the display window and started saving for it, a grand $17.50 in Hong Kong dollar. I eventually got it with finacial help from my parents. I built, painted and rigged it. It was the pride of my model case for many years.

I will build another USS Missouri if I can find a modern kit of it in 1:350, hopefully, a reasonably priced one from Revell or Dragon. The Tamiya kit is too old and lack details.

 

  • Member since
    August 2008
Posted by torren_of_amber on Monday, January 5, 2009 3:47 AM

btw, I to have this ship and am looking forward to using it as my warm up ship before I get to my other "good"  ones (Trump. Lexi, San Fran, Sullivans just to name a few) so I think there is a place for this oldee.   LOL and I got for really cheap on ebay!!!!

T

Great Googliemooglie!!!!!!!! 

  • Member since
    March 2005
  • From: West Virginia, USA
Posted by mfsob on Sunday, January 4, 2009 6:56 AM
Maybe because he likes the challenge?
  • Member since
    June 2008
Posted by lewbud on Saturday, January 3, 2009 10:22 PM
Why not?  Old models need love too.

Buddy- Those who say there are no stupid questions have never worked in customer service.

  • Member since
    April 2007
Posted by modelbob on Thursday, January 1, 2009 9:15 PM
Why are you even bothering with it. There are much better kits of it out there.  modelbob@hotmail.com
  • Member since
    June 2008
Revell Missouri-WIP
Posted by lewbud on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 3:13 AM

I've started Revell's Missouri.  I realize most of you are familiar with the kit, but for those that aren't there's a pic of the parts tree and some problem areas of the hull-deck joint.

http://public.fotki.com/lewbud/revell-missouri/

 

Buddy- Those who say there are no stupid questions have never worked in customer service.

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.