Revell Mayflower

The large version is H-366, the "simplified assembly" version. 

Jim is correct the larger of the two kits is H-366. Its double the size of the H-327.The latter being scaled at 1/96.The larger kit is probably around 1/50 or so.When looking for it on Ebay its a lot of times listed as 24" Mayflower.Tom Graham's book "Remembering Revell Model Kits" has the H-366 as reissue of H-327 but I've only seen the larger model in boxes labled H-366.

Rod

I tend to agree with what's been said so far in this thread.  The two Revell Mayflower kits are both excellent examples of the plastic kit manufacturer's art.  And anybody who's confused by the differences between them is in excellent company.

The big difference between the two is that the larger one omits most of the rigging blocks that are included in the smaller one.  (The smaller kit came first; the bigger one was part of Revell's "simplified," "build a legend in a weekend" series, which also included smaller versions of three big kits:  the Constitution, Cutty Sark, and Thermopylae.  There was one other kit in that series:  the yacht America, which was a "new" design.  If all that's confusing, don't worry; for any civilized purpose it doesn't make any difference.)

If you want to do a reasonably thorough job of rigging the bigger kit, Bluejacket (www.bluejacketinc.com) offers nice britannia metal cast blocks, deadeyes, etc. for the appropriate period.  You may or may not want to replace the plastic deadeyes.  If so, you'll have to decide between the "old style" (rather heart-shaped) and "new style" (round) ones.  There are good arguments both ways. 

I sure would like to get a look at the pantograph machine (or whatever they called it) that Revell used in those days to change from one scale to another.  It must have been a miraculous piece of machinery.  (I wonder how big the original versions of such items as the figures on the 1/110-scale Bounty were - and whatever happend to them.)  Not all manufacturers of the Goode Olde Dayes used (or could afford) such equipment.  I have it on good authority that the toolmakers at Airfix, for example, made their masters at the same size as the finished products.  (I suspect that situation has changed recently, since Airfix has been getting its molds - or some of them - made abroad.  Come to think of it, the computer has probably made the pantograph obsolete for such purposes.)

I do think Woodburner's observations about the kit's (or kits') accuracy need a little qualification.  The Revell designers quite obviously worked from the plans of the Mayflower II, the replica built in 1956.   She was designed by William Baker, a distinguished professor of naval architecture at MIT and one of the very best in the business at the time.  As Woodburner pointed out, Mr. Baker made some concessions to practicality - most notably the addition of a foot of headroom to the below-decks spaces.  Otherwise, his basic source of information was a set of old drawings by the English shipwright Matthew Baker (no relation), believed to have been made somewhere around the 1580s or 1590s.  The "Matthew Baker Manuscript" includes several beautiful renderings of ships, but scarcely any clear indication of just what vessels they represent.  The general scholarly consensus seems to be that they're pictures of English warships of the Armada period, but there's room for argument.  (Some have gone so far as to suggest that they represent vessels of the Mediterranean.  That strikes me as pretty far-fetched, but the bottom line is that there's plenty of room for argument about those drawings.) 

In using those drawings as a basis for a reconstruction of the Mayflower, William Baker was - as he freely and openly stated - making a rather big leap of faith.  His logic was that scarcely any other primary sources were available and he was right.  The actual, documented evidence about the real Mayflower consists of two facts:  she had a "burthen" of 100 tons (and measurements of tonnage in those days were so sloppy and inconsistent as to make that figure almost useless), and she had at least one topsail (which we know because a man was washed overboard and saved himself by grabbing the trailing end of a topsail halyard). 

In recent years quite a few other scholars have weighed in on the question of the Mayflower II's accuracy.  It's been suggested that she represents a vessel of 1590 better than one of 1620.  It's been suggested that R.C. Anderson, another fine researcher who did a reconstruction of her, in the form of a model, back in the 1920s, was closer to the mark.  (His Mayflower is considerably lower and squatter-looking than the Mayflower II.)  Some writers have gotten pretty emotional about the subject; that, for better or worse, is how scholarship of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries works.  But the truth is that nobody really knows.

It does bother me a little that such reconstructions, due to publicity and the fact that so many people visit them, tend to get taken more seriously as pieces of research than they should be (or their designers intended them to be).  During the past 50+ years the Mayflower II has, I'm afraid, come to be accepted by millions of people as the "official" version of what the Mayflower looked like.  Neither William Baker nor anybody else with any sense would subscribe to that.

I'm reminded of the first set of "Jamestown Ships," the replicas of the Susan Constant, Godspeed, and Discovery that were built for the 1957, 350th anniversary of the Jamestown landings.  The act passed by the Virginia State Legislature authorizing the funding for those ships specified that they had to "match" the mural depicting the three ships in the Virginia Statehouse, because that painting was the "official" rendition of the ships.  (William Baker, incidentally, excoriated those three ships mercilessly.  Their designer responded by offering to set up a race between his Susan Constant and the Mayflower II.  So far as I know, Baker never responded.  Good for him.)  The current Jamestown Ships, fortunately, are much better; they were designed by Brian Lavery, who knows what he's doing - and wasn't given any restrictions.

If I were building a model of the Mayflower (heaven forbid) from scratch, my personal inclination would be to make it a bit beamier and squatter, with a less tapered stern, than the Mayflower II (or the Revell kits).  But that's just my opinion - which certainly is no more qualified than plenty of other people's.  The bottom line is that nobody really has any clear idea of what that old ship looked like.  A well-built model built from either of the Revell kits will be a thing of beauty - and nobody will be able to pronounce it historically "right" or "wrong." 

jtilley, thanks so much for the information. I remember doing a Revell Mayflower when I was young. It must have been the smaller one ,as it had all the blocks etc. I guess I am not as concerned about historical accuracy as building a great looking(displayable) tall ship model. Starting out, I built whatever kits I could get my hands on. Somewhere around my teens, I locked onto aircraft. Most recently a fanatical building(buying) spree of Russian Jets(aka migmodeler).I was building a snap-tite kit with my son and he said "Dad, why don't you build boats?" That was all it took. I went on a quest to find the first ship model I completed all those years ago, the Monogram Susquehanna. I found the kit and have begun putting research and materials together to build her.(with the generous help of the ship forum members) As that process continues, I thought I would get into a build that would help shake the webs out and help get one under my belt before I get into the Susquehanna project. I thought the Mayflower would be a good one for that purpose. I really don't want to get bogged down with the research and aftermarket.Getting it built well and rigging it will be the challenges for me.( 30 years of eyestrain will make this interesting.) I am open to suggestions if someone has a kit in mind that may better suit this purpose.

Migmodeler, I can really identify with you regarding eyestrain.  I was lucky enough to be born nearsighted; I used to joke that I could do virtually any modeling job without magnification, though I had trouble recognizing people from across a room.  But 50+ years of closeup work and reading have taken their toll.  On my last model I was absolutely horrified - and disgusted - at how much trouble I had seeing things.  I've tried various kinds of magnifier (prescription and otherwise); I've now reached the point where I'm thinking about investing in a high-quality Optivisor.  (I have it on good authority - namely various threads in the FSM Forum - that the bargain versions aren't worth buying.)  I've tried Optivisors in the past and always had problems with them because they damage my depth perception.  But I guess I'll have to learn to cope - or give up modeling (and I don't consider that an option).  I've envisioned retirement (not many years down the road) as a time for spending time in the workshop.  Now I'm starting to wonder.

To be honest, the Mayflower isn't a subject I'd recommend for newcomers to sailing ship modeling.  It has a great deal of rigging - and seventeenth-century rigging is, in many respects, actually more complicated than that of later periods.  Unfortunately there's a dearth of good entry-level plastic sailing ship kits.  (At the moment there is in fact a dearth of decent plastic sailing ship kits of any sort - but that's another story.)

Fortunately, two have become available recently that I do highly recommend to newcomers.  One is, in fact, a re-release of a kit originally issued in 1977:  the Revell Viking ship.  Notwithstanding the hokey boxtop painting (and the hokier picture on the sail), it is in fact an excellent, beautifully detailed model of the Gokstad Ship, one of the two major surviving Norse vessels.  The "wood grain" detail on it is superb.  And there's not much rigging to worry about.  If you do a forum search on the phrase "Revell Viking ship" you'll find several interesting discussions of it - and some links to useful resources.  Here's a link:  http://www.squadron.com/NoStock.asp?item=RG5403 .  (The scale indicated on the box, incidentally, is wrong.  The kit scales out, lengthwise, to 1/63.3 - close enough to the fairly standard 1/64.)

I just finished a model based on this kit, and I'm reasonably happy with it (though it's not as good as it would have been if I'd built it twenty years ago).

Just recently a relatively small British company, Emhar, brought out its own version of the Gokstad Ship:  http://www.squadron.com/ItemDetails.asp?item=EM9001 .  I haven't seen this kit, but we've had an interesting discussion of it here in the Forum:  /forums/1025486/ShowPost.aspx .  It looks like it gives the Revell kit a run for its money, with each being slightly superior in some ways and not quite as good in others.  The Emhar one has one advantage:  the same company makes several boxes of Norse figures on the same scale.  A Gokstad Ship with a full crew (sixty men or thereabouts) would make for a downright spectacular model.

One other recent arrival that I haven't seen, but shows promise:  the Hanseatic cog, originally released by the Russian company Zvezda and also available under the Revell Europe label:  http://www.squadron.com/ItemDetails.asp?item=RG5411 .  As a newcomer's project, this one would be hard to beat:  it offers a little bit of everything, but not so much of anything that repetition - a big enemy of beginning ship modelers - ought to raise its ugly head.  Some expert Forum testimony has raised some doubts about the deck planking (the few surviving cogs have planks laid athwartships; the kit shows them running fore-and-aft), but this is another example where nobody can say for sure that it's "wrong."

Those are some ideas.  But if the Mayflower is more appealing, for heaven's sake don't let me or anybody else talk you out of it.

Good luck.

Thanks again, I will give these kits a look. I do have a few ships under my belt from my youth. Namely the Revell 1/96 Constitution and Cutty Sark. I also did the Mayflower and of course Susquehanna. I built them all out of the box. The results were OK(some finished, some not). I wish I still had them. I would like to think that age and experience would enable me to turn out a result that my wife would "allow" to be diplayed in the house proper and not relagated to my workroom shelves. I guess, I am new to serious(results>completion) ship modelling as I don't remember ever doing much more than glue,paint,rig with what I had on hand at the time. I almost miss that time. I do still want to enjoy the project. I do ,most certainly, need a break from aircraft.

Besides the Viking ship, I'd always vote for the Eagle or her sisters if you can find them. Even if you dont rig her, the basic model is beautiful.

Constitution in 1/196, Heller Victory, they all get harder so work up to the Holy Grail; the big Revell Constitution (try it again) which every serious ship modeler builds at least once.

jtilley,

I just acquired a 1950s Model Shipways wooden Mayflower kit, and I noticed this model differs from their newest offering in several respects. The new kit is a plank on bulkhead but some other details have me confused. There is a good practicum of the new model by Chuck Passaro on the internet and I noticed his model has a capstan covered with a deck that extends over the great cabin. My model instructions show an open-air capstan and ladders were included that lean against the great cabin bulkhead. I also have a box of metal doors, ladders, and a grating that do not appear in the practicum. I am wondering why the model was changed. Is this also a "Mayflower" v. "Mayflower II" question?

Devin 

What about the other Revell kits floating around. I can find the HMS Beagle, Hms Bounty,Golden Hind and Spanish Galleon. Are these worth doing?

I'm afraid I can't offer much about the two Model Shipways Mayflower kits.  I know the old one (which, I'm fairly sure, was on the market several years before Mr. Baker designed the Mayflower II) was based on the old R.C. Anderson reconstruction, which, as we established earlier, is an eminently respectable piece of research.  I don't know anything about the newer kit beyond what I can see in the photos.  I gather it's based, on some level, on the older kit, but it looks considerably taller and skinnier - as though it had been conceived as sort of a compromise between the Anderson and Baker interpretations. 

It certainly looks to me like a reasonable reconstruction.  Do bear in mind that, when it comes to such questions as whether the capstan was or wasn't under the overhang of the quarterdeck, we're dealing with details that (a) the meager contemporary evidence can't answer definitively, and (b) probably varied from ship to ship in any case.  In my opinion any of the kits we've been discussing could form the basis for a credible replica of the Mayflower.

Regarding the other old Revell kits migmodeler mentioned, all I can offer are personal opinions.

H.M.S. Bounty was Revell's second sailing ship kit; it was originally released in 1956, almost simultaneously with the 1/192 Constitution.  By 1956 standards it represented the state of the art, and in some ways it can still hold up to comparison with the very best.  In many other ways it doesn't come up to modern standards, but it's a basically sound kit. (It was the basis for a model of the ship I built quite a few years ago, as a matter of fact:  http://www.hmsvictoryscalemodels.be/JohnTilleyBounty/index.html ).  In my opinion it's a better kit than the one that competes with it, which is from Airfix.

The Golden Hind is one of my favorites - an extremely well-detailed, well-designed kit that was originally released in 1965, something of a heyday for Revell sailing ships.  If you do a Forum search on the term "Golden Hind" you'll find some interesting discussions about it.  Highly recommended.

Revell has issued two kits under the name "Spanish Galleon," neither of them, in my opinion, worth buying.  One of them is a slightly modified version of the Golden Hind; that's about as reasonable as slapping red stars on a Sabre jet and calling it a Mig.  The other is a much bigger...thing...that was originally released in 1970, when the company was having severe financial problems.  I was working in a hobby shop at the time, and I remember some of the literature Revell distributed; it boasted that "we've zeroed in on the market with this one...young married couples and interior decorators."  According to Dr. Graham's book, the "research" for this kit was carried out "at the MGM movie studio library." 'Nuff said.  I question whether anything that looked remotely like that ever floated.

The Revell "Beagle" is one of the more notorious scams in the history of the plastic kit industry.  Originally released in 1961, it's a somewhat modified reissue of the Bounty kit.  Those two vessels, in reality, resembled each other only in that each had a hull, a deck, and three masts.  (There's considerably less room for argument about this than there is about ships like the Mayflower; good contemporary plans of both the Bounty and the Beagle exist.)  In just about any other field of marketing, somebody would have sued the perpetrator of such a stunt for deceptive advertising.  My advice to any modeler is to avoid this one at all costs.

Revell has a decidedly mixed reputation among sailing ship modelers.  The best Revell kits are among the best ever released.  The company has also unleashed some duds on the modeling world - and its habit of re-releasing kits under silly new labels is pretty infamous.  (In Revell's defense, more than one other plastic kit company - and more than one of the notorious HECEPOB [that's Hideously Expensive Continental European Plank On Bulkhead] wood kit makers - have done the same sort of thing.)  But anybody who's been involved in plastic modeling for any length of time knows that's just as true for the rest of the Revell line - whether you're talking about modern warships, aircraft, armor, cars, or whatever.  And much the same can be said about most other kit manufacturers.  Caveat emptor.  Better yet - make use of this forum before you spend your money.

Thank you jtilley, It is great to have you and the resources of this forum. Being none the wiser, I would have made a few bad choices already. I'll see if I can locate a Revell Golden Hind and/or the big Mayflower. I don't want to spend another fortune on an old ship kit. I think the history of the Mayflower is what is attracting me to it and I think I can get the kids involved, at least on the history part. I also thought of building Columbus' ships for similar reasons. Are there any worth buying? I need to get my re-introduction to ship modelling kit on the table soon. I have a vacation coming up.

I'm not a hundred percent sure, but I think the recently-issued Heller Golden Hind is a reissue of the Revell one:   http://www.squadron.com/ItemDetails.asp?item=HR0829 .  I haven't seen it, but the picture sure looks like the Revell kit, and the dimensions are right.  The alternative possibility is that it's a reissue of the old Airfix kit - which wasn't a bad one itself.  In either case, Heller - or Squadron - has the scale wrong.  (That sort of thing is depressingly common in reissued plastic sailing ship kits.)  The Revell kit is on 1/96 scale; I'm not sure about the Airfix one, but it's bigger. 

Heller and Revell released simililarly-sized Santa Maria kits early in their existence.  (The Revell one was the company's third sailing ship kit; it originally appeared in 1957.  The Heller one dates from, I think, the mid- to late 1960s.)  Heller later issued a Nina and a Pinta.  The latter two were based on the same hull.  (Heller was notorious for recycling sailing ship hulls.)  Some sort of connection later developed between Heller and Revell; for a while, around the 500th anniversary in 1992, the Heller Nina and Pinta were appearing in Revell boxes.

All those "Columbus" kits were close to the state of the art when they were released.  Here we're dealing with an even more questionable era of maritime history than with the Mayflower; literally dozens of different reconstructions of Columbus's ships have been designed, in the form of plans, models, and full-sized replicas, over the years.  The latest ones look quite a bit different from the Revell and Heller versions, but that's not to say that any of them is definitively "right" or "wrong."  The Nina and Pinta kits individually look pretty reasonable (the Heller designers actually did a pretty good job of hiding the common parts).  I'd be hesitant, though, to put them side-by-side on a shelf.

If you do a Forum search you'll find some interesting threads about these kits.  One of them, as a matter of fact, has been running recently.

There's also an old Santa Maria by the long-defunct Japanese company Imai.  Imai kits are something of a legend in the tiny world of plastic sailing ship kits; they combined excellent detail, excellent parts fit, and ingenious engineering.  (Imai was, I'm fairly certain, the only plastic kit manufacturer ever to figure out how to make rigging blocks with holes through them and grooves around them.)  In terms of accuracy some of the Imai kits - especially the earliest ones - are...well, highly dubious, but in general they're regarded as some of the best plastic sailing ship kits ever.  I don't think I ever bought the Imai Santa Maria, but I remember it as a big, well-packaged kit that had a fine reputation.  Some of the Imai kits have been reissued recently (mostly, alas, at astronomical prices) by Aoshima and Academy, but I haven't seen the Santa Maria in many years.  If one were to turn up on E-bay at a reasonable price, though, it almost certainly would be worth pursuing.

Sailing ship models are a great way to get kids into the hobby.  (Think about those Viking ships in that context.  I gave my grandson a Revell one for Christmas; I don't know whether he ever built it or not.)  I can't help being reminded, though, of a scene I once witnessed in the maritime museum where I used to work.  We had the figurehead from an early-twentieth-century yacht called the Mayflower.  I saw - with my own eyes - a woman seriously informing her son, "look, Jimmy, that came off the Pilgrims' ship!"  Alongside the figurehead was a photograph of the ship herself, with figurehead attached - and a big cloud of black smoke gushing from the stack.

jtilley wrote:

I can't help being reminded, though, of a scene I once witnessed in the maritime museum where I used to work.  We had the figurehead from an early-twentieth-century yacht called the Mayflower.  I saw - with my own eyes - a woman seriously informing her son, "look, Jimmy, that came off the Pilgrims' ship!"  Alongside the figurehead was a photograph of the ship herself, with figurehead attached - and a big cloud of black smoke gushing from the stack.

As Bugs Bunny once said: "What a maroon!"

I will avoid the Columbus ships then. I am still working getting the big Mayflower. I like the looks of the Golden Hind. I'll see if I can get an original Revell issue. I am also keeping an eye out for the Revell Viking Ship. It does look good. It looks like it would be a good quick build. We will see what I can get. Thanks so much jtilley!

I just found a Revell Mayflower on Ebay. It is listed as kit h-316. Is that the big one? I know h-366 is the 24" and h-327 is the 16". I am guessing it may be the first issue of the small one. Let me know where this kit falls in please.

According to my 1976 Revell catalogue, H-316 is 13 inches long. It says it comes with crew figures, rigging blocks, sails, and a long boat.

H-366 is listed at 20 inches long. That is the "build a legend in a weekend" kit. This catalogue does not list H-327, so it might be from later or earlier.

 

Russ

I'm pretty sure Russ is right.

The tricky thing about this subject is that - as we've established in a couple of earlier Forum threads - is that the bible on the subject, Thomas Graham's outstanding book, Remembering Revell Model Kits, contains a mistake regarding the Mayflower kits.  The book doesn't acknowledge that there were two kits on different scales.  (For the record, that's the only error of that size I'm aware of in the book.  The mistake pales in comparison to the huge accomplishment of the work as a whole.) 

I've got an H-327 in front of me; it's the smaller kit, with all the blocks, etc.  The book says H-327 was the initial reissue of the kit, was originally issued in 1966, and remained in the catalog through 1971.  (The box I have says "copyright 1969."  That fits.)  The book says H-316 is a reisse of H-327 with "molded ratlines," appearing in the catalog from 1972 through 1977.  (That's consistent with Russ's 1976 catalog.)  The book also lists H-366 (in the catalog from 1970 through 1979) as a reissue of H-327.  That, I guess, is the mistake; H-366 was, it seems (on the basis of Russ's catalog) the bigger kit.

Just to make things more confusing, Dr. Graham also lists a reissue of the Santa Maria, appearing from 1977 through 1978, as H-327.  I suspect he may well be right about that; Revell was perfectly capable of reusing a catalog number.

One other caveat:  the copy of the book I have is the "Revised and Expanded 2nd Edition," dated 2004.  There's been an updated 3rd edition since then; the goof may well have been fixed in it.

If I were (gawd forbid) in the market for a Mayflower kit and had the option, I'd be inclined to look for the bigger Revell one - simply because it's bigger, therefore easier to work with (and I'd probably replace the plastic blocks anyway).  I also wouldn't overlook one other contender:  the Airfix kit.  It appears to be yet another interpretation of what the Mayflower looked like - and to my eye just about as believable as any of the others.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that both the Drake ship and the Mayflower had really fine crew figures. I always thought that Revell was a real stand out in their sailing ships in that regard. Having built them all, really, except for the Beagle and the various Eagle reincarnations, my favorites were the Morgan, the Golden Hind, the smaller Constitution, the Victory, in that order. I had a friend in High school with whom I modeled every afternoon after school. He beat me to the punch with the Victory, so I built the Constitution as a fictitous British frigate, complete with yellow gun deck stripe, as the HMS Caligula.

Bondoman's comments on the figures in Revell ship kits are dead on target.  Those little guys really are wonders of the plastic kit industry.

One of the things that distinguished Revell in the early days was the quality of its figures - whether in ship, aircraft, armor, or car kits.  Take a look at the old 1/48 Ford pickup truck, from 1956.  It doesn't have clear plastic for the windows, but it does have a driver leaning out, trying to argue his way out of a ticket from a motorcycle cop.  And some of my personal favorite early Revell kits are the horse-drawn vehicles.  The crowd of people sitting on top of the English mail coach is almost breathtaking. 

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I'd really like to get a look at the pantograph machine Revell used in those days.  It apparently was part of the company plant almost from the beginning.  If you look at the 1/110 figure of William Bligh from the Bounty kit under magnification you can see that he has distinct upper and lower lips - and buckles on his shoes. 

The people designing Revell kits in those days were genuine artisans, stretching the capacities of the new plastic kit medium without, it seems, caring much about the standards the consumer actually demanded.  (How many modelers of 1956 noticed that Captain Bligh had upper and lower lips - or would have cared if he didn't?)

Dr. Graham's book contains an interesting story about early Revell figures.  It seems the artist who sculpted the masters for most of them was a gentleman named Tony Bulone.  The original idea of putting figures in the kits was his.  He carved the masters for the first ones on his own time, in a workshop he set up in a shed behind the apartment building where he lived, and showed some of the results to Lew Glaser, the president of the company.  Glazer liked the idea, and figures started showing up in Revell kits.

A few years later, Revell got into the modern military vehicle market.  By that time Mr. Bulone had left Revell and was working freelance, but Revell commissioned him to do the figures for such classics as the Sherman tank, "Long Tom" 155 mm gun, Jeep, and "GI Battle Action" figure set.  The latter included a 1/40 general who was an obvious portrait of George Patton, complete with high boots, six-shooters, and five-pointed stars on his helmet. 

From Dr. Graham's book, p. 44:  "One of [Bulone's other] commissions was a slender, leggy doll inspired by a figure Mattel's Ruth Handler had seen in Europe.  Bulone used his wife Lylis [no photo of her in the book, unfortunately] as his personal inspiration. Mattel thanked Bulone, paid him $800 for his sculpture work, and produced the doll under the name 'Barbie.'" 

'Nuff said.

{Later edit:  By coincidence, the CNN website today contains an article about the 50th anniversary of the Barbie Doll:  http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/03/09/barbie.50th.anniversary/index.html .  The story isn't inconsistent with Dr. Graham's anecdote - but there's no mention of Mr. Bulone or his wife.  Just a vague reference to "Mattel designers."}

Well, the Revell Mayflower(the big one is out). It appears H-366 is molded out of gold or something as it just went for $125 on ebay. I picked up Golden Hind instead. It may be more complicated but it was almost 10x cheaper. I will re-read the Golden Hind thread. As usual, any additional advice is welcome. For good or bad, I will work through this one and hopefully turn out a respectable product.

So, this is a Revell Golden Hind kit? If so, what is the kit number?

Russ

 

It is Revell Golden Hind H-324-400. I hope it is the good one. It is from 1976 I think. I know very little about it. I read the thread for Golden Hind and it seems this is a good kit,one of Revells' best. Of course unless the one I bought is some oddball. My luck it is the one NOT to have.

Hmmm. My Revell catalogue has a Golden Hind that is 13" long. It is H-325.

I see no listing in the catalogue for H-324. H-325 has the crew figures and sails. It looks quite similar in shape and detail to the Revell Spanish Galleon, H-357, also 13" long.

Russ

I'm looking at the Dr. Graham's book's appendix, which lists all Revell kits up through 1979.  I have found a couple of minor mistakes in it in the past (which may well have been corrected in the newest edition; I don't know about that), but I think the kit numbers he lists are reliable.

According to this source, the original kit number of the Golden Hind, in its original release in 1965, was H-324.  It was re-released, under its original name, as H-325 in 1972 (that's consistent with Russ's catalog), and as H-345 in 1978.  Revell also released a slightly modified version under the ridiculous label "Spanish Galleon" in 1974 and 1978, with the numbers H-367 and H-324, respectively.

Yes, you read that correctly:  Revell used the number H-324 twice, for modified versions of the same kit.  The number H-325 also was used twice:  for the (highly spurious) Stag Hound (a modified reissue of the old Flying Cloud kit) in 1962 and for the Golden Hind in 1972. The only H-357 in Dr. Graham's book is a reissue of the old 1/192 Constitution; the kit was in the catalog under that number, according to Dr. Graham, from 1972 through 1979.  I have no explanation for why Russ's catalog lists the "Spanish Galleon" (i.e., the modified Golden Hind) under that number; maybe one source or the other contains a typo.

Just how the people at Revell picked those numbers is a mystery.  Apparently they weren't particularly concerned about collectors of the future.  It's pretty clear that in the 1970s the company management was extremely sloppy in its approach to...well, all sorts of things.  This confusion over kit numbers is consistent.

I think the "400" after the number of Migmodeler's kit is the code for the recommended retail price:  $4.00.  Pardon me while I shed a tear.

Bottom line:  The Golden Hind kit is one of my favorites.  We've discussed it in several Forum threads.  There are a number of theories about what the real ship looked like, but in my opinion this reconstruction (which appears to have originated with a German modeler/enthusiast named Rolf Hoeckel, in the late 1940) is as reasonable as any.  The kit certainly can provide the basis for a first-rate model. 

John:

Sorry, but I mistyped yesterday. The 13" long Spanish Galleon kit in the catalogue was H-367 not 357. My mistake.

The 1/192 scale Constitution kit in this catalogue was H-320. It was 18" long. I built that kit at least twice back in the day.  

Russ 

 

I don't think there's a lot of point in fussing over Revell kit numbers.  (As we've established, the company itself was capable of getting them mixed up.)  For what it's worth, though - Dr. Graham's book lists the 1/192 Constitution's original number as H-319, and gives the number H-320 to the initial release of the hospital ship Haven.  But he says the Constitution was reissued with the number H-320 in 1973.  So that's consistent with Russ's catalog.

Dr. Graham says that 1973 reissue was the first to include injection-molded "shrouds and ratlines," rather than the original plastic-coated-thread ones.  My personal opinion has always been that the plastic-coated thread idea was a lousy one, but the injection-molded abominations represented a big step in the wrong direction.

I have just read this thread and I really appreciate jtilley's knowledges. It's very useful, especially for me (I'm from Slovak Republic - a little country in the middle of the Europe). I'm glad to know more even about this part of US history. It has helpped me to consider and to decide the way I'm going to build Mayflower II (Revell 1/83), I've bought. I found this thread when I was seeking some useful informations about how to paint her.

Jtilley mentioned something about quality of Revell models here. It's defenetely true, that it has a superb "wood grain". But sometimes there is an unjustifiable surface's botch and it spoils overall appearance (For example, check this "hole" on the left side of the model: http://www.modelforum.cz/download/file.php?id=177226&sid=cb8e9e39b1c751a8fbf5258914f0756b&mode=view).

I just want to ask you: Do you have any experiences with the surface errors of the Revell kits, there? I mean, do they often appear on the surface of the Revell issued ships?

Do you think there are differences between quality of kits for the European market and the US market?

And finally, could anybody explain what does "the molded ratlines" mean, please?

(I'm not so skilled in English, but I hope you could undertand it)

Mr. Lopez, your English is excellent.  I'm embarrassed (not for the first time) by the comparison between the teaching of foreign languages in Europe and the United States.  If I tried to take part in an internet forum in French or German (both of which I took in college, longer ago than I want to think about), I would just make a fool of myself.

That photograph is most interesting.  The hole in the side of the hull appears to be a "sink mark," caused by that huge pin that's molded on the inside of the part.  My kit doesn't have such a thing.  I guess the pin-and-socket arrangement was added in some later reissue of the kit - by somebody who didn't fully understand how to do it.  A big projection molded in a large, thin piece of styrene like that almost inevitably produces a sink mark when the plastic cools.

I can't recall having encountered anything just like that in a Revell sailing ship kit, but such things as sink marks, ejection pin marks, and flash are common in older kits.  (Almost all plastic sailing ships one buys nowadays are from old molds, and the manufacturers, unfortunately, aren't always as concerned about quality control as they should be.)  Another problem lots of modelers complain about is low-quality, soft plastic that's prone to warping. 

Whether these problems are more common in American- or European-marketed kits I honestly don't know.  A few years ago there seemed to be general agreement that the big Revell Constitution kits marketed in the U.S. were made of better styrene than the ones sold by Revell Germany.  As I understand it, though, in recent years Revell (like most other companies) has moved its actual molds to China or Korea.  I've heard that the recent reissues of the Constitution kit are at least somewhat better.

"Molded ratlines" is a rather sloppy term.  The heavy lines running from the top of a ship's lower mast to the sides of the hull are called shrouds.  Lighter lines called ratlines are tied across the shrouds, forming a ladder on which the seamen climb aloft.  Rigging ratlines has always been one of the bigger challenges of sailing ship modeling, simply because there are so many of them.  (Rigging ratlines to scale is not, however, as difficult as lots of people seem to think.  If you do a search in this Forum on the word "ratline" you'll find quite a few discussions of good ways to do it.) 

The earliest Revell sailing ship kits, dating from the 1950s and 1960s, tried to deal with the problem by supplying the modeler with what might be called "shroud and ratline assemblies" made from thread sprayed with some sort of flexible plastic coating.  They looked somewhat like shiny netting, and were often referred to as "preformed ratlines."  I've never liked those things much; they were extremely difficult to set up taut, and the thread used for the shrouds and the ratlines was the same size.  (In reality ratlines are much thinner than shrouds.)

Apparently quite a few modelers didn't like those "preformed ratlines" any more than I do.  Some time in the late 1960s (I think), Revell started replacing them with injection-molded, black plastic "molded ratlines."  A more proper description would have been "molded shroud-and-ratline assemblies."  To my eye these things look even worse than the old plastic-coated thread ones.  I got in the habit, whenever I bought a plastic sailing ship kit, of tossing the "ratlines," whatever form they took, into the wastebasket before I left the hobby shop.  

I hope that helps a little.  Best of luck with your model. 

To Reinforce Prof Tilley's remarks, the vinyl-coated thread "ratlines" left the poor modeler with few options.  Yo would have an unruly nest of ends at the mast head, which would resist glue, and resisted knotting more.  Then, you were faced with the task of fastening them to the deadeye assemblies glued down well in advance of the rigging (and with no mention that they needed to be aligned to the mast head both longitudinally and transversely).

The styrene versions fare no better, for looking like some sort of pipe frame welded up out of drill casing, either.  Redoubled if the deadeyes and mast head and the supplied mouting holes had the least bit of misalignment.  (Few things as annoying as having the shrouds not line up to the deadeyes they are alleged to be part of; except, maybe, when the only best alignment is askew of the deadeyes <sigh>.)

Given that shrouds go up from a deadeye adn then around the masthead then back down to another deadeye (typically, as in all things nautical, there are exceptions to any rule), there's little scale appearance using either.

But, I'm biased in this; others' differ.