A Tale of Three Niñas

That's a great comparison.

Thanks!

Most interesting indeed!  The photos certainly establish beyond argument that Revell and Heller issued different - albeit extremely similar - Nina kits.  That does not, of course, disprove Wojszillo's contention (in another recent thread) that Revell and Heller were, at one point in the proceedings, selling the same kit.  The marketing of plastic kits is a complex topic that really is beyond sorting out by mere mortals.  It's entirely possible that Revell was selling two different kits labeled "Nina" (and two more labeled "Pinta") at different times.  Come to think of it - I guess it's possible that Revell of the U.S. and Revell Germany were selling different kits with those labels at the same time.

The good news is that all the subjects of Vagabond Astronomer's photos certainly look like nice kits - perfectly capable of being turned into serious scale models.  I wouldn't be comfortable displaying a Nina and Pinta with identical hulls side-by-side, though.  As little as we know about fifteenth-century Spanish shipbuilding, I think it's safe to assume that Spanish shipwrights didn't re-use hull designs.

I would also get rid of the molded-on bags and coils of rope!

Bill Morrison

There may just be an interesting story there.  I can think of four other plastic kits on the market that have coils of rope molded integrally with their decks:  the Revell Santa Maria, Flying Cloud, U.S.C.G.C. Eagle, and H.M.S. Victory.  (There may be others, but those are the ones my senile memory can call up.  The Santa Maria, as I remember, featured a stack of "cargo" as well.  For the record - a few kits under other manufacturers' labels, Lindberg and UPC, were "pirated" from the Revell ones and also had the rope coils.  But I think Revell was the only company that originated them.) 

As demonstrations of the state of the model manufacturer's art, they were actually rather impressive; you could see the individual strands of the rope.  I agree, though, that in this day and age such things are inappropriate in a serious scale model.

Now here's the interesting thing.  In the fifties and the early sixties Revell was issuing sailing ship kits in what olde tymers like me came to think of as its "three-dollar series" fairly steadily. They were about 18" long, and their scales were chosen to make them fit in standard-sized boxes.  According to Dr. Graham's fine book on the history of Revell, the sequence in which they were originally released was as follows:  U.S.S. Constitution (1956), H.M.S. Bounty (1956), Santa Maria (1957), Flying Cloud (1957), U.S.C.G.C. Eagle (1958), H.M.S. Victory (1959), Golden Hind (1965), Mayflower (1966), and Charles W. Morgan (1968).  (I'm leaving out some spurious kits that were modified reissues of the others:  the "Beagle," "Stag Hound," and "Seeadler.")

Note that the integrally-molded rope coils appeared in four kits that were issued in sequence, between 1957 and 1959.  That seems to suggest that the masters for those four kits were sculpted by the same individual - and that somebody in Revell's management during the late fifties thought rope coils were nice.  Then the idea got dropped, to reappear suddenly (and briefly) in the early nineties.  (At least I guess that's when it happened.  Dr. Graham stops his coverage in 1979, so the book doesn't mention the Nina or Pinta.)

Aircraft modelers know that Revell issued three classic WWI aircraft kits, in 1/28 scale in 1957:  the Sopwith Camel, SPAD XIII, and Fokker DR-1.  Neither Revell nor anybody else made an airplane kit in that scale for thirty-five years.  Then, in the early nineties, the Revell 1/28 Fokker D-VII suddenly appeared on the scene.  Reviewers at the time (FSM's review archive on the web doesn't go back that far) commented that the kit looked like it had been designed back in the fifties, along with the other three, and kept in cold storage for several decades.

I wonder if we're looking at something similar in the case of the Nina and Pinta - i.e., that those kits were designed by the same artisans who designed the Santa Maria kit fifty years ago and, for some reason, not released until the early nineties (right at the time when the Fokker D-VII appeared).

The big argument against that is that the parts breakdown of the Revell Nina, as shown in Vagabond Astronomer's photos, is remarkably similar to that of the Heller kit.  (We've established that they aren't the same kit.  But what are the chances of two minds coming up independently with that approach to the bulwarks?)

On the other hand, the Revell Nina seems to have that characteristic, T-shaped stand - which, so far as I know, no other manufacturer's kits had.

Incredibly insignicant trivia in the grand scheme of the universe, but interesting nonetheless.

You touched on a couple of issues there, John.

The first is that it is possible that Revell Germany issued Heller kits. Trying to confirm that, but even Wojszwillo stated that his Nina has three masts (If you're reading this, W, could you please post those images?). My main reason for this, though, had more to do with compartive archaeology, in a way (I've got dozens of drawings gleaned from old maps and paintings, a la Landstrom, doing the same thing). Besides, aside from some of the specialty magazines that exist (and God how I miss Model Ship Builder), it seems that plastic sailing ship modeling is not taken very seriously, at least with the same level of interest as model warships (BTW, I would love to see photoetch ratline sets for some of the smaller kits, though I use a homemade loom for mine). That, and the ships of discovery were an area that I rather seriously researched... some would say to death!

You do raise a very good point as to the actual kits' vintage. It really, really does look like an older Revell kit, and the similarity to the Heller models (and the fact that both companies released Santa Marias based on the same design, albeit different scales) certainly does lend credibility to the possibility. The vintage of the Heller kits I simply don't know for certain; their Nina was one of the first model sailing ships that I took seriously (and led to me building three more in a short period in late 1978, as a lad of 15). The kit I picked up, at a garage sale at Mayport, was already pretty old, in one of the earliest Heller boxes. No scale was given on the box at all that I can remember, and I placed it at 1/96. The similarity to the Revell kits, as well as to the research of Martinez-Hidalgo and possibly Guillen, seems more than just coincidental. Was there shared research between the two companies, as they certainly shared dies once upon a time? Also, if Revell's tooling was that new, why didn't they base it upon the replicas being built at the time in Spain?

This is all starting to sound conspiratorial, isn't it?

What I'm going to approach next in my project is talking about their scales. No drawings of the Nina exist, but we almost know her capacity, and going to run from there.

Cheers,

Rob 

(Also - This Revell kit was cast in Korea. If I remember correctly, so was my model I built in 1992) 

In the photos that I sent to Vagabond_Astronomer comparing the Revell Nina and Pinta, it is clear also that the Nina and Pinta are identical kits except for one sprue giving the Nina a different poop deck and bulwark aft. That lends an interesting twist to the "conspiracy" theory!

Bill Morrison

Yes, Bill, thanks again for those!

Need to get those up there as well (yesterday was just mad busy). I'm starting to lean towards the theory that these dies go back a decade or more prior to the release in 1991-1992. It's the trees themselves, though, that kind of throw a twist into the works. Revell's old trees were not wrap around like this; they were straight sprue with the pieces just hanging off. Were these tools started in the 1960's, and then, for some reason, suspended? Were the prototypes made and then shelved?

Curiouser and curiouser... 

If I were doing the Nina? Tough one. In my somewhat honest opinion, I'd say go with the OOP Revell kit, except for one little ditty; the mizzen mast is situated such that the lower portion of the mast (that goes below the quarterdeck) is above a hatch. Admittedly, not an easy thing to see, but there. Otherwise, it has a nice little windlass and lines that are pretty close based upon the work of Martinez-Hidalgo. Otherwise, the Heller kit is second, again if you were doing the fairly light Nina.

The Zvezda Nina is definitely a deeper, earlier caravel, in my opinion; not as sharp, with that round tuck stern (this kit is tempting me to do some wild conversions...). 

Hope that helps!

Cheers,

Rob

EDIT - Given it some more thought here. Because the Nina is agreed upon as being the lightest of the three, the Heller kit would probably be a better choice. Additional detailing optional...

Looking at the masts and rigging on the three kits now. Not sure how the original Occidental instructions compare (I have access to my copy from the guy who converted the model into another type of vessel), but the Zvezda instructions seem possibly incomplete in detail. The Heller instructions introduce anachronist details but are fairly close (though not sure about some of the running rigging detail). The Revell kit has decent rigging instructions but again incomplete.

I don't have Pastor's book at the moment, but I do have "Columbus' Ships" by Martinez-Hidalgo, and the rigging plans of the Nina in there is simply a side elevation, both as a lateen and redonda. However, the drawing does allow us to see how the masts and yards of the two masted lateen rigged models compare. At first, I thought that the Zvezda kit was a bit excessive in the height of its main mast and the length of the main yard. Surprisingly, it was actually pretty close; the main mast is about 1 1/3 the length of the keel when measure from the keel up (and in the kit, it is stepped directly on the keel), with the yard about 2:1 of the keel, again similar to Martinez-Hidalgo's interpretation. The Heller kit is also pretty close. 

More research needed, I reckon...

Very interesting! Thanks for taking the time to take these photos + post them. I have to say that until now I never realised that Revell Germany had produced its own kits of the smaller Columbus ships. Their Nina kit looks pretty good; the rectangular sprue frames are definitely late 1980s at the earliest (unlike the simple "runners" of 1960s Revell kits) but it's possible that Revell simply put old toolings in a new mould.

One question, did Revell produce a Pinta kit at the same time? Do you have this kit, and if so how does it compare to Heller's?

Revell did in fact produce the Pinta, although it is simply the Nina with a prolonged poop deck and different bulwarks.  All parts are identical except for one sprue.

Bill Morrison

Thanks for the taking and posting the pictures - most interesting.  And the discussion they have generated has been very interesting as well.  Not my area of expertise, but these look like interesting kits, certainly either for the intended subject or modified as representative of ships of the era.

Thanks again, Rick

warshipguy wrote:

Revell did in fact produce the Pinta, although it is simply the Nina with a prolonged poop deck and different bulwarks.  All parts are identical except for one sprue. Bill Morrison

Thanks again, Bill; going to post those to the album this evening.

Thanks, Rick.

I feel that it is an important discussion as well. While we have a better understanding of later ships, ironing out the appearance of these early ships of exploration is important, and not just for us model builders. 

These caravels can represent any caravel during the period of European exploration, be they the earlier ships sent along the African coasts, Columbus'  ships or just trading vessels. Same for the interpretations of the Santa Maria; she was probably a farily typical round ship, a nao, for her region.

More to come...

Bill was kind enough to send me some pics of the Revell Nina and Pinta kits together. I've uploaded them to my Nina album. Here, though, is the shot that shows the trees that determine the fate of the basic model; Nina tree on top, Pinta beneath...

I just picked up a copy of the late Xavier Pastor's "The Ships of Christopher Columbus", and yes, the closest to the Nina contained therein is the Heller kit, which does appear to be very close to 1/100 scale. But there are a few caveats -

1. It represents the Nina as a two masted lateener. One would have to do a little work to modify it into a carabela redunda. 

2. The deck, while pretty close in detail, lacks the camber of the Martinez-Hidalgo caravel, which is pretty significant. Anyone who has visited that sad little boat in Corpus Christi will note it.

3. Many scholars believe that the Nina was given a four masted rig. This is based upon the research of Eugene Lyons, and is in  fact the rig carried by the "Santa Clara" (also known as the Nina) as well as the recently constructed Pinta.

Does this close the door on how our little caravel looked? It doesn't; lacking a time machine, we will never know for certain. But, we can be pretty sure that these interpretations are fairly accurate based upon the information on hand. No doubt, more discoveries will be made.