Differences in 1/96 Revell USS Constitution kit (museum classics) from other 1/96 Revell kits

Martin,

The only differance in the kits were a base and 2 brass pedestals and those HORRIBLE FLOCK COVERED VACUFORM SAILS - Talk about dust magnets.

The regular kit just came with a plastic stand ans reg. vac form sails.

Jake

Hi Big Jake,

For some reason I was thinking that maybe the molds had been improved or reworked for this version.

I didn't realize it was the same kit with a new box and some trinkets added.

Would you happen to know which sister ship resembled Constitution the most or was she one of a kind?

Thanks,

Martin

There were three ships in the "class" (though I don't think the Navy used that term in those days):  the Constitution, President, and United States.  Of the three, the President is the only one whose War of 1812 appearance is at all well documented:  she was captured by the British and the Admiralty ordered a set of plans drawn.  They're reproduced in two of Howard I. Chapelle's famous books, The History of American Sailing Ships and The History of the American Sailing Navy.  Those plans show a ship very similar in appearance to the Revell Constitution.

The United States was significantly different, in that she had a raised poop deck, or "roundhouse," designed to accommodate a flag officer.  So far as I know, nobody has ever found any real evidence of what that structure looked like.

I think it's somewhat ironic that the real Constitution is currently ungoing an overhaul/restoration that will make it look more like the Revell 1/96 model.  Among the more visible changes, they are taking off the cap rails to lower the bulwarks and will be making modifications to the stern to bring it back to a closer approximation of its 1812 configuration.

They are also replacing most of the decking and will be restoring the crown to the new deck.

The smaller 1/196 Revell Constitution represents the restored ship prior to this latest restoration with the high bulwarks and three-window stern.  I have one in my stash that I have been planning to "backdate" to the 1812 configuration, but the Navy beat me to it doing theirs first!

Mark  

I visited a wooden ship model shop last spring and was looking at the model expo kit they were pushing.  They kept saying it was the most accurate Constitution model there was ... I had to add "as long as you want to model her as she appeared from 1927 til a few years ago."  No way to tell those snobs that a humble plastic model makes a far more accurate Constitution from that era.  In fairness I did pick up some good info from them, like the importance of keeping dust off the model to preserve the rigging and that synthetic rigging thread won't decay over the years like the cotton thread Revell supplies. 

It will be interesting to see just exactly which War of 1812 appearance the Navy goes for.  Hull, Bainbridge, or Stewart?  I'd bet Hull, but will they do the impromptu gun ports in the back?  Probably not the ones they made by knocking out the stern windows.

I'll start another thread, but thought I'd post a few pictures of the USF Constitution I finished not long ago so you can see what someone who built tanks 20+ years ago can do with Revell's kit.

If anyone is considering a build of the USS President from the Revell 1/96 USS Constitution, there is a guide in the old Kalmbach book "How to Build Plastic Ship Models".

Bill Morrison

WadeK's experience in that hobby shop reminds me of something similar that I witnessed some years ago.  I've told this yarn before elsewhere in this Forum, but I think it bears repeating.

I was in a hobby shop that specialized in ship models (such places did exist once, believe it or not) looking at the latest reissue of the Revell 1/96 Cutty Sark.  The proprietor said, "oh, if you're interested in that ship, you need to take a look at this!"  He thereupon reached under the counter and, with a great flourish, produced a velvet-lined wood box containing a pair of cast metal trailboards for the Cutty Sark.  I don't remember the manufacturer, but it was one of the HECPOB kit companies.  (HECEPOB [my proud personal contribution to the modeler's lexicon] = Hideously Expensive Continental European Plank On Bulkhead.)

The...things...were shiny, "bronzed white metal" (read:  lead alloy with some sort of cheap plating).  They were considerably distorted in their proportions, and the scrollwork on them didn't really look much like the real thing.  I don't remember the price, but it was considerable - the equivalent, I suspect, of $40 or $50 today. 

I offered the opinion that, in terms of accuracy, the representations of the trailboards in the Revell kit were better.  The shop proprietor and several customers looked at me as though I'd either uttered a blasphemy or sprouted a second head.

The interesting thing about this conversation was the location:  the late, lamented Maritime Models of Greenwich.  Everybody in the store had walked past the real Cutty Sark in order to get there.

Another story with a similar message.  When I was working in a hobby shop (quite a few years back again) I was browsing through one of the HECEPOB catalogs one day when I spotted an ad for a new wood Constitution kit.  (I think it was from Mamoli; I'm not sure about that.)  Among the features of the kit - as illustrated by beautiful, glitzy color photos - were the cast brass transom, trailboards, and quarter galleries.  They looked mighty familiar; a close look established that they were identical in proportions and appearance to those in the Revell 1/96-scale kit.  Then I noticed the scale of the HECEPOB version:  1/98.  Brass castings shrink by about two percent as they cool.  Conclusion...?

Should aftermarket wooden blocks & deadeyes for the Constitution be painted, stained, or have a weathered look?

Does anyone know when the parts molding process started to suffer with regards to detail or having to fix, drill out, or replace defective parts?

After reading about the problems associated with building the USS Kearsarge I wonder what gremlins haunt the Constitution? I don't expect them to be anywhere as bad as the Kearsarge?

Right now I have one unbuilt kit made in 1974-76 according to the box and I'm waiting on another unbuilt kit from 1978 marked as the Museum Classic. I'm going to keep one kit and sell or trade the other one.

Thanks,

Martin

A few months back I contacted Revell/Monogram to find out what the difference was between Revell Monogram's Constitution and Revell/Germany's (which is more expensive). They told me that R/G's was more detailed, but they didn't go into details.

 Ron W.

Martin_G wrote:

Should aftermarket wooden blocks & deadeyes for the Constitution be painted, stained, or have a weathered look? Does anyone know when the parts molding process started to suffer with regards to detail or having to fix, drill out, or replace defective parts? After reading about the problems associated with building the USS Kearsarge I wonder what gremlins haunt the Constitution? I don't expect them to be anywhere as bad as the Kearsarge? Right now I have one unbuilt kit made in 1974-76 according to the box and I'm waiting on another unbuilt kit from 1978 marked as the Museum Classic. I'm going to keep one kit and sell or trade the other one. Thanks, Martin

I'm building one now using all the photos and documentation I could find of the restored ship (prior to her current restoration to 1812 configuration).

To answer your question about the blocks and deadeyes (based on my layman's research & observations):

• The deadeyes, hearts, etc., that are part of the standing rigging are all a semi-gloss black.
• Blocks that are fixed to the masts and yards are mostly semi-gloss black, even though they may technically be part of the running rigging.
• The rest are a combination of semi-gloss black, bright-stained (semi-gloss med. brown) or weathered (flat gray, almost like a weathered teak). 

The bottom line is that I don't think there is any "right" answer, particularly if you're modeling an 1812 version. Just use some logic and be consistent.

I don't know when the molds started to show their age, but I'd advise replacing all of the plastic eyebolts for certain, if not all of the blocks.

My biggest complaint about the kit are the multi-piece decks.

Mark    

I think someone didn't know what they were talking about. RofG kits are typically more $$$ do to the fact that they are imported to the US from Germany.....they are the exact same molds. Normally they will have a different decal markings in the case of aircraft, box art and of course the different RofG instructions. Molds used to be shared between Revell US, Germany, and Brazil, I don't know now if anything gets molded in the US.

Anyone know what the old Monogram / Revell Morton Grove plant is being used for?

bushman32 wrote:

A few months back I contacted Revell/Monogram to find out what the difference was between Revell Monogram's Constitution and Revell/Germany's (which is more expensive). They told me that R/G's was more detailed, but they didn't go into details.  Ron W.

I'm pretty sure Firecaptain is right.  I haven't had either the American or German kit in my hands in a long time, but I certainly have the impression that they're identical - i.e., that they came from the same (or identical) molds.

It's been noted many times here in the Forum that such things as the consistency of the styrene and the quality of the rigging line in Revell Constitution kits do vary - from time to time and from place to place.  And I suspect the contents of the instruction books may vary.  But I don't think there's any difference between the German and American plastic parts.

I have the distinct impression that the people running Revell nowadays don't actually know much about scale modeling.  Certainly not about scale ship modeling.

Martin,

You asked about using wooden blocks, it has been done by many modlers including myself on my slow but current build of the big Heller Chebec.  I've replaced most all of the plastic blocks with wooded one of the same size.

If you're unsure on what size to order, and you can't seem to select the right size based on your measurements, take one plastic block for each size represented and mail them off to the Dromdary model shop and have the girl match them.  Their in El Paso, Tx.

Like this    http://home-and-garden.webshots.com/photo/2985303620054402330zufknB

You can see pic of my build here on the chebec

http://home-and-garden.webshots.com/album/550002684xTxWXX

Jake

Firecaptain wrote:

I think someone didn't know what they were talking about. RofG kits are typically more $$$ do to the fact that they are imported to the US from Germany.....they are the exact same molds. Normally they will have a different decal markings in the case of aircraft, box art and of course the different RofG instructions. Molds used to be shared between Revell US, Germany, and Brazil, I don't know now if anything gets molded in the US.

Revell/Monogram said that Omni Models could explain the differences in more detail so maybe I will send them an email. But if you look at the parts list the R/G has more parts, 1307 parts compared to R/M's 1223. So there is a difference besides one being an import and the other domestic.

Ron W.

Something else I forgot to mention is that R/G is 36 1/8" long and R/M is at 32".

  Ron W.

More evidence they don't know what they are doing.  The R/M people can't even get the model length correct!  

 There is no way R-G would have spent the huge sum needed to produce an all new mold of a model that is a few inches longer than the old one.  A genuinely new sailign ship kit would have generated a lot of buzz in the model community,  too.

bushman32 wrote:

Something else I forgot to mention is that R/G is 36 1/8" long and R/M is at 32".   Ron W.

 I sent Omni Models an email to see if they know of any difference is, since R/M said they could explain it. Really doesn't make sense. Does it? I'll let you guys know what they have to say.

   Ron W.

Well, Omni Models didn't have any info on any differences between R/M and R/G. Why R/M directed me to them is a wonder. The only info that they had is what is already on their website. The only thing I can say is that R/G's is longer by 4 1/8" and has 84 more parts.

  Ron W.

I don't pretend to have any "inside" information on this matter - and, as I mentioned in an earlier post, I haven't had my hands on either the American or European version of the kit in quite a few years.  I do know this much:  the 32" length figure quoted on the Revell website for the American version of the kit is wrong.  I built that kit several times when I was younger; it's slightly over three feet long.  I think the Revell Europe figure, 36 1/8", probably is right.

As to the parts count - there are several ways to count the parts in that kit, and I wonder if the two companies are using different methods.  Does each of the vac-formed sails count?   Does the sheet of vac-formed sails count as one part?  Do all the preformed "shroud and ratline assemblies" get counted as one part - or do they comprise eighteen parts (six on each mast)?  How about the spools of thread?  Or the gummed paper flag sheet?  Or the sheet of clear plastic for the stern windows?  (If I remember right, there's one piece of plastic - to be used to form the windows in the transom and the two quarter galleries.  So is there one clear part or are there three?)  I also seem to have a vague recollection that the crew figures (twenty of them) don't have part numbers.  Did they get left out of one of the counts?

I'd certainly be receptive to hard evidence either way, but I continue to think that the two kits are, to all intents and purposes, identical.

Incidentally - I noticed a little curiosity when I checked the Revell website a few minutes ago.  For the past several weeks the Monogram logo was gone from it.  (The website address used to have the Monogram in it; now it doesn't.)  Now the name and logo are back. 

I do wonder what's going on in that company.  The fact that it's posting incorrect dimensions on its website, and sending potential customers with basic, straightforward questions to a mail-order dealer for answers, sure doesn't inspire much confidence.

Later edit:  I just took a look at the Omni Models website.  In the beginning of the page devoted to the Revell (U.S.) 1/96 Constitution ( http://www3.omnimodels.com/cgi-bin/woi0001p?&I=RMXS0398&P=0 ), it describes the kit emphatically as "a decorative masterpiece over three feet long!"  Later, the same page gives the model's length as 32".  Hmmm.  New math?