This probably shouldn't bug me - but it does

Being from Baltimore, i've been aboard the Taney more than a couple of times, as to a response?, don't hold your breath  

false advertising on their part.

Well, it IS a new RELEASE of an old kit... bending the rules, but not really breaking them. They SHOULD advertise it a bit straighter though.

Hey Doc

Bravo to your observation/opinions!!

What a bunch of plastic injecting, no upgrade, kit re-issue, money grubbing  horse's azzes. 

Like the American taxpayers,  the skinflints that run Revelogram have gotten their money's worth out of this ship...what frosts my mug is the fact these captains of industry can't/won't do a little research and offer the model buyer some proper info regarding the TANEY's current state. Heck, remember those fools used to include a decal of the "racing stripe" for the model. Judas priest, that's like including Tomcats in their re issue of their model of the original FDR class carrier.

Here's a question for you professor...about 1960-61, I purchased a Revell kit of the CAMPBELL, in all it's 3 color plastic glory. Here's the question: the box cover art depicts the 1953 appearence of the ship, all painted up in that spiffy CG white and buff, RAMMING A GERMAN U-BOAT!!! I remember this in particular because the ship's history (at the top of the directions) made a point of boasting of the actual ramming of a German sub in WWII.  When ever my friends got together to play "convoy" with our neat-o REVELL AUTHENTIC MODELS my CAMPBELL got to ram my friends Aurora(black plastic) German sub.

Years later(when I stationed on the real CAMPBELL) I learned the cutter was painted GRAY and it's WWII appearence was considerable different from the Revell model of the mid fifties. Do you recall seeing the box art I described? I've been on the look out for this particular box cover and have examples of the "original"  1950's version(cutter rescuing a freighter) and the late 60's version (another freighter rescue).   

I've seen the Revell's DE box art painting of a DE ramming a U-boat around the same time period, but I'm sure I'm not confusing the two models. Or am I "cracking up'? 

As to the jokers at Revelogram, good luck at getting a reply, you'd have better luck mailing it to Santa's work shop at the North Pole! 

Mike M. USCG(RET)

Looking at the kit, compared to the actual ship, there are major differences; which of course bears out the fact that it is not a model of the Taney .. How lame. We can only hope that these do not show up in the souvenir shop of the ship ..

Good catch Doc ..

The Secretary-class cutters underwent a tremendous amount of modification during their long careers, serving as ocean station ships, convoy escorts, amphibious force flagships, weather ships, and heaven knows what else.  Some years ago, when I was working on a series of drawings of them for the CG Historian's Office, I had occasion to try to track down the details of what three of them - the Taney, Spencer, and Duane - looked like in three incarnations, before and during World War II.  I was surprised to find how sketchy the actual, reliable documentation was.  I can sympathize with anybody who has trouble sorting out the whole story of what all those ships looked like throughout their careers; I'm not sure anybody actually can.

I think the original Revell Campbell kit was intended to represent the ship as she appeared when the kit was released:  in 1957.  According to Dr. Graham's book, it was reissued under its original name in 1968, and as the Taney in 1976.  (The book's coverage ends in 1979.  The kit was issued at least once after that - in the "Special Subjects" series version that I've got.  Revell used - and is using again - the name "Roger B. Taney."  That was indeed the ship's original name, but the names of all but one of the ships in the class were officially shortened to just the last names in 1937.  The exception was the Alexander Hamilton, which kept her first name in order to avoid confusion with the Navy destroyer Hamilton.)  I don't have an original Campbell kit to make a comparison, but I'm pretty sure the parts have never been changed - except for the switch from multi-colored moldings to all white ones.

The actual Taney's appearance changed pretty dramatically at several points in her career.  For a while, during the war, she had three 5" gunhouses and looked downright top-heavy.  The instruction sheet for the version of the Taney kit that I have says it represents her as she looked during the Korean conflict.  I'm not prepared to say that's incorrect - i.e., that she didn't at some point look essentially identical to how the Campbell looked in 1957.  This page from the CG Historian's website contains a couple of shots that do look pretty much like the Revell kit does (i.e., with one 5" mount forward and a virtually bare afterdeck, except for the depth charge gear):  http://www.uscg.mil/history/WEBCUTTERS/Taney_WPG37_Photos.asp .  That page also confirms that she did wear the "Coast Guard Slash" on her bow for a while.

In other words, I can't assert absolutely that the Revell kit doesn't represent the ship reasonably accurately.  (We're not talking here about a stunt on the level of a slightly-modified H.M.S. Bounty masquerading as H.M.S. Beagle, or the Cutty Sark impersonating the Thermopylae, or the Flying Cloud pretending to be the Stag Hound, or the Eagle disguised as the Seadler.)  It's a decent kit - at least by the standards of 1957.  My complaint is that the person responsible for writing the copy on the Revell website just plain didn't know anything about the ship - and didn't make any effort whatever to find out.  (I was able to nail down the date when the Taney became a museum ship in less than five minutes' research time - without leaving my computer.)

The bottom line is that the U.S. Coast Guard is scandalously under-represented by the plastic kit industry, and we probably ought to be happy that this kit is coming back on the market.  Gold Medal Models offers a set of photo-etched detail parts for it; with the help of that set it should be possible to turn it into a really impressive model.  And it certainly offers scope for conversion.  I don't know off the top of my head how many models it would take to represent all the ships in that class in all their configurations; I suspect it would take more than a dozen.  To my eye, though, they looked best in their "as-built" configurations - with two open 5" mounts forward and the handling gear for a Grumman Duck or Curtiss Seagull aft:  http://www.uscg.mil/history/plans/CGCRogerBTaneyColor.jpg .

Regarding the box art - my memory isn't good enough to comment intelligently.  I do remember (I think) the painting that showed the Campell rescuing men from a foundering merchant ship, but that's all I can recall.  I just took a look through the pictures in Dr. Graham's book; no luck.  He does reproduce the painting of the Buckley ramming a U-boat - but that one, of course, is based on reality.

Repeat post.

I'm guessing this is a case of sheer laziness and not intentional deception on their part...the ship would probably sell just as well if they gave an accurate portrayal of what it is and the history behind the real ship...another example of why far-east companies are eating American model companies' collective lunch...

The Lindbergh Japanese sub fiasco came to mind while I was reading your thread...the people running the American companies seem to have no passion for the hobby anymore...bunch of lazy @#!%#@!...

I'm calling for a boycott until they right this...

As somewhat of an aside; when Lindberg's 1/144 Arizona was announced I got in touch with the CEO trying to help what was going to be an abomination. Amongst other things, they had guns in tubs that were empty; Arizona had received the tubs before there were enough of the 1.1" guns to actually embark any.

The response when told that this was an inaccurate representation was "I can't leave those empty; the public would feel cheated!" It told me much about their mindset...

Sadly, John, it's pervasive and extends into publishing.  Much of what has been published in my area of interest over the last few years is rife with error and clearly based on secondary and tertiary sources.  Little, if any, peer review of the material appears to have taken place, as most of the errors are obvious to anyone who actually is familiar with the subject.  

Al Ross

Ship histories included in kits have always been problematic.  One of the most notorious to me concerns "Benjamin Franklin's Black Prince, his successful privateer of 1794. During the American Revolution . . .", and the Aeropiccola La Flore, the French Frigate of 1783 (the kit comes with the tricolor flag of Revolutionary France. Oh, well . . .

Bill Morrison

Nahhhh, I implicitly believe what I read in the model kit instructions. That thing I saw in Baltimore last year must have been what Yankees call a "reasnabl' fak sim-elee"!

Actually, the only thing I wondered, with that pier blocking it in, was how the heck they were ever going to get it out if the Taney needed to be drydocked.

I have scratchbuilt a large (1/48) model of the Campbell . the model reflects the two open guns at the bow and the grummen duck (scratch built) on the aft deck. Primary source was plans from the Coast guard museum and their generous consultation services

I also am in the process of a 1/80 build of a c3 freighter after the Revell Hawaiian Pilot. Primary sources Smithsonian plans, much internet search, and the Revell model.

Neither model is museum quality but reasonable representations. The fun (to me) is in the building and figuring out how to reproduce the real thing, not necessarily pinpoint perfection that I'm not capable of achieving in any event

I would like to post some photos taken with my blackberry but am not sure how attach to a post.  - -I'd appreciate some help in doing this

Aaron Alpert

If you go to forum help threads and do a search for posting photos, you'll get the whole picture. Not too hard, just involves a web site to host your pics on.

Those are big scales! And why 1/80? Just curious.

Tracy White

The response when told that this was an inaccurate representation was "I can't leave those empty; the public would feel cheated!" It told me much about their mindset...

I think I remember reading somewhere that when the builder was asked why he put submarine deck gun 5"/25s in place of the real 5"/25 open mounts, he said it was because that was what he had available.  That mock-up he made had more errors on it than just about any model of the Arizona that I have ever seen.  I know he was in a hurry to have it for the show, but this was ridiculous!  He is supposed to be a Master Modeler.  At least, that is what Lindberg called him.....  At least Revell, and especially Revell-Germany, have usually tried to make their ship models somewhat reasonably accurate.  When most of these ship models were first produced they did not have as ready an access to the accurate data plans that we take for granted nowadays.  Weren't the government record offices just a bit more stingy about what they would release back in the 50s and 60s than they are today?  LOL  The Public Information Act wasn't even a gleam in anybody's eye back then!

I did 1/80 purely to satisfy my desire to make the model a certain size. I probably should have been satisfied with 1/96 as the plans i obtained were already that scale - I had to enlarge them photographically especially the lines drawing for the hull (kinkos) or otherwise do a lot of measuring and drawing. I wasnt concerned about finding fittings because I scratchbuild practically everything except the prop & use 1/96 if I absolutely have to.

thanks for thetip on the photos 

Hey Aaron

Speaking of 1:48 CAMPBELLS...I'm building a 1:48 scale CAMPBELL also, but it's the 270' version(6 feet in length). I had the good fortune of serving on both Campbells, with the 1987 version I'm a "plankowner".  I do hope you'll post some photos of your model, I served on three ships of the Secretary class, USCGC Campbell, Duane and Bibb. They were great ships with handsome lines. 

I also have started a 1:96 scale W-32 Campbell, plan to depict the cutter as it appeared when I was stationed on it.

John:

Like many others on the Forum, I share your concern and, although it is scant comfort, it bugs me also.

We tend to lose sight of the fact that some of the the owners, officers, and personnel of the firms involved in the production, marketing, and distribution of these kits are not avid modellers or historians, just folks for whom this is a job or an investment rather than something that they are personnaly connected to.  I recall that the new owners of a famed manufacturer of electric trains recruited their director of marketing from a cereal firm - in their view product was just product.  It's really kind of sad.

Let's just hope that the Revell/Monogram's Director of Marketing isn't a former student of yours...

Regards,

Mike

Carmike

John:

 

Let's just hope that the Revell/Monogram's Director of Marketing isn't a former student of yours...

Regards,

Mike

May Heaven forbid!

I think the Secretary Class CG ships were very very good looking ships , especially in their white CG dress  and really beautiful hull lines.  My model has gotten many compliments from "laymen" who fortunately can t recognize  its various departures from true detail.  Note that part of the reason I selected this subject is my memory of building the Revell kit as a kid . 

I will try to share photos sometime soon.

I suspect that this is more a sin of omission on Revell’s part, rather than of commission, as they have apparently neglected to update what was presumably written in 1976.  The Taney’s blurb on the Revell website is taken directly from the description of the ship in the kit’s instruction sheet. That description was correct when the kit was first released as the Taney in 1976.  What has probably happened is simply that no one bothered to check whether that description was still correct for 2010 and the instructions (like the rest of the kit) have been reissued just as they were in 1976.  It appears to be common practice on the website for the kit descriptions to be lifted verbatim from the kit instructions.  It’s not hard to see how this could have fallen through the cracks.

Hardly the worst sin in Revell’s history.  And it should be noted that some of the most notorious ones, like the Bounty/Beagle, Cutty Sark/Thermopylae, Flying Cloud/Staghound, Eagle/Seadler, were perpetrated by those “far-sighted, knowledgeable executives and artisans who founded [the company]”.

They need to re-train their caption writer.  The problem isn't limited to ships.  For instance, the description for their 1/48 black bunny F-14 still says:

"The manoeuvrable [sic] F-14 is one of the most effective weapons systems used by the wester [sic] air forces and is still one of the most modern interceptors in the US Navy."

I'm a fan of the old 'cat, but I'm afraid to say that time has passed them by.  Note typos, too!

I'm also a plank-owner, from Harriet Lane.  I was stationed in Portsmouth, VA, in 1986, and served as a VIP usher/escort at the Taney's decommissioning ceremony.  The guest of honor was Corrine Taney, aged 80-something, a descendant of Roger B Taney, the former Secretary of the Treasury and the ship's namesake.  As a young woman, Corrinne had christened Taney when she was launced in 1937.

I still have a copy of the program we handed out, somewhere.......

BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT...

Manstein's revenge

BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT...

Better yet, dump all of their models in Boston Harbor while wearing Indian disguises.

steves

I suspect that this is more a sin of omission on Revell’s part, rather than of commission, as they have apparently neglected to update what was presumably written in 1976.  The Taney’s blurb on the Revell website is taken directly from the description of the ship in the kit’s instruction sheet. That description was correct when the kit was first released as the Taney in 1976.  What has probably happened is simply that no one bothered to check whether that description was still correct for 2010 and the instructions (like the rest of the kit) have been reissued just as they were in 1976.  It appears to be common practice on the website for the kit descriptions to be lifted verbatim from the kit instructions.  It’s not hard to see how this could have fallen through the cracks.

 

Hardly the worst sin in Revell’s history.  And it should be noted that some of the most notorious ones, like the Bounty/Beagle, Cutty Sark/Thermopylae, Flying Cloud/Staghound, Eagle/Seadler, were perpetrated by those “far-sighted, knowledgeable executives and artisans who founded [the company]”.

I imagine steves is right:  the blurb on the website is just a copy of what was printed on an earlier iteration of the kit instructions.  My basic point in starting this thread is simply the one he made:  nobody at Revell/Monogram was interested enough to take the five minutes that would have been necessary to update the information.  Those people simply don't care about such things.

The irony in this particular case is that mentioning the Taney's status as a museum ship might have helped the sales of the kit.  I don't know how many visitors she gets every years, but the figure has to be in the tens of thousands.  It seems like some of those folks might like to build models of her. 

I also agree that this isn't "the worst sin in Revell's history."  (For that title I nominate the "Bounty/Beagle" stunt, though the competition is pretty stiff.  I mentioned some of the other competitors earlier in this thread.)  The Taney kit really is, by 1957 standards, a reasonable scale model of the ship. 

It would be interesting to find out just how those "semi-reissues," or whatever we want to call them, came about back in the fifties and sixties.  Dr. Graham's book identifies the "principal sculptor" for the first generation of Revell sailing ship kits:  an Englishman named Tom Hogg.  ("He was a sailing ship enthusiast who filled his home with large wooden ship models.")  Was he involved in the decision to change the Cutty Sark kit slightly and sell it under the name "Thermopylae"?  Dr. Graham doesn't say; he just says (p. 41 of his book) that "to capitalize on [the success of the Cutty Sark kit]  Revell made some slight changes in the model's details and issued it as a second kit, the Thermopylae."  It would be nice to think that Mr. Hogg protested against such behavior and stomped off the job, but maybe he succumbed to the lure of the dollar.  At any rate, steves is right:  the habit of selling falsely-labeled ship kits got started quite early in Revell's history.  (According to Dr. Graham's list, the "Thermopylae" and "Seeadler" appeared in 1960; the "Beagle" followed in 1961, and the "Stag Hound" in 1962.  For that matter, the very first instance of a Revell kit being "renamed" came in 1955, when the two-year-old Missouri reappeared, with a completely bogus color scheme and helicopters replacing her seaplanes, under the name New Jersey.)

I have not (surprise, surprise) received any response to the e-mail I sent to Revell's customer service department.  And the description of the Taney on the company website hasn't been changed (or hadn't as of five minutes ago).  I hope somebody from Revell takes a look at this thread.  I'm at how many responses it's generated; the subject seems to have struck a sensitive nerve in a fair number of modelers.

Revell later took the helicopter version (New Jersey) and renamed it USS Wisconsin; they repackaged the Missouri as USS Iowa.  Similarly, they repackaged the USS Arizona as USS Pennsylvania with no changes to reflect any differences.  At least they made some appropriate changes to their 1/570 Bismarck before packaging it as Tirpitz.

As for their destroyers, the Forrest Sherman was repackaged as John Paul Jones and Decatur with no changes; their USS Buckley was repackaged as HMS Bligh as well as a Taiwanese DE, again with no changes.

Just my two cents . . .

Bill Morrison

Late Edit:

Didn't Revell once package the USS Ward as USS Reuben James and (in its current reincarnation) HMS Campeltown?

Somebody with a few hours to spare might find it interesting to go through the list of ship kits in Dr. Graham's book and make a list of all the names under which they've appeared.  I haven't tried to do that, but my guess is that, over the period covered by Dr. Graham's book (from the founding of the company to 1979), the number of "renamed" ship kits outnumbered the genuine new releases by at least two to one.

In most of the modern warship cases, the "renamed" kits at least are of the right classes.  There are exceptions, though.  The most egregious one, perhaps, was the repackaging of the 1/125 Type VII U-boat as U-505, the Type IX that's preserved at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry.  That one was so outrageous that somebody blew the whistle.  The gift shop at the museum quit selling the kit, and Revell took it off the market.

It also probably should be noted that Revell isn't the only perpetrator of such stunts.  If all the Heller ship kits that are modified reissues (sometimes pretty hilarious-looking ones) of earlier kits were deleted, the line probably would shrink by at least two-thirds.  And we've commented repeatedly on the indignities that have been inflicted on old Lindberg and Pyro kits.   

I, for one, fully appreciate the golden era in which we find ourselves!  At least several newer manufacturers care to do the research and model appropriate changes between sister ships. Now, if they would only extend their creative efforts to sailing ships! 

Bill Morrison