SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Revell 1/90 Nina Completed

72422 views
254 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    July 2010
  • From: Tempe AZ
Revell 1/90 Nina Completed
Posted by docidle on Wednesday, November 7, 2012 12:20 AM

Thanks to everyone who followed the Hanse Kogge build, I really appreciated the support.  I am going to finish the Nina and Pinta at this time since I have another project I am tackling which I am very excited about. Anyway, I hope you enjoy this thread and as usual all comments and critiques are welcome.

Steve

  

Here are the hulls glued, puttied and filed.  I have already painted the hulls the base color and taped off the lower hulls for the "anti-fouling" paint.

  

 

  

       

 

 

  • Member since
    July 2010
  • From: Tempe AZ
Posted by docidle on Wednesday, November 7, 2012 12:27 AM

Here is an inside shot showing the gun port cut out and the filling of the amazingly inconvenient sink holes.  I am going to over fill and then rescribe the sides.  This is just one of my concerns with these kits.  Although the Nina has three masts which I understand is historically correct, the way Revell made the Nina and Pinta kits "different" is on the center portion of the deck.  I' ll post those pictures tomorrow and continue my critique of the kits then.

Steve

 

 

       

 

 

  • Member since
    March 2009
  • From: brisbane australia
Posted by surfsup on Wednesday, November 7, 2012 6:32 AM

If this is half as good as the Krogge Steve we are in for a real treat. Looking good so far Ace.....Cheers mark

If i was your wife, i'd poison your tea! If Iwas your husband, I would drink it! WINSTON CHURCHILL

  • Member since
    July 2010
  • From: Tempe AZ
Posted by docidle on Wednesday, November 7, 2012 9:53 PM

Thanks Mark.

Here are some pictures showing the painting of the lower hull.  Enjoy!

Steve

       

 

 

  • Member since
    July 2010
  • From: Tempe AZ
Posted by docidle on Wednesday, November 7, 2012 9:56 PM

Testing colors for the hull.

 

       

 

 

  • Member since
    May 2010
  • From: Berwick, La.
Posted by Tnonk on Wednesday, November 7, 2012 10:03 PM

I'll be watching this with interest Steve, I suppose it'll be twice as good as your Kogge.

If you need any reference pics on these ships, I've got a couple of dozen shots of the full size replicas that were in my neck of the woods several months back.

I have a few posted here in an older post somewhere's, or let me know & I'd be glad to forward you some.

Good luck with the builds.

Adrian

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • From: Klaipeda, Lithuania, Europe
Posted by Wojszwillo on Thursday, November 8, 2012 2:57 AM

Perfect!

Which collors are used?

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Thursday, November 8, 2012 1:45 PM

These are shaping up to be beautiful models - and yet another demonstration of Docidle's good judgment in picking modeling subjects.  

The photos do, however, emphasize the one reservation I've always had about those two kits (I think they're reissues of Heller kits, though I'm not sure of that):  they use the same hull moldings.  We know so little about those ships that it's impossible to say anything for certain about their hull forms, but it seems highly unlikely (if not downright impossible) that they were identical.  My approach to the problem would be to keep the two models on different shelves - or in different rooms.  Nobody can prove that either of them is "wrong," but the notion that they were identical from the main rail down is pretty tough to swallow.

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

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • From: Klaipeda, Lithuania, Europe
Posted by Wojszwillo on Thursday, November 8, 2012 2:34 PM

Mr. Tilley, at the moment you haven't seen the upper parts of hull attached, which are different...

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Thursday, November 8, 2012 3:29 PM

I've built both of those kits (quite a long time ago).  I'm aware that the upper bulwark parts in the two kits are different. The fact remains that, as I said earlier, the hulls from the main rail down are identical.  (Surely that's obvious from the photos.)  How much difference that makes is a matter for the individual modeler to decide.  I personally (as I also said earlier) have no problem with that standardized hull representing either the Nina or the Pinta, but I wouldn't be comfortable with the notion of its representing both.  As I also said earlier, I think a good solution would be to display the models separately.  If some other modeler isn't bothered by identical the shapes of the two hulls, that's that modeler's business.

One other small (and probably obvious) suggestion:  give the two ships different paint schemes.  If you do that, the average observer probably won't notice that the hulls are identical.

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

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • From: Klaipeda, Lithuania, Europe
Posted by Wojszwillo on Thursday, November 8, 2012 5:12 PM

Both - Pinta and Nina was caravels. Nobody can tell 100% shure, how they looked exactly. Why they can't share the same hull lines?

By the way, you would propose to display RMS Olympic and RMS Titanic models separately too?

  • Member since
    September 2012
Posted by GMorrison on Thursday, November 8, 2012 6:34 PM

Woj,

I've read in several accounts references to Nina and Pinta as "smaller" and "larger', estimated as "60" and "70" toneladas.

They had different sizes of crews.

They were bought from two different owners, and were rigged differently.

All that suggests to me that they were most probably different sizes.

Now I want to be clear, I'm not piling on docidle here, who has skills I can only dream about. And he didn't design the kits- we all get what's available, right?

But I do think they looked quite different below the water line. Revell had it's reasons.

 Modeling is an excuse to buy books.

 

  • Member since
    March 2012
  • From: Marysville, WA
Posted by David_K on Thursday, November 8, 2012 7:14 PM

Looking great, Steve!  I must admit, I'm hoping for a few pointers on your painting techniques during the process!!  :)

Not that I want to be a copycat, but I recently realized that I have no idea how to apply the oil paints in a way that remotely resembles your finishes....my GP looked more like a kid went after it with a crayon! I wiped off my first try, and am now in the contemplative stage of a new approach!

I'll be watching this build with interest!

        _~
     _~ )_)_~
     )_))_))_)
     _!__!__!_         
     (_D_P_K_)
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    ~~~~~~~~~~~

Current Project:  Imai/ERTL Spanish Galleon #2

Recently Finished: Revell 1/96 Cutty Sark

Next Up:  ???

 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Thursday, November 8, 2012 11:00 PM

Mr. Morrison is right:  there's quite a bit of evidence that the Pinta was a little larger than the Nina.  Just how much can't really be determined, given the sloppiness of tonnage measurement in those days.  And if the observer isn't looking at both models simultaneously....

Yes, I would display models of the Olympic and Titanic side-by-side (if I had a case that would hold them).  The real ships had virtually identical hull lines, so scale models of them should.

 

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

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • From: Klaipeda, Lithuania, Europe
Posted by Wojszwillo on Friday, November 9, 2012 5:09 AM

To Mr. Morrison - its only our thinking. Revell has made different upper hull fittings, and of course different rigging. By the way, its is clear, that Nina's rigging was changed during expedition before going to Atlantic, and looked alike Pinta's rigging.

So i do not see right arguments, why lower hull lines of the same type of ships should look different. Yes, Pinta was slightly bigger than Nina, but that is still acceptable to "imagination models", and all Columbus fleet ships are such. We can only discuss, but no one can say 100% right.

To Mr. Tilley - if you dont see a problem to display models of Olympic and Titanic side by side, while they both are from the same class and both have the same hull except of decks fitting, i simply don't understand logic of your proposal to do not display Revells / Hellers "imagination models" of the same type of ships - Pinta and Nina side by side, becouse they have same lower hull part lines, and all other differs.

  • Member since
    July 2010
  • From: Tempe AZ
Posted by docidle on Wednesday, November 14, 2012 11:07 PM

I tried posting these earlier but the site was not playing nicely.  Thanks for all the kudos gentlemen.  These are pictures of the decks on both the Nina and Pinta.  This is definitely the difference between the Heller kits and the Revell kits.  The Heller kits have fairly distinct decks per say whereas the Revell decks are a bean counter's dream and a modelers nightmare.

As you can see the decks are identical with molded sacks of something on the port side a bit forward of amidship.  The "difference" is in the insert deck.  The locators for the masts are different however no amount of filling can blend them in.  I almost lost all of the detailing trying to blend in the Pinta insert.  I tried green putty, Mr. Surfacer 500, CA and white glue.  Nothing worked and I pride myself in blending seems.

On the Nina deck insert I just glued and clamped and then kept an eye on them to make sure they were as level as possible.  Although not as "bad" as the Pinta deck, you can still see the difference in the two deckings.

I am going to move the boat on the Nina so that it hides the sacks.  On the Pinta I am going to try and do a faux finish so that it looks like the are planks and a wood grain instead of nothing.

Steve

       

 

 

  • Member since
    March 2009
  • From: brisbane australia
Posted by surfsup on Thursday, November 15, 2012 6:10 AM

Good to see you are going along pretty well so far Steve. Looking forward to seeing some more.....Cheers mark

If i was your wife, i'd poison your tea! If Iwas your husband, I would drink it! WINSTON CHURCHILL

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:54 AM

Looks first-rate.  These are going to be beautiful models.

I'm starting to think these aren't reissues of the old Heller kits.  I built the Heller versions about 40 years ago; I don't remember that pile of sacks and the separate deck segments.  (Whether my poor old brain would remember such things at this distance is, of course, highly questionable.)  The hull halves look just about like I remember the Heller versions (including the bulwark stanchions), but the deck parts don't.

I know there was a slight boom of interest in models of Columbus's ships back in 1992.  (Sheesh - that was twenty years ago!)  At that time some old Heller (and even Aurora) kits were showing up in Revell Germany boxes.  I seem to recall vaguely that we had a discussion of the topic here in the Forum (I don't remember when - maybe a mere five years ago or thereabouts) in which it was established that the Revell kits were original to that company. 

I do know that the Santa Maria Revell Germany is advertising on its website right now is the old Revell version from the mid-fifties.  (Heller made one that was about the same size, but this one clearly is the ancient Revell version.) 

Can anybody with a better memory than mine - or with both Heller and Revell kits in front off him/her - sort this out?

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

  • Member since
    July 2009
Posted by Harquebus on Friday, November 16, 2012 4:21 AM

Hmm, I bought the Revell Pinta and Santa Maria around the time of the anniversary and they were emblazoned with 1492-1992 Anniversary artwork. I never got the Nina as the lateen rigged sails were not as handsome in my eyes as square rigging. The Santa Maria is definitely an older and cruder kit but I was delightfully surprised but the much finer Pinta and the precise nature of the kit. I think the Pinta is a not Revell kit as the Santa M is just not comparable in quality.

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • From: Klaipeda, Lithuania, Europe
Posted by Wojszwillo on Friday, November 16, 2012 8:05 AM

Revell's Pinta and Nina - slightly modified Heller's kits - Revell used "unified" deck with different "inserts" to middle of the deck. "Unified" parts was packed in one packing (and this pack was the same and for Pinta and for Nina), "different" in other packing. I think in that case production was made with less costs.

Pille of sacks and other molded "things" on deck - Revell's addition. All other - Heller's.

  • Member since
    July 2010
  • From: Tempe AZ
Posted by docidle on Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:48 AM

Here a three hull pictures.  Not too sure I like the colors but we'll see.

       

 

 

  • Member since
    July 2010
  • From: Tempe AZ
Posted by docidle on Saturday, November 17, 2012 1:02 AM

Since we were discussing the old but still good Revell Santa Maria, Here is the Revell 1/90 Santa Maria that I was working on but have decided to disassemble it and use some of the parts on a new one I have in line.  I really do not like the paint job i did using acrylic washes.  I had started this before the Kogge and then figured it would be better to build anew after I finish the Nina and Pinta. The new and improved version will use the artist oil technique. I scratch built the pump just forward of the grating on the main deck.  It was based on the pump on the reconstruction Santa Maria in Chicago I believe.  Anyway, enjoy!

Steve

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

       

 

 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Saturday, November 17, 2012 10:06 AM

One thing that's always puzzled me about the Revell Santa Maria: the crew figures.  In those days Revell's representations of human beings were, beyond much argument, the best on the market.  (Take a look at the ones that came with the little horse-drawn vehicle kits, the military vehicles, and the HO buildings.) 

Dr. Thomas Graham's book on the company's history 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.  Glaser liked the idea, and figures started showing up in Revell kits.

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.'" 

In those days Revell apparently had a miraculously precise three-dimensional pantograph machine.  (I'd love to see a picture of it.)  There are examples of Revell figures turning up in different kits pantographed down to different scales.  I suspect Mr. Bulone carved all the masters on the same scale and had them pantographed down to the scales of the kits.

The Santa Maria was one of the first three Revell sailing ships (the others being the Constitution and H.M.S. Bounty.)  They were on different scales, to fit in identically-sized boxes (which sold for $3.00).  The Santa Maria was the first sailing ship I built - at about age seven.  (I hate to think how much I must have mangled the thing - but my parents thought it was wonderful.)  It had seven exquisite crew figures, including Columbus in fancy dress and a Spanish soldier with a breastplate and helmet.  One of the seven, identified in the instructions as "the cannoneer," got recycled - at the same size - in the Bounty kit.  I've used those figures in many models since then.  (The Spanish soldier, slightly modified into a Continental Marine, is visible on the photo of my scratchbuilt Hancock in my avatar.)

The problem is that the Bounty and Santa Maria kits are quit obviously on different scales.  (The Santa Maria is on a considerable larger scale than the 1/110 Bounty.  I know that figure of 1/110 is right for the Bounty; I communed with that kit for a couple of years back in the 1970s.)   If those figures in the Santa Maria kit were on the same scale as the rest of the model, the real ship would have been enormous. 

I think the company's current description of the kit as being on 1/90 scale is about right.  If so, the figures ought to be much bigger - bigger, in fact than the ones in the big Cutty Sark, Constitution, and Kearsarge kits (and their clones).  On a 1/90-scale model those wonderful little guys in the kit are midgets.

I wonder what happened.  I don't imagine we'll ever know.

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

  • Member since
    July 2009
  • From: Jacksonville, Florida
Posted by Vagabond_Astronomer on Monday, November 19, 2012 7:26 AM

Hello everybody, been a long time.

Great build, but I see that, once more, the whole Heller/Revell caravel controversy has reared its admitted silly looking head.

The dies are different. They are based upon the work of Jose Maria Martinez-Hidalgo in his book, "Columbus's Ships", but are clearly different. The Heller dies produce smaller caravels; if I were going to build these, I'd use the Heller "Pinta" as the square rigged "Nina" (or, if you choose to go lateen, the Heller Nina) and the Revell Pinta as... well... the Pinta, as it is clearly larger.

Top to bottom, Heller, Revell, Occidental/Zvezda

There are numerous differences, such as decks, hawses, etc. I've often heard the same about the Santa Maria kits from both companies as well; both are based upon the Julio Guillen y Tato Santa Maria, which, while having mostly a proper hull, is actually a large caravel, when Columbus himself referred to the Santa Maria as a nao, a round ship. The Revell kit is around 1/90, whilst the Heller kit is 1/75; again, they only share the source design. This is why the Heller trio look so awkward together, the caravels are between 1/96 - 1/100, based upon available information.

You could convert the Revell Santa Maria kit into a more "nao" looking vessel (as you can the larger Heller and Imai models) by adding the focs'l. They actually did this with the second Guillen Santa Maria replica, and it served as a proof of concept, if you will, for Martinez-Hidalgo.

Link to my photo album, in case you are interested in all the differences - 

A Tale of Three Ninas

Cheers,

Rob

"I have loved the stars too dearly to be fearful of the night..."
  • Member since
    July 2009
  • From: Jacksonville, Florida
Posted by Vagabond_Astronomer on Monday, November 19, 2012 7:35 AM

One more thing...

There is a flaw in the Revell Nina kit that bothers me to no end. The mizzen mast is aligned with a hatch on the main deck. Normally, these masts would go all the way down to mast steps mounted on the keels. The kit doesn't look bad, but that little detail... hmmm.

- RL

"I have loved the stars too dearly to be fearful of the night..."
  • Member since
    July 2009
  • From: Jacksonville, Florida
Posted by Vagabond_Astronomer on Monday, November 19, 2012 7:39 AM

...and yet one more thing...

Great work! Those will be some fine looking models.

-RL

"I have loved the stars too dearly to be fearful of the night..."
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Monday, November 19, 2012 1:11 PM

Strange and wondrous are the ways of plastic kit manufacturers.  I'm surprised none of them have sued each other out of business.

The idea of the Nina's mizzen mast being stepped on the upper deck seems unlikely, but not totally inconceivable.  It must have been a mighty small mast; I've seen drawings of such things that rely on the rigging and the rigidity of the stepping mechanism.  But if I were building such a model I certainly wouldn't do it that way.

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

  • Member since
    July 2009
  • From: Jacksonville, Florida
Posted by Vagabond_Astronomer on Monday, November 19, 2012 1:49 PM

jtilley

Strange and wondrous are the ways of plastic kit manufacturers.  I'm surprised none of them have sued each other out of business.

There was a joke running around in the 1970's that Airfix and FROG had both agreed not to release the same model at the same time. 

Cheers,

Rob

"I have loved the stars too dearly to be fearful of the night..."
  • Member since
    September 2012
Posted by GMorrison on Monday, November 19, 2012 2:54 PM

Vagabond_Astronomer

One more thing...

There is a flaw in the Revell Nina kit that bothers me to no end. The mizzen mast is aligned with a hatch on the main deck. Normally, these masts would go all the way down to mast steps mounted on the keels. The kit doesn't look bad, but that little detail... hmmm.

- RL

Well at least it doesn't have a capstan around the base of it...If it bugs you, I say change it. Who'd know, huh?

Looking at those decks, with the sacks of Azorean fruit and all, it seems that replacing them with scribed basswood would not be too hard.

 Modeling is an excuse to buy books.

 

  • Member since
    July 2009
  • From: Jacksonville, Florida
Posted by Vagabond_Astronomer on Monday, November 19, 2012 3:01 PM

GMorrison

Well at least it doesn't have a capstan around the base of it...If it bugs you, I say change it. Who'd know, huh?

Looking at those decks, with the sacks of Azorean fruit and all, it seems that replacing them with scribed basswood would not be too hard.

I built a Revell Nina back in 1993 as a Portuguese caravel and did just that, though I used two ply smooth Bristol board with a deck pattern drawn on it and then streaked using stain marker over a basswood base. Also built a Nina straight as a review of sorts (that's when I spotted it). Certainly easy enough, and the results were good.

Cheers,

Rob

"I have loved the stars too dearly to be fearful of the night..."
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.