Revell 1/110 Charles W Morgan

Prof J,

I love the "you know what" administration although the "Public" History comes in a close second.  Hopefully you will be able to ride out the last two years in non typo bliss.

GM,

Alameda was the end of the line for the SP trains at the old Mole, where the cars would be loaded onto ferries and brought across the Bay to SF.  We still had the Alameda Branch Line running while I was a kid.  

I used Floquil paints such as the Depot Buff, Roof Brown, Grimy and Engine Black as well as Copper over the years and was sorry to hear that Testors was discontinuing them.  I was happily surprised this weekend when I found Model Master acryl paint for about 15 colors from the old Floquil line at my LHS.  I picked up the Depot Buff, Grimy and Engine Black and Roof Brown and tried them out.  I am a happy camper!

Steve

I recently told my employees that I considered them all equal, but the text came out evil.

Steve, thank you for the citation and I think your model looks superb in that color.

Depot buff by the way is an old Floquil color from the Santa Fe railroad. And the Southern Pacific had a similar color. Some of those old buildings are still around if you know where to look.

As my time period follows that era, when she was ported oon the west coast, it's entirely possible that those paints were around the San Francisco waterfront. Probably half the town worked for either of those RR's.

Re scratched loins - for thirty years I was in charge of the area of "public history" at the university where I worked (now semi-retired).  For thirty years I felt a great cloud hanging over me.  I'm a lousy typist, and I knew that one of these days I'd be typing "public history" on an important document and leave out the L.  And spell-checker wouldn't catch it.  (I wish there was a way to remove words from spell-checker's vocabulary.  My other nominee would be "untied" - as in Untied States of America.)

It hasn't happened yet (though one year the university catalog said the Planning Program was offering a "concentration in you-know-what administration."  I'll be teaching part-time for at least two and a half more years, though, so the cloud's still there.

GM,

Leavitt, John F., pg.100.  In 1983, research indicated that for the period 1895 - 1905 an ochre color was used on much of the above deck structures and during that restoration, they were painted in this color; although the masts and yards were kept white.  I paraphrased the paragraphs since I know you own this book also.

After looking at the photos on the restoration site and the Mystic Seaport site and seeing what other modelers have used, as well as ModelExpo's CWM paint set which uses their Hull Yellow Ochre as well as my own 30 year experience as an architectural colorist,  I chose to use Vallejo's Yellow Ochre 913, although Jake's use of the old Floquil or the new Model Master acryl Depot Buff 4878 would not be far off either.  Could it have been white at one time, very possible.  I know now that the period in question, 1895 to 1905 is how I will be modeling her and therefore decided to use the ochre color.

As for mistaking the color for dirty white, I would hope that the those restoring the CWM on site would know the difference between white that has been covered with boiled whale blubber smoke and ochre covered with the same smoke.  You never know, in ten years, new research might come out and say that the upper structures were actually chartreuse!  Hopefully I will have finished the CWM by then….

Steve

All of the topside bulwarks and deck houses...

I hate autocorrect at times.  I could see how it could come out loins that I was scratching if I had been trying to type quoins, but belaying pins?  This ranks right up there with my last spectacular typo of wenches instead of windlass.  

GM, I am not sure what buff color you are speaking of.

Steve

I draw the blinds first...

On the subject of pin rails.

It always is a good idea to lock them onto the hull with more than glue. I drill holes from the outside and stick steel straight pins in.

Nothing worse than lashing down that last halyard, and the whole assembly pops off.

I like what you are doing, Steve. I cannot find references to that buff color. Whats it called and are you sure its not dirty white?

Marcus,

Thanks and I am glad you like it; however, there has not been any further work done on the CWM.  Everything I have posted is not even glued together. I have put it on the back burner so that I can finish a number of other projects and for research.  I have picked up the books that Professor Tilley recommended and have been going through them to figure out which era I am gong to represent.  The projects in line are the Thomas, Nina and Pinta, possibly the Santa Maria and the Imai Chebec although I tend to work on more than one ship at a time.  I do plan on finishing it though!

On the subject of belaying pins and eyebolts, I agree again with the Professor.  ModelExpo's smallest belaying pin in brass is 3/16th or 5mm which is a bit too much.  I have scratched my own belaying pins by using brass rod and dipping the end in white glue and letting it dry upside down to represent the larger end and then painting them.  I have also been making my own eyebolts using the methods described by Prof Tilley although I have used different sized jackstays from ModelExpo at times.

Steve

I think the smallest turned brass belaying pins from either Bluejacket or Model Expo would work fine for the 1/96 Constitution.  You might conceivably want to snip them off a little shorter, but lots of folks have built nice models from that kit with those belaying pins.

Regarding the additional ring on an eyebolt - what you're talking about, I think, is a ringbolt.  A ringbolt is an eyebolt with an iron or steel ring permanently attached to it.  To make such rings is a little trickier than making an eyebolt.  A good way to do it is to find a piece of wire that's the inside diameter of the ring you want to make, to use as a mandrel.  Then wind a piece of soft, fine wire around the mandrel in a tight spiral.  Slice the spiral lengthwise with either a knife or a jeweler's saw.  That will produce a bunch of tiny rings.  Squash them flat with a pair of pliers, and you've got your rings.

A further refinement is to touch a tiny bit of solder to the finished ring (after you've passed it through the eyebolt and squeezed it closed).

Ringbolts and plain eyebolts are both found on ships.  Frankly I wouldn't bother with ringbolts on the Revell Morgan.  The scale is just too small.  On the 1/96 Constitution some ringbolts might be appropriate - but still mighty small.  I don't remember seeing a 1/96-scale model fitted with ringbolts, except very large ones.

Thanks Prof Tilley for this explaination. My efforts for eyebolts never looked as they should. Some of them opened again .. and the colour (done with usual paint a have to say) was going off very quick.

Concerning just cutted wire for pins - that one I will try. It might be good enough for the CWM - but will this be sufficient for a 1/96 Constitution? ..

Another qustion concerning the eyebolts: don´t they have to go with an additional ring? Or is this depending on the use ?

I strongly recommend against plastic belaying pins and eyebolts on any model.  Companies such as Model Expo and Bluejacket make nice, turned brass belaying pins for surprisingly reasonable prices.  Unfortunately I suspect all of them are too big for 1/110 scale.  But carefully cut pieces of brass wire, perhaps with the upper ends rounded off, would do pretty nicely.  On such a small scale it's difficult to see under the pinrails anyway.

There's nothing wrong with Bluejacket's brass eyebolts.  But I don't like to spend money on such things.  It's really quite easy to make them.  If you've got a set of #60-#80 drill bits, they make good mandrels.  (If you don't, I strongly suggest you get one.)  Hold the drill bit in a vice, and loop a piece of fine copper or brass wire around it.  (Brass will be easier to work if you heat it over a candle first.)  Twist the ends of the wire into a "pigtail."  Snip off the result with fine wire cutters, and dip the eyebolt in some sort of chemical blackener.  (Gun bluing will work.)  Drill a hole in the plastic part to fit the "pigtail," and glue the eyebolt in place with CA adhesive.  WIth a little practice you can probably turn out 5 or 10 eyebolts per minute.

I just found this very nice building report - beautiful so far ! Is there any progress up to now?

You discussed here the scale difference versus 1/96. That is not too much isn´t it? Especially for the smaller things like blocks, belaying pins, eyebolds etc. Of course the lenght of the ship is inaccurate - but would it really be visible for deck details - or even for Model-figures?

I am thinking about replacing the pins by some of the Bluejacket Constitution pins. Do you think this would be too much?

www.bluejacketinc.com/.../fittings29.htm

the Number F0119 ones ...

Another question to the experts here: do you have any recommendation for eyebolds? I do not like the plastic ones in the CWM or 1/96 Constitution kit... But my efforts in creating own ones were that crude .. its not really acceptable. AND I am much to slow in producing them .. so I think getting them for money could solve this issue ;-)))

John,

Thanks for the tips on the pin rails and the pins themselves.  I am hoping to get some 5mm brass pins from ModelExpo but as Don posted, their fitting selection has almost disappeared compared to even two years ago, so we'll see how I make out.  On the yard rings, I agree they are rather funky which is kind of weird since the Revell Mayflower and Golden Hind do not have them, nor the Viking ship.  Wasn't the CWM produced after the Mayflower and Golden Hind but before the Viking ship?

I also agree that it would be cool to have a CWM in 1/96 or 1/60 scale.  We all know that Revell does not really have accurate scales on their smaller ships which is why I am not sure if it is 1/110 scale; if so, a 1/96 would not be that much bigger would it?

Mark,

As always, I appreciate the support since I really admire your modeling work.

GMorrison,

Thanks again for the input.  I read in the ModelShipway instructions for the CWM by Ben Lankford that the overhead was added in 1906 to the tryworks on p.18, although he does not cite his sources, he does have Leavitt, Dow, Church and other sources in his bibliography though.  I wish I was nearer so that I could see where under the furnace was the "goat tub" and whether or not we could model it.  I agree that the mizzen topmast would be the perfect candidate for a wood replacement; basswood or what would be a better choice?

Thanks again for all the input,

Steve

Certainly she was a bark for quite a long time before 1906. I'm curious how you got that date? If so, that would mean that during her time in San Francisco the works were open.

You are welcome for the pictures. Your model is looking really nice, BTW. Keep uyp the good workmanship, it shows.

I think the biggest challenge to rigging her as a bark is the mizzen topmast. It needs to be a very long and stiff spar. Good candidate to replace with a piece of wood.

But John, that Revell detail allows the yards to be repositioned! I wonder if the modeler could keep one or the other and call it a parrel, pinning the yard to it. but why bother, right?

The works sat in a tank of water called something like a goat ttub. I wish I could find a photo as it would look nice.

Love looking at your work Steve and this one is no exception.....Cheers Mark

Looks mighty nice so far.  These pictures confirm my recollection that this is one of Revell's best sailing ship kits.

But wouldn't it be great if it was on 1/96 scale?

The only significant deviation from scale I can see in the pictures is that gross pair of "snap rings" around the mizzen mast, where the spanker boom is supposed to go.  Revell put those things on almost all its sailing ship kits, and they all look hokey.  Easily removed, fortunately - even if you don't decide to replace all the plastic spars.

One tip.  Make sure all those pinrails along the bulwarks are REALLY sturdy.  They're going to be subjected to a lot of pull later.  I'd recommend replacing the pins themselves with brass ones, and reinforcing the joints where the pinrails meet the bulwarks.

Fine looking model.

I know I want to have her with the bark rig but since the forward overhead of the tryworks did not show up until 1906 I will have to study the pictures that GMorrison so kindly sent me to see what other surgery I might have to do, such as the double topsails.

I really need to tighten up my painting too before I oil her!

Steve

Here are some close ups.  I'm thinking about scratch building a new workbench including the chicken coop underneath it as well as adding the ribbing on the inside of the skylight.  

Steve

As promised last week, here are some pictures with some of the deck furniture dry fitted.  Everything except the windlass is just dry fitted since I am still exploring which time period I can either do or my abilities will let me build.

Steve

Thanks for the quote GM it is both nice and informative.  I like the part about the bark rig especially.

Steve

Here's a fairly straightforward quote from a rather quaint book in my collection- "The Book of Old Ships (and something of their evolution and romance)" by Henry Culver, drawings by Gordon Grant, Garden City, New York 1924. I apologize, my Turabian escapes me these days.

This is from the chapter titled "A New Bedford Whaling Bark".

"The bark rig was a favourite one with the whaler as it afforded an opportunity to keep all the main braces aloft and thus out of the way of the continually handled boats, while the fore and aft mizzen had conspicuous advantages when it came to lying-to,

Apparently the rig was evolved around the end of the 18th or the beginning of the 19th Century. Darcy Lever (1808) mentions that it was customary for vessels in the Baltic trade to substitute a flagstaff for the mizzen topmast, its top yards and gear, and to omit the cross-jack yard, retaining only the driver, a fore and aft sail, on the mizzenmast. This would leave the vessel substantially bark-rigged. Subsequent development included a more elaborate spar for the flagstaff, one capable of carrying a gaff topsail, and the type was complete".

Just saw her today, across the Mystic River.

The Mrs and I spent the day at Mystic. We're luck we just live a little over an hour from it.

Following you thread with great interest.

jtilley

Using the dimensions on those drawings, it shouldn't be too difficult to convert the Revell kit to the barque rig - if that's what the modeler wants to do.  On the other hand, if the kit is built out of the box (ship-rigged, but without the painted ports), the result should be a pretty accurate reproduction of what she looked like in the 1840s and 1850s.

Just bought Bray on Amazon. Thanks all for the tip.

Yeah, the edition of the book edited by Maynard Brey is the one I have.  I suspect the 1979 edition contains the same plans.  If I remember right, there's yet another, larger edition that just appeared a few years ago.

[Later edit -

Yep - http://shop.mysticseaport.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=shop.museumProduct&storeNavigationID=1&productID=E1B18B9C-1857-4986-9C9F25446980B06B .]

Jake,

Yes, you can airbrush Vallejo acrylics and I use the Vallejo thinner when airbrushing.  They do have an "Air" line of acrylics; however, I have never seen the Yellow Ochre color in that set.  When I am airbrushing acrylics, regardless of brand, I always use my single action Paasche and have a small container of thinner and q-tips handy to help keep the nozzle clear.

Personally, I use the Vallejo paints mainly for brush painting since they lay really nicely and I have yet to see a brush stoke in all the time I have used them, which is about two and a half years.

I pay $6.00 for Floquil Paints in my neck of the woods but they are worth it.  All the black colors were gone this last weekend when I went to stock up, but I did purchase the same colors that you did as well as Roof Brown, Rail Brown, Depot Buff and Aged Concrete.  I am going to miss them when they are gone.

Hope this helps,

Steve

Thank you for the run down GM, I have found an used copy of Leavitt's book on Amazon for a little over $5.00.  I am going to wait until I get that and the Mystic Seaport Watercraft by Brey before I make a commitment on how I am going to build the CWM. Although, I know there are certain ideas that I would like to model on her.

Prof Tilley, thank you for your input, it is always appreciated.  I found two books in regards to Mystic Seaport and the CWM.  One is the Mystic Seaport Watercraft by Brey, 1970 edition and Mystic Seaport Museum Watercraft by the Seaport Museum, 1979 edition.  I am assuming that the Brey book is the one you are recommending.

Thanks again gentlemen,

Steve

I visited the Morgan for the first time in the summer of 1966.  At that time - and for a long time after - she wore the white painted "ports" on her hull, and the full ship rig.   Generations of visitors came to take it for granted that that was what she looked like.  She sat in a bed of concrete, not actually "afloat."  In 1966, at least in the summer time, she actually set a full suit of sails.  (I remember sitting with my father watching the rigging crew, consisting of one full-time staff member and two apprentices, furl them at the end of the day.)

I think the Revell kit, which was originally released in 1968 (source - Dr. Thomas Graham's Revell Model Kits) is an accurate reproduction of what she looked like at that time.  It probably was based on the plans drawn by Walter B. Channing, which for many years were regarded as the standard source about her.

Sometime after 1968 Mystic decided to change its approach to exhibiting the ship.  I don't know just when this happened, but I think it probably was in either the late seventies or the early eighties.  The concrete "berth" was demolished, and she was hauled out of the water for extensive restoration.  The curators (I have this from one of the staff members, shortly after she went back on exhibition) decided that the best way to restore her was to "bring her back" to a configuration she had when a bunch of photographs of her were taken - I believe in the 1870s or 1880s.  That meant, among other things, changing her to the barque rig and removing the painted ports.  The latter apparently had been added for one of her movie appearances.  It's been firmly established that she never carried them during her whaling career - though many other whalers certainly did.

There's an "updated" set of plans that show her as she looks now - i.e., as she looked when those old photos were taken.  (Caveat - it's a pretty safe bet that when the current restoration is finished, she'll look different in some way.  Researchers are always coming up with new information.)  They're reproduced in the book Mystic Seaport Watercraft, which is available from the Seaport.  (It contains lots and lots of plans - including those of the whaleboats she carries.)  Using the dimensions on those drawings, it shouldn't be too difficult to convert the Revell kit to the barque rig - if that's what the modeler wants to do.  On the other hand, if the kit is built out of the box (ship-rigged, but without the painted ports), the result should be a pretty accurate reproduction of what she looked like in the 1840s and 1850s.