Revell CSS Alabama 1961 kit: worth bidding on?

They're the same kit.  Since these two examples were produced a long time apart, it's quite possible that there are differences in such things as the texture of the plastic and the instructions.  (Some years back I downloaded the instructions from the Revell Germany website.  They were really dumbed-down from the originals - and the guy who built the model in the photos didn't know where to put the sails.)  But the parts are identical.  It's hard for me to believe that any difference between the kits would justify spending more money on one than the other.  

It was a remarkable kit for its day, but the industry has moved on.  You've probably read the story behind it:  Revell started out by issuing the U.S.S. Kearsarge in conjunction with the Civil War Centennial celebrations, then, when that kit sold pretty well, modified the molds in various ways to make it into the Alabama.  One problem, for those interested in accuracy, is that a good deal more information about the Alabama has turned up in the past fifty years.  Turning that kit into a serious scale model of the real thing, as she's understood today, would be a major project.

Hmmm....

Most helpful sir. Thank you. Now I am torn as to if I even want to get it at all. I had thought I heard something about the Kersage, except the other way round, that the Kersage was a remake of the Alabama. I guess I will watch the bidding on it and if I can get it cheap enough, it might be an interesting challenge. I know that Cottage Industry makes an AM guns set for it at a very reasonable price. For those around me that would get to see it, they wouldn't know that it had even existed, yet alone if it is accurate. If anyone else has input, I am still wavering.

I will start with the blunt statement that if you want a model of the Alabama that's at all accurate, do not buy this kit. Just for starters, the masts are not raked as they were on the real ship, which ends the conversation as far as I am concerned if built out of the box or even modified in deck detail. It's a doable modification, involving replacing the masts, and I have no idea what then happens to the topmasts. And so on.

But the story gets a little interesting. The Alabama is indeed a revised Kearsarge, as Tilley notes, however it's a very good basis for a Kearsarge from 1864. The Kearsarge kit, on the other hand, is based on her post 1888 refit. I won't repeat the details as they are easy to find online, but check some of the respected other ship model forums and you'll see.

One niggle either way is that the gun swivel tracks on the K kit are correct for that ship, the ones on the A are not for that ship, but they also are not correct for the proposed refit as K i.e they are not the same as the K kit. Revell simply made them up.

If memory serves, and it doesn't always, there's a set pending from one of the good US model makers of mixed media kits.

There's always a good benefit in bidding on those older kits if you like good box art and that old kit smell. I have an original of the Cutter Campbell, for which I paid a lot more money than the rebox/ rerelease, but it's a neat thing to get out and look at.

I'll wager a glass of rum that at the end of the day the old box costs much more than the RoG kit.

That is one very pronounced rake on those masts! I suppose that can be fixed w/ out too much work. I could be wrong tho. I do know that ScaleDecks has come out w/ veneer wood decking for the Alabama, I am checking w/ John to see if he has accounted for the gun tracks.  

Hmm sounds like a project brewing...

If SD has a veneer out, it must match the Revell kit.

That'd mean you are bound to the geometry of the kit.

Here's the link to where I found that drawing.

http://www.lib.ua.edu/content/libraries/hoole/digital/cssala/main.htm

(sorry I can't seem to get hot links to work on this site).

Here's a good start on info.

http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=34545

Here's a review of the kit and it's inaccuracies, i.e. things to fix.

http://www.steelnavy.com/Alabama&Kearsarge.htm

I have found that my best method for transferring scale to models from drawings is to establish the scale of the kit by measuring the mast centerlines from drawings (presumed to be accurate (I know, I know..)), with those of the kit. I find waterline and to a lesser extent beam dimensions to be harder to work with.

If you decide to get into this, I'd be happy to help you research things.

I'm slowly working on 1/96 scale POB kits of KEARSARGE and ALABAMA for BlueJacket.

Al Ross

Right, that's what I was thinking.

BTW the BJ plans of America I recently purchased have been invaluable to me on my Revell "super kit bash". All that's left of the original are the two hull halves.

Thanks so much for the links GM.

I am pretty much decided at this point that I want this for my next build. I just talked to John at scale decks and he says he will be doing the correct gun tracks for the Alabama w/ his yet to be released deck. The profile plan that you steered me to looks to be a good resource for the mast rake. Shouldn't be hard to print a copy and figure out the angle, assuming the accuracy of the drawing. I may well call on you for further/future help. Thank you for offering. There will be some discrepancies that I am going to let ride, such as the hull length (11' short is only 1 3/8" difference at scale) and probably the tail, which I understand should be a clean curve. Now all I have to do is find one at a decent price.

I'm no expert on the Alabama, but I do know that if you want to build a model of her there's one book you've gotta get:  Andrew Bowcock's CSS Alabama, Anatomy of a Confederate Raider. It was published originally by
Chatham Publishing, of London, in 2002, and in the U.S. by the Naval Institute Press.  I'm not sure whether it's still in print, but used and library copies should be pretty easy to find.

Mr. Bowcock did an enormous amount of research in the materials that have become available since the sixties.  (We shouldn't be too hard on Revell; a lot of the stuff Mr. Bowcock found was virtually unknown when the kit was designed.)  The book includes a nice, detailed set of plans, and copies of every known photo of the ship (including a couple of tiny overall shots taken in Singapore).  I suspect somebody's found a few more tidbits of material since the book was published, but the book clearly is the place to start.

If you're within driving distance of Newport News, Virginia, you'd enjoy taking a trip to the Mariners' Museum.  It has a model which certainly appears to be the "builder's model" of the Alabama.

Getting from that old Revell fossil to a genuine scale model of the ship would be a long haul, but a fascinating one.  I'm not at all sure that scratchbuilding wouldn't be quicker.  But good luck.

GMorrison

The Alabama is indeed a revised Kearsarge, as Tilley notes, however it's a very good basis for a Kearsarge from 1864.

I have seen this statement made several times over the years, but I have never understood the reasoning behind it.  The Kearsarge kit hull does represent the ship in the 1880s, but is also mostly correct for the earlier ship as well. The main visual difference is the height of the bulwarks, which aft of the raised forecastle deck should be cut down to the tops of the gun ports.  This is a fairly easy modification for a modeler to make.

 On the other hand, for the Alabama hull to correctly represent the Kearsarge, the head would have to be completely reworked, the forward bulwarks raised and a forecastle deck scratch built, the gun ports filled and new ones correctly sized and located for Kearsarge cut in, and the false stern windows filled in.  In addition, the deck and fittings are correct, or mostly correct, for Kearsarge, while the deck and fittings in the Alabama kit are correct for nothing. The thought seems to be that since the Alabama hull already has lower bulwarks it is a better starting point for the Kearsarge, but in my opinion, if one wishes to build an 1864 Kearsarge, starting with the Alabama kit offers no advantages and many disadvantages.  The best reference for the Civil War Kearsarge is Arthur C Roberts’ four part series of articles staring in the Dec 1999 Nautical Research Journal.

arnie60

There will be some discrepancies that I am going to let ride, such as the hull length (11' short is only 1 3/8" difference at scale) and probably the tail, which I understand should be a clean curve. Now all I have to do is find one at a decent price.

Several years ago I posted a somewhat lengthy explanation of why I felt that the two ships were very close dimensionally and that the Revell Alabama hull was not far off in length.The full post is here:

http://cs.finescale.com/fsm/modeling_subjects/f/7/t/114125.aspx

but the short version is that, because of variations in the way British and American ships were apparently measured, for Alabama the Revell hull may be less than ½” too short.

I did look up Bowcock's book. I am not sure that I am willing to pay $80 to $400 (not a typo) for it. The local library (we have a magnificent one here in Portland) brings up zero results in a search. What to do? What to do? This whole discussion is, not unlike the Constitution, rife w/ differing perspectives relating to accuracy. Most interesting! Thank you all for your input on this. It has been very, very helpful.

And just to be clear, Steve, I hope it was clear from my post that I was simply passing on info from others and have no personal knowledge. I'll let those other opinions stand on their own.

Fair enough GMorrison, I did not mean to imply that the statement originated with you..  I have knowledge and experience with both kits and have done a fair amount of  investigation into what needs to be done to make more or less accurate models from them.  The Alabama kit is typically easier to find and less expensive than the Kearsarge kit, and someone who may buy an Alabama thinking it's a good staring point for the 1864 Kearsarge should be aware of what they may be getting into.  If there is any thing more difficult than making an accurate model of the Alabama from the Alabama kit it would be to make the Kearsarge from it.

And you make a good point which I stand behind.

Ship models take 100s of hours. I always say do your best work at every stage.

Probably my last word on the matter as the subject does not really interest me, but here's a link to the museum in Birkenhead, near Liverpool, that may have decent information on this ship.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/objects/ixRlBQZYRk-fzhALiFOeOA

Otherwise, here's a model that should be aspired to,

Regarding the Bowcock book - $80 was the best price I could find too.  I'm not surprised.  I don't remember what I paid for it when it was new,  but it wasn't cheap.  It probably was printed in limited numbers.

Have you checked out the Inter-Library Loan service?  The library in Portland may be a member; if not, and if there's a university within driving distance, you might try that.  Inter-Library Loan lends books to other member libraries, who loan them to customers.  The library may not let the book circulate, but that's why the good lord invented xerox machines....

It really is terrific book for modelers.  Personally, I wouldn't want to tackle this ship without that book.

Thanks guys. I won't be getting around to this till after New years or later. I will keep searching for a deal on the book in the meantime. Even at $74, it's still pretty high.

I need to retract a statement I made in an earlier post.  The likely builder's model in the Mariners' Museum is of the C.S.S. Florida, not the Alabama.  My bad - the sort of thing my senile memory does with increasing frequency these days.

The MM does have a nice 1/48 model of the Alabama that dates, if I remember right, from the sixties.  It was based on the best information available at that time - but probably differs considerably from Mr. Bowcock's plans.

Sorry about that.  Mea culpa.

Long as I have the experts here, can anyone explain to me how the gun tracks worked. The pattern just does not make sense to me. I just can't figure out how the guns moved on them.

The tracks, or sweeps, allowed  heavy guns stowed on the centerline of the deck to be moved to firing position at a gun port  on either side of the ship.  The gun pivoted on removable pins at the fore and aft ends of the gun carriage. The carriage was also equipped with iron rollers which ran on the sweeps. Typically, the rear pin was removed and the gun pivoted on the front pin towards the side of the ship that the gun was to be fired from.  The rear of the gun was rotated until it aligned with a second pivot point and the rear pin was reinserted.  The front pin was then removed and the front of the gun rotated until it reach a pivot point at the center of the gun port. The rear pin was removed and the gun could be trained about the front pivot and fired through the gun port.

That's a simple and brief explanation and there were variations.  If you ever get ahold of the Bowcock book there is an excellent diagram showing how it all works.

Thanks Steve.

I just found these plans for sale on E-Bay. I PM'd the seller for source and scale, but he didn't know. Anyone recognize them? Worth getting?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/200922680415?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

I can't get the image big enough on my monitor to read any of the text.  It's obviously a modern drawing, intended for use by modelers.  And it looks remarkably like the Revell kit - down to those highly questionable, knee-high "windows" in the stern.  It looks to me like the drawing may just be based on the Revell kit.  But I can't tell for sure.  The price is certainly reasonable.

I just looked at them again, and the rake on the masts tells me it almost certainly is not the Revell model. I don't get how the seller can not know the provenance. That stamp in the upper left corner looks pretty officious (is that a valid word?) and should give some hint to where they came from. I may just go ahead and get them, since as you said, they are reasonably priced.

BTW

I just plunked down $100 for a 1961 Revell CSS Alabama (parts still in unopened baggies)  which should arrive in the next few days, so I guess that I am committed to take on the challenge soon as I finish the Connie I am working on. Still looking for a 'reasonably' priced Bowcock book. If any one gets a lead on one for $50 or less, would love to hear about it.

If you don't spend the $ 28.11 on those drawings- you are there. You need to own that book.

The July 2012 and the September 2012 FSM has articles on building a better Alabama.

Great! Thanks for the heads up on the FSM issues. Hoping I can get digital back issues since I have a digital subscription anyways.

BTW. My '61 Alabama arrived in the mail the other day. All the parts bags are still unopened and all the docs, including a "collectors" stamp are there as well. The rat lines have kind of melted on themselves, but I would never use them anyways, and the vacu sails are riddled w/ holes (mice?), but I had no intention of using them either. Now I have to get cracking on my Connie and get it done so I can start this one.

Thats exciting Arnie. I look forward to the build.