SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Mamoli vs Model Shipways

12465 views
5 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    November 2005
Mamoli vs Model Shipways
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 8:54 PM
I want to build my first wooden Colonial era sloop model, "Rattlesnake" but don't know what manufacturer to choose.

Mamoli and Model Shipways offer "Rattlesnake" in 1/64 and both are plank on bulkhead, which might be too difficult for me. I have seen older Model Shipways "Rattlesnake" kits with solid hulls on ebay and I think this is the way
to go. Can someone advise me as to the right course. Also, if I must build a plank on bulkhead "Rattlesnake", which kit - Mamoli or Model Shipways looks better, or perhaps is easier to build?

Jack
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 9:26 AM
Interesting question. Sounds like you're thinking along the right lines. The Rattlesnake, being a full-rigged ship, is a pretty ambitious subject for a first effort. On the other hand, she's a small ship and all the kits you've described are on a large scale; she doesn't involve a great deal of repetition, which discourages lots of newcomers.

I built the old solid-hull Model Shipways kit a long, long time ago - in the early '70s, I think. I remember it as a near-state-of-the-art kit for the era - and fantastically expensive for a college student's budget. The plans are by George Campbell, a fine artist and draftsman who did his homework and had a knack for making his drawings accurate, clear, and somehow friendly-looking. (I do remember one small and rather amusing goof in those drawings: Campbell left the jibs off the sail plan. I wrote to Model Shipways about that, and got back a courteous letter acknowledging the error. It would be quite simple to fix it.)

Solid-hull kits like that do have their drawbacks. As I remember, the Rattlesnake hull was solid up to the level of the quarterdeck and forecastle. (I may be wrong about this. My 53-year-old brain is having trouble remembering the kit.) In such a ship this is problematic because there's no solid, thwartships bulkhead under either of those decks. If the hull is left like that, the viewer of the finished model can easily see that there's a solid block of wood under there. You can chisel away the chunks in question, but that's quite a job.

Another problem is that a solid hull, as it comes from the manufacturer, is an amorphous blob with no reference points on it. There's no centerline; there's no positive way to drill the holes for the masts absolutely upright; etc. Not a big problem on a well-made solid hull - and MS made some of the best on the market.

One other consideration. Model Shipways used to be an independent company, run by two wonderful gents, John Shedd and Sam Milone, out of a tiny storefront on a dead end street in Bogota, New Jersey. They put a great deal of effort into making their kits accurate and buildable - and picking unusual subjects. They didn't have a great deal of money to put into materials. For many years they cast their fittings in lead alloy. Lead is notoriously unstable; it often suffers from "lead disease," a physical/chemical reaction that makes it degrade into a white powder. Lead disease is unpredictable. I've personally seen examples of ship fittings that, over a period of five or ten years, have "flowered" beyond recognition. I also have some old MS lead castings that have been knocking around my workshop for more than thirty years, and look good as new. If I were buying an old MS kit over the net I'd want to see the fittings, or a good photo of them, before I laid out any cash. (There are different opinions about how to handle lead fittings if you do get stuck with them. It's generally accepted that if you put your model in am airtight plexiglas case and let natural sunlight fall directly on it, the fittings will start to flower within months. If you prime and paint all the fittings carefully, make your case of glass, provide for a little air circulation inside it, and keep it under artificial light, the fittings will probably be ok - but no promises. Lead is unpredictable.)

In the late 1970s (I'm hazy about the dates) Model Shipways (largely due to competition from its biggest rival, Bluejacket) started making its fittings of Britannia metal, an alloy of tin and brass that's much more durable than lead. Shortly thereafter, John and Sam retired and sold the company to Model Expo. By that time the lead fittings were (I think) gone completely, and Model Expo has been using Britannia ever since. So if you get a solid-hull Rattlesnake, it may have lead fittings (a gamble) or Britannia ones (fine). I don't remember whether Model Expo ever sold solid-hull Rattlesnakes under its own label. If you find a solid-hull Rattlesnake with a Model Expo label, it presumably has Britannia fittings.

Shortly after acquiring Model Shipways, Model Expo started re-doing the old MS kits with plank-on-bulkhead hulls. The Rattlesnake, if I remember right, was one of the first subjects for that approach. I haven't had my hands on a Model Shipways/Model Expo Rattlesnake kit, but I suspect it's the best of the three routes to a nice model. One caveat: as I understand it, the kit includes some strange metal pieces that are intended to form "frames" for the gunports. In the photos of the finished product that I've seen, those pieces look kind of weird and out of scale. I wonder how difficult it would be to build the model without them.

I haven't seen the Mamoli kit in person either, but my observation has been that Mamoli is about like most of the other Continental European ship model manufacturers. Their kits are designed primarily for interior decorators, and unless extensively modified to not produce scale models. I have yet to see one of those kits that, in my judgment, was worth taking out of the hobby shop. That's a personal opinion, but it's shared by many other serious ship modelers who've been in the game for a while. (I've held forth on this subject several times before in this forum. In the unlikely event that you're interested, you might take a look at a thread from several months back that starts "First wooden ship model.")

One other thing that should be taken into consideration is the model builder's personal taste. A solid hull gets you started quicker and probably builds confidence initially, but does take lots of work. A well-designed plank-on-bulkhead kit certainly takes longer to build, but the problems I mentioned above - the open spaces under the quarterdeck and forecastle, and the lack of reference points lining things up - take care of themselves automatically. The early stages of work on a solid hull require some relatively brutal carpentry, to thin down the bulwarks with a chisel or gouge. Some people find that easy; others don't. Virtually all the work on a plank-on-bulkhead kit is '"finger work." There are scarcely any large pieces. Some folks do better with that sort of thing.

By now you probably wish you'd never asked the question. Sorry to go on at such awful length, but this is a favorite subject. I really like ships from the Revolutionary period, and I really enjoy reminiscing about the old days at Model Shipways.

Good luck. It's a great hobby.

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

  • Member since
    December 2003
  • From: Virginia, USA
Posted by samreichart on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 10:41 AM
Thanks for an interesting insight into the history of the models and the company.
I purchased the MS Chesapeake Bay Skipjack (Willie Bennett) model last year, and had heard about the lead parts issue before that. I'm looking forward to one day working on that model.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur :)
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 11:32 AM
Dear Prof . Tilley:

Thank you for all your help. I value your opinion and will purchase the Model Shipways (Model Expo) version of the "Rattlesnake". I probably will buy the plank on bulkhead model because you have planted a seed of doubt about solid hull types. I hope my doubts are not unfounded because the photos of the Rattlesnake's solid hull look
finished, but as you said, if I have to gouge or plane out the deck to form bullwarks,
that could be tricky.

I read your earlier response to "First wooden ship model" and found it interesting that
you even recommended some plastic ship models. That's because I have already purchased an old Aurora (1959) model of the sloop Corsair to build before I start on the
Rattlesnake. By the way, being a history professor, can you tell me anything about the
Corsair's history. The ship's plans only say that it was a typical "privateer" type of the
late 18th and early 19th century. I began to think that the name "Corsair" which of course was just another colloquial moniker of the period for pirate may just be a generic ship created by the Aurora company. I did consult the Mystic Seaport Museum
on line site which does include the sloop "Corsair" among the names of real vessels,
however it will cost me about $25.00 to get a copyof this vessels history, and I'm not even sure if it's the asame "Corsair". Do you know anything about this vessel? I really
just want to know where and when it was built.

Thank you


************
Derry, NH
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 12:27 PM
Now I'm on a real nostalgia trip! I can remember building the old Aurora Corsair back in junior high school. My recollections of it obviously are strongly tinted by fading memory, but as I recall it wasn't a bad kit for the time. I believe it represents a privateer from the War of 1812.

I'm no expert on privateering, but I can't recall encountering contemporary plans for a privateer of that name. My impression is that Howard I. Chapelle worked over the existing documentation pretty thoroughly in the course of researching two of his books, The History of American Sailing Ships and The Search For Speed Under Sail. There's no plan of a vessel named Corsair in either of them.

The Search For Speed Under Sail does contain a nice, pretty well-detailed set of plans for the American privateer Prince de Neufchatel, which, if I remember correctly, looks a lot like the Aurora kit. (It's entirely possible that the Aurora folks based the kit on those plans. I suspect you're right about their having picked a generic name.) In terms of help with completing that kit, those drawings would be a good source.

I have no idea what materials Mystic has to offer. That fee of $25.00 seems kind of steep for an outline of a ship's history - especially in view of the possibility that it's the wrong ship. If you're in the mood for a drive on a nice autumn day it might be worth taking a trip to the Mystic library to see for yourself. Another good place to try might be the library at the Peabody-Essex Museum (long known simply as The Peabody) in Salem, Massachusetts. If you go there and have kids, you can drop them at the Witchcraft Museum.

Good luck. As you can see, this is a fascinating hobby inhabited mainly by very strange people. Most of them, fortunately, are harmless.

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

  • Member since
    June 2004
Posted by knoxb on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 2:14 PM
The only thing I might add about Mamoli kits is the Italian-to-English conversion of the instructions. Just trying to deciper them took half the time!
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.