Revell Kearsarge

I brought that subject up last night at dinner. First she told me how much she would like to have new faces put on the kitchen cabinets, and I told her how much I really would like to have a Trumpeter Essex for a big project I've been planning. Well, she replied about the nessessity of needing new curtains to match the new trim in the kitchen and other things for the house.

Ah, new Keasarge eh? Hmmmm She might go for that, since she is always complaing that there isn't a ship to match my CSS Alabama that is displayed on one side of the study. She said to be Zen, another ship of it's size needs to be on the other side of the room.

I just love the Zen approach to interior decorating.

Scott

Go For It !!! If the cover art hasn't changed, I believe it shows Kearsarge with Alabama in the background. Show it to her. You can't get much more zen, than that !
mike K.

Has anyone seen the contents of this kit yet. A German web-site showed contents that can only be described as "a modified Alabama" and with that I'm being kind. Talk has it that those contents were for promotional purposes only. Any of you who have the kit what does it look like? Dean R.

All I know about it is what I read at steelnavy.com. In the kit reviews there is a long article about this. Look under American Civil War Era Ships in the reviews. I believe that they would not go to the trouble to make new molds so I presume the comments still ring true. The deck furniture and rigging changes wouldn't be too hard, IMO, but the comment about the stern being shaped all wrong is a little intimidating to me. I wish there were as many reviews, either in-box or build-up, for sailing ships as there are for warships. I'm talking mostly about new releases, like the kits from Zvezda or Model Russia, for example. If I paid $30-$40 mail order and was disappointed when I opened the box....well, live and learn. But @ $100 inc shipping for the Kearsarge, I'd sure like to have a peek before plunking down that much denero. I keep looking at that Aoshima Golden Hind at Mega-Hobby, but I hesitate to spend $159 plus S&H based on a tiny photo of the exterior of the box. The descriptions are no help..."realistic wood grain hull and deck planking"...."vac formed sails"...yeah, yeah, we know. If I were considering any plastic naval ship, there would be reviews and articles all over the place. I just wanted to mention the Revell Alabama vs. Kearsarge article and I ended up ranting. Maybe there is a source somewhere that I just haven't found yet, but for those with only a couple of years of experience in modeling like me, who really want to build plastic, not wood, sailing ships, it would be nice if we had even half as much info available as there is for "modern" ship builders. Ok, finished griping now. I do want to say thanks to people like John Tilley and Jeff Herne and other old salts who post some extremely helpful comments on the forums while sharing their experiences and knowledge.

Maybe this will help a bit: http://www.ipmsdeutschland.de/FirstLook/Rev_USS_Kearsarge/Rev_USS_Kearsarge.html
Well, it seems this kit is not worth it's price (even here in EU it's more than 70 euro).

J.

I just ordered the Kearsarge from Mega-Hobby. So while I'm waiting for that, and a set of plans, I will be doing some serious kissing up and fixing up around the house. At least I won't be spending a lot on gas because a new Home Depot opened just 2 miles away.

I was going to go to Taubman Plans for this, but I was curious if anyone had any alternative suggestions. I haven't really shopped around the web.

I am still looking for an inbox review of the new release of the kit-- my question:
1. Is this just the Alabama with a new stand, flags, and decals?
2. Is this the same as the original version of the kit, as sold in the late 60s, the same as described in the comparative review on the Steelnavy website?
3. Is this the Alabama kit with some changes, in an attempt to make it more "Kearsarge-like"??

On the basis of the photos on the German site that Jules kindly referred us to, I think I can assert that the new issue is essentially identical to the original one. The biggest change seems to be in the colors of the plastic. In the original issue the decks, the lower masts, the boat hulls, and various other components were white; now they're light brown. The only white parts appear to be the excellent crew figures (which were shanghaied from Revell's earlier Cutty Sark ). The new issue even includes those hideous, plastic-coated-thread "shroud and ratline assemblies," which I strongly advise any adult modeler to throw in the trash before leaving the hobby shop.

There's an excellent comparative review of the Revell Alabama and Kearsarge kits at <www.steelnavy.com>. Bottom line: the Kearsarge kit is a reasonable (though far from flawless) representation of the ship as she appeared in the 1880s, but by then she'd been modified extensively from her 1860s configuration. Making the kit look like the ship did during the Civil War would take a great deal of work. The Alabama kit only generally resembles the real thing.

The Kearsarge actually was released first. Apparently it sold reasonably well, and Revell brought out the Alabama a year or two later. (I'm typing at the office, without my faithful guide to such things, Thomas Graham's Remembering Revell Model Kits, in front of me; it contains the dates.) The two kits are similar but far from identical. The maindeck components are, I believe, identical (maybe some hole locations are different), but the Kearsarge has a raised forecastle deck. The gun barrels and various other fittings are different, and the Alabama has a nifty, working replica of the hoisting gear for the propeller. The hull halves are extremely similar but not identical. For a long time it was thought that Revell had destroyed the molds for the Kearsarge hull in the process of tooling up for the Alabama; that, as I understand it, is one reason why the Kearsarge has fetched such high prices on the collector's market. Apparently that story was false.

In fairness to the two kits, this wasn't quite as blatant an exercise in deceptive marketing as some of Revell's other stunts. (The firm hit rock bottom, in my opinion, when it made some changes to its ancient H.M.S. Bounty kit and put it in a box labeled "H.M.S. Beagle." That kit, alas, is also on this year's list of reissues from Revell Germany.) When the two Civil War kits came out, in the sixties, not much was known for sure about the Alabama. She actually did look a lot like the Kearsarge; several witnesses to the battle off Cherbourg commented that they had trouble telling the two ships apart. The Revell Alabama kit wasn't outrageously inconsistent with the available information.

Since then quite a bit more information about the Alabama has come to light. A fine contemporary model, probably the work of the firm that built her, got donated to the Mariners' Museum, where I used to work. Several of the original drawings have turned up in archival sources, along with some fascinating photographs. All this material has been sorted out and analyzed in a fine book, C.S.S. Alabama: Anatomy of a Confederate Raider, by Andrew Bowcock, published by the Naval Institute Press in 2002. Mr. Bowcock, through meticulous use of all the currently extant evidence, has drawn a set of detailed plans of the Alabama - and it must be admitted that they don't look much like the Revell kit. But in defense of the Revell designers, it ought to be acknowledged that they didn't have all of Mr. Bowcock's sources at their disposal.

At any rate, the reissue of the Kearsarge kit can only be regarded as good news - except, perhaps, by those who paid outlandish prices for it on the collector's market. If it weren't so high priced I'd probably buy one for sheer nostalgia value. I built both those kits for the first time when I was in the sixth grade, and I thought they were really cool. In some ways I still think so.

When I ordered the Kearsarge (can't get the italicize thing to work) a couple of days ago, I thought $89 was a little steep. I rationalized it this way: The Trumpeter Mayflower is usually priced around $60-$70, Zvezda sailing ships are about the same $$ and they are small compared to the Kearsarge (not that scale matters more than accuracy), and the description on the web stated the propeller turns. Ok, forget I even mentioned the prop thing. I'm sure when it shows up on Friday I'll have something to say about it.

Jamnett - I figured out the trick to using the italic font by accident. The secret is that when you click on the italic button it inserts the code to both start and stop the italics. Hit the italic button, the move the cursor back four spaces, so it appears after the "start italics" code but before the "end italics" one. (It won't let me type them; if I do italics show up in strange places. "Start italics is an "i" in square brackets; "stop italics is "/i" in square brackets.) Then type the word(s) you want to italicize, then move the cursor beyond the "end italics" code. Clumsy, but it does work.

UPS just delivered mine. What I got is just like the photo on that German website. It comes in the usual flimsy Revell box. Unlike the 1/96 Constitution I bought a few years ago, the hull halves are in seperate bags which are inside a larger plastic bag with thick cardboard pieces holding them in place. The other parts didn't get the same care. They are all thrown into one big bag. Small parts can come off the sprues which makes them vulnerable to damage. Hey Revell, plastic bags don't cost that much!

The second thing I noticed is the deck is not molded in one piece. Grrrr. Even Tamiya does this with their large scale ships. How is it that these companies can mold detailed 25-30 inch long hulls but won't make the deck in one piece. What's worse is the Kearsarge (Mr. Tilley I'm still working on the italics) with 3 deck pieces, has those fairly complex tracks for the gun carriage wheels molded in where the deck sections will meet. So you have more to do than just mate the deck sections. I don't expect Tamiya or Revell to send a guy out to build it for me, but come on, mold the deck in one piece. There are enough other parts that will need filling, sanding, and scribing as it is. Maybe I'm not typical, but the second thing I look at after the rigging, is the deck and deck fittings. Unless you do it right those deck joints stand out like mustard on a white shirt.

The article, at Steel Navy I believe, comparing Kearsarge and Alabama is very informative and accurate. When I held the hull halves together, it's always the first thing I do for some reason, I noticed the stern is not rounded, but the angles are very slight and a little sanding and rescribing of the wood grain will take the "edge" off. The sheer is another story. It would take serious work to make it appear as it did during the Civil War. As the article states, the sheer is almost "flat", as it appears in late 1880s photos. I plan to build in that later configuration. I don't have the confidence yet to attempt the reworking the sheer. I''ll be working on those #%*# deck joints and getting things on deck looking like the late '80s arrangement.

Other than that, I'd say I've seen worse kits, and spent a lot on them. These are what, 40 year old molds? There is a lot less flash to deal with than there was on the Constitution parts. I can say as a somewhat experienced "novice" that I'm not disappointed. These things aren't cheap, but nothing is in this day and age. I think a Civil War subject is a nice change from the usual stuff.

I am curious is it possib to get 1880s appearance to Kearsage?
J.
PS still can't help thinking of buying that kit...

I vividly remember that problem of the three-piece maindeck. The same problem beset all the other large sailing ship kits. (There really were only three: the Kearsarge, Cutty Sark,and Constitution. The others - Alabama, Thermopylae, Pedro Nunes, and United States - were modified issues of those three.) I think - though you'd have to talk to a Revell designer to confirm this - that the problem was warpage. They didn't think a flat, thin piece of plastic two feet long would stay flat. I suspect the matter of size also played into the decision. The only unusually large individual pieces in those kits were the hull halves, which pretty clearly were made in distinct, separate molds. Cutting the deck into three pieces made it possible to mold the rest of the kit's components on a standardized mold.

Heller had the same problem with warpage and multi-piece decks for a long time, but finally solved it with its H.M.S. Victory. In that kit the decks are splt longitudinally, with the joint coming on the centerline between deck planks. Bravo Heller.

The last time I built one of those big Revell kits - it was the Constitution - I solve the deck problem by laying 1/32" - thickbasswood planks on top of the plastic deck pieces. It really isn't hard - or especially time-consuming. As I recall it took a couple of evenings.

In the case of the Constitution the job was made easier by the way the plastic deck pieces were fastened to the hull. The deck components sat on big pins projecting from the interior of the hull. On the bottom of the deck piece, in line with the pin, was a small plastic "pad" that, by happy coincidence, was 1/32" thick. I shaved off all the pads, thereby making the whole plastic deck drop by 1/32". The basswood planks brought the deck back up flush with the waterways. I don't remember whether the Kearsarge was molded that way or not.

Installing wood deck planks on that model, of course, would bring up the problem of those tracks for the swivel guns. They could, however, be made without a great deal of difficulty from sheet plastic, using the original parts as patterns. I have a vague recollection, though, that Revell put some of those tracks in the wrong places. It would be a good idea to take a look at a good set of plans for the Kearsarge before doing radical surgery on the kit.

Planking with wood sounds like the best way to handle the multi-piece deck. I'm getting plans (National Archives) in a few days, and until then I'm only going to clean off the mold release and get rid of the flash. Does anyone know if plans from the Smithsonian would likely be the same as those available from the National Archives? The National Archive plans I'm getting show deck fittings, sheer, masts/yards, and miscellaneous other things from the late 1880s fit. I don't know what they have at the Smithsonian.

I do know that when it's all said and done, I will have spent as much on plans as I did on the kit. I'm sure that's not unusual when going for accuracy. Like a lot of other people, I once spent $25 on the Trumpeter Arizona kit and double that on photo-etch.

Jtilley was talking about doing new tracks for the gun carriages when putting in a wood deck.In Les Wilkins book How To Build Plastic Ships. He used typrwritter paper. He traced the the track out painted it black. It looked very good and to scale. Might be easier than sheet plastic.
Rod

As a student of naval history, the USS Kearsarge has always been one of my favorite subjects. One sunny Sunday afternoon while I was stationed aboard the USS Enterprise at Alameda, CA in the 80's, I ventured to Mare Island, CA, which was just up the river and around the corner from Alameda and discovered, at a centrally located park on the station, along with various missiles and guns on display, there were the original 11inch smoothebores from the USS Kearsarge. I don't know if they're still there, but they were an awesome sight. So much history to look at and to touch. It was great.

Good luck on your shipbuilding.