USS Hancock ? J.Tilley

Excellent tip, reklein!

Click here for the Alumilite website.

In addition to those excellent tutorials, they have hobbyist-sized quantities and kits available.

Google up Alumilite corporation for a really good tutorial on using their products. Such a great tutorial should'nt be for free but it is.

I obtained the resin casting kit from MicroMark a couple of years ago.

There is a learning curve, but it's not as steep as you might think. I was producing decent molds and castings from those molds after only a few tries.

The instructions that come with the kit will get you started. In addition, there's a good beginner's article in the October 1987 issue of Fine Scale Modeler.

After that, I contribute this tip. The professional resin casters use vacuum or vibration to remove as many casting bubbles as they can. If you don't have a vacuum chamber or one of those shakey-tables, design your castings so

1) The "top" of the object is "down" in the mold,

2) Be sure to include several skinny "air tubes" for displaced air,

3) Make your pour channel as long as possible, broad at the top, and tapering to as narrow as possible as it reaches the object.

This approach helps reduce the number and size of bubbles in the actual object you cast. Most of them will wind up in the air tubes and the pour stub. The rest should be on the bottom of the object, where they'll be invisible or more easily sanded out.

Some ship modelers suggest that silk thread doesn't "last." I offer this model - and my little H.M.S. Bounty, which is about five years older and also in fine shape - as evidence to the contrary.

   The standing rigging of the America, in my avatar, which was built in 1968, is surgical silk, from Deknatel, which is still available in bulk, from the manufacturer. The model traveled from Maine, to Eastern Long Island, to Delaware,to New Jersey, and finally to Illinois. The lines have remained taught, and strong these 38 years, and I see no reason now why they shouldn't last longer than I will. What impresses me more, however, is that all the siezings, and splices, set with Floquil "Flat Finish", have held up just as well.

I attribute its survival to the fact that it's always been kept in a case.

  Amen!

I think the key to the success of that styrene planking trick was that the good ol' Revell Type S tube cement (which was far better than any tube cement I've found in the hobby shops recently) soaked into the wood and softened the surface of the plastic. I imagine that, to some extent, the dissolved plastic actually soaked into the wood as well. At any rate, it shows no signs of coming loose, almost twenty-five years later.

   I have never liked the "tube" type styrene cement......until it came to joining wood, and styrene. Even with the newer formulation, work the cement into the wood, and let it dry. Then, a light coat to the wood again, and to the styrene, and join and clamp til dry. I fastened styrene buildings, to wood foundations on my HO scale modules, and in the twenty years of transport to and from shows, the buildings are still firmly in place. The "Surprise" build has shown me the value of styrene as a scratchbuilding material. Substituting stryene strip for wood, makes a lot of sense, and the workability of styrene, for small parts, excedes that of most woods. As soon as I figure a way to protect the styrene form from the adhesive, I'll try a plank on frame whaleboat (1/87 scale) in styrene.

John Tilley said"The only modelers with whom I disagree seriously over such matters are those who think their way of doing it is the ONLY way."

 I agree with this statement 100% I've built 5 or 6 plastic aircraft models this past year, mostly for other people. The second most motvating thing in getting a model done after money, is doing some project for someone as a surprise or favor.

The info mostly classics is giving on metal disease is interesting. I've been day dreaming all morning about building an electrolysis tank just to fool around with. Also some show on the tube showed artifacts from ship wrecks being cleaned up in electrolysis tanks.

I think the cast resin concept has enormous potential for ship models. I haven't gotten into it myself, but I've seen some extremely promising results from members of our model club.

MicroMark (www.micromark.com) sells a fairly extensive selection of casting supplies. I'm tempted by the kit they offer that contains just about everything a person needs to get started - molding rubber, resin, tools, etc. - for, if I remember right, well under $100. I suspect there would be, as usual, a fairly steep "learning curve," but lots of modelers seem to be doing this sort of thing. And the quality (and number) of resin ship, armor, and aircraft kits on the market certainly proves that the medium is capable of outstanding results.

The big question mark surrounding it, of course, is its longevity. These casting resins haven't been around for long; neither have the adhesives (CA and epoxy) that appear to be necessary to bond them. Modelers do complain about warpage in resin castings; my impression, though, is that that's only a major problem when the casting is relatively large (e.g., the hull of a warship kit). I do know from experience that epoxy and superglue can last more than two decades with no perceptible deterioration. Some ship modelers get obsessed with using materials that (they think) will last till the end of time; I'm not one of them.

As for the scratchbuilt vs. non-scratchbuilt argument - my position is: to each his own. I can testify from experience that working from scratch does indeed produce a level of satisfaction that working from a kit does not. I also am an amateur modeler; I only have a certain number of hours to devote to the hobby, and I do want to finish more than one more model during my limited time on the Orb. (The Hancock fits the usual definition of "semi-scratchbuilt." I have the wherewithal to make such things as blocks and deadeyes on that scale all right, but making the 2,000 or so required for that model would have slowed it down by at least a year - and I think six years on one model is enough.) I have a great deal of respect for people like Harold Underhill and Harold Hahn, both of whom insist on making every single component of their models themselves. But I don't think that's the only "legitimate" approach.

It could reasonably be argued that scale modeling, by definition, is not "orginal work." The scale modeler, after all, doesn't conceive the subject matter; he/she reproduces something that somebody else conceived. That argument has never swayed me much. To my way of thinking, serious scale modeling can reasonably be likened to photography - and nobody seriously suggests that photography doesn't entail originality. Two good photographers will photograph the same subject differently. Two good scale modelers will reproduce the same ship (or airplane, or whatever) differently.

Then there's a question of accuracy and detail. The truth of the matter is that when a plastic model manufacturer puts its mind to it, it can, through the use of the injection-molding machine and the pantograph, do things that the individual modeler can't. Plastic is capable of taking detail that the human hand can't produce. (If you don't believe it, take a close look at an LP phonograph record.)

I firmly believe that when it comes to a hobby, the individual hobbiest needs to make the big decisions for him/herself - without worrying unduly about what anybody else thinks. Kits and aftermarket parts (carefully chosen) offer excellent, time-saving routes to first-rate models. Scratchbuilding offers an infinitely wide range of subjects, and a level of satisfaction that kits don't. But the decision of which route to go should be left to the individual modeler - and there's nothing wrong whatever with doing both. (I'm working on a plastic ship kit at the moment, and I have a major scratchbuilding project about 20 percent complete.) The only modelers with whom I disagree seriously over such matters are those who think their way of doing it is the ONLY way.

My suggestion is - if you feel like giving it a shot, do it.

John, How do you feel about cast resin details that are made by the builder? The process looks really good to me, specially where there are a lot of repetitive details like gunport wreaths and such. I took art courses for a number of years and the idea of original work was brought home to me in a fairly solid manner. So the past few years scratchbuilt projects have held the most interest for me

I think the key to the success of that styrene planking trick was that the good ol' Revell Type S tube cement (which was far better than any tube cement I've found in the hobby shops recently) soaked into the wood and softened the surface of the plastic. I imagine that, to some extent, the dissolved plastic actually soaked into the wood as well. At any rate, it shows no signs of coming loose, almost twenty-five years later.

I'm satisfied with how that particular project turned out, but I don't feel like serving as an evangelist for the styrene-plank-on-wood-hull approach. If I were doing it again, I'd almost certainly use holly for the planks. Holly is great stuff for that purpose - harder than basswood, with a wonderful, fine grain that actually looks like miniature wood. The ship model suppliers don't carry it, but holly veneer can be found at various woodworking supply companies (e.g., Constantine's: www.constantines.com ) and works fine for planking on scales up through about 1/64.

Two places where I think I probably would use styrene again: the bow and the stern. The timbers in the complex rail assembly of an eighteenth-century warship's bow are just about ideally suited for reproduction in styrene. No material is going to make the accurate construction of such a ship's stern easy, but cutting the basic transom shape out of styrene sheet, and curving it to match the shape of the real thing, got the project off to a good start. And for such things as window frames, the clean, sharp edges of styrene strip are hard to beat.

jtilley wrote:

The lead models were in considerably better shape, but many of them were showing the telltale signs of white "flowering." We got on the phone with a professional conservator, who advised us to try electrolytic reduction. We set up an electrolytic reduction tank, made from a plastic bucket, a battery charger, a piece of stainless steel, and a solution of sodium carbonate (from a swimming pool supply company) and water. We stripped the original paint off the models and gave them the treatment for the prescribed amount of time. Without exception, when they came out of the tank they looked beautiful. We gave each of them a coat of primer, followed by a finished coat of acrylic paint (Poly-S), then wrapped them carefully in acid-free paper and stored them in metal cabinets (rather than the original painted plywood boxes), with plenty of air circulation. The lead disease was back within six months.

The electrolysis approach works with ancient coins as well, but totally destroys any numismatic value, since it strips the numismatically prized patina from coins and makes them as shiny as newly minted cents (or certain old British coins made of brass).

Funny, how a question promotes a discussion which wasn't intended. Its interesting about the metal diseases. I've seen it in old models of mine. By the way do not leave a bottle of blackening chemical open on the work bench. All the metal tools within six inches will take on the patina. My original concern was that Mr. Tilley said that he had adhered his styrene planking to a carved wooden hull with tube cement for styrene and I am surprised that it adhered at all let alone for 25 years. But apparently it works quite well. I am currently building a 1:48 scale Snake river sternwheeler, the Lewiston, but have decided to plank with basswood over a carved basswood hull. I will probably use CA or titebond for this job.

Gee - just what we needed: a new, scientific way to destroy hobby materials.

The Hancock telescope is the only problem I've ever had with brass, but I've had a couple of interesting experiences with "lead disease."

When I was working at the Mariners' Museum one of my more interesting projects was to conserve (or try to conserve) its collection of WWII U.S. Navy recognition models. (The museum had a fairly complete set - both the 1/500 "teacher models" and the 1/1200 "student models.") As I imagine most readers of the Forum know, those things were made primarily of lead-alloy castings. (I think it had zinc in it - and maybe some other metals as well. Some of the bigger 1/500 ones had wood hulls.) The notable exceptions were a box full of 1/500 merchant ships. When I got that box off the shelf in the storeroom, the first thing I noticed was an overwhelming smell of vinegar. When I opened the box, I discovered that those particular models had been cast in some primitive form of plastic, which was leeching an oily substance that was the source of the odor. What was left of the ships had assumed the shapes of bananas. We gave up on them.

The lead models were in considerably better shape, but many of them were showing the telltale signs of white "flowering." We got on the phone with a professional conservator, who advised us to try electrolytic reduction. We set up an electrolytic reduction tank, made from a plastic bucket, a battery charger, a piece of stainless steel, and a solution of sodium carbonate (from a swimming pool supply company) and water. We stripped the original paint off the models and gave them the treatment for the prescribed amount of time. Without exception, when they came out of the tank they looked beautiful. We gave each of them a coat of primer, followed by a finished coat of acrylic paint (Poly-S), then wrapped them carefully in acid-free paper and stored them in metal cabinets (rather than the original painted plywood boxes), with plenty of air circulation. The lead disease was back within six months. Shortly thereafter I left the museum; I don't know what, if anything, has happened to those models since.

The other experience had to do with a most interesting model of a late-nineteenth-century German merchant ship. Its owner, a Navy attorney, brought it to the museum one day in the hope of finding somebody who could restore it for him. Needing money (as usual), I took it home with me; it was one of the more interesting and worthwhile model restoration jobs I've undertaken. The model obviously had been built by a sailor, and, though the details of course were pretty crude in some respects, it had all sorts of interesting and unusual features that left no doubt that the guy knew what he was doing. Several of the fittings (anchors, carved work, etc.) were made of lead, which was showing signs of flowering. I cleaned them up as best I could, primed them, and painted them.

Some years later the Navy attorney who owned the model retired and, by remarkable coincidence, got a job teaching criminal justice at East Carolina University, where I work. A few years ago he called me on the phone and asked me to come take a look at the old model; he said some white paint was chipping off it. (This was a pleasant and fascinating exercise. A conservator rarely gets the opportunity to work on an artifact at intervals of twenty years.) Sure enough, it wasn't white paint; it was lead disease. The model had been living in a more-or-less airtight plexiglas case, sitting in a window where sunlight hit it for several hours each day.

Once I got the "flowering" brushed off, the original lead parts didn't look too bad. After discussing the problem at length with the owner, I decided to clean them up, reprime and repaint them, and leave them in place. (One of the basic principles of artifact conservation is to replace original components only when absolutely necessary.) The owner was happy with the result - and got a new, glass case for the model, which he now keeps well out of the sun's reach. If the lead disease shows up again he's to call me again and we'll consider a new strategy. All that took place about five years ago. So far, so good.

My observation has been that lead disease, in the context of ship models at any rate, is utterly unpredictable. I suspect that's partly because the "lead" used in models actually has other metals mixed in with it - in inconsistent amounts. The environment in which it's stored also seems to be a factor; the combination of plexiglas, a relatively airtight enclosure, and sunlight almost guarantees disaster, but in other circumstances lead castings sometimes look pristine after decades - and sometimes start deteriorating visibly in a matter of months. (I've seen ship and railroad model kits in hobby shops whose lead parts started flowering before they got sold.) Nowadays, fortunately, the manufacturers rarely if ever use lead. Neither do I. It just doesn't make sense, when so many other, more durable materials are available, to take the risk.

Hi, Professor!

Indeed, they're similar chemicals. Bronze disease is copper chloride (CuCl2) and that white fuzz on lead is lead chloride (PbCl2). It's somewhat slower to develop on lead because lead is so much less reactive than copper.

Brass can get bronze disease, too: all you need to do is introduce chloride ions to the brass. Shake some salt into your brass stash, mist with water, cover (so the water doesn't evaporate), then wait a couple of weeks. You'll be rewarded with fuzzy, green spots all over your brass stash. Unless, of course, the brass has been lacquered.

The trick for treating either is to get out the chlorine, then prevent it from reattacking the metal.

Click here for a good description, illustrations and treatment method for bronze disease.

Very interesting indeed, mostlyclassics. The phenomenon must be pretty rare in brass; I don't recall seeing any of the brass wire, rod, tube, sheet, etc. in my stash turn green unless it got soaked with something (deliberately or by accident). Sounds like my unfortunate 1/128 officer just picked the wrong piece of wire for his telescope.

I guess "lead disease," the white "flowering" that takes place (sometimes) on lead fittings, is similarly arbitrary. It seems to happen fairly predictably under certain circumstances; a ship model with lead fittings kept in a plexiglas case in direct sunlight is almost guaranteed to catch lead disease. But I've got some old cast lead fittings around that I've had for at least thirty years (in drawers, with plenty of air circulation and little light hitting them most of the time) that look as good as new. The horror stories about lead disease have made it one of two materials that I never use in models. (The other is balsa wood - for entirely different reasons.)

On looking carefully at some of those fairly recent photos, I note a couple of other signs of age in the old Hancock model. The mizzen topgallant yard seems to be sagging a little at the ends. (I don't think it was that way originally - though I couldn't swear to it. I suspect a bit of gentle finger pressure would fix it, but frankly I don't have much inclination to try.)

And I now recall that it did sustain one bit of damage a couple of years ago. I busted the little outrigger boom to which the sail on the "mast in lieu of an ensign staff" is sheeted. That was entirely my fault - and, like almost every other instance of damage to a sailing ship model I've witnessed, it happened when I was putting the model back in its case. (I'd taken it out for one of those photo sessions.) In this instance I was able to fix the damage (thank you, CA adhesive), but the incident convinced me once and for all that the best design for a ship model case is one that doesn't require lifting the vitrine over the model. The next case I built (for the little Model Shipways Phantom) incorporates a simple arrangement that lets the model slide in and out one end. If I ever get around to building a new case for the Hancock, that's how I'll design it.

Collectors of ancient coins (Byzantine Empire, Roman Empire and before) refer to that bright green, recurring crud as "bronze disease," though brass dupondii and sestertii catch it too.

There's no telling what coins will catch it and which won't. While it usually goes for recent finds, even coins which have been out of the ground for centuries and of seemingly of sound surface will all of a sudden catch "bronze disease" and become a pile of verdigris within a few years.

Covering the coin with wax or lacquer doesn't stop it. The disease just continues underneath and soon erupts through the coating. You found this out when it ate right through the paint.

There is a complex treatment involving nasty solutions and a slow bake in the oven, to stop it. Sometimes this works; sometimes it doesn't.

It's obviously not a suitable treatment for dealing with your telescope in situ.

All you can do is replace the telescope.

Many thanks for the kind words.

I'm happy to say that the model has held up remarkably well over its lifetime of about twenty-five years. None of the adhesives (and there's quite a variety of them in that model) has come loose, all the lines are intact, and, unless my memory is extremely deceptive, the colors are just about what they were originally. The pictures in the articles, obviously, were taken while, and shortly after, the model was under construction. The color shots that are in my avatar and on Michel's H.M.S. Victory site ( www.hmsvictoryscalemodels.be/JohnTilleyHancock/index.html )were taken just a couple of years ago - i.e., when the model was more than twenty years old.

I attribute its survival to the fact that it's always been kept in a case. The case itself is looking a little ratty nowadays, having bumped around quite a bit; every now and then I think about replacing it. The model has made it through two changes of residence and quite a few trips to and from Beaufort, to take part in our annual club exhibition at the North Carolina Maritime Museum. For all I know, of course, the rigging (or some other part of the model) may fall apart tomorrow, but so far I'm thoroughly satisfied. Some ship modelers suggest that silk thread doesn't "last." I offer this model - and my little H.M.S. Bounty, which is about five years older and also in fine shape - as evidence to the contrary. Others told me I was crazy to rely so much on styrene; that it would shrivel up and fall off (or blow up, or something) after just a few years. Nope. I'm not sure I'd use that technique of planking over a basswood core with styrene again, but longevity isn't the reason.

There's one piece of the Hancock that hasn't held up - and I have trouble understanding why. One of the officer figures on the quarterdeck is holding a telescope. He's modified from a figure in either an Airfix or Revell kit (I don't remember which), and the telescope is a piece of turned brass wire, held to his hands with CA adhesive. A year or so after I finished the model, the telescope turned green. I scraped off the green patina and coated the brass with Incralac, a clear lacquer that's routinely used in museums to preserve brass and copper. (I squeezed a few drops of it out of my former employer.) A year or so later the telescope was green again. At that point I decided it must be one of those leather-covered telescopes, so I scraped it bare and painted it black. At the moment it's showing distinct hints of green - like none of the many other brass parts on the model. I cannot explain this phenomenon. Maybe there's some crucial ratio between the surface area and the volume of that tiny brass piece that's precisely right to encourage oxidation? Or maybe the brass is reacting to the CA? I have no idea. At any rate, I'd advise other modelers to make their 1/128-scale telescopes out of something other than brass - but otherwise I can't find any reason to second guess myself regarding the longevity of the materials in that model.

I'm surprised and greatly pleased that anybody is reading those old articles. Model Shipwright is a great magazine. Thanks again.