Reeved deadeyes vs. reeving deadeyes

Maybe we ought to give Revell some benefit of the doubt.  I'm not at all sure the Campbell plans were in print when the kit was originally released (in 1959); I suspect not.  That being the case, I don't know what sources the kit designers consulted.  Quite a few plans of the Cutty Sark have been published over the years, all of them, I suspect, differing from each other in some way.  (For instance, I believe Harold Underhill's drawings, as reproduced in C.N. Longridge's book, show the aft edge of the forecastle deck as a straight, athwartships line.  The Campbell plans have the same elaborate shape as the Revel kit.)  It's also worth noting that this was the very first of the big Revell sailing ship kits.  (It was the biggest, grandest product the plastic kit industry had produced at that time - and its original price, $10.00, made it the most expensive plastic kit on the market.  I feel old again.)  Actually it still holds up remarkably well.  I can't think of many 1959-vintage aircraft, tank, or automobile kits that are still taken seriously by serious hobbyists.

My favorite Cutty Sark kit is the one that also amuses me most:  the plastic, 1/125-scale one from Imai (currently being marketed by Aoshima).  It's quite obviously based on the Cambell plans, but the Japanese designers apparently didn't read English.  On the plans, take a look at the enlarged detail drawings of the cargo winches.  The forward winch is supposed to have a gadget called a cable lifter on each end of the main barrel.  The after winch doesn't have cable lifters.  Mr. Campbell used one drawing to show both arrangements, with a cable lifter shown on one end.  He added notes reading "both ends thus on forward winch" and "both ends thus on aft winch."  The Imai kit has two identical winches - each with a cable lifter on one end.

I'll check out the electronic version of the AHD, but I have to confess I still get some pleasure from leafing through an old-fashioned dictionary - especially that one.

John, I am looking at those famous Campbell plans of the Cutty Sark. Did you ever notice the expanded deadeye setup on the second page, the ratio of the 10" blocks to the space between them for the lanyards? That space is to be 2 feet for the lower shrouds; 24" divided by 10" is not the standard 3 times the diameter of the deadeye. What on earth was Revell thinking when they designed the shrouds for their Cutty Sark?

Thank you again Dr. Tilley.

I now have more info to work with. But, I have too many options. I guess that is just part of modeling. Your comments on the topmast and topgallant shrouds was very helpful.

So you are an American Heritage fan. Do have the eReference dictionary? For $35 it is my most used application, and it talks to you. http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/eref/

Well, maybe it would be best to start out with the measurements of the fittings on the actual ship.  I'm home now, and have Mr. Campbell's plans in front of me.  On the second sheet he was kind enough to include a table showing all the deadeye diameters.  They are as follows:

Fore and main lower shrouds - 10"

Fore and main topmast shrouds - 6 1/2"

Fore and main topgallant shrouds - 4"

Fore and main capstays - 10"

Fore and main topmast backstays - 9"

Fore and main topgallant backstays - 7"

Fore and main royal backstays - 7"

Main skysail backstays - 6"

Mizzen lower shrouds - 9"

Mizzen topmast shrouds - 6"

Mizzen topgallant shrouds - 4"

Mizzen topmast backstays - 9"

Mizzen topgallant backstays - 6 1/2"

Mizzen royal backstays - 6 1/2"

How closely must the modeler adhere to all those dimensions?  Well, as far as I'm concerned there's nothing a modeler "must" do.  That list includes six sizes of deadeye:  10", 9", 7", 6 1/2", 6", and 4".  Rationally, few human eyes are going to distinguish between 6", 6 1/2", and 7" in 1/96 scale.  A reasonable compromise might be to use four sizes:  7/64" (for the 10" ones), 3/32" (for the 9" ones), 1/16" (for the 7", 6 1/2", and 6" ones), and 3/64" (for the 4" ones).  We then collide with the practical reality that Bluejacket doesn't offer all those sizes.  A practical solution might be to use Bluejacket 1/8" deadeyes for the 10" ones, Bluejacket 3/32" deadeyes for the 9" ones, and Bluejacket 1/16" bullseyes for the smaller sizes.

The topmast and topgallant shrouds are set up just about alike.  In the case of the topmast shrouds, the futtock shroud consists of an iron bar with an eye forged in each end of it.  The eye at the upper end is bolted to a little fitting with two eyes in it that passes through a hole in the angle iron rim of the top; the eye at the lower end of the futtock shroud is shackled to the futtock plate, an iron forging with a z cross-section that's riveted to the lower masthead a few feet below the top.  The deadeye strop is bolted to the upper eye in the fitting that goes through the top.  (Suggestion:  for a model on 1/96 scale, bend a piece of wire around the deadeye and shove the wire through the top to form the futtock shroud.  Drill a hole in the lower mast to take the lower end of it.)  The topgallant shroud arrangement is a little simpler.  The futtock shroud again is an iron rod with an eye forged in each end, but this time the upper end of the rod sits in a notch formed in the end of the topmast crosstree and the deadeye strop is bolted directly to the futtock shroud.  The futtock band is in two pieces, held together by bolts and nuts; the bolt passes through the eyes at the lower ends of the futtock shrouds.

I think a lot of modelers who undertake the Cutty Sark don't realize how much of her is made of iron.  She's actually a fascinating combination of remarkably sophisticated wood- and metal-working.

The Bluejacket "deadeyes with lanyards" aren't bad; the 1/16" ones might, in fact, work ok for such things as the backstays.  (Deadeyes on backstays often are set up farther apart than those on shrouds - presumably because a backstay, being a longer line than a shroud, is likely to need more of a range of adjustment.  Mr. Campbell shows the topmast backstay deadeyes spaced like those of the shrouds, but the topgallant, royal, and skysail backstay deadeyes spaced slightly farther apart.)  I don't recommend trying to shorten those fittings, though.  If you get a britannia metal fitting near a soldering iron you'll be confronted with a blob of metal.  (The stuff melts at about the same temperature as solder.)  And I rather doubt that CA adhesive would work; such lines actually do come under quite a bit of tension (especially when an errant finger bumps into them accidentally).  My strong inclination would be to prefer the little bullseyes - which are available in sizes down to 1/16".  Few eyes are likely to notice the difference between a bullseye and a deadeye at that size.

One other approach, if you don't want to try making your own deadeyes:  Model Expo sells some pretty nice turned wood ones.  The diameters stated in the ME catalog are nominal; the actual fittings often turn out to come between Bluejacket sizes.  It might be worth ordering one package of each size and comparing them with what you've got.

Oh - I looked up the word "reeve" in the American Heritage Dictionary (my favorite).  The definition is:  "nautical.  1.  to pass (a rope or rod) thorugh a hole, ring, pulley, or block.  2.  To fasten by passing through or around."  And the past tense is listed as "reeved or rove."  Sorry about that.

John, thanks for the response and the vocab lesson.

I have samples of all four of Bluejackets reeved deadeyes. Does it make any sense to reeve the lower deadeyes with thread and then mix them with metal ones on the upper shrouds? If I use the metal ones all around it will at least be consistent. Which might look better on the model?

The upper deadeyes appear to have about a 4" dia. block, or about 3/64" in 1/96 scale. The BlueJacket #561 has about a 4/64"(1/16") dia. block. I can live with that extra 1/64". The problem is that the length between the deadeyes is about 16/64", where it should be about 9/64" (3x3/64). Then I am not sure that an extra 7/64" is a whole lot to worry about. I suppose I could cut them down and solder or CA glue them. I could also modify the plastic ones that came with the kit. I cannot imagine that there is a whole lot of stress on those upper deadeyes.

Thanks again for your help.

First maybe a little vocabulary would be in order.  You reeve a rope through a block or deadeye; you rove it yesterday.  Reefing is a process of partially furling a sail, in order to accommodate changes in the strength of the wind.  (It's done by means of reef tackles and reef points.)

The system for setting up topmast and topgallant shrouds varied from ship to ship and from time to time - and, for that matter, from country to country.  I'm having a little trouble remembering just how they're rigged on board the Cutty Sark; I'm at the office at the moment, and my copy of the George Campbell plans is at home.  As I recall, though, the topmast shrouds are set up with pairs of deadeyes on the edges of the tops, the lower deadeye of each pair being secured to an iron bar called a futtock shroud that runs from the edge of the top down to an iron band on the mast a few feet below.  The topgallant shrouds, I believe, are set up with pairs of smaller deadeyes which are secured to the ends of the topgallant crosstrees.  I don't remember for sure how the topgallant futtock shrouds are set up. 

The answer to just about every conceivable question regarding this particular ship's rigging can be found in those wonderful plans by George Campbell.  I've sung their praises in several other Forum threads; they're superb, wonderfully informative pieces of draftsmanship - and extremely reasonably priced.  (They can be ordered through the ship's website:  http://www.cuttysark.org.uk/index.cfm?fa=contentShop.productList&directoryId=6 )  I consider those plans just about the biggest bargain in ship modeling.  Anybody working on a Cutty Sark model who doesn't get hold of those plans is missing a treat - and, in terms of difficulty, shooting himself in the foot.

As for deadeyes - I'm a big fan of the cast britannia metal ones from Bluejacket (http://www.bluejacketinc.com/).  The smallest ones Bluejacket offers might be a little big for those topgallant shrouds, though.  In that case, one way to fudge it is by using bullseyes (which have one hole apiece, and come in at least one smaller size) instead.

Good luck.