Revell 1/96 Cutty Sark

You can try Revell Support and see if you can order them on line; but I doubt if they are available at this time. What you really need to do is to make a couple of good copies of the decale sheet and make sure you save a file on your computer for photo editing. Then learn how to make your own decals from your masters.

Fellow modelers,

I recently bought an unbuilt 1974 issue of Revell's 1/96 Cuttyy Sark the other day.  The kit is in great shape but the decal sheet is in very poor condition.  This is not unexpected because of the kit's age.  My question is what are my options on replacing these markings (i.e. gold markings on bow and stern)?  Can I get them remade somewhere?  Are there similar replacemernts available?  Do I just lean to live without them?  Thanks in advance for the response.

Phillip1

The George Campbell plans have been recommended earlier in this thread by John Tilley. They are the definitive plans avalable from the Cutty Sark Trust Shop. If you are contemplating building any ship from the Victorian Era there are many detail sketches of ship rigging practices within the Campbell drawings that would possibly be good for other model ships of the period as well.

Hi Goeff,

I'm interested to know the size of the eyebolts as I started to build my cutty sark after a friend gave me one but most of the masts were missing so i have to remake them.

I'm about to order a set of plans to help me and i do have the Underhill book to help.

Brian

GeoffWilkinson

 

There are several photo's in his book showing this odd arrangement. Unfortunately he does not reveal the source of his photo's, apart from one credited to 'The Daily Mirror', but it seems clear that they are from different periods.

The 'Daily Mirror' Newspaper was founded in 1904, a 'pictorial'  from more or less day one. Still around today. Hope that helps a little bit.

Will

Geoff,

I have had to deal with the poop pin rails for both of my ships. The Cutty Sark Conservation plan volume 1, History of Fabric indicates that they are a "post 50's" addition. That would indicate that they did not feel that it was on the ship in 1883. But, it was added anyway.

That said, if you refer to CN Longridge; he included them on his model. Under The Poop and It's Fittings/Pin Rail (page 190 in my 1st book), he has some interesting comments why you might want to include them. Basically he is saying that they are needed to rig the mizzen mast. They also appear on Underwood's deck plan.

I have gone back and forth. I am currently leaning toward including them. If for no other reason they look good; and it is OK to have them without any reasonable evidence one way or another. 

I hope that this is helpful. I have enough notes on the Cutty Sark/Ferreria/ Maria do Amparo to make another book; and all I can say is that it is all on a slippery slope. What ever you decide your Cutty Sark should look like at any given point in time based on the evidence you have would be your model and it would be right for you.

So, was her name Maria do Amparo, Maria di Amparo, or Maria de Amparo? It depends on the source!

jtilley

That is indeed an interesting picture.  I've got a copy of the Longridge book, but I hadn't noticed that odd method of securing the shrouds to the upper deadeyes before.

John,

There are several photo's in his book showing this odd arrangement. Unfortunately he does not reveal the source of his photo's, apart from one credited to 'The Daily Mirror', but it seems clear that they are from different periods.

One of the reasons for examining these photo's so carefully is I have been trying to decide whether to put those railings on the raised portion of the poop deck.

I know there has been some discussion of this subject in the past but I just feel they would not have been there when she was built but, so far, have nothing to confirm this.

Geoff

That is indeed an interesting picture.  I've got a copy of the Longridge book, but I hadn't noticed that odd method of securing the shrouds to the upper deadeyes before.

I believe all the photos in the Longridge book were taken during the period when the ship was owned by Captain Dowman, who used her as a training ship for boys.  According to Mr. Carr's article (which is the one I happen to have in front of me), he operated her in that capacity beginning in 1922.  The verbiage Mr. Carr uses is:  "under her new owner she became again a full rigged ship [as opposed to the barkentine rig she'd had under the Portuguese since 1916], and was used for training boys in Falmouth until his [Dowman's] death in 1937."  I'm not sure just how she was "used for training boys"; I suspect she seldom, if ever, went to sea during that period.

I agree with Will:  what we're looking at here is some odd rigging arrangement based on convenience and the hardware that was available.  It looks like the lower end of each shroud has a big iron thimble seized into the bight; just how the thimble is attached to the deadeye I can't quite tell.  In any case, I don't think her shrouds were ever set up in this manner when she was in active service as a merchant ship.

GeoffWilkinson

Interesting photo in the Longridge book.

Yes, work is progressing and I will post some pictures soon.

I noticed the strange arrangement of attaching the shrouds to their deadeyes in the photo below.

I don't recall seeing this method described before. Anyone got any comment?

I think what we've got here (and I'm no expert) is an example of the hybrid practices in Cutty Sark's rigging. The terminations of the shrouds with seized eyes looks like it is done in the way you would then rig a vessel using screws instead of deadeyes. (In a screw setup the eye would simply attach to the rigging screw with a stout pin) Rigging screws were becoming more popular with the advent of iron and steel ships. Is this an example of wire rigging begining to diverge from natural-fibre practice?

Will

GeoffWilkinson

Interesting photo in the Longridge book.

Yes, work is progressing and I will post some pictures soon.

I noticed the strange arrangement of attaching the shrouds to their deadeyes in the photo below.

I don't recall seeing this method described before. Anyone got any comment?

I have looked at that print many times and never noticed the different method of setting up the shrouds. Geoff we need to start calling you "Eagle Eye". It sent me to Campbell's plans; he calls for a cows hitch. That is what seems to appear on most photos. It may be that Longridge took this photo when the CS was a training vessel and does not represent the CS at her best.

BTW, I am glad to hear that you are making progress; anxious to see it!. I finished my fore pinrails and set them aside to work on a P-40 and a diorama of a B-25 that was recently salvaged from the bottom of Lake Murray, SC. This morning I remeasured the pinrails and found that my sequence was correct but the port side was 5/32" longer than the starboard side due to excessive spacing around the royal halliard eye. I built another one, and I still need one for the Maria de Amparo. So, I am really glade that somebody is making progress!

GeoffWilkinson

Interesting photo in the Longridge book.

Yes, work is progressing and I will post some pictures soon.

I noticed the strange arrangement of attaching the shrouds to their deadeyes in the photo below.

I don't recall seeing this method described before. Anyone got any comment?

I think what we've got here (and I'm no expert) is an example of the hybrid practices in Cutty Sark's rigging. The terminations of the shrouds with seized eyes looks like it is done in the way you would then rig a vessel using screws instead of deadeyes. (In a screw setup the eye would simply attach to the rigging screw with a stout pin) Rigging screws were becoming more popular with the advent of iron and steel ships. Is this an example of wire rigging begining to diverge from natural-fibre practice?

Will

Interesting photo in the Longridge book.

Yes, work is progressing and I will post some pictures soon.

I noticed the strange arrangement of attaching the shrouds to their deadeyes in the photo below.

I don't recall seeing this method described before. Anyone got any comment?

Bondoman - Thanks, I have seen that site before and it is a nice site. I do wish these online sites would give, at least, a rough idea of what their shipping charges are. CornwallModelBoats seem to share the same manufacturers as ModelExpo and their prices seem quite competative.

Geoff

Muntz metal is also a common metal in things that are considered "brass", such as trophy nameplates and signs. I could see where he would be rich. I design signs for a living, and while I don't much care for the appearance of the stuff because I like a nice reddish bronze, it's the norm for a lot of hotel signage and things like elevator doors.

http://www.cornwallmodelboats.co.uk/cgi ... 860#a42860

Geoff- here's a new source of parts that I only learned about today. I think the chain plates and such look really promising.

       Muntz metal is a form of brass with 60% copper, 40 % zinc and a trace of iron.

        It was named after George Fredrick Muntz, a metal-roller of Burmingham, England. Muntz commercialized the alloy following his patent in 1832.

       It is used as a replacement for copper sheathing on the hull of ships. It maintains its ant-fouling ability of pure copper. It costs about 2/3 of the price of pure copper. It became the material of choice to sheath the pilings of piers in tropical waters, as a protection against the teredo shipworms. It is also used in locomotive steam tubes. Bolts made of Muntz metals are cheaper, last longer and are stronger.

      George Muntz made a fortune from his patent.

           Montani semper liberi !   Happy modeling to all and every one of you.

                              Crackers        

In reference to the tape question. I assume that you would be laying it over the molded plates on the hull. You could do the same with copper Bear-Metal Foil. Both would require tedious burnishing around each plate. The real problem that you might face with a Revell Cutty Sark is adhesion. Some of the Cutty Sarks are known to have the outer layer of the detail/skin to peal off with age. I am not sure how that would be affected by an adhesive. It might even reinforce the skin.

On the other hand we have seen some fine painted representations of a munz hull. We must keep in mind that we really do not know what munz metal would look like on the bottom of an 1869 ship. And, what ever it looked like it would change over time. The hull could be base painted with an Alclad 2 or Talon paint product instead of an adhesive product. I might also refer to Big Jakes fine work.

I am not knocking the idea of using tape; I am just wondering what advantage there is to it over other options.

Here's my source:

http://www.anythinginstainedglass.com/metals/foil.html

Although I don't see brass foil tape, it is available other places on line.

http://volcanoarts.com/cart/soldering/index.htm

One interesting thing is that apparently, and here I admit I know as much about stained glass as I do about playing the guitar, i.e. absolutely nothing; it is used to wrap the edge of glass in order to solder the lead framing to it. If that's true, it wouldn't be coated.

Good input John, pleased to hear it lasted although it is difficult to see in your album photo's. The adhesive would be my other concern too, and I presume one could only use acrylic paint on the stuff.

About five years ago I built a model of the New York pilot boat Phantom from the Model Shipways kit:  http://www.hmsvictoryscalemodels.be/JohnTilleyPhantom/index.html .  At that time MS was selling it with a cast resin hull.  I personally thought that was a good idea; this particular hull had some problems regarding accuracy, but I thought the concept was sound.  Apparently nobody else did; subsequent batches of the kit have had machine-carved basswood hulls.

Anyway, the kit included a roll of (I think) the same pressure-sensitive copper tape that Bondoman used.  (It was twice the scale width; I had to cut it down.)  I have the same impression that it has some sort of coating on the surface - and I too was happy with the original bright copper finish.  I decided to leave it that way and see what would happen.

In the past five years the copper has darkened noticeably, but it hasn't shown any tendency to turn green or otherwise deteriorate.  And the adhesive seems to be holding fine.  (I roughed up the surface of the resin hull a little with sandpaper in advance.)  I like this material and wouldn't hesitate to use it again.

bondoman

Geoff- take a look at the copper tape I found. It comes in brass too., which is what Muntz metal is like.

Bill,

I have been following your Victory build with great interest. I did see the tape and it does look very good. I was going to PM you to ask where you found it or who stocks the stuff. Will be very interested to see what happens when you try to paint it.

My build has been slowed down since I obtained a copy of the Longridge book (and a number of others).

I am so glad I didn't just rush headlong into this project!

Geoff

Geoff- take a look at the copper tape I found. It comes in brass too., which is what Muntz metal is like.

Shipwreck

My bullseyes-scored came from BlueJacket, Item # F0340, 1/16" @ $2.36/doz. My 1/8" and 3/32" deadeyes also came from BlueJacket!

Thanks for that info. I am quite a way off needing the bullseyes so I will wait for a while and see if I can combine something else to ease the s&h pain.

My bullseyes-scored came from BlueJacket, Item # F0340, 1/16" @ $2.36/doz. My 1/8" and 3/32" deadeyes also came from BlueJacket!

We were about to send out the longboat with a couple of marines! Welcome back!

After a brief interruption by domestic duties and a visit by family I am now just getting back on track. I’m still working on those Pin rails. I have made very detailed drawings and a number of prototypes to get to a point where I have, what seems to be, a workable solution.

Campbell calls for 4”, 6”, 6½”, 7”, 9” & 10” deadeyes. I have 2.5mm and 3.5mm walnut deadeyes and propose using 2.5mm for the 6” – 7” and 3.5mm for the 9” – 10”. I would need 24 bullseyes, approx. 1mm or 1/32” dia. I’m not sure such things are available this small.

While concentrating on this area of the plans another question has arisen where there seems to be a conflict between the Revell rigging instructions and Campbell’s drawings.

Revell show a shroud from the 6^th deadeye and the capstay, from the 7^th deadeye, looped over the top of the mast caps.

The Capstay arrangement just looked wrong. I have been trying to figure out the true arrangement of fittings on the mast caps and it looks as though the Capstays should be rigged to eyes on the cap rather than looped over the top.

As far as I can see, the 6^th and 8^th deadeyes are for the topmast backstay.

Has anyone else noticed these irregularities?

You mentioned the problem of drill walking. Even when I was young and doing remodling and maintenance my hands were none too steady. One trick I used was to start with a much smaller drill bit and go all the way through. When you switch to the size you want, it should follow the track of the small bit. If there is a very large difference, you might have to run a midsize bit through. Also you will only need a smaller punch or even a pin to make a starter mark, that will also be more accurate. It's also a lot cheaper than a drill press. I hope this helps.

Copper is still the active ingredient in modern anti-fouling paint...

All the best

Ray

Shipwreck

Thanks for your comment. I probably cut about a dozen of them before I had matching pairs (fore and main) for two ships (8 pairs total). The first batch was the exact length of the kit rails (read - direct replacement). Then I decided to match them to campbell's plans and include the wrench and bits on the rails. That added about 1/4", or start over! 

After cutting new pieces I took one and drew a line for the pinrails 1/16" from the edge, then another line for the deadeyes 1/8" from the edge. That give me about 3/32" to the bulwarks. Some of that 3/32" will be taken up with half the thickness of the deadeyes and and the diameter of the lanyards. That means you will have to, at least, reeve your lanyards and deadeyes, if not set them up, before you install them on the rails. The belaying pins can go in last! Three-sixty-fourths  offset for the belaying pin line would be closer to scale, but I am shooting for the least amount of counter-leverage of the rail in order to reduce the chance of breaking it off!

I measured of the first belaying pin hole and punched the plastic with a fine punch. That gave a seat to start drilling. Even so, the no. 78 drill bit sometimes walked 1/6"! And, I ware those magnifying glasses that have a band that goes around your head, or I cannot see anything that small!

I got all my stuff through BlueJacket after shopping around. The 1/8" stropped deadeyes are no. F0203, and the 1/8" scored are F0321 at $3.74and $3.28/ dozen. The 6/16" scored bullseyes, F0340 were $2.36/ doz.

We never discussed the Mizzen deadeyes and lanyards. They are nothing like Revell represents them and will be a challenge trying to get the belaying pins to remain in a vertical position. Anyway, I plan on using 3/32" deadeyes for the top mast. On the topgallant I plan on using 1/16" bullseyes. The 1/16 bullseyes will probably be used for anything else that needs them. At 1/96 scale, there not much of a chance of getting a 1/16" deadeye. After setting up a 1/16" bullseye, just fill it with glue, paint it, and it is now a deadeye!

Good questions, Geoff! They make me think about what I am trying to do. Some of the questions you have asked; I have not even thought of yet. Keep asking and please share your progress. I am on a very slow pace, so I expect to see your finished product long before I am near complete.

Question! The photos that I posted are small; can you double click on them and see a reasonably large Photo? I used PhotoBucket!

 

I had noticed the difference in length to include the bollards and winch. Did you also see the note regarding eyes for the halliards? Also, what do the marks represent under the letter L of skysail and D of halliard?

The drill ‘walking’ was one of the biggest problems I has experiencing – hence my question and attempt to make a machine.

I will check out the BlueJacket site although I have already ordered some deadeyes from ModelExpo. The bullseyes seem to make sense but 1/16” is pretty small to handle but would probably look right.

At the current rate of progress I’m not sure when I will get this thing built. I’m trying to ‘think ahead’ all the time to try and avoid errors that would later turn into disasters.

I’m just pleased to know that someone else is working along the same lines at the same time.

PhotoBucket – Your pictures are a bit on the small side for examining detail. They do get a bit bigger when I double click, but not much. I also use PhotoBuscket, I save my pics for the Forum at 500px (yours are 320 x 240). I think you could go up a little bit.

Geoff

GeoffWilkinson

 

Shipwreck:

 

This is what I have so far.  What you see is a full set of belaying pins, a couple of overscale eyes, a 1/8" deadeye representing the 10" deadeyes, and a 3/32" deadeyes which will represent the 6, 7, & 9" deadeyes. If a hole is off even 1/64", it is noticible. I am building (trying to build) two ships, a Cutty Sark and a Maria do Amparo. That means I need a total of eight pinrails for the deadeyes.

 

 

That looks pretty impressive and better than my attempts so far. How did you get the holes so precise?

I have been pretty quiet the past few days because I was disappointed with my first couple of prototypes. You obviously hit the same problem that I experienced with the accuracy of the holes. I was trying to drill the holes with a hand held pin drill and it seems the years have not improved my hand/eye co-ordination skills!

I have spent most of the weekend trying to build a drilling machine out of junk. I will post pictures if it works! I do wish my parents had not disposed of the huge collection of Meccano (Erector Set) parts I had as a boy – 40 years ago.

Where did you get the 1/8” deadeyes? I could only find 9/64” and 3/32”.

Have you given any thought to what you will use for the Mizzen Royal Backstay deadeyes? I just wonder it the 3/32” might look too big.

My other concern is actually threading the lower deadeyes when they are so close to thee Bulwarks.

Geoff

Thanks for your comment. I probably cut about a dozen of them before I had matching pairs (fore and main) for two ships (8 pairs total). The first batch was the exact length of the kit rails (read - direct replacement). Then I decided to match them to campbell's plans and include the wrench and bits on the rails. That added about 1/4", or start over! 

After cutting new pieces I took one and drew a line for the pinrails 1/16" from the edge, then another line for the deadeyes 1/8" from the edge. That give me about 3/32" to the bulwarks. Some of that 3/32" will be taken up with half the thickness of the deadeyes and and the diameter of the lanyards. That means you will have to, at least, reeve your lanyards and deadeyes, if not set them up, before you install them on the rails. The belaying pins can go in last! Three-sixty-fourths  offset for the belaying pin line would be closer to scale, but I am shooting for the least amount of counter-leverage of the rail in order to reduce the chance of breaking it off!

I measured of the first belaying pin hole and punched the plastic with a fine punch. That gave a seat to start drilling. Even so, the no. 78 drill bit sometimes walked 1/6"! And, I ware those magnifying glasses that have a band that goes around your head, or I cannot see anything that small!

I got all my stuff through BlueJacket after shopping around. The 1/8" stropped deadeyes are no. F0203, and the 1/8" scored are F0321 at $3.74and $3.28/ dozen. The 6/16" scored bullseyes, F0340 were $2.36/ doz.

We never discussed the Mizzen deadeyes and lanyards. They are nothing like Revell represents them and will be a challenge trying to get the belaying pins to remain in a vertical position. Anyway, I plan on using 3/32" deadeyes for the top mast. On the topgallant I plan on using 1/16" bullseyes. The 1/16 bullseyes will probably be used for anything else that needs them. At 1/96 scale, there not much of a chance of getting a 1/16" deadeye. After setting up a 1/16" bullseye, just fill it with glue, paint it, and it is now a deadeye!

Good questions, Geoff! They make me think about what I am trying to do. Some of the questions you have asked; I have not even thought of yet. Keep asking and please share your progress. I am on a very slow pace, so I expect to see your finished product long before I am near complete.

Question! The photos that I posted are small; can you double click on them and see a reasonably large Photo? I used PhotoBucket!