Picked up a Scientific Cutty Sark

Funny that, Bill. I have my eye on the "Robert E. Lee".

I'm pretty sure the hull on my kit is pine. Which brings up a minor side topic. It used to be that the availability of different species of wood was a pretty regional thing. I suppose this isn't so true any more, esp. with smaller pieces.  But if I were to buy framing lumber to build a partition in my garage here in California, it'd be Douglas Fir. Whereas if I was on the East Coast, I wood buy pine (?). Pine is almost impossible to find here except for pre milled shelving.

Further diversion. I always thought hardwood vs. softwood was deciduous vs, evergreen, but it's apparently anglosperm vs. gymnosperm; flowering vs. naked seeds. Close to the same thing.

But buying maple or cherry or walnut etc. is hard to do here and requires going to a specialty yard, whereas oak and fir are easy to get.

There's quite a few Scientific kits on eBay, despite my fear that it would be a hard search they all came up pretty quickly.

There are several kits of the Golden Hind, but the starting prices are astronomical, except for one. There is also an interesting box for one of the Cutty Sark kits listed that I have my eye on.

Bill

I don't have any advice per se, but the Scientific HMS Bounty was my first wooden ship kit. It was my dad's and he gave it to me when I was 12. I made an utter mess of it and led me to my dislike of solid-hull ship models. Still, it was a good learning experience. I kept it around until I moved into my new house a couple of years ago.

Now that I think of it, maybe I'll try to find a Scientific Bounty kit online and try my hand at it again.

Tim

Belay my last about the Cutty Sark . . . the seller just informed me that the hull is balsa. And, Timothy, good luck on your future rebuild of the Bounty!

Bill

One question about the build . . . why did you decide to paint the copper plates below the waterline instead of using copper tape cut to size and shape?  It would have provided a more realistic look.

Bill

Reviving this thread...

I just saw a Scientific Cutty Sark on my local craigslist site, and am considering it (the price is right!)...

it's the 23" model, previous owner has apparently glued the deck onto the hull....I can get it for 20 bucks...I guess I should ask the seller if it's Basswood or Balsa...having no experience with wood, what are the main differences between the two?

Any recommendations?

I like the way Philo's is looking...and it might be a good introductory kit to help me get over my xenophobic apprehension of woodbuilding!  haha

Thanks!

David- I would strongly suggest you save your money. I have one in my stash that I bought at a church rummage sale for $ 15 and I don't ever see building it. The hull piece is about 75% shaped, theres a lot of material left to remove. The cast fittings are pretty crude.

It will be a frustrating and in the end unrewarding task, and you'll get all the wrong idea about wooden ship kits. Much better to spend twice the money and get a Model Shipways kit on sale.

IMO balsa has no place in model building, unless it's meant to fly. It's soft, hard to shape well, has a very pronounced grain, and is hard to paint. It tends to crush easily.

Well it certainly is not up to modern standards but it does build into an attractive model.The decks are inked basswood on mine that i clear coated with Minwax PolycrylicThis is my current project..

I agree with GMorrison.  Dave, you're a fine modeler who appreciates the subtleties of ships.  Those old Scientific kits were a great introduction to the hobby in their day, but it would take an enormous amount of effort to turn one into the caliber of model you're used to producing.

If it has a balsa hull, avoid it like the plague.  Pine isn't much better.  Some, at least, of the old Scientific kits had basswood hulls; that's ok, but I think G. Morrison is also right about a Model Shipways kit being a better choice for you.

If you want to make the leap to wood kits and want to start with a solid hull, I'd take the liberty,in view of your interests, of suggesting the Model Shipways Sultana.  Model Expo lists it as out of stock at the moment, but plenty of web dealers seem to have it.  The ME website does offer a detailed practicum, by the fine modeler Chuck Passaro, that shows how to turn it into a plank-on-solid model with all sorts of detail.

Another good choice would be the Model Shipways Phantom, but it lies outside what seems to be your period of interest.

philo426 - Nice to see a build by this company. I just stumbled across a Scientific Bluenose kit and looking forward to building this model. I know it's a simple kit and not all that accurate, but it will be a good learning experience in modeling with wood. Your Cutty Sark really looks great! 

Gentlemen,

Say what you will about the old Scientific ship model kits, but they were great kits on which to cut my teeth with wood kits.  I have acquired all of their clipper ships and the USS Kearsarge that I will probably never build, but they are interesting to have as reminders of how far kits have come over the decades.

I also have all of the old Pyro Table Top Navy kits and their range of sailing ships as mementos of my start into ship modeling at the tender age of 6. Granted, they are horrible models by my standards today, but they were great for getting me hooked into this lifelong hobby.

It's a shame that there is nothing comparable today. I know that Lindberg has released a few of the Pyro ships in boxes of two ships each, but, at $35.00 per set, few kids can afford them.  Manufacturers have done a reasonable job of keeping many older kits on the market, but they need to remember their market for these kits.  Kids need to be able to afford them if we are to keep this hobby alive and well.

Bill Morrison

jtilley

I have pleasant memories of the old Scientific kits too.  But I also have some not-so-pleasant ones.

The big problem is that some of the kits had nice, basswood hulls and some had balsa ones.  When I was a little kid my mother bought me a Scientific Flying Cloud.  Not only the hull but all the other wood pieces (other than the round spars, which were birch) were made of balsa.  As I imagine everybody in this Forum knows, balsa wood is just about the worst conceivable material for ship modeling. The kit was a box full of hopeless trash.

 

Since I also built flying model airplanes at the same time I started building ship models, I was not as put off by the Sterling and Guillows kits use of balsa.  Balsa can take a decent finish if you use enough coats of filler and primer.

I built an entry for the Fisher car design competition using balsa, in spite of the recommendations by the contest people not to use balsa.  I ended up with over sixty coats of filler, primer, and paint, but it looked fine.

Now I would never think of scratch building a ship model with balsa, but it is merely a matter of time/effort. I can do in about six coats on basswood what it took me sixty to do on balsa!

  BTW, in those teen years, I even did a plank on bulkhead scratch frigate using balsa for all structure and planking, except for masts and spars (I started with poplar dowel for those).

While we are reminiscing about Scientific ship models, perhaps we need to mention Sterling ship models as well. They, too, had a line of similar models.  I remember building their Sovereign of the Seas kit.  the real difference between both companies was that Sterling used a rubbery-plastic for their blocks and many of their fittings.  One thing I do remember was their balsa kit of the USS Missouri, although I have never seen the various pieces.

John mentioned that Scientific Le Soleil Royal. I remember building it over several nights of duty when I was stationed in Newport, RI in the late 1970's.  It was an interesting model that I soaked in filler because it was balsa.  Yes, it turned out horribly! Oh, well.

Bill

This thread is taking me back to my first ship model.  I am not sure of the brand- I think  it was a Strombecker kit. I believe this was 1946 It was a WW2 destroyer. Hull was pre-carved pine, the superstructure was laminated/built up from 1/8 sheet, die-cut pine.  The weird thing was the kit included glue.  It was a powder, maybe a phenol-like substance, that you had to mix with water.  It worked.  I got it assembled, but never got around to painting it.  Also, I did not do the small amount of carving that should have been done- the hull pre-carve was not complete- it was pretty faceted where compound curves should have been.

Anyone else remember Strombecker?  I don't think they offered too many ship kits, nor did Guillows.  Scientific was the big ship kit supplier.

Yes. I equate them with car models- the kind where you got three profile patterns, a somewhat shaped block of wood and that glue.

The box showed dad looking on approvingly while junior held up a perfect sparkling miniature car model.

That kind of thing certainly taught this modeler not to whine too much about missing details.

More on that, and this thread is old so I am not hijacking it. Delving into American industrial history is an imterest.

Read the Strombecker article on Collectair.org. Too long and wonderful to recap, but they were a wood products outfit that covered an entire block in Moline IL and started by making stuff like tenpins.

Casco was a casein based glue made from dairy byproducts by  Borden, and you know the rest there.

I have to say it . . . at least the Scientific kit of the Thermopylae was a far, far better representation of that iconic ship than the contemporary Revell injection-molded plastic kit.  I have two of these kits; perhaps I will try to detail it!

Bill