Revell 1:83 Mayflower

Good list. I'd add the Victory. That little Constitution should be required reading for plastic ship modelers.

I'll add Airfix, Monogram, and Lindberg to the list of companies that used to do it right.

I think the decline of the good old-fashioned instructions started with the growth of the hobby to international status. Back in the seventies, two things happened that had a profoud impact on how plastic kit companies did business. One was that Tamiya, Hasegawa, et al started making major headway in the American and British hobby business. Tamiya couldn't do much business in the U.S. or U.K. if it didn't include English translations of its instructions. (For a while, Japanese kits did get sold in the U.S. with only Japanese instructions. The hobby shops got loud complaints from customers.)

Also, the Canadian Parliament passed a law to the effect that all products sold in Canada had to be labeled in English and French. (There had been a lot of complaints from Canadians whose primary language was French.) The American manufacturers (Monogram, Revell, and the soon-to-be-extinct Aurora, for instance) looked hard for a way to comply with the Canadian law without packing their boxes with paperwork - which does, after all, cost money. The solution was to put the phrase "modele reduit" (scale model) somewhere on the lid of every kit, reduce the amount of text in the instructions to a bare minimum, and provide the few words left in both French and English. They figured out how to cut almost all the text out of the instructions. Instruction sheets became almost entirely pictorial, and such "unnecessary" items as parts lists and verbal directions fell by the wayside.

As the market broadened, the manufacturers figured out that they could save money by packing the same instructions in all their boxes - regardless of where the kits were going to be sold. (That made more sense than boxing some for the English-speaking market, some for the German, some for the Japanese, etc., etc.) And the trend continued.

I just took a look at the online instructions for the Revell Germany F-15 in 1/144 scale (a tiny kit with about 70 parts. The first page of the instruction booklet is devoted to a brief history of the real F-15, in English and German. Then comes a crowded page of "Before you start" general instructions - in 21 languages.Then a guide to the cryptic symbols used in the pictorial instruction diagrams. Then a list of paint colors (also in 21 languages). Then three pages of diagrams, replete with symbols but with nothing in writing. Then the color scheme diagram, also with no text. The whole thing comprises eight pages, only three of which actually tell the purchaser how to assemble the model.

From Revell Germany's standpoint, doing it that way makes sense. Imagine what that Mayflower kit would look like if all those fine old instructions were included - translated into 20 other languages. The instruction book wouldn't fit in the box.

I suspect that if you asked an executive at Revell (or Airfix, or Tamiya, or whoever) why his company doesn't pack better instructions in its kits, his answer would be "we can't afford to." Ideally, I suppose, Trumpeter would pack some of its HMS Dreadnought kits with Chinese instructions, some with Japanese ones, some with English ones, etc., etc. But there are some obvious drawbacks to such a practice.

I don't see the trend reversing itself. I'm afraid we have to reconcile ourselves to pictorial instructions.

One alternative does occur to me: put separate, single-language instructions on the web. In one of my other hobbies, classical music, recording companies are starting to do something like that. You can buy an opera on a couple of bargain-priced CDs, and download the libretto from the company's website. That saves the company the expense of printing the libretto, and makes it available to anybody who has a computer. (And the purchaser can print it out - a boon to aging, nearsighted music lovers like me, who have a horrible time reading a libretto that fits in a CD jewel box.)

How about it, Revell? Pack your cryptic, pictorial instructions in your kits, and offer the customer the choice of downloading some good text in German or English or Russian or Dutch or Spanish....

Only rarely do I run into a kit with any real text on its instructions. Eduard isn't bad (it actually names some the parts), but almost all the other companies have gone over to pictorial instructions.

Brilliant idea, that.

An aside. The SF Opera has restaged it's most recent version of "The Magic Flute" this season. Always a crowd pleaser.

For whatever reason the production uses an English translation, in addition to the usual projected supertitles.

What's been discovered is that the dialogue is very corny, of course dated, and rather ambiguous and silly. The story actually makes less sense than if you follow along with the attitude of "I know what happens next".

Hey Steve,

I have to show my ignorance here.  Disclaimer: If anyone is sensitive to ignorance, please close your eyes. 

I would love to see a list of what you bought, but it’s up to you if you have the time.  Here is where the ignorance comes in.  It sounds like you have the larger version of this kit.  The kit I am building is as you know, 1/83 scale.  I see for example ME sells dead eyes referenced in millimeters.  How should I go about figuring out the size that I need for rigging?  Do I measure the kit piece and go by that?  Once I figure that out, I should be able to do an inventory of what my kit has and order accordingly. 

I told you it was an ignorant question. I will struggle through the rigging part of things, guys.  I hope you can bear with me.

JT—you have incredible insight into all this and that makes complete sense.  I figured it had to do with cost, but now I have a better understanding of why they were forced into a corner.

I have a few additional comments. The first being that at the very least, if they have to go with pictorials only, they must do a better job at it.  The example that I have provided is just one of several that I have found thus far.  How hard would it be to offer an alternate view showing precisely how the piece lines up?  In fact, they could have used the pictorial from the older instruction sheet.  That would have been fine. I cannot imagine a youngster attempting to build model kits these days with the current state of instructions. 

Secondly, that is an absolutely excellent idea about downloads.  With the current state of connectivity it could be a very simple and cost effective solution.  Why not do that? Let’s take model kits into the current state of technology.  It’s surprising they didn’t do this on their own, years ago.

Perhaps its time we put on our eyepatches and mount an insurrection…

ARRGGGHHH!!!!

Measure the kit parts and buy smaller ones. Generally they come in packs of twelve or so. I would really recommend that you buy a few from different sources and see what you like. Always good to have a stash around. As for what's an early seventeenth century pattern for deadeyes and blocks in Holland, I leave it to the experten.

Laughing…  Nice emoticon.  I see you are prepared for the insurrection!

Ok next question.  Why go smaller?  

Thanks, GM.

It's a general observation, not so much specific to that kit but I am going to guess it fits.

Rigging parts in plastic ship models are usually way too big, sized so that anyone can basically rig a ship using their eyesight and bare hands. All well and good, but they are overscaled and look it.

Bakster, the Mayflower you have is the larger of the two Revell versions. As I recall, Steve's was either the Imai or Trumpeter one - which is bigger still.

I agree with GM about plastic kit blocks. Furthermore, Revell blocks are shaped incorrectly for most purposes. (They look like they're stropped with rope grommets, which aren't unheard of in real life but are pretty unusual. The kit designers, to be fair, did the best they could given the limitations of two-piece injection molding. For the vast majority of the rigging of a seventeenth-century ship, you need unstropped blocks.)

The Revell deadeyes are about the right size. For this particular project you probably want the "old style" deadeyes, which are more triangular than circular. So far as I know, the only old style deadeyes on the market are the ones from Bluejacket - which offers them in several sizes.

I'm a huge fan of Bluejacket blocks, but for a seventeenth-century ship I'd recommend the wood ones from Syren Ship Model Company ( www.syrenshipmodelcompany.com ). They really look like wood (because they are), and they're far superior to any other wood blocks on the market.

An excellent source on rigging for this project would be Anatomy of the Ship: The Merchant Ship Susan Constant, by Bryan Lavery. He was the designer of the replica ship now at Jamestown Settlement. Since virtually nothing is known for sure about either the Mayflower or the Susan Constant, Mr. Lavery's drawings will work ok for either.

But the old Revell instructions are an excellent start. If you follow them, you'll have a nice model.

When it comes to block and deadeye sizes, remember two golden rules of rigging: 1. Ropes and blocks, generally speaking, get smaller as you go higher up the masts. 2. when in doubt as to color, err on the dark side. 3. When in doubt as to size, err on the small size.

If I were you, I'd order Bluejacket "old style" deadeyes to match the sizes of the ones in the kit, plus the three smallest sizes of Syren blocks and the three smallest sizes of Syren line. You want the light brown for the running rigging and dark brown for the standing rigging.

Hope that helps. Good luck.

Another good idea you had Bakster, asking for a count of blocks used by others. Easy answer- always a whole lot more than you think.

Tilley is certainly correct about Bluejackets products as I have learned from experience (rabid fan). As for Syren, yes they have a buzz, deserved I am sure, for excellent product.

JT, there is the name of that book again. Like a siren, not to be confused with Syren, she is calling out to me. I will order the book tonight. I will start with this book and as I move along consider the others already mentioned.

Secondly, I will follow your advice and purchase the rigging as you are suggesting. You have given me much to think about and prepare for. This is awesome information.

Thanks to everyone for all the detailed help!

Steve

GM--once again you have me laughing.  I will be sure to buy extra! 

Steve,

I think I can clear up any confusion about which model you are building. I pulled out my kits and you are correct, the new reboxed Revell "1/83 scale" Mayflower is the smaller version according to Revell.com which in the old days was H-316. Your model should measures out to a bit over 14" in length whereas the larger version, H-366 measures out to about 20", with both lengths excluding the bowsprit.

As John and numerous others can tell you, Revell plays fast and loose with scale size, even nowdays obviously. I agree with John that the larger of the two kits "should" be around 1/83+/- scale and the smaller "should" be in the 1/110 or 1/120 scale range. So who really knows how Revell figures out scale!?

Actually, I have the large and smaller version of the Revell Mayflower and not the Imai/Trumpeter Mayflower. Yes, the Imai/Trumpeter kits are the same molds. Why I do not own the Imai/Trumpeter Mayflower is mainly due to the fact that there are huge dolphins on the transom (reminesent to the mermaid figurehead on the Heller La Sirene), along with the too short bowsprit and short masts........ Maybe down the road when I wouldn't mind doing some surgery on her...... It is an Imai mold and I think I have about every one of their plastic sailing ship models; just the same, I am just not sure where or what they used as research material. I have read somewhere, although I cannot vouch for it, that they used R.C. Anderson's model of an "English Merchantman" but after seeing pictures of the model, I am not so sure. The proportions of the whole thing just seem off to me.

Anyway, I purchased blocks, etc for the larger Revell Mayflower and not the smaller. On the smaller one I built a few years ago, I used the kit provided blocks and rigged my own shrouds and ratlines with the kit provided channels and deadeyes. Therefore, I couldn't be of much use regarding what size blocks to get for your model. Bill and John are correct when they say you can measure the blocks and deadeyes to get an idea of what you need and then order more. Also, be aware that the "deadeyes" that are used on the stays have 5 holes and not three that are used for the shrouds. This means that you could scratch them from wood or styrene........

However, if I remember correctly, Bluejacket deadeyes are made with white metal and the smallest size is 1/8" which corresponds to a bit over 3mm. The smallest wooden triangular deadeyes I have found and used are Amati 5mm deadeyes on my Kogges. This means that the lower deadeyes would have to be about 5/32" or about 4mm so that the upper deadeyes could be 3mm. Those might be a bit too big for your model Steve, but without having the Bluejacket deadeyes, I cannot form an opinion.

Another avenue for thought would be to contact Chuck at Syren and see if he could special build some tiny triangular deadeyes for you. Another option could be to pick up a larger Revell Mayflower from evilBay such as this one.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/MAYFLOWER-Vtg-REVELL-MODEL-KIT-H-366-Pilgrim-Ship-20-Long-/221911124570?hash=item33aaef0a5a:g:pfkAAOSwo0JWGuia

Or, pick up a Heller Mayflower kit, which is just a rebox of the larger Revell kit but at a greater price.

So, I hope I haven't made things as clear as mud. I would be happy to give you list of all the blocks I have purchased but they would not the correct sizes that you need.

Steve

Greetings, Steve. Thanks for the clarification sir!  You guys have given me a lot to think about, and to research.  It's all good! It is clear to me that I need to get a better understanding on all of this before I can intelligently make any buying decisions. Slow but steady, I will get there.

Last night I ordered the book that JT mentioned and that others may have as well. The bookstore selling it is 1 shipping day away from me, so I might have it by the weekend. Hopefully, this book will help bring me up to speed on some things. In the mean-time, I will keep moving forward with prepping the model for paint. I still have some repair work to do.

Before I hit the ship with paint though, I will need to do some practicing, and mainly to work on getting the wood look that I am striving for. With your help, and other research I have done, I have a general idea on how to get there.  Until I actually try it, I don't know where I'm at, and I don't dare practice on the work I have done thus far. Again, slow and steady.

Thanks again guys!

Steve is right. I found that out last night, when I took a look at the online instructions (on the Revell website). The kit being sold currently is the original, smaller version. The label "1/83 scale" is sheer nonsense, though. On 1/83 scale those human figures would be less than four feet tall. Apparently the people responsible for reissuing old sailing ships just don't understand the concept of scale.

The good news is that, if the parts map in those online instructions is to be believed, the kit does come with all the blocks and other reading fittings that were in the original (smaller) kit. I don't care for the blocks (which scream "Revell" to anybody who knows about such thing, and are for the most part oversized); I recommend replacing them with Syren unstropped wood blocks (boxwood or pear; builder's choice). But the little figure-8 fittings used for such things as the martlets are usable. So are those big, deadeye-like contraptions that are used to set up the forestay and mainstay. They look like deadeyes, but with five holes instead of three. If I were building the model (which I'm not), I'd slice the styrene "ropes" off those parts, drill out the holes, and paint them to match the deadeyes.

Bluejacket makes its fittings out of britannia metal. It looks like old-fashioned white metal (lead alloy), but it's far more durable. Bluejacket blocks and deadeyes obviously have to be painted. The unstropped Bluejacket blocks go down to 3/32" - which is small.

Syren blocks go down to 2 mm. Thats small too. Again, I think the smallest three or four sizes would do a good job of equipping a model of that scale (whatever the scale is).

I screwed up regarding the "big/small Revell kit matter; I apologize. In listing other Mayflower kits, don't forget the Airfix one. It's based on a different set of plans, and it's really nice.

It's always good to read up on a subject, but I really think those old, 1960s Revell instructions will tell you just about everything you need to know about rigging the model. Exception: those gawdawful plastic-coated thread shrouds and ratlines. Just about any decent book on rigging will show you the right way to rig them.

Good luck. Sorry I goofed.

Say JTilley—

First off, no worries about the goof.  It’s all in the spirit of goodwill. It’s all good!

All I can say is, wow! Maybe Revell thought 3 foot Aliens embarked the Mayflower. Hmm…maybe they did? All along we thought pilgrims came over. What the…  

I say again, thanks for your recommendations about the blocks and all of the rest. I like where you are going with all of that. I will seriously look into it all.

JT...I had ordered and received the book, Anatomy of the Ship: The Merchant Ship Susan Constant, by Bryan Lavery.  It was worth the $20 I paid for it.  There are a number of nice illustrations that give greater clarity to the rigging, or even the ships construction in general. I think you are correct in saying that the old Revell instructions are enough to get through this build, but this book is a nice reference to have. It also gives a nice synopsis of the ships history. When I factor all that in, it was a good buy.

Just a brief update:  I am currently in the weathering experimentation stage. I have  AB'd color on some spare plastic and my next step will be to apply artist oils. I will even experiment with using wood stain. I will post some images once I get that far, and it could be as early as next week.

Lastly, I thought I would mention that this Sunday, 11/22, Natgeo is airing a two night miniseries about the Pilgrim Story. It looks like it could be interesting, as well as entertaining. It is called, Saints & Strangers. Some of you might be interested.

Steve

Greetings folks.... It's Thanksgiving here in America and I want to wish you all a happy one. In the spirit of the pilgrims that set the stage for this holiday, and the ship that brought them to our shores, here is a Thanksgiving update on my Mayflower build. I didn't plan it this way, it just worked out that way.

I should probably mention something here. Some of you may recall reading about the melted transom when I set the piece in clay. Well, as I waited for a replacement to come, I decided that I had better just go out and buy another kit. At the time it was questionable if Revell would send me a replacement transom. It is a good thing that I did buy a new kit because a replacement transom took over three months to receive. None the less, I am grateful that they sent one. Fortunately, this kit is pretty inexpensive. So I did not lose much by buying another one. In fact, I see a silver lining in all this because I now have a second kit to try new things on without worrying that I will destroy my original, and all the work that I have done thus far. 

This brings us to the update. I have used some of the spare parts to practice paint and weathering techniques on. I thought I had better explain all this because it could be perplexing to see what I have done without knowing I had used what I consider scrap for testing.

Below: First, I applied Tamiya Fine Surface Primer underneath it all. I have not used this primer before and I have to say that I really like it. It went on really well, and it provided a solid base to apply my acrylic paint. I decanted the primer and applied it via AB. Thanks Docidle Steve for the primer tip. 

I applied two shades of wood for practicing purposes. I left one section with primer color for just in case I want to try another shade or technique later on.

Below: As mentioned in another posting, I wanted to try working with wood stain. In the three images below you can see how this came out. I was pretty surprised in how easily the stain transforms the finish to appear like nice new wood. It deepens the color, adds some wood grain color variations, and it left a nice satin finish.  Though I really like how this looks with this wood color example, it is not what I am looking for with this build.

Below: Here is how adding artist's oils turned out. To me it is slightly on the weak side.  I would like a little more color variation.  I am sure I can tweak that with practice.

Below:  One thing about the artist's oil is that it stands out.  You may not notice it as much in this photo but it pretty much looked like someone applied paint to the paint layer below, which I did.  I want it to look like they are one layer.  I guess that might be called filtering?  Not sure.  It occurred to me that I should try applying stain over it. See the next slide.

Below:  Both images show how wood stain looks over the artist's oil.  For the most part I like it.  The stain did a nice job of merging the base paint layer with the oil paint layer. I am still on the fence though about the gloss that the stain provides. I would like to tone that down a bit without sacrificing the nice tonal range.

Below:  I applied an acrylic wash over the stained only side. At this point I was a bit lazy. For the natural wood finish I probably should have mixed a wash that used the same color tone. I instead used the same brown that I used for the middle section. 

Below:  For grins I applied stain over the acrylic wash to see how that would turn out. I am not sure that I like it because of the gloss, and I seemed to lose some tonal detail.

I welcome your opinions and tips. Feel free to speak openly because this is all about learning new things.

Steve

thank's baxter , what a brilliant series of photo's , really show's , how different effect's work , one question , 2 really ,what colour wood stain did you use , and what colour's did you use for your oil and acrylic washe's .I can tell you now .this tutorial is going into my favorites..........steve

Hey Steve 5... thanks for the kind words, and I am glad to hear that this is helpful to you! A few of the answers to your questions are noted on the slides, but I will clarify here.

1. You asked about the color of the wood stain.  The stain I used is called Zars Teak Natural Wood Stain. Zars is the brand.  My local hardware store sold it and I think it is a pretty common brand. You should be able to locate it easily. 

2.  You asked about the oil color. The color is called Van *** Brown.  Various manufacturers make it under this name. Just look for that name. BTW...this color was a recommendation by Docidle Steve. Credit for this tip goes to him.

3. You asked about the wash. I used Model Master Earth Red, Tamiya Flat Black, water, and dish soap. I used Tamiya because that is what I had on hand. You will probably want to use the same brand if you do this yourself. I don't have exacts for the mixture but you can consider this as a guideline:

Pour the amount of paint that you want into a container or mixing tray, add at least half the volume of the paint in dish soap, and add twice the amount of the paint with water. Mix it well. When you think it is mixed well enough, check the viscosity. You want the mixture fairly thin. I thinned it to a point where you can slightly see through a drop of the mixture as it runs down the side of the container. You know, kind of how you test AB paint mixtures. Add more water as needed. Thorough mixing is important because water and dish soap don't cut the paint well. When you are happy with the mixture, brush it on the model. If you used a brush to mix the concoction, use a different brush for applying the wash. I say that because there may be unmixed paint trapped in the brush and you will end up with unwanted brush patterns on the model. So, slop the mixture on, wait for it to dry, then wipe off what you want to with a rag. The wash dries pretty fast. In my case it was just minutes. I started wiping immediately after it looked dry. You can use Qtips to get into the recesses. Let me know if you have more questions.

(Revised) I failed to mention the purpose of the Tamiya Flat Black.  I used the black to darken the Earth Red.  You will of course want a darker brown than the base color already applied to the model.

It looks like the name of the oil paint has been sensored. Just take a look at slide 5. It's noted there.

Good lawd. That's almost as bad as the censorship of *** Blick, the art supply firm. Or, for that matter, Herman Melville's great novel Moby ***.

I've got in on pretty good authority, from no less than Mr. Kidwell, how the FSM nannybot works. And believe it, on other parts of this forum, and at other times, it runs at full chat.

As you all probably are aware, its function is to tamp down verbal warfare, which always devolves into name calling. So it operates with a vocabulary based on recess in the sixth grade.

thank's baxter , as you have probably worked out, I am a terrible painter [I need all the help I can get], your tutorial will be invaluable to me........steve

Steve5, I am learning as well. I am glad this will help you.

BTW... What ship are you working on?  

I'm going to start the soleil royal , I could almost here the collective groan's out there lol.,I have done it before ,but I wasn't very satisfied with it .I intend doing it differently with different colours , been following quite a few german forum's , they seem to try and out do each other,see how I go , once again thank's for your tutorial . it was good to see step by step , I learnt a lot ......steve 

You will hear no groans from me sir. That is a beautiful ship. I wish you happy sailing with that build, and I hope I can see some updates as you go. Good luck!

Steve,

All I can say is....WOW. Nice job! I really like, the look of the stain over the oils. Rod Millard and I think DavidK use an India Ink mixture/wash before the oils to give some depth and bring out the grain which I think is also a nice look. Help me out here either Rod or Dave.

What got me interested in oils was when I saw some of Rod Millard's work. He has a couple of threads here at FSM but also on Model Ship Gallery. I highly recommend you check out his work.

All the examples look great, but again I would vote the stain after the oils, since it helps bring out the grain even more. I might have to "borrow" your technique.........

Hope you had a good Thanksgiving,

Steve 

Hey Steve, thanks for chiming in. I appreciate your analysis and kind words.  Yes, feel free to try it. No need to borrow, because I don't own it. Anything I did was based on others work before me, including yourself.  

BTW, I am pretty sure it was a posting I had seen by Rod Millard where he mentioned the Zars Teak Stain. That is where I got the idea from to try that particular stain. If I recall correctly, his process in that post is a little different than what I did. He went color coat, stain, a sealant coat, then an oil treatment. I plan to try that too. In fact, yesterday I painted the color coat on the  remaining sections of the test piece.  I will try Rod's process on one side, and re-try the oil process that I did on the other. Or unless the guys share the India Ink process. Then I would try that in place of re-trying mine.

There is one thing I should mention about when I applied the stain over the oil.  I really did not give the oil adequate time to dry.  So I may have lost some of the oil in the process of wiping the stain off.  None the less, the process I did seems to give a decent representation of how it will work.

Thank again, Steve

Ok, next on the list of fix-its before paint.  Take a look at this shroud/deadeye/chain plate assembly. Top-notch stuff. I will attempt to change them all out.

Edited the diagram out.  Wrong diagram.  Nevermind.