Mamoli plank-and-bulkhead ship model

Hello!

Is it possible that you switched two bulkheads? That would be the first thing that I would suspect here. But of course, like CapnMac82 wrote, there might be an error in the kit, too. Good luck with your builds and have a nice day

Paweł

Some of us add blocks of wood in the areas between the keel and first bulkhead, or even between the first and second bulkheads, to prevent this.  Means a bit of carving, but gives good fairing.  Also, if you put incorrect bevel on the bulkhead edges, you can cause this kind of hollow.  How did you determine the angle for the bevels?

Here's picture I found online from a Dutch builders site, that I think is the model and ship you have. The way that the 1-4 bulkheads are set up yes there is definitely an "S" in the hull forward.

Got it. If necessary, I will fill with putty, like Milliput. Thanks.

G. Morrison: That sure looks like it. That view confirms the hollow. Thanks for the research.

Thanks everyone for the inputs. I live outside Los Angeles and will go to San Diego Maritime Museum, that has a replica of the Surprise (used in the "Master and Commander" movie). They also have a model shop there, and I'll talk with them about what to do. Thanks again.

I think the problem is Mamoli calling the kit "HMS Surprise" as the model is of a French frigate of around 1770 .  They also sell the same kit as "La Gloire" 1778. 

http://www.cornwallmodelboats.co.uk/acatalog/mamoli_la_gloire.html

An example of the fine lines of French frigates of this period can be seen here

http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/82908.html

There was a real "HMS Surprise" ex "Unite" of 1796, which I always took to be the basis of the fictional one, but have learned that there were differences in armament, I think the discussion is somewhere in this forum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Surprise_%281796%29#/media/File:Plan_of_HMS_Surprise.jpg

Her appearence is quite different from the earlier French  frigates.

The bottom line is I think Mamoli tried to cash in on the demand for a model of "HMS Surprise" by rebranding one of thei French frigate kits.  Artesania Latina do a kit based on the 1798 plans, not sure how accurate it is.

Gentlemen,

We also cannot forget that the "HMS Surprise" in San Diego is a conversion of a replica of an even earlier British Frigate, HMS Rose.  The ship might be a facsimile of the real HMS Surprise, but I doubt that it can be considered to represent the real ship.  Wasn't the Artesania Latina model based on the San Diego ship?

Bill Morrison

Chris, I'm going to take the liberty of telling the truth as I see it. Others may disagree - and whose word you take is of course entirely up to you. But I think lots of other scale ship modelers would agree with me. Here goes.

I'm afraid that when you bought that Mamoli kit you bought a piece of inferior merchandise. Mamoli is (or was - see below) one of the notorious companies that I call the HECEPOBs. (That's Hidously Expensive Continental European Plank-On-Bulkhead. Others are Corel, Sergal, and Artesania Latina.) Their designers apparently know scarcely anything about real sailing ships. They use shoddy materials, irrational assembly techniques that don't work, fittings that they recycle from other kits (regardless of accuracy), and plans that may or may not bear any relation to anything that ever floated.

Mamoli, as I understand it, is now out of business, due to a fire that destroyed its factory. My view is - good riddance.

There are three wood ship manufacturers that get consistently high marks from serious scale modelers. Two are American: Model Shipways ( www.modelexpo-online.com ) and Bluejacket Shipcrafters ( www.bluejacketinc.com ). The third is a British company, Jotika ( www.jotikaltd.com ). I've never bought a Jotika kit; they're extremely pricey, and hard to find in the U.S. But on the basis of magazine reviews and downloads of their instruction manuals, they appear to be first-rate.

It should be mentioned that another Italian company, Amati, makes some good-looking models - as well as lots of HECEPOB junk. Look for the Amati kits subtitled Victory Models.

To be absolutely honest, my recommendation regarding that Mamoli Surprise is to give up on it. The problem you've encountered is, in all probability, the first of many.

Unfortunately, there aren't many options. There's one other Surprise kit on the market; it's from Artisania Latina (aka Artist in the Latrine), which is even worse than Mamoli. Jotika's website says the company is working on a Surprise kit. Unfortunately the website has said that for a couple of years. I don't know when the kit will actually hit the market. (When it does, I imagine it will cost between $500 and $1,000.)

In any case, good luck. It's a great hobby. You just had the misfortune to dive into one of the worst parts of it. The HECEPOB kits are, with rare exceptions, ripoffs. They rely on advertising and fancy packaging to sell poor-quality merchandise.

I agree with most of what Tilley said.  I will add another domestic kit mfg though- Midwest.  The downside of Midwest is that their kits are of boats and smaller ships. If you want a Victory or big Galleon, don't look to Midwest.  But, their kits are very nice for the subjects they offer, and their kits cater to the novice.  Thus, for anyone wanting to start with wood ship models I recommend finding something that Midwest offers, and build one of them (or do a few of them).  The experience will be invaluable when you are ready to advance to a ship, bark, or other major vessel.

Don's right. I should have mentioned Midwest. 

I've said many times that a great way to get into ship modeling is to start with a small vessel in a large scale. Smaller ships and workboats, once you get to know them, are extremely interesting and in many cases quite attractive. 

Anybody who's ever worked in a hobby shop will tell you that the vast majority of wood ship kits (especially HECEPOBs) never get built. A model of a frigate or a clipper ship is a huge project; it probably will take at least a couple of years. To me, it makes a lot more sense to invest a week or two on something like a Midwest dory or skipjack first. It'll give you a good introduction to the basic skills, and how the materials behave - and you'll have a nice model to put on the mantle before you take on something more elaborate.

Hello; My model shipways Fair American took me 2 1/2 years to complete. Some of that time was spent building a good ropewalk to make the rigging.

Bill

I have never built a POB model. My wooden ships have been either solid hulls ala the Model Shipways kits, or a couple of slab sided exercises using styrene (edit: basswood or a combination of that and styrene)..

To fix this kit you have, the best way would be either to redesign the 2, 3 and 4 bulkheads by adding a "outy" to their "inny" in the area where the "S" comes and goes, or live with it.

This of course means removing all of the planking in the area back far enough towards the waist to where it becomes feasible to get a smooth transition. I'd do it with some solid .0625 wood fish bellies, clamped to either side of the offending bulkheads and sanded by eye back to a smooth bluff curvature. I sure wouldn't try adding filler material.

The problem remains though, it'll just be an indicator of more serious problems like a wrong counter under the stern, decks that don't line up with ports which several review mention- a real problem that can't be fixed easily, or who knows what.

But building a $ 200.00 bonfire to roast marshmallows is no fun either, so some sense of salvage is appropriate.

The Model Shipways site is down right now, but when it comes back to life look at some sales on their brigs and frigates. There are very nice models for sale. I too built the Fair American, as my second wood ship model. It took me quite a while, but every thing about it was enjoyable.

Kits like that, and more particularly from Blue Jacket, give you all kinds of great stuff like well written books, big scale drawings drawn by the real masters, photos of completed models by people who know what they are doing.

I'm currently building a stash of yellow box kits, schooners for the most part. At $ 100 - $200 a pop, I plan to spend my retirement, when it comes, happily gluing together kits using plank wood cut on my someday little tablesaw.

Just saying, a ship takes weeks to years, and it's more than worth it to start the drive on the 40 yard line rather than deep in the end zone.

Keep the parts as a wood supply, start with something that won't fight with you.

Bill

One thing this discussion could lead to is opinions of planked ships vs carved hulls.  Some of the older Model Shipways kits used to have solid hulls, machine carved to close to finish shape with only minor carving and sanding, that resulted in very nice builds.  My own personal opinion is that few ships really require a planked hull.  A larger frigate or SOL can benefit if the gun decks contain full cannons and not dummy barrels, but these expensive European planked kits generally to not- they use dummy barrels just like the solid hull ones.  Might these companies push the planked kits because they may be cheaper kits to produce?

I believe rigging a large ship is enough of a challenge for a novice- having to learn both rigging and planking is too much.  If a modeler has successfully built a large plastic sail vessel and rigged it, then maybe it is okay to do a planked one.  Otherwise, start with a solid hull kit.

I swear by the solid hull kits.  The hull form tends to be far more accurate, the medium far more forgiving of mistakes, and the finish tends to be more realistic.  And, if building a warship, the spar deck, quarter deck, and fo'c'sle can be carved out down to the gun deck to take full replicas of the cannons. Those decks can then be easily replaced by planked decks.

Many have mentioned the Model Shipways Fair American. I have built the solid hull version, which is an outstanding kit.  I still have the full gundeck versions of the Essex, and Rattlesnake, and the Bluejacket Flying Cloud and MS Mayflower, Volante and Fair American.

One of my biggest issues with HECEPOB kits is that those companies that manufacture them is that they will often produce a ship kit of a ship that never existed.  For example, I can find no records for the brig manufactured by the (defunct) Mamoli called the Continental Navy Ship Blue Shadow.  Corel's HMS Unicorn seems to have severe fictional characteristics not found on real ships, as do many others of this genre.  Someone mentioned the Sergal Bomb Ketch Racehorse; I was given  that kithristmas one year in its original configuration without cannons. Sergal later released it with cannons.  The HECEPOB industry is riddled with similar examples.

Bill

I also like solid hulls - with a few reservations. They do vary quite a bit in quality - and symmetry. I bought one some years ago whose pre-carved bulwarks were about half the height they should have been, and there was no deck camber. On the other hand, I'm currently working on a fishing schooner based on the hull of the Models Shipways Elsie. The hull was beautifully carved out of excellent stock, the bulwarks were the right height, and the deck camber was carved in.

One near-universal truth about solid hull kits: the first thing you should do is carve away the transom completely. If you don't, you'll face the prospect of carving end grain to a complex, compound curve. Any experienced carver will tell you that's a lousy idea.

There's an in-between option: plank on solid. Bluejacket sells beautiful basswood "planking strips" that are only .020" thick. I'm planking the decks and hull of my little schooner. I started planking the exterior of the hull yesterday; I got it almost halfway done in three hours, and had a good time doing it.

I've got a couple of Model Shipways plank-on-bulkhead kits in my stash. (I refuse to buy HECEPOBs.) Both were designed by Chuck Passaro, who knows precisely what he's doing, and certainly appear to be both accurate and practical in terms of design and assembly methods. But first I want to finish my schooner. Her name is G.L. Tilley, after my father (the most gluttonous seafood eater I've ever seen.)

John,

Which POB do you have? I also have the Bluejacket USS Constitution. It is solid hull to the gundeck; above the gundeck is POB.  It is an interesting mix.

I concur with your comments about Chuck Passaro. Unfortunately, he was ripped off by a Chinese company that is currently marketing the Continental Navy Ship Confederacy under their own label.  They also ripped off some HECEPOB kits, notably  the San Felipe from Panart.

Bill

There isn't anything wrong with bulkheads 1-4 on the kit, they are consistent with other vessels Guignace designed, lke "Belle Poule".  See here, for example

http://fukurou.tuzikaze.com/diary/diary200010.html

However, I would think the hull planking should go all the way up to the forecastle deck (like Belle Poule) at the bow instead of the beakhead bulkhead that the kit has. 

Mamoli made some decent kits of what are for me interesting subjects, much more interesting than many other manufacturer for my tastes.  For me, it's a pity they closed down.

I think this kit is a decent kit and should build into a lovely model.

Bill, I've got the Model Shipways Syren and the little oared pinnace. The latter doesn't really count as "plank-on-bulkhead"; it's really plank-on-frame. The design is quite ingenious. So is that of the Syren, and the fittings are first-rate. Exceptions: the rigging blocks, which seem to have come from one of the HECEPOB companies. I intend to replace them with blocks from Mr. Passaro's own company, Syren Ship Model Company.

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with Cerberus's endorsement of Mamoli kits. There are too many duds in that line. We've already heard that they're selling the Surprise kit under two labels, and another under the name of a U.S. Navy vessel that never existed. For a long time they were advertising a kit called "Ben Franklin's Privateer." The real ship supposedly had been bought from a French shipyard by Franklin when he was serving as U.S. ambassador to France; the date was supposedly 1797. Franklin died in 1790.

I've never seen the Surprise kit in the flesh, but I've seen pictures of models built from it. It really doesn't look a lot like the real Surprise (which is quite well documented). And, as Cerberus said, the real Surprise had a round bow rather than a beakhead bulkhead.

Some years ago I was browsing a catalog in the hobby shop where I worked. One of the glitzier items shown in it was from Mamoli: a set of stern carvings for the transom and quarter galleries of the U.S.S. Constitution. They were cast in brass, and the set of three castings cost something like $50. They were packaged in a beautiful, velvet-line box. They looked exactly like the equivalent parts in the Revell 1/96 kit - but the Mamoli kit was listed as being on 1/98 scale. Cast brass shrinks about two percent as it cools. Coincidence?

The worst Mamoli-ism, though, has to have been its alleged "H.M.S. Beagle." Just a glance at a photo is enough to establish that the company's "research" consisted of buying a Revell kit - which was one of Revell's most blatant marketing scams. The Revell kit is a modified reissue of its ancient H.M.S. Bounty, and the Mamoli kit looks just like it. (In reality, the Bounty and the Beagle resembled each other only in that each had a hull, a deck, and three masts.)

In my - completely personal - opinion, that manufacturer doesn't deserve to be taken seriously as a producer of scale ship model kits. Others, of course, are perfectly free to disagree.

Cerberus- I didn't say there was anything wrong with the Mamoli bulkheads, just that they created the indentation the OP noted. But I could have said that, and would stand by it. If you compare the photo I posted to the model you posted, they are as different as night and day. Your post has a very lovely line where the ribs are flush to the keel and flow up, then out and then up again.

The Mamoli bulkheads jut out at an angle from the keel, then up, then out, then up, then severely in again. And the bulge of the Mamoli kit that creates at the waterline below the enormous tumblehome above is, well, gross.I don't want to get into a long distance urination contest here, so I won't say if the Mamoli kit is right or wrong, but it's ugly, whereas the one you posted is quite beautiful. I think anyone would say that the one you show is the real deal, very nice looking.

Hi guys:

WOW! What a lively discussion regarding my original question. I guess I conclude:

- The indentation caused by the forward bulkheads is indeed incorrect. I will take your advice and cut the planking off and fix the bulkheads. Then replank.

- I agree that Mamoli instructions stink. I just installed the pot metal gun ports and must now CUT/SAND THEM BACK TO MATCH THE PLANKING SURFACE. Lousy. Reading ahead in the instructions did not save me this time.

- I was PO'd that you think the materials are lousy. I am used to fixing problems, making special parts, etc. so I accept the challenge to finish it (I liked the comments about it will turn out beautiful). 

- As a history buff, I crave accuracy. In this case, I will do the best I can with defective goods. And likely need your help. Thanks again.

Chris Carl

One last question. Has any of you seen a picture/model/ship of that period that has that kind of indentation on the hull??

Chris

GMorrison

Cerberus- I didn't say there was anything wrong with the Mamoli bulkheads, just that they created the indentation the OP noted. But I could have said that, and would stand by it. If you compare the photo I posted to the model you posted, they are as different as night and day. Your post has a very lovely line where the ribs are flush to the keel and flow up, then out and then up again.

The Mamoli bulkheads jut out at an angle from the keel, then up, then out, then up, then severely in again. And the bulge of the Mamoli kit that creates at the waterline below the enormous tumblehome above is, well, gross.I don't want to get into a long distance urination contest here, so I won't say if the Mamoli kit is right or wrong, but it's ugly, whereas the one you posted is quite beautiful. I think anyone would say that the one you show is the real deal, very nice looking.

 

GMorrison, I didn't claim you did say there was anything wrong with them.  I think the reason the frames jut out at an angle is that Mamoli expect that a rebate will be cut into the keel and the planks fared in.  The model I posted has been made with the full frame and rebate in place, so the full curve is seen. 

I think the lines look accurate for "la Gloire", here is an image of her sister "la Prudente" from "History of the French frigate" by Jean Boudriot.  Sorry the right side is a bit off, the page curves into the spine there.

http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee274/cerberusjf/DSC01337_zpsc2pmxrrj.jpg

I would agree that the model of "Belle Poule" I posted is beautiful, but disagree that the Mamoli model is ugly.  I might actually prefer the less extreme tumblehome of "Gloire" to "Belle Poule".

But it doesn't get round the problem that the kit is not of "H.M.S Surprise", but of "la Gloire"/"H.M.S. Gloire".  If the OP is concerned about historical accuracy, he should either just build it as "Gloire" or start with a more accurate kit of "Surprise". 

As for Mamoli selling kits that are pure fantasy, I agree to some extent with Dr Tilley and would avoid most of them at all costs.  But most model manufacturers have done this, like Revell with "C.S.S. Alabama", "H.M.S. Beagle", Heller with numerous ship kits and most models of "K.M. Tirpitz" are a barely altered "Bismarck" with little attention to accuracy.  I think Mamoli's "H.M.S Victory" was the best wooden kit option (with flaws of course) until Caldercraft introduced theirs.  I didn't care for Corel's pressed wood or Sergal's "artistic impression". 

Mamoli's instructions maybe aren't up to Caldercraft's or Model Shipways', but they did supply full sized plans and exploded diagrams (unlike some) and are positively exhaustive compared to some kits I have from Billings and Artesania Latina.

I agree that there have been many egregious issues with the plastic ship model industry, with Heller perhaps leading the list. I also agree that not all of the HECEPOB kits are horrible.  For example, I have the HMS Bellona by Corel that I am truly enjoying.  However, the plastic kits do not cost anywhere near the cost of most POB kits. To paraphrase an old adage, "Fool me once with a cheap plastic kit; fool me into bankruptcy with a faulty HECEPOB kit!"

That said, it's like John Tilley has always said, "You can make an outstanding ship model out of a sow's ear (or beefbone)."  If one can make a decent model out of the Mamoli Surprise, he has certainly accomplished something!

There are alternatives if one wanted a model of a British Frigate . . . paper models.  Model Shipyard, for example, has three nice models in 1/96 scale; HMS Mercury, HMS Enterprize, and HMS Cleopatra. They also offer HMS Enterprize in 1/72 scale as well. Check them out! They won't disappoint.

Bill Morrison

"Modified reissues" are the bane of the ship model kit industry. I agree that Heller is/was the worst offender, but Revell is almost as bad. It got three kits out of the grand old 1/96 Cutty Sark (Cutty Sark, Thermopylae, and Pedro Nunes), two out of the Kearsarge (Kearsarge and Alabama), two out of the Constitution and United States), and two out of the big (and in my opinion awful) "Spanish Galleon" ("Spanish Galleon and "English Man-o'War), and Lord knows how many out of the old 18" box-scale sailing ships.

I call this deceptive advertising. I'm a little surprised that nobody (so far as I know) has ever taken Revell (or Heller, or Pyro, or Life-Like) to court.

The only plastic kit manufacturer who, to my knowledge, has never pulled any of these stunts is Airfix. (OK, it did sell a Tirpitz that was a clone of its Bismarck - but at least those were sister ships.

In the wood kit arena, so far as I know neither Model Shipways, Bluejacket, Midwest, or Calder/Jotika has ever sold a kit under a spurious name. The HECEPOBs seem to have that playing field to themselves.

Let the buyer beware (and stay away from HECEPOBs).

John,

I believe that I once read that Model Shipways once marketed a kit named after a girl in the owner's family. It was one of the early solid hull kits. The kit itself was supposed to be accurate as a generic example of its type, but the name was fictional.  However, I cannot remember which one it was.

Bill

Bill,

I don't have any trouble believing that. I know Dapper Tom was John Shedd's (one of the owners') college nickname. I think the one you're referring to may have been the Katy.

In both cases the firm was operating with genuine, contemporary drawings that didn't have ship names on them. To my notion there's a big difference between that and recycling a kit to masquerade as a different ship.