Mamoli plank-and-bulkhead ship model

John,

I will check my sources.  I may have confused the Bounty with Endeavor. Advanced years may have clouded my memory.

Bill

Thanks for the info, Bill - and for the link, Cerberus. I've read the Model Ship World exchange with great interest. (I have a membership in that site, but I haven't really become familiar with it yet.)

I confess I have really mixed reactions to all this. I've detested Mamoli for decades; when it went under, my reaction was "good riddance." Mr. Dusek does seem determined to upgrade the quality of materials in the kits - a major improvement. And he apparently has access to a laser-cutting machine. Also good: Mamoli's die-cut parts had a reputation for not fitting right.

But he says that "at least for the time being" he intends to release the old Mamoli kits pretty much intact. He doesn't mention improving the fittings, which are notoriously bad. (I think one reason for the odd scales of Mamoli kits is that the company designed them around fittings that were already in use on other kits - and picked the scales to make them match. More or less.) And he wasn't particularly receptive to Bill's well-stated suggestion that he junk the Mamoli "HMS Beagle," which is a scandal.

The implications is that he's going to sell somewhat improved versions of the old Mamoli line initially, and try to build up some capital so he can produce some genuinely new and better kits. That's a laudable ambition - except from the standpoint of the gullible customers who buy the slightly revised old kits.

One of Mamoli's basic problems always was that the people running it didn't really understand - or care - what scale ship modeling is about. I hope we'll see a reversal of that attitude. But I'm not convinced that it will happen soon.

On the positive side, the kits in Mr. Dusek's previous venture, Dusek Models, certainly seem to have been designed by knowledgeable people. I've never seen one of them in the flesh, but the photos certainly are impressive. Maybe what used to be one of the worst of the HECEPOB firms actually will start producing genuine scale models. I hope so.

Incidentally - Bill, what's your source for saying the Bounty started out as a collier? I know Cook's Endeavour did, but in all the digging through Bounty materials I've done I haven't bumped into any references to what her cargo in the merchant service was. Hmmm....Her original name, Bethia, ought to be in Lloyd's Register of Shipping, which started publication in 1776. Sometime soon I'll try to make time to drop in the Mariners' Museum Library, which has the closest copy of Lloyd's know of, and see what I can find out.

Best of luck to Mr. Dusek.

Here's a link:-

http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/13542-mamoli-model-kits-are-back/page-2

Gentlemen,

There is a discussion going on with the new owner of Mamoli about its resurrection over on modelshipworld.com. He has provided some photos of redesigned ship kits that many will find interesting, including pre-cut gunports and hull refinements.  Please check that thread!

Bill

The fact that discussion of ZHL kits has been banned on NRG's site for copying kits is one of the reasons I wanted to clarify that Mamoli didn't copy Revell's Constitution kit.  The difference in price between ZHL kits and the European kits isn't so great in Europe, so ZHL kits are less attractive in Europe.

cdogg,

I don't hate the European manufacturers. I have just learned to be weary of those kits that don't actually depict real ships.  The Mamoli HMS Surprise is one of them, not representing the real ship. John Tilley has pointed out that this ship is well-documented, and the model doesn't reflect that documentation.  That said, I am very happy with the Corel HMS Bellona, although the materials could be better.  I am also modifying the Pandora HMS Pandora to correct the bow and forecastle area.  Many of us simply believe that there are far too many of these kits in which the manufacturers simply fantacised about instead of researching, and that the materials in the kits are sub par for the price.  However, Amati and Caldercraft have raised the bar.

Bill

So much hate for the Euro kits.  I think it's best to have some experience on smaller boats like Midwest (RIP) before taking on a large kit from any company.  But, in my experience I look at the kits as a template, once you get the hang of building the ships you can easily spot a lazy mistake in a kit design.  That's part of the fun, you get to do research and create a new segment all on your own.   For example, look at all the kits designs on the Pinta, the main mast is in a different location!  But, I do agree that the price of these kits are pretty high.

Yes indeed ZHL and a host of other Chinese companies have pirated many kits.  Most of ZHL kits are not of their own design.  Yes they may change a few aspects of it for manufacturing reasons.  Mainly the decorative castings as they must make their own masters but the parts and designs are just lifted.

They did indeed steel my plan sheets for inclusion in their Confederacy kit.  The kit is based on Harold Hahn's framed version but for some strange reason they have included my plans with Hahn's framing designs.  They are literally copied with changes made for the Chnese language.  Its actually funny because the sheets they took from me were not even the completed versions and I can see the parts that were incomplete including one note written to myself to update the head timbers.  They just dont care.

They have stolen almost exactly several ships designed by ANCRE,  Amati,  Caldercraft, AL, Mamoli and others.   Literally copy and pasted.

To prove my point here is an image of the Caldercraft Victory which costs $1300 which they sell for much much less although its a piece of crap.  You can see that they didnt even bother removing the Caldercraft logo.

As a director of the NRG I even spike to the owner of ZHL.  He readily admits doing this and sees nothing wrong with the practice.  It is part of their culture.   His excuse was the fact that it is too costly to import these into China.  That being said they have no problem exporting to those cheap individuals who couldnt care less how it hurts the hobby and guys like me.   If it saves them a few bucks they will look the other way.  

The Model Ship World forum and the NRG has banned all kits from ZHL and their affiliates on any of their sites and publications.  Legitamate authors and designers, including myself have contemplated no longer creating new designs because they just get ripped off by the Chinese and we just cant compete.

Chuck

They do. It is a pirated version of the Model Shipways kit. Simply do an internet search for Z.H.L. Continental Frigate Confederacy.  It will come up. It might not be a current listing but they did pirate the kit.

Bill

ZHL don't seem to be offering a Confederacy, maybe they're changing?

This is interesting.  I sent an email to Chuck to find out about the Confederacy. 

Bill

Do  you mean the differences beween ZHL's Soleil Royal and Sergal's?  For example, from what I've seen on the net (it's been a long time since I saw one in the flesh) Sergal has statues of Europe with a horse & Africa with a camel at the top of the stern whereas ZHL's has horses both sides, much larger and with legs protruding.  The statues of Asia and America lower down on the stern on Sergal's kit are different from the "trumpet players" on ZHL's model and so on.  From what I can see, most of the decorations look different between the models, usually worse on ZHL's but not always.  It's a similar story with San Felipe.  They may have copied the wooden parts, but not the decorations, or at least they don't appear to be doing it any more.  The "HMS Surprise" looks similar to the Artesania Latina kit however.

It would be interesting for Chuck Passaro to comment here.  What differences did you see?

Bill

I was curious about the ZHL kits, but was put off by inconsistencies in photos in their listing and some bad reviews including mssing parts not being supplied, poor quality and so on.  And the charges of piracy, but looking at their kits, there seems to be enough differences from the original kits (Soleil Royal & San Felipe were the ones I was looking at) to wonder what they copied, to be frank. 

I'm not sure if it would be illegal to copy in China, probably not.  For some reason it reminds me of books in Russia published before 1998-ish, which were decliared copyright-free by Putin, but websites with electronic version of only these books  were banned by websites in the west for copyright reasons.

Now we're on a slippery slope indeed!  Legal doesn't imply moral.  Taken to the extremes, the Holocaust was legal in the Third Reich; it certainly wasn't the right thing to do.

Anyway, I have read reviews of the Z.H.L. versions of these kits that were less than glowing.  Complaints range from shoddy fittings to poor instructions.  I would purchase one to provide my own review, but I don't condone piracy.

Oh, well.  Such is the world in which we live!

Bill

I certainly don't want to defend ZHL. I've never seen any of its products, and I have no sympathy with any western modeler who does. I do wonder, though, whether such behavior is actually illegal under Chinese law. Maybe the real culprit is the Chinese government.

Z.H.L. of China practices the most egregious rip-offs in the modeling world.  Whereas Revell, Heller, Mamoli, et.al., try to extend their profits by simply repackaging some of their kits under another name, Z.H.L. steals designs from other kit designers and companies.  For example, Chuck Passaro designed the Continental Frigate Confederacy for Model Shipways, Z.H.L. stole the plans and markets the kit from Chuck's design.  They did the same thing for San Felipe, Royal Sovereign, and Le Soleil Royal.  I just checked EBay where Z.H.L. sells the San Felipe for $335.00; its European counterpart sells for around $1,500.00.  Chuck justifiably refuses to allow builds of this company's kits on his ship modeling website because of these business practices.

The worst of the HECEPOB companies pales by comparison!

Bill

Yes that indent is present on San Juan Nepomuceno.  She was built under the Gautier system (French) so has the French characteristics of the period.  I find it is aesthetically pleasing.  But you're right, the real HMS Surprise didn't have them, so probably the fictitious one didn't either.

I agree that Mamoli dropped the ball with their Beagle kit and they clearly based it on Revell's kit (big mistake), I wonder if they used their Bounty kit as a base too?  Probably!

But taking a direct cast of decorations from a kit and selling it as their own work would be much more serious and I'm glad Mamoli were not guilty of it on this occasion.  Trying to pass off their "Gloire" as "HMS Surprise" reflects badly on Mamoli, but it's something model manufactureres have done for decades unfortunately, so Mamoli are not alone.  What  reallt don't understand is why they changed the scale on the box to 1/75, when it is clearly the same 1/90 kit as "Gloire".  What were they thinking?

I think most manufacturers have (or have had) poor kits in their range.  I prefered the look of Mamoli's "Rattlesnake" to Model Shipways' version, it certainly looked prettier - don't know if it was any more accurate, but it looked it to someone who knows nothing about that ship.

I think people are getting used to more accurate kits now, but the manufacurers of the HECEPOB kits seem to be responding by making their kits LESS accurate to cut costs.  I think the Sergal Cutty Sark that you refer to is one of them, certainly Artesania Latina's version is much worse now than one they produced not long ago.  But some of the kits that are in the pipeline look good, for example the "Santisima Trinidad" by Dusek, though there is some doubt about what she looked like.

As for Maritime Models of Greenwich, I've had my own experiences of that shop and what you tell me doesn't surprise me.  But they were often a good mail order source and it's a pity that shops like that are all but gone in the UK.

I have plans for the 74-gun spanish ship of the line San Juan Nepomuceno, bought from a museum, and the bow of the ship is shaped like that in the OP. I used the plans to create a hull in 3D computer software and there is actually an indentation. While not aesthetically pleasing, it looks like some ships were built like that. I doubt the Surprise is one of them though.

cerberusjf

cerberusjf wrote the following post 4 hours ago:

"jtilley . 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?"

I just found my old Mamoli caalogue and compared their 1/93 Constitution kit to Revell's 1/96 kit. I can see no resemblance between the two to be honest. So, although Mamoli could be charged with many things, blatant copying of Revell's kit is not one of them I think. Mantua's 1/98 Constitution does bear an uncanny resemblance to Revell's kit, however.

Looks like I owe the now-defunct Mamoli an apology. I was talking about something that happened almost forty years ago, and my memory plays tricks these days. I must have been looking at a Mantua catalogue.

On the other hand, don't forget the Mamoli "HMS Beagle." There's no room for doubt that it's based on the Revell kit - which is a slightly modified reboxing of the Revell Bounty. Neither "Beagle" kit bears more than a vague resemblance to the real vessel.

I do have a clear recollection of another, related incident. The owner of a hobby shop that specialized in ship models brought out, with a flourish, a velvet-lined box containing a pair of cast metal trailboards intended for the Cutty Sark. They were quite expensive, but they didn't look much like the originals. I made the mistake of saying so - and also saying that I thought the Revell and Airfix renditions were considerably closer to reality. The shop owner and the other customers looked at me like I'd lost my mind.

What made this interesting was the venue: Maritime Models of Greenwich, a few hundred yards from the Cutty Sark. Everybody in the store had walked or driven past the ship in order to get there.

It seems the HECEPOB manufacturers have created a strange mindset among ship modelers. I do think the HECEPOB influence is on the wain, though - at least in the U.S. I certainly hope so.

jtilley

.

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?

I just found my old Mamoli caalogue and compared their 1/93 Constitution kit to Revell's 1/96 kit.  I can see no resemblance between the two to be honest.  So, although Mamoli could be charged with many things, blatant copying of Revell's kit is not one of them I think.

Mantua's 1/98 Constitution does bear an uncanny resemblance to Revell's kit, however.

cerberusjf

There isn't anything wrong with bulkheads 1-4 on the kit, t

But, the change from fourth to fifth is far too abrupt.   Look at how the angle of the floors changes; it's like 3 or 4 frames have been skipped over in profile.

It's a sing of bad frame drafting, that uh-oh would have been caught by drawing a single diagonal in the lines drawings (it's the 'why' we draw diagonals even in this modern, computerized, age).

Which suggests that who ever lofted those parts either has no idea how they are to fit together; or does not care. Or--in some fairness--was told to just let it ride by a boss for some reason.

Hello!

I have only built one HECEPOB kit, and it was "Artist's in the latrine" copy of the very Katy that was mentioned above. A photo of her like three years ago:

The kit definitely had a lot of problems and I had to add lots of material to the kit and do a lot of research before the rigging started making sense. But here it is. I made my own sails for it. The kit had a bulwark rail made of plywood - what an idea! I liked how the hull was built and I believe that it is more resistant to humidity changes than solid hull. But the rigging plan was pure crap. I had to copy the rigging from the Model Shipways instructions to move on. Details like the chainplates straight from the kit were looking plain wrong even to an untrained eye.

Thanks for reading and have a nice day

Paweł

John,

I most emphatically agree!  The Dapper Tom is an excellent and accurate example of a variant of the Baltimore Clipper and can be made into a worthy model, as is the Katy.  The model does not represent a specific ship but rather a type or class.  Many HECEPOB's don't do that; indeed, these particular models represent nothing in particular at all, not even a real ship.  It is a tremendous distinction between these genres.

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.

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

"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).