Best Plastic Ship Model - Your opinion

jtilley;

I took your advice and ordered the three plans from the Cutty Sark website, they arrived today.  I'll have to spend some time examining them to try and take in all the detail!  As a side benefit I can now name many of the parts, particularly yards and sails, which I could only refer to as "second from top" or "third from bottom" before.  Thank you for the advice, they'll be most useful.

On a related issue I have a photo of the Nippon Maru which shows (as you described) the sails furled into tight rolls no wider than the yards to which they're attached.

Which brings me to another point.  I bought the Lee version of IMAI's 1:350 Nippon Maru because I was interested in trying to build it as it was used during the war years in the role of a coastal freighter, however one reference says she had all sails, yards and "fixed ballast" removed (why the latter?), while the other suggests all the masts were removed too, but doesn't mention ballast.  It seems no photos exist so I was wondering if you could offer any wisdom on the subject.

I have to say that even under full sail the NM is not the most beautiful of the tall ships but with no top hamper at all is almost downright ugly.  Or am I being a little harsh.

Michael

While only familiar with the plastic variety I'm happy to agree with you on that one.

I was unaware the Susquehanna was available from Aoshima, it might be easier to purchase it rather than chase an IMAI on eBay, they tend to go high every time.

Thanks for your advise on the Cutty, it's much appreciated.

I had thoughts about building the Nippon Maru without rigging or masts as she would have appeared during the war, apparently being used as a freighter.  While she's not the most aesthetically appealing 'tall ship' especially denuded of masts and sails etc, it would make an imteresting contrast I think.

Michael

I guess I don't have any firm evidence, but I'm virtually certain those two Aoshima Japanese schoolship kits are reissues of the Imai ones.  Several other Imai ships have been turning up under the Aoshima label lately; the Susquehanna and Napoleon come to mind.

Maybe we're about to see a small renaissance of plastic sailing ship kits.  I certainly hope so - but I'm not holding my breath.  I'm glad to hear that somebody's selling those ex-Imai kits at fairly reasonable prices - though the thought of spending $78 on any plastic kit makes me gag.  (I remember quite vividly the days when the most expensive ones on the market were the Revell Thermopylae and Alabama, at $12.)

Before you take on the Imai/Aoshima Cutty Sark, be aware of a couple of amusing errors in it.  I've described these before in this Forum; anybody who's already read about them - stop reading now.

The kit quite obviously was based on the superb drawings of the ship done by George Campbell, which are on 3/32" = 1' scale.  (That's 1/128 - almost identical to the kit's claimed 1/120.)  Those plans may have more information on them than any other three sheets of paper I've ever seen.  (If you don't have them, you owe it to yourself to get them.  They're available at a remarkably reasonable price through the ship's website.)  For purposes of this particular application, however, they present a couple of pitfalls.  First, Mr. Campbell assumed that a few features were so simple that they didn't have to be drawn in much detail, or from more than two angles.  Secondly, the drawings are covered with written notes - in English, which the Imai designers apparently didn't read.

Two amusing examples jump out of the kit box.  Just ahead of the fore and main masts are a pair of cargo winches.  Mr. Campbell provides an enlarged drawing of them.  The two are identical with one major exception:  the forward winch has an x-shaped gadget called cable lifters on each end of its main barrel.  The winch forward of the main mast doesn't.  Mr. Campbell's drawing shows a cable lifter on one end but not the other, with notes reading, respectively, "Both ends thus on Forward Winch" and "Both ends thus on After Winch."  Each Imai winch has a cable lifter on one end - just like the drawing. 

The other problem concerns the "booby hatch" between the after deckhouse and the poop.  The Campbell plans don't provide a separate drawing of it; Mr. Campbell apparently assumed that its shape was so simple and generic that the outlines of it on the inboard profile and deck plan would be enough.  Imai proved him wrong by making a rendition of it that, though it looks just like the plans from the top or the side, looks utterly ridiculous from any other angle.

Both these goofs can be fixed in a few minutes, by swapping the ends of the winch barrels and replacing the top and sides of the booby hatch with plastic card.  The kit still gets my vote as the best rendition of the Cutty Sark in kit form - plastic, wood, or otherwise.

Common sense, yes, that's the term I was groping for to describe their philosophy.

On inspection the IMAI Cutty Sark doesn't display the metallic look of the earlier kits' plastic and its parts don't have the chunkiness displayed by the Santa Maria for example, however I think this is in keeping with the subject and the hull halves are still far more solid (and straight) than those of their rivals.  When the Cutty arrived I was so impressed with the condition of the kit I was tempted to keep it as-is.  Most of the IMAI's I've acquired have been in very poor boxes or even missing minor parts and my purpose is to build them, but this is different.

I'd like to purchase an Aoshima Cutty for building purposes but, given all we've discussed, I certainly won't be buying it on-line.  I want to inspect it before handing over my hard-earned!  From what I've seen it seems to be available more cheaply than you sugggested when you first brought it to our attention.  One site suggests $78 in your currency.  Of course we pay an average of 30% more over here which will cancel out some of the advantages.

I notice Aoshima are also selling a BIG Kaiwo Maru @ 1:100 (and 1:120) with crew.  Do you think this is the same as the IMAI Nippon Maru which came in the same scales - sister ship perhaps using the same moulds?  It certainly looks similar.

Michael

Very interesting indeed!  I confess I don't have much inclination to make my models into "artistic objects by painting in bronze tone or gold," but I get the point.

One of the many things that always impressed me about the old Imai kits was that the designers seemed to have a rare combination of ingenuity and common sense.  (Their Heller counterparts had the former in abundance, and scarcely any of the latter.)  Imai kits were indeed simplified somewhat - but they were simplified in an intelligent manner.  If the modeler wanted to undo the simplification, he or she generally could do it by adding things to the kit - rather than removing components that were unrealistic.  And Imai rigging instructions made sense.  They simplified the real ship's rigging without turning it into an irrational collection of threads.  (That's another distinction between Imai and Heller.

I do wonder whether the new Aoshima reissues use that same, slightly-metallic-looking plastic for the major hull and deck components.  As we've noted before in this Forum, the big Imai sailing ships were remarkable for the thickness of their major components - which went a long way toward explaining why they fit together so well.  If Aoshima is trying to mold those same parts in normal styrene, the results may be problematic.

jtilley;

Given your past comments about the nature of IMAI's model ship kits I thought you might be interested in some comments from the manufacturer themselves.  The following is scanned and OCR'd directly from a leaflet I found in my two oldest kits, Santa Maria and the Galeass, and so is in the rather quaint "Japlish" that was such a feature of Japanese kits of the era.

The reference to "styrofoam" may simply mean polystyrene or it may even refer to the unusual type of plastic IMAI used, which we've commented on before.

The item goes on to descibe ways and means of giving the models a metallic (i.e. gold, silver or patina'd bronze) appearance.

I hope you find it interesting.

Michael



EXPLANATION ABOUT IMAI'S CLASSIC SAILING SHIP SERIES
Each kit of IMAI's Classic Sail Ship series is modelled in quite different way from the existing sail ship kits produced by other manufacturers. Upto nowadays, meaning of assembling plastic kit was to give pleasure to modellers in assembling processes.   On the contrary, IMAI's sail ship kits were designed and merchandised so that not only modeller hut surrounding people can share in enjoying pleasure in seeing workmanship of the model after completed.


FEATURES:
1.    Each kit was designed to be extremely easy to assemble so that as many as people can make it, and at the same time, they can know enchantment of sail ships and pleasure in assembling, and further can enjoy pleasure in completing it and can be proud of displaying his completed model.
2.    To evaluate appreciation value after completion, each kit was designed to emphasize uniqueness of the original  model,  namely,  factors  such  as simplicity, elegance, gorgeousness and stoutness. Thus, designation was made to represent uniqueness and comprehensive beauty of each model.
3.    Since the existing sail ship kits produced by other manufacturers are very complicated and difficult to assemble, many of them are rather
fragile and are not suitable as ornament models in the matter of endurance.  In view of this, IMAI's sail ship kits are designed to make very stout models.
4.     We also took it into our consideration that workmanship of model make good enough even without painting as relative injection moulds have wood grain encarving and styrofoam is used as main material.
5.    We designed these models to, make artistic objects by painting in bronze tone or gold.  (You can paint your built-up IMAI's sail ship model in your own favourite way as you like it just like oil-painting.)

Revell's Charles W. Morgan was a fun build and I remember building several others around that time that came in similar sized boxes, including something that I painted with a white bottom that, as a youngster, I thought looked very cool. For the life of me, I cannot remember that "series" of kits.

I do remember building Aurora's whaler of the same name; it was a disaster, even for a young kid. Just for fun I was going to propose adding a worst kit to this string. The sails were heavy plastic, molded to the yards. It was difficult enough to glue the yards to the masts with all that extra weight. Making the rigging and sails look like they were under the influence of the same wind was nigh impossible. I gooned that one pretty badly. I liked building whalers, though. Lots of topside clutter, boats and tall masts.

Revell's America, which I built as "Civil War Blockader" was one I'd really like to have another shot at. It was the first kit I managed to keep a light enough touch on to really show off the model's beautiful lines. I even made those vacuum-formed sails look halfway decent (but not accurate) with a gray wash and a hot sewing needle.

Tamiya's 1/350 battleships  are highly competitive for the prize. I'd sure like to see them do a current LSD, LPD and LHD.

 

jtilley;

Thanks for pointing out the stuff on furled sail-making.  I've copied it out and will study it at leisure.  It might also be useful for finishing the Airfix Great Western which I also recently acquired.

Michael

I bought that old Aurora Wanderer many years ago - when it was originally released, I think.  So my memories of it are subject to the usual limitations of Halfzeimer's-afflicted memory.  What I recollect most clearly were the hideous injection-molded "sails" that were molded integrally with the yards.  The "sails" were, even within the limitations of injection molding, weird.  (The "seams" and "ropes" molded into them, if I remember correctly, took the form of raised lines on the fronts of the sails and grooves on the backs.  On an injection-molded part that makes no sense whatever - but it's the way a vacuum-formed "sail" normally looks.  I have a suspicion that those "sails" were pirated from the vac-formed ones in a Revell kit - probably the Thermopylae.) And as I remember the hulls of the whaleboats - vital components of any whaler model - were so distorted as to be caricatures of the real things.  (Maybe just barely believable as Azores whaleboats, but not as New England ones.)  The basic details and shapes weren't bad (the hull and deck parts featured countersunk detail, as I recall), and I'm sure it could be made into an eminently respectable scale model.  I have to say, though, that I have trouble giving a high rating to a kit about 50 percent of which has to go in the trash.

One of my favorite plastic sailing ship kits is the old Revell whaler Charles W. Morgan.  It's on a considerably smaller scale than the Aurora offering, and it suffers from many of the weak points that are common to all such kits.  (If I were doing it today I'd probably replace the upper spars with wood or brass.)  The shapes of the whaleboats were beautiful - though Revell insisted, for some reason, on putting interior details in only a couple of them.  (The others were provided with vac-formed "covers," unlike anything that normally would be found on a real whaleboat.)  The "combo units" used to represent the deadeyes and lanyards weren't great, but they were in my opinion about the most successful attempt at representing such parts that any plastic kit manufacturer has made yet.  And such things as the "wood grain" of the hull and deck planking, and the "bricks" of the tryworks, were among the most subtly done details I've ever seen on a plastic kit.  I'd put that one on my short list of candidates for "favorite ship kit."

Unfortunately the Revell Charles W. Morgan, like so many other excellent plastic sailing ship kits of yore, is just about extinct.  If you find one on e-bay or at a swap meet, my heartfelt advice is - grab it.  It's a classic.

Plastic..... I haven't done much in plastic recently, but the Aurora Whale Ship Wanderer kit appears to have been done in 1:87 scale, at least the hull measures exactly with a 1:87 scale ruler. I have photos of Wanderer underway, and with the whale handling tackle in use, and don't have a problem making new masts, and spars for the kit. The preassembled dead eyes and lanyards will be trashed also, and properly built up. There's enough about the kit that's good, that I'll give it my vote.

Pete

MJH - We had an interesting discussion of the furled sail problem some time back.  I've moved that thread to p. 1 of the Forum; it should appear on the list just below this one.  It's titled "Real Cloth Sails?"

I think the trick I described in that thread would work great on the Imai/Aoshima Cutty Sark.  The thread contains links to some pictures of my model of the frigate Hancock, which is on almost exactly the same scale. 

Good luck.

I've built a lot of ships in time, but there's just something special about the ICM Konig kit that really pleases me.  It's a good-looking ship for a subject, just for starters ... nice and gnarly but with a statuesque dignity befitting it's time and it was hi-tech in its day.  The kit captures that very well, but also has a very good fit and the parts are cast very well with lots of detail.  The plastic seems somehow unique, sort of like fine ivory and everything goes together so well.

Mine is about half done and it's in the configuration and colors for the sad trip to internment and scuttling at Scapa Flow.  I'm also going to rust and weather it extensivley, since the High Seas Fleet was laid up nearly inactive at Kiel for the years after Jutland.  A sorrowful end for a majestic ship.

But strangely compelling ....

I thought the Tamiya 1/350 scale Fletcher Class DD was an excellent kit.

I also like the Revell S-100 in 1/72 scale and the Tamaiya MTB in 1/72nd scale was awsome.

jtilley wrote:

One thing Imai seemed to have going for it: an ability to mold thick pieces. My recollection (which may be defective; it's been a long time since I've seen any of these kits) is that the hull and deck castings of the big Imai kits were remarkably heavy and sturdy - which was one reason why they fit so well. In fact I seem to recall that they were molded in an unusual plastic with a slighly metallic cast to it. I wonder if this type of plastic resisted the shrinkage that normally stops manufacturers from making parts that are more than about 1/16" thick. One of the problems with the big Revell kits was warpage of the deck pieces. Revell had to mold the decks in three parts, because anything bigger would have shrunk and warped - and the examples one finds nowadays frequently have warping problems anyway.

As you say, the hull and deck mouldings of the Imai kits were indeed remarkably thick and sturdy, the plastic was usually in a ‘wood’ colour and even had a sort of grain effect.  It did appear to have a metallic content so perhaps this was some kind of additive to help solve the shrinkage problems.  I assembled the hull and decks of the Imai Santa Maria recently and the finished hull is probably the strongest (and heaviest for size) of any model I’ve ever built (other than perhaps Imai’s own HMS Victory with the die-cast metal hull!).  Carefully treated and stained it would be almost impossible to tell from wood.  Warpage of parts is a problem I've often found in Heller kits particularly - I once built the Viking ship and I'd swear the only thing the two hull halves had in common was their colour!

Another feature which I appreciate on Imai's kits is that the planking on the hull is varied from port to starboard, rather than one being a mirror image of the other.  Being moulded in various colours is a nice touch too.  While no modeller worth his salt would leave it unpainted, an attractive model could still be produced that way.

I’ve just acquired the Imai 1:120 Cutty Sark and the kit is everything you have said.  I was lucky to get it at a reasonable cost but on examination I’m now reluctant to build it as it’s practically mint-&-boxed perfect.  I suppose I’ll have to look for an Aoshima version so I can actually build one.  I only wish the Imai came with sails - and I don’t mean the dreaded vac-forms - something to replicate the furled sails on the yards would have been nice though.  Any suggestions?

Michael

jtilley,

Sad, but true on all counts. The Blue Devil is impressive by size alone and really lacks detail and accurate scale. The 1/535 Missouri barely rates as a toy, much less a scale model. And Tamiya's 1/350 battleshjips are popular and fairly well cast, but it took GMM and a few other aftermarket kits to make them what they should be in the first place. Perhaps that's why multi-media kits are coming into vogue so fast and strong ... more details in the box already.

Good points and well taken

Micronaut - I haven't built either of those Revell Germany kits - or, for that matter, seen them first-hand. I've drifted away from plastic sailing vessels during the past few years - not out of any disrespect for them, but simply because I've gotten involved in other stuff. I think the Revell Germany Nina and Pinta are indeed reissues of the Heller kits, but I'm not sure. My recollection of those kits (which I bought many years ago, when Heller kits were sold in the U.S. under the Minicraft label) is that they were generic enough to pass as either 1/75 or 1/90. The two shared the same basic hull halves, if I remember right. Not bad little kits by any means, but the structure of such vessels was so simple, and we know so little about the prototypes' dimensions, that there's not a whole lot to determine the scale.

I've got a CD-ROM set of the National Geographic, which covered the transatlantic voyage of the Mayflower II extensively. I'll get it out and take a look at the pictures. I don't recall that she ever had the triangular color scheme - but I could well be mistaken. My recollection is that the three "Jamestown ships" built in the fifties were painted that way. I believe the basis for the scheme is the Matthew Baker Manuscript, at Cambridge. There are so few contemporary renditions of ships from that period that every one becomes important, and gets used over and over.

MBT 70 - We'd better be careful about evaluating ship model kits on the basis of popularity. You're probably right about the Lindberg "Blue Devil," which, I imagine, has been sold in the tens of thousands - despite the fact that it's ludicrously inaccurate. I suspect the best-selling ship kit of all time is the Revell 1/535 Iowa-class battleship, which originally appeared in 1954 and, incredibly, is still in the Revell-Monogram catalog. (At last count that catalog contained seven ship kits. Count 'em - seven.) In terms of accuracy, fit, and practically every other criterion it's one of the worst plastic kits ever made, but I imagine it's sold in the millions.

If you look at the question with an eye on popularity of kits as well as quality or historic significance, over the years and recently, I think it might stack up like this;

1. Tamiya 1/350 Missouri
2. Revell Cutty Sark
3. Tamiya 1/350 Yamato
4. ICM 1/350 Konig
5. Lindberg Blue Devil Destroyer

Jtilley,

Thanks for all the info on the Revell models. I've been away from the forum due to work (don't you hate when that gets in the way of hobbies?) but do have a few questions for you/other readers:

Has anyone built the Revell AG Batavia? Is that a decent kit? She's waiting on my shelf for time.... By the way, the book "Batavia's Graveyard" is a great historical read on the wreck of this ship.

Ditto the Revell AG Nao model, can't remember the name, think it is called the San Marcos? Recent issue.

I've been curious about the Revell Nina and Pinta origins: I thought that those were listed as 1/90 scale on the box, which is substantially smaller than Heller's 1/75th scale? I've built the Heller kits, and they are a fairly decent representation of 15th century caravels in various rigs. The longboat leaves a lot to be desired though!

Thanks for the clarification on the Revell Golden Hind and Mayflower kits. Yes, the Golden Hind is definitly a great kit. I'll have to get Mr. Graham's book, as the information you provided from it was fascinating. I was aware of the Mayflower II origins of the kits, and have the Bicentennial edition of the larger 24" Mayflower waiting to be built. On a side note on that one, it is amazing what a little common sense can do for historical accuracy. As you probably recall, when the Mayflower II was launched, she had a pretty elaborate paint scheme with multi-colored triangles, etc. I always wondered why a merchant captain would spend that kind of money on a fairly old ship when the main object was to make money, and paintwork costs. If you've seen recent pictures of Mayflower II, she has a much more (IMHO) realistic paint scheme, much simpler to apply.

You are correct on the reissue of the Lindberg "Flying Dutchman". I actually saw some open box pictures on eBay about a year or more ago, and recognized the contents. Of course, my advanced stages of CRS don't allow me to recall now what it was I recognized.... :-(

ERic

I've always been partial to Tamiya's 1:350 Missouri because of the historic ship, the impressive scale and the wealth of aftermarket details available. I like their entire series in that scale, in fact, but I'll still put the ICM Konig and Grosser Kurfurst in second place because they are so well cast and fit. But if I ran the zoo, I'd have someone put out a 1:200 scale of either SMS Seydlitz or SMS Von der Tann. I do have VDT in that scale as a card model, but I'd rather have it in plastic with a full hull to boot.

Jtilley you are correct The Revell Elizabethan is a redo of the Mayflower.They re-did the stern removed the flower decoration and added open gunports.Also Theres a large E R
decal for the mainsail and hull decoration decals.
Rod

Rod - Thanks. I should have included the "Elizabethan Man-O-War"; I'll go back and edit the list. (That's one of the many great things about this forum: it's possible to cheat. The Drydock Models forum won't let you edit your posts after somebody else has replied to them.) It think, though, that it's a reissue of the small Mayflower rather than the Golden Hind. (Here, as usual, I'm going by Mr. Graham's book.)

I think the Nina and Pinta are reboxes of Heller kits. Heller did all three of Columbus's ships in the late sixties; the Nina and Pinta shared the same hull, but there were enough other differences between them to keep that from being obvious. There was some sort of corporate relationship between Heller and Revell during the eighties, I think. I recall fairly distinctly seeing, among other shared kits, a Revell Flying Cloud in a Heller box.

I think you're right about the Lindberg origins of the Sovereign of the Seas. (Lindberg may have gotten the mold from Pyro; I'm not sure. There was also - briefly - an Aurora one.) I have a very vague recollection of that "Flying Dutchman" kit. It surely was a reissue of something else - but I can't remember what. Anybody else remember it?

Jtilley a great run down of Revell ships.I have a couple others that weren't on your list.the Elizabethan Man O' War which was just a re box of the Golden Hind.Also They did a Pinta and Nina to go along with there Santa Maria.From Revell Germany they have the British Sovereign Of The Sea.which I think is a the old Lindberg kit.Then in my stash I have a kit called The Flying Dutchman.Its suppose to be a 1600's Dutch war ship.I got it at a model show a few years back.Its the only one I've ever seen.
Rod

I'm not sure I can agree that all the Imai kits were categorically superior to all the Revell ones - but I certainly agree that the Imai kits were terrific. To some extent we're comparing apples and oranges here, though. I can only think of one case where Imai and Revell competed head-to-head: the Cutty Sark. As I said in an earlier post, I'd probably rate the Imai Cutty Sark a little higher than the big Revell one, but it's a close call. Imai never took on a subject as elaborate as the Revell Constitution or the Heller Victory.

One thing Imai seemed to have going for it: an ability to mold thick pieces. My recollection (which may be defective; it's been a long time since I've seen any of these kits) is that the hull and deck castings of the big Imai kits were remarkably heavy and sturdy - which was one reason why they fit so well. In fact I seem to recall that they were molded in an unusual plastic with a slighly metallic cast to it. I wonder if this type of plastic resisted the shrinkage that normally stops manufacturers from making parts that are more than about 1/16" thick. One of the problems with the big Revell kits was warpage of the deck pieces. Revell had to mold the decks in three parts, because anything bigger would have shrunk and warped - and the examples one finds nowadays frequently have warping problems anyway.

It's worth remembering that, unless my recollection of the dates is mixed up (as is quite possible), the first of the Imai kits appeared at about the same time as the last of the Revell ones - that is, in the late seventies. (As a matter of fact, the planking detail of that Revell Viking ship looks remarkably like that of an Imai kit. I wonder....) Imai gave us a tiny hint of what the plastic kit industry was capable of doing with sailing ships at that time. What a first-rate company could do with a sailing ship subject in 2005...well, I guess we'll just have to leave that one to our imaginations.

I have all the wall plaques kits ( 2 of the Spanish Galleon) ther neat but how to keep the dust off them is another matter altogether. Anybody need a wall-plaque Spanish Galleon?

Jake

I've assembled many ship models and in my opinion the old Ertl/Imai kits were great. These kits were available in the early 80's but Imai may have reissued them. They had excellent detail and went together very good. I painted mine with wood stain and they looked fanastic. They did have their short comings(every kit does) but they were few and were much better than any Revell kit.

As a cure for insomnia (probably induced by the depressing subject matter of my last post) I just drew up a list of Revell sailing ship kits. I started by trolling through my defective memory, and checked it against Mr. Graham's book. The list is surprising short - especially if the reissues are omitted.

I haven't listed scales; I don't have most of the kits in front of me, and I have doubts about some of the scales Mr. Graham lists. I do have complete confidence in his dates, though - with the one small exception of the Mayflower. (He missed the fact that there were two kits, on different scales.) Here goes.

"Fit-the-Box" kits, between 15" and 18" long; originally selling for $3.00 or thereabouts.

1. U.S.S. Constitution. 1956. Reissued many times, with and without sails.

2. H.M.S. Bounty. 1956. Reissued many times, with and without sails, including an appearance in slightly modified form under the name H.M.S. Beagle in 1961. (The alleged "Beagle" is on this year's list of "new" releases from Revell Germany.)

3. Santa Maria. 1957.

4. Flying Cloud. 1957. Reissued several times, including appearances in slightly modified form under the names Stag Hound and "Yankee Clipper."

5. U.S.C.G.C. Eagle. 1958. Reissued with modifications under the name S.M.S. Seeadler.

6. H.M.S. Victory. 1959.

7. Golden Hind. 1965. Reissued as "Spanish Galleon" and (gawd help us) "Glow in the Dark Pirate Ship."

8. Mayflower. 1966. Reissued with modifications as "Elizabethan Man-O-War."

9. Charles W. Morgan. 1968.

10. Cutty Sark. 1976.

11. Viking Ship. 1977.

"Big" series - about 1/96 scale. Originally sold for $10.00 - $15.00.

1. Cutty Sark. 1959. Reissued with modifications under the names Thermopylae and Pedro Nunes.

2. U.S.S. Kearsarge. 1961. Reissued in extremely modified form as C.S.S. Alabama.

3. U.S.S. Constitution. 1965. Reissued many times, with and without sails. Also reissued with modifications under the name U.S.S. United States.

4. "Spanish Galleon." 1974. Reissued with modifications under the name "English Man O' War." I hesitate to list this one; it's really an interior decorator's...object...rather than a scale model.

Medium-sized "Simplified" series - about two feet long. Originally sold for $6.00 or $7.00.

1. Cutty Sark. 1968. Scaled down version of the three-foot kit. Reissued under the name Thermopylae.

2. Yacht America. 1969. Reissued under the name "Civil War Blockader."

3. U.S.S. Constitution. 1969. Scaled-down version of the three-foot kit, in simplified form.

4. Mayflower. 1977. Scaled-up version of the 16-inch kit.

There was one other kit that, like the ship it represented, didn't fit in any category: the S.S. Great Eastern. That one came out in 1963.

I've omitted some odd products: the tiny kits Revell acquired from Gowland in the early fifties, the "Peter Pan Pirate Ship" (which, come to think of it, actually is a scale model of the vessel permanently moored at Disneyland), and the "wall plaque" kits from the seventies. I know I've missed several from Revell Germany - the Alexander Humbolt (complete with green sails), the fifteenth-century nao, the Gorch Fock (which I think is actually the old Eagle), the Batavia,and maybe a couple of others. Also some old Aurora kits, like the Chinese junk, that have made their way into Revell Germany boxes. Maybe some other forum participants can think of some more.

Otherwise, I think the above list includes all the Revell sailing ships. That's twenty genuinely different kits, representing (with reasonable accuracy) fourteen different vessels (and pretending to represent about half a dozen others, depending on how one counts). Not much of a list, especially compared to the firm's aircraft and cars. But they are, at least in my senile opinion, a significant part of the history of the plastic model. I miss them.

Thanks to millard for confirming that I'm not crazy - at least with regard to my recollections of the Revell Mayflower(s).

I agree totally about the old Imai ships. I don't think I ever built one completely, but I remember them as being beautifully molded and ingeniously designed. That Cutty Sark was a real beauty. And even those little 1/350 sailing schoolships, some of which have recently surfaced again under other labels, are very much worth building.

My big complaint with Heller sailing ships has always been that the company put aesthetics first and history a long, long way second. I spent a long time on the Heller Soleil Royal when it initially appeared, back in the seventies - and I admit the result was, in terms of visual impact, pretty spectacular. The "carvings" on that kit are a match for the very finest of the old British Board Room models. That's the highest compliment I can pay to such things. But when I found some pictures of the contemporary model on which the kit was based (in those days I didn't do my research adequately in advance) I was furious. The Heller designers made an utter mess of the stern structure, and distorted the proportions of the underwater hull almost beyond recognition. They also made the decks perfectly flat - which virtually no sailing ship's decks ever were. Most of the other Heller kits of that period have similar problems - or worse ones. A company that produced airplane or tank kits to that standard of accuracy would, even in those days, have been laughed out of the business.

With H.M.S. Victory, it seems, the Heller people started getting serious about scale ship modeling. That one is, in terms of accuracy, on a different planet. It has some amusing problems (the Heller people apparently didn't realize that yards are supposed to be fastened to masts, and somebody on the design staff thought belaying pins were supposed to have sharp points), but the hull is a near-perfect representation of the real thing, the decks have camber (and curved deck beams to make sure they keep it), and in general it's a serious scale model.

The other Heller kit that I really, really like is the galley La Reale. I've got one of them in the attic awaiting my attention. (It's been awaiting my attention for quite a few years now; it's a rather intimidating project.) I'm no expert on French galleys, but according to the drawings I've looked at this kit is a masterpiece. About the only way I can see to improve it would be to replace the handles on the oars (quite a project, in view of their numbers). Several other recent Heller kits (the chebec and the Gorch Fock, for instance) seem to be on the same level, though I haven't built them.

I share Millard's and Jake's enthusiasm for the good ol' Revell Constitution. It's showing its age by now, but at the time it was released it represented the state of the art - and to my eye it still holds up pretty well. It must have taken some nerve on the part of the designers to represent the ship in her 1814 configuration, knowing that tourists who visited the real ship would notice lots of differences. (The transom decorations, for instance, don't look anything like the kit's - but that's because they got altered after the War of 1812.) The three-piece decks of the Revell Constitution and Cutty Sark do present problems. (Three cheers for Heller, for figuring out that the right way to make a big deck in several pieces is to split it lengthwise, along the planking seams.) But they represent a genuine effort by knowledgeable people to reproduce sailing ships accurately in plastic.

Looming over this whole discussion, though, is the sad, overwhelming fact that all these kits are so old. The numbers are sobering. Revell has been producing plastic kits since 1953 - fifty-two years. It released its first sailing ship kit, the 18" Constitution, in 1956, and the last one, the "Quick-Build Viking Ship," in 1977. (The Heller Victory also appeared in about 1977, if I remember correctly. How many aircraft or armor kits dating from that time are still taken seriously?) So Revell made new sailing ship kits for twenty-one years, and quit twenty-eight years ago. That company, in other words, has been out of the sailing ship business longer than it was in it - and for more than half of its lifetime. And more than half of mine. And the Heller Victory has been around for more than a decade longer than the college freshmen who will be showing up in my classroom next August. I feel old.

If companies like Tamiya, Dragon, and Hasegawa were designing and producing sailing ships today, what might they look like? Imagine a Tamiya 1/96 Flying Cloud - and a set of Verlinden aftermarket parts for it.

Some people would argue that sailing ships don't really make good subjects for plastic kits, and maybe they'd be right. Styrene, as most participants in this forum seem to agree, is not a good material for such things as masts and yards. (Let's not talk about vac-formed "sails.") But it does seem like the plastic kit industry has turned its back on a significant phase of model building. Those old kits may not have made much money for their manufacturers, but they stirred the initial interest of some young people (including this one) in ship modeling and maritime history. The world of model building is the worse for the demise of the plastic sailing ship kit.

To answer jtilleys question.Yes there are two Revell Mayflower kits.One considered 1/96 scale( approx.16" long).the other about 1/75 scale or so (approx.24" long)At the time they were orginally issued it was box scale model.They are identical right down to the figures that come with them.I have both kits under my bench.Thats where they will probably stay till I want to do a lot and I mean a lot of sanding and filling.

When it comes to whats the best plastic ship model.It depends whether you are a gray ship builder or a sailing ship builder.Being the latter heres my 2 cents worth.Any Imai sailing ship kit is a real joy for me to work on .Crisp detail,part fit very good.sanding yes but very little filling .The best of there ships was the 1/50 Catalan to me.Next would be most Heller kits. The two big kits HMS Victory & Le Soliel Royale being the best of the lot.I haven't finish either one yet but have them in different stages of build.Then Revells two 1/96 scale kits The USS Constitution & the Cutty Sark.Their biggest problem being the three piece deck systems.Hard to hide the seams without planking the decks.Zvezda two kits.The GreekTriera & the Roman Trireme are nice kits to build. Maybe not historically correct but good kits to build.
Rod

Here is a list of my collection: I left off the scales because I'm not sure and really don't feel like pulling every model off the shelf. I put in a few inches to give you an idea.

AIRFIX
HMS Victory 18"
Discovery 18"
Wasa 18"
HMS Endeavor Bark 18"

AMT
Leonardo DaVinci's Self-Propelled Boat 11"

HELLER
HMS Victory 1/100
Le Soliel Royal 1/100
Pamir 1/150
Chebec 1/50
Preussen 1/150
Amerigo Vespucci 1/150
Royal Louis 1/200
Le Gladiator 1/200
Navire Viking 1/60
HMS Bounty 16
Leif Eriksson Viking Ship 1/60

IMEX/IMAI
Santa Maria 1/60
Chebec 1/75
Pirate Ship 1/60
Chinese Junk 1/75
Cutty Sark 1/120

LIFELIKE
America Cup Racer
Gouda

LINDBERG
HMS Soverign of the Seas
Capt. Kidd
Jolly Roger
Burmese River Pirate 1/75

MINICRAFT
RMS Titanic (New Edition) 1/350

MONOGRAM
USS United States 1/150
Cutty Sark 1/150
USS Constitution 1/150

PYRO
Joseph Conrad

REVELL
USS Constitution 16"
Cutty Sark 16"
HMS Sir Francis Drake 16"
Spanish Galleon 16"
Spanish Galleon 24"
Santa Maria 16"
Mayflower (2) 16"
Flying Cloud 18"
C.W. Morgan 18"
Chinese Junk 18"
Stag Hound 18"
Sea Addler 18"
USS Constitution 36"
USS Constitution 24"
Cutty Sark 36"
Cutty Sark 24"
Thermoplae 36"
Thermoplae 24"
Nau San Gabriel 18"
"Half-Hull Wall Mount Plaques" 18" sized
USS Constitution
Cutty Sark
Spanish Galleon

RUSSIAN
God's Predicta "Who knows but looks like about 1/150

ZEVESDA
Trireme 1/72nd.

Micronaut - I agree, but remember that string of 16th/17th-century Revell issues is really two basic kits. Actually three.

The bible on the subject, Thomas Graham's Remembering Revell Model Kits, tells the story this way. The Golden Hind first appeared in 1965, with the kit number H-324. It was reissued under the same name in 1972, then as a "Spanish Galleon" in 1974 and 1978. It reappeared under its original name in 1978, and the same year as (arrrrghhhh) "Pirate Ghost Ship." In the latter guise it came with a bottle of phosphorescent paint, to make it "glow in the dark."

My recollection of it is that it was a beautiful little kit - as a representation of the Golden Hind. The designers clearly worked from the Matthew Baker Manuscripts at Oxford University, the best source we have on Elizabethan naval architecture and shipbuilding. It correctly depicted the Golden Hind as an extremely small ship. (Mr. Graham gives the scale as 1/96; my recollection is that it may have been on a little larger scale than that.) In every way it looked like it had been designed for serious modelers. Even the vacuum-formed "sails" were better than usual: they didn't have "reef points" and other pieces of "rope" molded into them. I suspect the original designers barfed when they saw the label "Spanish Galleon" applied to it. The ship it represents is far too small to be called a galleon - Spanish or otherwise - and the lines are distinctively English.

The Mayflower kit, according to the book, first appeared in 1966, with the number H-327. It was a completely different kit from the Golden Hind. I'm pretty sure the only parts the two had in common were the rigging blocks (which were recycled from the old Cutty Sark kit). It was reissued under its original name in 1970, 1972, and 1975, and with the name "Elizabethan Man-o-War" in 1975 and 1977. (It may have reappeared once or twice in the eighties as well; Mr. Graham's coverage stops in 1979.)

This one was a scale model of the Mayflower II, the full-size replica that sailed across the Atlantic in the fifties and has been moored at Plymouth, Massachusetts, ever since. As such, the kit reproduces one big, deliberate error: the replica ship, in deference to twentieth-century tourists, has too much headroom between decks. But as a scale model of the Mayflower II it's excellent. According to Mr. Graham, the "Elizabethan Man-o-War" reissues deleted the shallop and added a dozen guns - and decals for the sails. That tactic doesn't bother me quite as much as what they did to the poor Golden Hind. At least the Mayflower and Queen Elizabeth were both English.

I do think Mr. Graham missed part of this story. He lists kit no. H-366, "Mayflower with sails," dating from 1970, as a reissue of the original. I'm 99% sure it wasn't. It was in fact part of a small series of medium-sized kits that Revell, in a desperate effort to build up a market for sailing ship kits, called "Quick-Build." The others in the series were a Cutty Sark, a Constitution, and the yacht America (all of which went through their own contorted careers of reissuing later). They sold (in the hobby shop where I worked) for $6.00 or $7.00 - as opposed to the $4.00 standard Revell sailing ships and the $12.00 or $15.00 big ones. They were touted as being easy to assemble; they had one-piece decks and no rigging blocks. The Constitution and Cutty Sark were smaller, simplified versions of the 3-foot kits; the America was new. But the Mayflower was an enlarged version of the original. The first Mayflower was about 18" long; the new one was about two feet long. My recollection is that it was in fact virtually identical to the original except for size and the omission of the rigging blocks. All the wood-grain planking detail and everything else - even the crew and passenger figures - had been scaled up with Revell's amazing pantograph machine. I built that one, and it came out really nice.

I haven't seen any of these kits in the flesh for years. I think Jake has both Mayflowers in his collection; maybe he can confirm that the ship came in two sizes.

Revell tried the "Quick-Build" approach several more times, apparently without much success. The last attempt was the "Quick Build Viking Ship," in 1977. We've discussed that one in this forum before; in my opinion it was the best plastic Viking ship ever. It was a scale model of the full-size replica in Chicago, which was in turn based on the Gokstad Ship, which is preserved in the Viking Ship Museum in Norway. The Revell designers did a beautiful job on it - far superior to Heller's hideously distorted "Oseberg Ship" of a few years earlier.

Unfortunately the Revell Viking ship was the last new sailing ship the company produced. Every sailing ship kit that's appeared under the Revell label since then has been a reissue of some sort.