Another 1:96 Cutty Sark post!

If your like me to look for parts, I have an old junker I bought off eBay to repair my current 1/96 Cutty Sark.

 What parts do you need?

BTW, for those using the Cutty Sark Plans should read the book "Masting and Rigging: The Clipper Ship & Ocean Carrier" by Harold Underhill.  It gives a wealth of information on how the large ships, incuding clippers, were set up.

Dave

As posted before, a new attempt:

Dear Folks,

I got an old Revell 1:96 kit through ebay though the figurehead is missing (along with few other parts that I easily can duplicate); does anybody have a 'trash'/ damaged ready built model or incomplete kit? If this person could send me the figurehead, I'd be happy! I'm willing to pay for the costs involved.

Thanks, Max.

 Thank you, jtilley. I have always wondered about that. Thanks for always sharing your knowledge.

                  60
 

Re the ship's name - it's Scottish dialect for "short chemise."  The term was lifted from the poem "Tam O'Shanter," by Robert Burns (a favorite author of the ship's owner, John Willis). 

The poem tells the story of a lout named Tam O'Shanter who, riding his mare Meg home from a round of drinking, chances upon a bunch of witches and warlocks holding an orgy in a clearing in the middle of the forest, with the devil himself presiding.  The witches are wearing cutty sarks.  After watching these proceedings for a few minutes, Tam (for some reason I've never figured out) "roared 'Weel done, cutty sark!' And in an instant all was dark."  The head witch, whose name is Nanny, chases him, but doesn't quite catch him; the faithfull Meg jumps over a stream just in time.  (Witches can't cross water.)

The ship's figurehead is a portrait of Nanny (much uglier in real life than the Revell version), painted white except for a gold-leafed line around the bottom of her cutty sark.  A tradition among the crew was to put a hank of horse hair into her outstretched hand, representing Meg's tail, when the ship was homeward bound.  And after a particularly good passage Willis presented her with a sheet-metal cutty sark to serve as a weather vane at the main topgallant masthead.

Here's a link to the poem:  http://www.robertburns.org/works/308.shtml .  I'm reliably informed that it takes a genuine Scott to really appreciate Burns.  Not being one, I confess I find his works pretty hard to handle.

Mr. Willis apparently had an odd sense of humor.  Worked into the carvings on the ship's stern is his family motto:  "Where There's a Willis Away."  In 1/96 scale, fortunately, it's illegible.

Oh - and the whiskey is named after the ship - not the other way around.

Re ratlines - we've taken up this subject several times here in the Forum; a search on the word "ratlines" will bring up about a dozen different threads.  But maybe it would be helpful to go over the basic ideas again.

In my personal opinion the first step is to forget about all the jigs, "looms," "loom-a-lines," and other gadgets that the ship model companies have tried to foist on the public as solutions to the Great Ratline Problem.  Rigging ratlines to scale (or near-scale) isn't anywhere near as difficult as many people seem to think.  There's a learning curve to it, but the curve isn't long.  And it does take a certain amount of time, but not as much as most people think.  I'm convinced that the vast majority of people who are capable of building a ship model at all are perfectly capable of rigging a set of ratlines.  Some unfortunate folks, due to defective close-range vision, lack of dexterity, arthritis, and other infirmities, are, I'm sure, physically incapable of doing it.  But if you can assemble all the parts of that kit you almost certainly can rig ratlines.  And the 1/96 Cutty Sark actually isn't a bad kit to start on.  It's on pretty big scale, and that ship doesn't have nearly as many shrouds as a warship (e.g., the Constitution or Victory).

The first thing to be understood is the totally different functions of the shrouds (the vertical lines) and the ratlines (the horizontal ones).  The shrouds are among the most important parts of the standing rigging; they hold up the masts, and help transmit the force of the wind in the sails to the ship's hull, thereby pulling it through the water.  The ratlines form ladders for the crew to climb aloft.  The ratlines, therefore, are much smaller in diameter in the shrouds. 

There are two good ways to rig ratlines on a model:  the "clove hitch method" and the "needle-through-the shroud method."  The latter is somewhat simpler, and less time-consuming, than the former - and especially appropriate on smaller scales.

For the clove hitch method, start by setting up the shrouds.  Get them as tight as you can; let them make the mast lean ever so slightly further backwards than you want it.  The stay - the line leading from the masthead forward - will pull the mast to just where you want it, and will tighten the shrouds.

Draw a series of lines about a scale foot apart (the contemporary sources give spacings ranging from 11" to 15") on a piece of stiff, white card that you've cut to fit inside the shrouds, between the rail and the top.  (I'm assuming we're talking about the lower shrouds.)  Take a long piece of the finest black thread you can find (you're unlikely to make the ratlines too thin), and tie one end of it to the lefthand shroud in the gang.  (I'm assuming you're righthanded; if you're lefthanded you may find it easier to start with the righthand shroud.)  Use a reef knot (aka square knot - the one everybody knows how to tie).  (In reality this would be an eyesplice, but nobody, so far as I know, makes eyesplices in ratlines on 1/96 scale.)  Slide the knot along the shroud till it (the knot) is in line with the bottom line on the card.  Then, using a pair of fine-pointed tweezers, tie the ratline around the next shroud in the appropriate spot.  This time use a clove hitch.

It's notoriously difficult to describe knots verbally, so I won't try, but the clove hitch is about the simplest knot there is.  Any book or website dealing with knots is bound to show it; you can learn it in about two minutes.  Here's a link:  http://www.goals.com/vyc/knots/clove.htm

Continue tying clove hitches around the shrouds, using the lines on the card as a guide for the spacing.  When you get to the last shroud, tie the ratline off with another reef knot.  Then go on to the next ratline.

Put a tiny drop of white glue on the first and last knots in each ratline, and let it dry.  Then snip off the excess thread with a small pair of scissors.

The needle-through-the-shroud method is similar, except that instead of tying knots you use a needle to shove the ratline thread through the middle of each shroud.  That's a little quicker - but not actually very much so.

One detail of the Cutty Sark's lower shrouds:  only every fifth ratline goes across the full gang.  The others stop short of the foremost shroud. 

I've preached the following sermon before, but I'll take the liberty of doing it again:  try the clove hitch method, and give your fingers a fair chance to learn it.  (Fingers do that.)  My guess is that the first ratline will take you about fifteen minutes, and leave you exhausted, cross-eyed, short-tempered, or all three.  Don't give up.  Step back from the model and imbibe a tall glass of the liquid refreshment of your choice, then try again.  I bet the second ratline will take you ten minutes.  And by the time you get to the masthead, you'll be rigging one ratline every two minutes or so - and wondering why in the world anybody makes such a fuss about rigging ratlines. 

One further refinement is to make the ratlines from wire.  That lets you work the appropriate amount of sag into them, which is difficult with thread.

Hope that helps a little.  Good luck.

 What does Cutty Sark mean? Is it English? Sorry for a dumb question.

   60
 

Hi,

      Doy know of any online resources or books I can look into on making my own ratlines. Thanks!!!

Maybe a little basic terminology would be helpful here.

Standing rigging stands.  With a few exceptions (extremely few in a latter-day sailing ship like the Cutty Sark), it doesn't "run" through blocks or other gadgets; it only gets moved around when it's being set up or tightened.  Its purpose is to keep the masts from falling down, and to transmit the forces exerted by the wind to the ship's hull.  (The wind fills the sails; the sails exert force on the yards and masts; and the masts, by means of the standing rigging, pull the ship through the water.)

Running rigging runs.  It's constantly being hauled around, by means of blocks, winches, and other gear, to make various parts of the ship move in response to the wind and the commands of the people operating the ship.

Running rigging can be divided, for purposes of discussion, into three sub-categories.  One - lines that support and adjust movable spars (i.e., yards, gaffs, and booms).  These include braces (which swing the yards in a horizontal plane), halyards (which haul the various spars up and down when the sails are set and furled), and lifts (which are secured to the ends of the spars, to maintain them at the desired angles relative to the masts).  These lines are, generally speaking, permanent parts of the ship's rigging, and are rarely if ever removed.

Two - lines that control the sails.  These include sheets, tacks, buntlines, clewlines, leechlines, bowlines, reef tackles, and a few others.  These lines are directly associated with the sails.  Some of them might well be removed when the sails were removed (i.e., when the ship was to be laid up for a prolongued period). 

Three - lines used for various purposes not directly related to the spars and sails.  These include boat davit falls, cargo handling gear, etc.  The cargo handling gear normally was only set up when the ship was loading or unloading.  (Those big black winches at the feet of the fore- and mainmasts were for handling cargo.)

The triangular sails between the masts are called staysails.  The running rigging associated with them isn't really so complicated, but it may be a little confusing.  Each staysail has a pair of sheets leading from its lower, after corner (one on each side, coming into play depending on the direction of the wind), a halyard running up from its upper corner (to haul the sail up the stay when it's being set), a downhauler running down from the upper corner (to haul the sail down when it's being furled), and a tack on the forward bottom corner (to secure that corner, so the halyard can stretch the sail taut). 

How much rigging you put on your model is, of course, entirely up to you.  One popular approach for models without sails is to include the standing rigging and the "category one" running rigging.  That configuration secures a line to almost every conspicuous point, so the ship looks reasonably complete; the spars don't seem to stick out in space with nothing to support or control them.  The real ship might look like this if she were laid up for a fairly long period.  In real life it would be quite unusual for all the lines in "category two" to be removed, but lots of eminently respectable models are rigged this way.  This is the approach I'd probably recommend to anybody who doesn't have a fair amount of practice with rigging.

There's one important point that lots of newcomers miss.  The yards of a sailing ship don't just swing around horizontally; they slide up and down the masts.  The exceptions (in this particular case) are the lower yards and the lower topsail yards, which are fixed permanently into their positions.  The Cutty Sark has double topsails.  The upper topsail yard on each mast slides up and down the topmast - up when the sail is set, down when it's furled.  (Any photo of the ship with the sails either furled or removed should make this clear.  The upper and lower topsail yards are only a few feet apart.)  The topgallant, royal, and main skysail yards also slide up and down.  If the sails aren't present, the yards should be in their lowered positions.  (If I remember right, Revell molded some rings around the mast components to indicate both raised and lowered yard positions.  I don't know whether the instructions in Repulse145's kit explain all this or not; those in early versions of the kit did.)  Putting the yards in their raised positions with no sails set is a mark of a modeler who doesn't entirely understand how rigging works.

The Cutty Sark's yards have fixed lifts.  (They're made out of wire.  They could, in fact, almost be included in the standing rigging; they don't run through blocks.)  The lifts of the lower and lower topsail yards are taut all the time.  When the upper topsail, topgllant, royal, and skysail yards are raised to set the sails, the lifts go slack and droop down behind the sails.  If you're omitting the sails and rigging the yards in their lowered positions, all the lifts should be taut.

If you're omitting the sails (which I personally think is a good idea; I've never been a fan of vac-formed plastic sails) you can forget about the staysail rigging - and, for that matter, the running rigging of the headsails, between the foremast and the bowsprit.  But that's entirely up to you.

As for knots - don't lose any sleep over the subject.  Knots are a fascinating, fun subject; people have invented hundreds (or maybe thousands) of them over the centuries.  But for ship modeling you only need to learn two - or maybe only one. 

The basic knot used to secure a line to a spar or other is the reef knot, known to landlubbers as the square knot.  In order to rig a ship model you really need to know how to tie that one; it would be hard, if not impossible, to get along without it.  You probably already know how to tie it.

If you're going to rig your own ratlines you need to learn the clove hitch.  It's an extremely simple knot; you can learn it in a couple of minutes.  (Knots are notoriously difficult to describe verbally, so I won't try, but a picture of a clove hitch will make it ludicrously obvious.) 

If you discard the kit's plastic "deadeye and lanyard assemblies" and rig your own shroud lanyards, you'll need some sort of "stopper knot" to keep the end of the lanyard from slipping through the deadeye; on 1/96 scale a reef knot with two or three extra loops in it will do the job fine.  Rigging individual deadeyes and lanyards is tricky; I don't recommend it for newcomers.

If you're interested in such things, a text like The Ashley Book of Knots will keep you busy for a long time, and learning additional knots can be lots of fun.  But for ship modeling they aren't really necessary.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  the best possible way to find out about the Cutty Sark's rigging (and every other feature of her) is to get hold of a set of those plans by George Campbell.  Two of the three sheets are devoted to the rigging and sails.  There's no better bargain for ship modelers.

Hope that helps a little.  Good luck.

Hello all,

               I just have a quick question here on the rigging. I have read the numerous threads on replacing pins and the detailed rigging plans that are available. I just need some help understanding the rigging process. I pretty much understand the standing rigging. I was wondering more about the running rigging and what knots I should look into learning how to tie before I begin rigging. I refer to the actual Cutty Sark rigging instructions :

1) On Step 5 it talks about the lifts and halyards. Is this something I can do eventhough I am not applying the sails. Do I just do as the instructions say and keep all the lifts taught against the yards?

2) On the rigging that would attach the sails that go in between the main and mizzen mast and the aft sail is it still practical to do all those lines and still look like a decent job eventhough the sails would be missing?

3) I am also concerned about the later rigging steps and since you guys know more than I do I would appreciate any help you could provide.

4) And as asked above what types of knot tying do I need to become knowledgable about.

I have scans of the instructions if anyone needs them for a reference. Thanks!!!

Thanks alot!!! My email address is repulse145@hotmail.com. I appreciate your help.

Kevin

Kevin, I have them on pdf files. I do not know if the images are any better than what you have. I scanned thirty-five year old decals. If you give us your email address, I send them to you!

Hello all,

                 I have enjoyed reading the tips you all have provided. I am currently building this same model and have ran into a hangup. I know now in hind sight I should have done this earlier but I always try to make things work from the get go. I was wondering if any of those of you still have the original decals and still in a complete scan. I was wondering if I could get a scan of the complete sheet so I could print them off and use a newer copy instead of the old ones that came with the kit. I have heard on the wind that Revell will be re-releaseing this model next year. I'd like to finish this as a present for my Dad before christmas. I thank you all for your comments and even if you can't helpout. I believe I can gain alot from just reading on techniques on this forum. Take care!!!

Kevin

Well, that 3" discrepancy between Longridge's dimension (which I think we can trust completely) and the Bluejacket products translates into 1/32" on 1/96 scale.  It wouldn't be difficult to snip 1/32" off each pin; one would spend more time measuring, or making a simple jig to make the snips uniform, than on the actual snipping.  (A possible approach:  drill a hole, of a diameter that's a smooth fit on the shank of the Bluejacket pin, in a 1/8" thick piece of styrene.  Shove the pin through the hole and snip off the projecting tip with a pair of flush-cutting nippers.  I imagine the whole complement of pins for the ship could be snipped in fifteen or twenty minutes.)  Whether it would be worth the trouble is best left to the individual modeler.  One vital point:  make sure the pin is short enough to leave sufficient clearance between it and the deck.  You need to be able to pass lines underneath conveniently.

We can probably assume the pins are iron.  My inclination would be to assume that in any sailing ship of 1870, unless I had evidence to the contrary.  (Some spit-and-polish yachts have wood belaying pins even today, but for utilitarian reasons iron pins were pretty universally preferred by the middle of the nineteenth century - if not a bit earlier.)

Interesting stuff.

Regarding the length of Cutty Sark's belaying pins:  Longridge's book states they were 21" long with a 9" handle and 12" shank.   Personally, if I were building the Revell kit again (and someday I hope to) the 1/4" BlueJacket items would work just fine for me.   He does not say what material  the originals were made, but does give their color as black, indicating perhaps metal construction?

And I will second that thanks to all of you, especially to John Tilley for sharing his wisdom!

Thank you John for the detailed answer.  Fantastic idea to make the padeyes out of wire and C/A under the deck. I am going to do that, and wish I had on the Alabama (too late).  Another great idea is to cut the pin rail clean and replace the styrene pins.  I can still do this for the Alabama.

 

I have been building models since 1977 and have never had the interaction, and education that this forum provides.  Really great stuff.

 

Thanks  

Any kind of wire is preferable to styrene for belaying pins.  Styrene just isn't strong enough to take the pull of the line that's secured to the pin.  The only woods that can be effectively turned down to a small enough diameter without losing too much strength are extremely hard ones - boxwood, pearwood, etc.  Bamboo probably would work, but it's awfully brittle.  Believe me, brass is preferable in every respect. 

Maybe I've missed something - but what would be the rationale for removing plastic belaying pins (which, whatever else may be said about them, at least look like belaying pins) and replacing them with pieces of plastic that don't look like belayng pins?

One point that doesn't seem to be mentioned on the Campbell plans (though I don't have them in front of me; maybe it is):  are the belaying pins of the real ship wood or iron?  I strongly suspect the latter.  Iron belaying pins came into use in the last quarter of the eighteenth century (the inventory of at least one American Continental Navy frigate includes both wood and iron belaying pins), and was in quite common use by the Cutty Sark's day - though some ships retained wood pins after that.

It's an excellent idea to replace the styrene belaying pins on any plastic sailing ship kit with brass ones - whether the originals have already been busted off or not.

Go for copper wire instead of stretched sprue, it's stronger.

Julian

I have two 1:96 Revell Constitutions waiting in the wings, both from Ebay.  One is dated 1976, the other, 1972.  Molds are excellent, with little to no flash on either kit.   I just inspected my boxes, with good news and bad news.  One kit is virtually perfect, with only 2 pieces loose, and no broken belaying pins.  The other kit has about a dozen loose pieces, but there are broken belaying pins.

What I'm probably going to do is cut them all, sand smooth, drill out holes, then create my own pins from stretched sprue.  Because of the small size, I should be able to create something that will at least work mechanically.  Aesthetically they will be okay, but once painted and weathered, they should pass muster.  I may try wood, but I'm inexperienced with turning parts that small.

 Grymm

The Revell belaying pins are about 5/16", or about 30" on a real ship. The 1/4"BlueJacket pins are about 24". NatureCoast has 3/16" pins which would about 18". Campbell's plans seem to indicate that they were 16" long. The NatureCoast pins are a bit more expensive! http://www.naturecoast.com/hobby/hfit1.htm

Wilbur - That's what I was afraid of.  My suggestion is to slice off all the plastic belaying pins, sand the surfaces of the pinrails smooth, and start over.  I don't recommend making the replacement pins out of styrene; you'll just be inviting repetition of the problem.  The best solution is to either turn your own pins or buy brass ones from somebody like Bluejacket.  If that presents a financial problem (the smallest Bluejacket ones cost $2.80 per dozen), consider just using carefully-cut pieces of brass wire (maybe with the top rounded off). 

The shortest belaying pins in the Bluejacket line are 1/4" long.  That's two feet in 1/96 scale - long for a belaying pin, but not inconceivable.  It's easy enough to make some sort of simple jig to snip a uniform length off the narrow end of each one.

The Bluejacket "deadeyes with lanyards" are cast in Britannia metal.  They aren't bad; if you don't want to tackle the rigging of individual, scale lanyards, those fittings might be a viable alternative.  The big problem I see with them is that each size of deadeye only comes with one length of lanyard.  (I.e., all the 1/16" diameter deadeyes are spaced the same distance apart.)  In a real ship, the aftermost deadeyes in a gang are considerably farther apart than the foremost ones (because the after shrouds slope more steeply).  In a warship, which has lots of shrouds on each mast, that's a serious problem.  In the Cutty Sark, with only five pairs of shrouds on each mast, I suspect the discrepancy wouldn't be very noticeable.  Just be sure the sheer pole (which I suggest making from wire) is parallel to the pinrail.

I don't recommend relying on superglue as the only means of holding the deadeyes in place.  Earlier in this thread I suggested a slightly simplified method of reproducing the chainplates.  That method should work just as well for the combined deadeye and lanyard fittings.  Caveat:  it's just an idea; I haven't tried it.  Take a careful look at the Campbell plans, and the photos on the ship's website, and work out a scheme that looks practical to you.  Hint:  if you can set up the system so none of the strain created by the shrouds comes to the pinrails, so much the better.  That's how the rigging of the real ship works.

I agree that replacing the plastic eyebolts would be an excellent idea - and I agree that making them from wire makes a lot more sense than paying good money for them.  A set of drill bits, #60 through #80, gives you twenty mandrels that will produce every size of eyebolt you could conceivably want. Brass wire will bend a lot easier, and to a tighter radius, if you heat it over a candle for a few seconds in advance.  If you can figure out in advance where all the eyebolts are going to go (as, with Mr. Campbell's plans to help, you probably can), they'll be even sturdier if you spread the "legs" of the eyebolt out under the deck and secure them with superglue.

Good luck.

I was able to solve the plastic deck padeye problem by making them out of wire.  I folded a short piece of wire over a small diameter drill bit and twisted the tail ends which left me with a very sturdy eyebolt.

Ray

 

John,  There had to be around 3 dozen smaller parts broken off.  As far as the pins I will give a count next time I open the box which I've put away for the time being. I got the kit from someone that I suspect was cleaning his attic, not from my regular ebay model dealer (Balzano's) , hence the mess inside.  There were quite a few pins broken in my Alabama kit I can tell you, and that came from Tower Hobbies. The ones on the pin rail are the ones I mean. Caked with flash and of course very difficult to remove on fragile parts.

I have yet to find a solution as they are quite small.  I'll have to use very small styrene rod .

 

Also I have seen that the inner pins on the Cutty Sark are almost totally obscured by rope wound around them (the ones under the deadeyes/lanyards) on the inner hull.  From photographs.

Are the blue jacket deadeye/lanyard fittings (which they say on their site are molded in one piece) made out of brass? Have you used these? It seems I would have to get these to replace the huge Revell pieces, and also wonder if using CA would work in attaching these to the inner plates? I would also like to get the Blue jacket deck padeyes to replace the Revell  ones, which tend to melt quite easily using Tenax 7R (which is my styrene "Glue" of choice).

 

 

 

Wilbur Wright - I'm curious about one point.  How many, if any, of the belaying pins in the kit you bought are broken off?  When I was working in a hobby shop (1975-1980), irate customers were contantly returning Revell Cutty Sarks and Constitutions whose belaying pins, by the dozen, had been busted before the kits even got to the hobby shop.

Hi All, I have recieved my Revell 1/96 Cutty Sark from ebay. I effectively paid $32 plus shipping.  The instructions are dated 1987. Nice box art.  There were 2 very thin plastic bags (one with white sprue one with brown, and the 2 hull parts, thread bag etc. The kit contents were thrown around pretty good,. An inventory accounts for all parts yet I had to  keep a small box for many small parts fallen off sprues. The only thing missing was a bio pamphlet that I know was included in the release. _________The deadeyes are way out of scale. Just huge.

I have much time before I get to this model and may get up to see the ship (if possible under conservation repair, when I'm on business).   I will  watch this thread and others as to how to correct the problems mentioned.  I have seen some great photos on the web, and tried to copy and past one of the inner deck of the CS....just what was being discussed  here, but it wouldn't work. If you google  Cutty Sark then hit images there are dozens of pages of photos some good some not.

<> I will get the set of plans as well.

 

Cheers 

I was discussing this very issue with a friend of mine the other day.  We were discussing the issue of Heller's lack of grooves on the blocks of the Soleil Royal.  My friend is now working on molding his own.  He says he can create a mold that will make blocks small enough, and with the grooves.  He intends on making the blocks without the hole.  By doing this, he can mold the sprue with the blocks sideways, which will allow for a groove all the way around the block.  Then, using a jig that holds the blocks in place, he will just drill out each block.

I'm intrigued to see if he works it out.  While I don't find the lack of grooves on the blocks to be much of an issue (for me at least), it would probably make rigging a little easier.

 Grymm

 In "Plank on Frame Models" Vol. II, Harold Underhill describes how to build blocks from wood. For blocks that fall between "the smallest manufactured", and "they can't be built THAT small", the process could also be used on styrene strip from Evergreen. The biggest problem with building tiny blocks, and deadeyes, is holding on to them! I intend to do some block and deadeye building when I get back to working on "Surprise". I suspect my first building project will be jigs to hold things so they can be shaped and drilled, and then, jigs to hold them for stropping, so they can be attached to rigging lines, and eyebolts.  Gotta run now, those "nice young men in their clean white coats" are approaching.

I haven't looked at the grand old Revell kit up-close for many years, but I'm sure Shipwreck's description is accurate. 

If those pinrails are to bear the strain of shrouds and running rigging set up to scale, some degree of compromise probably is just about inevitable.  My guess is that if the chainplates for the shrouds and backstays were made of wire running down through the waterways, the deviation from reality would be almost invisible.  When the model's finished, most of those belaying pins will have coils of line hanging from them; it would take a real eagle eye to peer under the pinrail and between the coils in order to see that the chainplates (a) aren't shaped quite right, and (b) terminate in the waterways rather than being riveted to the bulwark plating.  I suppose it would be possible to reproduce the rivet arrangement  pretty accurately, and thereby pin the ends of the chainplates to the bulwarks, but I don't know how many observers of the finished model would be able to see such a detail.  But narrowing the pinrails, getting rid of those awful plastic bars on the bottoms of the deadeyes, and rigging the deadeyes with genuine lanyards would make a big difference to the look of the finished model. 

I should emphasize, though, that I haven't tried it and I don't have the kit in front of me.  All these suggestions are coming out of my head, on the basis of the Campbell plans and highly unreliable memory of the kit.

I strongly recommend replacing the plastic belaying pins in any case.  I'm a big fan of plastic sailing ship kits, but we need to acknowledge that certain components of a real ship just don't lend themselves to reproduction in styrene.  Belaying pins are a prime example.  Even if they haven't been busted off before you open the box (as they may well have been), they just aren't strong enough to do the job.  The extra effort and expense of replacing them will be amply rewarded when you reach the running rigging.  And once you've sliced off the plastic ones, and sanded the top of the pinrail smooth, it's just as easy to drill the holes for the replacements in the right places as the wrong ones. 

Even if the plastic belaying pins aren't replaced, there's a problem regarding the strength of the pinrails.  I built several Cutty Sarks and a couple of Thermopyaes when I was much younger, and I remember the sick feeling when, midway through the running rigging process, several of the pinrails simply busted loose from the bulwarks.  Wire chainplates would go some way toward solving the problem, by taking the strain of the shrouds off the pinrails and transferring that strain to the waterways (or the bulwarks).  Another trick, which I've used on several models (including the little scratchbuilt frigate Hancock that's shown in my avatar) is to reinforce the joint where the pinrail joins the bulwark.  In the case of that particular model I used L-shaped ABS "girders" from Plastruct.  Each pinrail has a Plastruct girder, slightly shorter than the pinrail itself, underneath; the girder is completely concealed on the finished model.  On a model as big as the 1/96 Cutty Sark, a small strip of basswood will work just as well.  But I'd strongly recommend doing something to beef up the pinrails - at least the wide ones in way of the shrouds and backstays.  When you reach the running rigging stage, you'll find your life is considerably simpler if you know you don't need to worry about a pinrail coming loose. 

Rigging a Revell Cutty Sark completely with aftermarked blocks and deadeyes probably would cost at least a couple of hundred dollars, and I certainly don't blame anybody who declines to spend his money that way.  I have, however, noticed something odd about this in other threads.  When newcomers decide to buy aftermarket parts like that, they seem, for some reason, to think they have to order the complete outfit for the ship at once.  (I remember one case, in another thread, of a modeler who spent several hundred dollars, sight unseen, on blocks and deadeyes for a Heller Victory before he finished painting the hull - and then found out a lot of the parts he'd bought were in the wrong sizes.)  That just doesn't make sense. 

If you're confronting the prospect of replacing the deadeyes of the Revell Cutty Sark, and you haven't started the model yet, the only deadeyes you need to worry about now are the lower ones in the pairs for the lower shrouds and the backstays.  By my count (based on Mr. Campbell's drawings) there are 68 of them, in four sizes.  (In practical terms the difference between a 6" deadeye and a 7" one probably isn't worth worrying about on this scale.  You probably can do a nice job with two sizes - 3/32" and 1/8".)  Bluejacket britannia metal deadeyes ("lower, scored, unstropped"), in those sizes (which are a little big, but probably not intolerably so), cost $2.25 and $2.35 per dozen, respectively.  So we're talking about an initial purchase of six dozen, costing (including shipping) about $20.00.  If you work at the rate I do (which isn't saying much; maybe you work quite a bit faster), you won't need any more deadeyes for several months.  Then you'll need another three dozen ("upper, scored, unstropped") to set up the lower shrouds.  (No need to worry about the backstay deadeyes till you've set up the topmasts.) 

My personal habit when I'm working on a ship model's rigging is to order as many blocks and deadeyes as I figure I'll need in a month or so.  When I notice the supply is getting low, I order another month's worth.  To me, that makes sense - and the modest family budget can handle those incremental expenses of $10.00 to $20.00 per month without creating a financial crisis.  (My wife used to balk at my insistence that the kids could go without food one or two days per month, but they're out of the house now.  If one of my Bluejacket orders means one of the cars has to go without gas for a few days, so she has to walk the ten miles to work - well, it's good for her.  Just kidding, Anne.)

Again, I'm not trying to drum up business for Bluejacket, and I certainly don't want to imply that it's "necessary" to buy aftermarket parts for a model like this.  But I do think it's worth thinking about model building as an investment in leisure-time activity.  Even with those aftermarket parts thrown in, it's lots cheaper than most.  It is, in fact, one of the cheaper  hobbies a person can choose.

 

I can identify with Steve H. I am also 57 and have been out of modeling for 30 years. In those days I built out of the box using little or no paint and leaving lots of bare plastic. One exception was about 10 years ago I made a WW II diorama of a glider after one my father was in during the Normandy invasion. It was a gift! I am working on (at least researching) the Ferriera/Cutty Sark. I have Campbell's plans. The extended pin rail at the shrouds is about twice the size it should be. The problem is that the whole Revell design of that area is different than that of Campbell's plans and the actual ship. Revell's dead eye assembles mount against the bulwark. Per Campbell they are basically in line with the pin rails with a slight off-set. On the model there are sixteen pins in a row; all inboard of the dead eyes. Per Campbell the pattern is two pins, a dead eye, two pins, a dead eye, etc. all along the extended portions of the main rail. In order to fix it, the model pin rail would have to be drastically redesigned. Then there are structural considerations. Moving the dead eyes away from the bulwark would put a lot of stress on the pin rail and the dead eye's point of attachment. Then if you remove the solid stancions under the rails and replace them with wire or plastic to represent the real ship, the pin rails will again be compromised. Jtilley suggested wiring the dead eye through the wash way in order to reinforce it. That would work except the strope for the dead eye actually mounts on the bulwark (chain plate) just short of the wash way. That would be another compromise of design. Then I estimate that it would cost about $60 including shipping to make the change! That is the cost of an entire kit that is due for reissue in January 2007. I am building two Cutty Sarks ($120), and I have a wife!

Hi again

I did not paint that ship, the colors "off the tree" looked good enough for me. And it took me 3 months to work in ALL those SMALL parts!

SteveH