Elizabethan merchantman - photos

Ties it is. Given the scope of the book, its probable that a misprint would have occured somewhere, and its good to have it straightened out. Thanks!

The wire idea is great, and I'll keep that in mind for next time.

Its time to get good blocks, then. I counted up the basic blocks for supporting yards, etc. and found a total of 27 single blocks (including sheet blocks on the yards) and 2 ramsheads for the fore and main yard ties. Add three single blocks for the pendants and its 30 single blocks.

Blue Jacket sells them by the dozen, so no problem getting the numbers, but what size? The large Mayflower kit has no blocks at all (the "simplified" part) so there is no size reference. Is there a general understanding of what size works for single and double (ramshead) blocks in 1:70 scale? Sorry for all the questions, but once I have a reference I can draw back on it as this proceeds and be less of a nuisance.

It also looks like it would be good to get the deadeyes now. Cutting grooves in the channels would allow, since the kit comes with caps, the use of the stropped ones, with plain ones above. The question is size, but here the kit has the plastic versions to base the size on.

Thanks for the help,

Jim

If I were you I think my approach would be to order a dozen each of the three smallest sizes of unstropped single blocks Bluejacket offers, and get a feel for what they look like.  The various available photos (check out the websites for Plimoth Plantation, Jamestown Settlement, and the Elizabeth II State Historic Site for some good shots of replica ships) will give a good idea of the approximate sizes.  Bear in mind that the golden rule regarding rigging thread applies equally to blocks:  when in doubt, err on the small side.  And the sizes of blocks are proportional to the diameters of the lines that run through them.

The real Mayflower II has deadeyes that look about like Bluejacket's "old style" ones - the ones that are slightly triangular in shape.  Mr. Lavery seems to think circular deadeyes were in use by 1607 - and his book is considerably more recent than the research Mr. Baker did on the Mayflower II.  I think either triangular or round ones are defensible.  For my little in-progress Golden Hind I'm using triangular ones, and I really like them.  Take your pick.

I have been following this thread for a while now.  Its quite interesting and for me very timely.  I am rigging the Mayflower as we speak.  I have about 5 months into the project so far.  Its a solid wood hull model based on William bakers plans.  I did however modify it quite a bit.  The decks were lowered about 6-8 inches so they are more historically accurate than the replica in Plymouth.  The research I have done so far indicate that no footropes were used.  Baker states in his book that the sailors sat straddling the yards to furl the sails. 

 I enjoyed looking at your photos of the Revel kit.  I am not one of those model builders who cant stand plastic kits.  They are just as beautiful and are just as accurate as any wooden model.  The learning curve is however different and an entirely different set of skills is required.  I marvel over how you were able to achieve the look of wood.  The weathering and detailing on these models leave me speechless.

 Anyway, I hope no one minds me piggy-backing on the discussion as I am just finishing up the standing rigging.  This discussion is serving me well. Here are a couple of pictures.  I used triangular dead eyes to secure the shrouds and 5-hole triangular dead eyes to secure the main and fore stay.  All of the blocks will be made from scratch or I may modify some that I bought commercially.  The model is 5/32" scale.  I am using 1/16", 3/32", and 1/8" single and double blocks.  The rams head blocks will be 1/8" or 5/32" long but I havent decided yet.  I still need to research what the probable size of these blocks were.

Chuck

Professor, thanks for the okay to eyeball a bit. I eyeball a lot (maybe all the time) so its good to have the green light on this. I wondered about the deadeye shape as well, and figured Brian Lavery might have had the benefit of information William Baker may not have had. Now to toss the coin on the deadeyes . .

Chuck, thanks for hopping on! I've been watching your build for some time now and its the most beautiful Mayflower I've ever seen. The feel of the wood and craftsmanship in the build knocks me out. Its also been a great inspiration, and watching your progress has kept me going on mine. Apart from the books and advice on this forum, I've been looking to your build as a reliable source of information and logic in building mine. Its not visible in my photos, but the ringbolts around the deck hatch are drilled in accordance to the position you used.

I've been very interested in your lowering of the decks, and the resulting look. Its a much better looking ship, probably the ship William Baker would liked to have built, and also not as towering at the stern.

Thanks for posting the rigging photo, and also the deck shot with the boat lashed into place. The rigging and masts look excellent, and if you dont mind, I'd like to piggyback on your build so I can see how you are doing it. Thanks especially for the dimensions of the blocks and deadeyes, I'll grab a few in the same size. Revell's kit is 1:70, or 20" long overall; I'm not sure how that translates into 5/32 scale but it seems roughly the same.


Jim

Thanks Jim,

Its been a real interesting and fun project.  There is still so much to sort out.  I have many lingering questions.

Parrels for the spritsail yard?

Parrels or slings for the top sail yards?

Belaying points for the backstay runners?

Just to list a few.  I try not to deliberate on any of these topics because there are too many contadictary answers published by notable historians.  I usually try to settle on "plausible" solutions because many can be debated until the cows come home.  No disrespect to Baker, Anderson or Lavery, or the many others.  My experience shows that five years from now someone with a degree will come out with another opinion or theory making my model "historically inaccurate" any how.  This seems to be the way it goes.  My last project for the Colonial Schooner Sultana had just as many opinions throughout the years and I am sure there will be many more.

On the Mayflower it was difficult for me to decide on wooldings for the main and fore masts?  Should they have them?  Should they be rope woolding only?  Should the have wooden hoops as well?  Does the replica not show the wooden hoops because of economy or historical accuracy?  They have made many decisions during refits which had economy in mind before the history.  Such are the decisions for any project.  I believe the choices that I made thus far may not be the most popular today but all are "plausible".  That is how I base my decisions otherwise you will go nuts and never get a model finished.  Thats why I found this topic so interesting because several of these discrepencies have been talked about.

Chuck

Hi Chuck,

I think everything you have done with Mayflower so far has been very plausible. I'm on a crash course in 16th-17th century ship design, but even as a newbie some models or interpretations show careful thought that suggests they are worth studying. I've been doing a lot of looking, and its paid off - the Professor's Hancock and Phantom, your Mayflower, the Texel ships, Millard's ships, the Science Museum models, all have something I like and want to be able to do justice to.

When I started my Mayflower I wanted to represent a common vessel, something that sailed in and out of ports with little notice, something the Dutch engravers rarely represented. The damaged condition of the Mayflower kit allowed me to go with a hunch and omit the upper cabin, getting a less imposing appearance. I wanted a weathered look, like a ship which has been to sea, and I wanted its decoration to be present but also be understated.

I'm more at home with paintwork, and figuring out styles and trends for a given era, but the rigging is a different story - I thought there would be precision rules and hard and fast data that would bring the Hounds of Hades if I got it wrong. The Professor's recommendation of Brian Lavery's book has been very welcome, and Anderson's book has been equally helpful. Now I'm learning where there is open room for interpretation, and which options are better, or equal, or simply unknown. What remains to be learned is the practical side of how to rig models, how to get an even set of shrouds, how to set up parrels and so on. Tips like smaller is better and a few actual sizes of model blocks, etc., have been very helpful.

Putting this into action, I now see the Revell supplied thread is too large, and I'm getting smaller sizes to replace it. The temporary positioning of the ties was still exciting, though, because it started to come to life. Getting smaller and finer lines to keep it in scale will be great.

On your dilemmas, I'm using a sling for the spritsail yard, small parrels for the topsail yards, and dont have a clue what the backstay runners should be doing.

Jim

Mr. "WB",

 Having recently built a couple of similar ships while my son's were on a 'Pirates kick' I also struggled with what to do for a slightly effective wood look to the hull and railings. I used a base of a tan/buff and then overcoated that with some amber ink wash which gave it a nice 'varnished' look,,,,,,but, my efforts pale compared to what you've achieved!

 It looks stunning so far and I'll hope to see more progress shots!

 

Squiddly

The trick seems to be using acrylic paints as a base, followed by a thick oil paint wash in turpentine, which you rub off with a paper towel or old rag.

The thick wash is the important part - a thin wash will not do the same thing. Its something to do with the chemical composition, which I didnt know at the time - I just winged it. Wipe it off after a few minutes, while its still wet.

I used a buff ochre acrylic base, with a second coat of acrylic "wood" mixed with acrylic grey paint. Then I used what oil colors I had around the house - burnt umber, black and white. Burnt umber alone will make it look too clean; black and white helps grey it a bit.

Maybe the most important thing is the surface - the oil wash works best when it has grain to work with. Some kits have grain molded into the surface, others do not.


I have an Airfix Golden Hind, which has no grain at all. I took rough flexifiles and grained everything thats going to be representing tarred wood - the inner hull, the outer hull, masts, knightheads and so on. Use the rough flexifile first, in the direction of the prototypical grain, then go over lightly with steel or copper wool to clean off the shavings, and you are done. I havent painted the Golden Hind hull yet, so I cant tell how it will turn out, but it should at least look a little more interesting than plain, solid plastic.

It would be great to see the ships you have worked on, and let us know if you post them.

Thanks, Jim

Just barging in to drip a few things...

Woodburner - excellent work and motivation

Jtilley - I always read your stuff, you are a storehous of amazing info

I worked and sailed aboard the MayfowerII '57 reproduction. She's a great ship and respected, but as previosuly mentioned, it's a difficult era and a difficult subject. We thought she was pretty spiffy, but she lacked pumps (because they weren't built in and no one could decide what was correct), even the hinges on the doors to the great cabin were debated, and we had no lanterns because there were no good examples. Yet as costumed interpreters our shoes were based on those from the Mary Rose.

In most of my time aboard we had an excellent research department, and an awesome rigger (sort of an 1860s fellow transported to 1620 and then thru to 1989-92, he went on to command the Maryland Dove). We were rigged with real hemp, and then later for safety, convenience and budget, hempex, a suitable synthetic fake. There were footropes and belaying pins (I guess the jury is still out on them). But all-in-all, I think it's hard to fault Baker. She floats, she sails, she looks great. At least one reproduction had to add WWII submarine style saddle tanks as ballast because it was designed poorly. Not MII.

The original was average, and common, and measured in wine tuns (180), so it's hard to reproduce accurately. getting a basic look and feel is key.

Geat job, great interetest to this post, very cool. I bought an Itlaian "Mayflower" years ago, just a "Galleon" rebadged, and it requires so much work I gave up. (It was too much for a beginner anyway).

I think we sometimes forget, but a ship in the Age of sail was hi-tek.

Woodburner and group:

 Well you have pushed me over the edge on your build. I am awaiting a package of the Revell Mayflower which I won on e-bay. I was going to do the Revell large English Man-of war, but what the heck.  I am just finishing building the Revell S-100, and rally want to get back to sailing ships. Your build has enspired me very much in deed.

I was just beginning to get involved in the USS constitution, but thought this Mayflower build would be shorter and a hell of a lot of fun,

Thanks for starting this grerat thread.

 P.S. Prof. Tilly, your club that you started now has 60 paied up members, so your Modeling Legacy lives on!!

Rokket,

I'm more than a litle envious for your experience on the real ship. She must be really something at sea, moving the way she would. Just to get the feel of a ship from that time is invaluable. Was she a roller as reported? I wanted to do the program with Susan Constant, but being in California limits that.

Mayflower II has grown on me as I've been building her, and William Baker's ideas are proving to be very good. She has a carrack like hull, an old style that that must have persevered among common merchant ships for several decades, and apart from the deliberate deck height, or small details like footropes, everything about her just feels right.

The Pymouth website does not have a lot of information on her, not even a large picture, so finding out whats going on with the ship has been interesting. So far as I can tell, she was in the 1957 colors up to the 1980s, and in the 1960s looks to have had an unpainted hull. I found photos from the mid 1990s of her in Boston beautifully decked out in elaborate colors she might have had when new in 1609 or before, and photos from the early 2000s show her repainted in plain colors which are badly peeling. All in all, it looks like there was a great deal of fond attention paid to her in the 80s and 90s, and I'd like to hear what news for her is currently in store.

I've noticed at least two principle styles of "Mayflower" available as wood and plastic kits. One of the William Baker design, made by Revell, Heller and Airfix. The other is a different design, which is longer and a little more modern, I think offered by Artisina Lantana in wood, and in plastic by Ertl, which is actually a ship design of the 1630s -1640s.

There is also a very old model of Mayflower in the New York Historical Society, not contemporary, but probobly at least a century or more old. It shows a ship with mid 17th century details, Matthew Baker style paintwork on the head, and heavy outside bracing on the hull. It might be made for display at the 1876 Centennial or something like that, but that's just a guess.

Thanks, Jim

Dick,

Congratulations - post pictures so we can your progress and the growing fleet of Mayflowers. Its a sweet ship and a sweet build, and a lot more interesting in her own way than many larger ships. Glad to have pushed . . .

HI woodburner,

again, fantabulous work, excellent project!

MII - yes, I was never in high seas (she hardly sails anymore), but high in the tops you feel the typical "figure eight" pitch roll. "Cod's head and someother fish tail", can't remember the 17th c. phrase. I cannot imagine handling sail without footropes, even at dockside, never mind normal Atlantic or Channel weather.

I saw the Susan Constant when she was being finished, got to go aboard while they were still doing some work, pre-launch, had to be about 90, 91.  Also was aboard the "new" Endeavour here, 95, when she first was launched, and it struck me, approx 200 years later design, but so very similar.

MII dropped the first-person actor/interpreter program years ago and changed to tour guide style, so that maintenance could be performed easily. Apparently a lot was done, but it all seems pretty sad to me. Prof Tiley would know, but I bought the arguments for the bright paint, but I didn't like that the Plantation used glossy housepaint, and instead of preserving the natural wood, they painted the exterior gloss brown. Now all my connections are fairly trimmed down, so all I know is that she still floats. They really should have more info on the web.

I love your pix. In a century when I have a bit more experience, I might try to soak up some  Prof Tilley's info and try my hand at a section of a 1780s ship (just finished Hornblower series of books and moving on to Jack Aubrey).

Best,

Wink

Hi, a set of Mayflower plans by Wm. Baker has arrived, and I noticed that the ends of the deck planks are not shown.  Thus, it looks as if I may have to improvise in terms of plank length and arrangement.

Except for their outermost edges, would the planks have started and ended at deck beams?  Would the planks have been staggered?  If so, according to what pattern?  What were typical plank lengths?  Is there another set of Mayflower plans that would show this sort of detail?

Cheers & thanks in advance,

 

vonB.

Wink,

Doing a figure eight in Mayflower's tops must have been a lot of fun. I'm assuming sailors at that time just figured out how to stay on the yards in seas, given a task and no consideration of an option. Enough must have fallen, though, to eventually make footropes an obvious idea.

Administrations and priorities come and go, and the Plymouth website does give the impression that things have changed. I only hope Mayflower is safe, sound and that she will see better times in the future.

I personally like the more ornate scheme. Frankly, it's the finest interpretation of that type of design ever done (Susan Constant interprets a corresponding style and is equally excellent). It was clearly based on Matthew Baker's drawing of a 700 ton galleon (for example, the red and green right triangles), and also toned down appropriately for a merchant ship, and with colors correct for that time.

The caveat is that it is very likely scheme for the ship when she was new in 1609 or before, and less likely - although still possible - for 1620, the period she interprets. William Baker's design also looked to the same Matthew Baker drawing, but simplified it in a way that would be interpretive of 1620 or so. Both versions have value and I agree with both. The current scheme is something else.

While waiting for the Mayflower blocks and all to arrive, I've been working on the Airfix Golden Hind. Most of the ribs are now in place within the hull, and I'm debating whether to cut and fit a rail within the structure, or have the ribs just rise directly to the height of the rail. Something looks like its missing somehow. The position of the lowest wale, and the waterline, is also bothersome. It looks too low, and the ship unstable. The more I work on her the less I think of her as Drake's ship and more as a abstraction of a galleon type design. And the better Mayflower looks.

Dont wait for a century, just go in and build that 1780s ship section, I bet you will be surprised how good it will turn out.

Jim

VonBerlichingen - The precise method of laying decks in the early seventeenth century is among the many things we just don't know much about.  By the end of that century shipwrights seem to have been following some fairly consistent rules and standards, but, like most other details of a ship of the Mayflower's period, this one has to rely on guesswork.

Shipbuilders in those days had a great deal more large, long timbers at their disposal than can be found nowadays.  The typical deck or hull plank seems to have been in the neighborhood of 24 feet long.  I don't have Professor Baker's plans in front of me, but I suspect some of the planked surfaces of the Mayflower II - the forecastle and poop decks, and maybe the quarterdeck - are shorter than that.  So the planks would run the full length of the deck.

In an eighteenth- or nineteenth-century ship the planks near the edges are indeed treated differently than the others.  The "waterway" is made up of a single row (sometimes more than one row) of planks that are shaped to follow the curvature of the bulwarks.  Their ends are connected by "scarf joints," which are stronger than butt joints.  Just inboard of the waterway is the "margin plank," which is "joggled" - that is, it has small pieces hacked out of it to accommodate the ends of the "common" planks that form most of the deck.  (Deck planks are not allowed to have sharp angles at their ends.  They're tapered somewhat, and the "point" is chopped off to fit in the "jog" of the margin plank.)

I guess it should also be noted that, during the periods for which we have good information, there were examples in which the "common" planks of the decks weren't straight, but were tapered somewhat so that their edges more-or-less followed the curvature of the ship's side.  Whether that method of construction was employed in an early-seventeenth-century merchantman is unknown; it seems unlikely. 

All this is about ten times as hard to explain verbally as it is to illustrate with a picture.  Any of the basic books on ship modeling or the history of naval architecture should explain it pretty clearly.  The chapter on decks in George Campbell's China Tea Clippers, for instance, though it obviously doesn't refer to the right century, has some good, generalized drawings of how deck planking was laid - and is available on the web.

It's safe to assume, I think, that the ends of deck planks were always fastened to deck beams.  The butt joints would be laid out in a pattern that avoided having butt joints in line with each other on adjacent planks.  Generally speaking, two butt joints on the same deck beam would be separated by three or four planks.  Again, though, it's dangerous to be dogmatic; we just don't know much about how ships were built in those days.

@jtilley:  Many thanks (again)!

Well Gentlemen:

 

My Mayflower has arrived. I am wondering did revell issue this model in twod diffrent scales? It appears to be quite small . The hull measures only about 12: without the bowsprit. It is kit number H-327-400.

Thanks in advance

Revell did indeed issue two versions of the Mayflower (actually three, if you count the tiny one in the "Gowen Creations" boxes, back in the mid-fifties).  The larger one, on which Woodburner is working, is a near-identical version of the one you've got.  We've taken up this interesting and convoluted topic several times in various Forum threads, including this one:   /forums/444063/ShowPost.aspx

The one you have, H-327, appears to have been the very first appearance of the kit (according to Dr. Graham's book, which is highly reliable about such things).  It was in the Revell catalog from 1966 through 1971.  I have one too; it's a real nostalgia trip.  The smaller scale makes it a somewhat bigger challenge, but in my opinion it's one of the "top ten" in the field of plastic sailing ship kits.  Take a close look at the subtlety of the "wood grain" texture on the hull and deck components.  This thing was designed by people who were interested in making the most detailed, accurate reproduction they could - regardless of the market.

It's also interesting to note the highly detailed painting instructions; they include precise details (presumably based on the color scheme of the Mayflower II) for the trim on every bulkhead.  And the rigging instructions are among the most accurate - and complex - ever put in a plastic kit. 

Its possible that the larger 20" Mayflower was issued in two versions, with regular and then "simplified" rigging. The hull is the same, but the "simplified" version omits the blocks and includes molded plastic shrouds and ratlines.

I dont know this for certain, however - only from looking at various Revell Mayflower kits which come up on Ebay every now and then.

There is also a possible 24" Revell version, at least according to a 1970 box currently on Ebay, but its item number (H-366) is the same as mine, issued in 1975, so I suspect it may actually be the 20" kit.

I did find the apparent source for the Ertl/Imai version - a model of Mayflower in the London Science Museum. Based on its catalog number, it appears to have been accessioned in 1935, predating William Baker's design for Mayflower that the Revell kit is based on.

By the way, I ordered triangular deadeyes.

It's pretty clear that the "24-inch" kit is a figment of somebody's imagination - or, more likely, simply sloppy measuring.  One of the few genuinely reliable reference points regarding plastic kits is the kit number.  If you've got a kit numbered H-366 and it's 20 inches long, it's safe to assume that all of the ones designated H-366 were 20 inches long.

I bought both the 16-inch and 20-inch versions when they were new.  I'm quite certain the 16-inch one had plastic-coated thread "ratlines" originally; they're shown in the instructions of the kit I still have.  I don't remember whether the 20-inch one originally had thread or injection-molded ratlines.  (My custom was to throw such things out before leaving the hobby shop; they didn't make much of an impression.)  I think the 20-inch one was only available quite briefly.  I don't think it ever got reissued - though I'm not certain about that.  (Dr. Graham's book, in one of the few errors in it that I'm aware of, gets the 16-inch and 20-inch kits mixed up.)  I believe the 20-inch kit was always sold in "simplified"  ("build a legend in a weekend!") form, with no rigging blocks. 

The 16-inch kit did get reissued several times - including a "simplified" version with the blocks omitted and new, injection-molded "ratlines."  (I think all the Revell sailing ship kits that were reissued in the seventies and eighties, except the big 3-foot ones, got those hideous things.)  I remember seeing the kit in at least two boxes:  one with a painting of the real ship on the front (the one I still have), and one with a photo of a pretty miserably-built model on the front.  (I know for a fact that at least one model manufacturer in those days instructed the people who built up the kits for publicity photos to do a mediocre job on them.  The idea apparently was to make the potential purchaser think, "gee, I could do better than that.")

The 16-inch kit also made a brief, slightly modified appearance in a box labeled "Elizabethan Man-of-War.  I think it may also have turned up in a Heller box for a while.  But I don't think the 20-inch kit ever got reissued.  That's a shame; it has, as we've established, a great deal to recommend it.

That model in the Science Museum is almost certainly based on the research done in the twenties by Dr. R.C. Anderson, one of the founders of modern scale ship modeling.  He was a fine scholar; there are those who think his version of the Mayflower is more believable than Mr. Baker's.  For many years Model Shipways sold a solid-hull wood kit based on Dr. Anderson's plans.

Professor, I think that explains why Anderson's Mayflower design looks so modern - at least if the Ertl kit copied his plans accurately. The Science Museum model is not fully visible due to the sails in the photos, but photos of the Ertl kit from the link posted previous on this topic show a few mid-seventeenth century design features.

If Ertl's kit is true to Anderson's plans, his design has a quarterdeck set a ways back from the main mast, low railings, and a low, sharply inclined head defined by rails. Its possible that these were employed by 1609, but more likely later, since Brian Lavery's design for Susan Constant is more akin to William Baker than Anderson.

It may be that Anderson was more at home with mid century traditions and employed them in combination with the earlier features he felt were appropriate for a ship of Mayflower's time. The Science Museum model looks like it might have existed in 1620 (although the painting work is much earlier) but might also be right at home a decade or so later. The Ertl version looks more like a ship of the 1630s.

So it seems that Anderson looked forward, while William Baker looked backward, in line with his thoughts that Mayflower was an old ship on its last legs. Given the paucity of reliable depictions of early seventeenth century English merchant ships, they both did good work.

Gentlemen:

 Afterexaming the smaller kit of the Mayflower, I have to concur with Ptof. Tilly. The mounding is very fine indeed. If one looks closely, the deck hatches age not solid as one would expect, very well done indeed. The scribing on the deck, hull, and bulkheads are very fine as well.

My only concern is that of the deadeyes. I hope I can find sone from Model shipways that fit the size. If not I guess I could use the kits and drill them out. any other suggestions would be wecomed indeed.

 

I will keep you folks posted

My personal favorite aftermarket blocks and deadeyes are the cast britannia metal ones from Bluejacket (www.bluejacketinc.com).  The "old stye" deadeyes, which are slightly triangular in shape, are especially appropriate for this model.  And the "unstropped" rigging blocks would be a big improvement over those in the kit.  (Revell tried its best, but the blocks in the kit are, for most of the lines, too big, and the injection-molding process just doesn't produce scale-looking blocks.)

Drilling out the kit deadeyes actually isn't such a bad idea.  I haven't tried it, but the deadeyes in this particular kit are good enough that it might work.

One thought:  rigging deadeye lanyards is tricky.  (For me personally, it's one of the more frustrating aspects of rigging a ship model - far more so than tying ratlines.)  If you haven't done this sort of thing before, you might want to learn it on a ship whose rigging is simpler than this one - preferably one on a larger scale. 

The triangular deadeyes are the ones I ordered, along with three of the smallest single blocks, and one or two sizes of double block. I thought about circular deadeyes, and deadeyes with chainplates attached, but the ones available seemed far too modern.

The larger kit has channels molded into the hull sides (I like this - structurally stable) with channel caps and chainplates attached seperately in one peice. I think this allows notches or holes to be drilled in the channel edge to attach the lower deadeyes, with the cap concealing the trick.

I've looked at a couple of the practitums (Sultana, Phantom) and the instructions for Newsboy for tips on how to set up the deadeyes and shrouds. Newsboy seems to have the best, using a bent wire jig to hold the upper and lower deadeyes in place as the shroud is wrapped around the upper set. An alternate is on the German Modellbau site using a cardstock template with both sets of deadeyes wired temporarily into place, which allows an even line.

I did consider using the kit deadeyes, cutting away the lanyards and drilling holes. It would have been a lot of work for an ugly compromise. Also, with no grooves along the deadeye ends, it would be very difficult to secure the shrouds. Dead on arrival.

I'm very curious about the Bluejacket blocks, and looking forward to when they arrive. Does anyone have experience chemically blackening the Britannia metal, or is it best just to paint them for long term stability?

Bluejacket sells a liquid called "Pewter Black" that works fine on britannia metal.  The instructions suggest diluting it with water; I frankly have never bothered doing that.  I usually just decant a little of the stuff into the bottle cap, and dunk the part in it.  I like to give the finished product a thin coat of flat lacquer, usually from a spray can, to prevent the blackener from rubbing off.

Black blocks are fine for some ships, but not all.  (The blocks on board the Cutty Sark, for instance, are painted white.)  The most common color for blocks on board sixteenth- and seventeenth-century ships seems to have been natural, varnished wood (i.e., brown).  

Bluejacket blocks and deadeyes usually need a little cleaning up.  Sometimes the sheave holes need to be drilled out, and the grooves around the circumference usually need to be widened and deepened a little.  The tool for that purpose is a knife-edged or triangular needle file.  Filing out the grooves on those 3/32" blocks is a little finicky, but gets easier with practice.  When I've got a dozen or so ready, I thread them onto a piece of wire and either dunk them in Pewter Black (for black blocks) or give them a thin coat of Floquil metal primer, followed by a coat of the appropriate color paint.  In the former case I lay the "strand" of blocks on a paper towel to dry, then shoot them with Dullcoat.

Good luck.

 

Gentlemen:

 I have rexamed the model of the small Mayflower very closely. While the triangular deadeyes would work for the lower series of deadeyes, I would not be able to use them for the uppers, and Bluejacket does not make them any smaller than 1/8". So I guess I will be using round wooden ones from Modelshipways, which are available at my local hobbystore.

 If one really looks closely at this kit one would have to agree with the good Proffessor. She is really a gem. Hell the deck even has cambed built in to her!!, and the engraving is just beautiful, even the ships boats have some nice detail in it. I think I will have to use very light coats of paint on her to really bring out the grain of the wood.

 This looks like it will be a great little ship to build.

My first task is to paint the deck. I will keep you posted.

Dick, I have to agree - Revell's Mayflower is probobly the best kit ever for a ship of this era, for both quality and scholarship. The only other kits that come close are the Airfix Revenge for scholarship, and maybe an Ertl Golden Hind for quality and the scholarship of those who designed the replica its based on. I havent built either one, but I'd love to find the Ertl kit.

Professor, thanks for the heads up on what to expect from the BlueJacket fittings. It sounds like cast parts are the only way to get the small sizes accurately, and I have all the tools mentioned.

I was thinking of using "Blacken-It," since I have some and it sounds like the same thing as the Bluejacket product, mostly as a pre-treatment for painting, to keep accidental scratches from showing white metal. But maybe all that's needed is paint, avoiding the possability of seepage from chemical blackeners, and making a more stable build.

Thanks again, Jim

Dick, I have to agree - Revell's Mayflower is probobly the best kit ever for a ship of this era, for both quality and scholarship. The only other kits that come close are the Airfix Revenge for scholarship, and maybe an Ertl Golden Hind for quality and the scholarship of those who designed the replica its based on. I havent built either one, but I'd love to find the Ertl kit.

I finally got a decent deck by using Tamiya Wood Deck Tan, followed by a thin wash of acrylic Railroad Tie Brown, and finally a very thin wash of black with a little burnt umber artist's oils, mixed with turpentine. Keep the acrylic wash wet, and the oil wash semi wet, and use a wide bristle brush to wipe both washes off the deck. Do it quickly, and avoid the temptation for "one more wipe or wash."

Professor, thanks for the heads up on what to expect from the BlueJacket fittings. It sounds like cast parts are the only way to get the small sizes accurately, and I have all the tools mentioned.

I was thinking of using "Blacken-It," since I have some and it sounds like the same thing as the Bluejacket product, mostly as a pre-treatment for painting, to keep accidental scratches from showing white metal. But maybe all that's needed is paint, avoiding the possability of seepage from chemical blackeners, and making a more stable build.

Thanks again, Jim

I'm not sure, but I think Blacken-It may not work on britannia metal.  (It's primarily for use on brass.)  If you've already got a bottle, though, give it a try; the worst-case scenario is that you'll have to buy a bottle of Pewter Black.

I don't think there's any real danger of seepage from a chemical blackener, as long as you give the fitting a clear finish coat.  I used Pewter Black on my models of H.M.S. Bounty and the frigate Hancock.  They're now 28 and 23 years old, respectively, and show no ill effects of the stuff.