Difference between Revell & Revell AG/Germany Constitution models?

As far as I know the kits are the same one that I built in the 60s but probably show the age of the molds more.  There may be some shipping costs as well as monetary conversion issues in the price difference.

Hi ikar01,

Thanks for your reply! You may be right, there does appear to be some variations between the model descriptions but I can't tell if they're significant:

Revell/Monogram 1/96 U.S.S. Constitution ($53)
http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXEH84&P=M
Kit builds to a decorative masterpiece over 3 feet long! A majestic, ready to assemble model engineered from plans provided by Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Detailed captain's quarters complete with bulkheads, table, and bunks
Deck with capstan, wheel, life rails, and galley funnels.
Lifeboats with oars, davits and davit rigging.
Can be rigged with or without sails.
Unpainted miniature crew figures molded in multiple poses.
Vacuum-formed, off-white billowing plastic sails with realistic
cloth details.
Authentically scaled cannons.
Realistically molded deadeyes, blocks, pinrails, and anchors.
Molded black plastic hull with finely engraved details.
Detailed lifeboats with oars, davits and davit rigging.
Pre-formed ratlines.
Intricate stern and bow engravings.
Step-by-step assembly and rigging instructions.

===========================
Revell AG/Germany 1/96 USS Constitution ($90)
http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXKRY3&P=M
High-quality plastic parts molded with the highest level of
detail and accuracy.
Two-piece hull with scribed wood planking and copper plating.
Black thread used for standing rigging and tan thread for
the running rigging.
Pre-formed ratlines.
Vacuum-formed sails.
Well-appointed crow's nest.
Detailed cannons on gun carriages surround both the highly
detailed Gun Deck and Spar Deck.
Detailed captain cabin interior.
Highly detailed Spar Deck complete with boats, wood engraving
and cargo hatches.
Rudder rope runs free on the detailed wheel.
Nicely detailed Bowsprit, anchor and masts.
Crewmen figures molded in various poses.
Display stand with nameplate.
Flag chart and waterslide decals.
Illustrated assembly instructions.

Yikes! The German version is even pricier than I thought!

We've discussed this point several times here in the Forum.  I personally haven't seen the inside of either box in many years, but several other folks have compared them side by side. 

The verdict seems to be that the kits are essentially identical - that is, made from the same molds.  There may be some minor differences in the box contents (Revell Germany kits tend, for instance, to have lousy instructions these days, with minimal, multi-lingual text and awful drawings.  Whether the Revell/Monogram instructions are identical I don't know.  I imagine such things as the spools of thread provided may be different.)

It's an old kit, the original release having been in 1965.  At that time it represented the state of the art - and it still holds up quite well as one of the half-dozen best styrene sailing ship kits on the market.  Several Forum members have complained that examples from Revell Germany in recent years have suffered from soft plastic, warped parts, flash, and other signs that the molds are aging - and the company doesn't seem to care much about quality control.  (It's also clear that the people writing the firm's advertising copy have little if any idea of what they're looking at.  "Well-appointed crow's nest," in the context of an 1812 frigate, is sheer gibberish.)   There was talk some months back of a "new" version, molded in China, coming from Revell/Monogram; the implication was that this one would be molded more carefully, in better plastic.  Whether that actually happened or not I don't know.  Maybe another Forum member has bought a U.S. one recently and can bring us up to date.

In view of the foregoing, my inclination would be to buy the U.S. version.  It may be better molded, and it's cheaper.  I don't see any logical reason to prefer the German one - unless one lives in a part of the world where it's cheaper.

Good luck.

jtilley wrote:

"We've discussed this point several times here in the Forum."

Sorry about the repeated posting, I couldn't find such when I searched the Forum.

"The verdict seems to be that the kits are essentially identical - that is, made from the same molds. There may be some minor differences in the box contents (Revell Germany kits tend, for instance, to have lousy instructions these days, with minimal, multi-lingual text and awful drawings."

Hmmm, let me think all of two seconds on which model to buy...

Thanks a lot for your help, it just saved me some cash!

I've built several Revell Constitutions (both 1:96 & 1:196), going back to the mid-60's.  FWIW, one suggestion I would offer would be to look for older issues of the 1:96 kit, as they are probably going to be more cleanly molded - especially if you plan to use the molded blocks and eyebolts in the kit - in recent issues many of them are flashed over and have to be carefully drilled out (the last time I just pitched them and used wood/metal replacements).  The original instructions, with separate standing and running rigging sheets were excellent- better than many of the expensive wooden kits, IMHO, especially the pin chart.

I've still got two "vintage" versions in my stash.  On my next one I plan to replace the three-piece gun and spar decks with solid planked wood decks.

Also, I don't recall any water-slide decals, but maybe my memory is going... 

Mark

I bought the RoG Constitution last summer here in Holland (and am building it at the moment).The only problems with the kit itself are the excessive amount of flash (but nowhere near as bad as with the Kearsarge), badly warped main decks and the now standard Revell "made of pubic hair rigging thread" provided with their models here in Europe. The instructions are still the same as I remember as a child in the UK and are the same in the US of A and Europe and that is a good thing : extensive rigging sheets with quite reasonable detail. The going price for the RoG Constitution is about 86 Euro's here in the Netherlands.

Julian

I have had both kits within the last year and I can confirm that they are cast from identical molds. Same parts, same size etc.

But there are some differences. The parts that are cast in an off white color in the USA version are in a light brown in the German version. The plastic in the German model that I had was soft with an excessive amount of flash with a high number of warped parts, even by Revell's standards. The rigging thread in the German version was next to worthless.

But the insrtuctions in the German version were actually slightly better. The German instructions are an exact copy of the USA instructions (Revell USA probably sent the art work to Germany and it went right to the printer.) but Germany added a couple of pages diagraming the parts supplied with the kit. This can be useful in locating parts.

There are no decals with either kit.

The German kit is identified as being made in Poland and the USA kit is made in China.

The USA kit is a better kit at a lower price.

Appears to me that RoG and RM are having their molds/moulds (which is correct ? one grows on bread and one is used to inject things into. ) refurbished in Poland and China. There is no reference to Poland at all in my model of the Constitution. The instructions included are the vintage USA booklet with two separate and very large fold out rigging sheets.

Julian

and the now standard Revell "made of pubic hair rigging thread" provided with their models here in Europe

   So! That's how they got the "natural sag" in the ratlines.

No sag in sight I'm afraid . It's stiff, unpliable nasty stuff that I nowadays bin straight away. The best replacement is the rigging thread from micromark (I have to order it in the USA and I live in Holland. Go figure ).

Julian

The descriptions when combined pretty much describe the kit as it was at first.  When did the put decals in and what are the for? 

As for the rigging thread, I saved all my excess thread over the years and gave it away to someone in these forums a few months ago because I can no longer do all the rigging necessary for these ships. 

All in all I think that I have built well over a dozen revell sailing ships since I started building models way back when.

Grem56, your comments are interesting. I still have the RoG box. It is identified as kit 05602 and at the bottom left of the bottom flap of the box top it gives the copyright date of 2000 by Revell AG. It goes on to state: Made in Poland, Printed in Germany. The printing on the box is in German, English, French and what may be Dutch.

The artwork on the RoG box depicts the Consti going into battle with all sails set, including royals and studsails! Only a small portion of the sails of the opponent are evident on the very right. The figures of the crew on deck are way out of scale.

The USA artwork depicts the Consti going into battle without studsails set and the opponent is fully shown close aboard to the right in the picture. The USA box has a copyright date of 2004 and made in China on the right end flap of the box top. It is identified as kit #85-0398. The printing on the box is in English in bold type and French in standard italic print.

The instructions with the GoG model are written in english. The only reference to German is in the 'flags' used to indicate painting instructions. The USA  has only an flag while the RoG instructions have two flags, one in English and the other in German. And it states "printed in Germany' on the cover page.

Both the RoG and USA kits have one set of "Assembly Instructions' and three rigging sheets; standing rigging, running rigging without sails and running rigging with sails. The wording and illustrations are identical except as noted.

I am only speculating, but it would seem that Revell RoG gets the parts from an independent contractor in Poland. Then they assemble the kits in Germany and place the English instructions in the kits bound for the UK & USA and a different set in the kits bound for the Eueorpan market.

Oh well, all this matters very little. The kits are what they are. The point is to enjoy building them.

Grem56 - I think the distinction between "mold" and "mould" is yet another example of "two cultures divided by a common language." 

The American Heritage Dictionary (my personal favorite, but I'm hardly free of bias) lists three separate definitions for the word "mold."  In abridged form, they are: "1.  A hollow form or matrix for shaping a fluid or plastic substance...."  "2.  Any of various fungi that often cause disintegration of organic matter...."  "3.  Loose,  friable soil, rich in humus and fit for planting...."  Each of those definitions goes on at some length, but you get the picture.  That same dictionary defines "mould" as "Chiefly British. Variant of mold."

I have to deal with British publishers and correspondents now and then so, in a futile attempt to avoid embarrassing myself, I keep a paperback copy of The Oxford Dictionary of Current English by the computer too.  ("Current" in this case means 1990.)  It gives three definitions for "mould," as follows (again in abridged form):  "1.  A hollow container into which molten metal etc. is poured or soft material is pressed to harden in a required shape...."  "2.  Furry growth of fungi on things of animal or vegetable origin that lie for some time in moist warm air."  "3.  Loose earth, upper soil of cultivated land, esp. when rich in organic matter."  The Oxford volume defines "mold" as "US variant of MOULD."

There are quite a few examples like that - words that have one spelling in British usage and another in American.  Others include "harbor/harbour," "color/colour," "aluminum/aluminium," and "specialty/speciality."  (In the latter case, the Oxford volume lists both - without any nationalistic identity.  The American one lists "speciality" as "Chiefly British.")

Another distinction that trips some people up concerns the use of quotation marks.  In American usage, the double quote (") is used to set off a direct quotation; the single quote (') sets off a quotation inside another quotation.  The British do it the other way around.  That one frequently confuses students - largely because so many books originating with British publishers get distributed in the U.S. under the labels of American firms - with no modification to the punctuation.  (The quotations in the American editions of the Patrick O'Brian novels are punctuated in the British style.  Those in the American editions of the Harry Potter books, on the other hand, are handled in the American style.  I imagine the British editions of Harry Potter are different; presumably the American publisher concluded that, in view of the huge U.S. market, the expense of the change was justified.)

It probably would take an etymologist to sort all this out thoroughly.  I think some of the distinctions may have originated relatively recently.  When I was working on my book about the British Navy in the American Revolution, I had to read lots of letters and other documents written during that period.  Eighteenth-century British naval officers sailed into and out of harbors on a regular basis, but I never encountered a reference to a harbour in any of those documents.

Interesting stuff - though hardly of earth-shaking importance.  I never cease to be amazed at how adept people from non-English-speaking countries are at learning the English language.  (The American public school system's teaching of foreign languages is, by contrast, notoriously awful - as my own ineptitude demonstrates whenever I meet somebody from France or Germany.)  The English language is a thing of great beauty, but it's riddled with inconsistencies and irrationalities.  I can't imagine what it must be like to learn it as a second language.

 

 

Thanks for jumping in on a mouldy mail John Actually English was my first language (I was born and spent my first 11 years in Plymouth and Redborne in the UK and moved to Holland when I was 11. Dutch was my second language and it is a dreadful language to learn, believe me . Having reached the ripe old age of 50 last summer I find myself forgetting some of the spelling of "the Queens English".

Julian

I spent a lot of time in Holland over the years on business and was always amazed/humbled by the fact that most of the Dutch business people I dealt with knew three or four languages, typically Dutch, English, German, & French.  Was told it was linked to their trading culture. 

I always tried to work on my (limited) conversational German when I was over there. Our Dutch sales manager and I would sometimes agree to only speak German when we traveled together so I could practice.  Worked great until he had a couple of glasses of wine at dinner and would randomly slide from one language to another, sometimes in the middle of a sentence! 

Mark

I spent a little time in Holland some years ago, and was impressed (and embarrassed) by the fact that virtually everybody over there was able to carry on a coherent conversation in English.  Not just the businessmen and academics - but the cab drivers, the waiters, and the teenagers working as clerks in the grocery stores. 

Another oddity of that experience.  I was over there for a meeting of the International Congress of Maritime Museums, which had drawn museum directors and curators literally from all over the world.  (Virtually all of them spoke English, of course; all the presentations were given in English.)  On several occasions I found myself riding in taxis, eating in restaurants, etc. with British colleagues.  To my ear (and theirs) the differences between our respective accents was extremely conspicuous - to the point where we sometimes had a little trouble understanding each other.  But the Dutch cab drivers and waiters didn't pick up the difference.  On more than one occasion a Dutchman assumed that I, with my (to my ear) obvious midwestern U.S. accent, was an Englishman.

I guess that isn't surprising.  I'm reliably informed that spoken German has a huge variety of accents and dialects, but I can't hear them.  One of the German professors at the school where I work has his students watch the movie "Das Boot," because the soundtrack provides a fine cross-section of German dialects.  I've watched it in German quite a few times, and I have to confess I can't detect the differences.

I'm reminded of a line from one of my favorite comic strips, the late lamented "Calvin and Hobbes":  "If we work at it hard enough, maybe we can make language a complete impediment to understanding."

When I would travel in France I had a phrase book that I used, if nothing else to be polite and for simple requests at hotels and restaurants.  One time a hotel clerk started laughing at the way I said something.  When I asked, he said I was speaking French with a German accent...

Mark