Poorly designed ship model kits or those that are plain made-up (edited by admin)

[fnkershner]

Casey - Essentially that is what I am doing with my Harvey. It was not my intent when I first purchased it. But since I have since learned more about the ture history of this type of ship. I am going to do some significant Kit bashing and rename it.

[pompey2]

There is another interesting spur to this thread.

How often, with a kit do you find that you reach a point and are unsure on how to proceed?

The plans are unclear, the instructions don't make mention.

If your ship was a 'real' one then you can do the reasearch and resolve the subject more often than not.

If it is still a 'real' one (Vic, Conny, Vasa, Cutty Sark) then you may actually find pictures as well.

So your task is a lot more satisfying if you can resolve these issues correctly.

 

Nick

[cdogg]

@ Floyd - The Harvey is cool looking ship, Have fun with it, I may have to pick that one up as well and do some adjusting once I get more experience.

[fnkershner]

^{Casey - I think I might be able to help you there. On another thread here on MSW. we had a member who had to throw his kit away since it had such a bad mold problem. I tried to help out by putting together a Harvey Kit. I have enough spare parts to make a kit. it has almost been 2 weeks since I posted the offer and I haven't heard from him. I think I will give it another week and then offer the kit to anyone on this forum. I will guarantee you a good price. Stay tuned.}

[janet bode]

Phantom ships well i am building one now, manufactured by somebody called A-L and its called Red Dragon.

A study of the deck around the bow makes me think the deck sticks out about 20feet each side while the hull tapers down

to normal ships stem. There is no stated scale in my kit, i think when i finish the boat it may not look  to bad i hope as i

have put a lot of effort in to it, eg:i have planked and pinned the deck : all just for practice for a future project plus lots of

other parts but i am under no illusion that its a real ship.

                                              Regards: janet b

[CharlieZardoz]

Non-Historical (Fake) kits as far as I can tell (only researched American ships atm)

 

Any of the Baltimore Clippers (Harvey, Albatros, Dapper Tom) do not appear to have historical counterparts with exception of Pride of Baltimore II by Model Shipways 

 

Gunboats/Cutters (like Dallas, Alert or Ranger) probably from some unidentified ship plans?

 

Mamoli's Blue Shadow which is just a redress of the HMS Portsmouth and Valiant model with Colonial era flags looks nice though

 

 

Then there are ships that did exist but the kits do not accurately portray them

 

Lynx by Mantua doesn't look much like the current replica

 

The Constructo Enterprise which tbf I love that kit I grew up with it as a kid I had the 1986 Model Expo catalogue that I'd read over and over again I want to believe it's as least reasonable accurate to the historical Enterprise

 

Aeropiccola kit Bonhomme Richard doesn't look anything like the plans I've come across and looks more like the Revell plastic kit. 

 

Artesania Latina's Constellation accurate but not it has gunports on the top deck making it look more like a frigate and they seem to market it with the idea that the sloop was the 1797 frigate refitted. 

 

Hope this helps

Edited October 16, 2014 by CharlieZardoz

[mtdoramike]

I was reading through some of these posts and WOW, I can't believe some of the remarks. First off, model ship kits are just that a kit. There is nothing museum quality about them and nothing unique from model to model either. I know this going in and knew it from the first kit I ever built. But a ship model kit gets the builder to eventually realize that it's not just about building the kit, it's also about the adventure and experience of it. Most kit's take any where from five hundred to thousands of hours to build, but after your first kit build, you realize that to extend this warm fuzzy feeling of accomplishment, you have to do a bit of research. Yep I know, that dreaded (S) word that we all hated in school (studying). Then after a few models under your belt, you can really start to get motivated and begin kit bashing or take the other major leap and go to scratch building, which could produce a museum quality model depending on the time, effort and yes, research.

 

But me, there is nothing like breaking open the crisp plastic wrapping of a new ship model kit that the UPS man dropped off at my door. I can spend hours upon hours just going through the kit, looking at all the things inside the box. So no, I agree that some if not most aren't great, accurate or even a decent representation of the original. But I don't care, so please don't spoil it for me      

[hornet]

Thirty or so years ago, when I started building wooden ship models, it was pretty difficult to research a ship. The Internet didn't exist so going to the local library was pretty much all you could do. You had to rely on the honesty and integrity of the manufacturer to a large extent. Nowadays, because of the internet, the world is at our fingertips and it is so much easier to chose a kit with confidence. I tend to do a lot of research into the history of a ship and look at a lot of pictures and photos ( including those on this site) before I hand over my hard earned dollar. In this way I am reasonably sure I am going to get something that did really exist an is reasonably accurate. I normally keep a folder on my computer where every tiny bit of information on the history and construction of my current build is stored and I update it as I go. The 'Endeavour' is on my build list and I was fortunate enough to get the opportunity to go aboard the Endeavour Replica recently. I took about 200 photos!!! If I think some component of the kit s not quite right or is poorly made, I try to scratch build it. This just adds another dimension to the hobby. I know that fictitious, and poorly designed models are out there, but I don't really care. I won't be buying one of them.

[vossy]

i reckon half the fun and the challenge is to research, learn and bash as you go. i have bought five kits - billings oseberg (in hibernation), amati santa maria (completed), mamoli golden hind (about to step the masts), amati bounty (just begun), corel victory (first planking nearly complete). all these vessels were actual boats in their day and i'm pretty happy with what i will be building (apart from the insistence of these manufacturers to include metal lifeboats on vessels built in the 15th century etc). at the end of the day who cares if 'your' model was a real ship or not? i bet most of your family and friends who admire and stare enviously at your finished ship wouldn't know endeavour from bounty, cutty sark from thermopylae etc. i say more effort on the manufactures part should go into the supply of more authentic materials to build such things as boats, gun carriages, incidental deck furniture etc and let the builder recreate it as best he/she can. i say we start up a movement to abolish fake metal lifeboats. my hero columbus would turn in his grave!

 

cheers chris

[mtaylor]

I'm one who thinks the research is half the fun.  And also half the frustration.  Let's face it, with a kit, you either take the manufacturer's word for it, or you research and bash if you're going for accuracy.  See my response below on one set of fun and games I had.....

 

Artesania Latina's Constellation accurate but not it has gunports on the top deck making it look more like a frigate and they seem to market it with the idea that the sloop was the 1797 frigate refitted. 

 

Hope this helps

 

I did this kit.  I visited the Constellation in 1977  and was convinced by the smooth BS of the tour guide that this really was the 1797 frigate and I was very impressed.  Fast forward many years.  I got the kit... oh boy!!!!  Then I decided to check...  oops... the kit isn't of the 1797 frigate.  What I saw sitting in the harbor in Baltimore wasn't the 1797 frigate.  Hit the internet and discover that many folks have been bamboozled over the years either by intention or those who did it, just didn't know any better.   The plans in the Smithsonian were even "changed".

 

So.. research indicated the kit had the hull lines of what sat in the harbor.... the 1854 sloop Constellation.  The folks in Baltimore butchered the hull to produce the so-called frigate.  Hmm.... what to do?  I spread my wings and bashed the living daylights out of that kit.     Jerry Todd is doing a scratch and I feel he has better research than I did, so don't take my build as gospel.

 

AL apparently got suckered into believing that the ship model they have was the real frigate.  But, the info is out there so why don't they change the kit?   I'm suspecting they continue to sell the kit as is because people buy it because buyers believe that the manufacturer wouldn't lie to them.  Besides, who wants the sloop... they want the frigate.   And what of the 1797 frigate? Good question.  Most tend to think that the plans went up in smoke when the British burned Washington.

 

Anyway, my moral.. there's accuracy and there's art and sometimes there's both at once.   I do think both have a place in model ship building.  If nothing else, just make sure you have fun.  

[vossy]

hi mark,

             totally 100% with your last statement; "just make sure you have fun"  metal lifeboats still suck though!!    

 

cheers chris

[CharlieZardoz]

Hey Mark! Lol I love the 1854 sloop! But that's me I happen to dig the civil war era sailing vessels and if I ever went for the AL kit someday I wouldn't think it too much trouble to modify/bash the kit to more accurately portray the sloop as it appears today (or did in civil war times).  It should always be a fun process researching/falling in love with a build.  As I mentioned the 1986 model expo catalogue I just read it over and over again as a kid loving every design so to realize after all these years some are ficticious was a bit shocking but oh well more amusing than anything else.  If one wants to be really obsessive with historical accuracy and have a "museum quality" admiralty POF model etc. best learn how to scratch build but even then you can only research so much since some facts are lost to history. Part of the fun I think is not knowing I mean back as a kid me and pop built the Santa Maria from scratch there's no real naval plans for the thing you can just go grab in an archive somewhere so you make a few guesses. He made a very nice back cabin with a bookshelf and bed and all those little touches personalize your model which makes it your own work of art

 

P.S. Your sloop Constellation looks very nice btw!

Edited October 17, 2014 by CharlieZardoz

[Grimber]

This was a long time ago now but when I was trying my hand at a couple of the plastic sailing ships I had bought 2 different models.  One was the constitution and the other a 'jolly roger' pirate ship.  When I opened the boxs and looked them both over, the only things that were different was the box, front page of the instructions, the plastic stand nameplate and the little paper flag sheets.  the models themselves were the exact same model even the parts were molded in the same colored plastic.  talk about disapointment

[thibaultron]

I have bought, then resold several kits (even one high quality US made kit), when I found out they were entirely fictitious, with the manufacturer lying about it. I have some that I kept because the manf honestly stated that they represented a type, not a specific boat. There are a lot of plans out there of ships that reflect as historically accurate as possible type of, or even of a specific ship (the Hannah comes to mind), that I would build from. Just tell me at the start! For instance, the previously mentioned Corel Ranger, why not just label the kit as Defender or other sister ship to start with? I have more kits than I will likely be able to build in my life time (ship and other types).  I would prefer to spend my time on kits that are at least reasonably close.

[BareHook]

My first 4 builds will be ficticious ships due to my naming each after one of my kids, that being said, my "Hannah" as based upon the Schooner Hannah but the accuracy is limited by my kit bashing and ability, since the kit is very limited at best and I didn't feel ready for a full "Hahn" scratch build though I think it will be a fair representation of the vessel.

If I were to try to build a "museum quality historically accurate" vessel, the stress of trying match everything perfectly would likely turn me off somewhat from the hobby during the learning stages of these first builds, but as I develop technique and learn my limits, I will likely take up the challenge of a true historical build in the future.

 

Ken

Edited October 17, 2014 by BareHook

[Matle]

Hello all!

 

This is my first post hereabouts, registered some time ago to learn something about the hobby. Didn't plan to post yet, but I found this thread by coincidence and felt the urge to chip in.

 

I built a lot of (plastic) models years ago and recently got inspired to start building ships in wood instead. My goal is to scratch-build but I wanted to start learning by building the kit I wanted to have as a kid - Corel's Amphion. Talk about disappointment - only a couple of hours of research showed that the ship in the kit has nothing in common with the Amphion except that her lines were drawn by the same gentleman. I have nothing against fictitious ships but when the entire kit description is made up it's quite a let-down, especially when half the fun - for me at least - is doing the research and recreating something out of the past. I will order it anyway, if for no other reason than because I promised I would decades ago, so I hope the kit itself is nicely designed. 

[vossy]

g'day mate,

                   my advise, buy the kit and bash the living daylights out of it! doubt you will find many (other than very top end i.e.. price) that don't need a little tweaking here and there. our hobby isn't an exact science  but thats what makes it fun.

[tulok]

I too had my fair share of being snared by "fantasy ships"...

 

For my first model, I got Sergal's HMS President frigate because of the low cost and "easy-build" rating.

It's "history" states that it was supposedly a "light" frigate armed with twelve guns.

 

Imagine my surprise when I later went on to build HM Brig Cruiser which, while about the same scale as my frigate, is almost twice as long and has 18 guns

 

I guess my 12 gun frigate will be no match to my 18 gun brig in a pounding match

[geoff]

One of the first static models I built was the "Lady Nelson" by Victory Models. A lovely, well presented kit. But OH those tiny cannons! I suspect they are just stock Amati items & way too small. Talk about "Spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar"!

[juhu]

Non-Historical (Fake) kits as far as I can tell (only researched American ships atm)

 

Any of the Baltimore Clippers (Harvey, Albatros, Dapper Tom) do not appear to have historical counterparts with exception of Pride of Baltimore II by Model Shipways 

 

Gunboats/Cutters (like Dallas, Alert or Ranger) probably from some unidentified ship plans? - The plans are well-known, check this web site. They do exist and they are true preserved historical plans from 1815. Alas, the kit makers did not follow these plans, with the exception of Dallas just created fictive ships. At least, these kits are based on real vessels.

 

Mamoli's Blue Shadow which is just a redress of the HMS Portsmouth and Valiant model with Colonial era flags looks nice though. Mamoli is in my opinion the most notorious cheater among the kit makers. Do you remember times when famous movie Master&Commander was introduced? Mamoli just repacked their La Gloire "french frigate"of dubious origin and sell it for huge sums as HMS Surprise. Now that is the business.

 

 

Then there are ships that did exist but the kits do not accurately portray them

 

Lynx by Mantua doesn't look much like the current replica - Well, that is because Mantua's one shall represent the original 1812 privateer, not the current replica!! which has very little in common with the historical vessel (design wise) apart from the name. Although, probably to be more interesting, it is offen referred as replica. Just check the plans, you will see. The only problem is that even Mantua's kit has some very obvious problems when compared to the preserved Lynx / Mosquidobit plans...

 

The Constructo Enterprise which tbf I love that kit I grew up with it as a kid I had the 1986 Model Expo catalogue that I'd read over and over again I want to believe it's as least reasonable accurate to the historical Enterprise - Ok, sometimes belief is more important than the fact, I will leave it as it is

 

Aeropiccola kit Bonhomme Richard doesn't look anything like the plans I've come across and looks more like the Revell plastic kit. 

 

Artesania Latina's Constellation accurate but not it has gunports on the top deck making it look more like a frigate and they seem to market it with the idea that the sloop was the 1797 frigate refitted. Well, I would say AL Constellation represents something that nobody know what it is (I dare say AL cares the least about that), but you mentioned that and it is also discussed elsewhere.

 

Hope this helps

 

Sorry for corrections, but cannot help, spent too much time trying to find "holy grail" = proper "historically accurate model"myself, hope it helps

I spent literally years searching information for the period ship kit, commercially available. It is very interesting. Those knowing the world of plastic model kits (aircraft) know very well the discussion about exact number of the rivets on the pilot's seat, measuring the kit to tens of millimeters and arguing about the best one. Here we are quite lucky, if the kit at least represents something "real".

What I found is not 100% accurate - please correct and add whatever needed, just my opinion:

1. By far I consider the best producer I know in terms of quality and accuracy American Model Shipways. Not the perfect - surely many minuses will be found by more experienced, but the best available in general. (And being from Europe, where these kits are hard to get, must be sorry for that).

2. Victory Models - offers currently only limited number of kits, but of great quality. Apart from Lady Nelson cutter (which if not the real name, is very nice representation of a British period cutter), all other are historically documented, Russian brig Mercury may be one of the best kits available at all (how many kit producers offers you a deck with correct, bent planks instead of incorrect straight planking seen on 99% of the models??) comparable to the very popular MS brig Syren. What to say - former designer of famous Jotika kits is behind this - since he moved to Amati / Victory Models, in my opinion Jotika is going little bit down and Victory Models shines...

3. Here in Europe very good reputation has Jotika/Caldercraft. One big plus is that most of its models are based on Admiralty plans of the real vessels. This sounds great! Unless you get one of those plans and realize, that plans may not be complete or show the vessels in general lines and many details on the kits are missing or too simplified. But at least you have here no "fictive" ship. Ok, may be apart from HM schooner Pickle, that represents modern ship , not the historical Pickle to which no plans are preserved as far as I know. Still you may found some interesting stories: Try to search something about the HM Mars / Orestes - you can see there are some "problems"with this beautifully  looking kit anyway. Then very popular HM brig Badger - by no means Nelson's first command as advertised!!  (I spent much time till I got the final confirmation for that), but what sells, that helps obviously.... etc. etc. For sure, vessels like Victory, Bounty, Endeavor, although produced by many others are the best offer, where the competition is in terms of accuracy many miles behind.

4. Then other European kit manufacturers producing all sort of fictitious / semi-ficticious or real ships:

Some of them are said to be quite nice and said to be quite accurate  (Mantua/ Panart Royal Caroline). Some of them bears the name of the real ships, but has nothing in common with them (Mamoli "Beagle"). Most of others them are just more or less good "general type" of the vessel (Most of the Artesania Latina, Occre etc. etc). What I consider to be the nastiest things are the kits with not only fictitious ship name but also totally fairytale story behind it. Like Mamoli's Black Prince. I am not saying it is wrong to have a kit of the ship that never existed. Some manufacturers produce ships that are referred as "typical representation of <vessel type>" which is perfectly ok I think, but trying to sell something wrapped in fictive story, well, no, thanks. So, as mentioned here somewhere, it is not the question, whether Artesania Latina Constellation was "mistaken", by error mixed frigate of 18ct with later vessel. The question is whether AL really CARES about that. I would say, while we are buying the kits first and only then desperately try to pair it with some real vessel, convincing ourselves that it must be "that ship" (alas, for all those money paid!), till that time we will have many kits that represents nothing but somebody's fiction in the market.

5. One last thing mentioned already somewhere above: One thing I do not like here in Europe (please let me know how it is with US kit makers) is so called "common jewellery". Even the best producers like Victory models offer for example cannons, anchors, blocks of one type for more than one / all models. One is than surprised, why are those anchors so unrealistically big for my yacht? Or what type of strange gun barrel shape is this?

But nothing is perfect, who wants perfection builds from scratch. What I think we can do is either resign on historical accuracy and just enjoy the build of the ship we like or make proper research BEFORE purchase and pick something that ,if not up to our expectation, at least resembles closely what we want and can be bashed to our joy. Have a nice day.

[ccoyle]

Using off-the-shelf fittings is, of course, a cost saving measure for the manufacturer.  I know this has been a particular point of contention between Chris Watton an Amati; Chris usually pushes for as much vessel-specific fidelity as he can for his designs, but Amati hold the purse strings, so there are limits.  Perhaps it was stated earlier, but kit builders are actually living in a Golden Era of kit manufacturing - there's a new crop of designers (Chris, Chuck, et al) with a passion for historically accurate, true-to-scale products, and Internet resources (like this forum) make it relatively easy to weed out bad designs for those interested in avoiding them.

 

Cheers!

[CharlieZardoz]

Sounds about right, thanks Juhu!

[CharlieZardoz]

BTW does anyone know if the Black Prince by Mamoli is accurate?  I know that Ben Franklin had a ship called Black Prince but is the kit off some sort of plan or is it just a generic clipper that has no direct connection.

[juhu]

BTW does anyone know if the Black Prince by Mamoli is accurate?  I know that Ben Franklin had a ship called Black Prince but is the kit off some sort of plan or is it just a generic clipper that has no direct connection.

Check Mamoli's "Newport" kit. Looks like the same model, just reboxed and at best slightly modified. Mamoli's common nasty practise. In my opinion, no real ship, just someone's invention?

Edited November 13, 2014 by juhu

[thibaultron]

On the post about the USS Constellation, the model depicts her as she was setup until the 80s or 90s in Baltimore Harbor.  It was not until more recently that she was rebuilt to resemble her as built. The ship was originally claimed to be built in the late 1700s, research later proved that she was built in the mid 1800s, configured as she now is. So while the kit does not show her as built, it does show her as she was when the kit came out.

[juhu]

On the post about the USS Constellation, the model depicts her as she was setup until the 80s or 90s in Baltimore Harbor.  It was not until more recently that she was rebuilt to resemble her as built. The ship was originally claimed to be built in the late 1700s, research later proved that she was built in the mid 1800s, configured as she now is. So while the kit does not show her as built, it does show her as she was when the kit came out.

 

That is an interesting info. I would be interested in reading more details, could you provide some more info? To be honest, after my experience, I am very skeptic regarding any Artesania Latina research regarding the historical ship. On the kit box they are selling 38 gun frigate of 1798, which is definitely not true. I have found this interesting article on Connie, may be somebody would be interested:

http://www.baltimoremd.com/monuments/sea02.html

 

Somehow I have doubts when reading of all these changes and uncertainties AL's has got some special access to plans or materials in order to create some accurate model particularly in this case, considering level of other their products... But will gladly learn more and correct my thoughts! Thanks in advance.

[Ian B]

Hi

I came new to this hobby in Dec 2013 with my first build 'I assumed' wrongly as it turned out that the kits being sold reflected as near as possible the real thing just taking into account the level of detail and complexity you were paying for. This is the only thing I find disappointing  in this fascinating hobby.

 

. Is it time where distinguished clubs/societies award their seal of approval or scoring scale that manufactures can quote so people know it is right and good as it can be for the given price and complexity,,e.g an HMS Victory at £300 can have a top rating the same as a £1000 model it just shows quality for that price range..

 

 

OK so it opens a million cans of worms about who and how it is done... but would have been nice

[mtaylor]

Juhu,

 

AL got the hull right... they even built in the hog that the ship had back then.  They also got it right in the sense that their model reflects what was floating in the harbor at the time and also what plans were available at the time.  However... what was floating in the harbor was a fiction and fraud foisted on an unsuspecting public. 

 

A good starting place is here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constellation_(1854)

And more indepth is here:  http://www.navsea.navy.mil/nswc/carderock/pub/cnsm/faq/faq_13.aspx  particularly the link to: "Fouled Anchors". 

[rshousha]

Interesting discussion and I'd like to put a different spin on it, if I may. When i started building car models for people, I specified that my models are "art quality" models and nothing do with either the real thing or anything that was "museum quality". The goal was to make something whimsical out of a cool kit. I was successful with that and had a great deal of fun with my clients. Yes, I did paint a 1933 Alfa Romeo in metallic paint. 

 

So, my question is; who is going to be the first person to make a five-masted HMS Victory? 

 

Best Regards, 

 

Rick 

[trippwj]

Another manufacturer in the US with a good reputation for accurate designs is Bluejacket Shipcrafters (http://www.bluejacketinc.com/ ) - can't vouch for all of their model kits, but the Constitution and Jefferson Davis have good reputations, as do the schooner kits they make.

 

The Constellation has been a long-time controversial ship.  While Fouled Anchors (as well as Howard Chapelle in The Constellation Question) really seemed to close the chapter on the controversy, it seems to rise back up of it's own accord - most recently in Geoffrey Footner's book, USS Constellation: From Frigate to Sloop.  The rebuttals, of course, continue by Dana Wegner (of Fouled Anchors fame).  While the veracity of the claims made by those who claim the Constellation was stripped to her keel, 12 feet inserted, and then rebuilt with mainly timbers from the old frigate is beyond my pay grade to assess - I will note, however, that inserting a 12 foot keel section would require a much longer piece of inserted material - the original specifications by Humphreys specified that each scarph was to be:

 

Keel of good sound white oak in 3 pieces. The middle piece to be not less than 80 feet if to be had. Scarphs not less than 12 feet to be kept clear of the main and fore steps sided in the midships 19 inches at the stem & post 17 inches and as deep as can be had. The scarphs all to be tabled and bolted with 5 bolts 1 1/8 inch diameter. False keel 6 inches thick but not to be put on until after the floor & keelson bolts are drove and riveted.

 

Those 12 foot scarphs would necessitate a new section of keel that was at lest 36 feet in length, and that center 80 foot section would then be cut in half, resulting in two sections of only 40 feet, with but 16 feet not used in the scarphing.  Having those additional joints in a longer keel would likely seriously detract from the structural integrity!