Cutty Sark by bcochran - Revell - 1/96 - PLASTIC

[shipman]

Yet you seem to be retaining the grossly over scale belay pins?

 

It's been a while since I actually read the Hackney book; however I have a lasting impression that he managed to produce a fair model of the Cutty, baring in mind the book was written in the mid 70's, primarily for the youth of the day with few tools or other resources. A touch of common sense would be required today.

 

If I would build the Airfix kit as Hackney did, I'd be more than happy with it. And it wouldn't cost a fortune to do it.

[bcochran]

2 hours ago, shipman said:

Yet you seem to be retaining the grossly over scale belay pins?

 

It's been a while since I actually read the Hackney book; however I have a lasting impression that he managed to produce a fair model of the Cutty, baring in mind the book was written in the mid 70's, primarily for the youth of the day with few tools or other resources. A touch of common sense would be required today.

 

If I would build the Airfix kit as Hackney did, I'd be more than happy with it. And it wouldn't cost a fortune to do it.

I am not going to replace the belay pins.  I read most of the other builds where the correctness of the Revell Cutty Sark kit is discussed. 

 

I am amazed I made it this far. 

 

I almost completed the large Revell USS Constitution up to the beginning of the rigging and spent a lot of time agonizing about the correctness of that kit, including what color she was in 1812 on her last voyage, did she have gun port covers or not? I added hammock netting, railing around the deck openings, thickened the hull around the gun ports and lots of other things until it got too boring and time-consuming.

 

This time I decided not to do that, or I would never finish.

 

Edited April 29, 2022 by bcochran

[shipman]

Your and 'kevin-the-lubber' are both posting builds of this kit simultaneously on this forum. Each I;m following and where I can I hope to be making pertinent comments. Confusion between the two has made me realise you are approaching your builds with slightly different philosophy. In future I'll try and be more aware of that.

[Kevin-the-lubber]

Thanks for the linking, Shipman! Hello bcochran, you are ripping along with yours at an impressive pace, especially given all the fine modifications you're including. I'm a veritable snail by comparison. I've picked up several good ideas from yours - decals for the lozenges etc, what a smart idea. I'm replacing the whole of the pinrail with a 3D printed version in which I'd included the lozenges, but it still needs a bit of work on those so if that doesn't work out too well I now have a plan B. I also chopped out the wedges/gussets even though there are a few on the real thing; though I'm not sure if these are original as they look very crudely made.

 

Can I ask what you used to colour the binnacle? Yours is a much better finish than mine, on which I used vallejo gold paint.

 

I couldn't bring myself to spend £80 on a wood deck when the kit itself only cost me £40, so re-made it. I realised today that the kit has it set about 4mm - 5mm too high. I'm re-making quite a lot of parts while trying to avoid over-obsessing, as you rightly say, all the fun can go out of it if you spend too long on detail. I'm also absolutely fearful of rigging, having never done this, and I'm avoiding glueing stuff down for as long as possible until I can see what would be better left until later. I'm just finishing up on the catheads as we speak, and those may well be in the 'later' category. Incidentally, if you have access to resin printing take a look at my latest page, in case you're interested in adding an easy micro-detail (the cat's head).

 

[ccoyle]

Folks, I had to hide the last post in this thread for violating our copyright policy. Please don't share photos from pay sites like Getty images. You can share a link to the site, but sharing the image here at MSW could get us into legal hot water.

 

Thanks!

[bcochran]

5 hours ago, Kevin-the-lubber said:

Thanks for the linking, Shipman! Hello bcochran, you are ripping along with yours at an impressive pace, especially given all the fine modifications you're including. I'm a veritable snail by comparison. I've picked up several good ideas from yours - decals for the lozenges etc, what a smart idea. I'm replacing the whole of the pinrail with a 3D printed version in which I'd included the lozenges, but it still needs a bit of work on those so if that doesn't work out too well I now have a plan B. I also chopped out the wedges/gussets even though there are a few on the real thing; though I'm not sure if these are original as they look very crudely made.

 

Can I ask what you used to colour the binnacle? Yours is a much better finish than mine, on which I used vallejo gold paint.

 

I couldn't bring myself to spend £80 on a wood deck when the kit itself only cost me £40, so re-made it. I realised today that the kit has it set about 4mm - 5mm too high. I'm re-making quite a lot of parts while trying to avoid over-obsessing, as you rightly say, all the fun can go out of it if you spend too long on detail. I'm also absolutely fearful of rigging, having never done this, and I'm avoiding glueing stuff down for as long as possible until I can see what would be better left until later. I'm just finishing up on the catheads as we speak, and those may well be in the 'later' category. Incidentally, if you have access to resin printing take a look at my latest page, in case you're interested in adding an easy micro-detail (the cat's head).

 

Hello Kevin,

Per Longridge the Cutty Sark had 26 bulwark stanchions per side.  There were 5 different types. I wasn't going to go into that much detail making 5 different types and I did not add the horizontal bar portion to them.

Here is how I judge what I am doing and how much work I want to put into it. If I can look at my model in any particular place and feel that it looks "shippy" all though it is just a representation, I am happy with it. Those wedges just did not look right, nor did the bulwarks without the lozenges. I have the starboard side done, and I get the right feeling when I look at them. The other major thing that I think doesn't look right are the Revell deadeyes.  I look at some builds using them and there is an angle to the plastic deadeye and the rope tied to it, rather than a straight line from the lower deadeye to the point on the mast where it ends. So I am going to attempt to use individual deadeyes.

 

I used Krylon metallic bras spray paint on the binnacle. 

 

I like all the detail you are putting into your model, and feel much of it is beyond my talents.  I know nothing about 3D printing.

 

I wanted the deck to look better than what I could have done with the plastic. The rest of the detail just would not be so pleasing to my eye if the deck didn't have the same level of detail.

 

The pictures I am including with this post is a model that is in the Mormon museum in Salt Lake city. It has always been my inspiration to build a ship model.  I needed my deck to have the same level of detail.

Edited April 29, 2022 by bcochran

[bcochran]

7 hours ago, shipman said:

Your and 'kevin-the-lubber' are both posting builds of this kit simultaneously on this forum. Each I;m following and where I can I hope to be making pertinent comments. Confusion between the two has made me realise you are approaching your builds with slightly different philosophy. In future I'll try and be more aware of that.

Everything you posted so far on my build is ok by me.  I like your sense of humor, too.

[shipman]

re deleted #95.

Here's another attempt to stay legal.

A preserved original  'cat head' from the Cutty Sark....bugger!

 

I attempted to ad a url only and up popped the image I was trying to avoid and not infringe copyright.

Anyway, if you are interested, google 'cat head, cutty sark' at the Dumbarton Science Museum.

 

You'll find several views of a delightful original specimen, without hurting any-ones felines.

 

[bcochran]

Today's state of affairs

Edited April 29, 2022 by bcochran

[rwiederrich]

 agree not to replace the belay pins..since you will need the extended length to aid in belaying them...plus the extra length is hidden by the rope coils anyway.

 

You're doing fantastic.

 

Rob

[shipman]

When the time comes to be belaying lines to the pins I would guess it would be prudent to be careful. A tad too much tension could easily snap a few off; remember it's only plastic.

I have two examples of the kit, one of which is the original UK issue (around 1962) with pre-painted hull, not only is the plastic on that one very brittle, it has dark brown swirls and smears as if the molten plastic wasn't mixed thoroughly.

 

Looking forward to your updates.

No pressure 😏

[Kevin-the-lubber]

2 hours ago, bcochran said:

feel that it looks "shippy"

I completely get that; I think for me, given that this is my first attempt to build a model properly (I'm not counting the parked Victory) and I simply don't yet know enough about the whole process, or sailing ships, it'll be enough to be able to look at it afterwards and feel it was a decent effort. Even at this stage there are things I'd do differently next time - my deck colour is one of them - it was intentional and I like it well enough, but doubt I'll go in this direction again, in part because I've learned a little about model painting along the way. 3D printing is just a tool, it allows me to learn from my mistakes and learn about the parts. Behind those finished items are a heck of a lot of binned versions and if I was building this straight out of the box I'd either have given up by now or been too embarrassed to maintain a build log. However, the 3D process itself can get quite boring and time-consuming as half the battle is finding ways to print what you design.

 

I'm also going to do the deadeyes and rigging from scratch as I don't like the kit parts at all. I wasn't going to do the stanchions to the pinrail, was going to more or less replicate the gussets as I'm fearful that the rails might not be strong enough for the rigging, but I might rethink that as it definitely looks better having stanchions.

 

I'm amazed that you got such a fine, thin coat of gold from a rattle can. After seeing yours it occurred to me to try a gold paint pen and wish I'd used that.

[Kevin-the-lubber]

I saw the discussion about the belay pins but not what was wrong with them?

[bcochran]

20 minutes ago, shipman said:

When the time comes to be belaying lines to the pins I would guess it would be prudent to be careful. A tad too much tension could easily snap a few off; remember it's only plastic.

I have two examples of the kit, one of which is the original UK issue (around 1962) with pre-painted hull, not only is the plastic on that one very brittle, it has dark brown swirls and smears as if the molten plastic wasn't mixed thoroughly.

 

Looking forward to your updates.

No pressure 😏

I have snapped a bunch of the belay pins off just painting and attaching the pin rails to the bulwarks,  I drilled out the place where they were and put in plastic rod.

[bcochran]

15 minutes ago, Kevin-the-lubber said:

I completely get that; I think for me, given that this is my first attempt to build a model properly (I'm not counting the parked Victory) and I simply don't yet know enough about the whole process, or sailing ships, it'll be enough to be able to look at it afterwards and feel it was a decent effort. Even at this stage there are things I'd do differently next time - my deck colour is one of them - it was intentional and I like it well enough, but doubt I'll go in this direction again, in part because I've learned a little about model painting along the way. 3D printing is just a tool, it allows me to learn from my mistakes and learn about the parts. Behind those finished items are a heck of a lot of binned versions and if I was building this straight out of the box I'd either have given up by now or been too embarrassed to maintain a build log. However, the 3D process itself can get quite boring and time-consuming as half the battle is finding ways to print what you design.

 

I'm also going to do the deadeyes and rigging from scratch as I don't like the kit parts at all. I wasn't going to do the stanchions to the pinrail, was going to more or less replicate the gussets as I'm fearful that the rails might not be strong enough for the rigging, but I might rethink that as it definitely looks better having stanchions.

 

I'm amazed that you got such a fine, thin coat of gold from a rattle can. After seeing yours it occurred to me to try a gold paint pen and wish I'd used that.

I am going to strop the deadeyes with wire which will be long enough to pass through the pin rail and waterway, where I will superglue them at both places, that way the pull or strain will not be on the pin rail,

[Kevin-the-lubber]

39 minutes ago, bcochran said:

I am going to strop the deadeyes with wire

I think I may do the same, I have some very thin wire which might work for this. Are the belay pins too long, short or just plain out of proportion, which is the impression I get from photos? I've made a load but haven't attached them to anything yet.

[shipman]

Another issue with the kit boards that the deadeyes and belay pins are mounted are at least double the width they are on the ship.

 

Another cunning feature is that the pins locate between the deadeyes, so they can be set back. I would suggest drilling holes for new pins at the same locations where the kit ones are is pure fiction.

 

I think you mentioned earlier about your marginal confidence tackling the rigging.

If this build has already had you pulling your hair out with frustration, you must realise what lies ahead is when the party truly begins. That is when you find out your real character. Rigging explores your personality. It helps if you are already predisposed to being highly strung.

[bcochran]

I’ve seen some completed wood Cutty Sark models online where most of the fittings, deck houses, monkey poop cabin are all out of proportion. The rigging may be correct or not I couldn’t say yet. But these are considered fine builds and reproductions of the real thing. 

 

My Cutty Sark will fall into that category because I don’t want to put in the time and effort to research and fix every item that is out of proportion and I lack the talent.  All the fun would be gone, and I’d feel I was on a quest or something. The search for the most accurate Revell Cutty Sark. That ain’t me.  I do admire those who do, though. Their work is amazing.

 

Once I entered a model airplane in a model contest. I did an exceptional job turning a not to detailed model into a very detailed one.  I did not know about dipping canopies into clear floor polish to get perfectly clear canopies. Mine were not clear, all the others were.  I was not even in the honorable mention. Boy did I feel dejected. Ever since, I developed the good enough for me attitude. If other people like it, that is icing on the cake.
 

As for the rigging, I am reading a lot about it. I like the idea of learning something new in my old age. I will be 76 next month. I understand there is a reason for every line, and knowing that I want to again represent “harbor” rigging just as I want to represent the bulwarks. Not to perfection, but pleasing to my eye.  Most of the people who would look at my finished model if it gets that far will see a bunch of string going this way and that, but I will know there is a method to that mess of string.

Edited April 30, 2022 by bcochran

[bcochran]

3 hours ago, Kevin-the-lubber said:

I think I may do the same, I have some very thin wire which might work for this. Are the belay pins too long, short or just plain out of proportion, which is the impression I get from photos? I've made a load but haven't attached them to anything yet.

I ordered from Amazon some 26 gauge white floral wire.  I think it would look good with black deadeyes on the pin rails.

[shipman]

I concur with your opinion of most of the wooden kit renditions, though I have no wish to denigrate the folk who build them.

Most (as an example) have planked bulwarks; they are sheet iron/steel on the ship.

In addition, the wood provided is appalling quality, the grain being open and out of scale.

 

By contrast the basic hull of the revel kit is pretty accurate, not withstanding obvious small detail issues which are easily remedied. As for the masts and spars, the fragility of the parts justifying scratch replacements in brass and wood.

On the ship the belay pins are iron, painted black. The deadeyes are made of that very hard wood, Lignum Vitae, which is a dark brown.

 

The often regarded as the bible 'plans' by Campbell, as someone here recently observed, aren't entirely accurate either.

As I understand it he was commissioned to do them to compliment the ships first public appearance at the Festival of Britain in the early 50's. He was employed by the London County Council engineering department. I have no idea what his connection was to maritime affairs before or after. It would be enlightening to hear more of his background, what his sources were (other than 'conversations' with surviving sailors of the period).

 

The original ships spec listed (naturally) accurate builders plans and a model. No trace of which survives.

We do know the decorative elements at bow and stern were originally far different to those on the ship now.

 

Like so much of history, there will be so much we'll never know.

 

[bcochran]

9 hours ago, shipman said:

I concur with your opinion of most of the wooden kit renditions, though I have no wish to denigrate the folk who build them.

Most (as an example) have planked bulwarks; they are sheet iron/steel on the ship.

In addition, the wood provided is appalling quality, the grain being open and out of scale.

 

By contrast the basic hull of the revel kit is pretty accurate, not withstanding obvious small detail issues which are easily remedied. As for the masts and spars, the fragility of the parts justifying scratch replacements in brass and wood.

On the ship the belay pins are iron, painted black. The deadeyes are made of that very hard wood, Lignum Vitae, which is a dark brown.

 

The often regarded as the bible 'plans' by Campbell, as someone here recently observed, aren't entirely accurate either.

As I understand it he was commissioned to do them to compliment the ships first public appearance at the Festival of Britain in the early 50's. He was employed by the London County Council engineering department. I have no idea what his connection was to maritime affairs before or after. It would be enlightening to hear more of his background, what his sources were (other than 'conversations' with surviving sailors of the period).

 

The original ships spec listed (naturally) accurate builders plans and a model. No trace of which survives.

We do know the decorative elements at bow and stern were originally far different to those on the ship now.

 

Like so much of history, there will be so much we'll never know.

 

As I am not going to materially change my Revell kit, you might say the Revell kit is my plan.  I have the Campbell plans and I like reading them.  I have mostly looked at photos of the ship in its wool days. I can imagine Woodget deciding for me what colors the ship should be. 

[bcochran]

Here are a few pics of the Revell USS Constitution I was working on before I started breaking parts off.  I could not get the deck to look the way I wanted. I detailed the gun deck, even though you can't see it.  I am anxious to do another one if and when my Cutty Sark is finished.  I keep the busted Constitution on hand for inspiration.

 

In my stash of large ship models, uncompleted are the Heller Victory, Santa Maria, the Revell Yacht America, Kearsarge, Constitution and Lindberg Sea Witch.

Edited May 1, 2022 by bcochran

[bcochran]

I put the HisModel brass "cutty Sark" on the wheelhouse.  It's held on with Pledge Floor Care liquid. It is basically a clear, thick acrylic liquid that is tacky until it dries. After it dried, I painted another coat of Pledge over it.  I am not sure how permanent it will be, but I won't be touching it.  I learned to use acrylic liquid, putting clear lenses on model cars and canopies on model planes.

[Ian_Grant]

13 hours ago, bcochran said:

<snip..snip>

In my stash of large ship models, uncompleted are the Heller Victory, Santa Maria, the Revell Yacht America, Kearsarge, Constitution and Lindberg Sea Witch.

Man, that's a lot of future work! The Heller Victory alone is a years-long effort for most.....happy modelling!

[Kevin-the-lubber]

10 minutes ago, bcochran said:

acrylic liquid, putting clear lenses on model cars and canopies on model planes

I like that (the wheelhouse). I got hold of a copy of Longridge and have been doing some reading up this weekend, usual case for me, make it, then read how I got it wrong. You're quite right about the colour scheme and I have a feeling the white on the cabins may give more shape and texture to the model. But I don't think I could face painting over my faux teak. Reading Longridge also explains a few oddities with the kit, such as the forward hatch being in the line of the chains, and there being one too many fife rails at the foremast. I'd make a mess of plugging the holes now so will probably leave it as is.

 

I've been in need of something like pledge; I can make very precise translucent windows etc, but would like a method to make them transparent, so I'll add this to the memory bank.

[Kevin-the-lubber]

13 hours ago, bcochran said:

Heller Victory, Santa Maria, the Revell Yacht America, Kearsarge, Constitution and Lindberg Sea Witch

I'm planning on doing the Kearsage after this, in between resuming work on the Victory. But I'll be content to complete the CS this year, if that's not too ambitious.

[bcochran]

47 minutes ago, Kevin-the-lubber said:

I like that (the wheelhouse). I got hold of a copy of Longridge and have been doing some reading up this weekend, usual case for me, make it, then read how I got it wrong. You're quite right about the colour scheme and I have a feeling the white on the cabins may give more shape and texture to the model. But I don't think I could face painting over my faux teak. Reading Longridge also explains a few oddities with the kit, such as the forward hatch being in the line of the chains, and there being one too many fife rails at the foremast. I'd make a mess of plugging the holes now so will probably leave it as is.

 

I've been in need of something like pledge; I can make very precise translucent windows etc, but would like a method to make them transparent, so I'll add this to the memory bank.

The white cabin and deck house panels were there during Cutty Sark's wool ship days.  I am pretty sure the panels were varnished teak during her tea clipper days and today. I don't know whose idea it was to paint them, but the reason, I understand, was to cut down on the labor it took to varnish all the teak. It is the same reason the masts were shortened, the spars were shortened, and the stunt sail booms were taken off. So it depends on what period you want to model, since the Cutty Sark's appearance changed over its life.

 

I am trying to model her during the late 1880's when she set most of her speed records. Also, during that time all the spars, wood masts and bowsprit were painted black. So that's how I will model her, no stunt sail booms and black spars, wood masts and bowsprit boom.

 

I am no expert on the Cutty Sark so what I am saying I got from other people online and from pictures taken in the 1880's.  I don't know if Revell's masts and spars represent the cut down versions or not.  I guess you could measure them if you can convert 1/96 measurements to feet and inches.

Edited May 2, 2022 by bcochran

[bcochran]

45 minutes ago, Ian_Grant said:

Man, that's a lot of future work! The Heller Victory alone is a years-long effort for most.....happy modelling!

I probably will not finish them.  I am coming close to the end of my time to model.

[shipman]

The 'Pledge' used to be called 'Future'; aircraft modellers dip canopies in it, which makes them perfectly clear.

Not sure how good it is as a 'glue'.

 

This Microscale product is brilliant for clear windows. It's a sort of PVA.

There again, I've used ordinary PVA and got the same results.

 

Glad you brought this up, as it seems ideal for attaching the bow and stern etch, though I have no idea how to hold the etch in place while the stuff sets.

 

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=microscale+crystal+clear

 

Again, I feel Longridge is as good a source as you'll find. It's worth remembering he did his own research in the 1920's when she was still afloat and had the opportunity to crawl all over the ship.

[Kevin-the-lubber]

Microscale - which reminds me - did you make the decals yourself?