Model ship kits through history

[grsjax]

While trying to find some information on an old kit I had the thought that someone might want to make a list of all the old manufactures and kits.  Old catalogs and advertisements would seem to be the best sources of information.  I don't have the time for it but I would be happy to contribute a couple of older catalogs to anyone who wanted to under take something like that.

[navarcus]

Bluejacket had a carved-out tug hull model that was fun to build.

The yellow box Fair American (solid hull) was good and I think better than the present one.

Aeropiccola's thermo-plastic wood-dust-waffles for carvings and sterns were and are still the best solution.

Sometimes the good old days were better.

[ccoyle]

13 hours ago, grsjax said:

someone might want to make a list of all the old manufactures and kits

 

As one of my college professors used to say, "Sounds like there's a thesis in there."

[MrBlueJacket]

42 minutes ago, ccoyle said:

 

As one of my college professors used to say, "Sounds like there's a thesis in there."

And a long one at that. BlueJacket alone has over 80 current kits, and 100's more from the past.

[grsjax]

A really good start would be if manufactures published a list of out of production kits.

[MrBlueJacket]

46 minutes ago, grsjax said:

A really good start would be if manufactures published a list of out of production kits.

That would be nice, but it would take hours of work that doesn't generate any revenue. With the state of the economy, it's just not practical.

[Bob Cleek]

8 hours ago, MrBlueJacket said:

BlueJacket alone has over 80 current kits, and 100's more from the past.

Perhaps Mr. BluJacket can answer a question that's been niggling my mind for some time: What happened to the solid-hull ship model kits. Time was, all kits were solid hull, roughed out on carving duplicating machines. I know there some of these duplicating carving machines that ended up in post-war surplus sales. They'd been used to produce rifle stocks back in the day when the military issued quality hand-fettled machined firearms instead of stamped metal and plastic like today. I heard they were dandy for shaping ship model hulls. Like mank oldsters, I cut my teeth and then some on those solid hull models.

 

Somewhere along the line, the solid hulls started to disappear and be replaced by plank on bulkhead and plank on frame models. The frist POF models I can recall were open framed models produced by Bluejacket, I believe. I remember a model of America designed by Portia Takakjian, I think, that yielded a model in the quasi-Admiralty Board style with open frames below the waterline which was beautiful. That was understandable, but I never got the point of planking a model hull that wasn't intended to show open frames. Today, it seems every kit is POB or POF with single or double planking, even the iron ships. I can't see any reason why anybody would ever want to plank up a hull that wasn't going to show partial construction details. I pity the poor novice modelers who struggle with planking when there's no reason for them to do so. 

 

Do you know why this affinity for POF and POB hull construction has crowded out the solid hull kits?  Did the old duplicating carving machines wear out? Is a flat box much less expensive to stock and ship?  Were the planked hulls more attractive to people who buy ship model kits (who aren't always nor perhaps not even often, people who know anything about ship modeling? Enquiring minds want to know. 

 

 

[Roger Pellett]

Some idle speculation regarding Bob’s question.

 

The old standbys; AJ Fisher, Model Shipways, etc. offered solid hull kits of subjects based on solid research, particularly the availability of accurate hull lines.  With solid hulls a skilled craftsman was not constrained by the way planks wanted to bend around widely spaced bulkheads. This allowed accurate reproduction of subtle hull shapes.  These kits could and did produce beautiful models of mostly American subjects.

 

In the 1970’s we were invaded by a host of awful POB model kits usually of European manufacture.  This is not just my opinion.  The then Editor of the Nautical Research Journal published a lengthy article titled Piracy on the High C’s decrying the poor quality of these imported kits.  These kits were supported by a first class marketing program.  The subjects, often fictitious, were more exciting than the staid offerings offered by the old American Companies as they often offered  “hook” to a recognized Nautical event.  Why are there so many Titanic kits and so few if any SS United States kits?  The kits also made the nonsensical claim that constructing a POB hull was just like building the real thing.  These kits have improved over the years and several new companies now offer POB kits that build into beautiful, accurate models expanding the appeal of the hobby.  Unfortunately several of the old companies did not improve their offerings and have lost market appeal.

 

A notable exception would appear to be Bluejacket.  They offer POB kits, the POF kits that Bob mentioned, and Solid Hull kits.  Their new USS Olympia kit is Solid hull and they presently have a Solid hull Coast Guard vessel under development.

 

And last, a recent photo of an AJ Fisher kit completed over 80 years by my father.  A solid hill kit; 1:96 scale.

 

 

 

Edited July 8, 2023 by Roger Pellett

[alross2]

2 hours ago, Roger Pellett said:

 

 

A notable exception would appear to be Bluejacket.  They offer POB kits, the POF kits that Bob mentioned, and Solid Hull kits.  Their new USS Olympia kit is Solid hull and they presently have a Solid hull Coast Guard vessel under development.

 

 

 

 

The next BJ kit, a 1/192 scale NS SAVANNAH (which I have already started) will also be a solid hull.  The bulk of the superstructure will comprise lifts, so essentially it will be solid, as well.

[MrBlueJacket]

One of the most relevant reasons for the loss of solid hulls is that they are labor intensive and expensive to produce, compared with POB laser cutting. The cost of the basswood boards is also more than the cost of the sheets required to produce bulkheads.

 

Our POF models of the America and Jefferson Davis start out as solid hulls which we then slice like a loaf of bread. that technique was invented and patented by Art Montgomery. who owned BlueJacket in the 1980's.  It is very expensive, since you have the cost of a solid hull and the cost of slicing it.

[Cathead]

Speaking just for myself, and for the sake of argument, I'd generally rather plank a bulkhead hull than deal with a rough-cut solid hull. To me, if the bulkheads are reasonably accurate, the natural run of the planks creates a reasonable hull shape. If the planking isn't meant to be seen, then it doesn't have to be perfect and is easy to finish using filler. In comparison, getting a solid hull right means manually getting every inch of the hull shape right, which the natural curve of planking does for you on a bulkhead model. It also strikes me as easer for scratchbuilding, since you can take station lines off a plan and, again, let the planks do the rest, rather than trying to manage every square inch of a solid wood surface.

 

And while rough planking isn't the same as "how the real thing was built", it's a lot closer than sanding down a block of wood! Even my earliest attempts at planking taught me quite a bit about the geometry and physics of bending wood, inspiring an interest to know more. Whereas shaping a solid hull feels more like making a Dutch shoe.

 

I can easily see how things might be different for more modern vessels with, as Roger says, complex hull shapes that don't have the simple lines of a traditional wooden sailing vessel.

 

Interesting economic perspective from Mr. BlueJacket, thank you.

[Bob Cleek]

1 hour ago, Cathead said:

Speaking just for myself, and for the sake of argument, I'd generally rather plank a bulkhead hull than deal with a rough-cut solid hull. To me, if the bulkheads are reasonably accurate, the natural run of the planks creates a reasonable hull shape. If the planking isn't meant to be seen, then it doesn't have to be perfect and is easy to finish using filler. In comparison, getting a solid hull right means manually getting every inch of the hull shape right, which the natural curve of planking does for you on a bulkhead model. It also strikes me as easer for scratchbuilding, since you can take station lines off a plan and, again, let the planks do the rest, rather than trying to manage every square inch of a solid wood surface.

Everybody's mileage differs, I suppose. Having built hulls using both methods, I've found shaping a "bread and butter" built hull, let alone a pre-shaped solid hull, is far easier than POF or POB. You are correct that "the natural curve of the planking" is helpful in "getting every inch of the hull shape right. So also does a suitably sized batten with sandpaper glued to it spring into a fair curve in exactly the same way planking strip wood does. Moreover, after one has done anything but a perfect planking job on frames or bulkheads, the hull must be slathered with some sort of plaster or filler putty and then sanded fair in exactly the same manner as a solid wood hull anyhow. As for scratchbuilding, one can take station or waterlines off a plan, cut them to shape, and stack them up to form the stepped shape of the hull which then requires only "knocking the steps off" to achieve a perfectly shaped hull identical to the drawn lines. Just sayin'.

 

In point of fact, the old "pre-carved" solid hull models weren't all that "rough-cut." I can't remember ever seeing one that wasn't shaped to the point where all it really required was finish sanding to smooth without any serious shaping other than sometimes carving rails or stems, etc. thinner because they were left thick so as not to be damaged in shipping. Bottom line, finish sanding the old "pre-carved" hulls really wasn't any more work that sanding a planked hull covered with filler to hide a multitude of sins.

 

Even where one is interested in "showing the planking," whether it be finished "bright" or painted, it is far easier to glue very thin "planks" made of wood shavings from a plane or pieces of paper or card stock to a solid hull than to attempt to shape the much thicker scale plank stock to form a hull "the way the real ship was built." 

 

Additionally, with the exception of fully-framed "Admiralty Board style" models and those intended to depict the subject vessel's interior, as with open boats, most all museums and major collections limit their acquisitions to solid hull ship models.

 

I do believe Mr. BlueJacket's explanation that POB and POF kits have come to predominate on the kit market is simply because they are a lot cheaper to produce, particularly with modern laser-cutting technology. The tradeoff is that they are a lot more work to construct and that's passed on the to the consumer.

Edited July 8, 2023 by Bob Cleek

[grsjax]

2 hours ago, Bob Cleek said:

 

In point of fact, the old "pre-carved" solid hull models weren't all that "rough-cut."

Actually I have had a few solid hull kits that looked like the hull had been hacked out of a billet of wood with a hatchet.  Some of the old Model Shipways yellow box kits were that way and some of the older kit from other manufactures required a lot of work to shape.

[Roger Pellett]

PEric,

 

 You will get an  accurate hull from a POB kit provided the manufacturer provides enough bulkheads to force the planking to assume the required shape.

 

I assume that museum’s policies of limiting acquisition of models to solid wood hulls is because they are unsure of the longevity of the planking.  This may change if POB models prove to be durable.

 

Roger

 

 

Edited July 8, 2023 by Roger Pellett

[Bob Cleek]

2 hours ago, grsjax said:

Actually I have had a few solid hull kits that looked like the hull had been hacked out of a billet of wood with a hatchet.  Some of the old Model Shipways yellow box kits were that way and some of the older kit from other manufactures required a lot of work to shape.

I never had that experience. It musta been my clean livin' that done it for me.  

[Bob Cleek]

58 minutes ago, Roger Pellett said:

I assume that museum’s policies of limiting acquisition of models to solid wood hulls is because they are unsure of the longevity of the planking.  This may change if POB models prove to be durable.

 

"Hulls shall be built up in lifts of clear, first-grade mahogany or basswood; doweled and glued together with water-resistant glue. The wood shall be completely free of knots, checks, and sap pockets and shall be thoroughly seasoned. Models over 12 inches beam must be hollowed for reduction of weight The hull shall be composed of the least number of parts necessary to achieve the proper shape. An excessive number of glue joints shall be avoided. On models less than 12 inches beam, hull lifts shall be cut to the full body shape: lifts shall not be cut in halves, thereby creating a glue seam along the vertical centerline of the model. The lifts shall conform accurately to lines of the vessel as shown by the plans. A stable, durable, flexible body putty may be used in moderation to fill gaps."

 

Specifications for Construction of Exhibition Models of U.S. Naval Vessels, Curator of Models, U.S. Navy

 

Nautical Research Guild - Article - Specifications for Construction of Exhibition Models of U.S. Naval Vessels (thenrg.org)

 

Perhaps so, but I expect their primary concern is plank movement and the development of paint cracking along the plank seams.

[navarcus]

If I remember correctly, part of the genius of Art Montgomery's POF America

was that the company got two kits from one loaf of bread. Every other slice

of the carved hull was in one kit and vice versa. Lovely kit to build.

[Cathead]

15 hours ago, Roger Pellett said:

You will get an  accurate hull from a POB kit provided the manufacturer provides enough bulkheads to force the planking to assume the required shape.

Absolutely, but this speaks more to the quality of the manufacturer/kit than to the style of the kit. You'll get a more accurate hull from a manufacturer who produces a well designed/produced POB or solid-hull kit, and you'll get a less accurate hull from a manufacturer who produces a sloppy version of either. And in either case the modeler can always improve a sloppy kit with enough work.

 

Everyone's personal experience is certainly valid. Mine has been that I find POB easier, more intuitive, more enjoyable, and more educational than solid-hull.

[MrBlueJacket]

11 hours ago, navarcus said:

If I remember correctly, part of the genius of Art Montgomery's POF America

was that the company got two kits from one loaf of bread. Every other slice

of the carved hull was in one kit and vice versa. Lovely kit to build.

Absolutely. An America kit would have either a frame set labeled A-B-C... or 1-2-3... as we still do today. The keel is labeled A 1 B 2 C 3 etc.

[Roger Pellett]

With all due respect to the Navy’s ship model experts, they need to specify what first-grade mahogany actually is.  Woods called mahogany can vary from hard dense to stringy nasty stuff; completely different species.

 

Roger

[Bob Cleek]

46 minutes ago, Roger Pellett said:

With all due respect to the Navy’s ship model experts, they need to specify what first-grade mahogany actually is.  Woods called mahogany can vary from hard dense to stringy nasty stuff; completely different species.

 

Roger

Given the time when that standard was created, I have little doubt they were referring to "genuine" mahogany which is also known as "Honduran mahogany.". Honduran Mahogany | The Wood Database (Hardwood) (wood-database.com) Honduran or "genuine" mahogany refers collectively to the larger Swietenia macrophylla which grows in Central and South America and is also now plantation-farmed in parts of India, the smaller Swietenia humilis which grows from southern Mexico to northern Central America, and Swietania mahagoni which is native to Florida and there listed as "threatened" and the greater Caribbean where it is listed as "near threatened" but with some very limited commercial availability from transplanted plantation stands in Palau and Fiji. [Interesting trivia fact: Swietania mahagoni or "Cuban mahogany" was cut to near extinction in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries by Spanish shipbuilders. Many capital ships of the Spanish Armada were built exclusively of West Indies mahogany. This species was favored because it was believed to be impervious to decay and "buried" shot in battle, rather than splintering, which was the greatest cause of battle casualties.  When these large ships were broken up, their timbers were recycled to produce the fine furniture of those periods. Just imagine how much of the finest mahogany ever known to man was cut to build Spain's ships!)

 

The problem is that mahogany is graded not by number ("first grade") but by letters: ("Grade A" through "Grade F.") Guide to Mahogany Grades: Understanding the Differences in Quality - Hardwood Insider (hardwood-insider.com) Mahogany is also graded as a hardwood under the "firsts and seconds" (FAS) system which doesn't bear any relationship to a "first grade" at all.

 

The mahogany grades are basically based on the visual quality of the wood. "Grade A" mahogany is the highest furniture grade. "Grade F" is the least visually attractive grade. So the question remains: What is "first grade" mahogany. It would appear to me that Grade F mahogany would be completely suitable for solid hull model construction of models that were to be painted. Nobody should care about the figuring of a piece of mahogany that is going to be painted. Who knows? The "Mil-spec" world is full of mysteries like thousand dollar hammers and toilet seats!  

[Roger Pellett]

Thanks Bob,

 

I have a piece of genuine mahogany in my shop ready to be made into a ship model case.  It’s nice stuff.  

 

When I was in engineering school the model shop that produced models for the towing tank (now called the hydrodynamics lab) used beautiful clear pine, also called pattern makers pine.  These were all what we called “Solid hull” models although they were built up from laminated lifts with the center sections cut out. These models were quite large.  Our senior design project was design of a tanker with a hinge in the center of the hull to reduce bending stresses.  To test this we built an 8’ long model that could be tested with and without the hinge to determine the difference in resistance.  I am surprised that the Navy specs don’t allow this type of pine.

 

Roger

[Bob Cleek]

1 hour ago, Roger Pellett said:

I am surprised that the Navy specs don’t allow this type of pine.

 

Especially when they permit basswood along with mahogany! Maybe they need to update their specifications. Maybe they have and we're just relying on some old data. Nothing ever dies on the internet!  

[mtaylor]

4 hours ago, Bob Cleek said:

Especially when they permit basswood along with mahogany! Maybe they need to update their specifications. Maybe they have and we're just relying on some old data. Nothing ever dies on the internet!  

I'd amend that slightly....  the military in the US is 200 years of tradition unhampered by progress.   

[Bob Cleek]

7 hours ago, mtaylor said:

I'd amend that slightly....  the military in the US is 200 years of tradition unhampered by progress.   

Damn! You're absolutely right. I'd forgotten about that for a while.