HMS Endurance 1/70 Scale by OCCRE

[SaltyScot]

Guys,

 

I have read in a couple of blogs that this kit requires some "kit bashing" in order to be compleyed. I was happy to find it on the OCCRE site but is it going to be worth the investment? If and when I complete this model, it will be proudly displayed here in our home on the bay so it needs to look good (yes, I realize that a lot of that depends on me building it correctly). 

 

I would really appreciate any input from those who have had some experience with this particular kit. Thanks all and a very Happy New Year to each and every one of you.

[ccoyle]

I don't know exactly what you've read, but I suspect the bashing is only necessary to make the model more historically accurate, since OcCre kits tend to incorporate a lot of simplified and/or off-the-shelf fittings. It should also make an attractive model out-of-the-box, if that's the route you choose.

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

The first Endurance build log on MSW I followed was by Hake Zou, and he built it pretty much 'out of the box' and made a good looking model.  Other builders have added their own logs with a few (or a lot) of modifications.  You can have a look at them as well and pick and choose among any alterations that have been made ... or not.  I did a kit review and found Occre's Endurance a good value.  The builder doesn't have to deal with guns, gun ports, large numbers of yards, complex rigging or copper plating the underside.  If you only substituted 'scale rope' (not costly) for the rigging, and perhaps looked at Hake's rigging suggestions, you'd likely appreciate the results.      Fair Sailing !      Snug

[ccoyle]

5 hours ago, SaltyScot said:

I would really appreciate any input

 

I also moved your topic to the correct area.

[hornet]

I recently completed the Endurance. I found a number of problems. The funnel was the incorrect shape. Belaying pins supplied were too big. Supplied rope was not always to scale, only two sizes of deadeyes when more sizes would have allowed for more accurate representation. Anchor chain also out of scale(links too small)  Portholes on side of cabin were out of scale (too small) Propeller had 3 blades and should have only had two. Supplied flag incorrect. Should have been a blue ensign not a white ensign. I wouldn’t recommend this kit to you if you were keen on historical accuracy. 

Edited Thursday at 03:13 AM by hornet

[SaltyScot]

10 hours ago, hornet said:

I recently completed the Endurance. I found a number of problems. The funnel was the incorrect shape. Belaying pins supplied were too big. Supplied rope was not always to scale, only two sizes of deadeyes when more sizes would have allowed for more accurate representation. Anchor chain also out of scale(links too small)  Portholes on side of cabin were out of scale (too small) Propeller had 3 blades and should have only had two. Supplied flag incorrect. Should have been a blue ensign not a white ensign. I wouldn’t recommend this kit to you if you were keen on historical accuracy. 

 

This is great info, thank you. I had considered purchasing this kit and your input here has helped a lot regarding that decision.

[GrandpaPhil]

Also, never forget that a kit can make a wonderful baseline to build from.

 

When I build from a kit, I always have the expectation that I will be doing some scratch building to make it exactly what I want.

 

Occre’s Endurance has been on my wishlist since it came out after reading about Shackleton’s trip and amazing survival.

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

   Hornet's comments may apply to many of the moderately priced kits Occre sells, e.g: belaying pins that seem "fat" and out of scale (also too short for the scale they're in - presumably to avoid them breaking);  'average' rigging line supplied - which is par for the course in a majority of kits from many sources;  not enough sizes of deadeyes (also they are white, so one must stain them dark) - also not uncommon in other kits;  Hull lines vary in places from the known lines (not uncommon in many kits, but not hard to correct if desired);  wrong size portholes for cabins (actually they are brass grommets - passible for the deck house, but the long stern cabin had no surface mounted portholes on the sides, just holes in the planking because the portholes were recessed) ... I could go on, but sacrifices were made to keep the price around $200 (varies depending on source).

 

  If the Endurance is is what someone WANTS to build out of interest in it, then the choice is between the only kit offered as a good base (as Grandpa Phil noted) to do with whatever level of accuracy desired (and some upgrade items will be purchased) ... OR they can do it from scratch for themself, with old kits (intact or partly built) as a source of some materials.  If someone is looking for greater accuracy of some other ship all 'in the box' (regardless of which ship it happens to be, the object being to start a project without having to change much of anything), then a thorough researching of MSW kit reviews and builds is recommended before making any decision.  But 'better' kits ... and a lot elsewhere has been asked and pondered elsewhere in our forum as to "what's the best kit"... will likely cost more to buy, and may still need a few 'upgrades' to get closer to 'authentic' - realizing that most ships went through configuration changes during their life.

 

  One should decide WHICH 'version' of a particular ship one is to build, based on what it was doing at a particular time (thus how it was configured THEN).  E.g:  There is the Polaris before it was converted and renamed Endurance, the Endurance as modified when it left England for South America (uncovered steering mechanism and no dog kennels yet), the Endurance when it left South America for Antartica, and the Endurance stuck on the ice where it was further modified for the Winter.  The 'look' will be somewhat different for each version.