Best Plastic Ship Model - Your opinion

Modeling Subjects Ships
21

Rod - Thanks. I should have included the “Elizabethan Man-O-War”; I’ll go back and edit the list. (That’s one of the many great things about this forum: it’s possible to cheat. The Drydock Models forum won’t let you edit your posts after somebody else has replied to them.) It think, though, that it’s a reissue of the small Mayflower rather than the Golden Hind. (Here, as usual, I’m going by Mr. Graham’s book.)

I think the Nina and Pinta are reboxes of Heller kits. Heller did all three of Columbus’s ships in the late sixties; the Nina and Pinta shared the same hull, but there were enough other differences between them to keep that from being obvious. There was some sort of corporate relationship between Heller and Revell during the eighties, I think. I recall fairly distinctly seeing, among other shared kits, a Revell Flying Cloud in a Heller box.

I think you’re right about the Lindberg origins of the Sovereign of the Seas. (Lindberg may have gotten the mold from Pyro; I’m not sure. There was also - briefly - an Aurora one.) I have a very vague recollection of that “Flying Dutchman” kit. It surely was a reissue of something else - but I can’t remember what. Anybody else remember it?

22

Jtilley you are correct The Revell Elizabethan is a redo of the Mayflower.They re-did the stern removed the flower decoration and added open gunports.Also Theres a large E R
decal for the mainsail and hull decoration decals.
Rod

23

I’ve always been partial to Tamiya’s 1:350 Missouri because of the historic ship, the impressive scale and the wealth of aftermarket details available. I like their entire series in that scale, in fact, but I’ll still put the ICM Konig and Grosser Kurfurst in second place because they are so well cast and fit. But if I ran the zoo, I’d have someone put out a 1:200 scale of either SMS Seydlitz or SMS Von der Tann. I do have VDT in that scale as a card model, but I’d rather have it in plastic with a full hull to boot.

24

Jtilley,

Thanks for all the info on the Revell models. I’ve been away from the forum due to work (don’t you hate when that gets in the way of hobbies?) but do have a few questions for you/other readers:

Has anyone built the Revell AG Batavia? Is that a decent kit? She’s waiting on my shelf for time… By the way, the book “Batavia’s Graveyard” is a great historical read on the wreck of this ship.

Ditto the Revell AG Nao model, can’t remember the name, think it is called the San Marcos? Recent issue.

I’ve been curious about the Revell Nina and Pinta origins: I thought that those were listed as 1/90 scale on the box, which is substantially smaller than Heller’s 1/75th scale? I’ve built the Heller kits, and they are a fairly decent representation of 15th century caravels in various rigs. The longboat leaves a lot to be desired though!

Thanks for the clarification on the Revell Golden Hind and Mayflower kits. Yes, the Golden Hind is definitly a great kit. I’ll have to get Mr. Graham’s book, as the information you provided from it was fascinating. I was aware of the Mayflower II origins of the kits, and have the Bicentennial edition of the larger 24" Mayflower waiting to be built. On a side note on that one, it is amazing what a little common sense can do for historical accuracy. As you probably recall, when the Mayflower II was launched, she had a pretty elaborate paint scheme with multi-colored triangles, etc. I always wondered why a merchant captain would spend that kind of money on a fairly old ship when the main object was to make money, and paintwork costs. If you’ve seen recent pictures of Mayflower II, she has a much more (IMHO) realistic paint scheme, much simpler to apply.

You are correct on the reissue of the Lindberg “Flying Dutchman”. I actually saw some open box pictures on eBay about a year or more ago, and recognized the contents. Of course, my advanced stages of CRS don’t allow me to recall now what it was I recognized… :frowning:

ERic

25

If you look at the question with an eye on popularity of kits as well as quality or historic significance, over the years and recently, I think it might stack up like this;

  1. Tamiya 1/350 Missouri
  2. Revell Cutty Sark
  3. Tamiya 1/350 Yamato
  4. ICM 1/350 Konig
  5. Lindberg Blue Devil Destroyer
26

Micronaut - I haven’t built either of those Revell Germany kits - or, for that matter, seen them first-hand. I’ve drifted away from plastic sailing vessels during the past few years - not out of any disrespect for them, but simply because I’ve gotten involved in other stuff. I think the Revell Germany Nina and Pinta are indeed reissues of the Heller kits, but I’m not sure. My recollection of those kits (which I bought many years ago, when Heller kits were sold in the U.S. under the Minicraft label) is that they were generic enough to pass as either 1/75 or 1/90. The two shared the same basic hull halves, if I remember right. Not bad little kits by any means, but the structure of such vessels was so simple, and we know so little about the prototypes’ dimensions, that there’s not a whole lot to determine the scale.

I’ve got a CD-ROM set of the National Geographic, which covered the transatlantic voyage of the Mayflower II extensively. I’ll get it out and take a look at the pictures. I don’t recall that she ever had the triangular color scheme - but I could well be mistaken. My recollection is that the three “Jamestown ships” built in the fifties were painted that way. I believe the basis for the scheme is the Matthew Baker Manuscript, at Cambridge. There are so few contemporary renditions of ships from that period that every one becomes important, and gets used over and over.

MBT 70 - We’d better be careful about evaluating ship model kits on the basis of popularity. You’re probably right about the Lindberg “Blue Devil,” which, I imagine, has been sold in the tens of thousands - despite the fact that it’s ludicrously inaccurate. I suspect the best-selling ship kit of all time is the Revell 1/535 Iowa-class battleship, which originally appeared in 1954 and, incredibly, is still in the Revell-Monogram catalog. (At last count that catalog contained seven ship kits. Count 'em - seven.) In terms of accuracy, fit, and practically every other criterion it’s one of the worst plastic kits ever made, but I imagine it’s sold in the millions.

27

jtilley,

Sad, but true on all counts. The Blue Devil is impressive by size alone and really lacks detail and accurate scale. The 1/535 Missouri barely rates as a toy, much less a scale model. And Tamiya’s 1/350 battleshjips are popular and fairly well cast, but it took GMM and a few other aftermarket kits to make them what they should be in the first place. Perhaps that’s why multi-media kits are coming into vogue so fast and strong … more details in the box already.

Good points and well taken

28

As you say, the hull and deck mouldings of the Imai kits were indeed remarkably thick and sturdy, the plastic was usually in a ‘wood’ colour and even had a sort of grain effect. It did appear to have a metallic content so perhaps this was some kind of additive to help solve the shrinkage problems. I assembled the hull and decks of the Imai Santa Maria recently and the finished hull is probably the strongest (and heaviest for size) of any model I’ve ever built (other than perhaps Imai’s own HMS Victory with the die-cast metal hull!). Carefully treated and stained it would be almost impossible to tell from wood. Warpage of parts is a problem I’ve often found in Heller kits particularly - I once built the Viking ship and I’d swear the only thing the two hull halves had in common was their colour!

Another feature which I appreciate on Imai’s kits is that the planking on the hull is varied from port to starboard, rather than one being a mirror image of the other. Being moulded in various colours is a nice touch too. While no modeller worth his salt would leave it unpainted, an attractive model could still be produced that way.

I’ve just acquired the Imai 1:120 Cutty Sark and the kit is everything you have said. I was lucky to get it at a reasonable cost but on examination I’m now reluctant to build it as it’s practically mint-&-boxed perfect. I suppose I’ll have to look for an Aoshima version so I can actually build one. I only wish the Imai came with sails - and I don’t mean the dreaded vac-forms - something to replicate the furled sails on the yards would have been nice though. Any suggestions?

Michael

29

I thought the Tamiya 1/350 scale Fletcher Class DD was an excellent kit.

I also like the Revell S-100 in 1/72 scale and the Tamaiya MTB in 1/72nd scale was awsome.

30

I’ve built a lot of ships in time, but there’s just something special about the ICM Konig kit that really pleases me. It’s a good-looking ship for a subject, just for starters … nice and gnarly but with a statuesque dignity befitting it’s time and it was hi-tech in its day. The kit captures that very well, but also has a very good fit and the parts are cast very well with lots of detail. The plastic seems somehow unique, sort of like fine ivory and everything goes together so well.

Mine is about half done and it’s in the configuration and colors for the sad trip to internment and scuttling at Scapa Flow. I’m also going to rust and weather it extensivley, since the High Seas Fleet was laid up nearly inactive at Kiel for the years after Jutland. A sorrowful end for a majestic ship.

But strangely compelling …

31

MJH - We had an interesting discussion of the furled sail problem some time back. I’ve moved that thread to p. 1 of the Forum; it should appear on the list just below this one. It’s titled “Real Cloth Sails?”

I think the trick I described in that thread would work great on the Imai/Aoshima Cutty Sark. The thread contains links to some pictures of my model of the frigate Hancock, which is on almost exactly the same scale.

Good luck.

32

Plastic… I haven’t done much in plastic recently, but the Aurora Whale Ship Wanderer kit appears to have been done in 1:87 scale, at least the hull measures exactly with a 1:87 scale ruler. I have photos of Wanderer underway, and with the whale handling tackle in use, and don’t have a problem making new masts, and spars for the kit. The preassembled dead eyes and lanyards will be trashed also, and properly built up. There’s enough about the kit that’s good, that I’ll give it my vote.

Pete

33

I bought that old Aurora Wanderer many years ago - when it was originally released, I think. So my memories of it are subject to the usual limitations of Halfzeimer’s-afflicted memory. What I recollect most clearly were the hideous injection-molded “sails” that were molded integrally with the yards. The “sails” were, even within the limitations of injection molding, weird. (The “seams” and “ropes” molded into them, if I remember correctly, took the form of raised lines on the fronts of the sails and grooves on the backs. On an injection-molded part that makes no sense whatever - but it’s the way a vacuum-formed “sail” normally looks. I have a suspicion that those “sails” were pirated from the vac-formed ones in a Revell kit - probably the Thermopylae.) And as I remember the hulls of the whaleboats - vital components of any whaler model - were so distorted as to be caricatures of the real things. (Maybe just barely believable as Azores whaleboats, but not as New England ones.) The basic details and shapes weren’t bad (the hull and deck parts featured countersunk detail, as I recall), and I’m sure it could be made into an eminently respectable scale model. I have to say, though, that I have trouble giving a high rating to a kit about 50 percent of which has to go in the trash.

One of my favorite plastic sailing ship kits is the old Revell whaler Charles W. Morgan. It’s on a considerably smaller scale than the Aurora offering, and it suffers from many of the weak points that are common to all such kits. (If I were doing it today I’d probably replace the upper spars with wood or brass.) The shapes of the whaleboats were beautiful - though Revell insisted, for some reason, on putting interior details in only a couple of them. (The others were provided with vac-formed “covers,” unlike anything that normally would be found on a real whaleboat.) The “combo units” used to represent the deadeyes and lanyards weren’t great, but they were in my opinion about the most successful attempt at representing such parts that any plastic kit manufacturer has made yet. And such things as the “wood grain” of the hull and deck planking, and the “bricks” of the tryworks, were among the most subtly done details I’ve ever seen on a plastic kit. I’d put that one on my short list of candidates for “favorite ship kit.”

Unfortunately the Revell Charles W. Morgan, like so many other excellent plastic sailing ship kits of yore, is just about extinct. If you find one on e-bay or at a swap meet, my heartfelt advice is - grab it. It’s a classic.

34

jtilley;

Thanks for pointing out the stuff on furled sail-making. I’ve copied it out and will study it at leisure. It might also be useful for finishing the Airfix Great Western which I also recently acquired.

Michael

35

Revell’s Charles W. Morgan was a fun build and I remember building several others around that time that came in similar sized boxes, including something that I painted with a white bottom that, as a youngster, I thought looked very cool. For the life of me, I cannot remember that “series” of kits.

I do remember building Aurora’s whaler of the same name; it was a disaster, even for a young kid. Just for fun I was going to propose adding a worst kit to this string. The sails were heavy plastic, molded to the yards. It was difficult enough to glue the yards to the masts with all that extra weight. Making the rigging and sails look like they were under the influence of the same wind was nigh impossible. I gooned that one pretty badly. I liked building whalers, though. Lots of topside clutter, boats and tall masts.

Revell’s America, which I built as “Civil War Blockader” was one I’d really like to have another shot at. It was the first kit I managed to keep a light enough touch on to really show off the model’s beautiful lines. I even made those vacuum-formed sails look halfway decent (but not accurate) with a gray wash and a hot sewing needle.

Tamiya’s 1/350 battleships are highly competitive for the prize. I’d sure like to see them do a current LSD, LPD and LHD.

36

jtilley;

Given your past comments about the nature of IMAI’s model ship kits I thought you might be interested in some comments from the manufacturer themselves. The following is scanned and OCR’d directly from a leaflet I found in my two oldest kits, Santa Maria and the Galeass, and so is in the rather quaint “Japlish” that was such a feature of Japanese kits of the era.

The reference to “styrofoam” may simply mean polystyrene or it may even refer to the unusual type of plastic IMAI used, which we’ve commented on before.

The item goes on to descibe ways and means of giving the models a metallic (i.e. gold, silver or patina’d bronze) appearance.

I hope you find it interesting.

Michael

EXPLANATION ABOUT IMAI’S CLASSIC SAILING SHIP SERIES
Each kit of IMAI’s Classic Sail Ship series is modelled in quite different way from the existing sail ship kits produced by other manufacturers. Upto nowadays, meaning of assembling plastic kit was to give pleasure to modellers in assembling processes. On the contrary, IMAI’s sail ship kits were designed and merchandised so that not only modeller hut surrounding people can share in enjoying pleasure in seeing workmanship of the model after completed.

FEATURES:
1. Each kit was designed to be extremely easy to assemble so that as many as people can make it, and at the same time, they can know enchantment of sail ships and pleasure in assembling, and further can enjoy pleasure in completing it and can be proud of displaying his completed model.
2. To evaluate appreciation value after completion, each kit was designed to emphasize uniqueness of the original model, namely, factors such as simplicity, elegance, gorgeousness and stoutness. Thus, designation was made to represent uniqueness and comprehensive beauty of each model.
3. Since the existing sail ship kits produced by other manufacturers are very complicated and difficult to assemble, many of them are rather
fragile and are not suitable as ornament models in the matter of endurance. In view of this, IMAI’s sail ship kits are designed to make very stout models.
4. We also took it into our consideration that workmanship of model make good enough even without painting as relative injection moulds have wood grain encarving and styrofoam is used as main material.
5. We designed these models to, make artistic objects by painting in bronze tone or gold. (You can paint your built-up IMAI’s sail ship model in your own favourite way as you like it just like oil-painting.)

37

Very interesting indeed! I confess I don’t have much inclination to make my models into “artistic objects by painting in bronze tone or gold,” but I get the point.

One of the many things that always impressed me about the old Imai kits was that the designers seemed to have a rare combination of ingenuity and common sense. (Their Heller counterparts had the former in abundance, and scarcely any of the latter.) Imai kits were indeed simplified somewhat - but they were simplified in an intelligent manner. If the modeler wanted to undo the simplification, he or she generally could do it by adding things to the kit - rather than removing components that were unrealistic. And Imai rigging instructions made sense. They simplified the real ship’s rigging without turning it into an irrational collection of threads. (That’s another distinction between Imai and Heller.

I do wonder whether the new Aoshima reissues use that same, slightly-metallic-looking plastic for the major hull and deck components. As we’ve noted before in this Forum, the big Imai sailing ships were remarkable for the thickness of their major components - which went a long way toward explaining why they fit together so well. If Aoshima is trying to mold those same parts in normal styrene, the results may be problematic.

38

Common sense, yes, that’s the term I was groping for to describe their philosophy.

On inspection the IMAI Cutty Sark doesn’t display the metallic look of the earlier kits’ plastic and its parts don’t have the chunkiness displayed by the Santa Maria for example, however I think this is in keeping with the subject and the hull halves are still far more solid (and straight) than those of their rivals. When the Cutty arrived I was so impressed with the condition of the kit I was tempted to keep it as-is. Most of the IMAI’s I’ve acquired have been in very poor boxes or even missing minor parts and my purpose is to build them, but this is different.

I’d like to purchase an Aoshima Cutty for building purposes but, given all we’ve discussed, I certainly won’t be buying it on-line. I want to inspect it before handing over my hard-earned! From what I’ve seen it seems to be available more cheaply than you sugggested when you first brought it to our attention. One site suggests $78 in your currency. Of course we pay an average of 30% more over here which will cancel out some of the advantages.

I notice Aoshima are also selling a BIG Kaiwo Maru @ 1:100 (and 1:120) with crew. Do you think this is the same as the IMAI Nippon Maru which came in the same scales - sister ship perhaps using the same moulds? It certainly looks similar.

Michael

39

I guess I don’t have any firm evidence, but I’m virtually certain those two Aoshima Japanese schoolship kits are reissues of the Imai ones. Several other Imai ships have been turning up under the Aoshima label lately; the Susquehanna and Napoleon come to mind.

Maybe we’re about to see a small renaissance of plastic sailing ship kits. I certainly hope so - but I’m not holding my breath. I’m glad to hear that somebody’s selling those ex-Imai kits at fairly reasonable prices - though the thought of spending $78 on any plastic kit makes me gag. (I remember quite vividly the days when the most expensive ones on the market were the Revell Thermopylae and Alabama, at $12.)

Before you take on the Imai/Aoshima Cutty Sark, be aware of a couple of amusing errors in it. I’ve described these before in this Forum; anybody who’s already read about them - stop reading now.

The kit quite obviously was based on the superb drawings of the ship done by George Campbell, which are on 3/32" = 1’ scale. (That’s 1/128 - almost identical to the kit’s claimed 1/120.) Those plans may have more information on them than any other three sheets of paper I’ve ever seen. (If you don’t have them, you owe it to yourself to get them. They’re available at a remarkably reasonable price through the ship’s website.) For purposes of this particular application, however, they present a couple of pitfalls. First, Mr. Campbell assumed that a few features were so simple that they didn’t have to be drawn in much detail, or from more than two angles. Secondly, the drawings are covered with written notes - in English, which the Imai designers apparently didn’t read.

Two amusing examples jump out of the kit box. Just ahead of the fore and main masts are a pair of cargo winches. Mr. Campbell provides an enlarged drawing of them. The two are identical with one major exception: the forward winch has an x-shaped gadget called cable lifters on each end of its main barrel. The winch forward of the main mast doesn’t. Mr. Campbell’s drawing shows a cable lifter on one end but not the other, with notes reading, respectively, “Both ends thus on Forward Winch” and “Both ends thus on After Winch.” Each Imai winch has a cable lifter on one end - just like the drawing.

The other problem concerns the “booby hatch” between the after deckhouse and the poop. The Campbell plans don’t provide a separate drawing of it; Mr. Campbell apparently assumed that its shape was so simple and generic that the outlines of it on the inboard profile and deck plan would be enough. Imai proved him wrong by making a rendition of it that, though it looks just like the plans from the top or the side, looks utterly ridiculous from any other angle.

Both these goofs can be fixed in a few minutes, by swapping the ends of the winch barrels and replacing the top and sides of the booby hatch with plastic card. The kit still gets my vote as the best rendition of the Cutty Sark in kit form - plastic, wood, or otherwise.

40

While only familiar with the plastic variety I’m happy to agree with you on that one.

I was unaware the Susquehanna was available from Aoshima, it might be easier to purchase it rather than chase an IMAI on eBay, they tend to go high every time.

Thanks for your advise on the Cutty, it’s much appreciated.

I had thoughts about building the Nippon Maru without rigging or masts as she would have appeared during the war, apparently being used as a freighter. While she’s not the most aesthetically appealing ‘tall ship’ especially denuded of masts and sails etc, it would make an imteresting contrast I think.

Michael