Hi,
I see you are working on the Revell Golden Hind. I still have that kit unbuilt but noticed the little poopdeck has a problem: the forward bullwark (with door) on which it rests is too high and results in the poopdeck crossing the open railings of the hull bulwarks. The model is based on Rolf Hoeckels book 'Risse von Kriegschiffe des 17th Jh." and that plan shows the same issue pecular detail! I agree that this and the little Mayflower are very good kits.
Max.
I noticed that detail too. It strikes me as odd, but not impossible. The thickness of the deck planking is such that the edge of the deck component just about does seal up all the openings formed by the spaces between the rail stanchions, so water wouldn’t get into the interior. That sort of irregular collision between the aesthetic and practical components of a ship wasn’t unknown in those days - or later. My intention is to leave it as-is - but to make absolotely sure all those interstices in the railing are closed in one way or another.
I’m glad to hear about Mr. Hoeckel’s book, which is new to me. That it and the Revell kit both have that same odd feature at the break of the poop does suggest pretty definitively that one was copied from the other - or that both were copied from a third source. As I noted in one of my earlier posts, a sort of generalized consensus about what the Golden Hind looked like seems to have developed among modelers during the past sixty years or so. I’d be curious to know just how the branches on the “family tree” involving the Stanley Rogers, Franco Gay, Clive Millward, Rolf Hoeckels, Revell, Mamoli, and Scientific renditions of the ship are connected to each other. There’s an obvious family resemblance.
My biggest criticism of the Revell kit involves the bulwarks, which are too thin. There’s just no way those parts could contain the hull frames and two layers of planking. (The big Revell Constitution and the Heller Victory have the same problem. Styrene plastic just can’t be molded that thick; if the manufacturer tries it, he gets horrible sink marks where the styrene shrinks. The geniuses at Imai solved the problem by using some different form of plastic that could be molded in thicker cross-sections.)
My solution is to assume the bulwarks of the real ship were “unceiled” - that the hull frames, in the form of stanchions, were visible inside the bulwarks. I’ve made them out of styrene strip. Revell and Airfix did the same thing in their Mayflower kits. That’s one of several instances in which the Revell Mayflower is just that little bit superior to the Golden Hind. (Another example: the Mayflower has “wood grain” detail on the hull planks; the Golden Hind doesn’t.) I suspect it’s no coincidence that the Mayflower was released a year later. In the 1960s it was safe to assume that each Revell ship kit would be better than the last. Those were the days…
Dear mr. Tilley,
Here you can see the plan on which the Golden Hind Revellis based
http://www.all-model.com/list1/Golden%20Hind/Golden_Hind.html
I also think you better can close the railings of the poopdeck as it looks really stupid, a deck that crosses an open railing! Adding framing extensions above the deck enhances the model and you can add woodgrain with soft sandpaper.
Max.
My monitor isn’t big enough to let me study those plans in much detail, but they do seem to be identical to the Revell kit.
That does not, however, resolve the question of just how the ancestry of the kit - or the drawings - worked. Those drawings, from what I can tell, have a distinctively modern look to them - and the website doesn’t provide any information whatsoever about their origin. They certainly look like they might have been drawn after 1965 (the date when the Revell kit was released). I also don’t know when the Mamoli kit was originally released, but I think it’s post-1965. It certainly looks like the Revell version.
The Revell artisans obviously worked on the basis of a set of drawings from somewhere. What it was - and how old it was - I continue to wonder. Either the Revell kit was based on the plans that appear on the website, or vice versa - or both were based on some third, older source.
Papillon - do you know the date of publication of the German book you mentioned earlier? I haven’t been able to find a copy of it on any of the used book websites I normally check, and it doesn’t seem to appear in the bibliography of any of the books on the subject I have. A Google search on the name “Rolf Hoeckels” (and one on “Rolf Hockels”) came up empty. The title suggests that it’s a pretty important, and wide-ranging, book - and if Mr. Hoeckels did indeed draw the plans on which that kit was based he obviously knew what he was doing. If a copy of the book can be had for a reasonable price, I’d like to buy it. [See below.]
I really wish model companies would be straightforward about the sources on which they base their kits. Model Shipways, Bluejacket, and Calder usually do a pretty good job of citing sources; plastic kit companies apparently want their customers to accept everything on faith. And the HECEPOB companies would rather we just didn’t think about the question.
One way or another I’ll certainly close up any openings in that railing that actually would admit water under the poop. The stanchions inside the bulwarks alter the character of the inboard works of the ship quite a bit. (I’m also adding some hanging knees under the breaks of the quarterdeck and forecastle. One more detail that the kit doesn’t have - and the Revell Mayflower does.) They also suggest that whoever drew the plans didn’t pay quite enough attention to how such a ship would actually be constructed. As I was laying out the frame stations I quickly discovered that I had to choose between spacing them evenly or putting one frame on each side of each gunport. By the standards of later centuries it should, of course, be possible to do both. But we know so little about shipbuilding practices during the Tudor period that I wouldn’t want to pronounce the kit “wrong” in that respect - or any other.
Edit, fifteen minutes later - I figured out the problem with finding the German book: the author’s name is not Hoeckels but Hoeckel. (Papillon - your English is excellent; as usual, I’m embarrassed by my own ineptitude in foreign languages. But in English a possessive noun, with few exceptions, requires an apostrophe before the s.) A couple of searches for books by Rolf Hoeckel produced some interesting results. Apparently Mr. Hoeckel has published quite a number of books, including several on ship modeling. (As I’ve noted more than once in this Forum, the English-speaking ship modeling world would do well to pay more attention to what goes on in Germany and Holland - and, for that matter, Russia.) I ordered one from Barnes and Noble called Modellbau von Schiffen Des 16. Und 17 Jahrhunderts. The price was only $21.00; it should be here in a few days. I hope my primitive undergraduate German will be up to it.
At www.bookfinder.com I found several copies of Risse von Kriegschiffe des 17. Jahrhunderts. They had several different publication dates; apparently the book has been reprinted. The date of the earliest copy listed on that particular site is 1970. Perhaps there was an earlier edition. If not, though, it seems the Revell kit (which was originally issued in 1965) could not have been based on that source. (There is the fascinating possibility that Mr. Hoeckel based his drawings on the Revell kit - but I think it more likely that both he and Revell worked from some third source that we haven’t identified yet.)
Papillon - do you have a copy of that book with a publication date prior to 1965?
Both Hoekel books were published in the 40’s ( Risse von Kriegschiffe des 17. Jahrhunderts certainly) and are reprinted x times. My copies are from the 70’s and plans are unchanged. Several publishers have copied these plans at larger scales and sold them under their own name; I was lured in that trap and quickly discovered that the new Revenge & Dutch Galleon plan was exactly the same as in Hoekel’s book but at a larger scale. Again a proof of what a snakepit the ship modellers world is!! Luckily, from beginning I had a very scrutinous, critical vieuw on kits and very early (1979, 12 years old) I already was aware of the notorious Heller & Revell kits! The same applies to wooden kits a few years later. I built the Golden Hind in 1971 and still remember that odd poopdeck feature, through ebay I started recollecting those kits that I considered as good. If I open a box of a kit that I built in the past, ‘archaic memories’ come up and I indulge in childhood for a while!
I remember the Golden Hind is a gruesome daunting painting job which (to me) was and still is impossible to do crisply, what I did back in 1971: make a cigarette-paper pattern of the strakes that have colored patterns > lay them on the appropriate strake and rub with a fingernail over it so the pattern becomes slightly visible in the paper > draw the pattern with a fine pencil and then draw the colors in the patterns with lead pencils (you can even use a ruler & other tools) > then glue the patterns on the hull, the result is just perfect!!! Why lead pencils?? Because, provided you don’t press too hard, their color is less ‘harsh’ than filt-pens or ink.
Max.
ERROR: (1979, 12 years old) should be 1970
Max.
Error 2: …the notorious Heller & Revell kits, should be …the notorious Heller & Revell tricks. For both brands certainly have a number of good ship kits as we know.
mr Tilley, you can ask me for German translation: I’m Dutch & grown up with German language as I live near the border, good people those Germans!! Indeed there is a lot going on in old Europe, especially in France, Russia and my own country (diorama Texel, Batavia, Zeven Provincien etc). On the other hand, we Europeans don’t look to the other side of the Ocean and I’m pretty much impressed with the high standard shipmodelling has reached in the US, for both kits & scratch! Internet opens up possibilities we only could dream about during old analog times, again & on the other hand, I miss the intens pleasure that a little kit could give me when I was 12 years old but that applies to almost everything in life!
Max.
Well, if Hoeckel was active in the 1940s he may indeed have been the originator of our rather standardized Golden Hind interpretation. I think Stanley Rogers and Clive Millward may have been working at that time; I don’t believe Franco Gay was.
The “bottom line,” in terms of modeling, is that the reconstruction, to my eye at least, is basically a good one. Quite a bit of research on Drake has been done in the past few decades, but so far as I can tell none of it voids any major part of that kit. I think the armament probably is a little light, but the evidence on that point seems to be extremely sketchy. The old notion that the ship was built by the Spanish seems to have been discarded. Professor Kelsey argues pretty convincingly that her original name, Pelican, may in fact have been retained throughout the around-the-world voyage. That would seem to render Revell’s figurehead unlikely. And I have my doubts about that beautifully-sculpted coat of arms on the transom; it may be too well-done for such a ship. But I’ve found little else to criticize in the kit.
I agree completely about the color scheme: it must surely be one of the most demanding ones in plastic modeling. I’ve sweated over it for several long evenings, and I’m not satisfied with the results yet. Interestingly, one of the bragging points in the Model Expo ad for the Mamoli wood kit is that the hull components in question are pre-painted. Those HECEPOB kits do indeed require more skill than plastic ones - don’t they?
Forums like this really are great for communicating across international boundaries and oceans - and time zones. Here in North Carolina it’s 1:35 in the morning; I’m taking a break from grading some singularly unappetizing end-of-term essays.
Papillon - many thanks for the offer of translation. I’ll see if my extremely rusty (and never more than barely-competent) German, with help from a dictionary, is up to the task; if not, you’ll hear from me.
Here another plan, apparently based on Franco Gay (has nothing to do with Hoekel’s version).
Detaillierter Schiffsmodell/Bauplan der “Golden Hind” Artikelnummer: 290059816803
That one looks familiar; I think it’s available on a website somewhere - but I don’t remember where.
It does indeed seem to have the look of a Franco Gay plan. At first I thought it might have come from the Mamoli kit (note the perspective view of the pre-painted panel being attached to the hull), but the deck configuration doesn’t match. And I don’t think companies like Mamoli are in the habit of including detailed cross-sections of the prototype.
Interesting stuff. A lengthy article could be written about the various reconstructions of this ship that have apppeared over the decades.
I dont envy anyone painting the upperwork on the Hind!
Revell’s Hind has what looks to be a beautifully sculpted the coat of arms of England, while the Airfix version has a sculpted hind, within a naturalistic setting. It seems unlikely that either one was on Drake’s Hind while on the voyage - a painted pelican would seem more reasonable!
All of the usual caveats apply about source, interpretation, etc. It would be great to hear any other information that could help give a better picture.
A thought about painting the upperworks -
Colored pencils and felt tip pens are one way, since there is no rule that paint must be used for a model. Both are tricky and pencils have a greasy residue, but they allow control and some tightness in the shape. A cream or off-white painted ground is helpful, too, since it allows the colors to be true and also downplays the brightness, necessary for any scale model.
Another option are decals - geometric patterns in various colors and sizes are available in hobby shops catering to race car and railroad modelers. They come in white, yellow and maybe red. Yellow stripes on a mineral red ground will get a red/yellow effect. Green, blue or any other ground color would get other effects - yellow/blue, etc. When sealed and weathered, the color mutes down and looks good, and the decals went on with no trouble at all. The only drawback is that unless you are only using stripes and chevrons, the patterns of right triangles, etc. for ships of this era would have to be cut individually.
Hope this helps.
Hi all,
painting the patterns of the Golden Hind is a time-consuming task. Tell me about it… But it’s easier than it looks, because thee are these little raised lines between the fields that are to be painted in different colors. That makes it much easier - if the brush has just the right amount of paint - not too much, not too less - it helps the paint to flow into the corners and give straight edges. However, the red-blue diamond-shaped line that goes from stern to bow is much more difficult - no raised lines here!
SD
I can’t, offhand, think of a plastic kit whose instructions call for a more elaborate paintjob than this one. (Individual ship, aircraft, car, and railroad modelers, of course, have gone beyond the instruction sheets many, many times, but this one is surely among the most challenging any manufacturer has ever dreamed up.) It’s one more demonstration of what I’ve said more than once in this forum: the people responsible for designing Revell sailing ship kits in the fifties and sixties were more interested in making products that were as good as they could be than in making them “buildable” by the average customer. (This kit clearly was not designed for kids.)
I think woodburner may well be right about the “carved” decorations - especially the “hind” figurehead and the elaborate coat of arms on the stern. But they’re so beautifully executed that I, for one, don’t have the heart to remove them - especially in view of the kit’s rarity. I think the color scheme and the geometric patterns are as believable as anything else. They appear to be based on the model built for the Science Museum, in London, back in the thirties; that model, in turn, is based on the contemporary colored drawings in the Matthew Baker Manuscript. The latter has never been published in its entirety. I’ve taken a close look at several color photos of the Baker pictures in various books. They depict several different color schemes, and in some cases the colors are hard to make out, but I think Revell’s interpretation of them is eminently believable. The green and white triangles certainly are right for the Armada period; they show up not only in the Baker pictures but in various other contemporary paintings. I think green and white had some heraldic significance connected with the House of Tudor.
Some models of the Mayflower have similar color schemes; I have my doubts about that. It seems reasonable that the preference for green and white went out of fashion with the passing of the Tudors. Mr. Lavery, in his book about the Susan Constant, notes (p. 19) that, as of 1607, “… the triangular style of decoration was being superseded in the latest warships, by a rather floriated style. Again, merchant ships would probably be a little behind warships in this respect, but less so in the case of painting than with carvings…”
The bottom line - as Mr. Lavery freely acknowledges - is that we know scarcely anything about the decoration of such ships. Unless I see some hard evidence to the contrary, I’m inclined to think Revell’s Golden Hind color scheme is as likely as any. But I do have my doubts about the “carvings.”
My model hasn’t made much (well, actually any) progress lately. The combination of the start of the semester and the miserable (by North Carolina standards) weather has kept me out of the workshop. Maybe this week…
With all due apologies for this “hijack,” isn’t it still the case that the only thing less appetizing than writing EoT essays is the reading/grading of them?
But, I may be jaded, what with 40,000 nearby examples of youth wasted, er, on the young, yeah, that’s it .
My apologies too for following down this road, but as I’m right now stuck with such an activity, I have to admit that statement is actually fairly close, though every now and then one gets something to read that’s quite enlightening.
Jorit
<>
Keeping the “carved” decorations on the Revell Hind makes a lot of sense, especially since its out of production - a way of appreciating the craftsmanship in the kit, and the vision Revell’s designers had in mind. The same sounds very reasonable for the painted decorations as well.
In theory, ship painting at this time would seem to have been influenced by a number of factors: the styles of the time, the traditions of various shipwrights, regional practice, the traditions of the guilds that painters apprenticed in, house colors associated with individual owners or consortiums, and so on. If painters were employed on a contract basis, they may have moved from shipyard to shipyard as work required, carrying with them a given style or manner, modified as needed to suit the preferences of the builder or owners.
One other thing - Arthur Nelson’s book on the Tudor Navy describes a pinnace named Golden Hind under the command of Captain Fleming in service during the Armada. Fleming was on the Hind when he sighted the Armada, reporting it to Drake at Plymouth, and subsequently on the vessel when working to tow the wreck of a Spanish ship which had blown up.
Is this the same Golden Hind of Drake’s voyage? Nelson specifically mentons Drake’s ship as Pelican earlier in his book, but I’m not sure if itys the same as Fleming’s pinnace. Various definitions of pinnace in Nelson and Conway’s could support Drakes Hind as a proto frigate (other definitions would not), but I’m not sure, any more than whether Golden Hind would have been left alone when the Armada presented a national emergancy.
I noticed that reference in Mr. Nelson’s book too. I think this is one more of the many questions about the period for which the only answer can be - nobody knows.
Professor Kelsey casts considerable doubt on whether Drake’s ship ever actually was known as the “Golden Hind”; he thinks the name “Pelican” stayed with her permanently. If he’s right, the Golden Hind referred to in Nelson’s table must be another vessel. But that line of logic is hardly decisive.
It’s occurred to me more than once that the word “pinnace” might have fit Drake’s ship (whatever her name was). William Baker’s book, The Mayflower and Other Colonial Vessels, includes a whole chapter on how the word “pinnace” was used; his conclusion, essentially, is that it was used extremely casually to refer to a great variety of ship and boat types. I can’t recall having encountered it (or “frigate,” for that matter) applied to the Golden Hind/Pelican. But that doesn’t prove anything.
It does seem, logically, that if the ship in which Drake made his around-the-world voyage had also taken part in the defeat of the Spanish Armada, somebody would have mentioned it. (Every English school kid is taught that Drake’s 1588 flagship, the Revenge, was also the ship of Sir Richard Grenville in his heroic defense against the Spanish fleet in 1591.) My inclination is to think that Drake’s ship on the around-the-world cruise and the Golden Hind that took part in the Armada fight were two different ships. But I’m certainly not certain of that - and I rather suspect nobody else is.