Thanks to everyone who followed the Hanse Kogge build, I really appreciated the support. I am going to finish the Nina and Pinta at this time since I have another project I am tackling which I am very excited about. Anyway, I hope you enjoy this thread and as usual all comments and critiques are welcome.
Steve
Here are the hulls glued, puttied and filed. I have already painted the hulls the base color and taped off the lower hulls for the “anti-fouling” paint.
Here is an inside shot showing the gun port cut out and the filling of the amazingly inconvenient sink holes. I am going to over fill and then rescribe the sides. This is just one of my concerns with these kits. Although the Nina has three masts which I understand is historically correct, the way Revell made the Nina and Pinta kits “different” is on the center portion of the deck. I’ ll post those pictures tomorrow and continue my critique of the kits then.
Steve
If this is half as good as the Krogge Steve we are in for a real treat. Looking good so far Ace…Cheers mark
Thanks Mark.
Here are some pictures showing the painting of the lower hull. Enjoy!
Steve
Testing colors for the hull.
I’ll be watching this with interest Steve, I suppose it’ll be twice as good as your Kogge.
If you need any reference pics on these ships, I’ve got a couple of dozen shots of the full size replicas that were in my neck of the woods several months back.
I have a few posted here in an older post somewhere’s, or let me know & I’d be glad to forward you some.
Good luck with the builds.
Adrian
Perfect!
Which collors are used?
These are shaping up to be beautiful models - and yet another demonstration of Docidle’s good judgment in picking modeling subjects.
The photos do, however, emphasize the one reservation I’ve always had about those two kits (I think they’re reissues of Heller kits, though I’m not sure of that): they use the same hull moldings. We know so little about those ships that it’s impossible to say anything for certain about their hull forms, but it seems highly unlikely (if not downright impossible) that they were identical. My approach to the problem would be to keep the two models on different shelves - or in different rooms. Nobody can prove that either of them is “wrong,” but the notion that they were identical from the main rail down is pretty tough to swallow.
Mr. Tilley, at the moment you haven’t seen the upper parts of hull attached, which are different…
I’ve built both of those kits (quite a long time ago). I’m aware that the upper bulwark parts in the two kits are different. The fact remains that, as I said earlier, the hulls from the main rail down are identical. (Surely that’s obvious from the photos.) How much difference that makes is a matter for the individual modeler to decide. I personally (as I also said earlier) have no problem with that standardized hull representing either the Nina or the Pinta, but I wouldn’t be comfortable with the notion of its representing both. As I also said earlier, I think a good solution would be to display the models separately. If some other modeler isn’t bothered by identical the shapes of the two hulls, that’s that modeler’s business.
One other small (and probably obvious) suggestion: give the two ships different paint schemes. If you do that, the average observer probably won’t notice that the hulls are identical.
Both - Pinta and Nina was caravels. Nobody can tell 100% shure, how they looked exactly. Why they can’t share the same hull lines?
By the way, you would propose to display RMS Olympic and RMS Titanic models separately too?
Woj,
I’ve read in several accounts references to Nina and Pinta as “smaller” and "larger’, estimated as “60” and “70” toneladas.
They had different sizes of crews.
They were bought from two different owners, and were rigged differently.
All that suggests to me that they were most probably different sizes.
Now I want to be clear, I’m not piling on docidle here, who has skills I can only dream about. And he didn’t design the kits- we all get what’s available, right?
But I do think they looked quite different below the water line. Revell had it’s reasons.
Looking great, Steve! I must admit, I’m hoping for a few pointers on your painting techniques during the process!! 
Not that I want to be a copycat, but I recently realized that I have no idea how to apply the oil paints in a way that remotely resembles your finishes…my GP looked more like a kid went after it with a crayon! I wiped off my first try, and am now in the contemplative stage of a new approach!
I’ll be watching this build with interest!
Mr. Morrison is right: there’s quite a bit of evidence that the Pinta was a little larger than the Nina. Just how much can’t really be determined, given the sloppiness of tonnage measurement in those days. And if the observer isn’t looking at both models simultaneously…
Yes, I would display models of the Olympic and Titanic side-by-side (if I had a case that would hold them). The real ships had virtually identical hull lines, so scale models of them should.
To Mr. Morrison - its only our thinking. Revell has made different upper hull fittings, and of course different rigging. By the way, its is clear, that Nina’s rigging was changed during expedition before going to Atlantic, and looked alike Pinta’s rigging.
So i do not see right arguments, why lower hull lines of the same type of ships should look different. Yes, Pinta was slightly bigger than Nina, but that is still acceptable to “imagination models”, and all Columbus fleet ships are such. We can only discuss, but no one can say 100% right.
To Mr. Tilley - if you dont see a problem to display models of Olympic and Titanic side by side, while they both are from the same class and both have the same hull except of decks fitting, i simply don’t understand logic of your proposal to do not display Revells / Hellers “imagination models” of the same type of ships - Pinta and Nina side by side, becouse they have same lower hull part lines, and all other differs.
I tried posting these earlier but the site was not playing nicely. Thanks for all the kudos gentlemen. These are pictures of the decks on both the Nina and Pinta. This is definitely the difference between the Heller kits and the Revell kits. The Heller kits have fairly distinct decks per say whereas the Revell decks are a bean counter’s dream and a modelers nightmare.
As you can see the decks are identical with molded sacks of something on the port side a bit forward of amidship. The “difference” is in the insert deck. The locators for the masts are different however no amount of filling can blend them in. I almost lost all of the detailing trying to blend in the Pinta insert. I tried green putty, Mr. Surfacer 500, CA and white glue. Nothing worked and I pride myself in blending seems.
On the Nina deck insert I just glued and clamped and then kept an eye on them to make sure they were as level as possible. Although not as “bad” as the Pinta deck, you can still see the difference in the two deckings.
I am going to move the boat on the Nina so that it hides the sacks. On the Pinta I am going to try and do a faux finish so that it looks like the are planks and a wood grain instead of nothing.
Steve
Good to see you are going along pretty well so far Steve. Looking forward to seeing some more…Cheers mark
Looks first-rate. These are going to be beautiful models.
I’m starting to think these aren’t reissues of the old Heller kits. I built the Heller versions about 40 years ago; I don’t remember that pile of sacks and the separate deck segments. (Whether my poor old brain would remember such things at this distance is, of course, highly questionable.) The hull halves look just about like I remember the Heller versions (including the bulwark stanchions), but the deck parts don’t.
I know there was a slight boom of interest in models of Columbus’s ships back in 1992. (Sheesh - that was twenty years ago!) At that time some old Heller (and even Aurora) kits were showing up in Revell Germany boxes. I seem to recall vaguely that we had a discussion of the topic here in the Forum (I don’t remember when - maybe a mere five years ago or thereabouts) in which it was established that the Revell kits were original to that company.
I do know that the Santa Maria Revell Germany is advertising on its website right now is the old Revell version from the mid-fifties. (Heller made one that was about the same size, but this one clearly is the ancient Revell version.)
Can anybody with a better memory than mine - or with both Heller and Revell kits in front off him/her - sort this out?
Hmm, I bought the Revell Pinta and Santa Maria around the time of the anniversary and they were emblazoned with 1492-1992 Anniversary artwork. I never got the Nina as the lateen rigged sails were not as handsome in my eyes as square rigging. The Santa Maria is definitely an older and cruder kit but I was delightfully surprised but the much finer Pinta and the precise nature of the kit. I think the Pinta is a not Revell kit as the Santa M is just not comparable in quality.
Revell’s Pinta and Nina - slightly modified Heller’s kits - Revell used “unified” deck with different “inserts” to middle of the deck. “Unified” parts was packed in one packing (and this pack was the same and for Pinta and for Nina), “different” in other packing. I think in that case production was made with less costs.
Pille of sacks and other molded “things” on deck - Revell’s addition. All other - Heller’s.