I remember saving up for the Revell Thermopaylae in the mid seventies.The kit was 15 dollars at a time when a model car kit was only $2.50.!I finally purchased it and painted the lower hull copper utilizing the old Testor’s square bottle enamel.I never finished it as the kit was lost in a move.I recently found this kit on the Bay for a very reasonable price and will start it soon. Here it is! 
Two points. One - this isn’t the kit that originally cost $15.00. That one was on 1/96 scale, and was three feet long when finished. It was originally issued in 1960. (My source for dates is Dr. Thomas Graham’s fascinating book, Remembering Revell Model Kits.) The kit in the picture was originally released in 1970, as part of Revell’s “Simplified Series,” and sold originally for $5.00 or $6.00. Dr. Graham gives its scale as 1/120, but I have doubts about that. The original, 1960 kit had its maindeck in three pieces, and the deckhouses were built up from individual side and roof parts. The smaller kit has a full-length, one-piece maindeck, with integrally molded deckhouses.
Two - the kit isn’t a scale model of the Thermopylae. It’s a revised reissue of the "Simplified Cutty Sark." The two ships in reality looked similar from a long way off, but that’s the extent of the resemblence.
Whether any of that matters is, of course, for the individual modeler to decide.
Thanks for the info!i have heard that the Sark and Thermop were noticeably different nevertheless,it should turn out to be an attractive model if not the one I originally bought.
Primered and laid down the first coat of copper.This is a large hull and I am glad I bought two jars of Tamiya copper. 2-3 coats may be necessary 
The airbrush sure makes painting quicker and easier! 
Looks good, I like the flat green.
Thanks!
Golly a white boot stripe!
I’ve never come across that before. I’m not sure what white would help with, but you will be painting the wales white, so I guess it fits in.
I’m pretty sure it isn’t historically correct. But it certainly looks nice. As usual - up to the individual modeler.
I am just going by the box art.since we know it is really the Sark in green livery historical liberties are ok.Sharp looking though.
Y’know, I’ve wondered if Revell changed the length of the shroud deadeyes, or lengthened the vinyl-n-string “ratlines” to accommodate the cnanged location of the deadeues.
Underhill (I think) has an outboard profile of Thermopylae, which has always tempted me. Usually, pricing out catalog bit-n0pieces sets the plan aside a while again.
Edit ti add, it’s not Underhill (could be one of my many references). Coriolanus, an iron clipper, from Underhill has caught my eye.
I can’t speak about this smaller version, but in the 1/96 version Revell didn’t change the deadeyes. Just told the modeler to glue them on top of the monkey rail instead of the pinrails. Maybe they changed the “shroud and ratline assemblies”; I don’t know.
CapnMac, I think the Thermopylae drawings you mentioned are in a couple of the books by David MacGregor.
John,
I have those Thermopylae drawings in MacGregor’s books. They are quite nice. I also have an extra set of the instructions and plans from the old Scientific kit, which actually is not a bad model with a little care to detail. The deck plans are quite nice and could be used to help modify the Revell kits if one is a little gifted in scratch building.
Bill
I made the Scientific Sark and it is a nice kit.
The Scientific Thermopylae is a nice place to start for building her. The solid hull seems well shaped, the deck plan matches everything I have ever seen about her, and it is large enough to be detailed beyond that which the kit provides. The masts and sail arrangement seems accurate enough in plan, but the cloth sails have to be replaced. Deck furniture seems accurate. So, I class this model as a good kit that can be easily improved upon. And, I have two complete kits for any necessary extra parts. I’m looking forward to building her.
The plans are large and clear and can serve as a basis for correcting the Revell kits.
Bill
I’m not at all sure either of the Revell kits could be turned into a scale model of the Thermopylae. The kits have too many distinctive features of the Cutty Sark.
To begin with, the Cutty Sark’s cutwater (the “point” at the extreme bottom of the bow) was unusually sharp and angular. The Thermopylae’s was much more rounded. The *Cutty Sark’*s stern was distinctively bulky and “powerful.” The Thermopylae’s was much more delicate, and sloped at a shallower angle. The two ships had different deck layouts. Revell recycled most of the Cutty Sark’s deck furniture - but changed some of it just to make the two kits look a little different. (That enormous hatch between the main and mizzen masts is pure fiction.) The Thermopylae had a patent mechanical reefing apparatus on at least one of her topsails (I don’t remember the specifics).
The Revell kits are marketing stunts, pure and simple. To turn either of them into a passable scale model of the Thermopylae would take just as much, if not more, work than starting from scratch.
I’m not familiar with that old Scientific kit; I suspect it’s better than the Revell ones. I’d want to compare the plans to those by David MacGregor, though.
Yes,I guess Revell hoped most kit buyers would not notice or care that the kit was inaccurate
Some of the hand rail stanchions were broken off and I did not really dig the plastic ones remaining so I cut them off,drilled holes and epoxied HO model RR spikes in their place.Much stronger. 
In defense of the numerous modelers who bought the 1/96 kit, it should be noted that many of the sources Modeler’s take for granted nowadays (e.g., the MacGregor books) hadn’t been published yet. A ship modeler wanting to build a really accurate model of virtually any vessel had to put quite a bit of effort into research.
Later: this infernal I-phone mutilated the punctuation and spelling of several words in this post. I think I’ve caught and fixed all of them. I apologize.