The Ship Model Forum

I think that declaring this kit over is a bit premature. There are certainly better kits out there, but generally priced a lot higher. I know I built 5 of these when I was a kid, and then played with them a lot. If I were buying a model kit for a kid, I wouldn't buy one of the expensive ones, but would definitely look at this kit because a kid needs one they can build and feel good about, and one that isn't too expensive to play with.

The kit I'm building from was one I bought for my son to use as a reference guide in a 3-D modelling project for school. The only enhancements I've purchased are some 1:550 railing and some anchor chain. I'll be scratch-building a few refinements, but most of the project will rely upon the detail extant in the model itself.

I'll post pics when complete.

Hi group!

I know this is an old topic, but I stumbled on it the other day and it prompted me to pull out this very kit from the deep stash and make a project of seeing what a little TLC can tease out of it.

They are both great kits.

The Renwal kit is larger, being 1/500. Revell's is 1/530. IMHO, the Revell kit is better detailed but both look good in overall shape.

For accuracy, the answer depends on which Essex you want to build. The most noticeable differences between the ships are the shape of the hurricane bow and the the bridge window configuration as well as the location of the aft, starboard elevator. It's been a while since I had the Renwal kit in hand but if I remember correctly, the Renwal kit has a hurricane bow shape better suited to Lexington. If you want to build an accurate Lexington or Shangri La, go Renwal, otherwise Revell.

I don't remember what the Renwal keel looked like but hopefully someone here with the kit can check for us.

Oriskany has a rather unusual hurricane bow shape, being flat near the top with a distinct "knuckle" in the shape of a shallow "smile". Neither kit's bow is right for Oriskany out of the box, but with some basic scratch-building skills, either of the kits' bows could be modified. See:

Revell's classic Iowa class kits still hold a place in my heart. It's good to see them still around.

Hi

I have always wondered what the difference was between the Renwal and Revell Essex kits was...never seen two at the same time to compare them. Are they two totally different molds? Does the Renwal hull also the viking ship like keel?

thanks
Uwe

PS: Which one is the better bases for an accurat model...if any?

The other day, a modeler with very fond memories of building this kit as a kid, and several of the 1/500 Renwal kits of that time, sent me a message asking if I would rescale some 3D-printed designs specifically for the classic Revell Missouri (and, of course, New Jersey and Wisconsin boxings!) in 1/535 scale, the Revell Cold War Essex class kits in 1/530 scale, and Renwal Shangri La , Ticonderoga and USS King kits in 1/500. He had collected some of the kits he built in his youth and intended to build them again.

Some of the rescalings are done, more will be soon, and are available here:
http://www.shapeways.com/shops/Model_Mo ... +Ships&s=0

Whatever the Missouri kit's issues may be, there is a nostalgia for them and continued interest in them that surpasses their shortcomings, going on 60+ years.

Gold Medal Models has made PE sets for the Revell Essexes and Midways for years.

Now, you can get some 3D-printed parts for them, too.

Photos courtesy Scalemates.com

The Monogram New Jersey is the old Aurora molding of that ship. Monogram bought the Aurora molds when Aurora went out of business, hence the Mongoram WWI Bi-planes, Universal Monsters. They also retooled some of the Aurora molds like the WWI airplanes, I believe the Black Widow and the Texan are retooled and upgraded Aurora molds.
Yes, many of us on this forum remember fondly the Revell Missouri and FDR. They were the first ship kits my brother and I built as kids, I had countless of the MO in it's many guises. I think the motorized version came second, so it is a totally different, identical mold motorized. Revell contracted a plastic molding outfit in Venice CA to do the molding for them, Revell just boxed the kits at that time. The original boxart was quite dramatic as well, which would also explain the sale success of the kit. Whenver I see that original boxart, it always takes me back to the place as a kid seeing that boxart and abolutley having to have that model. It was easy and fun to build, and provided hours of fun in the backyard wading pool, or the tub. It floated on an even keel and made nice ripples. Revell should at least clean up the molds. I am sure those molds have been paid for many times over.
Good memories.

I had all the Revell and Aurora warship kits as a kid. They all eventually died an honourable death, expended as targets for cherry bombs and M-80's at a nearby pond. One good think about the "Mighty Mo" was the one piece hull. It floated.

I have no problem with Revell (or Revell/Mongram) reissuing these old models as historical items with their original box art. However, repackaging them in new boxes comes close to fraud. Revell (Germany) makes some damn fine models today and a buyer who is not careful enough might get the old Arizona or Missouri thinking its a new kit. Or they might get a marginally better old Matchbox Indianopolis instead of the real deal from Tamiya or Trumpeter.

Buyer beware.

I have the Monogram USS New Jersey, the kit dates back to 1976. (1/700 maybe??) Anyway, it definitely lacks detail and the lower hull is laughable. But maybe with a few PE parts and some elbow grease for the sanding, she just might look half way decent. I like a good challenge!

I also have one of these dinosaur Mo' kits that I happen to get free years ago.

I plan on using it as a test subject for developing PE skills and water modeling.

As mentioned before, there's no propeller shafts or propellers so it's perfect for a water subject.

Tom's Modelworks has plenty of 1/500 brass PE that's close enough for the 1/535 scale of the kit.

I plan on trying Chris Flodberg's technique on water forming for this.

Thats an interesting bit of history on Revell and on the kit.

Thanks Jodie

This thread got me interested, so I hauled out the Thomas Graham book about Revell kits, which tells the story of the Missouri kit. When Revell decided to go into the model kit business, one of its advisers suggested a ship as the first kit because plastic molding technologies opened up possibilities not readily available in the wooden kits of the day. They decided on Missouri because that subject would look dramatic, tied in with World War II, and was famous as the site of the Japanese surrender. (The NBC television series Victory at Sea was also a factor.)

One problem was that the Navy would not cooperate with the project, citing security concerns. The three-view drawings were based on what they could find in books and magazines, and since Missouri's underwater configuration was off-limits to researchers that's why this kit was the first of Revell's "flat-bottom fleet." Once that was done, patternmaker Tony Bulone carved the patterns for the kit from plastic blocks, and the patterns were done in the same scale the kit would be (unlike the later practice of making patterns in much larger scale to be pantographed to the target scale). Revell paid for the tooling up-front, and if the model wasn't successful, Revell would risk bankruptcy.

The Missouri kit hit the market in 1953 and was an immediate sensation, both to the hobby industry and with the buying public, which could finally acquire a nice-looking ship model that offered more and easier detail than was available in the wooden kits of the day. At some point a duplicate mold with minor changes was made to provide for production of a short-lived motorized version sold as New Jersey, and I've never been able to figure out if it was the original Missouri mold that formed the basis of the motorized kit, or if the duplicate tool was used for the motorized New Jersey.

Either way, we have that old kit to thank not only for Revell itself, but for pretty much making injection-molded plastic ships a thing. Every ship kit we've built since can pretty much trace its roots to the Revell Missouri.

Jodie Peeler

I turned 65 last Wednesday and I can't remember how many Revell kits of the Missouri (not to mention all of the other kits they produced) my brother and I built as kids. None of them were ever painted, but they sailed untold nautical miles on the floor, weathered countless typhoons in the bathtub, with stood a heavy barrage of incoming bbs and finally some met their doom to firecrackers. Those were great kits for kids.

I would have to say that those kits were designed with kids in mind like me and everyone who have repeatedly bought those kits oner the years.

DanK said it best:




When I built my 1/350 Tamiya Missouri years ago, I also bought a Revell Missouri for my grandson to build at the same time, he was 7yrs at that time. He built and painted it by himself
with my supervision. It has also sailed untold nautical miles on the floor and weathered many a thypoon in the bath tub. He enjoyed building and playing with it as you can see be the picture. It's missing a few parts now but that's the price for being enjoyed by a young kid.

I picked one up boxed as USS Wisconsin 2 weeks at MosquitoCon for $10. My son (who's not yet 7) asked me to get him "a big battleship". We're building it together. He loves it, just like I did at his age.

Details are slightly softer than I remember, fit (particularly main deck to hull) is worse than than I remember but, still good for what we need.

I was actually looking for one of the (1/570?) Bismarck/Tirpitz kits becuase he favors "bad guy" ships. Are they even still produced?

Revell's Missouri is one of the earliest injection-molded ship kits out there. It's important to remember the kit's not much younger than the actual Missouri (as I told someone the other day, I wouldn't be surprised if one of Noah's kids built a Revell Missouri during that 40-day voyage). Revell was carving the art of injection-molded ships out of the wilderness, and was still a few years away from the more sophisticated methods that brought us the Arizona and Forrestal kits. (In fact, wasn't the current Missouri tool actually a copy of the original Missouri tooling that was modified for another purpose?)

In any event, there's also no telling how many thousands upon thousands of pressings have been made from that tool since the early '50s. It's worn-out, hence why the parts are even softer and why it's afloat in a sea of flash and such, but Revell keeps it around because as much as we may find wrong with it, it's a very popular kit. It's of one of the most famous ships of modern times, and with the Arizona kit (another kit Revell will still be selling long after we're all gone) bookends the story of the Pacific War. It's not difficult to build. It's the right price for mom and dad to buy for the kids. It's also a pretty good size. When you're nine or ten or eleven, you're thinking "awesome!" and don't think about the inaccuracies. Some of them are bought for school projects, too. If you're a casual model builder and want to try a ship, but don't want to sink a lot of money into it, the $20 for the Revell Missouri makes it a good gateway kit. I've witnessed this with my own eyes at the local hobby shop.

We can talk about "how can Revell put its name on this kit?" and criticize how crude it is by modern standards, but, obviously, there's a good business reason Revell still churns 'em out: after all these years, that old kit is still a reliable money-maker.

Jodie Peeler

I scored one of these in a "Collection" sale off evil-bay last year...hadn't given it much thought as it sat way back on the stash shelf. I opened her up after reading this post and was shocked at what I saw. It's basically a bathtub toy. I dont recall it being such as a kid?

I built this kit way back in 1967-68 or there about. It was my very first ship and more than likely only the 3rd or 4th model I had done at the time. I don't remember it being quiet so "crude" but then,but I had nothing to compare it to. I built her with red tube glue and ten cent "Pactra-Paints" and to a 10 year old kid it was awesome,...with all the glue globs and thick paint streaks. It was also the first time I "Painted" a model....back then I hadn't learned patience yet and didnt have sand paper or Xacto blades....all parts were "twisted" of the trees. Im sure the Mighty Bismark on her way to the bottom looked better than my ship! But it was FUN!

So now i'm thinking since I have a 1/525 Revell Forrestal with missing parts and such....and a ROUGH Missouri,....maybe a water dio with these two. Lots of Scratch building needed to modernize the Iowa class and to replicate parts for the Carrier...but hey,....it might be do-able....

Just for kicks , no serious rivet counting.......might even go with a WIF....

For me at least it is a great kit for young kids to cut their teeth on. All my boys built it, and plus throw in a Midway and a few other ships and you can have a awesome fleet to play with on the living room floor.

It was one of the first kits I built and it has a huge nostalgia factor for me

Besides the scale is a dead scale anyways, Revell would make zero money on a remake and the kit would probably sell for $50 or more. Not a good kit to give to a young kid wanting to build a cool battleship

There areplenty of Missouri's out there. And i'd be willing to bet that each one of them is better than the Revell kit. The reason I bought this Revell kit? It was on the shelf at Hobby Lobby. I didn't custom order it amongst many other Missouris online. I had an impulse and bought off the shelf. I bought a model made by a company that i've bought from time and time again and NEVER had anything this horrible come out of the box.

And I know companies re-issue old kits all the time. I picked up AMT's Man in Space rocket kit which is a reissue. It's not extremely rich on detail but the molds are solid with no flash and the parts fit, from the dry fitting i've done just playing with the stuff out of the box, pretty spot on.

Revell either needs to re-mold or pull this kit. Because what comes out of the box is garbage. The lack of detail I could deal with if the parts weren't so horribly molded and there wasn't flash squirting out of every seam in the molds. And the one big reason I think they should is because when you walk into one of the big stores like Michael's, Hobby Lobby, etc. The Revell Missouri is the only one on the shelf right next to their Arizona, smaller scale Enterprise, Nimitz, Bismarck, etc. Revell, Monogram, and AMT are virtually all those stores carry. And those stores are everywhere and cater to the average modeler. So if a kid watches Battleship, sees the Missouri blow up the aliens, and asks his Dad to buy him one he's probably going to go to the closest hobby store, which is probably a Michaels or Hobby Lobby as it is in my case, and pick up the only one on the shelf. So for that reason I think Revell needs to make a little better quality of the kit. It doesn't have to be 500 pieces. But I think they need to take a little care about what they're putting out there.

I've heard some horror stories about Airfix kits as well. The only one i've ever purchased I actually bought last week and it was a Dassault Super Etendard that I was robbing the decal sheet out of to use with an ancient Academy/Mini Hobby kit. And from what I could tell the molds looked servicable so i'm going to try a few of their warships as they're pretty inexpensive in 1/600 scale. And from the reviews i've seen online they're decent. And i've got a few Trumpy kits. Ones that people are keen to point out a few little inaccuracies on. As seems to be the case with quite a bit of Trumpeter's kits especially in regards to hull shape. I can live with that because despite that the overall quality of the molds is pretty good. I paid over twice what I gave for my 1/526 revell Mo for each Trumpy kit i've got. And i'd do it again.

I wouldn't care if the Revell kit was molded right when Mo left the slipway during WWII as long as the parts looked like they were molded well with minimal flash or other deformations. But that's not the case.

It doesn't make sense for Revell to make a new mold. The Missouri class is plenty well covered in several scales by a few different manufacturers. There is a decent 1/700 and 1/350 availability and in a couple of different fits.

In case you aren't aware, there are several manufacturers that re-issue many of their old molds. Airfix was doing this for decades until the bottom finally fell out on them and they got turned around by Hornby. Hasegawa does it and charges a ridiculous premium for it in many cases with nothing but some new decals (which are typically thick and almost unusable in some cases). Monogram, Revell, Tamiya, Hasegawa, Italeri Heller have all done this. Trumpeter, Hobby Boss and the newer generation of manufacturers will probably do it one day as well.

This is a fairly common occurrence with any kit manufacturers that have been around for an appreciable length of time.

Well the difference is that there aren't auto makers and dealers out there still building and selling 1953 pattern automobiles. I'd be ashamed of myself if I were somebody making decisions at Revell. Don't you think the model of a ship as famous as the Missouri deserves a re-mold? There are companies out there that constantly keep improving their molds. Revell probably sells so many of these mighty mo kits that it'd get a great return on investment for the re-tool.

Man. I think I turned my a lake I lived on when I was a kid into Plasticbottom Sound with the numerous Missouris I sunk.

I dearly love this old kit.