The "Santa Maria" In Plastic - A List

There are plenty of models purported to represent Columbus' flagship for the 1492 voyage. I haven't taken a count yet, but I do believe there more wooden kits than plastic of the “Santa Maria” have been produced. That might be a subject for another time. Here, though, is a list of all the plastic kits I am familiar with of the subject. Scale is listed, as well as the interpretation it represents. This is by no means exhaustive. 

Aoshima (formerly Imai) 1/60 – Guillen

Heller 1/75 – Guillen

Zvezda 1/75 – Guillen (similar to Heller dies, if not identical or in fact the same)

Revell 1/90 – Guillen

Artesania Latina 1/110 – Martinez-Hidalgo

Lindberg 1/136 – Guillen

Aoshima (formerly Imai) 1/208 – Landstrom I (from “The Ship”)

Lindberg (formerly Pyro) 1/220± - Duro

Heller/Smer 1/240± - Guillen

Airfix 1/384± - Guillen

Gowland & Gowland 1/350± - Guillen

Zvezda 1/350 – Serrano

It becomes immediately apparent that the most common version is based on Julio Guillen y Tato's studies from the 1920's.  This version is unique in that it represents the “Santa Maria” as a caravel, a belief that was not only held by Guillen y Tato but his predecessor Raphael Monleon as well. One of the models listed, the Artesania Latina, is a composite kit, using a molded wood/epoxy hull and wood. While not in keeping with the true spirit of this list, it is included as it represents one of the very few versions of the ship as a “nao”, as well as the only model of the renowned Martinez-Hidalgo version.

The oldest model on the list is Gowland & Gowland's, which was molded waterline and was apparently last available as a ship in a bottle from Addar. While based somewhat on Guillen's design, it has a flat stern. The smaller of the two Heller kits (now Smer) has proportion problems and would probably be a good basis for a conversion to the Martinez-Hidalgo variant.  

I could go into more detail on the relative strength and weaknesses of each kit, but that is probably a subject for another entry.
ADDENDUM - 21st August, 2015 - It turns out that the Airfix kit is derived from the Gowland & Gowland kit, and both are much closer to 1/350.
ADDENDUM 2 - 29th August, 2015 - The Airfix kit is almost 1/384 scale. List has been updated to reflect this. 

Review: Zvezda's 1/350 Scale "Santa Maria" (or, At Long Last, Some New Miniature Ships)

Not too long ago, I noticed that the Russian model company Zvezda was advertising a 1/350 scale model of the nao "Santa Maria". In light of the fact that their larger, 1/75 "Santa Maria" was either a licensed copy or in fact the same tooling as the old Heller Guillen version, I expected this newer, smaller kit to be the from the venerable French company as well.

I was wrong. Joyously wrong. 

This new "Santa Maria" is completely new tooling.

This new tooling is extremely fine and delicate, which runs contrary to most snap together models. This kit is also a part of a series of 1/350 period sailing ships from Zvezda, and like them can be built either full hull or waterline.

But whose interpretation is this? 

Initially, some early images I found of this new "Santa Maria" reminded me of the version designed by E.A. d'Albertis in 1892. However, when I got my first look at the tooling, it became immediately apparent that this was the version found in "Arquitectura De Los Naos y Galeones de Flota de Indies" (1991) by Jose Luis Rubio Serrano. 

Compared to the drawings I have on hand, and the measurements I have available, it is a pretty good match for his work, one of the smallest interpretations thus far. To be fair, Serrano used a range of dimensions to cover a range of size possibilities, meaning this model could be accurate from about 1/350 down to 1/400. 

The kit is molded in three colors, tan brown, black, and white, with the majority of the ship (hull, masts, etc.) in that very first color, naturally. The black sprue contains small details like the ships guns and standing rigging. Like many smaller model sailing ships from the past, the ratlines and shrouds have been molded. But, unlike many of those older kits, they are incredibly fine, if still a bit out of scale. An important detail here, though; Serrano's interpretation uses a modified southern method for standing rigging, with few ratlines (confined to a few shrouds). 

The white sprue has the sails. As previously mentioned, the molding on this kit is incredibly fine, and the sails are very thin, and in fact a bit translucent. The clips that hold the sails to the yards are a bit oversized.

Like many snap together models, in order for the model to be pressed together, some allowances have to be made. On the sails, that would be those clips. The masts, while very thin, also have attachment points for the ratlines that are rather large. Still, once the model is assembled, they probably won't draw much attention. 

Rounding out the model are a set of decal crosses for the fore and main sail.

The instructions are detailed, with a paint scheme covered on the last page. As Serrano didn't cover the ships color's, the color scheme is pretty much open to interpretation.

Unfortunately, there are some details that are missing or wrong. The windlass that Serrano includes on his drawings is absent, as is the riding bitt under the forecastle arch. The ship's boat is a bit small, and the quarter deck is molded integral with the main. The cannon appear to be from the wrong period (and none can be found on Serrano's plans), and the number of stanchions on the rails at the forecastle is short. There are some smaller details as well, such as flags, that would have been nice, but with some patience and tissue paper, one could always make their own.

Do I recommend the kit? While snap together kits are generally thought of, at best, items for beginners or, at worse, mere toys, this model is neither. It has very fine parts that can be easily damaged or lost, making it a challenge for the inexperienced. It is far more delicate than a toy. I hope to commence construction of my kit soon, once I muster up the courage. This is probably the smallest plastic model sailing ship I have ever seen with this level of detail and fidelity.
CORRECTION 9th Aug 2015 - The anchors are actually on the tan brown sprue. The text has been corrected to show this. - RRL
EDIT 10th Aug 2015 - Now that the model is under construction, I can report that there are indeed cabin windows molded. They are extremely fine as well. Also, closer examination of the Serrano drawings reveals that what I thought was a bow windlass is actually a riding bitt. Once more, the entry has been corrected to reflect this. - RRL

And Yet, Another "Santa Maria"

Whilst doing my daily Internet dig for obscure, possibly forgotten maritime historical data, I stumble upon this -

"Reconstrucciones de la Nao Santa Maria" (LINK REMOVED - SEE NOTE)

The designer is none other than Professor Luis M. Coín Cuenca, the person who designed this replica of the caravel "Niña". Here is his "Santa Maria" - 

The Newest Santa Maria, courtesy Cadiz Capitana del Mar

 I like the sail plan and the sheer. While the sheer may seem excessive, it would not be entirely unexpected for ships from this period, based upon the art and the model of the "Mataro Nao". However, this elevation view is a bit deceptive. It does not appear to be built on the traditional 1:2:3 formula (with 1 being the beam, 2 being the keel length, 2 x beam, and 3 being length between the perpendiculars, 3 x beam). This appears to be an effort to improve the sea keeping capabilities of the small ship. Based upon the information gleaned from the page, it appears as though they took inspiration from Diego Garcia del Palacio's 1587 work "Instrucción Náutica". 

In short, his interpretation of the "Santa Maria" is rather narrow in beam. 

Understandably, Prof. Coín Cuenca had his reasons for making this startling new design, but this seems, to me at least, the wrong way to go about it. Ship design changed vastly in the intervening years between 1492 and 1587. While I believe that his version of the nao will probably be a lot more seaworthy, certainly better at sailing the Atlantic, it seems to me to have more in common with the later galleons, and less with the 15th century stock from which it originated. 

Unfortunately, at this time I do not have access to his research to see the reasons. There was a conference held in Cadiz in 2012 where this was discussed at length, and sadly the author could not attend. I do hope to find more information about this version of the "Santa Maria", and you may expect that I will share it here. 

EDIT - (May 2023) The links and images from the works of Dr. Cuenca's research have been removed, as that page has been determined to be involved in suspicious activity. 

Санта-Мария - The 1973 "Моделист конструктор" Santa Maria

A few years back, whilst looking for additional information on Heinrich Winter's research of Columbus' ships, I happened upon a website, since gone, that featured the Russian text of his book "Die Kolumbusschiffe von 1492" ("The Ships of Columbus of 1492"). On the same page was a set of drawings of the Santa Maria, also in Russian, that I assumed to be associated with Winter's work. 

Nothing could be further from the truth. 

Until this point, it had been assumed that Winter's work had simply served as an aggregate for the various studies. His book shows some of the various interpretations. But I could find no other data verifying that this Santa Maria was in fact his.

I decided to approach the problem once again, this time using Google Image Search, and I discovered something. 

The image was not from Winter's work after all, but a Soviet era hobbyist magazine, "Моделист конструктор" (Modelist Constructor), in the 5th edition for 1973. The article was titled "И ВСЕ-ТАКИ — КОЛУМБ!" ("And Yet - Columbus!")

A little more searching led me to a site where I could download a DjaVu version of that issue. Finally, I had found my source.

The article, written by "Б Тимофеев" (B Timofeyev) had plenty to say about the actual journey, but apparently very little about the ships themselves, from what I could discern. In other words, looking at the Russian text, I saw very few numbers. Searching further, I discovered a page with the text that allowed me to use Google Translate. 

Within the article, there is scant information on the origin of this interpretation, how they came up with this design, nor what evidence they followed. It does mention that the "Santa Maria" was not a caravel, but a "hundred ton carrack" (стотонную каракку). Beyond that, no dimensions were given. 

Looking at the drawing, which I find to be rather well done if a little unclear, I immediately was reminded of the second version of Monleon's interpretation, with some adjustments. 

The rake of the masts is certainly similar. The shape of the forecastle is strikingly similar as well, as are the placements of the fender cleats and wales, though there is one wale on the newer design. The real differences are in the stern and sails. The stern on the Monleon II version is flat, whilst the "Моделист конструктор" version (henceforth the MK version) has a round tuck, perhaps a bit more appropriate. The Monleon II version has a larger lateen mizzen and a trapezoidal topsail, whilst the MK version has a smaller lateen mizzen and rectangular topsail. 

Dimensions wise, they are very similar - 

Monleon II - 

Beam - 7.86m

Keel - 19.6m

Length between perpendiculars - 23.72m

MK (note - all dimensions are estimates derived from the drawings) -

Beam - 7.8m

Keel - 19m

Length between perpendiculars - 24m. 

In many ways, the MK version is like an evolved Monleon II interpretation. Unfortunately, there is little else to be found about it. I would truly like to know what sources they used, and how they produced this intriguing interpretation of a late 15th century Iberian nautical workhorse, the nao. 

The last page of the "Моделист конструктор" Columbus article has this wonderful illustration of their Santa Maria underway. In my opinion, it certainly is lovely. 

Plastic vs. Wooden Models

This, my first post on this blog, is bound to rankle a few.

I've been building model ships long enough to say that I am fairly comfortable with technique and material. More than anything else, I am an adamant researcher. Perhaps more than anything else I do, I care about how my ships are going to look, regardless of whether or not they are two or three dimensional. I've worked in a variety of materials, and am comfortable working in many mediums.

Which is why what I am about to say is bound to rankle.

If I have to build a kit, I prefer plastic ones over wood. 

Quelle horreur!

Why?

Certainly, most wooden kits can be built to represent the prototypes admirably. It depends upon the skill of the modeler, certainly, but many so called beginner's kits can be built up into lovely models. 

However, the question is, do they represent the vessel being modeled?

This is where I have problems. 

Too many of the wooden kits out there are poorly researched. For instance, I've seen models of caravels with wheels. Not likely; the great age of the caravel was ending about the same time ship's wheels started coming into use, the late 17th century. I've seen all manner of vessels purporting to be this or that ship, and be completely wrong. With the interest of late in pirates and various scallywags of the sea, the number of these ships has gone accordingly up. Many of them are simply relabeled large man-o'-war (something some plastic companies are guilty of as well), something these buccaneers sometimes simply wouldn't have. 

Scales are all over the place. If you can afford to by and build a few models, you'd probably like them to be in the same scale, for the sake of comparison. Too many are in scales that leave one scratching their head. 

Then there is the price. 

Often, these models are very expensive, and I question their value. 

This isn't to say that all wooden kits are bad. There are some very well researched kits out there, and truly remarkable models can be made from them (Caldercraft, Billings, and JoTiKa immediately spring to mind). But too many of them are simply not well thought out.

Certainly, there are many (a great many) plastic models that are horrific, poorly researched, poorly designed, I could go on. But, from experience, I can tell you I have seen a plastic model of the clipper Cutty Sark that was far and away superior to any wooden model of the same I had ever seen, barring examples in museums (and even then, there have been exceptions). 

Soon, I am going to put together a table of the various Santa Maria kits out there and the interpretation they representative. A couple of those plastic kits are truly beautiful and look superb when in the hands of a talented builder, and are superior to many of the wooden versions, again with exceptions. It comes down to what you want; a scale replica of a ship, or a lovely display piece that might not be grounded in reality, and probably set you back quite a bit.

A Privateer in Art

Recently, I undertook work on a series of pieces showing the the construction, fitting out, and sailing of a privateer from the late 17th century. The ship itself is of Dutch design, fairly typical in fact for many Low Country vessels of the time. These are the final products. As our fictional vessel grew, so did the technique. I proceeded from pencil to pen to paint.

Concerning Blackbeard's Ship

Edward Teach, also known as Blackbeard the Pirate.
Certainly looks like a pleasant enough fellow.

"Queen Anne's Revenge."

While many experts have spoken about the identification of the shipwreck found in Beaufort inlet, speaking for myself, I have lingering doubts. And they won't readilly go away.

First is the location of the wreck. It was found in what many scuba would be considered fairly shallow water, over twenty feet. That is actually plenty deep for a sailing ship of that size. Historically, Blackbeard is said to have run the Queen Anne's Revenge aground. In other words, this is simply too deep.

The easy response to this would be that perhaps the ship could have shifted into deeper water in time. But there are problems with this. If that had been the case, the wreck would have been scattered over time. What we have here are aritifacts that are fairly concentrated. This implies a ship that sank in deeper water, thus not matching the records.

While there is much in the wreck that seems to indicate that this is Edward Teach's flagship, the questions that are raised by these little problems seem to point to just two possibilities - 

1. This is the Queen Anne's Revenge and the historical record is wrong.
2. This is simply not the Queen Anne's Revenge.

I, for one, remain skeptical.