• LUCZORAMA SHIPWRECK SCAVENGER HUNT GIVEAWAY. 4 Weeks of Fun • 1 Legendary Prize ((OcCre’s Fram Ship)) • Global Crew Welcome!
    **VIEW THREAD HERE**

Brainstorm rating system

  • Thread starter Thread starter ubjs
  • Start date Start date
  • Watchers Watchers 17
U

ubjs

Joined
Sep 5, 2018
Messages
138
Points
88

I have thought for a long time about whether a rating system could be developed for wooden boat building kits.
There are, of course, a lot of objections and problems with such a thing and how it could be realized.
But they usually say that when you brainstorm, you must not criticize, but you must take the criticism afterwards.
So I thought that in this thread we could brainstorm about a rating system, and in another thread discuss reality. :)
So what criteria should be judged?
 
Here’s a few thoughts.

Possible Criteria:

Cost
Accuracy
Ease of construction
Quality of materials
Quality of instructions and plans
Building method
Historical period
Type of vessel
Size of kit
Scale
Availability (new or second hand)
Date of kit design
 
Last edited:
ubjs said:
I have thought for a long time about whether a rating system could be developed for wooden boat building kits.
There are, of course, a lot of objections and problems with such a thing and how it could be realized.
But they usually say that when you brainstorm, you must not criticize, but you must take the criticism afterwards.
So I thought that in this thread we could brainstorm about a rating system, and in another thread discuss reality. :)
So what criteria should be judged?
Click to expand...
Hello, I am wondering what is the end goal of even having a rating system? Those criteria are very subjective and I don't know how it could not be so.
Also, I have yet to see good instructions and plans for ships. I have built 6 and am on my seventh so far. Everytime I think I have something reasonable I realize how much I don't. Supporting material is always required.
Just my two cents worth. Not trying to shoot down the idea
 
Many Naval Architects, myself included, build ship models. For many of us this is a serious effort to memorialize an engineering profession with an interesting and colorful history. I therefore, do not understand the willingness for ship modelers to shell out $$$$ for kits that do not result in historically accurate models.

So, what constitutes an historically accurate ship model. Comments by two well known Naval Architects may be of interest:

L. Francis Herreshoff, son of the great Nathanial Herreshoff:
Herreshoff writes that the basis for any worthwhile model is a hull, accurately carved to match the lines of the vessel being modeled. He even says that a model with misshapen hull “is an evil thing” as it will mislead those who study it in the future. He is also of the opinion that rigging a ship model is a waste of time as the heart of the model is its hull.

Howard I. Chapelle:
In his writings, Chapelle agrees that the basis of a good ship model is an accurate set of hull lines, and he cautions modelers not to reconstruct these. He goes on to list deck arrangement and color scheme as important items to be accurately represented. With regard to details, he proposes that reconstruction is allowed as long as they were in use at the time of the vessel being modeled.

My opinion: wooden sailing ships were crafted by artisans, most of whom were ignorant of formal engineering design procedures but successful ones had a good eye, capable of forming graceful hulls. For these old ships certain features stand out. For example, the counter sterns of late Nineteenth Century American Pilot and fishing schooners were distinctive ( and quite lovely). When I look at a model, my eye is drawn to these distinctive features to see if they are modeled correctly. This should be a minimum standard for any kit.

Roger
 
Roger Pellett said:
... do not understand the willingness for ship modelers to shell out $$$$ for kits that do not result in historically accurate models. ......
Click to expand...
historical accuracy is one criteria of how good a kit is.
But it is one of several others
and
it is a criteria, which is for some modelers very important and for others less or not important
We can start to think about a data collection of kits with the description of some facts and criterias, but we have to have in mind, that several things are subjective, based on different experience and also taste.

f.e. the used wood
I am building POF-models and like the cherry or even better pear - other modelers building POB like other types of timber more
=> How can this be rated?
 
I have not built a ship model from a kit since finishing the old MSW Harriett Lane in the late 1960’s. My projects since then are all scratch built. These old solid “pre carved” kits included a lines drawing that could be used to make templates for final shaping of the hull. Unfortunately the POB kits do not appear to include any information to actually check the accuracy of the planked hull. One is relying on the kit producer.

Since I don’t buy kits, I’ll leave the discussion to others that do.

Roger
 

Kit manufacturers rating scale?

Is there an unbiased rating scale and listing of kit manufacturers regarding quality of kit materials, instructions/ documentation, customer service, complexity etc., etc
shipsofscale.com

I opened a thread in Nov 2021 regarding the same. Might want to lookout the responses to that one.
 
I think the idea of a standard rating system will never float but it's a topic that encourages light hearted conversation. Maybe it's just good to talk without worrying about finding 'the answer'.

Could we have a system which also rated the modellers?

marine architect + good hull = 9

retired electrician (me) + good hull = 6

:D
 
Smithy said:
I think the idea of a standard rating system will never float but it's a topic that encourages light hearted conversation. Maybe it's just good to talk without worrying about finding 'the answer'.

Could we have a system which also rated the modellers?

marine architect + good hull = 9

retired electrician (me) + good hull = 6

:D
Click to expand...
can the scale modeler's rating include the quality and number of tools they use? ROTF ROTF ROTF
 
Jimsky said:
can the scale modeler's rating include the quality and number of tools they use? ROTF ROTF ROTF
Click to expand...

Of course

We are brainstorming so anything goes.

Psychological profiling might be a benefit - there are models out there that you'd have to be crazy to build - and others that would send you that way if you built them. ROTF
 
Jack Sparrow said:
what if we have too many tools and don't know what to do with them or that they serve no useful purpose other than to impress the admiral?
Click to expand...
Jack, you are drifting away from the rating discussion. ROTF But in short...the number of tools should always take precedence over the use of them, as long as they impress Admiral and the next check cut for further tools purchases. You cannot have enouph tools!!! :pROTFROTFROTFROTF
 
Jimsky said:
Jack, you are drifting away from the rating discussion. ROTF But in short...the number of tools should always take precedence over the use of them, as long as they impress Admiral and the next check cut for further tools purchases. You cannot have enouph tools!!! :pROTFROTFROTFROTF
Click to expand...
sorry about that. my mind is wandering. too much caffeine I think. ALso I am trying to get to 2000 messages so I can get my new star. lol
 
I like the idea, but am worried there will be a lot of ruffled feathers, both kit modelers and kit makers and arguments may ensue. I would hope that the kit makers would take comments to heart but I doubt all of them would listen unless it meant putting a dent in their sales figures. The original list by Smitty is great and there is no reason the brainstorming cannot continue as time goes by to add or modify the criteria on the list.
Allan
 
Comparison of hull lines in a kit could be compared to actual drawings from original museum plans. I compared each frame in my current build to contemporary plans and they were perfect matches (10?).

Comparison of ancillary equipment provided to contemporary drawings.
Cannons on the current build did not match contemporary data. Close but I had to order two different size cannons (1 of 3 provided were size accurate 33%) BUT quality of cannons was high, so maybe a 5 or 6?

Tightness of laser or machined joints.
Current kit has superb tolerances that almost do not require glue to lock the model tight but take significant sanding filing to get rid or laser char (9?)

Are there discrepancies between contemporary drawings and kit plans.
Current kit had 2-3 items that didn't align with contemporary drawings (ships oven, hatch discrepancies, and knee lengths). (7?)

Quality of instructions can be problematic (what language is the standard?). Sequence of construction may vary by builder.
BUT part numbering, quality of the photography documenting steps, special tools required/recommended, etc can be graded. (7/8?

Maybe a category, only for those who have completed the kit: "Overall quality and accuracy of results, compared to a museum/master builder ship". (7?)

Interesting discussion but VERY hard to implement.

Maybe it could be a simple questionnaire in the completed build forum with 5-10 questions. Then the reader evaluates these ratings with the expertise/quality of the completed build.
 
BradNSW said:
Interesting discussion but VERY hard to implement
Click to expand...

Even without implementation I’m finding this discussion useful. It’s making me think about the qualities of a kit that are important to me personally.

Your mention of laser char reminds me how irritating I find that stuff.

One factor which is very subjective indeed would be the backstory of the original vessel and any personal connection. Call it ‘emotional linkage’ for short.

For example, Darwin’s Beagle fascinates me because of the way he did all of that work while suffering so much from sea-sickness - a malady that affects me. Bellerophon interests me because of the Napoleon connection. Charles C Morgan is connected to Moby Dick, one of my favorite books.

Currently I’m struggling to remain interested in my Alert (1777) because there is no emotional connection at all. I bought the kit only because it was a second hand bargain and it had a good reputation. Now I consider it deeply, I’ve lacked motivation throughout the build for this very reason.
 
I don't think a rating system is feasible for a number of reasons. First of all, how do you compare a kit for a schooner to say, a kit for the Victory? Secondly, quality varies with price paid. If someone does not want to spend more than a certain amount for a kit, they should not be discouraged by a poor rating. And lastly, and perhaps most important, model makers have different standards. Some are satisfied with nothing but the most historical accuracy possible and others are hobbyists who are happy to just to turn a box of sticks into the picture on the box. Given the range of objectives, I don't believe it is possible to have a rating system that would be suitable for everyone evaluating a kit.
 
I think an objective analysis and rating of a kit using some criteria such as Smithy's ideas by those that have built and finished the kit would be very useful. The results could be posted under the model companies name and vessel name under a common tab. The tab would only be used for rating purposes with links added to the individual builds for more in depth information.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top