Discussion Historical Accuracy vs. Creative Freedom: Where Do You Stand?

[Jimsky]

Ahoy, ship modelers!
When building your models, do you strive for pinpoint historical accuracy, meticulously following blueprints and period details, or do you let your imagination run wild with creative flourishes? Maybe you’re somewhere in the middle, blending authentic designs with personal touches. Let’s dive into this debate!

For the purists, tell us: what’s your process for researching ships like the Falcusa or HMS Victory? What resources (books, plans, museum visits) do you swear by to get every plank and rigging knot just right? Share pics of your historically faithful builds and any challenges you faced chasing accuracy.

For the free spirits, we want to hear about your creative twists! Have you added a custom figurehead, tweaked a ship’s colors, or invented a fictional vessel with a wild backstory? Show off your unique creations and explain what inspired your artistic choices.

And if you balance both, how do you decide where to stay true and where to experiment? Drop your builds, tips, and stories below—let’s see those ships and hear your thoughts! Bonus points for sharing your favorite historical detail and a creative tweak you’re proud of.

 

[Jack Sparrow]

Well, initially I thought that I would try my best to be as historically accurate as possible on my Constitution but some have argued that the Constitution has undergone a lot of changes over the years. So, I abandoned the historically accurate approach. I think I would call myself a free spirit. I have a 3D printer and where I deem that the parts with the kit are not good enough, I 3D print the part. This especially applies to the britannia metal parts.

I haven't quite figured out how to make figureheads and anything that looks like a sculpture. I have never sculpted before and I am certain that I am no good at it.

 

[Jimsky]

Well, initially I thought that I would try my best to be as historically accurate as possible on my Constitution but some have argued that the Constitution has undergone a lot of changes over the years. So, I abandoned the historically accurate approach. I think I would call myself a free spirit. I have a 3D printer and where I deem that the parts with the kit are not good enough, I 3D print the part. This especially applies to the britannia metal parts.

I haven't quite figured out how to make figureheads and anything that looks like a sculpture. I have never sculpted before and I am certain that I am no good at it.

Your response about going free-spirit on the Constitution build is super refreshing, Jack, and BTW, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it! I love how you started with the goal of historical accuracy but pivoted after realizing the ship’s own history is a bit of a moving target with all its changes. That’s a smart call, why stress over “perfect” when you can make it your own?

Your 3D printing approach is awesome, especially swapping out those britannia metal parts for custom ones. It really shows how you’re blending tech with creativity to get the look you want. I’m curious, what kind of parts have you printed so far? Cannons, fittings, or something totally unique? Pics would be cool if you’ve got ‘em!

On the figurehead and sculpting struggle, I hear you, sculpting’s a whole different beast. Since you’re already rocking a 3D printer, have you thought about designing a figurehead digitally (maybe in a program like Blender or Tinkercad) and printing it? There are also pre-made STL files online for ship figureheads you could tweak to fit your style. If sculpting’s not your thing, that could be a solid workaround. Or, if you’re feeling adventurous, maybe try carving a simple figurehead from soft balsa wood to test the waters, low stakes, no pressure.

Where do you draw the line on creative tweaks versus keeping some historical vibes? Like, are you adding wild colors or custom details to make your Constitution stand out? Keep us posted on your progress!

 

[Jack Sparrow]

Your response about going free-spirit on the Constitution build is super refreshing, Jack, and BTW, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it! I love how you started with the goal of historical accuracy but pivoted after realizing the ship’s own history is a bit of a moving target with all its changes. That’s a smart call, why stress over “perfect” when you can make it your own?

Your 3D printing approach is awesome, especially swapping out those britannia metal parts for custom ones. It really shows how you’re blending tech with creativity to get the look you want. I’m curious, what kind of parts have you printed so far? Cannons, fittings, or something totally unique? Pics would be cool if you’ve got ‘em!

On the figurehead and sculpting struggle, I hear you, sculpting’s a whole different beast. Since you’re already rocking a 3D printer, have you thought about designing a figurehead digitally (maybe in a program like Blender or Tinkercad) and printing it? There are also pre-made STL files online for ship figureheads you could tweak to fit your style. If sculpting’s not your thing, that could be a solid workaround. Or, if you’re feeling adventurous, maybe try carving a simple figurehead from soft balsa wood to test the waters, low stakes, no pressure.

Where do you draw the line on creative tweaks versus keeping some historical vibes? Like, are you adding wild colors or custom details to make your Constitution stand out? Keep us posted on your progress!

ABout sculpting, it really doesn't interest me but I was thinking of using a 3D scanner to scan the parts. Not sure the cost or how small you can go with a 3D scanner. Anyways lots of big ideas but no solution yet.

As far as creative tweaks go, one big thing I want to do is add sails to the ship. The studding sails are not included with the set of sails I purchased for the ship, so I will have to make them. That should be interesting because I don't know how to sew, but I will learn.

 

[fourseas]

My particular line of interest are ships which have been built during the 20th and 21 century which in a lot of cases are still around today. The ships that I build today are mostly RC and follow exactly to the original blueprints of the prototype on the exterior and sometimes into the cabins. I buy very few fittings as I prefer to construct my own from brass to get the exact scale and appearance required for a particular model. In the days that I worked as a commercial model maker for a ship yard I had one of the models returned to me for adjustment as I had neglected to install the vent pipes for one of the fuel filler tubes, and added a ladder in a position where it shouldn't be. Most of my models are built to larger scales, and as such attention to details such as galvanic corrosion inhibiter bars and artificial bolts on the hull trim tabs had to be installed where required. I love detail in any model, and the more I can add the better. I don't consider myself as a purist as I believe there is always room for improvement. However, I do my very best to build according the the original plans and research material that I can acquire.

 

[Kurt Konrath]

My method and goal varies based on multiple issues, such as scale, era, is the ship a real ship, or manufactures representation of a kind of ship.

When I get a good kit of authentic sailing ship I try to build as true to actual as I can within my talents.

I know many beginners kits are simple kits of a class of ship, not a real specific ship, so those can be free-wheeled a bit on what I think looks right, or correct.

As Jack has said, some ships like the USS Constitution and HMS Victory, have been thru so many changes in use and combat and restoration, it is hard to say what is accurate for a period of time. You could build the Constitution with base masts, and a box over the deck with windows and no open gunports and be correct for when she was a classroom ship.

 

[Jimsky]

My particular line of interest are ships which have been built during the 20th and 21 century which in a lot of cases are still around today. The ships that I build today are mostly RC and follow exactly to the original blueprints of the prototype on the exterior and sometimes into the cabins. I buy very few fittings as I prefer to construct my own from brass to get the exact scale and appearance required for a particular model. In the days that I worked as a commercial model maker for a ship yard I had one of the models returned to me for adjustment as I had neglected to install the vent pipes for one of the fuel filler tubes, and added a ladder in a position where it shouldn't be. Most of my models are built to larger scales, and as such attention to details such as galvanic corrosion inhibiter bars and artificial bolts on the hull trim tabs had to be installed where required. I love detail in any model, and the more I can add the better. I don't consider myself as a purist as I believe there is always room for improvement. However, I do my very best to build according the the original plans and research material that I can acquire.

Hey,
Your focus on 20th and 21st-century ships, especially RC models built to exact blueprints, is seriously impressive! The level of detail you’re putting in, crafting your own brass fittings, and other parts you've listed shows a crazy commitment to precision. That story from your commercial model-making days is wild; it really drives home how sharp-eyed clients can be about those tiny details like galvanic corrosion bars or artificial bolts. Larger scales must make that attention to detail both a challenge and a thrill!

I love how you balance staying true to original plans with an open mind for improvement, not boxing yourself in as a purist. That’s a great mindset, especially when you’re adding so much custom detail. Tying this to our thread on historical accuracy vs. creative freedom, it sounds like you lean heavily toward accuracy but with a practical twist—improving where it makes sense. Have you ever snuck in a creative flourish, maybe a detail not on the blueprints, just to make a model pop? Or is it all about nailing the prototype’s look?

We are (SOS) curious, what’s one of your favorite ships you’ve modeled, and what’s the trickiest detail you’ve had to nail (like those fuel filler vents)? Pics would be awesome if you’re up for sharing! Your brass-fitting skills might spark some ideas! Any suggestions or tips for our fellow members for making them?

Keep up the amazing work,

 

[Jimsky]

My method and goal varies based on multiple issues, such as scale, era, is the ship a real ship, or manufactures representation of a kind of ship.

When I get a good kit of authentic sailing ship I try to build as true to actual as I can within my talents.

I know many beginners kits are simple kits of a class of ship, not a real specific ship, so those can be free-wheeled a bit on what I think looks right, or correct.

As Jack has said, some ships like the USS Constitution and HMS Victory, have been thru so many changes in use and combat and restoration, it is hard to say what is accurate for a period of time. You could build the Constitution with base masts, and a box over the deck with windows and no open gunports and be correct for when she was a classroom ship.

Hi Kurt.

Seems that the approach of adapting to the ship’s scale, era, and whether it’s a specific vessel or a general class is versatile. Your approach of balancing realism with creativity—sticking to historical detail for real ships and experimenting with the simpler ones- is truly commendable. That point about the USS Constitution and HMS Victory being tough to pin down due to their many changes is so true. Picturing the Constitution as a classroom ship with bare masts and a deck box is a great example of how “accurate” depends on the moment in time.

For our historical accuracy vs. creative freedom thread, I’m curious: do you lean toward one side more depending on the project, or is it always a mix? Any standout build where you nailed that balance? Excited to hear more!

 

[Corsair]

My slant to this hobby (currently) is as follows.
I started out building plastic models and would even occasionally put them in a local contest. As a result, back in that time my goal was historical accuracy. Since there were relatively projects of contemporary items, documentation was not too difficult to find most of the time. In addition, there are companies that make different kits to make the models more realistic. Companies that make engines and cockpits from resin and lots of photo-etch upgrade parts. Also, from competing in modeling, I have found out that even judges don't know that much about what is accurate in many cases

With building wooden ship models from the time period of the square riggers, I have reset my thinking. Since even though they are models, they are still a different medium and I am still learning much from building them and also getting used to using different kinds of tools in addition to becoming a bit older.
Then there is the difficulty of finding accurate historical documentation.

At this point, if I see there is something from a kit that is not accurate and it is easy to fix, I'll fix it. However, I'm not building these for a competition or to go into a museum and if there is something that is not accurate, I'm willing to bet that 99.999% of the people that look at it will not know it, or with all the other things to look at, they won't see it (I'm always impressed at the knowledge of that 0.001%). We won't bother to talk about that 20% (maybe more) of the people that think they know everything about everything.

If you like to build to try to be 100% accurate, that's great and i appreciate the effort you put into it. I'm building these for my own enjoyment. I may give them to friends or to a business to display if I run out of room. In the vast majority of the cases, the way the kit builds it is just fine for me at this stage of my life unless it is something really obvious and easy to fix.

Thanks,
Jeff

 

[Jimsky]

My slant to this hobby (currently) is as follows.
I started out building plastic models and would even occasionally put them in a local contest. As a result, back in that time my goal was historical accuracy. Since there were relatively projects of contemporary items, documentation was not too difficult to find most of the time. In addition, there are companies that make different kits to make the models more realistic. Companies that make engines and cockpits from resin and lots of photo-etch upgrade parts. Also, from competing in modeling, I have found out that even judges don't know that much about what is accurate in many cases

With building wooden ship models from the time period of the square riggers, I have reset my thinking. Since even though they are models, they are still a different medium and I am still learning much from building them and also getting used to using different kinds of tools in addition to becoming a bit older.
Then there is the difficulty of finding accurate historical documentation.

At this point, if I see there is something from a kit that is not accurate and it is easy to fix, I'll fix it. However, I'm not building these for a competition or to go into a museum and if there is something that is not accurate, I'm willing to bet that 99.999% of the people that look at it will not know it, or with all the other things to look at, they won't see it (I'm always impressed at the knowledge of that 0.001%). We won't bother to talk about that 20% (maybe more) of the people that think they know everything about everything.

If you like to build to try to be 100% accurate, that's great and i appreciate the effort you put into it. I'm building these for my own enjoyment. I may give them to friends or to a business to display if I run out of room. In the vast majority of the cases, the way the kit builds it is just fine for me at this stage of my life unless it is something really obvious and easy to fix.

Thanks,
Jeff

Hi Jeff,
Thanks for sharing your perspective, it's both refreshing and relatable. Your transition from plastic to wooden models and the way you've adjusted your approach over time really speaks to the evolving nature of this hobby, and really close to mine. You're absolutely right: with historical ships, perfect documentation is often elusive, and part of the enjoyment comes from learning, experimenting, and finding that balance between accuracy and personal satisfaction.
It's refreshing to hear your philosophy of tackling what's achievable while keeping the enjoyment of the build front and center. You're absolutely right – a model doesn't need to be competition-ready to be significant or awe-inspiring. Your self-awareness, humor, and honest take on the ups and downs of building (and those "expert" opinions!) truly resonate.
Looking forward to seeing more of your H.M.S. Enterprise build, no matter the goal, it's the passion and craftsmanship that count! Anyone interested in Jeff's log follow the link.

Corsair H.M.S. Enterprize Build Log

Initial inspection shows box to be in good condition and not showing any exterior damage. Inside, parts look as they should. :) Don't pay any attention to the weird thing my iphone did with the picture. :)

shipsofscale.com

Fair winds,

 

[Rob444]

My course closely follows that of Corsair. I built plastic models and balsa planes as a child and a teen. Collage and work caused a long hiatus. I started in again about 18 years ago when my son bought me a Tamyia M-1 Abrams tank as a birthday present. It has been pretty nonstop since then. I have gone into trying to build wood to broaden my interests and I find it much more challenging than plastic modeling. I would add add-ons and scratch build parts to more accurately reflect accuracy, especially in spacecraft models.

I find the wooden ships is almost like scratch building, and you can modify and change building steps. There are many different way to achieve the same effect. One of the nice things about having been in plastic modeling is that the tools are more or less the same (except for all the clamps I have now collected!).

I agree with Corsair that "I'm willing to bet that 99.999% of the people that look at it will not know it, or with all the other things to look at, they won't see it" (inaccuracies) "(I'm always impressed at the knowledge of that 0.001%). " Case in point, I have just finished putting copper plates on my Constitution cross section. The instructions say it is IMPORTANT to note that the last belting row of plates has 2 rows of small indentations, not one. IMHO no one will ever notice. There are also people who just paint the hull copper or ignore the nail indentations. There are those who modify the interior of a model to make it highly accurate, but then enclose it so that no one can see it.

I find the absolute best part of this hobby is using my hands to create the model. Once it is done it is usually just put away in a case, with the next one already at least in the planning stages.

So what does all the above mean? I strive for major accuracy, but some details are omitted or modified slightly.

For me it is all about the enjoyment.

Rob

 

[Jack Sparrow]

Your response about going free-spirit on the Constitution build is super refreshing, Jack, and BTW, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it! I love how you started with the goal of historical accuracy but pivoted after realizing the ship’s own history is a bit of a moving target with all its changes. That’s a smart call, why stress over “perfect” when you can make it your own?

Your 3D printing approach is awesome, especially swapping out those britannia metal parts for custom ones. It really shows how you’re blending tech with creativity to get the look you want. I’m curious, what kind of parts have you printed so far? Cannons, fittings, or something totally unique? Pics would be cool if you’ve got ‘em!

On the figurehead and sculpting struggle, I hear you, sculpting’s a whole different beast. Since you’re already rocking a 3D printer, have you thought about designing a figurehead digitally (maybe in a program like Blender or Tinkercad) and printing it? There are also pre-made STL files online for ship figureheads you could tweak to fit your style. If sculpting’s not your thing, that could be a solid workaround. Or, if you’re feeling adventurous, maybe try carving a simple figurehead from soft balsa wood to test the waters, low stakes, no pressure.

Where do you draw the line on creative tweaks versus keeping some historical vibes? Like, are you adding wild colors or custom details to make your Constitution stand out? Keep us posted on your progress!

I haven`t made cannons yet, but I know there are STL files that exist out there for some of these things you mentioned. If you look at the trailboard image on my build log, you will see some fretwork that I made using a 3D printer. Also, the stuff on the transom was all 3d printed. It`s not perfect, but I believe that I am getting better at it.

 

[Corsair]

I haven`t made cannons yet, but I know there are STL files that exist out there for some of these things you mentioned. If you look at the trailboard image on my build log, you will see some fretwork that I made using a 3D printer. Also, the stuff on the transom was all 3d printed. It`s not perfect, but I believe that I am getting better at it.

interestingly appropriate typo... "better art it"

 

[Jimsky]

My course closely follows that of Corsair. I built plastic models and balsa planes as a child and a teen. Collage and work caused a long hiatus. I started in again about 18 years ago when my son bought me a Tamyia M-1 Abrams tank as a birthday present. It has been pretty nonstop since then. I have gone into trying to build wood to broaden my interests and I find it much more challenging than plastic modeling. I would add add-ons and scratch build parts to more accurately reflect accuracy, especially in spacecraft models.

I find the wooden ships is almost like scratch building, and you can modify and change building steps. There are many different way to achieve the same effect. One of the nice things about having been in plastic modeling is that the tools are more or less the same (except for all the clamps I have now collected!).

I agree with Corsair that "I'm willing to bet that 99.999% of the people that look at it will not know it, or with all the other things to look at, they won't see it" (inaccuracies) "(I'm always impressed at the knowledge of that 0.001%). " Case in point, I have just finished putting copper plates on my Constitution cross section. The instructions say it is IMPORTANT to note that the last belting row of plates has 2 rows of small indentations, not one. IMHO no one will ever notice. There are also people who just paint the hull copper or ignore the nail indentations. There are those who modify the interior of a model to make it highly accurate, but then enclose it so that no one can see it.

I find the absolute best part of this hobby is using my hands to create the model. Once it is done it is usually just put away in a case, with the next one already at least in the planning stages.

So what does all the above mean? I strive for major accuracy, but some details are omitted or modified slightly.

For me it is all about the enjoyment.

Rob

Rob, I really enjoyed reading about your journey. It’s amazing how a childhood passion can lie dormant for years and then be rekindled by something as simple and meaningful as a gift from your son.
Your move into wooden ships sounds like a natural evolution, especially given your background in scratch building and attention to detail. I couldn’t agree more with your thoughts on flexibility in wood modeling, There’s something so rewarding about problem-solving and finding your own path through a build. And yes, the tools might be familiar, but the clamp collection certainly does grow fast!
I laughed in agreement with your take on minute inaccuracies and hidden details, how true it is that most people never notice, and yet we still chase that elusive perfection (or at least as close as we care to get!). Y

Thanks for sharing your story. It’s a great reminder of why we do this: not for praise or perfection, but for the pure joy of creating with our hands.

 

[AllanKP69]

When building your models, do you strive for pinpoint historical accuracy, meticulously following blueprints and period details, or do you let your imagination run wild with creative flourishes?

All of the above, depending on the situation. To one extreme a client with an ice cream bar in Key West, FL asked for a model of the Atocha, made out of his ice-cream sticks that had his store name on them, the Doozy Bar, They were out of scale, but the name on the sticks showing to some extent was important to him. As there were no contemporary drawings and similar information that I could find at that time, it was "guess as guess can" with only conceptual plans found on line. I convinced him to limit the sticks, with the names showing, to the wales and a few deck planks. For some contrast I used a bit of Swiss pear. The pics below show the partially completed hull.


On the other hand, when Wayne Kempson and I worked on the Euryalus drawings, books, and build, historical accuracy was one of the goals. We used drawings from RMG, the original contract for her sister ships Astrea and Curacoa and books by Lees, Goodwin, Lavery, Steel and others. In the end we feel that the drawings that Wayne did were spot on and the model was as accurate as we had hoped.

 

[RussF]

Jim, you pose a very subjective question with some philosophically intriguing answers.

What makes a scale model? To be precise, what makes one scale model "more scale" than another? Is it method? Materials? Appearance?

The vast majority of models on this site are wooden ship models. Why wood? Is it because the ships we are modelling were made of wood? Is a wooden model that "resembles" the original any more "scale" than a plastic one that perfectly duplicates the appearance of the original? Is a plastic ship model with frames held together with nothing but treenails any more scale than a wooden one held together with glue? How about cannons? Are cast metal cannons that closely resemble the original "more scale" than 3d printed ones that, once painted, are perfect replicas - just because the former are metal? Are models with planks hewn with miniature adzes "more scale" than those cut on a table saw? I could go on and on.

I have seen discussions here where people eschew 3d printed parts because they are not historically accurate. In what way? I have seen people agonize over a "historically accurate" paint color and then apply it in all the wrong places.

I pose that there are no true purists in the sense that their models would incorporate all three categories - method, materials and appearance. We all compromise in some way or another - and basically for the same reason - we all love what we are doing. I'm currently building a model of the Viking ship Oseberg from Nikitin's kit. I'm also doing a fair bit of bashing to enhance its accuracy. But again - its accuracy to what? All we really have is a partially rotted hulk in a museum that was buried for 1000 years. There are many things we can only guess at, such as the rigging. Even accurate measurements of hull components are impossible due to distortion, shrinkage and the fact that some parts were intentionally altered to make them "fit" during its first reassembly.

So, those of you claiming to strive for pure historical accuracy, I simply ask you - in what way? For the rest of us, I think we build models for the pure enjoyment and the opportunity to hone our skills and make the best looking model our skills will allow.

 

[Smithy]

Where do I stand?

A swashbuckling pirate by profession, I pace the quarterdeck of Le Coquin, The Rogue of the Seas.

My ship is a xebec made of dreams, dryads and the magic of the wind upon her sails, each one made from the wings of the angels.

I fight for freedom and plunder and the joy of the bloody blade pitched against the evildoers of this world and all of the other worlds of my imagination.



Accuracy?

Not so much.

 

[RussF]

Where do I stand?

A swashbuckling pirate by profession, I pace the quarterdeck of Le Coquin, The Rogue of the Seas.

My ship is a xebec made of dreams, dryads and the magic of the wind upon her sails, each one made from the wings of the angels.

I fight for freedom and plunder and the joy of the bloody blade pitched against the evildoers of this world and all of the other worlds of my imagination.

View attachment 518360

Accuracy?

Not so much.

... and we love the whole package, Smithy!

 

[Jimsky]

Jim, you pose a very subjective question with some philosophically intriguing answers.

What makes a scale model? To be precise, what makes one scale model "more scale" than another? Is it method? Materials? Appearance?

The vast majority of models on this site are wooden ship models. Why wood? Is it because the ships we are modelling were made of wood? Is a wooden model that "resembles" the original any more "scale" than a plastic one that perfectly duplicates the appearance of the original? Is a plastic ship model with frames held together with nothing but treenails any more scale than a wooden one held together with glue? How about cannons? Are cast metal cannons that closely resemble the original "more scale" than 3d printed ones that, once painted, are perfect replicas - just because the former are metal? Are models with planks hewn with miniature adzes "more scale" than those cut on a table saw? I could go on and on.

I have seen discussions here where people eschew 3d printed parts because they are not historically accurate. In what way? I have seen people agonize over a "historically accurate" paint color and then apply it in all the wrong places.

I pose that there are no true purists in the sense that their models would incorporate all three categories - method, materials and appearance. We all compromise in some way or another - and basically for the same reason - we all love what we are doing. I'm currently building a model of the Viking ship Oseberg from Nikitin's kit. I'm also doing a fair bit of bashing to enhance its accuracy. But again - its accuracy to what? All we really have is a partially rotted hulk in a museum that was buried for 1000 years. There are many things we can only guess at, such as the rigging. Even accurate measurements of hull components are impossible due to distortion, shrinkage and the fact that some parts were intentionally altered to make them "fit" during its first reassembly.

So, those of you claiming to strive for pure historical accuracy, I simply ask you - in what way? For the rest of us, I think we build models for the pure enjoyment and the opportunity to hone our skills and make the best looking model our skills will allow.

You've articulated something I think many of us feel but don’t always put into words so clearly. You're right, “scale” is a flexible term, and in practice, every modeler makes trade-offs between method, material, and appearance based on their goals, skills, and resources. Some builds lean into traditional methods; others prioritize visual fidelity or creative interpretation. None is inherently more “scale” than the other unless we strictly define the term, and even then, as you say, we’d all fall short in some category.
Your example of the Oseberg really drives the point home: even when working from a physical artifact, uncertainty and educated guesswork are part of the process. I think that’s one of the quiet truths of this hobby—there’s as much interpretation as there is precision.
In the end, we’re all in it because we enjoy the act of building, learning, and improving. Whether we’re replicating historic detail down to the bolt or using Doozy Bar ice cream sticks to build a fantasy Atocha, it’s the passion that ties us all together.

Thanks for a great post—it adds to the discussion.

 

[Rebus]

Through the years, I have enjoyed putting together all kinds of things and solving mechanical puzzles. I was trained after college how to assemble many different kinds of mechanical items for Navy ships. So model and kit building is a joy to me since I do not do that kind of work any more. I have assembled all kinds of crafts from plastic models to Lego kits to bookshelf nooks. All of these I followed the supplied instructions.

From a young age, I have always wanted to build a wooden ship but felt like I never possessed the skills to do so. So in February I bought a simple kit to learn and develop the skills needed (Buccaneer by OcCre). My chosen kit is a fictious ship so the build has been more about learning the skills and enjoying building something with my hands. I hope this week to finish it and enjoyed the whole process. Yes that means planking and ratlines also. Hahaha

Do I want to do historically accurate models? Yes, but I know it will take a few years to develop the skills needed. So for the time being I will be happy to continue building, plans are set out for my next two builds already. There will be some kit bashing where I feel able to do it. Plus hopefully one day a POF build and maybe a build just from the plans of a great man of war of the sailing age.

Until then I will continue to research, learn, and bash kits while just finding great joy building something out of wood with my hands that most people will enjoy seeing (even if others never have a chance to see it).

So back to finishing my first wooden ship so I can get to the cross-section the Admiral wants in the dining room.