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

[Jimsky]

The drawings get much more detailed in the 18th century, but even the fewer drawings along with a contract for the 17th century gives enough information for anyone interested in the actual details.

That’s an interesting point, there’s definitely a lot more to work with from the 18th century onward. I’m curious, though, from your perspective, what do you personally consider “enough information” to feel confident building a model complete with rigging and sails? Do you look for specific types of drawings (body plan, waterline lines), and do you use the contracts or other sources before you commit to a build?

I ask because I’m not entirely sure myself what would qualify, say, compared to something like what’s provided in ANCRE monographs or AOTS series books. Would that be the level of detail you’re referring to, or something less extensive?

 

[Boulderboater]

I wanted to make a 'totally free-hand" model like the Golden Hind, at 1:28 scale. Lots of details available, many beyond my skill level. I am taking minimum liberties but still think I will call it "Golden Hound"

 

[Jimsky]

I wanted to make a 'totally free-hand" model like the Golden Hind, at 1:28 scale. Lots of details available, many beyond my skill level. I am taking minimum liberties but still think I will call it "Golden Hound"

That’s the real beauty of our hobby: we each have the freedom to build what we want, and the way we want. Taking inspiration from a historic ship and putting your own creative stamp on it, like calling it Golden Hound, is exactly the kind of personal touch that makes a build special. It’s about enjoying the process, challenging yourself, and ending up with something that reflects your vision. Sounds like a great project!

... and here is another example of the Golden Hind

 

[Kurt Konrath]

Some of the companies who produce "art deco" ships for display make crude to laughable models at times, but if that is what the customer wants and buys it meets there standards, even though most here would use the ship like that as fuel for a fire.

 

[Jim Eads]

When you say "carrier island," are you referring to the island superstructure of an aircraft carrier (the part that includes the bridge, radar, funnel, etc.)?

Yes - the tower rising above the deck that houses the control deck and all the communications and radar apparatus. I've attached a pic below (from the USS Cowpens). Deck measurements abound, but the dimensions of these structures are hard to find.

 

[Corsair11]

I tend to lean toward accuracy when scale permits. I have three ships (USS Simpson FFG-56, USS Constitution, and the Nichimo Type IX U-Boat in 1/200 which I’m converting to U-505) in progress (storage) at the moment so research and planning are my main focus. The Simpson is 1/350 and I’m going to open one hangar and build the bridge to reflect the ships appearance in the Gulf War. The Constitution will reflect how it currently sits in Boston with a scratch built rear cabin. The 505 conversion will involve adding weld seams, rivet details and reworking the conning tower. I visited the Constitution a few years back and snapped pictures. The 505 is a few miles away so I visit it often. I’m using internet sources (Navsource is a good one) for the Simpson.

 

[AllanKP69]

I’m curious, though, from your perspective, what do you personally consider “enough information” to feel confident building a model complete with rigging and sails?

There is never too much information, but if I have the contemporary drawings and a contract, and follow them, I know that no one can say something is the wrong size. Contemporary models are often a big help as well. Drawings in the AOTS books are supposedly based on the contemporary same information, so I see no reason to use them if I can get the original information at no cost and not worry about the mistakes in the AOTS books. I bought six of the AOTS books for about $5 when NRG sold off its library and have consulted them as many of the drawings are really good, but they need to be checked as they are not always correct. Example, in the AOTS Diana book the drawings of the long guns look very much like Borgard pattern guns which went out of use 70 years before Diana was launched.

Rigging,,,,,,, always a difficult part of a build regarding finding information. IMHO sails at our common scales don't look good so I try to leave them off. Sewn sails usually look terrible as there is no cloth that is to scale at 1:48 or smaller. Even at 1:24 it is a stretch. If a client insists on sails I usually go with silk span but if cloth is mandated, and the scale is 1:48 or larger I find the highest thread count Egyptian cotton material that I can. For rigging before 1720 Lees' The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War. and Anderson's The Rigging of Ships in the Days of the Spritsail Topmast are favorites for many folks. I would prefer contemporary drawings but there are not very many available and none give information on belaying points or rope sizes, at least that I have been able to find so far. For the period from 1720 onward I rely mainly on Lees' book but for circa 1800 I compare it to information from Steel's The Elements and Practice of Rigging and Seamanship. The drawings from Petersson in Rigging Period Ship Models are helpful but as the book is based on a single contemporary model of a fifth rate from 1785, it is limited. Biddlecome's The Art of Rigging is another book with very useful information.

I really hope there were contemporary sources on rigging in addition to the few drawings and the stores lists and someone finds and publishes them.


Allan

 

[Jimsky]

There is never too much information, but if I have the contemporary drawings and a contract, and follow them, I know that no one can say something is the wrong size. Contemporary models are often a big help as well. Drawings in the AOTS books are supposedly based on the contemporary same information, so I see no reason to use them if I can get the original information at no cost and not worry about the mistakes in the AOTS books. I bought six of the AOTS books for about $5 when NRG sold off its library and have consulted them as many of the drawings are really good, but they need to be checked as they are not always correct. Example, in the AOTS Diana book the drawings of the long guns look very much like Borgard pattern guns which went out of use 70 years before Diana was launched.

Rigging,,,,,,, always a difficult part of a build regarding finding information. IMHO sails at our common scales don't look good so I try to leave them off. Sewn sails usually look terrible as there is no cloth that is to scale at 1:48 or smaller. Even at 1:24 it is a stretch. If a client insists on sails I usually go with silk span but if cloth is mandated, and the scale is 1:48 or larger I find the highest thread count Egyptian cotton material that I can. For rigging before 1720 Lees' The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War. and Anderson's The Rigging of Ships in the Days of the Spritsail Topmast are favorites for many folks. I would prefer contemporary drawings but there are not very many available and none give information on belaying points or rope sizes, at least that I have been able to find so far. For the period from 1720 onward I rely mainly on Lees' book but for circa 1800 I compare it to information from Steel's The Elements and Practice of Rigging and Seamanship. The drawings from Petersson in Rigging Period Ship Models are helpful but as the book is based on a single contemporary model of a fifth rate from 1785, it is limited. Biddlecome's The Art of Rigging is another book with very useful information.

I really hope there were contemporary sources on rigging in addition to the few drawings and the stores lists and someone finds and publishes them.


Allan

It's always interesting to hear how others navigate the maze of sources available to us. Thanks for sharing your approach. If I may play devil’s advocate for a moment: based on what you've said, it seems that truly building an accurate and authentic model is ultimately impossible, at least beyond the hull.

After all, once we move past contemporary drawings (which are rarely comprehensive), we’re left choosing which secondary or third source to trust: Lees vs. Steel, Anderson vs. Biddlecombe, Petersson vs. what we think a sail should look like at scale. At some point, it becomes less about historical accuracy and more about whose interpretation we’ve decided to trust. Even with rigging or sail material, it sounds like you’ve had to make some artistic or practical compromises, especially when contemporary documentation falls short.

So perhaps the only part of a model that can claim real historical accuracy, if we’re strict about it, is the hull, and only when based directly on original plans or contracts. The rest is always going to have a degree of educated guesswork and personal judgment, no matter how skilled the modeler or well-sourced the references.

I’d be curious to hear both yours and those who take a similar approach on how you respond to doubts about the reliability of one author’s work over another’s. How do you reconcile the balance between authenticity and interpretation when presenting a model as historically accurate? And more broadly, how much trust should we place in contemporary models, especially knowing that many were built by hobbyists and may not reflect strict historical standards?

 

[AllanKP69]

it seems that truly building an accurate and authentic model is ultimately impossible,

Hi Jim
I think it is possible in some cases, but in the end, there is often some best-guess work in play. Regarding 17th and 18th century warship hulls, some of the sets of drawings are pretty comprehensive, others not so complete. The later the year the more information in my own experience. Contracts and the Establishments scantlings are a huge help for periods prior to about 1750. An example for a later date are the 14 drawings of Enterprize, including original design and as a hulked receiving ship. Even so, there is rarely any carving shown unless there are as-built drawings. This is when contemporary paintings and sketches can be useful at times from artists such as the Van de Veldes and Joseph Marshall. If those do not exist, then it is all guess work. For the figure head, if there is no contemporary information, and thus some doubt, make a lion.

I sometimes think that contemporary models are mostly hulls only because of the variations in rigging. If I ever get back to Preble Hall I will take a TON of closeups of the rigged models and also have a conversation with Grant Walker if he is available to ask if it the rigging is original or definitely based on the original rigging.
For rigging I do research what information is available as line sizes and block sizes are easy to find if one is to trust Lees and Steel, but I TRY to stay away from sails if possible. As I mentioned I have found silk span in place of cloth for smaller scales to be a great alternative if they are required.

As to reliability from these books, I look for their sources. William E. Mays for example cited his sources of information from the Admiralty, Public Records Office, etc. Lees lists sources from Admiralty papers in the Pepsyian Library to the Establishments to the Penrose manuscript of 1773. One of the things I like about the Lees book is that he is very forthcoming in stating when he has no definitive source for a particular item and is making his own best guess as well as how he came up with that guess.

Nothing in our hobby is 100% but some subjects can get us pretty darn close.

Allan

 

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

i do not think "historically accurate" is even a part of the hobby of building model ship kits. Being historical accurate fits better in the academic world of marine archaeology and not at the hobby level of model building. If you pursue accuracy, it is for your personal enjoyment and that alone. You could say 99.9% of people looking at your model would not know if it were accurate or not.

 

[Rob444]

Yes - the tower rising above the deck that houses the control deck and all the communications and radar apparatus. I've attached a pic below (from the USS Cowpens). Deck measurements abound, but the dimensions of these structures are hard to find.

View attachment 519025

One possible help is that the hatch on the flight deck is probably some standard size for the WWll navy. you can take measurements off of that.

Rob

 

[AllanKP69]

You could say 99.9% of people looking at your model would not know if it were accurate or not.

Totally agree with you!

i do not think "historically accurate" is even a part of the hobby of building model ship kits.

If you listen to the claims from some kit makers they would argue with you as they have stated at times that their kits are accurate, even knowing they are not. One example from a well know kit maker states We pride ourselves on offering models that combine historical accuracy, intricate details, and the highest quality materials. Looking at build logs of their models and seeing the wrong cannon, planking, and many more items I would say their statement is incorrect. Based on the build logs here at SoS there appear to be some very accurate kits today like the Model Ship Dockyard Enterprise and kit bashing takes other kits to a higher level, so accuracy can be a part of kit building IF the builder so chooses.
Allan

 

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

I’d be curious to hear both yours and those who take a similar approach on how you respond to doubts about the reliability of one author’s work over another’s. How do you reconcile the balance between authenticity and interpretation when presenting a model as historically accurate? And more broadly, how much trust should we place in contemporary models, especially knowing that many were built by hobbyists and may not reflect strict historical standards?

how far and how deep into historical data can the average hobbyist go? As a hobby we are dependent heavy on authors of contemporary work. First hand research is beyond the hobby.
i had a project in mind to build a cross section of the 1840 steam ship Indiana hull showing the engine and boiler. I thought it would be a historical accurate model seeing the engine was recovered and studied. The engine itself is in a Smithsonian warehouse and 1,000 of images and reports are in the archives. I followed every lead and contacted every library, museum and archive looking for images and reports only to come up empty handed. The reason for the research to hit a wall was not that it wasn't there i could not afford to go get it. First the actual engine in the warehouse could not be seen because the public is not allowed in the warehouse. As far as the archive go yes there is a lot of info if i spend a week in Washington DC doing the research, which is very, very expensive. To carry this project forward all there is to work with are second hand sources and a lot of guessing.

 

[X Bubble Head]

I specialize in building Cold War US submarines for submariners - a very discerning group who will pick a model apart if it's wrong due to their familiarity with the subject matter.

Few commercial model makers replicate the details properly because official Navy drawings are hard to come by. Most classes of boats are modified over their years of service, so that has to be factored in for a custom build during a specific timeframe of service.

As previously stated in this thread, there is no such thing as having too much reference material, regardless of the type of ship being built.

For those who scratch-build or design and produce their work in a digital environment, using CAD and 3D printing as I do, gathering enough accurate drawings and photos can take months before I begin.

To speed up the design and production time, systematically gathering reference materials is a part of my day, often using social media submarine-related websites, (usually open to submariners only) to add new reference information, including photos with date stamps to dozens of pre-made folders in my collection, ensuring the highest level of accuracy possible. If I don't have a photo and/or drawing to back up a detail, I don't speculate, and it doesn't make it into the model. Over the years, the material collected has burgeoned into a very useful reference library.

One advantage to a digital production workflow is the base design need only be created once. Revisions can be quickly added for custom requests, with a significant reduction in design and delivery time. The ability to change the scale in a few moments is a huge plus.

For me, accuracy is the most important aspect of the hobby and makes the rest of the ship-building process so enjoyable since the completed subject will likely be the most authentic available anywhere and the recipient more than satisfied with the authenticity.

 

[Brad White]

When I was in my pre-teen and teen years, growing up near Boston, I had access to lots lore, Boston and points-south. The Spray, the Constitution, the Beaver (replica Boston Tea Party ship), the Mayflower II for example. We had at least three good hobby shops, now long gone. Aside from the usual plastic kits, I had early Model Shipways kits available, Sultana and the Phantom being two favorites. I was not slavish to accuracy but went with the kits. I would also make half-hull models and carve certain solid-hull ships from memory and imagination. No pretense to accuracy or a specific vessel, these were just to look good to my eye.

Fast (?) forward, my guiding star was from the first edition of NRG's Ship Modeller's Shop Notes. Two articles by Howard I. Chappelle:
"Ship Models That Ought To Be Built", preceded by the more telling, "The Ship Model That Should Not Be Built".

I trust most here are familiar with them or have access to them. My take (and short paraphrasing on the gist of the second article) made it clear that to take liberties with building ships of which true documentation is non-existent, helps no one as they can mislead future modellers. To put these forth as representations could be taken as a research point. Similarly, building a model of a ship that had no documentation at the time of building, but had abundant drawings found years later, invalidates that model. It is best to say it is representative of a type.

As an example of later invalidation, I have a resin model of the CSS Hunley, by Cottage Industries, I recall. A few months after I purchased that kit in the early 1990's, there was much better documentation available when the Hunley was discovered and recovered starting in 1995. Oh well! (If anyone wants the kit, let me know. It's yours for the cost of shipping it.)


No one knows what the Nina, Pinta, or Santa Maria really looked like, but the various carracks, and caravels were modeled back in the day as well as captured in artworks. The models seen on this site have been outstanding but cannot be exact. We all get that, I think. Similarly the original Mayflower, had its tonnage known and general type by description, (a 'sweet ship" often carrying wine), and typical of early 17th C. construction. William A. Baker made his mark with what was turned into an early Model Shipways kit and later POB versions. The rigging details of each type are well-enough researched, I have no complaints- they seem logical to me given materials and objectives of the time.

The Mayflower II remains in its own right a beautiful ship worth modelling, but as the Mayflower II, She is just as old as I am, though the kits tend to have too broad a stern vs. the real ship. So do I, I suppose.

The above is more about labeling the context of the model, I suppose. "Of type", "Typical 15th Century Carrack", etc. and not to diminish anyone's fun.

Regarding details such as planking, fife rails, brackets, comings, etc.. I think it all gets down to scale: what would one see when viewing the real ship at a similar scale distance? You might not see any plank lines 100 yards away and trunnels would be a distraction on a small-scale model.

My $0.02 anyway.

 

[RegW]

I am grateful that you started this thread Jim. I’ve learned a lot by reading it. I’m currently working on my first ship and have no prior experience with this particular hobby. That being said, I’ve been building RC aircraft and actual aircraft since my early teens. My wife purchased the kit that I’m currently building years ago after watching the movie “Mater and Commander”. She liked the film and so did I… even though it was a fiction based on a story book.

So I delayed the start of the build because I knew it was going to be a challenge for me. After opening the box I saw quickly that the kit did not match the movie’s ship, but shared a number of common features. I knew, also, that I would have to follow the kit instructions due too my lack of experience… but my ego kicked-in and I figured that I could make some changes to the kit to make the completed ship look more like the movie ship. I took a shrug to scale with this decision.

My work with model aircraft always included lighting. I have installed micro LED’s and made custom circuit boards for these models. So I found some pica-sized LEDs that flicker like candles and installed those in the ships hull. They look neat, but that got me thinking about all of the gunpowder that must have been on that deck and the hazard that flames would have presented to these ships. I figure those “gun decks” were probably very dark. But I didn’t do any research.

So, my build is not based on any historical relevance or data. I “winged” it. During the build I discovered that I was enjoying the challenge and chose to modify details to more accurately reflect how ships of that vintage were probably built. I’ve been working with 3D software for decades, so I built a more accurate figurehead and printed that. The ship’s stern needed some modifications, so I designed some parts and had those carved using CNC. I have had many questions and concerns answered by the experienced modellers on this forum and I am supremely grateful for their input and suggestions.

I went with several stain choices that I have used on other wood projects (in the past) for most of the hull - but wanted to have a little flair and went with a wild “True Orange” paint for some to the decorative parts. Nothing scale about that choice! Fun though.


I’m just starting the rigging phase now. Alan recommended that I get a copy of James Lee’s book and I did. The kit is missing most of the “finer” details of the rigging (like serving lines) and I’m using the book to add these features.

I foolishly expected to complete this ship with all the tools that I have collected in the past for aircraft. Well, I completed the hull and all of the woodwork without further purchase. But, after adjusting my Scrooge attitude, I purchased a dozen spring clamps and a couple of lighted magnifier lamps. I know that I will have to purchase a Serving Machine shortly. Shrug.

If this forum reaches “the critical number of members”, I’ll consider purchasing shares in Gutermann. LOL!
___________________________________________________________________________________
Build Log: H.M.S. Surprise - Artesania Laltina

https://shipsofscale.com/sosforums/attachments/img_6493-png.517505/

 

[Jimsky]

When I was in my pre-teen and teen years, growing up near Boston, I had access to lots lore, Boston and points-south. The Spray, the Constitution, the Beaver (replica Boston Tea Party ship), the Mayflower II for example. We had at least three good hobby shops, now long gone. Aside from the usual plastic kits, I had early Model Shipways kits available, Sultana and the Phantom being two favorites. I was not slavish to accuracy but went with the kits. I would also make half-hull models and carve certain solid-hull ships from memory and imagination. No pretense to accuracy or a specific vessel, these were just to look good to my eye.

Fast (?) forward, my guiding star was from the first edition of NRG's Ship Modeller's Shop Notes. Two articles by Howard I. Chappelle:
"Ship Models That Ought To Be Built", preceded by the more telling, "The Ship Model That Should Not Be Built".

I trust most here are familiar with them or have access to them. My take (and short paraphrasing on the gist of the second article) made it clear that to take liberties with building ships of which true documentation is non-existent, helps no one as they can mislead future modellers. To put these forth as representations could be taken as a research point. Similarly, building a model of a ship that had no documentation at the time of building, but had abundant drawings found years later, invalidates that model. It is best to say it is representative of a type.

As an example of later invalidation, I have a resin model of the CSS Hunley, by Cottage Industries, I recall. A few months after I purchased that kit in the early 1990's, there was much better documentation available when the Hunley was discovered and recovered starting in 1995. Oh well! (If anyone wants the kit, let me know. It's yours for the cost of shipping it.)


No one knows what the Nina, Pinta, or Santa Maria really looked like, but the various carracks, and caravels were modeled back in the day as well as captured in artworks. The models seen on this site have been outstanding but cannot be exact. We all get that, I think. Similarly the original Mayflower, had its tonnage known and general type by description, (a 'sweet ship" often carrying wine), and typical of early 17th C. construction. William A. Baker made his mark with what was turned into an early Model Shipways kit and later POB versions. The rigging details of each type are well-enough researched, I have no complaints- they seem logical to me given materials and objectives of the time.

The Mayflower II remains in its own right a beautiful ship worth modelling, but as the Mayflower II, She is just as old as I am, though the kits tend to have too broad a stern vs. the real ship. So do I, I suppose.

The above is more about labeling the context of the model, I suppose. "Of type", "Typical 15th Century Carrack", etc. and not to diminish anyone's fun.

Regarding details such as planking, fife rails, brackets, comings, etc.. I think it all gets down to scale: what would one see when viewing the real ship at a similar scale distance? You might not see any plank lines 100 yards away and trunnels would be a distraction on a small-scale model.

My $0.02 anyway.

While historical accuracy is undoubtedly a worthy pursuit within ship modeling, it's not the only valid approach. The hobby offers a wide range of motivations and satisfactions, encompassing artistic expression, personal enjoyment, and varying degrees of historical dedication. The initial article presents a strong argument for accuracy, but it's important to acknowledge and respect the other equally valid ways individuals engage with this fascinating craft.

 

[Jimsky]

I am grateful that you started this thread Jim. I’ve learned a lot by reading it. I’m currently working on my first ship and have no prior experience with this particular hobby. That being said, I’ve been building RC aircraft and actual aircraft since my early teens. My wife purchased the kit that I’m currently building years ago after watching the movie “Mater and Commander”. She liked the film and so did I… even though it was a fiction based on a story book.

So I delayed the start of the build because I knew it was going to be a challenge for me. After opening the box I saw quickly that the kit did not match the movie’s ship, but shared a number of common features. I knew, also, that I would have to follow the kit instructions due too my lack of experience… but my ego kicked-in and I figured that I could make some changes to the kit to make the completed ship look more like the movie ship. I took a shrug to scale with this decision.

My work with model aircraft always included lighting. I have installed micro LED’s and made custom circuit boards for these models. So I found some pica-sized LEDs that flicker like candles and installed those in the ships hull. They look neat, but that got me thinking about all of the gunpowder that must have been on that deck and the hazard that flames would have presented to these ships. I figure those “gun decks” were probably very dark. But I didn’t do any research.

So, my build is not based on any historical relevance or data. I “winged” it. During the build I discovered that I was enjoying the challenge and chose to modify details to more accurately reflect how ships of that vintage were probably built. I’ve been working with 3D software for decades, so I built a more accurate figurehead and printed that. The ship’s stern needed some modifications, so I designed some parts and had those carved using CNC. I have had many questions and concerns answered by the experienced modellers on this forum and I am supremely grateful for their input and suggestions.

I went with several stain choices that I have used on other wood projects (in the past) for most of the hull - but wanted to have a little flair and went with a wild “True Orange” paint for some to the decorative parts. Nothing scale about that choice! Fun though.

Thanks so much for the kind words. I'm really glad the thread has been helpful! Your approach sounds both creative and courageous, and I love how you're blending skills from other hobbies into ship modeling. That “True Orange” touch sounds like fun, historical or not, as long as you're enjoying the build is what matters most. Looking forward to seeing more of your progress!

 

[AllanKP69]

I’d be curious to hear both yours and those who take a similar approach on how you respond to doubts about the reliability of one author’s work over another’s. How do you reconcile the balance between authenticity and interpretation when presenting a model as historically accurate? And more broadly, how much trust should we place in contemporary models, especially knowing that many were built by hobbyists and may not reflect strict historical standards?

Honestly I never thought of contemporary models like those in the Rogers Collection or at RMG as being built by hobbyists. From RMG, Ship model makers and materials 1660–1815. Models of Royal Navy ships were made by order of the Navy Board. Little is known about the men who built these models.

That statement opens the field to anyone, be it a professional artisan or a hobbyist. but I would guess the majority of model makers were building these as professional tradesmen. Regardless, their purpose for the Admiralty was mainly for studying not just for decoration. I realize some were built as gifts to Admirals and such, but talk about a discerning audience.... oh my. Barring information to the contrary I feel somewhat comfortable relying on them for accuracy but not always and not without finding confirming information. I have found mistakes including a photo of a ship they date as circa 1775 but it is rigged more a ship built 50 years earlier.

Regarding the authors' CVs, their list of sources is a good indication of the research they have done on historic information. If there are different pieces of information from one author to another and if they are relatively minor I see it as having a choice rather than a problem but I will often look for additional sources if possible.

Allan

 

[Jimsky]

Honestly I never thought of contemporary models like those in the Rogers Collection or at RMG as being built by hobbyists. From RMG, Ship model makers and materials 1660–1815. Models of Royal Navy ships were made by order of the Navy Board. Little is known about the men who built these models.

That's a fair point, Allan, but I think we should be cautious about assuming too much regarding the origins of contemporary models. While some Admiralty or Navy Board models were clearly commissioned for official purposes, the fact remains that very little is definitively known about who actually built them. Without signatures, detailed records, or consistent attribution, it’s difficult, if not impossible, to draw a clear line between officially sanctioned craftsmen and highly skilled hobbyists of the time. The craftsmanship speaks volumes, but the title or status of the maker often remains speculative. If we were to take a model as the reference, are we building a model from a model?

Out of curiosity, do you believe you could reliably distinguish a model built by a talented hobbyist from one built by a professional, especially in the absence of documentation? I’d be very interested to know what specific distinctions you think would set them apart.