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

[Smithy]

historic information

Allan, is it known how close the actual ships were to their plans and contracts? Given the endemic corruption in (for example) the eighteenth century English Admiralty, and the proto-industrial nature of the shipyards, how good was the quality control? Were the various plans enlarged to an accuracy of plus or minus one percent? Ten? Was the timber cut accurately to follow the hand drawn enlargements or were occasional ‘economies’ made?

In short, does anyone truly KNOW the exact shape of a warship of the period apart from what remains of Victory and other surviving fragments, or are we all debating assumptions?

 

[Roger Pellett]

Wooden ships built in large shipyards. A draught or half model was prepared in a design office. The men who prepared these were highly skilled so it’s reasonable to assume that this was the vessel that the shipwright INTENDED to build when he finished the drawing. Of course the drawing available for us to look at might not be the last revision drawn.

Someone then had to translate the drawing or model into information understood by the men in the mould loft. This was done by constructing a Table Of Offsets; a recording of dimensions taken from the drawing or half model. The accuracy of this table depended on the ability of the person making to interpolate fractional measurements. Dimensions were presented in Feet, Inches, and eights.

Using the table of offsets the ship’s hull was then drawn or scribed Full SIZED on the mould loft floor. Since the design information was now Blown Up to full size the fair lines shown on the drawing might be no longer fair so the loftsmen would re-fair them. It was also not unusual for the shipwright to make changes during the lofting process and the drawing would not be corrected to reflect them.

Patterns from the mould loft would then be sent to the yard where the frames would be sawn, assembled and raised. The resulting framed hull would then be DUBBED bay shipyard gang using adzes.

It’s therefore easy to see how the shipbuilding process caused subtle changes in the shape of the hull to be introduced during construction. This may account for differences in performance between sister ships.

No one can therefore claim to build a model of a wooden ship that exactly matches the real thing. Serious model makers, however, can and should strive to produce models that come close.

Roger

 

[johnv]

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.

I am currently close to finishing my first wooden model ship. From an old Mamoli kit. USF Constitution.
Early in the build I asked She Who Must Be Obeyed about colour schemes. Asked, because she is a professional designer, and has a very good eye.
I showed her multiple photos of other peoples' models, and the ship as it is, in Boston.
She said "why are you building it?"
I replied, more or less, "because I like ships, models, history, and will probably give it eventually to one of the daughters. And to test whether I like model ship building."
My own inclination was to aim for accuracy.
Her response was (more or less) "well, if you want it to last, and not to get thrown out one day, it must be beautiful."
My thought and attitude is that accuracy is beautiful.
But her approach is pragmatic. And yes, after I have departed, I would like it to continue to exist, and for my grandchildren to say "my Pop made this".
So I am aiming for beautiful as priority one (and accurate to some degree).

 

[Jimsky]

No one can therefore claim to build a model of a wooden ship that exactly matches the real thing

This is a strong, but arguably fair statement. Given the historical shipbuilding process, as the post outlines, there were always subtle deviations introduced during construction, even between sister ships. Lofting changes, hands-on adjustments, and the imprecision of reproducing hand-measured data all mean that the actual ship likely didn’t match the final drawing precisely, let alone any model made centuries later. That part stands up well to reasoning.

However:

Serious model makers, however, can and should strive to produce models that come close.

Here, we enter murkier territory. What exactly is a “serious model maker”? Is it someone who prioritizes historical accuracy? Works in fine detail and scale? Does it have research-based knowledge? Or simply approaches the hobby with focus and dedication?

The term is undefined and very subjective, and risks sounding exclusionary, especially if it's used to draw a line between “real” modelers and those who enjoy creative interpretation, stylized work, or learning through doing.

Also, note the slightly prescriptive tone in “should strive.” While striving for historical fidelity is a great goal, it's not mandatory for enjoying or creating valuable ship models. Passion, skill development, storytelling, or honoring a specific aesthetic, all can be valid motivations.

I keep pointing out from multiple posts that it’s important not to gatekeep the hobby by imposing terms like “serious model maker.” There's a wide spectrum of approaches, all of which can be meaningful.

 

[Jimsky]

I am currently close to finishing my first wooden model ship. From an old Mamoli kit. USF Constitution.
Early in the build I asked She Who Must Be Obeyed about colour schemes. Asked, because she is a professional designer, and has a very good eye.
I showed her multiple photos of other peoples' models, and the ship as it is, in Boston.
She said "why are you building it?"
I replied, more or less, "because I like ships, models, history, and will probably give it eventually to one of the daughters. And to test whether I like model ship building."
My own inclination was to aim for accuracy.
Her response was (more or less) "well, if you want it to last, and not to get thrown out one day, it must be beautiful."
My thought and attitude is that accuracy is beautiful.
But her approach is pragmatic. And yes, after I have departed, I would like it to continue to exist, and for my grandchildren to say "my Pop made this".
So I am aiming for beautiful as priority one (and accurate to some degree).

John, your post really reflects an attitude many of us share: we build out of passion for ships, history, and craftsmanship, but we’re also trying to create something meaningful, lasting, and personal. While historical accuracy is often our starting point, there’s a deeper motivation to make something beautiful; something that resonates with loved ones and might stand the test of time as a legacy. Striking that balance between accuracy and emotional value is a common thread for many model shipbuilders.

 

[Smithy]

“Do you want the truth or something beautiful?”

That appears to be a fairly innocuous question but in certain circumstances it is as a detonator to a grenade. Employed as a response to “do these leggings make my bum look big?” it also pulls out the safety pin.

 

[seadeep]

I consider myself a serious model builder. I don't do it for chuckles. I don't put the hours into it for gits and shiggles. What I am not is someone employed by a museum to create a historically accurate reproduction of a ship. I build a kit for the enjoyment of the project, and personally, I aim more towards aesthetics and things like the love of woodworking in what I eventually produce. Are my finished projects historically accurate? No. But I also doubt that they wouldn't be recognized as the ship they are intended to represent by anyone who knows the ship it is supposed to be. If making your model as historically accurate as you possibly can is what gets a stiff wind in your sails, wonderful. If making the model purely for the enjoyment of the process and liking the looks of your final product is what floats your boat, that too... wonderful. It isn't a "one or another" absolute that accuracy is a mandate for all builds, not is it anything less than demeaning and insulting to imply that anything less than historical accuracy is not the work of a serious model builder. End of rant.

 

[AllanKP69]

An

do you believe you could reliably distinguish a model built by a talented hobbyist from one built by a professional,

A professional builds for money, and a hobbyist for fun but that does not necessarily mean one builds better models. If they are equally skilled no one should be able to tell the difference by just looking at the model.

An interesting story/model is at the Art Gallery of Ontario. I believe Simon Stevens of RMG was involved in studying the model of HMS Bristol when they took a fiber optic to examining her interior. This model is known to have been made by George Stockwell, who left his name on a piece of paper inside the model and now display that paper outside the model. He was a shipwright at Sheerness dockyard where Bristol was built. As he was a shipwright, would that make him a professional or hobbyist when it came to models versus the ships? Either way, the model, inside and out, is spectacular.

Allan

The paper from inside the Bristol Model

 

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

Honestly I never thought of contemporary models like those in the Rogers Collection or at RMG as being built by hobbyists. From RMG

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.

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.

a hobby implies someone doing something in their spare time and using extra income to support said hobby. I do not think a "hobby" of any sort was part of daily life back in 1700s. hobbies are a modern thing, back in the 1700s people worked from sun up to sun down. If you had the knowledge and skill to build an admiralty model you were not a hobby guy. you were part of an artisan guild.

 

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

Here, we enter murkier territory. What exactly is a “serious model maker”? Is it someone who prioritizes historical accuracy? Works in fine detail and scale? Does it have research-based knowledge? Or simply approaches the hobby with focus and dedication?

all of the above

 

[Jimsky]

A professional builds for money, and a hobbyist for fun but that does not necessarily mean one builds better models. If they are equally skilled no one should be able to tell the difference by just looking at the model.

Ahh... I found this recent point especially interesting: “A professional builds for money, and a hobbyist for fun, but that does not necessarily mean one builds better models.” I fully agree with that sentiment.
What it brings to mind, though, is how this seems to contradict the earlier implication that contemporary models, like those in the Rogers Collection or at the RMG, were inherently built by professionals, and thus should be viewed differently from those built by hobbyists. If, as you've said, skill is the deciding factor (not status or payment), then surely it's possible that a highly skilled and passionate hobbyist, then or now, could produce work equal to that of a professional, possibly having their artistic licence.
Without documentation or obvious proof, how could we be sure who built those historic models? And if we can't, shouldn't the quality of the work speak for itself, rather than the presumed title of the maker?

 

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

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.
such a claim We pride ourselves on offering models that combine historical accuracy i would question exactly what are they selling?
is it a kit that tries to sort of "look" historically accurate or is the model built historically accurate? big difference here.

i have never come across a real wooden ship built with a slotted center profile piece with bulkheads. So right from the start historical accurate should never be applied to model ship kits. Unless it is built like a real ship and not just resemble a real ship.

 

[Jimsky]

Hi, Dave,
The concept of a hobby as we know it today is indeed modern in name and structure, but the behavior of pursuing personal creative or intellectual interests outside of one’s work absolutely existed well before the modern era.
- The term “hobby” as a leisure activity: The modern use of “hobby” (as a personal pastime done for pleasure rather than income) started taking shape in the 19th century, during the rise of the middle class and industrial labor structures. But earlier versions of the concept existed, even if people didn’t call it a “hobby.”
- Pre-industrial leisure and craft: In the 17th and 18th centuries, naval officers and tradesmen often engaged in skilled pursuits, drawing, painting, astronomy, wood carving, mathematical modeling, etc., in their spare time. These weren’t necessarily paid professions, and they weren’t always tied to guilds. There are records of gentlemen and naval officers in the Royal Navy building models or commissioning them as a form of study or amusement, not income.
- Artisan guilds weren’t the only skilled labor game in town: By the late 1600s and into the 1700s, especially in maritime hubs, there were plenty of skilled individuals outside the rigid guild system, dockyard workers, shipwright apprentices, even instrument makers, who had both the knowledge and interest to build detailed models. Some of them may well have done so on their own time, either as gifts, for personal satisfaction, or as intellectual exercises.

All I’m really trying to express is this: whether a model was built by a paid professional or an enthusiastic hobbyist shouldn't be the determining factor in how we judge its value or authenticity. What truly matters is the quality and accuracy of the finished work, not the presumed status of the builder. A well-executed model should speak for itself, regardless of whether it came from a royal dockyard or a dedicated bench in someone’s spare room. Skill, care, and fidelity to detail transcend labels like “professional” or “amateur.” To assume a model is more trustworthy simply because it’s believed to be built by a professional is, in my view, missing the point.

Moreover, just because a model was built by an amateur doesn't mean it was built without care, research, or reference to original drafts. Many hobbyists today go to great lengths to study contemporary plans, contracts, and historic references, sometimes even more rigorously than professionals under a deadline. On the flip side, even professional models, especially historical ones, could contain inaccuracies, due either to the limitations of available information or evolving interpretations over time.

In the end, both professionals and hobbyists face the same challenge: working with incomplete or uncertain historical data. So it’s not who built the model that counts, it’s how well it was built, and how thoughtfully it engages with the sources available.

 

[Jimsky]

I consider myself a serious model builder. I don't do it for chuckles. I don't put the hours into it for gits and shiggles. What I am not is someone employed by a museum to create a historically accurate reproduction of a ship. I build a kit for the enjoyment of the project, and personally, I aim more towards aesthetics and things like the love of woodworking in what I eventually produce. Are my finished projects historically accurate? No. But I also doubt that they wouldn't be recognized as the ship they are intended to represent by anyone who knows the ship it is supposed to be. If making your model as historically accurate as you possibly can is what gets a stiff wind in your sails, wonderful. If making the model purely for the enjoyment of the process and liking the looks of your final product is what floats your boat, that too... wonderful. It isn't a "one or another" absolute that accuracy is a mandate for all builds, not is it anything less than demeaning and insulting to imply that anything less than historical accuracy is not the work of a serious model builder. End of rant.

Beautifully said, Seadeep, and I truly respect your dedication and perspective as a serious model builder. That said, I’d like to gently offer a reflection of my own. I’ve noticed that sometimes, the term “serious modeler” gets used in a way that can unintentionally suggest that others, those who don’t pursue the same goals or definitions of accuracy, are just in it for a laugh or doing it without thought. And I don’t believe that’s the case at all.

Many hobbyists, even those who don’t label themselves as “serious,” put in countless hours, research deeply, and build with great care and purpose. Their motivations might vary; some chase beauty, some chase historical precision, others simply the joy of building, but the commitment is real across the board.

At the end of the day, we all share the same bench space, metaphorically speaking. We’re drawn to this craft because it challenges us, rewards us, and gives us joy. Whether one builds with historical fidelity or creative interpretation, that doesn’t make the work any less meaningful, or any less “serious.”

Just some thoughts, respectfully offered, from one shipmate to another.

 

[Seatoland]

Depends on the mood or the model. Here is the latest I’m getting close to finishing. Racehorse by Sergal. Cheap and plain model kit that had lots of opportunities that I took to expand. What version? There were so many variables so chose the one America captured and then blew up so the British wouldn’t capture her back. The flag is not accurate neither are many things but she looks cool and had been fun.

 

[Smithy]

I do not think a "hobby" of any sort was part of daily life back in 1700s.

Not for the working classes, but there have always been folks with money and nothing to do. Think of the many amateur botanists, sporting fishermen, painters etc.

 

[Jimsky]

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.
such a claim We pride ourselves on offering models that combine historical accuracy i would question exactly what are they selling?
is it a kit that tries to sort of "look" historically accurate or is the model built historically accurate? big difference here.

i have never come across a real wooden ship built with a slotted center profile piece with bulkheads. So right from the start historical accurate should never be applied to model ship kits. Unless it is built like a real ship and not just resemble a real ship.

You bring up a fair point, Dave, especially regarding how kit manufacturers often lean into marketing language like "historically accurate" to boost appeal, when in reality, commercial kits are designed for ease of assembly and broader accessibility, not strict authenticity. But I think we need to be careful not to conflate construction method with historical fidelity of appearance or proportion.
If someone builds a model using researched documentation, contemporary plans, closely follows period-specific construction details, rigging sources, and proportions, even down to hand-made fittings, but chooses pearwood, boxwood instead of oak or/and elm, can we really say their model isn’t authentic? Or put another way: does a model need to be plank-on-frame with treenails and authentic wood species to qualify as “historically accurate”?

To me, it’s a question of intent and result. Yeah...some kits may never replicate shipyard construction techniques (although nowadays some kit manufacturers do), but that doesn’t mean the resulting model can’t be a faithful, informed, and respectful representation of the real vessel.

In the end, we all have different goals, some aim to replicate structure, others appearance, some both. But claiming that only a model built exactly like the original ship is historically accurate seems a bit narrow. We might risk discounting a lot of excellent work done with great care and research.

 

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

- Pre-industrial leisure and craft: In the 17th and 18th centuries, naval officers and tradesmen often engaged in skilled pursuits, drawing, painting, astronomy, wood carving, mathematical modeling, etc., in their spare time. These weren’t necessarily paid professions, and they weren’t always tied to guilds. There are records of gentlemen and naval officers in the Royal Navy building models or commissioning them as a form of study or amusement, not income.

you correct but these past times were the upper educated class and not the common folk living in the villages.
royal dockyards did not send out the town crier yelling "Oyez, Oyez! looking for talented hobbyist to build models for the admiralty"
craftsmen and artisans were, and sill are a tightly controlled guilds. Those who built the admiralty models were selected from the guilds. Highly trained by masters.

Guilds were one of the most important and widespread associations that organized trade and manufactures from the Middle Age to the early 19th century. In general, they established a set of rules concerning the entrance into the trade (via apprenticeship, journeymenship, and mastership), the quality and quantity of products, the number of employees per employers, and the type of technology used as well as other activities. They contracted with public authorities to secure official recognition and they were normally made by employers; workers were excluded or relegated to minor ranks. Apart from their economic activities, guilds carried out many social and religious functions, provided social welfare, and represented a political body. Since the late 18th century historiography has generally described guilds as archaic, sclerotic, or rent-seeking institutions. Since the 1980s and 1990s social and economic historians have reevaluated their activities, with debate both critical and uncritical of the institutions. For that reason, guilds have become one of the most debated topics in the fields of history and the social sciences.
Royal edicts of 1581, 1597 and 1673 required artisans and merchants in all cities where guilds existed to form themselves into corporations and submit statutes for royal approval.

All I’m really trying to express is this: whether a model was built by a paid professional or an enthusiastic hobbyist shouldn't be the determining factor in how we judge its value or authenticity. What truly matters is the quality and accuracy of the finished work, not the presumed status of the builder.

but that is not how the world of art works the status of the builder or artist makes a huge difference as a determining factor in how we judge its value

work by Andy Warhol may be a simple image of a soup can but it was done by Andy Warhol so it has a high value

Jackson Pollock may of just splashed paint on a canvas but you can not afford one of his paintings because of who did it

a model by Harold Hahn has a value of $50,000.00 because it is an original Hahn work.

each of the above are not the ultra best it is their name that gives it value. to the work

 

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

If someone builds a model using researched documentation, contemporary plans, closely follows period-specific construction details, rigging sources, and proportions, even down to hand-made fittings, but chooses pearwood, boxwood instead of oak or/and elm, can we really say their model isn’t authentic? Or put another way: does a model need to be plank-on-frame with treenails and authentic wood species to qualify as “historically accurate”?

no it does not have to use the same materials or exact methods of construction to be “historically accurate”
case in point the planking nails used for deck planking would be so small you could not really represent them in true scale

Well! if you make the claim this is how the real ship was "built" then yes it should be plank on frame and not plank on bulkhead. If your claim is this is sort of how the real ship looked then it does not matter how the model is constructed.

 

[Jimsky]

but that is not how the world of art works the status of the builder or artist makes a huge difference as a determining factor in how we judge its value

work by Andy Warhol may be a simple image of a soup can but it was done by Andy Warhol so it has a high value

Jackson Pollock may of just splashed paint on a canvas but you can not afford one of his paintings because of who did it

a model by Harold Hahn has a value of $50,000.00 because it is an original Hahn work.

each of the above are not the ultra best it is their name that gives it value. to the work

Dave, I get what you’re saying about name recognition playing a role in the art world, but I’m not sure that analogy fits squarely with what most of us are doing here or in the world of ship modeling. Comparing a Harold Hahn model to a Warhol painting feels like a leap, especially when most of us are building for personal fulfillment, historical interest, or craftsmanship, not auction houses or galleries. And no, I'm not the least bit ashamed to admit I wouldn't recognize a Warhol painting if it hit me over the head.

We’re not buying or selling models based on the “brand” of the builder, and I doubt many here are dropping $50,000 for the sake of a nameplate. Sure, provenance can add value, but in our community, most builders (whether hobbyists or pros) are admired for the quality and integrity of their work, not just who they are.

In 2019, Italian artist Maurizio Cattelan created Comedian, a real banana duct-taped to a wall. Initially sold for $120,000 at Art Basel Miami Beach, an edition of this piece astonishingly sold for $6.2 million at Sotheby's in November 2024. The artwork includes a certificate of authenticity and installation instructions.



...or, do you want more such arts?

Jeff Koons' 1986 stainless steel sculpture Rabbit, resembling a balloon animal, sold for $91.1 million in 2019, setting a record for the most expensive artwork sold by a living artist. Koons is known for transforming everyday objects into high-art sculptures.



You may say those are not ship models. Here you go:
Märklin Oceanliner "Amerika" toy sells for $118,750, measures 38 inches in length




At the end of the day, ship modeling isn’t a performance art, it’s a craft rooted in research, dedication, and love of the subject. That’s where the true value lies, and that value should speak through the model itself, not just the signature next to it.