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

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

Let us not forget that building ships is at the same time an Art and a Science: but it does not make the ship itself a piece of art... especially when a vessel was originally launched. Nations, trading companies, etc... did not send a piece of art to battle, to do commerce or built / assigned ships for dicovery missions.
Ships / vessels were certainly modified in search of speed and manoeuvrability. At least within the French Navy, captains would have had some leeway during trial periods following official launch, but one would suspect that major modifications typically needed to be approved: modifications in the rigging, such as length of masts and spars. Items such as sails were assigned as part of vessel rating as the rigging was designed as part of the planing process.
Armament would likely follow the same procedure and originally be set as per contemporary regulations.
The actual stucture of the vessel would have been well extablished through regulations and "best-practices" according to time period and vessel purpose.
Interior layout and furinishings may have been easier to be modified from the original designs, but then again, not certain, as hold space was typically set as per needs for the vessel's purpose.

Modification would certainly occur following vessel rifits, as well as capture by an enemy Nation. these would certainly be recorded through plan drafts and written reports.

As far as decorations, the original plans seldom give the exact carvings and the ship designer / engineer often included some "project drafts". but these drafts do not guarantee absolute accuracy either.

17, 18, 19th century vessels have certainly been made into art pieces through contemporay models, and models built later in an effort to document and illustrate the science of building ships. These models are often what inspires modelers working with an interest for the time period. These models could very well be what actually launch the modern version of our hobby.​

Kindest regards and happy modeling.
G
 
Last edited:
Jimsky said:
  • Brian Lavery’s The Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War 1600–1815 is an essential scholarly work. It provides technical details about how ships were armed and how captains or admirals made decisions after commissioning.
  • Peter Goodwin, former curator of HMS Victory, also discusses captain-driven alterations in books like The Construction and Fitting of the Sailing Man of War 1650–1850.
Click to expand...
Thanks Jim, I will dig through my copies as this is extremely fascinating stuff.
Allan
 
The sailing characteristics of a wind driven ship are defined by the relationship of two points on the longitudinal profile of the ship’s hull; the center of effort which is determined by the distribution of sail area and the center of lateral resistance that is defined by the longitudinal profile of the hull’s underwater area. These two points are the ends of a lever that determines if the ship has a windward or Lee helm. A slight windward helm was usually preferred. A Lee helm was dangerous.

Today, these points can be easily calculated, but this was not always the case. In days past, the balance of the ship’s helm would be determined by actually sailing her. The center of effort could often be changed by simply changing the rake of the masts. The center of lateral resistance could be changed by adjusting the ship’s trim. This involved moving heavy weights such as armament or ballast. Changes like this were within the captain’s discretion.

On the other hand, the captain did not have complete access to different armament while the ship was in dockyard hands. Dockyards were bureaucracies just like other arms of the government. Changes to the ship’s outfit: boats, armament, etc, required paperwork.

Of course, once the ship sailed the shore establishment had no control over changes that the captain might make.

Roger
 
Jimsky said:
While I understand your point about striving for historical accuracy in model-building, I respectfully disagree with the idea that inaccuracies or creative additions are inherently negative. Model-building is a diverse hobby, and builders approach it with different goals. For some, the pursuit of historical precision is paramount, and research ensures their work reflects the subject as it was. However, others build for personal enjoyment, creativity, or artistic expression, prioritizing fun over strict adherence to historical details. Adding a feature because it "looks cool" or using extra parts from a kit, like a missile or bomb, can be a valid creative choice for those builders. Both approaches, accuracy-driven and expressive, have merit, as they reflect the builder’s intent and passion. Judging one as inferior overlooks the individuality and freedom that make the hobby so rewarding.
Click to expand...
I am sorry you missed my point in my answering the basic question. There was no "judgement" in my answer. You have your approach to a build as does everybody else and I support and defend that approach. I will not criticize another modeler about choices made to suit that person or the end result. For me, I can have my opinion about one's results just as you will have but I do not think that it would helpful to voice those opinions. For me, doing the historical research is part of the enjoyment of assembling a model.
 
uncchains said:
I am sorry you missed my point in my answering the basic question. There was no "judgement" in my answer. You have your approach to a build as does everybody else and I support and defend that approach. I will not criticize another modeler about choices made to suit that person or the end result. For me, I can have my opinion about one's results just as you will have but I do not think that it would helpful to voice those opinions. For me, doing the historical research is part of the enjoyment of assembling a model.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your thoughtful reply, uncchains. I appreciate that you support everyone’s individual approach to building; it’s one of the great strengths of our community. That said, I believe it’s important to remember that a forum thrives on open, respectful discussion, including the exchange of differing opinions. Sharing perspectives, even when we don’t fully agree, is how we all grow as modelers.

Voicing opinions doesn’t have to mean passing judgment, it can be a way of inviting deeper thought, offering alternate angles, or simply starting a conversation. When done constructively, that kind of dialogue enriches the hobby and helps us all see beyond our own workbenches. After all, it’s not just about the final result, but the shared journey of learning and discovery that brings us here.
 
AllanKP69 said:
I realize rigging was commonly customized thus there are very few, if any, contemporary drawings on rigging, but I am really curious about what other things a captain would have changed and why, after the yard launched the ship other than furniture and decoration in his personal space.
Thanks, this is very interesting.
Allan
Click to expand...
A lot of creativity existed in the American navy compared to the British navy. Some of the US navy's captains made changes but most were not constructional. A study of the USS Constitution would show this.
 
11320 Titanic said:
A lot of creativity existed in the American navy compared to the British navy.
Click to expand...
Do you mean by the shipyards, naval architects, captains, or something else? Can you give some examples? This comparison of the American and British navies was new for me as so many American Shipwrights trained in RN yards before emigrating to America. It is interesting as the RN had contracts for private yards and the Establishments which were to be followed in the Royal Navy's own yards and the American shipwrights would be familiar with these.
Thanks Don
Allan
 
I'm perhaps too new at this hobby to have an informed opinion, but for me, it's about historical accuracy. I actually enjoy the meticulous research that one sometimes has to invest in order to get the ship as close to accurate as possible. While doing so, you learn. You learn a bit about what each part of the ship does, why it was designed the way it was, and in a small way, helping keep some piece of history alive. While working on my current build, my respect and interest in the ship have only grown as I continued to research and learn about it. To get the final product as close to the real thing as possible also gives me a more concrete goal to work towards, which I sometimes need to get through the more tedius parts of the build. Creative freedom would lead me to cut corners at those times, and I think I would deeply regret that in the end.

But that isn't to say there's no room for creativity in historical accuracy. I have had to utilize interpretation and take some liberties at times. But that's because I'm working on a fairly obscure ship type which was not documented nor preserved nearly to the extent of it's European counterparts, leaving many gaps in the overall design that need filling in. In such instances, I need to utilize some creative thinking to fill in those gaps, sometimes balancing a fine line between asthetics, tadition, and function. For example, my own model will deviate quite a bit from modern reconstructions of the ship, but only because my own interpretation of the written sources of the design differs a bit from the more popular interpretations. Granted, when working on the more popular and renowned tall ships, I can see where there's less room for interpretation. I guess I'm lucky my interest is in ancient and more obscure ships.
 
Last edited:
I am a bit of a research junkie. I study whatever books and drawings I can get my hands on. I am fortunate enough to have a plotter from a previous job that I can print up to 36” wide on. I think when I get to my Victory and Constitution models, I will be as accurate as practical given the scale and tools at my disposal. But I do not want my shortcomings to come from a lack of knowledge.

IMG_1250.jpeg

IMG_1249.jpeg
 
Mwentling said:
I am a bit of a research junkie. I study whatever books and drawings I can get my hands on. I am fortunate enough to have a plotter from a previous job that I can print up to 36” wide on. I think when I get to my Victory and Constitution models, I will be as accurate as practical given the scale and tools at my disposal. But I do not want my shortcomings to come from a lack of knowledge.

View attachment 532508

View attachment 532509
Click to expand...
AMEN!!
 
Mwentling said:
I am a bit of a research junkie.
Click to expand...
Hi Mark,
Your library and mine are very similar. If there is one other book that I would add it would be Peter Goodwin's The Construction and Fitting of the English Man of War, 1650-1850. Talk about a lot of research, Mr. Goodwin did not hold back. No single book has it all, but you may find this particular book very useful. The spline on mine is broken and torn from many years of use. Used copies are available on the cheap.
Allan

The Construction and Fitting of the English Man of War: 1650-1850: Goodwin, Peter: 9780870210167: Amazon.com: Books

The Construction and Fitting of the English Man of War: 1650-1850 [Goodwin, Peter] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Construction and Fitting of the English Man of War: 1650-1850
www.amazon.com
 
Na Daeyong's Apprentice said:
I'm perhaps too new at this hobby to have an informed opinion, but for me, it's about historical accuracy. I actually enjoy the meticulous research that one sometimes has to invest in order to get the ship as close to accurate as possible. While doing so, you learn. You learn a bit about what each part of the ship does, why it was designed the way it was, and in a small way, helping keep some piece of history alive. While working on my current build, my respect and interest in the ship have only grown as I continued to research and learn about it. To get the final product as close to the real thing as possible also gives me a more concrete goal to work towards, which I sometimes need to get through the more tedius parts of the build. Creative freedom would lead me to cut corners at those times, and I think I would deeply regret that in the end.

But that isn't to say there's no room for creativity in historical accuracy. I have had to utilize interpretation and take some liberties at times. But that's because I'm working on a fairly obscure ship type which was not documented nor preserved nearly to the extent of it's European counterparts, leaving many gaps in the overall design that need filling in. In such instances, I need to utilize some creative thinking to fill in those gaps, sometimes balancing a fine line between asthetics, tadition, and function. For example, my own model will deviate quite a bit from modern reconstructions of the ship, but only because my own interpretation of the written sources of the design differs a bit from the more popular interpretations. Granted, when working on the more popular and renowned tall ships, I can see where there's less room for interpretation. I guess I'm lucky my interest is in ancient and more obscure ships.
Click to expand...
So, if it were a book, would that be historical fiction?
 
AllanKP69 said:
Hi Mark,
Your library and mine are very similar. If there is one other book that I would add it would be Peter Goodwin's The Construction and Fitting of the English Man of War, 1650-1850. Talk about a lot of research, Mr. Goodwin did not hold back. No single book has it all, but you may find this particular book very useful. The spline on mine is broken and torn from many years of use. Used copies are available on the cheap.
Allan

The Construction and Fitting of the English Man of War: 1650-1850: Goodwin, Peter: 9780870210167: Amazon.com: Books

The Construction and Fitting of the English Man of War: 1650-1850 [Goodwin, Peter] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Construction and Fitting of the English Man of War: 1650-1850
www.amazon.com
Click to expand...
Just ordered, I appreciate the recommendation. You can never know too much!
 
You know, I really believe that so much of what we do as ship modelers is basically a form of art. We dive deep into studying our chosen vessel, soaking up everything we can from old history books, surviving blueprints, and sketches. Then comes the fun part: figuring out what’s actually doable in the scale we’re working with. You can get way more historical accuracy at 1:48 than at 1:96, for example—think intricate interior details or spot-on knots in the rigging that only shine in those bigger scales. Of course, we’ve all got our own limits, like how nimble our fingers are or how sharp our eyesight is holding up. But hey, we’re a small but passionate bunch, and when we finally finish a model after pouring in hundreds of hours of research and thousands more on the build itself, we step back and just beam at our little masterpiece. We know every bit of heart and sweat that went into it, even if no one else does—they probably couldn’t spot the difference between one knot and another anyway!
 
Mwentling said:
You know, I really believe that so much of what we do as ship modelers is basically a form of art. We dive deep into studying our chosen vessel, soaking up everything we can from old history books, surviving blueprints, and sketches. Then comes the fun part: figuring out what’s actually doable in the scale we’re working with. You can get way more historical accuracy at 1:48 than at 1:96, for example—think intricate interior details or spot-on knots in the rigging that only shine in those bigger scales. Of course, we’ve all got our own limits, like how nimble our fingers are or how sharp our eyesight is holding up. But hey, we’re a small but passionate bunch, and when we finally finish a model after pouring in hundreds of hours of research and thousands more on the build itself, we step back and just beam at our little masterpiece. We know every bit of heart and sweat that went into it, even if no one else does—they probably couldn’t spot the difference between one knot and another anyway!
Click to expand...
I think I’m just the opposite. I look at my finished product and am reminded of all the mistakes I’ve made. They stand out like a sore thumb to me. So I give a lot of them away. The recipients will never notice. For me, it’s all about the process and the learning of skills that I am most interested in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top