• Win a Free Custom Engraved Brass Coin!!!
    As a way to introduce our brass coins to the community, we will raffle off a free coin during the month of August. Follow link ABOVE for instructions for entering.
  • PRE-ORDER SHIPS IN SCALE TODAY!

    The beloved Ships in Scale Magazine is back and charting a new course for 2026!
    Discover new skills, new techniques, and new inspirations in every issue.

    NOTE THAT OUR FIRST ISSUE WILL BE JAN/FEB 2026

To Build or Not to Build According to Howard I. Chapelle

Greg Davis

Greg Davis

Joined
Dec 7, 2022
Messages
127
Points
78

To Build or Not to Build According to Howard I. Chapelle

A seminar course within The School for Ship Model Building​


This course will focus on a couple of articles written by Howard I. Chapelle that appeared in the pages of the Nautical Research Journal. I believe these were published in 1951 and 1952. The articles, with links to them (as well as PDF download), are titled:

Analyzation / discussion related to these documents is nothing new - the included views have been debated (sometimes hotly) since publication. With that said, issues that Chapelle brings up are important and core to the field of model shipbuilding. In the past discussions that I am aware of, it seems that the two papers are dealt with in some isolation. Here I hope that we can extend the discussion to include additional related writings of Chapelle and to make an attempt on understanding the context / situation that he wrote from.


Supplemental to these articles, I would like for us to consider the introductory material written in the book:

  • American Ship Models and How to Build Them by V.R. Grimwood (1942)
As well some content from:
  • The National Watercraft Collection by Howard I. Chapelle (1960)

Additionally, it will be valuable to consider the 1960 publication by Chapelle:


Other readings my be suggested later.


My name is Greg Davis and this course offering has been suggested by Dave Stevens. Certainly there are individuals that know more about Chapelle and his views on model ship building than I will likely ever know. Nonetheless, I believe that I can help guide the journey of analyzing the topic at hand. Hence, I feel that my primary role in this class / seminar is to be the facilitator.

Professionally my background is in the field of Mathematics, specifically Dynamical Systems. I served as a professor and administrator at the University of Wisconsin – Green Bay for 35 years. As an instructor and scholar, I did find success in creating and analyzing mathematical models. Because UW-Green Bay is not a huge University, I had a unique opportunity to teach more than 30 different courses at levels from introductory to graduate. I’ve found that several of the skills needed in the academic arena are transferable to topics related to building model ships; and certainly, to managing a classroom.

As far as my experience in model ships is concerned, it is a work in progress, and truthfully, I hope that is always the case. I’ve been actively engaged in building model ships for about 20 years now. I started by building a number of kits that ‘shouldn’t be built’. But soon, and in a modeling vacuum, my academic instincts kicked in and I have found myself more and more concerned with historical accuracy of my work as well as looking for interesting and unique projects. While I still make some kits, my focus is much more aligned with that of a scratch-builder creating historically based models. In fact, the last model I completed did require me to do much research on the subject and draft reconstruction plans prior to building the vessel.


I'm going to give this introduction a day or two to be seen and then I would like to get the discussion going in a (semi) structured manner.

Thank you for considering this course offering and the possibility of contributing and I seriously look forward to contributions from all involved!
 
This is a short bio of Howard Irving Chapelle that is on the Smithsonian Institution Archives website. From the dates in the bio, I surmise that he wrote the two NRG papers (to be discussed in this thread) at or just after the time he visited England on fellowship.

Historical Note​

Howard Irving Chapelle (1901-1975), marine architect and historian, began his career as a marine apprentice and designer in 1919. He worked for a number of shipbuilders until he went into business for himself in 1936. During this period, Chapelle also served as head of the New England section of the Historic American Merchant Marine Survey, a Depression-era project to gather information on American maritime history and provide work for destitute marine architects.

Chapelle's business was interrupted by World War II, during which he served in the United States Army Transportation Corps ship and boatbuilding program. Following the war, he pursued his interest in the history of marine architecture, traveling to England in 1950 to study colonial ship design on a Guggenheim Fellowship. In 1956-1957, Chapelle went to Turkey under the auspices of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization to serve as a consultant to the Turkish government on fishing vessel construction and fitting.

Chapelle was appointed Curator in the Division of Transportation, National Museum of History and Technology, in 1957. He served in that position until 1967 when he became Senior Historian. While at the Museum, he directed the planning and construction of hundreds of ship models for the Hall of Merchant Shipping. Chapelle retired in 1971, becoming Historian Emeritus in the Museum. A prolific writer, Chapelle authored a number of books on maritime history and marine architecture.
 
A great start, but if you "like to get the discussion going in a (semi) structured manner," I'm afraid you're going to find managing this student body to be a lot like herding cats! :D

Thanks for Chapelle's monograph on Savannah. I had not seen that one before. An excellent example of the sort of models serious modelers should be building.
 
Bob Cleek said:
A great start, but if you "like to get the discussion going in a (semi) structured manner," I'm afraid you're going to find managing this student body to be a lot like herding cats! :D

Thanks for Chapelle's monograph on Savannah. I had not seen that one before. An excellent example of the sort of models serious modelers should be building.
Click to expand...
But I’ve wrangled a Faculty Senate with success! So I’m not worried yet.
 
Howard Chapelle was a Naval Architect. I’m not aware of any models that he built himself, but like many naval architects he was interested in them. Naval Architecture is a recognized branch of engineering, and today involves formal education. The curriculum emphasizes design of the vessels hull and the means to predict performance by mathematical analysis. Although not stated in the biography, I believe that he did study Naval Architecture in the 1930’s via a well regarded learn by mail program.

Chapelle objected to people modeling vessels without historically accurate design information. He was especially critical of those who tried to reconstruct hull lines. He himself had reconstructed the lines of the Lake Erie Brig Niagara for a replica (not the current one) and felt that he had not got them right. He argued that a correctly shaped hull was the key to a worthwhile model. His Naval Architect’s credentials were showing.

While I agree with most of what Chapelle, has written, we have learned much since he wrote it. This is especially true of our British and European colleagues who have been able to analyze ancient shipbuilding texts held in their archives. Information from these texts plus an explosion of archeological information has permitted much better reconstruction of vessels largely unknown in his time.

Roger
 
Roger Pellett said:
While I agree with most of what Chapelle, has written, we have learned much since he wrote it. This is especially true of our British and European colleagues who have been able to analyze ancient shipbuilding texts held in their archives. Information from these texts plus an explosion of archeological information has permitted much better reconstruction of vessels largely unknown in his time.
Click to expand...
This is partially why I felt it important to put this discussion / class in some form of historical context. He was active in the ship-building field over a century ago and the two main papers that are often debated are now 75 years old. The Savannah document was published in 1961 - so about a decade later. I also believe he was not a model builder, but given his position and the fact that he wrote the Savannah document, it seems he may have had some control over the model's outcome. We can address this later in the course; however from my first readings of the Savannah document, it seems that a number of his tenants were violated.

I have been thinking about what he might be thinking about the current state of ship modeling. Would he be encouraged - or additionally discouraged?

No matter, it is abundantly clear that Chapelle carried out an impressively vast line of historical scholarship - one that many should be / are indebted to.

His views have and continue to be polarizing in the modeling arena (I have no good idea of his impact in actual ship building). Here, I am looking for a better understanding of his views - particularly on how they may have actually affected him. I have some conjectures that I will raise when it seems time. Also, I have some hope that there may be some realistic way to plot a way forward so that some individuals can realistically make modeling contributions that are consistent with Chapelle's desires. I say some, because I don't see it realistic that all modelers need / can follow his doctrine. The ideas I have, do require collaboration beyond the modeling world.

Thanks for chiming in!
 
Well you caught my interest, thanks for posting. :) I did a quick look at the ships that should be built and liked the comment that if one wants a vessel commanded by Nelson, his first command, Badger (12) purchased 1776 and lines taken off in 1777, would be a great alternative. I checked RMG and there are deck drawings as well as the profile and body plan plus all her scantlings and dimensions of her masts and spars. Unfortunately they are low resolution, but can be purchased in high res from RMG.

Looking forward to further general discussions. My concern is that Chapelle seems to have had pretty strong feelings that only scratch building can yield an accurate model if based on accurate, contemporary sourced, information and based on the many kit-builds out there he may be correct for the most part, a few kit manufacturers and kit bashing aside. That said, the audience here and elsewhere may be a tiny fraction of membership. I hope that I am dead wrong about that.

Allan
 
first and foremost, i would like to welcome Greg Davis to the faculty of the School for Model Shipwrights. This is his classroom and lectures hall so i ask you all to respect that. This is an open discussion and a place to offer your point of view, ask questions, request further explanations so on and so forth. We are here to learn a thing or two.

A great start, but if you "like to get the discussion going in a (semi) structured manner," I'm afraid you're going to find managing this student body to be a lot like herding cats!

but if you crack open a can of cat food believe me you will have the attention of every cat in the room.
the audience here and elsewhere may be a tiny fraction of membership. I hope that I am dead wrong about that.

it is not really a tiny fraction. regardless of what you doing scratch building, researching, kit building model engineering whatever, there is a common ground and thread that runs through the art and hobby. There is a philosophy and a passion and the why and how.
 
Dave Stevens (Lumberyard) said:
it is not really a tiny fraction. regardless of what you doing scratch building, researching, kit building model engineering whatever, there is a common ground and thread that runs through the art and hobby. There is a philosophy and a passion and the why and how.
Click to expand...
I agree, I have read more forums than I can count by first time wooden model ship builder where they are asking how can I make my model more realistic / historically accurate. In fact, from what I've seen modelers that don't ever ask that question are the ones in the minority.
 
Greg Davis said:
I agree, I have read more forums than I can count by first time wooden model ship builder where they are asking how can I make my model more realistic / historically accurate. In fact, from what I've seen modelers that don't ever ask that question are the ones in the minority.
Click to expand...
It appears I am, as I had hoped, dead wrong. :) I really hope everyone follows this topic.
Allan
 
Yeah BUT!

My completely unscientific tally of ship model builders wishing to improve the accuracy of their kit built model goes something like this: “What kind of knot should I use to tie the gun whatszt to the bilge whoszt.” I have yet to read a question asking if the hull shape is correct before buying a kit.

Chapelle approved of models that met certain basic standards, beginning with hull form. He tended not to worry about trivial details.

Roger
 
Roger Pellett said:
Yeah BUT!

My completely unscientific tally of ship model builders wishing to improve the accuracy of their kit built model goes something like this: “What kind of knot should I use to tie the gun whatszt to the bilge whoszt.” I have yet to read a question asking if the hull shape is correct before buying a kit.

Chapelle approved of models that met certain basic standards, beginning with hull form. He tended not to worry about trivial details.

Roger
Click to expand...
All hope is not lost, Roger :):

Soleil Royal- Re-engineering Artesania Latina's New Kit by NMBROOK

Hi All I was determined not to buy any more kits as I have enough projects and pastimes to keep me going beyond retirement. However this release changed all that, I simply HAD to build it. Not because it is an amazing model straight out of the box but more a case that I realised the potential...
shipsofscale.com
 
On the topic of Mathematical Modeling and Ship Modeling

Still giving some time for people to 'discover' this class. In the meantime I'd like to share where my mind sometimes goes!

At times I think about the parallels between the ‘art’ of mathematical modeling and that of model ship building.

The University of Wisconsin – Green Bay was established with relatively unique academic configuration. The budgetary units were connected to interdisciplinary units as opposed to the standard method of connecting to disciplinary units. At one level I was a member of the Mathematics Program, but the program did not have a stand-alone budget – my salary line ran through the Department of Natural and Applied Sciences for most of my career (toward the end of my stay, it was shifted to a newly found Department of Engineering, Mathematics, and Computer Science). The reason I mention this is that I worked in an environment where my immediate colleagues were trained in Biology, Chemistry, Engineering, Computer Science, Earth Science, Mathematics, and Physics. Our budgetary unit’s (NAS) unifying topic was that of Environmental Sciences – from both physical and ecological perspectives. As you might expect, Unit meetings could be ‘interesting’ when trying to balance the needs and desires of such a group.

Curriculum for an Environmental Science program is not defined by programmatic accreditation nor has any national / international standard. So, the curriculum was often in flux and the reason for a particular required (or elective) course may have ranged from this is good for the student to this is my field and I want to teach it. At times it was hard to argue for curricular change based on changing needs of students as they looked to (oh horrors) being employed. There was always a group of faculty that would say I don’t know that / didn’t have that material and I’ve been successful, so students don’t need that either. Did they ever notice that times do change and/or maybe they would have been even more successful with some additional knowledge! There were fights over GIS, scientific computing, and even mathematical modeling (surprised you are).

While supportive of GIS, scientific computing, scientific writing, my personal curriculum battles came with developing mathematical modeling courses and requirements. I eventually developed three courses that became requirements – an ecological modeling course and a physical modeling course for undergraduate students, as well as a graduate level course for the M.S. in Environmental Science and Policy.

I still remember my first offering of the required ecological modeling course because of the number of students resistant to the topic – some of this coming from their holding of other faculty members in an unrealistically high level of esteem. I also remember that one of the ‘resistant’ students became a graduate student of mine. His studies eventually found him off the coast of California studying bird populations. The group/project we were working on required that he needed modeling skills. In fact, that aspect of his thesis was instrumental in his future employment that he became quite successful in. So, all good with him! I will also say that as certain faculty retired and the modeling courses were no longer ‘new’ to the curriculum, the instruction became easier.

Mathematical modeling requires that one takes careful observation of what is to be modeled. The purpose of the model needs to be accessed. Hypotheses imbedded in the model need to be known. Decisions need to be made as to how accurate the model should be. Models need to be analyzed and verified. Mathematical modeling is often an iterative process:

Hypotheses are made; model is created; model is analyzed / verified; perhaps predictions are made based on the model. But no matter what, the result is always the same – the model is wrong. Hence hypotheses are made; model is created … .

It is a most basic fact: Models are not the real thing; they are always wrong.

So, why would one make a mathematical model? While a good model is the goal, it turns out that a bad mathematical model is also useful. When a mathematical model fails, it is because the assumptions are wrong. The failure should force the modeler to reassess the hypotheses (often requiring additional research) and therefore better understand the system that is being modeled. It is through this iterative process that mathematical models get better.

The process can take a long time; it can take many people with a shared goal. A great example is Newtonian mechanics being followed by Einstein’s theories being followed by … .

Perhaps, in the realm of historical ship modeling a similar process is hoped for. Inaccurate models can be informative because they demonstrate an element incorrectly – and this is sometimes easier to see than something that is correct. In the next model made, it is important to not replicate the inaccuracy. But how does the iterative process gain traction? Is it by an individual making a new model of the same ship, or is it the next modeler making a new model of the same ship? How often is credit given to a modeler for attempting a previously unmodeled ship; perhaps generating additional interest in the craft and future more accurate models of the ship. Or does the initial model need to be exceedingly well done, else the model is ignored, or worse condemnation is bestowed. In academics, credit should/would be granted – but historic ship modeling is not always academic (nor should it be). Nonetheless more people may be willing to stray from kits if they receive appropriate credit for doing so. Be sure, I am not proposing ribbons / awards for showing up!
 
Here is another Chapelle publication of interest; it describes the research associated with Fulton's "Steam Battery". This vessel was designed to disrupt / breakthrough the British Navel blockade along the East Coast during the war of 1812. The publication describes history of the vessel, the discovery of plans in the Danish Royal Archives in Copenhagen, as well as a reconstruction so that a model could be made of the ship.

I find this paper, much like Chapelle's publication on Savannah, to be valuable since it illustrates reconstruction techniques for model construction that would have been acceptable to him.
 
For what it's worth, I have a few comments....

First, I am a Chapellian. I am not happy building a ship that looks something like the USS X. I want to build the USS X. In effect, though, this rules out most (all?) kits and confines me to scratch builds. This requires tools that kit building does not, and many modelers may not have the desire or means to buy them. I understand that.

More importantly, building the USS X requires research. This is not something many people can do because, to do it, you have to live near the appropriate libraries and museums, and may even have to gain access to a private collection or two. Say, for example, somebody lives on the West coast of the US, and they want to build an American ship launched in the 1700's. Doing research requires them to incur the costs, and spend the time making several trips to the East coast. This is not something many people can do.

It's also the case that the ship modelling community doesn't do much to promote research and, therefore, doesn't do much to promote accurate plans for some (most?) ships. The modelling community is build-oriented. For example, SOS has group builds, but doesn't have group research projects that post the original documents they find, or that try to develop plans for a specific ship (as an aside, geography would mean I couldn't participate in such a group). In my fantasy world, SOS would have such groups, and they'd then work with someone to build and sell the appropriate kit, along with the documentation that explains why the plans were drawn they way they were drawn. I doubt this will ever happen, but if you don't promote something, people won't be that interested in it.

This is NOT to say that a thread on Chappelle is not worth the effort it takes to prepare it. I, and probably others, use SOS as a resource. So, while I might not be interested in a topic today, I might be interested in it later.
 
CharlieT said:
For what it's worth, I have a few comments....

First, I am a Chapellian. I am not happy building a ship that looks something like the USS X. I want to build the USS X. In effect, though, this rules out most (all?) kits and confines me to scratch builds. This requires tools that kit building does not, and many modelers may not have the desire or means to buy them. I understand that.

More importantly, building the USS X requires research. This is not something many people can do because, to do it, you have to live near the appropriate libraries and museums, and may even have to gain access to a private collection or two. Say, for example, somebody lives on the West coast of the US, and they want to build an American ship launched in the 1700's. Doing research requires them to incur the costs, and spend the time making several trips to the East coast. This is not something many people can do.

It's also the case that the ship modelling community doesn't do much to promote research and, therefore, doesn't do much to promote accurate plans for some (most?) ships. The modelling community is build-oriented. For example, SOS has group builds, but doesn't have group research projects that post the original documents they find, or that try to develop plans for a specific ship (as an aside, geography would mean I couldn't participate in such a group). In my fantasy world, SOS would have such groups, and they'd then work with someone to build and sell the appropriate kit, along with the documentation that explains why the plans were drawn they way they were drawn. I doubt this will ever happen, but if you don't promote something, people won't be that interested in it.

This is NOT to say that a thread on Chappelle is not worth the effort it takes to prepare it. I, and probably others, use SOS as a resource. So, while I might not be interested in a topic today, I might be interested in it later.
Click to expand...
Charlie -

Thanks for taking a look here. I'm hoping that at as this thread progresses, there is a realistic plan / effort that increases the odds of more people building 'rare' models. Please poke in once and awhile and see if we're making progress!

Greg
 
CharlieT said:
For what it's worth, I have a few comments....

First, I am a Chapellian. I am not happy building a ship that looks something like the USS X. I want to build the USS X. In effect, though, this rules out most (all?) kits and confines me to scratch builds. This requires tools that kit building does not, and many modelers may not have the desire or means to buy them. I understand that.

More importantly, building the USS X requires research. This is not something many people can do because, to do it, you have to live near the appropriate libraries and museums and may even have to gain access to a private collection or two. Say, for example, somebody lives on the West coast of the US, and they want to build an American ship launched in the 1700's. Doing research requires them to incur the costs and spend the time making several trips to the East coast. This is not something many people can do.

It's also the case that the ship modelling community doesn't do much to promote research and, therefore, doesn't do much to promote accurate plans for some (most?) ships. The modelling community is build-oriented. For example, SOS has group builds but doesn't have group research projects that post the original documents they find, or that try to develop plans for a specific ship (as an aside, geography would mean I couldn't participate in such a group). In my fantasy world, SOS would have such groups, and they'd then work with someone to build and sell the appropriate kit, along with the documentation that explains why the plans were drawn the way they were drawn. I doubt this will ever happen, but if you don't promote something, people won't be that interested in it.

This is NOT to say that a thread on Chappelle is not worth the effort it takes to prepare it. I, and probably others, use SOS as a resource. So, while I might not be interested in a topic today, I might be interested in it later.
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, I have a few replies: :)

I am not happy building a ship that looks something like the USS X. I want to build the USS X. In effect, though, this rules out most (all?) kits and confines me to scratch builds.

This isn't a bad thing and it's certainly not "confining." Kit building is what's "confining," because there's relatively few kits on the market compared to the thousands of vessels for which information sufficient to build an acceptably authentic model from scratch.

This requires tools that kit building does not, and many modelers may not have the desire or means to buy them. I understand that.

Scratch building doesn't require any great expenditure for tools. The necessary basic tools for wooden ship modeling are essentially the same for kit or scratch modeling. As with kit assembling, the basic tools for scratch building need not be expensive. Having a wide selection of high-quality tools in a well-equipped shop is a luxury which can indeed be expensive, or not. Quality used tools are often much better than new ones these days and for a fraction of the price. A quality coping saw can be had new for as little as about $25.00. A used power scroll saw of reasonable quality can be easily found online for around $100 or less. One can also buy a brand-new top-of-the-line scroll saw for $800 to $1,000 dollars. Each of them do exactly the same jobs. A beginning scratch modeler doesn't need to purchase an expensive miniature table saw to mill their own strip wood. Milled strip wood can easily be purchased online. (Of course, after two or three models, he will come to realize that had he bought the power tools at the outset, the savings realized by milling his own stock would have paid for the table saw in short order.) Buying model kits because one wants to save money on fancy tools is a false economy. Any of the quality kits, save the small entry level ones, will cost as much, or more, than any brand-new quality power tool a modeler could possibly wish for. Modelers who feel they are facing that dilemma should compare the cost of a kit versus a scratch build. When they realize the amount the kit manufacturers are charging for the luxury of laser-cut marginal quality wood, I do believe they will find the correct decision easy to discern.

More importantly, building the USS X requires research. This is not something many people can do because, to do it, you have to live near the appropriate libraries and museums, and may even have to gain access to a private collection or two. Say, for example, somebody lives on the West coast of the US, and they want to build an American ship launched in the 1700's. Doing research requires them to incur the costs and spend the time making several trips to the East coast. This is not something many people can do.

Well, that could be true of the USS X, but probably not true about the USS Y or USS Z. On balance, the above assessment is incorrect. It was to a much greater extent true in times long past, but, while not everything is yet online, there is more by orders of magnitude available online at no cost, and in published resource books, to keep even the most prolific scratch builder busy full time over the course of a dozen lifetimes. Visiting as many museums and libraries as one can is always a good thing and something anybody interested in modeling ships should do, but, here again, there are low- or no-cost alternatives today that weren't available decades ago. I traveled to London to spend a week studying and photographing ship models, primarily at the National Maritime Museum (now called the Royal Museum - Greenwich, and I spent another week in Amsterdam doing the same at their maritime museum and at the Rijksmuseum. Another week was spent at Mystic Seaport. And another ten days studying the National Watercraft Collection at the Smithsonian. And those were just the highlights. Today, any plans and research materials contained in these museums are available to order, if not download in their entirety from the comfort of my home, and there are extensive photograph galleries for most museums these days which illustrate their exhibits. I'll grant you that there are obscure vessels the modeling of which might require some hands-on research even in this digital age, but they are now few and dwindling in number as we speak. The solution, if time and cost is a limitation, is to simply pick another fully documented vessel to model instead.

It's also the case that the ship modelling community doesn't do much to promote research and, therefore, doesn't do much to promote accurate plans for some (most?) ships.

If by "the ship modeling community, you mean to include the vast majority of people who define themselves as "ship modelers," the fact is they pay (hugely inflated) prices to purchase the research done for them by somebody else in a ship model kit box, although, in many instances, this doesn't do as much as ought to be done to ensure accurate plans either. If, on the other hand, in most instances today most of the research data is easily available online to anyone who wishes to Google it. Research is an essential part of scratch building. No scratch modeler should have any concern that somebody else hasn't done much to "promote" research that modeler can easily, and more reliably, do themselves, and, as far as I can see, most do conduct their own research, often "from the ground up," electing to do some or all of their own research, or to independently confirm others' research, rather than to take it on blind faith that somebody did it all correctly previously.

The modelling community is build-oriented. For example, SOS has group builds but doesn't have group research projects that post the original documents they find, or that try to develop plans for a specific ship (as an aside, geography would mean I couldn't participate in such a group).

It would appear it's in the nature of building model ships that one necessarily be "build-oriented." Might I suggest that you may have better expressed what you were trying to say by noting the distinction between scratch and kit building, which is that the kit is merely assembled, like any plastic or other type of "kit," while an archival quality fine art ship model is not only built, but more accurately put, created in its entirety, by the artist. Kit building and scratch building have many things in common, but they are nonetheless two entirely different things. Kit building is an exercise in following instructions to assemble provided parts into a copy of the kit designer's model. Scratch building involves doing the entire collection of tasks required to yield an original model designed and built by its creator. It's sort of the difference between buying a car with GPS navigation and driving cross-country on the interstate highway system and Lewis and Clark's journey of exploration!

In my fantasy world, SOS would have such groups, and they'd then work with someone to build and sell the appropriate kit, along with the documentation that explains why the plans were drawn the way they were drawn. I doubt this will ever happen, but if you don't promote something, people won't be that interested in it.

Can you introduce me to your dealer because I want some of what you're smokin'! ROTF Seriously, though, the kit manufacturers have been there, done that, and got the tee shirt. Most of the kit designers are capable scratch modelers and they know how to do the research to design an accurate model. Most all of the inaccuracies to be found in kit models have been well documented in various forums and simply have not been corrected because the manufacturers don't care, think nobody who buys the kit will notice, and if they do, won't care, and/or doesn't care to spend the money to correct the errors. Take gross inaccuracies such as wildly out of scale "bowling pin shaped" belaying pins, "real copper hull sheathing plates" with ridiculously oversized "rivets" that make the model look like it's got a bad case of acne, and out of period and out of scale anchors. There's no need to take a "deep dive" researching any of that. They know it's all wrong, but they also know that the beginning modelers who are the target customers of the manufacturers don't know the difference. What you describe is already available in most of the top end kits and in the best practicums. Keep in mind as well that many very accurate plans exist which, together with the "usual suspects" of basic research books, will provide everything anyone might require in terms of accuracy.

I doubt this will ever happen, but if you don't promote something, people won't be that interested in it.

I'd bet money it will never happen. When a serious scratch builder researches, engineers, and executes a good model, the last thing they want is hundreds of "Models that Should Not Be Built" just like it all over the place, which is basically what happens when a new kit is designed and marketed.

I still don't understand why there is any need to encourage more people to pursue ship modeling as a hobby. This pursuit of quantity over quality doesn't sound like a good business model for fine art. I certainly do understand why Model Shipways is advertising all over social media, "making hay while the sun shines" by inviting people to get involved in ship modeling by buying their kits. The U.S. ship model kit business is one of the few industries benefiting, for the moment, at least, on the unsettled state of tariffs in the U.S. and that price advantage over the foreign-made kits won't last forever.
 
Last edited:
Charlie,

As the author of what has been called “the standard work on the Great Lakes Whaleback Ship” I know a little about doing research.

First of all it is an acquired skill. I am an engineer, not a historian, librarian, or archivist.

Once you have decided on your area of interest, buy and read some books. If, for example, your interest is US sailing warships, buy and read copy of Chapelle’s The History of the American Sailing Navy. This can give you an overview of the subject. Try to focus on one or two subjects. If there is a bibliography mine it for additional references relative to your chosen interests. (Unfortunately none of Chapelle’s books include bibliographies.)

Now, see what published references exist for these chosen interests. This can be where the internet is useful. If it’s a popular subject read reviews to separate the garbage from the good stuff. Again. you’ll have to spend some money. Your local library can also be surprisingly helpful with interlibrary loans. At this point, I would buy the thumb drive of back issues from the Nautical Research Guild. You want issues from about 1948-2000 approx. You will find much research here. Much done by world class model builders.

Drawings: Most of Chapelle’s drawings are held by the Smithsonian Institute and they sell reasonably priced large scale copies. They also sell catalogs of these drawings; one for warships and another for merchant vessels. A surprising number of regional museums and archives also sell drawings. For example, Dave Stevens has posted the catalog of drawings built by the American Shipbuilding Company here on SOS. There are held by Bowling Green State University in Ohio.

Roger
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top