• 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.

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

Chapelle’s article is both timely and behind times. Let me explain.

Timeless: someone here on SOS asked about the difference between two different Mayflower kits causing me to reread William A. Baker’s comments about designing the replica at Plymouth, MA. Here’s what I learned:

1. Only two things are known for sure. The ship that brought the Pilgrims to the New World was named Mayflower and that she was rigged with at least one topsail. That’s it.

2. Baker found at least 20 different vessels named Mayflower in British records for the period that the Pilgrim’s Mayflower was believed to exist. It was impossible to learn which of these the Pilgrims sailed on.

3. Different passengers on the voyage quote different tonnages for mayflower ranging from 140 to 181 tons.

Choosing the largest tonnage (181 tons) and late 1500-early 1600 manuscripts Baker designed an Elizabethan Era merchant ship. No one can claim that it’s Mayflower yet the name sells. Chapelle would say that calling such a model built to Baker’s plans “Mayflower” makes it a “Model that should not be built.”

Behind the times: Since Chapelle’s death in the mid-1970’s a number of very old wrecks have been explored and documented. One is the wreckage of the Red Bay Galleon. This Spanish galleon, probably the Basque built San Juan was crushed in the ice off the coast of Labrador in the 1570’s. Archeologists recovered the vessel’s timbers, measured them, and used the information to build a model. Unfortunately Chapelle was not alive to see this sort of archeology based reconstruction. Builders wanting to build a model of a Spanish built Galleon no longer have to rely on the offerings from the kit manufacturers. I would argue that the Red Bay Galleon is a model that “Should be Built”.

Roger
 
Roger Pellett said:
Unfortunately Chapelle was not alive to see this sort of archeology based reconstruction.
Click to expand...
However, he wrote (in this same article):

While we learn more with each passing year, there are still so many vacant spots in our line of knowledge that we are as yet in no position to do much "reconstruction" on any large scale. In any case reconstruction can only be carried on when there is a mass of contemporary information available and is no job for an evening or two in the local library.

In some ways, this addresses both of the comments you make - timeless and behind the times.
 
When viewed in this stark relief Chapelle's statements were probably understood at the time to apply to a set of conditions. These were editorials in the Nautical Research Journal 3/3 and 4/4 which is published by the Nautical Research Guild. This was soon after the formation. The name that was chosen is telling. Those who requested this from him had standards and goals in line with his. However, I can well imagine that the type of disagreement that followed 3/3 would have given him cause to wonder if he had entered an all together wrong place.

Research is an academic endeavor. It involves specific standards. It reflects a serious intent.

Guild : noun. an organization of persons with related interests, goals, etc., especially one formed for mutual aid or protection. any of various medieval associations, as of merchants or artisans, organized to maintain standards and to protect the interests of its members, and that sometimes constituted a local governing body. from Google.

The founders by choosing this designation must have had serious aspirations and wished to be taken seriously by the accepted authorities.

What Chapelle wrote probably was intended for those whose ambition was to earn an actual guild level and to meet research standards. Discussion of what Chapelle's words and conditions mean is probably only relevant when guild and serious research aspirations apply. It does not mean that the standards have to have been achieved. It does mean that the desire and ambition be.

I pretty much agree with Chapelle. In the light of "If you wish to be X, then what you do should be Y." I do disagree about not exploring builds of vessels in the era before available plans. Those from the time with design instructions that have been left in print or manuscript. They just should be properly identified as the fantasy that they are. No name of a ship that ever existed must ever be applied. I see nothing wrong with taking on the role of a 15C. or 16C. or 17C. ship designer, giving your work a unique name and making it your presentation to the king and Navy Board. One of the most instructive exercises that I have done in all this was to follow Sir Anthony Deane's method to design a 1670 era first rate.

Dean
 
The Navy files in the Archives also contain a very complete lot of ships' boat plans and details; some of these would make very attractive models. The one drawback to this great source is that the index is in very poor shape and so it is necessary to visit the Archives in person and spend much time in search to accomplish a relatively satisfactory research on a ship of any fixed period. But, in spite of this, the source is invaluable and available in some way to all, either through personal visit or through the mails. With this huge source of material there is little excuse for us not having some attractive and useful models showing the development of American steamships

i agree with Chapelle there are massive resources available to build accurate models i disagree with the accessibility of that material.
for example i wanted to 3D model the salvages steam engine of the Indiana and build a diorama of the engine room The Smithsonian salvaged the engine and there are hundreds of 35mm slides and reports of the salvage operation. The engine itself is in a Smithsonian warehouse. First the warehouse is off limits to the public so the engine sits in a dark corner of some warehouse. As far as the archival information yes, it is available IF i make a trip to the Smithsonian at a cost of $2,000.00 in travel, hotel, meals and cost to have the material copied. A hobby builder or even a kit maker will not spend that kind of time and money. I understand Chapelle but it is just not practical for anyone or for the hobby at large to strive for accuracy.

to make the statements
ships that should not be built and ships that should be built is like someone walking up to a project and saying that is not how to do it then walk away without telling you HOW to do it.

i think 99% of kit builders have no idea how a real ship is built. Why fuss over the shape of a deadeye on a period ship kit like the Mayflower to be "historically accurate" when the entire model is make believe?

perhaps we all need to define "good enough"
 
And they’re not making it any easier. I read in an INA newsletter just a few days ago that the Smithsonian has “deassessed” all of the source materials that Chapelle used to make his drawings. The supposed good news is that they have been acquired by the Nautical Archeology Program at Texas A&M University. Why would the Smithsonian get rid of these and why did they not send them to the National Archives?

Roger
 
i do not know how the academic world works but i heard on the streets the academics are not going to give away information because it is worth money as publications. Why give it away when you can sell a book kind of thing.
The hobby of model ship building went down a blind alley even if a kit maker or serious builder wants to be accurate information is way too expensive or unavailable to the general public.
From Chapelle on down for the last 50 years hearing why is it always the same subjects done over and over just a different version. Because that is what the hobby can afford that's why.

Even now you see kits that advertise "based on admiralty plans or museum plans" is so general because those plans do not give any or very little information on how the ship was built. So based on original drawings is only a tiny percent the rest is all made up.
 
I don’t think that the academics are publishing to get the big $$$. My whaleback history book published via a recognized academic press has sold about 600 copies which II am told is good for such a specialized topic. Money wise, the person who prepared the book’s index has been paid more than I have.

I think that academics publish to promote their academic careers. The old expression “ Publish or Perish.”

Whatever their motivation, Chapelle’s materials landing at Texas A&M do not bode well for non-academic researchers.

Roger
 
Whatever their motivation, Chapelle’s materials landing at Texas A&M do not bode well for non-academic researchers.

once something goes into a private collection, historical society archive, University library or museum it has fallen into a black hole pretty much unreachable by the general public. Sure they tell you "Come on down and we will make the information available" but we are not going to do research for you.
 
All may not be lost with University archives. Our part time student glassware washers did not get paid much. Maybe a faculty member or two have undergrad wanna-be who are poor and would do the footwork for minimum wage?
 
there are steps in prepping a project from plan to building. Ship carpenters and master shipwrights did not have nor did they need "construction plans" as a matter of fact they did not even need a drawing at all, they could work from the numbers called offsets. They knew how to build a ship. what plans you get from a collection gives only the shape of the hull and the size of the ship maybe a deck layout and that's it. This is why so many model builders complain about instructions most are vague, you as the builder have to fill in the blanks. but if you do not know how the structure is built filling in the blanks is a huge problem. Another big problem even if you do get construction information on ship building a kit is nothing like how a real ship is built.
Now
Chapelle had high standards for model ship building from the shape of the hull to the finer details. Over the years people involved in the "hobby" of model ship building realized Chapelle set the bar to high so starting with Chapelle his lofty ideals were tweaked over the years how far do we compromise?
 
All may not be lost with University archives. Our part time student glassware washers did not get paid much. Maybe a faculty member or two have undergrad wanna-be who are poor and would do the footwork for minimum wage?

there are researchers for hire some libraries and museums will provide a list of researchers. but there is no go-to place that advertises researchers for hire that i know of so maybe there are.
 
a question is

can the actual information on ship and boat building be applied to ship kit building? Or is like trying to use a manual for a farm tractor to build a car both are kind of the same but not quite
 
My kit experience is limited to the old Yellow Box solid carved hulls. Those kits were mostly scratch except for the heavy work. The stuff that a pattern following lathe did. With detailed plans much could be done that was more than what the kit provided. The instructions were Campbell's Jackstay and following the bib on its last pages. You had to want it and do the work to get the information.
 
Topic 2 - part 2
Before we discuss what ship models ought to be made, I thought it might be valuable to look at the1961 (not 1960 - oops) publication by Chapelle:


The article focuses on the construction of a new model of Savannah for the United States National Museum. Previous to this, the Museum did have a model, but 'does not agree with published catalog description as to the side paddle wheels. Neither does it agree with the material in the Marestier report (1823), which is accepted as the only source for a contemporary picture of the Savanah.'

The old model was built about 1890-92 by the master shipwright and model builder Lawrence Jensen, under the supervision of Capt. Joseph Collins of the U.S. Fish Commission. Research for this particular model had been done by Collins, and in notes left behind he notes no contemporary representation of the steamship had then been found.

The new model was built based on the ship's plans as reconstructed by staff members of the Museum's division of transportation. Chapelle writes how the first step in the research was to obtain customhouse description of the ship. He then goes on with what today may be thought of as a literature review. He considers the possibility that Savannah was built as a Havre packet, but then dismisses the conjecture. He states 'no half-models or plans of packets built before 1832 could be found, offset tables of a Philadelphia-New Orleans packet of 1824-25 were obtained'. Note that Savannah crossed the Atlantic in 1819.

However, Chapelle / the staff obtain offsets for the Ohio built in late 1825; these were used to make drawings / plans of that ship. Ohio was similar in size to Savannah and Capelle writes that there are additional similarities to information recorded in Savannah's register.


The article now turns to the reconstruction of Savannah's plans. Chapelle writes: 'The first step in the reconstruction of the Savannah's plans was to block out the register dimensions on a scale of one-quarter inch to the foot indrawing and then to work out the profile, using the Ohio plan as a general guide.' A bit later he writes: 'The plan for the engine, drawn to the same scale as the profile plan was shifted about on the lower deck in the hull profile to determine where the engine and side paddle wheel shaft might be located.' He also notes ' ... the exact dimensions of the engine are uncertain. Nevertheless, they can be approximated with enough accuracy for our purpose.' Off and on there are comments on how the hull shape of Ohio can be used and / or modified for the purpose of the Savannah reconstruction.

Finally the article concludes with: 'The reconstruction described herein produced a plan for a model that complied to the fullest extent with all the known dimensions and descriptions of the Savannah that have yet been found. The result showed that the United States National Museum's old model could not be altered to agree with the known features of the Savannah and that a new model was therefore necessary.'


Before agreeing to lead this forum, I was not aware of the steamship Savannah, nor this interesting article written by Chapelle. I believe that Chapelle had endorsed the model; but I need to wonder - is this an example of 'The Ship Model That Should Not Be Built'?
 
Topic Number 3

Finally, we arrive at:

Ship Models that Ought to be Built

https://thenrg.org/resource/articles/ship-models-that-ought-to-be-buillt


Here are some extracts / observations related to this article. Chapelle begins with:
  • I know too well that accurate, or reasonably accurate, plans of some very interesting craft are not easily found.
  • However, there are a huge number of plans in existence, and I am sure that most will agree with me if I say that among these are certainly many possibilities for very valuable and informative models.
He ends the article with:
  • … I hope, to encourage someone to build a model of something beside a pure reconstruction based on no more than a vague idea and perhaps, a few doubtful dimensions.
  • If there is not enough dope for a clipper ship, there are plenty of sources for fine models of craft of historical, romantic, technical, or local interests.
  • There are enough Flying Clouds, Constitutions, racing fisherman, and imaginary galleons God knows, and there is surely some type of boat or vessel that will interest a modeler that has not yet been modeled.


In between, Chapelle considers several different types of primarily American vessels.
  • … it is found that clippers appear to be one damned mystery after another.
  • There are lines and sail plans for he clippers Comet and Young America … Some modelers have already discovered this but I do not think it is generally known for there are still very few models of these two clippers. … I have taken off the lines of many half-models of clipper ships but I know of none that show enough to permit a model to be built without long and difficult research.
  • There are very few packet ship models – which seems to me to be a great pity for they were very interesting ships historically, technically, and in performance. The reason why few models of this class of ships have been made is readily explained – there are very few plans and none very complete.
  • I shall not take up much space with sailing men-of-war for there are now a great many available plans which are reasonably accurate. Having made some myself I can say that every attempt was made to obtain as accurate information as the records and situation permit. I took pains to list, on my plans, the reconstruction done.
  • One of the difficulties in navy ship models is that many sailing men-of-war had long lives and were changed somewhat on almost every commissioning … Since it is rare to find a ship completely detailed in a single period it is very easy to end up with a set of plans showing a ship in a number of periods …
  • Steam men-of-war are sadly neglected it seems to me. The National Archives has a huge quantity of very interesting ships in varying stages of detail and of the whole range in date from early naval steamers to 1900 or thereabouts.
  • In New England at least, there are many models of fishermen … it is a little unfortunate that the great majority of recent models of fishermen have been of the so called “racing fishermen” which are hardly representative. … it would be possible for modelers to build some of the typical vessels of this class …
  • Very few models seem to exist on exploration vessels, yet there is some plan material available on Bear, Roosevelt and other well known ships.
  • I have recently heard that a few members are interested in models of American small fishing and trading craft. I hope this is followed up for it is a field well suited to local interest and there is a raft of material available. Except for the collection in the Smithsonian and the special one in the Providence Public Library, there appear to be no special collections of small boat type models in the United States.
  • Whaling ship models have been quite popular and still seem to have appeal to model builders. I do not know of any completely accurate plan, but there are many half-models, pictures and other source materials. To my mind the whaler is a difficult ship to model and the whaling schooner related in model of the old Grand Banker “salt fisherman” is an easier job with equal appeal. A plan of one of these is in Grimwood’s book American Ship Models and How to Build Them.

Chapelle then spends a bit of time noting the Collection of Admiralty Draughts in the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, London, England; noting that the bulk of the material is from between 1727 and 1835 with varying degree of completeness. He also notes: ‘I must say our English counterparts have similar omissions in models that ought to be built – there is no end of models of Victory, but so far as I could learn no model - and no interest I guess – in Nelson’s first command, A Bermudian built brig named Badger.’ Also he notes, ‘in the National Maritime Museum … plans remarkably complete giving lines, inboard profile, deck and platforms, spar dimensions and – believe it or not – rather complete specifications.’

As before, please comment / react at will!
 
Very many, if not most of the vessels that Chapelle was promoting have been modeled by now. Improvements in the replication of plans have made it practical.
e.g. I have four packet plans - from Chapelle, plus Relief which was the first USN supply ship, and a USN 44 - Hudson which was based on a packet design and falls into the "what were they thinking?" category. This is only because The S.I. provides full size copies of the plans for $10 a sheet. (If only The S.I. realized that digital copies are an item and can be downloaded. And if the pirates making this unlikely could be instantly annihilated.)

Chapelle was not and is not wrong in decrying the ubiquity of Constitution (USS and before), HMS Victory 1805, Bluenose and a few more, when viewed in the light of a particular set of standards.

One universe is when Historian, accurate scratch building, expanding knowledge, serious dedication, seeking to bring the obscure and forgotten back into a physical presence, looking to cut a new and unique path, ship modeling as challenge and something worth serious effort are the ambition as the standards. I see the reality as: very few entering into this are even aware of those standards. Only a small minority when exposed to these standards will choose to try to follow them. Most who stick with this have very different motivations. Theirs' is a different universe. Problems occur when the reality that there are two different universes is not understood, or is seen as moot or unimportant when self-aggrandizement is the objective.
 
DAWarden-(Jaager) said:
Very many, if not most of the vessels that Chapelle was promoting have been modeled by now. Improvements in the replication of plans have made it practical.
e.g. I have four packet plans - from Chapelle, plus Relief which was the first USN supply ship, and a USN 44 - Hudson which was based on a packet design and falls into the "what were they thinking?" category. This is only because The S.I. provides full size copies of the plans for $10 a sheet. (If only The S.I. realized that digital copies are an item and can be downloaded. And if the pirates making this unlikely could be instantly annihilated.)

Chapelle was not and is not wrong in decrying the ubiquity of Constitution (USS and before), HMS Victory 1805, Bluenose and a few more, when viewed in the light of a particular set of standards.

One universe is when Historian, accurate scratch building, expanding knowledge, serious dedication, seeking to bring the obscure and forgotten back into a physical presence, looking to cut a new and unique path, ship modeling as challenge and something worth serious effort are the ambition as the standards. I see the reality as: very few entering into this are even aware of those standards. Only a small minority when exposed to these standards will choose to try to follow them. Most who stick with this have very different motivations. Theirs' is a different universe. Problems occur when the reality that there are two different universes is not understood, or is seen as moot or unimportant when self-aggrandizement is the objective.
Click to expand...
It would be a start with S.I. if you didn't need to mail a check to get a catalog!

Yes, I wonder about Chapelle's reaction to the readily available books published by Sea Watch - including Tosti's books on modeling Young America. Or the ANCRE monographs - including that of Bonhomme Richard; would he be concerned about the reconstruction of Hermione?

Would he consider Bonhomme Richard models 'de-valued' if built from a now available kit?

There is a further issue when universes collide - I feel I see this one very often in build forums (and I have been guilty myself): individuals that start with a kit, do some research, see deficiencies in the kit, and then try to remedy them. I have now fully come to believe that starting with a good set of plans is actually a simpler path for the construction of a model. I no longer see scratch building as requiring one to be more skillful, but rather needing a slightly different skill set. Many of these additional skills are indirectly being developed by kit builders. I believe more would give scratch building a try if they were exposed to the practice before they invested in the next model.
 
Greg Davis said:
: individuals that start with a kit, do some research, see deficiencies in the kit, and then try to remedy them.
Click to expand...
I see this as a more than worthy exercise. The actual value with doing it is that it involves scratch building. It is good for practicing for when it would really matter. Doing it lowers the imaginary barrier to attempting a scratch build project.
Objectively it is most often sunk cost (apart from it increasing skills and confidence).
 
DAWarden-(Jaager) said:
I see this as a more than worthy exercise. The actual value with doing it is that it involves scratch building. It is good for practicing for when it would really matter. Doing it lowers the imaginary barrier to attempting a scratch build project.
Objectively it is most often sunk cost (apart from it increasing skills and confidence).
Click to expand...
So the 'big' question, is how to direct more builders to attempting a scratch project. Finding a way to promote small but interesting projects may be a good step; i.e., minimizing the risk factor while simultaneously increasing the success factor.
 
Greg Davis said:
So the 'big' question, is how to direct more builders to attempting a scratch project.
Click to expand...

As someone who would like to get into scratch-building, I would recommend providing high-quality, freely-available plans and links to places to purchase materials, and tools needed. Also a selection of plans that aren't just the average ship of the line or simple dory; a variety is would be good.

A link to the Smithsonian and their "nigh-impenetrable without prior knowledge" search functions isn't really providing plans, either. Part of the scratch-building process is going to require an accumulation of knowledge, so easing that accumulation of knowledge, both in model-building as well as maritime vocabulary and understanding, will be crucial to the newbie. (E: A series of links to specific plans would work!)

E: Should also mention this has been a pretty fascinating conversation to read, lots to think about for anyone serious about model ship-building.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top