What Makes a Ship Model Valuable to Others?

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

In the case of this thread, I see value in the drift that its gravity is working at.
Is there much more that can be said in this thread about every theoretical value an individual model could possess? The drift is keeping it alive and interesting.

well said i personally encourage drift in a thread it widens the view and brings more information into the topic. I do not see it as a crime against a forum.

holy smoke Bob you summoned the great and powerful AI and lo and behold what goes around comes around back to us defining the subject.

to try and push the fine art of ship modeling in a dark corner or trying to redefine it or even lower the standards and values to a level of "just a hobby" is indeed a fools errand the makers of kits use the high standards and the value it suggests as an advertising gimmick and plaster on the box "museum quality"

 

[Jimsky]

to try and push the fine art of ship modeling in a dark corner or trying to redefine it or even lower the standards and values to a level of "just a hobby" is indeed a fools errand the makers of kits use the high standards and the value it suggests as an advertising gimmick and plaster on the box "museum quality"

I think we need to separate two things that are being blurred together. For most of us, myself included, this is a hobby. My primary goal is simple: I build because I enjoy it. (period)! I enjoy the research, the problem-solving, the shaping of wood and metal, gluing together plastic hulls, and the satisfaction of seeing something take form under my hands. That is quite enough satisfaction, isn't it? If someone finds value in my models — historical accuracy, craftsmanship, or aesthetics, any value, I'm genuinely pleased. If they don’t, I’m not going to lose sleep over it, and I certainly won’t stop modeling. My motivation does not depend on external validations and judgment by others. My models are the crafts, not the Arts!

At the same time, acknowledging that this craft has standards is not the same as demanding that every modeler meet the highest academic or museum benchmark. High standards exist, and yes, manufacturers sometimes use phrases like “museum quality” as marketing language, a term I view with some skepticism, as reflected in our earlier thread discussion. The existence of rigorous work by figures such as Harold Underhill, C. Nepean Longridge, or James Lees (if you prefer another name here) does not obligate me, or anyone, to elevate our hobby to “fine art” status. Nor do I feel any desire to redefine what I do according to their standards.

Over the years, I have developed my own standards (yeah... I'm kinda old). They are informed by experience, by historical interest, and by what I personally find satisfying in a build. They are not imposed from above, and they are not diluted to make things easier. They simply reflect where I choose to place my effort and attention.

Calling ship modeling “just a hobby” can sound dismissive, as if enjoyment and seriousness cannot coexist. They absolutely can! A hobby can be approached casually or pursued with great depth. One does not cancel out the other. High standards exist, and yes, manufacturers sometimes use phrases like “museum quality” as marketing language. But marketing slogans do not define the craft. Modelers do. Each of us decides the level at which we wish to engage. The standards we accept inevitably shape the benchmark reflected in our models.

For me, it remains a hobby, one I take seriously enough to care about quality, but not so seriously that I need to classify it as fine art to justify my time at the bench. And that balance suits me perfectly.

 

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

I think we need to separate two things that are being blurred together. For most of us, myself included, this is a hobby. My primary goal is simple: I build because I enjoy it. (period)! I enjoy the research, the problem-solving, the shaping of wood and metal, gluing together plastic halls, and the satisfaction of seeing something take form under my hands. That is quite enough satisfaction, isn't it?
If someone finds value in my models — historical accuracy, craftsmanship, or aesthetics, any value, I'm genuinely pleased. If they don’t, I’m not going to lose sleep over it, and I certainly won’t stop modeling. My motivation does not depend on external validations and judgment of others. My models are the crafts, not the Arts!

At the same time, acknowledging that this craft has standards is not the same as demanding that every modeler meet the highest academic or museum benchmark. High standards exist, and yes, manufacturers sometimes use phrases like “museum quality” as marketing language, a term I view with some skepticism, as reflected in our earlier
thread discussion. The existence of rigorous work by figures such as Harold Underhill, C. Nepean Longridge, or James Lees (if you prefer another name here) does not obligate me, or anyone, to elevate our hobby to “fine art” status. Nor do I feel any desire to redefine what I do according to their standards.

Over the years, I have developed my own standards (yeah... I'm kinda old). They are informed by experience, by historical interest, and by what I personally find satisfying in a build. They are not imposed from above, and they are not diluted to make things easier. They simply reflect where I choose to place my effort and attention.

Calling ship modeling “just a hobby” can sound dismissive, as if enjoyment and seriousness cannot coexist. They absolutely can! A hobby can be approached casually or pursued with great depth. One does not cancel out the other. High standards exist, and yes, manufacturers sometimes use phrases like “museum quality” as marketing language. But marketing slogans do not define the craft. Modelers do. Each of us decides the level at which we wish to engage. The standards we accept inevitably shape the benchmark reflected in our models.

For me, it remains a hobby, one I take seriously enough to care about so-called 'high grade", but not so seriously that I need to classify it as fine art to justify my time at the bench. And that balance suits me perfectly.

Well said and that is the very point that has been made here in this thread. to quote myself

"At one end of fine art models the standards are quite high and anyone joining the ship modeling community will see the high standards achieved by master builders. The builder can choose to aspire to those standards or not and just build for fun; the builder set his own personal standard good is good enough."

As far as kit makers go they use terms as Museum quality because they recognize the standards and value and in a sort of way encourage better and better modeling. We have beginner kits and intermediate kits high level kits and so-called kits of museum quality. If you personally reached you level so be it.

 

[Jimsky]

As far as kit makers go they use terms as Museum quality because they recognize the standards and value and in a sort of way encourage better and better modeling. We have beginner kits and intermediate kits high level kits and so-called kits of museum quality. If you personally reached you level so be it.

I think we are talking past each other slightly.
Yes, manufacturers use the phrase “museum quality.” But that does not mean the term reflects actual museum standards. It is, first and foremost, a marketing phrase. We’ve already discussed this at length in another thread, and I remain skeptical of the expression for precisely that reason. Museums themselves do not operate on a universal “quality ladder” the way kit box art might suggest. Their standards vary widely, and they are not defined purely, or even primarily, by craftsmanship alone. For some, provenance, documentation, historical relevance, and interpretive value all of these often matter more than surface finish or technical refinement. For others, receiving a model as a gift may be sufficient justification for displaying it. Museums, by contrast, operate with very different objectives when presenting their artifacts.

So when a kit manufacturer prints “museum quality” on a box, it is not a certification. It is aspirational language designed to signal seriousness and attract buyers who value higher standards. That is perfectly understandable from a marketing standpoint, but it should not be confused with institutional validation.

As for encouraging better modeling, improvement does not come from slogans. It comes from individual effort, study, and the standards each of us chooses to apply. If someone builds at a beginner level and is satisfied, that is valid. If someone pursues extreme historical accuracy and technical refinement, that is also valid. The presence of higher standards does not diminish enjoyment, and enjoyment does not require lowering standards.

For me, this remains a hobby, one I take seriously on my own terms and most importantly, in my spare time. I do not need a box label to define the value of my work, and I do not feel compelled to elevate it to institutional “museum” status to justify the time I spend at the bench, while enjoying every minute.

 

[DAWarden-(Jaager)]

is not the same as demanding that every modeler meet the highest academic or museum benchmark.

To demand: a hostile, emotionally loaded verb that does not describe what is in play here. The more appropriate verb is: to inform.

IF a builder aspires to play the game, they need to know what it involves. First of all they need to know that the game exists.

A serious purchaser of a completed model will probably require such standards in what they are willing to spend their money on. A builder who aspires to serve that market had better know the standards involved. A builder who would like to imagine that they COULD serve that market needs to know the actual standards.

To even play this game at the most challenging level, it is necessary to know the standards. It is necessary to be constantly reminded about the standards. Shortcuts are seductive. It is 'to make it more enjoyable' to have others who are playing the same game in a situation where help, mutual encouragement, and being informed of otherwise missed possibilities are available for communication. That the game exists is not easy to discover. The atmosphere we inhabit is geared to misdirect possible candidates to be financial prey, that the game is too difficult, and worse, that what they are selling makes one a player in the game with just what they provide.

I suspect that the most intense hostile fire comes from those who want to be seen as a master of the game without having to actually meet the standards. They prefer to lower the standards. The ironical in this is that the actual masters seem to be averse to any public communication and not at all open to sharing what they know. The guys riding the bench probably are better suited to be teachers and mentors anyway.

 

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

I think we are talking past each other slightly.
Yes, manufacturers use the phrase “museum quality.” But that does not mean the term reflects actual museum standards. It is, first and foremost, a marketing phrase. We’ve already discussed this at length in another thread, and I remain skeptical of the expression for precisely that reason. Museums themselves do not operate on a universal “quality ladder” the way kit box art might suggest. Their standards vary widely, and they are not defined purely, or even primarily, by craftsmanship alone. For some, provenance, documentation, historical relevance, and interpretive value all of these often matter more than surface finish or technical refinement. For others, receiving a model as a gift may be sufficient justification for displaying it. Museums, by contrast, operate with very different objectives when presenting their artifacts.

So when a kit manufacturer prints “museum quality” on a box, it is not a certification. It is aspirational language designed to signal seriousness and attract buyers who value higher standards. That is perfectly understandable from a marketing standpoint, but it should not be confused with institutional validation.

As for encouraging better modeling, improvement does not come from slogans. It comes from individual effort, study, and the standards each of us chooses to apply. If someone builds at a beginner level and is satisfied, that is valid. If someone pursues extreme historical accuracy and technical refinement, that is also valid. The presence of higher standards does not diminish enjoyment, and enjoyment does not require lowering standards.

For me, this remains a hobby, one I take seriously on my own terms and most importantly, in my spare time. I do not need a box label to define the value of my work, and I do not feel compelled to elevate it to institutional “museum” status to justify the time I spend at the bench, while enjoying every minute.

and i agree with your post
as for me i have a project that rumbles around in my head and that is to create a fine art model. The material i want to use is pink ivory wood the heartwood is pink and the sap wood looks like ivory. The wood is the rarest on earth and very expensive. I do not consider myself a master builder and not quite confident enough to spend a lot of money to get enough pink ivory sapwood. There is no room for errors or remakes.
Another fine art project i would like to do is the engine room of the naval ship Mississippi 1840 with the gothic style engine. Perhaps at this stage just a pipe dream. I think what is holding me back right now is the need for isolation and a laser sharp focus. It takes more time to create the Sir Edward Hawke for the school project as it does if i just built the model here in my studio.

Believe me i know what the standard are and it is scarry difficult another heart pounding thing is to spend a few 100 hours on a project and using very expensive raw materials. Then be told what! were you cockeyed when you built that? sheesh you lost value points big time so do it again. i but i like it that way.

Jim i have not seen any build logs from you or in-depth research projects like the Tecumseth project so i cannot judge your work. BUT your dedication to the hobby and to this forum does command my fullest respect for what you do here. I think you sell yourself short it is more than a hobby for you.

 

[Jimsky]

To demand: a hostile, emotionally loaded verb that does not describe what is in play here. The more appropriate verb is: to inform.

IF a builder aspires to play the game, they need to know what it involves. First of all they need to know that the game exists.

A serious purchaser of a completed model will probably require such standards in what they are willing to spend their money on. A builder who aspires to serve that market had better know the standards involved. A builder who would like to imagine that they COULD serve that market needs to know the actual standards.

To even play this game at the most challenging level, it is necessary to know the standards. It is necessary to be constantly reminded about the standards. Shortcuts are seductive. It is 'to make it more enjoyable' to have others who are playing the same game in a situation where help, mutual encouragement, and being informed of otherwise missed possibilities are available for communication. That the game exists is not easy to discover. The atmosphere we inhabit is geared to misdirect possible candidates to be financial prey, that the game is too difficult, and worse, that what they are selling makes one a player in the game with just what they provide.

I suspect that the most intense hostile fire comes from those who want to be seen as a master of the game without having to actually meet the standards. They prefer to lower the standards. The ironical in this is that the actual masters seem to be averse to any public communication and not at all open to sharing what they know. The guys riding the bench probably are better suited to be teachers and mentors anyway.

You speak of “the game” and “serious purchasers” as if these are clearly defined, universally agreed concepts. I would genuinely ask: what exactly is a serious purchase, and who qualifies as a serious purchaser? Is seriousness defined by price? By prestige? By institutional validation?
For example, would you consider Justin Sun a “serious buyer” when he purchased Comedian by Maurizio Cattelan, Taped to the wall banana, for $6.2 million? The art market clearly did. Yet that transaction alone demonstrates that monetary value and “standards” do not always align in the way we imagine.

Ship modeling, as most of us practice it (myself in that range), is fundamentally a craft. It may rise to the level of fine art in some hands, but that is not the baseline definition of the activity. For many of us, myself included, it is a hobby pursued for enjoyment, personal satisfaction, and craftsmanship. If someone finds additional value in my work, I’m pleased. If not, I do not feel diminished. Also, I don't make my models in mind to sell them, I just give them away, to family, to friends, neighbors.
You suggest that anyone who questions the framing of “the game” is attempting to lower standards. That is a serious accusation. Having personal standards, even high ones, is not the same as subscribing to a single external hierarchy. Over the years, I have developed my own standards. They are rigorous, but they are mine, and I don't shy away from sharing with anyone who finds those useful in their modeling.

I have also commissioned many models. You would be surprised to know that some of my clients asked me to build from kits and never asked to be evaluated by some abstract “game” standard. They value craftsmanship, fidelity, and execution, not whether the builder has declared participation in a particular tiered system.

Knowledge of high standards is valuable. Obsession with gatekeeping is not. The craft benefits from shared knowledge, mutual encouragement, and honest discussion. It does not benefit from framing participation as a competitive arena where legitimacy must be earned by meeting undefined criteria set by unnamed arbiters.

If such a “game” exists, it should be clearly defined, not implied, guarded, or used as a rhetorical device to question others’ legitimacy.

 

[DAWarden-(Jaager)]

I surrender.

I am only talking about a small part of all this.
I never intended for what I wrote to be applied generally.

If such a “game” exists, it should be clearly defined, not implied, guarded, or used as a rhetorical device to question others’ legitimacy.

It starts with the "IF you....." I thought that the "game" is understood to mean "high-quality scale ship models". I choose "game" as it is non-threatening and it means that it is just a voluntary choice. The initial step would be to opt in and to have the "high-quality scale ship models" as the personal ambition. The 'what exactly are the standards' kerfuffle only applies after opting in. The critical evaluation part comes after opting in.

I do not see vigorous advocacy and an attempt at recruitment as being implied, guarded, or used as a rhetorical device to question -
I guess it comes down to what exactly "legitimacy" involves. Why should a builder care if every stranger does not see their efforts as legitimate anyway? It would require purposely jumping into the line of fire for someone not dedicated to the "game" to see any valuation as being aimed at them.

But it is only one particular part of what is now ship modeling.

The larger part of ship modeling is something else. There seems to be no interest there in playing the "game" once it is known what the "game" involves. I guess there could be a degree of disappointment and resentment if kit advertisement copy is taken seriously and there is a belief that it is really a "high-quality scale ship model". Someone in this position who tries to argue that their work is something that it is not is what I mean about "questioning the framing of “the game” and attempting to lower standards." I do not see the threat to anyone but the misguided in not accommodating to them when the work does not meet the accepted standards of what is a "high-quality scale ship model".

By “serious purchasers” I am meaning a professionally advised someone willing to pay a whole lot of money. I mean it as a totally abstract and theoretical concept. The occasional silly, idiosyncratic, or illogical choices are outliers and best disregarded. I am indifferent to and not interested in what could be every possible individual choice in what to spend money on. Predicting or categorizing this is like trying to nail Jello to a wall.

 

[Tobias]

Hello everyone,

Wow, what an interesting topic Paul @dockattner brought up! One question that has always fascinated me is: What exactly do we mean by "museum quality"? Well, "museum quality" is, in many ways, simply a term for an object that is displayed in a museum. The correct term would then no longer be "quality," but "object." When we visit a museum today, we see objects on display. Yes, of course, some by famous artists, but they are still objects. If we visit a maritime museum today, we also see very interesting things, including various ship models. From well-built ships to ships that fathers carved for their young sons from a single piece of wood. Yes, but these are also worth displaying. And why? Because they were grave goods of a pharaoh, king, or Viking. But let's be honest, is that what we call "museum quality"? No, but probably priceless because of their historical value. What I'm really trying to say, and what we should all be thinking about, is that in my opinion, there's no such thing as "museum quality."

This isn't just my opinion, but also that of many colleagues you know from this or other forums. I've even spoken with some of them personally, including gold, silver, and bronze medalists, European and world champions, and none of them use the term "museum quality." None of them would sell one of their ships. Years of work, day after day after work, on days off, and so on. Such a ship would cost over €100,000; not even a museum would pay that. I know that some colleagues, including some here in the forum, do commissioned work. What they get paid for it, I don't know. Who they work for, well... let's not go there. In Germany, it wouldn't be enough to live on. Are these models high-quality, historically accurate, kits, or scratch-built from plans? Are they made to POB or POF specifications, in the style of the Navy or the Admiralty/Arsenal? I think none of that really matters. It's been said before, and I'm repeating myself, but that's just how it is. Beauty, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder. If someone can afford a model for €10,000, €20,000, €30,000 or more these days, and none of the above points are important to them, then go for it.

I'm pretty sure a lot of people spend a lot of money on finished models that might not even be worth it, or that should actually be much more expensive. How can you even appreciate something like that? Well, I think each of you can judge and value your own work. Jim @Jimsky put it very well in one of his posts. Often it's worth much more because my grandfather built it for me, priceless because it's from my partner, because it was made with love. These are the values that count, because our hobby brings us joy, some find it a balance to their work, and there are a thousand other reasons.

So, Paul, what do you think, is your Kingfisher worth more or less than your Vasa? Or is the stern of the Saint Philip more valuable? Or is my Le Rochefort worth more, or Ondra's Red Lion, which won a silver medal? Exactly, every single model has its own value, and that lies solely in the eye of the beholder.

Personally, I would never buy a Vasa. Why not? It's a type of boat I don't like, and besides, it couldn't even float . Nevertheless, the Vasa built by Paul is absolutely fantastic craftsmanship. I'm quite sure that my little harbor yacht isn't for everyone either, which I can completely understand.

I don't think there's a right or wrong answer to this. It's about what is valuable and what isn't. Everyone should decide that for themselves.

 

[Bob Cleek]

To demand: a hostile, emotionally loaded verb that does not describe what is in play here. The more appropriate verb is: to inform.

IF a builder aspires to play the game, they need to know what it involves. First of all, they need to know that the game exists.

A serious purchaser of a completed model will probably require such standards in what they are willing to spend their money on. A builder who aspires to serve that market had better know the standards involved. A builder who would like to imagine that they COULD serve that market needs to know the actual standards.

To even play this game at the most challenging level, it is necessary to know the standards. It is necessary to be constantly reminded about the standards. Shortcuts are seductive. It is 'to make it more enjoyable' to have others who are playing the same game in a situation where help, mutual encouragement, and being informed of otherwise missed possibilities are available for communication. That the game exists is not easy to discover. The atmosphere we inhabit is geared to misdirect possible candidates to be financial prey, that the game is too difficult, and worse, that what they are selling makes one a player in the game with just what they provide.

I suspect that the most intense hostile fire comes from those who want to be seen as a master of the game without having to actually meet the standards. They prefer to lower the standards. The ironical in this is that the actual masters seem to be averse to any public communication and not at all open to sharing what they know. The guys riding the bench probably are better suited to be teachers and mentors anyway.

Excellent post. Truer words were never spoken.

Spot on analysis of what's really the issue here: "I suspect that the most intense hostile fire comes from those who want to be seen as a master of the game without having to actually meet the standards." This is perhaps a natural human tendency. To put a finer point on it, those who have monetized scale ship modeling have employed this human tendency to manipulate many people who, through social media in large measure, have become attracted to pursuing scale ship modeling without having any real appreciation of the complex demands of the thing. The "ship modeling military/industrial complex" pulls the wool over the newbies' eyes, rewriting the narrative to read: "All you have to do to become the envy of all your friends is buy our ship model kit." Then, after they've "had a taste," there follows the "hook" that to become a "master modeler," you've got to keep building bigger and more expensive model kits, often of marginal quality. It's a con job in our current "Age of the Grift." Ship model kits really are just like those old "paint by number kits." Sure, they are fun to complete, provide a distraction from daily chores, and, for the moment, make you look quite impressive, or at least allow you to think you are, but, just as "paint by numbers" kits never made anybody a fine arts oil painter, neither can ship model kits make anybody a real scale ship modeling fine artist. It's just the marketing of an illusion that makes the buyer feel good. It's all about the sizzle and not the steak.

As far as I'm concerned, if people want to build ship model kits, well and good, as long as they are honest about it. It's a fad of the moment and fads come and go. Fine art, including the fine art of scale ship modeling, has been going on far longer than any fad ever has or ever will. Arguing that objective standards of excellence shouldn't exist in order to conceal their choice of mediocrity over the pursuit of excellence is a dog that won't hunt for all that long.

 

[Bob Cleek]

Hello everyone,

Wow, what an interesting topic Paul @dockattner brought up! One question that has always fascinated me is: What exactly do we mean by "museum quality"? Well, "museum quality" is, in many ways, simply a term for an object that is displayed in a museum. The correct term would then no longer be "quality," but "object." When we visit a museum today, we see objects on display. Yes, of course, some by famous artists, but they are still objects. If we visit a maritime museum today, we also see very interesting things, including various ship models. From well-built ships to ships that fathers carved for their young sons from a single piece of wood. Yes, but these are also worth displaying. And why? Because they were grave goods of a pharaoh, king, or Viking. But let's be honest, is that what we call "museum quality"? No, but probably priceless because of their historical value. What I'm really trying to say, and what we should all be thinking about, is that in my opinion, there's no such thing as "museum quality."

This isn't just my opinion, but also that of many colleagues you know from this or other forums. I've even spoken with some of them personally, including gold, silver, and bronze medalists, European and world champions, and none of them use the term "museum quality." None of them would sell one of their ships. Years of work, day after day after work, on days off, and so on. Such a ship would cost over €100,000; not even a museum would pay that. I know that some colleagues, including some here in the forum, do commissioned work. What they get paid for it, I don't know. Who they work for, well... let's not go there. In Germany, it wouldn't be enough to live on. Are these models high-quality, historically accurate, kits, or scratch-built from plans? Are they made to POB or POF specifications, in the style of the Navy or the Admiralty/Arsenal? I think none of that really matters. It's been said before, and I'm repeating myself, but that's just how it is. Beauty, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder. If someone can afford a model for €10,000, €20,000, €30,000 or more these days, and none of the above points are important to them, then go for it.

I'm pretty sure a lot of people spend a lot of money on finished models that might not even be worth it, or that should actually be much more expensive. How can you even appreciate something like that? Well, I think each of you can judge and value your own work. Jim @Jimsky put it very well in one of his posts. Often it's worth much more because my grandfather built it for me, priceless because it's from my partner, because it was made with love. These are the values that count, because our hobby brings us joy, some find it a balance to their work, and there are a thousand other reasons.

So, Paul, what do you think, is your Kingfisher worth more or less than your Vasa? Or is the stern of the Saint Philip more valuable? Or is my Le Rochefort worth more, or Ondra's Red Lion, which won a silver medal? Exactly, every single model has its own value, and that lies solely in the eye of the beholder.

Personally, I would never buy a Vasa. Why not? It's a type of boat I don't like, and besides, it couldn't even float . Nevertheless, the Vasa built by Paul is absolutely fantastic craftsmanship. I'm quite sure that my little harbor yacht isn't for everyone either, which I can completely understand.

I don't think there's a right or wrong answer to this. It's about what is valuable and what isn't. Everyone should decide that for themselves.

Tobias, I realize you've come to the dance a bit late and when a thread gets as long as this one, I certainly don't expect somebody who's just jumped into the pool to have read it all. That said, what Jaager, Dave, myself, and others have repeatedly explained throughout this thread is that the generally accepted definition of a fine art "high-quality scale ship model" is based on certain objective standards. We're only talking about fine art "high-quality scale ship models" that must meet the conventional objective standard. Here's one of my previous posts to bring you and Jimsky (who still can't seem to wrap his head around the concept) up to speed on where the proponents of "objective standards of quality" are coming from, i.e., as only applied to fine art high-quality scale ship models:

Maybe we're hung up on semantics here, but the standard I cited was devised precisely to enunciate a "fixed and universal" standard to replace the sloppy and meaningless term, "museum quality." Napier explains it in depth in his book:

"A high-quality scale ship model provides a compelling impression of an actual vessel within the constraints of historical accuracy."

"Historical accuracy" encompasses all the objective, or measurable, standards of technical exactness that might apply to a ship model. These embrace the obvious hull shape and fairness; precision in fittings, rigging, and colors; lack of anachronisms; and so forth. But it also encompasses all aspects of craftsmanship because the lack of craftsmanship creates unrealistic and, therefore, historically inaccurate blemishes on a model. ... The phrase "historically accurate" alone effectively replaces the intention of the now-vapid "museum quality."

"... (A "compelling impression") allows and encourages aesthetic interpretation of a vessel that will help propel the viewers to make the leap of faith that allows a model to work or to willingly suspend the disbelief that keeps a model from working. Both processes help viewers accept the invitation to visit a ship instead of a model. Compelling impression is the result of applying artistic and interpretive decision-making processes... to amplify a model beyond being a mere assemblage of parts."

"It is important to recognize that neither arm of our definition considers how a model was made. There is no assessment of whether entire models or components of them are built from scratch, built from kits, or built by teams of modelers. The main thing is the appearance of the finished model. The ends justify the means."

Rob Napier, Caring for Ship Models - A Narrative of Thought and Application, (2022) Seawatch Books.

See: https://seawatchbooks.com/products/...tive-of-thought-and-application-by-rob-napier

The import of Napier's definition of a "high-quality scale ship model" transcends the fact of how it was made and eliminates any "scratch vs. kit" issue by focusing on the model without such considerations which are extraneous to the question of whether the model is a "high-quality scale ship model." Napier's definition is designed to qualify a ship model as a "high-quality scale ship model" and nothing more. It does objectively define "high-quality scale ship model" as one which "provides a compelling impression of an actual vessel within the constraints of historical accuracy." That's as far as it goes. It provides no objective standards for judging how high the quality of a "high-quality scale ship model" might be once it is determined to be a "high-quality scale ship model." That assessment must be made in comparison with other "high-quality scale ship models" and is a matter of subjective comparisons, as you suggest. Those considerations are what you cite as "agreed upon and not absolute," and are generally seen as those applied by judges in modeling competitions.

For reasons I've yet to understand, there seems to be a contingent, primarily composed of "only kits" ship modelers here who appear to be terribly threatened by Napier's definition, which was composed over thirty years ago to replace the meaningless term "museum quality." The "compelling impression" standard only applies to define "high-quality scale ship models," the term devised to supplant "museum quality." While a kit-built model can qualify as a "high-quality scale ship model" if it meets the objective test criteria, that objective test doesn't apply to ship models built by those who have no interest in complying with such objective criteria and in no way was or is intended to compel anybody to do so.

The essence of the debate seems to be one that has become endemic in our culture since the internet bestowed a soapbox upon those who would subjectivize everything in an effort to give everyone's opinions equal weight. Of course, everyone has a right to their own opinion, but not to their own facts. While there is much to recommend the Special Olympics for the purposes they were created, their principle that "everybody gets a prize" only makes sense in its original context. Those ship modelers who are upset by applying objective standards to define "high-quality scale ship models" are like those who would have the real Olympics quit awarding gold medals to contestants who came in first because there are "lots of people who play those sports just for fun." Just because placing first gets you a gold medal in the Olympics doesn't mean nobody else gets to enjoy those sports at whatever level of performance they desire.

I have no idea why some people who build ship models don't get this.

 

[rtibbs]

I'll do my best to contain thread drift, but I suspect I will ultimately fail...

How did that work out for you Paul?

 

[Jimsky]

Tobias, I realize you've come to the dance a bit late and when a thread gets as long as this one, I certainly don't expect somebody who's just jumped into the pool to have read it all. That said, what Jaager, Dave, myself, and others have repeatedly explained throughout this thread is that the generally accepted definition of a fine art "high-quality scale ship model" is based on certain objective standards. We're only talking about fine art "high-quality scale ship models" that must meet the conventional objective standard. Here's one of my previous posts to bring you and Jimsky (who still can't seem to wrap his head around the concept) up to speed on where the proponents of "objective standards of quality" are coming from, i.e., as only applied to fine art high-quality scale ship models:

Maybe we're hung up on semantics here, but the standard I cited was devised precisely to enunciate a "fixed and universal" standard to replace the sloppy and meaningless term, "museum quality." Napier explains it in depth in his book:

"A high-quality scale ship model provides a compelling impression of an actual vessel within the constraints of historical accuracy."

"Historical accuracy" encompasses all the objective, or measurable, standards of technical exactness that might apply to a ship model. These embrace the obvious hull shape and fairness; precision in fittings, rigging, and colors; lack of anachronisms; and so forth. But it also encompasses all aspects of craftsmanship because the lack of craftsmanship creates unrealistic and, therefore, historically inaccurate blemishes on a model. ... The phrase "historically accurate" alone effectively replaces the intention of the now-vapid "museum quality."

"... (A "compelling impression") allows and encourages aesthetic interpretation of a vessel that will help propel the viewers to make the leap of faith that allows a model to work or to willingly suspend the disbelief that keeps a model from working. Both processes help viewers accept the invitation to visit a ship instead of a model. Compelling impression is the result of applying artistic and interpretive decision-making processes... to amplify a model beyond being a mere assemblage of parts."

"It is important to recognize that neither arm of our definition considers how a model was made. There is no assessment of whether entire models or components of them are built from scratch, built from kits, or built by teams of modelers. The main thing is the appearance of the finished model. The ends justify the means."

Rob Napier, Caring for Ship Models - A Narrative of Thought and Application, (2022) Seawatch Books.

See: https://seawatchbooks.com/products/...tive-of-thought-and-application-by-rob-napier

The import of Napier's definition of a "high-quality scale ship model" transcends the fact of how it was made and eliminates any "scratch vs. kit" issue by focusing on the model without such considerations which are extraneous to the question of whether the model is a "high-quality scale ship model." Napier's definition is designed to qualify a ship model as a "high-quality scale ship model" and nothing more. It does objectively define "high-quality scale ship model" as one which "provides a compelling impression of an actual vessel within the constraints of historical accuracy." That's as far as it goes. It provides no objective standards for judging how high the quality of a "high-quality scale ship model" might be once it is determined to be a "high-quality scale ship model." That assessment must be made in comparison with other "high-quality scale ship models" and is a matter of subjective comparisons, as you suggest. Those considerations are what you cite as "agreed upon and not absolute," and are generally seen as those applied by judges in modeling competitions.

For reasons I've yet to understand, there seems to be a contingent, primarily composed of "only kits" ship modelers here who appear to be terribly threatened by Napier's definition, which was composed over thirty years ago to replace the meaningless term "museum quality." The "compelling impression" standard only applies to define "high-quality scale ship models," the term devised to supplant "museum quality." While a kit-built model can qualify as a "high-quality scale ship model" if it meets the objective test criteria, that objective test doesn't apply to ship models built by those who have no interest in complying with such objective criteria and in no way was or is intended to compel anybody to do so.

The essence of the debate seems to be one that has become endemic in our culture since the internet bestowed a soapbox upon those who would subjectivize everything in an effort to give everyone's opinions equal weight. Of course, everyone has a right to their own opinion, but not to their own facts. While there is much to recommend the Special Olympics for the purposes they were created, their principle that "everybody gets a prize" only makes sense in its original context. Those ship modelers who are upset by applying objective standards to define "high-quality scale ship models" are like those who would have the real Olympics quit awarding gold medals to contestants who came in first because there are "lots of people who play those sports just for fun." Just because placing first gets you a gold medal in the Olympics doesn't mean nobody else gets to enjoy those sports at whatever level of performance they desire.

I have no idea why some people who build ship models don't get this.

Bob, at this point, I can only suggest you reread my posts: slowly, perhaps more than once. You may discover that no one here is “threatened” by Napier, nor confused about what he wrote. The issue has never been the definition of a “high-quality scale ship model,” nor whether historical accuracy and compelling impression matter. The issue is the repeated framing that disagreement equals ignorance, insecurity, or participation in some cultural decline.
Quoting Rob Napier does not transform interpretation into fact, nor does invoking the marriage (in some of your earlier posts), the Olympics elevate a hobby into a moral hierarchy. Most of us understand perfectly well what Napier wrote. We (most of us) simply do not accept that his formulation is the only meaningful lens through which the entire craft must be viewed. I don't understand why you don't get it ??????

Perhaps if you reread the thread with the same care you apply to Napier’s prose, you might find that the resistance you perceive (at least from me) is not confusion, it is disagreement. As simple as that, my friend.

 

[18Lyman]

Tell me about it! Mine was a 1956 AH 100M, one of 640 made. In perfect condition they sell for over $200k these days, a 100S for much more. I owned mine from 1963 to 1967, and sold it to help pay for kitchen cabinets on our first house. When I cry about it, I just remember I couldn't fit in it today.

I sold mine in '68 in Chicago; bought a plane ticket back to Florida and a Gibson Guitar. The guitar is now worth more than the car. So, the car had been savaged by a quarter miler and was a rusty roller, no engine or transmission, no floor, no outriggers, doglegs and rockers rusted out. When finished it had the floor and footboxes, rockers and a and b columns replaced, steel doors, fenders and trunk lid made by me (molded fiberglass). Dad made the interior from scratch, I built and engine and narrow rear end. The running gear was all Chevrolet. I rebuilt the Girling front end and rear shocks. It looked stock but all said, it was more rat rod than resto-mod. Some purists were critical, but I couldn't here them back in the dust. Did you do a lot of work on yours?

 

[dockattner]

You beat me to it, Jim.

 

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

i wonder how many here actually spent time talking to an artist who has paintings, etchings, drawings and models in several museums. I have
There are two points first is "art is whatever the artists say it is" and second the term "museum quality" means nothing more than creating a piece within a given standard set by the museum.. So museum quality has nothing to do with what is in the box or how it is built. To plaster museum quality on the box is suggesting it is a model within a "standard" a set of rules. Kit makers know the community of model ship building has within its parameters models that sell for thousands of dollars as well as models in art museums so the industry of kit manufacturing recognize the existence of fine art models and are using it assuming for the most part builders want to improve and aspire to higher standards.
The psychology of "museum quality" in advertising, museum quality is the recognition of a hierarchy within the community.

Those ship modelers who are upset by applying objective standards to define "high-quality scale ship models" are like those who would have the real Olympics quit awarding gold medals to contestants who came in first because there are "lots of people who play those sports just for fun." Just because placing first gets you a gold medal in the Olympics doesn't mean nobody else gets to enjoy those sports at whatever level of performance they desire.
I have no idea why some people who build ship models don't get this.

i get that like the saying goes "money can't buy happiness" is said by those who have so much money they ran out of thing to do with it so that makes them unhappy.
Those who think fine scale ship models are a threat to the common good rather than seeing it as inspiration lack the ambition, skill and knowledge to achieve it. So they deny it exists or it should be quarantined so it does not affect the happy just for fun hobby,

 

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

Most of us understand perfectly well what Napier wrote. We (most of us) simply do not accept that his formulation is the only meaningful lens through which the entire craft must be viewed. I don't understand why you don't get it ??????

Perhaps if you reread the thread with the same care you apply to Napier’s prose, you might find that the resistance you perceive (at least from me) is not confusion, it is disagreement. As simple as that, my friend.

I don't understand why you don't get it ??????
i don't get it either Napier's view is NOT the only meaningful lens through which the entire craft must be viewed. it is the view of the ENTIRE ship modeling community. So in other words you disagree with the entire ship modeling community at large.

it is not Napier's personal view
The standards Rob is setting forward was at that time the standards set by the 1,220 members of the guild. They based their standards on the work of master builders, marine gallery standards and standards set in the maritime academic world. Rob Napier may be the front man of Quality ship models but he has a lot backing him up.

For many of us, myself included," it is a hobby pursued for enjoyment, personal satisfaction" and then you say " I have also commissioned many models. You would be surprised to know that some of my clients asked me to build from kits"

so do you build for clients free of charge, giving away the models? or do you charge a fee for your work? one is considered a hobby and the other when money changes hands it is a profession.
as a client who commissioned a piece of work and is told "for me this is just a hobby and i have no standards so you get whatever i build like it or not" or are there double standards at play?

 

[Jimsky]

i get that like the saying goes "money can't buy happiness" is said by those who have so much money they ran out of thing to do with it so that makes them unhappy.
Those who think fine scale ship models are a threat to the common good rather than seeing it as inspiration lack the ambition, skill and knowledge to achieve it. So they deny it exists or it should be quarantined so it does not affect the happy just for fun hobby,

Dude, are you treating the personal choice as a cultural threat? That’s rhetoric, not reality. Building “just for fun” does not quarantine excellence! It does not deny standards! It does not erase mastery! It simply asserts that fulfillment is a valid goal, and for many of us, including myself, that is the primary one.

Craft can exist without hierarchy. Standards can exist without obligation. And the enjoyment of building models, of any kind, does not require permission from an artist.

 

[Roger Pellett]

As my dear, departed mother liked to say; The guy who bought the banana taped to the wall, “had more dollars than sense.” I suspect that in this case, there was also much ego involved. “Look, I can throw away over 2 million dollars for this.” What would he have spent if the sale was not publicized?

Back to the subject: if I were to write a book containing many inaccuracies and in some cases made up things claimed as fact, and if I were declare it to be history (not, historical fiction) it would be rightly criticized by knowledgeable reviewers. When we build ship models we are creating something that is supposed to represent a historical object. Why is an inaccurate model any different from the book?

Rob Napier is by no means alone in defining quality. The famous naval architect L. Francis Herreshoff has written that a poorly made ship model is an “evil” thing as it will distort history for future generations.

And lest I come across as tooting my own horn, ours’ is a difficult art form. I have yet to build a model that I am satisfied with.

Roger

 

[dockattner]

I suspect that the most intense hostile fire comes from those who want to be seen as a master of the game without having to actually meet the standards. They prefer to lower the standards.

Spot on analysis of what's really the issue here: "I suspect that the most intense hostile fire comes from those who want to be seen as a master of the game without having to actually meet the standards."

Arguing that objective standards of excellence shouldn't exist in order to conceal their choice of mediocrity over the pursuit of excellence is a dog that won't hunt for all that long.

Those who think fine scale ship models are a threat to the common good rather than seeing it as inspiration lack the ambition, skill and knowledge to achieve it. So they deny it exists or it should be quarantined so it does not affect the happy just for fun hobby,

C'mon guys. It's getting a bit personal here. The direct or implied assignment of personal motive or intention is out of place. You may not like the views of those who oppose your position, but they don't deserve your derision or condemnation.