Why aren’t the spikes shown on every board across every deck joist?

[Herbs Ships]

other than being too busy, why arent the spikes shown on every board across every deck joist. In the building of a house, every floor joist would be nailed into.

 

[Kurt Konrath]

I have seen some ship builders who show all spikes or treenails in all planks.

Takes a lot of time and effort, and you see four holes at but joint, but normally only two in middle of plank where it crossed the ribs.

 

[AllanKP69]

why arent the spikes shown on every board across every deck joist.

While the planks were secured to every deck beam with spikes and covered with wooden plugs the wood was the same species as the deck planks so barely visible. At our scales, many feel it is better to show none at all rather than having them stand out because of the color contrast with the planking.

 

[Herbs Ships]

While the planks were secured to every deck beam with spikes and covered with wooden plugs The wood was the same species as the deck planks so barely visible. At our scales, many feel it is better to show none at all rather than having them stand out because of the color contrast with the planking.

That makes sense…I was going to mark many and after one column I really didnt like all that many…sand paper to the rescue!

 

[DAWarden-(Jaager)]

why arent the spikes shown on every board across every deck

The correct name is BEAM . There were two spikes in every beam - in a staggered formation. There were also spikes in every ledge - smaller than beams - same orientation - spanning the gap between carlings rather than across the whole width of the deck . All of the spikes were sealed over with water proofing and covered with an all but invisible plug. The plug was wood that was the same species and grain orientation as its planking. On warships the decks that were exposed to sun, weather, dripping rigging tar, and tar coated feet were sanded everyday.

Visible deck fasteners is a popular kit convention. A convention that in no way reflects what an actual ship would look like from the distances that model scales represent. But that will hold true for much else with a kit.

I like the idea of using long dowels to secure both deck planking and hull planking - they are belt and suspenders and they can be excellent clamps for the building of it. The problem is that a useful dowel shows end grain. All end grain is too dark.

 

[Herbs Ships]

The correct name is BEAM . There were two spikes in every beam - in a staggered formation. There were also spikes in every ledge - smaller than beams - same orientation - spanning the gap between carlings rather than across the whole width of the deck . All of the spikes were sealed over with water proofing and covered with an all but invisible plug. The plug was wood that was the same species and grain orientation as its planking. On warships the decks that were exposed to sun, weather, dripping rigging tar, and tar coated feet were sanded everyday.

Visible deck fasteners is a popular kit convention. A convention that in no way reflects what an actual ship would look like from the distances that model scales represent. But that will hold true for much else with a kit.

I like the idea of using long dowels to secure both deck planking and hull planking - they are belt and suspenders and they can be excellent clamps for the building of it. The problem is that a useful dowel shows end grain. All end grain is too dark.

Fills in a lot of gaps for me. Thank you.

 

[MCPWilk]

I (tre)nail every plank at every frame. At the butt there are two either end as shown, otherwise they are offset, two per palnk at the fram.

Mike

 

[Signet]

I agree that treenails on decking and planking would are really be visible on real ships and therefore to be most accurate should not be simulated on our models. Yet, somehow, I still envy those with the ability and stamina to do them and think they look good. For a larger scale gun model as you're doing, I think it makes a bit more sense to include them. Especially since the model manufacturer has elected to include them at joints, I'm afraid it will look funny not having them in the other logical positions. I've included them on my larger scale gun models, and while it's still not accurate, I think they look good:

 

[Bob Cleek]

Visible deck fasteners is a popular kit convention. A convention that in no way reflects what an actual ship would look like from the distances that model scales represent. But that will hold true for much else with a kit.

I think the better word than "convention" to describe this present kit modeling fad is "affectation." (Affectation, n., "behaviour, speech, or writing that is pretentious and designed to impress:") As noted, it in no way reflects what an actual ship would look like from the viewing distance that modeling scales represent. The phenomenon isn't limited to deck planks. It's frequently seen in the case of hull planking and with similar affect in the case of most all copper hull plating encountered these days. There is no valid justification for it whatsoever. It's just flat out wrong by any conceivable objective modeling standard. However, where the practice is evident from box cover photos or instructional materials, it does serve as a very accurate indicator of low quality and an excellent reason not to buy such a kit.

 

[Signet]

I think the better word than "convention" to describe this present kit modeling fad is "affectation." (Affectation, n., "behaviour, speech, or writing that is pretentious and designed to impress:") As noted, it in no way reflects what an actual ship would look like from the viewing distance that modeling scales represent. The phenomenon isn't limited to deck planks. It's frequently seen in the case of hull planking and with similar affect in the case of most all copper hull plating encountered these days. There is no valid justification for it whatsoever. It's just flat out wrong by any conceivable objective modeling standard.

I agree completely.

However, where the practice is evident from box cover photos or instructional materials, it does serve as a very accurate indicator of low quality and an excellent reason not to buy such a kit.

I disagree completely. IMHO kits as well as scratch built models displayed here and elsewhere which have well-done (if inaccurate) treenails is an indicator of very high quality and craftsmanship. I can't produce that kind of craftsmanship, but wish I could. Whether I want to or not, I'm not sure. But ALL of the latest Chinese kits in particular are completely treenailed by their manufacturer and shown that way in finished and/or build logs here. And those kits, again IMHO, are the highest quality kits available. I/you don't have to add the treenails, but they are great kits nonetheless.

 

[Roger Pellett]

This is the debate that has been going on for some time on this and other forums. Do you build models to display your craftsmanship or to create something that is historically accurate? I fall on the side of historic accuracy.

Roger

 

[Signet]

This is the debate that has been going on for some time on this and other forums. Do you build models to display your craftsmanship or to create something that is historically accurate? I fall on the side of historic accuracy.

Roger

I build models for enjoyment. None of mine have treenails shown (except large scale gun displays), but I do envy them every time I see them. But I think we all hope our models display our craftsmanship as well. And is it historically inaccurate to highlight features that actually existed on ships, but is not normally visible?

 

[Roger Pellett]

No, unless:

They have to be made overscale to be visible

They didn’t exist on the prototype. In the case of treenails, nails, etc to secure deck planks to hull structure, as Bob Cleek explains decks planking was secured with countersunk iron nails and the countersink hole was filled with a wooden plug not a treenail. What’s the difference? The grain of a plug runs crosswise to its longitudinal axis. The grain of a treenail runs parallel to it. And, in building a real boat, a good craftsman is careful to align the grain of the plug in the same direction as the grain of the wood surrounding it.

Roger

 

[Signet]

They have to be made overscale to be visible

No they don't. Kraum Batchvarov, the marine archeologist and husband of Olha Batchvarov (who does puts treenails in her models) explains is this video that treenails need to be about 30mm in diameter to hold well, regardless of ship size. In 1/48 scale that is 0.6mm, which is a common treenail size, although most builders seem to use 0.5mm.

They didn’t exist on the prototype. In the case of treenails, nails, etc to secure deck planks to hull structure, as Bob Cleek explains decks planking was secured with countersunk iron nails and the countersink hole was filled with a wooden plug not a treenail.

That was done quite often on decking. As was using treenails only. In the case of hull planking, except for wales and areas needing more strength, treenails were used most often from the 17th century or so. Iron nails were always exposed on the hulls, and they corroded too quickly, whereas treenails got tighter. The most standard practice was to use an iron nail, clenched on the inside and exposed on the outside, at each end of a plank, and treenails at all other locations. Many modelers here model them exactly that way. And needless to say, the exposed part of treenails are /always/ end grain.

What’s the difference? The grain of a plug runs crosswise to its longitudinal axis. The grain of a treenail runs parallel to it. And, in building a real boat, a good craftsman is careful to align the grain of the plug in the same direction as the grain of the wood surrounding it.

As mentioned above, they didn't always use iron nails with plugs. And we don't know that the plugs were cut to have exposed side grain rather than end grain. Cutting thousands of 30mm diameter plugs from a 1" slab would be a whole lot harder and more trouble than cutting 1" long pieces of a 30mm dowel. After all, the only purpose of the plug was to protect the nail, not for look. Now, I'm sure with Chris Craft boats, that's an entirely different story.

It is certainly true that most model treenail installations are far more visible than those on the original ship. I've made several test runs of treenails, and my problem is that it is VERY difficult to see them after finishing, even if the woods don't match well, and therefore the question of whether it's worth the effort comes up. And it's a LOT of effort. But most of the best (IMHO) builders like Uwek, Igor Tula, Darivs Architectvs, Peter Gutterman, dockanatter on our forum, not only use treenails, but research exactly where nails and treenails are used, the material (iron, copper) they should be made from, etc. Can we really say that's wrong if the same object of the same material and same size is used??

Regardless, this is a very subjective and personal subject. On my next build I'm still trying to decide whether to try them or not. Whether the effort will be worth it. Whether others will notice (although that's never been much of a concern with all of us when we spend weeks on a part or assembly that will be completely hidden when the model is done).

​

 

[Bob Cleek]

I disagree completely. IMHO kits as well as scratch built models displayed here and elsewhere which have well-done (if inaccurate) treenails is an indicator of very high quality and craftsmanship. I can't produce that kind of craftsmanship, but wish I could. Whether I want to or not, I'm not sure. But ALL of the latest Chinese kits in particular are completely treenailed by their manufacturer and shown that way in finished and/or build logs here. And those kits, again IMHO, are the highest quality kits available. I/you don't have to add the treenails, but they are great kits nonetheless.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I agree with you that treenails can be an indicator of very high quality and craftmanship, not to mention patience and dedication. What I said was that visible treenails and nail heads weren't correct when not visible on the prototype at scale viewing distance which is pretty much the case for all but the largest scales, and thus they detract from the quality of a scale ship model and when seen in kits are a hallmark of poor-quality kits. If one wishes to demonstrate their craftsmanship, they can do that however they wish, but if they wish to build a high-quality scale ship model, their creative options are more constrained by the generally accepted definition of the thing:

"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.

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

And is it historically inaccurate to highlight features that actually existed on ships, but (are) not normally visible?

In such a case, historicity doesn't enter into it. Making something visible on a model that is not visible on the prototype at scale viewing distance is, by definition, an error in scale. If you can see it on the model, but not on the prototype at scale viewing distance, it's too damn big or at least your eyes are going to tell your brain that when they see it. Seeing things on a model that you can't see in real life at scale viewing distance is a distraction that erodes, if not outright destroys, "a compelling impression of the actual vessel." It's one of the errors that make a model look like a toy rather than a scale model.

We "old grumps" don't make this stuff up. It's not a matter of opinion. It's all in the nature of what a "high-quality scale ship model" is, as formally defined many years ago by the ship modeling fraternity and written and printed many times over since. Unfortunately, a lot of newer ship modelers don't understand that: 1.) Each model speaks for itself and every serious modeler who sees it will evaluate for themselves whether and/or to what degree it "provides a compelling impression of an actual vessel within the constraints of historical accuracy." This is what determines whether and/or to what degree a model is a "high-quality scale ship model." 2. There is no reason why any modeler who wishes to do so can't build a ship model to suit their own standards and purposes or even their own whims without any regard for the classic standards of a "high-quality scale ship model." Such models may demonstrate high levels of craftsmanship, give the builder great enjoyment and satisfaction, and/or be pleasing to the eyes. But they aren't "high-quality scale ship models" unless they sufficiently meet the classic criteria.

Modelers who "highlight features that actually existed on ships but are not normally visible" based on the mistaken belief that they are making their model better are actually doing the opposite. If they want to do that, it's fine. They're entitled to do so, but if they want to build a "high-quality scale ship model," they don't have the liberty ignore the applicable conventions.

Nobody wants to hurt anybody's feelings. Most want to help others build better models. But when so many people keep making the same mistakes while telling each other how great their build is coming along, serious scale ship model builders are between a rock and a hard place. Nobody learns being told their work looks great when it really looks like a dog's breakfast. Or do we say nothing and watch the standards of the art form continue to spiral downward towards the lowest common denominator?

 

[Bob Cleek]

Oh, don't get me wrong. I agree with you that treenails can be an indicator of very high quality and craftmanship, not to mention patience and dedication. What I said was that visible treenails and nail heads weren't correct when not visible on the prototype at scale viewing distance which is pretty much the case for all but the largest scales, and thus they detract from the quality of a scale ship model and when seen in kits are a hallmark of poor-quality kits. If one wishes to demonstrate their craftsmanship, they can do that however they wish, but if they wish to build a high-quality scale ship model, their creative options are more constrained by the generally accepted definition of the thing:

"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.

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



In such a case, historicity doesn't enter into it. Making something visible on a model that is not visible on the prototype at scale viewing distance is, by definition, an error in scale. If you can see it on the model, but not on the prototype at scale viewing distance, it's too damn big or at least your eyes are going to tell your brain that when they see it. Seeing things on a model that you can't see in real life at scale viewing distance is a distraction that erodes, if not outright destroys, "a compelling impression of the actual vessel." It's one of the errors that make a model look like a toy rather than a scale model.

We "old grumps" don't make this stuff up. It's not a matter of opinion. It's all in the nature of what a "high-quality scale ship model" is, as formally defined many years ago by the ship modeling fraternity and written and printed many times over since. Unfortunately, a lot of newer ship modelers don't understand that: 1.) Each model speaks for itself and every serious modeler who sees it will evaluate for themselves whether and/or to what degree it "provides a compelling impression of an actual vessel within the constraints of historical accuracy." This is what determines whether and/or to what degree a model is a "high-quality scale ship model." 2. There is no reason why any modeler who wishes to do so can't build a ship model to suit their own standards and purposes or even their own whims without any regard for the classic standards of a "high-quality scale ship model." Such models may demonstrate high levels of craftsmanship, give the builder great enjoyment and satisfaction, and/or be pleasing to the eyes. But they aren't "high-quality scale ship models" unless they sufficiently meet the classic criteria.

Modelers who "highlight features that actually existed on ships but are not normally visible" based on the mistaken belief that they are making their model better are actually doing the opposite. If they want to do that, it's fine. They're entitled to do so, but if they want to build a "high-quality scale ship model," they don't have the liberty ignore the applicable conventions.

Nobody wants to hurt anybody's feelings. Most want to help others build better models. But when so many people keep making the same mistakes while telling each other how great their build is coming along, serious scale ship model builders are between a rock and a hard place. Nobody learns being told their work looks great when it really looks like a dog's breakfast. Or do we say nothing and watch the standards of the art form continue to spiral downward towards the lowest common denominator?

 

[Signet]

All I will say is that I don't think I have ever seen a contest-winning sailing ship model that did not have simulated treenails. In many ways, that is what I (and many others) would like to achieve, although I never will. I'm 83 in a couple weeks, and what "we old grumps" decided years ago has been vastly overtaken by the detail, quality and attention to detail of today's models and modelers. Thank goodness!

I'll stop here. This isn't a new conversation and I doubt anything new will come of it.