Planking math

[Bob Cleek]

What works best is sometimes limited by what one has to work with.

It's been mentioned more than once that a great many, if not most of the modelers here and elsewhere are building kits. Beginners in particular feel restricted for the most part to what comes in the kit, all he other resources that are available notwithstanding.
Spiling requires stock that is not provided in virtually all kits. It would be nice to change that, but for now it is the way it is.

The expertise found here could do well to help beginners do their bet work with what they have, and maybe help them move on to what some feel are higher aspirations.

I hear what you're saying, but I cannot see any justification for settling for "being restricted ... by what comes in the kit." The limitations of kits are well-plowed ground and there's nothing to add to that discussion. That said, if people who buy kits want to satisfy their own expectations, supplementing the kit, often greatly, is what's required. "Helping beginners do their best work" should involve telling them that it is the deficiencies of their instructions, materials, and/or tools which are limiting the quality of their work when that is the case. This doesn't mean that everybody needs to run out and buy two or three thousand dollars' worth of power tools, but, as is the case in this instance, it shouldn't be beyond anybody's ability to source scale planking stock that's one or two inches wide instead of a quarter inch wide by ordering it from any of the modeling wood suppliers like The Lumberyard, and so on.

It's often said that many fine models have been built with the simplest of hand tools and that's quite true, but what's rarely mentioned is that those simple hand tools were used by highly skilled craftsmen who had an intimate knowledge of their subject matter. This is certainly not the case with a great many beginning ship modelers who, judging from their posts, bring little or no expertise in hand tool woodworking and even less experience with wooden ship building and/or basic seamanship. Reasonable minds may differ, I suppose, but to my mind I don't think a beginner is done any favors by "dumbing down" the craft because basic skills and materials necessary to produce a good model aren't available packaged in a box. The challenges most beginning ship modelers describe on internet forums are in large measure the result of 1.) their misinformed expectation that they can, without any specialized knowledge, skill, and/or experience, satisfactorily assemble the ship model pictured on the front of a ship model kit box, 2.) their lack of sufficient knowledge, skill, and/or experience, in the required manual arts, and 3.) their lack of sufficient knowledge, skill and/or experience with the nautical subject matter they are trying to model. In most cases, they'd be far better served by studying a few of the classic books on ship modeling before doing anything else. Unfortunately, it seems the prevailing expectation that all they need to do is find their answer on the internet. However enlightening YouTube and Artificial Intelligence may be, they are no substitute for a real "apprenticeship."

 

[Bob Cleek]

Should? Why? There are no rules...

Indeed, "There are no rules." in ship modeling, just as there are no bad ship models. It's just that, even without rules, some models are a whole lot better than others and those who know what they are looking at can tell the difference at a glance.

 

[Bob Cleek]

With the tools available in my neighborhood carpentry class, for instance, I can mill strips from 1/4 or so boards, but can't really mill a 1/32-inch sheet, unless I want to plane down a much thicker board and waste a lot of wood.

No need to mill a 1/32" thick sheet. Just take a one- or two-inch-thick billet and rip 1/32" x one- or two-inch scale plank stock from it.

Think "in scale terms." The wooden ships we model were made from trees, not giant sheets of plywood. Available planking stock has never been much more than two feet wide and twenty-four feet long because that's about as big as the trees grow or the planks can be shipped from the mill. At 1:48 scale, that's a half inch by six inches.

 

[Bob Cleek]

What I feel, is that we do our best to help those who ask for help, and our help be more than sending them out shopping for tools and materials, when what they have invested in a kit may be the best they can do right now.

If what they have invested in a kit was all they can afford right now and what they need is proper tools and materials, then the best help they possibly can be given, unfortunately, is to be told to put that kit back on the shelf and start saving for the needed tools and materials before going any further. The simple fact is that there is likely no wooden ship model kit available anywhere that can be satisfactorily built without the proper tools (hand or powered, as the budget might allow) and supplemental materials, or both. The implied message of the ship model kit industry that all you have to do is buy a four-figure-plus "cannons and gingerbread" kit and assemble the parts step by step following the instructions to end up with a model like the one on the cover "that you built yourself" is false advertising, pure and simple. Assembling wooden ship model kits and injection molded polystyrene plastic model kits are two entirely different skillsets.

You see, the kit ship model manufacturers are well aware that anybody who possesses the basic skills to build a good ship model from scratch knows just how much of an obscene rip-off most ship model kits are and won't be buying any from them in the future. Therefore, the kit manufacturers know their target customer base is going to be people who don't know the difference and can be sold junk for top dollar. It just becomes another big scam, marketing and selling "impulse purchases" to customers who aspire to "build" a ship model or "become ship modelers." And make no mistake about it, these manufacturers have a vested interest in fostering the belief that building a ship model without buying a kit is far too difficult for the average modeler and requires thousands of dollars of expensive power tools which, again, is simply not true. They want to sell wooden ship model kits the same way they sell plastic kits to customers who "collect" huge stashes of unbuilt models that they are going to get around to building someday... or not. The manufacturers don't care one wit that the majority of kits they sell are never finished. All they care about is moving the product. If you don't believe me, just stop and think for a minute: "How can an outfit like Model Expo sell kits "on sale" for as much as 50% below the regular price every time they have one of their "Big Sales," and not file for bankruptcy? What do you think their profit margin is on kits they can sell for half price on sale as a routine marketing model?

Anyway, I don't care if somebody enjoys putting ship model kits together. More power to 'em! Some guys who do a lot of "kit bashing" and aftermarket upgrades turn out some very nice-looking kit-builds. But if someone asks me, I'm going to say, "Read a book and learn about the craft, then start small and keep reading, watching, and listening, so the more you know, the better you'll model. Don't let the kit dealers get you strung out on nothing but mediocre kits of the same "usual suspects" subjects over and over again.

 

[DAWarden-(Jaager)]

The practice of model building or ship building ?

Ship building.

I show you a planking job that is indistinguishable from spiling, and you complain about the wood being used.
It's a no-win situation.

You made your point about the planking. No problem there.

The AYC comment is thread shift - My negative comment is only about the appearance of the wood species itself. It does the job very well. It is an invitation for a debate. Nothing official or anything like it.

Apart from getting mental exercise from imaging solutions to specific problems with kits, I have no interest there.

Kits are its own world and I am not a part of it. A significant part of kit subjects are not ships that actually existed beyond the name or are models of modern replica attractions for tourists. Advertising-generated pretensions and a desire for a lot of difficult work to count for a broader respect than it can actually earn is where feelings get bruised. But kits are ONLY what they are. Historical significance is not a part of it.

 

[Roger Pellett]

I never thought that I would say this but today in the kit building world it seems to be the plastic warship modelers who are are most interested in building historically accurate models. They replace kit provided parts with those from aftermarket suppliers, take great care with paint schemes, and do in depth research. Certainly not my world but I like seeing their results.

Roger

 

[Roger Pellett]

I visited our local Menards, a midwestern based home improvement store today while my wife was spending quality time at a nearby Target. Checking out their lumber selection I found that they now stock quality pine in 1/2” and 3/8” thicknesses. They also stock some beautiful 5 quarter pine. Anyhow, with these thinner materials, someone could carve a hull form a stack of lifts without needing expensive power equipment.

Roger

 

[Ronald-V]

Indeed, "There are no rules." in ship modeling, just as there are no bad ship models. It's just that, even without rules, some models are a whole lot better than others and those who know what they are looking at can tell the difference at a glance.

So many things have been said, haha. So I'll keep it short. I am not a purist myself and do not wish to become one, and that is where the difference lies for me. So if there is an easy method where you can produce a nice result for a "layman" like me, then I use it. And the only point of criticism I wanted to make is... that at the beginning of the discussion here, it was said that there seemed to be no other way to plank a ship than the "real life" way. There was a certain sort of necessity/requirement involved if you want to achieve a certain kind of result. To each their own, and everyone is free to use the method they want.

Based on my limited experience, I can recommend the "Chuck" or "side bending" method.

 

[Heinrich]

Notice how the member who originally posted the question （@MDB）, has completely disappeared from the thread? Has anyone wondered why?

 

[BigBad]

In the first post there is mention of videos showing a certain technique. What are the specific videos referred to? I would like to watch them.

 

[Ronald-V]

In the first post there is mention of videos showing a certain technique. What are the specific videos referred to? I would like to watch them.

I'm not seeing video's mentioned in the first post...but there is a link of video's in the third post and that link is still there

 

[DAWarden-(Jaager)]

Notice how the member who originally posted the question （@MDB）, has completely disappeared from the thread? Has anyone wondered why?

I think his inquiry was answered and then some. His first page of the Cliff Notes understanding was expanded. It has gotten deep and a beginner would probably feel overwhelmed.
But exposure to multiple ideas, directions, and possibilities should only help those interested in doing more than just assembly following A-B-C-D.

Since this is broadening - The MSW beginner cautionary tale thread is back up.
It includes a discussion of the reasons for the high attrition rate with first time builders.
A prominent reason suggested is the poor quality of some kit instructions. I have no direct knowledge of that, but from my perspective this should not be a problem at all. I guess since the majority of first timers are coming from a background in plastic kits, where complete instructions are required, this probably would appear to be a problem. What is a minor annoyance should not be seen as a deal breaker. The plastic parts are purpose made - they must be right the first time. Wood does not grow ON trees, it IS trees. It is easily replaced. Mistakes are easy to fix.
I started with an old yellow box MS carved hull kit. There were detailed plans but for the most part, the instructions were the Jackstay and the bib in the back of it.
PoB is different from solid carved but the procedures involved with PoB are pretty much the same regardless of the particular kit.
A good HOW TO book or two should do a better job than any individual kit instructions. The key part is detailed plans. It is necessary to know WHAT to build. The HOW to build it can be found from multiple sources.

Ships are the most complicated things that humans build. They involve every segment of the most sophisticated tech of their specific time. Replicating this is a serious challenge - even with a kit's short cuts. A first timer could be coming into this expecting it to be more sloshing in ankle deep water like about every other hobby. It instantly becomes evident that instead it is water that is so deep that there does seem to be a bottom. If all they ever wanted to do was letting the waves wash past their ankles, any pretext should do as the reason to bail. If it is a beginner who really wants this, if a serious challenge is the ambition, useless instructions should not be a discouragement. It is all a very complicated puzzle, but one with replaceable parts and assembly steps that are mostly generic.

I see a threat to this with 3D printing and 4D milling of kit parts. These are not DIY replaceable. The laser cut is handy and all, but a fret saw and a bench pin can still do the same job. Moving towards the ABCD of plastic kits will probably please the ankle deep waders but it moves the whole into water shallow enough to stand on the bottom. The necessity to learn to swim will be lost.

Not my dog, not my fight, but those who have a stake in this should discuss.

 

[Bob Cleek]

I visited our local Menards, a midwestern based home improvement store today while my wife was spending quality time at a nearby Target. Checking out their lumber selection I found that they now stock quality pine in 1/2” and 3/8” thicknesses. They also stock some beautiful 5 quarter pine. Anyhow, with these thinner materials, someone could carve a hull form a stack of lifts without needing expensive power equipment.

Roger

Also, you can generally get away with "cherry picking" stock from the "Big Box" stores with impunity. It is often surprising how you can "get lucky" and find some really beautiful select lumber among the lower grade stuff. The mills don't bother to sort it as carefully as they might. I guess there's a cost/benefit analysis and they don't mind letting a minority of great planks slip by in a big load of average or lower ones. Then again, the "Big Box" stores conversely have no compunction occasionally selling a warped or twisted pitch pocketed piece of "firewood" for middle grade stock, either.

 

[Bob Cleek]

Notice how the member who originally posted the question （@MDB）, has completely disappeared from the thread? Has anyone wondered why?

Internet forums are like your local pub. A couple of guys start a conversation, a few more join in. The discussion takes on a life of its own. Along the way, one or another guy leaves to go to the can, or maybe he's got to get home for dinner before the Old Lady calls looking for him. Other guys arrive and take their empty stools. Life goes one. Lah-di-dee, la-di-dah.

 

[Bob Cleek]

I see a threat to this with 3D printing and 4D milling of kit parts.

Thread drift to be sure, but, pending a dedicated thread on this subject, I'll stake my claim by offering the following.

The accepted standard for a "high-quality scale ship model" remains applicable. As Napier points out, it is the model alone that speaks for itself and is judged.

"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.

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

To date, the archival quality of 3D printing media ranges from nearly non-existent to as yet unknown. Most all 3D media presently available present serious archival issues with mechanical stability, UV deterioration, and out-gassing effects. The present literature regarding the "archival" quality of 3D printing technology generally interestingly focuses on the archival preservation of the defining digital software record of the printed object rather than the object itself, apparently because the archival qualities of the printing media are recognized to be slim and none. The current thinking appears to be that the archival qualities of 3D printed objects are irrelevant because, as long as the defining digital data is preserved, a replacement can be reprinted to replace the original printed object! Only when a suitably archival 3D media is reliably identified will the next question be raised, "Is it craftsmanship, or do 3D printed parts demonstrate a `lack of craftsmanship which creates unrealistic and, therefore, historically inaccurate blemishes on a model?'"

This will be how the quality of a "high-quality scale ship model" should be judged under any circumstances, including the use of 3D printed parts. If I might hazard a guess, I would expect that when that time comes, the distinction between high-quality fine art ship models made with 3D printed parts and those made solely "by human hands," will be analogous to the distinction we see between hand-drawn or painted representational fine art and fine art photography. Which brings us back to Justice Potter Stewart's definition of pornography: "I can't define it in words, but I know it when I see it."

 

[TheGatzby]

Just like most technology, we can only expect 3D printing to get better. Why should we expect it not to?
I foresee a time when the results will be indistinguishable from from the material it is supposed to represent.

 

[Bob Cleek]

Just like most technology, we can only expect 3D printing to get better. Why should we expect it not to? I foresee a time when the results will be indistinguishable from from the material it is supposed to represent.

That's a reasonable expectation, I suppose, but, at the moment, the essence of the technology, in terms of the printing media, is melting plastic and "plastic" and "archival" are close to mutually exclusive concepts. I'm no industrial chemist, so I'll have to await the scientists' reports if and when they come. Presently, it appears the more common the printing media, the less archival it is which may suggest an "antagonistic" relationship between preferred printing media filament options and archival quality.

See: https://www.bing.com/search?q=what+are+the+archival+qualities+of+3D+printing+media?&form=ANNH01&refig=6a261b209e7445e696a6a8c0ccf7fc07&pc=DCTS

Note that 3D printing technology presents two distinct archival issues discussed in the literature: 1) the archival quality of the scanned data and 2) the archival quality of the printed artifact. The former is an exercise in preserving the recorded raw data, e.g., scanned data points, etc., for their subsequent reuse without the need to replicate input scanning procedures, while the latter is an assessment of the longevity of the 3D printed object itself. The former is about preserving software with backups, indexing, and file storage procedures, while the latter is about how long the printed thing is going to last and what environmental effects it may have on other materials in proximity to it. For our purposes, the ship modeler's primary concern is the latter type of archival quality.

For those who may think this concern with the archival qualities of 3D printed ship model parts is way too far down the rabbit hole to bother with, the fact is that the lifespans of 3D printed objects typically range from a few months to several years. PLA filament generally lasts up to 2 years indoors, but degrades faster if exposed to UV light, moisture, and/or heat, often within 1 to 3 years if exposed to UV light. Carefully stored in ideal conditions, it takes about 15 years for it to break down, but who plans to keep their ship model in a dark, strictly constant temperature and climate-controlled environment? ABS and carbon fiber filament can last 5 to 10 years. PETG is good for 3 to 7 years. Most everybody has experienced a cheap plastic toy that's become embrittled and just crumbles in your hand. This is not a good thing to have happen on a five- or ten-year-old ship model. 3D printed ship model parts are in their infancy right now, but you sure don't want to be springing with the big bucks for a hundred nifty 3D printed cannon for your Victory which are going to crumble to little grains of plastic in five years. So far, not that I've searched for it, mind you, but I haven't seen any discussion by the after-market 3D printed parts merchants about the longevity of their products. Perhaps post-printing treatments, coatings perhaps, may extend the longevity of 3D printed parts. I don't know. It's certainly something I would think warrants some further research, although I don't anticipate having a dog in the fight, as I don't plan to have occasion too use any 3D printed parts in the future.

 

[Jimsky]

The accepted standard for a "high-quality scale ship model" remains applicable. As Napier points out, it is the model alone that speaks for itself and is judged.

"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.

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

Again ?????? Bob, I would question (again) the premise that there is one accepted standard by which all ship models should be judged. Historical accuracy is certainly one important measure, but many modelers also value craftsmanship, presentation, problem-solving, artistic interpretation, and the enjoyment of the build itself. The criteria used to judge a replica are not necessarily the same as those used to appreciate just building a model or a display piece. In fact, one of the strongest counterpoints to Rob N. comes from the renowned miniature ship modeler Donald McNarry, whose philosophy often emphasized artistic impression over strict technical exactness. He said:

"Fortunately, this tradition is dying – but it is dying hard."

Another McNarry viewpoint, cited by modelers discussing his book Ship Modelling in Miniature, was that a model should not necessarily reproduce every real-world detail if those details distract from the overall impression of the vessel. For example, he argued that depicting every piece of deck clutter on a ship could distract the viewer from seeing the ship itself. If your (Bob) goal is to challenge the idea that there is one universally accepted objective standard and it belongs to Napier, McNarry may actually be a better authority than Napier because his work suggests that:

• A model is not merely a collection of technically correct details.
• Artistic interpretation has value.
• Selective omission can improve a model.
• The overall visual effect can be more important than literal reproduction.

Donald McNarry, one of the most respected ship modelers of the twentieth century, took a somewhat different approach. He argued that a model should convey the essence and appearance of the ship, even if that means omitting details that would distract from the overall impression. That view suggests that craftsmanship and historical accuracy are important, sure, but they are not necessarily the sole measures of a model's "high-quality scale ship model".

 

[Roger Pellett]

I don’t see Napier and McNarry’s ideas being at odds. First of all there’s the question of scale. McNarry is a miniaturist although I do know of one of his models built to a larger scale. Napier’s models built before he specialized in repair and restoration were built to common larger scales. While miniaturists sometimes resort to “fooling the eye” everything that I have read says that McNarry like Napier built models that were historically accurate. A miniature model where the builder chose not to model a tiny detail is a far cry from a model with a misshapen hull. At 1:48 scale omission of that same detail might be quite noticeable.

Artistic effect is always important regardless of the subject or scale and need not interfere with historical accuracy. Strictly speaking neither the Eighteenth Century dockyard models or the early Twentieth Century boardroom steamship models are historically accurate. The dockyard models because they lack planking and their exposed framing does not always meet Admiralty standards. The boardroom models because of their brass fittings and smooth hulls. Despite this, both are considered to be highly accurate and artistic examples of the model maker’s art. Artistic merit is still a matter of what’s generally considered to be good taste. The one model of Napier’s that I remember was that of the New England sailing ship Sooloo featured in the Summer 1990 edition of the Nautical Research Journal. While providing a compelling impression of the actual vessel it was certainly artistic.

Napier and McNarry both master artists and ship model builders.

Roger

 

[Bob Cleek]

Again ?????? Bob, I would question (again) the premise that there is one accepted standard by which all ship models should be judged. Historical accuracy is certainly one important measure, but many modelers also value craftsmanship, presentation, problem-solving, artistic interpretation, and the enjoyment of the build itself. The criteria used to judge a replica are not necessarily the same as those used to appreciate just building a model or a display piece. In fact, one of the strongest counterpoints to Rob N. comes from the renowned miniature ship modeler Donald McNarry, whose philosophy often emphasized artistic impression over strict technical exactness. He said:

"Fortunately, this tradition is dying – but it is dying hard."

Another McNarry viewpoint, cited by modelers discussing his book Ship Modelling in Miniature, was that a model should not necessarily reproduce every real-world detail if those details distract from the overall impression of the vessel. For example, he argued that depicting every piece of deck clutter on a ship could distract the viewer from seeing the ship itself. If your (Bob) goal is to challenge the idea that there is one universally accepted objective standard and it belongs to Napier, McNarry may actually be a better authority than Napier because his work suggests that:

• A model is not merely a collection of technically correct details.
• Artistic interpretation has value.
• Selective omission can improve a model.
• The overall visual effect can be more important than literal reproduction.

Donald McNarry, one of the most respected ship modelers of the twentieth century, took a somewhat different approach. He argued that a model should convey the essence and appearance of the ship, even if that means omitting details that would distract from the overall impression. That view suggests that craftsmanship and historical accuracy are important, sure, but they are not necessarily the sole measures of a model's "high-quality scale ship model".

You say, "The criteria used to judge a replica are not necessarily the same as those used to appreciate just building a model or a display piece." I have no idea what you mean by "a replica," but neither I nor any respected authority has ever asserted that the standard for judging a "high-quality scale ship model" is the same as judging any other type of ship model whatsoever. Never. Not ever, even once. The definition of a "high-quality scale ship model," which is a particular thing, is what was being talked about. If a ship model falls outside the standard for a "high-quality scale ship model" it simply isn't a "high-quality scale ship model" as that term has long been defined. There are lots of different types of ship models and lots of ways of distinguishing them. For example, you chose to refer to two defining criteria based on the modeler's motivation, "to appreciate just building a model" and "as a display piece." The modeler's motivation is completely irrelevant to the NRG standard for a "high-quality scale ship model" because in the definition of a "high-quality scale ship model" expressly "The main thing is the appearance of the finished model." not why the modeler made it.

You are right that we've been over this before. I am at a complete loss to understand why you are unable to grasp what Napier wrote when he explained the standard for a "high-quality scale ship model" which was, as I am told, created by a committee of highly-respected ship modeling authorities and ratified by a large majority of NRG members now decades ago. Whenever I reference this standard, you object, asserting that this definition is flawed because it shouldn't apply to all ship models. Nobody has ever said it applies to any type of ship model other than "high-quality scale ship models," as defined.

The "one accepted standard" that the NRG and others recognize as defining a scale ship model as "high-quality" is solely whether it "provides a compelling impression of an actual vessel within the constraints of historical accuracy."

This "one standard" is in fact, as Napier clearly explained in his recently published book, an amalgam of all the considerations you mention, save "the enjoyment of the build itself," which Napier notes is of no relevance whatsoever because it is the model and the model alone, which is being judged on its own merits, not its builder or builders.

Note that this objective standard applies only to one particular type of ship model, to wit: a "high-quality scale ship model" because the "high-quality scale ship model" purports to depict an historically accurate scale representation of a particular actual vessel or generic vessel type.

Please read again how Napier explains the standard he and his colleagues devised:

"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.]

Perhaps it might be more easily understood by explaining the mechanics of the analysis.

1. Every "high-quality scale ship model" is an expression of "an actual vessel within the constraints of historical accuracy." If it is not "an actual vessel within the constraints of historical accuracy," then it is not a "high-quality scale ship model." It may be a high-quality model of a fantasy ship, a high-quality impressionistic sculpture of a ship, and so on, but it isn't a "high-quality scale ship model."

2. Every scale ship model is necessarily a communicative statement which invites a judgment of its qualities, whatever they may be, by anyone who sees it. Even if no one but its creator ever sees it, that modeler judges their own work when viewing it. Every ship model that is viewed, and thus judged, is judged subjectively in the "eye of its beholder," but in the larger community of ship modelers there exists agreement as to what objective factors comprise any knowledgeable evaluation of a "high-quality scale ship model" and that agreement is expressed by the NRG's definition of a "high-quality scale ship model."

3. The judgment which is necessarily made is whether the ship model "provides a compelling impression of an actual vessel within the constraints of historical accuracy." This is the judgment every viewer of the model makes, consciously or unconsciously when they look at the model: "Does the model allow and encourage an aesthetic interpretation... 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." Another way of putting it is, "When you look at the model, you feel compelled to think of the real ship and not of the model." Why you assert that NRG definition does not take into consideration "artistic interpretation" is beyond me.

4. The NRG definition also addresses a broadly defined criteria expressed as "within the constraints of historical accuracy." Napier defines this concept expansively: "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." Napier expressly addressed every factor that you assert the NRG definition ignores!

5. The evaluation of any scale ship model is made on the basis of the model alone. Who made it or why, while not irrelevant facts in the overall scheme of things, are irrelevant to the assessment of its merits as a "high-quality scale ship model." If a model is made by a famous master modeler, that will likely be to the advantage of its monetary value but should not be any consideration in the judgment of the model's qualifications as a "high-quality scale ship model." As Napier explains, every model "speaks for itself:" "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."

I have no idea why you "...would question (again) the premise that there is one accepted standard by which all ship models should be judged." when neither the NRG's standard for "high-quality scale ship models," nor I, have ever said so. All your objections to this "straw man" inaccuracy are irrelevant. Nobody I know or have ever heard of thinks "that there is one accepted standard by which all ship models should be judged." All that has ever been asserted is that there is one standard by which "high-quality scale ship models" are measured.

You also shot wide of the mark relying on Donald McNarry's observation that "a model should not necessarily reproduce every real-world detail if those details distract from the overall impression of the vessel" as somehow supporting your argument, whatever your point exactly may be. McNarry is merely stating the obvious, particularly as a builder of "extreme miniatures" whose work exemplified the universal principle of scale modeling that details which cannot be seen at scale viewing distance should not be depicted on a scale model. McNarry's observation that "depicting every piece of deck clutter on a ship could distract the viewer from seeing the ship itself..." is nothing less than an affirmation of the NRG definition's criteria that a "high-quality scale ship model "provides a compelling impression of an actual vessel." McNarry recognizes the fact that too much "deck clutter" can detract from "providing a compelling impression of an actual ship." McNarry's models, being "extreme miniatures," a distinct subcategory of ship model, are a good example of the flexibility and broad inclusiveness of the NRG definition. I've never had the pleasure of viewing any of McNarry's models "in the flesh," as it were, but I have had the pleasure of studying firsthand three models by Lloyd McCaffery, an American miniaturist whose models are very similar in style to McNarry's, and notwithstanding their unusually small scales, viewing them unquestionably "provides a compelling impression of an actual vessel." That nothing of that "compelling impression" is lost by virtue of the model's small scale or lack of detail is the magic in the work of the extreme miniaturists like McNarry, McCaffery, Ough, and Reed.

McNarry's assertions, as you state them, are entirely consistent with Napier's explanation of the NRG's definition of a "high-quality scale ship model." Read what Napier wrote and compare it to what you say are McNarry's "contrary" assertions:

• A model is not merely a collection of technically correct details.

"Compelling impression is the result of applying artistic and interpretive decision-making processes... to amplify a model beyond being a mere assemblage of parts." Check.

• Artistic interpretation has value.

(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. Check.

• Selective omission can improve 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. Check.

• The overall visual effect can be more important than literal reproduction.

"A high-quality scale ship model provides a compelling impression of an actual vessel within the constraints of historical accuracy." and "The main thing is the appearance of the finished model." Check and check.

In summary, there's nothing in the concept or application of the NRG standard for judging a "high-quality scale ship model" that is at odds with whatever you think ought to be otherwise because that which you claim to be "otherwise" isn't. Apparently, you just don't understand what's being talked about.

There are lots and lots of different types of ship models and all ship models are good, but some's better than others. Here we are talking about a particular type of ship model, i.e., the "high-quality scale ship model." There are lots of other types of ship models. Some are also "high-quality" and some aren't. Some are "scale ship models" and some are not. The NRG definition of a "high-quality scale ship model" was intended to replace the meaningless term, "museum-quality ship model," which was, and still is, widely used by kit manufacturers to describe their products.