Planking math

[Jimsky]

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.

I understand your explanation of the NRG definition. However, I still question why the NRG's standard should be regarded as the definitive measure of what constitutes a high-quality ship model across the hobby. The NRG is a respected organization, but it is not the sole authority on ship modeling, nor does it represent every modeling tradition, interest, or objective. Many highly skilled modelers around the world have never been members of the NRG. They may evaluate quality using different criteria or place different emphasis on historical accuracy, craftsmanship, artistic expression, innovation, or educational value.

My concern is not with the NRG having a standard for judging a particular category of model. Rather, it is with presenting that standard as though it were universally accepted and beyond debate. That is an opinion, albeit one supported by the NRG and by Mr. Napier, and I believe it is important that readers understand it as such. We have members from many backgrounds and modeling disciplines, and they should not be misled into thinking that one organization's (NRG's) definition represents the only legitimate way to evaluate quality in ship modeling.

 

[Roger Pellett]

There is a practical side to this discussion. When I build a model, before I start, I try to first come up with an artistic vision. This includes how I intend to display the model and especially what sort of supports I intend to use. This can vary from setting the model on blocks of wood to graceful turned supports. Knowing this from the beginning allows me to build the structure into the model’s hull without wondering how to avoid damaging the fragile finished model.

Roger

 

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

I understand your explanation of the NRG definition. However, I still question why the NRG's standard should be regarded as the definitive measure of what constitutes a high-quality ship model across the hobby. The NRG is a respected organization, but it is not the sole authority on ship modeling, nor does it represent every modeling tradition, interest, or objective. Many highly skilled modelers around the world have never been members of the NRG. They may evaluate quality using different criteria or place different emphasis on historical accuracy, craftsmanship, artistic expression, innovation, or educational value.

My concern is not with the NRG having a standard for judging a particular category of model. Rather, it is with presenting that standard as though it were universally accepted and beyond debate. That is an opinion, albeit one supported by the NRG and by Mr. Napier, and I believe it is important that readers understand it as such. We have members from many backgrounds and modeling disciplines, and they should not be misled into thinking that one organization's (NRG's) definition represents the only legitimate way to evaluate quality in ship modeling.

hum? so jim does this feel like Déjà Vu it is an argument that has no answer just opinions. I agree the NRG is far from any authority on the quality of model ship building. as a matter of fact there are organizations and competitions with far stricter rules. The NRG over the last few years have lowered their standards to include a wider range in the hobby.
There is no doubt about it this art form goes from beginner to masterclass builders, and anyone can take it as far as they want. I have an interest in steampunk and i have ideas for a ship model. That does not fall into any ship modeling catagory, nor is it historically correct in any way, and it is totally made up, it is an art and part of this hobby.
The old school scratch builders from days gone by in the NRG are still around far and few between and they have a lot to offer from their point of view and a wealth of knowledge to offer.

i did at one point disagree with you Jim thinking you were trying to reduce a fine art to a so what its just a hobby. But i do get your point. Everyone does not have to build fine art models and everyone has a personal reason for what they are doing. for example i am building the Sir Edward Hawke it is not a fine art model to me it is nothing more than a prop to demonstrate model building, it will never be on display most likely it will be tossed in a corner, then i move on to something different.

 

[Bob Cleek]

I understand your explanation of the NRG definition. However, I still question why the NRG's standard should be regarded as the definitive measure of what constitutes a high-quality ship model across the hobby. The NRG is a respected organization, but it is not the sole authority on ship modeling, nor does it represent every modeling tradition, interest, or objective. Many highly skilled modelers around the world have never been members of the NRG. They may evaluate quality using different criteria or place different emphasis on historical accuracy, craftsmanship, artistic expression, innovation, or educational value.

My concern is not with the NRG having a standard for judging a particular category of model. Rather, it is with presenting that standard as though it were universally accepted and beyond debate. That is an opinion, albeit one supported by the NRG and by Mr. Napier, and I believe it is important that readers understand it as such. We have members from many backgrounds and modeling disciplines, and they should not be misled into thinking that one organization's (NRG's) definition represents the only legitimate way to evaluate quality in ship modeling.

God forbid that I'd ever consider today's NRG as the definitive authority on anything, although it had a more justifiable claim to that title a quarter century ago when that definition was crafted. Today, as far as I'm concerned, the NRG is little more than a foil for the ship model kit merchants and any sort of "standard of quality" is likely anathema to them. NRG's MSW forum is definitely "the Special Olympics of Scale Ship Modeling!" Everybody wins a prize! I regard the NRG definition as merely what it was originally intended to be: a replacement for the meaningless term, "museum-quality ship model." As far as I know, nobody else of any stature has ever offered an alternative to it. You are the only person I can think of that contests it. It's also, as Dave notes above, the broadest, most inclusive definition of a "high-quality scale ship model" that has been devised. For example, NAVIGA, the organization for international competitive ship modeling, has far more exclusive judging standards than the NRG definition.

As I understand it, the NRG standard is comprised of many different factors without any consideration of what emphasis might be placed on any single factor in any given instance. The NRG standard is obviously an opinion. What else can it be? I've never contended anybody cannot disagree with it. Of course, if they do, they may find their position rather difficult to sustain, but who knows? Nobody has any contrary standard on the table at present. Why shouldn't the NRG standard be applied? You've repeatedly found fault with it, yet in every instance, the NRG standard agrees with your objections! Like Clara Peller used to say, "Where's the beef?"

Wendy's Commercial 1984 - Search Videos

Watch videos instantly on Bing—enjoy direct playback, discover related clips, and dive into trending content all in one place.

www.bing.com

Just because a model isn't a "high-quality scale ship model" per the NRG definition doesn't mean it isn't a "ship model," nor that it isn't a work of fine art. Dave's contemplated "steam punk" ship model is a perfect example. It would not be a "high-quality scale ship model" per the NRG definition because it would not be a scale model of an actual ship within the constraints of historical accuracy. But in fact, given Dave's modeling skill, it almost certainly would be recognizable as a "ship model" that would "provide a compelling impression" of a ship, "actual" or not, and thereby unquestionably qualify as a work of fine art. Whether it might be judged in a ship model contest is solely a matter of the contest rules and the NRG definition has nothing to do with those.

I think what you are missing is the critical fact that the NRG definition applies solely to a judgment concerning the model speaking for itself. The model either qualifies as a "high-quality scale ship model" pursuant to the terms of the NRG definition or it doesn't. You seem to want to include considerations about the modeler who made it. I'm not saying such considerations are never relevant. I'm only saying they aren't relevant in the NRG definition because that definition only applies to the model. Consider the case of any one of the many kit models of Nelson's Victory that exhibits an average level of technical skill and craftsmanship. If we evaluate the model, we have to say it isn't "high-quality" because rather than providing a compelling impression of an actual vessel, a multitude of shortcomings from grossly out of scale copper hull plating and sloppy painting to rigging anachronisms and omissions distract the experienced viewer, compelling instead only an impression of what it truly is, just another mediocre Victory kit model. Surely, we've all been there and we were not impressed. Then someone comments, "This one was built by a twelve-year-old kid with no adult supervision or assistance." and we exclaim, "Whoa! This is really impressive!" You are correct that the NRG standard doesn't address this consideration regarding the modeler, not the model, but the NRG standard was never intended to address such factors. It only addresses the standards to be applied to a model. If you want to judge something like "the level of the modeler's accomplishment," then the kid is a contender. If you want to judge the quality of the model, it's not even in the running.

If you want to propose some other standard that can be applied to define fine art "high-quality scale ship models," I'd be glad to consider it. All I'm saying is that at the moment the NRG standard is all we've got and without some standard of quality, there cannot be any pursuit of excellence which is, after all, what fine art "high-quality scale ship modeling" is all about. That in no way is meant to say that people should not model ships for any other reason under the sun without any regard for any definition of excellence if that suits them. Who cares if their modeling makes them happy? The NRG standard is only of use to those of us who see scale ship modeling as an exercise in beating our "personal best" and who compete with no one other than ourselves.

 

[Corsair]

I wish there was an "unfollow thread" button.
I'm so done with this. ROFL

 

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

I wish there was an "unfollow thread" button.
I'm so done with this. ROFL

actually there is it is manual "don't click on the thread"

 

[Jimsky]

I wish there was an "unfollow thread" button.
I'm so done with this. ROFL

Jeff, you can always unwatch the thread if you'd prefer not to receive notifications. Once unwatched, you won't receive alerts when new posts or replies are added.

 

[Bob Cleek]

I wish there was an "unfollow thread" button.
I'm so done with this. ROFL

At my age, threads like this are essential to maintaining my mental acuity.

"Poking the bear" is how I keep from going senile!

 

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

going back to the original question there isn't any math involved as was said this is "kit planking" and planking a kit with kit supplied material is a modeling technique and has very little likeness to how a real hull is planked.
You need different width of planking for the garboard, bottom planks, stealers if necessary planks are shaped to fit a hull. The problem with kits they provide only one width of planking that cannot be used to "shape" planks to fit, they are too narrow.
This is why you see so many hull with planking that runs short of the bow and end under the main wale.
The way is to line off the hull and plank each section forget the math it does not apply. There are topics that cover how to line off a hull.
to do a proper job toss out the kit stuff and buy planking material in various widths or buy some sheet stock so you can cut wide stealers

 

[Roger Pellett]

Judging models on their own merits : Chuck “The Gavel’s” Harriett Lane model shown here on SOS in my opinion meets the standards Bob Cleek is writing about. It’s built from a kit.

A kit built ship of the line model might be an ambitious project but copper sheathing with a case of acne from embossed “rivets” and bowling pin sized belaying do not provide a compelling impression of the actual vessel.

Roger

 

[Jimsky]

If you want to propose some other standard that can be applied to define fine art "high-quality scale ship models," I'd be glad to consider it. All I'm saying is that at the moment the NRG standard is all we've got and without some standard of quality, there cannot be any pursuit of excellence which is, after all, what fine art "high-quality scale ship modeling" is all about. That in no way is meant to say that people should not model ships for any other reason under the sun without any regard for any definition of excellence if that suits them. Who cares if their modeling makes them happy? The NRG standard is only of use to those of us who see scale ship modeling as an exercise in beating our "personal best" and who compete with no one other than ourselves.

I think part of the disconnect is that you continue to frame the discussion around the concept of a "high-quality scale ship model," whereas I do not approach the hobby from that perspective at all!

Sorry, I repeat myself.... I have never argued against the NRG having a definition for what it considers a high-quality scale ship model. What I have questioned is the assumption that such a definition should be universally adopted by everyone in the hobby. For many of us, ship modeling is simply an enjoyable pastime rather than a pursuit governed by formal standards or classifications.

Personally, I do not spend much time categorizing models as "high-quality scale ship models" or otherwise. I evaluate a model based on my own interests, goals, and standards, which may differ from those of the NRG or any other organization. Other modelers, including you, will undoubtedly have their own criteria as well.

Because of that, it would be impossible for me to propose a single universal standard. The hobby is broad enough to accommodate many different approaches, whether one is striving for historical perfection, artistic interpretation, craftsmanship, education, relaxation, or simply the enjoyment of building (BTW, most important!!!!). None of those motivations is inherently more valid than the others, IMHO.

^ @Bob Cleek No need to respond. Enough is enough

 

[Jimsky]

A kit built ship of the line model might be an ambitious project but copper sheathing with a case of acne from embossed “rivets” and bowling pin sized belaying do not provide a compelling impression of the actual vessel.

Perhaps the more important question is not whether the copper plates, rivets, or belaying pins are perfectly scaled, but who the builder is and where they are in their modeling journey.

Many experienced modelers can spot details that others overlook. That's fine. However, what may seem obvious to you, Bob, or others. perhaps. may go completely unnoticed by thousands of other hobbyists who simply admire the model as a whole.

If this is the builder's first ship model, or their first attempt at a ship of the line, should our primary response be a list of shortcomings? Or should we first recognize the effort, achievement, and learning involved in completing such an ambitious project?

Constructive criticism certainly has its place, but so does encouragement. Most of us (myself included) are here to enjoy the hobby, learn from one another, and improve (possibly) over time. A model doesn't have to be perfect to deserve appreciation, and pointing out every flaw is not always the most helpful way to support a fellow modeler.

@Roger Pellett, Why do we bring Kit versus scratch build again here?????

 

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

At my age, threads like this are essential to maintaining my mental acuity.

"Poking the bear" is how I keep from going senile! View attachment 610408

actually a forum does get boring after a while the same questions pop up over and over. There are a lot of threads that cover planking right here on the forum. Controversial drifting does stimulate one to examine a fuller understanding of a complex hobby and art the why do it, how to do it, should i do it?
Both Jim and Bob bring to light some interesting points of view. Why not? it keeps us sharp
i see it some think oh god here we go again what is art? what is a good model? should i attempt a scratch project pros and cons
and then we have oh god again for the 10th time what glue should i use what kit is best?
every thread, every comment, every question, every opinion, it is ALL part of the hobby poking a bear is a good thing.
The con part is there is no order to the information it is everywhere in the forum.
Ships of Scale is the Jackson Pollock of ship modeling. Throw everything at it and then try to make sense of it.

 

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

@Roger Pellett, Why do we bring Kit versus scratch build again here?????

i will take a long shot at that it is not actually a versus issue it is builders trying to build a ship like a scratch builder does, the problem is a kit falls short of trying to do that.
Wrong planking material for the hull a kit hull is not planked like a scratch builder would do it or how a real ship is planked a kit builder sees a proper planked hull and does not understand why he cannot achieve the same thing.
Kits use a number of short cuts so a builder can just get the job done. Wide spaced bulkheads are good enough who cares if the hull lines come out right. Then a kit builders looks at a well refined hull and wonders hum mine does not look like that it has high and low spots WHY?

so many times i see kit builders trying to improve the kit try to make it closer to historically correct or just look better. Bottom line a lot of kit builders strive to get that scratch built look but it is difficult because well they are building from a predesigned hobby kit.

perhaps competitions have a kit and scratch catagory because they are different things and judged differently. So bottom line it is not one versus the other it is one trying to copy or simulate the other.

 

[DAWarden-(Jaager)]

So bottom line it is not one versus the other it is one trying to copy or simulate the other.

This whole "controversy" is because there are conditions that some see and others do not. IF you wish your model to be considered by OUTSIDE viewers [ those who are involved with museums - well serious academic museums - not tourist traps - or are serious collectors or historians-] or INSIDE [ professional model builders - or model builder who aspire to meet professional standards ]- what is expressed here is as close it a generally accepted benchmark as there is.

Kits get drawn into this because of the dishonest advertising copy that states that their kit gets you into an unrealistic level. This part is a total scam.
Kits are a mutually exclusive situation. A builder with the skill set and resources to turn a kit into something that passes the IF test either would not start with a kit to begin with or rarely is a builder who does but should not. Even bothering with a kit when the IF level is your goal is like swimming a race wearing lead dive belts when everyone else in the race is only wearing a Speedo.

Kits are their own world. That world has its own standards. Nothing written involving outside standards is intended to have anything to do with that world.

Drift - I think that the reason that skilled builders stay in the safe areas of kits or stick with monographs based projects is because they are intimidated by the initial lofting. It is not nearly as difficult as current methods make it seem. There are simple ways ways to do it that do not involve tools used by professional designers. By "tool" I mean computer program. I do not want a design tool coming anywhere a design that was already set a hundred or more years ago. Make no mistake, while not difficult - it can be time consuming and tedious - especially if the most commonly advised methods are used. There are easier ways.

 

[Jimsky]

This whole "controversy" is because there are conditions that some see and others do not. IF you wish your model to be considered by OUTSIDE viewers [ those who are involved with museums - well serious academic museums - not tourist traps - or are serious collectors or historians-] or INSIDE [ professional model builders - or model builder who aspire to meet professional standards ]- what is expressed here is as close it a generally accepted benchmark as there is.

Kits get drawn into this because of the dishonest advertising copy that states that their kit gets you into an unrealistic level. This part is a total scam.
Kits are a mutually exclusive situation. A builder with the skill set and resources to turn a kit into something that passes the IF test either would not start with a kit to begin with or rarely is a builder who does but should not. Even bothering with a kit when the IF level is your goal is like swimming a race wearing lead dive belts when everyone else in the race is only wearing a Speedo.

Kits are their own world. That world has its own standards. Nothing written involving outside standards is intended to have anything to do with that world.

Drift - I think that the reason that skilled builders stay in the safe areas of kits or stick with monographs based projects is because they are intimidated by the initial lofting. It is not nearly as difficult as current methods make it seem. There are simple ways ways to do it that do not involve tools used by professional designers. By "tool" I mean computer program. I do not want a design tool coming anywhere a design that was already set a hundred or more years ago. Make no mistake, while not difficult - it can be time consuming and tedious - especially if the most commonly advised methods are used. There are easier ways.

What continues to puzzle me is the repeated emphasis on professional modelers, professional standards, professional tools, museum requirements, and collector expectations.
How many modelers on this forum actually consider themselves professional modelers? My guess is very few (you are in this list). SOS is not a professional trade organization or a forum dedicated exclusively to museum-quality work. It is a community of enthusiasts/hobbiests brought together by a shared interest in ship modeling.

Some of us enjoy building from kits. Others prefer scratch building. Some work in wood, others in paper, plastic, or mixed media. Some are focused on historical research, while others simply enjoy the process of building. There is room here for all of them.

What concerns me is the apparent tendency to separate modelers into "professionals" and everyone else, as though one group occupies a higher tier of the hobby. Most of us are not building for museums, collectors, or competitions. We are building for ourselves, for the enjoyment of the craft, and for the satisfaction of learning something new.

And yet, here it comes again, a 'Museum quality' term as the gold standard of the built models. Museums preserve and display objects for many reasons besides craftsmanship or scale fidelity. Historical significance, educational value, provenance, cultural context, and rarity are often just as important. The mere fact that a model is displayed in a museum does not automatically mean it represents the highest standard of ship modeling craftsmanship.

Professional standards certainly have their place, and those who aspire to them should be encouraged. But they should not become the lens through which the entire hobby is viewed, nor should they be used to imply that other approaches are somehow less valid. The strength of this community has always been its diversity and inclusiveness, not its adherence to a single standard or philosophy.

 

[Charlie1805]

Mir muss der Modellbau einfach nur Freude bereiten. Spaß machen. Mich mit Kollegen austauschen und mich entsprechend meiner handwerklichen Fähigkeiten weiterbringen. Hmm…..vielleicht gibt es in Zukunft den „ Lehrberuf „ Schiffsmodellbau ? Entschuldigung dafür, dass ich in de
Iesem Bericht meine unwichtige, unprofessionelle Meinung mitteile. Mein Beitrag darf gerne gelöscht werden.

 

[DAWarden-(Jaager)]

What continues to puzzle me is the repeated emphasis on professional modelers, professional standards, professional tools, museum requirements, and collector expectations.
How many modelers on this forum actually consider themselves professional modelers? My guess is very few (you are in this list). SOS is not a professional trade organization or a forum dedicated exclusively to museum-quality work. It is a community of enthusiasts/hobbiests brought together by a shared interest in ship modeling.

This particular emphasis is limited to only those who care about this very small part of it. When a topic comes up that suggests that the OP or thread drift involves this small part = it is game on. It is never meant to exclusionary as to who play on this particular field. The intent is to encourage more to join. Another intent is to be candid about what the investment involves. It is very old school.

You are correct about me not being a professional. I am not even close to being that. But what professionals do and how they do it is my goal and my bench mark. For a professional - this is a job. I would not have given slightest thought to dispensing drugs or mixing up chemo IV solutions in my free time when that was my profession. That would be the last thing I would want to do. Now that I consider it, that is probably why few if any full time professional model builder are here. This would be the last thing they would want to think about when they are off the clock.

Professional standards certainly have their place, and those who aspire to them should be encouraged. But they should not become the lens through which the entire hobby is viewed, nor should they be used to imply that other approaches are somehow less valid.

The lens that you are describing is actually a seminar room at the end of a long dark and almost forgotten corridor. It is in the almost abandoned annex that was once the original and only part of constructing ship models. It is probably only by chance that it has not been bulldozed. Next door, it was. The action has moved to the vastly larger new construction. However, it is probably to be disappointed to hope, much less expect, those who still inhabit the seminar room to have much if any interest in what happens within the new construction. One would think that the mutual affirmation within the new construction would be enough.

 

[Bob Cleek]

I think part of the disconnect is that you continue to frame the discussion around the concept of a "high-quality scale ship model," whereas I do not approach the hobby from that perspective at all!

Sorry, I repeat myself.... I have never argued against the NRG having a definition for what it considers a high-quality scale ship model. What I have questioned is the assumption that such a definition should be universally adopted by everyone in the hobby. For many of us, ship modeling is simply an enjoyable pastime rather than a pursuit governed by formal standards or classifications.

Personally, I do not spend much time categorizing models as "high-quality scale ship models" or otherwise. I evaluate a model based on my own interests, goals, and standards, which may differ from those of the NRG or any other organization. Other modelers, including you, will undoubtedly have their own criteria as well.

Absolutely true. I'm talking about quality standards for judging "high-quality scale ship models." Nothing else. If you don't approach the "hobby" (I don't distinguish on the basis of why one pursues it. I just consider it all "modeling.") from there, you don't have a dog in the fight. In order for people to judge and discuss the quality of a scale ship model, they must be generally in agreement about the standards against which such models are measured. If there's no standard, there's no frame of reference from which to make comparisons or, in fact, to even agree with any consistency what is a "high-quality scale ship model. Nobody says you have to "approach the hobby" from the perspective of a standardized concept of a "high-quality scale ship model. Approach ship modeling however you wish but understand that if you aren't on the same page with others, you don't have anything to contribute to a discussion which requires certain commonly agreed and applied ground rules. There's nothing wrong with approaching ship modeling as "simply an enjoyable pastime rather than a pursuit governed by formal standards or classifications. Recognize, however, that many take ship modeling much more seriously than you do. As for myself, I have no interest in individual criteria and standards differing from the majority of folks in the field who generally agree upon what standards define a "high-quality scale ship model." For example, as does the NRG standard, I look only at the model when I assess its quality. I have no interest in who built it as a factor in its overall quality.

A model doesn't have to be perfect to deserve appreciation, and pointing out every flaw is not always the most helpful way to support a fellow modeler.

Of course this is a given. nothing is "perfect." Quality can only be measured on a spectrum of intensity. There's no need to "point out every flaw" at all. A determination that a model is just not good enough to be of any interest to the viewer is as far as any viewer need go for a standardized definition of quality to serve its purpose. Query how a novice modeler can ever learn to develop their own "eye" for a good model without being taught from experience by others what is a good model and why and a not so good model and why. You see, this is the game the ship model kit manufacturers play when they manipulate modelers on the internet. Somebody builds an indisputably uninteresting kit model and everybody is supposed to fawn all over them with complements when what the experienced modelers are all thinking is "typical kit-built first effort. Perhaps they'll do better on their next kit-build attempt." God forbid the weak-kneed novice might get discouraged and never buy another ship model kit without blowing smoke up their backside about what a big success their first one was! If people don't want their models judged by others, all they need do is not post pictures of them on the internet fishing for complements.

Perhaps the more important question is not whether the copper plates, rivets, or belaying pins are perfectly scaled, but who the builder is and where they are in their modeling journey.

If this is so, then the quality of that model is entirely irrelevant and so also is the standard of quality which might be applied to it. In other words, it would have nothing to do with the question of what is a "high-quality scale ship model" and everything to do with who built the model and "where they are in their modeling journey...," whatever the heck that warm fuzzy phrase means.

Many experienced modelers can spot details that others overlook. That's fine. However, what may seem obvious to you, Bob, or others. perhaps. may go completely unnoticed by thousands of other hobbyists who simply admire the model as a whole.

Correct. One of the essential elements of the NRG definition is that it is applied only to the model as a whole. You look at the model and answer the question, "Does this model, taken as a whole, provide me with a compelling impression of an actual vessel within the constraints of historical accuracy?" Obviously, a less knowledgeable viewer is not going to be able to make as sophisticated and accurate an assessment as a highly experienced one. Correspondingly, the assessments of the inexperienced are of much less value or consequence. So what if "thousands of other hobbyists" who don't know what they are looking at "simply admire the model as a whole." Ascribing credibility to the judgments of "thousands of modelers" who don't know what they are looking at poses the significant risk that an ever-increasing pool of novice modelers are going to be led to believe that the standard for what is a good model is far lower than it should be. Of course, this "dumbing down" of expectations plays right into the hands of the kit merchants who want their customer base to be content with the mediocrity they market to them. Imagine what would happen to the entire ship model kit industry if kit modelers rose up and demanded high-quality kits instead of the garbage most of them are! So much the better to keep the customers fat, dumb, and happy.

What concerns me is the apparent tendency to separate modelers into "professionals" and everyone else, as though one group occupies a higher tier of the hobby. Most of us are not building for museums, collectors, or competitions. We are building for ourselves, for the enjoyment of the craft, and for the satisfaction of learning something new.

Neither I nor the NRG definition say anything about "the apparent tendency to separate modelers into `professionals' and everyone else," The NRG standard is designed to define the quality of a model. It expressly addresses nothing about the modeler who built it. All it is about is "high-quality scale ship models" and every other type of model. It is by design that the definition describes the "high-quality" model and not the model that is not "high-quality." It is by design that the definition identifies models associated with "a higher tier of the hobby," if that's how you wish to describe it. That's the raison d'etre of any definition of "high-quality." Sorry, but in a grownup world we don't lower the standards so everyone can say they're playing in the major leagues.

Professional standards certainly have their place, and those who aspire to them should be encouraged. But they should not become the lens through which the entire hobby is viewed, nor should they be used to imply that other approaches are somehow less valid. The strength of this community has always been its diversity and inclusiveness, not its adherence to a single standard or philosophy.

Horse feathers! The lens you want us to look through is on the wrong end of the telescope! The lens through which any fine art should be viewed should be focused most sharply upon the highest quality examples of the medium, not the first efforts of the unskilled beginners. Fine art portrait oil painting is viewed through lenses focused on the Mona Lisa, and the Girl with the Pearl Earring, not lenses focused on paint-by- numbers pictures. Fine art ship modeling is no different. We are talking here about fine art "high-quality scale ship models," not novice level kits, which are an entirely different animal. One would hope kits were the "gateway drug" to fine art ship modeling, but they are definitely not the tail that wags the dog nor of much consequence at all in terms of serious fine art high-quality ship modeling.

 

[Bob Cleek]

I just have to enjoy model building. Fun. Exchange ideas with colleagues and help me develop according to my manual skills. Hmm.....maybe there will be the " apprenticeship " ship model making in the future? Sorry for me in de
Tell this report my unimportant, unprofessional opinion. My contribution may be deleted.

"Professional" doesn't enter into it. You are serving an apprenticeship of your own devising at your own pace and when it is complete you will be a master whether you make a living at it or not. It is up to you when you complete your apprenticeship. Like any apprentice in the guild halls of old, I am sure you will present your masterpiece in due course. Keep it fun! We're looking forward to it.