Liburnian model...scale 1:72...trying to build...

Любитель said:

I would like to build a model — just as a souvenir to place on a shelf. It will be an amalgamation of different vessel types: liburnae, biremes, and uniremes. There won’t be any perfect resemblance or precision…

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

Click to expand...

In which case, you are free to let your creativity be your inspiration! It won't be a "scale model." It will be a "sculptural work of art!"

That’s precisely what I’m planning to do… just a little souvenir for the shelf…

Looks like you are making good progress. I like the illustration of example ships. Concerning the photo of the ship with no oars deployed, do you have any further photos? Interesting use of the windlass to trim the sails. Is that a Turkish flag it is flying? Any further info would be appreciated.
Thanks
John

Bob Cleek said:

No offense taken, Oliver. Any person is always free to "set the bar" of their endeavors at whatever height suits them and, certainly, it appears to be the culture of this forum that the decision of what goal one sets for themself is by their own definition acceptable. My comment was made in the context of my presumption that the original poster was "looking to build a collection of three models... a Galleon, a Drakkar, and a Liburna." It is an indisputable fact that for a variety of reasons, most notably the limitations of the existing historical record, we knew far less about the three types of vessel he named than most vessels commonly modeled from later periods and that, while there have long been conjectural "plans" for such vessels, within the last fifty years of so, underwater archaeology has revealed a tremendous amount of additional information about them. For that reason, when the original poster told me he was "looking to build a collection of three models... a Galleon, a Drakkar, and a Liburna," and posted a photo with two pages of "plans" of a type that I recognized as most likely dated and, shall we say, "rudimentary," I told him, "Hey, that's cool. Be sure your plans are up to date because there has been a whole lot about these types of ships discovered by the archaeologists in recent times." In the absence of any further information, it was not unreasonable for me to understand that it was his intention to build a relatively accurate a model of those vessels and the plans he would work from necessarily are the threshold determining factor in that respect.

I am well aware that there are those such as you describe yourself who believe "There does not always need to be millimetric precision to our hobby." and that "Sometimes fantasy and artistry should take precedence over a “model’s accuracy.” Those who hold such beliefs make the mistake of mixing apples and oranges. Without going down a rabbit hole trying to define what you mean by "our hobby," suffice it to say that this forum universally embraces the subject of building miniature ships, but within that concept there exists two separate endeavors which in many ways overlap, but are, nonetheless quite distinct.

"A high-quality scale ship model provides a compelling impression of an actual vessel within the constraints of historical accuracy." [Napier (co-crediting Hoff) Caring for Ship Models - A Narrative of Thought and Application (2022) Seawatch Books]

To the extent a miniature ship builder decides that "fantasy and artistry should take precedence over a "model's accuracy," he is not making a scale model. He is making a sculpture. And that's a good thing, too.

Building miniature ships is no different than fine art pictures. It's a big tent and there's plenty of room for all. You can look at the Van de Veldes' highly realistic paintings of ships in storms and battle, William Turner's proto-impressionistic maritime paintings, and Wassily Kandinsky's abstract sea battles, all quite different and, at one end of the spectrum, we have "millimetric precision" sufficient to rely upon as an historical record of a long-gone ship's true appearance, while on the other end, we have "fantasy and artistry." Yet all of it is pictures of ships.

While certain craft processes and evaluative considerations may overlap, there is no valid qualitative distinction to be made between a scale model of a ship or a sculpture of a ship. Both are recognizable representations of ships. Both take skills, often similar, to fabricate. Both are intended to please the eye of the beholder. One is not "better" than the other on account of being different. Both have their own value for sometimes different, sometimes overlapping, and sometimes the same reasons. But they are not the same thing at all. Speaking for myself, I appreciate the virtues of a "high-quality scale ship model" as much as I do the virtues of a "high-quality ship sculpture."

I never said there wasn't "room for both philosophies on this forum." Your perception to the contrary was born of your own demons, not mine!

I consider you to be the luckier of us. The "artistic" guys always got more dates on Saturday night than the engineering majors did!

Click to expand...

I find this an interestion discussion, though probably better taken up in a separate thread and likely already covered somewhere. In the meantime, I will wade in and add my tuppence worth.
I think the idea of building miniature ships, which is generally my leaning, is an aesthetic that arguably is not followed by even the most perfect model builders on this site. My impression is that the dominant aesthetic is simulating the "Admiralty" style of ship models, with exposed sections to show off the construction techniques, and using different timbers to simulate colour schemes and again to show off the superior model joinery. Indeed, I wonder whether many of the models are likely to be more perfect than ever the real ships were. I partly have in mind comparing my attempt at a 12 gun brig-of-war versus Captain Cutlass's version. Both are built off the same plans but the aesthetic we are respectively persuing is very different. Painted versus unpainted, copper sheathed or not, etc. But I certainly wouldn't want to argue that one was more authentic than the other. I would agree with Bob that there is some sort of continuum between accurate miniature and sculpture (fantasy pirate ships are perhaps the extreme on this end which personally do not appeal to me at all) but there also seems to be a another axis of variation along the accurate representation of appearance where hidden construction techniques are not of concern versus not so realistic appearances but superbly accurate constuction replication. Clearly along this axis I lean to the former (in large part because I do not have the skill, time, budget or inclination).
As for this specific model (sorry I cannot write the maker's name), it looks like it will represent an unusual ship type and I reckon I will learn something about the ships of this period from following the build even if it isn't quite up to date with the latest research. I will continue to follow with great interest.
And I would respectfully suggest that if we want to continue this discussion further we start a separate thread rather than hijack this building log.
Season's greetings to all.