To Build or Not to Build According to Howard I. Chapelle

Sylph VI said:

Greg, you make some obsevations but not sure what the main question(s) is/are.
As for the 'related question": The solid carved model is probably a good way to start if it is something relatively small. Carving a hull is an entirely different skill than building a plank on frame/bulkhead model. My first model was of the clipper Lightning which I built when I was about ten (the picture is of the model and my older brother and younger sister).

Click to expand...

Quite an impressive model!

For me the main question is how to better understand Chapelle's view in the context of what Chapelle did / was responsible for during his career.

Currently, it is my belief that his main goal was an academically solid collection of hull form throughout history (especially American). I feel his quest for modelers to build to his standards were partially self-serving and had the hopes that the modeling community would / could advance the Smithsonian collection of watercraft. It is possible that he was frustrated seeing that there were capable modelers that built what they wanted to and not what he wanted / needed for collection purposes. Clearly he believed that there was no need for spending time on models he didn't need - either because they didn't meet his standards and/or the model had already been collected.


For me the goal here was not to determine if Chapelle was 'right' or 'wrong' in his thinking, just understanding in context!


Would I like to see more models that meet the Chapelle standard? Yes, seeing the differences and evolution of hull form is quite interesting. Should more models be made of 'lesser known' types? Yes, that would be great - I really enjoy seeing something different that I can then learn from. But, past seeing the unique model built in a forum or possibly displayed at a model show, has there been positive movement in the curation of an academic-based model collection. If there is not a repository for a unique, well built, well researched model, is there still a shortcoming in the process?

Should replicates of models be frowned upon? I don't believe that should be the case. I've been in a lot of peoples houses and a lot of business, but I still haven't seen a model of Victory! Should all models be made to archival standards? Doubtful, whether they are scratch built / unique models or if they are based on a kit. Almost everything made - unless for a museum or serious collector - will find its fate in a garbage can.


One of the nice things of working as a mathematician is that when a theorem has been proven (typically) there is not much more to say - its a field of right and wrong based on logic. Ship modeling is completely different, the right and wrong is not as universally accepted. Here there is a mix of academics / artistry / and beliefs and this is a good thing; however, it does leave space for more 'spirited' discussion - which I hope will always be more constructive than not.

I plan on continuing to improve my skills as a scratch modeler, better craftsmanship, artistry, and historical accuracy in most of my work. I say most, because, I still will try to 'conquer' a pile of kit models that invaded my abode over the years! Here I'll try to improve my skills as well as almost everything will get bashed as I try different techniques / use them as a learning experience. Where does this put me on the Chapelle scale? Strong tendencies, but not still seeing positives in all modeling efforts!

dockattner said:

A model submitted for competition is rightly evaluated against an architectural/historical standard - to apply those standards universally is, at best, unnecessary.

Click to expand...

I agree.
I regret writing what I did where the actual builder could see it.

This topic is about HIC and his standards. That is the IF. Most everything within this topic is the THEN of that IF.
I am too lazy to keep writing conditions. And, yes, this topic is an fishing effort for scratch - with historical relevance. The only rewards comes from working within the limitations and coming close to meeting them. If I have overtly done any judging in public outside, it was inadvertent.

My personal disinterest in anything involving kits is on me. That I try to only use materials that were available to the old guys - except for PVA and epoxy - is part of my personal challenge. They had a team of builders, I have electricity and tools. Sometimes I will offer an answer in the kit world. It does not mean that I have changed my mind or that I am trying to attract away from kits, someone not wishing to switch to scratch - scratch that is aimed at being historically relevant.


Dave: "At this point according to the Howard Chapelle the Lenox is one of those ship that should not be built because there are no drawings nothing to built from it is all made up."

And now for something heretical -
But for a few exceptions, vessels from before 1700 lack proper lines. It is either a best guess or nothing. The vessels are seductive for many. Anything built would be outside the HIC rules for acceptance by The Smithsonian. As long as any models are labeled as being a possible and NOT the actual there is serious challenge in exploring what these ancients could have looked like. To me it is a worthwhile area to explore. It would be art instead of history. Art is good. A danger is that it involves so much work that the essayist's imagination is seduced into believing that the product is what the vessel had to be.

DAWarden-(Jaager) said:

But for a few exceptions, vessels from before 1700 lack proper lines. It is either a best guess or nothing. The vessels are seductive for many. Anything built would be outside the HIC rules for acceptance by The Smithsonian. As long as any models are labeled as being a possible and NOT the actual there is serious challenge in exploring what these ancients could have looked like. To me it is a worthwhile area to explore. It would be art instead of history. Art is good. A danger is that it involves so much work that the essayist's imagination is seduced into believing that the product is what the vessel had to be.

Click to expand...

This really important - in fact, since essentially all historic ships that are modeled actually no longer exist there is no way to 'check' how good or bad any plan set is. Some believe that HAMMS plans are suspect in some cases, yet there is often unquestionable acceptance of Royal Navy draughts. Were their navel draftsmen as good as generally accepted / were the measurements taken from the ships accurately? Ships had different lifespans, often had refits, ... . This leaves most models, no matter how well researched as having aspects that necessarily are reconstructions. One can collect as much information as possible, faith has to be in the sum total of the material, reconstruction done to the modeler's (and possibly some trusted in the filed) satisfaction - and then there is the craftmanship of actually producing the model. At the end of the day, the historical model will be a representation - it will never be a perfectly correct miniature (not even talking about the materials used in the modeling process). This field is based on a multitude of unknowns for the most part. Nevertheless, there is much intrinsic enjoyment in participating and viewing many of the finished products.

DAWarden-(Jaager) said:

My apology. I did not check who was the author of the brig. I was just stunned by the jump. The fad copper bottom - both here and MSW is so frustrating from a historical perspective.
It was like seeing a work of art being tagged. The crowd here is quite simply on a silly path probably started by a kit mfg.
Alcohol, mineral spirits, acetone, maybe the fierce lacquer thinner - you should be able to remove it.
On a kit, it is still unfortunate, but a kit is only a kit. On a well done scratch hull - there are more than a few presentations here of what is an actual scale appropriate copper bottom - I would stop at the planking and not hide it.
I wonder what a transparent copper shade layer would do?

Click to expand...

Apology accepted, though the description is still a bit harsh. Forgive me if I was a bit sensitive but it did seem to be too much of a coincidence to be accidental. It never hurts to be a little kind with each other. I appreciate constructive criticism, but calling someone's genuine efforts at creating a "compelling impression of an actual vessel" (and admittedly not doing a very good job of it) a "cartoon" and "a joke" is hardly constructive.
In the context of this "course"; however, I think it raises an interesting discussion point. You are suggesting that the "fad coppper" bottom is historically inaccurate - if I am misunderstanding you, please clarify. The 12 gun brigs were copper sheathed so in the interest of historical authenticity, after much procastination and research, mainly on this site, I attempted to copper sheathe the ship's hull. Now I accept that my attempt to replicate copper nails is heavy-handed and I have thought about what I can do about that. The shininess is another issue. I agree it does look a bit like what McNarry might call the "shipping office" tradition. My thoughts were that the shininess would naturally fade over time, after all it is real copper, the same material the actual ships were sheathed in. I thought of artificially tarnishing it but that I think would likely compromise the aesthetic even worse, ending up like a diorama piece rather than a "model ship". Can you point out what you what you consider to be a well-done copper bottom? As I have mentioned in my build log, the 12 gun brig is my first attempt at a model at this scale, and I started it over 30 years ago.
Maybe we are interpreting the objective of this course differently. My main take away is that Chappelle argued that many (perhaps most) models ought not to be built because they are not historically accurate. The relevance of the fact that he was not a model builder is that his perspective is almost entirely as a maritime historian and not a model-builder. Underhill on the other hand was both a maritime historian and a prolific model-builder, and from my reading he tends to fall more on the side of giving things a go, though I am sure he would definitely support the idea that models should aim to be historically accurate, as I do. The means is clearly at least as important to him as the end, and McNarry for that matter, two model makers I very much respect. I agree that one can have an opinion on what constitutes a good model without being a model maker, but a seasoned model-maker's opinion is going to have more weight with me than a museum director (unfortunately here in Australia there are some absolute rubbish models in our museums). This is not intended as an ad-hominum attack, as someone's expertise is relevant where the expertise is relevant. One doesn't go to an engineer for a medical opinion, for example.
I will leave it at that for now.
Again, I appreciate the apology.

DAWarden-(Jaager) said:

Not worldview - within in the strictures of historical accuracy - there are objective data to test that.

Am I wrong about the copper bottom being fad and not representative of what was part of an actual ship? That is all that this is about. I write with impish humor but I never intend to hit a major nerve.

It is just that all was going so well right up to that point for it being in the historical and serious ( or whatever classification chosen to mean that ). It felt like a trooper had switched sides. I did not intend to express my frustration out here in public. I wrote as if this was the lounge. My opinion only matters to me. I mean to add something to consider and nothing more. I accept it when I am wrong about objective things. An opinion does not change the quality of the build. In Sylph's place, I would see compliments and encouragement for everything right up to the application of what is after all - a superficial layer.

Click to expand...

I certainly did not intend to "switch sides". I did not realise I was crossing a line here, as mentioned in another post, quite the opposite. I look forward to hearing some amplification on this particular topic.

Sylph VI said:

calling someone's genuine efforts at creating a "compelling impression of an actual vessel" (and admittedly not doing a very good job of it) a "cartoon" and "a joke" is hardly constructive

Click to expand...

The first quote is me being too technical - your build is really close to the plans - close enough to make any gaps insignificant. I just can't be absolute - I have literalism (there was an old BBC radio that WHRV played where that was the continuing joke. MY Word or My Music, they were done as a pair.). It looks an excellent job - right up until the copper.
I do not count the copper as being your work in the same sense as your wood work.

We have gone round and round about what is a proper copper bottom both here and at MSW (until the exile).
Here is probably the latest link - a search will bring up others. My take home from it all is that a layer of paint is as good as it gets as far as accuracy allows.

https://shipsofscale.com/sosforums/threads/copper-plate.18520/#post-488047

I hope that reading about what is real and what is currently being done will explain why the joke and cartoon comment.
So close and then bam!

Greg Davis said:

This leaves most models, no matter how well researched as having aspects that necessarily are reconstructions.

Click to expand...

I have been flying sorta false colors as far as being absolute about historical.
My focus is on the naval architecture part.
I prefer - as designed - as opposed to representing a ship as she sailed with the fleet.
I try to imagine myself as being the designer presenting a new design to the Navy Board.
I use a stylized framing. I prefer the look. The swimming body calls for art.
I have come to see the guns as being an unneeded and aggressive distraction.

My interpretation is that the hulls as actually framed by the RN were most often a solid wall of timber with 1-2" air gaps between every frame -even within a bend. Fungus never sleeps in wet wood. 12-15" timbers would take 12-15 years to fully season. Except as a classroom prop, I see no value in displaying the solid wall. Hahn closed the gap within a bend and replaced the pair of filling frames between each bend with a space. The space equal to a bend is too wide for my esthetics. It breaks the visual flow.

Any framing is by necessity stylized. Where there are framing plans, they were suggestions. The limitations of using wood imposed limits that the later iron and steel do not. The actual framing had to have been irregular and ugly. The length being set by what was available. The spaces were filled with chocks holding the frames together.

DAWarden-(Jaager) said:

I agree.
I regret writing what I did where the actual builder could see it.

This topic is about HIC and his standards. That is the IF. Most everything within this topic is the THEN of that IF.
I am too lazy to keep writing conditions. And, yes, this topic is an fishing effort for scratch - with historical relevance. The only rewards comes from working within the limitations and coming close to meeting them. If I have overtly done any judging in public outside, it was inadvertent.

My personal disinterest in anything involving kits is on me. That I try to only use materials that were available to the old guys - except for PVA and epoxy - is part of my personal challenge. They had a team of builders, I have electricity and tools. Sometimes I will offer an answer in the kit world. It does not mean that I have changed my mind or that I am trying to attract away from kits, someone not wishing to switch to scratch - scratch that is aimed at being historically relevant.


Dave: "At this point according to the Howard Chapelle the Lenox is one of those ship that should not be built because there are no drawings nothing to built from it is all made up."

And now for something heretical -
But for a few exceptions, vessels from before 1700 lack proper lines. It is either a best guess or nothing. The vessels are seductive for many. Anything built would be outside the HIC rules for acceptance by The Smithsonian. As long as any models are labeled as being a possible and NOT the actual there is serious challenge in exploring what these ancients could have looked like. To me it is a worthwhile area to explore. It would be art instead of history. Art is good. A danger is that it involves so much work that the essayist's imagination is seduced into believing that the product is what the vessel had to be.

Click to expand...

Well I'm glad I saw your comment, otherwise I would have had no idea that copper sheathing a model is considered improper by ...(who gets to be the standard setter here?). Again I look forward to further amplification as to why, or how one does it properly.
The summary of my argument in relation to the subject of this course is that I have no problem with what ought to be built according to HIC, but I disagree with him on his opinion as to what ought not to be built, and I have tried to cogently justify my view. Basically I am arguing that his context is too narrow. On the other hand, it seems my suggestion that building a model simply for one's own satisfaction somehow falls outside the pale to many participants in this course: but there also needs to be so many caveats as to what any particular person finds satisfying that perhaps in the end my assertion is little more than a tautology.

DAWarden-(Jaager) said:

The first quote is me being too technical - your build is really close to the plans - close enough to make any gaps insignificant. I just can't be absolute - I have literalism (there was an old BBC radio that WHRV played where that was the continuing joke. MY Word or My Music, they were done as a pair.). It looks an excellent job - right up until the copper.
I do not count the copper as being your work in the same sense as your wood work.

We have gone round and round about what is a proper copper bottom both here and at MSW (until the exile).
Here is probably the latest link - a search will bring up others. My take home from it all is that a layer of paint is as good as it gets as far as accuracy allows.

https://shipsofscale.com/sosforums/threads/copper-plate.18520/#post-488047

I hope that reading about what is real and what is currently being done will explain why the joke and cartoon comment.
So close and then bam!






I have been flying sorta false colors as far as being absolute about historical.
My focus is on the naval architecture part.
I prefer - as designed - as opposed to representing a ship as she sailed with the fleet.
I try to imagine myself as being the designer presenting a new design to the Navy Board.
I use a stylized framing. I prefer the look. The swimming body calls for art.
I have come to see the guns as being an unneeded and aggressive distraction.

My interpretation is that the hulls as actually framed by the RN were most often a solid wall of timber with 1-2" air gaps between every frame -even within a bend. Fungus never sleeps in wet wood. 12-15" timbers would take 12-15 years to fully season. Except as a classroom prop, I see no value in displaying the solid wall. Hahn closed the gap within a bend and replaced the pair of filling frames between each bend with a space. The space equal to a bend is too wide for my esthetics. It breaks the visual flow.

Any framing is by necessity stylized. Where there are framing plans, they were suggestions. The limitations of using wood imposed limits that the later iron and steel do not. The actual framing had to have been irregular and ugly. The length being set by what was available. The spaces were filled with chocks holding the frames together.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. It still seems many in that thread are arguing for representing individual plates with nail impressions. I appreciate the information and your and Bob's perspective.

Sylph VI said:

On the other hand, it seems my suggestion that building a model simply for one's own satisfaction somehow falls outside the pale to many participants in this course: but there also needs to be so many caveats as to what any particular person finds satisfying that perhaps in the end my assertion is little more than a tautology.

Click to expand...

If you are not building for your own satisfaction, it is no longer a hobby and it has become a job or chore!


hobby
/ˈhäbē/
noun

1. 1.
   an activity done regularly in one's leisure time for pleasure.

Greg Davis said:

If you are not building for your own satisfaction, it is no longer a hobby and it has become a job or chore!

Click to expand...

It can be as satisfying when building for a client (a job) as for one's self. There are times when I find it even more fun having someone waiting for the end result to be delivered. Maybe I am alone on this, but there it is.

Allan

AllanKP69 said:

It can be as satisfying when building for a client (a job) as for one's self. There are times when I find it even more fun having someone waiting for the end result to be delivered. Maybe I am alone on this, but there it is.

Allan

Click to expand...

Paid work can of course be very satisfying, and some of us have been fortunate enough to work in fields we are passionate about.

dockattner said:

How frustrating that you lot continue to insist that external standards be applied to the hobby lane. The gentleman clearly explained that he builds for his personal satisfaction. Why must that satisfaction be judged? Sigh...

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you exactly mean by the "hobby lane." To one degree or another, everybody "builds for his personal satisfaction," but that's irrelevant to the question at hand: "Which ship models should and should not be built?" The answer is obvious: "High-quality scale ship models should be built, and there are some ship modeling subjects that are so lacking in historical foundation that they should not be built under any circumstances." The essential question then becomes,"What is a 'high-quality scale ship model'?' Why someone built a model has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is a "high-quality scale model."

Just as any work of art, a scale ship model is a representative work which of its very nature communicates something. Do you mean to say that the models of those, whoever they may be, who are in some sort of "hobby lane" ought to somehow be immune from evaluation? That cannot be if they are in any way exhibited because their presentation invites evaluation. That is the essence of a scale model. A scale ship model which upon examination fails to compel the viewer's qualitative judgment is a total failure for it fails to interest its audience in any way at all. It is the purpose of a scale ship model to communicate to its audience "a compelling impression of an actual vessel within the constraints of historical accuracy." Every viewer of a scale ship model must in the first instance determine the degree to which the model viewed meets that standard before they can assess the particular merits of what that model communicates to them. This is precisely why the standard for a "high-quality scale ship model" does not consider why, how, or by whom a model was made. The 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."

Rob Napier, Caring for Ship Models - A Narrative of Thought and Application, (2022) Seawatch Books.
See: https://seawatchbooks.com/products/...tive-of-thought-and-application-by-rob-napier

I've no idea what you mean by "external standards." It would seem that all "standards are of necessity "external." If standards are not "external," they fail to serve their essential comparative function. There's no navigating without points of reference. This isn't to say that someone cannot build a very poor scale ship model purely for their own satisfaction (and indeed, if social media posts are any indication, many do.) But neither does that give their models any dispensation from the judgments of those to whom they might show them.

Sylph VI said:

Well I'm glad I saw your comment, otherwise I would have had no idea that copper sheathing a model is considered improper by ...(who gets to be the standard setter here?). Again I look forward to further amplification as to why, or how one does it properly.

Click to expand...

If you stick with the accepted definition of a "high-quality scale ship model," as discussed by Napier and others long ago before the "Great Pollution" of market-driven, faddish, low-quality, high-priced ship model kits you will come to appreciate the wisdom of that definition:
"A high-quality scale ship model provides a compelling impression of an actual vessel within the constraints of historical accuracy.

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

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

Rob Napier, Caring for Ship Models - A Narrative of Thought and Application, (2022) Seawatch Books.
See: https://seawatchbooks.com/products/...tive-of-thought-and-application-by-rob-napier

In short, as described, the copper plates you applied were so wildly out of scale in their detail that they became a "poke in the eye" distraction which destroyed the "compelling impression of an actual vessel within the constraints of historical accuracy." When a knowledgeable viewer examines a model with such a defect, the model no longer "invites one to visit a ship instead of a model" because such defects just scream, "It's a model, not the real thing!" In your case, had you the benefit of an underlying philosophy of scale ship modeling and an applicable standard of a high-quality scale ship model to which you could commit your efforts, you would have easily avoided the mistake with the copper sheathing by simply recognizing that they were wildly out of scale. Instead, perhaps lacking any experience of what copper sheathing actually looks like in real life, or for whatever other reason, you misplaced your trust in the current "monkey see, monkey do" faddists who seem fixated on gluing such out of scale copper plates on the bottoms of their models. All you required to avoid having "no idea that copper sheathing a model is considered improper" (which isn't necessarily the case,) was for you to correctly answer the question, "Does this look real at scale viewing distance?" (Hint: Just because somebody is selling kits or aftermarket parts of one kind or another does not mean they are appropriate for use in every instance and, in some cases, may actually not be appropriate in any instance.)

Don't feel bad. Mistakes are how we learn. Our own mistakes are often more painful lessons than those of others, but still valuable, nonetheless. Once, long ago, I rigged a 1:96 schooner with all the deadeyes turned in upside down. I didn't excuse the error "because I was building the model for my own personal satisfaction" or "wasn't into obsessive-compulsive rivet-counting," I just owned up to my careless mistake and I've never made that mistake again. That's called "experience."

Bob Cleek said:

If you stick with the accepted definition of a "high-quality scale ship model," as discussed by Napier and others long ago before the "Great Pollution" of market-driven, faddish, low-quality, high-priced ship model kits you will come to appreciate the wisdom of that definition:
"A high-quality scale ship model provides a compelling impression of an actual vessel within the constraints of historical accuracy.

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

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

Rob Napier, Caring for Ship Models - A Narrative of Thought and Application, (2022) Seawatch Books.
See: https://seawatchbooks.com/products/...tive-of-thought-and-application-by-rob-napier

In short, as described, the copper plates you applied were so wildly out of scale in their detail that they became a "poke in the eye" distraction which destroyed the "compelling impression of an actual vessel within the constraints of historical accuracy." When a knowledgeable viewer examines a model with such a defect, the model no longer "invites one to visit a ship instead of a model" because such defects just scream, "It's a model, not the real thing!" In your case, had you the benefit of an underlying philosophy of scale ship modeling and an applicable standard of a high-quality scale ship model to which you could commit your efforts, you would have easily avoided the mistake with the copper sheathing by simply recognizing that they were wildly out of scale. Instead, perhaps lacking any experience of what copper sheathing actually looks like in real life, or for whatever other reason, you misplaced your trust in the current "monkey see, monkey do" faddists who seem fixated on gluing such out of scale copper plates on the bottoms of their models. All you required to avoid having "no idea that copper sheathing a model is considered improper" (which isn't necessarily the case,) was for you to correctly answer the question, "Does this look real at scale viewing distance?" (Hint: Just because somebody is selling kits or aftermarket parts of one kind or another does not mean they are appropriate for use in every instance and, in some cases, may actually not be appropriate in any instance.)

Don't feel bad. Mistakes are how we learn. Our own mistakes are often more painful lessons than those of others, but still valuable, nonetheless. Once, long ago, I rigged a 1:96 schooner with all the deadeyes turned in upside down. I didn't excuse the error "because I was building the model for my own personal satisfaction" or "wasn't into obsessive-compulsive rivet-counting," I just owned up to my careless mistake and I've never made that mistake again. That's called "experience."

Click to expand...

Thanks Bob, I appreciate your thoughts and comments. While I have argued that I am ultimately building for my own satisfaction, given my objective of building a reasonably accurate representation of an actual ship type, I am hardly going to be satisfied with what you and Dean are arguing is a gross error of judgement (and I really do appreciate your comments as constructive criticism, as you note we will not learn much if more experienced modellers don't gently, or not so gently, try to coaxe us down a better path).
I have seen real ship's copper plating and to my eye from a significant distance you can see the individual plates and the impressions of the nails if not the nails themselves. Perhaps this is part of the reason why this "fad" is proving so persistent, including among some what I would consider to be excellent model-makers on this site. Unfortunately I do not have access to a good maritime museum, so finding good benchmarks to aim for is difficult, and while photos are helpful they can be misleading as well.
While some of the comments here have been a little confronting, I appreciate that in the long run everyone seems to be trying to communicate thoughtfully and respectfully (too little of that with the internet I am afraid) and impart their wisdom as best they can.
I find Dean's argument that a shiny pock-marked copper bottom is distracting to the overall balanced easthetic of a model persuasive. Something I will have to think about.
I have never put in deadeyes upside down, but I think the worst mistake I have made on my brig was not staggering the treenails correctly, which was part of the reason I decided to sheath the bottom.
Again, thank you.

AllanKP69 said:

It can be as satisfying when building for a client (a job) as for one's self. There are times when I find it even more fun having someone waiting for the end result to be delivered. Maybe I am alone on this, but there it is.

Allan

Click to expand...

I am in totally agreement with you on this.

A job can be satisfying as well - it just comes with a different set of constraints than that of a hobby.

Bob Cleek said:

Just as any work of art, a scale ship model is a representative work which of its very nature communicates something.

Click to expand...

We tend to agree on a lot Bob, but on this I must say, art does not necessarily have to represent or communicate anything clearly to be valuable to everyone. The eye of the beholder and all that comes into play.

What does the following painting communicate? I had to read up on this piece to figure out what the heck it is. This is considered high end art but it is not very representative to me when considering the subject. Maybe I'll go back to painting instead of wood working, seems to pay well and accuracy be damned!

Painting called Interchange by Willem de Kooning sold for $300,000,000 It supposedly represents a woman reclining amongst a busy background.