Many Naval Architects, myself included, build ship models. For many of us this is a serious effort to memorialize an engineering profession with an interesting and colorful history. I therefore, do not understand the willingness for ship modelers to shell out $$$$ for kits that do not result in historically accurate models.
So, what constitutes an historically accurate ship model. Comments by two well known Naval Architects may be of interest:
L. Francis Herreshoff, son of the great Nathanial Herreshoff:
Herreshoff writes that the basis for any worthwhile model is a hull, accurately carved to match the lines of the vessel being modeled. He even says that a model with misshapen hull “is an evil thing” as it will mislead those who study it in the future. He is also of the opinion that rigging a ship model is a waste of time as the heart of the model is its hull.
Howard I. Chapelle:
In his writings, Chapelle agrees that the basis of a good ship model is an accurate set of hull lines, and he cautions modelers not to reconstruct these. He goes on to list deck arrangement and color scheme as important items to be accurately represented. With regard to details, he proposes that reconstruction is allowed as long as they were in use at the time of the vessel being modeled.
My opinion: wooden sailing ships were crafted by artisans, most of whom were ignorant of formal engineering design procedures but successful ones had a good eye, capable of forming graceful hulls. For these old ships certain features stand out. For example, the counter sterns of late Nineteenth Century American Pilot and fishing schooners were distinctive ( and quite lovely). When I look at a model, my eye is drawn to these distinctive features to see if they are modeled correctly. This should be a minimum standard for any kit.
Roger
