Discussion Historical Accuracy vs. Creative Freedom: Where Do You Stand?

I try to balance both. I have to sometimes remind myself that the goal is to turn out a model, and that 99.999% of people who will see my models don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, so it's okay to sacrifice pinpoint accuracy for something that can actually be displayed.

People frequently say to me, "I wouldn't have the patience." And I say back, "Sometimes neither do I."
 
The biggest problem I have with trying to make my ships realistic is finding a place to belay my lines. On my Constitution, for instance, the pins on the pin rails were broken or only presented as stubs. There were also an insufficient number of them. I had to resort to making my own pins from wire and placing them wherever I could find that wouldn't cause my lines to overlap. Sometimes, you just gotta make do.
 
I share many of your views on this subject, but I have become more 'creative' over time. Almost all of my models are part of a diorama, and I am trying to tell a story with mu finished product. As a non-ship example, I made a diorama of part my father's WWII airfield on England with a B-24 (his plane), and a number of buildings. Frankly, I did a ton of research, and realized quickly that I had to be creative to get even some of these elements in a single diorama. Accordingly, my diorama is about 24" by 36" -- instead of nearly room sized if I truly spaced everything as the airfield's map indicated.

I'm now scratch building an Independence-class aircraft carrier island and deck, and have found hundreds of photos and diagrams, but have realized that hundreds of modifications to the carrier islands were made throughout the war. So I decided to create an island that combines some of the most interesting elements in a way that creates a good representation, without being too grand or complex that it overshadows the model fighter aircraft on the deck. Similarly, the deck itself could be highly detailed, but obsessing on this element takes an inordinate amount of time for very little presentation value.

I guess I'm always trying to achieve an interesting, but realistic model that can best represent the model/story/diorama I'm trying to create.

My hat is off to those of you that have the patience and time to be 100% accurate - it shows real dedication to the hobby. Retirement for me is not too far away, so I might try my hand at doing a hyper-realistic model ship then, but time and circumstance don't afford me that luxury quite yet.

By the way, I'm still having trouble finding good measurements or detailed plans for the carrier island. I've mainly found a lot of photos and large-scale plans for the overall ship, but not smaller details. Any suggestions?
 
Vfordyce said:
The biggest problem I have with trying to make my ships realistic is finding a place to belay my lines. On my Constitution, for instance, the pins on the pin rails were broken or only presented as stubs. There were also an insufficient number of them. I had to resort to making my own pins from wire and placing them wherever I could find that wouldn't cause my lines to overlap. Sometimes, you just gotta make do.
Click to expand...
What you’re doing is perfectly fine—exploring and experimenting is part of the fun. In ship modeling, rigging is probably one of the most challenging aspects, even for experienced builders. It requires patience, precision, and a bit of problem-solving, but the end result can really bring a model to life. Keep at it, and enjoy the process!
 
Jim Eads said:
By the way, I'm still having trouble finding good measurements or detailed plans for the carrier island. I've mainly found a lot of photos and large-scale plans for the overall ship, but not smaller details. Any suggestions?
Click to expand...
When you say "carrier island," are you referring to the island superstructure of an aircraft carrier (the part that includes the bridge, radar, funnel, etc.)?
 
I guess I'm interested in a more expressionistic interpretation. I came to this when I was forced to double-plank a basswwood hull, which I sanded pretty thin. The walnut I used became important. Now I'm working on a Pride of Baltimore in cherry where everything but the decking (hull, trunks and deck features, masts and spars, stand and ship case) is rendered in cherry.
 
With my more recent builds (last 2 years) I tend to find a suitable reference and model as close as I can to it (my bentley blower and Alfa romeo are 2 very good examples of this). However, being a designer by trade, l really enjoy the fredom of doing it my way as I think it could/should be. Sometimes, the reference material is just not there, my current project (the hydra coupe) goes exactly along those lines, I had the exterior look, a few hints of what the mecanics could have been like but I mostly relied on my imagination and the good old 'modeler's leeway '. For me, that's what this hobby is about, do it as best you can but in a way that you will be pleased with the result. After all, you're mostly the one that will look at it once it's done.
M2C
(My 2 cents)
 
François said:
With my more recent builds (last 2 years) I tend to find a suitable reference and model as close as I can to it (my bentley blower and Alfa romeo are 2 very good examples of this). However, being a designer by trade, l really enjoy the fredom of doing it my way as I think it could/should be. Sometimes, the reference material is just not there, my current project (the hydra coupe) goes exactly along those lines, I had the exterior look, a few hints of what the mecanics could have been like but I mostly relied on my imagination and the good old 'modeler's leeway '. For me, that's what this hobby is about, do it as best you can but in a way that you will be pleased with the result. After all, you're mostly the one that will look at it once it's done.
M2C
(My 2 cents)
Click to expand...
I couldn’t agree more, your approach really captures what makes this hobby so rewarding. It’s that blend of craftsmanship, research, and creative interpretation that gives each build its own character. Like you, I aim for accuracy when the references are there, but I also enjoy the freedom to fill in the gaps with imagination when needed. At the end of the day, it’s about building something you’re proud of, something that reflects your own vision. That’s the real joy in it.
 
As ship modelers we have a responsibility to represent our subjects with historical accuracy, since much of the purpose is to inform and educate. Egregious historical errors make our efforts fail; in this duty. However, historical accuracy is imprecise, especially when basic information is not available. In the purest sense, reconstructions of Santa Marias, Half Moons and dozens of famous ships can all be considered suspect at least. But we also have a duty to attempt these reconstructions to bring what we do know of ships prominent in our past to satisfy natural curiosity and perhaps add to the process of a better understanding of these subjects.
I particularly enjoy being a ship in bottle builder because there seems to be a common understanding ship in bottlers are up to no good anyway, so there is a creative freedom in approaching each project. Yes, I strive to be accurate, but even more so, I strive to enjoy to enjoy myself and the results of my efforts. In the kindest possible way, John Millar pointed out errors I made in my model of Raleigh a few years ago, and I will remember these for future projects, but I am really no less pleased with how she came out

IMG_7816.JPG
 
Alex Bellinger said:
As ship modelers we have a responsibility to represent our subjects with historical accuracy, since much of the purpose is to inform and educate. Egregious historical errors make our efforts fail; in this duty. However, historical accuracy is imprecise, especially when basic information is not available. In the purest sense, reconstructions of Santa Marias, Half Moons and dozens of famous ships can all be considered suspect at least. But we also have a duty to attempt these reconstructions to bring what we do know of ships prominent in our past to satisfy natural curiosity and perhaps add to the process of a better understanding of these subjects.
I particularly enjoy being a ship in bottle builder because there seems to be a common understanding ship in bottlers are up to no good anyway, so there is a creative freedom in approaching each project. Yes, I strive to be accurate, but even more so, I strive to enjoy to enjoy myself and the results of my efforts. In the kindest possible way, John Millar pointed out errors I made in my model of Raleigh a few years ago, and I will remember these for future projects, but I am really no less pleased with how she came out
Click to expand...
A very fine model, indeed, I bet I required some dedication for her size.

You raise some thoughtful points, and I agree that striving for historical accuracy has an important place, especially when the goal is education or contributing to our collective understanding of maritime history. That said, I’d suggest it really comes down to the purpose behind each build. If someone is modeling as part of a historical study or for educational purposes, then yes, accuracy should be paramount. But if the goal is personal enjoyment, storytelling, or creative expression, then there's absolutely room for artistic license.

I think our hobby is broad enough to include both ends of that spectrum—and everything in between. At the end of the day, we each bring something unique to the table, and that diversity is part of what keeps ship modeling so rich and rewarding.
 
I have little interest in historical accuracy but rather like to think of modelling as conceptual projects; what could have been, or what could be. For instance, when I build a model car, I might start with some piece of leather, or some colour that I find interesting, and then build the entire model around that. Or, for ship models, I think of some engineering issue that I want to replicate in miniature, and see if that helps me understand the construction of a real or imaginary boat with the same issue. Here's a rendering of a boat I did for a movie that was never made. The model actually sailed, as well, and was quite fast!

The concept was a blend of Greek Trireme and modern materials.

TRIREME-MAY-28-2020.jpg

IMG_3954JPG.JPG

IMG_5578.JPG

IMG_5297.jpg
 
Of which 'old' ships are there still the original drawings? And have the adjustments that were made during the build also been adjusted to them? Such as the raising of the forecastle of the Bluenose? Historical Accuracy is therefore a flexible concept. Many reconstruction drawings have also been given the interpretation of the draftsman. Judging from paintings is also flexible. Most painters have made a sketch outside and often worked it out in their studio. Also with their interpretation.
During the construction of my previous 3 and current builds I have allowed myself Creative Freedom but with a Historical awareness in the back of my mind.

I found the rigging of the Corel 'Le Mirage' to be poor. Based on the books of Orazio Curti I have reworked the rigging, to the best of my ability of that time periode. And at the same time designed the sails, more towards a general design.

For the Robt. E. Lee I used the drawings of Alan Bates who also reconstructed it. So here too no original drawings. Here too 'some Creative Freedom'. The drawings are based on the 1st Lee. But from the 2nd deck onwards I have used many photos of the 2nd Lee. The builders of the 2nd were also Creative: a lot of material from the 1st was used in the 2nd. Why shouldn't I be allowed to do that too?

A few original drawings of the Bluenose have been preserved, but they are insufficient to reconstruct the ship from them. So here are also interpretations by various 'draftsmen'. My 'Creative Freedom' actually comes down to a clear Kit-Bashing to create a Historically Correct model as possible.

For my current Balder no original drawings either, but a few 'general' ones. Depending on the wishes of the owner, the ship was modified at the shipyard. Fortunately, there is still the original Balder that I can visit. But it has also undergone 2 restorations. I try to 'look through' that and build a model with the intention of approaching the original.

So clearly a ‘Creative Builder’ with a ‘Historical Mindset’.
Regards, Peter
 
Peter Voogt said:
So clearly a ‘Creative Builder’ with a ‘Historical Mindset’.
Click to expand...
I really like how you put that - a Creative Builder with a Historical Mindset; I think that actually describes a lot of us in this hobby. Many of us approach ship modeling with a genuine interest in history and a respect for accuracy, but we also recognize that the creative process is what makes the hobby enjoyable and personal. When full historical details aren’t available, or when we just want to explore a “what if” scenario, we often blend research with imagination.
That’s not a weakness; it’s part of the artistry. Most of us aren’t building 'the exact match', but we still care about getting it “right enough” to feel grounded while also having the freedom to make each model our own. That mindset is what keeps the hobby approachable, inclusive, and evolving, IMHO.
 
I too built models as a child and had a great time. I did everything from cars, planes, boats, to a figure of Rat Fink (some of you might remember) and other EdRoth designed models. I had a sixty year layoff and then one day I got the bug to build something. Since then I have completed boats and vehicles of all kinds and sizes. Some RC and others static. I’m not so much into looks as I am into the techniques and processes. My goal is to at least have a clean look. The look is for me as I find others really don’t give a s..t. Still at it.

IMG_0144.jpeg
 
One thing I didn't mention was that when I was building plastic models as a youngster, I was learning the various parts of car engines and anatomy from the Visible Man model and the parts of planes and many other things. :) I built the Visible V8 and learned how an internal combustion, 4-cycle engine operated.
 
Corsair said:
One thing I didn't mention was that when I was building plastic models as a youngster, I was learning the various parts of car engines and anatomy from the Visible Man model and the parts of planes and many other things. :) I built the Visible V8 and learned how an internal combustion, 4-cycle engine operated.
Click to expand...
Yes! And who could forget the Visible Woman. :cool:

Image.jpeg
 
fourseas said:
I really do remember Ed Roth and the Rat Fink. I also remember building the models. One of my favourites was Flame Out Freddy as I was very interested in model aircraft at the time.
View attachment 519007
Click to expand...
One of my favorites was Mr. Gasser! These models were a total exercise in painting patience. Both the paint and glue were manufactured by Tester. The original Tester glue in the yellow tube became illegal after it was abused. Ahhh the old days. ROTF Enough reminiscing on days of old as this is a total hijack of the original thread. Time to move on.

Image 1.jpeg
 
It is great to strive for perfection and I give credit to all that have the ability.
For me doing the best I can without stress, enjoying time spent making
my models outweighs striving to be too accurate. If I am pleased with
my Model and it passes for not to bad by family and friends , it is on
to another. At ninety two I am starting the rigging on the clipper ship
Flying Fish , hopefully someone might want lt in the family.
Remember you do to what you can , you develope more skills as time
marches on and as long shipmodeling is your entertainment ,do not
quit , keep the mind active if you can and you are not too disabled with the
aches and pains of just getting older.
All the best to members of Ships of Scale ,
WINOVA
 
Peter Voogt said:
Of which 'old' ships are there still the original drawings?
Click to expand...
I suspect that involves nationality and era. The Danes, English, French and Spanish have original information in their archives, especially the English. There are thousands of contemporary design drawings, many contracts for ships built in private yards, and at times as-built drawings done after the ship was completed. The drawings get much more detailed in the 18th century, but even the fewer drawings along with a contract for the 17th century gives enough information for anyone interested in the actual details. A good example is Litchfield (50) 1695 and her sisters Severn and Burlington as there are a couple contemporary drawings and the original contract with all the scantlings needed to build a very accurate model.
Allan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top