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

[Smithy]

modeling isn’t a performance art

MY GOODNESS JIM, YOU'RE RIGHT!

Well, right in the sense that I agree with you.

I was coming around to that very idea only tonight while hacking at some bits of wood.

I’ve made models since 1965 and for the first 50 years it wasn’t a performance. I built them for myself, in my room, privately. Sometimes I’d show my friends or family what I’d made but almost all of them were politely disinterested. So the only ‘like’ that mattered was mine.

Cometh the internet, cometh the performer. Now, after 10 years on various forums, I’m an entertainer. I make models for the approval or polite disinterest or occasional honest dislike of other people, or possibly robots. People that I never meet.

The child in me is saying in every post, “Mummy, look what I’ve done. Do you like it?” It’s important to a child that mummy likes him but I’m a grown up and won’t die if I don’t receive the attention of all my surrogate mothers, my fellow modellers.

I’m an above average modeller with a good camera and a talent for writing a stirring story so I have received tens of thousands of likes in return for my tens of thousands of posts. Sometimes I’ve paid a lot of attention to my stats, the ratio of likes to posts. Since I realised that internet likes are merely a programmer’s trick to make us return to the networks over and over again I’ve disabled my alerts and try to ignore the insidious little icons.

But when I look at my threads I still fall into the trap of looking at my last post to see if anyone liked me. I stopped following my threads but I still looked at them. I still make polite thank you noises when people posted approval (for the extra likes?).

Funny thing, in the last few days I’ve realised how little real enjoyment I get from the actual modelling compared to the old days. I think that’s because as I work I’m often planning how I’ll write about it so I’m distracted and the value of my dear old hobby is diminished.

And now I’m writing this essay about it. Is there no escape? Rhetorical question folks, I actually do know where the escape hatch is.

I won’t be abandoning my modelling but I will not be able to continue with my flood of posts. Now I understand more clearly why I’m on a forum, I’ve more or less lost interest in everyone else’s builds and writing about mine just seems silly.

I’m not saying that either the hobby or the forum is silly, just that it doesn’t seem to work well for me right now. It isn’t you, it’s me.

 

[Jimsky]

MY GOODNESS JIM, YOU'RE RIGHT!

Well, right in the sense that I agree with you.

I was coming around to that very idea only tonight while hacking at some bits of wood.

I’ve made models since 1965 and for the first 50 years it wasn’t a performance. I built them for myself, in my room, privately. Sometimes I’d show my friends or family what I’d made but almost all of them were politely disinterested. So the only ‘like’ that mattered was mine.

Cometh the internet, cometh the performer. Now, after 10 years on various forums, I’m an entertainer. I make models for the approval or polite disinterest or occasional honest dislike of other people, or possibly robots. People that I never meet.

The child in me is saying in every post, “Mummy, look what I’ve done. Do you like it?” It’s important to a child that mummy likes him but I’m a grown up and won’t die if I don’t receive the attention of all my surrogate mothers, my fellow modellers.

I’m an above average modeller with a good camera and a talent for writing a stirring story so I have received tens of thousands of likes in return for my tens of thousands of posts. Sometimes I’ve paid a lot of attention to my stats, the ratio of likes to posts. Since I realised that internet likes are merely a programmer’s trick to make us return to the networks over and over again I’ve disabled my alerts and try to ignore the insidious little icons.

But when I look at my threads I still fall into the trap of looking at my last post to see if anyone liked me. I stopped following my threads but I still looked at them. I still make polite thank you noises when people posted approval (for the extra likes?).

Funny thing, in the last few days I’ve realised how little real enjoyment I get from the actual modelling compared to the old days. I think that’s because as I work I’m often planning how I’ll write about it so I’m distracted and the value of my dear old hobby is diminished.

And now I’m writing this essay about it. Is there no escape? Rhetorical question folks, I actually do know where the escape hatch is.

I won’t be abandoning my modelling but I will not be able to continue with my flood of posts. Now I understand more clearly why I’m on a forum, I’ve more or less lost interest in everyone else’s builds and writing about mine just seems silly.

I’m not saying that either the hobby or the forum is silly, just that it doesn’t seem to work well for me right now. It isn’t you, it’s me.

Thank you for sharing so honestly, it’s something many of us can relate to more than we might admit. The shift from quiet personal enjoyment to public presentation really has changed the dynamic of the hobby for a lot of us. It’s true: modeling was never meant to be a performance, and yet the moment we share it online, a subtle pressure creeps in, feedback, approval, metrics. It can slowly start shaping what we build and how we experience the work.
That said, I hope you won’t lose sight of the simple, personal joy that first drew you in. Stepping back from posting doesn’t mean stepping away from the hobby, it may be a chance to reconnect with it more deeply, on your own terms. And when or if you ever feel like sharing again, your voice and contributions will always be welcome. Until then, wishing you peace and pleasure at the bench, free of any expectations but your own.

 

[Gilles Korent]

I’m not saying that either the hobby or the forum is silly, just that it doesn’t seem to work well for me right now. It isn’t you, it’s me.

Sorry for adding to your problem!
I am only quoting the last sentence but
the like you got was for the whole post...
Kindest regards.

G.

 

[Smithy]

Stepping back from posting doesn’t mean stepping away from the hobby,

That’s right. Well, I hope so anyway. I’m not really in control of all this, which is odd. You know that thing where you have a relationship with someone maybe for years and suddenly you realise that you don’t even like them anymore? The feeling’s gone? I’m not consciously deciding to quit the on line, I just don’t think it’s good for me. Maybe I became allergic to it. Maybe I realised that I was addicted. “My name is Smithy and I’m a forum-holic.”

Anyway, thanks Jim for starting this fascinating and I think enlightening thread which has been so helpful.

Sorry for adding to your problem

Not at all Giles. I think you helped me see that I had one. These thoughts aren’t entirely new to me. I’ve been aware of the dark side of social media for some years. What’s new is this loss of interest, not in the modelling but in the talking about it.

And yet here I am talking endlessly about talking about it … but that’s common in people who want to quit an addiction but are reluctant to let it go

Weird.

 

[Gilles Korent]

Of course this is subjective.
I firmly believe that artistic freedom should be used by choice... not by necessity to hide / cover shortcomings in skills or craftsmanship: using the term loosely is often only an excuse and as a result, I think it is a detriment to the art of building something.

G

 

[Dillan2515]

MY GOODNESS JIM, YOU'RE RIGHT!

Well, right in the sense that I agree with you.

I was coming around to that very idea only tonight while hacking at some bits of wood.

I’ve made models since 1965 and for the first 50 years it wasn’t a performance. I built them for myself, in my room, privately. Sometimes I’d show my friends or family what I’d made but almost all of them were politely disinterested. So the only ‘like’ that mattered was mine.

Cometh the internet, cometh the performer. Now, after 10 years on various forums, I’m an entertainer. I make models for the approval or polite disinterest or occasional honest dislike of other people, or possibly robots. People that I never meet.

The child in me is saying in every post, “Mummy, look what I’ve done. Do you like it?” It’s important to a child that mummy likes him but I’m a grown up and won’t die if I don’t receive the attention of all my surrogate mothers, my fellow modellers.

I’m an above average modeller with a good camera and a talent for writing a stirring story so I have received tens of thousands of likes in return for my tens of thousands of posts. Sometimes I’ve paid a lot of attention to my stats, the ratio of likes to posts. Since I realised that internet likes are merely a programmer’s trick to make us return to the networks over and over again I’ve disabled my alerts and try to ignore the insidious little icons.

But when I look at my threads I still fall into the trap of looking at my last post to see if anyone liked me. I stopped following my threads but I still looked at them. I still make polite thank you noises when people posted approval (for the extra likes?).

Funny thing, in the last few days I’ve realised how little real enjoyment I get from the actual modelling compared to the old days. I think that’s because as I work I’m often planning how I’ll write about it so I’m distracted and the value of my dear old hobby is diminished.

And now I’m writing this essay about it. Is there no escape? Rhetorical question folks, I actually do know where the escape hatch is.

I won’t be abandoning my modelling but I will not be able to continue with my flood of posts. Now I understand more clearly why I’m on a forum, I’ve more or less lost interest in everyone else’s builds and writing about mine just seems silly.

I’m not saying that either the hobby or the forum is silly, just that it doesn’t seem to work well for me right now. It isn’t you, it’s me.

When building historically accurate ship models, I try to stay as true to the original as possible, but I also believe there’s room for some creative interpretation—especially when details are undocumented. It’s a balance between respecting history and making the project enjoyable. I recently needed help writing up a lab report for a historical methods class and found this really useful: https://essays.studymoose.com/write-my-lab-report It freed up time to focus on the finer details of my build, like period-appropriate rigging. Accuracy matters, but so does the joy of the craft.

 

[AllanKP69]

“My name is Smithy and I’m a forum-holic.”

Started my day with a LOL, thanks Smithy. The only problem is that instead of posting on-line in the comfort of your home you will have to go to ship modeling club meetings and speak your piece.
Allan

 

[Quint]

I try to be as historically accurate as possible with whatever I build. This involves research, research and research, I'm a research "junkie". Books, documentation, visits to museums, internet, etc. In terms of wooden ship modelling, my experience as a shipyard volunteer at Mystic Seaport Museum in Mystic Connecticut continues to pay dividends regarding ship building tools and techniques. While working there, I had access to the Ships Plans and Documentation Building and was able to review original historical documentation on many of the museum exhibits including the C. W. Morgan. I worked briefly on the restoration of the L. A. Dunton.

One of my problems resulting from pursuing historical accuracy is "analysis paralysis". I can get stuck on finishing a seemingly simple detail. I have to remind myself at times, sometimes a model is just a model!

 

[11320 Titanic]

Back in the day a ship's captain had a lot of leeway regarding his ship. The USS Constitution is a fine example of this.

 

[AllanKP69]

Back in the day a ship's captain had a lot of leeway regarding his ship

I realize rigging was commonly customized thus there are very few, if any, contemporary drawings on rigging, but I am really curious about what other things a captain would have changed and why, after the yard launched the ship other than furniture and decoration in his personal space.
Thanks, this is very interesting.
Allan

 

[Ettienne]

I mainly build plastic ship and boat kits. What I get in the box, I build. I read and do some research about the subject I would like to engage in, but that is more to beef up my knowledge about naval and maritime history in general. Now and then I will fiddle with some extra detail or see how I could improve a spesific part or parts and may even add some bits and pieces that are not in the box on a good day. But in general I would prefer my projects to be reasonably historically acurate. So I suppose I gravitate towards the side of historical accuracy, but in my case perhaps only "historical" is what is important. But I can appreciate a fictional work or a work of fantasy (I suppose that happens when you read Dune, Terry Pratchett and Douglas Adams as well as watching Star Wars ... ) as well as those 100% historical replicas ... Very interesting topic indeed, thank you Mr Moderator.

 

[Jimsky]

I realize rigging was commonly customized thus there are very few, if any, contemporary drawings on rigging, but I am really curious about what other things a captain would have changed and why, after the yard launched the ship other than furniture and decoration in his personal space.
Thanks, this is very interesting.
Allan

One of the well-known modifications was the armament configurations. After launch, a ship’s armament configuration was often adjusted by the captain to better suit the vessel’s intended role, be it commerce protection, privateering, fleet action, or extended patrols. This could involve swapping out heavier guns for lighter ones to improve speed and ease the burden on the crew, repositioning swivel guns or adding chase guns at the bow or stern for tactical advantage, and even modifying the magazine’s location to enable faster loading or achieve better weight distribution. Gun carriages might also be rebuilt and hollowed out to reduce weight, improving both maneuverability and overall handling of the ship.

There are others, but in short, a ship launched from the yard was a framework. Once in the hands of a seasoned captain, it became something more: a personal, mission-specific vessel often reflecting his philosophy, fears, and ambitions.

 

[Kurt Konrath]

On the HMS Victory, which Captain/Admiral was responsible for the major change in transom design, from open balconies to closed windows?

I know some of it was done after battle damage, but that was total redesign of the ship.

 

[Jimsky]

On the HMS Victory, which Captain/Admiral was responsible for the major change in transom design, from open balconies to closed windows?

I know some of it was done after battle damage, but that was total redesign of the ship.

The major change in the transom design of HMS Victory, from open balconies to closed windows, occurred during a large repair at Chatham between 1800 and 1803. This refit was not attributed to a specific captain or admiral in the sources but was carried out according to the latest instructions from the Navy Board. The decision to close the open stern galleries with glass windows and wooden shutters was made to protect the stern from heavy following seas, and two gunports in the stern transom were also blanked off during this period.

 

[uncchains]

I try to be as historically correct as possible by researching the model I am planning to or am in the process of building to reflect the aims, wishes, etc, of the original designers and builders or the modifications made during the model's existence. Sometimes, in spite of the research, one simply cannot do that and then one does what one has to do. What I do not like is when a model is built with total inaccuracies that have been added by the builder because he/she saw it on someone else's work and thought, "Wow! That looks cool, I'll do that do," when that add-on is totally inappropriate or just because, in the case of plastic models, an item, such as a missile or bomb, was included on a sprue. Not every weapon in the box was ever carried on the aircraft being built. That's where a little research helps in the building of a more "accurate" representation.

 

[Jimsky]

I try to be as historically correct as possible by researching the model I am planning to or am in the process of building to reflect the aims, wishes, etc, of the original designers and builders or the modifications made during the model's existence. Sometimes, in spite of the research, one simply cannot do that and then one does what one has to do. What I do not like is when a model is built with total inaccuracies that have been added by the builder because he/she saw it on someone else's work and thought, "Wow! That looks cool, I'll do that do," when that add-on is totally inappropriate or just because, in the case of plastic models, an item, such as a missile or bomb, was included on a sprue. Not every weapon in the box was ever carried on the aircraft being built. That's where a little research helps in the building of a more "accurate" representation.

While I understand your point about striving for historical accuracy in model-building, I respectfully disagree with the idea that inaccuracies or creative additions are inherently negative. Model-building is a diverse hobby, and builders approach it with different goals. For some, the pursuit of historical precision is paramount, and research ensures their work reflects the subject as it was. However, others build for personal enjoyment, creativity, or artistic expression, prioritizing fun over strict adherence to historical details. Adding a feature because it "looks cool" or using extra parts from a kit, like a missile or bomb, can be a valid creative choice for those builders. Both approaches, accuracy-driven and expressive, have merit, as they reflect the builder’s intent and passion. Judging one as inferior overlooks the individuality and freedom that make the hobby so rewarding.

 

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

What I do not like is when a model is built with total inaccuracies that have been added by the builder because he/she saw it on someone else's work and thought, "Wow! That looks cool, I'll do that do," when that add-on is totally inappropriate or just because,

. However, others build for personal enjoyment, creativity, or artistic expression, prioritizing fun over strict adherence to historical details. Adding a feature because it "looks cool" or using extra parts from a kit, like a missile or bomb, can be a valid creative choice for those builders. Both approaches, accuracy-driven and expressive, have merit, as they reflect the builder’s intent and passion.

that is a double-edged sword and i see both sides

builders who add to a model or build without any care for accuracy and some beginner sees it will not know if it is correct or a creative add on. Like for example adding a ships wheel rather than a tiller because the builder likes a wheel. The error carries on and on. So a builder thinking he is building accurate models realizes oops! i thought, because i saw a ships wheel it was correct but now my model that i thought was correct is wrong. Creative license is great on one hand and on the other your misleading other builders. Should a disclaimer be added when you post your work saying "i made it up" or just let the viewer beware it might or might not be an accurate model.

 

[Jimsky]

Creative license is great on one hand and on the other your misleading other builders. Should a disclaimer be added when you post your work saying "i made it up" or just let the viewer beware it might or might not be an accurate model.

Dave, while appreciating the concern about potentially misleading other builders, I respectfully disagree with the notion that artistic license in model-building requires a disclaimer or inherently causes confusion. Artistic license is a core part of the creative process, allowing builders to express their unique vision, whether through imaginative additions, custom paint schemes, or fictional elements. Expecting a disclaimer like "I made it up" assumes that the primary goal of every model is historical accuracy, which isn’t true for all builders. Many clearly signal their creative intent through context, like labeling a model as a "what-if" build or showcasing it in a community known for artistic expression. Viewers, especially in modeling communities, are often savvy enough to discern when a build prioritizes creativity over accuracy. Mandating disclaimers risks stifling creativity and imposing a rigid standard on a hobby that thrives on diversity - some aim for precision, others for imagination, and both are valid. Instead of "viewer beware," fostering open discussions about a model’s inspiration allows builders to share their intent without diminishing their artistic freedom.

 

[AllanKP69]

Once in the hands of a seasoned captain, it became something more: a personal, mission-specific vessel often reflecting his philosophy, fears, and ambitions.

Hi Jim,
This makes sense, but after reading your post I tried to find some clarification. So far I cannot find any contemporary information that mentions captains having any say in arming their vessels in any way other than ordered by the Admiralty regardless of the task but there may have been exceptions even if not at the request of the Captain.

From what I can find Royal Navy captains did not typically change the ordnance for different missions. While they surely had flexibility in how they used their guns and could adapt their tactics based on the situation, the number and types of guns a ship carried were determined by the Establishments and intended overall role from the Admiralty, not by any specific mission at hand. Were there one-off exceptions, maybe/probably, but I can't find any so far. As an example, coastal duty around the UK would be very different than a role at sea but even in that case, I cannot find where any specific ship had a change in armament. One example is Euryalus 1803 which spent a couple years with in-shore duties but her armament was the same at Trafalgar. (She was armed a little differently than two of her sister ships but I have no idea if that was from the Admiralty's or the Captains' orders.)

Samuel Pepys started the rating system in the 17th century, and while the armament did change over time in relation to calibers and such for a given rate and ship size, (40 gun, 50 gun, 70 gun etc.) a ship sailed with what she received from the yard. From a paper by Brian Lavery on the Establishments, problems did arise from this and the 1703 Establishment set out what armament would be used to alleviate this problem. But, the idea of uniformity was not achieved due to the disparity of the ships at that time. The Establishment from April 1706 was hashed out by shipwrights and shipyards with the Admiralty and dimensions for the various rates to get some consistency. It did not standardize the exact design of every ship, but it did establish dimensions. The dimensions were detailed enough to dictate the layout and armament that would be provided on each deck. (It did not cover 1st rates or 6th rates at that time.)

Caruana states in Volume 2 of The History of English Sea Ordnance that while the Establishments dictated what ordnance and stores a ship was entitled to and not entitled to, if this was found to be deficient or different it was the storekeeper who was personally liable, not the captain. There seems to be some slack given about mid 18th century. Caruana goes on to write that by the end of the 18th century Captains could make special requests, but they had to be officially sanctioned by higher authority after consequences were thoroughly studied. The storekeepers were not permitted to deviate without orders from the Admiralty. There were of course variations from ship to ship within the same class especially starting around mid 18th century due to ever worsening shortages, but this was caused by inability to meet the standard, not by request from the Captains.

I would not be surprised to find there were exceptions and some Captains would take matters into their own hands, but so far I cannot find any historical examples. I would love to find some examples of exceptions, but no luck so far.

Fun and interesting to research and think about

Allan

 

[Jimsky]

Here are the sources and evidence:

Naval History Primary and Secondary Sources

• Brian Lavery’s The Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War 1600–1815 is an essential scholarly work. It provides technical details about how ships were armed and how captains or admirals made decisions after commissioning.
• Peter Goodwin, former curator of HMS Victory, also discusses captain-driven alterations in books like The Construction and Fitting of the Sailing Man of War 1650–1850.
• David Lyon’s The Sailing Navy List outlines how ships were rated and armed, showing that the "as launched" configuration often differed from what they carried into action.

2. Ship Logs and Admiralty Records

• Original logbooks and letters from Royal Navy officers frequently mention modifications, especially when preparing for specific missions.
  • Example: Captain Thomas Cochrane made notable changes to the Speedy, lightening her armament drastically to increase speed and maneuverability.

3. East India Company and Merchant Records

• Captains of Indiamen and armed merchant ships had even greater leeway. Owners often allowed captains to balance cargo capacity with defensive capability. Logs and insurance documents from Lloyd’s of London sometimes mention these post-launch changes.

4. Privateer Practices

• Privateering commissions didn’t always come with standardized ships. Captains often customized their armament using personal funds or investors, based on anticipated opposition.

5. Archaeological Finds and Shipwreck Studies

• Discrepancies between known build specs and archaeological remains—like those of Mary Rose or Vasa—sometimes reflect changes made after the ship was launched or during refits.

So while the shipyard provided the structure, the moment the ship hit the water and was handed to her captain, she began evolving.

Here are the two quick searches I found: HMS Devastation (1871)

Originally outfitted with 12-inch muzzle-loading rifles, HMS Devastation underwent significant armament changes during her service. In 1891, these were replaced with 10-inch breech-loading rifles, reflecting advancements in naval artillery and the need for more efficient loading mechanisms. Additionally, structural modifications were made to enhance protection for magazines and engines, such as increasing freeboard and adding armor-plated bulkheads.

HMS Devastation (1871) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

USS Missouri (BB-63)

Commissioned during World War II, the USS Missouri was later modernized in the 1980s to meet contemporary combat requirements. This overhaul included removing obsolete 20mm and 40mm anti-aircraft guns and installing modern weaponry such as Harpoon anti-ship missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles, and Phalanx CIWS for missile defense. These changes significantly enhanced her offensive and defensive capabilities, adapting the battleship to modern naval warfare.

USS Missouri (BB-63) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org