Being still somewhat new to this web site, can someone give me some advice as to how react to a modeler's post showing obvious inaccuracies, historic, construction, equipment, ect., in either or both the progress of the build or in the finished product? I recently saw, in another similar site, an otherwise nice model of an US Aegis class destroyer on which the builder added equipment that the ship he was modeling never had. It would appear the builder put the model together straight out of the box without doing any research (books, photos, etc.) on the ship he was constructing first. He just installed everything in the kit regardless. Am I making too much out of this? Surely model building is about the enjoyment of the process. I find that the research prior to and during the building of a model enhances the enjoyment of building a model and getting the finished product as close to depicting the original be it airplane, jet or ship. I suppose there are "modelers" for whom that part of the build is not as important as it is to me and others. I will continue to research the HMS VICTORY (2nd model) and the VASA I am building and hope to resume posting progress on the two models in the build logs I started a while back.
Hello, I too are a new member to this forum and, also to this form of ship building. Let me say I tried this as a way to relax and have found I also enjoy doing it. Before I started the Esmeralda I had no clue what kind of ship she was or even if I could even build her. All I knew was that it was the one I wanted to start with, I can't say exactly what it was that caught my eye. Then after I began I stumbled on this forum and all of a sudden I had somewhere to find some answers. I constantly go back and re-look at two other builders of the Esmeralda. Both these builders( Olivier F and John Hendricks) are light years beyond my skill level, and I have learned from their logs. Will my Esmeralda be historically correct, no way! But it will be my version, good or bad. Maybe down the road a few ships in I will turn the corner and worry about the historic correctness. I think that comes in time, and I would never nit pick the work of others. If it looks good to the builder than mission accomplished!
I couldn't agree more!
And I'm sorry to say uncchains, but first asking if you make too much of friends who don't value accuracy as much as you do,
and then referring to those as 'modelers' is just ..condescending.
I for one don't give a rat's a** about historical accuracy. I very much enjoy the building, I also like to know and learn about the history of the original, but most importantly to me is an esthetically pleasing result. My models will never end up in a museum, and no one looking at them will ever notice- or care about if the ship looked exactly like this 200 years ago. I respect friends here who fret about the most minute historical details, I can understand that this gives an extra dimension to the hobby for them.
So my advice to you (as you're asking) would be to respectfully point out blatant inaccuracies ..if you think they matter to the builder.
If they only matter to you, I suggest you try to avoid to be seeing as pedantic, or judgmental.
Happy modelling!
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,380
- Points
- 728
Being still somewhat new to this web site, can someone give me some advice as to how react to a modeler's post showing obvious inaccuracies, historic, construction, equipment, ect., in either or both the progress of the build or in the finished product?
that is a good question and i got into a hot debate over the issue of correcting others work. It got to a point i was suspended from the forum as a troublemaker.
It started out i commented on a bad hull planking job and what was wrong with it.
there are two valid sides to the issue
It is the builders ship model and it can be built anyway the builder see fit or built to their skill level. As you said some build for fun and are not concerned about historical accuracy or errors in construction. Bottom line it is you model so built it your way. Another point is who do you think you are to critique others work or be so critical. a negative aspect of this is say a novice builder spent months building and decides to post the progress. Then you get others jumping all over it nit picking the model apart. now that is discouraging to say the least. Odds that builder will think twice before showing his work
now for the other side of the coin
so many times, i see comments like nice job, good work, when in fact it is totally wrong. Novice builders will search through forums and build logs looking for answers or the correct way to do something. When they come across a build with comments like a good job you would assume it is correct. what is going on here is bad or wrong information is being passed along. When you see hull planking done 5 different ways it becomes confusing. By nature a novice builder is well "novice" and lacks information and when a forum subscribes to "it's you model build it your way" is doing a great disservice to future builders.
that is a good question and i got into a hot debate over the issue of correcting others work. It got to a point i was suspended from the forum as a troublemaker.
It started out i commented on a bad hull planking job and what was wrong with it.
there are two valid sides to the issue
It is the builders ship model and it can be built anyway the builder see fit or built to their skill level. As you said some build for fun and are not concerned about historical accuracy or errors in construction. Bottom line it is you model so built it your way. Another point is who do you think you are to critique others work or be so critical. a negative aspect of this is say a novice builder spent months building and decides to post the progress. Then you get others jumping all over it nit picking the model apart. now that is discouraging to say the least. Odds that builder will think twice before showing his work
now for the other side of the coin
so many times, i see comments like nice job, good work, when in fact it is totally wrong. Novice builders will search through forums and build logs looking for answers or the correct way to do something. When they come across a build with comments like a good job you would assume it is correct. what is going on here is bad or wrong information is being passed along. When you see hull planking done 5 different ways it becomes confusing. By nature a novice builder is well "novice" and lacks information and when a forum subscribes to "it's you model build it your way" is doing a great disservice to future builders.
Last edited:
... I would be cautious about giving suggestions without actually someone asking for one...
Most of us are building models and only some building copies of the original ships, planes... etc. If you treat our hobby as art, you can assume that scale modeler has a representation view on certain aspects and how the model should look. Is there something wrong with that? I don't think so.
If the builder specifically asks about the proper way to build this or that, here is the place to point mistakes, also it is a very thin edge, as to how and when you may respond. If you criticize after the build is completed, it is a bad idea!
I would always consider that all of us have different skills and experience. What may be for you is obvious and easy to build, but for others could be a challenge.
At the end of the day, we are building\assembling the models the way our skillset permits. For most of us, it is just a hobby, though. What is most importantly, we have fun! If we don't - why spend hours, months, years?
Most of us are building models and only some building copies of the original ships, planes... etc. If you treat our hobby as art, you can assume that scale modeler has a representation view on certain aspects and how the model should look. Is there something wrong with that? I don't think so.
If the builder specifically asks about the proper way to build this or that, here is the place to point mistakes, also it is a very thin edge, as to how and when you may respond. If you criticize after the build is completed, it is a bad idea!
I would always consider that all of us have different skills and experience. What may be for you is obvious and easy to build, but for others could be a challenge.
At the end of the day, we are building\assembling the models the way our skillset permits. For most of us, it is just a hobby, though. What is most importantly, we have fun! If we don't - why spend hours, months, years?
Everyone that is in this hobby expects different things at different levels and the ranges offer nearly unlimited possibilities. I think we all at times need to remember this point. As you pointed out, some people just enjoy building a kit right out of the box and not doing any research. Others want to make modifications to make the kit as realistic and accurate as possible. The entire point of a hobby is to relax and have a good time. If they are doing that, who are we to tell them that they are doing it wrong and telling them they have to do things differently (unless they ask 
).
In addition, Even if you wanted to, it would be almost impossible to build a ship like the HMS Victory accurately to scale. As an example of this, just for the foremast shrouds, the shroud lines are 8" circum. the collars are 6.5", the seizings are 1", the lashings are 2" and the lanyards are 3.5". And that is just for the shrouds. Keep in mind, those are circumference. Plus, if you are build it in 1/100, then the line used for the seizing is going to need to be 0.0032 inches in diameter to be an accurate size for the scale build!
I don't think I would have a good time trying to work with something that small.
I think I'll stick with my "inaccurate" models.
Jeff
). In addition, Even if you wanted to, it would be almost impossible to build a ship like the HMS Victory accurately to scale. As an example of this, just for the foremast shrouds, the shroud lines are 8" circum. the collars are 6.5", the seizings are 1", the lashings are 2" and the lanyards are 3.5". And that is just for the shrouds. Keep in mind, those are circumference. Plus, if you are build it in 1/100, then the line used for the seizing is going to need to be 0.0032 inches in diameter to be an accurate size for the scale build!
I don't think I would have a good time trying to work with something that small.
I think I'll stick with my "inaccurate" models.
Jeff
Last edited:
I think all members are glad to help those that ask questions. I have been guilty of pointing out what to me are obvious flaws in some kits such as out of scale parts or incorrect period items such as the wrong cannon pattern, but I agree, if the builder is not interested in this kind of detail it sometimes can come across like preaching, or worse, offending the builder. I think back to building plastic models as a kid with nary a thought about whether it was accurately produced by the kit maker and never considered doing my own research of a particular project, yet I got great pleasure with the build. With modern wooden kits it seems to be a little more of assembly than in the past, but with wood the builder still has a chance to do some of his/her own woodwork and modifications if they wish. For most, it is a hobby and hobbies are supposed to be fun. If details are part of the fun so be it, if not, so what.
Last edited:
Reality Check. Who is really going to view your model, Most likely your family and close friends. Unless you are building with high level competition in mind, No one will question the results of your completed model. You will enjoy the reactions of the people you meet and any mistakes or intentional artistic license employed are never considered.
Kurt Konrath
Kurt Konrath
I have learned in multiple hobbies, unless you building a replica of the real thing that is still present to view, that is very hard to say what an object, ship, car, plane or anything else really looks like.
Even with ships like HMS Victory or Old Ironsides, the equipment and arraignments have changed so many times over the years, it is hard to know what it looked like back when!
Most of all is this is supposed to be a fun hobby, and most builders wouldn't mind mentoring or help, but don't want complaints of their skills and ideas.
Even with ships like HMS Victory or Old Ironsides, the equipment and arraignments have changed so many times over the years, it is hard to know what it looked like back when!
Most of all is this is supposed to be a fun hobby, and most builders wouldn't mind mentoring or help, but don't want complaints of their skills and ideas.
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2024
- Messages
- 235
- Points
- 113
There are models, and the are scale models. Both can be good to look at and satisfying to create, these two attributes underlie all the building I have ever done, whether is special configurations of laboratory equipment, restoring interesting and historic houses (including the one I live in now) or modelling. The build itself and the intellectual/practical problems it poses and working out how to overcome them are sufficient reward for me at least.
you only have to please yourself... its your hobby and your interpretation of what the model should look like.
as for inaccuracy in scale... well you will get better with experiace and practice. better tools helps but it always boils down to developing skills with experiance.
now if you install a couple missles on an 1800 ship... well if it makes you happy n floats your boat, go for it!
as for inaccuracy in scale... well you will get better with experiace and practice. better tools helps but it always boils down to developing skills with experiance.
now if you install a couple missles on an 1800 ship... well if it makes you happy n floats your boat, go for it!
a couple of missiles on your 1800 ship might sink your boat!
I agree with John Hendrix. You could first ask the builder if he was intending the model to be an artist's piece or an accurate simulation of the actual ship. He may not care about accuracy, and build simply for the enjoyment of building. I am on the other end of the spectrum from John, since even though I love the building process, my goal is to try to build the most accurate model as far as available knowledge on the vessel allows. That adds a lot of research work into a model project, and expense in the form of books, but the research can also be fun, the thrill of chasing down and locating that one source which tells you the paint colors of a vessel at a certain time in its history or how the belaying points were, say belaying pins, ties to rails, kevels or cleats. Research is about 80% of the work, and most of the features of the model are educated guesses, with wild guesses being more plentiful the farther you go back in time period. The point is, what is the modeler's motivation(s) for making the model? They may be radically different than yours would be, and that is why the model looks unappealing to you. Depending on how well you know the modeler, you may be able to offer advice if he/she is trying to go for realism and falling short of the mark, but if he/she is not of the same mind as you are, just compliment him/her on the work. I do like seeking the advice of those who have the same perspective as myself for modeling, because I value greatly their criticism because it helps me become a better model maker.
Does he like this,
or this?
Both are great works of art. . .
Does he like this,
or this?
Both are great works of art. . .
might be... but I love the second not sure about the first. But this is a matter of personal taste.Does he like this,
or this?
Both are great works of art. . .
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,380
- Points
- 728
Reality Check. Who is really going to view your model, Most likely your family and close friends. Unless you are building with high level competition in mind, No one will question the results of your completed model. You will enjoy the reactions of the people you meet and any mistakes or intentional artistic license employed are never considered.
it depends if your model is in the gallery here on the forum or you create a build log then you have 16,806 other model builders looking at your model.
i agree you can take artistic license or out of scale or the wrong cannon for the period or whatever you do BUT! how would a novice know the difference if he is looking for information and using your model as a reference?
is the model your using as a reference based on research, original drawings or is it just made up by the builder?
this is the reason i abandoned the build log of the General Hunter because i was not going to put out a model that did not line up with my research.
it depends if your model is in the gallery here on the forum or you create a build log then you have 16,806 other model builders looking at your model.
i agree you can take artistic license or out of scale or the wrong cannon for the period or whatever you do BUT! how would a novice know the difference if he is looking for information and using your model as a reference?
is the model your using as a reference based on research, original drawings or is it just made up by the builder?
this is the reason i abandoned the build log of the General Hunter because i was not going to put out a model that did not line up with my research.
We are going in circles, Dave. Does the modeler have to know the difference? What is the intent of the modeler to build models? Does he/she want to present a historically accurate model or does he just want to build something for fun?
But what is wrong with building your model from another model? Sometimes the contemporary model is the only source of information to build. How can you go about historically accurate representation in such cases?
Novices rarely build the model from scratch, unless it is a skilled individual with previous experience in woodworking and metalsmithing. They most likely will use a kit. Can you build an authentically correct model from the kit without bashing?
BTW, what is authentically correct? Is there such a term?
I think he's using the term authentic to mean historically accurate, Jimsky. It could also mean "built in accordance with traditional modeling methods and techniques" to some people, such as those model purists who only build scratch built models.
I understand, but sometimes, history doesn't give us any evidence as to how to present this or that part of the ship on the model, and we use any documentation (including the contemporary models) as a reference to present the model as historically accurate.
I build for fun. And I try to use methods that will make my model as to what I consider to be "presentable". They're only going to sit on shelves at home. Reminds me of a joke: A very young man went to a house of ill repute. One of the ladies there asked" Who do you think you're going to please with that little thing?" To which the boy replied,"Me!"....and so goes our builds....want a pink ship, then by all means, have at it.
Last edited:
So this isn't historically accurate, well I never would have thought that, sorry I couldn't resist,
best regards John,
best regards John,