Model building inaccuracies

[DARIVS ARCHITECTVS]

This is a C5-s-75a cargo ship, the S.S Cleveland, originally the S.S. American Mail. U sailed her both as an Engine Cadet and as 2nd Engineeiring Officer. Luckily, I scanned the General Arrangement blueprints and still have them, and I have many photographs of the vessel. Perhaps I'll build a model of it someday.



As built in 1969. This is was the last of the center house American general cargo ships.

 

[leysend]

Many here have already indicated that not everyone is at the same level of building, nor do they have the same level of accuracy in mind.
When building a historically accurate ship, your first consideration is whether you will build it from a kit or from scratch. To be honest, if you aim for a high level of accuracy, do not buy a kit. Almost every kit maker is making compromises when it comes to historical accuracy. The cost of modifying such a kit to be accurate is often many times higher than the cost of the actual kit.

A beginner will always buy a kit as they assume it is a complete package that will yield a good looking model when using all the kit parts and following the instructions. And usually, they would like to reach a nice result in an acceptable time frame and have a feeling of achievement.
Going for historical accuracy starts with a significant investment of time into obtaining reference materials and the study thereof. That in itself could be considered a hobby in it's own right. I myself have bought plans from vessels to study, but have not yet come to build the vessel simply due to time constraints. (If all goes to plan, I will retire in 4 years and will have more time at hand.). So currently, I build from kits, which I will update with some scratch building if I find certain kit parts to be below par; and yes, I will look for photos of the real thing when I do this.

But at the end of the day, I am happy when I have finished a model that is worthy of putting on display, without having to spend years building it.

As for the initial questions in this thread; whether you should comment on inaccuracies depends on how you formulate your comments. When formulated as 'free' advice and done in a friendly way without humiliating the builder for not being accurate, this is fine with me. After all, a beginner builder may not be aware of the amazing source of information on this forum & may turn into a history buff, building accurate vessels from scratch when pointed to the right source of information. I'm sure that's one of the features of this forum that its users value most. In conclusion, I believe that the majority of us are open to constructive comments on our projects; and if not, you can say so this in the thread; which may result in fewer comments limited to 'well done', 'nice work' etc...

 

[AllanKP69]

I got round it by building obscure or semi-obscure merchant ships that are well off the beaten track of model shipbuilding.

What a great idea. Your model is gorgeous. If I could start this hobby all over again I would love to have started building a model of some or all the ships on which I sailed as a cadet and then as 3rd and 2nd engineer. Alas, I am hooked on 17th and early 18th century, but ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,one never knows.
Allan

 

[AllanKP69]

A beginner will always buy a kit as they assume it is a complete package

Hi Leysend
I suspect you are right for some folks, but to say always, I must heartily disagree. I never bought a wooden ship model kit (could not afford one in the beginning so never got into the habit). I know a lot of others with similar beginnings. This is not to say one method (scratch vs kit) is right or wrong or necessary, just different. For my first wooden build it was about 1960 so for finding information it was walk to the library, find the occasional used book and sending letters to the likes of the National Archives, the Smithsonian and other similar resources.
Allan

 

[Roger Pellett]

I began building model ships as a child. My father owned a nice collection of tools and we had a woodpile in our basement. My technique was to carve hulls from a block of wood. First attempts were awful as research was limited to looking at photos in books and reading a lines drawing was beyond my understanding. Kits, plastic or wood were beyond my finances as my parents did not provide me with an allowance. Experience with kits was limited to a solid hull Harriett Lane built as a young adult. It sits in its glass case atop a tall book case, impressive only at a distance.

My post above was to explain my personal motivation for building ship models NOT to categorize others. While I hope that upon my demise my models will find a home where they are appreciated that is not my reason for building them. Research continues through the process of building. It is satisfying to figure out not only now something was built but also why.

I do not criticize others’ workmanship. In those cases it’s best to remain silent. In some cases, where the builder is struggling but results are still poor, hitting the Like button offers encouragement to keep trying.

Roger

 

[leysend]

Hi Leysend
I suspect you are right for some folks, but to say always, I must heartily disagree. I never bought a wooden ship model kit (could not afford one in the beginning so never got into the habit). I know a lot of others with similar beginnings. This is not to say one method (scratch vs kit) is right or wrong or necessary, just different. For my first wooden build it was about 1960 so for finding information it was walk to the library, find the occasional used book and sending letters to the likes of the National Archives, the Smithsonian and other similar resources.
Allan

Point taken. Always should be ‘often’ I guess.

 

[WilliamM]

The basic problem that I have with the term "accuracy" is that one can model a ship that either changes its equipment frequently or the plans that are commercially available today depict ships hundreds of years ago for which there are few, if any, plans. For example, was the original HMS Sovereign of the Seas square-tucked or round-tucked? What was the specific radar suite of the battleship Bismarck? Ships change with each dockyard visit, plans might or might not be available or accurate. So, do we criticize a model of a ship for which the date is accurate or inaccurate? Who cares? Let the modeler enjoy his or her project.

Bill

 

[Alan Smith]

The majority of the surviving Navy Board models represent unknown or never-built ships, they also use (in many cases) stylised rather than true-scale framing systems. But I like them just the same.

 

[DARIVS ARCHITECTVS]

What a great idea. Your model is gorgeous. If I could start this hobby all over again I would love to have started building a model of some or all the ships on which I sailed as a cadet and then as 3rd and 2nd engineer. Alas, I am hooked on 17th and early 18th century, but ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,one never knows.
Allan

Heh... me too Allen! Where did you sail as a Midshipman? I sailed Far East.

 

[AllanKP69]

Where did you sail as a Midshipman? I sailed Far East.

Med, Carib, South Africa, Western Europe, Far East, Central and South America. Mostly dry cargo freighters but a nice 6 weeks on the SS Brasil. To keep on track, for anyone wanting to find more information on "modern" ships such as the Imperial Star posted by Mr. Shipbuilder, for US Flag vessels there is a lot of information at the National Archives in Virginia. I paid them a visit some years ago and was able to acquire photos of various ships. They also had a lot of plans. One of my favorite ships, the SS African Comet of Farrell Lines is below.
Allan

 

[shipbuilder]

I get all my plans from old technical journals such as The Motor Ship, Shipbuilding & Shipping Record, Shipbuilder, The Shipping World, Shipbuilder and Marine Engine builder. I am equally at home building sailing ships as powered ones, but they are all merchant vessels.
I was at sea early 1961 until late 1992. This was my first ship SS Rhodesia Star, completed in 1943 in the US as USS Estero, escort carrier, followed by sevice with the RN on the Arctic convoys as HMS Premier. Converted into a 12-passenger cargo liner in 1948, of the C3 class.
Since I stopped model shipbuilding a year ago because of glue fume allergy, I have taken up plan drawing, that I find just as satisfying.

 

[shipbuilder]

Two of my models - all built from bits & pieces at minimal coast, using a minimum amount of tools:

 

[Alastair]

I have been building models from ships, trams, steam engines, submarines and so on for many years. They have been in plastic, metal and wood. In general I would say the plastic models have been the most accurate but some of my more recent models from Occre and Billings have had a number of failings that, frankly I am getting a bit fed up with. In most of the recent models I have extenisvely added to each model by scratch building additional/replacement parts. The main issues I have are:
1. Innacurate models. I can fully understand that cost considerations may affect the design/complexity of a model but some of the inaccuracies seem to be just bad translation from the real thing - with absolutely no cost implication involved (I am a retired Finance Director so I do understand cost constraints). Sometimes these are easy to rectify but othertimes require considerable re-thinking. Why do manufacturers do this? The models are not cheap and this just seems sloppy designing.
2. Incorrect timber sizes/missing parts. My lastest project is from Billing Boats - the Calypso. This so far has been the worst in terms of quailtiy control. Quite a few parts were missing from the original kit which Billings have now re-supplied. However, in general the size of the timber supplied in the kit in many cases does not equate to the sizes in the plans and parts list. Luckly I have a reasonable stash of timber to call upon but this model is very expensive and for that money the timber supplied should be much, much better. While on Billings boats, I would also say their instructions are dreadfull. Luckily I am not really following them that closely as I am converting the model from largely a RC model to highly detailed static model with full interiors and lighting for each deck etc

It all seems such a shame as the subject matters of many of these kits is so good I just cannot understand this lack of attention to detail. I admit I research all the models in some depth, getting books and plans of the real thing and so perhaps I am more aware than some other modellers are of these inaccuracies.

I would be interested to know what other modellers think of the designs and general quailty control of the various kit manufacturers.

 

[Corsair]

There is another thread about this that you should review. It's quite lengthy.
Here is a link to it.
Link to thread

I am pretty sure you will never find a kit that is 100% accurate unless it is a canoe, unless it is immense in size and hugely expensive.
I can hear it now. "This model has 5 bolts on the cylinder head and the real one had 6 and these bolts are 0.0002 mm to big to be perfect scale"

 

[Jwallkc]

I have been building models from ships, trams, steam engines, submarines and so on for many years. They have been in plastic, metal and wood. In general I would say the plastic models have been the most accurate but some of my more recent models from Occre and Billings have had a number of failings that, frankly I am getting a bit fed up with. In most of the recent models I have extenisvely added to each model by scratch building additional/replacement parts. The main issues I have are:
1. Innacurate models. I can fully understand that cost considerations may affect the design/complexity of a model but some of the inaccuracies seem to be just bad translation from the real thing - with absolutely no cost implication involved (I am a retired Finance Director so I do understand cost constraints). Sometimes these are easy to rectify but othertimes require considerable re-thinking. Why do manufacturers do this? The models are not cheap and this just seems sloppy designing.
2. Incorrect timber sizes/missing parts. My lastest project is from Billing Boats - the Calypso. This so far has been the worst in terms of quailtiy control. Quite a few parts were missing from the original kit which Billings have now re-supplied. However, in general the size of the timber supplied in the kit in many cases does not equate to the sizes in the plans and parts list. Luckly I have a reasonable stash of timber to call upon but this model is very expensive and for that money the timber supplied should be much, much better. While on Billings boats, I would also say their instructions are dreadfull. Luckily I am not really following them that closely as I am converting the model from largely a RC model to highly detailed static model with full interiors and lighting for each deck etc

It all seems such a shame as the subject matters of many of these kits is so good I just cannot understand this lack of attention to detail. I admit I research all the models in some depth, getting books and plans of the real thing and so perhaps I am more aware than some other modellers are of these inaccuracies.

I would be interested to know what other modellers think of the designs and general quailty control of the various kit manufacturers.

What you describe is why I switched to scratch building.... Just sayin'....