Museal quality kits

[DAWarden-(Jaager)]

What kit models do you mind as a museal quality?

What I wrote is meant within the context of the original question. It is not intended for anything beyond this. I too, spent time considering kits as my world of choices.
What I wrote is a reply to the above answers the OP question with: none. Why do I say this? Because no kit IS this out of the box. No kit could be - based on cost restraints alone.

but it could be turned into a very good project

Which would make that project into a transition into becoming essentially an independent scratch builder. It is probably the major way to do it. But it is unlikely to be "a high quality ship model" itself.
But once a builder has paid the dues to be capable of doing quality work - unless being paid very well to do it - why spend effort using the flawed foundation of a kit when it is easier to start with something unique with actual original plans from the past?

If "a high quality ship model" is the standard then every kit will fall far short of it. From an academic perspective kits produce garbage. Outside of that very constrained world, kits are whatever the builder believes them to be. If definition of what a kit manufacturer means by "museum quality" is the standard then any kit with that appellation is capable of meeting it.

It is all a matter of understanding the limitations going in. It is best to avoid delusions of grandeur when it comes to kits.

 

[serikoff]

And once again we end up in the same place: everything is subjective.
Museum quality, top kit, best model all of it means whatever author wants it to mean.
Problem is that museum quality is not a subjective category. It is an objective one, based on documentation, research value, originality, and the creator’s own contribution.
And a kit can never fully meet those criteria, because it is built on someone else’s design, assumptions, and research.
Reducing a term to pure aesthetics, it looks nice, so it’s museum quality, is a classic symptom of new modern disease of sick subjectivism.

This does not diminish really good kits, some kits are excellent, well designed, and a real pleasure to build.
But calling them “museum quality” dilutes meaning of this term and is simply unfair to people who build from scratch, spend years, tousends hours for researching, and create genuine in all historical reconstructions...

I completely agree. I was more arguing that kits shouldn't be called trash, especially finished pieces from kits. That said, it's 100% true that a kit will never end up in a museum, but it might look like one, and for many, that'll be enough. After all, frankly, no one builds for museums; only a handful of people build from scratch, researching more than just the manufacturing process.

 

[dockattner]

What I wrote is meant within the context of the original question. It is not intended for anything beyond this.

This is an important qualifier, Dean. Perhaps you might consider editing your post (and making it clear that is what you have done) because your post can easily be understood the way Sergey read it (as did I). You have honored the OP's intent which is to be commended. Unfortunately, thread drift is common around here and there are quite enough posts that condemn kit building (and kit builders) on this forum for my taste. Peace.

 

[Kolobok]

In general, you could build so called "museum quality" model out of most kits. But you have to do a good job and depending on quality of the kit replace its parts as most are subpar. There are kits however that come out of the box on a very high level and all you need to do is assemble it carefully. One such kit was "Vigilant" from MH&B ( Vigilant ), price was similar to a used car (talking back in the 90's). It is unfortunately not available anymore. Russian Falconet makes a very detailed and historically accurate kits but their scale (mostly 1/48) not exactly a museum size. I think the trick to a good model from Chinese kits is sending... every visible part. Hide the work of CNC and laser cutter as much as you can, give every part the feel of a hand made piece. Finishing up with oils and some patina lacquer will give it an antique look. For guidance, look at tons of pictures from museums. Dmitry Shevelev's 76 gun ship is a good reference of recently built "museum quality" model

 

[kuba91nt]

In general, you could build so called "museum quality" model out of most kits. But you have to do a good job and depending on quality of the kit replace its parts as most are subpar. There are kits however that come out of the box on a very high level and all you need to do is assemble it carefully. One such kit was "Vigilant" from MH&B ( Vigilant ), price was similar to a used car (talking back in the 90's). It is unfortunately not available anymore. Russian Falconet makes a very detailed and historically accurate kits but their scale (mostly 1/48) not exactly a museum size. I think the trick to a good model from Chinese kits is sending... every visible part. Hide the work of CNC and laser cutter as much as you can, give every part the feel of a hand made piece. Finishing up with oils and some patina lacquer will give it an antique look. For guidance, look at tons of pictures from museums. Dmitry Shevelev's 76 gun ship is a good reference of recently built "museum quality" model

Dmitry Shevelev (74) french gun vessel is a kit model???

 

[Kolobok]

Dmitry Shevelev (74) french gun vessel is a kit model???

Nope, but a good visual reference of how superb model looks like.
Forgot to mention - sending and polishing does not apply to wood parts only. Photoetched and/or white metal parts need work as well.

 

[Bob Cleek]

Friends, for some reason many seem to keep missing (or denying) the point that the entire concept of "museum quality" is meaningless. It substitutes a frank assessment of the quality of any scale ship model for a vague reference to ship models in museums. The fact is that whether a model is in a museum or not bears no particular relationship to what is today considered a "high-quality scale ship model," which is defined without regard to whether it was built from a kit or from scratch. (For one thing, a lot of ship models in museums are there as much because they are old as anything else!) When a kit manufacturer describes their product as "museum quality," we can all be sure that it means only that such manufacturer seeks to mislead the buyer to believe the kit is something that it is not. In other words, that the term "museum quality" is being used to defraud consumers. If someone wants to call such a product "garbage," I won't dispute that characterization. The number of such kits which end up unfinished and tossed in the trash bin is proof of its accuracy. This doesn't mean it is categorically impossible for a kit build to be a high-quality scale ship model, just that it is very highly unlikely is ever will be.

There is a widely published and generally accepted qualitative definition of a "high-quality scale ship model:"

"A high-quality scale ship model provides a compelling impression of an actual vessel within the constraints of historical accuracy."

This definition applies only to scale ship models of actual vessels built within the constraints of historical accuracy. Those miniaturists who elect to build imaginary ships or even known ships without sufficient historical data, or to build without regard for scale or historical accuracy, are not building "scale ship models of actual vessels within the constraints of historical accuracy" and therefore the discussion of what is a "high-quality scale ship model" has no application to their works. Their miniature ships may run the quality range from fine art sculpture to folk-art toys and should be judged as such other categorizations respectively, depending upon the level of their execution and their builder's intent. It is entirely possible to create a miniature ship which is a high-quality fine art sculpture or folk-art toy indisputably worthy of appreciation and value.

It should be taken as given that any serious scale modelwright aims to produce a "high-quality scale ship model" and their work should be judged against these standards:

"Historical accuracy" encompasses all the objective, or measurable, standards of technical exactness that might apply to a ship model. These embrace the obvious hull shape and fairness; precision in fittings, rigging, and colors; lack of anachronisms; and so forth. But it also encompasses all aspects of craftsmanship because the lack of craftsmanship creates unrealistic and, therefore, historically inaccurate blemishes on a model. ... The phrase "historically accurate" alone effectively replaces the intention of the now-vapid "museum quality."

Builders who proclaim that they do not as a matter of choice, for whatever reason, pursue the highest levels of "historical accuracy" and craftsmanship, as described above, thereby declare their intention to build anything from a folk-art toy to a fine art sculpture, and in so doing also give fair notice that they do not intend to build a "high quality scale ship model." Their work should be judged in the context of their builders intention.

(A "compelling impression") allows and encourages aesthetic interpretation of a vessel that will help propel the viewers to make the leap of faith that allows a model to work or to willingly suspend the disbelief that keeps a model from working. Both processes help viewers accept the invitation to visit a ship instead of a model. Compelling impression is the result of applying artistic and interpretive decision-making processes... to amplify a model beyond being a mere assemblage of parts.

Here, as a practical matter, is where most scale ship model kits fall flat. In most instances, regardless of the kit assembler's craftsmanship, the materials provided in the kit present deficiencies of both scale and other appearances which destroy any chance of the end product creating a compelling impression of its prototype as defined above. In order for almost every kit on the market to produce a finished product that creates a compelling impression of reality in miniature, the builder must go far "outside of the box," replacing the wood for more appropriate species, upgrading the cordage and the fittings, correcting inaccuracies, and so on. All of this requires not only a good command of the applicable historical subject matter, but also technical competence in all the crafts involved in the creation of the finished product. Here, Dean's observation posted above becomes quite apparent: "But once a builder has paid the dues to be capable of doing quality work... why spend effort using the flawed foundation of a kit when it is easier to start with something unique with actual original plans from the past? To that I would add, "Not only easier, but also quite likely hundreds of dollars less costly.

One could argue that it is more important and more difficult to teach inexperienced modelers how to tell if their model yields a compelling impression than it is to teach them how to put the thing together. If they are only interested in being satisfied with the latter, then the former is even tougher.

Frankly, I doubt that it is at all possible for a person without sufficient experience with the full-scale subject matter to form any sort of compelling impression at all without firsthand experience with what they are supposed to be looking at. It's glaringly obvious from so many of the posts in this and similar online forums that people interested in scale ship models are induced to spend hundreds of dollars and even more on ship model kits without their having the slightest amount of firsthand experience with anything maritime, let alone the complex crossed-yard sailing rigs of Napoleonic Era ships of the line. They wouldn't know a "compelling impression of reality" if it snuck up and bit them in the butt. This is precisely why we so often see kit builders going to great lengths to replicate "realistic details" such as fist-sized "rivets" on copper antifouling sheathing, oversized bowling pin shaped belaying pins, "white" deadeye lanyards, oversized planking trunnel "pox" in contrasting colors, anchor buoys hung on shrouds halfway up to the partners, and so on ad nauseam.

It is important to recognize that neither arm of our definition considers how a model was made. There is no assessment of whether entire models or components of them are built from scratch, built from kits, or built by teams or modelers. The main thing is the appearance of the finished model. The ends justify the means.

[Rob Napier, Caring for Ship Models - A Narrative of Thought and Application (2022) Seawatch Books. See: https://seawatchbooks.com/products/...tive-of-thought-and-application-by-rob-napier]

Scale ship models should be judged by the above criteria. Miniature ships whose builders never intended them to be scale models providing a compelling impression of an actual vessel within the constraints of historical accuracy should be judged, if at all, in the context of what they are and not judged as high-quality scale ship models, which they aren't.

In a forum called Ships of Scale, it is to be presumed that the primary subject of discussion is the subject of high-quality scale ship models as that genre is defined, and the works of those who opt out of that subject... particularly those who do not ascribe to the "high-quality" and "scale" tenets of the discipline... ought not be thought less of because there are no valid qualitative comparisons to be made between the two at all. Those works which are not intended to be high-quality scale ship models should be judged on their own merits and not as something they were not intended to be.