Museum quality models myth

Jimsky

Jimsky

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Forum Moderator
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Messages
12,154
Points
938

Location
Brooklyn, New York USA
* Some information is taken from Fine Scale Modeler


On different threads, from time to time, I am seeing an ambiguous term 'Museum quality model', I cannot justify it. The simple answer is this: Any model that a museum wants to display is "museum quality". There is no set construction standard and people who use this term are probably doing so in an effort to 1) boost their ego or 2) get more money for a model they are selling!
Museums have lots of reasons for acquiring models - and only some of those reasons have anything to do with "quality" as a model builder would define the term. Normally large museums do not commission models, you find that mostly with very small museums on military bases. They have very tight budgets and you're not going to make as much as you will from a private collector. Smithsonian and the US Navy do have guidelines for materials and the bottom line is the materials for new builds MUST have a proven record of lasting a minimum of 100 years without degradation and without causing other materials to degrade as well. Some of the models at the USNA museum are close to 400 years old. "Museum quality" as regards the detail level and accuracy is in fact a misnomer. A much better term, IMHO, is "competition grade" where a model stands a very good chance of winning in seriously judged competition... but even this is subjective: Who are the judges?

The ship models that prisoners of war carved out of bone during the Napoleonic Wars belong to what category? The hull lines of such a model are likely to be way out of proportion. (The builder had no plans to work from, and he never saw the underwater hull of the ship.) It's probably made out of soup bones and rigged with human hair. It doesn't really meet any definition of the term "scale model." But nobody who's ever looked at a POW model is likely to deny that a museum is the right place for such models.

Some of the finest models I've ever seen have been built by masters\commissioners, and some of the finest models I've ever seen have been built by amateurs\hobbyists. The term "Museum Quality" does, of course, have some practical implications (in the eyes, for instance, of the seller\builder). But in terms of the quality\grade of the model, it has no meaning whatsoever.

One thing is certain... Some of the models on display in the museum should not win any award (except perhaps a public's favorite award) at a typical modeling competition. Those models on display have seam lines, glue marks, poor finishes, asymmetrical components, minimal extras, and a general lack of detail seen on "competition grade\quality" models.

I trust this information will stimulate debate, and if anyone has any queries, please post a reply.
 
We all know the joke of how one can break down the syllables in a word to make it seem like something different, such as "Assume" = Ass of U and Me!

Well here is another one that come to mind in model building of any kind, is when someone says they are an expert!

"Expert" = Ex, a has been, Spirt, a drip under pressure! :p :D
 
Y.T. said:
Any pictures of POW models made of fish bones and hair?
Click to expand...
we have also a complete topic with "POW museum models" in Hamburg - please take a look

Prisoner of War - Bone Ship models in the International Maritime Museum Hamburg

The collection of prisoner of war / bone ship models in the International Maritime Museum, Hamburg (IMMH) is a very impressive collection. It is the largest collection of bone ships displayed in a museum anywhere in the world. The bone ship model collection of Peter Tamm that has grown over...
shipsofscale.com
 
this is a very interesting subject

Having in my possession the library of Harold Hahn i found this among his papers.

lets call it a point of view


Those who would elevate ship modeling in the public’s estimation render their community a disservice when they loosely label models “to museum standards” when they actually intend to indicate that these are the products of high quality research, craftsmanship and artistic sensibility. Museum curators, gallery owners, and professional ship modelers would be well advised to seek out a more accurate label, such as “historically accurate” and learn to be rigorous in its application.
Two issues underlie the current debate in ship modeling circles about “museum quality”. One is the question of standards of construction, and revolves around the longevity of materials and accurate correspondence to contact construction drafts. Several organizations have published comprehensive though mutually contradictory standards. I personally would not agree that the resulting models are not necessarily built to museum standards of detail.
The second and, I consider, more serious issue is that of historical accuracy. Far to many so-called “museum quality” models, although built of the finest materials and to the highest standards of craftsmanship, exhibit gross historical errors. Often this results from too readily accepted apparently authoritative secondary sources as definitive. Producing a historically accurate model demands extensive research and the careful evaluation of the raw data, this is the distinction between history and antiquarianism.
The second enemy of historical accuracy is the monster we in the ship modeling community are creating ourselves. We are dangerously close to elevating an arbitrary artificial convention, the inappropriately termed “Admiralty board” style model, to the position of being the standard of excellence for our craft. The plank on frame technique produces extraordinarily attractive models which look very difficult to build. It is, however, only a technique and its use does not automatically confer historical accuracy, which, in a framed model, will result solely from the use of the construction method employed by the prototype.
I have never seen a plank on frame model of a late 18th century schooner or British war ship whose intermediate frames were depicted as unattached futtocks or “chunks” yet maritime archaeology tells us that these vessels were so constructed. Similarly, there are far to many models of Santa Maria constructed with double sawn frames, a construction method that was not introduced until 350 years after she was wrecked.
Those in our community who tout the virtues of what they loosely describe as “admiralty board” style models are usually guilty of two grievous sins, they ignore the fact that models built for the board of admiralty radically changed between the mid 17th and 18th century, so there is no such animal, and they dare to aver that a model built with an incorrect framing pattern and treenailed so that it seems to have been sprinkled with pepper demonstrates anything more than that its builder has mastered a particular technique. Such models are not historically accurate and therefore are automatically debarred from being described as built “to museum standards”.
The consequence of the dominance of an artificial convention and a ready reliance on limited research is that we are in danger of misleading our audience, which will backfire on us, and diminish our chances of elevating our standing in the public esteem. We cant not knowing praise what we know to be in error and expect to be immune from the backlash when our audience discovers it was duped by models misleadingly labeled.

In a crude way I got to say the person who wrote this is full of Sh**. First of all he has really no idea of what's in museums. There are many solid hulls built to very high standards of craftsmanship. But because they are not built correct they have to be barred as “museum quality” they lack historical correctness in hull construction.
The basic thing being said here is we as model builders have taken someone like Harold Hahn and created an ”artificial convention” by placing his work as a high standard. It is stated very clear if the framing pattern is incorrect we have been duped in thinking the model is of a Museum standard whatever that may be.
In the above, the writer in his narrow mindedness and focus on historical detail failed to take into consideration the aspect of “art” how to define it and how it fits into the overall scheme of things.

In response is the following

This writer is waging a campaign to denigrate the model work of 99.9 % of all ship modelers as well as that of the past 300 years. He faults us for building models to certain conventions rather than duplicating the actual construction methods used in the original ships. When he can present me with a model that he has built with his own hands of an 18th century ship for which he can document from contemporary sources that the exact construction of the prototype, I will take his claim under consideration.
Let’s have a show of hands out there. How many model builders are there who will give up model building if they cant duplicate the exact construction of a ship in their next project? It’s ridiculous that anyone should blame us for not doing something that can’t be done. Should we be ashamed for simply building a beautiful ship model and perhaps “peppering” the hull with treenails? The men who built the admiralty models were in the best position to duplicate the actual construction of the ship that they modeled. Show me a few examples of those contemporary models that weren’t built to certain conventions. Chop up the rest for kindling wood.
Why do people build ship models? There is only one that really suits me and, I suspect, the great majority of us. I like to create a thing of beauty with my own hands that I can view with satisfaction when it is finished. I’m not ashamed if it doesn’t duplicate the exact construction of the original ship. I’m not concerned about educating the general public who couldn’t care less, so it doesn’t matter whether or not it goes to a museum.
Harold Maxwell Hahn
 
over the last 40 years i built museum models or should i say models for museums more than once. What i can tell you there is no standard for "museum quality" it come down to what the client (museum) requires and what you (the builder) agree on. It may be a case where the museum or historical society ask for a reconstruction based on an archaeological study of a ship wreck, in this case there are guide lines and it may be required you have to show why you did everything. Maybe the project falls under "folk art" and can be as crude as hell but it portrays the subject in a general but meaningful way.
 
Is there really a true "Museum Quality" standard out there somewhere that clearly defines the parameters that a model must meet to be "Museum Quality" or is it just a subjective thing? Personally, I think the term "museum quality model" is both meaningless and useless.
 
we can not put a general label on this hobby because there are different aspects from crude folk art to fine art. All categories are museum quality and to prove my point i can collect all kinds of model ships put them on display in my garage and slap up a sigh that reads "A Museum Of Ship models" WOW! now they all are museum worthy. what about a museum of the history of ship model kits and their evolution?

we have

1 ships built right out of the box
2 kit bashing where you replace bits and pieces or build something totally different than what's in the box
3 scratch building
a grow your own tree, draw your own plans and built it from the keel up with only hand tools
b build from existing plans
c use some pre made fittings
4 build as close to historically accurate as research will allow
5 fill in the blanks with a best guess
6 build something totally made up
7 use a block of wood and a knife and whittle out a crude ship

all in their own right qualify as museum quality
 
I will add to this, but it from a point of view of total ignorance from the past (which caries to the present). This is what I "used to think about museum quality". I thought it meant the finest or the best "reproduction" of the original vessel.
However, it seems that from my past experience that model manufactures would also toss out that "build a museum quality model" from abc company. Somehow, somewhere and someone that has more understanding than I do can probably trace down the first mention of this term - someone or some kit manufacturing coined this phrase and it has stuck ever since. I agree with Jim, Dave and others - this term should be replaced as it is pretty much a false concept. But somehow it rings with the general public - therefore anytime the word "museum" is used, it denotes authenticity. Shipbuilding as we all know is not like an authentic "document" or an authentic piece of pottery that was excavated. Two totally different meanings. I think it is the term "quality" that is "attached" to the word "museum" that is the misnomer here.
 
the term museum quality as applied to ship models started in the mid 1960s when all we had here in North America were solid hull kits. Then a company if i remember right was Cokercraft or something like that introduced plank on frame European kits which were actually plank on bulkhead and they were advertised as "museum quality" because the ship model went from a roughed carved out block of wood to actually framing and planking a hull.

when anyone goes to an art museum or a history museum you expect to see the work of masters who took their art or craft to a level mush higher than you would normally see. Curators of museums represent the academic circles so if it is in a museum you expect it to be authentic studies by those in the know.
Museum quality is a general term that really means of a higher quality than what you would buy in a local craft store.

every museum, historical society, collector has their own standards so museum quality differs depending on who you are dealing with.
as far as we are concerned museum quality is a term that translates to "hey Bo Bo that's better then the average bear can do!

in advertising when museum quality is applied is just saying this product is a higher grade, a little better, someone took a little time and paid attention to details and materials and it will cost more and it is worth more.
 
Unless the model built for the competitions such as NAVIGA, there are no set construction standards, and people who use this term are probably doing so in an effort to boost the value (money) of the model.
 
My being a first-time builder, these thoughts come to mind. If I were standing in a museum looking at a display, does the ship represent what it looked like in real life? How would I know any different without specific study? And that bring me to "scale". If, say tree nails, are used, and I'm building at 1:90 scale, would the heads of those tree nails be accurately sized? I think not. Same with rigging diameters. Same with marlinspike work. So where's the answer? I think you build the best you can with the tools and materials you have to the detail you're satisfied with. Building anything as it was originally constructed is a waste of time. Most of it would remain unseen wouldn't it?
 
My being a first-time builder, these thoughts come to mind. If I were standing in a museum looking at a display, does the ship represent what it looked like in real life? How would I know any different without specific study?

and that is when you trust the museum curator and their standards. They may require the model is historically accurate or not.


And that bring me to "scale".

many museum models are at a larger scale to show as much detail in scale as possible.


Most of it would remain unseen wouldn't it?

that is true and the line between historically accurate built or artistic license

the head of decking spikes were 5/8 way to small to be seen even at 1:48 scale.
 
Philski said:
I think you build the best you can with the tools and materials you have to the detail you're satisfied with. Building anything as it was originally constructed is a waste of time. Most of it would remain unseen wouldn't it?
Click to expand...
I agree with you on the first part, whereas the modeler builds as per his\her personal abilities. However, I must disagree on the part of wasting time building something as originally has been built. There are builders among us, who spent an enormous amount of time researching the ship they would like to build. Sometimes, it takes years to find a piece of information, but they will not start the build until the research satisfied their needs. For such modelers, the actual build process is less important than the actual authentication and historically accurate representation. Yes, most or some of them might not be seen, but here it comes one of my favorite - acceptance level! It is whatever you do, you must come to an agreement with yourself whether you like it or don't.

Luckily, everyone has their own acceptance level, no wonder, there are no 2 same models alike (even from the same kit)! ;)
 
Jimsky said:
I agree with you on the first part, whereas the modeler builds as per his\her personal abilities. However, I must disagree on the part of wasting time building something as originally has been built. There are builders among us, who spent an enormous amount of time researching the ship they would like to build. Sometimes, it takes years to find a piece of information, but they will not start the build until the research satisfied their needs. For such modelers, the actual build process is less important than the actual authentication and historically accurate representation. Yes, most or some of them might not be seen, but here it comes one of my favorite - acceptance level! It is whatever you do, you must come to an agreement with yourself whether you like it or don't.

Luckily, everyone has their own acceptance level, no wonder, there are no 2 same models alike (even from the same kit)! ;)
Click to expand...
I do agree with you. My thoughts went mainly to full construction of a ship where interior framing, spars, ribs etc are eventually covered by sheathing or planking. It would be unseen. I understand fully the need and desire to make a true reproduction and ALL that it entails. I am an engineer and vest a lot of my time on details. Thinking of "museum quality" , I wonder how curators view such details. I personally want the model I build to look ike it did back in the day. But at the same time, I realize there are modellers that may not be as fussy. I LOVE detail. I'll go to extra lengths to get detail. But this first build is a learning process for me. Once complete, I'll know much better, what to look for. And this forum brings forth an even better education!
 
I guess the term “realistic” comes into play in the subject. I have a Dumas Brooklyn tug that I have built, rebuilt, dropped, and rebuilt again. It’s beat up, weathered, and realistic. Dunno about museum quality. The twin 3:1 electric geared motors and oversized prop that gets it up on plane is anything but scale or museum quality! The crowds in Central Park so love it!
 
Philski said:
Once complete, I'll know much better, what to look for. And this forum brings forth an even better education!
Click to expand...
Your education on the forum, you owe our members of the forum :) Isn't it great?
Philski said:
Thinking of "museum quality" , I wonder how curators view such details.
Click to expand...
They don't. For the most part, unless it is a private collection, they would gladly accept any model without a quality inspection you may donate for their exhibitions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top