• Win a Free Custom Engraved Brass Coin!!!
    As a way to introduce our brass coins to the community, we will raffle off a free coin during the month of August. Follow link ABOVE for instructions for entering.

To Build or Not to Build According to Howard I. Chapelle

Most all of the inaccuracies to be found in kit models have been well documented in various forums and simply have not been corrected because the manufacturers don't care, think nobody who buys the kit will notice, and if they do, won't care, and/or doesn't care to spend the money to correct the errors.

I got caught in this with my first model ship kit - the HMS Beagle kit that Mamoli offers. When I started, I had not considered that a kit could be so 'unreal'. As a kid my modeling was plastic cars and balsa model airplanes. The car kits looked pretty much like what they were a model of; the model airplanes were made to fly and not to replicate any known aircraft. Thus, when buying a 'scale model kit' I assumed that I was getting a pretty good representation of the ship. I was soooo unhappy when I got a copy of HMS Beagle in the Anatomy of Ships series!

I think the same thing happens to many new modelers, the assumption that the kit is (reasonably) accurate given the price is still made. I also conjecture that many first-time model ship purchases are made by people that have no knowledge of SoS, MSW, and/or quality reviews of the kits. Bad kits will continue to be sold to more people than they should.

The Mamoli Beagle kit is still produced and the box art doesn't show any design changes. Hence the same model - unimproved - is still being hawked decades later.

Kit building is an exercise in following instructions to assemble provided parts into a copy of the kit designer's model.

I'm not sure if I've seen a kit with such good instructions to be followable - nor parts that assemble correctly! My experiences have been horrible instructions and parts that really don't go together. But none of these kits have been the newer and high-end kits that have been produced more recently. With the exception of getting the new 1:48 version of Phantom that Model-Shipways offers, I have not bought and/or have been given a kit in a very long time. Now I'm much more interested in collecting monographs and wood!

In fact, my drift from kits to working from plans / scratch building was due to a combination of factors including accuracy issues, instruction issues, and lack of kit supplied material working as advertised. I now find scratch building to actually be easier and allows me to work on more novel topics. Trying to make a kit work is such a challenge, and a growing segment of kit-bashers may be due to this.

I still have (more than I want to admit to) kits in closets purchased during my first several years in the hobby. Not sure what fate they will have. I'm not keen on tossing them, and I don't want to sell kits that I am aware have issues.

When a serious scratch builder researches, engineers, and executes a good model, the last thing they want is hundreds of "Models that Should Not Be Built" just like it all over the place, which is basically what happens when a new kit is designed and marketed.

I very much like ANCRE monographs - my current big project is L' Invention - but I'm sometimes disappointed by the number of kits they have generated and I'm not even going to bring IP / copywrite issues to the table. Case in point, I very much like the Bonhomme Richard monograph and I had strongly considered using it for a project. However, with the number of kit based Bonhomme Richard models based on the monograph that have been built, I no longer have interest in pursuing the model. I should step up the pace on L' Invention!
 
Wow, what a pleasure reading about a favorite author. I have to say, I found H.I.C.'s books extremely interesting. I learned marine drafting and offsets from these books and found that many in the boatbuilding industry have relied on the author's work. The first boat that I built from Chapelle's books was a 16 foot hull of Elsie, to become a period type day sailer. My uncle bought a Boston Whaler Squall, a 9 foot sailing dinghy. I later learned after building about 300 eight foot versions of the boat, that Whaler had copied theirs from Chapelle. More recently, before Hurricane Ian, I started a 1/4 inch version of Elsie. So, not only in fine model building, but in actually using the designs and the wisdom that has affected many a bulder, lies the true overall value of the man's work.
 
Greg Davis said:
To Build or Not to Build According to Howard I. Chapelle

A seminar course within The School for Ship Model Building​


This course will focus on a couple of articles written by Howard I. Chapelle that appeared in the pages of the Nautical Research Journal. I believe these were published in 1951 and 1952. The articles, with links to them (as well as PDF download), are titled:

Analyzation / discussion related to these documents is nothing new - the included views have been debated (sometimes hotly) since publication. With that said, issues that Chapelle brings up are important and core to the field of model shipbuilding. In the past discussions that I am aware of, it seems that the two papers are dealt with in some isolation. Here I hope that we can extend the discussion to include additional related writings of Chapelle and to make an attempt on understanding the context / situation that he wrote from.


Supplemental to these articles, I would like for us to consider the introductory material written in the book:

  • American Ship Models and How to Build Them by V.R. Grimwood (1942)
As well some content from:
  • The National Watercraft Collection by Howard I. Chapelle (1960)

Additionally, it will be valuable to consider the 1960 publication by Chapelle:


Other readings my be suggested later.


My name is Greg Davis and this course offering has been suggested by Dave Stevens. Certainly there are individuals that know more about Chapelle and his views on model ship building than I will likely ever know. Nonetheless, I believe that I can help guide the journey of analyzing the topic at hand. Hence, I feel that my primary role in this class / seminar is to be the facilitator.

Professionally my background is in the field of Mathematics, specifically Dynamical Systems. I served as a professor and administrator at the University of Wisconsin – Green Bay for 35 years. As an instructor and scholar, I did find success in creating and analyzing mathematical models. Because UW-Green Bay is not a huge University, I had a unique opportunity to teach more than 30 different courses at levels from introductory to graduate. I’ve found that several of the skills needed in the academic arena are transferable to topics related to building model ships; and certainly, to managing a classroom.

As far as my experience in model ships is concerned, it is a work in progress, and truthfully, I hope that is always the case. I’ve been actively engaged in building model ships for about 20 years now. I started by building a number of kits that ‘shouldn’t be built’. But soon, and in a modeling vacuum, my academic instincts kicked in and I have found myself more and more concerned with historical accuracy of my work as well as looking for interesting and unique projects. While I still make some kits, my focus is much more aligned with that of a scratch-builder creating historically based models. In fact, the last model I completed did require me to do much research on the subject and draft reconstruction plans prior to building the vessel.


I'm going to give this introduction a day or two to be seen and then I would like to get the discussion going in a (semi) structured manner.

Thank you for considering this course offering and the possibility of contributing and I seriously look forward to contributions from all involved!
Click to expand...
Thanks for doing this. One ship I'd love to be able to build is USS Ohio, ship of the line of 1817. Chapelle shows a plan, but though I can bash with the best of them, I have not graduated yet to scratch building. The Ohio was described by a visiting British naval officer as "the best ship on two decks," he had ever seen. Unfortunately, the designer, Henry Eckford, later was appointed to a diplomatic post in Turkey, where he died. His plans are reputed to be in some Turkish archive. there apparently is a half-model in the Smithsonian, but there the trail ends as far as I know. Eckford also designed a ship of the line, New Orleans, for service on Lake Ontario, but I believe she was left to fall to pieces on the stocks at Sacketts Harbor at the end of the War of 1812.
 
Robert Bruckshaw built a model of the OHIO that was in the Inland Seas Museum i do not know what happened to that model contact the Firelands Historical Society they have some of bob's models maybe they have the OHIO. At one time i had the plans and drawings Bob did so i need to look at what i still have. At one time i had about 180 sets of plans from both Harold Hahn and Bob Bruckshaw collections. a few years ago i gave away a huge part of the collection to a member here on SoS and have not seen him for awhile. I think the model bob built was a hollow lift hull.
 
He probably took her lines off the half model. Many of his drawings and models in the Smithsonian’s collection that Chapelle ordered built in the 1960’s are based on lines taken off from half models. Master Modeler Bob Bruckshaw built a model of her back in the 1960’s.

A lot of information about these post War of 1812 US Naval vessels exists in the Lenthall Collection at Philadelphia’s Franklin Institute. There used to be a catalog of the collection available on the internet.

Regarding the New Orleans. Archival information about US vessels built to defend the lakes during the War of 1812 is virtually non-existent. Possibly because the ships were built on the then frontier, but more likely because they were burnt when the British occupied Washington DC during the war. Archeological information for War of 1812 lake built vessels can be found in the book Coffins of the Brave published by Texas A&M press.

And finally, SOS has an expert on ships built for what Chapelle calls The Bureaucratic Navy. Look him up under the name Theebs. Probably later than your interest but excellent workmanship and historical accuracy,

Even though you feel that you don’t have the skills to scratch build a model, if Ohio interests you start your research now.

Roger
 
JVC said:
Thanks for doing this. One ship I'd love to be able to build is USS Ohio, ship of the line of 1817. Chapelle shows a plan, but though I can bash with the best of them, I have not graduated yet to scratch building. The Ohio was described by a visiting British naval officer as "the best ship on two decks," he had ever seen. Unfortunately, the designer, Henry Eckford, later was appointed to a diplomatic post in Turkey, where he died. His plans are reputed to be in some Turkish archive. there apparently is a half-model in the Smithsonian, but there the trail ends as far as I know. Eckford also designed a ship of the line, New Orleans, for service on Lake Ontario, but I believe she was left to fall to pieces on the stocks at Sacketts Harbor at the end of the War of 1812.
Click to expand...
You are most welcome; but most importantly, thank you for coming aboard!

Greg
 
Ok - time for

Topic Number 1: the Forward and Introduction of American Ship Models and How to Build Them, by V.R. Grimwood.

In 1942 the classic text American Ship Models and How to Build Them, by V.R. Grimwood. I have not been able to ascertain much at all about Mr. Grimwood, Dover Publications notes he was an expert model maker. He obviously had standing in the modeling community as in the Introduction to the book, Grimwood notes that he had conversations with Mr. Robert E. Farlow and Mr. Howard I. Chapelle regarding selection of models to be included in the text. Furthermore, Grimwood secured Chapelle’s endorsement of the book, and we see that Chapelle authored the Forward.

At this point in time (early 1940’s), Chapelle has already authored important books such as The Baltimore Clipper (1929) and The History of American Sailing Ships (1935). However, this is the first of Chapelle’s writings concerning model ship building that I am aware of – if you know of others, please share!

Here are the two writings. These are as printed in the 2003 Dover edition of the book.

Forward by Howard I. Chapelle:


Grimwood Forward 1.jpg

Grimwood Forward 2.jpg

Grimwood Forward 3.jpg

Here is the Introduction by V.R. Grimwood:


Grimwood Introduction_0001.jpg

Grimwood Introduction_0002.jpg
 
I have made some observations related to these two writings that can be used as a starting point for discussion.

A few observations / quotes from the Forward written by Howard I. Chapelle:
  • ‘The aim of the book is to supply the need, not only in text but in plans made as authentic as possible and selected to permit the building of accurate and correct modes in a sequence related to the growing skill of a beginner.’
  • ‘The plans selected for the beginner are redrawn, in most cases, from builders’ plans, or from measurements of existing craft. Mr. Grimwood has made a great effort to make them accurate. In the case of old vessels, naturally, some reconstruction has been necessary, but this is done with due regard to accuracy as great as present knowledge permits.’
  • ‘I am very pleased to find attention given to that class of vessels best described as “local types”.
  • ‘… the model builder may be led to look about him for subjects of great value and interest – the odd and unusual but hard-working small craft.’
  • ‘Even though the particular ship or type that the beginner would like to construct is not included in the book, it would be well to begin with the models suggested for a very good and sufficient reason. Unless the beginner has exceptional knowledge and skills he must learn by experience, and by instruction, beginning with easy steps.’
  • ‘… the author had no need to make any sacrifice in accuracy of detail in the simple models to obtain ease in building …’
  • ‘Best of all, these new models can be made without great skill and without undue expenditure of time.’
A few observations / quotes from the Introduction written by Grimwood:
  • ‘At the outset this book was started with the idea of presenting a collection of ship plans suitable for use by the novice ship builder – plans that would produce miniature ships of correct form, proportion, and rig.’
  • When starting ‘I did not then know where to find suitable plans – and often, when I found them, they were expensive to buy.’
  • ‘Complete plans were sadly lacking.’
  • ‘The lines as given were mostly drawn to the inside of planking, necessitating redrawing before a correct model could be built.’
  • ‘At first the plans selected were of ships well known to all Americans, famous ships that played a part in our naval or maritime history – the Constitution, the America, and others. Before the book was finished all the original plans were supplanted by others of vessels of less popular reputation.’
  • ‘In talks with Mr. Robert E. Farlow and Mr. Howard I. Chapelle it was agreed that the book might well be the means of bringing to the model-maker’s attention certain types of American sailing craft that have been neglected by collectors of ship models, example of which are needed to round out both private and public collections.’
Also, some may find the list of plans / models presented in the book:
  1. Chesapeake Bay Skipjack “Carrie Price”
  2. Piscataqua Gondalow “Fannie M.”
  3. An Anchor Hoy – Lines found in Grice papers
  4. Colonial Fishing Schooner – H.I. Chapelle
  5. Whaling Schooner “Agate”
  6. Scow Schooner “Regenia S.”
  7. Chesapeake Bay Bugeye “Edith F. Todd”
  8. Big of War “Boxer”
  9. The Ship Sloop “Wasp”
  10. Ship, Merchantman “Republican”
  11. Ship, Privateer “Oliver Cromwell”
  12. Sailing Model Yacht – 50-800

I don't want to be the dominating / know-it-all professor - because I'm not, and because I don't think that is a good learning environment.

I am really interested in response / discussion / elaboration associated with the material / contents found in American Ship Models and How to Build Them, by V.R. Grimwood.

I look forward to all of your contributions!
 
Wow, what a pleasure reading about a favorite author. I have to say, I found H.I.C.'s books extremely interesting.

The Baltimore Clipper 1930

The history Of American Sailing Ships 1935

American Sailing Craft 1936

Yacht Designing and Planning 1936

Boatbuilding 1941

The History of the American Sailing Navy 1949

American Small Sailing Craft 1951

Report To The Turkish Government On fishing Boats 1956

The National Watercraft Collection 1960

The Bark Canoes And Skin Boats Of North America 1964

The Search For Speed Under Sail 1700-1855 1967

The Constellation Question 1970

The American fishing Schooners 1825-1935 1973
 
Let's get this discussion going!

Here are a couple observations from the observations:

  1. The words accurate, authentic, and correct are written more than once!
  2. Subjects of less popular reputation / class of vessels known as 'local types' take precedence over well-know subjects
  3. Plans are redrawn to outside of planking

Material / wood species to be used is not the prime concern - the hulls built from this book are not to be planked; i.e., it is simply the hull form that carries the weight. If one, reads the book, they will find that decks are not planked either! Grimwood does describe how deck planks can be 'scribed'.


Chapelle notes that Grimwood used one type of construction throughout the book, but does not state the method. It is the 'lift method' - one that I don't think is often found in a kit. The only ones I can recall are a couple of half-hull model kits that Blue Jacket produces. Models built in this manner are relatively rare to find within the many online build logs.

Related question: Are models of this type (lift) a good starting point for learning how to build a model ship?
 
Before the arrival of European POB models in the late 1970’s American kit manufacturers offered either bandsawed lifts to be laminated and carved to shape or machine carved hulls to be finish shaped by the builder. POB models are now preferred by kit manufacturers and sellers. They are easier to ship, can be built from inexpensive woods and today, non-woods; MDF and plywood, and avoid dealing with large baulks of quality woods. Two American kit manufacturers still offer solid hull models; AJ Fisher and Bluejacket.

IMHO solid hull models are a great way to build models. It is my preferred method. Carving a hull from laminated lifts requires one to have a feel for what the hull should look like as the process requires constant comparison to the model’s lines drawing. (Not required for POB models). These models also have great longevity. I have two solid hull models built by my father over 80 years ago. Both in perfect condition. It is still the method required by many museums for their display models.

Roger
 
I have one of the AJ Fisher solid hull model kits - the Great Lakes Schooner Challenge. I am guessing the kit is based on Chapelle's drawings in The History of American Sailing Ships.
 
Here are some thoughts and suppositions and guesses about the world that this book came from.:


Looking in my library I found two similar books published much earlier.

Magoun - The Frigate Constitution and other Historical Ships 1928

Viking ship from 1880 dig

"Santa Maria" pure fantasy

"Mayflower" pure fantasy

Constitution the 1927 version

Flying Cloud Griffiths or his competitors published lines from the builders - likely to be real

Bluenose I am guess this one was contemporary with the book


Davis Ships of the Past 1929

Block Island boats and Pinkys I am guessing from a real source

Baltimore Clipper and others same time as Chapelle

Isaac Webb the Webb atlas ?

Raleigh RN capture real lines

Congress 1841 National archives


The Grimwood book was published in 1942. Given the publisher probable lead time, it was of a peacetime environment. The economy was coming back to life - industry being revved up by being able to manufacture war material, food, and domestic needs into a bottomless pit in Europe and being almost a monopoly for manufactured goods to the rest of the world since the competing industrial manufacturers had switched to self immolation. If England had been selling ship model plans, they no longer could. France and Germany are two other possible from the 30's. - I can not remember seeing any adds offering any plans left over from the pre-war era.


I thought that the GDR Dekius Klasing monograph series may have originated pre-war being so old timely and unsophisticated looking, but looking at the reverse of the title page of one gives 1967 as the original publishing date. According to Ab Hoving those subjects have their basis in the authors' imaginations instead of historical data anyway.


I am not sure when Clive Milward's plans were first published, but I suspect that many or most of his wooden sail plans were drawn so as to look like what a customers was expecting to see instead of what actually was. There does not seem to be much of anything prior to the end of the 17C to use to produce a factual plan.


In the US - it was Popular Science and Popular Mechanics providing plans. The tech was actual blue prints or the reverse blue lines on white or a book publisher doing an ink print run. I cannot remember ever seeing a comprehensive list of the vessel plans from those magazines. I cannot guess now many were real and how many where only the name was historically accurate.


I did not realize that the publishing date for The Baltimore Clipper was 1930. As far as I can determine the plans from that book are not available from The Smithsonian. I have a hardback Sweetman of it so I bought a Dover paperback and sliced out the pages with plans. My Epson Ecotank got to work its scanner. Blowing up the lines makes them fat and ugly but they are easy to trace over in the raster Corel Painter 2019. I have frame patterns for Alban and Pictou ready for frame stock - if I had time left to tackle them. Flying Fish is half done. I did run across the original plans from the RN captures that Chapelle copied on the NMM website. I did what I hope was a comprehensive combing for all of the plans available of the beakhead bulkhead era Georgians, I backburnered the schooners because I was seduced back to the pre-Revolutionary War Georgian navy when a new batch of plans from NMM was dropped off by DHL.


My point is that there was not a lot of choice when Grim wood published his book. I started in 1971, Even then there was not a whole lot of choices. I explored the late 17C monsters and got HMS Prince from the Science Museum - It was a huge photo of a profile of their model as I remember it. No lines. I think that what came from NMM then was a huge photo that was the size of the original. I remember an article or two about ways to correct for lens aberration that was a part of the NMM product.


I think that Chapelle and Grimwood were dealing with a very unsophisticated audience. In an environment with limited choices, seductive conmen offering "plans" of famous names that had a pure fantasy origin. What was provided was real vessels.

An alternative to a monotonous same-ol same-ol but not the same to brag about to a naive audience who might believe that an empty canned ham tin with sticks, string and sails was Mayflower or Santa Maria.

Dean
 
Dave Stevens (Lumberyard) said:
The way to learn is to ask questions as many questions as you can come up with. By just sitting here in class hoping something will be covered that interest you speak up.
Click to expand...
I don't plan to just sit on my hands. Drats, there is not a raised hand emoji listed in this editor. I also just ordered Grimwood's book. I have The Baltimore Clipper, The History Of American Sailing Ships, and The Search For Speed Under Sail. I have skimmed each of these, but will need to go back through them many more times.
 
Chapelle was director of the HAMMS (Historic American Merchant Marine Survey), a depression era Government program to put out-of-work naval architects to work by surveying and drawing plans for still existing historic vessels. The result was five massive volumes of plans all or part of which exist in some libraries. For example the University of Wisconsin Superior has the Great Lakes Volumes. Not all of the plans are for vessels actually measured. There are also drawings for ships that didn’t exist in the 1930’s when the survey took place, but were drawn from historic data.

The “Rolls Royce” of ship model kits in the 1940’s and ‘50s was AJ Fisher. Many of the kits that they offered during this period appear to be based on HAMMS survey information.

The Great Lakes Schooner Challenge was the product of Manitowoc, Wisconsin shipbuilder William A. Bates. Bates was a talented New England transplant who built a series of shallow draft schooners for the grain and lumber trades that were capable of very high speeds. Challenge was his first known vessel of this type. Bates was also a friend and sometimes business associate of Griffiths who published the Monthly Nautical Gazette. At least one of Bates’ designs (his Clipper City) was published in this magazine. Remarkably, the Wisconsin Maritime Museum at Manitowoc also has Bates’ original offset book from which the lines of any of his schooners can be recreated.

The AJ Fisher Challenge kit is, therefore, based on solid historical data that would also have been available to Chapelle back in the ‘30’s. It’s a model “That should be built.” Unfortunately, no cannons, pirates, or movies to promote it!

Roger
 
The Manitowoc Maritime Museum does have a model of Challenge on display. It is probably 1:96 scale, and I am sorry I don't recall the builder's name so that credit for the model could be given here. I have also seen the large-scale model of Challenge (that you can board) at the Discovery Museum in Milwaukee.
 
This is a bit of an aside, but talking about Grimwood got me thinking about building a model ala Grimwood. Earlier this summer I made a half-hull model of Carrie Price - the first project in the book. The second and third projects are also related to Carrie Price; a half-hull model with deck furniture and then a full-hull model. I decided to skip to the next subject in the book: Piscataqua Gondalow “Fannie M.” Like the half-hull model, I am going to try to stay somewhat true to the building practice suggested by Grimwood and I am not going to add much if anything in terms of detail that wasn't presented in Grimwood. (I am also looking at plans for the vessel that are in Chapelle's The National Watercraft Collection, but am not going as far as ordering plans from the Historical American Merchant Marines Survey. I'm just trying to be early 1940's here!

Of course I deviated almost immediately and spent $10 on some Cherry wood - Grimwood would probably expected that the builder would use pine. Also I have the tools to mill the lifts - Grimwood says, if you don't have the tools buy your wood from a mill that will make pieces to the thickness you need. I also expect that there were some excellent craftsmen making models that could use hand planes to make exactly what would be required.

While I have the tools to mill the lifts, I am not a CAD person! So when doubling the size of the printed plans some low-tech methods were employed. [Blowing up the plans with a copier may work well - you would just need to be carful piecing copies together because the plans go across two pages and some information is lost in the binding - unless you are lucky enough to have an original copy with fold-out plans.] I made good use of proportional dividers to double some of the dimensions and used French curves / ship curves to develop the lines needed. Here are pictures of the 5 lifts and the drafting outcome.

Fanny M Lifts from Cherry.jpg

Fanny M Water Lines Enlarged.jpg

I will probably update progress periodically here - not exactly a build log, but rather a reminder that scratch building doesn't need to be expensive nor overly complicated.

This is the type of construction that Grimwood uses for all of the models in the book - the projects get more complicated due to hull shapes and rig. Also, this is an example of a vessel that Chapelle thought would be good to model and an idea of the level of detail that was deemed satisfactory - at least for a beginning modeler.
 
Back to the course with

Topic Number 2

Here the aim is to distill the infamous NRJ Chapelle Papers:

I have read / reread these documents quite a few times and I will attempt to encapsulate the main points, as I see them. We will start with:

Ship Models that Should Not be Built

Here are some excerpts from the document.

  1. The reason reconstruction is of such very doubtful value is that ships were not standardized in hull-form, deck arrangement or appearance. Even at best, the plans of old ships are incomplete enough and the necessary reconstruction of deck details and rig offer enough problems, but when a reconstruction of hull-form is added the whole task becomes questionable. When you have lines, some details of deck arrangement and outboard appearance, you at least have the fundamentals authenticated and if new information throws out details in reconstruction, at least the whole model is not made valueless.
  2. Even when the “reconstruction” is done by an experienced man it must be accepted as of far less value than contemporary plans. Of all plans, the “take-off” represents the most accurate; after this I place the “builder’s plans”, and 3rd, the “original design”. In the latter class I like to check with the offsets if they can be found as the latter too often show the original design was altered to some extent in laying-down.
  3. One ought to remember that accuracy in a model is often of far more importance in giving a mode value than fine workmanship alone. Actually, of course, the two should go together, but there are many well-made models built to poor plans or none at all which represent nothing more than a complete waste of time, materials and labor.
  4. In short – do not attempt to model any ship for which you do not have at least the hull lines and outboard appearance from reliable sources. It is better to build only a half-model to show accurately what you have rather than a completely rigged model 75% guesswork.
  5. Fit the type of your model – decorative half-model, hull model or completely rigged model – to your source material. Never, repeat NEVER, try to reconstruct lines of a ship out of a few measurements for it cannot be accurate enough and is misleading to all who ever see the model.

Or more simply

  1. Knowledge of hull-form / lines is minimally needed.
  2. Hull lines from the completed vessel is the best information, followed by builder’s plans, and then by original design.
  3. Accuracy trumps workmanship alone; however, the goal should be an accurate well-made model.
  4. If you do not have hull lines, do not proceed with a model.
  5. Models should be built to source materials.


Please comment / react at will!


P.S. I will post my encapsulation of Ship Models that Ought to be Built asap. In the meantime, please note what Chapelle wrote in the first paragraph of this article.

In an earlier article I expressed some opinions on ship models that ought not be built. Many readers of this journal did not agree with me and expressed their disagreements. I must say I have not been impressed by the reasons given for disagreement for I cannot et understand why a modeler would want to build a model that he knows is not the ship it is supposed to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top