• 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.
  • PRE-ORDER SHIPS IN SCALE TODAY!

    The beloved Ships in Scale Magazine is back and charting a new course for 2026!
    Discover new skills, new techniques, and new inspirations in every issue.

    NOTE THAT OUR FIRST ISSUE WILL BE JAN/FEB 2026

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

It should be mentioned that the NAVIGA rules also provide the option to contest organizers to award cash prizes. From what I've heard, these can be substantial in the international championships. Apparently, none of the Western Hemisphere nations support national ship modeling organizations affiliated with NAVIGA, so North American ship modelers are unable to participate in what is a very active international "sport" (as they consider it) in the rest of the world. The NAVIGA rules are somewhat like the Olympics. Competitors must be citizens and residents of the nation they represent in the international competitions and members of their national ship modeling association.

We don't have a national NAVIGA-qualifying ship modeling association here in the U.S. Looking at just the static models online, perhaps it's because we've got a lot of catching up to do before the average modeler here could be at all competitive.

NAVIGA does not only hold competitions for "static" or "display" models. It has other competitive classes for self-propelled and sail-propelled ship models, radio controlled and otherwise, and racing classes for various sailboat and hydroplane models, too!
 
we do not have a national organization other than the NRG. There are regional rules for contests. Here are some definitions for scratch building


Pacific Coast Region
MODEL CONTEST
JUDGING GUIDELINES

SCRATCH BUILDING
“This deals with all parts of the model which have been FABRICATED BY THE BUILDER.” (PCR
Contest Directory)
How much did the modeler build from scratch, and how difficult was the scratch building?
This category deals with all parts of the model which have been fabricated by the modeler
from basic wood, metal, plastic, or other shapes and materials. Are major portions of the model built
from scratch, or just some parts and details? Consider the amount of effort required to convert basic
materials into finished parts. Bending grabirons from wire, for example, is less difficult than
soldering together piping or railings. Consider any planning or design work that was necessary.
Drawing your own plans is considered part of scratch building, if the plans are submitted with the
model. Scratch building from prototype plans, photos, or measurements is usually more difficult than
scratch building from kit plans or a magazine article.
Casting or photo-etching is considered scratch building, although less difficult than making
several identical parts from scratch. Did the modeler carry out all the steps from a scratch-built
master to finished duplicates, or were either the masters or the duplicates created by others?


National Contest Class Specific Rules
IPMS/USA National Convention
Conversions and Scratch-Built:
A scratch-built entry is one for which there is no commercially available kit. The modeler develops the entry using scratch-building materials and methods to create the parts and model in accordance with plans.

A totally, or primarily, 3D printed model is not considered scratch built.
Commercially available detail parts (i.e., photoetch, resin, 3D print, metal) may be used in the completion of the model, but will not comprise the major portion of the scratch- built entry.
A conversion entry is a commercially available kit which has its class, configuration, or silhouette SUBSTANTIVELY CHANGED by the modeler, using either a commercially available conversion set, scratch-building materials or parts from another model. The effectiveness or complexity of the conversion or scratch-built entry may be considered.
 
Dave Stevens (Lumberyard) said:
first and foremost, i would like to welcome Greg Davis to the faculty of the School for Model Shipwrights. This is his classroom and lectures hall so i ask you all to respect that. This is an open discussion and a place to offer your point of view, ask questions, request further explanations so on and so forth. We are here to learn a thing or two.

A great start, but if you "like to get the discussion going in a (semi) structured manner," I'm afraid you're going to find managing this student body to be a lot like herding cats!

but if you crack open a can of cat food believe me you will have the attention of every cat in the room.
the audience here and elsewhere may be a tiny fraction of membership. I hope that I am dead wrong about that.

it is not really a tiny fraction. regardless of what you doing scratch building, researching, kit building model engineering whatever, there is a common ground and thread that runs through the art and hobby. There is a philosophy and a passion and the why and how.
Click to expand...
I just found this thread. I think one of the problems with this site (a good problem really) is that there is so much stuff on it that things of interest (often stuff one doesn't know one is interested in until one stumbles across it) get buried and are hard to find.
I have skimmed a few of Chappelle's books and admired his drawings, especially his interest in smaller American vessels. I read the two articles at the beginning of this course, and he certainly has strong, indeed rather black and white views, on the matter. However, one of the good things about this website is how it allows us model builders to become much better informed about our hobby and to think about stuff that otherwise would not have occurred to us.
Anyway, I have signed up to this unit and will continue working through the lessons.
And a comment on website layout. For a course like this I am wondering whether it would be possible to have a branched structure where the course itself is the main branch or trunk and discussions relating to content are branched off from it in separate threads, potentially even with tutorial questions, similar to online university units? This would help one to follow the instructor's lessons and not get too distracted by the comments unless one wanted to follow up or comment on a particular issue.
Thank you Professor Davis.
Bob
 
Greg Davis said:
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?
Click to expand...

Greg, you make some obsevations but not sure what the main question(s) is/are.
As for the 'related question": The solid carved model is probably a good way to start if it is something relatively small. Carving a hull is an entirely different skill than building a plank on frame/bulkhead model. My first model was of the clipper Lightning which I built when I was about ten (the picture is of the model and my older brother and younger sister). This was a plank on bulkhead model, about three foot long, that actually sailed. It was as rough as, but it worked. I remember the first time I sailed it, it took off and I had to chase after it. I built it based on some tiny line drawings from an old encyclopedia from the school library. At the time I lived in small city of Whyalla and research resources were not what they are now.
Personally, I think given the resources that are available these days, that the planked model is the best way to go for most anyone.

John, Jenny and Lightning.jpeg
 
Greg Davis said:
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.
Click to expand...

It seems that Chappelle was writing very much as a maritime historian. Probably the heart of his argument lies in the assertion that "the goal should be an accurate well-made model" with the unstated premise that a 'model' is a representation of an actual (once) existing ship or ship type. So I guess fantasy type models such as ghost pirate ships don't count as models for Chappelle (with which I am inclined to agree).
I am tempted to digress into deeper questions - what counts as a model - the ontology of model ships etc.
The more I think about this question, the more I am inclined towards the answer that model building is for the most part a therapeutic exercise. We get to create something real that we can stand back and look at, and that gives us satisfaction. Chappelle's 'ought/ought not' question only makes sense from the maritime historian's perspective. I would suspect that a therapist would tell their clients to simply ignore Chappelle. Some models are superb works of art, others incredible displays of technical mastery, and many are as rough as guts but have given their builders countless hours of calm fascination, time in the Zen zone.
To be continued ...
 
Sylph VI said:
The more I think about this question, the more I am inclined towards the answer that model building is for the most part a therapeutic exercise. We get to create something real that we can stand back and look at, and that gives us satisfaction. Chappelle's 'ought/ought not' question only makes sense from the maritime historian's perspective.
Click to expand...
I like the way you think, Bob.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top