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

[Greg Davis]

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).

Quite an impressive model!

For me the main question is how to better understand Chapelle's view in the context of what Chapelle did / was responsible for during his career.

Currently, it is my belief that his main goal was an academically solid collection of hull form throughout history (especially American). I feel his quest for modelers to build to his standards were partially self-serving and had the hopes that the modeling community would / could advance the Smithsonian collection of watercraft. It is possible that he was frustrated seeing that there were capable modelers that built what they wanted to and not what he wanted / needed for collection purposes. Clearly he believed that there was no need for spending time on models he didn't need - either because they didn't meet his standards and/or the model had already been collected.


For me the goal here was not to determine if Chapelle was 'right' or 'wrong' in his thinking, just understanding in context!


Would I like to see more models that meet the Chapelle standard? Yes, seeing the differences and evolution of hull form is quite interesting. Should more models be made of 'lesser known' types? Yes, that would be great - I really enjoy seeing something different that I can then learn from. But, past seeing the unique model built in a forum or possibly displayed at a model show, has there been positive movement in the curation of an academic-based model collection. If there is not a repository for a unique, well built, well researched model, is there still a shortcoming in the process?

Should replicates of models be frowned upon? I don't believe that should be the case. I've been in a lot of peoples houses and a lot of business, but I still haven't seen a model of Victory! Should all models be made to archival standards? Doubtful, whether they are scratch built / unique models or if they are based on a kit. Almost everything made - unless for a museum or serious collector - will find its fate in a garbage can.


One of the nice things of working as a mathematician is that when a theorem has been proven (typically) there is not much more to say - its a field of right and wrong based on logic. Ship modeling is completely different, the right and wrong is not as universally accepted. Here there is a mix of academics / artistry / and beliefs and this is a good thing; however, it does leave space for more 'spirited' discussion - which I hope will always be more constructive than not.

I plan on continuing to improve my skills as a scratch modeler, better craftsmanship, artistry, and historical accuracy in most of my work. I say most, because, I still will try to 'conquer' a pile of kit models that invaded my abode over the years! Here I'll try to improve my skills as well as almost everything will get bashed as I try different techniques / use them as a learning experience. Where does this put me on the Chapelle scale? Strong tendencies, but not still seeing positives in all modeling efforts!

 

[DAWarden-(Jaager)]

A model submitted for competition is rightly evaluated against an architectural/historical standard - to apply those standards universally is, at best, unnecessary.

I agree.
I regret writing what I did where the actual builder could see it.

This topic is about HIC and his standards. That is the IF. Most everything within this topic is the THEN of that IF.
I am too lazy to keep writing conditions. And, yes, this topic is an fishing effort for scratch - with historical relevance. The only rewards comes from working within the limitations and coming close to meeting them. If I have overtly done any judging in public outside, it was inadvertent.

My personal disinterest in anything involving kits is on me. That I try to only use materials that were available to the old guys - except for PVA and epoxy - is part of my personal challenge. They had a team of builders, I have electricity and tools. Sometimes I will offer an answer in the kit world. It does not mean that I have changed my mind or that I am trying to attract away from kits, someone not wishing to switch to scratch - scratch that is aimed at being historically relevant.


Dave: "At this point according to the Howard Chapelle the Lenox is one of those ship that should not be built because there are no drawings nothing to built from it is all made up."

And now for something heretical -
But for a few exceptions, vessels from before 1700 lack proper lines. It is either a best guess or nothing. The vessels are seductive for many. Anything built would be outside the HIC rules for acceptance by The Smithsonian. As long as any models are labeled as being a possible and NOT the actual there is serious challenge in exploring what these ancients could have looked like. To me it is a worthwhile area to explore. It would be art instead of history. Art is good. A danger is that it involves so much work that the essayist's imagination is seduced into believing that the product is what the vessel had to be.

 

[Greg Davis]

But for a few exceptions, vessels from before 1700 lack proper lines. It is either a best guess or nothing. The vessels are seductive for many. Anything built would be outside the HIC rules for acceptance by The Smithsonian. As long as any models are labeled as being a possible and NOT the actual there is serious challenge in exploring what these ancients could have looked like. To me it is a worthwhile area to explore. It would be art instead of history. Art is good. A danger is that it involves so much work that the essayist's imagination is seduced into believing that the product is what the vessel had to be.

This really important - in fact, since essentially all historic ships that are modeled actually no longer exist there is no way to 'check' how good or bad any plan set is. Some believe that HAMMS plans are suspect in some cases, yet there is often unquestionable acceptance of Royal Navy draughts. Were their navel draftsmen as good as generally accepted / were the measurements taken from the ships accurately? Ships had different lifespans, often had refits, ... . This leaves most models, no matter how well researched as having aspects that necessarily are reconstructions. One can collect as much information as possible, faith has to be in the sum total of the material, reconstruction done to the modeler's (and possibly some trusted in the filed) satisfaction - and then there is the craftmanship of actually producing the model. At the end of the day, the historical model will be a representation - it will never be a perfectly correct miniature (not even talking about the materials used in the modeling process). This field is based on a multitude of unknowns for the most part. Nevertheless, there is much intrinsic enjoyment in participating and viewing many of the finished products.

 

[Sylph VI]

My apology. I did not check who was the author of the brig. I was just stunned by the jump. The fad copper bottom - both here and MSW is so frustrating from a historical perspective.
It was like seeing a work of art being tagged. The crowd here is quite simply on a silly path probably started by a kit mfg.
Alcohol, mineral spirits, acetone, maybe the fierce lacquer thinner - you should be able to remove it.
On a kit, it is still unfortunate, but a kit is only a kit. On a well done scratch hull - there are more than a few presentations here of what is an actual scale appropriate copper bottom - I would stop at the planking and not hide it.
I wonder what a transparent copper shade layer would do?

Apology accepted, though the description is still a bit harsh. Forgive me if I was a bit sensitive but it did seem to be too much of a coincidence to be accidental. It never hurts to be a little kind with each other. I appreciate constructive criticism, but calling someone's genuine efforts at creating a "compelling impression of an actual vessel" (and admittedly not doing a very good job of it) a "cartoon" and "a joke" is hardly constructive.
In the context of this "course"; however, I think it raises an interesting discussion point. You are suggesting that the "fad coppper" bottom is historically inaccurate - if I am misunderstanding you, please clarify. The 12 gun brigs were copper sheathed so in the interest of historical authenticity, after much procastination and research, mainly on this site, I attempted to copper sheathe the ship's hull. Now I accept that my attempt to replicate copper nails is heavy-handed and I have thought about what I can do about that. The shininess is another issue. I agree it does look a bit like what McNarry might call the "shipping office" tradition. My thoughts were that the shininess would naturally fade over time, after all it is real copper, the same material the actual ships were sheathed in. I thought of artificially tarnishing it but that I think would likely compromise the aesthetic even worse, ending up like a diorama piece rather than a "model ship". Can you point out what you what you consider to be a well-done copper bottom? As I have mentioned in my build log, the 12 gun brig is my first attempt at a model at this scale, and I started it over 30 years ago.
Maybe we are interpreting the objective of this course differently. My main take away is that Chappelle argued that many (perhaps most) models ought not to be built because they are not historically accurate. The relevance of the fact that he was not a model builder is that his perspective is almost entirely as a maritime historian and not a model-builder. Underhill on the other hand was both a maritime historian and a prolific model-builder, and from my reading he tends to fall more on the side of giving things a go, though I am sure he would definitely support the idea that models should aim to be historically accurate, as I do. The means is clearly at least as important to him as the end, and McNarry for that matter, two model makers I very much respect. I agree that one can have an opinion on what constitutes a good model without being a model maker, but a seasoned model-maker's opinion is going to have more weight with me than a museum director (unfortunately here in Australia there are some absolute rubbish models in our museums). This is not intended as an ad-hominum attack, as someone's expertise is relevant where the expertise is relevant. One doesn't go to an engineer for a medical opinion, for example.
I will leave it at that for now.
Again, I appreciate the apology.

 

[Sylph VI]

Not worldview - within in the strictures of historical accuracy - there are objective data to test that.

Am I wrong about the copper bottom being fad and not representative of what was part of an actual ship? That is all that this is about. I write with impish humor but I never intend to hit a major nerve.

It is just that all was going so well right up to that point for it being in the historical and serious ( or whatever classification chosen to mean that ). It felt like a trooper had switched sides. I did not intend to express my frustration out here in public. I wrote as if this was the lounge. My opinion only matters to me. I mean to add something to consider and nothing more. I accept it when I am wrong about objective things. An opinion does not change the quality of the build. In Sylph's place, I would see compliments and encouragement for everything right up to the application of what is after all - a superficial layer.

I certainly did not intend to "switch sides". I did not realise I was crossing a line here, as mentioned in another post, quite the opposite. I look forward to hearing some amplification on this particular topic.

 

[DAWarden-(Jaager)]

calling someone's genuine efforts at creating a "compelling impression of an actual vessel" (and admittedly not doing a very good job of it) a "cartoon" and "a joke" is hardly constructive

The first quote is me being too technical - your build is really close to the plans - close enough to make any gaps insignificant. I just can't be absolute - I have literalism (there was an old BBC radio that WHRV played where that was the continuing joke. MY Word or My Music, they were done as a pair.). It looks an excellent job - right up until the copper.
I do not count the copper as being your work in the same sense as your wood work.

We have gone round and round about what is a proper copper bottom both here and at MSW (until the exile).
Here is probably the latest link - a search will bring up others. My take home from it all is that a layer of paint is as good as it gets as far as accuracy allows.

https://shipsofscale.com/sosforums/threads/copper-plate.18520/#post-488047

I hope that reading about what is real and what is currently being done will explain why the joke and cartoon comment.
So close and then bam!

This leaves most models, no matter how well researched as having aspects that necessarily are reconstructions.

I have been flying sorta false colors as far as being absolute about historical.
My focus is on the naval architecture part.
I prefer - as designed - as opposed to representing a ship as she sailed with the fleet.
I try to imagine myself as being the designer presenting a new design to the Navy Board.
I use a stylized framing. I prefer the look. The swimming body calls for art.
I have come to see the guns as being an unneeded and aggressive distraction.

My interpretation is that the hulls as actually framed by the RN were most often a solid wall of timber with 1-2" air gaps between every frame -even within a bend. Fungus never sleeps in wet wood. 12-15" timbers would take 12-15 years to fully season. Except as a classroom prop, I see no value in displaying the solid wall. Hahn closed the gap within a bend and replaced the pair of filling frames between each bend with a space. The space equal to a bend is too wide for my esthetics. It breaks the visual flow.

Any framing is by necessity stylized. Where there are framing plans, they were suggestions. The limitations of using wood imposed limits that the later iron and steel do not. The actual framing had to have been irregular and ugly. The length being set by what was available. The spaces were filled with chocks holding the frames together.

 

[Sylph VI]

I agree.
I regret writing what I did where the actual builder could see it.

This topic is about HIC and his standards. That is the IF. Most everything within this topic is the THEN of that IF.
I am too lazy to keep writing conditions. And, yes, this topic is an fishing effort for scratch - with historical relevance. The only rewards comes from working within the limitations and coming close to meeting them. If I have overtly done any judging in public outside, it was inadvertent.

My personal disinterest in anything involving kits is on me. That I try to only use materials that were available to the old guys - except for PVA and epoxy - is part of my personal challenge. They had a team of builders, I have electricity and tools. Sometimes I will offer an answer in the kit world. It does not mean that I have changed my mind or that I am trying to attract away from kits, someone not wishing to switch to scratch - scratch that is aimed at being historically relevant.


Dave: "At this point according to the Howard Chapelle the Lenox is one of those ship that should not be built because there are no drawings nothing to built from it is all made up."

And now for something heretical -
But for a few exceptions, vessels from before 1700 lack proper lines. It is either a best guess or nothing. The vessels are seductive for many. Anything built would be outside the HIC rules for acceptance by The Smithsonian. As long as any models are labeled as being a possible and NOT the actual there is serious challenge in exploring what these ancients could have looked like. To me it is a worthwhile area to explore. It would be art instead of history. Art is good. A danger is that it involves so much work that the essayist's imagination is seduced into believing that the product is what the vessel had to be.

Well I'm glad I saw your comment, otherwise I would have had no idea that copper sheathing a model is considered improper by ...(who gets to be the standard setter here?). Again I look forward to further amplification as to why, or how one does it properly.
The summary of my argument in relation to the subject of this course is that I have no problem with what ought to be built according to HIC, but I disagree with him on his opinion as to what ought not to be built, and I have tried to cogently justify my view. Basically I am arguing that his context is too narrow. On the other hand, it seems my suggestion that building a model simply for one's own satisfaction somehow falls outside the pale to many participants in this course: but there also needs to be so many caveats as to what any particular person finds satisfying that perhaps in the end my assertion is little more than a tautology.

 

[Sylph VI]

The first quote is me being too technical - your build is really close to the plans - close enough to make any gaps insignificant. I just can't be absolute - I have literalism (there was an old BBC radio that WHRV played where that was the continuing joke. MY Word or My Music, they were done as a pair.). It looks an excellent job - right up until the copper.
I do not count the copper as being your work in the same sense as your wood work.

We have gone round and round about what is a proper copper bottom both here and at MSW (until the exile).
Here is probably the latest link - a search will bring up others. My take home from it all is that a layer of paint is as good as it gets as far as accuracy allows.

https://shipsofscale.com/sosforums/threads/copper-plate.18520/#post-488047

I hope that reading about what is real and what is currently being done will explain why the joke and cartoon comment.
So close and then bam!






I have been flying sorta false colors as far as being absolute about historical.
My focus is on the naval architecture part.
I prefer - as designed - as opposed to representing a ship as she sailed with the fleet.
I try to imagine myself as being the designer presenting a new design to the Navy Board.
I use a stylized framing. I prefer the look. The swimming body calls for art.
I have come to see the guns as being an unneeded and aggressive distraction.

My interpretation is that the hulls as actually framed by the RN were most often a solid wall of timber with 1-2" air gaps between every frame -even within a bend. Fungus never sleeps in wet wood. 12-15" timbers would take 12-15 years to fully season. Except as a classroom prop, I see no value in displaying the solid wall. Hahn closed the gap within a bend and replaced the pair of filling frames between each bend with a space. The space equal to a bend is too wide for my esthetics. It breaks the visual flow.

Any framing is by necessity stylized. Where there are framing plans, they were suggestions. The limitations of using wood imposed limits that the later iron and steel do not. The actual framing had to have been irregular and ugly. The length being set by what was available. The spaces were filled with chocks holding the frames together.

Thanks for the link. It still seems many in that thread are arguing for representing individual plates with nail impressions. I appreciate the information and your and Bob's perspective.

 

[Greg Davis]

On the other hand, it seems my suggestion that building a model simply for one's own satisfaction somehow falls outside the pale to many participants in this course: but there also needs to be so many caveats as to what any particular person finds satisfying that perhaps in the end my assertion is little more than a tautology.

If you are not building for your own satisfaction, it is no longer a hobby and it has become a job or chore!


hobby
/ˈhäbē/
noun

1. 1.
   an activity done regularly in one's leisure time for pleasure.