Maybe we're hung up on semantics here, but the standard I cited was devised precisely to enunciate a "fixed and universal" standard to replace the sloppy and meaningless term, "museum quality." Napier explains it in depth in his book:
"A high-quality scale ship model provides a compelling impression of an actual vessel within the constraints of historical accuracy."
"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."
"... (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.
"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 of 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
The import of Napier's definition of a "high-quality scale ship model" transcends the fact of how it was made and eliminates any "scratch vs. kit" issue by focusing on the model without such considerations which are extraneous to the question of whether the model is a "high-quality scale ship model." Napier's definition is designed to qualify a ship model as a "high-quality scale ship model" and nothing more. It does objectively define "high-quality scale ship model" as one which "provides a compelling impression of an actual vessel within the constraints of historical accuracy." That's as far as it goes. It provides no objective standards for judging how high the quality of a "high-quality scale ship model" might be once it is determined to be a "high-quality scale ship model." That assessment must be made in comparison with other "high-quality scale ship models" and is a matter of subjective comparisons, as you suggest. Those considerations are what you cite as "agreed upon and not absolute," and are generally seen as those applied by judges in modeling competitions.
I believe it is worth noting that in many, if not most, modeling competitions, an attempt is made to judge both the model and the modeler by separating the models into classes, e.g., "scratch-built," "semi-scratch built" "kit built," "modified kit built," and so on, with the various classes allowing for bestowing awards for the modeler's skill as well as the comparative excellence of the models in each class. This reflects the perhaps mistake biases of the competition organizers and judges. I expect they recognize that the more prizes there are to award, the more entries they are likely to generate, yet the reality remains, as Napier recognizes, that whether a model was assembled from a kit or built from scratch has nothing to do with the quality of a model.
Now, it may well be the case that in order to produce a very "high-quality scale ship model" from most kits, a modeler must do the same level of research as the scratch builder, and so much "after-market fabrication" and modification of the kit that it might as well have been scratch-built. For this reason, I don't consider the separate judging of scratch built models and kit models to validly recognize any sort of distinction between the skill or effort of scratch or kit modelers at all.
I do believe, however, as a separate discussion entirely, that kits can and should be comparatively evaluated as kits. I suppose that theoretically any kit can serve as the basis of a "high-quality scale ship model" if the corrections, modifications, and additions can be made, but the I submit that some kits are better than others in their ability to serve as a foundation for the creation of a "high-quality scale ship model." To establish and promulgate such evaluations would be a great service to modelers and to the art of "high-quality scale ship modeling" by encouraging a process of "natural selection" that disfavors the proliferation of mediocre ship model kits sold to unsophisticated would-be ship modelers.
Personally, I have great respect for Longridge and his contribution to the hobby; his work is undeniably influential and has shaped generations of builders. That said, I’m not convinced that any single authority, no matter how respected, should define quality for everyone.
Standards evolve. Techniques evolve. Research evolves. Even aesthetic expectations evolve. Longridge’s benchmark reflected his time, his training, and his philosophy of modeling. It was significant, but it was not the only or final word for all time.
I also can’t help noticing that you seem to invoke Longridge in almost every discussion, as if referencing him settles the matter. While his work deserves recognition, repeatedly pointing to one authority risks narrowing what should be a broader conversation.
Quality can certainly be guided by established standards, but it should not be confined to one person’s interpretation, even a great one. Builders pursue different goals: historical replication, artistic interpretation, competition standards, teaching models, or personal fulfillment. It seems reasonable that standards of quality may vary depending on intent.
Respecting tradition is important. Treating it as doctrine is something else.
