What Makes a Ship Model Valuable to Others?

[Jimsky]

What problem? A model is either good, or it isn't, as judged against the commonly recognized "compelling impression" standard which has been around in one form or another for decades now. Models are intrinsically valuable based upon how well they satisfy the definition of the thing: "A high-quality scale ship model provides a compelling impression of an actual vessel within the constraints of historical accuracy," Every model speaks for itself as to how good it is or isn't. What a willing seller will take for it from a willing buyer can only be an educated guess and not a very educated guess at that. This is true of any work of fine art and a lot of other things as well.

No one argues that commonly recognized criteria exist; I’m cautious about treating them as fixed or universal. They are shaped by tradition, by the judging community, by competition culture, and sometimes by regional modeling schools. That doesn’t make them invalid, but it does mean they are agreed upon, not absolute.

And if we’re discussing “value to others,” then we first need clarity on whose standards we’re using — the competition judge’s, the collector’s, the historian’s, or the friend who simply admires the work.

 

[Signet]

The car in your signature logo is a 'valuable' collector item and hats off to you.

Tell me about it! Mine was a 1956 AH 100M, one of 640 made. In perfect condition they sell for over $200k these days, a 100S for much more. I owned mine from 1963 to 1967, and sold it to help pay for kitchen cabinets on our first house. When I cry about it, I just remember I couldn't fit in it today.

 

[DAWarden-(Jaager)]

the statement that taking a kit and modifying it into a detailed an accurate model can never be as good as an all scratch built kit makes no sense.

I do not see where I said that. "Never" is too emphatic and is not correct. It can be done. It is just significantly more difficult to pull off.
There is one more factor though. By starting with a kit - you may sing your version as well as Pavarotti - but it is still a matter of singing Kathlene one - more - time. A scratch build may or may not be something rare or unique depending on the choice made by the builder. But there is the opportunity for that choice.

Modifying a kit model is a shortcut to the planning and development of plans that will all end up at the same place

This presupposes that the commercial kit designer had accuracy of the original as any sort of priority. That involves having a lot of trust in strangers.
The planning and development of the plans is a significant part of the challenge. If finding the significant data proves to be difficult and frustrating at least by doing it yourself you will know which guesses and compromises have been made. I, and I am guessing that you, would go farther back in time to find a probable answer. Tradition bound and slow to change describes shipbuilding. A kit developer is more likely to go for something tried and true and familiar even if it had not been invented until well after the time of the subject vessel?

 

[DARIVS ARCHITECTVS]

I do not see where I said that. "Never" is too emphatic and is not correct. It can be done. It is just significantly more difficult to pull off.
There is one more factor though. By starting with a kit - you may sing your version as well as Pavarotti - but it is still a matter of singing Kathlene one - more - time. A scratch build may or may not be something rare or unique depending on the choice made by the builder. But there is the opportunity for that choice.


This presupposes that the commercial kit designer had accuracy of the original as any sort of priority. That involves having a lot of trust in strangers.
The planning and development of the plans is a significant part of the challenge. If finding the significant data proves to be difficult and frustrating at least by doing it yourself you will know which guesses and compromises have been made. I, and I am guessing that you, would go farther back in time to find a probable answer. Tradition bound and slow to change describes shipbuilding. A kit developer is more likely to go for something tried and true and familiar even if it had not been invented until well after the time of the subject vessel?

Usually the kit is in the ballpark, and even drastic changes like the ones I made on my current model were not that hard to do being a POB hull. If one had to make major changes on an admiralty model, that would be a model best built from scratch from the beginning. How close you want to get as far as accuracy depends greatly on whether you have information to work with in the first place. Huge gaps in design information leaves you guessing no matter what route you choose in building. If your scratch build a vessel that never existed, such as the San Felipe, scratch building can't get you any closer than a kit anyway.

 

[DAWarden-(Jaager)]

If your scratch build a vessel that never existed, such as the San Felipe,

To even consider doing that shows us being in two different universes. Different rules for different games. Not better or worse - just different. It is also more than a bit off the topic of this thread. I guess that I have been obliquely suggesting that you consider jumping universes. I mean that as a compliment based on your expressed ambitions. Looking at your pendings I see how you wouldn't. You have too much sunk cost.

"Valuable to others" if it is based on anything other than money - It is certainly real, but it gets nebulous and not reproducible. A circular argument is the inevitable outcome.

 

[dockattner]

I'm not entirely certain how the kit versus scratch thing made its way into this thread.

Here is the topic for discussion:

A recent posting featured a ship model built by a 20th century modeler. The subject was unique (scratch-built) and was seemingly well done (more on that in a moment). The original poster was (among other things) wondering how this model could be valued (perhaps for insurance purposes, or perhaps for a future sale - it doesn't really matter).

A member of our forum offered some very helpful advice, and in that post commended both the model and the builder of the model, indicating that this model was special and would be valued by collectors. I do not in any way doubt our member's well-informed opinion vis a vis the model collector market (that is, I take him at his word that this model was valuable).

But (and I am finally getting to the subject of this thread)...

As I mentioned above this model was well done. But I know of at least a dozen modelers on our forum who could have done a better job if the measure of a model is the skillfulness of its execution. In other words, it was a really good model, but not better that many of the models routinely shown on our forum.

What is it about a model that makes it valuable to the collector community?

 

[Jimsky]

To even consider doing that shows us being in two different universes. Different rules for different games. Not better or worse - just different. It is also more than a bit off the topic of this thread. I guess that I have been obliquely suggesting that you consider jumping universes. I mean that as a compliment based on your expressed ambitions. Looking at your pendings I see how you wouldn't. You have too much sunk cost.

"Valuable to others" if it is based on anything other than money - It is certainly real, but it gets nebulous and not reproducible. A circular argument is the inevitable outcome.

I’m not sure I agree that anything beyond money automatically becomes nebulous or circular.

Not all forms of value are financial, and the fact that something isn’t easily quantifiable doesn’t make it unreal or logically flawed. Educational value, historical significance, craftsmanship, authorship, provenance - these are not “circular,” even if they aren’t expressed in dollars. Museums, collectors, and judging bodies evaluate such factors every day without reducing them strictly to price.

Perhaps the difficulty isn’t that non-monetary value is circular, but that it requires us to define our criteria more carefully. If we clarify what kind of value we are discussing, financial, historical, artistic, or sentimental, the argument stops being circular and becomes structured.

Value is the significance or worth attributed to an object by a person or group, based on the criteria they consider meaningful, whether financial, historical, artistic, functional, or emotional.

 

[dockattner]

I’m not sure I agree that anything beyond money automatically becomes nebulous or circular.

Not all forms of value are financial, and the fact that something isn’t easily quantifiable doesn’t make it unreal or logically flawed. Educational value, historical significance, craftsmanship, authorship, provenance - these are not “circular,” even if they aren’t expressed in dollars. Museums, collectors, and judging bodies evaluate such factors every day without reducing them strictly to price.

Perhaps the difficulty isn’t that non-monetary value is circular, but that it requires us to define our criteria more carefully. If we clarify what kind of value we are discussing, financial, historical, artistic, or sentimental, the argument stops being circular and becomes structured.

Value is the significance or worth attributed to an object by a person or group, based on the criteria they consider meaningful, whether financial, historical, artistic, functional, or emotional.

On topic. Well played !

 

[Roger Pellett]

See jimsky’s post #61. He brings up an interesting point. What are we measuring? The quality of the model or the skill and knowledge of the builder although the two are obviously related.

In a very few instances, model builders establish a reputation where the model’s provenance makes it highly desirable to collectors. For most models though, people forget who the builders were and the quality of the model must stand by itself. A good example being the Civil War gunboat that started this conversation.

I would argue that ship model building contests are measuring the skill of builders not the quality of the models. This seems to be especially true of the European style contests where similar models built from Ancre monographs dominate. Is this good or bad? I don’t know but it doesn’t reflect my personal interests or building style. I enjoy finding a subject that interests me, and doing the research to see if it’s possible to build a good model. Will my collection of 10 or so models researched and scratch built by me have any value when I’m gone? That will be up to my two children to decide.

Roger

 

[dockattner]

I would argue that ship model building contests are measuring the skill of builders not the quality of the models. This seems to be especially true of the European style contests where similar models built from Ancre monographs dominate. Is this good or bad? I don’t know but it doesn’t reflect my personal interests or building style. I enjoy finding a subject that interests me, and doing the research to see if it’s possible to build a good model. Will my collection of 10 or so models researched and scratch built by me have any value when I’m gone? That will be up to my two children to decide.

This is hearsay... but I read somewhere that competition models are judged against the plans for the model being presented. And if the modeler 'corrected' something he/she determined was wrong in the plans (and subsequently built to that corrected design) then the 'as-built' model entry was marked down (didn't follow the plans).

If true it certainly supports your point, Roger (measuring the skill of the builder).

 

[DARIVS ARCHITECTVS]

To even consider doing that shows us being in two different universes. Different rules for different games. Not better or worse - just different. It is also more than a bit off the topic of this thread. I guess that I have been obliquely suggesting that you consider jumping universes. I mean that as a compliment based on your expressed ambitions. Looking at your pendings I see how you wouldn't. You have too much sunk cost.

"Valuable to others" if it is based on anything other than money - It is certainly real, but it gets nebulous and not reproducible. A circular argument is the inevitable outcome.

Definitely! We are making models for different reasons. Model ship builders are diverse in why they build. As for changing universes, many of us do consider doing just that. I do this as a hobby, pure and simple. As such, it is entirely separate from my job (which pays for the hobby). My costs are above average, but that's what money is for beyond subsistence needs; enhancing the quality of life. Others are in it purely for research and historical discovery, and hobbyists rely on their work to a major extent. For professionals like Kroum Batchvarov, modelling is purely a tool for maritime archaology. Few of us are able to earn income while pursuing this as a hobby, and Ohla may be one of these few.

I understand your point about uniqueness and exclusivity enhancing the value of a model in the eyes of a collector/buyer. Kit builds are certainly not unique if built out of the box with no changes. Scratch builds would garner more value.

 

[oldflyer]

Interesting topic thread.

Yes, all subjective indeed. On a personal note my son has indicated that he is not interested in this (my) hobby, nor would he eventually have room to
display my "such so valuable" ships The Goodwill may be their next parking spot - well one of these days TBD

PS: I'm working on some plan B's - also for my Aviation, and car collections......

Yikes

 

[AllanKP69]

but I read somewhere that competition models are judged against the plans for the model being presented. And if the modeler 'corrected' something he/she determined was wrong in the plans (and subsequently built to that corrected design) then the 'as-built' model entry was marked down (didn't follow the plans).

I might be misreading this. If I replace the cannons that are shown on the drawings to be Armstrong pattern instead of Blomefields that were actually on the ship I would be punished? If that is the case that is a true shame. Someone that goes to the trouble of researching to correct any errors should get extra points, not deductions.
Allan

 

[Jack Sparrow]

If you are looking for a short answer, mine is here: nothing.
I am referring to kits. The value is the kit itself and not the finished product, in my opinion. For starters most of these boats are too big for anyone to display it without moving furniture about. I have boats all over the place in my house because I can't sell them and I feel guilty about throwing some of them in the garbage.
But that is what I want to do, and I may thin the herd, so to speak. If there was a boat club around where I live I would donate them, but there isn't and I have no more walls available for boat shelves.

But then again, maybe this is a reflection of my modelling skills... who knows.

 

[dockattner]

I might be misreading this. If I replace the cannons that are shown on the drawings to be Armstrong pattern instead of Blomefields that were actually on the ship I would be punished? If that is the case that is a true shame. Someone that goes to the trouble of researching to correct any errors should get extra points, not deductions.
Allan

Again, this is what I have heard/read (I opened with: This is hearsay...) but I am not mistaken in my recollection (it may have been written about an eastern European or Russian championship but I am less confident about that part). I'm sure someone on the forum can either correct this or substantiate it.

As it was explained - the contest/competition is about how well the builder builds to the plans.

All of this makes me wonder again about valuation in the collector market.

 

[-Waldemar-]

I might be misreading this. If I replace the cannons that are shown on the drawings to be Armstrong pattern instead of Blomefields that were actually on the ship I would be punished? If that is the case that is a true shame. Someone that goes to the trouble of researching to correct any errors should get extra points, not deductions.

Again, this is what I have heard/read (I opened with: This is hearsay...) but I am not mistaken in my recollection (it may have been written about an eastern European or Russian championship but I am less confident about that part). I'm sure someone on the forum can either correct this or substantiate it.

As it was explained - the contest/competition is about how well the builder builds to the plans.

At least in theory, it should work in such a way that any possible corrections should be justified by the model maker by presenting relevant documentation and similar, convincing materials (apart from the base plans), and only then can those corrections be accepted by the judging panel.

In this way, the burden of proof falls on the model maker, because in practice it is difficult to expect judges to be omniscient or to do the research on behalf of model makers.

.​

 

[Bob Cleek]

No one argues that commonly recognized criteria exist; I’m cautious about treating them as fixed or universal. They are shaped by tradition, by the judging community, by competition culture, and sometimes by regional modeling schools. That doesn’t make them invalid, but it does mean they are agreed upon, not absolute.

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.

And if we’re discussing “value to others,” then we first need clarity on whose standards we’re using — the competition judge’s, the collector’s, the historian’s, or the friend who simply admires the work.

Absolutely. That goes without saying. The focus of each prospective purchaser for value is going to be different to one degree or another, especially when it comes to any type of ship model. In the case of the "high-quality scale ship model," however, simply meeting the qualifying threshold of that type of model, i.e., "providing a compelling impression of an actual vessel within the constraints of historical accuracy," puts that class of high-quality ships models into a group having parameters of "higher high-quality" that are narrower still. For example, while two otherwise identical "high-quality scale ship models" are built with different materials, it is not a close call to expect the one built of exotic wood species to likely bring a higher price at auction than the one built with ordinary wood species. Similarly, of two absolutely identical "high-quality scale ship models," the one built by the well-known fine arts modeler should be expected to bring the higher price at auction. Nevertheless, the buyer's willingness to pay the price he will is the ultimate arbiter of monetary value for whatever reason... or no reason at all, so any attempt to predict it other than as a very rough estimate is a fool's errand.

 

[Bob Cleek]

I might be misreading this. If I replace the cannons that are shown on the drawings to be Armstrong pattern instead of Blomefields that were actually on the ship I would be punished? If that is the case that is a true shame. Someone that goes to the trouble of researching to correct any errors should get extra points, not deductions.
Allan

You can look it up to be sure, but as I recall, this is true. The NAVIGA judging rules for static display models provide for separate categories for scratch built, kit built, modified kit built and so on. An entry in the "pure" kit-built judging category which has parts substituted from the basic kit is penalized by such modification's not being considered (i.e., points ignored) in the judging protocol. It's in the "Schedule C" competition section of the rules for static display models, as I recall. The penalty would not apply if the modified kit model were entered in the modified kit model judgming category.