What Makes a Ship Model Valuable to Others?

[Jack Sparrow]

Furthermore I get more interest in the kit boxes than the actual completed models. The kits I can sell, easily, the models, not so much.

 

[Roger Pellett]

To most people they’re merely decorations. It says more about the superficial nature of many people today than the quality of your models. I personally don’t care. I only have to please myself.

Roger

 

[DAWarden-(Jaager)]

If the original question up for discussion had included a specific for value: financial, monetary, historical, emotional, impress civilians.... ?
A specific for who the others are?
And the target audience - some indication of just who could possibly be helped by a definitive answer?
Those of us who have invested time and effort already are probably beyond being swayed.
It is educational to see just what are some primary motivating values, but likely only educational.

My first thought for this becoming a discussion with some practical value:
monetary: value
those with money to spend: others
beginners, starting with kits, seeing the cost, fantasizing possible ways to recover some of it: audience

Specifics that may affect choices and practices:
historical and craft: value
a focus on authenticity and skill: others
those who would like to do work that would impress the old guys from 200-300 years ago who set the standards: audience

 

[Jack Sparrow]

what seems to interest people that see my kits is if they are like those plastic models where you glue Tab A to Tab B.
I repeat myself a lot and now I simply say no. There is some fabrication involved. I show them the raw materials in the kits and then I see confusion in their stare. I show them a few of the parts that I have to fabricate and I can tell that I lost them. I am a lousy salesman...

 

[Bob Cleek]

Could it be that our true intent is to reject the universal application of standards to every ship model built on this (or another) forum. Some models are built for the joy of engagement. When that is the case "good job" or "try this next time" reads the room in its proper context.

Actually, the point several of us are trying to make is that it does not bind us. Surely you can see that everyone does not intend (or desire) to be a master model builder? There is nothing wrong with elevated standards, but they cannot be used as a bludgeon. Some modelers just want to have fun.

"Could it be that our true intent is to reject the universal application of standards to every ship model built on this (or another) forum?" Ah! Yes, I see your point now! Well, that certainly does change things, doesn't it?

How do we identify these modelers who "just want to have fun," but avowedly aren't interested in having the quality of their models measured against some standard? Might their posts be displayed in a differently colored font so nobody wastes their time reading posts in which they are not interested? Perhaps the "just for fun" modelers should be segregated from the "fine arts" modelers like they do public swimming pools with certain areas and/or times dedicated to "open" or "fun swim" use, and other times reserved for "lap" swimming, water aerobics, and team training activities.

There really are differences between the different types of ship modelers that make their undifferentiated participation in a forum problematic. You end up not being able to "tell the players without a scorecard." If a person who's modeling for fun posts a question, they may get overwhelmed, discouraged or, God forbid, offended, by an answer from a "fine arts" ship modeler when the latter might have not bothered to respond to the post at all, or counseled, "If you are just modeling for fun, don't worry about it." had the former's intentions been made known. Social media adds yet an additional layer of confusion with "the blind leading the blind" in one congratulatory "circle jerk" after another. Consider as an example the different types of responses the below linked post might engender from different types of ship modelers!

WORLD'S NAVAL MODELERS | I finally | Facebook

I finally

www.facebook.com

Here again, I have to repeat that I have been addressing what Napier, who I quoted, and others, to define as "high-quality scale ship models." If the modeler has no intention of building a "high-quality scale ship model" as that thing is defined, then the application of accepted standards for high-quality scale ship models it irrelevant. If the modeler has no intention of striving to create a model which meets the standard of a "high-quality scale ship model, it doesn't matter if it is built to scale or "creates a compelling impression" of a real vessel at all. In fact, given your scenario of the model built by a modeler who "just wants to have fun, the only standard to be applied is whether the modeler did in fact have fun building it.

I, for one, see little wrong with building ship models "just for fun" or "just for" any other reason as long as everybody's on the right page, one page being building ship models "just for fun" and another building "high-quality scale ship models" as a fine art form and however many more for similar distinctions.

 

[Jimsky]

Could it be that our true intent is to reject the universal application of standards to every ship model built on this (or another) forum?" Ah! Yes, I see. Well, that certainly does change things, doesn't it?
How do we identify these modelers who "just want to have fun," but avowedly aren't interested in having the quality of their models measured against some standard? " Might their posts be displayed in a differently colored font so the serious modelers won't waste their time reading them? Perhaps the "just for fun" modelers should be segregated from the "fine arts" modelers like they do public swimming pools with certain areas and/or times dedicated to "open" or "fun swim" use and other times reserved for "lap" swimming, water aerobics, and team training activities.

There really are differences between the different types of ship modelers that make their undifferentiated participation in a forum problematic. If a person who's modeling for fun posts a question, they may get overwhelmed, discouraged or, God forbid, offended, by an answer from a "fine arts" ship modeler when the latter might have not bothered to respond to the post at all, or counseled, "If you are just modeling for fun, don't worry about it." had the former's intentions been made known. Consider as an example the different types of responses the below linked post might engender from different types of ship modelers!

Bob, may I ask, respectfully, that we try to stay closer to the original topic of the thread? The discussion keeps circling back to the broader “standards” debate, and while it is a subject in its own right, it tends to pull us away from the specific question being discussed here.
Perhaps it would be more productive to open a dedicated thread (as I've recommended in arlier post) for that larger conversation, rather than revisiting it in every related discussion.

Thank you.

 

[Bob Cleek]

Bob, may I ask, respectfully, that we try to stay closer to the original topic of the thread? The discussion keeps circling back to the broader “standards” debate, and while it is a subject in its own right, it tends to pull us away from the specific question being discussed here.
Perhaps it would be more productive to open a dedicated thread (as I've recommended in arlier post) for that larger conversation, rather than revisiting it in every related discussion.

Thank you.

Hey, I've got no dog in that fight. I'm just responding to what comes my way. It's not my thread and I have no idea what it takes to break up an existing thread even if I felt it was my place to do so. It appears you have all the necessary faculties as a staff member, administrator, and moderator, so, as far as I'm concerned, go ahead and break it out into a new thread. If I were you, however, I'd ask the guy who started the thread in the first place before I did so because it's his thread. Don't go by me alone.

 

[Jimsky]

Hey, I've got no dog in that fight. I'm just responding to what comes my way. It's not my thread and I have no idea what it takes to break up an existing thread even if I felt it was my place to do so. It appears you have all the necessary faculties as a staff member, administrator, and moderator, so, as far as I'm concerned, go ahead and break it out into a new thread. If I were you, however, I'd ask the guy who started the thread in the first place before I did so because it's his thread. Don't go by me alone.

Bob,
The issue isn’t about who has the technical ability to split a thread. The issue is focus.

In Post 81 (link), I explicitly asked that we stay on topic. When a discussion repeatedly circles back to the same broader argument, regardless of intent, it shifts the thread away from its original purpose. That’s what I’m trying to prevent as the moderator. You may feel you’re “just responding to what comes your way,” but steering the conversation back to the same recurring theme is still a choice. It affects the tone and direction of the discussion.

I am not trying to silence you or “break up” anything unnecessarily. I’m simply asking, again, that we respect the scope of the thread and allow it to develop without redirecting it into familiar territory. Let’s keep it focused on the topic at hand.

P.S. Perhaps it would be more productive to open a dedicated thread (as I've recommended in post 81). I even provided suggested topics for discussions for that larger conversation, rather than revisiting it in every related discussion.
Thank you.

 

[Roger Pellett]

A trite but true clique: 99:99 percent of those building or thinking about building ship models should not quit their day jobs (I didn’t quit mine).

 

[BradNSW]

Paul's original question: What is it about a model that makes it valuable to the collector community?

I collect coins (specifically US Buffalo Nickles).

Coins, like models, have characteristics the "collector community" values:

Coins (Ship Models)
1) Condition (Condition/taken care of/preserved)
2) Rarity (Uniqueness and/or a special/renowned modeler (not a kit?))
3) Sharpness of details (Quality, attention to details, accuracy)
4) Mint Luster (Overall aesthetic appeal)

Six pages have been dancing around these intuitive "things/criteria".

HOWEVER, what makes something valuable to "An Individual Collector" isn't so obvious.

1. I wouldn't bid on any coin that was NOT a Buffalo Nickle. Others pay outrageous prices for coins that don't interest me.
a. Similarly, an individual may value:
1) a type of ship. (Think Battleships vs 21st century America's Cup Yachts)
2) a period. (think 16th vs 19th century)
3) a country. (French vs Dutch)
4) material (paper vs wood vs metal vs plastic vs etc.)
b. A single collector may also value things that are not obvious:
1) Maybe dimensions are the single most important criteria (the fireplace mantel is only so big!)
2) Maybe a relative served or died on a specific ship (none other are of any value)
3) Maybe the family worked in a specific shipyard (only ships from that yard hold any interest/value)
4) POW2 bone models (stunning to some and ugly to others)

BOTTOM LINES:
1. Beauty/value is in the eye of the beholder/buyer/individual.
2. If criteria/judges/collector community are involved (think miss universe or ship modeler judges), you get very similar, beautiful curves, adornments, decorations, that may not appeal to every individual.

PS: Example of beauty in the eyes of the beholder:

I paid over $500 for the final nickel in my collection. I doubt many of you would have paid $5 for the same coin...right or wrong??




Just my "5 cents"!

 

[Bob Cleek]

Bob,
The issue isn’t about who has the technical ability to split a thread. The issue is focus.

In Post 81 (link), I explicitly asked that we stay on topic. When a discussion repeatedly circles back to the same broader argument, regardless of intent, it shifts the thread away from its original purpose. That’s what I’m trying to prevent as the moderator. You may feel you’re “just responding to what comes your way,” but steering the conversation back to the same recurring theme is still a choice. It affects the tone and direction of the discussion.

I am not trying to silence you or “break up” anything unnecessarily. I’m simply asking, again, that we respect the scope of the thread and allow it to develop without redirecting it into familiar territory. Let’s keep it focused on the topic at hand.

P.S. Perhaps it would be more productive to open a dedicated thread (as I've recommended in post 81). I even provided suggested topics for discussions for that larger conversation, rather than revisiting it in every related discussion.
Thank you.

I think Brad has just put the train back on the track. How about we let it continue on its journey:

Paul's original question: What is it about a model that makes it valuable to the collector community?

What it is about a ship model that makes it valuable to the collector community as a ship model is primarily the degree to which a "high-quality scale ship model provides a compelling impression of an actual vessel within the constraints of historical accuracy." A ship model may also be valuable to the collector community for any other reason related to its being a work of fine art, including, but not limited to, its age, provenance, and/or its authorship.

The "investment grade" fine art high-quality scale ship model collecting community is very small group of connoisseurs who may, as Brad illustrated well with his buffalo nickel example, dictate prices beyond the market value of a given model based on their own personal collecting tastes, desires, or requirements.

 

[-Waldemar-]

.​

The "investment grade" fine art high-quality scale ship model collecting community is very small group of connoisseurs who may, as Brad illustrated well with his buffalo nickel example, dictate prices beyond the market value of a given model based on their own personal collecting tastes, desires, or requirements.

It is said that true collectors never regret overpriced transactions, but always regret missed opportunities . I think I can confirm this also from the perspective of my personal experience. Thank you.

.​

 

[dockattner]

Paul's original question: What is it about a model that makes it valuable to the collector community?

I collect coins (specifically US Buffalo Nickles).

Coins, like models, have characteristics the "collector community" values:

Coins (Ship Models)
1) Condition (Condition/taken care of/preserved)
2) Rarity (Uniqueness and/or a special/renowned modeler (not a kit?))
3) Sharpness of details (Quality, attention to details, accuracy)
4) Mint Luster (Overall aesthetic appeal)

Six pages have been dancing around these intuitive "things/criteria".

HOWEVER, what makes something valuable to "An Individual Collector" isn't so obvious.

1. I wouldn't bid on any coin that was NOT a Buffalo Nickle. Others pay outrageous prices for coins that don't interest me.
a. Similarly, an individual may value:
1) a type of ship. (Think Battleships vs 21st century America's Cup Yachts)
2) a period. (think 16th vs 19th century)
3) a country. (French vs Dutch)
4) material (paper vs wood vs metal vs plastic vs etc.)
b. A single collector may also value things that are not obvious:
1) Maybe dimensions are the single most important criteria (the fireplace mantel is only so big!)
2) Maybe a relative served or died on a specific ship (none other are of any value)
3) Maybe the family worked in a specific shipyard (only ships from that yard hold any interest/value)
4) POW2 bone models (stunning to some and ugly to others)

BOTTOM LINES:
1. Beauty/value is in the eye of the beholder/buyer/individual.
2. If criteria/judges/collector community are involved (think miss universe or ship modeler judges), you get very similar, beautiful curves, adornments, decorations, that may not appeal to every individual.

PS: Example of beauty in the eyes of the beholder:

I paid over $500 for the final nickel in my collection. I doubt many of you would have paid $5 for the same coin...right or wrong??

View attachment 579468


Just my "5 cents"!

A substantive post, Brad.

My dad also fancied Buffalo Nickels.

 

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

in my opinion i think discussing the standards is a key factor in determining the value of a model to the builder, the collector and the community at large. Personally, I see the value in a model as a reference if i am stuck on a point i will look for other models to see how other builder handled the problem. At one end of fine art models the standards are quite high and anyone joining the ship modeling community will see the high standards achieved by master builders. The builder can choose to aspire to those standards or not and just build for fun; the builder set his own personal standard good is good enough. I read in the topic the idea of taking the high standards of fine art models redefining it and lowering the bar making the standards malleable to fit all levels of building and circumstances. Well! that destroys the very meaning of standards and value to everyone.

For example

you get your first ship model kit and you begin the build but your stuck. you do go to a local model club but your hesitant to show your model. The "value" is not the kit or the model the value is in your workmanship and dedication to the build. So you go to a model forum and post questions and pictures of a problem. What you get is good job hey it's you model so do what you want we do not judge or have any standards. The value to you personally and to the club you belong to is reduced to zero because anything goes you get a good job no matter what you show on the forum.

on the flip side

you are a neophyte underdeveloped skill, little knowledge of the subject but you join a guild sit among the royalty of fine art ship model building. The standards are so far above your level they seem impossible to achieve. What does it feel like to sit in that chair discouraging or inspiring?

Taken directly from his Memoirs and in Harold’s own words. “The Boston Museum of fine arts really hit me hard. I found ship models in cases located in the halls of the museum. The thing that bowled me over, and forced me to reassess my intent in ship modeling was a gallery devoted to a collection of British Admiralty models. I had been patting myself on the back for being quite a fine model builder after the few opportunities I had to see other noted people’s work. Suddenly it was revealed to me that I hadn’t even reached first base. The exquisite workmanship and detailing that I saw in the complicated Admiralty models had me eating humble pie.

So would you rather belong to a guild, forum or community with no values or standards undefined and so flexible they apply to everyone thus rendering them useless, or belong to a guild, forum or community with high standards that you may never reach or for that matter even care to but they are there and the standards define the art?
The value lies within each builder i sat in that seat among the best of the best and it inspired and challenged. As i said standards and value are not set by one person or guild or group the standards and value are the culmination of art galleries, museums, master builders, guilds, academics and community.
like the days gone by sitting at a NRG conference proud to be a member of a guild of fine art values same applies to being a member of Ships of Scale that upholds the standards and the value in what i do, being assured i do not get a "sloff off" good enough or poorly done models that cannot be trusted as a reference. We as a community define the standards and value of the art form and of the hobby. Be it a builder, client or collector looks and judges the ship modeling community as a whole and bases their opinions on the collective standards and values they go hand in hand.

 

[DAWarden-(Jaager)]

In the case of this thread, I see value in the drift that its gravity is working at.

How do we identify these modelers who "just want to have fun," but avowedly aren't interested in having the quality of their models measured against some standard?

My money is on: before expending the effort -the only way to know is to ask the OP to define his ultimate ambition as a modeler.

Is there much more that can be said in this thread about every theoretical value an individual model could possess? The drift is keeping it alive and interesting.

It keeps drifting into discussing the core values that matter on a practical basis. It may be that this is a chance for this site to explore if it wants to actively support wearing two hats. The other major site has already opted to be kits and "for fun" only. That is where the money is for them. Wearing two hats will be uncomfortable and at times a bit rancorous, but also interesting and potentially having real substance.

This thread may already be too long and unfocused to work as part of a non existent reference WIKI within this site.

You know, a WIKI with "the definitive answer to it" for the topics that keep popping up from beginners. As for there being an actual quality and comprehensive WIKI - if even just a taste of the work required is explored - at least to me - it is apparent that it would have to be done by a team of well paid knowledgeables. The funds to support it would require a paid subscription from the users.

 

[Roger Pellett]

In 1975, living in the small town of Marietta, Ohio I was amazed to read that an organization that I had never heard of would be meeting there; the Nautical ResearchGuild. I attended and met the “Rock Stars” that Dave writes about. Like him and probably others, I was introduced to a standard of work that I could only then aspire to. Unfortunately, unlike Dave, once the meeting was over, these guys were out of my reach. But I did join the Guild and their Journal continued to encourage and educate me.

The Journal, sadly “ain’t what it used to be.” The editor only can publish the articles that he receives, but some of the ship model building articles that get printed would not have been accepted for publication back in the day. Ship model builders wanting to improve their art will have to look for forums like SOS for help.

Roger