Justin P.

Not to mention the MSW "Terms of Use" do not mince words... "You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this bulletin board." To me, that reads that there is no "unless this, or unless that provision..." It means, don't do it and should in the case of this forum trump all other language on the matter. Determining wether you own the copyright is pretty straightforward after that.

I don't think this is technically correct. Just because something appears on a google search does not mean it was uploaded to a public site, further the absence of restrictions does not prohibit a copyright claim. I can post a photo to my public site and without explicitly stating that I have copyright over the image can still make a claim on its use. My understanding in this scenario is that the owner of the painting (and creator of photograph of painting) would retain copyright of the photograph unless specifically released or licensed for use by someone else. Technically, if you copy that photograph and then post it elsewhere without permission you are violating that copyright. However, if you simply link to it or embed the image without "copying (or downloading it)" then you are using it safely. Its murky. As well, if you take an image of something that is already under copyright (like ship kit plans that you own) and upload it somewhere you would be violating copyright unless you have explicit release to do so from the creator (say Model Shipways for example).

Ha. Small world... I grew up on South Whidbey, we probably know the same people. Was just in Coupeville visiting my old man this past weekend.

Welcome from an another PNW’er. Live in Seattle region too.

Its an interesting point about the gunports, something I reacted too as well when I saw it. I had some time to kill and poked around for some sort of vintage toy kit given the style of Granpas model. I didn't find anything useful BUT what I did find is that many of the museum models of this ship arrange the gunports exactly over one another... maybe that's an historic ship model thing, I have no idea. Interesting none the less. https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/66197.html https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/66286.html https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/66185.html

https://www.dailyinterlake.com/montana_life/20190428/model_shipbuilder_devoted_to_perfect_re-creations

Oh man. That one is famous. Honestly though, you should see the outrage that comes out of professional circles over what appears to be perfectly good treatments. I won't get into the details, but here are a few examples that literally set people's hair on fire! To anyone but the conservator this is fascinating and beautiful work. For the conservator, every detail - the brush choice, the gel placement, the hand motion, the dripping - is something to agonize over and criticize. Not being a paintings conservator, I don't really have an opinion but honestly you should have seen the backlash!!! I think ultimately though, what makes these so controversial is how viral they've become and how they trivialize or inaccurately depict the work. There is also a fear in some that too much "behind the curtain" will lead people to start "restoring" their own collections. Sort of like people pulling their own teeth? Something, actually quite a lot of things, could go wrong. In another, similar situation - these videos often go viral and receive a lot of attention but this persons approach is also widely criticized. Why? Again, Im not a paintings conservator so I don't really know but from what Ive read on the matter many of the criticisms are well-founded and extremely detailed. Its enough to make your head hurt. His approach is so widely panned by professionals that a now very well circulated parody has been created:

Sorry about dragging you in Ab! I just thought, and was right, that your insight and experience would lend a certain balance. No one, that I can think of, is more knowledgable or experienced in these matters than you. This fact is well documented outside MSW. I particularly appreciate the real-world anecdotes you provide which challenge the purist and idealistic rhetoric that I often spew when given half a chance :). As you well know, it is extremely difficult to articulate the nuances of restoration/conservation when the too things are so intimately related. Each object, though presenting familiar problems, often require new and interesting strategies for their repair. I also agree that everyone (at least in this forum) has their best-intentions in mind when they approach such things. I think we all need to be aware that the "golden-rule," whatever it is, should be somewhere between "do nothing" and "do everything." Unfortunately the "do everything" approach is often the easiest, sells well, and comes with greatest aesthetic improvement. Too often though (in my opinion) at the greatest cost to the object. Similarly the "do nothing" approach serves no purpose as access diminishes exponentially and the longevity of the object suffers. I think for my own practice, being dogmatic in every instance keeps me on an even keel, knowing that with every case I will have to deviate from the "ideal." With every choice, I need that dogma to right my thought process so that I can approach the next challenge re-balanced. This, I think, prevents bias towards those solutions that are "easier" or superficially "more beautiful." As you know, there is a great deal of satisfaction that comes from a well executed and beautiful treatment/repair and, for me at least, overtime it can become easy to return to those same decisions/techniques because the result is guaranteed. I also see my students who often want to repeat the same treatment strategy time and time again because its what they know, what they are comfortable doing and the route with which they likely encounter the least trouble. Not only must they be trained to repair/conserve/restore an element well, but they must be trained to stop - think - and decide at each step wether their well developed techniques are appropriate or if another less developed technique is required (despite it being technically more difficult, more complicated, less durable, more fiddly). No doubt the scenario you related about the running rigging v. the standing rigging is a perfect example. Ultimately, would those models have been more fully repaired and "more beautiful" if all of the rigging was cohesive, of the same materials, fresh and brand new? I would guess it would be. Would a curator be more inclined to request that treatment on all items in order for their exhibition to be that much more attractive/successful? This is less of a guess for me, I see this tendency everyday. I was intrigued by your anecdote about the curator who decries what has been done as mistreatment... My experience is often the opposite, they come to me with visions of grandeur; objectives that can only be achieved through mistreatment of the object! I find myself often talking them down to something more serviceable than spectacular. As you say, their training doesn't always prepare the for those decisions. The devil is in the details, and its the details that are usually first on the chopping block. Thanks again for your .50 cents - though unwillingly given - I still found it very interesting ;).

Not at all Hank, I think I qualified my comments regarding VICTORY and CONSTITUTION with this: “Who knows what it means for a historic ship to still have a commission?” You make an excellent point about active duty duty ships, be they historic or otherwise. Subject to budgetary restraint. I myself am a government employed conservator, knowing full well that my rhetoric is more idealistic than it is practical or realistic. Everything I do is subject to budget and institutional priority. It’s what we do within those restraints that define our work.

Ha! It sounds like we already have a new one! Very interesting background on what it’s been through and made of!

Bane of my existence.

Im a conservator and can reiterate what everyone else has said. Basically every cellulosic material used in the creation of that model and other non-cellulosic materials will be sensitive to UV exposure. Putting the model in the window is problematic for these reasons. As has been mentioned you can replace all the glass with Museum grade glass or acrylic and mitigate a lot this. However, I would avoid filters or coatings. Those have UV resistance properties but are consumed in the process and often discolor as they age. They will lose their effectiveness rapidly and you'll be in the same situation. In museum and conservation labs here we change our our filters regularly. Museum glass is quite different in make and will last much, much longer but no forever sadly. Tru-View would be a good supplier of custom cut museum grade material. Not terribly expensive either. Secondly, the heat and rH fluctuations from a sealed case can rapidly speed up natural aging, acid hydrolysis and the photo-chemical degradation of UV exposure thereby doubling or tripling down on the problems you are having. Make sure your case can vent, and keep it away from the window. Don't put it over a heat vent or near a fireplace. Put it somewhere stable, with moderate to light light exposure and it should last a very long time. EDIT: Im only noticing after the fact, that you have your model in a window, near a heat vent and next to a fireplace! A triple threat!

I think that is an interesting point. When you look at the parameters of conservation treatment when applied to object that used or have mechanical/functioning structures, I think the line between restoration and conservation become blurred. Im thinking early stringed instruments, or clocks, or books. A Stradivarius in a museum is not given new strings to refresh its looks, however Yo Yo Ma regularly restrings his own. In some cases, conservation treatment does require replacement of original elements. However, the difference is that a great deal of research goes into the materials chosen to replace the originals and superficial reasons are often thrown out. In the case of ship models, rigging is an especially important detail not only to the integrity of the model but also to the informational and historic value of the piece. Simply replacing It because it doesn't look great would be no-no in the museum world. Of course the importance of such a conservative approach wains as previous well-meaning but ill-founded "restorations" have replaced or discarded original elements through the years. I wish Ab Hoving were weighing in here, I would love to know what he thinks as a well respected Ship Model conservator at the Rijks - he's around this forum somewhere. Given that both VICTORY and CONSTITUTION are still on the rolls they may even be treated with a an extra layer of treatment complexity. Who knows what it means for a historic ship to still have a commission? From the VICTORY website: "HMS Victory is currently undergoing a 13 year, £35million conservation project, with experts from fields such as timber preservation, shipbuilding, rigging, conservation, engineering and heritage. This is an exciting time for the ship. The most obvious sign of the project is that her masts have been temporarily removed, and visitors are also able to see first hand some of the work that is being carried out on board to save HMS Victory for future generations to enjoy." They don't mince words here, they could conceivably throw some new lines and another layer of paint on her but here is where the two things diverge. The paint will be vetted for interactions with every other element at play and the rigging specially chosen if not completely remade following period appropriate protocols. It is more than a "replace all the rigging" protocol and likely they still choose to retain as much as they can of the original (if any of the original exists). Also, rigging was regularly replaced on a working ship and conservators would take this into consideration as they work through their process. Sails, rigging and all the rest of the "consumables" would be less likely valued (regardless of the ships status as an active commissioned vessel). A ship model on the other hand does not sail, and the rigging not consumed... it is made by the modeler, knotted by them, perhaps wound by them and the rigging style specifically chosen by them. They carry historic, intrinsic value as part of the object and to my mind deserve whatever we can do.

This technology is becoming more commonplace, though rarely are we make exciting discoveries like this! I wholeheartedly agree with you... few of those originators we often hail as masters and geniuses ever thought they'd end up in our museums to be revered for the coming centuries. This is precisely why so many conservators are involved in materials research and outreach. Modern fine art students are getting more and more education on materials permanence and more and more artists are filling out conservation riders to go with their commissioned works. Permanence is a growing concept for those who care about such things.

I think this is precisely where this conversation went a bit sideways. The original talk I shared was from the context of a conservation treatment protocol for ship models, thus the treatment principals I later described were/are relevant. Frankie, I think, weighed in from a restoration background. With as little offense as possible to those in the restoration business, I believe that restoration as a practice can be muddy water, particularly when it comes from a maker background and is not developed first on a foundation of an objects history and inherent values (artifactual, informational). The differences are huge when you give a painter something to rejuvenate compared to giving the same object to a paintings conservator. Further - 9 times out 10 restoration is conducted with the best intentions but not with the best materials, technique or methods. In MANY cases the restorers vanity also has a disproportionate role. It can be quite difficult for restorers to hand back an object that doesn't look totally outstanding. Conservation treatment often sacrifices the aesthetics of an object for the long-term preservation of the whole. For example, ever walked round a museum and wondered why things look old, dim, drab or washed out? Because they are old, dim, drab and washed out objects. The materials we might use to rehabilitate those aesthetics are often the worst contributors to deterioration. Ever think "Gosh, that work would look so much more amazing if they would just turn the lights up a bit..." - its the lights that are the problem. All that said, the restorers work has its place. Frankie is right that a fully restored ship will likely endure life as an object in someones home far better than those that have been conserved. However, in a museum setting, restoration has no place and those institutions that have employed a restorer often do so out of ignorance for the nuances between the two ideas (and often, sadly, restoration is cheaper). We can control what happens to an object in a museum, and thus can dial back on our conservation treatment because environmental deterioration is heavily mitigated. Conservation practice exists on a spectrum, which is directly informed by the exhibition setting, collection storage environment and the handling/research/use interest the object experiences. Some can be quite conservative and others much more intrusive - but, they never go anywhere without extensive research, materials vetting and documentation (the baggage of my life). This point made years ago, which I am now re-reading is also, I think, a bit misleading. Ive worked both for myself and for institutions and my approach hasn't changed. Ones ethics shouldn't be fluid...if you are having trouble getting enough work, it is not because your refusing too much of it, its because you aren't a particularly good business person. Know your market, and understand work doesn't just drop in your lap. The times that Ive had to refuse work is maybe three times out of nearly 20 years. Most of my clients want the best for their objects and are willing to listen to reason. They appreciate the explanations, in part, because they get to share that with their dinner guests and this often feeds their willingness to come back with something else. There is a standard that ALL conservators must abide by regardless of whether they're in private practice or not. The European Institute of Conservation (ICON), the American Institute for Conservation (AIC), the Canadian Conservation Institute (CCI) and the Australian Institute for the Conservation of Cultural Heritage (AICCM) ALL have peer-review/accreditation standards and they all have ship-model conservators in their ranks both privately and publicly employed. Those organizations only provide referrals to those who have undergone significant training, education and peer-review. If they preformed treatment outside of these standards, and those oversight committees found out, they would be stripped of their designations and lose both organizational affiliation and word-of-mouth business (a death stroke). Its simply not a risk worth taking. It takes a long time to get there, and its just not worth throwing away. One familiar with the world of high-value collecting (private and public) understands how easily restoration and conservation work is to follow (and who is doing it). All that said, I was struck by Paul Fontenoy's editorial in the latest NRG Journal (64-4) where he suggests that the model making community reappraise the use of materials previously thought untouchable. Particularly now that some time has passed and those new methods have proven their mettle with age. His last statement really hit home for me: "Skilled craftsmen are producing remarkable creations using these materials and we owe it to them to provide guidance for their models' survival rather than dismissing them as temporary aberrations." - Paul E. Fontenoy, NRG Journal 64-4. This is something I teach, preach and repeat as needed. Artists, craftspeople and others (hobbyists included) should take a longer view of their work and I think in-particular ship modelers should as well. How many of you/us are passing these legacy's down or donating them to some library? I know for my own sake, I have at least three of my Grandfather's and I can already see the toll that extended UV exposure has had on stains or finishes he used. I can see the uneven deterioration of the rigging from the exposed side and the ubiquitous "against the wall" side. Fontenoy gives the reason that we now have 50-70 years of experience with how these materials age. Thats about when we would expect to see many modern adhesives and plastics to start showing their age and starting to deform, discolor or embrittle. Museum grade ship-models are hundreds of years old... how will these new materials hold up to that type of longevity? I wonder how useful/relevant some sort of written treatment on common materials (old and new) used in ship-modeling and advice for their long-term exhibition would be? Being right up my ally, and having numerous analytical techniques at my disposal (I can simulate age and exposure to many hundreds of years in my lab) and the idea has certainly gotten my wheels spinning...