oakvander

Go for it! You may "catch the bug!'  The real mystery at this point is "Who built it?" It seems it's not from a kit, so somebody who knew what they were doing must have done the research and built a replica of the model in the National Maritime Museum - Greenwich. It's one of a kind, which is a good thing. The issues of needed repairs, valuation, and finding a home for a model of this size remain outstanding, of course. It certainly deserves to be preserved.

Do the folks that have it now have any idea of its history? Perhaps there's a thread that can be unraveled from that point backwards.

Anyhow, I remain intrigued. Keep me posted! 

Bob

Hi Oakvander,

I think it's wise for the owners to get an appraisal from Mike Wall if it isn't too costly. They should know that there are appraisals done for "insurance purposes" or to support tax deductions if a model is to be a tax-deductible donation, and there are appraisals done for the purpose of establishing a reasonable sale price. The two types can vary considerably.

Your additional pictures were most helpful, although they may have raised more questions than they provided welcome answers. In the event the owners may wish to sell the model,  I'm not posting these further comments. 

From the additional photos, it is now clear that there is not simply a "missing stern lantern," but rather that the stern lanterns are exhibiting the ravages of "lead bloom." This is essentially oxidation which occurs from acidic environmental conditions which causes lead and lead alloys to turn to powder (lead oxide.) It's essentially "lead rusting." One lantern has been near completely consumed. The interior bare lead of the other two show less severe deterioration. Undoubtedly, they were once painted red on the inside of the frames, as was the prototype model in the museum at Greenwich, but as the lead decomposed, the red paint went with it. This is a common occurrence with painted lead parts.  It appears quite likely that the rest of the "carved" decoration on the model is not carved at all, but, like the lanterns, is made of cast lead or lead alloy using the "lost wax" process. Fortunately, the gold leaf (or more likely gold paint) has provided greater protection to these "gilded" parts, so the oxidation process has been less severe.  "Lead bloom" is also called "lead cancer" for good reason. It is progressive and near impossible to prevent. The lanterns certainly, and perhaps other parts of the decoration, will have to be replicated and cast in non-lead-based alloys. This is going to require much more extensive conservation that I previously indicated. An excellent explanation of the problems of  lead oxidization encountered by ship model curators can be found here: Nautical Research Journal - Vol 43 (thenrg.org)

The additional photographs also reveal other concerns, some mentioned by subsequent posters. It is apparent that this, in my opinion, this is a relatively recently built model, perhaps being done in the last 25 or 30 years. That's just a gut impression based on the pictures, but there's much about the detail now apparent that indicates construction techniques which were not common until that time frame. It's an impression formed from looking closely at models for fifty years or so. However subtle, you just know when a model is really old and when it's fairly new. That said, we can tell a lot about a builder (artist) from studying the work. The builder of this model was very skilled when it came to woodworking and likely had the sort of modern powered tools that produce the crisp, well-fitted woodwork that the model exhibits. On the other hand, the builder's strong suit was not rigging, both with respect to construction technique and historical accuracy. There are a fair number of anachronisms in the rigging work that are quite apparent. The thread and cord used for the rigging appears to be a collection of commercially made thread and string, rather than "scale rope" laid up in the same manner as the full-size prototype. All other things being equal, bringing this model into the high-dollar category would quite likely require considerable re-rigging. 

I offer these comments no to run the model down, but rather to educate the owners of my own impressions, if nothing else, and to prepare them for what Mike Wall or one of his appraisers is likely to tell them. It's still a lovely model, assuming the more glaring issues are addressed. Given its inherent qualities,  the causes of its lack of provenance remains a mystery.

Appraisal reports are the property of their purchasers and customarily kept confidential, but I'd love to know what Wall thinks of it. For what it is, it's a large model and that may be it's biggest handicap in the marketplace. When you look at Wall's current inventory, compared to what he used to have in his gallery, it is clear that he's now moved to the "miniature" models of famous builders like McNarry, McCaffery, and Reed who work to very small scales, producing six-inch to a foot long masterpieces that fit on a bookshelf instead of large scale models such as this one which, with its table and case, is the size of an armoire!

Bob Cleek 

Hi Bob. Thanks for the very detailed response. That's all very interesting. 

I haven't yet moved forward with Michael Wall. I did receive a nice response from Arnold Kriegstein, who indicated that it would have an auction value of $3,000 to $5,000 -- much lower than I would have anticipated based on how beautiful it is. He also estimated that it was likely made around 1970. I take it that Dr. Kriegstein is one of the world's experts on this type of model. Would you expect Mr. Wall's estimate to be significantly different?

The owners are now deciding what to do -- to donate to an individual or institution, try to sell it, etc.  I don't know what they will decide, but I'll certainly let you know when they do. Should they decide to donate it to an individual, is it still something you're interested in?

Thanks for all your help.