Bob Cleek

I discovered In the Wake of the Bounty on Amazon Prime TV last night. It's a one-hour long combination documentary made in 1934 of a visit by a film crew to Pitcairn Island in 1930. The documentary of life on Pitcairn Island in 1930 is interspersed with a dramatic portrayal of the mutiny story. I expect it would be of interest to many, and particularly those building Bounty models. It is, of course, in black and white, and filmed 90 years ago, so let's just say it's "dated." The shots of sails in the dramatic segments conflate 20th Century bulk carriers with 18th Century Admiralty practice, but are some of the few contemporary film cuts of real sailing ship practice at the end of the Age of Sail. The production qualities of the dramatic reenactment scenes are amateurish and of no value to modelers, but movie buffs may enjoy watching Errol Flynn in his very first film role. The dramatic segments may also be of historical interest to movie buffs because the movie was made contemporaneously with the introduction of the "Hays" and "Production" Hollywood self-censorship codes and is one of a genre of long-suppressed travelogues and historical movies which served as a excuses to depict somewhat gratuitous nudity. The scenes of Bounty's crew in Tahiti have that quaint "National Geographic porn" quality. No doubt, the movie's coverage (or un-coverage) of bare breasted Tahitian young ladies no doubt contributed greatly to its box office success. Seriously, though, the film and interviews of the Pitcairners and their daily lives, including their launching their whaleboats, is very interesting. This was (they claim) the first movie film taken on Pitcairn Island and in 1930 it was still a rather primitive place which had little contact with the outside world. At that time, the oldest people living there were only the grandchildren of the mutineers and original Tahitians themselves, and the local culture was still closely connected with the mutiny events even if all but one of the British mutineers had died of natural causes or been murdered in squabbles and feuds by the time Pitcairn Island's inhabitants were discovered by the Nantucket whaler Topaz 1808. It's available for streaming on Amazon Prime TV at the moment.

Great answers, Alexey! Thanks very much. The PL4s look like a big improvement on the PL3.2 and I'm sure they will be very successful. Thanks for your contributions to ship modeling!

You should be proud, Alexey! It looks beautiful. From what I see, the PL4 series provides the option of purchasing a dedicated three-strand machine, the PL4-3 that will also wind two-strand line or a four-strand machine, the PL4-4, which is the successor to the PL3.2, that will wind two-, three-, or cored four-strand line. It appears that the PL4-4 is virtually mechanically identical to the PL3.2 but in a more organized and tighter package which places the separate control box of the PL3.2 with its attendant connecting wires which clutter the workspace (but in no way inhibit operation) within the base of the machine. Many of the parts have been redesigned, obviously increasing strength to their benefit. This is particularly so with the bases for the main power and take-up spool motor mounts, which I think is a significant improvement structurally. Notable, as well, is the change in the traverse arm, shortening it and changing it's travel from the vertical to the horizontal plane, which makes it much less likely to break from an inadvertent impact. Arm now pivots from the middle, rather than then end as it did in the PL3.2 and an additional fair-lead added so there is now one at each end of the traverse lever. I presume this is intended to provide greater range in setting the angle at which the line feeds out from the crossbar. The head appears to be redesigned, having only a single face rather than the two plates between with the gears were sandwiched on the PL3.2, but the mechanics of the head appears identical. The head axle is mounted in a differently designed post which I expect provides a more robust fixture, although the PL3.2's mounting block did not seem deficient in that respect. If nothing else, the PL4 mount is more elegantly designed. It appears the separate mount for the core bobbin has been re-engineered to make it a bit more convenient, as well. The biggest difference I see, aside from the redesign of the head, which doesn't seem to change anything except to simplify the previous design and provide a more elegant assembly, are the changes to the adapter disk and crossbar through which the finished line leaves the headstock. The solid adapter disk and and straight crossbar attached at each end, which is adjustable by movement of nuts on the threaded rods on the PL3.2 appears now to be replaced by two apparently identical three-legged "spider" pieces attached at three points to the threaded rods attached to the headstock. The PL4 crossbar does not have attachment/adjustment nuts on it, but instead appears to be part of a sub-assembly connected to the former "adapter disk" by plastic sleeves over the threaded rods from the headstock which perhaps provides a more convenient adjustment method for the crossbar. That would be an interesting improvement if that is indeed what it does. Alexey, could you give us some more detailed information about the new model? Here are my questions: What's "new and different" and why? What does the new traverse design with the two fair leads intended to improve and how are the two fair leads used? What is different about the operation and or function of the new adapter disk and crossbar design? Is it dependent upon the new horizontal two-fair lead to do what it does differently? If the new adapter disk and crossbar design is a significant improvement, can it be purchased separately to be attached to the PL3-2 as an upgrade? The PL3.2 crossbar, being a flat piece with two holes for threaded rods to pass through and one smaller hole in the center for the line, made it easy for the user to fabricate an additional crossbar with a larger hole that accommodated larger diameter line passing through it. How does the PL4's new "three-legged spider" molded piece that replaces the PL3.2's flat plastic crossbar accommodate differences in line size? Does one have to purchase different "spiders" and drill larger holes, or what? While I suppose your initial post was appropriately placed in the "things for sale" section of the forum, I'd like to suggest to the moderators that further discussion should be in the "tools and materials" section and also placed in the "rope" section of the "modeling techniques" section in the home page drop-down bar. The fact that it's for sale makes its posting by the seller to the "for sale" section correct, but the discussion of its operation and technical developments more relevant to the other sections mentioned and gives those discussions much wider notice than in "things for sale," as the limited comments to the initial post in "for sale" amply demonstrates. This is of much wider interest.

It seems they classify the parts of Victory on a four-point scale reflecting various benchmarks in her history. With respect to her bowsprit, they note: Present at Launch - No Present at Trafalgar - No Present Pre-1923 - No. Fitted 1936 Rarity - Some They note: By 1936 it was clear that the Victory’s bowsprit, which dated from 1859, was no longer structurally safe. Experts advised that ‘it would appear to have earned its discharge’ and recommended that it should be replaced by a steel tube. A section of the removed 1859 bowsprit is exhibited in Storehouse 10, at the foot of the staircase leading to the Fore Topsail Gallery. I believe all the lower sections of Victory's masts are made of steel tube, the same as her bowsprit. Back in 1936, I suppose that was "restoration," rather than "conservation."! https://www.hms-victory.com/bones/frame?layout=simple&fr=x (Restoration log of HMS Victory website: https://www.hms-victory.com/restoration-log/preserving-history-hms-victory-through-archives ) Don't get me started on a rant about the US National Park Service's "policy" that the deterioration of ships and buildings "is part of their history" as an excuse to let priceless artifacts rot away, nor the government's budgeting practices that often require five years or more to get major projects approved. The result is too often a total lack of necessary routine maintenance of floating vessels which must be routinely maintained to avoid catastrophic damage, last minute failed attempts to obtain "emergency stop-gap funding" for repairs, or diversion of such funds to other projects if they are provided at all, and the eventual scrapping of the vessels as ultimately "beyond repair." SS Wapama being an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wapama_(steam_schooner) https://councilofamericanmaritimemuseums.org/documentation-projects/steam-schooner-wapama/ (with links to full set of lines and construction drawings suitable for modeling.) https://www.loc.gov/resource/hhh.ca1521.photos?st=gallery (Library of Congress detailed photo set) https://noehill.com/sf/landmarks/nat1973000228.asp https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Lumber-schooner-Wapama-last-of-kind-is-condemned-2371267.php (28 photos prior to scrapping.) "By 1997, the maritime park's general management plan called for "minimal" measures to slow the Wapama's deterioration, but it added, "The vessel's underlying structural decay will not be addressed." That, essentially, was a death sentence for the ship."

Sad indeed. He was one of my favorite modeling authors. Not always an easy read, but his books were chock full of valuable ideas. His Techniques of Ship Modeling is a must-have.

I didn't say that as the original post indicates, but I'll respond to the question: That's all a matter of your own judgment. If the paint is being sprayed evenly out of the gun, rather than spitting and sputtering and producing a "splattered" finish, that's how it should be. If the paint isn't coming out so thick that it takes forever to dry or "floods" and starts to run, that's how it should be. If it produces a perfect finish without buildup that obscures fine detail, that's how it should be. If you're happy with it, that's how it should be. If not, it's time to read your airbrushing manual, watch a few YouTube videos, and start experimenting. The problem is more often an incorrect adjustment of your airbrush and you should troubleshoot for that before blaming the paint. Learn what "conditioners" (thinners, retarders, drying accelerators, and leveling agents) are available to you and add those to your arsenal.

And dangling jewelry of any kind, especially necklaces. And long sleeves. And long hair.

What wefalck said. Note that in the pictures above, these lines are apparently Dacron. Few traditional vessels today will be rigged with anything else. The old natural fiber lines simply can't compare in the "real world." Dacron does not stain easily and will stay "white" longer than natural cordage. Photos of full-size ships today aren't an accurate measure of what period ships' rigging really looked like. (There is, however, specialty cordage and sailcloth for traditional vessels which is dyed various shades of cream and tan color to simulate the natural materials.) The set decorators doing Master and Commander - The Far side of the World took pains to get every detail right, though. The line on the ship, in the close-ups, at least, appears to be natural fiber cordage and this is what it really looks like after use. Note that the lines in the foreground are a slightly different shade than the lines in the upper left hand corner of the frame. Note also that the frayed strands of what appears to be a broken, unraveled line in the upper left corner and upper right hand corner of the frame are lighter, as would be the case, as they hadn't been exposed to as much dirt and weather. The standing rigging, being oiled, would be very dark brown and at a distance appear black.

It had to happen: a line of canned spray paint designed for "taggers."

If you are getting satisfactory results out of it in your airbrush, you're doing it right. Customarily, acrylics that aren't pre-thinned for airbrushing should be thinned at a ratio of two parts paint to one part thinner. Formerly, all oil-based paint was formulated to be "conditioned," meaning thinned as needed. No knowledgeable painter would apply paint "right out of the can." With the advent of the DIY market, however, paints started being "dumbed down" so the uninitiated DIYers could use it "out of the can" without getting terrible results and blaming the paint company for those. Curiously, with oil-based paints, at least, this led to formulations with higher VOCs (solvents) and when the environmental regulations starting going into effect all over the place, they were back to square one with "thicker" paints that had to be thinned again in order to keep the as-sold VOCs below the legal limits. The water-based paints and acrylics, having little or no VOCs, then began to take over the market to comply with the low-VOC limits. Good paint has never been "cheap" and paint is one of those things where you get what you pay for. The problem with model paints, which require large amounts of finely ground pigments to cover without detail-concealing paint build up, were always for these reasons among the most expensive (since the most expensive component in paint are the pigments, some colors much more than others.) Add to that the cost of retail inventory overhead for hundreds of pre-mixed colors and packaging in little tiny bottles and cans, and an ounce of model paint becomes some of the most expensive paint on the planet. The most economical way to paint models with fine pigment archival-quality paint is to use quality tubed artists' oil paints and color-mix, thin, and condition them with linseed oil, turpentine and Japan dryer yourself. A small bit out of the tube can be mixed and stored in your own bottles for a while before it goes bad, but the bulk oil in the "toothpaste tube" lasts a long, long time. Artists oils are sold in varying degrees of opacity and are easily sourced in high-pigment-load form which permits full coverage without paint building up and destroying fine detail on the model.

This thread got me wondering whether pre-mixed solvent-based enamel model paint was available at all in the US these days. I was surprised to discovery that the old standby, Humbrol, is indeed alive and well with US headquarters in Washington State. https://www.humbrol.com/us-en/ I couldn't find any listing of retailers and I suspect there are few, given that so many have "gone over to the dark side" with acrylics. They are still selling it mail order via the internet in their iconic "tinlets" for $2.50 a can. They also make a full line of acrylic paints these days.

I've heard of ships carrying grindstones as ballast to places where they might be sold, but I've never heard of jettisoned grindstones being recovered over the course of my forty-plus years of familiarity with maritime archaeology in the S.F. Bay Area. During the last of the Nineteenth and beginning of the Twentieth Centuries, the large "ocean carriers," mainly four-masted barks and ships such as Balclutha, primarily carried grain grown in the Central Valley of California to Europe and, finding cargoes wanting on the return leg from Europe to California, required balasting. They would carry cobblestones quarried in Europe, called "Belgian block," that were off-loaded at San Francisco and used to pave the streets of the City. Many are still in place, though often now covered in asphalt. They are pulled up when streets are rebuilt and were once resold as construction material. I once owned a home with a twelve foot high living room wall built of them. Today, the City realizes their value and has an ordinance requiring all cobblestones removed from the streets to be retained for reuse by the City itself for historic restorations and the like.

I'm sure that's true. Were they painted with acrylics 30 years ago? Even so, they may look fine today. Obviously, you've taken good care of them. It's a dicey business. Some do apparently last well for such periods of time. Others, not so much. We don't have to wait 300 years to see how permanent styrene plastics are though. Plastic begins its process of "plastico-porosis" the minute it's made. It has a half-life that is relatively short and which can be radically accelerated by adverse environmental factors. It's decidedly "non-archival." Nobody expects it to last longer than what it does. (This degradation, however slow, is the only thing that has prevented mankind from becoming totally inundated in plastic garbage!) I expect anyone who has held on to a model that had decals applied for any length of time will have noticed that the clear edges of the decals frequently begin to cloud up and discolor after a few years and after a few more years, will eventually "dry out" and start to crack, flake, and peel off. Seriously, though, I think all modelers who put many hundreds, if not thousands of hours into building good models, should give careful thought to using the most long-lasting methods and materials. You never know. Maybe 300 years from now, your model may have survived and is then one of the very few models of its subject in existence, a true historic "museum quality" model. However long it does last, if anyone comes to own and enjoy it after you, they will certainly appreciate the fact that you did consider the permanence of the materials used. It also makes a huge difference in the monetary value of a model, should that be of any concern to the builder or the builder's heirs. I realize few of us will ever be good enough at the game to build a model that is worthy of being considered "museum quality," whatever that may be, but I think we all like to think we strive to do the best we can, or should. Every little bit brings our work closer to excellence.

I think you've sort of answered your own question. Otherwise, it depends on the "rope." Standing rigging is always going to be relatively tight. Running rigging is also generally belayed without slack, but, depending upon the application and circumstance, may be left slack and portrayed with a catenary, as may be appropriate. (These details should be easy to recognize if you understand how your prototype vessel sailed in real life.) For example, a leeward lazy jack set up on a model portrayed as under sail, will be slack, as would a running backstay under the same circumstances, although the running back might have been carried forward and lashed to an after shroud or the like to keep it from flogging around if no short tacking was anticipated. You should consider how you are portraying your model and run the rigging accordingly. Remember, too, that the rigging tension on the model accumulates as the tension of each item of rigging is added and, by the time the model is done, can represent a fair amount of energy built into the model. If you are rigging it too tightly, you'll know soon enough when things start popping loose all over the place or spars start snapping!

I was talking about ten, twenty, thirty years, not all eternity. As they say, "Your mileage may vary."

You won't live forever, but your model could if the right materials were used to build it. IIRC,, Longridge built that Victory in the late forties or early fifties. I'd sure like to see a conservator's report on the deterioration you describe. We could learn a lot about the permanence of the materials he used from such a study and/or the problems caused by the environment in which it was displayed. I expect Longridge was to some degree challenged in sourcing some materials in the post-war years when many shortages still existed in the UK.

The problem with Letraset and with "decals" is that neither last all that long in the grand scheme of things.

Some brands of acrylic paint are soluble in alcohol. One has to experiment. I've had only moderate success airbrushing when thinned with alcohol. They did not cover well and required repeated application. Alcohol speeds up the drying time a bit. The other shortcomings of acrylics remain. Adding Japan dryer to oil paint accellerates the drying time. Artist's oils are compounded for sale without dryers because picture-painting artists often like to rework their paintings, blending colors directly on the canvas over a period of time. Japan dryer should be available in any paint store. It's also sold in small bottles in art stores at a much higher price. Generally speaking, a glossy finish isn't desirable on a model. As noted, a clear gloss coating can always be applied if one so desires. They don't pose any potential archival problems on plastic models. The acrylic coatings are likely to last longer than the plastic! Correct. "One Shot" sign painting paints are an oil based enamel with a very high level of finely ground pigment, just what is wanted for models. They are glossy and require a flattener be added (or hand-rubbing) for modeling work. And, yes, they are expensive. Professional freehand sign painters in the US use nothing else.

Yes, but once you have points of the curve laid out at each "station" in the lines drawing (these are not necessarily the positions of the frames,) use a "batten" (a flexible piece of wood or metal strip) bent so it curves, contacting each point, to draw your curved line on the wood.

No need to wonder! It's really important for so many reasons. One need only consider what models being built today might be left in two or three hundred years to understand that if one aspires to build a model of any quality, its permanence is an essential prerequisite to its value, historically and monetarily, both now and in the future. (The same goes for the research and documentation of its accuracy.) Ship modeling is like any other fine art. The overwhelming amount of it is pedestrian and fleeting, serving but a temporary purpose before being consigned to the scrap heap. For those whose purposes the inferior works serve, that's well and good, but if a modeler intends to connect with the generations of modelers who have gone before over hundreds of years, there is nothing for it but to do the most accurate research and to employ the longest lasting materials which ensure the longevity of their hard work. Anyone who has done any serious historical research has been bedeviled by inaccuracies that find their way into the fabric of history and become part of the canon without further critical examination. The historical record is really like the children's "telephone game" in many respects. Despite the total lack of any certainly accurate information about many historically important vessels, modelers, and especially the kit manufacturers that satisfy the demands of the marketplace, continue to perpetuate models of vessels like Golden Hind, Half Moon, Mayflower, Columbus' ships, and so on. It seems if it has a name, somebody's going to be selling a model of it, regardless of whether anyone has any accurate idea of what it really looked like. One can only imagine the confusion that may create a few hundred years from now when a Mayflower is "discovered" in an attic and the owner claims "it has been in the family" since their ancestor stepped onto Plymouth Rock! Modern technology is rarely intended to be long-lasting. Even in our own lifetimes, we see music recordings and moving pictures of great historical and artistic value which no longer exist at all anywhere, because they were recorded on media that was never intended to last. The same is quite likely true of many modern materials now customarily used in ship modeling. One of the biggest gaps in our knowledge of the archival qualities of modern ship modeling materials is found in the longevity of adhesives, modern polymer coatings, and synthetic fibers, many of which haven't been in existence long enough to have proven track records. (And certainly, their manufacturers' claims cannot be taken at face value!) Nevertheless, today's modelers embrace them with wild abandon. What happens to the output of some of our most technically accomplished modelers if the CA adhesives, the acrylic paints and poly-whatever sealers, and Dacron thread they've built with starts turning to brittle, crumbling dust a hundred and fifty years from now? Some will say, "Well, I'm not an internationally recognized professional modeler, so what do I care about something I'm only going to stick on my own mantle for my own pleasure?" They overlook the very real fact that in a couple of hundred years, which isn't so very long in the grand scheme of things, theirs could by chance happen to be one of the only models of the subject vessel that exists anywhere on the planet. In that case, will it then be a valuable historical artifact of "museum quality" of just another piece of old decorative junk in an antiques store? We can't know the future of our modeling work, but we can do much better than it appears current trends might promise to ensure that they have a future. This fact was brought home to me recently in an extreme example. A client of mine was involved in litigation over the ownership of an old scrap of paper, little larger than a postcard. It was a fragment of a "cartoon" (preliminary drawing) attributed to Rafael. It turns out, paper was expensive in Rafael's day, so they'd sketch the design of a painting in charcoal on paper and, when done with it, paint over the sketch with white paint and use the paper again for the next sketch. Using modern technology, the Rafael sketch was discovered beneath the painted surface of the paper which also contained a less valuable sketch on top of it. No doubt, if Rafael had known his sketch would someday be appraised to be worth a quarter of a million dollars, he wouldn't have worried about saving a few ducats on sketching paper! If those who pursue ship modeling as a hobby wish it to be given the artistic and historical respect it deserves (and yes, the monetary value, as well,) I submit we need to start taking the accuracy of our research and the permanence of our materials a lot more seriously that many now do.

Don't waste your time with balsa. It is too soft and your keel is the "backbone" of the entire model. Balsa is for model airplanes, due to its light weight. It is not suitable for ship modeling. I could go on explaining the many reasons for this, but you're just going to have to trust me on this one. Pictures help a lot with questions like this one. It sounds like the keel is somewhat trapezoidal in cross-section, which would be expected. There are many ways to shape it. Lay out a centerline all along the length of the top and bottom of the piece. Then lay out the shape of the bottom, turn it over and lay out the shape of the top. Then shape it to the top and bottom outer lines. Of course, you will also have to lay out your rabet and carve that into the top edges of the keel. This should be shown on the plans. You should also give some thought to a building jig. These Nordic vessels, I believe, were built "planks first" on a few temporary molds and the frames and floors were installed after the planking had defined the vessel's shape. You will have to build on some sort of a jig or forms, or you will have nothing to hang your planks on. A jig saw could shape the larger dimension, and the rest of the keel could be developed by planing the sides thereafter. Obviously, you've discovered the limitations of a razor saw, which is generally useful only for crosscutting straight stock. A coping saw or the like is required for curved cuts. I don't want to hurt your feelings, but in the interests of honesty, it's apparent from your questions that you lack the basic tool skills and knowledge of boat building to get anywhere at the rate you are going. These longships were very sophisticated in their design and execution. The plans you have, assuming you speak the language in which they are written, are not suitable for a beginner. They are not easily built hulls. There are many longboat kits commercially available. You should use the search engine in the forum to read all the build logs of them, read all the kit reviews of them, and decide which best suits your needs and skill level. There's nothing worse than biting off more that you can chew. Start with the "baby steps" and build upon what you learn. You'll master the skills quickly enough. It's not a subject that anyone at your skill level should attempt to scratch-build. Don't feel bad about that. Just accept that the learning curve is greater than you first imagined. There's no shame in that!

In theory, yes. In fact, most designed vessels specifications expressly prohibit any scarfs below the mast steps. That's not really critical in static models, though, but you won't want to include such a scarf if you were going to let it show in the finished model. Today's adhesives, properly used, should create a scarf bond as strong as the grown wood. That said, it appears the keel doesn't require any particularly large piece of wood. I'd certainly urge you to simply obtain a length of similar wood rather than going to the trouble of scarfing one. As you mention this is your first time building a wooden ship model, and as it appears this isn't a kit with precut planks, I feel you should be keenly aware that the lapstrake planking, which is an essential characteristic of this type of vessel, makes planking the model an exacting task. This is particularly so because it is an open boat, so both sides of the planks will be visible. Finally, the shape of the hull and the run of the planking, especially at the ends, should be expected to be about the most difficult planking job anyone could imagine. You may want to start with an easier model to build and then move on to this one, which is one of the most challenging of all.

I think the point is far more easily understood when one grasps the distinction between "conservation" and "restoration." Something is conserved to preserve what might be preserved for posterity, for future study of the original fabric of the artifact. Something is restored to new or like-new condition to preserve it's usefulness for its original purpose. For example, an original hand-written copy of the Declaration of Independence is an historic artifact because it is an original contemporary hand-written copy, even if it is so brittle and faded as to be nearly unreadable. Therefore, preserving the fabric of it must be the goal. Tracing over the original writing so it could be more easily readable would be an abomination. It's not about restoration so it looks like it did when it was first written, but about conservation to preserve the history of the artifact evident in its present condition. If this principle remains in dispute, I don't see much point in continuing to "flog the poodle."

This particular adage is an expression of philosophical relativism which is another way of saying that it has no objective validity. From a relativist perspective, it is only true if you believe it to be true; the truth of the adage is itself in the eye of the beholder. From a realist perspective, it is simply untrue; its so-called “truth” being the usual relativist error of confusing and conflating goodness, truth and beauty with preference, prejudice and opinion. Oddly enough, unlike beauty, it seems there's a general consensus about what's ugly. Seriously, though, beauty doesn't have much to do with it at all. Acrylics have gotten better since they first came on the market and are now quite good, but their present limitations make them inferior to oil based paints for use as serious fine arts and modeling applications. They have not been around long enough to say with unqualified certainty that they can be considered archival. We just don't know yet. Having experience with both oil and acrylics in modeling applications, these are my concerns with acrylics: They pose challenges when applied with an airbrush. Water dries much more slowly than volatile solvents and makes it difficult to spray water-based acrylics continuously. Slow drying paint makes it much more likely that curtains and runs will occur and waiting for the longer drying time is inconvenient. Some acrylic paints tend to form a grey veil on their surface or develop yellow discoloration with aging. Acrylic paintings attract and gather dirt easily. Acrylic emulsion paints used in the fine arts have glass-transition temperature (Tg) near or below room temperature. This means that acrylic emulsion films will always be soft at room temperature and that the paint surface will hold onto dust and dirt and even unite them into the film. The problem is further exacerbated by the fact that acrylic resins are non-conductors and tend to have electrostatic charges on their surface which attracts dirt. The soft film formed by acrylic paint will easily abrade or dent with just fingernail pressure. This type of damage can ruin the perfectly smooth surface of a model which must display a perfect surface to be true to scale. This is particularly so with topsides, which are subjected to considerable handling stress during the building process. Mold growth has been noted on acrylic paintings and has become an increasing concern among artists and collectors. Unfortunately, there is no ideal treatment that does not cause some degree of damage to the original paint. Mold growth tends to become apparent when humidity and temperature rise. Mold growth on a model which is viewed closely is seriously damaging to the overall impression of the model. There are many trade acrylic paints that have been used by artists and the range in their quality is broad. "Small bottle" premixed acrylic "hobby paints," as opposed to the expensive high quality fine arts tubed paste acrylics, tend to be at the lower end of the quality range, primarily for price considerations. The lesser quality paints tend to have cheaper colorants which fade easily under ultraviolet light. Thus, fading colors which change the tonal balance of the work may be due to the intrinsic nature of the materials and cannot be reversed by conservation. As they say, "Your mileage may vary." Surely, there are many ship models being built today which are of a quality that doesn't warrant worrying about the concerns I've noted.

Any painter experienced with the use of traditional oil-based paints, recognizes the shortcomings of acrylics and their "water-based" ilk. Call them "user friendly" if you wish, but the term I find more appropriate is "dumbed-down." Even assuming an experienced painter masters their use, at the end of the day, regardless of how successful the effort, you're left with an acrylic coating. They keep making them better over the years, but they just don't compare. Regrettably, we can no longer obtain the quality scale oil-based paints like those once produced by Floquil and Humbrol and must now mix our own using traditional artists' oils.