Materials that should NOT be used to build models?

[Smile-n-Nod]

In this article:

    https://thenrg.org/resource/articles/specifications-for-construction

 

I find this sentence:

    "...it is reasonable to expect a new ship model to last one hundred years before deterioration is visible."

 

In light of that comment, what materials (adhesives, woods, metals, paints, rigging materials, fillers, etc.) might appear suitable for a model, but should definitely NOT be used in a model expected to last a century?

Edited March 25, 2021 by Smile-n-Nod

[Bob Cleek]

Read the article you cited. If they mention a material, it's suitable. If they don't, research it online. "Archival" is a term used by the fine arts professionals to mean a material will last for at least a hundred years. Search and find out whether the material is considered "archival." Many modern materials, generally plastics, acrylics, polymers, and cyanoacrylate adhesives, are not archival. You want to avoid anything that deteriorates, which includes particularly materials containing acids.

 

For a more detailed set of specifications, see Howard I. Chappelle's General Preliminary Building Specifications, written for submissions to the Smithsonian Institution's ship model collections. http://www.shipmodel.com/2018SITE/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/ship-model-classification-guidelines-1980.pdf

 

Paints and varnishes are a particularly dangerous pitfall in modern times. Chapelle's Specifications were written in 1961, just as acrylic coatings were becoming available. His broad reference to paints addresses traditional oil-based paints, not the water-based paints now dominating the market. The water-based paints, not yet a hundred years old, are seen by conservatives as not proven to be archival, although others are very optimistic that they will prove so in time. As with any paint or varnish, the archival quality is in large measure a function of their manufacture. Cheap paint will never be archival, regardless of its type. Only the highest quality paints should be used, which will cost more, but not so one would notice it in the small amounts used in modeling. Such archival quality paints will generally say so on the tube or bottle.

 

Since Chapelle's Specifications were written, some then-common materials have become relatively unavailable, notably ivory, ebony wood, and linen thread. Modern substitutes have to be found, but great caution must be exercised in their use. For example, early Dacron thread deteriorated quickly when exposed to UV radiation, not what you'd want to use for rigging! Some respected museums are comfortable with modern synthetic thread and others are not. We  have to make do with what's available. This requires doing a fair amount of online research to identify suitable substitutes, a skill most modelers come to realize is essential. Sometimes, we just have to close our eyes, hold our noses, and jump in.

 

Leonardo Da Vinci's Last Supper began to exhibit marked deterioration less than 25 years after he painted it and has continued to deteriorate to this day, only five percent of it remaining as original, because he decided to experiment with a new oil painting technique instead of using the tried and true tempera paint fresco techniques of his time. The "Old Masters" enthusiastically used the then-newly-invented blue smalt pigment as an alternative to the very expensive ground azurite or lapis lazuli pigment which were previously available in their day without realizing that over decades smalt in oil becomes increasingly transparent and turns to brown, dramatically changing the appearance of colors. Consequently, Rembrandt's later works look overwhelming dark and brown and what we see today is not what they looked like when new. Vermeer, on the other hand, "bit the bullet" and used the very expensive ultramarine blue pigment, and so his Girl with a Pearl Earring's blue head scarf remains with us to this day, albeit with a fair amount of cracking.

 

 

Many modeler's will say, "Oh, posh!" I build models for my own enjoyment and I could care less how long they last. To them I say, "Very well. Go for it!" The task of those who pursue perfection is more challenging. Do we stay with the "tried and true," like Vermeer, or do we experiment with new techniques and materials, like Rembrandt and Da Vinci? I suppose the real question for our age is whether we good enough at what we do to risk a surprise, which Rembrandt and Da Vinci unquestionably were able to do. 

Edited March 26, 2021 by Bob Cleek

[wefalck]

There was a time, when I very much advocated, what Chapelle wrote and the requirements imposed in this respect by museums on the materials used in models they commissioned.

 

However, there are practical limitations. Museums usually commission models at 1/48 or 1/50 and sometimes at 1/96 or 1/100 for larger, modern ships. So the ideas on materials to be used or not apply to those scales. If you are working in miniature scales and on more modern ships wood for instance is just not feasible, because you cannot cut it as thin as required. On could work with brass only and solder (lead-free of course), but this may also not practical for complex building units. So materials, such as styrene can be a practical alternative. So it is a trade-off between thicknesses of available materials, the surface texture, the workability and the long-term stability. In my current project I am trying to use long-term stable materials, but there are features, that just cannot be made with them (or my capabilities).

 

I have models that made the half-way mark to 100 years and they show no visible deterioration. Some styrene may have become brittle, but as long as you handle it with care, it is ok. I even still use 'new' thin styrene sheet that I remember having bought in a London model shop in 1973 or so. I have seen intact samples of acrylic glass in museums that came of WW2 aircraft canopies. So, we do have 50 years more experience with these synthetic materials than Chapelle had.

 

I think also, that acrylic paints will have quite a good survival rate, because acrylic molecules are quite stable. The pigment may be another question. As Bob said above, it may be a question of the original quality. I would trust in this respect more the manufacturers, who also or originally made paints for artists, than perhaps the ones that came more recently into the market and cater mainly for our community. Ok, everyone could cut corners, without the customer really knowing.

[Bob Cleek]

1 hour ago, wefalck said:

I would trust in this respect more the manufacturers, who also or originally made paints for artists, than perhaps the ones that came more recently into the market and cater mainly for our community. Ok, everyone could cut corners, without the customer really knowing.

Very true. Most quality artists' paints, in the US, these would be Windsor and Newton, Grumbacher, Liquitex, and the like, have various levels of quality, priced accordingly. Their "professional" or "archival" level is the "good stuff," from there, they sell less expensive "student" or "amateur" paints. The big difference is in the quality of the pigments, both as to color stability and fineness of their grinding. It's generally been my impression, at least since Floquil went off the market, that "modelers' paints" are generally of a lower quality compared to professional "archival" quality artists' paints sold in a tube. I first used an acrylic paint on a model back in the early 1980's. I needed to paint an "H" signal flag ("I have a pilot on board") for a pilot schooner model and didn't have any red paint handy. Being lazy, and it being a small part, I used some from my daughter's kid's paint set that "cleaned up with water." The model has always been in a case and kept out of direct sunlight. That signal flag, which used to be red and white, is now pink and white!

 

Edited March 25, 2021 by Bob Cleek

[Justin P.]

As a professional conservator I probably land on the more conservative side of this discussion.   Many of the materials being used today, especially on model ships, make me cringe.  The coatings, the glues, the plastics and display scenarios are all either not well vetted or are just what is practical (vs. ideal).   The worst are those that use really modern materials to provide an easier building experience.   There is no such thing as archival quality anything - given the right scenario all things will deteriorate.  This becomes even more complex as we combine many different materials into a compound object of organic and inorganic materials.    The best "archival" acrylic paints were never tested in combination with highly acidic woods - etc.   That paint may be red forever, but it may also end up as red flakes at the bottom of your display case...     Those decals and such will just be brown in 15 years, or worse will be brown on one side and white on the other.     Its very hard to predict how an object will age, but it is very easy to make the right decisions early and be knowledgable of inherent vice.     

 

All this to say that I cringe only because I know the time and care put into these objects, and its difficult not to get up on a soapbox every time I see something I know with absolute authority will not last.   We have to decide for ourselves, few will end up in a museum, and even fewer of us will have grandchildren who want these things laying around so I say enjoy what you are doing now, and forget the rest 🙃

[Justin P.]

4 minutes ago, Bob Cleek said:

that "modelers' paints" are generally of a lower quality compared to professional "archival" quality artists' paints sold in a tube

Ive actually tested this in artificial aging chambers and in a light-bleaching lab.    Given the right parameters, nothing is "archival."       "Archival" paints are favored for their inert chemical make-up and their light-fastness as a stand-alone product.   Its all in how you use these products, not the products themselves. 

[wefalck]

The good old 2nd Law of Thermodynamics gets us all and everything - sooner or later

 

[Roger Pellett]

This forum is read by people that range from World Class professional model builders to assemblers of mass market kits.   A recurring theme on the forum is “What amI going to do with my models when I am no longer around?”

 

If you are assembling a USS Constitution or HMS Victory kit, there is a high probability that it’s never going to see the inside of a museum and your heirs may or may not appreciate trying to find room for it in their home.  Therefore, you should enjoy yourself and not worry about what the model will look like in 100 years.

 

If you are a professional you have already answered these questions.

[Cathead]

5 hours ago, Bob Cleek said:

Leonardo Da Vinci's Last Super began to exhibit marked deterioration less than 25 years after he painted it

 

I'll say! It's already lost 1/6 of its letters!

 

Carry on.

 

 

[Dziadeczek]

In addition to the paint quality, very important is the application method. Early Renessance artists used to grind their own pigments by hand - resulting in various sizes granules, hence excellent paint quality, unlike the modern electric mills, which grind everything in the same size powders, resulting in 'boring' look of the paint. Grounding (the way of priming the surface) was also critical. The best was priming using gypsum media - lean, white and uniform, suitable for tempera, egg tempera or oil paints!

One of the great earlier Flemish artists, Johannes van Eyck, devised and popularized egg tempera - a tempera pigment mixed in yolk of an egg - this resulted in one of the most permanent paints, that after half of a millennium still look like they were painted yestarday. (Google "The Portrait of Arnolfini" to see it yourselves in a large resolution).

These artists painted with the technique of "laserunek" (Polish term) - the so called "glazing" - multiple layers, one on top of the others, of exceedingly thinly applied paint, heavily diluted in oil in such a way, that earlier layers were visible through the later ones, coming through. It could be more than 10 layers of a detail in a painting, like various shades of skin, jewelry pieces, fabrics, lace...! The end result was a middle color comprised of all intermediate ones. A painting like this was very intense in color and light - you could see it even in near darkness, it had its own light!

 

Also, in those times, there was a separate profession - people preparing wooden panels for artists - they were made from boards of hardwood attached together (tongue and groove usually) into a required size and grounded with that primer - gypsum powder mixed with rabbit skin glue together to form a thin paste similar to watery cream. Those people produced the best panels for artists (I am talking about the era before artists used canvases, which were used later).

I encourage you to watch the movie mentioned earlier in this thread - "A Girl with a Pearl Earring" - it shows you, among other things, the steps of preparation of the pigments, grounding them and mixing with linen oil, with all the attention to detail. Also, the technique of painting itself is shown. Vermeer Van Delft was one of the most preeminent artist of his times, known for the quality of his works, which can be appreciated and admired today...

One of the mistakes Leonardo made with his "Last Supper", was that he painted it on a dry stucco, instead of fresh, wet one (hence the name al fresco). This resulted in very unstable painting, which quickly started to deteriorate and even today is still deteriorating.

 

So, the paint quality was one variable, but there were other as well...

Edited March 26, 2021 by Dziadeczek

[Tony Hunt]

I'm trying to only use wire for rigging these days, for exactly this reason. I have too many models 20-50 years old in my house that have brittle rigging, or the remnants of it.  Admittedly they were rigged with cheap materials, mainly cotton, but even so.  Making realistic "ropes" from wire is an interesting challenge, but I think it's doable. I'm having fun experimenting with it, anyway!

 

I'm also pretty wary of using plastic parts, for the same reason. I'm not sure how long they will last. I'm interested to hear views on how long cast resin parts might last.

[Bob Cleek]

3 hours ago, Roger Pellett said:

This forum is read by people that range from World Class professional model builders to assemblers of mass market kits.   A recurring theme on the forum is “What amI going to do with my models when I am no longer around?”

 

If you are assembling a USS Constitution or HMS Victory kit, there is a high probability that it’s never going to see the inside of a museum and your heirs may or may not appreciate trying to find room for it in their home.  Therefore, you should enjoy yourself and not worry about what the model will look like in 100 years.

 

If you are a professional you have already answered these questions.

 

I'm more bothered about what they are going to do with my models after I'm gone than I am about what they are going to do with my stinking carcass.  

 

Of course, enjoying oneself is what it's about at the end of the day and that's a subjective determination. However, as the original poster noted was set forth in the NRG specifications: "...it is reasonable to expect a new ship model to last one hundred years before deterioration is visible." He then asked, "...what materials (adhesives, woods, metals, paints, rigging materials, fillers, etc.) might appear suitable for a model, but should definitely NOT be used in a model expected to last a century?" So I addressed that question.

 

I suppose that like it seems to be with everything else on the internet, when it comes to ship modeling, there's a right way to do things and then there's a myriad of opinions on how to do it by people who don't know their butt from a hot rock, followed by a contingent who argue, "What difference does it make, anyway?"  

 

I think the better course is to advocate "best practices" in the first instance and let circumstances dictate the exceptions. "What difference does it make? You won't be around to that long yourself." sort of seems to be beside the point to me. Somebody famous once described ship modeling as "the pursuit of unattainable perfection," or words to that effect. It's the process of striving for perfection that it's about. Such perfection being unattainable in any event, why else would anyone bother to do it?

Edited March 26, 2021 by Bob Cleek

[Bob Cleek]

2 hours ago, Cathead said:

 

I'll say! It's already lost 1/6 of its letters!

 

Carry on.

 

 

You win the internet today for catching that one! Correction made. Thanks for letting me know.  

[Bob Cleek]

1 hour ago, Tony Hunt said:

I'm trying to only use wire for rigging these days, for exactly this reason. I have too many models 20-50 years old in my house that have brittle rigging, or the remnants of it.  Admittedly they were rigged with cheap materials, mainly cotton, but even so.  Making realistic "ropes" from wire is an interesting challenge, but I think it's doable. I'm having fun experimenting with it, anyway!

 

I'm also pretty wary of using plastic parts, for the same reason. I'm not sure how long they will last. I'm interested to hear views on how long cast resin parts might last.

As I recall, the famed miniature ship modeler Lloyd McCaffery, uses wire on all of his amazing miniature models. As I recall, he discusses his techniques for that in his book, Ships in Miniature. https://www.amazon.com/SHIPS-MINIATURE-Classic-Manual-Modelmakers/dp/0851774857

 

 

Indeed, the synthetic thread, particularly the earlier stuff, isn't anywhere as long-lasting as the linen thread that used to be available is. Fear not, though. There may be a solution at hand. While the linen thread manufacturers have left the field, there's a growing market for and production of hemp thread happening right now. For all intents and purposes, linen and hemp are virtually identical, save that hemp tends to curl counterclockwise and linen clockwise (or is it the other way around?) Sourcing some and seeing how it lays up as rope is on my "to-do" list one of these days.

 

 

[PietFriet]

3 hours ago, Bob Cleek said:

 there's a right way to do things and then there's a myriad of opinions on how to do it by people who don't know their butt from a hot rock

Who determines what is right and can the right thing not be different for different people. Personally I enjoy reading about other people's opinions as it helps me form my own.

[Bob Cleek]

2 hours ago, PietFriet said:

Who determines what is right and can the right thing not be different for different people. Personally I enjoy reading about other people's opinions as it helps me form my own.

 

Indeed, the exchange of opinions is often enlightening. It gives us the opportunity to see things from the perspectives of others. Opinions, however, are not facts and therein lies the rub. One may have an opinion about anything that is open to dispute or, as is said, "is a matter of opinion about which reasonable minds may differ." We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts. What is "true" isn't something that's a matter of opinion. One cannot have an opinion about whether it is raining or not at a given time and place. It's either raining or it's not. They can have an opinion about whether it is going to rain tomorrow, but even that opinion can be negated by a weather satellite photo that shows there's no possibility that it can rain tomorrow. Predicting the weather used to be a more a matter of opinion than not, but science has done a good job of narrowing that window of "opinion" in the modern age. 

 

More commonly, opinions are expressions of personal preference. One can be of the opinion that broccoli tastes awful and that is neither "true" nor "false." It's just a subjective expression of personal taste. One can say subjectively, "Broccoli tastes awful to me," but they can't say it's objectively  true that it tastes awful to everyone else.

 

In the same way, one can have an opinion of the best way to do something, but their "right to their own opinion" goes out the window when it is certain that their "best way" is simply never going to work. Here is where inexperienced people often get into trouble weighing in on the internet about their "opinion" on political issues when they lack the information necessary to form an informed opinion or are relying on false information in the first place, and, in most instances, they then fall back on the retort that they "have a right to their own opinion." Opinions are subjective. Truth is objective. 

 

So, no, I don't think that what is "right" can be different things for different people when the "right" is an objective absolute. like whether or not a material is insufficient for use in an engineering application. An engineer can say with certainty and not as a matter of opinion whether a bridge will carry the weight of a railroad train. We may call that an "expert opinion," but it's really just a matter of scientific fact unless the outcome is just too close to call. Reality determines what is right. Science determines what is reality. On matters of opinion, however, there is no absolute "right." There may be any number of "rights" and any number of "wrongs." 

 

So, for example, if one posits the premise that a properly built ship model should last for a hundred years, and then asks what materials should not be used in a properly built ship model, we can see that there are "rights" that are "right" for everybody, like the fact that cheap acidic papers cannot be expected not to show the effects of deterioration for a hundred years or that we can't say for sure whether CA adhesives or acrylic paints will last a hundred years simply because they haven't been around for a hundred years. On the other hand, whether one should not worry themselves about their model lasting a hundred years because they aren't going to live that long is irrelevant to the discussion because the basic premise is that a well built ship model should last for a hundred years.

Edited March 26, 2021 by Bob Cleek

[Roger Pellett]

 Lloyd  McCaffery’s Model are works of art that command commensurate prices.  As such, his clients have a right to expect them to last 100 years.  The same is true for many of the carefully researched and beautifully built models that we see in the scratch built section of the forum.  Hopefully, these will eventually be acquired by institutions, collectors, or appreciative family members who are able and willing to care for them.

 

On the other hand, there are the run of the mill POB kit models, often with crudely shaped hulls, over scale fittings, etc.  (There are now on the market some kits that will produce beautiful, accurate models.). I continue to be surprised by builders of these models who obsess over minute details when the model itself is not an accurate representation of the real thing.

[Kevin]

i dont care what happens to my builds when im gone, infact if i did not post on the forums then apart from my wife and doggie, no one would know they even existed

to that end, checking the ebay, it is full of model ships that have been handed down to people that dont want then,  their fates are sealed and will end in landfill, i doubt many non museum pieces will exist after 100 years, as we all start to live in smaller and smaller properties

 

on the other hand, i love what i build and proud that i made it, not built for a time span other than my own

 

 

[Justin P.]

1 hour ago, Roger Pellett said:

Lloyd  McCaffery’s Model are works of art that command commensurate prices.  As such, his clients have a right to expect them to last 100 years.

They certainly have that right, but the models won't last just because McCaffery built them.   Perhaps he chooses more reliable materials, perhaps he doesn't.   I don't really know...   My guess is that from a material standpoint, there is likely little difference between his models and your own.   In my opinion, its up to clients to ensure a proper display environment, which in the end is the only thing that I believe will have an impact on their longevity.   

 

As far as the original premise "that a properly built ship model should last for a hundred years," well I don't know.   I don't know how you define "properly built," and feel the target of 100 years is mostly arbitrary.  As far as the original text:  "...it is reasonable to expect a new ship model to last one hundred years before deterioration is visible."  Frankly, I don't know what this curator is talking about - after 100 years I can think of  an arbitrary number of ways decay might be visible.   Off the top of my head, I can't think of any man-made object, let alone a compound object, that will not show some form of decay after 50 years.   

Edited March 26, 2021 by Justin P.

[Bob Cleek]

22 minutes ago, Justin P. said:

As far as the original premise "that a properly built ship model should last for a hundred years," well I don't know.   I don't know how you define "properly built," and feel the target of 100 years is mostly arbitrary.  As far as the original text:  "...it is reasonable to expect a new ship model to last one hundred years before deterioration is visible."  Frankly, I don't know what this curator is talking about - after 100 years I can think of  an arbitrary number of ways decay might be visible.   Off the top of my head, I can't think of any man-made object, let alone a compound object, that will not show some form of decay after 50 years.   

I think we have to presume that the author of those specifications took it as a given that such a model would be properly cared for and kept properly cased. The hundred year span is certainly arbitrary, as well. It's my understanding that a hundred years is the definition of an "antique" in the trade, anything less being classified as "vintage." 

[Landlubber Mike]

19 hours ago, Roger Pellett said:

If you are assembling a USS Constitution or HMS Victory kit, there is a high probability that it’s never going to see the inside of a museum and your heirs may or may not appreciate trying to find room for it in their home.  Therefore, you should enjoy yourself and not worry about what the model will look like in 100 years.

 

Could not agree more - well said!

[Bob Cleek]

 

1 hour ago, Landlubber Mike said:

  20 hours ago, Roger Pellett said:

If you are assembling a USS Constitution or HMS Victory kit, there is a high probability that it’s never going to see the inside of a museum and your heirs may or may not appreciate trying to find room for it in their home.  Therefore, you should enjoy yourself and not worry about what the model will look like in 100 years.

Could not agree more - well said!

 

I agree as well. In fact, with a USS Constitution or HMS Victory kit, there is a high probability that it’s never going to get finished before you croak!  (I'd love to see accurate statistics on numbers sold and numbers finished!)

 

However, if someone is assembling a USS Constitution or HMS Victory kit and wants to have it last to perhaps become a family heirloom, and they ask which materials should be used in pursuit of that accomplishment, they deserve an honest answer, not the insinuation that their efforts won't ever be worth that. Just look at all the kit builders who ask questions concerning the often-questionable historical accuracy of their kits. They, too, deserve an honest answer, not the response that it's just a kit that nobody other than themselves will ever care about! I think the best posture to take in all things is to promote "best practices" and if one falls short, that's their choice and if they have fun notwithstanding, so much the better!

 

(This post is written by a guy who when he was a kid used to blow up his old finished models with firecrackers and cherry bombs. The "Joy of Modeling" is in the eye of the beholder.  )

Edited March 26, 2021 by Bob Cleek

[Landlubber Mike]

Totally get that Bob.  I think most of us are just building for ourselves, not for a museum, and not as a family heirloom.  A few years ago when my mother-in-law saw that I was working on three wooden kits, she asked where I was going to put them.  I told her I would send them to her condo so she could have a nautical theme going.   She wasn't too excited by that idea.  😬

Edited March 26, 2021 by Landlubber Mike

[wefalck]

As much as I admire McCaffery’s work, his insistence on using ‘permanent’ materials on about every second page in his book becomes tedious after a while. 
 

When it comes to the survival of artefacts, it is always a combination of factors and materials choices is but one of them. Storage conditions are of equal importance. Even brief periods of unsuitable conditions by accident can permanently damage a piece that has otherwise been kept under perfect conditions. Even changes from one set of conditions to another one, which both could be benign in themselves, can cause permanent damage. Most private homes do not offer the stable conditions one would find in the better museums.

[Tony Hunt]

17 hours ago, Bob Cleek said:

As I recall, the famed miniature ship modeler Lloyd McCaffery, uses wire on all of his amazing miniature models. As I recall, he discusses his techniques for that in his book, Ships in Miniature. https://www.amazon.com/SHIPS-MINIATURE-Classic-Manual-Modelmakers/dp/0851774857

 

Indeed, the synthetic thread, particularly the earlier stuff, isn't anywhere as long-lasting as the linen thread that used to be available is. Fear not, though. There may be a solution at hand. While the linen thread manufacturers have left the field, there's a growing market for and production of hemp thread happening right now. For all intents and purposes, linen and hemp are virtually identical, save that hemp tends to curl counterclockwise and linen clockwise (or is it the other way around?) Sourcing some and seeing how it lays up as rope is on my "to-do" list one of these days.

 

 

 

Yes, It was reading Lloyd McCaffery's book that first introduced me to the idea.  I'll be very interested to hear how the hemp thread works out though. Add a bit of Stockholm tar and you'll have true authenticity!

[michael mott]

A thread full of opinions for sure!..... I couldn't resist, its been one of those days.🙂

 

Michael

[mtdoramike]

4 hours ago, Justin P. said:

They certainly have that right, but the models won't last just because McCaffery built them.   Perhaps he chooses more reliable materials, perhaps he doesn't.   I don't really know...   My guess is that from a material standpoint, there is likely little difference between his models and your own.   In my opinion, its up to clients to ensure a proper display environment, which in the end is the only thing that I believe will have an impact on their longevity.   

 

As far as the original premise "that a properly built ship model should last for a hundred years," well I don't know.   I don't know how you define "properly built," and feel the target of 100 years is mostly arbitrary.  As far as the original text:  "...it is reasonable to expect a new ship model to last one hundred years before deterioration is visible."  Frankly, I don't know what this curator is talking about - after 100 years I can think of  an arbitrary number of ways decay might be visible.   Off the top of my head, I can't think of any man-made object, let alone a compound object, that will not show some form of decay after 50 years.   

OK, let me jump off this bridge: I have built better than 75 ship and boat models over the past 25 years and they have all held up to my knowledge. But no model is goping to last 100 years no matter what materials are used without constant maintence just like a house case or no case. No kit built model will ever be museum quality although the manufacture advertises them in that fashion. Built kits aare a dime a dozen, not distinction or difference they are only a short cut to building a nice represetation of the subject you are modeling nothing more.

 

I don't build scratch built model, I build kits because I love the feeling of opening up the box and taking advantage of those short cuts. That is how I have built those 75 model in 25 years and most of them were sold, traded or donated to libraries or hospitals and all of them were greatly appreciated by the folks or companies that received.    

Edited March 27, 2021 by mtdoramike

[Roger Pellett]

I have two models built by my father that might make it to 100 years.

 

The First is a 1:96 model of a steam fishing trawler.  It was built before I was born and I would estimate it to be 80 years old.  After my father died it sat in my daughter’s apartment for a while and the rigging was damaged.  I repaired the rigging and it now sits in my bookcase.  Considering it’s age it is in beautiful condition.  I hope to get it in it’s own glass case.

 

The second is an unrigged 1:96 model of Flying Cloud.  It is 75 years old.  When we disposed of my mother’s things, the movers damaged it.  I repaired it cleaned it, repainted the hull, and touched up paintwork on the deck structures.  I also built a glass case to protect it.

 

Both of these models were built from A.J. Fisher kits.  A.J. Fisher’s fittings were made from brass and real boxwood.  Although both of these models needed cleaning and repair the Materials that A.J. Fisher put into the kits and the materials that my father used to build them have withstood the test of time.  I hope that each of my two children will eventually take and care for a model.

[Cathead]

That's fantastic, Roger!

 

We, too, have some models handed down, but in this case they're decades-old tourist models from my grandmother-in-law's world travels as a wealthy widow. The kind of thing people sign up on MSW to ask what they're worth. Not nearly as meaningful, but still cool in their own goofy way. They're barely "models", but they'll have a long lifetime simply because there isn't much to them.

 

Lesson: If you want your model to last 100 years, build a barge, not a square-rigger!

[glbarlow]

I have a Blue Nose model I built In 1976 using cheap “model airplane” glue and spray paint. I built a plywood box for it and carried it around in our many moves while in the Army, exposed to all kinds of things. Other than dust since it’s now on top of a cabinet in my work shop, it doesn’t look much different than when I built it. 
 

I doubt my 10 models or the ones I build after them, and not counting that one, will be valued heirlooms by my kids. So I’ll just enjoy them while I’m here and not be concerned about their archival quality. However, so far I’ve experienced zero problems with the better quality CA and Acrylics I use now. A fun discussion but I have no expectations of a call from the Smithsonian 😁  

Edited March 27, 2021 by glbarlow