Poorly designed ship model kits or those that are plain made-up (edited by admin)

[acrodave]

The more I become familiar with the many great ship model kits out there, the more often I seem to hear that this one, or that one are not, in fact models of "real" ships.

 

The manufacturere do a great job of spinning a yarn as to the exploits of the ship their kit represents, but when one does even a little research, one finds out that, many times,  this model is really a fictional replica of either a non-existent ship, or at best a fictional conglomeration of a type of ship which sailed at some point in history.

 

I realize that some ships are, simply, not historically documented, and some liberties must be taken, based upon the best we know about the real ship (the Mayflower, for example), but the ones I am talking about are just an absolute figment of someones imagination.

 

When one reads all of the hoopla about a ships exploits, written by the kit mfgr, how can we separate truth from fiction.

 

Even a well thought of Mfgr like Model Shipways isn't imune from some of the type of things I speak about...  ALL of the advertising material, catalogs, and even the box labels, show the "Niagara" as a radient blue in color.  When you get a paint set for the model, there is no blue included in the set.... Hmmnnnn.   In fact there is no blue on the real ship, and, probably, never was.  It's Black!

 

When I see the extent to which modelers go to make accurate sizes of ropes, rigging, and everything else, and then see how much leeway the kit mfgrs take, it makes me cringe.

 

I am surprised the community does not, at least, put together a list of the out, and out, fake ship kits that are out there, and that the Mfgrs are able to pull the wool over our eyes so much.

 

Dave

[ccoyle]

The title of this thread has been edited.  Please read the first post here on title etiquette.

 

With regards to the subject, fictitious kit subject histories, I think this is something of little concern to the manufacturers.  Bottom line: as long as the kit sells, what motivation do they have to make sure it's historically accurate?  Sad, but true.

[mtaylor]

Dave,

Much has been said on these pages about such manufacturers as AL, Corel and Mamoli and their works of fiction.  Perhaps a list could be done but that's up the readership.

[yvesvidal]

The same is true with model railroading. The success of Lionel and MTH is clearly indicative that the most important is not the accuracy or prototypical appearance, but the fun you can derive out of it. In O scale (1/48), they even invented a third rail in the middle and guess what: 85% of the market in that scale is 3 rails. Only a minority of anal retentive people are searching for the absolute perfection and accuracy.

 

Yves

[JPett]

Ahoy Mates

 

I see the cup as half full when it comes to these issues. Really how accurate is the Conny parked in Mass or the Vic across the pond. As the Morgan's timbers swell, how accurate will she be. I do not hold kit manufacturers to a higher standard. Most kits today are more accurate then their predecessors  and who knows maybe one day a truly accurate kit will be available.

 

Should that day arrive I am sure the people who complain about these issues will most likely complain about the price.  

Edited July 20, 2013 by JPett

[mtaylor]

JPett,

 

I suspect you are right about "complain about the price".  Jotika and to some extent, MS and Victory models have had their share of "price is too high" along with "I want quality".   I am reminded of an old retailer I knew who said: "You can have either high-quality or low-price.  Pick one.". I find this applies to model kits... low price gets you lower quality wood, instructions, and plans and accuracy.  Higher price gets you better instructions, plans, accuracy... sometimes better wood. 

 

So kit builders upgrade their wood, fittings, get additional plans and get the same results as scratch.. sometimes it doesn't work out, other times it's a masterpiece. 

 

The catch here is that even scratchbuilders make trade-offs.  Be it plans, wood, or fittings.   Sometimes it just doesn't all come together either.  Other times it's a masterpiece. 

 

But the sentiment from the original poster is very valid.. there's too many kits from a certain group of manufacturers that are producing total fiction in absurd scales.  Scales that were designed to use existing fittings (or sometimes it seems they just toss in box whatever is available), or make the parts fit a certain size box and that dictates "scale".

 

My only comment back on accuracy is that "accuracy is what you know at the moment" and that is subject to change.  The discussion the Constitution builders have been having is a case in point.  There's contemporary paintings and models.. but which is right? 

[NMBROOK]

I think the main issue here is the fictional aspect.You will never win an argument with a kit manufacturer as regards to accuracy as alot of historical reference material is sketchy to say the least.The biggest bug bear for me is advertising kits as being a model of such and such from x date.The manufacturers know this is fabrication and to be honest to me the missreprescentation is plainly illegal.Yes some of these kits can be built into very nice and convincing models to the non historian.I think the manufacturers of said kits should be made to justify the historical information they give to these particular models.Don't get me wrong I nothing against these kits and indeed shall be using the plans of one for a scratchbuild,it is just the fact that the customer should know the truth.Some model kit manufactures have got away with so much that is in breach of consumer law.

Kind Regards Nigel

Edited July 20, 2013 by NMBROOK

[SkerryAmp]

Really how accurate is the Conny parked in Mass...... 

 

Technically pretty darn accurate since it is in fact the constitution and not a replica.  It has had a lot of work done to her to keep her in shape, but she is the real deal from way back when  

 

.....But I know what you are saying

 

 

Regarding the kits,  yup - many are real, many are fake, and many are as close as the kit manufacturer can get.   From what I can gather from the tremendous builds put forth here, none of the ships from the manufacturers are 100% accurate. Seems to always be room for the modeler to tweak and improve to get the most accurate possible through bashing and scratch building.  They also can only do so much with regards to their own research on the subject.

 

Now, with regards to those comapnies who throw everything out and are fabricating everything right down to Scale (as Mark mentioned) that is different.  Companies should have SOME responsibility to at least try to create a decent base quality product.   Again though, money.  Follow the money.  If they are selling it, and not enough are complaining, they have zero motivation to change.

 

The work lays on our side, as modellers.  If your goal is to build the most accurate version of the <history sailing ship x> up front research would help decide which kit would be the best one to start from and then go from there.  Those just wanting to build an interesting subject still get to do that, even if that subject is a "likeness" or a complete facsimilie.  

 

As an example,  my wife bought me the Blue Shadow by Mamoli because it was on sale, and she thought it looked really neat. I agreed, the box picutures etc looked like a very interesting ship to build.   I read the history of it giving by Mamoli and thought it was an interesting history but there wasn't much there and I didn't care for a couple of the parts supplied so research away I went. :o :o TOTAL fabrication.    Disappointed,sure.. but didn't change the fact it was an interesting looking ship so I am bulding it with the same interest as others.     It's all in what you make of it

 

I do not discount, however, the value of a reference of sorts to point out what kits are Fakes, Accurate, Versions, Guesses or what not.  That would be one heck of an undertaking though!    An interesting and valuable undertaking for sure, but still an undertaking!  It would, however, help greatly those seeking as close to accurate as possible.  Heck, maybe even a list like that would eventually (slowly) draw away from those kits less accurate, lesser quality, or just plain garbage and steer towards those of the opposite state. Hmmmmmmm.

 

 

 

Good topic my friends!

 

 

 

-Adam

Edited July 20, 2013 by SkerryAmp

[demonborger]

It would be nice if the manufacturers said what the model is based on. If it is real then say, and if it is not real but inspired then say so. The Mamoli Royal Louis 1780 is actually based upon a contemporary model of the Royal Louis of 1758 (of the Sans Pareil class project) and not the Royal Louis 1779. The blurb in the product description makes reference to action in the American War of Independence probably for marketing reasons.

 

One thing is that there is so much conflicting information and so some ship models are approximations or are compromise of multiple influences. Perhaps artistic license and manufacturing practicality take precedence over historical fidelity. It does mean that there is a greater variety of subjects and kits. And of course the materials and methods of construction allow for a great deal of scope to scratchbuild any modification or correction that the builders skills allow. Many beginners I think would be more concerned with getting the basics right to create something that resembles what was on the cover of the box, at least initially.

I think variety is a good thing. I suppose if manufacturers did follow a code of conduct to produce kits that are historically accurate then it would mean that maybe we would see a lot more 19th century ships - and I for one would love to make an Azov or an HMS Asia......Navarino (my scratchbuilding is limited)

[demonborger]

Poorly designed is a much more important issue.

 

1.Double planking, single blanking, hybrid double in the gun wales and single for the hull, gunport cutouts.

2.Wooden gunports, metal gunports, 100 different methods for mounting false cannons.

3. 100000000000 different types of wood and different qualities. Also quantity supplied

4. Fat shapeless white metal castings, photo etch, material for scratchbuild, paper windows, plastic windows

5. bulkheads that fit into the false keel, those that don't

6. Bow fillers, number of bulkeads, extra supports

7. Decks (flimsy veneer, mdf, build your own)

8. fittings quality (laser cut gun carriage vs metal casting vs simple wood)

9. plans and instructions (pictures, explanations, logic)

10. laser cut vs non-laser cut

11. launch boats/sails inclusion/exclusion

 

And so much more variations.

 

For somethings there are probably different preferences for different people (such as how false guns are mounted and gunports/lids - i prefer the mamoli metal ones as crazy as that seems). For other things there is near universal preference for one method over others (laser cut parts over handcut).

Edited July 20, 2013 by demonborger

[NMBROOK]

Ok I will start the ball rolling

Panart san Felipe

Corel le Mirage.

To the best of my knowledge and the knowledge of people far more qualified than me,complete fabrication,never existed at least of the type and period depicted.With these there is a clue in the design as there is virtually no shear to the decks/gunports,unheard of for 17th century warships.Corel have been even cheekier,the clue is in the name.

Why are some kits in the Mantua group still being advertised as lime first planking,when you get balsa!When were they going to tell us the castings aren't solid brass anymore,just plated.If you want these castings to actually look like something,they require hours of filing so no plating left.

If someone has any historical proof on the contrary to the two models I have mentioned I am gladly prepared to eat my humble pie

Kind Regards Nigel

[demonborger]

Yes, the most annoying thing is where they say or the product packaging suggests one thing (e.g brass parts) and you get a cheaper imitation material (cheaper metal painted brass colour). Or when you don't get enough materials or the wrong materials (substitute wood).

 

Le Mirage and San Felipe may be fictional ships but they are still very beautiful. In a weird kind of way it is the fictional kits that I give more leniency to, so long as they look good and have nice materials. But if you are making an HMS Victory model then you want it to be as close to a scale representation as possible given the constraints of scale modeling.

[NMBROOK]

Totally agree Demonburger San Felipe and Le Mirage are both beautiful.I have Panarts plans for San Felipe  and I am going to scratchbuild her.I wont buy the kit because I refuse to spend that sort of money on a ship with balsa first planking,overscale poor quality second planking and cannons that look like airline fittings.My point was that customers should not be missled into thinking they are buying a model of a ship of historical providence.

Kind Regards Nigel

Edited July 20, 2013 by NMBROOK

[trippwj]

Interesting debate.  I agree that it would be a better approach, in my bumbled opinion, if manjfacurers would "fess up" that a given kit is not an actual vessel but inspired by a class or type.  I bought the Corel kit for the Revenue Cutter Ranger.  Wasn't until I started researching the Doughty designed cutters of the early 19th century that i found there never was a Ranger built to those plans.  Well, while perfect historical accuracy is not a concern for me at this stage of my modelling career (make that model building - would hate to have folks think they could find this grizzled face on a magazine cover), I did want to atleast be able to know something about the ship I was building. I did some digging and reading and found the perfect match - the Revenue Cutter Detector.  I had a choice of several similar topsail schooners, but opted for the Detector.  The Detector was built in 1825 by Fisher & Webster of North Yarmouth, Maine.  She was stationed in Portland Maine for her career. I like the USRC Detector - my Admiral was an instructor for several years on Radiation Detectors, so thought it would be a good way to pay her some honors.  So, I'll build it, and have fun while building.  I have some good resources to research an actual ship of the related class, and a name that brings it's own history.  All in all, a win-win-win for me!

[ross]

We need a leauge table of the most historicly correct kits ,and from whitch manufactorer,i think this would be a very good rsource of information for experienced and novice builders like myself.Ross

[NMBROOK]

Totally agree Ross.Like I said there isn't anything wrong with kits that don't represent a real ship.Some make very nice models,but manufacturers should be honest about what you are buying.I have listed the two I know about,all I can suggest is that other members do the same.Not sure how we would go about created a league table as my computer ability is limited,but it is a very good idea.You could probably have a score out of ten with comments as to what is wrong historically.From my experience most would be lucky to reach four.I am not a 'treenail counter' so not every build I do is with regard to historical accuracy,but when I do build a model with accuracy in mind,it would be nice to know what I am starting with if 'kit bashing'

Kind Regards Nigel

P.S.nice to see a fellow Yorkshireman on the forum

Edited July 21, 2013 by NMBROOK

[fnkershner]

Good Topic. I for one would be ok with a Kit that had the colors wrong. What's a little paint? But when you create a completely fictitious ship! I should know unfortunately I own 3 of them - Harvey, Ajax, San Felipe.

 

I think you have 2 different groups here - Models with no real history or the history is so bad it is impossible. And poor quality or poorly designed kits. We have plenty of examples of each. In the 2nd case Chuck is going to have to invest in a Cloning machine. I see his new online store getting lots of business.

 

Has anyone done a Web search for Baltimore Clipper? What is unfortunate here is how often the false Model of the Harvey comes up!

[dgbot]

One of the things I dislike the most is the false history or story of the model.  I remember at Manitowoc every now and then a fine looking model that is a work of fiction and a history that is taken right out of the manual will be brought in and built right out of the kit.

David B

[twintrow]

While I agree that "a league table" sounds like a grand idea, my concern would be who determines the level of accuracy   We have seem threads that go on infinitum on what is or isn't historically accurate. We would first have to create a rating system based on either input from a selected group of volunteers, or comment section in which impressions are expressed and the users makes their own determination to use.

Many of us just want to build a good looking model and aren't particularly concerned about historical accuracy.  Lord knows there are many really well done models in the gallery that have out of scale belaying pins and/or blocks.  yet are considered excellent models.

probably a peer rating system as to historical accuracy is the way to go.   Then later someone will critique the rating system as they now critique the "skill level" mfg ratings ;o)

MHO

Tom

[acrodave]

Looks like I started something....... I just don't know what!!

 

First, the title of this was changed by the administrators. and, in the process, they changed the entire meaning... I wonder about that...

 

It was never intended to address "poorly designed" kits.  Poorly designed kits would be those which don't go together well as a result of poor engineering, or poor material selection.  That was never a part of my post..... until the admin staff changed the title from "Is it real or is it memor........."

 

The concern was about how to determine if a particular kit was a model of a real ship (i.e. was there a "real" ship which had the same name, and bore a reasonable resemblence to the model).  I really do not care if the kit is a model of a particular ship ON A PARTICULAR DAY, or if it is a model of a reconstruction of a full sized ship on display somewhere.  That ship on display in a museum is still a "real" ship.. It may not, exactly, duplicate the historical ship it is supposed to represent, but it is still a REAL ship.  The Mayflower 2 is a perfect example.... it may not be the original Mayflower, but it is still a real ship.  It crossed the Atlantic. (I know, as I was lucky enough to have seen it under full sail when my dad flew us out over it a day, or two before it arrived)

 

As to accuracy of a kit..... That is an argument which could rage on for longer than any of us have to live!   I have no problem when a manufacturer bases his kit on the best information he had when the kit was designed.  The individual modeler can research, and detail the model to whatever accuracy he is willing, and capable of doing.

 

My problem is when a manufacturer outright LIES about the fact that the model doesn't really depict ANY real ship and misleads the purchaser into thinking it is a "scale" model by spinning a long, detailed, story about the exploits of the real ship the kit is modeled after when the reality is that no real ship ever existed!

 

Dave

[Elroy]

Actually, I reckon you have a point Dave.

I am certainly not one for 'historical accuracy' most of the time. If I purchase a model ship that is fictitious then I am happy with that. I would not be happy if I made a purchase of a model of a 'real' ship that turned out to be fictitious, and with a fictitious history.

I sometimes make a decision on a purchase based on whether the model is either interesting, based on a factual ship (at some point in time), or just a good looking fictitious ship. In any case, I object to being 'tricked' or 'conned' by the manufacturer's spiel, which is why I can sometimes take months to decide upon a particular model to buy.

If I like the look of the kit, then I will not hesitate and I don't care about its history or lack thereof, but if it has an interesting history (real), then I will buy on that basis. Either way, it has to be my choice...not the manufacturer's.

[fnkershner]

Dave - I am with you. I would like to know if the ship actually existed. I might still buy the Kit because I like it. But don't try to sell me something without telling me the truth. I am more experienced than I was many years ago. Back then I bought the AL Harvey because of the interesting history and the good looks of the model. I also did the same with the San Felipe. As Elroy says I might have bought them anyway, but tell me the truth!

[robboxxx]

Well.... I think that a lot of people are not really interested in accurate ship models. They just want a nice looking ship model on their mantle piece. With beautiful walnut and lots of shining brass.

 

I now somebody who refuses to look at shipway kits because they have no walnut and are therefore inferior. 

 

As you may now I do some work for a local model shop and I have seen that people go straight for the typical AL/OCRE kits and don't look at the other brands. Typical as in rich wood & brass.

 

People who are really into ship modeling (In the means of accurate represented ship models) are either scratch building or now what kits to pick. 

 

But, please don't get me wrong. This is a beautiful hobby and I don't want to put people who are building such kit down. As long as you enjoy your build or model it is fine by me.

 

I think that If there would be only accurate ship model kits on the market this would be a boring hobby because we would build all the same 3-4 kits.

Edited July 22, 2013 by robboxxx

[twintrow]

robboxxx allow me to offer another opinion of what you wrote.

 

I think that everyone wants what they build to be as accurate as possible.  Having said that, many builders like myself, also want the best value they can get.  Many NEW modelers go to Al and/or Constructo, because of price. And maybe the presentation of the model on the box.  These folks may also buy the Chinese rip offs not knowing or understanding that they are supporting intellectual theft, just because of the price.  

.

Beginning builders generally are not familiar enough with the ships to begin with.  And may only attempt to build occasionally.  Then there are those of us that take up shipbuilding as a full time hobby.  Within those numbers are those who are not necessarily interested in conducting the necessary research to build an "authentic reproduction" of a particular ship. Good enough is good enough.  And sometimes adequate is adequate.

 

The really serious builders are those who will wait for months (and sometimes years) for a particular model to be produced. or as you say will progress into "scratch building" to assure they have done their best to be accurate.

 

The neat thing about all this is that sometimes, maybe even frequently, the casual builder decides adequate is not adequate and wants to be better. These folks will probably seek out a site like MSW to learn more about the hobby, see the quality that is attainable and strive for that as well.

again, IMHO

Tom

 

Anyway, we must endeavor to assist the newbies and proudly watch their progress to experienced builders.  IMHO that is one reason why MS exists and consistently provides the best information on the web to shipbuilders, newbies and salts!

[realworkingsailor]

Another viewpoint you may wish to consider...

 

At the the end of the day, a model manufacturer has to be able to turn a profit. So they need to produce a product for as little cost as possible, that will appeal to as wide as possible a customer base.

 

I see this all the time with model railroad manufacturers. They will offer a locomotive of other piece of rolling stock painted in as many different road names as possible, in order to appeal to a wider customer base, regardless of whether or not any particular prototype railroad actually operated that piece of equipment.

 

Yes, some model ship companies may produce ships that are complete fallacies, but, are they appealing to the purists (quite possibly far fewer in number), or someone just looking for something nice to occupy themselves with (much bigger target market)?

 

Do we need to fault an entire company because 50% (or whatever) of the product they produce is "not real"? I think not. They're not forcing anyone to buy anything, eventually market forces may dictate that a higher percentage of modellers are after super-detailed hyper-accurate kits (and are willing to foot the bill for them), then you may see a higher percentage of this style of kits.... But until there comes a day when any human being on earth can open a model ship kit and expertly assemble it on the first try, there are going to be some kits that are not 100% hyper-accurate.

 

On the flip side, there are some companies that do, after a fashion, cater to that market.

 

Andy

[fnkershner]

Ok I can buy that, But tell me how AL makes more money by creating a kit Called the Harvey and calls it a Baltimore clipper of 1847? There was never such a thing. All the Baltimore clippers were gone by then. Why waste the time fabricating a history that did not exist? Why design the model with outhouses on the foredeck? Does your ship have them? And why make those outhouses so incredibly large that the doors are twice the size of the main cabin doors? I am not a purest by any stretch. But this is crazy.

[capnharv2]

If you look at the age of many of these fictious models, they were designed and sold before the internet existed and the amount of historical maritime data was available to the masses. So it was easy to sell something that looked like a certain type of ship and spin a yarn without anybody having the resources to challenge the manufacturers.

 

Just a thought. . .

 

Thanks,

 

Harvey

[catopower]

My take on the reason that, say the Harvey, is more profitable than an historic subject is that:

 

1. For one thing it doesn't really require much research

2. You can put features on it that are going to appeal to the buyer, even if it isn't historically accurate

3. You can use existing parts on it without having to redesign

4. You can use fancy wood and brass that seems to appeal to a larger % of buyers

5. Accurate subjects are often more complicated to build because the details have to be done "right"

6. You can make up a history that is more interesting and appealing to the masses than many real ships

 

I think you'd probably find many other reasons if you think about it.

 

Plus, one really good reason for not making a truly historical subject: All the people in the know will jump all over any inaccuracies they find in the product. So, if you're going to care about doing an historically accurate subject, you need to spend a lot of time and money doing research, making all the parts accurately, and still people will likely complain. OR, some other research will surface and next thing you know, your "accurate" kit is passé. 

 

 

Tom, regarding your comments about no Baltimore Clippers in 1847 and no enclosed heads, door sizes, etc., look up the Campbell-Class revenue cutters built from 1849. A couple examples are BlueJacket's Jefferson Davis and the old Marine Models Joe Lane kits. It's really not crazy at all.

 

But, I agree that for many of us, particularly those who are invested enough in this hobby to be on a site like MSW, are going to be unhappy about finding out a kit they just bought is fictitious. It used to irk me a lot more than it does today, but still I understand how you feel.

 

Clare

Edited July 23, 2013 by catopower

[NMBROOK]

No Brian the mantua group changed the planking from lime to balsa as an 'upgrade'when they changed their kits around 2004-2008.Some of their smaller kits come with the option ,they have both balsa and lime so you can decide,I know the royal caroline is like this.I have a soliel royal from 14yrs ago and it is lime.

Rgds Nigel

[cdogg]

Hey guys, I read a lot about kits and historical accuracy when I started my first build. I came to this conclusion now that I'm starting to plan a more difficult model-- if I want to build a famous ship like the Mayflower or the Enterprise, I will not buy a kit unless it is deemed accurate or I am good enough to modify it to meet what I think is more accurate. If I want to build a certain type of ship like a brigantine or a caravel, I don't think I care about the name the company gave the kit as I could easily rename it and add features to my liking. Does anyone agree? -Casey