Museum quality models myth

[Mash]

It is nonsensical to attach the quality of a model, technically and historically correct, to the concept of the place of storage, namely museum. But that is exactly what is being done here. The term is outdated. We are now talking about the "master piece" version here (Europe). For the purely technical specification there has been an ISO standard for a long time, for other areas, not for model making. So one has already given some thought to it. I've worked in and for such a field, making and delivering museum quality, graphic / printing industry. It is equally nonsensical to make comparisons with models from earlier ages. Very few model makers are likely to be interested in the living conditions of the people of that time and to classify their performance correctly. If it were so, the same mistakes would not be made again and again with the wood, the plank length, the carriage construction, etc. Most of the time they are copied here. We presume to judge the technical possibilities of the time. Often, however, it is only these models that provide us with accurate information at all. That's much more important than pulling yourself up on a term.

 

[JohnA]

After touring many museums I can vouch that quality is not the main concern for displaying, acquiring and storing relics.
I have seen some awful models in museums with an immense historical and cultural significance and so I can understand the value of the model's place in the museum.

 

[Uwek]

They don't. For the most part, unless it is a private collection, they would gladly accept any model without a quality inspection you may donate for their exhibitions.

Most of the museum, the well known naval museums, have much too much models in stock.
Especially since most of these museum are modernised and they reduce the exhibition of static scale models.
I am pretty sure, that the museum in Paris will have much less models in exhibition after their reopening (whenever it will be)
So most of the Museum (quality) models are and will be stored in the cellar or any storehouses and will be not for public.....

 

[jimmystratos]

Museums may want the absolute best quality of materials, workmanship and authenticity possible. I think that is what people intend when they use the phrase 'museum quality'.
However, the context of the museum display may be such that they are not looking for this. POW models are a prime example - the context is not the quality of the model but the ingenuity exhibited and the thought-provoking aspects of its origin. Egyptian pyramid boat models are another example - if they can't get an original, a model is of necessity going to be a fairly crude effort because of lack of knowledge. Where a museum wishes to illustrate a particular ship, it may be that anything will be better than nothing - (think about exhibits of a dodo skeleton because they can't get a stuffed dodo), so a model that's a bit shonky/dubious detail etc may be acceptable to illustrate a point.

 

[Broadsides]

Everything that's been stated is absolutely 'true'...I, being in the profession some 50 years. There's not much more to say as all the bases have been covered. I sold to important collectors, have shown in galleries, and have work(s) in museums, etc., etc. But the truth is, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" -regardless what that beauty entail.

Harold Hahn, spoke to him several times during the 1980s. Exhibited with British builder Donald McNarry and Philip Reed at highend galleries here in the States. And yes, the name was tossed around to fish in 'better' clients. However, I never considered "museum quality" as one of my selling points and this forced me to go my separate path. (I'm a better artist for that decision).

I recently wrote about 'admiralty' type models in a recent blog as being nothing more than miniature prototypes that were only introduced on the floor to decide whether or not the ship was sufficient for sailing, armament, etc. Some were crude examples; others, refined...but all served a purpose -to be voted on as to whether or not it would make it to the shipyard.

I hope the current wave of builders will take this thread seriously. Words can make or break a livelihood. We ALL are artistans in our fields -whether as hobbyists and/or professionals. Whatever the journey, it's always great to get a few individuals on board to speak the truth.

I raise my glass to your comments!

 

[Mash]

Everything that's been stated is absolutely 'true'...I, being in the profession some 50 years. There's not much more to say as all the bases have been covered. I sold to important collectors, have shown in galleries, and have work(s) in museums, etc., etc. But the truth is, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" -regardless what that beauty entail.

Harold Hahn, spoke to him several times during the 1980s. Exhibited with British builder Donald McNarry and Philip Reed at highend galleries here in the States. And yes, the name was tossed around to fish in 'better' clients. However, I never considered "museum quality" as one of my selling points and this forced me to go my separate path. (I'm a better artist for that decision).

I recently wrote about 'admiralty' type models in a recent blog as being nothing more than miniature prototypes that were only introduced on the floor to decide whether or not the ship was sufficient for sailing, armament, etc. Some were crude examples; others, refined...but all served a purpose -to be voted on as to whether or not it would make it to the shipyard.

I hope the current wave of builders will take this thread seriously. Words can make or break a livelihood. We ALL are artistans in our fields -whether as hobbyists and/or professionals. Whatever the journey, it's always great to get a few individuals on board to speak the truth.

I raise my glass to your comments!

Well said, from my point of view that was not an option either. Cheers What I miss is that the own point of view is being questioned. To explain it: in many construction reports it is reported that the plank length was set to an estimated 10 meters. Over and over again. That is and remains wrong. A long-known fact if you look at it. Of course, everyone should and can build his ship as he wants, as he likes it. This is often done admirably in terms of craftsmanship. But not any more !

 

[Hubac’s Historian]

Even Lloyd McCaffery does what he does through the magic of modeling conventions, and his work is in museums all over the world.

As a builder, I look to contemporary-built models from the time-period that interests me, and use the best of those subjects to corroborate details. I then, cross-reference with my library to determine whether there is general agreement about such and such detail. In the end, does that detail make practical sense? How would something function, in a practical way, on a real ship? These are the questions that most model builders ask themselves.

The “how” of getting there can follow any number of ingenious paths. The builder of this famous model of the Royal James didn’t plank the model, in the conventional sense; he sheathed it:


It is still an historically relevant model that can be appreciated for the correctness of its detail, on many levels, even of it isn’t a timber for timber re-creation of the actual thing.

 

[Tangopapa]

Any pictures of POW models made of fish bones and hair?

Y.T, go to the Art Gallery of Ontario and see the Thomson collection of ship models. It has wide collection of models including many made of available materials by PoWs. If you haven't visited you will be absolutely amazed. I make a pilgrimage from Pegerborough every year or so with my brother in Toronto.

 

[danielsje]

I will be the first to admit to misunderstanding and misuse of the term “museum quality.“ So this discussion has been great, informative, and educational. I am guilty of misuse of both term and concept in a struggle to define exceptionally fine master craftsmanship. There are exceptionally fine master craftsmen on this forum. Me, not so much; but I accept my level of modeling while aspiring to the levels of fine craftsmanship exhibited by others. My apologies and thanks for opening up the discussion.

 

[CharlieT]

I've encountered several discussions about "museum quality", none of them discuss is the role of market forces in determining what a "good" model is, and I'm wondering if somebody could comment on that.

After all, some people build models to sell. They can only sell them if they look a certain way, and buyers will buy them only if they look a certain way. Hence, people tend to build modelers that look the way buyers (or potential buyers) want them to. Take, for example, the idea of painting with wood. I fully understand that doing so allows one to display one's craftmanship. However, I have yet to see a real ship that was built with Swiss pear planking or ebony wales. Real ships were painted or, perhaps in older ships, the wood (often oak) was left bare. Yet, if I were to plank a model with maple, and then paint it, or stain it so it looked like oak, the value of that model would decrease. So, if I want to sell it, I'm gonna use Swiss pear and ebony. When a lot of people do so, it becomes a "standard". I wouldn't be surprised if these "standards" influence museum curators.

Succinctly put, my question is: "What role do private collectors have in determining what a "good" model is?"

 

[monument7]

* Some information is taken from Fine Scale Modeler


On different threads, from time to time, I am seeing an ambiguous term 'Museum quality model', I cannot justify it. The simple answer is this: Any model that a museum wants to display is "museum quality". There is no set construction standard and people who use this term are probably doing so in an effort to 1) boost their ego or 2) get more money for a model they are selling!
Museums have lots of reasons for acquiring models - and only some of those reasons have anything to do with "quality" as a model builder would define the term. Normally large museums do not commission models, you find that mostly with very small museums on military bases. They have very tight budgets and you're not going to make as much as you will from a private collector. Smithsonian and the US Navy do have guidelines for materials and the bottom line is the materials for new builds MUST have a proven record of lasting a minimum of 100 years without degradation and without causing other materials to degrade as well. Some of the models at the USNA museum are close to 400 years old. "Museum quality" as regards the detail level and accuracy is in fact a misnomer. A much better term, IMHO, is "competition grade" where a model stands a very good chance of winning in seriously judged competition... but even this is subjective: Who are the judges?

The ship models that prisoners of war carved out of bone during the Napoleonic Wars belong to what category? The hull lines of such a model are likely to be way out of proportion. (The builder had no plans to work from, and he never saw the underwater hull of the ship.) It's probably made out of soup bones and rigged with human hair. It doesn't really meet any definition of the term "scale model." But nobody who's ever looked at a POW model is likely to deny that a museum is the right place for such models.

Some of the finest models I've ever seen have been built by masters\commissioners, and some of the finest models I've ever seen have been built by amateurs\hobbyists. The term "Museum Quality" does, of course, have some practical implications (in the eyes, for instance, of the seller\builder). But in terms of the quality\grade of the model, it has no meaning whatsoever.

One thing is certain... Some of the models on display in the museum should not win any award (except perhaps a public's favorite award) at a typical modeling competition. Those models on display have seam lines, glue marks, poor finishes, asymmetrical components, minimal extras, and a general lack of detail seen on "competition grade\quality" models.

I trust this information will stimulate debate, and if anyone has any queries, please post a reply.

I did use the term museum quality when trying to sell my Victory because i knew no better. Perhaps i should have used competetive quality. Thanks fir clearing it up for me

 

[LuigiSoft]

The topic of "Museum Quality Models" (Models for museums) has been exhaustively and interestingly discussed here in this thread and, as a newcomer to the world of model ship building, it is not for me to air an opinion on what constitutes a realistic model, that is a model pertaining to be an exact replica of the original. Should the model exhibit a grade of usage, i.e. display a weathered look or be displayed in a pristine, unused condition? Attaining such a standard is the exclusive realm of experienced model builders, who not only have researched the original plans, but also used the correct timber and other materials when preparing for and during build of the ship. The broader base of the site members and other model builders would agree that it is the feeling of satisfaction one gets when overcoming sometimes huge obstacles when building the model, be it a kit or scratch-build, resolving the challenges along the way in some of the techniques involved and, in addition, learning new skills and methods of doing things.

I once saw a film of a model ship exhibition with a competition for the best model. The judges got out their magnifying glasses, studying every knot, serving and seizing, lay of the deck and hull planking and the like, taking measurements, making notes and ticking boxes. Yes, I agree that competition is necessary, especially among the realm of the conoscenti and expert model builders. Competition is healthy and brings forth excellence, but that world is not for me. I shall display my first ship, the Endeavour with pride, in the knowledge that it may not be true to detail, but the sometimes stony road I went down building this great ship was worth the while and I will look forward to building my next ship.
Have a great weekend!

 

[Jimsky]

I will be the first to admit to misunderstanding and misuse of the term “museum quality.“ So this discussion has been great, informative, and educational. I am guilty of misuse of both term and concept in a struggle to define exceptionally fine master craftsmanship. There are exceptionally fine master craftsmen on this forum. Me, not so much; but I accept my level of modeling while aspiring to the levels of fine craftsmanship exhibited by others. My apologies and thanks for opening up the discussion.

Jim, Mon Amie! There is absolutely no need to apologize. We have this discussion just to share our thought and view on this subject. Each opinion is subjective, and some of us are opponents of what I personally think about it. But the bottom line, as you said, the great and exceptional workmanship of modelers across the globe here on our forum. Their out-of-ordinary work, and examples of what craftsmanship is all about, are inspirational for many of us. One thing I deeply regret, their true Artwork is not part of the exhibitions in the famous Museums. But hey...this my subjective opinion,

 

[Thomas]

Interesting discussion. I'm no wiser about what "museum quality" means (but I sure wouldn't trust it if I saw it on eBay!) but I think the overall question of model quality comes down to the intentions of the builder. If the intention was to create a perfect to scale replica, the quality should be judged on how well that objective was achieved. It the modeller wanted to simply enjoy the relaxation of building and the satisfaction of creating something it should be judged on that basis. That model may actually be perfect (according to whoever's standard) or it may have flaws but who cares.

 

[Jimsky]

I've encountered several discussions about "museum quality", none of them discuss is the role of market forces in determining what a "good" model is, and I'm wondering if somebody could comment on that.

After all, some people build models to sell. They can only sell them if they look a certain way, and buyers will buy them only if they look a certain way. Hence, people tend to build modelers that look the way buyers (or potential buyers) want them to. Take, for example, the idea of painting with wood. I fully understand that doing so allows one to display one's craftmanship. However, I have yet to see a real ship that was built with Swiss pear planking or ebony wales. Real ships were painted or, perhaps in older ships, the wood (often oak) was left bare. Yet, if I were to plank a model with maple, and then paint it, or stain it so it looked like oak, the value of that model would decrease. So, if I want to sell it, I'm gonna use Swiss pear and ebony. When a lot of people do so, it becomes a "standard". I wouldn't be surprised if these "standards" influence museum curators.

Succinctly put, my question is: "What role do private collectors have in determining what a "good" model is?"

Hello Charlie, your question is not an easy one to answer. I mean it is complex and involves a lot of writing. First of all, I don't believe that Private collectors playing any role in determining what a good model should be. Each collector has their own criteria and expectation of model quality for his collection. There is no such 'standard\s' as to how the model should be built in order to be 'good' for the collection, IMHO. Here is an example, one of my friends builds models as the commission work, and a few of his clients asking him to build models from the kits they choose. Will this yields the quality of the work he will do? Of cause not! Private collector chooses modeler based on his\hers work (portfolio). We have many examples on our forum of such wonderful models made from kits.

Unless the model will participate in a competition such as NAVIGA, where qualifications and participations govern by certain rules, there should be no standard. An example would be 2 of the same models built on the same scale in the same Class. Only judges will be able to choose the better one. But who are the Judges? Every model is an Art, and beautiful in the eyes of the builder. Let's not forget, we see the same art objects differently.

NAVIGA – WORLD ORGANISATION FOR MODELSHIPBUILDING AND MODELSHIPSPORT

www.naviga.org

In terms of the timber we choose, yes, you are correct, no one builds real ships from Pear and Ebony, but don't forget, we are building the scale models, not real ships. As such, oak on the scale of 1:48 would look to 'grainy awful'. Shipwrights use oak for its characteristics of super-strong wood to withhold tremendous pressure without breaking. In models, we don't need such characteristics.
Also, choosing one timber over another oftentimes dictates the modeler's geographical location where one species of wood is rare and extremely expencive, while another is super cheap and available. Another consideration is the builder's personal preference and taste. Yet another one as the tools to process small lumber. There are many factors and no standards, but there will be few of us who can object that a combination of Swishpear, Ebony, and boxwood is something unbelievable, what I called - a Magnificent Trio!

 

[MikeC]

You know it when you see it?

 

[Jimsky]

You know it when you see it?

Yes

 

[Vfordyce]

I still say "builder's choice." One of the reasons I am building the Black Pearl is that it's a fantasy ship and no one can tell me I did it wrong. That gives me a chance to experiment with different techniques and learn the craft better without incurring a lot of judgment on how accurate my work is. For me, the only people who will ever see my work are friends. Their comments fall inevitably into two categories: "Wow" and "Nope." That translates to me that they are either unable or not willing to invest the time and effort that I have expended to make this ship. So now I will proudly place my ship in my little museum and look at it and sigh, "That sail looks darn good!" or "I wish I had done that ratline better." Just like I say when I look at your models under my breath.

 

[Broadsides]

I will be the first to admit to misunderstanding and misuse of the term “museum quality.“ So this discussion has been great, informative, and educational. I am guilty of misuse of both term and concept in a struggle to define exceptionally fine master craftsmanship. There are exceptionally fine master craftsmen on this forum. Me, not so much; but I accept my level of modeling while aspiring to the levels of fine craftsmanship exhibited by others. My apologies and thanks for opening up the discussion.

You have the right mindset, sir.
Many of us have fallen into that trap; both professional and novice. It was the galleries and shipmodel brokers that first brought that about during the 1970s and 1980s. This ultimately caused confusion and bickering among builders; and for some, it played havoc on their work and attitudes.

I saw that particular community dividing itself and I 'abandoned ship' to follow my own course -realizing that we are ALL different and have our own standards for what we do. Be it great or small. This is what makes the medium worthy; the fact that we all have varied approaches to a thing. Some of us are not as knowledgeable in maritime fare as others, and all of it takes 'time'. There is no 'one' genius in anything. No one great builder. No one great 'now-it-all'. We are ALL a part of something bigger -and it's 'there' that the meeting of the minds begin to grasp true value of purpose.

Fairwinds!

 

[Philski]

Being picky and attention to detail seems to be quite personal. I'm learning. I know what I prefer but it may not be someone else's idea of the same thing. It's all enjoyable! Love building to my own expectations!