Seriously Now

Well said.

Hi,

I agree.  As an aside, one thing that really gets me about "Counting rivets" is that on a lot of old ships, vehicles, etc the actual number of rivets (or other details) used could vary from unit to unit within the same class/type.

A lightship...in British Crimson???

What kind of maniac are you?!!!!

For some...getting every single detail, right down to the last rivet, is the "hobby". 

 I recall one guy, that used to show up on the various forums, that would poopoo every kit out there. He'd have red lines drawn all over every picture, showing how inaccurate everything is. As obnoxious as that is for just about everyone else...it seems as though that was what he enjoyed in this hobby of ours. He did seem quite bitter though...so..

As far as I am concerned, "close" counts in horse shoes, hand grenades and scale modeling.

(BTW, I've seen some models in museums, that wouldn't even cut it for the average guys display shelf)

Tanks, when this line gets aired, I have several reactions.

1. There is a value to me in trying to be accurate. 

2. IMO the better the accuracy, the better the model.

3. Artistic "license" is not an excuse for sloppiness.

4. PJ notes the added issue of variation in prototypes. Understanding that is the highest form of accuracy.

But all the above is my own approach.

It is wrong to criticize others for their own approach, unless there's a sense that the modeler is open to it. And keeping it constructive. 

It would really be nice if you would post pictures, TB. For me at least, it would go a long way towards understanding what you think. I remember seeing some pictures of your workspace in a newspaper story. It was pretty impressive.

Bill

Well, T.B. - aren't you contradicting yourself a littlle? In one post you write people should do at least some research, and this one read's a bit like: OK, now you know this should be built this way, but forget it, it doesn't matter...

I know very well that accuracy on models has to stop somewhere, and it's up to the modeller building the particular model, to say where the accuracy is going to end on this very model. But I think the point here is to maintain a strong backbone and not let "other people" tell you how to build what and how many time to invest in this or that - that happens at work.

Then again, if I see a build here, and I tell the modeller something could be corrected, I don't like to hear all of those "rivet counter" stuff. This is forums, many people read it, the ones interested in what I wrote should appreciate the time I took to write something, those uninterested are free to disregard my comment.

I've already heard from forum members here they are fed up with the "rivet counter" stuff and refrain from commenting unless specifically asked to. This way we see less and less posts on the forums - they are drying out. Pity.

And yeah - let's have fun with our hobby. Without fun there's no point in it all. But a job well done gives you a lot of fun, so let's hope for the best! Good luck with all your modelling projects and have a nice day

Paweł

In my advancing years---(I hope they're not 'declining,' quite yet)---I have found great pleasure in building what I call 'first impression' projects.

They're mainly the eye-catching and pulse-pounding illustrations of yesteryear...box art, or colorful illustrations in books...that as a kid made me stand slack-jawed and say "I want to build that!"

Many of these, in my case, have been disproven by later scholarship. The snake on the old Revell Stuka probably had sand-colored spots...not red. And the famed 'purple Zeros' of the old Aurora box art almost certainly never existed.

But I don't have to care.

Over the years, I've scratchbuilt complex models for industrial clients using nothing but drawings. I've done archival research to nail down obscure details of mechanisms or color schemes. I've built--and rebuilt--obsessive levels of detail, just to get things right.

I can 'walk the walk.' But as the years have gone by...I realize I don't always need to.

Because when I see...or build...a Stuka in that old red-and-white snake (anti-) camouflage...I remember why I was so hungry to start building models to begin with.

"I want to build that!"

(End of 'old codger' diatribe. )

What is the porpose of the build?  Build for yourself?  Build for accuracy?  Build for technical knowledge/presentation?

You must be true to your research and the purpose of the model.   Recreational/OOB is good enough for me,  accurate within my skills,  most accurate according to the available research.   

For example your library riverboats.   Supposed that your research showed that the shipyard was using a new format, hemispherical head rivet as opposed to hand forged pyramid shaped rivets otherwise used by other yards at the time.   However you chose to not show any rivits because they meant nothing to your build.  They were an encumberance to you.

Fifty years from now a researcher finds your model in the library and concludes that the shipyard ground the rivet heads flush.   Totally missing the facts that the hemispherical rivet heads were significant.

The rivet plans on a Babcock & Wilcox-type  builder's model would be significant and should be followed as closely as possible.    

What is the purpose?

Hi,

Some of this discussion reminds me a bit of something an engineering professor once told us in class. 

Basically, in reviewing ship drawings you would sometimes see references to various Mil Standards and such abbreviated MIL-STD-..., however there was an "unofficial" abbreviation that that read "MIL-LTD-D41" which actually meant "make it look like the d##n drawing for once" since a lot of details on ships were fitted up on the spot, with drawings sometimes being only "for guidance" (at best) or completely ignored (in some cases).

I once worked on a project back in the early 90s where we were refitting a class of small vessels with new davits, and a previous engineer had reviewed the "as-built" drawings for the ships and concluded that the existing structure was adequate, only to find out during safety testing of one of the davits that when the ships were actually built someone in the yard had replaced the large ( 6 or 8 inch brackets) called out in the drawings with smaller (4 inch) ones, for reasons that they only knew (I guess)

Hi Ed ;

 I just caught this .That you mention the rivets on a Babcock and Wilcox Boiler is funny .Those were the original ones I got training on . Part of damage control is knowing all the systems and their parts .Forgetting the rivets on such a beast in the larger scales would be unforgiveable ! Oh ! Do you know how many rivets are on the casing ?7115 !