Exactly what constitutes "museum quality" in a model?

Here in Aberdeen, Scotland, the Aberdeen Modellers Society - of which I am a founding member and Chairman - was commissioned by the Gordon Highlanders Regimental Museum to build models for them covering some of the activities of that famous Regiment during WWII. The first one - in 1/35 scale and measuring 4 feet by 2 feet by 15 inches - shows a Section of Gordon Highlanders and their supporting vehicles moving through a town in the south east of the Netherlands in a scene of liberation. There are many civilians lining the street waving flags in joy as their town is liberated. At the rear corner of the model - in an area which cannot be seen from the front - there is an area behind the buildings which shows three Gordon Highlanders capturing a German Flak88 and its crew amidst broken buildings and rubble. This area is painted not in colour as at the front, but in black, white and shades of grey jusy like a monochrome photograph and shows the reality of what was happening in that town a short time before the liberation. The other models - also in 1/35 scale - will show elements of Gordon Highlander activity in Burma and will be completed by the spring of 2006. The models are all in display cases and will become part of the permanent exhibits in a new Education Unit which the Museum is having built over the winter. The funding for this project came from the UK Big Lottery Fund, and our Society was most honoured to be approached and given this commission in what is our 25 Anniversary year.
The reason why I give this information to all you readers is simply to illustrate some of the comments above. For many reasons Museums will/will not commission/buy models for display, but when they do and approach a local model club - as here in Aberdeen - the members rightly grab the opportunity with both hands. It gives us a fantastic opportunity to display the highest modelling skills we can muster and gives the Museum a superb (if I may say so humbly!) set of models which the educationalists at the Museum can use in a large number of ways to show everyone - from 5 years old to - well - 105 years old what happened those 60 years ago. The models will last for decades and the responses we have had from all involved after delivering the first one a few weeks ago has been amazing. The models do not glorify war, but rather fall into the category of "Lest We Forget..."
The Aberdeen Modellers Society are very proud of what we have achieved in our 25 years and to have it topped off with a substantial commission like this is the icing on our Anniversary cake. Incidentally, the monetary grant for this commission must be spent only on the exhibits - our Society will not benefit financially from the work.
I trust this information will stimulate debate, and if anyone has any queries, please post a reply.

I agree with scottrc - on both points.

Quite a few years ago I had a job in a maritime museum that sponsored a rather prestigious ship model competition every five years. One of my responsibilities was to draft the rules for the next contest. I started out by sending out a letter to all the people who'd entered the previous one, asking their ideas on what could be done better.

One of the most common responses was "there need to be separate categories for professional and amateur modelers." To my notion, it doesn't take much thought to establish that that wouldn't be such a good idea.

Professional modelers probably have easier access to tools, materials, and research materials than amateur modelers do. (The professional, after all, can take a hefty tax deduction on that lathe, drill press, or airbrush.) Professionals also work to prices and deadlines. I frequently hear them say things like, "well, of course I could have done this part better, but the client wasn't willing to pay the extra money." And I always point to the example of the "ship models" sold at places like K-Mart. They have vaguely-shaped, frequently lopsided hulls with unbelievable proportions. The sails are made out of some ridiculously heavy fabric, usually coated with black spray paint to "antique" it. The rigging consists of a few pieces of kite string. They bear no resemblance to anything that's capable of floating. And the people who built them were professional modelers.

Some of the finest models I've ever seen have been built by professionals, and some of the finest models I've ever seen have been built by amateurs. The term "professional modeler" does, of course have some practical implications (in the eyes, for instance, of the IRS). But in terms of the quality of the model it has no meaning whatsoever.

Down with "museum quality" and "professional quality" models.

I cannot justfy either terms "Museum Quality" or "Pro Built". Any model that is shown in a museum must have a quality about it to be shown in that museum and has met the museums standards.

There are many models built for a fee that are mass produced and marketed, so are those builders "professionals"? Are the models "professional quality"? To who's standards? Usually the builderm who, as some mentioned, trying to inflate their ego.

I have built models for commission that were put into a musuem, however, I would never term them as high quality or "pro" built to what I feel are high standards. They were built on a tight deadline, to specifications set forth by a board fo directors who each had their own perspectives on the subjects, and a tight budget that had to include the materials specified in the bid plan. The results would not ever get a second look by an IPMS judge but looked good behind glass and pleased the set designer and the museum board.

Same would go for many of the ships I have built for interior decorators. Done in the odd, ornate colors, these models would be a laughing stock at any ship model show. But I built to what the customer wanted.

I learned a lesson, that there is now such thing as "Museum Quality" or "Professional Qualtiy", that the customer can be anybody, a die-hard historian, a free sprit who wants pink and purple spanish galleons, or a board of directors of a museum who can't agree on what colors or markings were on what aircraft on Arpil 26th 1943 so they tell you to paint it blue and green and put big red stars on it.

And the builder too can be anyone, at any skill of modeling, and can use a large variety of mediums and materials to build the subject.

Yup, those terms need to be erradicated from our vocabulary.

Scott

QUOTE: Originally posted by tigerman Can the same be said about "pro-built"? Often wondered what constitutes that term.

I do build professionally but I avoid the "pro-built" term as it smacks of amateurish arrogance. When I build for myself it's my hobby and I'm a lot less anal about details and accuracy while doing that. When I build professionally I do my best to make it accurate and to the level of detail the customer wants. You will almost never see me post my professional builds on hobby sites and you will never see me enter one in competition.

Well-in my humble opinion (sorry-didn't use the acronym) I feel too many folks take this fun little hobby too seriously. And in manifests itself in quarrels about quality and what is accurate. It's just a hobby-and even if a Tiger I in a museum has the wrong smoke dischargers-does it really hurt anyone?

Can the same be said about "pro-built"? Often wondered what constitutes that term.

Thanks for the input guys, certainly an ambiguous term isn't it?

Defining it is like nailing pudding to a wall.

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 mis-nomer and I'm guilty of using it myself. A better term is "competition quality" where a model stands a very good chance of winning in serious judged competition....personally I'd say anything that wins/could win at IPMS regionals for ships or aircraft or AMPS for armor (intermediate level gold or better).

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. Some memorials will commission builds but they're getting guys Like Don Preul or those previously mentioned to scratchbuild to the Smithsonian/Navy specs.

As mentioned the Smithsonian has a specific set of rules regarding construction materials (The Navy uses the same guidelines) but not level of detail, the purpose is so they can accquire models that have longevity. Detail is a secondary concern as the purpose is to display for the education of the general public not a naval historian, therefore my definition of "Museum Quality" would be a model that could last many decades, possibly a century or more, before materials came apart or adhesives degraded and "let go" but could be lacking in detail.

BTW: I bet most people in the public (and some in the U.S. Navy) can't tell the differance betweeen a Spruance class Destroyer and a Ticonderoga class Cruiser

Most museum armor models on display at the Patton Museum have less detail than an ordinary 1/35 scale kit of the same subject. The models are a much larger scale and were generally scratch built by the tank manufacturer or a commissioned model builder. While very nice, they do not look like fully detailed tank models I see at local shows.

I must admit to having puzzled over this term as well.
It is I think totally subjective and for all practical purposes useless.
The terms "ultra detailed , super detailed , precision" and so on may well mean somthing to the person using them but to anyone and everyone else they are just an opinion without any other basis whatsoever.
Just my 2c worth.
Cheers , Pete.

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.

The National Museum of Naval Aviation here in Pensacola has many, many models on display and they vary from marginally fair builds through exceptionally well done models. According to the museum curators, they are not concerned with "constuction quality" as much as they are with the subject of the model.

One thing is certain...NONE of the models on display in the museum should win any award (except perhaps a public's favorite award) at a typical modeling competition. The models on display have seam lines, glue marks, poor finishes, asymetrical components, minimal extras, and a general lack of detail seen on "competition quality" models.

Based on everything I've seen, I would say that the term "museum quality" is extremely subjective.

I've got some rather strong opinions on this topic - partly because I used to work in a maritime museum, where I was in charge of the model collection. I ought to acknowledge that I've never worked in any other sort of museum; I can't speak from experience about models of aircraft, armor, cars, etc. But I'm fairly confident that the same considerations apply to them.

I fervently wish the phrase "museum-quality model" would disappear from the language. It means absolutely nothing.

In the first place, it is to some extent an oxymoron. 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. Suppose, for example, I'm a curator in a maritime museum and somebody offers to donate a model of the Santa Maria that he's built. It obviously was hacked out of a single piece of oak, is ludicrously lopsided in its proportions, has sails made from fabric that's six scale inches thick, and has fittings made out of lead (which is a notoriously unstable material). I'll thank him for his thoughtfulness and find some polite way to tell him the museum doesn't want the model. But if somebody else walks in with an identical, equally primitive model of the same ship and can prove beyond doubt that it was built by one of Columbus's sailors, I'll recommend that the museum spend its entire acquisitions budget to acquire it.

The ship models that prisoners of war carved out of bone during the Napoleonic Wars belong fit in a similar 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 it.

Upnorth is right: some awful models have found their way into museums - for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes the reasons are entirely legitimate (as in the cases I just described). In a maritime museum, a model built by a sailor to represent his ship is usually regarded as a valuable artifact - regardless of the level of accuracy or detail. I imagine aviation museums have similar ways of looking at the problem. (A crude, ill-proportioned model of a Spitfire that I carved out of a chunk of 2x4 with my pocket knife would have no place in a museum. An identical model that an RAF pilot carved as a gift for his kid during the Battle of Britain would be a valuable artifact.) The term "folk art" has been used to cover a multitude of modeling sins. And sometimes models get into museums for reasons that aren't so defensible. Not all museums have model experts on their staffs. It's entirely possible for a museum - especially a small, local one - to accept a model that a larger institution with a better-trained staff would reject, simply because the curator in the small museum didn't know any better. Or, for that matter, because the person who built the model also donated $10,000 to the museum's development fund. It's hard to say no to people like that.

Lousy models - as most members of this forum would define them - often make it into museums. The reverse is even more true: the vast majority of good models don't make it into museums. Ship modelers, in particular (I don't think the problem is quite as accute in other areas of the hobby - though I could be mistaken) too often get the notion that "if my model is good enough, a maritime museum will buy it." That scarcely ever happens.

Museums have limited budgets, and they have limited space. They have to set priorities when they decide what artifacts to collect. The joint where I used to work (the Mariners' Museum, in Newport News, Virginia) had general policy that it only collected models that were contemporary with the ships they represented. We were interested in builders' half-models, authentic "Admiralty models," POW models, sailor-built models, etc. - but not, generally speaking, scale models of old ships built by modern modelers. We made exceptions for models built by particularly outstanding, influential modelers (e.g., Harold Hahn, August Crabtree, and Donald McNarry), and in instances where we really wanted a model of a particular ship to fill a hole in an important exhibit. (We caved in to public pressure and commissioned a highly-detailed model of the Titanic.) But under normal circumstances, if a modeler walked in the door with an exquisitely-detailed model of the Flying Cloud that he'd built himself and offered to donate it, we'd turn it down. (We rejected modern paintings of old subjects for the same reasons.)

Few museums commission the construction of models. Again, I don't know much about fields other than ship modeling, but I'm unaware of any American maritime museum that currently commissions ship models on a regular basis. The Smithsonian used to do it - and had a formal policy regarding scale accuracy, materials (no lead, no plastic, no cotton rigging, etc.) that was written into the contract the modeler had to sign. But so far as I know the Smithsonian hasn't commissioned a ship model in at least thirty years. (Its new, permanent exhibition on American military history has scarcely any ship models in it. Most of the Smithsonian's excellent collection is now in storage. Apparently models aren't "in" among exhibit designers at the moment.) The Navy Department occasionally commissions models (usually of new ship classes), and has a similar set of standards. So far as I know, no other maritime museum does. About twenty-five years ago a ship model dealer in New England made a half-hearted attempt to establish a set of standards for ship models, and published a little booklet about them. So far as I know, no museum officially adopted that document. (The one where I worked repudiated it.)

This rant has gone on far too long; it's obviously a sore subject with me. Bottom line: upnorth is right. The term "museum quality model" is both meaningless and useless.