Peter Van Buren's Ships

kapudan_emir_effendi wrote:

Look to these: http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/users/peter-vanburen/pvb-index.html and then I'm expected to continue building model ships ! How I can, with my self-confidence trounced by such a level of excellency ?? Joke aside, excellent work Mr. Van Buren ! I downloaded all your gallery to provide me a guide on how to build contemporary warships.

I concur with your assessment of Mr. V's work.  I also visit Modelshipgallery often and have printed many pictures of his work to use for when I get to some of my kits that he has already built.  I think he does excellent work. 

I realize my ships will likely never be as good as his, unless I get a huge transplant of "serious patience."  But, I enjoy the hobby and learn from each kit and I beg, borrow, and steal ideas from those here on the board, photos of builds such as Peter's, and magazines such as Finescale. 

My wife is a quilter and after attending a quilt show where there was speaker to give a talk about, yes you guessed it, quilting, the speaker said something along the lines of "Yes, you will find a mistake in everyone of my quilts.  Only God is perfect.  I'm only human."

But, I do agree, dang, his are so good and mine are so, ummmm, so, ummmm, okay.  

Chuck Fan wrote:

There is no point to nitpick.  Even if his research isn't perfect, his model making technique still leaves the most of us in the dust. It reminds me of a certain person I know who has completely given up on going to modeling shows.   He was a naval aviator, and he built a meticulously detailed model of the very plane he had flown.   During a model show, he was approached by a recognized authority on this type of plane and duly informed that the aviator's research was pitiful and he got the plane all wrong.   The aviator produced photos of himself standing in front of his own plane, showing that in fact his model conformed perfectly to that plane.   The authority replied "Yeah, but it's still wrong", and walked away in a huff.

What reminds you of the certain person? If you are referring to my comment of the details being askew on the Nimitz model, please note that I am very familiar with CVNs in the real world. I have no problem with his technique or finish, just the mishmash of stuff on the weatherdecks.

Chuck Fan wrote:

There is no point to nitpick.  Even if his research isn't perfect, his model making technique still leaves the most of us in the dust. It reminds me of a certain person I know who has completely given up on going to modeling shows.   He was a naval aviator, and he built a meticulously detailed model of the very plane he had flown.   During a model show, he was approached by a recognized authority on this type of plane and duly informed that the aviator's research was pitiful and he got the plane all wrong.   The aviator produced photos of himself standing in front of his own plane, showing that in fact his model conformed perfectly to that plane.   The authority replied "Yeah, but it's still wrong", and walked away in a huff.

I was at a model show back in June for this club that I was thinking about joining, but decided not too due to some of the older member's attitudes towards some young boy's tank. Apparently the paint scheme and colors and some other things were "wrong and shouldn't even be on display." The poor kid was standing right there as they were bashing his hard work. I politely told them that it wasn't wrong and he built it exactly the way he wanted to build it. I then asked them if they had ever seen a real version of the model, or a picture of every tank built that resembled this model. They both sheepishly said no. I smiled, shrugged, and walked away and gave the kid a high-5 on my way out.

I was wondering, without all of the aircraft available to populate a carrier like the Nimitz in this scale there is always one aircraft missing, the C-2 Greyhound. On photo's of the carriers I always see one or two C-2's on the deck, but does anyone supply one in these aircraft sets?

Mike T.

There is no point to nitpick.  Even if his research isn't perfect, his model making technique still leaves the most of us in the dust.

It reminds me of a certain person I know who has completely given up on going to modeling shows.   He was a naval aviator, and he built a meticulously detailed model of the very plane he had flown.   During a model show, he was approached by a recognized authority on this type of plane and duly informed that the aviator's research was pitiful and he got the plane all wrong.   The aviator produced photos of himself standing in front of his own plane, showing that in fact his model conformed perfectly to that plane.   The authority replied "Yeah, but it's still wrong", and walked away in a huff.

I love that site and I agree Van Buren's models are great but please check out this guy and his brilliant model of the Tirpitz : http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/bb/dkm/tirpitz-350-lc/tirpitz-index.html  Hats off

First, I must admit that Mr. Van Buren did an outstanding technical job on the Nimitz, but he got a lot of the real-life stuff wrong. CVs don't usually man the port rail, (there are exceptions, such as when rendering honors to the USS Arizona, when passing Ford Island)  nor do they man the rail on the island. Marines and sailors are rarely, if ever, mixed together when manning the rail. You don't see the wooden ship's name placard hung on the port side of the island, if, indeed, you ever see one at all on a CV. The mix of aircraft is a bit strange, too, A-7s and Seahawks? F-4s and F-14s. "Tilley", the mobile crane on the flight deck, wouldn't be left unattended with a load dangling from the boom like that. The anchors... what ship did they come from? The don't look like US Navy stockless anchors to me.

Don't worry, Kapudan, this builder isn't perfect. But he is really, really good.

I for one, am very impressed by Mr Van Buren's ship models.  I think he does a wonderful job of capturing the flavor and feel of the ships he has done.  I wish I could be as prolific.

Paul