Revell USS Constitution hull

Hello Bluemax...

Obviously it is a matter of personal preference, but I am with you - the simulated wood grain, plate detail, rivet detail, etc. on most models is overdone - particularly the "classic" models from previous decades.  The 1/96 Constitution exterior detail is not the most egregious instance, but it does look better if softened up or removed entirely.  I think the Heller Victory is much worse - I've really made an effort to knock that grain down on my model.  I find, however, that the wood grain on the decks is most bothersome... Many modelers like to apply thin paint shades and scrape/lightly sand away the top layer to expose the underlying grain detail.  To my eye (personal preference only) I prefer to eliminate the grain entirely and represent the wood effect with variation of wood tones and colored pencils...

Your comment regarding USS Olympia strikes a chord - I've been using Mr. Surfacer and various grit of sandpaper to smooth down the sides of the hull as you have done.  I am thinking of leaving a bit of the horizontal plate detail below the waterline, but eliminate all other detail... I'm looking forward to that Encore kit with the KA details.

Please post pictures as you proceed!

I am also with you.  Like panel lines in aircraft, door lines on cars, and many other details on models, some people like to see stuff emphasized more than visual appearance of the prototype would call for.  If the prototype really had some feature, the model should have it visible, whether it would be visible at scale viewing distances or not.  Others, like I, feel that the visual appearance should replicate the appearance of the prototype.

It is similar to the question on ship models,when building a wooden model, of the finish.  Many kits are made of fancy woods which look beautiful when varnished, even if the prototype was coppered and painted.  The outcome of such discussions always seems to be, it is up to the preferences of the builder.  Personally I prime a lot and sand and fill to reduce the depth of those details.  No boiler rivets on aircraft, only fine, subtle planking lines on a wood ship.  But that does not mean it is right for everyone.

My specialty in ships are the Great Lakes bulk carriers. It is interesting that during the changeover from wooden hulls to iron and steel hulls, available pictures cannot be used to identify the hull material on many of those ships.  The paint covered up the planking lines or hull plate edges.  So if I couldn't see the detail on the prototype, I don't want it on my model.

A similar argument is planking a hull- that is the way the prototype kit was built, so a model should be built that way too.  But there are planked hull kits of iron and steel hulled ships, like the Titanic :-)

It's really interesting to note that the wood grain and plank details on most plastic sailing ship models is far more pronounced than on the real prototypes.  I live near Mystic, CT, and have visited the Charles W. Morgan many times, noting how subtle the plank details are. The wood grain is hardly noticeable on the full size ship, yet it is a major detail on both plastic kits of the ship (Revell and Lindberg/Pyro).

Bill

Thanks for the responses, I'm encouraged to find that other modelers are of the same opinion on hull detail. A painted wooden hull on a full size boat/ship ,especially an older hull that may have been painted a few times, is not going to show much grain, if any, in my opinion.At model viewing distances you can't see much fine detail. I don't build many 1/72 aircraft and when I do I sand or fill panel lines except for very distinct lines such as for some inspection panels. Getting back to wooden ship hulls, wouldn't a builder fill any gaps between planks, so when painted the gap or separation between them would not be very noticeable from a distance? I will proceed as I indicated in my original post and see how it works out.

I'm also now thinking about how to build up the spar deck bulwark thickness. And I'm further complicating the build by deciding to plank the spar deck. I haven't looked,yet, to see if there are any after-market decks available, but if I could by a "blank" deck  I can cut it to fit, and I think there might be a supplier for that. I'll have to look through all my bookmarked venders; if I recall, someone made decks for aircraft carriers.  I'm really only in the planning stage at this point so any decisions I have made are subject to change. It would be nice to be able to build out of the box, but I haven't done that in a long time.

Jim

2/20 Bluemax

 And I'm further complicating the build by deciding to plank the spar deck. I haven't looked,yet, to see if there are any after-market decks available, but if I could by a "blank" deck  I can cut it to fit, and I think there might be a supplier for that. I'll have to look through all my bookmarked venders; if I recall, someone made decks for aircraft carriers.  I'm really only in the planning stage at this point so any decisions I have made are subject to change. It would be nice to be able to build out of the box, but I haven't done that in a long time.

Jim

I tried that once- forget which kit.  Never finished the model.

The procedure raises the deck level a bit, unless you recess the ledges and bosses that hold the deck- a difficult procedure.  The result can create fit problems.  Guns may rub top of gunports, etc. You have to have cutouts for all the stuff that is molded on the deck.  On some models that is a lot of stuff and a real pain.

Don, if I decide to plank the deck I will use a sub-deck and not use the kit supplied deck, that way I can control the deck thickness. That's a lot of work, but from the builds I have seen, the kit can be built into a great looking model. Besides, I enjoy the challenge of scratch building. Every time I open a kit I think what a cool model it will turn out to be. The problem starts when I start researching and building up my reference material. I start to find errors in the model. Now I can't be satisfied with the model unless I correct the errors. I'm not excessively picky, I only try to correct the errors which would be visible from a reasonable viewing distance. I don't add/correct stuff which can't be seen. I built Monograms 1/48 B-24 with the bomb bay doors closed-no racks or bombs. or other interior detail. But I did detail the nose compartment which is visible.

I have hijacked my own thread apparently and digressed into the why and how of model building, which should be somewhere else, I guess.

Later

Jim

You have gotten some excellent replies from other members, so much so that I have nothing to add.  But, being who I am, I will. 

I recall reading in an old ship "how to" book that model ships below a certain scale should not bother with copper plates and other small details.  As explained earlier, who would actually see those things in real life unless you were right on them.  The old book writer recommended that instead of installing plates, one should just go ahead and paint the hull black and and simulate plates by painting the bottom of the hull copper.  Kind of reminds me of the Marks Toy and Linburgh(?) Sea Witch models I have.  No plates on them, but they still used wood grain on the decks.   

A while back I started building a hull for my own vedrsion of the Clipper Ship Salamis.  I spent so much time tryting to detail the hull that it frustrated me.  My wife finally asked, "Could you really see those plate seams from a distance, or wood grain on a deck at 100 feet?  After all, the hull will be painted a dark green."  She was right, so I didn't.

Good luck on your project.