I hope my earlier post in this thread didn't insult anybody. It certainly wasn't intended too; I probably typed it too late at night for my own good. But, as probably was obvious, I do have some strong opinions on the subject.
The National Model Railroad Association has an "Achievement Awards" program that recognizes levels of accomplishment in model railroading: http://www.nmra.org/achievement/ . I don't know anything about it beyond what's on that website, but it looks like some knowledgeable people have put some time into setting up a set of standards that can be applied fairly and consistently. If model railroaders get pleasure out of adhering to those standards, and getting certified as "Master Modelers," that is of course entirely their business. I, for one, would not want to see anything similar in ship modeling - and I think the development of such set of standards for that hobby would be exceedingly difficult if not impossible.
What I would like to see in ship modeling is something similar to the NMRA's standards for manufacturers. When a magazine reviews a newly-released HO locomotive or freight car, one of the first things the reviewer does is compare such things as the wheel gauges and flange depths, coupler heights, and car weights to the NMRA standards. The manufacturers are under no obligation to adhere to those standards, but if they don't the knowledgeable modeler is likely to find out and avoid the product. It's often occurred to me that such a system would be beneficial in other forms of modeling. The IPMS, or the Nautical Research Guild, or some such organization could publish a set of guidelines saying that, for instance, an airplane kit whose wingspan was within four scale inches of the prototype's dimensions, or a ship kit whose hull length was within two scale feet thereof, met the standard. The manufacturers could be encouraged, if their products met the standards, to print the IPMS or NRG logo on the kit boxes, and in their magazine ads. Products like the infamous Revell "H.M.S. Beagle" and the various HECEPOB (Hideously Expensive Continental European Plank-On-Bulkhead) kits would flunk, and modelers (at least those who read the magazines) would be warned to avoid them.
The more I think about that idea, though, the more obvious it is that it could never work. There are just too many variables, and too many places where subjective opinion would worm its way into the process. Besides, the manufacturers would never cooperate.
I do think it's ironic that different phases of scale modeling seem to have such different notions of what constitutes acceptable behavior on the part of manufacturers. The model railroaders have a set of published standards. The model airplane builders haven't (to my knowledge) published anything similar, but they do have standards - and let the manufacturers know what they are. I'm thinking of the notorious case of the Trumpeter 1/32 F4F Wildcat kit a few years back. The initial run of kits had a fuselage that was distorted in shape by something in the neighborhood of 1/4". Squadron Mail Order found out about the error and refused to sell the kit. Trumpeter changed the molds. But ship modelers - especially sailing ship modelers - have to take whatever the manufacturers throw at them. The vast majority of HECEPOB kits couldn't come close to the standard Squadron applied to that Trumpeter Wildcat. Neither could most of the Heller sailing ship kits. And it's interesting to speculate on what would happen if a manufacturer changed a few parts on a B-17 kit and put it in a box labeled "B-52." That's just about what Revell did when it re-boxed the Bounty with the name "Beagle" on it.
I'm aware of only two cases when ship model manufacturers have been called on the carpet because of their misdeeds - both due to intervention not by modelers' organizations but by museums. Back in the early eighties Revell reissued its Type VII U-boat kit in a box labeled "U-505." U-505, of course, is the Type IX boat preserved by the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. When customers who bought the kit at the museum gift shop started complaining that the contents of the box didn't look like the real U-505, and the gift shop stopped selling the kit, Revell took it off the market. And the Wasa Museum, in Stockholm, has endorsed two kits that represent the Wasa: the plastic one from Airfix and the wood one from Billing. The museum remained silent regarding the HECEPOB version from Corel. That doesn't seem to have bothered Corel much, if at all, but people who want to build scale models of the Wasa can find out from the museum website that the other two kits come up to a reasonable standard of accuracy.
I guess we have to accept that, since serious scale sailing ship modelers are so few in number, we just don't have the leverage to influence most of the manufacturers. I do see some bright spots on the horizon, though. The brightest is the tremendous improvement in plastic and resin twentieth-century warship kits during the past few years. (Three new 1/700 Bismarcks in one year? Photo-etched radar screens? Aircraft carriers with transparent flight decks? Russo-Japanese War battleships? A 1/700 resin Italian monitor? I must be dreaming.) A few companies (Bluejacket, Model Shipways, Calder/Jotika, A.J. Fisher) seem to have genuine respect for scale sailing ship modelers. Maybe the day will come when we get the same level and quantity of support that the railroad, aircraft, and armor enthusiasts do now. I don't think it will happen in my lifetime, but maybe some day.