In view of the turn this thread seems to have taken, maybe it would be a good idea to consider a few basic aspects of what we're talking about.
This Forum is sponsored by a magazine that's devoted to scale models. A scale model, by definition, is a reproduction of an actual thing - be it car, aircraft, tank, ship, or whatever. The objective of the scale modeler, normally, is to reproduce that thing with as much accuracy, and in as much detail, as possible.
There is, of course, no such thing as a perfect scale model. Every one of them makes some sort of compromise with reality, due to the limitations of the modeler's skill, the materials and tools used, or whatever. (Show me a 1/72-scale aircraft model with moving dials on the instrument panel - or working valves in its engine.) The same goes for kits (plastic, wood, or otherwise). Look through the kit reviews in the magazines and websites. You'll find that no knowledgeable reviewer ever encounters a kit with no mistakes in it.
The individual scale modeler has to make the decision as to whether a particular kit is good enough to constitute a satisfactory basis for a scale model. In my personal opinion, the answer in the case of the Revell Cutty Sark, the Revell Constitution, and the Heller Victory, the answer is - yes. In the case of the Heller Soleil Royal, the answer is - no. All four of those kits make compromises in terms of accuracy. In my opinion the compromises in the first three cases are relatively minor - and can, with the application of practical techniques, be fixed. The fourth one doesn't rise to that level. Other scale modelers are perfectly entitled to different opinions.
My observation has been that scale ship modelers actually tend to be less stringent in their opinions about such things than scale modelers in other areas. Aircraft and armor modelers - and even warship modelers - routinely condemn kits because of errors that, by comparison with what's wrong with the Heller Soleil Royal, seem pretty trivial. A few years ago, Trumpeter released a 1/32-scale Grumman Wildcat. The profile of the fuselage differed from scale reality by something between 1/4" and 1/2". The aircraft modeling community promptly went bonkers, and Squadron Mail Order refused to sell the kit. Trumpeter thereupon revised the molds. Another example: some years back Revell tried to market its Type VII U-boat as U-505, which is a Type IX. The modeling press - and the gift shop at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry, where the real U-505 resides - raised such howls of protest that Revell took the kit off the market. But when Revell reboxes its Cutty Sark wih a green hull and calls it the Thermopylae, nobody beyond this Forum seems to care.
The argument, "it doesn't matter because most people won't know the difference" doesn't seem to be part of the thinking of the rest of the modeling community. If the scale modelers in other areas started thinking that way, where would they stop? What percentage of the general population can tell the difference between a P-51B and a P-51D? Or the difference between a Tiger tank and a Panther? Or the difference between a Type VII U-boat and a Type IX?
If scale modelers were honest about it, though, they'd have to admit that there's really no rational reason for thinking and acting the way they do. (There are exceptions, of course. Professional modelers working for industry, for instance, have to maintain certain standards of accuracy; if they don't, the models won't serve their purposes.) The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of people can't distinguish between an accurate scale model and and an inaccurate one - and, in the grand scheme of the universe, there's no reason why they should be able to do so.
So just why do scale modelers develop such an obsession with accuracy? The answer undoubtedly varies a great deal from person to person - as does the degree of obsession. I think most serious, longtime scale modelers, though, would say that they do what they do because (a) they think the finished products are beautiful, and (b) building them provides some sort of aesthetic and emotional satisfaction - in other words, for the same reasons that have been brought up in this thread.
To assume that serious scale modelers have somehow lost their ability to see ships as beautiful things would be a big mistake. Experienced scale modelers see far more beauty in a well-executed scale ship model than the average person does. To my mind, the works of the finest serious scale ship modelers (e.g., C. Nepean Longridge, Donald McNarry, Harold Hahn, Norman Ough, etc.) qualify in every sense as works of art. They in fact combine aesthetics, skill, and scholarship in ways that aren't found in most other art forms.
None of this is intended to suggest that the way those gentlemen do it is the only way to do it. For most of us, model building is a hobby. I've got several hobbies, and I pursue them with varying degrees of intensity. One is photography; my good friend and fellow Forum member (and veteran pro photographer) MikeF6F will confirm that I am, at best, an extremely mediocre photographer. I have a fairly big collection of classical music CDs, and if I ever get my violin out of its case everybody in the vicinity will be well-advised to run for the hills. I like to play chess; the local chess club always welcomes me because it needs cannon fodder. Etc. I don't suggest for an instant that anybody who buys a ship model kit is under some obligation to build it according to a certain standard - mine or anybody else's.
I do suggest that anybody who decides to get into the area of sailing ship modeling at least take a look at what it has to offer beyond what's in the kit boxes. There's a great mass of wonderful literature about ships and maritime history out there, and model building is a great way to get into it. Scale ship modeling is a great hobby because, among other reasons, it's the sort of thing one can never master. I've been doing it for fifty years, and I could easily do it for another fifty without learning everything there is to be learned about it.
By all means, everybody in the hobby should pursue it in whatever way he or she thinks fit. But be aware that there are other ways to do it - and (like photography, the violin, and chess), the more deeply into it you get, the more satisfaction - and outright pleasure - you're likely to get from it.
That's my two cents' worth.