I'm not familiar with Mr. Sh...., but I think I need to make a clarification regarding that article in the Nautical Research Journal. I didn't write it; the author was a friend of mine, the late Dr. Charles MacDonald. He was a Professor of English Literature at the University of Cincinnati, an experienced modeler, an avid collector of nautical books, and, for some years after his retirement, editor of the NRJ. That article is more than twenty-five years old now but, unfortunately, just as valid as ever - if not more so.
My general attitude toward hobbies and hobby products is that every hobbiest has every right in the world to pursue the hobby as he or she likes. But I have three major complaints about the HECEPOB companies.
One - their marketing practices are deceptive. A quick look through the catalog of Model Expo (the biggest HECEPOB distributor in the U.S., I believe) will reveal numerous kit descriptions that have scarcely anything to do with reality. We're told that Frederick af Chapman designed frigates for the British Navy, that the Mayflower was "Columbus's flagship," that H.M.S. Beagle had the same hull lines as H.M.S. Bounty, and that Mamoli's version of H.M.S. Victory is "so accurately detailed that your model will have the same number of hull timbers as the original." (That last claim is especially obnoxious. I don't know whether the manufacturer or Model Expo was responsible for it, but it's an outright, bald-faced lie.)
Two - as anybody who's ever worked in a hobby shop knows, HECEPOB kits drive far more people out of the hobby than they bring into it. They entice naive people (with deep pockets) by means of glitzy boxes and glorious, romanticized descriptions, but when the purchaser opens the box and tries to assemble the kit he's usually disappointed and frustrated. The combination of incompetently-researched, ineptly drawn plans, hopelessly vague instructions, irrational construction methods, shoddy materials, and crude fittings usually makes the newcomer give up. (It must be admitted that, statistically, the percentage of model kits in general that ever gets finished is alarmingly small. But the problem is especially serious with wood ship models.)
Three - some people do seem to get hooked on HECEPOB kits, and, after building a couple of them, often acquire attitudes that I find intensely irritating. At least one other web forum (in which I no longer participate) majestically restricts itself to wood ship models, as though there were something holy about wood as a modeling material. Any post that relates to plastic gets deleted - but anything about those hideous HECEPOB monstrosities is welcome. I happen to think that no hobbiest has any business turning up his nose at any other. But many of those modelers seem to have only the vaguest notion of what scale modeling is about - and, as is obvious from this section of the FSM Forum, many plastic modelers understand the subject thoroughly. Among the HECEPOB fraternity, though, anybody who dares suggest that Revell's rendition of the Cutty Sark looks more like the real ship than any of the wood kits can expect to be labeled a blasphemer.
I always feel obliged in discussions like this to emphasize that generalizations are unfair. I'm sure there's quite a bit of variation in the quality of HECEPOB kits. At least one of those manufacturers, Amati, seems to have seen the light recently, and is introducing a line of serious scale kits under the name "Victory Models." (The designer of that series, as I understand it, formerly worked for Calder/Jotika, and clearly knows what he's doing.) I hope that series is a success, and that other companies will follow Amati's lead.
I love working with wood, and I hope more people will discover the pleasures of building wood scale ship models. But I refuse to regard wood as the sole "legitimate" modeling medium, and it galls me that so many manufacturers, in the name of making money, are foisting such masses of overpriced junk on the public - thereby, in my personal opinion, doing far more damage to the hobby than they do good for it.