Wood or Plastic?

Now and then somebody asks me if I'm a wood modeler or a plastic modeler.  The answer is - neither.  I'm a ship modeler.

 And a hearty Amen to that ! Harold Underhill's books re-introduced me to wood ship modeling, and I hold his work in high esteem. As a model railroader, I remember when Styrene was " a sinful departure from real modeling". Styrene has certainly come of age, and is now a very prominent building material. Whether wood or plastic, to build a scale model is to do the research, and make the necessary changes. In many cases parts are made of heavier-than-scale materials, in order to "survive" the kit's construction. In both wood, and plastic kits, some replacement of parts may occur, to achieve "scale". In most plastic kits, there is a need to scratchbuild most of the rigging, because the thread provided is inappropriate for the purpose. While maybe not as common in wood kits, it still exists. In the scratchbuilding world, plastic is just as applicable as wood, and sometimes might actually be the better of the two materials. The real determining factor, is how well you have mastered the "use of the material". The skills are similar, but quite different. Two models, scratchbuilt,of the same ship, in the same scale, one of wood, and one of plastic,finished properly, will be almost impossible to immediately identify which is which. Each material has its positives, and its negatives, most all, can be overcome with patience, and an aquired working knowlege of the material. For kits, plastic has the advantage of having a smaller initial cost.

I can't imagine a finer subject for a model than the Beagle.  At this point, unfortunately, it looks to me like the only way to build such a model would be from scratch.  I'm not optimistic that any plastic kit company will release a genuine Beagle kit (or any other sailing ship) in the foreseeable future, but maybe one of the wood companies will.  I should think such a kit would be popular.

That brings up a point that, I think, is relevant to this thread. We've really been talking about two separate, but related, issues.  One is the distinction between plastic and wood; the other is the distinction between working with kits and scratch building.

I don't imagine anybody who's ever scratch-built a model will dispute that this form of modeling offers many things that building from a kit does not.  When you work from scratch, you're not forced to accept the judgments the kit designers made; you can make all the decisions, large and small, yourself.  Scratch building is, in some ways, a much better teacher; when you build from scratch you have to learn some things about reading plans, laying out planks, shaping spars, etc. that, in a well-designed kit, somebody else has already taken care of for you.  Where the kit builder is limited in his choice of subjects to the ones the manufacturers have picked (and lots of other folks are building), the choice of subjects for the scratch builder is quite literally unlimited.  And there is indeed a great deal to be said for the feeling of satisfaction that comes from looking at a finished model and remembering when it consisted of a stack of boards.

The kit has its advantages, too.  To many individuals, much of the satisfaction of modeling comes from building up a collection.  In some ways, building six different ships teaches one more, and develops more of an appreciation for the subject, than building one.  Scratch building generally requires a bigger investment in tools and research materials.  Some folks either can't afford that investment, live in places where it's impractical, or simply don't want to make it.  (I couldn't have built that little model of the Hancock if I hadn't had easy access to a big library, and several dozen books of my own.  Being able to travel to maritime museums and archives far from home - because I was working simultaneously on a dissertation about a related subject - also helped.  But not everybody wants to approach the hobby that way.)  Scratch building takes up a considerable amount of space - which may be a problem if one shares one's domicile with other people.  (I was an apartment dweller when I built the Hancock, but I was also a bachelor.  Nowadays I'm most fortunate to have an understanding, sympathetic wife, who insisted that I install a detached workshop - largely because she wanted the models, the tools, the noise, the sawdust, and the smells out of the house.)  Some modelers - excellent ones - would find it impractical to enjoy the hobby if no kits were available.

The bottom line, as far as I am concerned, is that this is a hobby and everybody indulging in it ought to pursue it in the way that's most appropriate, and most enjoyable, for that individual. 

JTilley - actually, I am aware of problems with Revell's "Beagle". I've read about the kit on this forum for the first time, and in the same post I've read about problems with it. I've checked both kits in the local shop, and decided, that the kit is indeed beyond redemption. However, the idea of building "Beagle" have already settled in my brain (that's a subject I consider quite interesting and historically important), so I've decided that I'll build it in future. However, it will not happen for at least a year or two, and I'll decide how I'll do it then - may be I'll scratch-build it, may be I'll bash some kit... And may be a miracle will happen and proper release of the "Beagle" will appear on the market.

I think the idea of modeling says it best.

In my other life, that of a model railroader, I use wood, resin, metal and plastic, primarily to get the best solution to building a subject at hand. I model an obscure prototype - an Oregon portage railroad in 1867 - so scratchbuilding is a virtual necessity.

When I got into shipbuilding, it was, like my model railroading, motivated by an interest in the subject, so the materials or kits I use were based on a combination of what best suited my limited skills as a beginner in shipbuilding, and what best suited my goal of accurately representing the ships I liked.

My ship interest is pretty specific - late Elizabethan vessels. So far I'm building a merchant ship and a privateer, both from plastic kits. They suit my skills, my interest in weathering and painting, and with the help of this forum, I was able to find kits that most accurately represent the current state of understanding and interpretation. I would have readily built in wood, but there are no entry level kits for vessels of this type, and I'd add that even the more advanced wooden kits are often wildly innaccurate, so much so as to make some of them anything but models of ships.

There are definate limitations to plastic - for example, spars will bend, or its near impossible for me to get a deck that looks the way I want it to. But there are also advantages, in that I can get the basic forms, and with painting and weathering, make them look like they were made of wood. And each of the two vessels has required some scratchbuilding - I rebuilt the stern transom of the privateer, for example - and its no more difficult, and just as rewarding, to use styrene as it is wood.

But beyond the hulls or masts, the most elemental aspect of shipbuilding remains the same, no matter what material is used - rigging. Its still thread, blocks, deadeyes, knots and skill, with a great deal of patience. The blocks and deadeyes I ordered have arrived and are terrifying - tiny, daunting blobs of metal. I'm supposed to get thread around that? But then I look at the photos of the Professor's Bounty, knowing how small that model is, and get inspired again.

So use whatever material you want, enjoy the process and build the ship.

Jim

Grahor - You've made a number of interesting, and in my opinion completely valid, points. 

I assume the "Beagle" kit you're talking about is the Revell one, recently re-released by Revell Germany.  Before you take on that project, you need to be aware that the kit is a marketing stunt.  It is, in fact, a somewhat modified version of the Revell H.M.S. Bounty, from 1956.  Revell has pulled quite a few scams of this nature over the years, but this may be the most egregious.  There's plenty of good information about the real Beagle; she resembled the real Bounty only in having a hull, a deck, and three masts. 

If you do a search on the word "Beagle" in this Forum you'll find quite a few references to this...thing..., and to a similar scam operated by one of those high-priced European wood kit companies.  The Mamoli "H.M.S. Beagle," which sells for several hundred dollars, is in fact an enlarged copy of the Revell one.

  I say again - it's not for me to tell modelers they shouldn't buy or build such kits.  But I do think the purchaser has a right to know what he's buying - and I take exception to such behavior on the part of the manufacturers.  In virtually any other business, this kind of behavior would be labeled outright consumer fraud and the perpetrators would be in danger of getting arrested.  This is the sort of thing that gives the hobby of building sailing ship models from kits such a bad reputation in some circles.

Yes, there are other thoughts out there, be sure. :)

Let's start with wood-working skills. I worked with wood for a living - the only work there is was at small furniture factory - so wood-working skills I already have, and they, basicly, come down to two: cutting and grinding by the carefully scribed lines; a lot of different equipment is used for this, but not a lot of different skills. Quite honestly, those two activities bored me to death when I was building lockers and tables, and they bore me now. If I'll never smell the smell of hot wooden sawdust, I wouldn't regret it. :)

There is, of course, another skill, which I admire - carving. Scratch-build rich and exquisite carvings on ships fascinate me; and I would be the first to admit, that it's a true art; however, only a small minority of ship-builders are able to produce good carvings. And I will never be amongst them, I know it for a fact. So, why do third-rate job?

Which points us in another direction - level of details. Wooden kits I've seen (I admit, I haven't seen a lot of them, just a few relatively cheap (less than $200 each) kits from Mamoli and Constructo) have unsatisfying for me level of small details. Their hand-rails, top masts and yards, small boats and most of the small details look thick, big, somewhat clumsy and out of scale, for most parts. Their metallic parts do not look seriously superior to similar plastic parts, and sometimes really inferior. Wooden sheave blocks and other blocks names of which I don't remember in English right now are better than plastic ones, because plastic is simply too brittle for them, I think, but they can be used for plastic models as easily as for wooden.

As for "skills same as the skills of shipwright builders", well, it is my unsupported by facts opinion, that other than general skills of cutting, grinding, and fastening, it's a pure wishfull thinking on the part of wooden modellers. I myself, of course, have never built a ship; however, I've built two small boats for fishing in rivers, and I assure you, that there is not much correlation. For example, there is a lot more tar, swearing, sweat, and brute force involved. :) And, of course, months and months of buckling, maceration and drying of wood. And no, shipbuildres don't glue planks with white glue, nor do they build hulls in any way close to the hulls of models. :)

The beauty of wooden models is in a warm, alive and sometimes even nearly luminous colors of natural wood. That's why the wooden models look so good, that's why they are valued. But that's the property of wood; not the skill of modeller, who may enchant it with varnishes and stains, but can't, in my opinion, take the praise for it. Once painted, wooden models look no better, and often worse, than plastic models.

For me, the main skill in plastic models' building is in painting. Painting plastic as wood is the hardest challenge.

And, of course, rigging is absolutely the same in both wooden and plastic models, and depends only on a desire of a modeller to spend more time on it.

As for limited choices... Well, I have the following projects which I've already decided I will do: Revell's Golden Hind which I've done; Heller's Le Glorieux, which I'm doing now; Airfix'es Vasa, which is following; a pair of gorgeous, even if not historically supported, chinese junks; diorama of Pinta, Nina and Santa Maria, which I most definitely would build, but for which I haven't yet decided which kits to take; Darwin's "Beagle", "Great Western" and river steamboat "Robert E. Lee", if I remember correctly... That will occupy me for the next, like, 5 years? Of course, most of those ships are from dusty Old World history, which is not interesting for everyone, but still, is there such a small choice?

I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by John Tilley, but I think there is in the back of the minds of plastic only modellers who perhaps have never done a pob kit, and having seen some wonderful examples of the genre, a niggling thought that there is something rather grander about the wooden medium, a thought that is promoted by some wooden kit modeller's

As someone who has done and enjoyed both mediums, each has its challenges, and I would rate a good plastic kit over a poor wooden one any day. The detailing tends to be much finer, and many of the cast parts provided with the wooden kits are at best clumsy.

I am currently working on the Heller Victory, and I find it equally as challenging as my previous large scale wooden kit, the Billing Norske Love, which also was subjected to much alteration and scratch building of parts.

Plastic kits offer much scope for modification , one only has to look at the fine examples submitted to this site, but when all is said and done, whatever the medium, enjoyment of the experience and enhancement of our skills is surely the main object.

Bravo!

I'm glad I don't have to make a choice between the two.  I enjoy working with wood tremendously (and I've sunk quite a bit of money into the tools for doing it).  I also grew up in the age of the plastic kit, and have a great deal of respect for the potential of styrene as a modeling medium - both in kit form and for scratchbuilding.

I don't regard building a model from a kit as "just assembling" - though of course it can mean precisely that.  A good, well-designed kit representing any subject - ship, aircraft, tank, car, whatever - can be, literally, assembled by a person who knows nothing about what he's doing, and produce a reasonable, attractive, satisfying result.  But surely anybody who's spent any time looking at the models that turn up in the pages of magazines like FSM knows that the hobby of plastic modeling often involves far more than that.

When I built my little model of H.M.S. Bounty (pictures of which can be found here, if anybody's interested:  http://www.hmsvictoryscalemodels.be/JohnTilleyBounty/index.html ), quite a few years ago, I started out with the assumption that I'd be modifying and kit-bashing the old Revell kit.  By the time I got done, only seven pieces of the kit were left, and everything from the maindeck up was scratchbuilt.  I concluded that starting with the kit had been rather silly, and decided to scratchbuild my next model - the frigate Hancock ( http://www.hmsvictoryscalemodels.be/JohnTilleyHancock/index.html ).  I was, and continue to be, fairly satisfied at how that model came out.  It has a carved, hollowed-out-solid wood hull sheathed with strip styrene hull planks.  The materials in it include basswood, plywood, boxwood, holly, brass, styrene, and britannia metal castings (from Bluejacket - the blocks and deadeyes).

I thought that had committed me to scratchbuilding, and I started another such project:  a 1/96-scale model of the clipper Young America.  That one's still on the workbench - and probably will be for quite some time.  While I was working on it I had the opportunity (courtesy of our good Forum friend Big Jake) to acquire an old Revell Golden Hind kit.  The quality of that little kit (probably boosted by the nostalgia that hit me when I opened the box) made it irresistable.  I'm working on the Revell Golden Hind at the moment - and enjoying it tremendously.

In the interim I built one other kit:  the resin-hulled version of the Model Shipways pilot schooner Phantom. (Photos:  http://www.hmsvictoryscalemodels.be/JohnTilleyPhantom/index.html  ) I bought that one for two reasons:  I'd always liked the look of the ship, and I was interested in the idea of a resin-hulled sailing ship model.  (Conclusion:  the idea shows real promise.  Apparently MS didn't think so; they withdrew the kit, and replaced the resin hull with a machine-carved wood one.) 

As I hope is obvous by now, I'm willing to countenance virtually any model construction material.  (Two personal exceptions:  balsa wood, unless I'm working on a flying model airplane, and lead, because it deteriorates so fast and unpredictably.) 

I try to remember at all times that, for most of us, this is a hobby - not something to get emotionally worked up about on the basis of personally-defined "principles."  The materials a modeler uses are, as far as I'm concerned, that modeler's business and not mine. 

The only modelers I find difficult to tolerate are those who think their ways are the best, and that a model built in some other way is somehow "illegitimate."  I get especially impatient with people who build HECEPOB (that's Hideously Expensive Continental European Plank-On-Bulkhead kits - the ones made by Mantua, Corel, Sergal, Artisania Latina, and their ilk) and turn up their noses at plastic modelers.  I've vented at some length elsewhere in this Forum about the HECEPOB companies, whom I hold in pretty thorough contempt.  If people want to buy such products, it's not for me to tell them they shouldn't; it's a hobby.  But I do get tired of hearing somebody who's put together a HECEPOB kit (which may or may not bear much resemblance to anything that ever floated) sneer down his nose at a genuine scale model because it originated as a plastic kit.

The distinguised British modeler and draftsman Harold Underhill wrote in one of his books that he refused to use any manufactured parts of any kind in his models.  Underhill was a courteous, likeable man; he acknowledged that the available manufactured detail parts were "better" than the equivalents that he made himself.  But he wanted to be able to say he had "made" his models - literally.  I respect that view, though I don't hold it myself.  I do, however, quarrel with the assertion, common among the HECEPOB brigade, that wood kits are categorically better than plastic ones - and that the people who build wood kits are categorically better modelers than those who build plastic ones.

Now and then somebody asks me if I'm a wood modeler or a plastic modeler.  The answer is - neither.  I'm a ship modeler.

I think the answer is it depends.  For sailing ships I would agree that wood is the best choice.  It looks better, is more of a challenge, and has greater value.  Beyond that it depends on what your building and what you want to get out of it.  Sounds like you enjoy the wood kits so follow your heart. 

Dave