Since several vague references to me and my opinions have come up in this thread (and some more specific ones in other recent threads), I think I'll take this opportunity to state my opinions on the subject once and for all. (Those who've already read my posts in other threads, and those multitudes who couldn't care less, can stop reading here.)
I would never suggest that anybody pick a model subject that he/she doesn't like. But it's an indisputable fact many, many people buy big, elaborate kits and fail to finish them. (The dealers will tell you that the vast majority of such kits never get built. If that weren't the case, the dealers would go out of business.) Building a Victory or a Constitution requires some skills that newcomers, by definition, don't have; they have to learn such skills as they go along. And as they acquire those skills their work gets better - to the point where the things they did to the model six months ago don't look satisfactory any more. That's a recipe for discouragement (if not clinical depression), and one of the biggest reasons why models don't get finished. My contention is that it makes more sense to start with a model that will take a few weeks. The builder won't have time to get depressed about it - and when those few weeks are up he/she will have a nice model to put on the mantle, rather than a half-finished mess that gets put in a closet and forgotten about. If you can find a ship with one or two masts, with six or eight shrouds on each side, you'll find that a much more congenial introduction to rigging than one with twenty shrouds a side.
I also wonder how many modelers gravitate toward big, elaborate ships because they aren't familiar with the attractions of smaller ones. My suggestion: don't spend $500 or $1,000 on a ship-of-the-line or a clipper ship till you've taken a good look at a revenue cutter or a merchant schooner. They're beautiful, fascinating, important ships.
I also agree with Mr. Stauffer's recommendation of the Midwest small craft series. A fishing dory is a remarkably attractive, ingenious, and important vessel. Building a model of one on a large scale will teach a newcomer a great deal about ship modeling. I've never heard of anybody regretting that he bought and built a Model Shipways Sultana or Phantom instead of a Flying Fish or Constitution. And I have the impression that a far higher percentage of those simpler kits actually get finished. (Betcha the percentage of Flying Fishes and Constitutions that get finished is less than ten.) If the idea of building a dory or a skipjack really turns you off, then for heaven's sake don't do it. But please don't reject the idea out of hand.
I have four basic reasons for despizing HECEPOBs. One is that, as we've seen in the posts above, they're so outrageously priced. (I can't blame Dave for pouncing on that Corel kit; the price is at least in the ballpark of what it's worth.) The second is that the manufacturers pay so little attention to historical reality. (I can't agree with the suggestion above that the typical, gross errors to be found in kits from the likes of Corel, Mamoli, Artisania Latina, etc. don't matter because experts don't agree on all the details. There's just no room for argument: a lot - not all - of those kits were designed by people who don't know anything about ships. And, in my opinion, an individual who doesn't know anything about the subject has no business designing a kit for sale to the public - and charging hundreds of dollars for it.) The third is that the fittings and materials in HECEPOBs are, in general, lousy. There are, I'm sure, plenty of exceptions, but the vast majority of the HECEPOBs I've seen feature stringy, shoddy wood, materials that are chosen irrationally (making a deck out of plywood makes no sense whatever), and "bronzed" fittings that don't bear any resemblance to reality. (I once heard a hobby shop owner proudly explain that a HECEPOB kit included stained glass for the stern windows. Why in the name of all that's holy would anybody ever put stained glass in a window on board a ship?) Fourth, the plans and instructions in HECEPOB in general (again, I'm sure there are exceptions) are lousy. It seems, in fact, that the more you spend on a HECEPOB, the worse the plans and instructions are likely to be. Lousy, generic instructions are a particularly serious problem for the newcomer.
My favorite wood kit manufacturers are Midwest, Model Shipways, Bluejacket, and Calder/Jotika. (Caveat: I've never actually held a Calder/Jotika kit in my hands. The prices are beyond my reach. But I've followed the firm's development in print, and it looks to me like one of the best.) Virtually any of the Midwest kits would be a great project for a newcomer; the other three all offer wide assortments of kits in terms of subject and difficulty.
I have to confess I'm a little confused by Cap'n Mac's post about the Model Shipways Roger B. Taney. The kit was introduced in the late 1940s; it's been off the market for at least twenty years. (There was a hint in a ModelExpo ad not long ago that the company may bring it back, but there's not a word about it on the company website.) It was a fairly typical, good quality, solid-hull wood kit of the period. The plans were based on the original drawings, which Howard I. Chapelle (the dean of the history of American naval architecture) had dug up in the National Archives. (He later discovered another set with the Taney's name on them; there are some contradictions. That's another story. The MS kit followed the earlier set.) The contents of such kits were, indeed, pretty basic: a machine carved wood hull (your choice of pine or mahogany), some pre-tapered dowels for the spars, and some pine or, later, basswood sheets, strips, and blocks for the details. (So far as I know, Model Shipways never included material for sails in its kits - prior to its acquisition by Model Expo.) And a little box of cast lead-alloy fittings, which typically were pretty basic but accurate in shape. The instructions were pretty basic, but the plans were excellent. I don't quite follow Cap'n Mac's reference to the water closets. There are two of them, and the plans show them accurately: they don't overhang the sides of the hull. (I'm not quite sure just how they drained; my guess is that somebody had the job of emptying a bucket several times a day. But it's rare to find a shipboard toilet with any sort of drainage system before the twentieth century.) The potential was there for a nice model; the amount of detail incorporated was largely up to the modeler. (That continues to be one of the big attractions of wood kits, to my notion.) Model Expo is currently bringing back some of those old Model Shipways solid hull kits (with some improvements). To my notion that's a happy development.
Enough. Last caveat: all the above are, of course, personal opinions, with which anybody has every right to disagree.
P.S. In typing this post I've made an astounding discovery: the spell checker in the FSM Forum's "rich formatting" program seems to have accepted that HECEPOB is a legitimate word. I'm deeply honored.