I thought long and hard before writing this post. I'm highly aware that in many senses I'm stepping into something that's none of my business. But I hope Jake and his client will reconsider cutting the doors in the bulwarks, removing the swivel tracks, or doing anything else to improve on the work of the guy who built that model of the Mississippi.
What we're talking about here is artifact conservation. I'm not a credentialed conservator, but I used to be a maritime museum curator (big difference), and in my museum days I did a fair number of ship model conservation jobs - on the Mariners' Museum's models (including the notorious Crabtree collection) and in my spare time on a contract basis (to make ends meet).
My bosses quickly pounded into me the code of ethics of the conservation profession. One of the primary rules therein is that the job of the conservator is to conserve the artifact - not improve it.
The first obvious example I always tell my students about is Michelangelo's statue of Moses ( here's a picture: http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=QseKRzsxd7KFAM&tbnid=Nj0bX6-tIB2j0M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftaylormarshall.com%2F2013%2F08%2Fthe-horns-of-moses-defending-michelangelos-horned-moses.html&ei=nXzTUsyuPMXj2AXNyoHwDA&bvm=bv.59026428,d.aWM&psig=AFQjCNHwC2qyUbrsqZT6lRKxNyG1xAVDXA&ust=1389678109381903 ). Michelangelo was working from a defective translation of the Bible, which said that Moses had horns sticking out of his head. (The correct translation was "rays of light.") So the statue has horns. Should a conservator take out a chisel and knock them off? I hope everybody's gut answer is: Of course not.
Now, the builder of that old model obviously was no Michelangelo, but the difference between them is none of the conservator's business.
Another example from the joint where I worked. We had two big, beautiful "builders' models" of Japanese merchantmen - two of the few that survived WWII. ( I believe the donor is listed in the museum files as Douglas MacArthur.) They're about six feet long. Everybody in the Forum probably knows that from about the 1890s to about the 1940s, such models featured beautifully machined metal fittings - from rail stanchions to winches. Modern paints hadn't been developed yet, and the paint available would have glommed up all the detail on the fittings. So, to cover up solder joints and any discoloration of the metal, the modelers routinely plated the fittings. The usual plating material was nickel, but those two Japanese freighters' fittings were plated with gold. They must have looked magnificent. One of them still does. The other one fell into the clutches of a "conservator" in the 1960s, who (according to eyewitness accounts) said "you don't see ships steaming around with gold railings and winches." So he took all the fittings off and spray painted them black. He thereby, as far as my generation of museum staff was concerned, practically wrecked the model. (He didn't even take a picture of it before he attacked it.)
Another example from another museum. The Science Museum in London has a magnificent "Admiralty model" ("Boardroom model" is a better term) of H.M.S. Prince ( http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=0NyPB_p6W2X_xM&tbnid=ffldoN0aBMf4hM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ssplprints.com%2Fimage%2F84598%2Fhms-prince-1670&ei=43rTUqarO6fR2wWl64DoCQ&bvm=bv.59026428,d.b2I&psig=AFQjCNH3aMikJBPN1D9rpMFhjmLSd5wi6A&ust=1389677630903123 ). It's generally regarded as one of the most important models in the world. The windows in its stern consist of black-painted wood, with gold dots at the points where the muntins would intersect. Jake or I or plenty of other folks in the Forum could easily make more realistic windows out of clear styrene, complete with scale frames. But I certainly hope nobody ever does that.
Oh - and the hull below the wales isn't planked. If a real ship were built like that it would sink. So should a conservator plank it? I hope the obvious answer is no.
For that matter, consider the "Hull model" of the Constitution. In terms of workmanship it's downright primitive in many respects. But any conservator who suggested replacing the guns, or the deck planks, or painting over the lettering on the side of the hull would - rightly - be run out of his profession.
The model Jake's taken on obviously was built by an amateur, with a sharply limited range of materials and tools at his disposal. It's quite possible that his saw wouldn't cut a narrow enough kerf to indicate the edges of the doors realistically, and the hinges would have defeated him completely. He apparently didn't have much in the way of metalworking tools or materials; maybe that explains the absence of the guns. Those swivel tracks look like they may be made out of wood.
He did the best he could - and by the standards of modern scale modeling that wasn't very good. In terms of scale accuracy, all sorts of other things are wrong with that model. The deck planks are far too wide. The "blocks" in the rigging are primitive. The yards are held to the masts by twisted pieces of wire rather than authentic parrals. The boats are crude. So are the chain plates. There's no copper sheathing. Etc., etc. If one starts "fixing" the "mistakes" on this model, where on earth does one stop?
But the model has enormous character and historical interest. I wonder if the builder may have been a sailor on board the ship. At any rate, its crudity is one of the things that make it an historically important artifact. It certainly looks like it dates from the time of the ship. If so, it is, in historian-speak, a primary source - and a rare one. I don't think more than a handful of contemporary American warship models from this period exist - and I've never heard of a warship model from that period that was built by a sailor. The Mississippi was an important ship; we may well be looking here at something almost as valuable as the Hull model of the Constitution.
When I was in the model conservation game I always told the prospective client, "my job is to conserve your model. If you want an accurate scale model of a ship, hire somebody to build you one from scratch. But I will not do anything to your model that attempts to improve on what the original builder did. To put it another way, if it looked like a piece of s
t when it was new, it'll look like a piece of st when I get through with it. If I do my job right, no observer (unless he reads the big fat report I'm going to write) will know I ever touched the model." A few potential clients had doubts about that approach - but I can't recall anybody actually taking a job away from me because of that - once the code of ethics had been explained to him/her.
End of sermon. I don't think any competently-run museum would sanction "improving" an artifact like this. But, like I said in the beginning, it's really none of my business. I won't bring the subject up again in this thread, but if somebody else wants to, I'll be glad to answer, either here in the Forum or via e-mail (tilleyj@ecu.edu).
Thanks for reading.