Interesting following this discussion between the two of you.
Jim I'd be happy to talk about sending you a cast once I start casting.
And feel free to do with it as you please.
Wefalck thank you for the kind offer. I may take you up on it sometime if you don't mind.
To add my 2 cents to the above conversation, I realized a number of things when I began to get serious about modeling.... things like:
The walls of the gun tubs of any model (even a resin one) are not scale, and it is probably not possible to make them scale.
Rigging, Radars, Masts, Railings, Aerials, etc. etc. are not scale, nor is it possible to make them scale.
The thickness of the wall of a funnel, even if this funnel is made out of thin brass is not going to be scale.
Things like PE doors and hatches should have raised levers and handles that are separate from the door, not mere raised bumps in the door. Also the thickness and shape of the door is not scale, not to mention the coaming that the door is intended to seal.
The width of the deck planking is not scale. Deck planking on all ships is caulked, naturally, as both of you have stated. However the only way to demarcate planking in resin, brass or styrene is to either create indentations or raised lines, neither of which are accurate, but both of which convey the
idea of a wooden planked deck.
So the question is, do we attempt to evoke the nature of the ship's construction, or do we omit details in the interest of accuracy? We're talking about a spectrum of possibilities here between on the one hand details that are dimensionally inaccurate but visually informative, and the lack thereof in an effort to be dimensionally faithful to the prototype.
Modeling is all about personal choice and preference and I would never presume to insist that my own tastes in this matter should be adopted by everyone...or indeed by anyone. I know modelers who don't put railing on their ships (or indeed PE of any kind) because they say that they're not accurate and 'from this distance you can't see them anyway.' Many of these modelers (most?) are older gents who were well into modeling before the advent of PE and have no wish or desire to adopt new techniques now. I have no doubt that in a few years or so, when Veteran Models releases their new line of molecular constructed 1/700th scale ham sandwiches, beer bottles and table settings, etc. I will furrow my brow, shake my head say 'what's the point? the captain probably wouldn't eat on an open bridge anyway!' and go on doing my thing the way I have always done them.
Having said that, for myself I think there is value in representing textures and free standing details, even knowing they are not scale, for the sake of conveying to the viewer something of the nature of the ship's construction and usage. To me, a deck that is flat and featureless when I know it was planked looks 'wrong' to my eye. I would rather have planks represented in some form than have nothing. And in my opinion, what is true for the deck is largely true for the sides of the hull. In a similar way I would rather have railing than omit the railing because it is not scale. The same goes for rigging, radars, anchor chains, masts, sails, flags, aerials, etc. etc. etc.
In 'defense' of my preferences I would add that there are very few nautical subjects that can be represented with dimensional accuracy in 700th scale, perhaps the odd soviet submarine, or something of that kind, and even then there are issues, but anything with decks, rails, doors, funnels, masts, etc. you're going to be making choices between dimensional accuracy and representational textures and details.
I might add that representational conventions in ship modeling are probably as old as modeling itself. In the venerable wooden ship hobby we have the conventions such as using small metal pins instead of tree nails to fasten planking to the hull, (depending on the type and the era) of leaving the hull in bare wood, perhaps with a varnish, rather than painting the whole in the appropriate colors as was typical for virtually the whole of the age of sail, creating rigging from thread that is not scale, using simple knots in lieu of complicated roving, seizing, etc. and the well known 'admiralty model' style which leaves the planking off the lower hull in order to show the inner construction. And this is going to be true in a greater or lesser degree for virtually any scale, even very large ones.
When I view a model, my eye (my mind, I should say) responds with delight to finely rendered details. I will never forget, early in the hobby experience seeing an aircraft carrier in 350th scale by my friend Rusty White with the figures standing on that great expanse of a flat deck as if they were talking about the new captain's personality or why such-and-such petty officer needed to be retired. Of course I knew immediately they were painted two dimensional pieces, lacking the subtle shapes of the human body, but I had never seen figures so tiny in my life! I had no idea they had existed and I could not believe that someone had the audacity to buy them, paint them, and mount them on his model. They immediately gave the model a 'reality' and vividness that would have been entirely lacking without them.
Since then I have never troubled myself too much over the dimensional accuracy of fine details, as long as they are rendered as finely as possible and do not detract from the broader 'gross dimensional accuracy' of the model. For me a ship model is about conveying the
idea of the ship. That is what has always appealed to me personally.
Login
Register
FAQ
very painful. These pics were taken tonight, after a good deal of healing. Initially it was very raw and painful. For two days I couldn't do any modeling at all... Yesterday I did a little work on my 
Wefalck ....!