Well, I seem to have set off something I didn’t intend. And I certainly don’t want to start a flame war. I’ve tried to clarify my position on such matters a couple of other times here in the Forum; maybe I should do it again.
I have no desire to tell any other modelers how to build models - or what models to build, or how. As far as I’m concerned ship modeling is a hobby. (I’ve never been a professional model builder, and have no desire to be one. There’s nothing wrong in the world with building models for money, but I personally have never been attracted by it.) The idea of having a hobby is to have fun (and maybe learn something in the process). If that means doing something other than building a scale replica of something, well, for heaven’s sake, that’s the individual modeler’s business. Some modelers - especially sailing ship modelers, it seems - get pleasure and satisfaction from building models that generally resemble real objects, but only by a very broad definition are scale models. Whether people do that is certainly none of my business. If a modeler wants to change a few parts of his B-17 and call it a B-24, or change a few parts of a Ford and call it a Chevy, I’ll defend to the death (well, maybe not quite that far) that modeler’s right to do so.
In (I hope) the near future, I’m going to build a model of a generic Gloucester fishing schooner, using the Model Shipways Elsie and the Bluejacket Bluenose as a basis. The model will be named "G.L. Tilley," after my father. It won’t be a scale model of any actual ship - and I won’t tell anybody that it is. But it should be great fun, and I’m learning a lot about fishing schooners as I get ready to build it.
Please let it be noted that, in the 4,252 posts I’ve made in this forum since 2004, I’ve never criticized the work of a modeler. If I think a model is particularly outstanding, I’ll say so. If not, I’ll keep my mouth shut. I have, I admit, offered occasional suggestions about specific points that I think/hope the modeler will find helpful. But my position is that if a modeler builds a model the way he/she wants to, that’s his/her privilege.
I do think, though, that manufacturers are fair game for criticism. Revell claims (or certainly implies clearly) that what’s in that box is a scale replica of the Thermopylae. It just plain isn’t. The hull is the wrong shape in several obvious places, the deck furniture is crazy, and there are some big inaccuracies in the sail plan. (Why Revell decided to leave out the studding sail booms that were in the original Cutty Sark kit is a mystery; the Thermopylae carried studding sails too.) The kit is a modified reissue of the Cutty Sark - and in my opinion the potential purchaser (to say nothing of the modeler who, not knowing what it is, decides to put scores of hours of time into it) is entitled to know that. In my opinion a company that markets a Cutty Sark kit as the Thermopylae (or the Bounty as the Beagle, or the Flying Cloud as the Stag Hound, or the Eagle as the Seadler, or any of the numerous other similar stunts Revell - and other companies - have played over the years) is committing consumer fraud. In just about any other industry, the perpetrators of such scams would get sued out of business.
For some reason or other (as we’ve also discussed previously in this Forum), the manufacturers of sailing ship kits seem to get held to lower standards than the manufacturers of other subjects. If a kit manufacturer did market a B-24 as a B-17, or a Ford as a Chevy, or a Panther tank as a Tiger, or, for that matter, a U.S.S. Iowa as the Arizona, my guess is that few, if any, members of this Forum would buy it. And the model magazines would make sure the company’s feet got held to the fire.
A few years ago the then-new company Trumpeter announced a 1/32 F4F Wildcat. When the first samples arrived in the U.S., it became clear that the fuselage was misshapen by, as I understand it, about 1/4". Squadron Mail Order refused to sell the kit, and Trumpeter changed the molds.
And those who’ve been around for a while may remember when Revell tried to market its old Type VII U-boat as the U-505 (the Type IX that’s preserved at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry). Most people can’t tell the difference between a Type VII and a Type IX. (I rather suspect most of the people who were running Revell in those rough days honestly didn’t know the difference either.) But one of the modeling magazines (Scale Ship Modeler) blew the whistle - and so did the gift shop at the Museum. Revell took the kit off the market.
I personally would be happy if the same thing happened to the so-called Thermopylae kits. The 1/96 Revell Cutty Sark is a grand old kit - not up to today’s standards, but an excellent basis for a fine model. I wish Revell would put it back on the market ; it’s one of those kits that always ought to be available. (If it was, people wouldn’t have to look for it on E-bay - and put up with a modified reissue.) Deception of the public by manufacturers shouldn’t be part of scale modeling.
End of sermon. To each his/her own - but I don’t think manufacturers ought to put the label “scale model” on an object that is no such thing.
P.S. Gmorrison - I did indeed forget to mention the proper disposal of brake fluid. For heaven’s sake don’t pour it down the sink. Sorry about that.
