|
|
Gene Larson's Shop Notes |
Return To Shop Notes Home Page
Ship Model Kit Quality
|
Some initial comments by Gene Larson, November 2004 First, let us get one thing clear. There are kit builders and there are scratch builders, and there are many builders in between. Whatever decision is made about building any model should be fully respected and admired by everyone else. Their final product may be an award winner at the highest level, or limited to praise within his or her family. In either case the builder did the best possible job based on desire, experience and capability. However, when a decision is made to purchase a ship model kit, the buyer deserves to get full value inside the kit. Some beginners and even experienced builders are duped by misleading advertising, such as a "museum quality kit". The builder should be able to make an informed decision about his purchase. If all kits met the "state of the art" status discussed below, then there would be no problem. Also, a builder should be able decide that he or she will accept a lower grade kit, knowing that he or she will have to do a lot of modifications and kit bashing. This is fully justified. It is a gross injustice if the purchaser in not aware that a kit needs such extensive additional work. In 2001 the article below
regarding ship model kit quality appeared in the Nautical Research Journal
(NRJ). Unfortunately the original text was subjected to editing by our illustrious
and dedicated editor at the time. The editing resulted in an unexpected
response from a Regrettably the editing of my
article had removed the names of certain manufacturers or at least obvious
reference to them that in my opinion were somewhat exempt from the negative
comments. They are still producing high quality kits, and there are now
others that have entered the market, including one from It is now three years later, and many continue to produce in the inferior category. This is well documented based on the comments appearing in November 2004 on one of the largest email discussion lists. The complaints still include vague and incomplete plans and instructions, translations to English which contain glaring errors, no translation at all, parts including wood and plastic and metal castings that are inferior or totally unusable, kit bashing that is required rather than desirable, and so on. Some kits have been around for many years, and it seems impossible that some negative has not been received by the manufacturers, and it is unbelievable that they have not taken corrective actions. Although I highly applaud the "after market" suppliers of highly detailed and exact fittings for ship model kits, especially in the area of photo etchings, I believe these producers should not be necessary. The fittings they provide separately should already be in the kit. One commenter on an email discussion list indicated that a particular kit is excellent, but the instructions are vague/nonexistent, the pictures and drawings cannot be read, the colors and gloss finish recommended are wrong, new molds are needed for the plastic parts, and kit bashing was done. He gave the kit a grade of ninety percent. I must be missing something here. Perhaps after all his required corrections the final model, in his opinion, deserves that grade. With all the turmoil he went through the final model grade probably should be higher than 110 percent. The following quote is provided for your deliberation: "It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money - that is all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot - it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is wise to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better." John Ruskin (1819- 1900)
Opinion State of the Art
THE PHRASE "STATE OF THE ART" is used to describe a product made to the highest possible level of quality or sophistication. We hear it applied regularly to promote the newest and best products in industries in which the development of new technologies is rapid, such as computers, aerospace, and electronics. But I am frustrated that it seldom applies in the field of ship modeling. Ship model kits made fifty years ago were probably close to being "state of the art," since the capability to produce them had reached its limit based on then-current technology. But it has been decades now since plastic kits were introduced, and, although they now incorporate more detail, little else about them has been refined. With wood kits, we have progressed from solid-hull models to plank-on-bulkhead designs, and there are even a few plank-on-frame kits now available. I call the latter "mock" plank-on-frame kits, however, because their frames are cut from single pieces of wood, rather than being built up, as in the original vessel. In addition to being unrealistic, building with frames that have been cut from single pieces results in a weak structure, and, unless portions of the hull are left unplanked, the frames are never seen. For fully planked models, plank-on-bulkhead methods can give both a pleasing appearance and a stronger model. Nonetheless, I suppose the single-piece frame concept represents some progress. Despite the limitations of simulated frames, modelers who want to get some experience building a framed model, or who want to leave some frames exposed, may want to use kits that have them. More promising are recent technologies that work with great precision. Lasers cut accurate shapes in wood, photo etching makes minute details in brass, and resin molding replicates the smallest details in hulls. Cottage industries first applied these methods and materials to the production of ship model kits. Resin molding has reached a high standard recently in the production of hulls for steel navy subjects, and its use should now be extended to making replacements for unsatisfactory white metal parts and fittings. Unfortunately, while laser cutting, photo etching, and resin molding are welcome innovations in manufacturing, the larger, established producers are generally not using these technologies to make their ship model kits, probably because of their cost. The evidence is no further away than the last kit purchased. This is what we find in a typical wooden kit: blocks and sticks of wood, metal fittings, some thread, a set of plans, and instructions. Taking the components in order, the wood is typically poor in quality, obviously chosen because of low cost rather than applicability to its intended purpose. It is usually either so soft it is marred easily, or it is so brittle no amount of care, soaking, or heating will keep it from splitting when bent into the shape of a hull. Experienced builders who know it is junk throw this kind of material in the trash; the less experienced are needlessly frustrated. Modelers must often purchase ex pensive, precut replacement wood, or tools such as a band saw, a miniature table saw, and a thickness sander to prepare it in the shop. Next are the fittings. In many
non-U.S. kits, they are often made of some form of white metal that contains
lead, which will oxidize over time. We can hope that they are cast of the
more desirable lead-free "Britannia," which most We seldom see brass, which is the best material for fittings, although brass plate, with a color reminiscent of fool's gold, is not uncommon. One can only wonder why fittings in ship model kits do not come even close to the quality possible. Such fine metalwork as produced by the jewelry industry might be too much to expect, although the price of many kits gives the impression that the parts are precious jewelry! When model builders have to discard fittings and make replacements from scratch, I think they have just cause for complaint. Homemade fittings can be fabricated from wood and painted to resemble metal, but just as often a model builder needs to make actual metal fittings. To do so, a supply of brass-rods, tubes, and sheet in various sizes and shapes is needed, at the least, along with the hand tools to cut and shape it. In addition to hand tools, a metal-turning lathe and casting and soldering equipment and supplies are required to make many parts. Because such equipment and supplies are expensive to buy, and take much knowledge and experience to use well, most builders find it is not realistic to substitute their own fittings for the poorly made parts included in a kit. For this reason, many completed kit-built models are spoiled by poor fittings. Small at-home manufacturers are producing photo etched parts as aftermarket upgrades for kits sold by others, but a high-quality kit would include such parts in the first place! I wish more of the larger, established manufacturers of wooden kits would follow the lead of some of the smaller, new makers of kits with resin hulls, who to their credit are including photo-etched parts in their kits. As with woodwork and some types of other metalwork, it is possible to photo etch metal in the home model shop. However, creating the necessary art is beyond the capability of most kit builders, assembling the supplies requires money, mastering the technique takes knowledge and experience, and doing the work takes time. In addition, because of the chemicals used, photo etching can be hazardous if not done properly. The so-called "rigging" in most kits is, in a word, worthless. It is typically fuzzy, loosely twisted material. Often the colors are inappropriate, there is an insufficient selection of sizes, and there is usually too little provided. The alternative to the line found in most kits is to make one's own. But to do so requires, first, high-quality linen or silk-both difficult, if not impossible, to find at reasonable prices, especially in the small amounts needed. Then comes construction of a scale ropewalk! Few kit builders can make this kind of investment of money and time to make line, so kit-built models typically suffer from unsightly and inaccurate rigging. A kit manufacturer who included truly high-quality scale rigging in its kits would quickly develop a loyal base of customers. (Note 2004: see other shop notes on this site regarding rigging line supplies.) Both the plans and instructions in most kits are also woefully lacking. They are incomplete, badly written, poorly drawn, or reflect little or no research about the prototype-if there even was a prototype. What is worse is gross misrepresentation of a kit as a named vessel, when it actually bears little resemblance to the supposed prototype, or is largely inaccurate. Conscientious builders usually have a lot of extra research and drafting to do if they wish to produce a truly accurate model from a kit. Granted, investments for machinery and supplies are not all bad, because they can be an important step towards partial or full scratch building, and the extra work of re placing the wood, fittings, and rigging and conducting research furthers a builder's capability and knowledge. But, except for kit bashers, scratch building is not the objective of kit buyers. One of the primary reasons modelers buy kits is to avoid the necessity of converting raw materials into dimensioned stock and finished parts. So the money spent on many kits is mostly wasted. It should not be necessary for kit buyers to make additional purchases to replace shoddy materials. Kit manufacturers themselves say that the vast majority of kit models purchased are never completed. Is it any wonder? People familiar with the industry tell me that only 5 to 10 percent of the price of some kits goes into their component parts. The rest is for overhead, packaging, marketing, and profit! What if more money were invested in making products of higher quality, and less were spent for advertising that creates nothing of value for model builders? I have to believe that the customer loyalty thus generated would make this a sound business investment. Although there are promises that "the best kits ever produced" will soon be available, I will be interested to see what compromises manufacturers actually make in the future. They have a long way to go to match the great potential inherent in today's technology. I challenge manufacturers to use state of the art methods, and to produce ship model kits of the highest possible quality. (Nautical Research Journal's Editor's note: The author of this article
was for many years the chairman of the Nautical Research Guild.) |
