"CONSTANT VIGILANCE!!!!" bad plans & dodgy sources

[Gorg]

Dear friends,



there is a trap of using wrong plans. It is not only a pitty if you catch those information too late...


We all like con- & neartemporary sources because we think the were close to the original and so we trust in them. Do we do allways right?

I would like to collect such errors in this thread together wth all of you.


So I begin with an error in contemporary literature. Please beware of "Brasseys Naval Annual" of 1888 - it is often used at Wikipedia, because of the "nice" drawings. But they are not allways correct!

Here one example the Osmanian Avnillah-Class. Look on the proportions... and be critic, very sceptical!

A second viel shows to you that the central caesmates bulkheads is not correctly drawn.

You put hunderts or thousands of hours and coins in your modell, so you have the right to be very perniticy.

In some issiues the H.M.S. sultan's gunnery redoute on the upperdeck is not given the real arch/roundness... if you build in 1/750 for a tabletop this might be okay... but I lerned to be fussy...

So - constant vigilance!!!

Lets give a helping hand to the others by adding your learned lessions...


HTH,

Christian

[Rob Wood]

I agree that a scale modeler needs to be careful, but don't you think we should research multiple sources before we start to build? I've been building a 1:144 scale model of Bismarck for almost 10 years, and the truth is that no two sources agree, 100%. And that is a ship that probably has more written about it, and has more drawings and plastic kits made of it, and more sets of drawings available of it, then almost any other battleship in recent history.

Just my opinion, but at some point, the modeler has to simply do his best with what he has. In my case, if 3 out of 4 sources agree, and I can't find any photographic or "official" documentation to the contrary, I go with it.

Rob

[wefalck]

Most books are written (or at least published) with a view to make money. So the editors have to take short-cuts as far as research on the factual correctness of the contents is concerned. They have to make do with what is available once the deadline for production has arrived. This was and this is so. That is why one needs to be cautious with published 'sources'. They are secondary sources in any case.

Often published sources use builders' or similar plans. As we all know, there can be significant differences between 'as planned' and 'as built'.

In historical sciences a critical assessment of the reliability of the sources is mandatory and here too.

wefalck

[steviecee]

Brasseys Naval Annuals are interesting but many times their drawings don't really look like ships. Many are on line

[Jimmy Conway]

Gorg, thanks for advice.

Rob Wood: nice comment!

Thank you all: Jimmy

[RNfanDan]

I will only add this: Get AS MUCH PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE as you can get into your hands (and memory files). Photographs are, in my opinion, the BEST "original source" in existence. I have spent YEARS researching just one ship, and am still finding new information.

I know it's difficult when you are anxious to complete a project, but the more you can learn before you start, the better off you'll be at the finish. Then, you will STILL have to change some things !