fidelity to prototype

[Dave Fischer]

Just curious! This is a question more about philosophy than technique-- how many of you have dealt with the same dilemma?

I am working on some test parts for an SP Narrow Gauge #18 in a scale large enough for this to make a difference (1/20). When the #18 was rebuilt from its original N.C.O. configuration, it looks like the SP shops gave it a somewhat homebuilt pilot made of inconsistently-bent boiler tubes with some sloppy welding to boot. Yes, it all adds to the charm of the original, but it would most likely be seen simply as poor technique on a model, and in a very prominent location! When building an accurate model of a very specific original, which way would YOU go? I am planning to clean it up just a bit and try to keep the SPIRIT of the prototype...

By the way, the volunteers in Independence ,CA, are doing a remarkable job on the restoration of the 1:1 #18! Check their photo gallery at carsoncolorado.com from time to time to see their work and lots of usually hidden detail.   

[marc_reusser]

That is always a tough question. I do like your concept of the "spirit" and "interpretation" though. As you note, though something may be factually correct, it can come out looking wrong or simply poorly cast on a model kit. So by adding it accurately modelers on one end of the spectrum may look at the part and "clean it up" removing all the detail thinking it is a bad casting....where-as on the other end of the spectrum you have the rivet counters bitching that the detail is missing.  Maybe using your idea of the "spirit" you can do the basic pure form and shape of the tubes, but omit/reduce sloppy details...then include some good reference images of the sloppy details that were left off, so that anyone wanting to add them, could.

[Malachi Constant]

Dave -- Sounds like you've got the right idea from the start ... and Marc's reply reflects that nicely.  You'll have the challenge of creating something that becomes a "good" model of a "bad" prototype -- good luck!    -- Dallas

[Mr Potato Head]

Every trip that I would take to California from Idaho, I'd have the option to come on US395 Highway, and every time I'd stop and take a picture of the "Slim Princess"  My wife would always say: " how many times are you going to take the same picture of that engine? And my response is: it #18 changes every day and every time I stop by,: and with that pick a day, a month and a year and model to that date, that's the best you can do, others will always criticize that you got it wrong and your response: I modeled it for June 30, 1941,......................A Monday,................at 10:15 AM
That should shut them up! 
MPH

[Chuck Doan]

I like doing "charming" homemade type detailing. Paint slop on trim, poor welds, handpainted lettering, ratty wiring etc. It's more interesting to me than "normal" details. But it can risk the call of poor modeling if the viewer doesn't know the prototype or the intent. And if you are going for judging you will need to provide "proof of slop".

If I was trying to copy a specific prototype in a specific period, I would do the crappy pilot, because that's what it had, and because I like that kind of detail.  But it comes down to who do you want to please, the viewer who doesn't know the real story (or care) or the (probably very few) rivet counters who do, or yourself? 

[Lawton Maner]

Doing the pilot as the shops rebuilt it might be a greater challenge then doing one "in the spirit" as there will have to be a greater attention to the fine details to get it right.  And if the model is intended to go to some contest, documentation is necessary to avoid a "judge" who has no knowledge of the 1:1's condition from inserting his bias into the results.  Finally, there is the satisfaction of "nailing it"; you know that the piece is correct.

[finescalerr]

First, it's your model.

Second, no matter how accurate you try to make it, its appearance will never completely match that of the original.

Photographers know a print can never faithfully match the colors of reality so, once they shoot the image, their job is to make it look as good as possible, even if they modify it a little. Perhaps you should approach modeling in the same way.

Russ

[nk]

I would model it as is.

That being said it's your model, and you should do what makes you feel comfortable.

Working out why something makes you feel comfortable requires excessive navel gazing...be careful!