I just watched Cody’s latest video and his demonstration on how to add simulated nail heads to wood sided structures using a pounce wheel. I have two reasons why I don’t like this technique. First, while it is easy to observe the large rivet heads used on railroad locomotives and rolling stock, when was the last time you could see 1/2 inch diameter nail head dimples in the siding of a house? This type of detail is more cartoon than prototype. Second, I rarely see modelers place such nail heads in the right place on a wall. As Cody pointed out, modern stud spacing is typically 16 inches on center. However, this doesn’t mean that you simply roll your pounce wheel along the siding every 16 scale inches. The code stud spacing is a maximum separation. It is quite common to find studs spaced much less than 16 inches. The reason is that full height studs are REQUIRED on both sides of every window and door opening, regardless of whether such studs align with the basic 16 inch spacing. So, the modeler should lay out the window and door openings on the siding before adding the nail heads. A row of nail heads belongs on both sides of each door and window opening. Then figure out whether it is more appropriate to lay out the remaining rows of nail heads at 16 inches on center from one of the door or window studs or from a corner of a building. Don’t worry if you end up with several rows of nail heads at odd spacings less than 16 inches. The exact same thing occurs on every prototype wood structure. Don’t believe me? Go check out a house under construction and see how the studs are laid out.
I have the same problem with cutting plank ends into the model siding. Most modelers make these cuts between their rows of nail heads. Such plank ends on the prototype always occur over a stud so that the plank ends can be nailed to the stud and not float. Thus, all pla
I could’nt agree more also, I mean come on Cody G think about it for a second can you see the fingernail on one of your HO figures? Because the head of a 16 d nail is gonna be even smaller!
I totally agree. If you see anything at all, it’s a few rust spots where the nail heads have rusted through the paint. But then it seems a lot of the “detail” added to models is actually based on an impressionist view of the world. For example, it seems, to me at least, that many of the mines and structures on the typical Colorado narrow gauge model show a delapidated, shut down structure for what should be an active, profitable mine (after all, it still justifies rail service). I believe in many cases, these are based on modern photos of 70-100 year old (or older) structures and not the way they looked in their heyday. If I recall, Bob Hayden made a similar comment on the Allen Keller video about the C&DR.
While stud spacing is now generally specified by building codes, you’ll find plenty of examples of older structures with widely varying stud spacing. My 100+ year old garage (formerly a house) has several areas where the spacing is both more and less than 16", but you are correct: representations of nail detail, if used, should follow a logical pattern based on stud spacing.
I’ve used the technique once, on a scratchbuilt coal dealer’s elevated storage bin which has supposedly been converted to a storage elevator for grain. This involved moving the elevator equipment from trackside to the truck/wagon side, with the modifications left fairly apparent.
The dump area for the wagons needs to be elevated and detailed, and I’ll weather the foundation before the structure is placed on the layout. As for the nail detail, I doubt that I’ll use it again - mine is too heavy, even for an obviously repaired area, and making it less-obvious will likely result in it disappearing altogether, once it’s placed on the layout.
Many of our modelled structures don’t follow common sense in their design. Often there are too many “cutesy” add-ons that serve no logical purpose, and many supposedly thriving lineside industries are so ramshackle that it’
The concept of obvious rows of “nail holes” in clapboard siding is among the caricaturish creations of model structure scratchbuilders, an idea dating back many decades and perhaps originating with John Allen, or one of his contemporaries.
While in modeling contests judges will generally award extra points for their inclusion, in the real world occupied buildings exhibiting even a few obvious nail holes visible at a distance tend to be rare. Painters normally fill all nail holes with putty prior to painting a structure for the first time and will re-fill any that have lost their putty before a repainting. Only perhaps in the case of a building that has never been painted might one expect to see obvious rows of open nail holes. Of course, leaving nail heads exposed to moisture will result in their early failure, along with the clapboard’s attatchment to the studs. Thus, it is a practice to be avoided. However, even buildings with aging, worn and chipped paint would be unlikely to show more than occasional evidence of any nail holes due to putty failure and even then certainly not long rows of them.
While I am sure someone will provide a bonafide illustration of a real building showing such rows of nail holes, I would repeat that such instances are the extreme exception, not the common place that is so often depicted on layouts populated with multiple craftsman kit buildings.
This discussion comes up all the time on the forums that are more focused on craftsman style kit building. In every instance there are always several examples of prototype structures that exhibit nail holes presented as evidence. I have added them to some structures myself and not others. I think it can be over done and don’t particularly like the ponce wheel as most of the time the holes become slits. Here is an example of a structure I built that has them using a fine beading needle
I quite like the way it adds a bit of character to the model. Each modeller has to decide how far they want to go for absolute realism. So each to their own when it comes to deciding to add or not add nail holes. The exact same argument can be had about mortar lines on a brick wall. In many cases you really can’t see this detail at a distance. Bottom line is that it is all caricature to a lesser or greater degree. Some use these techniques to help build the atmosphere of their layout. George Sellios’ FSM is a very good example of this. Love it or hate it, it is hard to deny that he has created atmosphere.
So in conclusion, it is my view that this is just one of many techniques that can be used to enhance a model to add character and add to the over all effect of the model. We are rather like theatre set designers using unrealistic details to enhance an illusion. In some hands it works, in others it does not.
I would contend that most modellers don’t particularly follow prototype details on the trains either. Of course some do, the real super detailers, just as there are some that really go for realism in their structures. But for the vast majority everything is a bit of a compromise.
In HO at least, there is a lot to be said for the “3-foot rule”, and I would submit that for detailed models that an appreciative peer would want to get a closer look at, there should be a “2-foot rule”. You are not going to see nail-heads or their surrounding dimples from 174’ in the real world. Let’s say for argument’s sake, though, that we half that and go to 87’. What implement and technique is going to show something approximating what a 1/4" nail head looks like to the Mark I eyeball standing back from a nailed surface at 87’?
Visible nail holes??? Norm Abrams would be appalled. Shingle and clapboard siding should overlap the nail holes so they don’t show and aren’t exposed to the elements. Nail holes would be a structural defect. They should be filled before painting. If left exposed, moisture would collect causing wood rot.
Hey Wayne, could I bother you for every possible detail, note, building instruction, and material list you have for this structure when it was made as a coal bunker??? That things flippin amazing. I belong to a free-mo group and was thinking of at least planning a small town scene on a few modules and this thing would be perfect for it.
That’s nice work shown above. I thought Cody G did a fairly subtle job with the pounse wheel on his structure.
So do you see nail holes on a structure from a distance? No, not for the nailhead per se which is almost unmodelably (is that a word?) small.
Yes, for aluminum siding where each nail tends to leave a slight dent in the aluminum. (And even worse where they used steel nails that leach rust onto the aluminum!.
And yes in cases where the nail has corroded and/or the wood has rotted around the nail. I have seen structures old enough that most of the paint is long since gone where the stud or joist can be seen almost like a line – what you are seeing is the discoloration of the wood around the nailhead not just the nail holes themselves, but the effect is not unlike what CG was showing.
Thanks for the kind words. I never really thought about it as a coal bunker, other than to depict where the elevator housing originally stood, and it didn’t occur to me until I saw your request that I had neglected to model evidence of the chutes that would have been required to transfer coal from the bunker to the trucks or wagons. [#oops]
Except for the main roof, which uses Campbell shingles, and the dump shed roof, which is clad with Campbell’s corrugated sheets, construction is all styrene. The foundation walls are from a Roundhouse 3-in1 Kit, and the main walls are Evergreen clapboard siding, with plain .060" sheet styrene for the sub-roofs. The “boards” on the dump shed are 2"x10" strip styrene and the roof trusses and interior framing on that shed wall appears to be .030"x.060" strip. I used some scraps of corrugated sheet styrene for the gable ends, making the ventilators from scraps of various size strips. Window are from either Tichy or Grandt Line.
As far as a “plan” is concerned, I had only a limited amount of fieldstone wall, so I made a sketch to determine reasonably attractive proportions for the rest of the structure and then “just built it”.
Here’s a coal dealer’s storage bunker, again all-styrene (and in a better state of repair):
My own modeling follows the consensus of the thread (why include 'em if you can’t see 'em?). I don’t include nail holes on my wooden structures, and don’t desire to…
HOWEVER, there are many modelers that have won praise for creating the suggestion or illusion of detail and realism on their models by introducing “texture” even though it was out of proportion. Examples that come to mind are:
Bob Hayden applying faint white paint to the rivets and cab edges on his locos to accentuate the detail. Did the prototype paint rivets white?
Bill Henderson (Coal Belt) using out-of-scale leaf texture on distant trees for better effect. Do leaves grow bigger on mountain tops?
and John Allen (well, 'nuf said?)
I see adding nail heads as an artistic technique that has its place if done correctly.
An old house that I came across just in Oil Springs ON had NO nailholes anywhere that I looked–the clapboarding at this house was immaculate----a bit frazzled paintwise but still—
There are exceptions mind but generally I’d say that the exceptions only confirms much of what is said here–
I think an important facet of this discussion is being overlooked. It’s not a matter of whether or not modeled nail holes are simply an expression of modelers’ license, but rather one of whether or not many/most hobbyist have come to regard them as actual features typical of many older prototype clapboard structures. Increasing, I see them being taken for the latter in on-line discussions.
It is no surprise that many hobbyists are heavily influenced in their own modeling by what they see done by various hobby gurus in the pages of magazines and books. Likewise, a large percentage, especially newer hobbyists, tend to regard whatever they see in such venues as accurate depictions of reality and not simply a particular modeler’s “style” of work, or that individual’s interpretation of the real world. I’ve seen this increasingly bias hobbyists over the years, until in many instances the totally fictitious becomes accepted as historically accurate. A good case in point are the many layouts that supposedly depict the Great Depression era. In many instances whole cities are modeled as severely run down, filthy and dilapidated, to the point where some honestly look almost post-apocalyptic! It’s a situation that is easily disproved, incidentally. Nevertheless, in any discussion of such layouts you’ll find a significant percentage of posters insisting that these layouts are essentially accurate representations of the way things looked in that era, rather than being simply caricature.
Good natured distortions of reality and modelers’ license have long been a fun part of our hobby and are all well and good…unless folks start believing such modeling DOES actually represent reality. [;)]
