You’re certainly correct - we too often fail to research our subjects beyond what we see f
This prototype concept is touchy, where does it end? apparently the rivets on steam locos are too large, but there they are, at any given distance from a layout many things disappear, telephone lines, wire fences, wood grain, etc etc the list goes on, someone should consult a visual specialist to see what is “prototypical” or not. In a prototypical model caboose, if the interior of the food cabinet does not have scale sized cans of food and the proper paint color and scaled cabinet hinges, does this mean it is not "prototypical’?? this hobby is not microscopic assembly, it’s a hobby.
This point tends to be forgotten a lot—you can model power lines as if they appeared at a certain distance but the visual factor will take over—you will not see most powerlines from a certain distance—I could show that with the old barn–where are those dang nailholes? Certainly not on the photo taken from approx 50yd away yet there we are stuffing the barn with nailholes.
From prototypical appearance we go to caricature
I think in most cases nail holes wouldn’t be visible as they would be hidden from the weather. However here is an extreme example where some nail holes and even nails are visible. This obviously is due to lack of maintenance. Most of the nails showing are where the siding has been stripped away.
—and this is the sticking point—in HO–let alone N–are the nails/holes going to be seen? Consider that in the photo you have it is dang near impossible to see them–now consider them in HO—will they be seen?
BTW–another delapitated farmhouse we seen—
The only area that we saw any nails poking out was on the roof
and even then, very few —
if one was to model something like these things one would still have a hard time trying to justify making the things look like a caricature----when they claim to be modelling them realistically–[:)]
I was looking my storage shed that has exposed nail heads. I was able to determine that I could see them from a maximum distance of about 10 feet. With that being said, I don’t see too many modelers holding their structures up to their nose so they can count the nail heads.
I can imagine a conversation going like this. Modeler, “Hey check out my new building I just built.” Visitor, “That’s really nice.” Modeler, “Hold it up to where it touches your nose and count the nail heads.”
One of the main problems in practically any modeling hobby is that too many modelers build “models of models”, rather than models of real things. So, we get all kinds of odd fashions within the modeling discipline which actually look absurd. This has occurred in aircraft, race cars, armor, figures, and any modeling hobby you can think of. It is good to see some of these fashions being discredited, which they all are, in time. This thread is a good example of how people are finally looking at the real thing, and noticing how the “standard” model railroading practice of including nail heads in scratch built structures is really just an aberration, repeated over and over so many times that it is considered necessary.
I think you are all reading way too much into this.
First up, this is hardly a new conversation representing an awakening of some kind, this debate has raged long and hard for at least the last 8 years that I have been back in the hobby. I suspect that is has been debated good and hard, long before that? It may not have come up here, but just go an look at any of the forums that focus more on structure building and it comes up all the time.
Second, the addition of nail holes is hardly a “standard” practice. Just look at this thread, most of you don’t ever add them, so the standard if anything is not to add them.
Third, I don;t think you will even find a die hard nail hole adder, that considers them essential, they are just an detail that they choose to add. Clearly the prototype evidence demonstrates that they would not be visible on the vast majority of structures, certainly structures seen today.
4th. Since when has there been an arbitrary rule about viewing distance for a model? Some modelers like to get very close up with their cameras when taking photos. Who is to say that it is wrong to add detail that can be seen close up, that would likely not be visible from some arbitrary distance away from the model?
5th, this practice is hardly limited to scratch-builders. If anything it is the craftsman kit manufacturers and builders, led by the likes of George Selios at FSM, that has really pushed this kind of detailing. I suppose that it is almost a stylized feature of the wrong-side-of-the-tracks depression era modelling that is exemplified by the FSM. In my experience, scratch builders that are creating structures from photos of real buildings are not apt to add things that can not be seen on the photo. At least I try not to.
There is no rule that says you have to place n
Every modeling hobby has its excesses, which are eventually broken down over time as fresh eyes join the hobby. Or, old eyes wake up and see. Yes, there are no rules. But there are plenty of arguments about nothing.
I don’t think that it is so much an arbitrary rule as it is that one is not going to see nailholes in an HO scale model easier than an O scale model. No arbitrary rule there is there? Same as with my N scale—nailholes in an N scale building? MMM. Besides, when I photograph a building up close I’m going to see more detail than farther away----still. Arbitrary?[%-)][:-^]
So why sound defensive about this nailhole business? If the prototype evidence shows this then there should not be this rigmarol[swg]
I agree that you can’t really see the nail head detail on most structures. On HO or N scale structures they usually look out of place.
In the larger scales, mainly O and large scale, nail head details look appropiate on most structures especially those representing unpainted wood.