Peter Davies-Garner's Model

[Daniel Klistorner]

Peter,

There is no need to get upset. I understand this is a huge project that none/most of us have never even attempted, so you're to be commended for your efforts. The B deck house being narrower than A deck (and this is quite obvious) when it shouldn't be has been bugging me since the very beginning. However this did not stop me from ordering your book, and I'm impatiently awaiting its publication.

You've proven your point, the 3rd window is above the door, but this doesn't widen the B deck house. You need to accept your mistakes as well, as you have accepted with the window on the A deck stair encasement, and you have now removed it.

Good luck with the book, there's plenty of people who've pre-ordered one already, and I can't wait to get mine.

Daniel.

 

[Peter Davies-Garner]

I think I have every reason to get upset! Lester was beginning to have some heck of a party in finding one mistake after another (of which half of them weren't any) and even made them public. It is easy to sit back in an armchair with some images and look for mistakes - far easier than it is to build an 18-foot model of the Titanic.
Daniel, your last posting topped the bill! WHEN didn't I accept my mistakes?
I didn't accept Lester pointing out mistakes that weren't any. If Lester feels that he should critisize issues he doesn't understand, I'd say he might be better off keeping his trap shut.
The B-deck walls are slightly narrow, I can live with that; people simply have no idea how much work such a model actually involves. If I were to build another one there would be several parts that I would change. During construction errors were made and in most cases solved (windows on the staircase surround). In other cases it was too late to change something without tearing the whole thing to pieces again. I had to leave it the way it was. I had a budget and I had a delivery date which was postponed more than once. If I had had twenty years time, a workforce of two-dozen and a Hollywood-style budget things would have looked very different. I built this model to the best of my ability, knowledge and craftmanship and I think that I can safely say that I did a good job of it. I never said this model is perfect and I never will, because it is not. The perfect Titanic model will never exist, there are too many issues that remain unclear. Like I said Lester is very welcome to build his own 1/48 scale model, we'll see what it looks like once it's finished.
I appreciate your comments about this posting but I think we should end this thread soon.

Peter

 

[Daniel Klistorner]

Peter,

I agree, we should get onto the more positive aspects of your model and research. For example, what really got me interested in your book, is when you said you have a complete plan of the A deck promenade ceiling showing the deck lights (and I assume pipes). Now that is an effort worth commending, some serious research and eye straining would have gone into identifying deck lights and patterns to come up with a map/plan of the lights! There will be other plans of other areas and objects that I look forward to, along with rare photos of the ships.

Regards,

Daniel.

 

[Lester Mitcham]

Hello Peter,

Wrong I was not having and I am not having a heck of a party. I now understand that the gap between the stairs and the cabin housing on B-deck is caused by your having the B-deck housing wall too narrow. That I understand. - With apologizes I see I overlooked your reply to my question about the surround on A-deck. - With regard to which window aligned with the door I said it "seemed". As I did not fully understand the perspective issue I asked someone about it. They initially thought the 4th window but having consideration of the points I mentioned did consider window "3". I am not going to apologize for asking questions in an effort to understand particular points all of which relate to one highly visible aspect of your model.

Like Daniel I commend your efforts. I have ordered your book and await its publication. I will not post again on this subject.

Lester

 

[Peter Davies-Garner]

Thanks Daniel,
the shape of a book does not exactly lend itself for reproducing plans of a ship. What we have done is separate the decks at the expansion joints and these sections are printed full-page. This results in a scale of 1/384 which gets pretty close to the Minicraft kit so they should be useful to the kit modeller. Yes, I did include the ceiling piping also and also the deck-beams. The numbering of the items turned out to be a bit small in the size-reduced copies (my original drawings are in 1/96) but this prevents the plans from being cluttered with numbers. To assist the novice a general overview is at the beginning of the book, explaining where every section belongs.

Peter

 

[Allan T Condie]

Anybody who can manage to build a 1/48 scale Titanic deserves a medal - I have built many 1/48 scale coastal vessels (paddle steamers mainly) and that is hard enough. Had contemplated a 1/48 Titanic though but not yet!

 

[Peter Davies-Garner]

Thanks for your kind comments Allan, there seems to be many people out there who think that building a quarter scale Titanic is like sticking together an Airfix Spitfire. You and I both know it is not. Another strange breed in the modelling fraternity is those who, instead of enjoying what they see, set out on a wild mistake-hunt. There is no such thing as the faultless model ship. Take any model ship you like and there will always be something with which the maker isn't entirely happy. A ship is far too complex a subject for one to quarantee one hundred percent accuracy.
I would like those who immediately get out their magnifying glasses when they see my model to bear in mind that it was my first entirely scratch-built model of an ocean-liner. It might be a bit like Ken Marschall's paintings. I don't know how many paintings Ken has done of the Titanic but my guess is 30+. We all know his early works have little mistakes but that doesn't stop us from loving his work. If I should have the opportunity to build 30+ 1/48th scale Titanics (lol), I can assure you the thirtieth model won't be perfect - but it'll be damn well close to it!

Best wishes for the new year and thanks again.

Peter Davies-Garner

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>A ship is far too complex a subject for one to quarantee one hundred percent accuracy.<<

And to add to the problems, a real world ship tends to get altered quite a bit over her lifetime which can make building an accurate model quite a challange. Titanic was certainly no exception to this rule with signifigent changes and alterations being incorperated even as fitting out began. It doesn't help that the ship was never photographed from every possible angle either so some details will be forever open to question.

 

[Bob Read]

The only qualification required to point out inaccuracy is the knowledge of what is accurate.
Whether or not one has or has not built a large Titanic model is irrelavent as is clearly evident in this example where those who had not,
recognized inaccuracy and he who did, failed to recognize it. We should not discourage criticism from those of lesser experience. They often have much to teach us. At least there is still plenty of room for someone to attempt "The Most Accurate Titanic Model". A difficult name for any model to live up to and Peter's model has come closer than most.

Regards,
Bob Read

 

[Peter Davies-Garner]

Bob,

It is not a matter of "...he who did failed to recognize it" (Thanks!). Like I said in a previous posting a 1/48th scale Titanic is not an Airfix Spitfire. I don't know how many individual items were made for this model but they must have been tens of thousands. I also don't know how many items were scrapped and attempted again and again until I finally got it right. People who asked which was the most difficult item to build got the answer "the cargo hatches!". This may seem ridiculous but it's true. One cannot expect every piece to work out first try. I finally got the cargo-hatches right in the fourth attempt. Like I also said in a previous post an ocean-liner is far too complex a structure to get EVERYTHING right. Some mistakes were spotted during construction, some of them were corrected with others it was too late and I'll have to live it.

I also didn't mean that nobody has the right to "critisize" a model unless he has built the same. But I also believe that anyone who has built the same would react the same way I did especially as one user of this site spotted an "error" and made it public that was actually correct on the model. I pointed out that it was correct, but he apparently didn't believe me (he apparently didn't WANT to believe me) and instead dashed off to "someone who knows about this thing".

Of course it was to be expected right from the start that some folks would look for things and find some. Yes, there are more "mistakes". But is this all that matters? Why do some people get such a kick out finding a mistake? My guess is it gives them some sort of "I could do better" feeling. At least my model actually looks like the Titanic!

Peter

 

[Mark Draper]

Peter, that model you built is amazing

I'm looking foward to your new book, as I'm still a beginner to model building Titanic.

You should built a wreck model man

The best template to look at is Roy Mengot's 1/350 scale model, I used it to build my 1/72 scale model of the bow section (still under construction)and for my new 1/350 scale 2004 version of the wreck. His model and Ken Marschall's 2001 report are the best resources for making a detailed wreck model in any scale.

Again, great model

 

[Bob Read]

Peter:

The thing that is odd is that you are a Trustee in the TRMA. TRMA has made a living out of trashing the FAM model by Gary Kohs (yes it has mistakes). However, to date, not one error found in your model has been noted on the TRMA board. Over here at ET no such Trustee board exists to my knowledge and all are free to post the truth. In pointing out the problem with the width of the B deck deckhouse forward, the gentlemen who posted were merely pointing out the truth. If you had just built a model then I would discourage criticism.
However, this forum and others have become running advertisements for your book. I think it is very proper for mistakes to be publicly aired for such a public model which has a book devoted to it, has a thread on this board devoted to it, and has been acclaimed by the TRMA as "The Most Accurate Titanic Model". If those don't qualify a model for public scrutiny then I don't know what would. Look, I think you've built a fine model. I'm sure better than I could. But one of the purposes of criticism (and I hope the only one) is to guide the next person who tries to scale the Everest of trying to build the most accurate Titanic model yet. Will anyone succeed?
I don't know but, I'm sure that they will be at least partially standing on your shoulders to do so.

Regards,
Bob Read

 

[Peter Davies-Garner]

Bob,

"...In pointing out the problem with the width of the B deck deckhouse forward, the gentlemen who posted were merely pointing out the truth..."
I wasn't talking about that. After he had found this he started looking for more. There was a posting about a door being in the wrong position. The door is correct and this is what started this debate.
Besides the A- and B-deck deckhouse walls are not flat but follow the curvature of the hull sides. As the B-deck bulkhead is further forward than the A-deck bulkhead it is obvious that the B-deck bulkhead is narrower. If you don't understand what I mean perhaps you can ask someone who knows about this thing. It might be a little too narrow on the model but what the heck.

"...However, this forum and others have become running advertisements for your book..." Yes, this and other Titanic sites have an interest in the ship and books about it. Other books have been advertised on these sites too.

The model was voted "Best large scale Titanic model" well before I became a trustee of the TRMA.

"...TRMA has made a living out of trashing the FAM model by Gary Kohs..." I wasn't there at the time. But I understand that Mr. Kohs only has himself to blame.

"...Over here at ET no such Trustee board exists..." It is my understanding that every forum has its trustee board.

To my knowledge only Sean can remove posts from the TRMA forum. The only posts that get removed are those that are rude or offensive. Just like on this site. TRMA is equally as democratic and fair with its users as every other site.

Peter

 

[Bob Read]

Peter:

I understand all of your points except the last:

"The only posts that get removed are those that are rude or offensive. Just like on this site. TRMA is equally as democratic and fair with its users as every other site."

I can tell you from my own personal experience that your statement above is categorically wrong. I had multiple posts removed and was banned from the TRMA board (de facto) earlier last year because I dared to suggest that the Trustee Board at TRMA be suspended for a period of three months to see if there would be better participation on the message forum. They didn't say, "We can't do that", or "We don't think that is a good idea". No, they erased every message where I called for a discussion of a more democratic structure of TRMA and subsequently deleted any further posts I made. I did not use profanity or make any ad hominem attacks. I merely dared to question the governing structure of an organization of which I was a member at the time. What heresy! So, there's the real story about TRMA and I would challenge anyone there to refute what I just said with facts.

Regards,
Bob Read

 

[Encyclopedia Titanica]

... and now back to the model please.