Richard Bartrop

Proof that they weren't all winners back than either. There's not a lot of love for the custom parts AMT put in their kits back in the '70s, and often with good reason, then that was how people built hot rods back then.

That Duesenberg in the die cast section has been on my want listing for the longest time. Too bad there isn't a kit version.

Oh, you can definitely, spot the differences between say '80s traditional, and something built in the 21st century. When what we now call "traditional" was originally built, that wasn't tradition, that was just people trying to built cool cars, and if you look bad at those old magazines, it's pretty obvious that not everybody built them the same way back then. I guess it's like that old parable about the blind men and the elephant. Everyone picks a different part and says "This is what it's all about!" As a point of interest, here's what Joe Gemsa thought a traditional hot rod should look like back in 1967 That in itself would be an interesting exercise, building traditional style rods that are themselves revivals of different style revivals, but I think there's a lot to be said for building what you want, and not worrying about fashion. Who knows, maybe other people will get what you're doing, and before you know it, you've started a trend.

And as the Traditional movement shows, out of date is not necessarily all that bad.

Yoshihiro Hobara's well done Barris replicas. https://www.customcarchronicle.com/model-cars/yoshihiro-hobara-barris-model-cars/#.XtLMIcB7mUk

Oh it is a handsome machine. '70s European hard edge style married with '30s classicism, all mixed in just the right amounts. Elegant and restrained, but with just enough glitter to keep it from looking sterile. Bill Mitchell was the master of line and proportion, right up to the end. It's better looking than anything Cadillac put out in the '50s.

Gluing together preformed bits of plastic? Everyone knows that's not REAL modeling

As for what shows you have way too much money, I can think of far worse examples, but that's a discussion that falls outside the scope of this group. Same with what makes you worthy of a date with Madame Guillotine.

We've seen people throw all kinds of questionable models, and something like a Gerald Wingrove model might actually be worth that kind of dosh. But of all the cars Rolls-Royce has built over the years, I can safely say that this is the one I would least want a model of, in any scale, at any price.

It's hard to go wrong with a '36 Ford, and it looks like an amazing piece of craftsmanship, but I will not mourn when the trend to drab non-colours goes away. I'm a big fan of subtle and subdued. but this shows that it is possible to be too subdued.

I brought up Photohsop, because this is what I have at hand. I use Lightwave for 3D modeling, and it will let you model anything down to the micrometer level. Photoshop also has a handy little ruler tool that lets you measure images down to hundrenths of a millimetre You can also make a mold and cast as many copies as you like. The people who can pound out a body out of sheet metal are pretty amazing, and it probably is easier to make one out of resin, but If anyone thinks people who make their own resin bodies aren't "real" craftmen, I've yet to hear it. Some tools make things easier, but that's kind of the whole point of tools, isn't it?

I haven't used any actual CAD programs, but I can't be the only one who's found something like Photoshop very handy for resizing plans, taking measurements, laying out instrument panels, or any number of useful things. Strictly speaking, the computer is still aiding your design, so would admitting this disqualify you? I'm solidly in the camp that the computer is just another tool. Decent modeling software isn't cheap, but neither is a workshop full of machine tools, and nobody would seriously consider using any of those to be an unfair advantage. The best tools in the world won't help you if you don't know what you're doing. IPMS really needs to join the 21st century

I have conflicting feelings about this one. On the one hand, it is indeed a beautiful piece of art, and if I didn't know what was in it, I'd be tempted to buy one. On the other hand it sums up everything I hate about box art. Like the sirens of myth enticing sailors to drive their ships onto the rocks, the purpose of this was to seduce impressionable youth into shelling out their allowance for a box full of lies. Granted, this is not as big a deal today, when there are all sorts of ways to find out what's really in the box, but boxes like this are why even today, when a model company makes a big deal about their box art. there's still a part of my brain that goes, "Okay guys, what are you trying to hide?"

According to Hemmings. Ford actually got as far as setting up a factory for building truck turbines.

There's no shortage of Westergard style '36 Fords, but there were some pretty wild customs in the '60s based on them. There's also the '58-60 "Squarebirds"

Of all the things you could do with the new Model A chassis, the version I would like to see most would be a '27 T Roadster. Go with a track nose and bellypan, so even if they can't do anything about that non traditional rear end, at least people don't have to look at it.

There is the okd '29 pickup that's been around since the sixties, and it's still a pretty decent kit.

That Ranchero looks interesting.

PM Hobby was offering free delivery in town, so I got some paint, and a couple of Molotow markers, One chrome, and one for masking. I figured they could use all the support they could get.

Packards and Cadillacs also ended up being made into armoured cars. It seems just about every make was turned into an armoured car during WWI. Lots of potential for some cratchbuilding if you want to try something different with those Airfix or Pyro/Lifelike kits.

Mentioned elsewhere, but very relevant to this discussion.

A small thing, but still nice, that they stopped calling a "roadster"

I remember seeing that '32 Chevy/ Camaro switcher at a Vancouver car show way back when. Thanks for the article!

I remember that kit, and never being able to get it to work. All the individual components would test fine, but when it was all buttoned up, nothing.

Except I wasn't talking about the suspension parts. If you read back to what I was talking about, it was the particular set of wheels and tires that come in some Revell kits, and look to be on their own separate tree.