Pete J.

Chris - Did you call Tamiya yet? They often have spare sets. 1-800 TAMIYAA

Harry- You think the rigging on this one was hard - Try out the AeroBase version in 1:72 scale.

I voted model, but I really have to agree. The steering wheel and seats look out of proportion. There is an edge of glass showing that also looks very think. What ever it is, it was rolled onto the location. The front tires are still wet. Very interesting. Can't wait until Friday to find out.

You have really asked the $54,000 question that many of us have been asking ourselves for a long time and frankly there is no real definitive answerer only opinions. Here are mine: One parting thought. Keep it fun. Almost all contests are for bragging rights only. There is no financial reward. Enjoy the other contestants and make new friends and you will be the ultimate winner!

amen!!!! I own a Sherline lathe and it is an absolute pleasure to use. Their customer service is beyond reproach and they are made in the good ol' US of A. In fact they are made in my back yard, Vista Ca. They have a ton of accessories that are all very well thought out and work well. The owner wrote a book "Table top Machining". It is very informative and can answere just about every question a beginner might need. You can also call the company for advise and get a skilled machinist to help. If you are in the area, a vist to the museum is a must. This is really a professional machine and not a toy. Expect to pay a little more, but it is well worth it in the long run.

Toothpicks - 73 cents for 200

Got the last one wrong, so lets see if I can do the same on this one. Model for no particular reason other than I have seen similar builds of steam engines at Joe Martin's(Sherline) Craftsmanship Museum.

Several years ago I started a "trophy" wall. I cut the top of the box out, write the date I completed them model and nail it to the wall of my work shop. It kind of brightens up the place and reminds me how long it has been since I actually completed something.

The real problem as I see it is that there are two terms here and nothing in between. Those are pro or professional and amateur. The technical use of these terms simply denote one who is paid vs. one who is not. In reality, to me, they denote more than receiving compensation for doing a task. In the old world there were several degrees of craftsmen. There was the apprentice, the journeyman and the master or master craftsman. Each of these clearly gave gave an indication of the quality of work that they were capable of, rather than a status of paid worker vs. unpaid. In todays world we differentiate professional from non professional as a person who strives to maintain a higher degree of standards and ethics than a non professional. An amateur is a person of lower skill who does not deserve to be paid for their work. The real problem is that neither of these terms is definitive enough to provide useful information. By these terms, I would like to consider myself a professional, as my personal standard for model building is relatively high. Am I a master craftsman? No, I think that should be reserved for the few who build from raw materials and plans such as Gerald Windgrove and Dale King, and frankly I am a modifier of kits. Some day I would like to do a total scratch build, but I doubt I will live long enough to develop the skill to do that. I personally can't apply the term amateur to my self either as I have done some commission work and frankly amateur has a bit of a negative connotation regarding the skill level employed. I doubt that on eBay you would see someone advertising their work as "amateur built" because it carries such a negative connotation. So I suppose if someone held themselves out as a Pro-builder, you are entitled to ask for credentials. What have you done that sets you above the rest? Have you won major contests? Have you built well recognized works? Have you done work for well respected companies or persons? Have you been published? As Harry said, any one can call them selfs a professional, but only a real professional can give references. Don't be afraid to ask for them before you purchase something. Caveat emptor!

Dang'it Steve, I thought that was you sneekin' up on me. Can't hear the clankin' cause the dad burn batteries in the hearin aids jus died! Any way, back to the subject. Here is a photo of my display at Nat's. I kept is simple and it was there because a lot of work was done on the underside of the vehicle and I really didn't want to have anyone picking the beast up. I have used this format before and try to keep the footprint only slightly larger than the actual model. Sit the model on a clear piece of glass and an angled mirror so the viewer doesn't have to bend down to far(a nod to those of us with bad backs) to view the undercarrage.

Germany - BMW 507, M1, Z8, any 800 series - Mercedes 300SL gullwing, AMG SLS, 280SL pagoda roof, C111 - Porsche Carrera GT, 911 GT 1(yes there were a few road versions) Just to name a few.

I was just viewing Harry's famous weekly car quiz and I had a Bill Engval random thought. Can any one explain why the French, who are world famous for their high sense of fashion, good taste, and exquisite art have, with the exception of Ettore Bugatti, failed to create a truly ironically beautiful automobile. The French garage is full of quirky, weird, and just plain hideous automobiles but none other than the classic Bugatti's, take the breath away. The Italians do it on what seems to be a weekly basis. The Japanese have their share. Every American company has at least one classic they can point to. Even the Germans can compete in this arena. What the heck is wrong with the French and their automobile designers?

Oh what a walk down memory lane this is! I guess that make me a COF! Cranky, ol',______. You fill in the blank. But is was a great journey!

Hey, its a Morgan! and judging from the crappy fit on everything it has got to be real. What is with the bent bumper override? I can't see a self respecting modeler building one that poorly. But then I suppose if the modeler were trying to do a realistic British car from the era, they would have to do it blindfolded. Nice choice Harry, crappy model or crappy car!

Actually one of each is a great idea. The plywood on the bottom to give it strength and the MDF on top to give you as smooth, stable working surface. After you have it in place a good soaking with Minwax spar varnish with give is a durable surface that stuff won't soak into. I would edge the MDF with a chamfer bit to get a sharp edge, about 1/4" deep. You need to be able to use the edge but want it to be shallow as well.

Three very important rules about building a work bench: Rule #1 : Make sure it is level so stuff doesn't roll off. Rule #2 : Make sure it is level so stuff doesn't roll off, like xacto knifes. Rule #3 : Make sure it is level so stuff doesn't roll off, like your models. Other that that you are pretty much on you own.

Rubber bands look good initially but over time they deteriorate and fall apart. I use some small plastic strips(Evergreen has lots of small stuff) and bend them to the pulley then paint them black. They seem to work well.

Harry - I am voting real but I think you may have us on this one. There are a lot of clues for both ways. I am basing my final word on the grill. Either this is a very nice model or a over restored BMW.

I am hoping that Matthew will be able to produce the CD. The book is actually a parts list for the MkI. The shot is a still I took off of the video that is Lee Holman explaining the differences between the MkI and the Mk IIs. It is very instructional and he goes through the entire book front to back, about 10 minutes worth of video.

Yes, that is definely a Mk I photo. You can see the coolant lined on the side of the center hump. They went this way on the early Mk II's but were much larger. They were moved to the left side to reduce the heat on the driver. Here is a diagram of the Mk I fuel system. Lee was using it as a referance for the Mk II. The piece he is pointing to is not on the Mk II and neither is the fule changeover valve just to the left.

Hmmmm - never thought to go the the fly tying section. Good idea!

Only trouble is that at the rate I build it will be 2013 before I have another one ready to go! Seriously, I will have to get to work on an old 1:24 scale piece that has been sitting on the back burner for over 10 years. I realy would like to get it done. It is a Tamiya Mercedes Le Mans car in CLK naked lady livery. Lots of detail to do on it.

Dan - I do hope our paths cross again. If they do I'll buy you a beer. It would be great to sit down and swap stories.

Lee refereed to the rear engine mount and suspension piece as a "horse collar" because that is what is looks like when the engine is out. It is s "U" shaped piece that the upper shocks attach to and has a cross piece that bolts in. You can just see the upper parts in the bottom of the photo. The cross member on the Mark 1 that goes between is a solid piece. In the Mark IIs they made a hollow piece with a square cross section that was the catch tank for all the returning oil lines and then the oil went to the main tank up front. You were right about the oil tank mounting point in the spare compartment for all the Mark IIa's the IIbs moved it to the left rear firewall over the fuel cell access panel. The difference in the seats are that the MkIs had a sling arrangement with webbing holding the seat. The MkIIs had a molded fiberglass piece that could be popped out. I got to spend some time with Matthew this weekend and no he is not interested in a upgrade kit but he is considering doing a CD with all the photos and film we shot so new reference may be available. It would be nice because there is a lot of detail that we got our hands on. It would help modeler a lot.

I just spent some time going over my video last week so I could get it off to Matthew. In doing so, Lee had one section that he was explaining the differences between the fuel systems of the Mark I and II. This photo looks very much like it may be a Mark II. The clues are the fuel filter fuel valve which were eliminated on the Mark II. Also the lip on the door to hold it closed was supposedly changed to a flap about 4" wide and straight across. Lee said they changed that because the higher speed of the Mark II blew the top out. I also notice that the horse collar is not their like most Mark IIs. Now this may be an early version but the clues to me point to a Mark I. Cato, does your source say different? The top photo has to be a IIa because of the single carb, but it still has the small door shields and Mark 1 style seats. Perhaps it is an early version? I am curious. These cars seem very hard to pin down. Pete