StevenGuthmiller

Now you can get a few koi fish! ☺️ Steve

A few hundred million Asian beetles!!! The freakin things cover every surface of the exterior of the house this time of the year, with warm weather after a cold snap, and they can find their way inside through the tiniest opening! If you walk outside for even a few seconds, you’ll inevitably bring several of them inside with you on your clothing. Sitting in my family room and I’ve flushed at least 40 of them down the toilet within the past half hour, and they just keep coming. Worst part is that you have to be careful when you smash the little buggers because they’ll leave little yellow stains all over your walls and ceilings. Who ever introduced these things into the US should be publicly executed!! Steve

These “patina” type builds don’t do much for me. when I see a table full of them at a show, I usually pay little attention to them. But, for the sake of argument….. If I had to choose, based on what can be seen in a photo, (which is a very poor way of judging a model) I would probably go with the ‘57 Chrysler. Yeah, it’s just another junkyard build, but it looks like it had quite a bit of thought put into it. #2 does nothing for me. Sorry, but to me it looks like something you would likely see on the “juniors” table. Nothing wrong with that, but it has little to compete with the others in the group. #3 and #5 are nice, if you’re into that sort of thing, but I’m probably a little biased, and it’s just my opinion when I say that they’re kind of getting a little tiresome. There’s only so many rods like this that I can look at before my eyes start to glaze over. That said, as the genre doesn’t excite me in the least, they both “appear” to be well done. The only one that I just don’t like at all and would probably pretty much skip over is #4. Can’t see anything about it that would make me want to place a medal beside it. Who knows. There could be all kinds of technical innovations that aren’t obvious from the photos on any or all of these models that should be considered, just as there could be problems and mistakes. But, from what I can see, I might have a hard time awarding any of them a gold depending on the other competition in the show. Steve

Just looks like a basic shade of red to me. Easily replicated. What’s probably catching your eye is the lighting and reflections more than the color. Steve

These discussions about Rustoleum paint ultimately end up devolving into a “me, me, me” conversation. “I” can do this, and “I” don’t have any problems with that. But in the end, it should be about what’s likely to cause the fewest issues for the average modeler. I’m confident that there are those that can go out and buy a gallon of Valspar house paint at Home Depot and manage to get something that looks presentable, but it’s of no help to the casual builder that’s looking for products that are going to give them consistently good results without all of the hassles that can come with some materials. I’ve said often that I no longer use Rustoleum paint for the obvious reasons, and I don’t use Tamiya either, but I have enough awareness to know which product is the better option for model cars, so therefore, I’m going to make that suggestion every time, regardless of my self interest. I will certainly make my own suggestions when it comes to what paints I use, but I don’t expect that just because I use them, that it is therefore the ultimate suggestion for others to heed. I’ve said many times, use whatever you’re comfortable with, and whatever gives you consistently good results, but if you find yourself having to come onto a forum or a group to vent your frustrations about a particular material with any frequency, instead of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, you might want to revisit what products and processes you use. So yeah, do you. But also be smart enough to know that if something, whatever it might be, is giving you problems, ditch it. There are plenty of available options. Completely ignore those that may try to tell you that “you’re” the problem and that “you just don’t know what you’re doing”. That’s absolute bologna! There are thousands of accomplished builders who’ve been doing this for a half century or more that have all of the necessary experience with the materials in question to be able to suggest that yes, there are inferior and superior products available to you, and no, you don’t have to accept bad outcomes, and “just keep trying”. There seem to be those that just have some sort of weird brand loyalty and will suggest that the problem is “you”. That’s just BS to the core! Steve

Fact! Steve

Clogging nozzles are an issue that I forgot to mention. I probably have a half dozen nearly full cans of Rustoleum paint in my shop. Every one of them clogged after the first use, and yes, I did invert and spray to clean the nozzle. I’m convinced that the paint was designed to be a once and done system. Not particularly useful for small jobs. Steve

All excellent advice, although I will add that most Rustoleum paints that people are using for models are simple enamels, and should be relatively safe to use on any plastic. The problem is the paint itself. There are a number of problems that are frequent and inherent with Rustoleum that are virtually nonexistent with other products. Most of that can be attributed to the formulation of the paint, the delivery system, and unreliable re-coat recommendations. In other words, most of the problems that Rustoleum users experience don’t have anything to do with incompatibility with the plastic, but everything to do with the properties of the paint itself, the horrible application system, and the incompatibility with a great number of other products, as well as a lot of other Rustoleum products. It makes the whole concept of using Rustoleum paint for models a gamble. Steve

Yeah, I agree. Just not worth the aggravation. There are so many other paints that don’t cause so many issues. There’s no question that Rustoleum paints are one of the most problematic paints available. All one has to do is look around on the various boards and groups and that becomes quite evident very quickly. Steve

Revell also has, “had. Don’t know if it’s available at the moment” a very nice convertible with an optional up top and continental kit. I built the “newer” AMT version many years ago, and the detail is very good, but I do recall a couple of fit issues. Nothing major, but it did require a little forethought. Steve

Well, it’s the “great minds” thing. 😊 Steve

Make it easy on yourself and buy some of this. Steve

That's what I use. It's not going to give you a super shiny, "dipped" look like people seem to prefer these days with 2Ks and the like, but I regard that as a good thing. Polishing is inevitably going to give you a more realistic looking finish in my opinion anyway, so several coats of clear lacquer, followed by cutting and polishing is my technique. The Duplicolor Perfect Match "Protective Clear coat" in a rattle can is tough as nails, lays down thinly so that detail hide is virtually non-existent, and polishes out to a exemplary finish. It can be sprayed over any good quality lacquer paint. I use it over Duplicolor, MCW and Scale Finishes lacquers all of the time with zero issues. Steve

Agreed. Most windshields are relatively easy to replace with thin plastic. It also has the added advantage of looking more realistic as it’s much thinner than kit glass, eliminating the unrealistic refraction. Steve

Well, I wasn’t going to express the “number of reasons” to use primer, but I suppose someone should. As has already been stated, it helps A LOT, with prep work, making it way easier to tell if additional body work needs to be performed prior to paint. Personally, even if I plan on using white primer, I’ll still use sometimes several coats of gray primer first to ensure that body work is to my satisfaction. Primer also promotes superior adhesion. Many paints need something to “bite” into to adhere properly to the surface, and believe me, if you’re paint is just a little on the hot side, it’s going to bite into the plastic, which sounds great, until you realize that biting into the plastic usually equals crazing the plastic, which isn’t cool at all. And if it’s not “biting” in, well, that means that it’s just sitting on top, which may not cause any issues, but then again, if you have any masking to do…….😖 The primer also acts as a barrier to those hot solvents that can damage the plastic, so it’s doing double duty. Just my opinion, but I find very little compelling evidence in most cases that painting bare plastic has any real advantages over using primer, other than expedience and saving a little money. The “paint thickness” theory only holds water if you’re using thick paints, such as enamels, which I rarely have much good to say about anyway, but that’s just me. I’ve said this probably hundreds of times, but if you’re using the right materials, paint thickness is pretty much a nothing burger. Using lacquers, I routinely use as many as 15 coats of primer, color and clear all together. As usual, I’ll avoid expressing the reason for that many coats, (and yes, I do have reasons) but the point is, it’s entirely possible to use that many coats with virtually zero detail hide whatsoever. I’ve seen many models with 1 or 2 coats of enamel that exhibit much more hidden detail than one of my 15 coaters. Steve

I’m not the type to shy away from a challenge no wonder how much 3-D printing that I need to compete against, but in some cases it certainly can give you an unfair advantage. I remember seeing a printed engine compartment being made available for I believe a mustang some time back. It was an amazing piece with every nut, bolt, hose and line represented, far outpacing anything that is ever likely to be able to be done with conventional building methods. So in the end, should it at least be something that needs to be brought to a judges attention when you have an engine bay that may have just been purchased, painted and installed, and still over shadows one that may have had to have been meticulously detailed by the modelers own hand through hours and hours of engineering, parts swapping and scratch building? I think that 3-D printing is a wonderful thing, but I also feel that as these things become more and more readily available, there should be some mechanism to insure that the individual who goes to the extremes to try to compete with assemblies that can be simply purchased and installed, is still recognized for his effort. Steve

I don’t think people fearing the future is necessarily the case. Some of us just see it as a matter of fairness. I’ve done quite well against 3-D printed models with traditional building materials and methods, but that’s not to say that there is not plenty of disconcertion among modelers over this subject. So why not address the situation, and end the anxiety by just simply creating a separate category for 3-D printed models? Seems like a pretty simple solution. Steve

Of course everybody is not at the same level. That’s why they have judging. But don’t you think that it makes sense to judge based on similar metrics used to complete competing models? Part of the reason why there are often separate categories for 1/25th 1/24th scale, large scale and small scale is because detailing larger scales is much easier than detailing smaller scales. If we’re judging based on “building” prowess, and not so much parts manufacture, it makes sense to me that advantages based on skills that aren’t traditionally required to build a model should be addressed in some manner. It makes sense to me to let 3-D printed models compete with other 3-D printed models. Don’t know what could possibly be wrong with that. Steve

Sounds fair. But I think you’re probably the exception rather than the rule. Steve

That’s exactly what took place at one of the larger IPMS functions in my area. The same guys who put on the local NNL take care of the judging at said show, and they do an exemplary job! Stand up guys who know what they’re doing. The same cannot be said about some other shows that I have attended. Steve

I suppose I agree, but the result is the same. Inconsistent judging, which is why I won’t return to some shows. Steve

Just my opinion, but I would never skip primer for a number of reasons. You could open yourself up to all kinds of problems depending on the formulation of the paint. Steve

Well, there’s that, and then sometimes I wonder if it’s just a case of whether or not some of the people that are judging really have any idea of what they’re looking at. I like to think that it’s more of just a case of inexperience rather than bias, but I’ve absolutely seen the results of one, or possibly both. Steve

My question would be, how many categories does the chapter have for their military and aviation subjects? Having just one automotive category kind of proves my point about the apparent disdain for car modelers at many IPMS events. They certainly don’t seem to have a problem with “29eleventy7” categories for those genres. Why isn’t there just one aviation category? I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen people win a gold because they were the only “1/48 multi engine prop” entry, or the like. Steve

I think it might be pretty simple. Create a 3D print category. If the model has major components that are printed, (Meaning other than a few minor detail pieces such as wheels, carburetor or other small components) it can compete with other similarly constructed models. Makes sense to me. They often have separate categories for large scale, small scale, etc. One more category isn’t going to make a difference. The only problem might be that you wouldn’t really want to create separate print categories for every genre or class, so you’re printed ‘57 Mercury might have to compete with Sherman tanks, P51 Mustangs and fantasy subjects, but being as the sky is the limit with 3-D printing detail, I think that’s absolutely fair. In all honesty, it seems more fair than competing against a promo based AMT 1961 Ford. Steve