J Morrison

As am I which is why I made the comment. However I think it is time to make this a separate subject.

It is not an unreasonable expectation to want someone who has been elevated to a face of the hobby you belong to, whether they deserve/want it or not, to do the best job they can representing the hobby. People making excuses for builders are doing them and the hobby NO favors. Also new builders to the hobby see that you can dazzle people with shiny detail, instead of brilliant work and shortcut your way to the top. It's a disservice to the hobby and hobbyists. BTW There is a lot done well on John's bike, it captures the spirit of the 1:1. All that is damaged by the large difference between the belt & pulleys. A little more effort would elevate it to a much higher status, sadly instead the belt/pulley assembly cheapens the whole work.

Very true and please stop using that weak comeback "There's no such thing as a perfect model" schtick. I NEVER said I expect John or anyone to make a perfect model! However in the case of John's work he has made similar transmission mistakes on more than one occasion. Adding detail for the sake of detail isn't always the right way to go. When your work is in the media so often one owes it not only to themselves, but to the hobby & other hobbyists to try & get the details right & not make the same mistake repeatedly just for the sake of having details on a model. Again this is NOT solely directed at John he just happens to be one of the most visible modelers these observations pertain to.

For those with a more open mind, here's a link & pic to how a belt can be made to fit the cogs of the pulleys. See post #900 http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=68368&page=45

Your sig line says "It's better to walk alone, than with a crowd going in the wrong direction" Hypocrite much? So because I "walked alone" and didn't heap anything but undying praise on this build (I did compliment the nice work that was done BTW) and asked about a glaring mismatch I am considered a Joyless Modeler & a Rivet Counting Nazi?! You sir are beyond ridiculous.

A couple of options would be to look outside the hobby for belts or perhaps try small scale military. Look for flat, flexible material, make a jig & cut or sand the teeth on the belt out individually. Not sure how well it would work but imagine a long, thin, flat length of putty or clay & run the pulley across it to set the pattern exactly to the pulley teeth. Harden the material enough to preserve the teeth while still allowing for flexibility. Silicone might even work better in that application.

John, I hope I can ask this question without too much backlash from the board. While the bike does look good, on closer inspection I have to ask about the obvious mismatch between the belts & sprockets? It's obvious you put a lot of work into the bike so I was just wondering about the belts/sprockets? I'm not meaning to knit-pick as there is a lot of good work on the bike it's just that the mismatch is quite obvious & detracts from the overall build. If I may make an observation relating to well known builders and the hobby as a whole. When one reaches the level of exposure and recognition that you have John, you really are not/can not just build for yourself or follow your motto of "Good enough for the girls I go with". You now represent the hobby as a whole, not just yourself. With that level of stature, wanted or not, you owe it to yourself and the hobby to sweat the small stuff and apply the same level of detail to 100% of the project not just 90%-95% of it. Before people throw an old stand by response like "Let's see what you've built" that is not relevant for anyone to have an opinion on this subject. If I had the exposure of modelers who have been printed numerous times in model publications then you could ask for that comparison. BTW this is not just for John as there are other builders who the same observation can apply to this just happened to be the most readily available post that highlighted my observation.

Ed's not here man LOL In all seriousness you are likely looking for the wrong name. This link might help. A very good article that explains a lot, gives some insight, & shows that "Ed" is probably more ok now than ever. http://www.styleweekly.com/richmond/self-service/Content?oid=2105272

NO!!! How about YOU give it up?! I'm so tired of people beating down folks who don't share the unicorn & rainbow view of the hobby & products the model companies are releasing. What might be fine for you may not be good enough for someone else. That is NO reason to to slam that person! Neither person is wrong, neither is right. Just because you are willing to settle for sub-par quality doesn't mean everyone else has to or should be forced to. Also you obviously don't know who you are addressing, asking if they build. Mark has built for the Clone The Past project for the International Model Car Builder's Museum, had his own aftermarket company and has probably forgotten more about modeling than you know. The man is a font of useful information about current & past model companies & products. He is quite knowledgeable and qualified to critique the model companies offerings.

Had a great trade with PowerPlant (Matija) all the way from Croatia Thanks again for a great trade buddy.

WOW...just wow. SMH

I don't understand why people who want a kit to be more accurate from the factory are always demonized. What gives people the right to say (paraphrased) "Take it or leave it, stop complaining." Taking companies to task & pushing them to be better is what makes companies improve and advance. Revell has shown they have the capacity to produce accurate kits. It's their consistency of accurate products that is the real issue. A question to everyone who says leave Revell alone....Do you settle for mediocrity in every aspect of your life or other hobbies? If not why settle for it in the model car hobby?

He said show me one IN person. He was talking about the diecast I believe.

I kinda doubt the thread starter was referring to the high end die cast you are talking about Harry. That also brings up another point. Out of scale shininess. A lot of the cars done in diecast are much shinier that the 1:1 vehicle they represent. I believe many people are afflicted with the "Oh look, SHINY!" syndrome. I have seen plenty of excellent models get over looked for models that were so shiny look like they were dipped in shellac or had a bunch of aftermarket parts thrown at it...but that's a story for a different day.

You're welcome Jeff & again, I agree with you.

Very nice Mustang Jeff, and I agree with you on your skills.

I am aware you put together a magazine which makes your response even more puzzling. With all due respect it seems very counter productive to make statements like that about diecast & discouraging others to try painting especially when the magazine you put out is primarily plastic & resin orientated. Basically you shoot down any paint/polish/finishing how-to articles. I realize this is my opinion & your opinion on the subject but I would hate to see you unintentionally do a disservice to the magazine & forum readers. Perhaps a better way to phrase things would be the finishes on the mint cars are what one should aspire to as they are nearly flawless. A small but important distinction. Again not meaning any disrespect & didn't mean for my previous post to sound so snarky.

Please tell me this is an attempt at humor. If not you should get out more or do more internet research because there are some amazing builders out there that can lay down a heck of a paint job among other things. I'm sure that any contest you've been to the winner for best paint was as good or better than the diecast you offered up as examples. Also "You're not going to do any better than they do." is quite a discouraging answer to give. Like others have said, with practice a person can achieve a finish on par or better than a "mint" car.

Except, MPC's '27 & '28 Lincoln kits were never produced by Monogram. Rather, they fell under the AMT/Ertl brand, after Ertl bought MPC in the late 1960's. Art Whoops, forgot about that Art, thanks for the correction. Actually a correction to the correction...Ertl didn't buy MPC until the 80's. Here's a quick timeline copied from a post from a different board. OK, not so much as a history lesson, but perhaps geneology? AMT: AMT Corporation goes back to 1946, as Aluminum Model Toys, their first model car product being a cast aluminum '47 Ford Tudor Sedan promotional toy for Ford Motor Company. AMT Corporation quickly branched out into the realm of plastic for promotional model cars, beginning in 1949. In the mid-50's, there developed the SMP (for Scale Model Products) brand, ostensibly because some GM divisions didn't want the same brand names on promo's of their cars as was being used on Ford promo's. SMP appeared on promo's of '57 Pontiacs, '58-'61 Chevies, and curiously, '58-61 Imperials. SMP's address, and their logo style were that of AMT however. In 1978, times got extremely tough for AMT Corporation, leading all the way up to bankruptcy, which was staved off by the entry of Lesney Corporation, the Matchbox Toy people, who bought the company, renaming it Lesney-AMT. Lesney management continued through March 1982, when absolutely abysmal business conditions throughout the toy and plastic model kit industry (even the hobby industry itself) forced Lesney themselves into Chapter 7 (bankruptcy liquidation). Ertl Toys came forward, and bought up all AMT Tooling, along with all licenses and rights. In 1999, Ertl themselves were bought out by Racing Champions, an agressive Chicago area diecast toy maker, and themselves became RC2 Brands a couple of years later. MPC (Model Products Corporation) was started by a small group of AMT execs and designers in 1963, issuing their first model kit in 1964, a '64 Stingray with full working suspension and posable steering. MPC was pretty aggressive in their early years, producing lots of neat kits, and wrested a lot of promotional model business away from AMT and JoHan, even getting into the slot car game for a few years. In 1967, General Mills, the breakfast cereal company, seeking to broaden their base in those years of increasingly conglomerate corporations, bought MPC, along with such as Kenner Toys, putting them into a new division called "Fundimensions". Fundimensions continued as a General Mills unit until the late 1970's, along the way acquiring Skil-Craft Chemistry Sets, Craftmaster Paint-by Number, and Lionel Trains; and then was spun off as a separate, independent company. Fundimensions began splitting up about 1985, MPC being bought up by AMT/Ertl in 1987. Ertl began as a farm toy maker in 1946, founded by Joseph Ertl in his garage in the Dubuque Iowa area. By the early 1970's, Ertl had become the driving force in the field of diecast metal farm toys, a position they still hold today. The Ertl family sold the company to Walter Kidde Company, the chemical and industrial gasses conglomerate in the early 1970's, who in turn were bought up by Victor Comptometer, an old line office equipment maker seeking to diversify as old-fashioned analog calculators and typewriters were being replaced by electronics and the early computers. Ertl, as holder of extensive licensing for International Harvester, brought out their IH Transtar semi-tractor kits in 1974, and the IH Scout in 1976. In 1977, Ertl purchased the Mack Truck line of model kits from MPC as well. Lotsa stuff, huh??

Very nice build of a cool car. Even though the blue & yellow stand out on their own yours eyes, well mine at least, were always drawn to those bright red mirrors. Easy to pick it out of a crowd on the track while zipping by at 150+mph

Surely you can't be serious with this list...can you? A lot of the items would be very difficult to do in scale & if not done in scale would look wrong & add too much clutter. Things I could add to the list.... Improperly researched or added details for the sake of detailing...ie Improperly routed hoses/wiring(and no I'm not talking about improper firing order), manual shift linkage added to automatic transmissions, not taking the time to properly fit opening doors, trunks, glove boxes, etc. Overlooking the basics of clean model building before jumping in and adding aftermarket details. Basically running before you walk. Not the fault of the model builder but a problem facing modelers is not getting items they paid for or traded for. While it certainly isn't a new problem it seems to be a more widespread problem these days. Look at Facebook and see how many pages & posts are dedicated to bad modelers ripping off other modelers by taking there money of kits in trade.

    ??? What is wrong with the Meng F-350? By all accounts it's a great kit from what I hear & have seen.