peteski

Thanks CL! I don't think I want it 65-dollars worth. I still have the parts of the original (I built when I was in my mid-teens). Maybe I should set up an automatic search on eBay and look for one to come along for a bit less money. For now I'll watch this one, and see if it has any takers. It is a weird model (probably a fantasy model), and that's what attracted me to it in the first place. I'm not really much into funny cars. I have had some automatic searches set up and waited few years to get a model I want for a reasonable (to me) price.

I liked miniatures since childhood, and have been building kits off-and-on since then. I just like small replicas of the real-world vehicles. I have no preference - planes, cars, motorcycles, bicycles, trains, SciFi - it's all good. I also built some armor back in my youth, but not so much nowadays. Inspiration? If I see a model that I like, I'll build it. Maybe boxart is my inspiration - I don't really know.

Like Snake shows, there is another thread about this. I currently don't have a Holly Grail kit. I picked up most of mine over the years (mostly on eBay). I suppose that one more I wouldn't mind having is a funny car I believe called "Peanut 1". Its nose was shaped like Jimmy Carters grinning mouth and teeth. But I haven't looked for it so I don't know how rare those are. I have a Kiss van (my original abomination from my childhood), and also a complete unbuilt kit (not sealed - I prefer it that way). Picked that one up several years ago on eBay. Yes, it was pricey. I also have the General locomotive I picked up on eBay few years back. Back then were plentiful on eBay, and didn't cost much. Not sure about now.

Thanks for the explanation James. Now it all makes sense to me.

While I have no specific info, I think a large part of the operating cost is covered by the ads displayed here. The Model Cars Mag. was on shaky ground for some years, and this forum thrived during that time. The magazine seems to have made a come back, so the prognosis seems positive. To be honest, if the site became pay-to-play (maybe couple of bucks per month from all the active members would hopefully eliminate the need for advertising), I wouldn't mind paying. But I have no idea how much it costs to run the side, so I might be way off base.

I'm confused. I thought originally Revell AG (Germany) and Revell USA were separate entities. Recently (couple years back) Revell AG acquired Revell USA and became one company. Does this mean that Revell USA and Carrera (USA?) are now merging (so Revell AG and Revell USA are getting split up up)?

Yes I agree, even though having your model judged as one of the trophy winners is nice, the camaraderie, shooting "bull" with friends and other modelers, and often picking up techniques or ideas from other modelers are the best reasons for attending contests.

That is an interesting view. Almost sounds like you want to to utilize the forum to record and host your legacy, or maybe that you are doing everybody a favor by leaving your "mark" here. This forum has been around since at least 2006, so I find it interesting that anybody would question its longevity now. Also remember that nothing on the Internet is guaranteed to exist forever, regardless of whether the service is free, or you pay for it.. For example some photo hosting sites (like Imageshack or Photobucket) change their policies and photos hosted there get lost, which makes the photos disappear from threads here, if people used those sites to host photos in their posts. If you do like this place, you might consider sticking around and showing off your modeling, and whatever other wisdom you choose to share with us. Many others have been doing just that for long time, and we are not sorry that we stopped in and decoded to stay.

Duplicate post.

Um, you're right, but the way modelers describe paints is already all messed up. Out of control, with no hope of getting people to be accurate. Modelers seem use "acrylic" to describe any and all water-solvent-based paints. Even the modeling magazines seem to propagate that inaccurate terminology. There are plenty of organic-solvent based (or petroleum-solvent-based) paints (both lacquers and enamels) that use acrylic binder. I should go back to the terminology I've used in the past: "stinky-solvent-based" paints to indicate the non-water-solvent-based paints. At least that is descriptive enough for everybody to understand what I'm describing.

My club has been organizing a model show/contest for over 25 years. It is a judged contest with multiple categories, and awards given for the top 3 places. Every year when we discuss the next contest, we mention possibly going NNL-style (no judging), and reject it every time. The club tried that once (before I joined) and it was a failure. Let's face it - modelers like to receive "hardware" (trophies or plaques) for their efforts. Over the years we have not noticed any serious drop in attendance. NNL also has its problems (like ballot box stuffing). I agree that I have witnessed in contests I attended that some superb modeler has been picking up the top honors in some category for several years. But generally such modeler puts so much time into a single superb quality model that he only enters one or two models in the contest (and previous year's winners are not eligible) that he only walks away with couple trophies. That not only doesn't discourage others from entering, it makes them try harder next time. Plus those high-quality modelers don't last very long, they usually "burn out" or move away, so the field stays open. I'm the contest photographer and I've been told by some modelers that they find that a photo taken of their model (to be published in a magazine) is more important than winning a trophy. And I take plenty of photos. As I mentioned, I really don't see how limiting what someone can win, and spreading the wealth could be beneficial. Sure, there will always be some "sourpuss" complain that some modeler is "hogging" all the trophies, but as I said, in majority of cases it makes other modelers work harder to unseat the "master".

Yes, there were multiple threads on the subject. You will likely also get as many different solutions as there are responding members. This is my solution (and it casts plenty of light on assembly work area where the chair is located). For overall illumination I have a 30W fluorescent magnifier light. It used to have standard cool white tube, but since I found the "kitchens and baths" 3000K tube, I have been using it. 3000K color temperature is similar to halogen lights. I sometimes use the magnifier, but for most part I just use that lamp for over-the-bench illumination. I often bring it down close to what I'm doing, to get more light there. The second light is bolted high up to the side of the shelf. It is black thin goose-neck with a small 20W fluorescent lamp head on the end (in this picture the goose-neck is bent in a bow with the lamp pointing down). That lamp gives me strong concentrated light I can point directly to what I'm working on. Between these two I have more than ample illumination (and I like very strong light). The bench with a drill press and lathe on the right also has a fluorescent magnifier lamp and another goose-neck halogen (shining light on the drill press' base). You can also see my Optivisor perched on the drill press. I couldn't model without it - it is indispensable. I have no lights attached to the Optivisor - my other light sources provide plenty of light. Back on the left, I have stereo-microscope with its own ring light. But that is only used for extremely small jobs. My work area is pretty busy, so the lights blend into the busy background. To show the image in full resolution, right-click on it and select "view image" (or whatever option your browser has to view the image on its own).

Growing up in Poland in the early '70s there was a model club in my elementary school. But not plastic models of any kind, but stick-and-tissue modal airplanes. The ones that fly. No radio control though - just either gliders or control line. I build couple gliders, but I was also into model RR at the time (on my own). Model trains were not as easily damaged (crash).

"Spread the wealth"? That makes no sense. If someone builds multiple models, enters them into appropriate categories, and they are all good enough to be judged as the top models in those categories, then why should that person be denied all the recognition they deserve? Period! Otherwise, what's the point entering the contest? This sounds like a variation of the "everybody gets a trophy" mentality. We then should just give trophy to everybody just for showing up!

Making decals is not something that will give you perfect results on first try. I'm glad that you jumped in and experimented. Even though it wasn't a success, you have learned something.

Yes, these must be the original runs of the foil, because it's original purpose was for covering models of natural-metal aircraft. Only later on it started to be used for automotive trim (so the later packaging featured Dennis Doty's car model, and the current version features my model). Looks like back then they didn't even call it "chrome", because it was meant to simulate aluminum aircraft skin. Quoting the BMF's website: Bare-Metal Foil was invented in 1970 by Eldred Mason because of his desire to have a more natural finish on his model aircraft. Since that time the Bare-Metal Foil Co. has been providing both amateur and expert hobbyists with outstanding hobby products. Bare-Metal Foil is the original detailing foil used to duplicate the chrome on model cars and natural metal on model aircraft. Bare-Metal is so thin that a modeler can cover rocker panels, keyholes, door handles, and nameplates on model cars and 100% of the detail will still show right through. On model aircraft Bare-Metal Foil can be used to cover the entire model, revealing every rivet and panel line. No other product can produce a more realistic appearance. I'm glad you hung on to, and still use those old sheets of BMF. Like I mentioned, it's like a piece of modeling history!

The green square is not clickable. Nothing happens.

Michael, I gave your post (above) a "sad face" rating. That's what I see when I look at the bottom right of your post. Before I did that, there was a "heart" showing, so I know others gave you "hearts" (yeah, I know, that is just like the thumbs-up). Then there also is a green square with a number in it "3". That shows others also rated your post. But since I can only see the sad face from me, how can I find out what the other ratings were? I don't see a way to display those other ratings.

Hint: do all the major body modifications (like cutting out doors) *BEFORE* applying primer or paint.

These are water-based acrylic paints. If you were using solvent-based paints in the past, you will have readjust your way of thinking. It is a whole different world of paints. Solvent-based paint thinners and water-based paint thinners are not compatible. Methods of cleaning your paint equipment is also different. Thinners are not compatible. I'm still firmly into using the old-style organic-solvent based paints. I have used some water-based paints for some small tasks (brush painting only), but not very much.

Exactly. I'm glad I was able to help out. For symmetrical (or repeating) designs only one needs to be drawn then it can be mirrored/flipped/rotated as needed. I make my own decals using Corel Draw and the Alps printer.

It was mentioned earlier in the thread.

1973?! Wow! That's really old! Good to see example of the longevity of this product. I'm curious: what model is pictured on the cover? BMF's website shows: "Bare-Metal Foil was invented in 1970 by Eldred Mason because of his desire to have a more natural finish on his model aircraft." Your foil is probably one of the original batches.

I guess I should rephrase my question. By looking at (or a photo of) some outlandish model which would not work in real life, how do you tell whether the modeler was clueless, or knowledgeable, and being creative?

Since both types of modelers build outlandish models which would never work in 1:1 scale, how do you distinguish between those 2 types of modelers (not taking under consideration the kind of model they are building)?