peteski

According to the Wiki article, only one aluminum model car was made. Because Gallogly had solid connections with Ford Motor Company, he was able to place his first models exclusively in Ford dealerships, starting a long promotional relationship.[1] Gallogly's first model was a 1947–1948 Ford Fordor sedan made of cast aluminum and painted with official Ford paint.[1] After issuing successful Ford sedan models, the company set up shop on Eight Mile Road outside Detroit. By 1948, injection plastic molding was already being used by Product Miniature Corporation (PMC). After the first Ford aluminum promotional model was offered,[2] aluminum was abandoned. Different colors of plastic could now be used, so the company name was quietly changed to AMT, which deemphasized the word "aluminum".[1]

I don't think you're argumentative, and as far as facts go, personally I'm not privy to any factual information other than what the AMT's timeline shows in the Wikipedia article. Like I mentioned, the definition of "the original AMT" might be a bit fuzzy, depending on your definition of what a company is (and how many original employees are still there). I'm also curious as to what is the goal of this exercise? Are the original AMT-designed kits better or worse than ones made at different times?

SO I guess the question would be what was the last AMT kit designed by the original engineering staff and molds cut by original AMT die makers? Woudl that Exclude EMT/Earl reincarnation? I guess someone would have to know how long the original staff lasted in the new companies? This is a very nebulous question with likely not good answers. It can be interpreted in many ways. Or do you consider AMT to be the original company up until the most recent Round2 takeover in 2012? To quote the Wikipedia: For a time, AMT kits were reissued by independent companies such as Stevens International and Model King, before AMT came solidly into the stable of Round 2, LLC of South Bend, Indiana in 2012. In an ironic turn that parallels other large companies, AMT now co-exists in the same organization alongside a revived MPC and Polar Lights. Ertl is still in the Round 2, LLC stable as Ertl Collectibles.

AMT is just one of the brands owned by Round2 The real AMT is long gone. For more history see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum_Model_Toys

It depends which technology was used for printing. The SLA prints (usually but nor always gray resin) don't have any residue, but I would rinse them in alcohol just to make sure they are clean. If the parts came from Shapeways and are printed using one of their FUD, FXD (or whatever they call those) resins nowadays, they will be somewhat whitish translucent color. Those often have traces of wax which is used during printing process as support for overhanging details. Alcohol does not dissolve that wax well. I would give those a good rinse in Heptane (Bestine rubber cement thinner) or Naphtha (Ronsonol, or VM&P Naphtha) to remove all the wax. In a pinch they can be rinsed in lacquer thinner, but don't leave them in it for any prolonged period of time. Just a quick rinse should be safe. Once the wax is removed some parts of the items which were in contact with the wax during printing will turn really frosty white.

I believe that there are no kits of 1970 Riviera (there is 1969). Does anybody know if there is a resin or 3-d printed kit or just the body available for 1970 Riviera? I searched and did not find one.

Not just any primer: WHITE PRIMER. Unless of course the bare plastic is already white with no body work done to it. Yellows, oranges and pinks (or any light color) are notoriously translucent, and white base coat will make the color "pop", while gray primer will make it look dull.

Yes, that is the airbrush I have been using for the last 30 years (and still my go-to airbrush). Works for me. Few years ago Michaels had a Badger airbrush sale and I picked up one of the more advanced dual-action airbrush, but it is still sitting in its box. I will try it when I have a need to do some weathering.

Yes, as others confirmed, the numerically highest f-stop indicates the smallest lens aperture. If you ever heard of pinhole cameras, those use very, very small (pinhole size) apertures, resulting in a very wide depth of field. If you are interested in more details, I'm sure there is plenty of info about it on the Interwebs. But pinhole cameras due to the small apertures required very strong light source or very long exposure time. They also have other shortcomings. Of course this was back in the day with photographic film. Another thing I forgot to mention is not to use the camera flash. It produces very harsh contrast and uneven illumination. Either use natural lighting (outdoors), or some sort of diffused artificial lighting. Professional setups can use flash, but those are special free-standing flash units, placed away from the camera and often cast indirect light on the subject. That is why if your camera is capable of aperture priority, use the highest f-stop and have the camera mounted on a tripod. Also use either remote shutter triggering or timer (so it remains perfectly steady on the tripod).

Yes, those are all individual photos. You can click on each to view/enlarge them. That is how I upload photos too, but I do use the Enter key to keep mine in line and separate. This is easy when accessing the forum on a computer, but I suspect it is not that easy when accessing the forum on a smart phone or tablet (like many members do). Those devices are not really designed for this type of functionality. They are dumbed-down computers with touch screen.

In many instances you can forgo focus stacking if you just use the highest f-stop on the lens. That increases the acceptable depth of field. That also means the camera should be kept steady (on a tripod) because the photo needs longer exposure. Bright illumination also helps. Also the wider the lens is (like 18 in your instance), the greater the dept of field. When I take my club's contest photos, I use my old Nikon CoolPix 8700 with f=8 (that is the smallest aperture it is capable of), the photos are good enough for publication (have been published many times in Model Cars and in SAE Contest Annual magazines. For some examples of those photos see the show photos at http://classicplastic.org/photos.html (click on each image to see a larger version). I have also been using Helicon Focus stacking software for over a decade when I take photos of N scale model trains and layouts. Those are quite small and focus stacking is the only way to get good sharp photos. Nowadays graphic manipulation apps like Photoshop, or even some cameras or smart phones have focus stacking capability, making the process easy.

Even internal mix airbrushes are really easy to clean, as long as you clean them using lacquer thinner right after the painting session. No disassembly needed. Just blast some lacquer thinner through the airbrush. I do a thorough cleaning (which does require some disassembly) maybe once a year. But the spray-can jockeys are still for some reason afraid of that dreaded cleaning after spraying.

Sure, but probably (like most airbrush-phobes) he would be afraid of the cleanup after spraying. In my experience, that seems to be the most frequent excuse for sticking with the spray-bombs.

Yes, you need to build up some thickens to that primer coat by using few mist coats, then spray heavier coat. It might be a bit difficult to do that in those deep recesses because the spray can nozzle sprays rather wide pattern. This is where an airbrush comes in handy when you can control the paint flow and the air pressure.

Thanks Urs. No wonder your photos look professional. You are using professional equipment in a studio, and you might even be a professional photographer. Still, it was very educational to see how you do it, and some of your ideas could be used by an average hobby photographer.

Feeling nostalgic lately Chas? Back in the '80s when I had my '76 Camaro, my friend who had a backyard garage (actually fixing cars for profit) and I used to do some work on my car. Then my other friend had a (IIRC) '72 Charger and we used to work on his car too. And in that Camaro I had a Vector Research cassette stereo, 40W Sparkomatic booster/equalized and a pair of Pioneer 6x9 3-way speakers mounted in the package shelf (not just sitting on the surface). Yes, I blasted VanHalen tunes, but my favorite bass-line tune was "Urgent" by Foreigner.

Well, when I build models I don't cheap out, but we are all individuals . . .

It's all about the macho image! Pretty funny - good catch.

And here I thought I would sent you a small bottle of my 30-year-old Future (when it was still called "Future) to try.

LOL! Every time I see "motor" mentioned in this thread I think you are looking for a small electric motor to motorize your model, since many older Japanese curbside cars kits could be made into running toys. I guess we usually use the word "engine" to describe a scaled down plastic power plant in full-detail kits. No harm done - just me confused.

Yeah, over the last several decades pickup trucks have morphed from utility vehicles to luxury transportation that could theoretically be used for some utility tasks. The keyword is "theoretically".

Steve, first of all, this stuff is *NOT* a floor polish. Polish (by definition) does not have any body to it. This stuff (whatever name it is now called) is "floor finish". The difference? It actually does not not just polish the existing surface - it creates a clear film. It is actually water-based clear acrylic clear coating. It is designed to be walked on, so it is quite durable. It has been used by modelers for decades, so it has proven that it works. But just like with any paint coatings - there could be some compatibility problems. But being water-based, it is pretty safe to apply over any well-cured finish. However there could be some compatibility issues if other coatings are applied over it. Again, nothing different than when we use "standard" paints. I still have a bottle of Future (about 20 years old),and I only use to on clear plastic parts to increase their clarity. It works great for that. It has not yellowed over time. So I'm sort of on your side, but I just wanted to clarify the definitions.

Yes, there are many sources of (inexpensive) shielded cables, but the braiding pattern of the shield does not look much like scaled down 1:1 braided lines. The braided lines Pro Tech Model sells very closely approximates the 1:1 braiding pattern. That makes the model look more realistic. But I guess some aren't as picky as I am. I also understand that the cost comes into play. Still, why no make our models as realistic as possible, even if it costs few extra dollars? This is what they say about their braided line: "PRO TECH's Braided Line has been specially engineered to produce the most accurate looking braided line available, so you can achieve realistic results. Also, all of our braided line is manufactured with a core, so line will not collapse when bent at sharp angles. "

I would also love to see Tamiya Alfa Romeo Giulia Sprint GTA brought back. It is a nice older full-detail kit that has become rare and goes for crazy prices on eBay. That one could also be weathered as a rally car.

LOL! Last year me GF rented a Tesla for a day (under her name) as a birthday gift for me. Yes, I took it for a joy ride, but "it" didn't know what I was (gave it a fake name). And it is not about being paranoid. It is about the big-brother private mega-companies gathering all your personal info and monetizing it, making billions of dollars in profits. I just don't like to be one of their "sheep". And all that data (including lots of very important personal info) can be gathered by hackers through data breaches, causing all sorts of problems for us. While my efforts to limit exposure of my personal data on the Interwebs is futile, it still makes me feel better that at least I'm trying. Some of you out there are fully transparent and don't care. I'll never understand that mentality. And here I simply pointed out that there are other browsers than Chrome. The online world is not just Google.