Casey

There is:

We're working on trying to improve the forum structure, so please be patient.

Leave it on for another decade and it'll be 1/32 scale, Jesse. I tear them open almost immediately.

We've heard a wide variety of opinions and thoughts, which is good, but we've also started mentioning individuals by name, which is bad. I specifically mentioned to Jonathon in a PM that I didn't want to see any specific person singled out, and unfortunately, that has now happened, so this is a good place to stop.

I understand your opinion, and I don't disagree with your desire to see someone improve the quality of their next piece of work. I think it's very important to always be willing to learn new or different things, but I also understand and have to accept others don't necessarily share my opinion, and that's my opinion is just that, an opinion. Nobody "must" nor "has to" do anything to one of their builds because I or anyone else is of the opinion that they should.

http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=90359&hl=plastikote

Why can't a member ask for other's opinions in regard to his opinions? Why are the tough questions that make people think and consider their own opinions, as well as those of others, considered a bad thing, something that should be frowned upon? I admitted I knew the O.P.'s question was loaded from the start and that is was a judgement call on my part, but there's nothing wrong with discussing the topic even if it creeps to the fringes of legitimacy. Sometimes we have to give posts a certain amount of leeway when we feel the discussion has value to the membership. Not everyone will, nor do they have to agree, but we make judgement calls and they are not perfectly consistent all the time. This is one of those times.

Very true, and anyone hoping for a consensus is going to end up disappointed. I think I have a few size Small left.

That's not going to be an easy fix by any means. Good eye.

It's definitely reasonable for a magazine to have certain standards for the work they feature, but it's up to each editorial staff to decide what should and shouldn't make the cut for publication in their magazine. I neither read nor subscribe to any magazines, so I don't have anything to add in regard to that part of Jonathon's question. It's the builder's popularity-induced obligation, an obligation which is mandatory and must be acted upon, which I disagree with.

Fair enough, but I disagree. I don't feel any builder owes anyone else anything, period. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

You haven't answered my question in response to your opening statement. Again, why do you feel a person is compelled to increase the accuracy of his/her work based upon how much public recognition that person's work receives?

I won't make excuses for gross errors, either, so I understand why people frown upon them, but I don't think their is a single answer in this case which would satisfy your question. I can think of some reasons, may of which don't even seem logical to me, but getting into another builder's mind and thought process is an area I'm not sure we should be probing. No person should have to answer to anyone about anything, no matter how gross a particular error may seem, or how universally accepted that error is. There has to remain some level of privacy for the builder, and they should always retain the choice not to answer, even when people expect one. Again, that may not seem logical, but unless it's a commissioned build, the builder owes the public nothing. I can't say why a certain publication features any particular work, so I'm no help there.

Jonathon and I discussed this topic via PM immediately after it was posted, and despite some reservation on my part about how a (IMHO) loaded question would end up, I decided to let it play out. That may be a mistake on my part, and if it ends up being so, I'll take the blame and the heat for that decision. There is some validity to Jonathon's topic, just like the "we have a problem" topic which was recently locked. There are times when hard to discuss, difficult topics have value, despite how they may ultimately end. I hope this topic doesn't end up locked, but I won't hesitate to lock it if it ceases to be of value to forum members.

He never implied he was, and your specific response to Art while intentionally excluding others who replied in a similar manner does not speak well of your ability to be objective. Art was stating his opinion in response to your request for discussion-- exactly what you requested.

Do you feel a perfect model is or should be the ultimate goal for every builder, Jonathon? Why do you feel a person is compelled to increase the accuracy of his/her work based on how much public recognition that person's work receives? Your question seems to be based upon the presumption that there is an involuntary burden automatically placed upon a builder once he/she reaches a certain level of notoriety, and that builder is compelled to increase the quality of their work as viewed and judged through other people's eyes. I'm not sure how you are quantifying the amount or level of popularity which would qualify such a builder for inclusion of exclusion in this compulsion, but it's also just as possible such threshold may not exist. I can think of one person in particular who fits your idea to a tee, but I think the desire to achieve a level of quality greater than any one else's is something which varies from person to person, rather than being universal, and may not even exist in the truly humble person.

It's not a right or wrong issue, Sean, just a difference of opinion. Those are all trucks to me. If it has a bed and is designed to haul things in the bed, I consider it a truck. Subarau B.R.A.T.s, Honda Ridgelines, El Caminos/El Caballeros/Sprints, etc.-- all trucks. We/I have to make a distinction at some point, and I consider them Trucks for the sake of categorizing them here. If we allowed for every different opinion, we'd have thousands of categories just for the different vehicles each of us consider to be trucks. We have to decide how each model best fits the categories which exist, and that won't always be perfectly clear what the distinction is. Even if it was, we'd have people who disagree with the decision, just like you and I disagree what a pickup is. As long as people continue to share what they're building, where it's posted will always come second in terms of importance. We want the forum to be easy to use and organized, so we're trying to figure out the best way to do that and to satisfy the majority-- not all-- of the members here.

Looks like Altered States makes the Cadillac script valve covers (someone else mentioned, but I couldn't find the post): http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=6258&p=45413 Matt T's pic:

I think that kit was the subject of this topic? Not too sure, though: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5412

More here: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=86107

Saw a white Porsche 944 and a blue Camaro IROC-Z this afternoon. Hope the heater was working well in both.

I was told by Harry all large scale anything belongs in Big Boyz, period. We have an Under Glass section specifically for Trucks, so why would you post a completed pickup in the Model Cars -Under Glass section? Maybe before we created a specific section for trucks that was the rule? Yes, anything die-cast should be posted in the Other Models - Die Cast section, regardless if it's a truck, car, Winston Cup car, etc., so there are exceptions which are not absolutely 100% clear to everyone. We understand that, and we do try to make it clear what goes where by leaving a "moved" note after we move a post, but we don't do everything perfectly. Yes, we make mistakes, just like everyone else, but we try to correct them and do the best we can with the forum categories as they exist. I think the vast majority of members understand that, even if they don't agree 100% with every decision we make.

This.^ Changing and/or adding/removing forum categories has been discussed here many times, and there are so many different opinions and interpretations as to what goes where and why it should or shouldn't that there's rarely a consensus. Someone has to make the final decision and decide if they wish to see changes made, and that's Gregg's call.

A Cimmaron.

The original '68 kit had low back bucket seats, and headrests were not required until Jan 1, 1969, so maybe MPC decided to skip the seat upgrade since they knew the '70 was going to be the end for the AMX model, both 1:1 and 1:20. The original seats appear to be the same as found in the reissued kit.