Junkman

Rob Hall, you need to remember that the global market doesn't end in Delaware.

Well, at least the Japanese keep releasing new kits. So there is a recepeint for my hard earned after all.

Well, I guess there is a reason for it. How many bloody 56 Ford reissues do I need in my life? I had what feels like 20. In what feels like 30 years, I got the following new tooled kits: 50 Olds 5x Hudson or what that bloody thing is. Nobody with half a brain can convince me, that the world was waiting for those two kits. The hype is simply based on the fact, that we became grateful for any newly tooled kit, no matter what the bloody heck they think to unload on us. It's pathetic. I'm sick and tired of their nonsense. Everyone with half a brain buys diecasts by now. The diecast boys do what the kit makers fail to understand for well over a quarter century now. Lissen, if a manufacturer has to ask around what to release next, he'll be broke in less than two years. Mark my words and I rest my bloody case. I wish the plastic model kit industry was not run by backward hillbillies. I really do. But alas.

I'm sick and tired of excuses. Heard them too often the past 40 years. Meanwhile the diecast boys rack in the billions.

Oh, and they could reissue the 1/16 stuff, i.e. the 55 and 57 Chevies and the 55 and 57 Thunderbirds. They should not, under any circumstances, think about ever releasing the missing '56es, or expand the series otherwise in any way. They must remain as backward, inflexible and rigid as they proved themselves over the past 40 years.

That'll do me for this year, thank you. The ones I want next year I'll post in September.

What is Facebook?

Everything is transitory...

Looks like the crisis is not for everyone...

Convertible? Please step this way, Sir:

Yes, especially if they'd toss in the decals to do Floyd De Bore's car:

Half of my collection consists of stuff purely bought for the box art.

Note the very bottom of the box. A life motto. Did you know that 'learning' is a synonym for 'we just taught you a bloody lesson, son'?

Oh yes, those were the days.

So using the D-reg numberplate for the Revell would be wrong.

In Europe body on frame construction was pretty much gone in the 1950s, with few exceptions. The monocoque bodies were usually dipped in primer tanks, then painted inside out, up and under. So even if you remove the pretty customary undercoating, you will find paint. Usually, even the engine bays are painted body colour, but on cars with metallic paint often lack the clearcoat. To use overspray on a model of a European unibody car would be just plain wrong.

You mean he'll let his legal rottweilers off the leash?

Just having classrooms with more than 35 students is nothing else but social engineering.

Welcome to England then. During a stay in America, one will likely hear a sentence like " Ah aint no pay no fi Dahlars fur no cuawfee". The same message conveyed in England would likely sound like this: Nyuk, nyuk, hudderfifmoflath, init? I ask you, which of the two would you rather hear as a foreigner? When it comes to written English, look no further than Ebay.co.uk for a healthy dose of what is bordering analphabetism. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Ford-Fiesta-Modified-/300820518382?pt=Automobiles_UK&hash=item460a4cd5ee This is still one of the better examples, believe it or not. The guy is inapt to write one single correct English sentence. In addition, "alot", "brought" instead of "bought", not knowing the difference between "there" and "their", "of" and "off", is so commonplace, that nobody recognises them as mistakes anymore. Don't get me started on punctuation. You are right, people learning English as a second language are less likely to make mistakes like this, because they don't learn them, if this makes sense. Let me try to explain. These mistakes one Englishman learns from another. People learning English abroad are not exposed to them on a daily basis, so they likely don't even know they exist. England is a small island next to a polyglott continent, yet, its language became the common denominator for all peoples on this continent. The way the English themselves treat this language is nothing short of a bloody disgrace.

Why are buildings called 'buildings?' Shouldn't it be 'builts?' This brings me to a point I would like to make about English, one that especially many learners of English as a second language often overlook. It is that logic and language are not necessarily always congruent. “Half of this game is ninety percent mental.” (Baseball coach Danny Ozark) This is perfectly good English. Its grammar and semantics are unimpeachable, and as to its logic and arithmetic, what’s wrong with saying that baseball games are 0.5 x 0.9 = 0.45 mental? We surely can’t fault the logic of such a precise conclusion made by a highly experienced baseball coach. “If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure.” (Former US president Bill Clinton) This sentence is contextually faulty, of course, because a politician said it. Yet it is definitely aboveboard in its English grammar and structure. The problem is not in its English, but in its logic. It is a “malapropism,” which the Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary defines as “the usually unintentionally humorous misuse or distortion of a word or phrase.” Another is this one by the 1940s movie mogul Sam Goldwyn: “A verbal contract isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.” Your English may be grammatically, semantically, and structurally perfect but your ideas may be contextually or logically wrong. Therefore this doesn’t qualify malapropisms as instructive examples of supposedly bad English. On the other hand, English may sound bizarre or strangely illogical on close scrutiny, like, say, the expression “Please keep an eye on your valuables” that we often see in airports, yet make complete sense to you. Many people lament the fact that English is difficult to learn as a second or third language. They complain that although English forces learners to learn so many rules for its grammar, semantics, and structure, these rules are in practice more often violated than followed. How come, they ask, that the verb “turn” (to move around an axis or centre) can mean so many things when paired off with different prepositions, such as “turn on” (excite), “turn in” (submit), “turn over” (return or flip over), “turn out” (happen), and “turn off” (lose interest or switch off)? And why do native English speakers say peculiar things that seem to have no logic or sense at all, like “We are all ears about what happened to you” or “The top city official made no bones about being...”? English is, of course, hardly unique in being idiomatic. Like most of the world’s major languages, it unpredictably ignores its own grammar and semantics in actual usage. But the sheer richness and complexity of English idioms —or the way native English speakers actually communicate with one another— makes it much more difficult for nonnative speakers to learn English than most languages. With scant knowledge of the English idioms, nonnative speakers may be able to master the relatively simpler grammar, semantics, and structure of English, yet sound like robots when speaking or writing in English. I may be biased because I learned my English predominantly in American environments, but to this day I feel more at home in the version spoken in America, than the one spoken in England. I also find, American English has much less deteriorated over time and the Americans are generally in better command of the language, than the English are. Foreigners, who come to England today to improve their English language skills, are often appalled by what they have to listen to.

The Faller "Brücke am Kwai" kit was reissued in the Eighties. There is one on Ebay Germany. Click:

Same series: They do pop up occasionally.

It costs 60% of the Tamiya Porsche kit. Not a small amount no matter how you look at it, but still. And you have to factor in the often underestimated cost of building such a kit.

OK, not a kit, but Premium ClassiXXs (sic) just released a 1/12 scale Gullwing.