charlie8575

My styling favorites in no real order. The 1957 Chrysler Corporation line. Auburn Speedsters Coach-bodied Classics- Duesenburgs, Peerless, Pierce-Arrows, Packards, Cadillacs, etc. Second-generation Dodge Chargers First-generation Buick Rivieras. 1955-57, 1961-63, 1983-88 Ford Thunderbirds 1966-67 Olds Toronado C2 Corvettes Chrysler Airflows 1936-38 Hudsons and Terreplanes 1939 Graham Jaguar XK-E 1950s Mercedes 300 Delahayes with the high Art Deco coachwork 1977-90 GM B/C (later D) bodies 1981-88 Old Cutlass Superme First-generation Chrysler LH cars 1953-55 Studebaker Starliners and Conestogas 1955-57 Chevy Nomad/Pontiac Safari. 1941 Buick Step-down Hudsons, Bathtub Nashes, stock 1949-51 Mercuries. Almost any wood-bodied wagon. Charlie Larkin

I haven't seen Harold around in quite some time; I hope all is well with him. I'd love to see how this turned out. What a cool model. Charlie Larkin

A car that deserves a new kit! I like that color and the mild customizing. Great job. Charlie Larkin

Nice job on the seat covers. Cool color, too. What is it? Charlie Larkin

It is an interesting point, and one to seriously ponder. When I was a kid, very few of the contemporary cars really captured my attention; I generally found myself drawn to the cars of the 1970s, and with the newer cars, I liked the GM B/D/G-bodies the best, and K-Cars, because we owned one, and I have a lot of fond memories of our Aries. I looked for cars that had an interesting design, or simply had what I call "presence". I built occasional models of newer cars, but again, I found myself drawn to Monogram Classics and cars like that for my building. I thought they were art you could drive. So, ten, twenty, thirty years down the road, will we start seeing 2013 Toyota Camrys and Chevy Sonics? Perhaps. We might even see them sooner if someone decides to take a gamble. Again, for subject diversity, I'd welcome the gamble, but I don't know if the marketplace would. As has often been said about many things, though, there's only one way to find out... Charlie Larkin

Perhaps I mis-spoke a little. While I'll openly admit I don't care for most of what's being made now, there are some exceptions. I love the current Mustang/Camaro/Challenger. I think the Chrysler 300/Dodge Charger are the two best-looking 4-doors in production right now. I think the 2014 Chevy and GMC big pickups look very nice. I've seen a few on the roads and a few at the lots. I also like the looks of the Ram, and have since Dodge went to its theme in 1994 and the refinements made since. I think the Cadillac CTS coupe is very cool. And there are a few other cars out there that aren't offensive looking- perhaps not outstanding, but not horrible. What I was trying to drive at is there's a noticable lack of personality amongst a lot of cars. While the designs of automobiles from one particular vintage seem to center around a few elements, there was still personality present in how they're used. With today's common elements being a crash barrier, a wind-tunnel and a bunch of crash-test dummies creating government and private meddling (apologies to real crash-test dummies- at least they serve a purpose), they now lack the ability to really get people dreaming and imagining like cars designed in a capacity as much of an art as a science, do. Sure, if you line up say, five different cars from pre-1970 (the common demarcating line) and take them out for a drive, you'll still see some similarities, but you'll see a lot of differences, too. Cars, for want of a better way of putting it, really did have a personality. A Chevy felt a little different from a Ford or Plymouth or Rambler Ambassador. A Dodge performed and operated differently from a Pontiac or a Mercury. A Buick would give you a heavy surge of low-end torque and a nice soft ride. An Olds had more mid and top-end power with a firmer ride and better handling. A Chrysler would out-handle either of them while delivering more consistent performance throughout the operating range. Cadillacs, Imperials and Lincolns were three very different cars. The point I'm trying to make is that while every era saw its cars in a way as appliances, we have reached a new low in creating a 4-wheeled Toastmaster, and it's that lack of differentiation that the older cars had. That differeentiation was carried over into styling, interior planning and a host of other features. So, while I don't "hate" new cars, I think the vast majority of them are simply incapable of holding interest like they once did. Charlie Larkin

There has been a running theme in this thread- the educational value of modeling. Tom, Dave, Harry, (what- no Dick?!), James, Art, Johnathan, Erik and a couple of other of people have made some very interesting comments on this. And, to one degree or another, each one of you were absolutely correct. *Donning M.Ed./teacher-training hat* 1. Model-building is, in a real sense, educational. Even the most casual modeler learns about process, trial-and-error, interpretation of directions and drawings, and the other cognitive and physical capacities needed to build a model. This includes not just step 1/step 2/step 3, but how to compensate for unplanned issues and working around a badly-engineered part of poorly-done instruction diagram. This is called experiential learning- the act of learning by doing. 2. Model building, or a particular model, as Harry pointed out, might not in and of itself be necessarily education, but it can prompt curiosity which is educational. Using Harry's example of the Ethiopian restaurant, while the food itself might not be educational strictly-speaking, it serves as an awareness tool, which prompts self-directed learning- learning you do for your own interest or sake. Yet- that food, while not directly educational, most certainly was! By entering the establishment, reading the menu, and reading about the heritage and contents of the meal, as many ethnic restaurants tend to have in their menu, that is education in a very elementary sense. So, relating back to models, the kit, although perhaps not educational in an absolute sense, still provided a small amount of learning and gave a gateway to more acquisition of knowledge. Yet, the gateway still provided some opportunity to learn. 3. Informal learning, which is the natural extension of self-directed learning, is the process of learning outside of a classroom or other formalized setting, does occur with modeling. Tom, Dave, and Art all touched on this, and I'd like to re-state the essential points and condense their arguments. For example, although building a model car and building a real car are vastly different, you still learn what some of the components are, and then that leads to "gee, I wonder what that does." So, those who desire further knowledge can acquire it, and the curiosity was prompted by the building process. Similarly, searching for photos or the real car to get some detail pictures is a way of learning, as you learn not only about colors and materials, but appearances, texturing and you, as the modeler, can decide how far you want to carry that. But, you still learned something. You can learn about weathering and the way the elements affect an automobile. This can stumble into the science behind weather or other natural elements. Cars, like any other product of man, are a product of their times- public interest, public attitude, art aesthetic, the advancement of science and engineering at that point in history, and the refinement of those disciplines can be traced from a 1908 Model T to a 2010 Mustang. Similarly, you can learn much about the attitudes and theories approaching management and business. 4. You learn to appreciate things like process, planning, control over the outcome of a product, following directions and adjusting instructions when needed to achieve the desired results. With regard to today's youth, these lessons are very important, as they teach that instant gratification isn't always the answer. The preceding points also require a bit of imagination, something that is being bred out of most kids today by "numbers-driven" schools- a nice way of saying kids are being tested to death and individuality is not only not prized, but in far too many cases, penalized. These two articles might provide some more insight. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/is-technology-sapping-childrens-creativity/2012/09/12/10c63c7e-fced-11e1-a31e-804fccb658f9_blog.html http://www.livescience.com/15535-children-creative.html The short answer is yes, model building is a beneficial activity, whether it's done with plastic kits, Legos, Tinkertoys or Erector sets. Charlie Larkin

A few things to consider.... What costs will come with cheaper? Less detail? Highly-simplified assemblies? Inferior quality (even worse than some of the molding now??), corners cut in design? We have seen huge advances in kit engineering and design, and my fear- and not an unreasonable one, is that if we drive for cheaper again, the corners that will be cut will be the ones that matter most, and we'll be back to inferior products. There are other ways to reduce costs, but the entrenched management models won't necessarily allow for that, the licensors will probably not be asking for less of their piece of the pie. The commodities markets, which plastics are sold on, won't be dropping in the foreseeable future, barring another massive drop in oil prices and/or the take-off of plant-derived materials for applications they're appropriate for (PLA and switchgrass-derived polypropylene being two prime examples), and the cost of the materials and labor for the molds, plus other costs of doing business, such as insurance, utilities, real estate and the like. What you and Johnathan are both touching on is a subject in economics called opportunity cost. Opportunity cost is how the use of resources for one item disallow the use of their use for another. For example, let's say you have $100. You can use that to save, put a down-payment on a weekend away, or buy something. With the possible exception of saving, which you could argue is "deferred opportunity," once you use that money, it's been used. The dollars and materials available to the model companies are limited, as are resources available to any firm. Use of these resources are dictated by the market. So, if 45+ is the major group of consumers in a market, most of these guys are interested in....cars of their youth, to no surprise. So, we'll see GTOs and Chargers and early Mustangs and 1950s cars and the cars of the 1970s and '80s. Is mis-allocation of resources possible. Sure! Examples of mis-allocation abound, and where we're dealing with people, errors, by nature, will happen. So, this brings us to the major question raised- do we have a mis-allocation of resources? Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm 38, and from my youngest memories, I have had very little interest in new cars. Even when I was younger, I was very interested in the vehicles of the time before I was born. When I have a teaching job, I found that aside from things like sports cars, trucks and the high-end luxury stuff, most the kids I've dealt with are more interested in cars that existed before they did. Their imaginations are captivated by vehicles like the Gran Torino in the movie of the same name, cars seen in The Great Gatsby, and are amazed to find out Doc Hudson is real. I've shown them my own projects (generally a car from 1940-80, with the occasional capital "C" classic car or something else from the early days of motoring), and they find it interesting, and I think I even created a modeler or two. This is the type of product oft-criticized by people in my age group. Yet, it has universal appeal. Thus, we continue to see it from the companies that have the most limited resources- which, right now, are the American manufacturers. The Japanese manufacturers have much deeper pockets, and can afford to take on the subjects they do, which, while perhaps having great appeal in other countries, don't sell as well here. Would I love to see, say AMT, take a real gamble and release a full-detail Ram 1500? Or the new Chevy/GMC full-size pickup? Absolutely! I think this is a grossly-under-represented market. And with the right parts, I think these would sell. Even a well-done Snap-Fast/Snap-Tite kit, with provisions to add full detail later, would be well-received. Or even one of the contemporary American cars that isn't necessarily a performance model, perhaps something like a Ford Focus or a Chevy Malibu? Yes, I think some of our typical everyday cars, as was done in the 1960s, should be in plastic. The simple fact, however, is that with a few exceptions, today's automobiles, with nearly all aspects of their creation dictated by lawyers, government, focus groups composed of sheep, insurance companies and other assorted groups of meddling busy-bodies simply do not fire the imagination like the cars of even twenty-five or thirty years ago, which, while still subject to those things, still had a greater degree of imagination allowed in their design and execution. And that, I believe, is why we see a severe lack of modern machinery in styrene. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's how I see the model and 1:1 car market of today. So...how do we preserve the hobby? I think the best way to create a new group of younger modelers is to not hide your hobby. Another adult makes fun of your building? Tell them- very politely to buzz off. Or that this is your hobby where you can relieve stress. Whether you decide to add in that they're a form of stress is your discretion and I accept no responsibility for consequences if you do. Show the kids you know that process and caring about the job you do is a good thing; explain the creative process to them. I'll touch on some of the other educational benefits in my subsequent posts. Cost is an issue- I think the well-detailed snap kit Ala the newer AMT/Revell kits is a solid way to address that. Even starter-level glue kits that make a credible model when completed are a good way forward- something along the lines of the re-issued Monogram '85 Z-28. To make a long story short, the hobby will only die if we allow it. Charlie Larkin

As of today, the price is $296.49, per XE's currency converter, for Scale 1. 15cm= aapx. 5-15/16" A 1/25 scale six-foot man would be 2-13/16". Give it another year or two, and I can see this being quite possible. Charlie Larkin

I remember seeing one from AMT c. 1998. Charlie Larkin

When the $30,000 hand-held units that will scan to within 1/10,000" accuracy get into this price range, then we'll truly have reason to celebrate. Charlie Larkin

I have to admit Sam, that is pretty nice. Another good solution to the road issue might be the black-painted plywood with some N-scale ballast, followed by a blackwash might also work nicely. Charlie Larkin

I must agree. Very nice looking. Charlie Larkin

It's nice to know some of those decals are still available. As finding the Mass State Police decals that are correct is turning into a bit more of an adventure than I would like to embark on, unless I can figure out how to make the decals. I did see Rhode Island is available, and I'm going to try to contact the Rhode Island State Police to see what I can find out. I might also check into New Hampshire or Vermont. Charlie Larkin

I do like the execution. Charlie Larkin

Yes, the cylinders could potentially over-pressurize if the spark wasn't timed properly. That exact problem is what prompted Charles Kettering to develop the electric starter in 1912. Charlie Larkin

Compartmented liquor boxes are a great idea, too. I've used those in the past. When used with newspaper, they also work well for glassware. Charlie Larkin

This is a good idea, too. If you package securely, as I described, then box the models and place the boxes in one big container, you'll have a safe move for them. Charlie Larkin

Bubble wrap, soft paper and packing peanuts all work in concert to provide maximum protection. I liked the idea of packing them into underbed storage boxes. I think you'll find Sterilite makes good ones- easily available at Wal-Mart, Target and many Ace/True Value/Do it Best/Trustworthy and independent hardware stores. Good luck with the moves and safe travels to you. Charlie Larkin

That car looks surprisingly good in a solid color. I would've two-toned it with something- grey, black, perhaps a coffee-color or white. But that solid red looks nice and the foiling does make it stand out some. Good job on the interior, too, Rich. Charlie Larkin

I like different. Different is good. Charlie Larkin

Nice color choice. I like the early 1960s big Fords. Very clean, nicely-designed cars. Charlie Larkin

A most interesting salvage of a mess. I agree with Chuck- a Nailhead would be a perfect choice to power this thing. If you don't have one, the 88's 303 would also be quite acceptable. I liked that pearlescent baby blue on the custom Caddy convertible. May I suggest that for the color with white pleated interior with navy accents? Charlie Larkin

Looking good so far. Reminds me of my dad's ex-boss, who had a Monte he went short-track racing in; this is very similar in flavor and execution to what Fred had. I know he went racing at Stafford Srpings, and I think there was one other short-track on the Mass/Ct. line he'd go to periodically. Charlie Larkin

The build is looking good. I agree that perhaps a good outdoor shot would help (this week will be good- mostly filtered sun with lowish humidity, especially Friday), but either way, I know it'll be another one to be proud of when you're done, Mike. Will this one be debuting in October? Charlie Larkin