sjordan2

Not to drive this into the ground, but I also heard that the columns on the Parthenon are not perfectly parallel; they lean toward the center from the corners just a bit, to create a perspective illusion of size and height.

NOTE: When you "hover" your cursor over the IMG code, you have to click inside the IMG field to copy; you will see the word Copied inside the field. Then you're good to paste in your post.

This site allows only a limited amount of total file size for attachments. Once you use it up, you have to go to an image hosting site like Photobucket. This is now the subject of at least two other current threads. As I mentioned on both of those threads, this site needs a very short and sweet tutorial on using Phoitobucket, unlike the current complicated one that's pinned in Tips, Tricks and Tutorials.

I remember him very well, a master of his trade, and this is the first I heard of his passing. Sad.

That's the source of your problem. You MUST use a photo hosting site that provides the proper codes for copying into your posts. Open a free Photobucket account, upload your images there, and you will have no problem. photobucket.com There is a pinned subject in the Tips, Tricks and Tutorials section of this forum that describes using Photobucket, but I find it unnecessarily complicated. It begins with telling you how to upload photos from your camera, which is somewhat down the list on the functions you want to use. At Photobucket, you click on the upload button and a menu pops up to select the image you want, preferably from your desktop or somewhere on your hard drive. I won't go into more detail, but I think admin on this forum really needs to replace the Photobucket tutorial with something less complicated and easier to follow. It's not that hard. We get this question all the time, and I don't think we have an adequate tutorial for beginners.

Are you trying to post images directly here without using a photo hosting site? This forum provides a maximum amount of uploaded memory; when you use that up, you have to use a hosting site.

This is one of the finest kit builds I have ever seen - a huge achievement. Let me modify that: it is the very best. It should win first place anywhere it's entered. The photos are great, and I assume they're taken outside. I would continue, but I'm speechless. I hope the moderators will allow this to stay where it is in the Under Glass section, where more people can see it, rather than moving it to Big Boyz. It's that astonishing.

I think a couple of manufacturers do this, but all should: Put all that online, including instructions, without having to search for third-party information.

Here's a reverse example of painting vs: photo. The Revell 1/12 Ferrari 275 GTB kit shows a 1:1 car on the box top, with beautiful Borrani wire wheels and the famous body style. The box sides show photos of a built model, but they are so carefully framed that it looks good. Here's the original kit created by Renwal. Terrible art? NO, it is almost identical to what's in the box, showing a droopy nose with a lousy grille, incorrect top shape, some kind of square thing on the hood, a tail that's too long (without a Kamm spoiler), wrong wheel well radius and funky Campagnolo mag wheels. But at least it's accurate.

That doesn't seem to have affected foreign kit makers like Revell of Germany and the Japanese, who continue to issue painted (and beautiful) box art. For the kits I build, the most misleading were Revell kits including the 1/12 Ferrari 275 GTB and 1/16 Rolls Phantom II Continental from the 70s, which had photos of the 1:1 cars on the box tops and were nothing like what was contained in the box.

Here's Jaguar's press release plus several shots... http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/5159/Jaguar-F-Type-V8-S.html

I get question marks in your images in your original post, like others get red X's, and no images. Do you have a link to the source pictures?

Belvedere? Based on these shots, there are a lot more issues, such as trunk shape, fins, bumpers, etc. - but I wish all kits had such small problems. Hard to tell about the roofline because of the different lenses and "eye" perspectives that Art was talking about.

These thoughts are part of what makes this site so valuable. You learn what's right and what's wrong, and there are many talented builders to show you how to fix it if you're inclined to do so. Along the way, you learn a lot about certain cars and kits and building techniques, from people who are true enthusiasts and are very knowledgeable. Long live the rivet counters, and may the kit companies heed them.

Very, very slick. It's great to see a master at work, bringing his vision to reality.

Wow. Fine craftsmanship, as usual.

Very few prewar passenger cars had original metallic paint because in those days, they were made from compounds that didn't wear well (including ingredients like fish scales), dulled out soon and had to be repainted. Most metallic paints you see on those old cars now have been redone with better paints.

Just chiming in here to keep the cheerleading going. This is an amazing piece of work.

I believe Cruz did a very accurate and superbly detailed build of this particular car, including the Overhaulin' floor graphic, which was posted on this forum. Might have been simonr, can't remember for sure.

Hosted on Fotki

Thank you, Casey. I might add that if anyone knows how to search online, it's me, and I know a zillion varieties of phrasing to find what I'm looking for. But this site's search function is so bad, I can't find bupkis.

I just wonder what Revell's experience is with the sales of the 1/12 GT 500.

Great work. Love the color combination.

I'd go for a new 1/12 Mercedes Gullwing and Ferrari 275 GTB. Revell won't replace their junk in that scale, so I'd even settle for Trumpeter versions.

What's Luton like? It was mentioned quite a lot in Monty Python skits.