Harry P.

Same here. I was on ebay before anybody else knew what ebay was!

I'm sure you'll find something out there, but remember that we have quite a few European members here, a few from South America and a few from Asia, even one (at least) from South Africa, all of who post more or less regularly. So you might find what you're looking for right here.

Welcome to the 21st century. You're going to like it here...

But "Indians" (Cleveland) isn't a derogatory term. Same with the Atlanta Braves or the Florida Seminoles. But "redskin" is an actual derogatory term. How is it that teams with far less "offensive" names or mascots have to drop them or change them, but the Washington Redskins are ok? PC is a tricky business...

Don't forget to factor in the coefficient of pile depth...

They haven't agreed on a price yet...

Speaking of politically correct... anybody remember the Frito Bandito? Gone. I guess he was "offensive" to people. Closer to home, The University of Illinois had to drop their longtime mascot, "Chief Illiniwek," who was an Indian that represented the local Illiniwek tribes and did a tribal dance during halftime of the U of I Fighting Illini football games. Some people began making noise about how the mascot was "offensive"... and away he went. But in this current day politically correct world we live in where everyone is offended by everything, how is it that the Washington "Redskins" can still keep that name?

Actually "Tequila Mockingbird" is pretty clever...

As long as it's not twerking...

I want to know what "skrinking" means.

And I want a million dollars! Anyone?

My comments about "casual" modelers who slap kits together with minimal, if any, research, was about just that–Casual modelers who slap together kits without doing any research. I wasn't "berating" the comment about model building being educational. I was saying that I don't agree. We're all allowed to have an opinion... right?

Makes sense to me! Oh well... you did an excellent job on the visible parts! Ausgezeichnet! By the way... is that you in your avatar?

You do not want to be in the same room when I go off...

If we don't get it soon I'm going to start stomping my feet and getting really mad...

Speaking of kits we want... I'm still waiting for my full-detail 1/8 scale Daytona or Superbird.

Ok, secret squirrel...

Indian Land, South Carolina is a real place.

Very nice. Any engine photos?

That's exactly it. Protecting your brand. If you let any Tom, Dick or Harry (thanks, Art... ) use your trademark and/or logos, then you can lose your legal claim to said trademark and/or logo. Basically you have to charge a licensing fee and have a formal usage agreement in place, or risk losing your trademarks to the public domain. Of course, you could always be generous and charge a very minimal licensing fee... but corporations don't work based on generosity, they work based on the bottom line!

I'm not asking for specific numbers, just roughly how much tire licensing is as a part of overall licensing fees for a given kit. 5% of the total? 10%? If you can't answer, that's ok. I was just wondering how big a deal the whole tire licensing thing is in the overall scheme of things.

Art... how much of the licensing total cost would make up obtaining the license to produce a kit of a specific car (Let's say a Chrysler 300, for example) vs. the cost of also obtaining a license to produce "name brand" tires for the kit? Is the additional cost of obtaining the tire brand license a big chunk of the overall licensing expenses, or a minor part? Is the tire licensing "oiece of the pie" maybe 10% of the overall licensing fes the kit maker would pay? I guess what I'm asking is, is putting generic "no name" tires in a kit really saving the kit makers that much $$$, given the cost of getting the license to produce the kit in the first place?

Only if you learn from them and don't keep repeating them over and over (as most casual–and many "serious"–builders do). But think about it... if you're the kind of model builder who doesn't bother doing any research and your model has a "magic floating alternator" or any other bone-head mistake, for example... what's going to change for the next model? What light bulb would go off in your head telling you "Hey... I guess a real alternator can't float in space like that after all!"

If you want to define the "educational" aspect of model building in that way, I can agree with that. But I doubt there's much, if any, subject-specific learning going on for most modelers.

Model cars don't go together like a real car. And on top of that, many model kit instruction sheets incorrectly name the components. The only thing you can "learn" from most model instruction sheets is how to put that particular model together. There's not much correlation with the real car.