Zoom Zoom

Agreed 100%.

Jim replied this morning with a clarification and apology to anyone he may have mislead or offended with his editorial or replies; it wasn't locked or deleted or swept under any rug as many accused him of. I was surprised by all the uproar it caused, it seemed pretty clear to me the intention of the editorial, and it clearly was a good editorial because of the subject and discussions that took place...it provoked (mostly) healthy discussion over the use of magnifiers for building vs. judging. It also provoked less healthy discussion due to (I would hope) misunderstanding of the editorial...and wouldn't you know, when reading that thread today again I saw that the person with the biggest issue said right up front that he didn't read the editorial... Well then, okay...

Yeah Bill, there are a few spammers who have signed up and make these idiotic posts to attempt to get you to open their links. Not sure if they're bots or real...but they all need to be banned.

The mail? About a 30 second 1/4 mile? Sorry

Sure would be nice if the Bugatti and Mercedes were 1/24 and at Lindberg prices

What's F1? Who is Bernie? Who is Max?

"On their turf" could mean a letter to the editor. If you didn't know already, SA is very likely to print letters from people who have an opposing viewpoint. Jim didn't delete those threads as of this morning. And regardless of the "lock" or "delete" button that's used there, taking fights across borders remains uncool, no matter whose side you are on. One member here was so incensed with one of the moderators here he got banned from both forums on the same day, because he took his fight w/the MCM moderator over there and openly threatened their moderator. Troublemakers are troublemakers, and I tend to remember those of whom stir it up the most, and thankfully this board allows us to put people who we'd rather not deal with on our own personal "ban" list without the need to go crying to the teacher. I participate infrequently on the SA board. #1 reason I don't participate much there is because I dislike the forum interface/software. Posting here is much easier, first from a user perspective, and second because of the peer group. I'd love to share more there, but the frustration factor doesn't inspire me to make special effort to post there vs. elsewhere. I made my frustrations known all the way to the top, all without histrionics, bad blood, hurt feelings, or cross-border flame wars which seem to be so popular to some. This is a hobby, it's not a casting call for "Mean Girls II" or an 8th grade lunchroom food fight. All this fighting takes away a lot of the enjoyment of this hobby. With that said, I'm off to the workbench and a club meeting, gladly leaving the information superhighway behind for awhile because of the unnecessary wrecks, traffic, tie-ups, and frustration.

I have no issue with discussing the editorial rationally. It's your irrational approach that evoked my response. You specifically asked for it, and you continue with stubborn abandon. I've certainly had my share of irrational moments, and I'd like to think I've learned from them. I take issue when someone takes a skirmish started on another forum and spreads the cancer to other forums, like this. Especially this one, if you bother to think about it at all. Regardless of what the issue that sparked it is, the messenger ends up committing some level of "forum suicide" because they couldn't keep their emotions in check when lashing out. So you, as the messenger, have to accept the ultimate price of your wrath. Will it be worth all the fuss in a day? A week? A month? A year? A decade? At all? Jim and Gregg don't badmouth anyone from the opposite "side" on either of their forums, regardless of issue. How about keeping the pollution right where it started, please? Take the issue up with Jim and Kalmbach on their turf. In your grandstanding you want to be the center of attention and personalize it and it forces it into a "no win" conclusion for everyone. I read the editorial, Jim's replies and your replies and to me it seems pretty clear you are on a personal vendetta vs. thinking about Jim's opinion rationally. You seemed to jump to conclusions pretty irrationally, you started throwing out words like "lawsuit". While you were seeing red, you completely ignored Jim's replies, which were rational, and you let rationality go completely out the window when you brought the fight here and elsewhere and when you announced your "grand exit". You could have simply said "I strongly disagree with the editorial, what think you?" without all the personal anti-Jim, anti-Kalmbach, attempting to be politically-correct histrionics. You used Jim's editorial opinion as a vehicle to spread your discontent at issues far deeper to you personally than the true context of Jim's editorial and replies. I'd like to think that this entire skirmish wouldn't have happened at all had the points been brought out at a public in-person roundtable/debate, rather than via keyboards behind a screen. Many forum skirmishes, presented in person, would never happen in-person vs. behind the cloak of invisibility that communicating on forums or in print gives. It is because you are taking your fight and spreading it around, especially here, that I find your actions inappropriate. That is not how to deal with this situation. I understand you are mad, but you are not dealing with it in a rational or proper way. Period. I consider both you and Jim good friends and colleagues (otherwise I would have just sat back on the sidelines and said nothing), and you asked for our opinions on the matter, and I'm not picking sides, I'm acting as a mediator and pointing out how I see it. Others have rationally discussed the subject and attempted to put it in the proper context, while you have spread a personal vendetta in an over-the-top manner. You aren't putting your passion for the hobby to particularly good use by spreading the cancer. In this case it's others who may not have your name or stature in the hobby that have the real grasp of the issue, how it has been presented, and how to discuss it in a manner that evokes something positive for our hobby, rather than stirring up an unnecessary fight. You can disagree with someone without hitting the red "nuke at all costs" button that seemed so enticing at the time. Jim's editorial certainly has sparked a lot of thought, including controversy.

That looks positively evil Nice work.

Art, to be perfectly honest I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill, especially bringing your argument here. That's totally uncool. If you have problems w/Jim and Kalmbach, take it up with them. Taking your internet fights from one board to another is childish and unnecessary.

It's about time Mike! Welcome aboard.

Of all the Type 2's they could kit...yet another new tool of a kit that's been done twice before, once by Revell itself. To add insult to injury, I bought a Franklin Mint van like this...I think it's my favorite FM model ever. The fabric roof really works. I surely hope that Revell offers more variants later...singlecab PU, or doublecab, Kombi...stuff that Hasegawa hasn't already done. In my longterm "inbox" I'm making a resin singlecab (AAM model) into a rat PU, and was given some Hasegawa sides that are better than the resin. The Trabant is kind of cool, and the original kit is very hard to find and kind of crappy. Just like the real car! I really want a model of a VW Thing.

Not surprising at all. FOTA needs to tell Max and F1 to FOAD. Immediately. This is utter nonsense. F1 is DEAD. F1/Max are like Iran and Akkmydigitzgone. There will be no peace until the dictators are GONE. F1 is DEAD.

Absolutely not! Looks exactly like what it really is, a model. Look at those monstrous & inconsistent panel line gaps around hood/door...they scream "model". As does the photography.

I'm amazed at how slowly this news is making the rounds this morning. I would rather have seen the full FOTA split.

Looks like typical liberally retouched photography used by 1:1 car manufacturers for sales material. They employ the same kind of tricks at Playboy too Real or model? Yes.

Schumi is but one of many Stigs. There isn't just one. Here's a story that might help: Stigs to the left, Stigs to the right

Thanks, though the straw method was one that I had seen before somewhere, and then Tim Kolankiewicz showed how some straws fit Tamiya nozzles without any tape or other secondary attachment materials. There is no better way to decant paint than through it's own nozzle, if the can is working properly (has paint and pressure).

It's about time! I have no idea how they'd pull off having an entirely new series in 2010, but anything w/o Max or Bernie has to be 1000% better. This enema has been a long time coming.

You go over the area 2 or 3 times if necessary to get the black at full saturation. It's really easy...

The two Challengers were painted because one gave me nothing but trouble; it was a rainy, damp week and nothing went right. The second one was painted in much better conditions, and came out perfectly in about 1/4 the amount of time. The first body (primed Tamiya gray, coated w/Testors Italian Red, Tamiya Mica red, Tamiya clear red, Gunze clear, Tamiya clear) that had problems was stripped the other day in 99% rubbing alcohol, and it came off pretty quickly. It was stripped because I needed the body for parts and it was going to be combined w/another body that is raw plastic.

I've learned the hard way about clearcoats and have a new system that's working quite well. I shoot a lot of Tamiya paints, and I prefer Tamiya TS13 as my clear on just about everything. But it will eat colors if applied too aggressively, as in a good final wet coat. It might screw up the metallic/pearl, it might cause the paint to get thin over panel line edges. Between my color coat and my Tamiya clearcoat I apply a few light coats of decanted Gunze B501 Topcote or it's bottle equivalent which is their new solvent-based acrylic clear. This is a good base for clear, it doesn't attack the paint underneath, and it seems impervious to wet coats of Tamiya TS clear. I like airbrushing the first coats of Tamiya clear, and then applying a couple wet coats straight from the can to finish up. Often this is so smooth it allows me to skip any scuffing w/micromesh before using Tamiya compound.

When you use a hobby paint like Tamiya or Testors you don't need to pull out heavy artillery for primer, such as any Duplicolor primer. That stuff is terribly harsh on plastic. Especially the primer/sealer if it's laid down first. I've painted two AMT Challengers w/Tamiya sprays, I used Tamiya fine gray primer on one, and Testors Italian Red lacquer as the primer on the second, as a base coat for Tamiya Mica Red. No crazing whatsoever. There's enough sanding of the mold lines that if you do use an automotive primer you'd best use some sort of sealer, like BIN, or Future (BIN over primer, Future can go on bare plastic or a layer of primer), or liquid styrene cement and then primer, or whatever concoction you like. Spraying Duplicolor primer/sealer first is a recipe for disaster. It's best applied over other primer. And generally best to avoid if you're using mild hobby sprays like Tamiya or Testors. Some of my best/easiest paintjobs are when I shoot Tamiya or Testors sprays over bare plastic w/o any primer. Primer has it's place, but it's not necessary all the time. How to fix it if you're in the color stage? I've been known to shoot a layer of Future or decanted Gunze B501 Mr. Topcote or properly thinned Gunze solvent-based acrylic clear onto a body that's painted/crazed (and sanded smooth) to stop the damage. Then I shoot a thin layer of color so it's all even, then go onto clear. To me stripping paint is the last resort.

Okay, here's a little optimism... Maybe Revell will do some retooling and do the kit justice, just at a later date. It would seem odd that they wouldn't utilize at least some of what they already have. But they've been beaten bloody with commentary on some of their best kits like the '49 Mercury and '69 Nova and '57 Chevy Black Widow and '32 5-window because they are not absolutely perfect, they don't have the kitchen sink range of options and you can't jump in and fire it up and drive it away...if their good kits manage to get some people so riled up with venom, I can imagine what some guys who want an '87 stock 442 will post on these forums if it came out as an "almost diecast" kit with fad-like custom stuff to make it only a lowrider or donk. We'd never hear the end of it...

Someone who used to work for Revell and is a lot closer to insiders there say no matter what anyone claims, that Cutlass isn't likely to ever get issued. If it was dumbed-down for diecast and lowrider/donk duty, perhaps Revell has decided they don't want their name on what they perceive to be an inferior product. I guess if it ends up on the shelves that people will be happy, but when it comes to any new model kit from the domestics, I don't believe much of anything until it's actually on the shelves. There have been way too many cancellations and delays after a kit has been announced. The Japanese don't play that game, they announce something when it's already well on the way to being on the shelf. Generally there's about a 3-4 month gap between the announcement and the kit on the shelf. How refreshing would it be if the domestics were as confident about their upcoming product?