Ace-Garageguy

You must not have been hanging here very long. A lot of these guys tear the manufacturers new ones for every significant flaw in new issues. Including me. Model companies SHOULD be held to some sort of "professional" standards...like getting things SCALED correctly if they're going to call them "SCALE MODELS".

I guess if I had to choose, I'd rather be drenched in p than going up in flames. Still...

And in the end, what does anybody gain from saying "builder X does wonderful work BUT did you see how wrong he got one particular aspect of so-and-so? I mean, what CRAPP!!! " ? Lead by example.

Models aren't necessarily produced continuously. There's a production run, the things are distributed, warehoused and sold. If a sufficient market is seen by company management, you'll get re-issues over time...as long as the tooling hasn't been lost or destroyed. Most everything ever produced can be obtained at some price, and we're currently seeing a LOT of reissues of kits we never thought we'd EVER see again. I've bought Revell reboxings of some of the GT40 variants for reasonable money in the not-too-distant past...but to commit to the huge expense of designing and tooling to produce a completely new kit, the potential market has to be pretty large. Obsolete race-cars, even as iconic and beautiful as the GT40, don't strike me as being massive sellers...especially when pristine kits can still be had.

That's VERY true, but that's not how I'm reading the majority of responses to this topic. Pointing out something that could have been done better on an otherwise spectacular build is one thing, but calling that build "mediocre", "lazy" or "unprofessional" (I'm quoting terms you've used here) because of a few flaws is something else entirely. Where are the "professional" standards for building model cars documented? I'm really curious. I know where to look them up for most of the fields I WORK in (as in vocation), but I'm completely ignorant as to where to find them relative to model-building (model-building for pleasure...not prototypes for product development, wind-tunnel work, etc.).

There was a thread maybe a couple years back discussing "how much accuracy is good enough", that addressed this particular point in some depth. The same old standard arguments came up, with tons of "I build for myself" responses, the assumption that building "accurate" models was somehow not "fun", "these models should represent actual practice on 1:1 vehicles" and every permutation in between. We've been here before. There oughta be a T-shirt.

PERFECT POINT.

Frankly, I was pretty well blown away by the quality of work, overall, at the recent NNL South meet, and it was noticeably better overall than last year. Standards for exhibiting models is coming up, but I'd wager the majority of those guys don't frequent this board OR get published in magazines. Why? Who knows. Maybe a builder doesn't suck-up enough, maybe the model doesn't appeal to the taste of the particular photog or publisher, or maybe most of the builders represented by the 500 or so outstanding models on those tables really DO build for themselves, and choose to attend the show for fellowship among the community. After all...the NNL style shows are NOT contests....but who knows? And I ask again, in different words...how can you impose your standards of what is "good enough" for a well-known builder, or for publication? I see HALF-ASSED work on 1:1 cars daily...work that somebody paid big money for often as not, and all I can do about it is to not do shoddy stuff MYSELF. ALL you can do is raise the bar on YOUR OWN WORK.

And bandages, bullets and C-4.

So if you don't want to FORCE the issue, what else is there? How do you achieve voluntary submission to a "get it right or else" scenario??

Boy oh boy, Greg, you've got some nads putting THAT picture up. I can see all kinds of people taking offense to it. The darker guy is taller, so obviously must be only capable of playing sports...definitely racist in some minds...the Asian-looking guy in the wheelchair is obviously a slur intended against Asians as being handicapped somehow...obviously racist again...and there are TWO white guys...obviously meaning that they are the ruling class. Man, talk about incendiary posts !!! What was the question again??

Obviously, either someone needs to pass a FEDERAL LAW requiring that all nationally-known builders conform to an arbitrary level of proficiency (with appropriate penalties for violation of said proficiency-minimums) or there needs to be an elite-model-builders-association, where membership is determined and maintained on the basis of how many mistakes a builder makes in any given period, and if a set number is exceeded, the builder is either given warning-points, fined, or dropped from membership...with much fanfare, name-calling and negative media exposure. Problem solved.

AMEN BROTHER.

I think sweeping generalizations about motivation are "generally" not correct. I personally try to do the best work I can, if it's model cars, real cars, or cleaning the toilet. I LIKE to look at my own work and say to MYSELF..."good job!". That's one reason I'm so stoked to see some of the truly outstanding work displayed here. It inspires me to do my own work better. If I spot a mistake in someone else's model, that's another learning opportunity (so I won't make the same one). NOBODY has to have the same motivation to do ANYTHING, but the ones who try hardest, FOR WHATEVER REASON, will get some recognition at some point.

Time to call out the psychological-motivation police. Maybe in an ideal world, where everyone was scrupulously honest and altruistic, and was motivated to be the best he or she could be in all facets of life, a concept like "how SHOULD a famous modeler behave" might have some actual validity. But we're dealing with humans, only partially evolved sentient creatures, who are a long long way from being "ideal". Was the "famous" builder's motivation actually to BECOME FAMOUS, or did he just do work that was consistently better than the norm, and so became famous by default, while still, in reality, "building for himself"? Who knows but his shrink...assuming he has one, and tells the truth? I've learned from a long long time here that expecting anyone to behave as I might think they "should" is an exercise in pointless futility. Focus on doing the best work YOU want to do, and if leading by example is important to you, YOU DO IT.

Nice work on one of the shining examples of the French alternate-reality approach to vehicle design in the '50s and '60s. Love it.

At the recent NNL South, I bought several boxes of cheap junk, gluebomb, bodged trash that nobody in his right mind would have any use for.

Multi-million-dollar-a-year sports figures, musicians...even presidents...don't seem to find any particular need to lead by virtue of being shining examples of "doing it right" (even though in many cases, they're role-models for large numbers of young people...and should know it) so why would model car builders be expected to live to any higher standards?

I do a lot of heavy mods...top chops, sectioning, other major bodywork, channeling, frame zees, etc...so naturally there's a ton of test fitting before anything gets painted. I'll fit EVERYTHING before paint, and pin things that have a possibility of damaging a finish during assembly.

Lotta guys used to seem to prefer PlastiKote primers, but then it seemed to get a little harder to find. I switched to Duplicolor primers and noticed only minor differences, but now I've found a source for PlastiKote again I'm doing some back-to-back testing. I like the Duplicolor colors I've recently used immensely, and I've liked the PlastiKote colors I've used in the past. In my particular market, the PlastiKote displays are much more limited in color selection than Duplicolor.

The Moebius kits are rated as "skill level 3", and I think most modelers would agree the Fujimi full-detail or "enthusiast" kits are maybe just a tad more challenging (assuming you mean the 1/24 scale offerings). A version of the Fujimi Enzo includes photo-etched parts, and working with PE requires an additional skillset beyond assembling plastic. The 1/24 Fujimi Enzo kit is easily available on ebay for reasonable money, and probably will be for some time. Revell, offers a fine Enzo kit as well (actually, they have 2...a full-detail glue kit, and a snapper), and Tamiya has one in 1/24 too (full detail, and more expensive than the Revell or Fujimi versions). Tamiya has a mostly well-deserved reputation for making exquisite model kits. If you're happy with the results you're getting from the Moebius kits, there's no reason not to try a Fujimi...or any others.

I've definitely seen something similar to what you describe for Floquil model railroad paints in years gone by...mixing formulas to approximate the various color schemes on locomotives and other rolling stock. I've never seen it aimed at car modelers though.

I'd have a hard time believing this kit was originally tooled by Palmer. It's almost a part-for-part copy of the AMT kit (I have both in stock), it goes together just like the AMT kit, and it IS correctly proportioned...something Palmer kits NEVER were. It would be very interesting to know the real provenance of this tooling.

It'll also start your heart when it goes POP !!! (a very LOUD pop indeed...) or stop it altogether. Not for the shy and easily startled.

The biggest problem I see with any of the suggested starting-point cars is that the FT-1 windshield wraps around much more than any of the others. If you look at the profile shots of all of them, you'll notice the base of the windshield glass is MUCH farther forward of the base of the A-pillars than any of the donors, as is the top of the glass. I think, from these shots, that the top curve of the Corvette roof is the closest, and could be made to work by dropping the rear of it a little, letting it rotate downward from the top of the windshield. But you'd STILL have to deal with relocating the A-pillars to get that wrap into the front glass...and curve the front of the top panel more (seen in plan view) to allow for that