Ace-Garageguy

Impressive degree of organization there, sir. Same basic ideas I operate on, but you've taken it to the next level, for sure.

Exactly. And each one I'm DIS-satisfied with shows me things I can do better on the NEXT one that won't grate on my enjoyment when I look at it. Every now and then, I'll produce something and look back at it and say to myself "man, that's pretty nice; if I saw that done by somebody else, I'd be impressed and inspired". And usually when I hit that particular high, I also tend to think "did I really do that??" That's what I'm looking for...that objective certainty that something is a GOOD job. That's what I find to be the most satisfying part of any endeavor, but getting there is the "fun".

It's always important to remember that however a particular modeler approaches the hobby, and what he finds enjoyable, is the only valid way for that individual to do it. And it's also important to remember IT IS A HOBBY. It's NOT the same as working on race-cars or aircraft, where anything less than "right" can get people killed. Personally, if I can't do something well, either I don't do it, or I invest the time and effort to go beyond mediocrity and achieve at least "competence"...or if it turns out I just don't have the aptitude, rather than going through life doing things badly...which I find detestable...I find something else to do with my time. I have FUN chasing excellence, and I don't do it to please anyone else, or to compete, or to "make others look bad". I do it for ME. There are a LOT of modelers whose skills are far beyond mine, and I find looking at THEIR work to be inspiration, rather than a reminder that I'm not "good enough". But not everyone has an innate desire to become a master in any given field. We're all wired differently, and we should accept that about each other. Too many times, I see the idea of striving for excellence, and historical and technical accuracy, put down with snide "they're ruining the fun" remarks. I've always been curious about that. Maybe somebody can explain why it's OK to diss folks who care a lot about the quality of what they turn out, but it's NOT OK to diss those who don't.

Significant improvement over the kinda toylike parts that are in the box. Love your color choice for it too.

The build quality on the real ones isn't particularly accurate, and fit varies from car to car, but ALL the photos show the same general relationships. And I don't know about you, but 1 scale inch. or 1mm in 1/25 scale, is as obvious to my eye as having a stick poked in it. Model on, Mr. Snake. Just trying to help.

Yup, that's about the way I read it. But the first question to address is whether the kit maker got the slope of the rear edge of the quarter panels right. Mr. Snakes first correction shot has the tail panel set too far forward of the edges, but to get the angle just right, the edges need to be spot-on first.

These photos further illustrate the significant set-in of the top of the rear panel relative to the quarter-panel corners. The upper corners of the quarters themselves are obviously rolled forward to accommodate this. Best way to measure the angle would be to get a car sitting dead-level at the rockers, and put an angle-finder on the tail panel. Put one on the fender corners as well to verify the kit body, if the object is to get the initial "look" of the car correct. Kit manufacturers are very often somewhat off with many of these relationships...like the kit Snake is starting with...and many bodyshops that "restore" and "repair" vehicles miss them as well.

Mr. Snake has the right idea. The top of the tail panel is most definitely, positively, and absolutely set forward of the edges of the rear quarter panel corners, while the lower edge of the tail panel is very close to the edges of the corners. This has the effect of making the tail panel very close to vertical, and avoids what would be a goofy look resulting from the taillights pointing down if the panel followed the lines of the quarters.

Here's one for $95. That cheap enough for you? https://www.ebay.com/itm/Revell-1969-Chevy-Camaro-Z-28-Foose-Design-1-12-Scale-Model-Kit-Sealed-NIB/192667023780?epid=20017250683&hash=item2cdbd979a4:g:hswAAOSwnRJbgyfd

Little 1/87 (HO) scale Porsche 550 Spyder, to match my full scale Beck.

Nice work. Congrats.

Yes, very nice conversion.

I tend to see part of my collection as a vast junkyard to pull parts from, and I routinely buy built-ups, gluebombs, and partial kits for the parts. Lets take Revell Anglia kits for an example. I'll segregate all the Anglia-specific parts (body shells, hoods, frames, etc.) into an Anglia box with the picture on the end, additionally labeled as parts, and sort everything else into specific categories like engines (sub-categorized as to make and type in snack baggies: Olds gen1 OHV V8, Buick nailhead, etc.), wheels, tires, ladder bars, springs, axles, etc. I'll usually try to keep one relatively unmolested kit as a reference for the "spares" boxes (though I'm also pretty bad about pirating bits any old time if I need something that's not in the "spares" boxes) so I can figure out what parts came from what kit. This is helpful to me, as I rarely if ever build anything "out of the box", and most of my projects are conglomerations of lotsa stuff. I'll also use random leftover kit boxes to house ongoing projects that have stalled for one reason or another. I have over 60 of those at any given time too. No way in jello I'd take the time to put any of this stuff on the computer though...and I seem to have a remarkable memory for what bit came from what kit anyway.

Great looking model.

I get a 404 when I try to send a message on this. EDIT: 5 hours later, after trying various and sundry things, finally, after editing out much of the info from the message, the site accepted it.

Here's a shot of Brave Speedlove, standing next to the full-scale plywood mockup of his Spirit of America LSR car. https://www.hemmings.com/blog/2018/09/30/a-chainsaw-a-marriage-and-lots-of-fiberglass-how-craig-breedlove-cleared-a-path-for-the-spirit-of-america/

Which is part of the laugh I usually get from the legions of lock-step consumer drones who think the "internet of things" is a really good idea. PS. I get bogus bullexhaust emails supposedly originating from many people I know, a result of THEIR address lists having been compromised somewhere along the line.

Anyone know the difference between apples and oranges?

Rod Stewart (yes, THAT Rod Stewart) is also a model RR guy...which kinda goes to help dispel the myth that modelers are social misfit dorks who can't get dates.

Now that, sir, would be a fun car. A true "hot rod" in spirit.

A full-scale carbon Lancair Legacy. Other than that, I'm good.

Love old tractors too, and everything about this.

A remarkably clean SMP '60 Imperial for not-insane money... ...and the last of the vintage Merit race-car kits I wanted to complete that part of the collection (all to be built...or rebuilt...by the way).

Ah yes. EXCELLENT advice.

More vintage NOS Athearn Blue-Box rail-cars. I'm not needing the extreme accuracy available in freight car models today, but rather a lot of interesting cars to populate a sizable freight yard, to justify a lot of train break-up and make-up switching....and a thriving rail-car repair/rebuild business adjacent to the yard. All the rolling stock will be upgraded to Kadee #5 or compatible couplers, and RP-25 compliant wheelsets for good operation. Though most of the Athearn and similar cars have decent wheels, many of the older kits and "train-set" cars do not, and fouling of the spike heads and derailment on switch frogs (code 83 and code 70 rail) can be a real PITA. Fortunately, now that I have the Unimat, it's easy to chuck an axle up and turn the flanges, at least, to RP-25 depth. This saves the expense of replacing all the older wheelsets. In the shot below, there is an Auto-Loader car. One release of this kit came with significantly over-scale Mopars, but this version has correctly-scaled Fords. That makes it possible to load 6 cars, as the prototype did, even though the rail-car's length is slightly fudged for operation on tight-radius trackage.