My personal feelings about Issue #158's contents....

[Terry Sumner]

I'm probably going to get flamed bigtime for this but here goes. And before y'all bust my stones...this is just an opinion. I'm not yelling or complaining vehemently or anything like that..just expressing my opinion on what I prefer to see as far as content goes in the magazine....

I prefer to see model CARS...not tractors or diecasts or trucks or motorcycles or boats. The title of the magazine is "Model Cars." And that's what I personally want to see in the magazine. Now Chuck Doan's article, while maybe good for some info on extreme weathering, was not a car. And even further, it was a diecast. Yes I know..some guys like diecasts and some even repaint them or modify them. But they aren't model cars...they are still diecasts.

Now if I wanted to see articles like this I could turn to Finescale Modeler. That is a magazine that tries and pretty much succeeds at trying to bring all kinds of modeling to the readership. And that is perfectly fine with me. It is also the reason I no longer subscribe to Finescale....it tries to satisfy everyone with a little bit for all modeling genres. There are a bunch of magazines on the market dedicated solely to aircraft modeling. There are others dedicated to science fiction, figures, ships, etc etc. But only 2 good magazines dedicated to CAR modeling. Scale Auto also tries to be a magazine with a little in it for wheeled modelers....like trucks and tractors and bikes and boats ect. And that is a reason I don't subscribe to that magazine. I finally subscribed to Model Cars magazine and in almost every issue there is stuff other than model CARS in it. I just wish that Model Cars would stick to one thing and one thing only...Model CARS! The magazine is very well done...the photography is great, the car articles are great, etc. It's just my personal opinion that the magazine doesn't stay true to it's expressed purpose as indicated by the title.

For instance, #158 dedicated 8 beautiful full color pages to the reworking of a diecast tractor! That's almost 8% of the magazine! Maybe we could have had 2 other 4 page articles on some kind of model car.

Now I know that at model car contests there are always these miscellanoeus models entered in the various miscellaneous classes. But that's my point...they are miscellaneous, not model cars. Why can't we let Finescale handle the miscellaneous stuff like they do now and let's dedicate Model Cars magazine to exactly what the title says: Model Cars?

[Dr. Cranky]

Terry, I respect of your opinion, but my take on these kinds of article is slightly different in that I welcome the variety. I think it makes us aware of other types of approaches to models. I love tractors, bulldozers, any kind of vehicle that can be weathered, including extreme vehicles the likes of this example done by Ken Hamilton and Pat Covert. I think the variety is what enriches the magazine and by extension makes an impression on us as builders.

[Harry P.]

Yes I know..some guys like diecasts and some even repaint them or modify them. But they aren't model cars...they are still diecasts.

Well, obviously I can't argue with what you said overall, as it's your opinion, and as such isn't "right" or "wrong"... but one thing you said is flat-out wrong, and I quoted it above.

Of course diecasts are models! Where is it written that a "model" is only allowed to have plastic parts? I really don't see why so many of you guys seem to think that a scale model isn't a scale model if the body is metal instead of plastic.

Let the bashing begin!

[Jairus]

I disagree Terry. The view of the mag cannot possibly be THAT narrow and still survive.

[Erik Smith]

My interest is also in building model cars, but, I have learned just as much about modeling from other subjects than I have from just seeing model cars being built. In the end, it is modeling. As I stated in another post regarding 158, my initial reaction to the tractor was negative. Until I read the article and looked at the build.

I hear and understand the premise of your complaint, but still like the latest issue.

Edited May 18, 2011 by Coyotehybrids

[Craig Irwin]

I don't like diecast either, but I saw that article as a very good "how to" on weathering. I learned from it.

[Chuck Most]

One thing first- who said die casts aren't model cars? Model cars are small scale replicas of real vehicles, does it really matter what material it's made of? What's with that? By that definition, I wonder why nobody slams resin kits, being they aren't styrene.

Now, the 'cars' part... nobody complains about motorcycle models in MCM, and motorcycles (I think we can all agree) are NOT cars. But they get regular coverage in the mag. Not that I have a problem with that, but when Hot Rod used to run Harleys in the 1990's, the reader hate mail was pretty strongly against it! I loved the Fordson article (and the Bill Borgen buildup of the Entex steamer a few years back), but I'll be the very last guy to lead a charge for more tractors in MCM! So Terry, I suppose I do agree to you to a certain extent, but for my money, I'd rather see a Fordson tractor than another Mustang, '57 Chevy, musclecar, or whatever kit I've already seen built up ten times already. I'm thinking of robbing Chuck's techniques to use on a Farmall H diecast I have. I have very little interest in modern race cars or muscle cars, and MCM is chock full of them, but that does not seem to hinder my enjoyment of the mag at all. I don't collect many pre-built models, yet Wayne Moyer's column is one of the first things in the mag I check out when I get it. I enjoy seeing good models, no matter what material they're made from. I would gripe about aircraft, armor, or sci-fi kits in Model Cars (though I do dabble in those subjects every so often myself), but I can let a tractor every couple of years slide.

Let me guess... you'd be against my buildup of the old Ertl Massey Ferguson 1155 1:25 kit being featured in the mag? :lol

And Terry- PLEASE do not view that as a personal attack, I'm just airing MY opinion. I think we're both pretty much on the same page, but there might be a paragraph or two separating us!

[Terry Sumner]

Well, obviously I can't argue with what you said overall, as it's your opinion, and as such isn't "right" or "wrong"... but one thing you said is flat-out wrong, and I quoted it above.

Of course diecasts are models! Where is it written that a "model" is only allowed to have plastic parts? I really don't see why so many of you guys seem to think that a scale model isn't a scale model if the body is metal instead of plastic.

Let the bashing begin!

Harry...you are of course correct. A diecast is a model but not the traditional kind. I should have been more specific. What I mean when I say model is a kit that comes out of a box that we have to build. And yes, I know that there are some kits that are made of metal. Those would be okay if you had to actually build and paint them.

[highway]

Yes I know..some guys like diecasts and some even repaint them or modify them. But they aren't model cars...they are still diecasts.

Well, obviously I can't argue with what you said overall, as it's your opinion, and as such isn't "right" or "wrong"... but one thing you said is flat-out wrong, and I quoted it above.

Of course diecasts are models! Where is it written that a "model" is only allowed to have plastic parts? I really don't see why so many of you guys seem to think that a scale model isn't a scale model if the body is metal instead of plastic.

Let the bashing begin!

I have to agree totally with Harry, and here is a great example.

The front car on the top rack of this car carrier is an Impala police car, and the car directly behind it is also an Impala police car. The difference?? The second car is a DIECAST!! Both are the same type of car, and the diecast was also in a kit form, so it was just like the snap kit in front of it in assembly. I feel just because a body may be metal, it still qualifies as a MODEL!!

[Terry Sumner]

One thing first- who said die casts aren't model cars? Model cars are small scale replicas of real vehicles, does it really matter what material it's made of? What's with that? By that definition, I wonder why nobody slams resin kits, being they aren't styrene.

Now, the 'cars' part... nobody complains about motorcycle models in MCM, and motorcycles (I think we can all agree) are NOT cars. But they get regular coverage in the mag. Not that I have a problem with that, but when Hot Rod used to run Harleys in the 1990's, the reader hate mail was pretty strongly against it! I loved the Fordson article (and the Bill Borgen buildup of the Entex steamer a few years back), but I'll be the very last guy to lead a charge for more tractors in MCM! So Terry, I suppose I do agree to you to a certain extent, but for my money, I'd rather see a Fordson tractor than another Mustang, '57 Chevy, musclecar, or whatever kit I've already seen built up ten times already. I'm thinking of robbing Chuck's techniques to use on a Farmall H diecast I have. I have very little interest in modern race cars or muscle cars, and MCM is chock full of them, but that does not seem to hinder my enjoyment of the mag at all. I don't collect many pre-built models, yet Wayne Moyer's column is one of the first things in the mag I check out when I get it. I enjoy seeing good models, no matter what material they're made from. I would gripe about aircraft, armor, or sci-fi kits in Model Cars (though I do dabble in those subjects every so often myself), but I can let a tractor every couple of years slide.

Let me guess... you'd be against my buildup of the old Ertl Massey Ferguson 1155 1:25 kit being featured in the mag? :lol

And Terry- PLEASE do not view that as a personal attack, I'm just airing MY opinion. I think we're both pretty much on the same page, but there might be a paragraph or two separating us!

Well since you didn't resort to calling me one of those names that we aren't supposed to use here on the forum...no I don't take it personal! We all have opinions and I just felt I wanted to get that little tidbit off my chest!

[Terry Sumner]

The front car on the top rack of this car carrier is an Impala police car, and the car directly behind it is also an Impala police car. The difference?? The second car is a DIECAST!! Both are the same type of car, and the diecast was also in a kit form, so it was just like the snap kit in front of it in assembly. I feel just because a body may be metal, it still qualifies as a MODEL!!

I hear ya Bud. When I say diecast I mean the ones that come already assembled and painted. To me those aren't models in the traditional sense...they are more like collectibles I guess...

[Chuck Most]

Well since you didn't resort to calling me one of those names that we aren't supposed to use here on the forum...no I don't take it personal! We all have opinions and I just felt I wanted to get that little tidbit off my chest!

It's better to let it out than keep it bottled up inside and build into a slow-boiling rage, after all! (Believe me, I know... )

[Terry Sumner]

I disagree Terry. The view of the mag cannot possibly be THAT narrow and still survive.

And I not only think it can survive that way but it will even prosper and be better for it! Don't forget about the other mags I mentioned that are all prospering quite nicely by concentrating on the particular subject...

[Danno]

Harry...you are of course correct. A diecast is a model but not the traditional kind. I should have been more specific. What I mean when I say model is a kit that comes out of a box that we have to build. And yes, I know that there are some kits that are made of metal. Those would be okay if you had to actually build and paint them.

Terry, as brothers of the badge, I've always loved and respected you. And I will still. I just have a little disagreement with you here. I got a lot out of the tractor article. Yes, it was die cast. But so are all of my Crown Vic police car models of the past decade & a half. The last plastic CV was a 1996. I'm not gonna deprive myself of 15 years of cop cars because they're pot metal instead of styrene or resin.

Secondly, while the tractor model was a prefinished, preassembled factory model, the author tore it down and made it a kit. Then he stripped off the prefinish and refinished it. That's a model. Period. Once it's broken down to parts, it's a kit! I've done the same with die casts ~ Crown Vics (late model), Impalas (late model & before the plastic came out), and ambulances and fire engines galore.

They just don't make enough plastic to satisfy my Cop-Fire-Jones! So, I guess I'm a little more prone to go for the die cast canvas than you. But, I'll take whatever media I gotta take in order to make me coppers and firedawgs. So, yeah. I got a lot out of that article, because I can apply his techniques to plastic as well as to any other media.

And, I still love ya, brother!!

[Dr. Cranky]

I love these threads because they pick up so much energy, and we see exactly that we are always more desperate for eye candy, which is the reason why I love Chuck Doan's work--whatever he builds, I want to see. There are builders out there that are equally comfortable building a car, boat, velocipide (French pronunciation, please) and god knows what else, but they do it with flair and style.

[Harry P.]

Just to sort of echo what Chuck said...

IMO the thing that makes MCM unique and different is the fact that we cast a slightly wider net... we run the occasional article featuring a... GASP!... diecast!

Now while I fully agree that a tractor is not a car. I would also say that the techniques Chuck detailed in his article can be used on any model, including, of course, a model car. And the engine detailing and weathering he showed us applies directly to a model car engine. The reason we ran that feature is because it has so much good information on weathering and detailing. Not many modelers do it better than Chuck Doan, and the information in that article, while it does show a tractor, is worth its weight in gold to any car modeler. The feature was more about weathering than about the fact that the model was a diecast.

We don't run "non-car" features very often, but when we find one that has a ton of good information that can be applied to your model cars, we'll run it. But don't worry, it's still Model CARS Magazine, and 99% of the features will be cars!

[Terry Sumner]

Terry, as brothers of the badge, I've always loved and respected you. And I will still. I just have a little disagreement with you here. I got a lot out of the tractor article. Yes, it was die cast. But so are all of my Crown Vic police car models of the past decade & a half. The last plastic CV was a 1996. I'm not gonna deprive myself of 15 years of cop cars because they're pot metal instead of styrene or resin.

Secondly, while the tractor model was a prefinished, preassembled factory model, the author tore it down and made it a kit. Then he stripped off the prefinish and refinished it. That's a model. Period. Once it's broken down to parts, it's a kit! I've done the same with die casts ~ Crown Vics (late model), Impalas (late model & before the plastic came out), and ambulances and fire engines galore.

They just don't make enough plastic to satisfy my Cop-Fire-Jones! So, I guess I'm a little more prone to go for the die cast canvas than you. But, I'll take whatever media I gotta take in order to make me coppers and firedawgs. So, yeah. I got a lot out of that article, because I can apply his techniques to plastic as well as to any other media.

And, I still love ya, brother!!

No problem...back at'cha Brother!

[Dr. Cranky]

I disagree about "other" magazines . . . I think a magazine that changes things up periodically and is able to maintain a sense of humor about itself is bound to outlast the competition.

There's a hunger for new subject matter, that's for sure, and talking about the same things over and over ain't going to cut it.

[Terry Sumner]

I love these threads because they pick up so much energy,

Ya gotta admit my friend, I've started a couple of threads that got fellow modelers thinking! Hopefully good things come of them.

[Chuck Most]

I disagree about "other" magazines . . . I think a magazine that changes things up periodically and is able to maintain a sense of humor about itself is bound to outlast the competition.

There's a hunger for new subject matter, that's for sure, and talking about the same things over and over ain't going to cut it.

Pretty much my sentiments. I'm pretty sure I'll projectile vomit if I see one more (insert the latest Revell modified reissue here)buildup, but something like the Fordson, or the Chevy Huckster... THAT keeps me going!

[Rob Hall]

Interesting...I read the issue and the facts that the tractor was diecast and a tractor never made a difference to me...didn't even think about those distinctions..models are models...now if it were a ship, tank or airplane then it would seem out of place, but wheeled motorized vehicles like tractors, semis, motorcycles, all seem to fit in the generic 'Model Cars' category...

I didn't realize the Chevy huckster truck was a diecast either, thought it was a mod of one of the old MPC kits.

Edited May 18, 2011 by Rob Hall

[Ben]

It's so nice to see a thread where someone can voice their opinion and even though others replying to the thread may not agree, everyone is being civil and respectable with their replies. Nice job guys! I wish they could all be this way!

[Harry P.]

I didn't realize the Chevy huckster truck was a diecast either...

It's not. It's partly scratchbuilt; it uses parts from several plastic models...

It's so nice to see a thread where someone can voice their opinion and even though others replying to the thread may not agree, everyone is being civil and respectable with their replies. Nice job guys! I wish they could all be this way!

Wait. It's still early!

[Terry Sumner]

It's so nice to see a thread where someone can voice their opinion and even though others replying to the thread may not agree, everyone is being civil and respectable with their replies. Nice job guys! I wish they could all be this way!

I think if one's opinion is voiced with respect then the replies can be made with respect. After all, we're only talking about models here...a hobby, not a cure for cancer or the solution to world peace right?!

[Rob Hall]

It's not. It's partly scratchbuilt; it uses parts from several plastic models...

Wait. It's still early!

Ah...I thought I read it was based on a Danbury or Franklin Mint diecast..