Clear coating race car models. Should they be that shiny?!

[Harry P.]

Different cars have different levels of gloss, and if your model is meant to be an accurate representation of the real thing, you will do your homework and copy how the real car looks as closely as you can. You would no more give the model an unrealistic finish than you would use the wrong wheels or the wrong color.

If, however, accuracy is not necessarily your number one priority (and judging by many of the posts here, for many guys it is not), then obviously it doesn't matter to you whether the real car is super shiny or less so... you're going to do your model the way you want to do it... and that's fine.

Bottom line: Yes, real cars do vary in their level of gloss. Whether or not you "care" about that or try to replicate that is your own choice, but if it's accuracy you're after, that "dipped in pancake syrup" ultra-glossy look is usually not correct.

[crazyjim]

Every build should be SHINY :) . 1:1 boat guys wax their hulls so the boat glides through the water easier and faster, so wouldn't it make sense that a SHINY :) car would glide through the air easier and faster? And besides that, SHINY :) RULES- anything else is just dull

[kalbert]

Different cars have different levels of gloss, and if your model is meant to be an accurate representation of the real thing, you will do your homework and copy how the real car looks as closely as you can. You would no more give the model an unrealistic finish than you would use the wrong wheels or the wrong color.

If, however, accuracy is not necessarily your number one priority (and judging by many of the posts here, for many guys it is not), then obviously it doesn't matter to you whether the real car is super shiny or less so... you're going to do your model the way you want to do it... and that's fine.

Bottom line: Yes, real cars do vary in their level of gloss. Whether or not you "care" about that or try to replicate that is your own choice, but if it's accuracy you're after, that "dipped in pancake syrup" ultra-glossy look is usually not correct.

Hands down the best reply in this thread. Well stated friend!

[David Thibodeau]

Your statement Harry, is very good... Right or wrong it's the interpretation of the builder. But my point is other builders blatantly telling the builder that has painted his model with urethane or others that a model is too glossy is also an interpretation or opinion by that person. Does that make them right?

Edited April 19, 2013 by David Thibodeau

[IMSANUT]

Your statement Harry, is very good... Right or wrong it's the interpretation of the builder. But my point is other builders blatantly telling the builder that has painted his model with urethane or others that a model is too glossy is also an interpretation or opinion by that person. Does that make them right?

I guess that depends on your perspective. Mine is to build an accurate replica in scale. If your's is not then I guess you are right. Yes, again this is a hobby. Accuracy however is not an interpretation IMHO.

[Harry P.]

Your statement Harry, is very good... Right or wrong it's the interpretation of the builder. But my point is other builders blatantly telling the builder that has painted his model with urethane or others that a model is too glossy is also an interpretation or opinion by that person. Does that make them right?

It all boils down to one simple thing: is your model supposed to be an accurate replica, or not?

If the modeler's intent was to build an accurate replica, then the finish on the model should look like the finish on the real car. If it does not, the builder made a mistake.

If accuracy was not the builder's priority, then of course it doesn't matter if the model's finish doesn't look like the real car.

If a person builds a model that's supposed to be a replica of a real car, and the model's finish is obviously different than that of the subject car, then that's a mistake in the eyes of those who look for accuracy. For those who don't, it's not even an issue. It depends on what each person's definition of a scale model is and how much of a role accuracy plays in their work.

I'm not judging whether a person is "right" or "wrong" to do the super-gloss look... I'm just saying that as far as accuracy goes, that look is very much overdone, and in many cases not an accurate representation of the real car that the model is supposed to be a replica of.

[Harry P.]

Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. I just finished a Pocher Alfa Romeo. The car is red, and in 1/8 scale, the temptation to do a blazing, miles-deep super-glossy urethane-to-the-max type of paint job is pretty strong. I mean, a large model like that with one of those "ooooh, shiny!" paint jobs would definitely be an eye-catcher.

But while a paint job like that might impress a few contest judges or onlookers, it would be totally incorrect! The real cars didn't have a finish anywhere close to that. And my goal was to try and duplicate, as well as I could, what the real cars looked like, so I tried to copy how the paint actually looks on the real car... which to me meant no polishing, no clearcoat... just as the real cars were painted.

You can see that while the paint is smooth and fairly glossy, it's definitely not that super-gloss look. The paint was not worked in any way after it was sprayed on... and I assume that was the case with the real cars, too.

[David Thibodeau]

So lets say the 1:1car your trying to accurately replicate has a nice gloss finish yet a bit of orange peel. How would you replicate that in say 1:24 scale?

You can't and it would not be seen in scale. This thread is mainly pointed at two part urethane builders such as myself. I have used it for years and use it safely. (Wearing a respirator and appropriate clothing) it gives me consistent results every time. It can be applied thinly but does not require the amount of polishing that lacquers do. The higher solid content helps prevent dieback as well. Of course an older cup or grand national car was not painted with this paint on the real deal and I do not clear over decals on older cars. Many times it all depends on the livery I am doing but if the car is mainly all decal it's going to get cleared. Why? Because the decal will not be glossy enough like a 1:1 vinyl decal job. On some decals you can buff or wax them to shine them up to look like the vinyl applications but not all can hold up to waxing. It's a personal decision but urethane can look like syrup or it can look to scale. It all depends on application. It takes time to dial in your system you are using.

[2002p51]

It's an interesting aspect of the model car hobby that sets it apart from other modeling hobbies. I'm an active model railroader and while that hobby does have a faction called "free lancing" where it's perfectly acceptable to create your own fictional railroad, it's generally expected that it will be done in a realistic manner. But for the most part, scale realism and fidelity to some prototype is the expected norm. The manufacturers that produce models for that hobby go to great lengths and spend a tremendous amount of R&D money to get the details right. The typical model railroad consumer demands it and is willing to pay for it.

I have also been active in IPMS chapters in the past and see the same thing in military modelers. Absolute accuracy and scale fidelity rule the day.

On the other hand the model car hobby has always had a more "creative' side to it. A sort of "do your own thing" mentality that is acceptable even though fidelity to the real subject may be missing. And although it has slowly been changing in recent years, we modelers have paid the price for this more loose attitude in the products that the manufacturers have given us. We all know of the many, many kits that have been marketed with inaccuracies and multiple errors in scale fidelity, markings, and other areas. We as consumers have accepted this and bought the products in spite of this, where buyers in other hobby segments have not.

As most of you must know by now my preference is to accuracy. Even in the very rare instance that I build a fictional race car I will make every attempt to do it in a realistic manner so that, if it were a model of an actual car, it would be believable. It's the same way with street rods that I build. It may not be a replica of an actual car but I will make every attempt to make as realistic and as plausible to be a real car as possible.

So in the end, yes, it's your model and you can build it any way you like. But if you expect your model to give a viewer the impression that this is a replica of an actual car or car that could exist in the 1:1 world, it MUST be done correctly and with accuracy in components and finish as the very first consideration

[Harry P.]

Dave, this thread wasn't meant to knock anyone's style, least of all a talented guy like you. I sincerely doubt that the original poster had any personal ax to grind with anyone... it was just a generic observation on his part.

[2002p51]

It all boils down to one simple thing: is your model supposed to be an accurate replica, or not?

If the modeler's intent was to build an accurate replica, then the finish on the model should look like the finish on the real car. If it does not, the builder made a mistake.

If accuracy was not the builder's priority, then of course it doesn't matter if the model's finish doesn't look like the real car.

If a person builds a model that's supposed to be a replica of a real car, and the model's finish is obviously different than that of the subject car, then that's a mistake in the eyes of those who look for accuracy. For those who don't, it's not even an issue. It depends on what each person's definition of a scale model is and how much of a role accuracy plays in their work.

I'm not judging whether a person is "right" or "wrong" to do the super-gloss look... I'm just saying that as far as accuracy goes, that look is very much overdone, and in many cases not an accurate representation of the real car that the model is supposed to be a replica of.

I'm 100% in agreement with this.

[IMSANUT]

Dave, this thread wasn't meant to knock anyone's style, least of all a talented guy like you. I sincerely doubt that the original poster had any personal ax to grind with anyone... it was just a generic observation on his part.

Exactly. Never intended to offend anyone. Observational curiosity is all.

[gtx6970]

Interesting thread, some excellant view points being made and I agree with 99% of it

But I think it comes back the old adage - "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" . ( aka the builder )

If said builder IS happy with His ( or hers) finished product,,,. and thats all that matters .

If a model show judge thinks it's inaccurate , thats there opinion and they are entitled to it and should add or deduct points based on there knowledge of the subject. . And ONLY if they are knowledgable of said subject. If said judge is guessing then IMO should rely on the one who built said replica that it IS accurate.

Either way and in the end it comes to opinions, one person can look at the Mona Lisa and think it's the ugliest thing on the planet, someone else may think it's the gods gift to the world.

PS, Love the Alfa btw

Edited April 19, 2013 by gtx6970

[IMSANUT]

It's an interesting aspect of the model car hobby that sets it apart from other modeling hobbies. I'm an active model railroader and while that hobby does have a faction called "free lancing" where it's perfectly acceptable to create your own fictional railroad, it's generally expected that it will be done in a realistic manner. But for the most part, scale realism and fidelity to some prototype is the expected norm. The manufacturers that produce models for that hobby go to great lengths and spend a tremendous amount of R&D money to get the details right. The typical model railroad consumer demands it and is willing to pay for it.

I have also been active in IPMS chapters in the past and see the same thing in military modelers. Absolute accuracy and scale fidelity rule the day.

On the other hand the model car hobby has always had a more "creative' side to it. A sort of "do your own thing" mentality that is acceptable even though fidelity to the real subject may be missing. And although it has slowly been changing in recent years, we modelers have paid the price for this more loose attitude in the products that the manufacturers have given us. We all know of the many, many kits that have been marketed with inaccuracies and multiple errors in scale fidelity, markings, and other areas. We as consumers have accepted this and bought the products in spite of this, where buyers in other hobby segments have not.

As most of you must know by now my preference is to accuracy. Even in the very rare instance that I build a fictional race car I will make every attempt to do it in a realistic manner so that, if it were a model of an actual car, it would be believable. It's the same way with street rods that I build. It may not be a replica of an actual car but I will make every attempt to make as realistic and as plausible to be a real car as possible.

So in the end, yes, it's your model and you can build it any way you like. But if you expect your model to give a viewer the impression that this is a replica of an actual car or car that could exist in the 1:1 world, it MUST be done correctly and with accuracy in components and finish as the very first consideration

Drew is spot on in my mind especially in regards to accepting substandard offerings from the model companies.

As is obvious by now, I build road racing cars, and as some have seen from the builds I have posted photos of, some of them fall into the phantom category. I have experimented with clears, polish and rubbing out of paints, and have found to my eyes, polishing / rubbing out allows a more realistic look for the subjects I choose to build.

[IMSANUT]

Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. I just finished a Pocher Alfa Romeo. The car is red, and in 1/8 scale, the temptation to do a blazing, miles-deep super-glossy urethane-to-the-max type of paint job is pretty strong. I mean, a large model like that with one of those "ooooh, shiny!" paint jobs would definitely be an eye-catcher.

But while a paint job like that might impress a few contest judges or onlookers, it would be totally incorrect! The real cars didn't have a finish anywhere close to that. And my goal was to try and duplicate, as well as I could, what the real cars looked like, so I tried to copy how the paint actually looks on the real car... which to me meant no polishing, no clearcoat... just as the real cars were painted.

You can see that while the paint is smooth and fairly glossy, it's definitely not that super-gloss look. The paint was not worked in any way after it was sprayed on... and I assume that was the case with the real cars, too.

This is an excellent example of what I speak of. This looks real, yet smaller. Though 1/8th scale is certainly not small in most of our worlds!

[IMSANUT]

Interesting thread, some excellant view points being made and I agree with 99% of it

But I think it comes back the old adage - "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" . ( aka the builder )

If said builder IS happy with His ( or hers) finished product,,,. and thats all that matters .

If a model show judge thinks it's inaccurate , thats there opinion and they are entitled to it and should add or deduct points based on there knowledge of the subject. . And ONLY if they are knowledgable of said subject. If said judge is guessing then IMO should rely on the one who built said replica that it IS accurate.

Either way and in the end it comes to opinions, one person can look at the Mona Lisa and think it's the ugliest thing on the planet, someone else may think it's the gods gift to the world.

PS, Love the Alfa btw

Correct. Beauty is beauty. I still stand with the belief that accuracy is not subjective, which is all I'm attempting to say.

[IMSANUT]

It all boils down to one simple thing: is your model supposed to be an accurate replica, or not?

If the modeler's intent was to build an accurate replica, then the finish on the model should look like the finish on the real car. If it does not, the builder made a mistake.

If accuracy was not the builder's priority, then of course it doesn't matter if the model's finish doesn't look like the real car.

If a person builds a model that's supposed to be a replica of a real car, and the model's finish is obviously different than that of the subject car, then that's a mistake in the eyes of those who look for accuracy. For those who don't, it's not even an issue. It depends on what each person's definition of a scale model is and how much of a role accuracy plays in their work.

I'm not judging whether a person is "right" or "wrong" to do the super-gloss look... I'm just saying that as far as accuracy goes, that look is very much overdone, and in many cases not an accurate representation of the real car that the model is supposed to be a replica of.

I'm 100% in agreement with this.

As am I.

[Harry P.]

Correct. Beauty is beauty. I still stand with the belief that accuracy is not subjective, which is all I'm attempting to say.

Exactly!

Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but accuracy is not open to interpretation. Either a model is accurate, or it's not. And that's every builder's personal call.

[David Thibodeau]

Very good......

[DirtModeler]

clear coating scares to poop out of me.

At the clear-coat stage i've invested SO MUCH time in the body, decals, paint, etc...

And if the clearcoat goes wrong it's all for naught!

I kind of have to clearcoat my stuff just to hide the decal lines.

[Danno]

Dave, this thread wasn't meant to knock anyone's style, least of all a talented guy like you. I sincerely doubt that the original poster had any personal ax to grind with anyone... it was just a generic observation on his part.

Not only that, but the approach Dave describes as his personal preference is actually much closer to the 'plausible realism' that Drew describes than most urethane/syrup dippers.

I like that term, as I think it well describes the best overall approach.

Personally, I tend to subscribe to Dave's approach as a good, viable, all-around functional compromise of both schools of thought (Lotsa Klear vs. No Clear), for most scale models. At the same time, I take Drew's more strict approach to accurate finishes on racers and work vehicles and factory stock vehicles. I never, however, find honey-dipped as appropriate for model cars, even customs.

Those who evaluate or judge the worth of model cars solely on how shininess are missing the real point of modeling ~ ~ ~ which I think really is all about 'plausible realism.'

[IMSANUT]

Not only that, but the approach Dave describes as his personal preference is actually much closer to the 'plausible realism' that Drew describes than most urethane/syrup dippers.

I like that term, as I think it well describes the best overall approach.

Personally, I tend to subscribe to Dave's approach as a good, viable, all-around functional compromise of both schools of thought (Lotsa Klear vs. No Clear), for most scale models. At the same time, I take Drew's more strict approach to accurate finishes on racers and work vehicles and factory stock vehicles. I never, however, find honey-dipped as appropriate for model cars, even customs.

Those who evaluate or judge the worth of model cars solely on how shininess are missing the real point of modeling ~ ~ ~ which I think really is all about 'plausible realism.'

Plausible realism. I kinda like this term.

[Danno]

Exactly!

Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but accuracy is not open to interpretation. Either a model is accurate, or it's not. And that's every builder's personal call.

Dittos!!

[johnbuzzed]

This reminds me of (and I mean no offense to) some military modelers and the "that paint is the wrong color for that aircraft in that theater of operations" mentality. The premise sounds good and initially there is some truth to it, but after a while, things change due to (natural, actual) weathering and fading, wear and tear, battle damage, paint availability, manufacturers, etc. You paint whatever you are told to paint by your sergeant with whatever paint you have been told to use.

In my opinion, some model cars can be considered too glossy for scale realism. Many would probably be glossier and smoother than their full-size counterparts or that car of which they might be a replica. Look at a real car... unless it's a show car or a high-dollar exotic car, that paint just isn't very pretty when you get close to it. How can we expect to replicate a full-scale paint finish when we try to achieve a mirror-like finish on a model that simply does not appear on real cars? Conversely, some models can have a finish that is too matte or flat for scale realism. Again, that's just my opinion after 52 years of building and more than 22 years of contest experience as a contestant and judge, both military and automotive subjects.

A member pointed out in a previous post that the subject should look the same at a distance of one foot as a real car should look at 25 feet (for 1/25 scale; the ratio changes as the scale changes). He's most definitely right. The best model is that which looks like the real thing and not like a model of the real thing, no matter how well that model might be executed. Perspective or viewing angle can alter the way a model appears, too, but I digress.

I have seen race cars with all kinds of finishes but none that have been fully glosscoated. Sponsor or contingency logos on race cars are usually stickers; they will have a different sheen than the paint on which they are applied. A wrap will have a different sheen that the paint that would be under it. I remember reading that some NASCAR teams would coat their cars with baby or talcum powder before a race, supposedly making it cut through the air better... how would one replicate that finish?

I guess I'm trying to say: Build your model the way you want to build it; no matter what happens, you won't satisfy everybody with the results, no matter what you do.

[gtx6970]

I still stand with the belief that accuracy is not subjective, which is all I'm attempting to say.

I totally agree , my point I was trying to convey was not everyone strives to acheive 1000% dead nuts accuracy. ( me included)

my point was and I may be way off base here is, but I think most builders start a project with an image in there head.

If the finished product reflects that image,,, they are and very much should be ,,,,, happy with it, ( myself included ) even if a judge dis-agrees .

If someone looks in my case and THEY see what I had in my minds eye, I acheived my goal and i'm happy with that result.

Don't get me wrong I look at some of the builds that are and have been shown here that are off the charts. Especially some of the all scratchbuilts being completed. I simply don't have the time, inclination (aka mostly desire +/or talent) to pull off something similar to them.