Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


  • Rank
    Canopy Polisher

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. In an effort to increase my list of publications with subjects of greatest interest, please offer your thoughts as to the model or models you would like to see as step-by-step e-books. Your response matters. See scalepublications.freeyellow.com for current e-books. Subject? Preferred Scale? Manufacturer? Standalone (shelf model)? Vignette/Diorama preferred? Include aftermarket components? Comments?
  2. Like Kurt, I've been involved in the hobby for a very long time, as well as a business. I started building models of one kind or another back around 1949, then a founding member of IPMS/USA in 1964 (IPMS/USA #2) and a business since 1967. Not just business either, since I also am a professional writer with most of my writing focusing on how-to, kit reviews and aviation history. That said, I'll say the same thing Kurt and others have. Just ask. We're happy to help. Remember, asking is how you learn...besides building models...so no question is stupid or foolish.
  3. I don't dispute your opinions or lists, but then again, there are certain old or classic kits that are still arguably better than the latest version. For example, the old Monogram 1/48th Republic F-105. It's amazing what you can do with that kit considering all the aftermarket items that are still available. And then there's the "only game in town" kits. If you want it in a particular scale...or any scale in some cases...it doesn't matter how old, inaccurate or crappy it is. One example is the 1/72nd C-46A by Williams Brothers. Whether or not you can make a good representation out of it
  4. Not to beat a dead horse, but it depends. Gravity feed most of the time. Another reason no one has mentioned is that you don't have the bottle getting in the way, which is a definite advantage when you're freehanding multi-tone camouflage. On the other hand, the large jar of a suction brush comes in real handy when you're priming or painting a 1/72...or even a 1/48 scale...B-52 or C-5.
  5. No problem here in Texas. Using AT&T internet and Firefox browser.
  6. The bottom line is that we build models for the pure joy that it gives us. That is what matters, not whether or not we are 'serious' modelers because we are all serious modelers, each in his or her own way.
  7. Couldn't agree more...and I build models for a living. It's one thing to get something as accurate and realistic as is reasonably possible, but it's something else again to obsess over a wingspan being 1/1000th of an inch too long...or short. There's no rational reason for a 25 power microscope to be a required tool when building a 72nd...or 48th...or 32nd...scale model.
  8. If nothing else, this thread proves that a lot of us have been building models for a very long time. It also makes me wonder how many of us have violated every rule in the book..."there ain''t no rules as long as it works"...to get the result we were looking for. Such things as lacquer thinner in enamel paint, human hair for antenna lines and sailing ship rigging, porous surgical tape for dappled or faded paint effects, stainless steel surgical sutures as a source for fine wire, hypodermic needles for metal gun barrels, dental root canal files for enlarging small holes and on and on. Some o
  9. The experience described by echolmberg is not indicative of every contest or contestant. We're all individuals and each has their own perspective. Keep in mind that realism is in the eye of the beholder and the object of a contest...at least 98% of the time...is to showcase your skill at the modelbuilding art to other modelbuilders. And believe me, it IS an art. What you consider an incredible model, others may not. This is what makes judging of any contest difficult and magnitudes greater on an IPMS Nationals level. Still, most of the time the results are fair, accurate and everyone...u
  10. Habu2, you are a delight. And you're right, too. We handled things with what we had and knew about at the time. The question is accurate from a historical and academic perspective, though it is useful when it comes to techniques that have stood the test of time but have been forgotten by many.
  11. Believe it or not, since all kits were produced with raised panel line, the method was considered normal...until the first few kits with recessed liines hit the market. Before that happened, you had the occasional modeler....looking for ways to improve his model....who started experimenting with replacing the raised lines with recessed lines. Scribing methods were all over the landscape since no dedicated scribing tools were available. Today we're swamped...blessed, you could say...with a wide choice of tools specifically designed for scribing. Incidentally, before recessed line
  12. Ah, yes. The early days of Aurora, Revell and others. Strombecker solid wood kits were still commonly available and plans of cross sections of ships were printed on graphs in Popular Mechanics so you could enlarge them by copying the graphs onto larger graph paper by hand with a pencil. How good were the enlarged sections? It depended on how good your eye was and your skill with a pencil. Monogram was just becoming known for wood kits with plastic detail parts. Time period? Late 40s to early 50s, injected plastic kits were just getting started,,,anyone remember the Highway P
  13. Another alternative, since you're a skilled modelbuilder, is to find the appropriate reference material and scratchbuild a full scale replica of the actual grip. The end result would be no different than a 3D printed replica...except it wouldn't be a 3D print.
  14. You can find photos of IPMS/USA Nationals winners in the Journals and other places. If I'm not mistaken, they started showing up in FineScale in the 80s. And let's not forget the various reader's galleries. While they may not have been Nationals winners, they were still high quality work. Finally, don't forget the articles themselves.
  15. Mstor, you are absolutely correct about us using what we had and still striving to make them as realistic as possible. That, in a nutshell, is the definition of a 'serious' modeler. Incidentally, something y'all may find interesting is that I was once asked "if money were no object and you could spend all of your time either writing or building models, which would you choose?" That question is unanswerable since writing about and building models is my calling, the two are inseparable. This is what I was born to do. No matter what I've done to make money, I come back to freelance writing/p
  • Create New...