AMT-1 light brown Options

[Kari Lumppio]

Hello!

Below should be link to digital image where WEM "AMT-1 dark"and Revell 87 samples are compared against Albom Nakrasok АМТ-1 sample (WEM AMT-1 light is more off than the dark version):

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_37VdbHCEOKU/SvS7mVA0...Revell%2087.jpg

As you see the WEM paint is quite good, Revell 87 being even more close to original. So here Pilawskii's colour standard is practically the same as the "horribly corroded" Albom Nakrasok from year 1948 (BTW the book was transferred to typesetters already in July 7th, 1947). May I also remind that all the АМТ-samples are on the same page in the albom. And "suffered" the same.

I took this photo already in April, 2005 so no-one can say that am eager to jump on EP's work, eh? I also think this is one of those pictures where I measured the white balance against a white copier paper sheet. In any case lighting was indirect sunlight.

This also makes interesting point about the reliance against wreck parts. I have seen no Soviet wreck part which does show the shade of brown that the three samples of AMT-1 above so well agree! In the physical samples and photos* the brown(s) I have seen is more akin USAF SEA tan or so. So if Pilawskii really bases his colours on wreck samples where is the basis of "his" AMT-1(s)? And why his research agrees so well with the Albom Nakrasok sample?

Cheers,
Kari

PS Is this substantiated enough?

* photos of Allied including Soviet aircraft wrecks in Norway http://ktsorens.tihlde.org/flyvrak/allied-2.html

This post has been edited by Kari Lumppio: Nov 7 2009, 12:53 AM

[Mikehorrell]

Thanks, Kari.

This is the sort of supporting documentation that so many of us would like to see.

[Tyronesdaddy]

Kari,
OK, I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that the WEM sample in the photo is similar to the Albom Nakrasok sample?

[Eric Armstrong]

Hello!

Below should be link to digital image where WEM "AMT-1 dark"and Revell 87 samples are compared against Albom Nakrasok АМТ-1 sample (WEM AMT-1 light is more off than the dark version):...
...
So here Pilawskii's colour standard is practically the same as the "horribly corroded" Albom Nakrasok from year 1948 (BTW the book was transferred to typesetters already in July 7th, 1947). May I also remind that all the АМТ-samples are on the same page in the albom. And "suffered" the same.

I took this photo already in April, 2005 so no-one can say that am eager to jump on EP's work, eh? I also think this is one of those pictures where I measured the white balance against a white copier paper sheet. In any case lighting was indirect sunlight.

This also makes interesting point about the reliance against wreck parts. I have seen no Soviet wreck part which does show the shade of brown that the three samples of AMT-1 above so well agree! In the physical samples and photos* the brown(s) I have seen is more akin USAF SEA tan or so. So if Pilawskii really bases his colours on wreck samples where is the basis of "his" AMT-1(s)? And why his research agrees so well with the Albom Nakrasok sample?

Cheers,
Kari

PS Is this substantiated enough?

I presume that you conclude that WEM paints and EP are one in the same. Perhaps a safe assumption (until about three and a half years ago) since when these paints were first developed (in 2005 ?) WEM stated they relied upon input from EP among others.

I think it more interesting to note how EP's view regarding the correct characterization of soviet colors has evolved on his own site over the past several years. If anyone is in possession of WEM paint, you will note how much difference exists now between certain WEM colors and in EP's site in the "research" section now. In particular the difference in AMT-1 in the EP website and WEM AMT-1 is rather stark. Furthermore, as recently as late 2007 or early 2008 EP had two AMT-1's, a light and dark version, and he has since removed this distinction. His website version of AII Dark green once looked like his current version of AEh-15 Factory Green. Now AII Dark Green is only slightly darker than AII Green (I realize there is debate regarding whether this color even existed and EP might be evolving to this view too). WEM, ostensibly relying on EP, created an AII Dark Green that is for all intents and purposes EP's AEh-15 and might pass for that color. EP changed "Tractor Green" to "Factory Green" and took some of the glowy quality out of it. AMT-12 is also lighter now and less green in appearance (WEM version of that color is darker and more greenish looking). Other changes he has made (that I have observed over the past three plus years) to colors on his site since WEM created their paints include ALG-5, AII Green (aged version), Industrial Blue (added), and perhaps others I have overlooked.

Your comparison is "apples to oranges" since it apparently compares a color swatch based on a view that has apparently changed since the development of the WEM paints you are using.

Those who want to see EP's color table can see for themselves and decide if his present AMT-1 is decidedly different from WEM AMT-1. I realize there are dangers associated with comparing computer generated color squares (EP makes that disclaimer) with pictures taken with indirect sunlight. But my copy of Albom Nakrasok is on loan and I can't get the stingy %&!*1/?* to return it!

http://vvs.hobbyvista.com/Research/colour-samples.php

This post has been edited by Eric Armstrong: Nov 7 2009, 04:44 AM

[Eric Armstrong]

Kari,
OK, I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that the WEM sample in the photo is similar to the Albom Nakrasok sample?

Point noted!

[dragonlance]

There is also the mention that in 1943 the AMT-1 official specification changed from grayish sand to light brown.

I'll find the actual text and post it here.

[agboak]

Thank you for bringing this topic out of the tangle of subjects in the one big morass of a thread.

Can anyone tell me why I now see responses to this posting as a subset of the heading rather than a continuous sequece of actual texts? I'd like to go back to the previous standard but don't know how to.

[dragonlance]

Can anyone tell me why I now see responses to this posting as a subset of the heading rather than a continuous sequece of actual texts? I'd like to go back to the previous standard but don't know how to.

agboak,

on the bottom of the page there is a display bar:

Display Mode: Standard · Switch to: Linear+ · Switch to: Outline

Klick on "Standard"

[Chuck1945]

Much more interesting to read this thread - however, I have a question that has already been mentioned but I am not sure it was answered.


Kari's initial post (and linked photo) here indicates the AMT-1 sample, and the WEM and Revell paints are reasonably close matches. However, he later says

This also makes interesting point about the reliance against wreck parts. I have seen no Soviet wreck part which does show the shade of brown that the three samples of AMT-1 above so well agree! In the physical samples and photos* the brown(s) I have seen is more akin USAF SEA tan or so.

I read this to indicate either
1) in use AMT-1 differed a great deal from the sample
2)The AMT-1 paint on the wrecks had degraded - if so, then perhaps using wrecks as a basis for color shades is questionable
3) AMT-1 itself changed or
4) some combination of any/all of these
????

This post has been edited by Chuck1945: Nov 7 2009, 05:36 PM

[sakai]

There is also the mention that in 1943 the AMT-1 official specification changed from grayish sand to light brown.

I'll find the actual text and post it here.

Do you mean this one?
http://scalemodels.ru/modules/myarticles/a..._storyid_9.html
Here's my translation devoid the poster's personal comments.
He is referring to an article "Palette of the War" by A.Averin published in the magazine "MIG" nr.1, 1994.
"Based on the various normative documents regulating the coloration of the aviation equipment, in this article the author monitors the appearance of the Soviet airplanes from 1930s till the end of war. As known, in July 1943 the VVS Camouflage Service prepared the new instructions for the aircraft camouflage. According to these instructions new "gray-gray" camouflage for the fighters was implemented and also 2-color and 3-color camouflage for the attack aircraft and bombers. The most interesting fact is that the technical specifications* for AMT-1 and A-21m (AMT-1 analog for painting the metal surfaces**) were changed. Consequently these paints changed the shade from muddy sand to light brown."
*TU-tekhnicheskie uslovyia
**A-21m was an enamel, AMT-1 nitrocellulose lacquer, they were supposed to be the same shade however even Vakhlamov&Orlov say A-21m was more brownish (most likely due to the enamel binder).
Cheers,
Mario

This post has been edited by sakai: Nov 8 2009, 04:32 AM

[Chuck1945]

Mario, your translation says

...The most interesting fact is that the technical specifications* for AMT-1 and A-21m (AMT-1 analog for painting the metal surfaces**) were changed. Consequently these paints changed the shade from muddy sand to light brown.(my emphasis)"

What causes a problem for me is that on my monitor the photo of AMT-1 posted by Kari appears a very dark brown-gray with gray being the more dominant tone. I just am not seeing a light or sandy brown there. Am I missing something somewhere? From your translation, I would have expected a later (post 1943) color chart such the Albom represents (again if I understand this correctly) to reflect a lighter brown rather than such a dark, almost grey, brown.

I am just having difficulty getting my head around the notion that what appears to me as a dark grey-brown is described as a light brown.

[Mikehorrell]

Mario, your translation says What causes a problem for me is that on my monitor the photo of AMT-1 posted by Kari appears a very dark brown-gray with gray being the more dominant tone. I just am not seeing a light or sandy brown there. Am I missing something somewhere? From your translation, I would have expected a later (post 1943) color chart such the Albom represents (again if I understand this correctly) to reflect a lighter brown rather than such a dark, almost grey, brown.

I am just having difficulty getting my head around the notion that what appears to me as a dark grey-brown is described as a light brown.

The same for me. I even tried adjusting the monitor's setting but it remained distinctly gray.

[Eric Armstrong]

Mario, your translation says What causes a problem for me is that on my monitor the photo of AMT-1 posted by Kari appears a very dark brown-gray with gray being the more dominant tone. I just am not seeing a light or sandy brown there. Am I missing something somewhere? From your translation, I would have expected a later (post 1943) color chart such the Albom represents (again if I understand this correctly) to reflect a lighter brown rather than such a dark, almost grey, brown.

I am just having difficulty getting my head around the notion that what appears to me as a dark grey-brown is described as a light brown.

ditto.

[dragonlance]

From Albom - AMT-1/A-21m pictures (by Akan) vs AKAN paint samples from Scalemodels.ru forum:

[sakai]

Mario, your translation says What causes a problem for me is that on my monitor the photo of AMT-1 posted by Kari appears a very dark brown-gray with gray being the more dominant tone. I just am not seeing a light or sandy brown there. Am I missing something somewhere? From your translation, I would have expected a later (post 1943) color chart such the Albom represents (again if I understand this correctly) to reflect a lighter brown rather than such a dark, almost grey, brown.

I am just having difficulty getting my head around the notion that what appears to me as a dark grey-brown is described as a light brown.

Translation is a translation, there was nothing more and nothing less about that paint. Just a generic description of the paint appearance.
This is an immense problem of historic color research in general. Pictures/scans of printed or painted color samples or fragments are unreliable. We'd need electronic version (chip) of the paint based on it's original colorimetric parameters (RGB values). Paint etalons are needed for that and afaik Alex (AKAN) worked from those.
The best solution at this point seems to obtain samples of AKAN's AMT-1/A21m paints.
Btw Vakhlamov&Orlov in their original series of articles in M-hobby stated following FS matches with comments:
AMT-1-FS26306, very close match (needs to be darker)
A-21m-FS34201, close match
FS36350, very close match (needs to be darker), here they also say in color description "gray-brown with yellowish tint, close to Humbrol 84 Mid Stone".
Interestingly the above FS matches are also stated by Pilawskii, he's just giving the range 26306-30372. Typically without explanations.
Cheers,
Mario

[klesnik]

AMT-1 is usually described as "white coffee" or "coffee with milk".
For Russians "white coffee" has up to 50% milk and was often made with coffee substitutes.

Just to give you an idea:




I hope this would help before we get exact description or RGB values.

You may experiment every day with your morning coffee, and start your day thinking about Shturmoviks!!!

Cheers,
KL

[Chuck1945]

I just dont see 'light brown' or 'white coffee' in Kari's original photos.

I plan to paint a test swath of the AKAN AMT-1 on white plastic card later today and will post a picture of the results - I am curious to see if the differences I seem to be seeing are more due to photo reproduction or simply color names/descriptions that apparently dont match the actual color - fwiw, the FS595 references do not indicate a color as dark and grey as Kari's photos either although the range includes both greys (x6xxx) and greens (x4xxx) and those do appear to be kind of like 'white coffee'.

Dont know if it a heresy to ask, but is it possible that in actual production, were VVS colors (specifically AMT-1) like US WWII Olive Drab where a standard color did exist, but paint manufacturers were actually allowed some variability in the actual color they produced?

This post has been edited by Chuck1945: Nov 9 2009, 05:17 PM

[sakai]

Actual AKAN paint sample is a great idea. I'll try to do the same with those paints I have.
Other than that if you read my yesterday's post
http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index....t=#entry1844618
I maintain that digital representation of these colors need to be established otherwise we remain stuck with generic descriptions (by VVS themselves) and subjective interpretations of color pictures or relics and we will not be learning about originally intended appearance of these colors. FS system is helpful only partially. Official description, "light brown", is being matched to FS36306 which is a family of grays or FS34201 which is a family of greens! Both Pilawskii and V&O stated these two FS matches. Interestingly only EP states one variation as FS30372 which is really a color from the brown family!
No heresy to ask about variations. They must have existed however according to what I learned from A.Akanikhin and other noted color researcher paint manufacturers had to work by etalons which were giving them the range of shade where the desirable (by VVS) shade was supposed to fall.
These etalons apparently survived in Russian archives and Akinikhin used them for his paints research and production.

[sakai]

Interestingly coffee without milk is called "black coffee"("chornoye kafe" in Russian) isn't it? So it's supposed to be black, yes?
How come it turns brown when we add milk?

[Chuck1945]

Ok, Interesting outcome when I tried to do a color panel of AKAN AMT-1.

I bought the 1941-43 set of six colors that was supposed to include AMT-1. The set lists AMT-1 as having a product number of 73001, but in the pack of six bottles there was no paint labeled AMT-1. There was one called AMT-4 that showed the same product id of 73001. There was some brown in this color, so here is a sample but I am not sure just what it really is. Also note there has been a color shift of some type because the card stock is actually white plastic.

I am not sure about the impact of any color shift however, because the painted part reproduces here just about the way it appears on the test panel

This post has been edited by Chuck1945: Nov 9 2009, 09:33 PM