dancho

Who's Max?

Thanks all.

I hadn't built a model in over a year, due to the upheaval from selling our home, relocating and, finally, settling in to the new place. (This may explain some of my grumpy behavior, then again, maybe not). This came out pretty well considering how long a layoff preceded it. This is an example of brushing on Vallejo Metal Color. If you've been wondering if the stuff could be brushed the answer is yes, but it does require some patience. I'm tickled pink about this product, and it gives me an opportunity to square some karma with Vallejo, since I generally bad-mouth their products all over the internet. Now they made something good other than the putty (I like that too).

I'm going to mind my manners from now on. I know when I'm beat.

Well, youngsters, take heed. If you dare to question your betters, you're immature, lazy, ill-informed, probably delusional and needlessly beligerent. You'll be attacked by a halt-dozen different people on a forum that doesn't allow attacks, and they'll get away with it because they're clever enough to use "innuendo." Did I leave anything out? I asked for just one thing--evidence--and I've been mobbed by the masters of innuendo. There is a "logical fallacy" called the "appeal to authority." Of course, if one has a book published by Squadron or Osprey, that would be a legitimate source for Wikipedia, so there is an element of hypocrisy in a Wikipedia article on that subject. Oh dear. Now I'm in for it.

There's a consensus about one thing-- that Mark is a fine fellow and by appearing to question his assertions I'm in the wrong and should apologize. I wasn't questioning Mark's assertions. My post was directed at the OP. I do apologize for the sarcastic tone. I tend to get steamed about this type of discussion in general. If you assert something, provide the evidence along with the assertion. Is that an assault on the integrity of the one making the assertion? Of course it isn't. I really can't imagine what prompted Mark to reply as he did and these other remarks are even more mystifying. I am tired of playing verbal games over being attacked myself for daring to disagree with the "prevailing opinion." You can build whatever you want, any way you want, and I'll approve. But if you start out on a forum with the position that "my opinion is not to be questioned, because I am a special, privileged person of a higher status than you" then I'll do my best to thwart you. Making unsupported claims, then getting belligerent when challenged, and trying to intimidate anyone who disagrees, all the while providing little or no evidence to support your position, is just sloppy scholarship and deserves to be challenged. I'm on a quixotic quest to rid scale modeling of a particular type of "author"--who promotes him or herself tirelessly on forums, produces shiny books (which are free of any references or supporting documents) and becomes a "revered figure" for no better reason that a good work ethic and a talent for knowing what sells. I guess, in our world, this type of person does succeed. But as long as I can post on this forum (which may not be too much longer) I'm going to state that any discussion about the color of paint from seventy or eighty years ago should be a discussion about sources and references and witnesses and logical deduction, not about who said it and how much credibility they have as an expert. By the way, it IS easier to be a critic than a researcher. It's easier to throw bricks at the cathedral than to build it. That does not make the critic or the gatekeeper into a villain. It just goes with the territory. You choose to take on the role of authority, then you have to deal with demands for proof. It's not a "no fair" situation, and getting upset is pointless. I would never publicly criticize a model built by a hobbyist for pleasure. But claiming to have "special knowledge" is not part of any hobby. None of this applies to Mark, since I'm not familiar with his work and know nothing about him. So relax. Merry Christmas to all contributors to this thread, or Happy Holidays, whichever may apply. Don't wear yourselves out beating me up, or you won't have any energy for the parties.

This is like some kind of bizarre parlor game--"Tell us the color of this man's tie based on a black and white photograph and some of his emails." Your current thinking is just as good as anyone else's. Just whose current thinking is more equal than others? I wonder. I challenge anyone who "weighs in" to bring some sort of proof, then share the source of their "current thinking." If it is a black and white photo--share it or note where it can be found. If it's "part of my private collection" then it is not acceptable. I have a genuine photo of King Kong on top of the Empire State Building. Did you know he was real? I'm sorry, though, the photo is in my private collection and I told a man in a blue hat that I would never publish it. Sorry. Note to kids at home: These folks just like to argue over opinions. It does not mean they know any more than you do, and if they don't "show their work" they're a bit less credible than you are. So don't let it get you down if your "private collection" doesn't measure up. It never will. P.S. My new book "King Kong was Real" will be out in the Autumn of 2017.

Excellent in every way.

C'mon man! Britannia may not rule the waves but she certainly rules the dry lake beds. Forsooth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThrustSSC

Not to continue the argument until the end of time (probably) but why is it always a "nice" clean build? Not a GOOD clean build or a fine clean build. Always the "n word." Perhaps it's not the word "clean" that needs to go, maybe it's NICE. Be nicer that way, I think.

I'd certainly never heard of this aircraft--in fact I thought it was a fantasy at first. Certainly out there. Your model is beautiful.

I dunno, man. I may be out of line, talking about "nice clean build" meaning "too clean" but it sure seems that way to me.

One thing that bugs me is the use of certain language. For example, I can't recall just how many times I have seen (on a forum) a model being "damned with faint praise" when the praise includes the word "clean." Nobody mentions the outstanding work on the interior or the re-work of the landing gear--if it's a WWII aircraft and it's not weathered, then it's a "nice clean build." Everybody knows that that means. It means "not dirty enough." But just how dirty is "enough?" To paraphrase Tolstoy (is BBC4 like PBS?) "all clean aircraft are the same--all dirty aircraft are different." Every aircraft has a story. The weathering has a history and a meaning, different in each and every case. Some American aircraft during WWII had badly faded paint. That's why they looked so "tatty." Faded paint. Other aircraft were painted in a slipshod way, without a primer or using inappropriate paint, and it peeled off in sheets (I'm thinking of Japanese Army planes). So you wouldn't use the same method to reproduce a funky looking B-17 with badly faded O.D. paint that you would use to recreate the Japanese Army plane with most of the paint tearing off. Furthermore, you wouldn't use the same method for a Japanese Navy plane with a good solid paint job that you would use to reproduce the improvised paint on the Army aircraft.

Weathering adds "a certain something." Because I'm a brush-painter, I had to invent my own techniques, and it's frustrating to see the cool kids spraying away and not be able to join the fun. But now I'm pretty confident in my "weathering" methods, which can be actually be applied to models that are "finished" and sitting on the shelf! This raises that possibility of "before and after" photos (like an ad for a exercise video). An Academy P-51B before: After focusing the camera and doing some post-shading: Italeri P-51D before: After focusing, post shading and putting the wheels on properly: Toko IL-2M3 before: After a dose of weatherfication: Here's a video I made about weathering this model. (The post-shading was easy but hiring a director, voice talent, technical crew and equipment cost a mint!) NOW WHAT WOULD YOU PAY??? BUT WAIT!!!!!!