Those Other Skies Again

[Nick Millman]

This question was too anal, sucked the lifeblood out of the hobby and scared individuals away so it is respectfully withdrawn in deference to "Mentalguru"'s view of what should and should not be posted and discussed here.

Edited November 12, 2010 by Nick Millman

[Mentalguru]

In the Tony O'Toole Spitfire article in the new Airfix Model World mag (Nice "build" btw - looks like 1/48th) there is a text box entitled "That RAF Sky Colour" which states (my emphasis):-

"Because of the low stocks of the new colour (Sky), units and aircraft manufacturers were also permitted to use other 'official' Air Ministry paints on the undersides of their fighters instead during this period, such as Sky Blue, 'Eau de Nil' (a darker, richer shade of pale green which had been specifically ordered to make up for short supply of the official sky colour) and Sky Grey, which was commonly used on Fleet Air Arm aircraft of the period."

Is this true? I know that Paul Lucas proposed the 'Eau de Nil' theory based on matching extant paint on artifacts to the pre-war BS paint colours but is there any evidence beyond this that Eau de Nil was "specifically ordered" to be used instead of Sky?

I don't know if it is true or not, but it does appear to be only fair, as the Luftwaffe at that time were flying their aircraft in all sorts of odd colours- funnily enough they were allowed to get away with it as there was a war on!

[Nick Millman]

Withdrawn.

Edited November 12, 2010 by Nick Millman

[Mentalguru]

I fear that you might be missing the point of the post. There is potential for myth when theories, possibilities or might-have-beens get elevated like this. The issue is not whether odd colours were used, or variations mixed, or all the other "anything goes there was a war on" stuff but whether BS 16 Eau de Nil was indeed officially and "specifically ordered" in lieu of Sky, as suggested by the text box, and if so, what the historic (documentary) evidence for that is.

Come on - i t IS Friday

[Test Graham]

I've heard of Undress Friday (casual dress code in offices) but not Unbrain Friday. Is this restricted to one particular religion or cult? In which case, can we expect Unbrain Thursdays by practitioners of other peculiar rites? So (if I may pick an example) we can expect Airfix worshippers not to say anything sensible on Wednesdays, or followers of the Great God Tamiya to be totally doolally over the weekend? Are we totally without any day when everyone can be expected to be sensible?

I must admit this might explain some of the characteristics of the internet........

[Doug Rogers]

I don't know the answer to your question Nick, but I'm glad you've brought it up as we need to get to the bottom of this issue.

[AnonymousAA72]

I don't buy that for one moment. Stocks may have been low, but I think the vaguaries in colour shades were simply due to colours being mixed locally (wherever 'locally' may mean!). Hopefully Edgar will be along soon..........

[Mentalguru]

I've heard of Undress Friday (casual dress code in offices) but not Unbrain Friday. Is this restricted to one particular religion or cult? In which case, can we expect Unbrain Thursdays by practitioners of other peculiar rites? So (if I may pick an example) we can expect Airfix worshippers not to say anything sensible on Wednesdays, or followers of the Great God Tamiya to be totally doolally over the weekend? Are we totally without any day when everyone can be expected to be sensible?

I must admit this might explain some of the characteristics of the internet........

There is a large and growing disconnect between, researchers, historians, observers, and modellers. Among each category, there are also several branches of development- which may, or may not, lead full circle..

However, when it comes to paint, and paint finishes, for example what JG2 did on an Me109 with regard to mottling, would not be permissible in general categories stated above unless there had been photographic PROOF that it occurred, as it it doesn't fit nicely with modern day accepted documented (i'e. you shall attack ze aircraft viff pointed brush loaded with camouflage paint- directive LGFZZ///..2 10th July 1940 + huge lovely black eagle stamp at header) proof that lovely airbrushed mottling was the order of the day. We can take another leg down, and start to get anal over the type of brush used for the stippling, the direction of strokes etc etc etc.

So my question to you is- "Is it possible to get too anal?" At what point does pure anality suck the total lifeblood out of our hobby? At what point do we stop and say "enough is enough?" This is in no way meant to devalue the original post,but like many other topics regarding paint finish of the era, there are many "experts" who are slowly scaring the individual away from producing models of things they see with their own eyes, only to achieve these things, and then be told "Nice but it's wrong.."

Edited November 12, 2010 by Mentalguru

[John]

Moved to a new thread

Edited November 12, 2010 by John

[Giorgio N]

There is a large and growing disconnect between, researchers, historians, observers, and modellers. Among each category, there are also several branches of development- which may, or may not, lead full circle..

However, when it comes to paint, and paint finishes, for example what JG2 did on an Me109 with regard to mottling, would not be permissible in general categories stated above unless there had been photographic PROOF that it occurred, as it it doesn't fit nicely with modern day accepted documented (i'e. you shall attack ze aircraft viff pointed brush loaded with camouflage paint- directive LGFZZ///..2 10th July 1940 + huge lovely black eagle stamp at header) proof that lovely airbrushed mottling was the order of the day. We can take another leg down, and start to get anal over the type of brush used for the stippling, the direction of strokes etc etc etc.

So my question to you is- "Is it possible to get too anal?" At what point does pure anality suck the total lifeblood out of our hobby? At what point do we stop and say "enough is enough?" This is in no way meant to devalue the original post,but like many other topics regarding paint finish of the era, there are many "experts" who are slowly scaring the individual away from producing models of things they see with their own eyes, only to achieve these things, and then be told "Nice but it's wrong.."

If we're talking about research then things like "getting too anal" do not exist. Research aims at finding proof (or not) of things through documentation. Even the smaller bit of information can contribute to the collective knowledge.

Honestly I can't see how it can scare individuals ! If modellers were scared by research then we wouldn't see all the lovely what ifs we see. And I can't see why accurate research should take the blood out of the hobby: those who are interested will follow whatever result comes out of this research, those who are not will just follow whatever they like. In the end everybody will enjoy their way of approaching the hobby.

Personally I'm grateful to those who go around hunting documents and photographic proofs of paint schemes ! Wthout them we'd all still be painting all german planes black green/dark green while now we know much, much more about the thousands schemes used by the luftwaffe.

[Mentalguru]

If we're talking about research then things like "getting too anal" do not exist. Research aims at finding proof (or not) of things through documentation. Even the smaller bit of information can contribute to the collective knowledge.

Honestly I can't see how it can scare individuals ! If modellers were scared by research then we wouldn't see all the lovely what ifs we see. And I can't see why accurate research should take the blood out of the hobby: those who are interested will follow whatever result comes out of this research, those who are not will just follow whatever they like. In the end everybody will enjoy their way of approaching the hobby.

Personally I'm grateful to those who go around hunting documents and photographic proofs of paint schemes ! Wthout them we'd all still be painting all german planes black green/dark green while now we know much, much more about the thousands schemes used by the luftwaffe.

Is that proof of what "ought to have been done...?"

[Doug Rogers]

I can see where Mental is coming from though, that is from a modelling perspective, rather than one of pure historical archive research.

Most modellers, myself included, just want to know that we can safely paint our Spitfires undersurfaces with Sky, Sky Blue, Eau-de-Nil, Duck Egg blue, Duck Egg Green or Eggshell, (whatever we have in our paintboxes) in the knowledge that the real thing may well have been in one of those colours, and probably was in more than one of them during it's lifetime.

[Nick Millman]

I can see where Mental is coming from though, that is from a modelling perspective, rather than one of pure historical archive research.

Most modellers, myself included, just want to know that we can safely paint our Spitfires undersurfaces with Sky, Sky Blue, Eau-de-Nil, Duck Egg blue, Duck Egg Green or Eggshell, (whatever we have in our paintboxes) in the knowledge that the real thing may well have been in one of those colours, and probably was in more than one of them during it's lifetime.

So the question I asked prevents you from doing that?

[Giorgio N]

Is that proof of what "ought to have been done...?"

Not only ! Documentation as I see it in research is a broader term that includes not only official written documents with a stamp on them, but any other document, be it in paper, photographic or else. A letter of an airman to his wife is a piece of documentation, the same is a movie. At least that's the way I always used the term.. of course, as english is not my native language I might be wrong here, although in that case it means nobody told me during my 7-8 years of work in an english native speaking academic institution...

If we accept my definition, sometimes documentation only shows what ought to have been done but sometimes shows what was done: a clear colour pictures that shows a pink harrier is proof that a harrier was painted pink. Even if I'm pretty sure that no official specification ever required a harrier to be painted pink.

[Doug Rogers]

So the question I asked prevents you from doing that?

No Nick, it wasn't about you, it was about 'most modellers'.

[tango98]

Bill Clark wrote: ".....Hopefully Edgar will be along soon.......... "

Maybe not for a few days yet Bill. I know he'll be at Telford but apparently a spade accidentally severed his internet & phone line so he might not be back on-line until early next week.

Cheers

Dave

[Chuck1945]

Asking if there was evidence supporting a statement that official sanction existed for the use of 'Eau de Nil' in place of Sky appears to be fairly innocous to me. Keep asking Nick!

[Test Graham]

I don't believe masses of modellers are scared off doing what they want to do because others are interested in what really happened, rather than what might look nice. I don't believe there are hordes of pedants ready to pounce on every model ever placed on display with a microscope, a megaphone and an encyclopedia of errors to be tabulated and expounded. I'm can't claim there is no-one lacking tact in the modelling world, we are a much-varied bunch. However, there are many of us who actually want to be producing replicas of historical objects, within the limits of our abilities, not just pretty toys to pass the time. This does benefit from an exchange of information. There does appear to be others, all to ready to sneer at any display of knowledge, or interest in history as it truly was, or indeed almost anything outside their own preferences.

They do seem all-too-willing to use the term "anal": giggle giggle, isn't that funny?

No. Grow up.

Make your models the way you want to, and pemit others the same freedom.

[The original Kit Builder]

Make your models the way you want to, and pemit others the same freedom.

And accept them, warts and all, if they are publicly displayed in anything other than a scheme for which documentary proof exists.

I believe that quite a few new modellers have been put off, or have lost interest after having their latest effort dismissed as wrong, or in some way lacking simply because someone who has rigid views has been overly critical. Perhaps if the rot hadn't set in back in the late '70's and early '80's in this context, then we would have a much richer hobby with vastly more local suppliers than we do today.

[Giorgio N]

And accept them, warts and all, if they are publicly displayed in anything other than a scheme for which documentary proof exists.

I believe that quite a few new modellers have been put off, or have lost interest after having their latest effort dismissed as wrong, or in some way lacking simply because someone who has rigid views has been overly critical. Perhaps if the rot hadn't set in back in the late '70's and early '80's in this context, then we would have a much richer hobby with vastly more local suppliers than we do today.

Is it something you believe or something you know because of your personal experience ?

Personally the only cases where I've seen people been "put off" because of remarks on a colour scheme have been at contexts where the modeller pretended to win and their ego could not accept to be told that they had applied a wrong scheme. But to me that was more a case of "I am right by grace of God even if every evidence is against me" attitude, rather than a case of a victim of overly critical people or similar. And the guys should have kept in mind one thing: if you take part in a context your model will be judged ! And whoever willingly accepts to be judged must be prepared to accept comments !

Any other modeller I've seen who found out he had used wrong colours just said "oh well, didn't know. No problem, I'll keep it in mind for next time.", that is pretty much the same attitude I have.

[mhaselden]

If we accept my definition, sometimes documentation only shows what ought to have been done but sometimes shows what was done: a clear colour pictures that shows a pink harrier is proof that a harrier was painted pink. Even if I'm pretty sure that no official specification ever required a harrier to be painted pink.

But what shade of pink was it?

[Mentalguru]

I don't believe masses of modellers are scared off doing what they want to do because others are interested in what really happened, (apparently) rather than what might look nice. I don't believe there are hordes of pedants ready to pounce on every model ever placed on display with a microscope, a megaphone and an encyclopedia of errors to be tabulated and expounded. Seems there are here... I'm can't claim there is no-one lacking tact in the modelling world, we are a much-varied bunch. However, there are many of us who actually want to be producing replicas of historical objects, within the limits of our abilities, not just pretty toys to pass the time. So do I Graham, whenever possible, hence my lack of trust in only "going by the book." This does benefit from an exchange of information. There does appear to be others, all to ready to sneer at any display of knowledge, or interest in history as it truly was, (possibly) or indeed almost anything outside their own preferences. I don't see that here- or anywhere else for that matter.

They do seem all-too-willing to use the term "anal": giggle giggle, isn't that funny?- No it's a generally accepted term- you obviously watch too much Beavis and Butthead.

No. Grow up.

Make your models the way you want to, and pemit others the same freedom. ABSOLUTELY

But what shade of pink was it?

You'll need to find the relevant document to ascertain that fact.

[Test Graham]

Quote: There does appear to be others, all to ready to sneer at any display of knowledge, or interest in history as it truly was, (possibly) or indeed almost anything outside their own preferences. I don't see that here- or anywhere else for that matter.

....

Make your models the way you want to, and pemit others the same freedom. ABSOLUTELY Endquote

Read your own posts when people ask serious questions that YOU don't think important. Like the ones above.

Then stop making farcical comments. Then you might be believed.

[Mentalguru]

Quote: There does appear to be others, all to ready to sneer at any display of knowledge, or interest in history as it truly was, (possibly) or indeed almost anything outside their own preferences. I don't see that here- or anywhere else for that matter.

....

Make your models the way you want to, and pemit others the same freedom. ABSOLUTELY Endquote

Read your own posts when people ask serious questions that YOU don't think important. Like the ones above.

Then stop making farcical comments. Then you might be believed.

[The original Kit Builder]

Is it something you believe or something you know because of your personal experience ?

Personally the only cases where I've seen people been "put off" because of remarks on a colour scheme have been at contexts where the modeller pretended to win and their ego could not accept to be told that they had applied a wrong scheme. But to me that was more a case of "I am right by grace of God even if every evidence is against me" attitude, rather than a case of a victim of overly critical people or similar. And the guys should have kept in mind one thing: if you take part in a context your model will be judged ! And whoever willingly accepts to be judged must be prepared to accept comments !

Any other modeller I've seen who found out he had used wrong colours just said "oh well, didn't know. No problem, I'll keep it in mind for next time.", that is pretty much the same attitude I have.

Not personal experience at all. I took first in the only competition I have ever entered, though that was many years ago.

I do believe, however that many aspiring youngsters give up the hobby due to misplaced or overstrong, (and not necessarily, constructive) criticism of their work. I think there's also an element of not contributing because they see the level of over critical crap sometimes levelled at the work of modellers who are submitting models of such a high standard, that youngsters feel that it isn't worth the effort.

I suppose they lose confidence and there's no-one to give 'em a boost.

As we more experienced hobbyists discuss ever more prosaic aspects of the devil that is detail, we sometimes forget, I think, that sometimes our hobby is no more than a fun way to kill a bit of time for a kid and we can be guilty of not spending enough time discussing that aspect of it.

It's not so bad here, but there are other places where the 'conversation' becomes rabid and that will only serve against the hobby in the long run.

For my part, I enjoy these topics at many levels and apply documentary accuracy and best guess in roughly equal measure to what I build, though don't submit often enough, perhaps.

The attitude you and I appear to share in respect of having our mistakes pointed out, however, is one borne of a degree of maturity and confidence, which many kids getting to grips with their first pocket money kit won't likely have and it's important not to forget that not all modellers are past their teens.

I actually agree with much of what you say, in relation to adults, though criticism must always be constructive if we are not to be accused of snobbery.