WWI Digest 606 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: D.V & Jenny profiles by Geoff Smith 2) Re: Eduard Strip Down's by Geoff Smith 3) Re: Eduard Strip Down's by Patrick Padovan 4) Re: Eduard Strip Down's by "Paul Schwartzkopf" 5) New Address by John Sanders 6) Re: Eduard Strip Down's by Patrick Padovan 7) Re: Eduard Strip Down's by Geoff Smith 8) Modelling philosophy (was: Eduard Strip Down's) by Shane Weier 9) photo etched and stuff by Crofoot 10) Re: photo etched and stuff by Carlos Valdes 11) Re: Eduard Strip Down's by "Brad Gossen" 12) Re: Eduard Strip Down's by Carlos Valdes 13) Re: Eduard Strip Down's by "Valenciano . Jose" 14) Battleship Gray? by "jfpliml" 15) help by bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) 16) Re: Eduard Strip Down's by bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) 17) Decal prep (formerly Eduard Strip Down's) by Bob Pearson 18) Re: Modelling philosophy (was: Eduard Strip Down's) by rnrniles@wired2.net (Russell W Niles) 19) Re: help by Bob Pearson 20) RE: help by Shane Weier 21) RE: Decal prep (formerly Eduard Strip Down's) by Shane Weier 22) RE: Decal prep (formerly Eduard Strip Down's) by Bob Pearson 23) RE: help by bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) 24) Re: Eduard Strip Down's by lothar@televar.com (mark) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 13:20:42 -0400 From: Geoff Smith To: "INTERNET:wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu" Subject: Re: D.V & Jenny profiles Message-ID: <199707101320_MC2-1AA2-6132@compuserve.com> Bob, My apologies to both you and Alberto. Now that I've reread the message he= did give you due credit. I still think I have to do that one due to the coincidence of picking it up from two directions within the week. Is it coincidence? or......... Geoff ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 14:49:21 -0400 From: Geoff Smith To: "INTERNET:wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu" Subject: Re: Eduard Strip Down's Message-ID: <199707101449_MC2-1A9C-562@compuserve.com> Paul wrote, >This brings to light one of my concerns, and I'm sure I am opening up = >myself as a *target* here for expressing it, but what the heck. Have = >the photo-etch people cornered us into thinking that their stuff is = >the only way to go? I still like scratch building detail items from = >bits of plastic and metal. This is what gives me my satisfaction = >from model building. Don't get me wrong, I use photo-etch parts all = >the time, but I have seen some sets that the parts are sooooo small = >that I can't figure out how to even trim them from the "sprue", let = >alone apply them to a kit. I used Tom's Modelworks British Interior = >and Gun sets for Hobbycraft's 1/32 Camel, and I found working with them = >to be frustrating at times, but the looks are definitely worth it. I = >must give a "tip of my hat" to anyone who uses photo-etch in 1/72 = >scale. This is one of my concerns too. Far too many parts that should have a rounded section are being etched, for example fuselage framework which in= most cases should be tube. Now whether you use plastic rod or wire or in fact the etch, is purely personal preference but at the end of the day, IMHO, the only thing brass sheet is going to represent (without bending o= r forming it into another shape) is sheet. I too use etch but if I need a cylindrical fuel tank I'll use a piece of tube with end caps or some plastic rod, it's a lot quicker than bending etch into a cylinder. Geoff ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 12:47:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Patrick Padovan To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Eduard Strip Down's Message-ID: Dear Paul: well, I think you have an excellent point. We mustn't allow ourselves to be conned into thinking that a photo-etched detail is automatically preferable to a scratchbuilt item. One of the things I enjoy is "bluffing" my way through a cockpit interior. What I mean is, not trying to replicate every tiny detail perfectly, but rather, creating the IMPRESSION, if you know what I mean, of the original. This is especially true for 1/72 scale. For me, the smaller the scale, the more you can get away with, so to speak, as far as this "impressionistic" approach goes. Now, this is just my own personal view, and I say that so as not to get slammed by somebody who does replicate every nut and bolt exactly, even in 1/72 (I know you're out there!). Don't get me wrong, I too use photoetched parts when I think the set looks usable, and when I think it will actually fit. (How frustrating when the set designed for the very model you are building, according to the label, doesn't seem to fit!) Another aspect to the point you raise is this: Okay, so you build, say, a Revel S.E.5a using an Eduard photoetched interior, and it looks pretty good. Eventually, if you're like me, you will want to build another, representing a different machine. Okay: so, do you feel obligated, in order to meet the standard of your previous effort, to buy and install another photoetched set? I think most of us like to feel that we're progressing and improving with every new model we build. Getting stuck in the mindset of "Photoetched is better" can certainly be a trap. Personally, I enjoy painting much more than building. Yet, there's little point to painting a model well, if it isn't well built (no seams, etc.) and reasonably accurate. So, I go to what seem to me to be great pains, and spend a lot of time doing what I find tedious, so that I have a decent model to paint. Again, my own personal opinion, I know others feel entirely different. My metaphorical hat id metaphorically doffed to those who spend hour upon hour meticulously scratchbuilding every itty-bitty inch of every model they build, but that's not how I choose to spend my time. If I can save some time with a halfway decent photoetched interior that doesn't cost too much (a very relative term!) then I may choose to buy and use it, but I don't want to feel that I HAVE to do so. By the way, there are now some very, very nice resin cockpit interiors made for many WWII types. These can looke great when carefully painted and finished with a dark wash to accent shadows and a light dry-brushing to raise highlights. Not only are they easier, faster, and generally better looking (IMHO) when finished, but they are way CHEAPER than brass, as well. I suppose there's no hope of ever seeing their counterparts for WWI types? I think it could be done accurately, at least in theory. I will go ahead and apologize in advance if I've offended anyone by using words like "tedious", "faster", "easier" in the context of our hobby, but between family, work, and so forth, the time I can spend modelling is precious and rare. Everyone gets different bennefits from, enjoys different aspects of, this hobby. I prefer to spend my hobby time doing more of what I most enjoy (painting) and less time building, so I'll take short cuts when I can find them, as long as I don't have to compromise beyond what I am personally comfortable with (or pay too many $ !). (Still haven't finished building my ##$%@@&!!! Camel, either!) Anyway, I'll relinquish the soapbox to someone else. Not at IPMS Nats either, Patrick ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Patrick Padovan Interlibrary Loan Associate Timberland Regional Library Voice: 360-943-5001 415 Airdustrial Way SW FAX: 360-586-6838 Olympia, WA 98501-5799 e-mail: ppadovan@timberland.lib.wa.us ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 15:47:57 +0000 From: "Paul Schwartzkopf" To: wwi Subject: Re: Eduard Strip Down's Message-ID: <199707102052.PAA19138@tscrypt1.transcrypt.com> Patrick, It sounds like we're close on the same wavelength! Personally, I enjoy decaling like you enjoy painting. A hobby is pursued for the enjoyment of the hobbyist, and we must not lose sight of this by placing "standards" on everyone concerning how things should be done. I have the DML 1/48 Spad XIII currently in the partially built stages. I know many people on the list have said that it is a good kit, but I have not had much luck with it due to the photo-etch parts. I had problems getting the upper deck glued down because of detail parts, plus I don't like DML's decision to use photo-etch for the inner wing struts. They are way too thin, plus you cannot adjust them as easily as you could if they were plastic. Also, being stainless steel, the parts are harder to get off the "sprue" and file smooth. I don't know if I will ever finish this one or not. I guess my point is that I get discouraged when I see model kits costing an arm and a leg just because of having some photo-etch sheets with them. And when these sheets contain many items that are too small or too delicate to use, I wonder about where this hobby is going. I just see **some** of the photo-etch stuff as a way to only make money for the vendor while supplying something of little or no use to the majority of modelers. Like Brad and Geoff said, hang these up on a wall like a picture and look at them. Anyway, It is nice to finally see a thread going again, as quiet as it has been here lately!!! Paul A. Schwartzkopf =================================================================== Development Engineer--Software Transcrypt International, Inc. Telephone: (402) 474-4800 E-Mail: pauls@transcrypt.com =================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 16:50:17 -0500 From: John Sanders To: westerfield@multipro.com, Alan L Bradley , Subject: New Address Message-ID: <33C55919.1519@cland.net> We are switching net companies and my new address is: John.Sanders@Dayco.com See you there. John ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 15:09:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Patrick Padovan To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Eduard Strip Down's Message-ID: Dear Paul: Amen, bro! I agree that many detail items that are being touted as "must-haves" are just a commercial come-on. I don't mind manufacturers trying to sell their wares, as long as we consumers don't get sucked into the mind set that "Gee, I have to add after market wheels and photo-etched parts, or be shamed of my model's inadequacy!" Caveat emptor, or whatever. Incidently, I've seen a few books on modeling techniques which really push buying after market items- canopies, wheels, cockpit sets, etc.- as being requirements for a "truly advanced" model. Not to mention magazine articles! So that these books and articles change from being "how-to" information, into advertisements for the said products. I wonder if someone will add to this string to inform us peasants that their particular area of enjoyment (scratchbuilding, super-detailing, etc.) is the only REAL kind of modelling? That would be amusing, don't you think? (Pardon me, I guess I'm feeling kind of grouchy today!) I don't compete myself, but I wonder if things like photoetched details, resin wheels, etc, change the standards at modelling competitions? Since the judges are themselves modellers, those who buy into that mind-set would, I would think, begin to start judging models by the presence or absence of these items. I'm just speculating here, mind, but if some modellers are already compromising between authenticity and the expectations of judges (i.e., the string on gloss/semi-gloss/flat finishes, with judges expecting any military a/c to have a flat finish regardless historical accuracy, etc. ) then it doesn't seem like a stretch to imagine this happening, does it? (insert fire breathing responses here, please.) Anyway, Paul, I had difficulty with the metal struts on my DML Spad, too. Once I managed to get them in place, I applied layer after layer of paint over time to thicken them up a bit. I don't know if you'll find this helpful at all, but I find that bending photoetched parts over something with the same or a similar shape (i.e. cylindrical, right-angled, etc.) helps to achieve the desired shape without damaging the integrity of the part (forgive me if I'm suggesting things you already know!) What are you working on now, besides the Spad? I've got that Camel, and also a couple o things I daren't mention on this list (not wwi, I'm afraid!) Regards, Patrick ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Patrick Padovan Interlibrary Loan Associate Timberland Regional Library Voice: 360-943-5001 415 Airdustrial Way SW FAX: 360-586-6838 Olympia, WA 98501-5799 e-mail: ppadovan@timberland.lib.wa.us ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 18:16:26 -0400 From: Geoff Smith To: "INTERNET:wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu" Subject: Re: Eduard Strip Down's Message-ID: <199707101816_MC2-1AA8-E8CA@compuserve.com> Paul wrote: >It sounds like we're close on the same wavelength! Sounds like we all are. (Snip) >I don't like DML's decision to use photo-etch for the inner wing = >struts. They are way too thin, plus you cannot adjust them as easily = >as you could if they were plastic. Also, being stainless steel, the = >parts are harder to get off the "sprue" and file smooth. I don't know i= f I will ever = >finish this one or not.< This was my problem with DML's Tripe. I've still not got the top plane on= to my satisfaction due mainly to etched AND plastic struts. The plastic ones broke during adjustment. But the problem was caused by the stainless= struts not the plastic ones (and my handfisted approach), and of course they look too thin. Course, the reason they are stainless is so they don'= t bend so easily, so why do some kits provide engines with BRASS pushrods when stainless would be a better material and would also look better? Just to help out a bit (I hope), For all etches I use a small pair of curved nail scissors for cutting out.(that's finger nails) and once off t= he "sprue" you can cut pretty close to final edge, a small fine-grit "stone"= for rubbing smooth rather than a file and a small hand vice for holding t= he part. If an etched part is too small to handle, it'll be too small to cle= an up and you're probably better off using something else. Patrick made some good points, the two which struck me most were that he'= s trying to create an "impression" of the real thing, and that what he's doing suits him. If no-one else agrees with him, so what, it's a hobby a= nd a hobby's what you make of it. I happen to agree. Now a question about decals, I've been trying to apply Pegasus lozenge to= the interior of an E.V/D.VIII without success. I've tried without setting solution and it won't conform= to the shape properly but with microset (not sol), it goes all wrinkly an= d curls at the edges and stays that way. With sol it's even worse. This is = on bare plastic, will it be better painted, or are the decals the problem? TIA Geoff ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 10:11:57 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: Modelling philosophy (was: Eduard Strip Down's) Message-ID: Hi all, Before making any comments on specifics let me add my voice against the crazy assumption that you can't make a model without using resin, photo etch and aftermarket decals. Or that it isn't perfectly acceptable to built OoB and be happy. Or anything you want to do. My attitude is that this is a HOBBY and whatever turns you on is no business of any other, consenting adult or not. That I scratchbuild is a personal decision, that I compete is too, and for those that want to build kits straight from the box and brush paint them, I say "go for it" and will still enjoy looking at their models as much as anyones because if *they* enjoyed doing it WE HAVE THAT IN COMMON. Paul says > A hobby is pursued for >the enjoyment of the hobbyist, and we must not lose sight of this by >placing "standards" on everyone concerning how things should be done. Amen. I attend two clubs, and would attend a third except so many members there discount any model not loaded to the eyeballs with aftermarket. Lunacy. Patrick says Getting stuck in the mindset of "Photoetched is better" can certainly be a trap. Or assuming that resin cockpits or whatever are an automatic improvement. For example, look at the "loaded" tyres that have become de rigeur on competition models. Loaded ! Most are just plain *flat* >I don't like DML's decision to use photo-etch for the inner wing >struts. They are way too thin, plus you cannot adjust them as easily >as you could if they were plastic. FWIW they *aren't* struts. The aircraft would fly perfectly well, and be structurally safe without them. They are braces to the wires, and bore no load, so were *much* thinner than the interplane and cabane struts. A line of white glue down each side to remove the incorrect flat look makes them quite accurate really. >I guess my point is that I get discouraged when I see model kits >costing an arm and a leg just because of having some photo-etch >sheets with them. Expensive kits always discourage me too. But it's worthwhile distinguishing between un-necessary and necessary etch. For example, early Eduard kits were low pressure injected, and no way could they make detail parts in plastic. BUT they are expert at brass etching and quite reasonably used that method to bridge the quality gap. New Eduards are high pressure injected. Now they CAN make details in plastic, and the etched metal frets are reduced to providing the parts which plastic will never represent properly (gun jackets) or where strength will be a virtue (aileron cranks) or where etch is possibly better (instruments) Fair enough again. But when companies like Hasegawa add white metal undercarriage and etched panels no better than the plastic item in the same box, that's gouging. I don't compete myself, but I wonder if things like photoetched details, resin wheels, etc, change the standards at modelling competitions? Makes it easier for a modeller without the stellar abilities of a Nationals winner to complete a model which looks classy, but frankly, the best modellers just move up a notch and burn them anyway. What does that mean to we mortals? Well, new techniques arrive as aftermarket manufacturers commercialise the winners ideas, better base OoB models come from the big manufacturers responding to the markets demand that even little Johnny should make the perfect model, and so on. It's the same trickle down effect as moon walking had on frying pans. *I* don't much like it, but only because places like r.m.s are now infested with wankers who will explode at the merest possibility that a new kit isn't perfect in every detail (never mind that it's light years better than what went before). Let them build a 30 year old biplane kit because that is all you can get, and learn some perspective. Since the judges are themselves modellers, those who buy into that mind-set would, I would think, begin to start judging models by the presence or absence of these items. Maybe in some competitions, but in the major one I judge at (and at both my clubs) aftermarket goodies may be a positive disadvantage. Same applies at your IPMS nationals, because the judges are required first and foremeost, to judge on technique, and adding brass or whatever increases the number of places to hide joins, avoid glue marks, get perfect paint demarcations and so on. > And when these sheets contain many items that are >too small or too delicate to use, I wonder about where this hobby is going. So do I. Mind you, many of those tiny bits are only there because it costs the maker nothing extra to put them there and it ups the parts count to impress the buyer (and encourage him to buy one set over another). If it doesn't cost you, and you don't care what people think (and you don't if this is REALLY a hobby to you, rather than a sport), it scarcely matters if you don't use them. So to summarise. 1. It's a hobby. 2. Nothing is *required* but your own satisfaction 3. There will always be someone with new ideas and items I can't afford, but they aren't *required* 4. Its still a hobby Regards Shane ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 19:30:21 -0500 From: Crofoot To: wwi Subject: photo etched and stuff Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970710193021.006a5c20@computerpro.com> Just thought that I'd add my two cents to the conversation of the rest of the "not at Columbus" crowd. Like a lot of those that have commented, I enjoy painting, decaling and believe it or not, rigging. I will occasionally spend extra time to detail a special model but usually keep the detailing to a minimum. If I do get in a superdetail mood I usually end up working on new patterns for the Rosemont line. Patrick mentioned the possibility of resin interiors for WWI planes. I've played with the idea and even made up some test pieces but, never really got serious about the idea. If there's some interest, I will see what I can do. Also to Patrick and anybody else that might be interested. The 1/72 Nieuport 17 wings are in the mold and barring any catastrophy I should have them to Rosemont by the end of next week.. Check their web site for availibity. We didn't want to go to Columbus anyway! Tim ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 13:48:26 -0400 From: Carlos Valdes To: wwi Subject: Re: photo etched and stuff Message-ID: <33B7F16A.133E@conted.gatech.edu> Tim wrote: > We didn't want to go to Columbus anyway! Speak for yourself! ;-) Carlos ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 21:18:10 -0400 From: "Brad Gossen" To: Subject: Re: Eduard Strip Down's Message-ID: <199707110122.VAA10906@smtp.globalserve.net> Patrick wrote: > I will go ahead and apologize in advance if I've offended anyone by > using words like "tedious", "faster", "easier" If anyone out there takes modelling this seriously, that they are offended by your remarks, they really need to get a hobby! I too am an 'Impressionist'. I see the overall effect as the thing. There is a certain aesthetic value which only seems to be obtainable through a combination of creativity and imagination. Yes this is also a good excuse for lousy modelling. I can't count the number of times I've screwed up only to find that I've discovered a new effect that looks 'right'. Some of my favorites are not necessarily my best efforts and owe much to accident. Some of my best technical victories just don't seem to shine when completed. Painting is also my favorite part. Possibly because I find I am able to make up for my lack of technical building skill by excelling with weathering effects, shadowing, etc... Like you this is what makes me happy. If I ever find that I'm more wrapped up in the achievment aspect than the pleasure aspect I'll start looking for another hobby. As you say everyone gets something different from the hobby. I guess thats what makes us such a lovable bunch of eclectic nuts! Well I think I've injected far too much geniality into this thread. So I'd just like to say to all you lucky ****ard's in Columbus.......... "NATS TO YOU!" Brad BigglesRFC@globalserve.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 16:09:46 -0400 From: Carlos Valdes To: wwi Subject: Re: Eduard Strip Down's Message-ID: <33B8128A.1CEC@conted.gatech.edu> I once came across--either in print or person, I'm not sure now--a modeler who said that he always just wanted to build a "four footer": that's when you stand four feet away from the model and say, "Yeah, that looks about right...." I concur. Carlos ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 11:54:13 +0800 (GMT+0800) From: "Valenciano . Jose" To: wwi Subject: Re: Eduard Strip Down's Message-ID: The ultimate kit: Real Rubber Wings Dry Transfer Canopy Photo Etched Tyres Resin Markings Vac Formed Rigging ********************************************************************* Joey Valenciano WW1 modeller, teacher, jazz musician, joeyval@pusit.admu.edu.ph sitarist tel. (632) 921-26-75 Metro-Manila, Philippines "The more you know, the more you don't know." ********************************************************************* ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 22:53:59 -0500 From: "jfpliml" To: "WWI post" Subject: Battleship Gray? Message-ID: <199707110359.WAA11650@camalott.com> Hi everybody, Just sitting here trying not to think about the Nationals,and get something built. Anyway, just got the 72nd scale Mk.IV male (ouch! slow target) and started checking my few references on WWI tanks. I can't find much in the way of paint reference's. One book stated they might have been painted battleship gray. Could someone lead me down the right path to the proper color or colors. (also what model paint is the right match) Jim(saving money for next years Nat's) Pliml ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 21:27:25 -0700 From: bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) To: wwi Subject: help Message-ID: <199707110427.AA19662@ednet1.orednet.org> What's the command to send the list server so I get sent a copy of my own postings to the group? And, for those who are bemoaning the $25 and up kits with the plethora of itsy-bitsy photo-etched parts, remember that Smer and Glencoe are still out there, making kits exactly like kits were made in 1964. And the prices are roughly a third or less of a typical Eduard kit. Ya' won't win many contests with a Smer but ya' can build six Smers in the time it takes to fold all the photo-etched stuff on a single Eduard. And the eyestrain factor will be lower, as well. Cheers, -- - Bill Shatzer bshatzer@orednet.org - - Cave ab homine unius libri! - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 21:33:11 -0700 From: bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) To: wwi Subject: Re: Eduard Strip Down's Message-ID: <199707110433.AA22310@ednet1.orednet.org> Geoff typed: -snips- >Now a question about decals, I've been trying to apply Pegasus lozenge to= > >the interior of an E.V/D.VIII >without success. I've tried without setting solution and it won't conform= > >to the shape properly but with microset (not sol), it goes all wrinkly an= >d >curls at the edges and stays that way. With sol it's even worse. This is = >on >bare plastic, will it be better painted, or are the decals the problem? Decals are _always_ applied over a painted surface. I don't have a logical explanation of just _why_ they don't work over bare plastic but everyone I know of who's tried that has had big time problems. Try painting your surfaces - with a clear coat if nothing else - and I think you'll have better luck. Cheers, -- - Bill Shatzer bshatzer@orednet.org - - Cave ab homine unius libri! - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 21:51:33 -0700 From: Bob Pearson To: WW1 Mailing list Subject: Decal prep (formerly Eduard Strip Down's) Message-ID: <04513309238701@KAIEN.COM> Geoff, And I would add use a gloss clear coat. If you want a flat finish do so after the decals are applied with a flat coat. Has anyone noticed how lively the list is without the rest of those blankity-blanks cluttering it up ? I mean we have covered etched parts, decals, kit expense, what to do with our left over money ............... Bob Pearson (still not jealous) ---------- > From: bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) > > > > Decals are _always_ applied over a painted surface. I don't have > a logical explanation of just _why_ they don't work over bare plastic > but everyone I know of who's tried that has had big time problems. > > Try painting your surfaces - with a clear coat if nothing else - > and I think you'll have better luck. > > Cheers, > > -- > - Bill Shatzer bshatzer@orednet.org - > > - Cave ab homine unius libri! - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 21:53:01 -0700 From: rnrniles@wired2.net (Russell W Niles) To: wwi Subject: Re: Modelling philosophy (was: Eduard Strip Down's) Message-ID: <19970711045300529.AAA277@28.usr1.wired2.net> >Hi all, > >Before making any comments on specifics let me add my voice against the >crazy assumption that you can't make a model without using resin, photo >etch and aftermarket decals. Or that it isn't perfectly acceptable to >built OoB and be happy. Or anything you want to do. My attitude is that >this is a HOBBY and whatever turns you on is no business of any other, >consenting adult or not. That I scratchbuild is a personal decision, >that I compete is too, and for those that want to build kits straight >from the box and brush paint them, I say "go for it" and will still >enjoy looking at their models as much as anyones because if *they* >enjoyed doing it WE HAVE THAT IN COMMON. > Well said and true! I too have always been of the opinion that if I am happy with what I have produced, then the heck with everyone else. I build for me, and not for the other guys. I sure wish I was in Columbus this weekend, but unfortunately etc, etc. Oh well, next year in San Jose. In the immortal words of?? "we also serve who only sit and wait the results of the national contest", or something like that. Talk to all later. Russ Niles IPMS 4450 rnrniles@wired2.net Too close for missles....switching to guns. Russ Niles IPMS 4450 rnrniles@wired2.net Too close for missles....switching to guns. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 21:45:52 -0700 From: Bob Pearson To: WW1 Mailing list Subject: Re: help Message-ID: <04455220238690@KAIEN.COM> Bill Post to : wwi-request@pease1.sr.unh.edu with the message: set wwi mail ack end All I usually do is transfer my sent copy into the WW1 list folder. Bob Pearson ---------- > From: bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: help > Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 00:33:45 -0400 > > > > What's the command to send the list server so I get sent a copy > of my own postings to the group? > > And, for those who are bemoaning the $25 and up kits with the > plethora of itsy-bitsy photo-etched parts, remember that Smer > and Glencoe are still out there, making kits exactly like kits > were made in 1964. And the prices are roughly a third or less > of a typical Eduard kit. > > Ya' won't win many contests with a Smer but ya' can build six > Smers in the time it takes to fold all the photo-etched stuff > on a single Eduard. And the eyestrain factor will be lower, > as well. > > Cheers, > > -- > - Bill Shatzer bshatzer@orednet.org - > > - Cave ab homine unius libri! - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 14:59:43 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: help Message-ID: Bill, >You said: >And, for those who are bemoaning the $25 and up kits with the >plethora of itsy-bitsy photo-etched parts, remember that Smer >and Glencoe are still out there, making kits exactly like kits >were made in 1964. And the prices are roughly a third or less >of a typical Eduard kit. I wish. The latest Eduards Pfalz D.III are costing me A$24 (about US$17.50). The Glencoe reissue of the Aurora Pfalz is A$28. The Linberg Jenny is A$25 So which manufacturer gets my money? Shane ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 15:04:34 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Decal prep (formerly Eduard Strip Down's) Message-ID: Bob, >I mean we have covered etched parts, decals, kit expense, what to do with our left over money ............... Begone foul imposter. Left over money indeed. Clearly YOU are no WW1 modeller if you have and *left over* money. HUGE ;-) Shane (who is fantasizing about coming from Brisbane, Australia to the next US IPMS Nationals, which, of course, requires left over money) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 22:34:21 -0700 From: Bob Pearson To: WW1 Mailing list Subject: RE: Decal prep (formerly Eduard Strip Down's) Message-ID: <05342116538783@KAIEN.COM> Shane, Left over...? I don't have any to begin with any longer since I got this computer, which was why I wanted to trade for a Felixstowe. Bob ----------------------- > > Bob, > Begone foul imposter. Left over money indeed. Clearly YOU are no WW1 > modeller if you have and *left over* money. > > HUGE ;-) > > Shane > > (who is fantasizing about coming from Brisbane, Australia to the next US > IPMS Nationals, which, of course, requires left over money) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 23:07:47 -0700 From: bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) To: wwi Subject: RE: help Message-ID: <199707110607.AA28243@ednet1.orednet.org> Shane most diligently typed: > >Bill, > >>You said: >>And, for those who are bemoaning the $25 and up kits with the >>plethora of itsy-bitsy photo-etched parts, remember that Smer >>and Glencoe are still out there, making kits exactly like kits >>were made in 1964. And the prices are roughly a third or less >>of a typical Eduard kit. > > >I wish. The latest Eduards Pfalz D.III are costing me A$24 (about >US$17.50). The Glencoe reissue of the Aurora Pfalz is A$28. The >Linberg Jenny is A$25 > >So which manufacturer gets my money? With those prices, there is _no_ question in my mind as to who gets the money. Eduard gets it all! (I can always throw away the etched parts if I don't wanna use 'em!) Yet here, in my portion of the North American continent, the Smer kits are about US $6, the Lindberg kits are about US $7.50 and the Glencoe reissues of the the old Aurora kits are about US $9. Conversely, the cheapest Eduard kit I've seen is US $22.95. (And some, like the Albatros C.III are US $39.95!!!!!) Something strange is going on here if the antipodean prices are significantly different. I've no idea what the postage rates are to Australia but I'd be glad to provide ya' with unlimited supplies of Smer, Lindberg, and Glencoe kits at those prices plus the shipping charges. Cheers, -- - Bill Shatzer bshatzer@orednet.org - - Cave ab homine unius libri! - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 00:06:45 -0700 (PDT) From: lothar@televar.com (mark) To: wwi Subject: Re: Eduard Strip Down's Message-ID: <199707110706.AAA19600@concord.televar.com> > >The ultimate kit: > >Real Rubber Wings >Dry Transfer Canopy >Photo Etched Tyres >Resin Markings Hey, if Hasegawa did a kit just like this of one of those imaginary "Luftwaffe 1946" jets it would be a best seller - provided, of course, that those photoetched tires were properly "weighted" ;-) Mark ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 606 *********************