WWI Digest 3473 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) RE: Interesting item on eBay web site item#1159401172: Uniform of by Shane Weier 2) Re: New stuff on the site by "Matt Bittner" 3) Re: Gavia's Bristol & Union Jacks by "Matt Bittner" 4) Re: Got My Bebe Too! by "Matt Bittner" 5) Re: Hansa-Brandenburg HD.I Kits by "Matt Bittner" 6) RE: I'm back (and new to many)... by Shane Weier 7) Union Flags by Andreikor@aol.com 8) New Kit at Jadar by "Matt Bittner" 9) More Union Flag stuff by Andreikor@aol.com 10) D.'s Birthday Party by Andreikor@aol.com 11) Yet More Union Flags by Andreikor@aol.com 12) Welcome back Jeff by Andreikor@aol.com 13) IPMS USA Nats was Re: Americal/Gryphon?? by "David C. Fletcher" 14) RE: Gavia's Bristol & Union Jacks by Shane Weier 15) Re: Hansa-Brandenburg HD.I Kits by Todd Hayes 16) Re: Welcome back Jeff by "Jeff Wilson" 17) Re: Paen Re: Rhinebeck Get Together by Michael and Sharon Alvarado 18) Re: Update on my Fokker D.VII by Michael and Sharon Alvarado 19) The Union Flag by Marc Flake 20) Re: Gavia's Bristol & Union Jacks by "mdf@mars.ark.com" 21) Is there a list group meeting planned for Nats? by "diaphus" 22) Re: I'm back (and new to many)... by Michael and Sharon Alvarado 23) VAMP Models by Todd Hayes 24) Re: The Union Flag by "Steven Perry" 25) RE: The Union Flag by Shane Weier 26) RE: The Union Flag by Shane Weier 27) Ethical/legal model question by "Steven Perry" 28) RE: A birthday dream by john@huggins-leahey.com (John Huggins) 29) Re: The Union Flag by "Steven Perry" 30) RE: Ethical/legal model question by Shane Weier ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 10:45:11 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@wwi-models.org'" Subject: RE: Interesting item on eBay web site item#1159401172: Uniform of Message-ID: <7186131CB805D411A60E0090272F7C7102BCD16F@mimhexch1.mim.com.au> Dave posts: > Check out these photos! J.Hall must be James Norman Hall. (snip) > Presumably LE > means Lafayette Escadrille so I was told,whatever that is. This sentence makes my hair stand on end. Anyone selling militaria who asks someone (whoever told him) what LE means, and didn't either ask or get a background on what Lafayette Escadrille means ESPECIALLY in the US, strikes me as being somewhat disingenuous. I'd assume this to be fake until I got strong, strong verification of authenticity FWIW Shane ********************************************************************** The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you receive this e-mail in error, any use, distribution or copying of this e-mail is not permitted. You are requested to forward unwanted e-mail and address any problems to the MIM Holdings Limited Support Centre. e-mail: supportcentre@mim.com.au phone: Australia 1800500646 International ++61 7 38338042 ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 19:49:45 -0500 From: "Matt Bittner" To: "wwi@wwi-models.org" Subject: Re: New stuff on the site Message-ID: <200106260047.RAA12154@snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net> On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 17:10:35 -0400 (EDT), Philippe Spriesterbach wrote: > No more photos for the Nieuport ;-), but a new (for me) Pfalz D.III >From what I can tell, it looks great! Unfortunately the images are too washed out. The turnbuckles look cool. Matt Bittner ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 19:51:54 -0500 From: "Matt Bittner" To: "wwi@wwi-models.org" Subject: Re: Gavia's Bristol & Union Jacks Message-ID: <200106260049.RAA21885@snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net> On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 18:47:09 -0400 (EDT), KarrArt@aol.com wrote: > anybody remember the old Windsock issue demonstrating the way Nieuport rudder > numbers were not painted in the same style on both sides? At least - if I recall correctly - until the Nie.27... Matt Bittner ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 19:52:37 -0500 From: "Matt Bittner" To: "wwi@wwi-models.org" Subject: Re: Got My Bebe Too! Message-ID: <200106260050.RAA25202@snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net> On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 19:06:38 -0400 (EDT), Michael and Sharon Alvarado wrote: > All Eduard has to do is wash the molds in hot water, dry them on high heat and > they'll shrink down a size to 1/72. More companies should do this. ;^b YES! Every one, especially the Nieuports. C'mon, Eduard! ;-) Matt Bittner ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 19:58:38 -0500 From: "Matt Bittner" To: "wwi@wwi-models.org" Subject: Re: Hansa-Brandenburg HD.I Kits Message-ID: <200106260056.RAA22324@snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net> On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 20:55:28 -0400 (EDT), Todd Hayes wrote: > I'm not sure if they're still available either, but I > bought a 1:48 Czech Master HB. D.I from the old AvUSK > a couple of years ago. They don't advertise any 1:48 > Czech Master kits now, but they might still have some > left. I bought one of the five they had. Maybe the > other four are still there. $28. The rumor was that > this kit was the basis of the Eduard kit. Someone may want to contact them. If memory serves, they may have a Balloon HB D.I left. I know I saw a CM 1/48th resin something last time I was pawing through their stuff, just can't remember what it was. Matt Bittner ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 11:06:13 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@wwi-models.org'" Subject: RE: I'm back (and new to many)... Message-ID: <7186131CB805D411A60E0090272F7C7102BCD170@mimhexch1.mim.com.au> Todd says: > It seems to me that Eduard is distributing their kits > alot faster than they used to. It used to be at least > a month before they made their way from Europe to the > US. In the early days of Eduard, i could rely on getting the new kits about the same time as the US, often earlier. Nowadays only Earl gets them "Early" and the other stores seem to wait another month. I like Earl and his service is great, but get my kits somewhat cheaper through a friends local store and am willing (barely!) to wait since I hardly "need" the kits immediately, just WANT them desperately. Addiction is such a sod .... Shane ********************************************************************** The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you receive this e-mail in error, any use, distribution or copying of this e-mail is not permitted. You are requested to forward unwanted e-mail and address any problems to the MIM Holdings Limited Support Centre. e-mail: supportcentre@mim.com.au phone: Australia 1800500646 International ++61 7 38338042 ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 21:11:44 EDT From: Andreikor@aol.com To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Union Flags Message-ID: Michael wrote: Yes, that's pretty much it in a nutshell... the thicker portion of the white 'border' will be forward, reading clockwise, on either side of the aircraft... or vice versa, (I'd have to dig out my references) but that is, indeed, the difference. They would be mirror images of each other on either side of the aircraft. Cheers, Andrei ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 20:16:00 -0500 From: "Matt Bittner" To: "wwi@wwi-models.org" Subject: New Kit at Jadar Message-ID: <200106260114.SAA16389@harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net> Thought I would jump in before Witold. :-) Jadar has on their site the new Airmo Albatros C.V in 1/72nd (however, they don't give the year built). http://www.jadar.com.pl/news/start-a.htm Cool! Plus Jadar lists the new Roden kits - two off topic and the first two of the Fokker D.VII's. I just wish someone would come out with an injected SPAD 7 or 13... :-( Matt Bittner ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 21:18:40 EDT From: Andreikor@aol.com To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: More Union Flag stuff Message-ID: <10c.1d1c417.28693cf0@aol.com> Lance wrote: No, I'm quite certain the 'handing' (???) of the flag is intentional, but due to the nature of the design simply was never noticed by decal manufacturers, etc. I will dig out my ref's in the next day or so and create an explanatory doc that I'll email to anyone interested. By the way Bob, yes, I do have the art in Illustrator. Cheers, Andrei Andrei Koribanics II 8 Falcon Place Wayne, NJ 07470 USA Voice/Fax: 973-696-9378 email: andreikor@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 21:20:53 EDT From: Andreikor@aol.com To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: D.'s Birthday Party Message-ID: RK wrote: Ohhhhhhhhh......my poor head.............I can't even remember who won the wet T-shirt contest.> ROTFLMAO! yeah, D. sure knows how to throw a party! :) Cheers, Andrei ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 21:25:20 EDT From: Andreikor@aol.com To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Yet More Union Flags Message-ID: 'Alvie' wrote: Mike, Glad you found it educational... I'm just ticked that the manufacturer totally disregarded my efforts. It was great meeting you too... thanks for coming all the way up from Virginny! Maybe next time you can stay the weekend and see both shows... a little less stressful on the 'pedal foot' that way, anyway! Cheers, Andrei ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 21:30:00 EDT From: Andreikor@aol.com To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Welcome back Jeff Message-ID: <11c.cd6b2a.28693f98@aol.com> Welcome back Jeff... (ah, the smart ones always come back!) The way this thread about the Union Flags is going, perhaps we can encourage someone (Bob-cough!) to make new, corrected ones from my art! Enjoy! Cheers, Andrei ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 18:39:16 -0700 From: "David C. Fletcher" To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: IPMS USA Nats was Re: Americal/Gryphon?? Message-ID: <3B37E7C4.2080908@mars.ark.com> Lance Krieg wrote: Speaking of the US IPMS Nationals, have all the attendees identified themselves? Karen, how big is this pizza place we're visiting? I was the original instigator of the thread leading to the "enroute to Chicago" gaggle, but it now looks like my 1m:100cm scale model will take longer than planned and I want it airborne before heading east (even though I will be driving). That will delay my departure from the West Coast and hence I won't be able to make it. Maybe next year...then I might even have something built in a smaller scale! On the recent mention of Bovington, IIRC the curator is one David C. Fletcher, even born the same year I was, and he caused me all kinds of difficulty when I applied for an ISBN number since he had written a book first... I finally had to insert my middle name so future historians could tell us apart. Dave Fletcher -- Visit us at our Home Page: ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 11:35:53 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@wwi-models.org'" Subject: RE: Gavia's Bristol & Union Jacks Message-ID: <7186131CB805D411A60E0090272F7C7102BCD171@mimhexch1.mim.com.au> Lance says: > Michael explained the fact that there is both a red and white > St. Andrew's cross, and these are different in relation to > each other in each of the four cantons of the flag. > > I was told that this prevented the flag from being hoist > upside-down; it's identical when viewed either way, so there > IS no upside-down. No, that isn't true. Inverting the flag puts the red saltire higher in the white saltire on the staff end and lower on the fly end - which is reversed. Now if you spun it clockwise (or anticlockwise for that matter) by 180 degrees it'd be true, but how would you attach it to the hoist? Shane ********************************************************************** The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you receive this e-mail in error, any use, distribution or copying of this e-mail is not permitted. You are requested to forward unwanted e-mail and address any problems to the MIM Holdings Limited Support Centre. e-mail: supportcentre@mim.com.au phone: Australia 1800500646 International ++61 7 38338042 ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 18:29:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Todd Hayes To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Hansa-Brandenburg HD.I Kits Message-ID: <20010626012915.34724.qmail@web11101.mail.yahoo.com> So there might actually be a diamond among the rocks! --- Matt Bittner wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 20:55:28 -0400 (EDT), Todd Hayes > wrote: > > > I'm not sure if they're still available either, > but I > > bought a 1:48 Czech Master HB. D.I from the old > AvUSK > > a couple of years ago. They don't advertise any > 1:48 > > Czech Master kits now, but they might still have > some > > left. I bought one of the five they had. Maybe > the > > other four are still there. $28. The rumor was > that > > this kit was the basis of the Eduard kit. > > Someone may want to contact them. If memory serves, > they may have a > Balloon HB D.I left. I know I saw a CM 1/48th resin > something last > time I was pawing through their stuff, just can't > remember what it was. > > > Matt Bittner > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 11:55:18 +1000 From: "Jeff Wilson" To: Subject: Re: Welcome back Jeff Message-ID: Thanks Andrei - good to be back. I'm going to follow the flag thread with interest through the digest on the website. I need to track it back to the original query to find the reason for the Union Flag misgivings. A rather fortunate time for my return I think. Cheers, Jeff >>> Andreikor@aol.com - 26/6/01 11:38 AM >>> Welcome back Jeff... (ah, the smart ones always come back!) The way this thread about the Union Flags is going, perhaps we can encourage someone (Bob-cough!) to make new, corrected ones from my art! Enjoy! Cheers, Andrei ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 22:08:12 -0400 From: Michael and Sharon Alvarado To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Paen Re: Rhinebeck Get Together Message-ID: <3B37EE8C.1FEB9403@verizon.net> Great Andrei, See you there again in September. Alvie Stephendigiacomo@aol.com wrote: > Ahhhh, who cares? Rhinebeck's for sissies anyway! I didn't even wanna go to > stinkin old Rhinebeck anyhow! I don't care! (Sob, Sniffle.) > > In a message dated 6/25/1 12:19:48 PM, Andreikor@aol.com writes: > > << All in all a lovely day... don't mean to rub it in, but those who > cancelled > last minute missed a great time! I'm going to plan on making it there again > on September 30th! You guys should plan on it too! > > Cheers, > Andrei >> ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 22:40:51 -0400 From: Michael and Sharon Alvarado To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Update on my Fokker D.VII Message-ID: <3B37F630.CDE35ADE@verizon.net> Marcio, I always finish my machine guns by first painting them in gunmetal (a dark gunmetal such as Testors or Flo-quil is best). When the gunmetal has dried thoroughly, I rub a No.2 pencil tip across a piece of old sandpaper until I have a small pile of graphite dust. Then, using a soft bristle paint brush, I brush the graphite dust all over the machine guns. This highlights the guns in such a way as to make them look as if they were made of oiled thempered steel. Very realistic. I do not overcoat the finished machine guns but mount them as soon after finishing them as possible. Buena suerte amigo. HTH Alvie Marcio Antonio Campos wrote: > Hello, folks! > > This weekend I could work a bit more on my Revell Fokker D.VII. > > After some practice with masking tape in an old ot kit, I decided it was > time to try it in "game conditions". So I put the tape on the fuselage and > painted the red half of Berthold's plane. Perfect! > > Now I look at it and try to discover how that blue and red pretty thing > could come from my hands :-)))))))))) > > Have much to do yet, and I hope that story about doing something stupid just > when you are finishing the kit won't work here :-))))) > > BTW, let me ask you: Revell instructions always ask me to paint machine guns > in black, while my Roden Pfalz says that the right color is gunmetal > (Humbrol 53). What would you say about this? > > With best regards from Brazil > > Marcio Antonio Campos > Redator do GuiaSP > StarMedia do Brasil > marcio.campos@starmedia.net > http://www.guiasp.com.br > http://www.guiarj.com.br > http://www.nacidade.com.br ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 21:53:30 -0500 From: Marc Flake To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: The Union Flag Message-ID: <3B37F92A.7CE9@airmail.net> I've been waiting for one of the Brits or Scots to answer this one, but I guess this Anglophile from Texas is going to have to step up and explain it.. The Union Flag is called that because it is the union of three flags -- England, Scotland and Ireland. The English flag was white with a red cross (with the bars going vertically and horizontially), called the St. George's Cross. The Scottish Flag was (is) blue with a white saltire cross (with the bars forming an X)-- St. Andrew's Cross. The Irish flag is white with a red saltire cross (St. Patrick, for those keeping score). When England and Scotland united in the seventeenth century, the red cross and blue saltire were put together. A white outline was left around the red St. George's cross for heraldic reasons. That is, a color must never rest on a color and a metal must never rest on a metal. The "metals" are white and yellow, representing silver and gold. Therefore the red cross could not rest on the blue field -- requiring the white outline. This is the flag we see flown during the Napoleonic wars. Whew, now on to the Irish. When the Irish were recognized as part of the United Kingdom in 1801, the flag designers had to refer to another bit of heraldic heirarchy. The red St. Patrick's cross is superimposed and offset alongside the St. Andrew's Cross. The arrangement of crosses next to the mast is most important in determining this heirarchy. So, the cross of St. Andrew is positioned above the cross of St. Patrick. Scotland entered the United Kingdom first. You will notice that the white bar is wider above the red bar. Oddly enough, and I can't remember why, but on the other end of the flag (the fly) the thick white bar is below the thinner red bar. And the St. Patrick's Cross is interupted before it can intersect with the St. George's Cross in the middle of the flag. Again, color may not touch color. Go to: http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/brflag2.htm I just checked the Americals sheet and Glen has the correct offsets, but they are upside down . . . or backwards. Marc ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 23:01:19 -0400 From: "mdf@mars.ark.com" To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Gavia's Bristol & Union Jacks Message-ID: <3B37FAFF.E568EFA8@mars.ark.com> They changed it several times - which version are you building? Mike Matt Bittner wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 18:47:09 -0400 (EDT), KarrArt@aol.com wrote: > > > anybody remember the old Windsock issue demonstrating the way Nieuport rudder > > numbers were not painted in the same style on both sides? > > At least - if I recall correctly - until the Nie.27... > > Matt Bittner ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 23:18:19 -0400 From: "diaphus" To: Subject: Is there a list group meeting planned for Nats? Message-ID: <00bd01c0fdee$a60baa40$28c45c18@tampabay.rr.com> I know there have been messages about who's attending and buttons, but have not seen any announcement about a group meeting location and time, if such a thing has even been planned. If so, when and where? If not, do we all sort of collect together like dust balls, drawn by either our list buttons or the WWI display tables? :-) TIA and hope to see you in Chicago. Jack Gartner diaphus@tampabay.rr.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 23:20:42 -0400 From: Michael and Sharon Alvarado To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: I'm back (and new to many)... Message-ID: <3B37FF88.9D710140@verizon.net> Jeff, Welcome back mate. I remember you from my lurking days but you wouldn't have known me. To answer your question, I have in my possession a sheet of Union Flag decals in assorted sizes from a company called Tech Order Decals wich is a division of Precision Scale Graphics. Their address is P.O. Box 3202, Boynton beach, Florida, 33424-3202, USA. The sheet is number TODE99002, Union Jacks. I ran across them at one of my local hobby shops but have never seen them again. There are no registration problems with these decals as each color is printed separately so any registration errors are yours alone. I have no idea about their current availability but its a starting point. HTH Alvie Jeff Wilson wrote: > Hello, > > some of you might remember me (greetings to Shane W and Shane & Lorna), most will not. I was a member of the list a little while ago, but lost interest in WWI modelling for a while (a cardinal sin, but I'm in recovery now) and did a few from that other big conflict of the 20th Century (no one-oh-thingies, however). My most recent effort can be seen at: > > http://www.rsbs.anu.edu.au/central-services/Photo/P-40_Photos/ > > But please be warned that it is decidedly OT. > > Why am I back? Putting it simply, I bought the new Eduard Bebe and Gavia Bristol the other day and I am gobsmacked at just how good they are. I'm in a quandary over which to do first (or the Hanriot floatplane that was hiding in storage) and they have pushed all else aside on the bench at the moment. > > A couple of questions if I may, as my WWI reference library is somewhat undernourished... > > The Union flags in my Bristol sample are rather off register (and I note there is a thread currently running in regard to these flags) and that is the option I would prefer to do. Any idea where I might obtain replacements, or shall I have to make the best of a bad thing? > > I'm tempted towards 'Zigomar' for the Bebe. Should it be CDL overall as shown in the instructions, or should it have darker tapes along flying surface and fuselage edges as per Alberto Casirati's superb 1/72 example: > > http://www.wwi-models.org/Images/Casirati/Nieuport/Ni11-stbdlg.jpg > > Please note that I am not a micrometer modeller - I model for the end result on the shelf and the enjoyment I had in getting there. Modelling techniques are more important to me than small dimensional or shape errors - but I do like the overall effect to be accurate, hence the question regarding the Bebe. > > I hope I can bring another worthwhile voice to this forum - RMS is a cultural desert these days... > > All the best to all, > > Jeff > > Jeffrey Wilson > Photography Unit > Research School of Biological Sciences > Australian National University > Acton, Canberra, ACT, 0200 > Phone +61 (0)2 6125 3635 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 20:19:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Todd Hayes To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: VAMP Models Message-ID: <20010626031936.5209.qmail@web11108.mail.yahoo.com> Would someone please check the VAMP site for me? I get a strange looking page that says there's an 'external' problem. I'm wondering if it's my computer or the VAMP's server. I'd be very obliged. The address is w3.inshop.cz/vamp Todd __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 23:36:17 -0400 From: "Steven Perry" To: Subject: Re: The Union Flag Message-ID: <001301c0fdf1$28b26720$59b65c18@tampabay.rr.com> Well, H--- ! I just thought the decals were a tad out of register. The Union Jacks on my Tabloid, (Thanks Diego), have a wide side to the white X. The wide side is on the right and progresses in a clockwise manner. Both wings are the same handed. So I take it the port wing should be opposite. Wide side to the left and counterclockwise? Assuming the painter hadn't been into his rum ration. sp If a judge notices, I'll be proud to give up the points :-) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 13:45:45 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@wwi-models.org'" Cc: "'sperry03@tampabay.rr.com'" Subject: RE: The Union Flag Message-ID: <7186131CB805D411A60E0090272F7C7102BCD177@mimhexch1.mim.com.au> SP says: > Well, H--- ! I just thought the decals were a tad out of > register. The Union > Jacks on my Tabloid, (Thanks Diego), have a wide side to the > white X. The > wide side is on the right and progresses in a clockwise > manner. Both wings > are the same handed. Wide white border on the saltire (diagonal cross) is above on both arms nearest the flagpole and below on both furthest from the pole Look at: http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/gb.html The hoist is to the left, fly to the right - this is the normal depiction when drawn, rather than flown Shane ********************************************************************** The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you receive this e-mail in error, any use, distribution or copying of this e-mail is not permitted. You are requested to forward unwanted e-mail and address any problems to the MIM Holdings Limited Support Centre. e-mail: supportcentre@mim.com.au phone: Australia 1800500646 International ++61 7 38338042 ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 13:51:53 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@wwi-models.org'" Subject: RE: The Union Flag Message-ID: <7186131CB805D411A60E0090272F7C7102BCD178@mimhexch1.mim.com.au> Marc, > The arrangement of crosses next to the mast is most important in > determining this heirarchy. So, the cross of St. Andrew is positioned > above the cross of St. Patrick. Scotland entered the United Kingdom > first. You will notice that the white bar is wider above the red bar. > Oddly enough, and I can't remember why, but on the other end > of the flag (the fly) the thick white bar is below the thinner red bar. To be dominant, it only has to be dominant in the canton (position of honour) However, I'm not too sure myself of why it isn't in the lower position on the fly, unless it's simply for radial symmetry - which seems an odd idea Shane ********************************************************************** The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you receive this e-mail in error, any use, distribution or copying of this e-mail is not permitted. You are requested to forward unwanted e-mail and address any problems to the MIM Holdings Limited Support Centre. e-mail: supportcentre@mim.com.au phone: Australia 1800500646 International ++61 7 38338042 ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 23:57:18 -0400 From: "Steven Perry" To: Subject: Ethical/legal model question Message-ID: <003101c0fdf4$18112c00$59b65c18@tampabay.rr.com> If one makes a master for a kit and uses an existing kit as the basis of that master after improving/correcting/detailing the kit pieces, is this a fair use if the intent is to sell kits. I do not mean knockoff copies, rather a mix of modified kit parts and scratchbuilt ones making up the master. sp ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 22:53:56 -0600 From: john@huggins-leahey.com (John Huggins) To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: RE: A birthday dream Message-ID: Diego, A bit late, but best wishes anyway. Maybe next year I'll see you at the p[arty. John ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 00:02:39 -0400 From: "Steven Perry" To: Subject: Re: The Union Flag Message-ID: <003d01c0fdf4$d7a77f60$59b65c18@tampabay.rr.com> Thanks Bud. Got that one bookmarked. Whadya expect of me, I'm used to the Stars & Bars sp Whose gonna study that web site so he can try to trip up his Britt buddy at work ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 14:02:16 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@wwi-models.org'" Subject: RE: Ethical/legal model question Message-ID: <7186131CB805D411A60E0090272F7C7102BCD179@mimhexch1.mim.com.au> SP asks: > If one makes a master for a kit and uses an existing kit as > the basis of > that master after improving/correcting/detailing the kit > pieces, is this a > fair use if the intent is to sell kits. I do not mean knockoff copies, > rather a mix of modified kit parts and scratchbuilt ones making up the > master. > If not there's a hell of a lot of illegal kit parts out there. In fact, there are/were also plenty of straight out copies of kit parts available in resin. IMO, using a kit part with corrections and new detail as a master is okay - it's just an armature for a properly produced model. But again IMO reselling resin or metal copies of kit parts is a pretty low act and I won't buy any resin/vac/shortrun kit I believe to transgress, whoever sells it. Shane ********************************************************************** The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you receive this e-mail in error, any use, distribution or copying of this e-mail is not permitted. You are requested to forward unwanted e-mail and address any problems to the MIM Holdings Limited Support Centre. e-mail: supportcentre@mim.com.au phone: Australia 1800500646 International ++61 7 38338042 ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 3473 **********************