too much superdetailing?

Hello again!

I sincerely did not have any intentions to try ending this tread at all. Just a small input!

To be honest, I should have found a model and got started myself instead!  ;)

Unfortunately, I just joined here a few days ago........... so now - I check my e-mails, and then go and login here......bugger-bugger-bugger!!! :)

In a lot of ways this beats FSM, but then again - I love paper, and it doesn´t need rebooting all the time.

:))

Gunnar - Denmark

Bgrigg wrote:

I'm amazed at Jeff's prescient ability: I think as a lot, we've become more sociable...except for Durr and eizzle!!!! LOL!

Only you could come up with something like that.  I like it. 

Bgrigg wrote:

I'm amazed at Jeff's prescient ability: I think as a lot, we've become more sociable...except for Durr and eizzle!!!! LOL!

I think finding out htere are more people out there that enjoy the same hobby you do and have normal lives as well helps people feel more secure with this hobby, that is, unfortuantly, seen as a kids pasttime. It does bring confidence to have friends who enjoy the same things, and be able to talk to these friends, rather than trying to talk to your friends that know nothing about it. I wouldn't exactly say I'm more sociable, but I am much more of a smart since I joined, if you can't tell... Bgrigg

I'm amazed at Jeff's prescient ability:

I think as a lot, we've become more sociable...except for Durr and eizzle!!!!

LOL!

DURR wrote:

Jeff Herne wrote: True, the amount of time we spent here debating and discussing this topic could be spent modeling, but I spend more than enough time in my shop each week, thank you. I think part of our hobby that we've missed for the last 30 years is the ability to communicate with fellow modelers. Before email, the internet and online forums, we had snail mail and local clubs. I remember my first model club in upstate NY, we had 5 members, and I was the only ship builder in the entire group...not really an informational mecca.  I think as a lot, we've become more sociable...well, some of us anyway!!!! Jeff were those dugout canoes hard to model? Oh just wondering did Fred and Barney help you  and on a serious note i agree with you

ROTFLMAO!!! I would imagine you would only have to find a twig that was in scale, how hard could that be??? Man, we are both gonna get banned

Jeff Herne wrote:

True, the amount of time we spent here debating and discussing this topic could be spent modeling, but I spend more than enough time in my shop each week, thank you. I think part of our hobby that we've missed for the last 30 years is the ability to communicate with fellow modelers. Before email, the internet and online forums, we had snail mail and local clubs. I remember my first model club in upstate NY, we had 5 members, and I was the only ship builder in the entire group...not really an informational mecca.  I think as a lot, we've become more sociable...well, some of us anyway!!!! Jeff

were those dugout canoes hard to model?

Oh just wondering did Fred and Barney help you

 and on a serious note i agree with you

True, the amount of time we spent here debating and discussing this topic could be spent modeling, but I spend more than enough time in my shop each week, thank you.

I think part of our hobby that we've missed for the last 30 years is the ability to communicate with fellow modelers. Before email, the internet and online forums, we had snail mail and local clubs. I remember my first model club in upstate NY, we had 5 members, and I was the only ship builder in the entire group...not really an informational mecca.

What makes this hobby so great in this day and age is the ability to get advice, research information, and input on a project in a manner that doesn't impede the progress of the build. I think as a lot, we've become more sociable...well, some of us anyway!!!!

Jeff

Well I guess thats all very well, but then if we take that to the extreme, we might as well close the forum down. I for one have very much enjoyed keeping an eye on this thread and its interesting and varied points of view. I personally enjoy spending my time on this forum almost as much as actually building my models. 

Hello all!

I´m sorry - but as I got through the first page of this tread, I almost went into "a giggle loop".  ;)

No offence to all replies...... I just "scrolled" the rest!  Only to confirm that You all could have done a great model in the same time. A model to YOUR OWN satisfaction! No more no less!

Personally I have done excellent handpainted OOB(with homemade detailing) - and the audience....... friends & family....... are in awe!  :))  They don´t know better, do they!? ;)

I´m a total "newbie" to this site/forum. Nonetheless, I did see something like "building-forum/group" somewhere.

I´ll "see" You all there, then! :)

Happy modelling,

Gunnar - Denmark

The one AM item I hate the most is PE parts.   I never can get them bent to where they look good.   I can't see taking a PE part, bending it so many times to form a square box.  In that case, I take plastic stock, sand, file and cut to form the same item.  It is much easier for me.  Some parts are so small, I can't even work with them.  My fumble fingers always gets in the way so, I just don't use the small parts. 

Back in the stone age, when I really got serious about model building, I used a lot of plastic and wire to form canopy lock down hooks and side rails,  I remember working several weeks just on one canopy.  Today PE parts enable the builder to do it in less than an hour. You almost never see an aircraft without the PE parts on the canopy, where 20-30 years ago you never saw anything on the canopy.  I now use the PE parts for all my canopies. 

I admit, that PE parts are one of my weaker points of model building.  It hasn't stoped my use of them though. 

Cutting corners? Don't we all do that? (unless you are a complete scratch builder of course). We 'cut corners' in areas that we don't find enjoyable or can't replicate with our current skill sets. Canopy masks are a good example, personally they seem like a lot of money for something I can do just as well with some masking tape. But many people HATE canopy masking (NOT that I love it - I'm just cheap!), so they spend the extra few dollars to achieve the detail the want. I think that rule of thumb applies to much of the AM stuff. Afterall, we are in this to have fun ;)

I don't think anyone would argue too much about decals, after all, according to the model manufacturers, the only P-51s that existed during WW2 were Big Beautiful Doll, Cripes a Mighty, Shangri-La, Ridge Runner, and Ding Hao! (you get my point)...

I'm on the fence about aftermarket details. In some instances, I think it's overkill, like resin intakes just because you're too lazy to sand a tough seam, or the 'bulged' tire controversy. In my days as an air museum director, I got to work with many WW2-era groundcrew, and a few mentioned that if the tires of their aircraft were bulged like that, they'd be replaced. The only exception, I'm told, is when P-47s were loaded up for strike missions, but in that case, you'd better have lots of garbage hanging off the wings and centerline.

In most cases, aftermarket parts give the modeler the opportunity to add detail without huge amounts of work. Do I have the talent to scratchbuild every little detail? Sure...but I don't have the time, or the desire.

I must confess that my latest addiction is to the new pre-painted cockpit sets by Eduard. They provide a level of detail that I personally cannot achieve in 1/32 and 1/48 scale using any kit part or scratchbuilt piece that I could come up with.

So what's the worst thing about model building?? Excess. What's the best thing about model building?? Excess!! :-)

It's all good, it's a matter of determining where you sit in the moral majority of modeling.

J

DURR wrote:

one thing i think both sides of this discussion will at least agree on ( i hope)  is the use of  AM decals. i mean if you have a thing for a certain type of  aircraft that is the only way you can make 4-5 of them, only because the factory decals are often only 1 to 3 choices

You are 100% correct.  AM decals were the first item offered so you could build something different.  They have been around 30-40 years.  When the first AM decals came out, there wasn't on line reviews or magazine reviews of them.  You had to take your chances when you bought them.  The manufacturer did not always do proper research prior to releasing them.

I remember in the mid 70's when Monogram released their F-86 and MIG-15 in 1/48 scale.  The F-86 was an E model with the 6-3 hard wing.  The MIG-15bis had markings for the Russian AF.  The F-86 kit decals were "Paper Tiger" which was correct for a F-86E, 6-3 hard wing.  I was wanting some North Korera markings for the MIG and some other set for the F-86.  A set of AM decals were released, along with the MIG-15bis.  I bought both sets and when I got them home I discovered the F-86 decals, two were for the F-86A and one for the E model which was "Paper Tiger".  The MIG-15bis had markings for one Russian, one Polish and one East German. 

Several months later another set was released and the LHS only got one set of each.  My friend bought the F-86 decals and I got the MIG decals.  The F-86 had decals for Korea War -F-86 and after further research we discovered two were for the F-86E Standard Soft Wing.  A third was for a F-86F-30, 6-3 hard wing.  None were useable with the Monogram release.  The MIG decals had one Chinese and two North Korea aircraft.  The results were I built the "Paper Tiger" and North Korea MIG-15bis. 

When Monogram re issued both kits later the F-86 had markings for "Jeannie" and the MIG had North Korea markings. 

  

DURR wrote:

in a way does anyone feel that it is cutting corners (not money wise) but in the sense of using your talents

I would have to say, No...and Yes!

Anyone who has assembled 3-piece PE German tool holders or spent hours attatching 20 pieces of resin to a build knows that modelers need to develop "new" talents to work with these products. In many cases, AM products require modelers to learn how to work with dissimilar materials, soldering, and modifications to basic kit parts (and many other things) that a basic OOTB builder will never need to learn. Once mastered, these skills don't make them more talented modelers...just modelers with different talents.

Now, are some of these AM products "cutting corners" when compared to a modeler scratch-building the same components? Yes, in many cases that is THE primary reason for using AM products. Even if a modeler has the talent and skill to completely scratch-build a perfect replica of an ACES II ejection seat, the task may take them a month or more to complete. When there's a more than satisfactory resin AM seat available, many modelers will choose to use it.

There will always be modelers whose primary concern in a build is speed (IMO, not a good thing). Just look at the number of requests for tips or tricks to do various tasks quicker and easier. However, I personally don't think that using AM products - by itself - constitutes "cutting corners".

now please i don't want to be Blasted by the people in this discussion  that heavily use  a/m parts but ...

in a way does anyone feel that it is cutting corners (not money wise) but in the sense of using your talents

and i have seen alot of your works out here so i DO mean talent

one thing i think both sides of this discussion will at least agree on ( i hope)  is the use of  AM decals. i mean if you have a thing for a certain type of  aircraft that is the only way you can make 4-5 of them, only because the factory decals are often only 1 to 3 choices

berny13 wrote:

Has AM parts caused us to be spoiled?

Berny,

I would agree with Jeff and say, "Only partially". Heck, my Dad still thinks everyone today is "spoiled" by remote controls for electronics, cruise control on the car, and microwave ovens.

I would actually lean more toward modelers being indulged by AM manufacturers rather than being spoiled. While these words are synonyms and there's only a subtle difference, I think the word 'spoil' carrys too many negative connotations. There is no doubt that AM manufacturers have provided modelers with a time-saving alternative to scratch-building, but I'm not so certain this "lost art" is, or ever will be, completely forgotten. While I can appreciate the value of using a resin component to save time, I can equally appreciate the skill of using an old beer can to make fenders or stretched sprue to construct a radar array. Scratch-building will never completely die, but like many things in life, it will likely fill a smaller and more specialized nitch in the hobby. 

To a degree Berny, yes, I think they have. I've looked at two identical models, 1/32 Tamiya F-4s, built back in Jersey. One was built OOB, the other, "to the nines" with Black Box cockpit, aftermarket decals, Eduard PE inside and out, Cutting Edge intakes, etc.

Up close and personal, when I'm looking at it from 6 inches away, yes, I can see the difference. From 2 feet away, I can't tell them apart.

My point is that people add details to their basic kits (not that the F-4 is a basic kit) because they want to, and they can.

Last night, I worked on a 1/350 Tamiya Fletcher. I'm converting it into a late war square bridge from an early war round bridge. That's equivalent to doing a late Tiger I from an early Tiger I, or a Spitfire XIV from a Mk Vb.

So far, I've used Tom's Modelworks replacement bridge, Corsair Armada's incredible 5in. turrets, scratchbuilt midship 40mm boxes, resin life rafts and 40mm guns that I cast myself, and L'Arsenal 20mm guns. I've used parts from 6 or 7 different PE sets, and white metal parts from an old Blue Water Navy Fletcher kit.

All of this stuff was just laying around my shop, I've even had the base kit for more than 5 years now. Sometimes, we have no choice but to detail with extra parts, especially in this instance when there's no late-war Fletcher available in plastic. Yankee Modelworks does an excellent kit in resin, but I decided it was easier to scrounge together the parts that I had laying around, especially since I knew exactly what I'd need to do the job.

In the end, you won't be able to tell my Tamiya from a Yankee kit unless you're on top of it with a magnifying glass. Some things on the Yankee kit will be nicer and more detailed than my model, but some things on my model will be nicer than the Yankee kit. Therein is the trade-off we make, and the reasons we make them are purely our own.

Jeff

PS: great thread, lots of insight into what makes us tick. Thanks for keeping it civilized.

What did model builders do 20 or 30 years ago?  At that time AM parts were not available.  They built OOB or scratch built items to improve the quality of a basic kit.  With all the AM parts available today, most model builders rely on them and feel they must have them in order to build a quality kit.  As a result, scratch building has become a thing of the past, with only the old timers having the knowledge.  Has AM parts caused us to be spoiled?  

Well add this simple build to the list. Matt's Harrier build in the January '06 Mag. A pretty inexpensive kit ( I just bought one for $22 and the PE set for $6) and a pretty inexpensive PE set that turned out awesome! I went out and bought this kit with the PE set, well, cause it looked really cool in the magazine. Hopefully my fat hands don't ruin it

 

Other than a review, where the cost is relavant as are the contents of the box, ease of assembly, etc. the total cost of a model is no one's bloody business quite frankly. If your buddy shows up with a heavily modded car next week, lambo doors, GPS, bling-bling wheels, maxed out sound system, elaborate custom paint, are you going to ask him how much he paid for the mods? Are you even going to ask him how much he paid for the basic car? If you do, his answer should be' "Why would you want to ask such a rude question?"

20 years ago, when the aftermarket was in its infancy, a builder brought an F-15 to a show and listed how much he paid for each AM part. I have never heard anyone get dissed as much as him.

Talal Chouman, who has had a cover feature on FSM scratchbuilds his superb 1/16 armor kits. They are assessed by insurance companies in the tens of thousands of dollars. His total per kit cost for materials would by in the tens of dollars because he uses sheet stock and casts his own resin parts in his tiny workshop in his cellar.

The late Jim Jones, who taught me how to stretch sprue, had his fabulous Shinano in hte feature section about 1989 or 1990. He spent some 1200 hours on the kit and detaliled every gun mounmt and aircraft to a fare thee well. His basic material for this: you may have guessed it...stretched sprue. Cost, nothing.

IIRC, most of the detailing on that AC-130H was scratcbuilt. What would the cost of materials mean to a reader there?

Someone early on bemoaned not entering contests because they can't build cover -models for FSM. A couple years ago, our contest's Best of Show went to an out of box figure that was just extremely well painted. Last fall, I took several place awards with an out of box Verlinden 10" seacoast mortar. Very simple kit, maybe a dozen parts to the piece. It was well assembled and painted. That's what got me the trophies, not a ton extra parts.

My most detailed kits, a 1/72 Sherman (from 1983 before there was any aftermarket that didn't consist of a vacuform something or another), a 1/35 Tiran 5 and a 1/35 Bradley had next to nothing in after market costs.

Face it, gents. We aren't going to recreate the models we see on the cover of FSM for ourselves. No one expects us to. Use them as inspiration for what is possible.

As to the magazine featuring more OOB, they have half a dozen every month in the review section. Want to see what can be done OOB? Look there. Frankly, I think the magazine is already too dumbed down with some of the gallery pictures that have been posted recently and a couple of the feature ariticles that had a lot of WOW factor for size but a number of very basic assembly or painting flaws.

I hate the tought of paying $40 a year to look at average level work. For that money, I expect nothing less than masterworks.

Robert,

I consider you a very experienced modeler, so yeah, you shouldn't be relying on FSM for costs. As you said, you have spent hundreds of hours researching costs. A newbie to the modeling addiction doesn't have that experience, or the knowledge, and will look to FSM for that information. FSM knows that hence the msrp cost in New Products and Workbench Reviews.

I'm becoming more experienced about the kit prices but am still a n00b when it comes to AM. Searching online doesn't help as many sites don't show images of the AM and I don't have specifics to compare one kind to the other.

As indicated earlier, I work for a printer and have 20 years of costing print production, not to mention co-ordination of many magazines, books and catalogues. The addition of a price list would be a minor problem to overcome.

Bgrigg wrote:

...so cost is a factor to a certain segment of the readership.

An excellent point! Cost is not only a factor, I think it's one of the most important aspects of everything we do in life. I personally live on a fixed income of under $18K per year, so how much something is going to cost is extremely vital. In addition to the thousands of hours I've spent researching kit reviews and availability, I've spent hundreds of hours over the past three years researching costs. However, the cost alone is seldom the sole decided factor in whether I tackle a particular project...it can be, but not very often. 

The question that appears to need resolution is, "Where is the best place for a modeler to get cost information?" and should the answer be, "FSM". I would personally never rely on a modeling magazine or non-retail web site to provide a completely accurate representation of costs for a kit, product, or project. While they are usually able to provide a "ballpark" figure, my experience has been that I will find cost variations of 30% or more (up or down) from any cost quoted by a non-retail source. The absolute best place to get a cost on anything is from the person, store, or web site where you will buy the item.

My biggest complaint about FSM - aside from the quantity of advertising space - has always been that most build articles are extremely "watered down" and seldom provide the level of detailed information I would prefer. Whether builds are OOTB or super-detailed, nearly all FSM articles appear to written in way that is solely determined by publication space and NOT by the level of information the article should be passing on to the reader. I completely agree a listing of products used on a particluar build (kit#, AM products and #'s, scratch built or spares used, etc.) is valuable information to many modelers. However, one-time cost estimates may not be completely accurate and may only eat up already limited publication space.

This is an extremely interesting discussion and some outstanding points have been raised!!!

Quite the can of worms being opened here!

Okay, I see the difficulty of stating exact prices, perhaps it's my naivete with the hobby that makes me want to know how much stuff costs? Perhaps it's my job as Estimating Manager for a large printshop? I certainly don't want my hobby to end up the same as my job, for then I will truly be insane, instead of just being suspected of it.

I just can't get over the feeling that FSM is not really a magazine for experienced modelers, who already know most of what they see each month, or even have those kits in the collection (built or stashed), but is a way for newbie modelers to learn and grow our skills. I look to FSM to educate me on the minutae of the build, and with that in mind, can't help but associate costs to it. I am most definitely NOT independently wealthy, and I'm betting most of us aren't, so cost is a factor to a certain segment of the readership.

Jeff Herne wrote:

Most readers will look at a model and say, "I'm not going to add ________ because..." It could be money, skills, experience, or desire (or lack thereof). Usually, readers will say something to the effect that "I'm not going to scratchbuild a replacement mantlet just because the bolt pattern is wrong, but I am going to add a replacement barrel like he did." Eventually, with each project, the reader's skills and confidence will increase, and eventually (it could take years) he finds himself adding tons of details to a project. That's the typical progression of a modeler. Eventually, we find that we're not newbies anymore. Most of the time, we don't know when we stopped being newbies and started becoming "experienced" modelers.

Jeff,

You're not babbling again; you make perfect sense.

I've been reading FSM since I was in high school in '89. In fact, the article that prompted me to buy the magazine was by Bob Steinbrunn on backdating and superdetailing a Monogram F-80C to a P-80. That article blew me away!

I'd read articles like that and say to myself, "Well, I can't make an instrument panel from scratch, but I can make a seat cushion from tissues soaked in glue, and make my own seatbelts from masking tape."

Like a lot of people, I didn't build models after high school until I started again a few years ago. Now I'm in my early 30s, I have a lot more money to spend on the hobby (especially for tools) than I did before, and my skills are much better than they were seventeen years ago.

However, I still look at a lot of the builds, and think, "well, I can't cast replacement landing gear struts from resin (yet), but I can certainly make my own decals."

Truth be told, the title of the magazine is "Fine Scale Modeling" not "Regular Scale Modeling." I expect to see a fair amount of high-level work that involves scratch building and after market parts.

At the same time, Matt Usher's recent articles (on the Corvette and building a diorama) where he shows how to go just a step or two beyond a straight OOB build are fantastic. I hope FSM keeps the varied content of different genres and build levels coming.

Regards,

Good point Scott, I never really considered that when I posting my reasoning.

I've had the chance to give it some thought (remarkable, huh?) and as much as I'd like to provide a line-by-line cost analysis of a project build, truth is, I don't know if I honestly could, or if I did, what would the reader gain from it?

What I mean is...my spares box gets a workout with every project, I do a lot of scratchbuilding, and I turn and mill and cast many of my own parts. Are those options available, or even useful, to the average modeler?

I honestly can't think of the last time I bought a kit and a detail set, and just built it. If that were my norm, it'd be easy to say I spent $30 on the kit and $18 on the detail set. I don't know how many of us actually build this way, but I'd tend to think most of us are somewhere in between those two levels.

Of course, it could get ridiculous too...

I spent $30 on the kit, $50 on resin bits, $25 on PE, $40 on Frui tracks, $7 on decals, then I spent $600 on a lathe to turn the barrel and $300 on a compressor to run the $400 Iwata airbrush I bought for this project.

I think that most "super" models that we see start out with a basic kit (obviously, scratchbuilt models are the exception). I think the average reader has the ability to read a story, understand that the builder started with a $30 tank kit, and added lots and lots of details to it. If he (the reader) is at the level of the builder, then chances are he already knows how much it'll cost to get that level of detail.

Most readers will look at a model and say, "I'm not going to add ________ because..." It could be money, skills, experience, or desire (or lack thereof). Usually, readers will say something to the effect that "I'm not going to scratchbuild a replacement mantlet just because the bolt pattern is wrong, but I am going to add a replacement barrel like he did."

Eventually, with each project, the reader's skills and confidence will increase, and eventually (it could take years) he finds himself adding tons of details to a project. That's the typical progression of a modeler. Eventually, we find that we're not newbies anymore. Most of the time, we don't know when we stopped being newbies and started becoming "experienced" modelers.

I guess it boil down to common sense, too. If you read a story and the builder says he added this resin set and that PE set, it's pretty likely that it's going to be expensive if you try to replicate the project.

Maybe I'm an exception to the rule...but I can't tell you where my kits came from, how long I've had most of them, or how much they cost me. I'm constantly swapping and trading kits and buying collections. Same with my detail parts, I have no clue what I have. Sometimes, I'll open a box and find it jam-packed with aftermarket details, and I have no clue where they came from, or where I got them! It's hard to quantify something like that.

I'm babbling again...

Jeff

Jeff Herne wrote:

I have a similar experience, although it didn't happen to me. A good friend of mine (yes, I still have a few left) started working on a scratchbuilt 1/35 Sturmtiger about one year before the Tamiya kit was released. He worked on it diligently, and ended up with a great looking model. The first show he brought it to was the first show on the East coast where every vendor had at least a case of the latest "must have" kit, the Tamiya Sturmtiger. How's that for luck? Jeff

Why do I have the feeling that is what might happen to me.  I'm doing a SCB27 conversion and I'm sure that DML will come out with their SCB125 the day I put the last touch on mine.

Then again, that would be great, because I don't care, I am doing what I love to do., converting WW2 Essex class carriers from kits.   How much did it cost me? Again, I won't know or care, for I have $300 saved in my piggy bank and when its gone, its gone and if I have to comb the dumpsters for materials, then that will only add to the fun and challenge.  How much time have I spent on it?  Again, I won't have a clue or care, for in my opinion, I can never totally finish a model.

This subject of time and costs in regards to our models is crazy.  Really, it reminds me of work, for as project manager, I'm required to cost every little part to the penny and estimate and track every hour spent on the project.

I really do not want to do that with my hobby, because then my hobby will become work.

zokissima wrote:

For example, that StuG project, were I actually able to find most of those parts, they'd cost me twice as much. Most I'd have to order online.

Excellent point...and this leads back to one of my previous points. Posting a cost for the build is relative. My StuG build has a lot of AM extras, this much is true. However, the kit could also be built up into a nearly identical model with no (or very minimal) AM products. With the hatches closed and the kit's gun used, perhaps only a few PE tool holders would be needed to make the models look substantially the same. The ONLY reason I used these AM products was because I got them all in a group purchase. If I had purchased the kit seperately, I would not have purchased the additional AM products...the kit really didn't need them to look good.

So what does my $50.00 price tag tell a potential reader other than my talent for finding a good deal? Does it tell them how much it would cost them to build the same model with the same AM items? No, it doesn't, because they are not likely to find the same "package deal" I found. Would the listing of MSRP's for all the items do any better? Probably, but as the modeler, I don't think it's my obligation to track down the current prices for these AM products any more than it's my job to find the "best price" for the kit itself. That's a job for whomever wants to buy it. Does the listing of cost tell anyone what AM is needed to correct kit errors? No, it doesn't, because the use of AM was strictly a "choice" on my part and not necessary to the build. Besides, I don't have a clue what parts of the kit are accurate and what parts have errors. All I know is that I prefer AM components in some areas because they look better to my eye.

IMHO modelers in general (including myself) should concentrate the majority of their efforts on "finish" rather than detail sets. A well thought out, superior finish can easily turn a OOTB build into an outstanding model that anyone would be proud to call their own. By the same token, an average or rushed finish on any build will still be substandard, no matter how many AM tidbits the modeler has added to the price tag. Granted, an outstanding finish on a super-detailed build is the "ultimate goal" in the minds of many modelers, but it's not absolutely necessary for someone to construct extremely nice models that showcase their talents.

In our local area, we are actually seeing a slightly higher influx of new, younger modelers into the hobby than in the past 5 or 10 years. I'm talking about the 15 to 20 year old crowd. In some cases, these young modelers are the builders who are embracing AM detail sets far more than some of our well-established, older builders. The older modelers look at an AM set and say, "I can make the same thing, or something darn close, for 1/3 the price or less." The younger modelers don't have those skills yet, but they have WAY more money than I ever did at that age and eagerly buy up the detail sets. This obviously isn't true everywhere, but I find it interesting nonetheless that this is happening in my area.

I personally marvel at some of the OOTB builds I've seen since returning to the hobby and strive to improve my basic modeling skills to meet those standards. Like my younger counterparts, I have yet to develop the scratch-building skills necessary to completely detail an AFV interior from stock styrene and wire...perhaps some day. Until then, if I want to "open the hatches", I'll have to rely on AM products to fill the void. Others may choose to simply keep the hatches closed. That doesn't make them any less of a modeler, just a different modeler, and since we are all individuals, that's a very good thing indeed!

Enjoy your modeling... 

Very interesting discussion. I don't have much to add except my own opinions. I guess, like most things in life, we can rant, but ultimately it's a case of "to each his own".

Personally I do not like the accepted forms of self proclaimed modelling academia (to steal a great phrase I saw earlier on the forum) of mostly accepting superdetailed and hyper-accurate models as the standard to judge by. I'm not the only one out there that just can't afford this stuff. I saw some tallies posted on this board, and I gotta say that it's fairly unrealistic. For example, that StuG project, were I actually able to find most of those parts, they'd cost me twice as much. Most I'd have to order online. Not that many shops are stocked with good AM parts, and those that are around me cost literally as much as a kit. Most of the AM stuff I found was on the net, and even then, when I tally it all up, the AM always costs as much as the kit. As a result, I've tried to stay away from it, and attempt to go back to modelling basics, that being of scratch-building some simple improvements out of readily available materials. Having said that, pretty much everyone I've shown my models to just muses at the time and patience it takes to make one of these things, straight out of box, nevermind even minor detailing. IMO, it IS a bad trend. I cannot see this hobby really attracting many young hobbyists. I know of this from personal experience. As much as people that go to shows and whatnot would like to disagree, they simply cannot fight facts, and that being that the average modeler is mid to late in their years, male, with a family and a middle-class stable life. FUrther, the geekiness factor of construction and superdetailing again is a factor that does not really appeal to younger crowds. It's kind of a catch 22. To attract more hobbyists, kits have to become simpler and more readily accessible, but it is those same restrictions that will make kits less detailed, thus making them less appealing to the established hobbyists...