Featured model blunders

It doesn't tick me off, although sometimes it is good for a laugh.  Remember a magazine (not defending FSM here) can only publish what articles are sent to it.  If crappy articles are all that are recieved, then crappy articles are all that they can publish.  I also know of some writers who have sent in great articles only to have them cut-up and watered down into useless ones to fit into the needed space in the magazine.  The biggest thing that gets me annoyed is when a reviewer says "I dont have any reference on this, and dont know anything about the subject - but the kit is great and I highly recommend it"

rabbiteatsnake wrote:

In the figure painting How to's, few can compare to the masterful work  in ajlafleche's WIP's in the figures forums.

We're not worthy! We're not worthy!

What a nice thing to say! Thanks so much.

Pet peeve- vehicle stowage- Seeing packs that are out of type, such as WWII era US musette bags on modern era vehicles or US ALICE packs on non US vehicles. Most countries, have their own specific personal gear for their troops. Or stowage placed in ways/places where it will not be in reality- where it is gonna get covered in mud thrown up by the tracks or jam/block some operating portion. folks debate here endlessly about colors, track types or other items, but dont seem to give a second thought about accurate crew gear.

stikpusher wrote:

Pet peeve- vehicle stowage- Seeing packs that are out of type, such as WWII era US musette bags on modern era vehicles or US ALICE packs on non US vehicles. Most countries, have their own specific personal gear for their troops. Or stowage placed in ways/places where it will not be in reality- where it is gonna get covered in mud thrown up by the tracks or jam/block some operating portion. folks debate here endlessly about colors, track types or other items, but dont seem to give a second thought about accurate crew gear.

 

You hit one of my pet peeves head on:

Nobody really pays that much attention to the overall presentation, they all get so stuck on details that the big picture gets forgotten.

I see it all the time with aircraft models; perfect colours, perfect details when you get your nose up on them, but once you pull back to see it all......

Open panels are ok, on or two add intrest. However, I've seen maintenance dioramas done where so many panels were opened up that you couldn't define the lines of the aircraft and it wasn't realistic anyway because some of those panels would not be open when others were. there are rules maintenance crews have to follow when opening hatches, some you simply DON'T open while you have others open.

Huge weapon loads under the wing really get at me if it's a very unlikely or outright impossible load for the aircraft to carry in reality. Every aircraft has a maximum it can carry and regimented loadouts specific to mission profiles. If you're going for realism, please try to locate a loadout diagram for your model's real life counterpart before loading her up.

Between those two, I've actually seen dioramas where a bombed up aircraft had a ton of panels off or opened and was said to be realistic. You can't tell me that an aircraft with enough  maintenance panels open to indicate indepth servicing work is going to have ordanance within a country mile of it, much less hanging off of it. 

Tank modelers are terrible when it comes to displaying ammo. I see so many builds where live tank or artillery rounds are piled up like a game of pick-up-sticks. Tank and artillery rounds are normally kept cased until used or uploaded into ammo compartments inside the vehicle. Now the spent casings will often be strewn about, but not the live ones.

does it really matter in the long run? (well, apparently it does to some people hence the postings ). no one person can say they are an expert in every piece of military hardware out there in colors and camo schemes or in actual hardware. (and if they do they're full of it!) so in my opinion, let it go and worry about REAL problems with the world.

Well in the long run, we usually build for ourselves. But when something is built for publication in the magazine, it should be done to a higher standard. Most likely someone/somewhere will use that published build as a reference. Like I said, mine is a pet peeve, not worrying about world problems(which I really dont anymore since most do not affect me personally). I just wish some folks spent as much time on researching some things as they do on others. Nowadays with so much information widely avaialbe on the internet, there is not much excuse for it.

camo junkie wrote:

does it really matter in the long run? (well, apparently it does to some people hence the postings ). no one person can say they are an expert in every piece of military hardware out there in colors and camo schemes or in actual hardware. (and if they do they're full of it!) so in my opinion, let it go and worry about REAL problems with the world.

Hey, camo, this is a hobby, some take it far more seroiusly than others, but to worry about "REAL problems with the world", is pretty much usless and a good reason for a hobby. Yeah sometimes rivet counters and color hue pureists drive us nuts, but when a person with first hand knowledge of a subject points out errors in the final result, I take it as intended, (I hope). Constructive expertise and critisism in order to make the final product better.
Of course the modeler has the final say in what looks right to them, Picasso probably heard that people did not have eyes on one side of their heads a lot, but kept at his vision of what looked good to him.

The moment you show your model, at a contest, at a meeting, on line or in your display case to your friends, you have stopped building just for yourself and you are open to critique. A wise person will consider the source, Rob G and Gino Q, for example men who live with armor and knows their stuff, literally insiode and out, and learn. Now, Bobbo Blowhard who's never seen a tank except in the movie "Battle of the Bulge" on which he bases all his research, is another story.

I'd double check our info, just as I would anyone else. We both make mistakes on the forums.

I guess there's more to writing articles for a general interest magazine than perfect accuracy, otherwise each article/review would be done by the expert in that field. Poor and/or dull writing skills also factor into the equation, and of course you need to have the desire and time to put together a good story. Pat Hawkey is an example of someone who is both accurate and entertaining IMO.

As stikpusher said, it's a pet peeve. And indeed we should build for ourselves, unless the piece is in compitition.  But when the story is titled "Paint realistic tracks" and the end results are black treads with a reddish glaze, I just don't feel I've been enlightened.  I'm not a stickler on color standards, but lets face it chromate green is a poor substitute for RLM grey, it doesn't make me mad, just a little miffed.  Take my current delema, B 17 ball turrets came in two styles, one with integral ammo and one with ammo racks hung from the hanger.  I'm backdating a big Revell B17G to an F and none of my reference defines wich is correct for what model. I must admit I do fall into the "rivet counter" trap and I'll twist on such a problem for days.       Another pet peeve, ambiguos reference material.   Mabe I'm jealous, sour grapes. I guess when i need to ask how to do somthing, I'll post a "need help" thread in these forums, one of you guys are sure to know the answer.

While we're in the ballpark, a subject that has been bouncing around the ole' noggin for a few months.  While I find Aaron Skinners builds, and "how to's" entertaining, I can't help thinking that I see better work here on the forum.  I think Aaron is a nice enough guy, he writes well, and the dealings I've had with him have been pleasant enough, I'm just wondering how many more of his builds will make it to the front cover ?  I liked his Leopard, but frankly, I thought his Harrier was, well, average, compared to some work I've seen here.  I then started thinking about what would your job actually be at FSM, I guess as a journalist for a modelling magazine, you need to be able to write and model at an acceptable level.  I guess you'd be a shoe-in to get your work on the front cover too, if you were that way inclined.  Not trying to start a flame war here, just thinking out loud.   To sum up, on the front cover, I want to see work that makes me go "wow".

deadhead wrote:

camo junkie wrote: does it really matter in the long run? (well, apparently it does to some people hence the postings ). no one person can say they are an expert in every piece of military hardware out there in colors and camo schemes or in actual hardware. (and if they do they're full of it!) so in my opinion, let it go and worry about REAL problems with the world. Hey, camo, this is a hobby, some take it far more seroiusly than others, but to worry about "REAL problems with the world", is pretty much usless and a good reason for a hobby. Yeah sometimes rivet counters and color hue pureists drive us nuts, but when a person with first hand knowledge of a subject points out errors in the final result, I take it as intended, (I hope). Constructive expertise and critisism in order to make the final product better. Of course the modeler has the final say in what looks right to them, Picasso probably heard that people did not have eyes on one side of their heads a lot, but kept at his vision of what looked good to him.

i know dead, and other's. some people take this or any hobby to the extreme, and some just simply want it right because that's the way it should be. i tend to take a more laid back approach to what i do (since i feel it should be relaxing and not work), but i understand many other's have their own reasons for what they do. while i wasnt trying to "negate" the original posting, i was however, merely trying to post an alternate viewpoint. i dont expect if im sitting on a street corner giving away dollar bills for EVERYONE to take one without asking..."so ok, what kind of scam is this". you guys are very passionate about your accuracy, that much i've learned since being here (that's ok), i just feel with all the other issues in our and everyone else's lives, how much should we let something like this "boil our blood" in the first place? perhaps i shouldn't have posted my opinion on this subject anyway and for those not interested in it, im sorry. perhaps too, i will learn over time when to express my viewpoints and when not to! thanks, none the less.

Nothing wrong with posting an opinion that disagrees with the original post.  That is what makes it a discussion.

i know bronto...that should be the concensus but sometimes people mistake words, or get combative or whatever. not that anyone here was...that's just a broad generalization. people's passions are strong and i understand it and sometimes the dont require a response...

Wirraway wrote:

While we're in the ballpark, a subject that has been bouncing around the ole' noggin for a few months.  While I find Aaron Skinners builds, and "how to's" entertaining, I can't help thinking that I see better work here on the forum.  I think Aaron is a nice enough guy, he writes well, and the dealings I've had with him have been pleasant enough, I'm just wondering how many more of his builds will make it to the front cover ?  I liked his Leopard, but frankly, I thought his Harrier was, well, average, compared to some work I've seen here.  I then started thinking about what would your job actually be at FSM, I guess as a journalist for a modelling magazine, you need to be able to write and model at an acceptable level.  I guess you'd be a shoe-in to get your work on the front cover too, if you were that way inclined.  Not trying to start a flame war here, just thinking out loud.   To sum up, on the front cover, I want to see work that makes me go "wow".

I'm not sure of the history of the forum members but has anyone here published an article in FSM or at least submitted one?

Being a novice and not really intense on any one subject I just assumed that the articles were generally accurate. I'm surprised to hear that they aren't held in that high a regard.

Doog has had at least one article published- his Hetzer. Cover story.

stikpusher wrote:

Pet peeve- vehicle stowage- Seeing packs that are out of type, such as WWII era US musette bags on modern era vehicles or US ALICE packs on non US vehicles. Most countries, have their own specific personal gear for their troops. Or stowage placed in ways/places where it will not be in reality- where it is gonna get covered in mud thrown up by the tracks or jam/block some operating portion. folks debate here endlessly about colors, track types or other items, but dont seem to give a second thought about accurate crew gear.

This is a great point, but in defense of We Ignorant Modelers, a lot of guys are like "Oddball"--"I just drive 'em, I don't know what makes 'em run!" I know that when I first started modeling--and for many years after--I never even gave a thought to where NOT to put a pack or blanket in relation to the cooling vents or other details. I can honestly remember thinking one time--"Eh, who's gonna know that that's not a WWII pack?!" LOL!

NOW, I know! Being on sites like this where you have actual veterans and tankers spreading around the knowledge is the best thing that could have happened to my modeling.

Signed, Karl the doog, New York chapter of the Formerly Ignorant Modelers

Rudi35 wrote:

Wirraway wrote: While we're in the ballpark, a subject that has been bouncing around the ole' noggin for a few months.  While I find Aaron Skinners builds, and "how to's" entertaining, I can't help thinking that I see better work here on the forum.  I think Aaron is a nice enough guy, he writes well, and the dealings I've had with him have been pleasant enough, I'm just wondering how many more of his builds will make it to the front cover ?  I liked his Leopard, but frankly, I thought his Harrier was, well, average, compared to some work I've seen here.  I then started thinking about what would your job actually be at FSM, I guess as a journalist for a modelling magazine, you need to be able to write and model at an acceptable level.  I guess you'd be a shoe-in to get your work on the front cover too, if you were that way inclined.  Not trying to start a flame war here, just thinking out loud.   To sum up, on the front cover, I want to see work that makes me go "wow". I'm not sure of the history of the forum members but has anyone here published an article in FSM or at least submitted one?

Doog here again...an interesting take, and a wide variety of opinions...

Well, I have had my Hetzer on the cover, much to my delight, and have been published numerous times in the magazine, and also have articles purchased-but-yet-unpublished as well as new articles being written right now. So I think I can blather a bit about my impressions on this topic.

Most of you guys know that I play a little guitar, and I used to get peeved when I'd pick up the latest issue of Guitar Player or something like that, and see the umpteenth transcription of "Stairway to Heaven" or "Smoke on the Water". I'd be like, "Jeez! I learned these years ago!!"---but then I realized that there were thousands of kids out there just picking up the guitar and learning them for the first time. I realized that if the magazine catered only to guitarists of advanced skill, they'd very quickly go out of business. Because the truth is, advanced guitarists don't buy magazines much--I haven't bought a guitar magazine in literally a decade, I think.

Same with modeling magazines. As we individually progress, we might be annoyed at the reoccurence of "basic" articles in FSM, but don't forget--to some kid out there, that's the golden nugget of information that he's been waiting for. It also helps to promote and foster the hobby to a new generation."Newbies" buy the most magazines, I would wager, just thinking of my own history. I bought everything I could when I was a new modeler; these days, I buy much less because I can pretty much achieve the results I want in most genres; even so, there are some modelers whose work simply takes my breath away, and I will buy their articles without hesitation.

IN defense of Aaron and Matt hey man--not only are they very competent modelers, but they work at FSM! I have to believe that their articles are not only a "perk" of the job, but a professional courtesy of Kalmbach. I also wonder if perhaps he and Matt are contracted to provide a certain number of articles to Kalmbach?--after all, FSM does have to pay outside authors like myself. And I believe that they do a great job of concisely explaining their modeling, and of covering the bases for new-to-intermediate modeling techniques--the maet-and-potatoes of the modeling world.I have to believe that if FSM went after the real "heavies" of the modeling world, not only would the price increase, but they would lose readership. There are many "elite" modeling magazines out there, but truly, none of them have the readership of FSM. And believe it or not, none of them pay as good! That's why I'll be submitting articles to Finescale for a long time to come!

My articles are always rewritten by someone at FSM for conciseness and clarity. So most of the article is my words, but it is condensed somewhat--important to allow for the photo coverage, I suppose. I really do try to make sure all my facts are straight and my i's dotted and t's crossed. I would have to believe that most authors do as well.

By the way, I would add that one thing that gets me a bit 'ed is some of the kits chosen in reviews, and the level at which some of them get built to. I've seen some finished kits that were just plainly finished as could be. Not exactly inspiring to me to go out and purchase. I do realize that there is a deadline to meet with them, but once in a while, you see one that looks just thrown together.

rabbiteatsnake wrote:

Does it tick some of you off, when you're reading an article in FSM and the builder totally gets it wrong?.  Something unambiguous or just poorly done.  For example, a feature on a opened up Me109 with it's interior painted chromate green.  The author excuses it by saying,"No one can say for sure what color they were ."  I've yet to read a "how to" paint tracks piece that yields results as good as some in these forums.  In the figure painting How to's, few can compare to the masterful work  in ajlafleche's WIP's in the figures forums.  Let me know which one stick in your craws.

Anthony,

If you don't mind me asking, which 109 article are you talking about? We try to be very careful about the accuracy of the material in FSM, and I can't believe we'd let "no one can say what color they were" make it into print.

Matt Usher

Editor, FSM

the doog wrote:

Rudi35 wrote:  Wirraway wrote: While we're in the ballpark, a subject that has been bouncing around the ole' noggin for a few months.  While I find Aaron Skinners builds, and "how to's" entertaining, I can't help thinking that I see better work here on the forum.  I think Aaron is a nice enough guy, he writes well, and the dealings I've had with him have been pleasant enough, I'm just wondering how many more of his builds will make it to the front cover ?  I liked his Leopard, but frankly, I thought his Harrier was, well, average, compared to some work I've seen here.  I then started thinking about what would your job actually be at FSM, I guess as a journalist for a modelling magazine, you need to be able to write and model at an acceptable level.  I guess you'd be a shoe-in to get your work on the front cover too, if you were that way inclined.  Not trying to start a flame war here, just thinking out loud.   To sum up, on the front cover, I want to see work that makes me go "wow". I'm not sure of the history of the forum members but has anyone here published an article in FSM or at least submitted one? Doog here again...an interesting take, and a wide variety of opinions... Well, I have had my Hetzer on the cover, much to my delight, and have been published numerous times in the magazine, and also have articles purchased-but-yet-unpublished as well as new articles being written right now. So I think I can blather a bit about my impressions on this topic. Most of you guys know that I play a little guitar, and I used to get peeved when I'd pick up the latest issue of Guitar Player or something like that, and see the umpteenth transcription of "Stairway to Heaven" or "Smoke on the Water". I'd be like, "Jeez! I learned these years ago!!"---but then I realized that there were thousands of kids out there just picking up the guitar and learning them for the first time. I realized that if the magazine catered only to guitarists of advanced skill, they'd very quickly go out of business. Because the truth is, advanced guitarists don't buy magazines much--I haven't bought a guitar magazine in literally a decade, I think. Same with modeling magazines. As we individually progress, we might be annoyed at the reoccurence of "basic" articles in FSM, but don't forget--to some kid out there, that's the golden nugget of information that he's been waiting for. It also helps to promote and foster the hobby to a new generation."Newbies" buy the most magazines, I would wager, just thinking of my own history. I bought everything I could when I was a new modeler; these days, I buy much less because I can pretty much achieve the results I want in most genres; even so, there are some modelers whose work simply takes my breath away, and I will buy their articles without hesitation. IN defense of Aaron and Matt hey man--not only are they very competent modelers, but they work at FSM! I have to believe that their articles are not only a "perk" of the job, but a professional courtesy of Kalmbach. I also wonder if perhaps he and Matt are contracted to provide a certain number of articles to Kalmbach?--after all, FSM does have to pay outside authors like myself. And I believe that they do a great job of concisely explaining their modeling, and of covering the bases for new-to-intermediate modeling techniques--the maet-and-potatoes of the modeling world.I have to believe that if FSM went after the real "heavies" of the modeling world, not only would the price increase, but they would lose readership. There are many "elite" modeling magazines out there, but truly, none of them have the readership of FSM. And believe it or not, none of them pay as good! That's why I'll be submitting articles to Finescale for a long time to come! My articles are always rewritten by someone at FSM for conciseness and clarity. So most of the article is my words, but it is condensed somewhat--important to allow for the photo coverage, I suppose. I really do try to make sure all my facts are straight and my i's dotted and t's crossed. I would have to believe that most authors do as well. By the way, I would add that one thing that gets me a bit 'ed is some of the kits chosen in reviews, and the level at which some of them get built to. I've seen some finished kits that were just plainly finished as could be. Not exactly inspiring to me to go out and purchase. I do realize that there is a deadline to meet with them, but once in a while, you see one that looks just thrown together.

I'm impressed, not only that you have been published in the mag but also by your reasonable outlook on FSM's mandate. Thanks for the reply.

One in the Reader Gallery particually jumped out at me... It was a large-scale figure of a US Army Soldier during the First Gulf War in full Chemical Protective gear (known as MOPP Level 4 for those of you who don't know any NBC terms).  The builder painted the MOPP suit (Officially, a BDO- Battle-Dress Overgarment) in a "rubber" color (should have been in Woodland Camouflage, since the garment is cloth and not "rubber").  The M-8 alarm system components the figure was holding weren't right either.  IIRC, He had the WD-1 wires running from the M-43 detector unit into a "chemical mine" on the ground in front of him (the wires actually run back to your position and get hooked into the M-42 Alarm unit)... 

Overall though, it was a nicely done figure from a modeling standpoint, but as for accuracy, well... Being a former Dragon Soldier (US Army Chemical Operations Specialist, the MOS I held from 1988 until I retired in '06) those were pretty glaring errors... There's too many pictures of the gear on the internet to have to guess, y'know?

On the other hand, I've known many "real Soldiers" who didn't know anything about their NBC gear either.. (NBC= NoBody Cares).. Until they're in a place where they could get slimed and start dancing the "VX Shuffle" or "GB Waltz", that is...

*Note: VX and GB are Nerve Agents... There're others, but those two are particularly nasty ones...

 

In todays world of easy access to information at our fingertips, there is not much excuse for that. I suppose it boils down to the builder being too hard headed to search for information- much akin to the proverbial driver who will not ask for directions. Of course there are always the cases of asking, nothing comes up at the time, and once the project is completed, a sudden outpouring of advice and such appear...

Hey Matt thanks for your interist, the truth is I believe you've been editor for only one story I feel a mistake was made. It was the actual inspiration for my post, however I didn't mention it specifically.  The article is Scott Conners "Detailing a Kursk Tiger" Oct 08, he states (I'm paraphrasing.)sPzAbt503 painted thier Tigers a wierd mix of brownish green & dk yellow,and he painted Tiger332 accordingly. I happen to be building sPzAbt 503s Tiger323 and my research indicates 503s camo as red brown + green over dark yellow, the standard tri-color scheme.     To answer your question about the 109, is Oct 04s "Gustav unvieled" built by Dan Jayne,the actual quote is as follows "It is unlikely that Bf 109 aficionados will ever agree on what the "true" Luftwaffe internal colors should be". Well in truth U/C and cowl interiors were RLM 02 grau, cockpits schwarzgrau and the remainder sealed with a varnish RLM 00 wasserell, it's pretty well documented.  I'm not a real stickler for spot on color standard accuracy, I hand mix w/ Testors flats (Till it looks right to me.)and even use Krylon grey primer as my schwarzgrau, but the aforementioned statements are just erroneous and misleading. As I said in my previous post, maybe its sour grapes on my part, as Scott Conners Tiger is in FSM(No mean feat.) while mine languises unpainted awaiting a few dozen scratched parts to be finished.  On the bright side Mr. Jaynes cutaway F 18 looks brilliant and Rick Lawler's color modulation trick seems a more sensible approach to varigated weathering, over "Dot filtering", a technique that in my opinion is misplaced on scale models.  I hope this clears up the issue, as I'm responsible for starting it. Admitidly I was ranting, I make no bones about it, next time I'll paraphrase less and quote more. Thanks again for your intrest.

Hans

I know the  kit you are talking about, the Verlinden 120mm - Being a Bn NBC nco at the time, I just had to have it.  Two things that really bugged me from the start were the mask itself and the M-43.  The M-42 looked more like a PRC 77 - So I just scratch built a new one (I had a 1/2 doz of them at the Armory for reference).

The mask continues to defy my attempts to turn it into something even remotely resembling an M-17.  I made copies of the head out of resin (so I wouldn't screw up the origional) and the closest I've come is to build up the sides somewhat w/putty and add a second inlet valve.  Still doesn't look quite right - may try to turn it into an M-40.  It's one of those kits that you can't really get to look right w/out doing some major work.  Which is a shame IMHO.

And you're absolutly right about No Body Cares - For three or four years after Desert War I, there was a push on NBC training - then we went back to normal - And I went back to being the Asst. Ops Sgt (unslotted)/TOC Rat/TOC Special Olympics Coach - Finally got tired of it and pulled the plug.

Here is a great example of "I saw something in the mag and now I want to do the same thing"...

/forums/1174484/ShowPost.aspx

 

qmiester wrote:

Hans I know the  kit you are talking about, the Verlinden 120mm - Being a Bn NBC nco at the time, I just had to have it.  Two things that really bugged me from the start were the mask itself and the M-43.  The M-42 looked more like a PRC 77 - So I just scratch built a new one (I had a 1/2 doz of them at the Armory for reference). The mask continues to defy my attempts to turn it into something even remotely resembling an M-17.  I made copies of the head out of resin (so I wouldn't screw up the origional) and the closest I've come is to build up the sides somewhat w/putty and add a second inlet valve.  Still doesn't look quite right - may try to turn it into an M-40.  It's one of those kits that you can't really get to look right w/out doing some major work.  Which is a shame IMHO. And you're absolutly right about No Body Cares - For three or four years after Desert War I, there was a push on NBC training - then we went back to normal - And I went back to being the Asst. Ops Sgt (unslotted)/TOC Rat/TOC Special Olympics Coach - Finally got tired of it and pulled the plug.

Closest I've been able to do an M-17 was in 1/35th.. The mask in the WW2 Tamiya US Weapons Set had enough of a mask's face-blank to allow me to build up the "cheeks" right on the figure's face.  The eyelenses and voicemitter were pretty close to the M-17's shape, so they worked without modding.. After adding a putty "hood", it was pretty convincing, even if I do say so m'self...

I remember when Tamiya first came out with the 1/35th US "Modern Infantry" set in the 80s and it had four M-17 mask carriers... I cast about a dozen more copies right there & then, lol... I still use that mask carrier mold today...