Few more newbie questions..

"Future" is floor polish made by Johnson+Johnson,if you cant find it in your super market or hardware store,try online

Scribing+rescribing is adding panel lines by scribing that might have been removed by sanding

JailCop

Sorry for all the newbie questions lately, just having trouble finding definitions...loving the forum, learning a ton!

 

1.  What is "Future"?  I've gleaned that it's a polish, but what brand?  Type?  Where to get it?

 

2.  What is scribing?  or re-scribing?

Future is a liquid acrylic floor polish.  The name for it these days is "Pledge with Future Shine".  It's made by Johnson and Johnson here in the States.  In the modeling world it's used to seal your model's finish and give it a gloss coat that helps your decals snuggle down nice and tightly so they look as though they were painted on.

Scribing/Rescribing refers to drawing panel lines that were lost as a result of sanding and/or filling.

Scribing is also done to "convert" a kit that has raised panel lines to a kit with recessed panel lines by sanding the raised ones away, then scribing new ones in their place.

It's tedious and it sucks, even in limited amounts...

Thanks guys, makes a lot more sense now.  How is this Future applied?  Would you use it say, in place of a clear coat spray or along with it?

it can be airbrushed straight from the bottle and cleaned up with windex

You can also mix future with a base, such as Tamiya flat base, to cut it down and make it into a final dull or semi-gloss top coat ,depending on how much base you use.

You can find Future at grocery stores, sometimes. Ace Hardware sells it. It's about $9 a bottle, which should last you a long time.

Scribing is, indeed, evil. There are scribing tools available out there, at places such as squadron.com. The one I have has a carbon tip and is very sharp. Almost too fine to be practical. I use it very sparingly since it's easy to get "off track" and hard to sand down when you do.

So if one was without airbrush, how would they apply it?  And if you don't mix it with another flat clear coat, you can't use it as a finishing coat? Am I reading that right?

You can use it straight from the bottle as a finishing gloss coat for decals,but it doesnt work very well with brushing.Unless someone else has some thoughts,I think it can only be used effectively airbrushed.If you dont have an air brush,you would need some rattle can spray gloss varnish.

JailCop

So if one was without airbrush, how would they apply it?  And if you don't mix it with another flat clear coat, you can't use it as a finishing coat? Am I reading that right?

You can use it as a finishing coat, straight. However, it will be a high shine gloss. You don't have to mix a flat base with future as a final coat, if you want a dull finish. There are flat clear finshes you could use instead.

JailCop

So if one was without airbrush, how would they apply it?  And if you don't mix it with another flat clear coat, you can't use it as a finishing coat? Am I reading that right?

Yes, it can be used as a finishing coat. I use it quite a bit on glossy-finish models, like 1950's era jets, or airliners. I spray it directly from my airbrush, with no thinning required. It can be used under flat coats, too, with the flat coat being the final coat for most military models. The reason you want a glossy area for decals is so that the decals lay down/adhere to the model without the clear backing of the decal showing after it has dried. This is known as "silvering" (the clear backing around the edges of the decal looks silvery when this phenomenon occurs), and is seen mainly around the edges of the decal after it has dried. Decals don't stick/adhere well to flat finishes, as the finish is very rough, microscopically speaking. A smooth glossy finish prevents that roughness, and lets the decals lay down well, without the silvering effect. After all of your decals are applied to a model, you can spray a final finish of clear gloss/Future floor polish, or a dull coat, depending on the model. Either one will seal the decals and paint job, and keep the decals from peeling from the model.

Here's another technique that I've seen used with much success, although I haven't used it myself:

1. Determine where your decals need to be on the model.

2. Using a paint brush, the width of which depends on the size of the area the decal will be applied to, dip the brush in the Future/gloss coat of your choice, and GENTLY apply the Future/gloss coat to the area to which the decal will be applied. DO NOT brush it on; rather, kinda place the coating on the spot where the decal is to go (if you brush it on, you run the risk of marring the paint). You'll figure it out once you do the first area. The coated area should be just a hair bigger than the decal itself.

3. Let it dry overnight.

4. Apply the decals normally to the coated spots. Use Micro Sol and/or Micro Set if you wish.

5. Let this dry overnight, at a minimum.

6. Once dry, GENTLY apply a clear coat/Future coat or dull coat to the decal (depends on the finish you're attempting to acheive) with a paint brush (don't brush it on - place it on); OR, airbrush the entire model with a Future coat/clear coat or dull coat, if you wish. This helps protect the decals by keeping them from peeling after the model ages a bit.

Again, I've seen this technique work with other modelers with great success, but I myself have never tried it. You might wanna try it on a scrap piece of plastic first, just to see how it does for you.

Good Luck!!

Keep the questions coming, JailCop!

Don't forget that Future is also great for canopies for a couple of reasons.  One, I really like how they add a bit of clarity to the clear pieces.  Clean up your canopy from any fingerprints and then simply dip the entire canopy in the Future.  Take it out and then place it carefully on a paper towel to dry.

The other reason I really like it is because if you use superglue to attach your canopy, the future will protect the clear part from getting frosted over from the CA fumes.  The same thing kind of applies to if you get some paint on the canopy.  I've done this accidentally before and was so relieved to find that when I cleaned the paint off with thinner, it kept the thinner from frosting the plastic.

Regarding scribing, that's what people do when they spend dozens if not hundreds of hours making a contest-worthy model and then want to screw it up in the worst possible way by making it exceedingly inaccurate.

Eric

JailCop

So if one was without airbrush, how would they apply it?  And if you don't mix it with another flat clear coat, you can't use it as a finishing coat? Am I reading that right?

I have airbrushed it with no problems. But I often work in 1/72 scale & often apply it by hand with a wide brush. Work quickly, using thin coverage & don't overlap too much, sometimes a second coat is necessary. I've got limited workspace, doing it this way saves me the hassle of setting up & tearing down an airbrush.

Future is no longer sold under that brand name. It is now "Pledge, with Future added" or something like that. 

Today is the bi-monthly trip to the Commissary on base so I'll look for it, thanks guys.

If my kit specifically states "recessed panel lines" will scribing it more do more harm than good?  How can scribing existing lines make it inaccurate?  Or do you mean freehand scribing new lines?

Here ya go. Read through this.

http://www.swannysmodels.com/TheCompleteFuture.html

As a matter of fact, there's a ton of good info here from swanny, I learned a lot when I came back to the hobby a few years ago. I couldnt wrap my head around all the info.

http://www.swannysmodels.com/Tools.html

JailCop

If my kit specifically states "recessed panel lines" will scribing it more do more harm than good?  How can scribing existing lines make it inaccurate?  Or do you mean freehand scribing new lines?

If the kit already has recessed panel lines then you really don't have to worry about rescribing the whole model.  You may, however, have to "touch up" a panel line that may have disappeared due to sanding away glue seams.

There was an article in FSM a couple of issues ago where this guy just went all out in detailing his B-25 inside and out.  He fastidiously researched and replicated the particular plane he was working on.  Then, at the very end, he said "I then sanded away all the panel lines and rescribed them..."  I thought "NOOOOOO!"  Having been at the then recent EAA Airventure air show, I just so happened to be right up close to a B-25.  I had even taken very up-close shots especially of the panel and rivet details.  The panels on the real B-25 do, in fact, OVERLAP!  So here's this guy making all these corrections and then, at the very end, does away with all the accurate raised panel line details only to replace them with incorrect sunken panel lines.  That's what I mean when I say that scribed panel lines are, depending on your subject matter, inaccurate in that nature.

Eric

echolmberg

...

Regarding scribing, that's what people do when they spend dozens if not hundreds of hours making a contest-worthy model and then want to screw it up in the worst possible way by making it exceedingly inaccurate.

Eric

~giggle~ Raised vs recessed, I've decided, is really more of an appearance thing. I prefer recessed because it makes my easier weathering process a little easier, but I've had many raised-panel line kits turn out just as well. (Or "equally adequate", as the case may be!)

SO, since I just ordered some dark dirt Flory's wash, will it work better with recessed lines or raised?

Hey Eric, I ya man! I cant stand to see certain planes rescribed. I've seen more than a few monogram B-17G kits that were rescribed, they look so awful to me! But in the end I do get when people say they did it to make weathering easier and it's not even a rivet counter thing. To me the panel lines look trenches, that's my main problem. And, if you really want to get technical, the B-17 for example, has a mixture of panel lines. Depends on what part of the plane you look at.

VanceCrozier

 

echolmberg:...

Regarding scribing, that's what people do when they spend dozens if not hundreds of hours making a contest-worthy model and then want to screw it up in the worst possible way by making it exceedingly inaccurate.

Eric

 

 

~giggle~ Raised vs recessed, I've decided, is really more of an appearance thing. I prefer recessed because it makes my easier weathering process a little easier, but I've had many raised-panel line kits turn out just as well. (Or "equally adequate", as the case may be!)

The debate here centers around the width and depth of the scribed lines if you scaled them up to full size.  Many of the scribed lines on kits would translate to HUGE gaps at full scale.  Even though I prefer less emphasis on the panel lines, I say build it the way you like it and have fun.  When I obliterate a line during a build, I just use my trusty #11 blade to restore it to my satisfaction and drive on.

Screaminhelo

 

Many of the scribed lines on kits would translate to HUGE gaps at full scale.  Even though I prefer less emphasis on the panel lines, I say build it the way you like it and have fun.  When I obliterate a line during a build, I just use my trusty #11 blade to restore it to my satisfaction and drive on.

 

 

Agree 100%.  I just drag out the handy-dandy #11 Xacto and call it a done deal.  I also agree that recessed panel lines does aid greatly when it comes to the application of washes!  The last Tamiya Mustang I built benefited greatly from the wash in the recessed panel lines.  Like everyone else here said, ya build what you like.  I build planes with raised lines and I build them with recessed lines but I don't fix one to represent the other.  It just bothers me when the condition of the lines makes others feel they have to change it.  It makes me feel like the same model I built is somehow "lowly" compared to theirs simply because I didn't rescribe.

But don't forget, if one wishes to highlight panel lines, that does NOT mean sunken panel lines are the absolute requirement to do so.  Raised lines can be highlighed but you just have to use different methods.  That's all.

Eric 

B-17 Guy

Hey Eric, I ya man! I cant stand to see certain planes rescribed. I've seen more than a few monogram B-17G kits that were rescribed, they look so awful to me! But in the end I do get when people say they did it to make weathering easier and it's not even a rivet counter thing. To me the panel lines look trenches, that's my main problem. And, if you really want to get technical, the B-17 for example, has a mixture of panel lines. Depends on what part of the plane you look at.

Same aircraft, photos taken about two years apart, after TR got her new paint and 'Period nose art" (Meaning that the artist used 1943 painting tech, as well as using more "authentic" approach to the art-work, doing in brushes rather than airbrushing, and making the gal look like an Esquire pin-up, instead of an Iron Maiden album cover..

But the focal point is the skin of the aircraft..

Before:

After repaint:

Note the rivet-lines... Scale those closely-spaced rivets down, and you got a raised panel line..

Funnily enough Hans i have been looking closely at pics of B-17 noses while doing my Academy kit, and i thought the same thing. And when i looked at the close of of the Lanc and Spit at the BBMF, they are the same, slightly raised rivets.

 A very fine raised panel line would be far more accurate than a recessed one. Problem is with model companies is that they tend to follow trends. But they don't take into account if that trend is right for the kit they are doing.

Problem is with model companies is that they tend to follow trends. But they don't take into account if that trend is right for the kit they are doing.

All too true... One only has to look at the London Bridge-sized construction rivets in the kits of the 60s and very early 70s to know this.. The manufacturers simply did what a relatively few modelers told them to do, and that was to use more rivets, which was "more accurate" detail...  Until someone who's actually stood next to  a P-40 or B-17 US  Air Force, or RAF Spitfire Gate-Guard goes to work in the research department at the latest "high-end kit facotory", FACING it, this crap will continue...

Trouble is, it ain't just the Researchers that drop the ball,  it's the Experten out here "Das Readerland" that do it too..  What they get right on ONE aircraft, they screw up on the next 10, because they parrot some 40-year old article in FlyPast, Wings, or Warbirds International, use drawings that were wrong 30 years ago, and/or copy a technique used by a guy that saw a picture of another guy's build in Military Modeler that got it wrong on his build 10 years ago, but won "Best of Show" with it. ...

Go figure, lol...

London Bridge was made out of stone, LOL.

But absolutely, I kindof have a soft spot for the old Frog/ Airfix/ Revell rivet queens. I can still remember the feel of the 1/72 'Belle in my hand running around the back yard.

I knew that, I was refering to the stone-sized rivets, lol..