Well, y'all have certainly given me some much-needed inspiration...  Having read and re-read your various replies and your thoughts on the issue (of scratch-building, not FSM) and mulling it over repeatedly, I've decided that I'll indeed re-write the article...  Seems that the interset is there...

Whether or not it gets published is going to be pretty dependent on my photography skills, which, while I some talent for layout, composition, and lighting, I'm not exactly wat one would call a "Photo-bug", lol..

I really don't think I'll purchase a new camera, is what I'm saying... Perhaps, while not being of magazine quality, they will at least be usable here... 

Thanks fellers, and gal...

I for one would like to see more articles on scratch building and making the best of what came in the box.

 Sure there are a lot of resin and PE add-ons out there. And most come with instructions on how to install/use them. We don't need yet another article on this. Again.

My issue came today and I was eager to see what the article was all about.

My two bits are just that the whole thing made me a little uneasy.

The basic model, and the airplane for that matter, have a certain kind of tubby Gestalt that has a charm.

The intervention with all that great stuff was certainly successful, and it made for a much better model.

I think it really came off well. The modeler did a great job.

But, it just seemed like an old friend had a redo that took the original funky charm of the old model out of it's context. And that made me feel... restless.

Just my opinion, and it doesn't matter to the original modeler I hope. But maybe that's where you are getting the stomach ache from, Hans.

I think that Beaver floater is really wonderful. What a whole collection of nice moves that all came together, starting with a toy and making something special out of it. There's one of those that is a sightseeing flight that comes over my house at about 3000 all day Saturdays. I'll be gardening and hear that radial, and have to put down whatever I'm doing and watch her float overhead. When she's in still air, the note is a purr, but when she's climbing into a headwind from the west, she can really snarl.

Dude, write the article, and add whatever you can about handpainting markings. Yeah, I know, they are "free", but they also are a huge place for improvement.

Hans,

Bottom line, we can't run articles we don't get. If you have an article dealing with scratchbuilding details, by all means, send it in. We'd be happy to look at it and, given the nature of the subject, if the photographs are decent, we would more than likely be interested in the manuscript.

Yes, we run a lot of articles about using resin and photoetched metal to improve kits, in large part because there's a lot more aftermarket stuff available that there was 20 or 30 years ago. I don't think it's either good or bad. Modeling is a hobby and it's up to the individual to get out of it what they want, whether that's cutting resin, scratchbuilding all kinds of detail, or slamming a model together out of the box. I've done, and still do, all of these, and I'm happy with my models no matter the approach.

Cheers, Aaron

Hans, first things first: REWRITE THAT ARTICLE !!!!!!!!!!

Second, don't use a Hawk kit, use the T-28. A side by side comparison would clearly illustrate your point and you could give a price breakdown for each area modified. As far as the idea that you need to get the goodies to build a quality kit, the reason is clear, just look to the right of this page. It's advertising! Why sell someone just a kit when you can also add on another $50 in accessories. How many people do you think looked online at aftermarket products sold by a FSM advertiser after reading that article? It's the same reason people get rid of a perfectly good car after 2 yrs. because the new one has GPS, a 2.29 gigawatt sound system, and quad-zone climate control. 

Before the "serious" modelers jump ugly on me(because they are a sensitive bunch ), I am in NO WAY diminishing the fine work you do at your bench. What is done here by both sides of the debate amazes me and inspires me at my bench.

When I saw the article at first I was excited, cool one of the old kits, there is a ton of stuff you can do to those! Then I checked it out and it became a shopping list and for me was just meh. I know I would have much rather read your article Hans, it was more along what I expected. Sure maybe some AM stuff but building stuff too.

Hans von Hammer

Anybody wanna know how to make a throttle quadrant using stryene stip and stretched sprue? Anyone?

How about casting a part in resin yourself?

Need a canopy.. Wanna learn how to draw-form one? Vac-form?

Boxing in the gear wells with sheet is easy. Evem easier to make the interior detail... Wanna see how?

Got a pin-vise? Know what one is?

Need open cowl-flaps and have a box of tea-candles?

Know where to get fine mesh screen for intakes in a hardware or craft store?

For me the answer is yes to all the above.

I built tons of model airplanes as a kid but I never applied any real "Gizmology" to them. Most were 1/72nd and with a good painted interior and pilot on a WW2 bird caged canopy, there just isn't much need on a ceiling hanger. I did keep up with model railroading longer and built longer in that, where you are subject to have to make it if you want it. I do have some building skills that are way rusted up and some ideas on how to do things but I am real curios as to the "airplane" school of "Gizmology". I say that last because I have noticed the train guys do things some ways, the armor guys do some things some ways, the car guys seem to do some things some ways, etc. I am all ways up for learning new and especially cheap techniques.

Hans von Hammer

Don't need to know how to drill out the holes in the Monogram SBD's diveflaps.. They make brass ones..  Heck, nobody even buys that kit anymore.. Too much stuff to add, there's a better kit somewhere, has more "detail", with an after-market set of "Razzmatazz-100's engine and bomb crutch assembly"... *Sigh*

I didn't get the memo. Sigh I never seem to get the memo.

Yes that is the bare bones, ream out the drilled holes with a hobby knife and a tooth pick gauge.

Sure AM would look better, and here I think is a place for photo-etch to shine. because it is so visible on the model. Harness buckles and such can be done good enough with wire. And yes I am dieing to see that jig of yours for making these bits Hans.

For your introspection into why the shift as someone coming back in I have a theory. A lot of detailing and just about all super-detailing requires pictures to appreciate. The human eye can not focus that small and some of the stuff isn't even visible anyway. Back in the day this meant a LOT of money in photo gear, even the most bare bones approach would have been a good lick. With the advent of computers and digital cameras it is easy and cheap to take very close up shots and then compare them with the real thing. No the brain sees some stuff in the cockpit and fills in the details; a true side by side comparison is nothing to do now. So if you want that "look", AM is about the only approach for most modelers. I would suspect that the guys that can build at that detail mastered those skills years ago, and are the guys building the exact scale BB Arizona in a garage somewhere. Nobody wants to post up pics that might get laughed at or don't look good, which is a shame because modeling is a learning process and each model should be better than the one before. You have to learn to crawl before you can walk. And as far as something looking like crap, at least I have the pleasure of knowing it is MY crap.

There are two sides, stances, opinions about everything regarding modeling...this is just another one of those aspects. AM parts, as Ajlafleche mentioned, still have to be detailed. They have to be cleaned up and painted and placed in their environment correctly. I have scratch built details for cockpits and wheel wells and the like but when I do it, I scratch build to show that something is there...it may look vaguely like what its suppose to, it may not, but it fills a space where knowledgable people expect to see something. Resin parts look like what they are intended to look like, at least to a greater extent than what I can produce from my spare parts box and a little styrene.

Aren't we after accuracy and realism in modeling? Like I said before, there are two sides for every debate in this hobby, and much of it surrounds accuracy....the right color, the right unit, the right time frame, the right amount of weathering, the list goes on. If a person can't produce what they consider the most realistic depiction of something using their skills as a scratch builder, why not turn to something produced to add realism if they want to?

Does it detract from the model? No. Does it say that the modeler is supposedly an "assembler" and not a true modeler as some would think.....No. I feel that is bogus. It almost makes me feel like there is some kind of hierarchy to modeling...two sides, for that matter.

There is a side that thinks they are better modelers for having put money into their models to produce a more accurate, better looking model than you. Then there are those who think they are better modelers for having put more sweat and ingenuity into their model by scratch building more than you. Its all BS. 

If you can scratch build well, good, thats a fine talent. If you prefer to use AM parts, good, thats a fine talent as well. Who cares? Because as Ajlafleche said, if the end product is crap, its still crap whether you spent $150 on it or $17......

Is using AM parts fine modeling? Let's see. In many cases, with PE, you first need to remove the original cast on "part." Then you might need to fold thw new part and/or add other PE parts. The you need to attach the part so it appears  not to have been added after the fact.

Resin parts? First there's clean up. In some cases, taht can be quite tedious to do without damaging the resin part. Next, there's again removing the kit part and blending in the new part so it lookslike it realy belongs. 

 Each of these steps needs a particular skill set. I give props to someone who super details well using scratchbuilt parts, but a well done aftermarket super detailing can be just as impressive.

Does super detailing get awards? Sometimes. I've seen many OOB models take firsts and many super detailed models rife with basic errors that didn't even place.

Back in the early 80's when commercial AM was first hitting the, guys in my old club told of an entry where a guys listed all the AM parts he used and the cost of each. A simple F-15 turned into a $150 model. He was practically laughed out of he display room.

Hans von Hammer

Well.. Given the feedback, perhaps I will re-write...

Think I'll use a HAWK kit this time as the subject, rather than a Monogram kit...

I recently aquired several of those (albeit some are in Testor's boxes)...  A P-51D, P-47D, T-33A, F8F, and an Me163 Komet... 

Maybe... Hate to upset the Monogram Mafia, but I'm thinking that there's NO WAY anyone has made an after-market part for those kits...

Are you familiar with Lone Star Models? The company was mentioned in the T-28 article. He's (Mike West) been around for decades and most of his products were directed towards the Testors' ex-Hawk kits and old Monogram kits. I remember getting his set for the old Monogram Wildcat kit ages ago. Probaby the first resin conversion kit I ever tried on an airplane kit. My first resin tank conversion was the LSM Ram conversion for the old Nichimo M4A1 Sherman tank kit. I bought that in 1987 during my OBC at Knox.

http://www.lonestarmodels.com/

True Details USA (formerly KMC) used to make a lot of stuff that upgraded the ex-Hawk kits as well as old Monogram kits. Most of it is OOP itself as they continued to focus on current kits.

Many of the older aircraft detail companies (Aires, Airwaves, probably Eduard too) made sets for these old kits in the beginning, but the specific sets for the old Testors kits are long OOP.

Edit: found out that Eduard does still make a PE set listed on their site for the old Testors F8F Bearcat
http://www.eduard.com/store/Eduard/Photo-etched-parts/F8F-1-48-1-1.html?cur=2 

I also seem to recall that kit coming with resin replacement wings once upon a time to make it into an air race plane.

Hans von Hammer

I've spent the better part of two years now working on my first FSM article...

Maybe you should only write when your annoyed.

I just copied and pasted all your posts from this thread into Microsoft Word, it came to a little over 1600 words.

The last article I wrote for Military Modelcraft International was just over 2700 words... you're more than half way there already in just one day lol.

To play devil's advocate here I found the article interesting. Would I throw out that much money on aftermarket stuff for the kit? No. Still I learned a couple of things from it.

Count me in with Stikpusher. Yeah I'll buy a five dollar Eduard ZOOM set because the printed instrument panels look a heck better than anything I can do myself. On the other hand no I won't buy a fifty dollar set of white metal treads for a twenty-five dollar tank kit. I've scratchbuilt stuff and I bought stuff- depends on the price and how much work is involved.

Hans, if you can recover the article I'd love to see it too. Even if I don't want to scratchbuild everything you do it's something I can learn a great deal from.

Heck, if you'd write a book on the subject I'd pick it up if under thirty bucks. My copies of Shep Paine's diorama and AFV books are so worn the pages are about to fall out. If you'd do something similar I'd have to have a copy.

padakr

Hans von Hammer:

I pointed out that, with the purchase of a Monogram P-61 kit, there's the P & W R-2800 one needs, if used as a mold, to super-detail not only the P-47D "Bubbletop and Razorback", but a Hellcat, Corsair, Bearcat, Tigercat, B-26, and A-26 as well... Where ya gonna get eight-to-thirteen 1/48th scale resin engines for less than 35.00 bucks? (This of course, assumes you buy the casting kit and P-61 kit with the HL coupons, and use the kit to make another engine for the Widow too)

 

Is making multiple copies of someone else's work like that okay?  Or is it a copyright violation?  Obviously, if you were to make copies and sell them, that would be a violation, but for your own use?  Seems like it could be an ethical gray area.

Paul

That's been standard practice for decades; cast parts from kit pieces for your own personal use.

It's the selling or other distributing, like trading or even giving away, that becomes a violation.

I'm somewhere in between the two extremes. I have done some basic scratch building and gizmology to add details to kits. But I dont mind using PE or resin when the changes I want to make are beyond my skills, and when my budget allows.  I have that T-28 in my stash and really want to tackle it one day. Just like I am slowly with the old  SBD that I have been nickle and diming for years of work here and there. Of course some time betweenthe day I start the T-28 and near completion of my conversion will be the day that Roden releases the new tooled one that they have announced...

I really think you need to fid a T-28 to tackle for the next round of La Familia here. And write that article! I need to see how to do seat harness buckles with wire.

Well.. Given the feedback, perhaps I will re-write...

Think I'll use a HAWK kit this time as the subject, rather than a Monogram kit...

I recently aquired several of those (albeit some are in Testor's boxes)...  A P-51D, P-47D, T-33A, F8F, and an Me163 Komet... 

Maybe... Hate to upset the Monogram Mafia, but I'm thinking that there's NO WAY anyone has made an after-market part for those kits...

I definitely understand the rant, Hans.

Personally, I don't add a lot of the details you mention, but I appreciate the work done by those who do, ( especially those who do it on a regular basis ) and appreciate having the information available and "out there" when I do need it for a particular project.  

I'd also encourage you to rewrite the article and submit it. Even though I haven't built the kits I've seen in other articles showing scratchbuilt details, the techniques shown do come in handy, and may become more so since a lot of people don't have as much money to buy the aftermarket extras as they did 5 years or so ago.  Better to give someone the chance to see how they can add the details they want themselves than have them give up on the hobby as "too expensive" because they're overlooking a lower-cost alternative that may be easier than they thought.

The article piqued my interest because I remember building that model as a kid. I bought the close air support version with South Vietnamese Air Force markings and remember putting the stars and bars on upside down. It duked it out with my Flying Tiger and Airacobra in death defying dogfights over thirty years ago.

Believe it or not... That's the ONE 1/48 scale Monogram aircraft kit I've never EVER built...  I have no idea why... I've built several, if not dozens, of other Monogram aircraft, but never the T-28.. And I've even flown a T-28 a few times..

No, no copyright violation, unless you sell them... No gray areas either.. Ethical? That's between you and your conscience...

Frankly, my conscience s fine with it, since I paid for the right to do whatever I want to with the parts, short of profiting from them.. Same thing as recording TV shows, music, or anything else that's someone else's "Intelectual Property"...

 Just to add to that so you can understand it from my POV... If someone makes an AM part for a specific kit, be it a vac, P/E, or resin medium, they MUST have used the original kit-part as part of the process, somehow, somewhere...  

 So I'm ok with what I do..

Hans von Hammer

I pointed out that, with the purchase of a Monogram P-61 kit, there's the P & W R-2800 one needs, if used as a mold, to super-detail not only the P-47D "Bubbletop and Razorback", but a Hellcat, Corsair, Bearcat, Tigercat, B-26, and A-26 as well... Where ya gonna get eight-to-thirteen 1/48th scale resin engines for less than 35.00 bucks? (This of course, assumes you buy the casting kit and P-61 kit with the HL coupons, and use the kit to make another engine for the Widow too)

Is making multiple copies of someone else's work like that okay?  Or is it a copyright violation?  Obviously, if you were to make copies and sell them, that would be a violation, but for your own use?  Seems like it could be an ethical gray area.

Paul

I read the article and making that kit look like it did takes a lot more work than just collecting aftermarket pieces. There are lots of cutting, filing, filling, scribing, etc. to make it look that good. He wasn't just assembling AM goodies, he was doing some actual model building.

Basic modeling skills all, Rob...  Nothing new about those, except for the guy that has no idea what to do to get started, and that article wasn't aimed at him (Frankly it was next to uselss for that demographic, IMHO)...  However, it wasn't the model itself that got to me... It was the entire "mind-set" behind it, and the direction the hobby has taken... The whole, "you buy this kit see, then buy this, this, this, and this, and then you have a THIS."... 

I'll cast resin.  Not that hard a job, but it is a bit expensive.  Both the RTV mold material and the urethane resin are pricey.

Not really Don... Resin casting kits that contain everything you need to get started, including the RTV, run about 30.00 at Hobby Lobby... With their coupons, they cost less than a single resin up-grade set...

Doogs and I talked about the Monogram P-47 in the aircraft hooch, and he pointed out that the Monogram kit had a typical Monogram engine facade, and it would cost him too much for a resin engine..

I pointed out that, with the purchase of a Monogram P-61 kit, there's the P & W R-2800 one needs, if used as a mold, to super-detail not only the P-47D "Bubbletop and Razorback", but a Hellcat, Corsair, Bearcat, Tigercat, B-26, and A-26 as well... Where ya gonna get eight-to-thirteen 1/48th scale resin engines for less than 35.00 bucks? (This of course, assumes you buy the casting kit and P-61 kit with the HL coupons, and use the kit to make another engine for the Widow too)

Then there's those machine-gun barrels everyone who make B-17 and B-24s is ga-ga about... Buy one set, cast as many as you ever need in the future... See, the molds last for dozens of parts..

Ejection seats, instrument panels, cockpit sidewalls, wheels, FIGURES!  How many folks wish Monogram had put out a set of their always excellent ground crew and flight crew figures? Those elusive "in-flight" figures that went with the early releases of the ProModeler B-17 and B-24? Well, here ya GO! 

Casting can get really expensive, and both processes can be quite frustrating and tedious to perfect--and that can get expensive as well.

Casting is still far cheaper than AM parts Doog... And given the prices of kit these days, I don't see it as a bad thing even if there's a rejection-rate that's 50%...   And as far as "perfect" goes, well.. I've bought some AM Resin parts that required filling of bubbles, shrunken areas, and even got a few broken pieces..

Eventually, you aquire a locker of molds for parts that you will find another use for, and that means that eventually you'll be super-detailing those old kits with parts that you made yourself for pennies, not bought with dollars...

I'll point out, too, that in WWII, some Germans that I've seen would say to you that you are a "wimp" for building with pre-formed plastic kits. They build theirs out of carved wood, matchsticks, etc.

Well, at the same time, kids here in the US of A were making thousands and thousands of Bakelite ID models for the US Army Air Forces... (Did ya think they had adults building them in factories that were needed for the war effort?)  Technically, they were the first at making plastic aircraft models.. The got "paid" by getting to keep some of them, BTW.. I'll dig out the article sometime...

Time marches on. Look at the new available parts as air conditioning and CD players in your car--inevitable progress. Of course, you might still be driving a Model T....?

I'm not a time-traveler, but if I HAD been around and actually purchased a Model-T, given what I know how to do with wood and steel, I could conceivably make most of the parts needed to keep it on the road, lol.. 

But my car is a 1982 Chevy El Camno...  And I got my eye on a '70 Ford XL (That the two-door fast-back LTD) right now...  He's gonna cave soon, I can feel it..

I read the article and making that kit look like it did takes a lot more work than just collecting aftermarket pieces. There are lots of cutting, filing, filling, scribing, etc. to make it look that good. He wasn't just assembling AM goodies, he was doing some actual model building.

The article piqued my interest because I remember building that model as a kid. I bought the close air support version with South Vietnamese Air Force markings and remember putting the stars and bars on upside down. It duked it out with my Flying Tiger and Airacobra in death defying dogfights over thirty years ago.

Put me with the others who would like to see the article.  (Please dig it out of the Recycling Bin if possible--even if you're not gonna publish it, make it available to the rest of us!)  I actually think FSM has recently gotten better about this.  I'm too cheap to buy all the aftermarket detail parts, with some excepted (e.g. Luftwaffe rudder pedals--couldn't figure a way to scratch them myself, too much intricacy and complexity).  And I was ready to let my subscription lapse because I'm sick of "how-to" articles that really only tell you what the author bought and the order it was assembled, with little about technique.  But right then I read the FSM issue with the guy who scratchbuilt three C-141s using his master and resin molding--great stuff.  There were a few others in that issue too that made me change my mind.  But we'll see what happens when the subscription actually comes due...

RESlusher

ps1scw:

RESlusher:

I'll join ya in the fox-hole on this one Hans! 

 

 

They are now called "fighting positions".  Come on...get with the times :)

 

I was trying to use terms Hans might be more familiar with...  Ya know, the terms he probably used when he was digging in around Vicksburg with U.S. Grant! 

 

LOL!

ps1scw

RESlusher:

I'll join ya in the fox-hole on this one Hans! 

 

 

They are now called "fighting positions".  Come on...get with the times :)

I was trying to use terms Hans might be more familiar with...  Ya know, the terms he probably used when he was digging in around Vicksburg with U.S. Grant! 

RESlusher

I'll join ya in the fox-hole on this one Hans! 

 

They are now called "fighting positions".  Come on...get with the times :)

Hans, while I agree with some of the things you rant about, I have to say that you aren't taking into account that the techniques that you speak of with such obvious pride and love were developed mostly out of necessity--that is, simply because you didn't have the parts at hand and you had to make them.

It's not the 70s era of modeling anymore; people simply don't need to go through such labor-intensive processes like vacuforming and casting your own parts. Casting can get really expensive, and both processes can be quite frustrating and tedious to perfect--and that can get expensive as well. Given their druthers, most people I know are going to go the easier route and end up with more accurate and well=produced parts for their money.

It's sad that you deleted your article, but I have to point out that, according to your own admission, you deleted it not out of any criticism from an outside editor, but from your own insecurities about where you perceive the modeling community's sentiments to have "gone" without you. Don't be so hasty next time--there are plenty guy--myself included--who actually enjoy the process of sprucing up your own model with self-made parts to give it some individuality.

I'll point out, too, that in WWII, some Germans that I've seen would say to you that you are a "wimp" for building with pre-formed plastic kits. They build theirs out of carved wood, matchsticks, etc.

Time marches on. Look at the new available parts as air conditioning and CD players in your car--inevitable progress. Of course, you might still be driving a Model T....?

I'll cast resin.  Not that hard a job, but it is a bit expensive.  Both the RTV mold material and the urethane resin are pricey.

But photo etch- that is something else. I did buy the Micro Mark PE making kit. It does work, but making a PE set is a LOT of work. It is so much work that if there is a photo etch kit available for the subject I am building, I will use it.  I did make pe parts from the MM kit for one model, a 1/8 scratch project for which I felt there would never be a kit and hence no commercial PE.

I too would like to see more scratch building, and I do  see scratch models out there, but it is not everyones cup of  tea.  I think older modelers who built balsa or basswood "solid model" kits are more likely to scratchbuild.  Those old solid model kits were not that far from a scratch project themselves, so modelers who finished a few were well on their way with scratchbuilding skills.

Hans von Hammer

I just want to encourage them to look somewhere else first...

I can re-write the article... It's just stuff I learned over 40 years of "serious" modeling and I an't forgot "what" it is.. Only "How" I wrote it...

If you want to encourage others to do that, submit the article.  FSM can only publish articles that are submitted.  The editorial staff don't know everything, and can't write all the articles.

Come on, I would like to see an article like you are talking about.  Something more than a passing "I scratched the landing gear bay" or "I added <brand name> landing gear". 

Paul

Yeah, I saw it, Rick... 'Tis a case of "Those That Can, Post, Those That Can't Publish", I think...

I'm just so confused about what "Fine Scale" means anymore.. And I don't mean the magazine, I mean the art... FSM is gonna publish what they think is best for them, after all... They're a business... Sure they're modelers too,  some of them anyway, but they gotta do what they gotta do...  Ain't about them though...

Did it happen because there were those that saw what we, as Gizologist did and wanted to be part of it? Without all that pesky trial and error, learning what worked and what didn't, developing the ability to discover a part hidden inside of another part of something else, ya know, that kind of thing...

How many of you stare at a part of broken toy and see the transmission for a Sherman in there? Or stand in the aisle of the grocery store for twenty minutes looking over some 2.00 gizmo that has at least three parts of a Maybach engine? 

I don't want to discourage anyone from using the "store-bought" parts o their models...

I just want to encourage them to look somewhere else first...

I can re-write the article... It's just stuff I learned over 40 years of "serious" modeling and I an't forgot "what" it is.. Only "How" I wrote it...

Did you see Fermis' B-24 cockpit detail fer cryin out loud?  Hans I believe that there are plenty of us out here who work in "gizmology" in different degrees.  We may not wear our passion on our virtual sleeve the way you do, but we do pursue the art at our attained skill levels.  Wired up wheel bays, detailed engines, tricked out interiors, antenna wires, dropped flaps, drilled out gun barrels, paint chipping, weathering, weathering, weathering.  Look around,  you see guys taking up the saw, the drill, the knife, every day using kit parts, spare parts and bits from around the house to create and embellish their kits.  Hey, I'll use Eduard Interior Zoom, especially when I can get them dirt cheap.  But I haven't seen an aftermarket set that can wire a radial engine better than a #80 bit, some unspun speaker wire, and tweezers.  Hans, I haven't put together an airplane for years that doesn't have an element of scratch building in it.  And from what I see there are a lot of other good people in this Forum who enjoy the art themselves.  There is a place for either preference  in the hobby.  Time, convenience, and patience all play a part in how we apply our techniques, but we all do affix our personalities to our projects, always in varying degrees.  Rick