|
|
Forums - Modelling / Smallscale |
The construction forum is for the discussion of small scale AFV modelling. Usually this refers to 1-76th and 1-72nd scale AFVs. |
|
|
| Subject: | Re: Some Thoughts on Small Scale Modeling |  |
| Date: | Dec 8, 2003 |
| From: | Andy Bannister | |
I heartily agree Doug and, as I am primarily a 72nd scale aircraft builder
(armour is a close 2nd), I get tired of seeing similar comments on Aircraft
Resource Centre such as "This would look fantastic in 48th scale but in
72nd - amazing!" or, "I can't believe this is 72nd scale!". Small scale in
general seems to be treated like a poor relation and the connotations of
comments like those above are that small scale models are not taken
seriously so if someone goes the extra mile and - God forbid - actually
details one (insert audible gasp here), then the results are nothing short
of miraculous.
I have no idea where this attitude originated or why it is perpetuated, but
the vehemence that some people display regarding this attitude borders on
fanaticism! I have to admit that, try as I might I myself fall prey to this
all too easily and I sometimes catch myself viewing larger scale models with
a certain amount of disdain. Perhaps I'm just sick and tired of reading
articles about 48th scale Tamiya Mustangs or 109s or perhaps I'm just
repeating the cycle of abuse - they turn their nose up at "my" scale so I'll
do the same to theirs.
It's all very silly really and I have to mentally slap myself for taking
something that is supposed to be a relaxing "please myself" hobby so
seriously at times. But it's difficult not to get frustrated because the
attitude filters to the manufacturers (or perhaps it started there?) and we
end up getting toy-like models from a well established manufacturer that
promised us "...the most accurate models ever produced in 1/72 scale."
I supposed everyone has their own reasons for building in their favourite
scale. I started building 72nd scale armour because I build 72nd scale
aircraft and I wanted a constant scale collection. There is a certain
quality to small scale that I can't put my finger on; for some reason small
scale just looks better to me. In my opinion a well built 72nd scale Sherman
will beat a well built 35th scale Sherman every time, but I have no idea
why - it just looks better!! Just a personal preference of course and
obviously 35th scale modellers disagree with it or they wouldn't build in
that scale. There is no right and wrong, there is only opinion.
As for the vinyl tracks, yes I think link and length are far superior but
there is a price to pay for that and that is they are a bitch to assemble!
And the Dragon tracks still look miles better than the rubbish tracks
Hasegawa continue to inflict on us.
Just my $7.99's worth...
Andy
www.andybann.com
"Doug Chaltry" wrote in message
news:3fd34667$1@news.track-link.net...
> The recent discussion about the pros and the cons of the new Dragon 1/72nd
> scale kits has got me thinking (uh oh ...). One of the points that I made
in
> my review was that 1/35th scale modelers don't put up with this sort of
poor
> manufacture, so why should we. I began to question why that is.
>
> There is no question that small scale is viewed "differently" by those who
> don't build in it. I have been getting more and more irritated as the
years
> go by about the apparent lack of respect that small scale gets from
modelers
> who build in other scales, and more recently, some manufacturers as well.
> How can we not feel slighted when we read condescending comments made in
kit
> reviews, written by people who don't normally build our scale? For
example:
>
> "These small scale kits make quick and relaxing weekend projects."
>
> "How nice to be able to pretty much construct an entire model before
having
> to paint it!"
>
> "...minimal investment of time and effort produced a very acceptable
> addition to the collection..."
>
> "Don't be dismayed by the fact that the various hatches have been moulded
in
> the closed position. To do otherwise would have made them over scale. For
> the same reason, it is good to see that the axe and pick on the front
plate
> were also moulded as part of the superstructure."
>
> and, most recently,
>
> "Simple, easy-to-build kits great for younger modelers and beginners [...]
> Recommendation: For small scale fans as well as younger modelers"
>
> Is this really how modelers outside our scale view us? As younger modelers
> and beginners? The final comment, taken from Cookie Sewell's review on
> r.m.s. of the new Dragon kits, particularly raised my hackles. But by the
> time I forced my self to reach the end of his review without retching, I
> finally came to a realization that you all have probably been aware of for
> some time: there are more possible reasons to build small scale tanks
than
> there are for large scale tanks, and perhaps these people don't realize
> that.
>
> Why do modelers build 1/35th tank models? Pretty much the only reason I
can
> think of is for static display pieces. There may be the occasional
youngster
> who builds them as toys, but considering their cost, I doubt there are
many.
> But for small scale tanks, there are three, if not more, reasons why
someone
> would build in this scale: 1) static display pieces, 2) wargaming, and 3)
> as toys for children.
>
> Each of these pastimes require different features for the models. Toys
need
> to be sturdy, simple, and cheap, and detail or accuracy don't matter.
> Wargame pieces also need to be sturdy, simple and cheap, but also with a
> good degree of accuracy as well. And for display models, accuracy and
detail
> takes precedent over cost, and "sturdy and simple" are no longer factors.
> How can manufacturers in this scale ever satisfy all three of these uses
> with the same kit? Personally, I doubt they can.
>
> It would be best if all Manufacturers targeted each of these groups
> separately, as some of them now do. For example HaT targets wargamers,
> Revell, UM, Mirage and others target display modelers, and apparently,
> Dragon wishes to target the toy crowd. What throws me for a loop is the
fact
> that while the Dragon kits are best suited as toys for youngsters, they
are
> marketing their models to adults as display models.
>
> A seemingly easier task would be to enlighten large scale modelers as
well.
> But I am not sure how. For example, how do we convince Cookie to change
his
> recommendation from "small scale fans and younger modelers" to "younger
> small scale modelers", because not all of us are young and like
toy-quality
> kits.
>
> Some modelers apparently need to realize that building static display
models
> in small scale can be just as much of a challenge as in large scale. Just
> because the model is small, does not make it quick and easy. It certainly
> CAN be, just like it can in 1/35th. I've built 1/35th scale tanks in a
> weekend, but they would never be contest contenders, just as a small scale
> tank built in a weekend would not be a contender either. There are small
> scale masterpieces, just like there are large scale masterpieces, and like
> the large scale projects, they can take just as long to build. And most
> importantly, most of the quality and accuracy considerations that are
> important to serious large scale modelers are just as important to serious
> small scale builders as well. For example, there are many people who build
> 1/72nd, and many who build 1/76th, but there are not many who will mix and
> match the two scales in a diorama, just like there are few large scale
> builders who would mix 1/35th with 1/32nd.
>
> So what is the point of this rambling post? I truly have no idea. I
thought
> I had one when I started writing, but as I was typing I seem to have taken
a
> few turns, and I really don't know any more where I'm going with this.
> Perhaps I should just stop here.
>
> Does anybody else have any thoughts on this?
>
> -Doug
>
> |
| |
|
|
 | Some Thoughts on Small Scale Modeling - Doug Chaltry - Dec 7, 2003 |
| . . . Re: Some Thoughts on Small Scale Modeling - Till Huber - Dec 7, 2003 |
| . . . . . . Re: Some Thoughts on Small Scale Modeling - Doug Chaltry - Dec 7, 2003 |
| . . . . . . Re: Some Thoughts on Small Scale Modeling - Jens O. Mehner - Dec 10, 2003 |
| . . . Re: Some Thoughts on Small Scale Modeling - James Tainton - Dec 7, 2003 |
| . . . . . . Re: Some Thoughts on Small Scale Modeling - Doug Chaltry - Dec 9, 2003 |
| . . . Re: Some Thoughts on Small Scale Modeling - Saul Garcia - Dec 7, 2003 |
| . . . Re: Some Thoughts on Small Scale Modeling - Andy Herbert - Dec 7, 2003 |
| . . . . . . Re: Some Thoughts on Small Scale Modeling - katseas kostas - Dec 8, 2003 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: Some Thoughts on Small Scale Modeling - Leo Lee - Dec 8, 2003 |
| . . . . . . Re: Some Thoughts on Small Scale Modeling - Doug Chaltry - Dec 9, 2003 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: Some Thoughts on Small Scale Modeling - Andy Herbert - Dec 8, 2003 |
| . . . Re: Some Thoughts on Small Scale Modeling - Andy Bannister - Dec 8, 2003 |
| . . . . . . Re: Some Thoughts on Small Scale Modeling - Doug Chaltry - Dec 9, 2003 |
| . . . Re: Some Thoughts on Small Scale Modeling - Christophe Jacquemont - Dec 8, 2003 |
| . . . Re: Some more Thoughts on Small Scale Modeling - Stephen BreZalogaski - Dec 10, 2003 |
| . . . My Thoughts on Small Scale Modelling and Braille Scale - David Clark - Dec 10, 2003 |
| . . . Re: Some Thoughts on Small Scale Modeling - Bas Slaats - Dec 11, 2003 |
| . . . Re: Some Thoughts on Small Scale Modeling - Gerwin - Dec 11, 2003 |
|
|
