|
|
Forums - News / General |
For General modelling or hobby-related topics that are not covered by any other specific forum. Please keep to topics concerning the hobby. |
| Topics | 2850 |
| Messages | 20576 |
|
|
| Subject: | This really is simple... |  |
| Date: | May 3, 2008 | |
| From: | Kip Rudge | |
From what I'm seeing here, this argument really breaks down along a fairly discernable line. Those who gain from the hobby (ie profit in some form) and those for whom it truly remains a hobby.
hobby
1. an activity or interest pursued for pleasure or relaxation and not as a main occupation: Her hobbies include stamp-collecting and woodcarving.
It appears that those who benefit from finding and fixing every flaw are very conscientous about being rivet counters. That makes sense. If one cares about one's work, ie writing how-tos, manufacturing or reviewing, one should be very focused on attaining the best possible results. Granted the definition above overeaches and few of us can make the hobby our vocation. However, those who have a stake in the hobby, whether it be web sites, getting review samples, manufacturing after market parts, writing books etc tend to a more absolutist view than Average Joe who buys paint, pe and a kit heads home and tries to forget about his chosen vocation for a few hours.
Please do not misinterpret the above as an attack on those who make a profit from our hobby. But when they do, by definition, it ceases to be a hobby. I for one am glad they do it and have transferred my income to them in vast quantities (a greenback being my highest vote of confidence).
I do realize that beyond this particular argument those lines blur significantly. But after all, Brian asked a specific question, and judging from responses thus far it does look as if there are two distinct avenues of perception.
I am truly amazed that there really are modelers who think a perfect kit can be created and anything less is an affront to all modelers. Perhaps it should be noted that the Ducks of the world - of which most never bother with an internet site - vastly outnumber the rivet counters (RCs), who appear to dwell almost exclusively on internet sites. I'd have to see a very convincing argument of logic to dissuade me from the opinion that the Ducks drive the marketplace to a much larger extent than the RC's. In other words, the manufacturers listen to the larger market share. If enough ducks ask for indy tracks, voila! the manufacturer responds. Bluntly put - if Ducks weren't moving the hobby forward, it wouldn't be moving.
My contention is that the RC's role in this is to inform the Ducks what the buffet list of faults is, and then turn us loose. We pick and choose what is enjoyable for us to build and let the rest languish. This inevitably leads the RC's into fits of apoplexy because they slaved so hard to show us the light, only to find out we are a rather pedestrian lot.
Also consider this. The closest kit to being perfect on the armor market today is generally accepted to be the Tasca Shermans. The price for these kits runs well above norm for similar subjects - accuracy has a price tag. At least where I and many of my friends agree, that price tag is way too high. But many are quick to point out - if you buy the other kits, add PE, resin, time involved in repairing them, the Taca is cost effective. That makes an incredibly bogus assumption that I will spend all that money and time to fix the other kit... I won't. Hence the Tasca kit will not find its way onto my shelf, and ultimately workbench. Perhaps Tasca can be successful in a boutique niche - we'll never know unless they go out of business. But Dragon and Tamiya and Tristar and AFV Club are broader focused. They understand the concept of millions of modelers building a kit in a couple of weeks and buying another and building it... etc etc etc.
Hence, those newer kits were designed for us Ducks to buy and build. Why shouldn't we partake of the buffet as well? Most Ducks I know fix the most egregious faults (aka Academy Lee suspension), but we don't invest another $40-$50 in fixing the hull angles because the cost to pleasure ratio plummets in relation to the beer money ratio.
Disclaimer: No analogies were hurt or mistreated during the writing of this reply. |
| |
|
|
 | If it looks like a "duck" ? - Brian J Tears - May 2, 2008 |
| . . . What year car do you drive? - Kip Rudge - May 2, 2008 |
| . . . . . . ??? Think you are missing Brian's point, Kip - Kurt Laughlin - May 2, 2008 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: ??? Think you are missing Brian's point, Kip - Kip Rudge - May 2, 2008 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: ??? Think you are missing Brian's point, Kip - Brian Bocchino - May 2, 2008 |
| . . . Re: If it looks like a "duck" ? - David Manning - May 2, 2008 |
| . . . 1978 Pz IV's vs the real thing - Robert Gregory - May 2, 2008 |
| . . . Re: If it looks like a "duck" ? - steve campbell - May 2, 2008 |
| . . . Two Responses - Rob Ervin - May 2, 2008 |
| . . . Re: If it looks like a "duck" ? - Juan Contreras - May 2, 2008 |
| . . . Re: If it looks like a "duck" ? - Christopher C. Tew - May 3, 2008 |
| . . . Re: If it looks like a "duck" ? - Scott Fraser - May 3, 2008 |
| . . . This really is simple... - Kip Rudge - May 3, 2008 |
|
|
