Finished model too good

Advert

New Replies

Report Bug

Help/FAQs

Finished model too good

This topic has 21 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 18 October 2010 at 20:08 by Sub Mandrel.

Viewing 22 posts - 1 through 22 (of 22 total)

Author

Posts
11 October 2010 at 09:22 #56778
Eric Cox
Participant
@ericcox50497
All engines are finished as though they have come straight from the manufacturer’s paint shop. Has anyone ever built a gold medal engine with authentic weathering, water stains, calcium deposits and rust streaks ?.
Advert

11 October 2010 at 09:22 #21737
Eric Cox
Participant
@ericcox50497
11 October 2010 at 09:44 #56781
Steve Garnett
Participant
@stevegarnett62550
This puts me very much in mind of something a local car mechanic said to me last week, and it constitutes the best possible excuse for not cleaning cars that I’ve ever come across. He was talking about the patina that older cars often get, both on the chrome and the paintwork, and his point was that you shouldn’t remove them – “because they are part of the car’s history”….

So why shouldn’t a genuine replica model win a gold award? Probably for the same reason that if a model showed up at Miss World wearing an old tracksuit, then however beautiful she might have been underneath it – well, the aesthetics would just be wrong, somehow. Says far more about the way we invariably judge things than anything about the model (in either case) though, doesn’t it?
11 October 2010 at 10:09 #56783
Laurence B
Participant
@laurenceb
I’m not sure it was a gold medal winner,but I seem to remember seeing a 5″ gauge Duchess (aka ‘Coronation’ class and NOT ‘Princess Coronation’ class!) at the Midlands Model Engineering Exhibition at Donington (ah those were the days-sigh!) some years ago,which had been deliberatly dirtied-up to make it look more realistic.

Also a guy from the Kinver Society built a 5″ gauge GWR Grange class to works drawings some years ago,which was never been cleaned after running.It soon resembled what was known as ‘the Oxley livery’!

I suspect any loco exhibited with anything short of a mirror finish would displease our somewhat over critical judges.
11 October 2010 at 10:19 #56785
David Clark 13
Participant
@davidclark13
Hi There

I would disagree with that.

I had a conversation with the judges once about painting and one of the subjects bought up was traction engines.

Apparently they would not lose marks for being unpainted as they were often suplied unpainted to save the farmer money.

regards David
11 October 2010 at 11:03 #56787
Ian S C
Participant
@iansc
It would be interesting to see a ‘as run’ model of a NZR loco, you would’nt know if it was painted or not, the dirt being so thick, not like the privately owned steam engines that are run these days with their black and red paint work, and shineny brass.

Mind you the diesel locos arn’t much better, although they may be improving.Ian S C
11 October 2010 at 11:27 #56788
joegib
Participant
@joegib
My understanding is that very old cars were differently finished from modern ones, that is, they might well have been given multiple brush coats followed by expert rubbing down at each stage. This produced a different (but pleasing) patina unlike the finish left by spraying or dipping. Not sure about the chrome finish but I suppose that polishing over many decades might have micro-abraded the surface to produce an effect different from the mirror-like finish on new chrome.

Maybe it’s a prejudice hanging over from my earlier railway modelling days but I don’t much like to see a high gloss finish on exhibition locos — it somehow looks artificial. I remember a couple of years ago at the ME Exhibition there was a 5″ Black Five (or maybe Royal Scot) given something like a black satin/eggshell finish alongside some other colourfully-finished but high gloss locos. All were to a similar mechanical standard and yet the Black Five looked exquisitely ‘real’ compared to its neighbours.

I think this is some sort of psychological/optical effect. Viewing a real-life glossy prototype close up, you see the highlights plus detailed reflections of the surroundings, including you. Viewed from a distance, the picture changes — the prototype is no less glossy and the highlights produced by light conditions remain, but the detailed reflections are gone.

Viewing, say, a 5″ or 7¼” model loco close-up, you see the same highlights/reflections as with the prototype but that’s all wrong. Because in scale terms, although physically close to you, the model appears the same size as a real loco 40 yards away in which case there’d be no detailed reflections. Subconsciously, your mind detects this anomaly and concludes there’s something not quite right. If, however, the model’s given an eggshell finish that overcomes the problem because there’s sufficient gloss to represent the highlights but not so much as to produce unnatural reflections. Anyway, that’s my take on it — or I may be talking complete tosh!

That said, I don’t much care for ‘weathering’ — I think that’s an effect that can be left to the railway modellers.

Joe
11 October 2010 at 12:44 #56790
Billy Mills
Participant
@billymills
Some very early cars were built by “coachbuilders” on chassis by car makers. So they might have been brush painted on a very small scale. I doubt if any medium scale commercial outfit a hundred years ago would use brushes when spray painting was available. Spray painting being fairly widespred by 1900.

Perhaps it is the paint that has changed, paint chemistry has changed a great deal over this period. Rubbing down and multiple finish coating were common in the 1960’s but rising labour costs stopped that. It was fairly common at that time to have a complete car respray after accident repair or even just to improve the finish. It could take 1-3 weeks to strip, prime and then colour coat with all of the rubbing down in between and drying time so the labour costs would be astronomic today.

Came across a “realism” spray last week at the NEC It appears to be watercolour based paint in an aerosol can. After you have finished your brand new beauty you spray on some grott to make it look used. Hardly a new idea! At least you can wash it off. The BBC used to use cold coffee solution to “dirty down” on location.

Regards

Alan.
11 October 2010 at 13:39 #56793
Steve Garnett
Participant
@stevegarnett62550
Hmm… maybe if you are going to present glistening, shiny models to be judged, you should also be obliged to make a model of a workman standing beside it with an oily rag!
11 October 2010 at 19:23 #56811
Sub Mandrel
Participant
@submandrel
I was brought up making ‘weathered’ airfix kits. I have never got the hang of exhibition style painting, I have Christopher Vine’s painting book and it’s marginally scarier than Stephen King.

I do wish I could paint better, but mine always end up painted like the real thing(ish)

Neil
15 October 2010 at 11:01 #56949
Axel Bentell
Participant
@axelbentell
If I was gonna show off my new loco at a fair, full scale or not; You can be sure I was going to make it gleam and sparkle like a gem! Electric miniature RR is more about dioramas and such, so I can understand them wanting the rolling stock and locos looking weathered. But for an ME project, either is correct IMHO! I have seen some really “pimped” steam engines, I like them as much as the more realistically finished ones. In boats for example, it looks right with alot of brass and copper, and gloss paint. A large part of Live steam is to have a model for display, so some brass is appriciated!
15 October 2010 at 22:12 #56977
Sub Mandrel
Participant
@submandrel
Sorry Axel,

To my mind there’s nothing worse than a ship model with brass stanchions, where the original had rusty railings partly covered with eighteen layers of chipped paint.

…or brass anchor chain

Neil
16 October 2010 at 09:15 #56985
AndyB
Participant
@andyb47186
I’m with Stub here, personally.

But it does depend on the original.

An RN steam launch would gleam enough to burn your eyeballs out while a fishing smack would never see a second coat of paint all the years it was in service.

At Bressingham steam fair the most imposing entrant was a Fowler Superba that was matt black and dirty (besides the fact that it is twice the size of anything else) and I think that it would have looked wrong if buffed to mirror finish.

I also build plastic models. The most pleasing of paint jobs that I have seen has been a Type VIIC Uboat with rust from the rivets and drains, smoke stains from the exhaust, and slime on the hull…as it would really have been. At the ME Exhibition last year there was a chap with an E Boat with weathered paint. It looked like a real one.

It really is up to the individual; we build what we want (there is a thread somewhere here about a chap who was told by his club what locomotive to build!) and we finish as we wish. Isn’t that the point?

If competition rules stipulate machining finish as a criteria then perfect paint and polish will enhance it.

Do we all build for competition?

We may show what we build while not competing and then I like to see variations to get ideas for my own models as well as learning more about the original designs and workings, and this includes different finishes.

Andy

Edited By Andy Belcher on 16/10/2010 09:18:03
16 October 2010 at 15:01 #56992
Chris Trice
Participant
@christrice43267
Depends if you’re trying to replicate the look of a full size subject in which case a scale finish is appropriate or if you’re building your model as an object in itself. Radio Control aircraft fall roughly into the two camps of either ‘scale’ or purely ”functional’. There can be some crossover but the vast majority of working models of all types of subjects often put function before true scale. Compromise often has to be taken on board but ultimately the model’s appearance only has to please the builder.
16 October 2010 at 16:54 #56993
Steve Garnett
Participant
@stevegarnett62550
Posted by Chris Trice on 16/10/2010 15:01:59:

Compromise often has to be taken on board but ultimately the model’s appearance only has to please the builder.

Still difficult though – because if the builder wants to win an award and the judges’ preferences aren’t known, what does one do?

Having re-read the thread, now containing some other very interesting perspectives, again, I have to say that the person who’s picked up on what I was suggesting in a very satisfactory (well to me anyway) manner is joegib. No Joe, I don’t think you’re talking complete tosh at all!
16 October 2010 at 19:16 #57003
Paul Boscott
Participant
@paulboscott25817
I my experience the judges judge quality of the work the have many years of experience and would know what is a good model and what is not.

>>

It takes as much skill to produce a straight out of the box finish as it does to make a finish to represent a working condition. Then there is the difference between the factory drawings and what the builder’s workshop actual produced.

>>

The end of a steel section could have original been flame cut or surface ground or any thing in between. You then get in to the discussion of what is authentic the drawing or the product and so it goes on.

>>

A good model is a good model and you can see that it is.

>>

Paul
17 October 2010 at 00:06 #57011
Chris Trice
Participant
@christrice43267
Posted by Steve Garnett on 16/10/2010 16:54:38:

Still difficult though – because if the builder wants to win an award and the judges’ preferences aren’t known, what does one do?

Then you’re not building to please yourself but to please someone else. If winning awards is the goal rather than building the model for it’s own sake then clearly you have to pander to the judges taste and know beforehand what tastes you’re aiming for. If you’re entering a shiny model competition then a shiny model is appropriate and the award will be for a shiny model. Doesn’t mean it’s any good except in the shiny stakes. If it’s a truly scale model competition, the judges should judge accordingly. I judged at an IPMS competition a few years ago and my fellow judges wanted to award a high mark to a model that was completely the wrong shape and colour on the grounds it was built well. If there was a ‘built well’ class, it might’ve won but I had to point out it was a scale model competition and the model in no way resembled what it was supposed to be. Similarly, I’ve heard people complain that a model they took hundreds of hours to build should’ve won over a model that took maybe ten. They seem to not take on board that a beautifully finished truly scale model that took a few hours still trumps a wrong’un no matter how many hours get invested in the wrong’un.
17 October 2010 at 14:14 #57029
Howard Jones
Participant
@howardjones35282
I have come to a great grinding halt in my own model making because of this finish issue.

although I have lots of photos and construction articles for many of the possibilities none of them really give much of an idea of what the original subject looked like in real life.

I’m certain that a flaw creeps into many of the model engineer articles where they start as one small poorly reproduced black and white photo of the original a 3 view sketch and then launch into miles of the “interesting stuff”.

I do wish that the first article in a series dealt exclusively with what the original subject looked like so that you could be ceratin that your model would go beyond the toy and actually look like a working miniature of the real thing.

the difference between a thousand hour wrong’un and a magic miniature isnt actually that much. I wish I knew what it was though so that I didnt invest 999 hours in a thousand hour model and get it wrong because of the miss applied last hour.

how the hell does Cherry Hinds do it?
17 October 2010 at 14:33 #57030
David Clark 13
Participant
@davidclark13
Hi There

Cherry does about 3 years research doing drawings etc.

regards david
17 October 2010 at 18:02 #57033
Ian Abbott
Participant
@ianabbott31222
I really hate to finish models, once they’re done, it’s just another dust catcher. My enjoyment is in the making. This of course makes the finish immaterial.

However, I can admire someone else’s work with either ex-works or British Railways finish.

The authentic BR finish can be achieved by leaving the model on the floor just under the bench vice for six months or so.

Ian
17 October 2010 at 23:18 #57044
John Olsen
Participant
@johnolsen79199
I’m afraid I can’t offer much useful advice here since “Finished model too good” is not a problem I have ever had much experience with!!! Some of them are not finished all that well, and most of them are not finished at all.

I can tell you however, that there is a lot of sanding in building a 30 foot steam launch, if you want a decent finish.

I agree with Ian, it does not matter too much to me if somones model is done to “Ex-works” or “in service” or “Royal train” standard, or for that matter finished as a totally non authentic bare brasswork finish, I can still take pleasure in the standard of work. I am sure the judges at the exhibitions can take suitable account of the intent of the work too.

regards

jo
18 October 2010 at 20:08 #57091
Sub Mandrel
Participant
@submandrel
Howard makes an interesting point about research.

I made a model of a stationary engine from very basic information ( a sketch pair of elevations and a short description with measurements). I spent as much time on working out the missing bits as one any other task. I recently discovered photos of a similar engine (but half the size). It suggests some alternatives to my solutions, but doesn’t invalidate them.

Next significant model, a canalside crane – elsewhere on here you can see some of the ‘missing pieces’ I had to guess as the original is only partial.

I’m now working on a house built engine from two beautiful contemporary elevations. I’ve found a few drafting minor errors and handful of measurements to guess. I reckon any model engineer could make one from just these two drawings. You would think that choice of fixings would be a hard choice – but the BA series make a good match for those on the drawing (interestingly standard size nuts not ‘one size smaller’).

No guidance on painting though.

I’d be interested in an article on the evidence for ‘real’ victorian paint jobs. What colours were used, for what subjects and the relative proportions of different colours.

Neil
Author

Posts