This is Robert Little's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Robert Little's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Robert Little
Recent Activity
Hi Pat, It's been some time since I've been here. It used to be I'd come here once a week or so, but you know, life. While I've always considered myself a competent modeler, I've never considered myself professional level. There have been times when I've been asked to build models for a customer, back when I was in the hobby shop business, but I always tried to steer clear. And for the past couple of years, I'm moving away from complex models altogether. I build what makes me happy, the simpler, the better. I do models of spacecraft, but prefer traditional material. Same for the 1/1200 ships I've built. As for aircraft, I am back to where I was not too long ago, preferring older, simpler models. I'm not trying to please anybody now, just myself.
Also, what is with some of these kit sellers? That's a bit of a hefty price is has on a model that is missing the box. Has it really become that scarce? Thought Revell Gmbh had it last.
I had something very similar happen last year. I decided to look for another old Pyro/LifeLike "Mayflower" kit, and found one, at a reasonable price. The thing that got me, though, was that they lifted the information about the model from my maritime history blog, literally just a copy and paste. While I did buy the model (this thing has recently become strangely scarce), I admonished them about lifting my work. I got crickets. But, it happens. Best I can do is much gnashing of teeth.
I build miniature sailing ships (well, yes, models, of course), and I see wonderful examples of that sort of thinking amongst my fellow modelers all the time. I'm far from the best, but I try. What drives me crazy, though, is seeing ships where they go to extraordinary lengths to weather them. I've seen model sailing warships done like this, and I cringe. The hulls might have some weathering, of course, and it is natural for the canvas to be weather beaten in time. But if your modeling a 17th or 18th century sailing ship of war, you need to be careful with the weathering. What do they think the captain had the crew do during their ample free time?
I've always wondered what the genesis of this was. I think I first saw it in the late 1980's, but it really blossomed in the 1990's. Was it the special effects industry?
Lovely bird. Well done, sir.
Big soft spot for the Vulcan. Looking forward to seeing this one upon completion.
Yup. Old Revell kits. Like a box full of chocolates, really. Pretty sure this bird is going to look superb.
That Revell Bf-109E. As an off the top of my head estimate, I believe I've built around seven of them between 1974 and 1978; I have number 8 waiting in the stash. Always kind of fond of it, warts and all. I was a pretty big fan of those 1/72 Revell "Famous Fighters" series. I built their Spitfire Mk. I several times, but boy what a mess that bird is. At least the Bf-109E captures the proportions nicely. The Spitfire is too long for an early model (by almost 3mm, same length as an VIII or IX). This stretch is in multiple places and is not simply a case of "remove a plug here". Which is sad, because it is probably the earliest Spitfire model to capture the underwing correctly, or at least close. In fact, thinking on it longer, I think most of those Revell 1/72 fighters had some problem or another. That P-51D was a notable stinker. The P-47D had awful landing gear. The F4U-1 and F4F-4 were probably the only passable American fighters of the bunch, though on both the canopies were a bit oddly sized. The Bf-109E was decent enough, though the landing gear were again bad. I actually picked up a Revell Lodela 1/72 Spitfire for fun and the decals. They actually included a two bladed prop as an option; somehow missed that release back in the day. Never saw that option again. Thanks for the nostalgia.
Regardless, as ever looking forward to the results. You give us erstwhile amateurs something to strive for, and certainly admire.
Well, look at the old Revell F-100A/C. Lengthwise, it is 1/69, yet the span of both the wing and the tailplane is close to 1/72. Revell made some great mistakes in its early days.
For some reason, I've always thought that the Revell KC-135 was a larger scale, like 1/136. For my personal collection, I stick to a 10% rule for models in similar scales, but I think it's close enough to 1/144.
Robert Little is now following The Typepad Team
Jun 15, 2015