Before you go any further, if you haven't already done so, please read Joe Fugate's editorial in the Aug issue of MRH, http://mrhpub.com/2014-08-aug/land/#166
I'll wait.
Now Joe, along with everybody else, is entitled to his opinion. But as an editor of a major publication it is Joe's responsibility to try and be all things to all people, and not trash talk the efforts of some.
To call the promotion of superdetailing a "disservice" to the hobby is nothing short of insulting to people like myself who have worked very hard over the years to become as good as we are at our chosen craft.
There are a large number of model railroaders who happily populate their layouts with less detailed rolling stock. That is their choice as to how they wish to enjoy this hobby.
And that is the beauty of model railroading, there's room for every one.
I've seen beautifully sceniced layouts that have old Athearn and MDC rolling stock sharing space with more modern better detailed cars. For me the presence of the door claws and stirrups that appear to have been made from 6" x 6" are an eyesore. But I would never say anything about it to the layout owner. He's worked hard and is proud of his creation. Who am I to tell him he's doing it wrong.
A friend participates in a modeling podcast where someone once referred to prototype modeling as a cancer on the hobby. His opinion and he's entitled to it, but I don't think it's appropriate to insult prototype modelers on the airways in that manner.
There's enough strife and struggle in the world these days as it is. Do we really need editors of popular magazines spreading dissension?
I produce a very high quality line of resin kits for those who wish to own them. I sit in judgement of no one when they buy them or when they pass them by. The market will decide whether or not my business survives. The higher detailed offerings certainly must have a market because they keep getting produced and they seem to be bought. Guess all those buyers are doing a disservice to the hobby.
6 comments:
I agree with you Pierre. Yet, I do understand from where Joe is coming.
I'm interested in the prototypical aspects of railroad modeling. I choose to build a small layout where I don't need large numbers of cars and the cars, buildings, and track I do have can be more accurate and yes, more expensive.
However, I would never think of denigrating what someone else chooses to do in the hobby.
George Corral
True enough Pierre, and I completely get where you're coming from.
I think Joe tries to stir the pot with that "Reverse Running" column. I don't agree with that approach, but I'm not the publisher.
I find it ironic that the same issue had an excellent article on building resin cars (aimed at first time resin car builders) and a piece of "rust bucket" weathering where every chip, rust streak, and splotch on the prototype car was mimicked on the model. My (or your?) style of modeling? No. But certainly a great example of the prototype modeler's art.
Marty
Pierre,
I agree with one thing in the article. Voting with your pocket book! I'm ordering one of you new Wabash boxcar kits. Thanks for producing this model. I model the 1970's and I have found a few photos of these in this time frame.
Ryan
Too many pundits, drinking their own cool-aid. The people who sport a few modeling injuries, usually don't bother with that sort.
Lots of modellers on the MRH forum still bemoaning the loss of 'blue box' boxcars, forgetting prices were artificially kept low by Athearn never improving upon moulds created in the 50's & 60's, and manufactured with the help of illegal immigrants to boot.
A $6 Athearn car should be $16-20 in today's dollars when you factor inflation, in other words what an Accurail model costs. And for an extra $10 or so you get an excellent Intermountain model.
It seems the main problem is a lot of really cheap modellers hang out at the MRH forum, and they don't like people who research and spend their time and money in order for their models to look like something from reality.
I don't think I was present on the podcast in question during the "cancer" comment - for the record I wholeheartedly disagree with this sentiment.
I have been listening-in during assorted arguments about 3-rail vs 2-rail O vs Proto:48. "The opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of the management..." etc.
People are entitled to answer any questions put to them - but they must understand that just because they say it, doesn't make it so. And I can't (in good conscience) simply step in in such a situation and say "you're wrong" just because my preferences differ from theirs. The best I can do is offer a counter-argument from my own perspective. If they're wrong because the evidence is demonstrably against their stated position, well, that's a different story...
Whatever likes and dislikes float an individual's boat are fine, and I'm no longer surprised (or care much) when someone's opinion doesn't jive with mine. I am put off by absolutism, especially when there isn't a basic foundation for the position. However, tact and diplomacy were not evenly distributed to the masses; some of the opinions put forward are going to be blunt, uninformed, or both.
Striving to do something better today than you did so yesterday should not be considered an evil behaviour; despite what some people would have you believe. I like superdetailed cars and locomotives - but I'm not there yet in terms of skill. I look at Pierre's and Trevor's models (amongst many others) and I want to be able to do the same level of work. I'll never reach that point if I don't practise. I'll certainly never do it if I only buy RTR cars and stick them on my (currently non-existent) layout. If RTR makes someone happy, that's fine. But don't tell ME it's as high as I should aim for, and I won't tell YOU that using RTR (or 3-rail, or DC control) isn't good enough.
Buy or build, weather or not, detail or don't, as you see fit - but don't expect that expressing your preferences one way or the other makes it THE way to do things. Opinion is not Truth.
Post a Comment