E7 wrote:bob turner wrote:For me, the big deal inaccuracies were shape and size.
Right on. Maybe another way of saying the same thing is: Does it "look right"??? "right" here meaning correct to one's eyes.
webenda wrote:Oh! You are not normal Maroon. Normal people are insane over scale fidelity.
A while back, Sunset made a series of brass REA cars. There were to have been
NO rivets on these cars as they were to have been a welded version. The builder missed the fact that the rivets were yellowed out on the drawings, and so the cars came through with rivets. Beautiful cars, but incorrect because they had rivets.
This happened when the 3rd Rail Forum still existed, and someone got on and made a post regarding the error. A lot of different reactions, the most extreme (in my opinion) was one person who intended to grind off the rivets and repaint.
No, I will NOT be grinding the rivets off of mine! I don't want to destroy the collector value!
I always found it interesting that something would have more value because it was incorrect!
As for color, there can be so many variations with paint that, "close" is a workable thing for me!
I'll speak up for my world, then, because there are two different worlds, one a historical-collecting world and one a historical-modelling world.
In some cases I like models themselves for what they are, warts and all. The Egolf X29s and K4 I showed are a good example. They are history in and of themselves. Lots of what you guys show here fall in that category, these Lobaugh cars for example. In these cases, the flaws in the models, the paint schemes right or wrong, are all part of the history. Historical-collecting.
When it comes to a recent import like the those express cars, I won't buy them with a blatant error like that, just because I won't give someone the idea they can import junk and we'll buy it anyway just because they did. For me, they serve a different purpose. I'm trying to create a snapshot of history with the models I buy or build today. They aren't history themselves, but are a part of an effort to evoke an image of history.
That means they fall under a vastly different set of criteria. They aren't perfect of course, but they need to meet a standard. If they don't, then they get modified or "fixed" (part of the fun, for me). If they are hopelessly flawed so as not to be worth the effort or are unfixable,, they're of no use to me.
I guess that makes me one of the people you guys are laughingly calling "normal". I am a "rivet counter" (but only my own rivets, thank you) but only to the standards that satisfy my goals.
I don't think there is any additional collector value to a brass import with a blatant flaw; not like a single production error within a run of thousands of perfectly made ones in the Lionel world, for example. Me? If I needed a model of that prototype to meet my needs in evoking the image I want, and there were no alternatives, I
would grind the rivets off and repaint, or even make new sides. If, all in all, the model is deemed "behind scratch" (meaning starting from scratch would already be a step ahead of fixing the import), then scratch it is, then.
Meanwhile, keep the historical models coming. I enjoy them. Don't make the mistake of thinking there aren't different set of standards and different goals out there, though.
