Jump to content

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Wright writes.....


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, robertcwp said:

Still rather inaccurate though unless perhaps it represents the engine in preservation.

 

'Inaccurate' - though the meaning of the word remains the same, its interpretation amongst the majority of railway modellers nowadays is very far from that at the time the kit-build was commissioned.

 

Firstly, though I have no doubt that the hardcore LNER / BR(ER) modellers may have had access to precise records of the condition of each loco at any specific date, the majority of modellers did not, and didn't particularly care provided it was better than the current Tri-ang offering.

 

It is easy to overlook the vast change in the volume of generally-available, detailed knowledge of railways that has occurred in the intervening years, and to be disparaging about what are inevitably products of their age.

 

Perhaps surprisingly to some amongst us, there are still many modellers who can recognise a quality kit-built model, but who don't know or care whether the fittings installed are exactly correct for that particular depiction of the subject.

 

Whilst recognising and applauding the detailed knowledge of those who have studied their chosen subject minutely, we should not dismiss the skill of those who produced what was asked of them, at a time when most of us were far less fastidious.

 

CJI.

  • Like 4
  • Agree 11
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

'Inaccurate' - though the meaning of the word remains the same, its interpretation amongst the majority of railway modellers nowadays is very far from that at the time the kit-build was commissioned.

 

Firstly, though I have no doubt that the hardcore LNER / BR(ER) modellers may have had access to precise records of the condition of each loco at any specific date, the majority of modellers did not, and didn't particularly care provided it was better than the current Tri-ang offering.

 

It is easy to overlook the vast change in the volume of generally-available, detailed knowledge of railways that has occurred in the intervening years, and to be disparaging about what are inevitably products of their age.

 

Perhaps surprisingly to some amongst us, there are still many modellers who can recognise a quality kit-built model, but who don't know or care whether the fittings installed are exactly correct for that particular depiction of the subject.

 

Whilst recognising and applauding the detailed knowledge of those who have studied their chosen subject minutely, we should not dismiss the skill of those who produced what was asked of them, at a time when most of us were far less fastidious.

 

CJI.

Indeed, different people focus on different things. 

Edited by robertcwp
Correction.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe there are two possible extremes within the groups of those model railway enthusiasts who do actually build individual models, or who at least sincerely intend to build them. At one extreme there are those who build, with the minimum of research, or just using the instructions in a kit, and who may get a lot of things made but not necessarily with totally accurate features. At the other extreme are those who research every infinitessimal detail, even if that means getting little or nothing built / finished. At least the much greater ready availability of information now, compared to forty years ago (as mentioned above) makes it possible for those somewhere in-between to get a better result.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 12
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, gr.king said:

makes it possible for those somewhere in-between to get a better result.

 

Yes a good summation of the two "wings" of loco building types. The quantity and perhaps more importantly, the availability of prototype information has never been better. I try to make my loco models as close to a series of pictures of a particular member of a class as possible but this is tempered by the limitations of (in my case) 4mm to the foot, my skill level and lastly my slightly worsening eye sight.

 

The amount of advice given on this website is really excellent, often from professional loco builders (Michael Edge and Tony Wright come quickly to mind) how they find time given they make their living from what is for me, a pleasant pastime, I don't know but it is appreciated.

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

  • Like 6
  • Agree 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, robertcwp said:

Still rather inaccurate though unless perhaps it represents the engine in preservation.

We’re talking 1980 though, generally standards overall weren’t what we expect now. Not many kits were put together to that quality at that time, and as we don’t know it’s back story I’m not sure it’s viable to judge it by today’s ‘expectations’. For that time it would have represented a competent build and paint of a not particularly well respected manufacturer. As Roy J would have said ‘it’s better than the one we haven’t got’

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, robertcwp said:

Indeed, different people focus on different things. The model of 4472 is a beautiful ornament built by someone very skilled but 4472 was never left-hand drive when carrying that number in LNER days. 

I may be missing something. If you’re referring to the image of 4472 in my posting, that was probably made by Mrs Smith, factory worker, of 23 Railway Cuttings in Margate. It’s a 1980 RTR Hornby model, and used to demonstrate the difference between Tony’s Millhome A2 and its equivalent, contemporary at the time RTR.

Edited by PMP
  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, PMP said:

I may be missing something. If you’re referring to the image of 4472 in my posting, that was probably made by Mrs Smith, factory worker, of 23 Railway Cuttings in Margate. It’s a 1980 RTR Hornby model, and used to demonstrate the difference between Tony’s Millhome A2 and its equivalent, contemporary at the time RTR.

When I first looked at the photo, I thought it was RTR but misinterpreted your post. I thought you were suggesting it was some kind of custom build.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, robertcwp said:

Typical condition and looks good.

 

 

Apart from anything else the cleaning solution used on diesels, and then applied by abrasive brush, was very acidic (if I recall Xmover) and quickly removed any shine.

The Warship looks very good though, well done.

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, gr.king said:

I believe there are two possible extremes within the groups of those model railway enthusiasts who do actually build individual models, or who at least sincerely intend to build them. At one extreme there are those who build, with the minimum of research, or just using the instructions in a kit, and who may get a lot of things made but not necessarily with totally accurate features. At the other extreme are those who research every infinitessimal detail, even if that means getting little or nothing built / finished. At least the much greater ready availability of information now, compared to forty years ago (as mentioned above) makes it possible for those somewhere in-between to get a better result.

You’ve missed out the third wing - those who have vast knowledge, have no intention (or ability) to build anything but take pleasure in criticising other people’s work - the rivet counter. Although unloved and unwanted they are as much part of the hobby as the rest. 
 

As a painter I find it difficult to see beyond the paintwork just as, say, a professional signaller would immediately note the signal errors on a layout. I also cringe at white window frames on period layouts. To build any type of layout accurately would take more knowledge and skill than 99% of us have, so we have to tolerate the odd error and look at the broader picture, except perhaps banjo domes. (Hint, take photos from rail level so the type of dome is obscured).

 

Ian R
 


 

 

  • Like 7
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, stewartingram said:

Double ended Sentinel sounds interesting to me....

 

Stewart

Good evening Stewart,

 

Here it is................

 

844626278_Double-endedSentinel.jpg.2315c53637786dfa31c16345efb778fa.jpg

 

I'm assuming it's a double-ended Sentinel.

 

I have no idea of its provenance. It's powered by a Tenshodo 'Spud' (or was, because it no longer works, though is replacement 'potato-power' readily available?). 

 

Anyone interested, please make me an offer by PM.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 5
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, PMP said:

I’d suggest the comparison between the model here and a more accurate one, to a degree may not be ‘fair’. We’re going back roughly 40 years, and I think this is a good example of a well built, possibly commissioned model for that era. Not knowing the original client specification it’s difficult to assess what emphasis was put on ‘fidelity’. It may have simply been ’make the kit as supplied’. When you consider the contemporary RTR offering below, this A2, regardless of its accuracy shortcomings, would have been regarded as a high quality build and I’d have expected to sell it for £120-150 in a retail environment. The kit and components I’d guess coming in at around the £60 mark.

5E4D28A2-5CEC-413A-B553-0DFA0A47B708.jpeg.e14080220d2345899188eb586268b8a2.jpeg

Good evening Paul,

 

Why do you think it 'may not be fair'? 

 

My intention is to sell this collection of models on behalf of a widow, getting the best prices I can. 

 

I'm not selling them to the market of 40 years ago, I'm selling them here and now. It might be to the standards of four decades gone, but that's not the standard of today. Hornby's latest equivalent will see to that.

 

Anyway, imagine the howls of derision were I not to mention the inaccuracies. Doesn't Wrighty know that the length is wrong, the chimney is wrong, the dome is wrong and the tender's all over the place? 

 

What I would say is that it now works quite well, and is heavy enough to shift a heavy load. If anyone would like to take pity on the Millholme A2/2, please, make me an offer via a PM. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ian Rathbone said:

You’ve missed out the third wing - those who have vast knowledge, have no intention (or ability) to build anything but take pleasure in criticising other people’s work - the rivet counter. Although unloved and unwanted they are as much part of the hobby as the rest. 
 

As a painter I find it difficult to see beyond the paintwork just as, say, a professional signaller would immediately note the signal errors on a layout. I also cringe at white window frames on period layouts. To build any type of layout accurately would take more knowledge and skill than 99% of us have, so we have to tolerate the odd error and look at the broader picture, except perhaps banjo domes. (Hint, take photos from rail level so the type of dome is obscured).

 

Ian R
 


 

 

Well put. We all focus on different things and have different priorities and standards or perhaps that should be thresholds of tolerance. 

 

I'm very intolerant of unrealistic carriage formations but have little idea about freight.

 

I would rather have a reasonable but not showcase-perfect model of the correct train than masterpiece model of the wrong one.

 

I tolerate those awful roof ribs on my older Bachmann Mark 1s because I'm not going to live long enough to eradicate them all given all the things in modelling and life more generally that I consider higher priorities. Similarly for changing to the later vent arrangements or getting rid of all those end steps on later maroon or blue/grey ones. 

 

Then of course there is always that detail you didn't know about when doing a model that you later discover or have pointed out to you. :banghead:

  • Like 3
  • Agree 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

'Inaccurate' - though the meaning of the word remains the same, its interpretation amongst the majority of railway modellers nowadays is very far from that at the time the kit-build was commissioned.

 

Firstly, though I have no doubt that the hardcore LNER / BR(ER) modellers may have had access to precise records of the condition of each loco at any specific date, the majority of modellers did not, and didn't particularly care provided it was better than the current Tri-ang offering.

 

It is easy to overlook the vast change in the volume of generally-available, detailed knowledge of railways that has occurred in the intervening years, and to be disparaging about what are inevitably products of their age.

 

Perhaps surprisingly to some amongst us, there are still many modellers who can recognise a quality kit-built model, but who don't know or care whether the fittings installed are exactly correct for that particular depiction of the subject.

 

Whilst recognising and applauding the detailed knowledge of those who have studied their chosen subject minutely, we should not dismiss the skill of those who produced what was asked of them, at a time when most of us were far less fastidious.

 

CJI.

Good evening John,

 

I'm not dismissing the skill required to put together a kit well. Indeed, anyone who could build a Millholme A2/2 deserves the greatest respect.

 

But, as I said to PMP, the market I'm selling such things to is that of today's - far more-discerning and knowledgeable. And, far more discriminating. 

 

Anyway, I'm tasked with getting the best prices for these 50-odd locos in the collection. And, that means getting them to work. I'm just signing off from getting 30 of them working today. I think that gives me the right to be slightly dismissive of the builders of some of these. No blame should be placed on them because of gummed-up Portescaps. I've managed to free those fitted so far. However, I do have the right to dismiss hopeless pick-ups, loco-to-tender-gaps which would jam on dead straight track, tight spots in the motion, daft ways of securing bodies to frames - why not a captive nut - a really captive nut, which will never come loose from inside the body - and a screw? And, why secure ponies/bogies with a nut hanging on the end of a screw? Try and undo them and the whole thing turns. Why? Because the screw has not been secured properly. The proper way is a shouldered screw, fitted into a captive nut. Furthermore, why make it necessary to take the brake rigging off to get at the body-fixing points? Also, why wire locos up so that they run the opposite way to the conventional? Yes, I know DCC obviates this, but many of these locos have live-to-frame motors. 

 

Yes, I think I've earned the right to be really-critical of some other professionals' work. The fact that the original commissioner obviously didn't know if they were right or wrong or whether they worked or not (or if he did, he wasn't bothered) is irrelevant. What's relevant is that (apart from two total duds) I've managed to fix, in one way or another, all those lists of 'faults' on the 30 or so locos I've been working on today. That being the case, I can offer them for sale in the confidence that they now all work - some beautifully; others, though working well, because of their simpler prime drives, are less-quiet. 

 

The other ten will be done tomorrow.

 

Would you sooner I say nothing, do nothing, make as quick a sale as possible, then beat it?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited by Tony Wright
typo error
  • Agree 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  • Friendly/supportive 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

 

Would you sooner I say nothing, do nothing, make as quick a sale as possible, then beat it?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Tony,

 

You seem to have taken my post as a personal criticism  - look again, I was responding to a subsequent post concerning the detail accuracy of kitbuilt models from decades ago. I made no mention of the standard of construction of the models that you are refurbishing.

 

I know that we differ in our emphasis when modelling details are concerned, but you seem to have taken offence concerning something that I didn't say about a subject that I didn't mention!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some more from the collection...............

 

1418608095_DaveAlexanderQ6DJHD20DaveBradwellJ27Nu-CastG5.jpg.cfb301ff7e355e6a385605b9406c67f9.jpg

 

A North Eastern selection. 

 

The best here is the Bradwell J27. Beautifully-observed, and, now with an un-gummed Portescap, an equally beautiful-runner. 

 

Any offers, on any of these, please via a PM. 

 

I've done my best to dust off all the models, but I've been slightly less than fastidious. 

 

1906799518_DJHAusterities.jpg.e03b6cd64ae39cfca0aa27c12d6b2d97.jpg

 

A pair of DJH Austerities, the nearer one built by DJH in 1980 (I have the provenance).

 

963657111_DJHCrab.jpg.3431b9df057148e3b1f9eff380b1bd21.jpg

 

A DJH 'Crab'.

 

721666710_Ks44XXandFarEastbrass45XX.jpg.a6ae3551b79d6b70d24724e597734f16.jpg

 

A K's 44XX (which now works as well as any K's mechanism I know) and a Far East brass 45XX. The latter doesn't work, and I'm stumped as to why not. Getting inside defeated me today, so it'll go (with luck) as a non-runner. 

 

1987097148_LittleEnginesA6andBradwellJ21.jpg.17ac14eb0a1128ae5ec179393dd3533f.jpg

 

A Little Engines A6 (which I think has now sold) and a Bradwell J21. Both work really sweetly, now. 1886764740_Nu-CastB1andDJHB163(nochassis).jpg.c04ffe9345e70d7bd61ef5d69a3e874e.jpg

 

A Nu-Cast B1 and B16/3 sans chassis - I have no idea where this is.

 

1682813103_LittleEnginesA8DJHB161.jpg.4bc8d438ab267390a7018a7583f2a6a4.jpg

 

A pair among the best in the collection; a Little Engines A8 and a DJH B16/1.

 

Beautifully-painted and (now) two really nice runners. 

 

1971443062_SEFinecastK3.jpg.19adb180ab7f37aff7cb624abaa82a73.jpg

 

A SE Finecast K3. I wonder why such a lovely paint finish was applied to such a grotty runner? It had all the faults listed earlier. Not now! In fact, it now runs very nicely.

 

1149513442_WestwoodWCandSEFinecastU.jpg.d5b15350a9e87b0a98f68d98886dd4de.jpg

 

And, finally, for now, a cast metal WC (Westwood?) on a Kemilway chassis, and a DJH U.

 

As mentioned earlier, any offers, please.................

 

More tomorrow.

 

 

  • Like 8
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Tony,

 

You seem to have taken my post as a personal criticism  - look again, I was responding to a subsequent post concerning the detail accuracy of kitbuilt models from decades ago. I made no mention of the standard of construction of the models that you are refurbishing.

 

I know that we differ in our emphasis when modelling details are concerned, but you seem to have taken offence concerning something that I didn't say about a subject that I didn't mention!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Thanks John,

 

It's late, and I've had a trying day, so please forgive me.

 

However, you did mention 'there are still many modellers who can recognise a quality kit-built model,' 

 

Even if it doesn't work?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Some more from the collection...............

 

1418608095_DaveAlexanderQ6DJHD20DaveBradwellJ27Nu-CastG5.jpg.cfb301ff7e355e6a385605b9406c67f9.jpg

 

A North Eastern selection. 

 

The best here is the Bradwell J27. Beautifully-observed, and, now with an un-gummed Portescap, an equally beautiful-runner. 

 

Any offers, on any of these, please via a PM. 

 

I've done my best to dust off all the models, but I've been slightly less than fastidious. 

 

1906799518_DJHAusterities.jpg.e03b6cd64ae39cfca0aa27c12d6b2d97.jpg

 

A pair of DJH Austerities, the nearer one built by DJH in 1980 (I have the provenance).

 

963657111_DJHCrab.jpg.3431b9df057148e3b1f9eff380b1bd21.jpg

 

A DJH 'Crab'.

 

721666710_Ks44XXandFarEastbrass45XX.jpg.a6ae3551b79d6b70d24724e597734f16.jpg

 

A K's 44XX (which now works as well as any K's mechanism I know) and a Far East brass 45XX. The latter doesn't work, and I'm stumped as to why not. Getting inside defeated me today, so it'll go (with luck) as a non-runner. 

 

1987097148_LittleEnginesA6andBradwellJ21.jpg.17ac14eb0a1128ae5ec179393dd3533f.jpg

 

A Little Engines A6 (which I think has now sold) and a Bradwell J21. Both work really sweetly, now. 1886764740_Nu-CastB1andDJHB163(nochassis).jpg.c04ffe9345e70d7bd61ef5d69a3e874e.jpg

 

A Nu-Cast B1 and B16/3 sans chassis - I have no idea where this is.

 

1682813103_LittleEnginesA8DJHB161.jpg.4bc8d438ab267390a7018a7583f2a6a4.jpg

 

A pair among the best in the collection; a Little Engines A8 and a DJH B16/1.

 

Beautifully-painted and (now) two really nice runners. 

 

1971443062_SEFinecastK3.jpg.19adb180ab7f37aff7cb624abaa82a73.jpg

 

A SE Finecast K3. I wonder why such a lovely paint finish was applied to such a grotty runner? It had all the faults listed earlier. Not now! In fact, it now runs very nicely.

 

1149513442_WestwoodWCandSEFinecastU.jpg.d5b15350a9e87b0a98f68d98886dd4de.jpg

 

And, finally, for now, a cast metal WC (Westwood?) on a Kemilway chassis, and a DJH U.

 

As mentioned earlier, any offers, please.................

 

More tomorrow.

 

 

 

Tony,

 

The U Class is of interest - what will you accept for it?

 

Regards,

John.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

 

It's late, and I've had a trying day, so please forgive me.

 

Whatever the rights and wrongs Tony, I'm sure both the widow and CRUK will be grateful for your efforts so all power to your elbow.

 

From what you have shown us so far, I think 'professionally built' - certainly  the painting - is not an unreasonable epithet in this case. Yes, no doubt some of the 'niggles' you mention are annoying ... but compared to some of the utter rubbish seen on Ebay so described they all look pretty good to me.

 

Banjo domes and 'too wide' pacific tenders just go straight over my head I'm afraid! Now, if there were a Duchess in there...

  • Like 6
  • Agree 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

Whatever the rights and wrongs Tony, I'm sure both the widow and CRUK will be grateful for your efforts so all power to your elbow.

 

From what you have shown us so far, I think 'professionally built' - certainly  the painting - is not an unreasonable epithet in this case. Yes, no doubt some of the 'niggles' you mention are annoying ... but compared to some of the utter rubbish seen on Ebay so described they all look pretty good to me.

 

Banjo domes and 'too wide' pacific tenders just go straight over my head I'm afraid! Now, if there were a Duchess in there...

Thanks Graham,

 

You might be interested in this pair yourself................

 

1541665987_PalitoyScotJubilee.jpg.5b87264be86873e09fd72fc27475241c.jpg

 

It's a pair of Palitoy ex-LMS 4-6-0s. Both have been detailed and rather well-repainted. 

 

Both run like, err, Palitoy 4-6-0s, but they're willing and able (and very fast at top speed).

 

I DO really need a better duster!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening Clem,

 

good to here.

 

One of the photographs I have of the Hotchley Hill gypsum train, has a replacement Charles Roberts hopper at the head. I would like to replicate this, could you send me your recipe for converting the RTR version into your very accurate looking model. I can't remember what was your choice of chassis?

 

Many thanks.

Hi Andrew,

I've just started another Charles Roberts. I'll attempt to record what I do as I go along. I'm afraid my standards are as high as Geoff Kent's but I think they are about passible. I start off with a Bachmann RTR model of the BR diagram 1/162 which of course is what I call the Charles Roberts hopper as that firm made many for both private companies and for BR to this design. This model is not bad in its shape except it's as though it has been stretched 7.5 inches or 2.5mm in 4mm scale. The wheelbase and under frame is totally fictitious (10 foot with a vacuum cylinder and of course 7.5mm too long). So first separate from the chassis and throw the chassis away.

 

The plate above the chassis can  and should be separated from the hopper body. We need a 9 foot wheelbase with double 'V's on both sides and fortunately, Parkside do one ref no PA08 which can be adapted to produce something quite close.

 

First of all you need to cut and shut the body and also its supporting plate which sits on top of the solebars. You only need to cut and shut the actual body in one place and take out the full 2.5mm in one go. I do this by cutting on the inside of one of the two stantion strengtheners i.e. in the central part of the body. I use a combination of scalpel with blade and scalpel with custom saw blade.(www.modelcraftcollection.com). Once separated, I scribe a line 2.15mm from the central edge all the way round and using some micro end-cutters, I carefully nibble off the 2.15 all the way round and then gently clean up both edges and dry fit together.

Any gaps have to be fixed by strategic filing else where to bring the gap closer together. Once satisfied, I put the two halves together on a flat surface upside down and weld together, adjusting until all sides meet up perfectly.

The supporting plate is a little more complicated as the top detail is worth retaining. The first thing to note is the excessive thickness of this supporting plate (1.5mm) and if the Parkside chassis is simply added then the resulting model will be a good 1mm too tall. So I remove by file 1mm of the thickness for about 3mm from the edge all the way round the underside of the plate. 

Next we need to cut and shut 2.5mm out of the plate. But to keep it symmetrical two cuts must be made, one to the outside of each of the inner small body supports. For this I use a straight razor saw. This time, after separation, I scribe a line 1.1mm to each of the outer pieces and use the same nibbling technique as described above to remove the said amount. This can then be fixed together in the same way as described above.

The body and support plate should now have the correct dimensions and dry fit together as shown. The sole bars from the Parkside kit can be added although I file a little off the top to ensure they sit flat and to reduce the running height of the wagon a little further before fixing. This leaves the solebar too shallow by about 0.7mm but I address this later by adding a lower flange under neath later on in the process.

 

Before permanently fixing the body to the supporting plate, the plate needs further surgery and this is where I'm up to on the model illustrated.. The body actually should sit on a semi-open frame and I try to represent this by taking out a large oblong shape at each end of the plate situated under the end supporting stantions to accommodate the bottom door opening gear and also down the sides, close to where the body meets the supporting plate. To achieve this, with a 1mm drill,  I drill out on the inside of the shape all the way round and cut and file until it is straight and accurate. See the scribed oblong at each end of the plate  ready for this process. After this,  I will also drill a series of holes against the inner support of the body and file giving and open framework all the way round.

I'll add more to this as I go along later in the coming week. Please excuse me if this description is a bit dry  - descriptive writing is not my strongest area.

 

IMG_6978.jpg.46ea2a51d3a97faefabfc68ac3f1f141.jpg

 

IMG_6979.jpg.bd4044e9d0c9e4183991579bef5d0026.jpg

 

IMG_6980.jpg.638cb68e0196c8c0d89ce78161507042.jpg

  • Like 11
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...