Martin Finney retired

[chris p bacon]

On the contrary, I know of several potential purchasers - myself being among them - but he has yet to accept any offers put to him.

In my work it means you need to bid more.....or let someone else.

[The Nth Degree]

In my work it means you need to bid more.....or let someone else.

I'm guessing in your work you have money to burn? I don't. I see it as a business and I value it accordingly – just like everyone else I know who bid for did so.

[Horsetan]

The 4mm and 7mm ranges were different - there were at least three kits - the Duchess, West Country, and broad gauge Rover - that were produced for 7mm scale only, and a number of parts that were exclusively for 7mm scale.

 

Many years ago, shortly after the release of the 7mm Duchess, I did ask Martin whether he would consider doing the Duchess in 4mm scale. He effectively told me absolutely not, as he didn't think there would be a demand for a kit costing - he estimated - £140 back then for the etches alone.

[chris p bacon]

I'm guessing in your work you have money to burn? I don't. I see it as a business and I value it accordingly – just like everyone else I know who bid for did so.

Far from it.

 

As I said if another bids more they will get it, whether they can make money from it is up to them. If someone else is prepared to pay more then maybe they can see something else in it that others don't.

If none offer what MF is expecting he may re-evaluate his expectations, there is the possibility that he may not sell as it may be that he thinks that he is giving it away. I know of quite a few in other spheres of work who have done similar.

[Guest Lyonesse]

We plan in the longer-term to introduce further kits, but our first priority is to make the existing kits available again. This means that work on any new kits will not start until next year. We anticipate these would be of further GWR prototypes.

Further GWR?  I suppose there is room for a Saint kit, and perhaps a County (4-6-0 and 4-4-0).  Then there are all the pannier classes and the inherited pre-1923 classes (TVR 0-6-2T, etc).  Beyond that, you need to look at the various Dean and Armstrong NG oddities --- and The Great Bear.  Still, I would have thought some SR, LNER or BR standard classes would have been better.  Unless the intention is to start duplicating the Malcolm Mitchell range?

[Siberian Snooper]

There were rumours a few years ago of an Armstrong standard goods.

[The Nth Degree]

That seems a bit over-simplistic – too black and white on both sides of the fence.

 

Martin has spent many years producing an exceptional range of kits and gaining an enviable reputation in the process, and has a huge amount of emotional attachment which can only be broken for a certain price. That is worth a lot of money to him, and he is perfectly entitled to think and desire that.

 

It's an entirely different proposition from the other side, though.

 

I want him to sell it, not necessarily to me, if only to give him a better retirement. He's a really nice bloke and deserves to sit back and concentrate on his own model railway.

[Horsetan]

Further GWR?  I suppose there is room for a Saint kit, and perhaps a County (4-6-0 and 4-4-0).  Then there are all the pannier classes and the inherited pre-1923 classes (TVR 0-6-2T, etc).  Beyond that, you need to look at the various Dean and Armstrong NG oddities --- and The Great Bear.  Still, I would have thought some SR, LNER or BR standard classes would have been better.

Hey, hang on! What about the Modified Hall?

 

"The Great Bear" might only work as a Princess-style very limited run.

 

Unless the intention is to start duplicating the Malcolm Mitchell range?

In a strange sort of way, it would be logical to unify with the ex-Mitchell range if/when David Geen retires.

[martinT]

There were rumours a few years ago of an Armstrong standard goods.

GWR modellers really need one of these (tho' I think there was a Jidenco one), but what about the 3521 4-4-0 class - both boiler versions please! I somehow doubt that they'll ever be a RTR version to compete against.

 

Martin

[The Fatadder]

Further GWR?  I suppose there is room for a Saint kit, and perhaps a County (4-6-0 and 4-4-0).  Then there are all the pannier classes and the inherited pre-1923 classes (TVR 0-6-2T, etc).  Beyond that, you need to look at the various Dean and Armstrong NG oddities --- and The Great Bear.  Still, I would have thought some SR, LNER or BR standard classes would have been better.  Unless the intention is to start duplicating the Malcolm Mitchell range?

Duplicating the manor would make sense given the loss of the Mitchell artwork, though for the rest would there be a market for 2 high spec kits and a high spec RTR (I think not, an easichas for the RTR would make more commercial sense to me)

 

I think one of the most logical additions would be to expand the range of tenders, the high sided version of the tender used with the 2251s is a big omission of the Finney and Mitchell ranges.

[Horsetan]

Rich: I'm still trying to work out how the 4mm artwork for the "Manor" just disappeared into thin air!

 

.....the high sided version of the tender used with the 2251s is a big omission of the Finney and Mitchell ranges.

You mean the Collett 3000 gallon tender. That certainly is an omission. Only Falcon Brass have produced a kit for it in the past.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Horsetan

[JeffP]

I too was caught out by "snooze and you lose", wanting an A4 and a V2 in 7mm scale, getting neither. I went to Telford with cash money last year, came home and put it back in the bank.

 

I'm still waiting for Martin to announce the sale of the 7mm range, but, knowing my luck, he either won't, or it will disappear into some modelling black hole.

 

I've given up on the V2, have a Hachette A4 on the go, and have just about missed out on the DA A2 as well.

[davelester]

Further GWR?  I suppose there is room for a Saint kit, and perhaps a County (4-6-0 and 4-4-0).  Then there are all the pannier classes and the inherited pre-1923 classes (TVR 0-6-2T, etc).  Beyond that, you need to look at the various Dean and Armstrong NG oddities --- and The Great Bear.  Still, I would have thought some SR, LNER or BR standard classes would have been better.  Unless the intention is to start duplicating the Malcolm Mitchell range?

 

I'm surprised that Brassmasters isn't suggesting a 4mm Duchess as the first new Finney. After all the etched components are already done. And the Princess kit must have involved at least some castings that can be repurposed. And they've got a tender.

 

I'm not sure about the idea of new LNER types. We're well provided with the next most common types (B1 Dave Bradwell, K2 London Road Models, K3 Finecast, J39?)

[Craigw]

There were rumours a few years ago of an Armstrong standard goods.

 

The Armstrong Goods, Beyer goods and 322 class were all being done by CSP. The Designer was Paul Gram and I believe they are in limbo since his death - along with his range which CSP also acquired.

 

Brassmasters could  do a Saint and the remaining large wheel outside frame 4-4-0 locos would also possibly be viable. Possibly a County 4-4-0 and 4-6-0 too.

 

Craig W

Edited April 16, 2015 by Craigw

[Horsetan]

I'm surprised that Brassmasters isn't suggesting a 4mm Duchess as the first new Finney. After all the etched components are already done. And the Princess kit must have involved at least some castings that can be repurposed. And they've got a tender....

The etch design is for 7mm scale which Martin retains pending a sale to a new 7mm owner. Brassmasters, having bought the 4mm side of things, won't have any access to this design, or the Bulleid Light Pacific, or the broad gauge Rover, unless Martin decides to let Brassmasters see those things. That's about as likely to happen as North Korea suddenly becoming a multi-party democracy.

[Blue Max]

I'm not sure about the idea of new LNER types. We're well provided with the next most common types (B1 Dave Bradwell

 

Dave Bradwell only does a chassis kit not a full B1 kit.

[Horsetan]

Dave Bradwell only does a chassis kit not a full B1 kit.

Yes, but could this not be mated with the very acceptable Hornby body nowadays?

[Norton961]

Re the handover fromMartin Finney to Brassmasters please don't underestimate the amount of work to do this properly without anything going missing. The handover to David Geen for the Malcolm Mitchel range resulted in the etching company loosing the tooling for the Manor kit and we don't want that to be repeated. Every casting, every set of instructions every set of etchings needs to be identified. Also some of the suppliers are different from the current ones used by Brassmasters. An initial assessment has also show that some castings will need some new moulds being made and this all takes time.

As for future models lets get the existing Finey models avaliable first, remember that Brassmasters are already committed to to increasing its own range over the next 12 months.

 

David

[Horsetan]

If MPR is still following this thread, could he kindly update the topic title to "Martin Finney Retired"?

 

I thank you.

[Siberian Snooper]

The Armstrong Goods, Beyer goods and 322 class were all being done by CSP. The Designer was Paul Gram and I believe they are in limbo since his death - along with his range which CSP also acquired.

 

Brassmasters could  do a Saint and the remaining large wheel outside frame 4-4-0 locos would also possibly be viable. Possibly a County 4-4-0 and 4-6-0 too.

 

Craig W

The original rumours did not specify any manufacturer and therefore I just assumed it might be Martin Finney on the grounds that a fair bit of the exsisting art work for the Deans Goods could be used for the later variants of the Armstrong varity.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Re the handover fromMartin Finney to Brassmasters please don't underestimate the amount of work to do this properly without anything going missing. The handover to David Geen for the Malcolm Mitchel range resulted in the etching company loosing the tooling for the Manor kit and we don't want that to be repeated. Every casting, every set of instructions every set of etchings needs to be identified. Also some of the suppliers are different from the current ones used by Brassmasters. An initial assessment has also show that some castings will need some new moulds being made and this all takes time.

As for future models lets get the existing Finey models avaliable first, remember that Brassmasters are already committed to to increasing its own range over the next 12 months.

 

David

If you stay with the same etchers then it usually makes life much easier.

 

One supplier I know uses several etchers. Having absorbed several other ranges over the years they kept the tooling where it was. The only tool that ever got lost was when they moved some production from one etcher that had increased their prices considerably (most of the kit manufacturers that used that company also moved their business away). The original etcher denied that they ever had the tool or had produced any etches from it, which was odd as the kit maker had invoices from them proving it and had sold the kits for several years.

 

The biggest difficulty nowadays (which may have affected David Geen and the GWR Manor kit) is that most etchers can't now produce tools from hand drawn artwork. So if the tool goes missing or is damaged, you've had it.

[Coach bogie]

Duplicating the manor would make sense given the loss of the Mitchell artwork, though for the rest would there be a market for 2 high spec kits and a high spec RTR

 

 

David Geen might disagree with you, especially when you ask how many Manor kits have actually been sold. The Grange sales are even less - clue, he hasn't run out of fingers and toes yet! The market has also shown many unbuilt high spec kits becoming available due to the death of the owners, witnessed by DG been offered Mitchell kits back. 

 

I do not expect all the Finney range to reappear. the GWR 3232 is an example, as again, not the most popular kit sales wise.

 

The 3521 kit was mentioned on this thread. Jidenco/Falcon produced both versions of this with choices of tender, in addition, the high spec Peter K kit is still available etches only.

 

http://www.kemilway.com/peter-k.html

 

Mike Wiltshire

[jamie92208]

If you stay with the same etchers then it usually makes life much easier.

 

One supplier I know uses several etchers. Having absorbed several other ranges over the years they kept the tooling where it was. The only tool that ever got lost was when they moved some production from one etcher that had increased their prices considerably (most of the kit manufacturers that used that company also moved their business away). The original etcher denied that they ever had the tool or had produced any etches from it, which was odd as the kit maker had invoices from them proving it and had sold the kits for several years.

 

The biggest difficulty nowadays (which may have affected David Geen and the GWR Manor kit) is that most etchers can't now produce tools from hand drawn artwork. So if the tool goes missing or is damaged, you've had it.

Even artwork produce on CAD some years ago can be problematical.  Much of it was drawn in such a way that it would be printed out larger than full size then reduced using a camera to the correct size.   I believe that only one etcher still has a camera of that type and has a considerable backlog of work.  I've just converted one such CAD file to todays standards for a manufacturer.  It took about 14 hours of work but can now be produced easily in either 4mm or 7mm. 

 

Jamie

[buffalo]

Further GWR?  I suppose there is room for a Saint kit, and perhaps a County (4-6-0 and 4-4-0).  Then there are all the pannier classes and the inherited pre-1923 classes (TVR 0-6-2T, etc).  Beyond that, you need to look at the various Dean and Armstrong NG oddities --- and The Great Bear....

 

Some folk have very strange ideas of the GWR! Dismissing the Armstrong and Dean eras as 'oddities' is just bizarre. Then, what about all the saddle tanks? Many were still around until the thirties. Conversion to panniers took a long time.

 

Nick

[Horsetan]

If you stay with the same etchers then it usually makes life much easier.

 

One supplier I know uses several etchers. Having absorbed several other ranges over the years they kept the tooling where it was. The only tool that ever got lost was when they moved some production from one etcher that had increased their prices considerably (most of the kit manufacturers that used that company also moved their business away). The original etcher denied that they ever had the tool or had produced any etches from it, which was odd as the kit maker had invoices from them proving it and had sold the kits for several years.

 

The biggest difficulty nowadays (which may have affected David Geen and the GWR Manor kit) is that most etchers can't now produce tools from hand drawn artwork. So if the tool goes missing or is damaged, you've had it.

  

 

Just as well I tend to run etches through a scanner (both sides). If nothing else, at least I have a historical record of what the original etches looked like!

 

David Geen might disagree with you, especially when you ask how many Manor kits have actually been sold. The Grange sales are even less - clue, he hasn't run out of fingers and toes yet! The market has also shown many unbuilt high spec kits becoming available due to the death of the owners, witnessed by DG been offered Mitchell kits back....

David Geen could not have sold any Manor kits, as he says he never had the artwork for it. Self-fulfilling prophecy.