Jol Wilkinson Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 He has also built a rather gorgeous Ivor the Engine, fully detailed and scratchbuilt in brass, and quite lovely it is to. So, is that a toy or a model? Sound like a model of a toy, so it's both. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahame Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 He has also built a rather gorgeous Ivor the Engine, fully detailed and scratchbuilt in brass, and quite lovely it is to. So, is that a toy or a model I'm not so sure that any attempt to pin down a definition of exactly what a toy and/or model is and pigeonhole everything in to either camp is particularly worthwhile. It strikes me that we all have our own standards and interpretation of what each is and will apply that as we think fit. So why bother to try and get group agreement when we judge on individual and personal merit and leave it simply as; one mans model is another mans toy (and vicky verky). I'm sure we all think we know what we're doing when it comes to deciding which is which - it just that we're very unlikely to get a consensus. It's a 'Toydel' G. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium PhilJ W Posted April 12, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 12, 2011 In the opinion of most SWMBO's there all toys. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aidan Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Hi Mick I look at it like this, a Hornby 'henry' is a toy. If you fit p4 wheels it's still a toy. While a detailed brass masters black 5 is a model, regardless of the wheels used. Of course if the same builder built 2 one with oo wheels and one with s4 wheels they would still both be models but no one could possibly argue that the 00 one is as accurate as the s4 one. I am quite happy with my simplistic view that something poorly detailed or crude is like a toy. Cheers Jim Ok. So, I have a farish 57xx. Duck the Great Western engine is a 57xx pannier tank. I have named my Farish 57xx "Duck". Like the Rev. Awdrys "Duck" it has no face. So, being entirely unchanged from the original 57xx is simply being called "Duck" enough to turn it from "model" to"toy" ? Or would it need the face as well? Was Awdrys "duck" with its scale wheels a toy or a model? Is my "Duck" a model/toy of his "Duck" or a model/toy of a 57xx? And as the "Henry" Black 5 is basically the ordinary old Hornby black 5 at which point does the model coming out of the factory change from toy to model: when it gets painted anything other than black? Or when the smoke box door/face is glued on? Is simply adding a face to something enough to make it a toy? Is the black 5 before a face or door is added either a toy or a model or something else entirely? And where do you stand if you treat Sodor as a real place with real railway and real engines (as opposed, not to an imaginary place, but to a fantasy place), modeling it as accurately as possible from the maps and pictures and diagrams,and the numerous photos taken over the years and the wealth of documentory evidence? Is it as much a model as any other fictional/might-have-been railway, like say Buckingham ? Or is it a toy? Even if you build it to p4 or 2mmfs standards? Does it only become a toy if your engines have faces? Would it be a model if Peter Denny built it entirely from scratch? What if it had a face? Is it perhaps, that a Hornby Black 5 is a model of a Black 5, while a Hornby Henry of a real black 5 that was green and possibly had a face? What attracts to the clergy to model railways? Can we make a model of it? And If it is a model and not a toy, can we still play with it? Im really really sorry...the pedant in me couldnt resist! Models are things made in the likeness of other things. Toys are things that can be played with. Not all toys are models, neither are all models toys: However there is a lot of things that are both models AND toys. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jim s-w Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Is it poorly detailed and crude, then it's a toy. But I already said that. If your model of duck is a model of another model then it's just one thing, that being the worst approach to model making that anyone can take! People can (and do chose to) build toys from scratch. If I made a train set for my niece it would be a toy, simples! Cheers Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 a model of another model then it's just one thing, that being the worst approach to model making that anyone can take! How about Colin Peake's Shifting Sands?! Where does that fit in?! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jim s-w Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Don't know it James Sorry Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Don't know it James I'd send you a link but Fotopics gone of course... EDIT - http://forum.gn15.info/viewtopic.php?t=3080 and http://www.minimumgauge.info/viewtopic.php?t=5337 Might give you an idea of what it's all about! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackRat Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 But havent you said before about improving your standards Jim? Is it poorly detailed and crude, then it's a toy. But I already said that. What if its kit built or even scratchbuilt, and its your first or even 10th attempt? And its poorly made and you lack the skills to solder all the fine bits on, so it is crudely detailed...... What is it then? By your reckoning a toy? If your model of duck is a model of another model then it's just one thing, that being the worst approach to model making that anyone can take! Says who? Many get inspired by other models that they see and try to recreate them. One of my first attempts at scratchbuilding was an attempt to (crudely) copy the coal offices built by Alan Downes for Pipers Mead. I was 10 I think, possibly a little older. If someone copies your work as they have been inspired by your modelling then what? I bet out there now, there are one or two attempting to copy what you are doing with B.N.S. Perhaps with set track etc but maybe thats within their achievable limits. Worst approach to modelling? Dont think so, it is after all modelling and thats better than doing nothing, but no doubt you will disagree, so perhaps then its better to do nothing at all, but then why not take up another hobby? Theres room for everyone, or there should be and its down to the individual to do what they want. Toys, models call them whatever you want to. I have yet to see the perfect layout, theres always something you can pick up on, more on some layouts than on others no matter how good they are. For example I haven't as yet seen any layout with correct accurate road markings despite there being a mass of prototype info out there. Its just wether you wish to admire them for what they are or to highlight any issues and there enough people in this hobby already doing that. Lets just all enjoy the hobby for what it is to you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jol Wilkinson Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Aidan, a seriously good bit of pedantic writing. Perhaps we should also consider not just what an thing is meant to be, but what it's meant to be for. Toys are intended primarily for play (and possibly education) usually by the young. Models are for display and serious use (albeit some would say that using them is play). Whizzing my Hornby Dublo around would define me as a collector at play, in my view. The items I build for my 4mm LNWR layout are models and operating the layout in a reasonably prototypical way is also modelling. Jol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Worst approach to modelling? Dont think so, it is after all modelling and thats better than doing nothing, but no doubt you will disagree, so perhaps then its better to do nothing at all, but then why not take up another hobby? Jim's point, I think, centres around the fact by copying a model you perpetuate any mistakes made. Look to the real thing and all the answers are there. One example is Guy Williams, he built locos from ctual works drawings, not model drawings - the results, with the help of his superb talent, were amazing. The primary source helping enormously. Similarly, how many times do we see people asking on here for a 'track plan' with a list of wants. In many cases a bit of prototype research may well have provided a good and workable solution. I have yet to see the perfect layout North Shields Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackRat Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 James, its like I said, it all depends on how nitpicky and pedantic you want to be! I was once picked up as my one of my guards had the 'wrong colour tie' (my answer was the other was in the wash)! And yes, it was wrong, it should have been red! Another example........Road vehicles often have no 'flats' in the tyres, no glass head lamps, rear view mirrors, windscreen wipers, drivers etc etc etc and yet we expect this level oif detail on locos coaches and now our wagons. and like I said, road markings, I haven't yet seen any (modernish) layout with them correctly placed, spaced etc. Cats eyes, refelective road studs, margin posts, rumble strips, tar banding, where are they? Centre lane markings and hazard warning lines incorrectly placed or spaced, no proper road signs or roadsise furniture, give way markings incorrectly marked................. Bit like track without the correct fixings etc (Ohhhhh! that'll start something off!). A driver neighbour and 12" steam freak pointed out the shovels on my firemen were wrong and also the type of coal (from Mo In Law as she has a real fire) in some of my tenders was wrong as it didnt look like steam coal (he was right !). I prefer to just admire things for what they usually are, after all we can all find fault in anything if we look hard enough cant we. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jim s-w Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Hi Black rat Would you agree that the better something is detailed as per it's prototype the better model it is? I doubt anyone would argue that point. It's up to the individual to decide where along that line the distinction is made from toy to model. I have an old horny flying Scotsman in the loft. I don't consider it a model at all, it's a toy from my childhood. Others might think differently but that's up to them but even if I fit p4 wheels it would still be a toy and would still not be good enough to go onto the layout. No amount of discussion about what it might be called will change that. Is it better to copy a model than do nothing at all? Well let's just say on a scale of 1 to 10, one being the height of laziness and 10 being pour your heart and soul into something, Letting someone else do all the work and just using their efforts because you can't be bothered to do it yourself would rate pretty close to a 1 in my book. Would I be impressed with a copy of my own layout? Not at all unless it was better. To be better a persons research and understanding of the real location would also have to be better. Like James says copies of models are like bad photocopies, each one that little bit worse than the one before it. I don't see how anyone can argue anything different tbh. There will always be those that think your efforts are the best thing ever when you think it's ok but could be better, and there will always be someone who thinks 'what the he'll is that' while you think it's the best model you have ever made. That's just how it is. Ultimately theres only 1 critic that matters. Cheers Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 I have an old horny flying Scotsman in the loft. I'm quite sure that's against several laws. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 I'm quite sure that's against several laws. Maybe but I bet there are websites devoted to it! Anyone googled horny scotsman? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackRat Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Hi Jim, Like James says copies of models are like bad photocopies, each one that little bit worse than the one before it. Assuming of course that any errors are perpetuated and not sorted. My 7mm clayhoods were built originally from plans, photos, site visits to Par and St Blazey etc, well the first one was. Once it was made it was used as a master to build the others, and that I suppose is copying!. In fact, I am still working on a way of replicating the hoods, and would be delighted if someone found a simple and easy solution. I would be more than happy for someone to borrow one, copy it and improve on what I have done. (easy enough I would think). I cant get them (the hoods) to look right at all! I also 'borrowed' a 16 ton mineral wagon (Peco) from Martyn Welch and used it as a master to paint my own (Peco and ABS) ones. In that way I learnt new techniques and skills. despite reading his book and him describing to me in the shop how he did it. So that makes me the worse type I suppose in some ways, but it helped me, and in the big scheme of things thats all that matters, it helped me. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Assuming of course that any errors are perpetuated and not sorted. Bout how would you know? My 7mm clayhoods were built originally from plans, photos, site visits to Par and St Blazey etc, well the first one was. Once it was made it was used as a master to build the others, and that I suppose is copying!. Not really the same - that's just making a master for casting. I also 'borrowed' a 16 ton mineral wagon (Peco) from Martyn Welch and used it as a master to paint my own (Peco and ABS) ones. In that way I learnt new techniques and skills. despite reading his book and him describing to me in the shop how he did it. There's no reason why we can't learn techniques from other modellers - but copying everything from a model instead of doing a bit of research would be lazy I think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jim s-w Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 That would make it a model built from proper research and completely irrelevant to the point! Cheers Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 And now for the science bit. Probably by research. So you'd be building a model research which isn't what was being discussed... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Vale Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Building a kit doesn't require much research (or any if it's a really good kit), but I'd call that model-making. It seems a bit silly to argue about it though - I've never seen much distinction between playing with toys and making models. Either I value it myself or I don't, and it's unlikely that the rest of the world will be persuaded that I'm not just playing trains by changing the label. The modern image definition is interesting though - I've always interpreted it as whatever was modern at the time - my blog subtitle claims that Whitemarsh is an "OO modern image layout " but in terms of railway eras it'd be post-privatisation. The idea that modern image refers to a specific period (like the New Deal) wasn't something I'd considered. Will Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 The idea that modern image refers to a specific period (like the New Deal) wasn't something I'd considered. That's precisely the context in which I am embracing it; with a heavy accent of irony maybe, and more than a hint of devilment. But as I am sad enough to be targeting just the last half of '68 in my modelling to the exception of all else, I'm taking the phrase Modern Image to be almost a subtext of Beeching's other - less notorious and unsung - achievement. That of imposing a Corporate Image. To draw a musical analogy, if Punk was musical revolution (transition), then the music that came immediately after - watered down - was New Wave (modern image). As a music genre it probably lasted two years, late '77 - '79. My Modern Image is '67 - '69. But any further philosophical thoughts on this subject will be confined to the blog, as we are debating the meaning of an OP in which I think the phrase modern image really meant Y2K and later TMD layouts Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craigw Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Building a kit doesn't require much research (or any if it's a really good kit), but I'd call that model-making. It seems a bit silly to argue about it though - I've never seen much distinction between playing with toys and making models. Either I value it myself or I don't, and it's unlikely that the rest of the world will be persuaded that I'm not just playing trains by changing the label. The modern image definition is interesting though - I've always interpreted it as whatever was modern at the time - my blog subtitle claims that Whitemarsh is an "OO modern image layout " but in terms of railway eras it'd be post-privatisation. The idea that modern image refers to a specific period (like the New Deal) wasn't something I'd considered. Will Does not require much research? If you want to just build a kit it probably does not, but if you want to build a model of a specific item from that kit then you do have to. But that gets back to the point that Jim (and others) have been making doesn't it? Craig W Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Steven B Posted April 13, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 13, 2011 Just to confuse matters, I play with my models! To some a toy and a model are two very different things. I don't see why they should be. Surely there's nothing wrong with a model being used as a toy? Does an Airfix model of a Spitfire become a toy as soon as it's owner starts using it topretend he's in a Dog-fight? Does a highly detailed, fine-scale model become a toy as soon as you put a DCC sound decoder in it? To some a 20 year old Flying Scotsman is a model, to others it's a toy as it's lacking the detail of an etched kit built version. As long as you're having fun does it matter if your play trains or run a model railway? Happy modelling. Steven B. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jol Wilkinson Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Just to confuse matters, I play with my models! To some a toy and a model are two very different things. I don't see why they should be. Surely there's nothing wrong with a model being used as a toy? Does an Airfix model of a Spitfire become a toy as soon as it's owner starts using it topretend he's in a Dog-fight? Does a highly detailed, fine-scale model become a toy as soon as you put a DCC sound decoder in it? To some a 20 year old Flying Scotsman is a model, to others it's a toy as it's lacking the detail of an etched kit built version. As long as you're having fun does it matter if your play trains or run a model railway? Happy modelling. Steven B. It's the use of certain words that cause me difficulty and I quote Steven's posting purely as an illustration. For me, fun implies something rather frivolous, whereas enjoyment or pleasure are a little more restained. So fun applies to toys, enjoyment to model making. Do you have a model railway, or a model of a railway? I think there can be a lot of difference between the two. The former may be prototypically inaccurate but provide the user with a lot of fun, such as I got from my Hornby Dublo train set when I was young (yes, I can still remember that far back). Nowadays I take pleasure from making something that represents, both in it's visual portrayal and operation, the LNWR in Edwardian times. To me it's a model, not a toy. As for modern image, surely the word modern implies recent, as in the last ten years or so. When the phrase first came into use, I think it was intended to decribe the (then) current scene which was changing rapidly and dramatically. When I see a layout with diesel power representing the 70's or 80's, that's no longer modern. Jol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 As for modern image, surely the word modern implies recent, as in the last ten years or so. When the phrase first came into use, I think it was intended to decribe the (then) current scene which was changing rapidly and dramatically. When I see a layout with diesel power representing the 70's or 80's, that's no longer modern. Hence my inclusion of this disclaimer earlier: "we are debating the meaning of an OP in which I think the phrase modern image really meant Y2K and later..." and the phrasing was unfortunate, as MI as a phrase has, whether we like it or not, connotations rooted in Railway Modeller (Freezer-Jenkinson) folklore, as we have seen. At least amongst the pedants (like me), and those of a certain age (me, again!). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.