Nitpicking - Uniquely British?

[298]

I've modelled the same loco three times now, and are still noticing new bits and curves that I would expect a manufacturer to get. right the first time- after all, its what they do and ought to get right the first time.

 

Does this make me a rivet counter...? Absolutely. It's about time the meaning was re-written to acknowledge modelling standards and expectations have moved on from crude whitemetal lumps and generic RTR locos to beautiful locos that would have cost an awful lot of money from a Master Scratchbuilder. Maybe its just a railway modelling atitude to say expecting high standards is a bad thing....

[hollywoodfoundry]

The sad thing about 'rivet counters' is that everyone wants one designing their latest RTR purchase, but otherwise are prepared to use the term as a bludgeon to silence them at other times. I am fastidious about designing models and I certainly count the rivets in any given line on a model, and so should every designer.

 

Proudly a rivet counter!

[Forester]

Isn't it to do with the price being paid?

 

When I was paying £20 for a loco I was happy with anything resembling the prototype.

Now I'm asked to pay £120 and often much more for a "super-detail" loco, I won't accept the old standards.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

So long as you are being fair about factors like the real purchasing power that £20 and £120 represent, but also make allowance for continuous advances in the design and manufacturing techniques which should make more recent productions better than earlier! It's not an easy estimate to make, but I am struck by the high labour content of present models, necessitated by the fine detail, at a price which when inflation adjusted is significantly less than what way cruder models cost in the past. What I can see though is some very dated stuff lightly warmed over, which should be cheap on the basis of long amortised tooling, but with prices attached more appropriate to the best newly tooled items.

['CHARD]

The sad thing about 'rivet counters' is that everyone wants one designing their latest RTR purchase, but otherwise are prepared to use the term as bludgeon to silence them at other times. I am fastidious about designing models and I certainly count the rivets in any given line on a model, and so should every designer.

 

Proudly a rivet counter!

That should read 'as a bludgeon' I think (my bold).

[M Graff]

Isn't the amount of "rivet counting" in direct proportion to the lack of modeling being made?

 

On some non-UK forums I'm on, there is often remarks being made by the armchair modellers....

When asked to see their own efforts, they often change topics or get hostile....

 

I think the British modelers are really brave, as if not to be picked on by the "counters", they have to build most things on their own.

OO isn't okay is it? Considering the descripancy in gauge and so.....

[iL Dottore]

At last, something we can all agree on, "Rivet Counter" sounds far better than "Prototype Police"!!

Oh, I don't know....

 

"Prototype Police" creates an image of heavily tooled-up coppers, just itching to take on a manufacturer who puts a battery box where it shouldn't be, whereas "Rivet Counter" conjurs up an image of a bespectacled, brown mac wearing individual who criticises anything and anything in a high pitched nasal monotone...

 

In all seriousness, as a term "Rivet Counter" has acquired significant and unfortunate negative connotations over the years, so perhaps "prototype police" or "demanding and informed enthusiast" have less negative connotations when used to describe someone who wishes for accuracy?

 

One point, not so far mentioned, is that many things just do not scale down well and I think sheet metal is one of those things (even if you model in brass). I have yet to see a Class 50 model, in whatever scale, exhibit those subtle undulations of the Class 50s side sheet metal that I recall from travelling on trains pulled by them back in the 80s (other good examples are water and smoke - even in the Cinema, using very large scale models [in the day before CGI - like "Sink The Bismark"] the water and smoke did not convince).

 

Finally, one observation I've made in scratchbuilding buildings is that the buildings I make in 4mm that are exactly square (accrding to set-square and calipers) can sometimes not look right, whereas other buildings slightly off square (again by set-square and caliper) do look right. So perhaps creating an accurate looking model requires a subtle degree of artistic inaccuracy?

 

F

[The Stationmaster]

Finally, one observation I've made in scratchbuilding buildings is that the buildings I make in 4mm that are exactly square (accrding to set-square and calipers) can sometimes not look right, whereas other buildings slightly off square (again by set-square and caliper) do look right. So perhaps creating an accurate looking model requires a subtle degree of artistic inaccuracy?

That could well be because the prototype being modelled wasn't square in the first place - it happens.

[Pennine MC]

Isn't the amount of "rivet counting" in direct proportion to the lack of modeling being made?

 

A myth IMHO (assuming the term is used as 298 suggests, i.e. a little more positively).

[Guest dilbert]

That could well be because the prototype being modelled wasn't square in the first place - it happens.

Going completely o/t - and yet the builders of cathedrals and churches in medieval times could systematically knock out near perfect right angles with a twelve foot piece of rope consisting ot thirteen knots, a knot at each end and a knot per 1 ft. interval, plus the application of Pythagoras' theorem... dilbert

[Jol Wilkinson]

 

In all seriousness, as a term "Rivet Counter" has acquired significant and unfortunate negative connotations over the years, so perhaps "prototype police" or "demanding and informed enthusiast" have less negative connotations when used to describe someone who wishes for accuracy?

 

 

However, it shouldn't be taken as read that a demanding enthusiast is necessarily a properly informed one - other than in their own mind.

[298]

Isn't the amount of "rivet counting" in direct proportion to the lack of modeling being made?

 

 

A myth IMHO (assuming the term is used as 298 suggests, i.e. a little more positively).

 

Having thought about a little more after some sleep (my previous post was written on my Smartphone after a 12hr nightshift), I'd even go so far as to suggest the rivet counters of today are more likely to be RTR purchasers, where as going back to the time when the phrase was invented, they'd be unhappy with such toylike offerings and poor quality kits. It's still a bit ironic really, as I've always believed the meaning referred to someone commenting on the lack of accurate fine detail that we get today, when really all you need is a good basic shape to apply your onw details on later, see earler comments regarding class 31's for evidence of this.

 

Anyway, I tend to use this product nowadays:

 

http://www.archertransfers.com/SurfaceDetailsMain.html

 

 

 

[hollywoodfoundry]

That should read 'as a bludgeon' I think (my bold).

 

Stop 'rivet counting' my poor typing

['CHARD]

 

Stop 'rivet counting' my poor typing

I must confess it was a very poor attempt at irony in this quintessentially eccentric thread.

[Ohmisterporter]

When modellers outside the UK get their finely detailed models do they then complain that they are too delicate and bits fall off?

[Ron Ron Ron]

When modellers outside the UK get their finely detailed models do they then complain that they are too delicate and bits fall off?

For a start, the fine detail is often of a higher quality, using cast or etched metal parts instead of cheap flimsy plastic.

 

Some of the tiny fragile plastic bits added to Hornby and Bachmann RTR, leave a lot to be desired in the durability stakes. Better materials would still leave them delicate, but would reduce the incidence of bits snapping off just by looking at them.

 

It's interesting that Hornby are now starting to do die-cast loco bodies for their Continental markets, but here we get Railroad, or Railroad pretending to be in the normal range.

 

.

.

[Allegheny1600]

When modellers outside the UK get their finely detailed models do they then complain that they are too delicate and bits fall off?

Most Certainly!

Although I love Roco mechanisms, their details are rather fine and as a friend of mine said "You look at the details and they fall off"! This is with steam locos, D&E stuff is generally better but can also be a problem! Lenz and Piko are also known for bits of detail falling off.

If you want well detailed AND robust you're better looking at the likes of Fleischmann, Gutzold & Trix - they will generally last well, pull the house down and can be very reliable - guess what the drawback is?

Cost!!! The sort of cost where in the UK, You can buy TWO equivalent HorBach sound fitted locos! (ouch!).

I've also noticed that my US outline steam locos from P2K and Spectrum can be very, very delicate too! US diesels are pretty good though!

So to me, (newer) UK outline is very well detailed at a great price! And, it seems to run well into the bargin!

So!

I haven't too much patience with present day UK 'moaners', despite what I said earlier as I believe that we NOW get a good deal for our cash! Even though some manufacturers do still sell some 'rubbish'!

Cheers,

John E.

[hollywoodfoundry]

Going completely o/t - and yet the builders of cathedrals and churches in medieval times could systematically knock out near perfect right angles with a twelve foot piece of rope consisting ot thirteen knots, a knot at each end and a knot per 1 ft. interval, plus the application of Pythagoras' theorem... dilbert

 

I've got one of those ropes, but mine has a digital readout to four decimal places.....

[TheSignalEngineer]

 

Finally, one observation I've made in scratchbuilding buildings is that the buildings I make in 4mm that are exactly square (accrding to set-square and calipers) can sometimes not look right, whereas other buildings slightly off square (again by set-square and caliper) do look right. So perhaps creating an accurate looking model requires a subtle degree of artistic inaccuracy?

 

F

Didn't the Greeks introduce geometrical errors into their architecture because they realised that if you made things perfectly square and parallel the optical illusion created wasn't right?

 

The same thing can also apply to the perspective in models. What the eye sees depends on distance and viewing angles, not on what is geometrically correct or exactly to the drawing dimensions of the prototype.

[Boris]

Going completely o/t - and yet the builders of cathedrals and churches in medieval times could systematically knock out near perfect right angles with a twelve foot piece of rope consisting ot thirteen knots, a knot at each end and a knot per 1 ft. interval, plus the application of Pythagoras' theorem... dilbert

Taken to the extreme with Whitby Abbey though, its got a great kink in the middle!

[Jol Wilkinson]

A thought!

 

While critiscm of RTR products, kits, etc. - sometimes known as nit picking or even rivet counting - is considered acceptable, it is rare that it is applied to individual modellers efforts on forums such as this.

 

In the first case it's considered constructive comment, while in the latter it's often considered as destructive and demotivating. Is that because it's applied to the professional on one hand, and the amateur on the other?

[Fat Controller]

When modellers outside the UK get their finely detailed models do they then complain that they are too delicate and bits fall off?

Yes; and there also articles on how to upgrade already more expensive models than we have in the UK, if the French modelling press is anything to go by.

[Pennine MC]

A thought!

 

While critiscm of RTR products, kits, etc. - sometimes known as nit picking or even rivet counting - is considered acceptable, it is rare that it is applied to individual modellers efforts on forums such as this.

 

In the first case it's considered constructive comment, while in the latter it's often considered as destructive and demotivating. Is that because it's applied to the professional on one hand, and the amateur on the other?

 

No doubt with RTR there's a large element of 'we're paying money for this, we're entitled to criticise it' but I'd suspect a lot of it is simply the 'keyboard warrior' syndrome at work, if only in a mild form. With a RTR model, the perception is that the person or persons responsible are not going to be around to field the criticism, whereas with an individual's efforts, they clearly are.

[Baby Deltic]

A bit of nit-picking isn't too bad. Its when the proverbial nit-comb comes out that things get heated.

[br2975]

Its obviously not confined to us then, but while many criticisims are valid there are some that annoy me

 

But then my view is that if a model is basically correct and looks right it is right, I attach more importance to good running.

 

Obviously a man after my own heart.

 

e.g.

I may take a look at the new Cl.52 Western by 'Homer Simpson Models plc' and, having been around long enough to see everyone of them in service, think to myself

"Wow, that's good, that's a Western and it knocks spots off the old Limby model"

 

Then, along comes one of our acknowledged experts, quite possibly too young to remember the Westerns in service and who's most likely seen 1015 and 1062 in preservation, but after pondering for many hours over a set of GA drawings with calipers and a DTI will put pen to paper and proclaim that the model is cr@p !

 

But, I'm satisfied with that model, I can recall those locos, having seen them on a daily basis, and to me the model says "this is a Western".

 

Does that make me a lesser modeller ?

 

Does it make the reviewer any a better modeller ?

 

If I start to 'detail' the loco that in reality I'm satisfied with, am I doing it for my benefit, or for the benefit of others, or am I doing it to save face in front of the acknowledged experts ?

 

My admiration goes to those like Mike Cole and later Monty Wells; the former built his diesels from scratch whilst the latter, realising what was on offer in those 'iron age' days set about improving the 'rtr' dinosaurs on offer at the time.

 

I recall a multi part article in one magazine of the not to distant past where the author set about detailing an already pretty good model of a Type 5 freight loco (that should narrow it down).

 

The author used what are undoubdtedly the best etchings on the market at the moment - but spent some time complaining that the makers of the diesel had got the grilles a fraction too big (or small) and because the etcher had made their grilles the correct size he was faced with a lot more unnecessary work.

 

It could be argued "when making the grilles for that particular model, why didn't the etcher make them to the size of the existing grilles on the donor loco ?" - especially as virtually no one knows the grilles are the wrong size unless they measure them.

 

Or is it an excuse to show how good we are, and how poor another (acceptable to most) model product actually is ?

 

It would be interesting to know what percentage of those modellers who buy off the shelf models (lets stick with diesels) and (i) actually fork out for etched grilles and windscreens, flush glazing etc - then (ii) fit those parts ?,

 

Brian R

 

I once overheard an exhibitor at an exhibition telling a punter:-

 

"Rivet counting is only an opinion, but opinions are like a@rseholes - everyone's got one "