Wright writes.....

[CF MRC]

My last loco, Mons Meg, was probably as scratch built as any I have made. The next one, Valour, will have a lot of etched components and 2mm Association wheels etc. Do I worry how they’re described, no. They just have to work well.

 

Tim

[St Enodoc]

My work database lists how each model was built, the categories are s, ck, ek, p/e and MDE. S is only used it I have cut most of the parts from sheet, if I have designed and etched nearly all of it MDE is used. I still build quite a lot from scratch, not everything is etched even now.

In answer to Clive, you are definitely a scratchbuilding, just using different materials.

Sorry if I'm being thick Mike, but what's p/e?

[Clive Mortimore]

Might I suggest that all of us on here are doing the same thing, but to a greater or lesser extent. Has anyone built a layout and all its locomotives and stock by themselves, completely from scratch? Tony makes reference to “acceptable bought in parts such as wheels, motor, turned brass and etchings etc...” and openly acknowledges the work of other people to compile LB. What we all do, to a greater or lesser extent, is bring together pre-prepared, usually purchased or traded components and add to this with our own modifications or original work to produce a composite result: part component, part original work. You only need to draw up a list of the manufacturers names of the components you use to see how much is pre-prepared for us. From Canon to Romford to DJH to HMRS to Hornby... these are all someone else’s work that you are compositing.

 

Of course there is a huge difference between someone building and fettling a kit, compared to simply sticking a crew, lamps and coal on a RTR model, but they are opposite ends of what is a very broad but importantly the same spectrum.

 

We will all have different views about where on this spectrum, a line is drawn about what constitutes ‘proper’ modelling or not. Often this will change over time as ones modelling expertise develops, and judgement becomes more critical as a result.

 

So it is unfair to talk in terms of black and white about what is ‘proper’ or not. We’re all modelling in the same way, just to different degrees.

 

Phil.

Hi Phil

 

I did run Hanging Hill and Pig Lane with only scratchbuilt locos on rare occasions at home, I did do one local show with all scratchbuilt locos. I can't recall running Southbridge with only scratchbuilt locos, I did have a few at the time, the track was scratch, the buildings were, the tree was, but the figures weren't. Pig Lane and Hanging Hill had scratchbuilt buildings, locos, tank wagons, snowploughs, figures, point levers, and loads of little bits and bobs, like the pallet trucks inside Hanging Hills' shed. The Hill even had a scratchbuilt breakdown crane. But I am quite happy to mix them with RTR, converted RTR and the few kit built stuff I have. To achieve the "picture" I am trying to recreate I am more than happy to mix and match. The fun part is thinking what I want to build, how I am going to do so, what do I need and collecting enough information to do so.

 

What is proper modelling, well a model is a representation of something. The dark coloured stones were the enemy tanks and the light coloured ones our guns, they were good enough models for what the battery commander was explaining. Proper modelling should be able to covey the illusion of something real. 

 

I am a bodger not a "real modeller" as some one called me the other day. I feel if I can do it then anyone can, put your hands in the tools box, take out your tools and get them dirty.

 

Tonight I have been assembling left over bits of Tri-ang coaches from my DMU and EMU conversions and now have the main components for a Western Region diagram 1/552 inspection saloon......and if Mike Stationmaster is reading this, what colour were the seats in these when new and were the tables dark or light wood? 

Edited December 5, 2018 by Clive Mortimore

[Clive Mortimore]

If you could mass produce what you have made, for example if you cut the bits out with a laser cutter or other machine, I would say that you are manufacturing components. If you cut your plastcard bits out with a knife and a scalpel, I would call it scratchbuilding. So your crucial word to me is the "hand" in hand cut.

 

Using a commercial power bogie wouldn't alter that for me any more than buying in wheels motor and gears would for other people.

Hi

 

I have been known to make more than one of a class of loco at the same time so I am mass producing. All parts have been cut with a craft knife (number 11 scalpel blade), scissors or butchers knife. 

 

There are many aspects of scratchbuilding, these range form making something no one else has until Heljan will produce it the week after you have finished, the sense of achievement in making something and the fun doing so. Bung in the learning of new skills and swear words. Researching the model. One thing it is not and that is up-one-man-ship. I am more than willing to show others how to ruin a nice flat piece of plastic card.

 

 

My work database lists how each model was built, the categories are s, ck, ek, p/e and MDE. S is only used it I have cut most of the parts from sheet, if I have designed and etched nearly all of it MDE is used. I still build quite a lot from scratch, not everything is etched even now.

In answer to Clive, you are definitely a scratchbuilding, just using different materials.

Thanks Mike

A home made North British 200hp shunter next to a hand built building.

Edited December 5, 2018 by Clive Mortimore

[t-b-g]

Hi

 

I have been known to make more than one of a class of loco at the same time so I am mass producing. All parts have been cut with a craft knife (number 11 scalpel blade), scissors or butchers knife. 

 

There are many aspects of scratchbuilding, these range form making something no one else has until Heljan will produce it the week after you have finished, the sense of achievement in making something and the fun doing so. Bung in the learning of new skills and swear words. Researching the model. One thing it is not and that is up-one-man-ship. I am more than willing to show others how to ruin a nice flat piece of plastic card.

 

 

Thanks Mike

IM (16).jpg

A home made North British 200hp shunter next to a hand built building.

 

Building two of the same loco by cutting out the parts by hand is no more mass production than cutting two cab sides out by sticking two bits of metal together first! If they are cut by hand it is scratchbuilding to me.

 

A lot of it is quite irrelevant anyway. We end up with the model we want by whatever means we choose to get there although we do seem to have a desire to hang labels on things. There are so many "inbetween" categories of models that some are very hard to label.

 

My 4mm Valour has the recent etches for big parts of it but I have built the boiler, firebox and smokebox from brass sheet and tube. I have no idea what that counts as!

 

I agree about the one-up-man-ship (spell check struggles with that one!). If I build a model from scratch it is because I would like to have that loco and will enjoy building it even though a kit isn't available. It is never to prove how clever I am to myself or to others. It is all about enjoying creating something unusual and very personal to add to the collection. 

 

It only matters if perhaps you want to enter your loco, carriage, wagon or whatever into a competition for the best in show or suchlike and there are different categories for kit/scratch/modified RTR etc. Then it gets interesting!

Edited December 5, 2018 by t-b-g

[Barry O]

As materials and techniques have changed over the years it seems our definitions of how we have delivered a model has stayed the same.

 

I built a couple of wagons from plasticard, Kenline castings and Jackson wheels (ex LMS Soda Ash opens) as none were available at that time. Probably scratchbuilt.

 

Now I may need to use someone to produce an etch for either parts or most of the wagon, as well as 3D printing things like axle boxes as my supply of Kenline casting has reduced to very low levels. To me that would be kit building. If I were to draw out the etch, design the axle box 3D print etc and put it together...that is scratch building.

 

Tony, I would suggest your B3 is part etched as you have used an etch as well as scratchbuilding major components.

 

Baz

[Michael Edge]

Sorry if I'm being thick Mike, but what's p/e?

 

If you have worked out the others, p/e is part etched - usually just the frames and motion. I have been doing full drawings for everything I build for more than 30 years, on CAD since 1993 and it's quicker now to transfer these parts to an etch than it is to saw them out of metal. I have had to remember how to make coupling rods out of steel twice recently, to replace the rods on a Mercian HC 0-6-0DM (the less said about that the better) and to continue working on a scratchbuilt MR compound I started many years ago.

If I am building a kit (from another manufacturer of course) I don't necessarily use all of what's in the box, if parts are wrong I usually throw them out and replace them. Part of the origin of Judith Edge kits is all the bad language coming from the workshop while I struggled to build someones awful kit, to quote Judith "You design proper kits and I'll sell them".

[jrg1]

If you have worked out the others, p/e is part etched - usually just the frames and motion. I have been doing full drawings for everything I build for more than 30 years, on CAD since 1993 and it's quicker now to transfer these parts to an etch than it is to saw them out of metal. I have had to remember how to make coupling rods out of steel twice recently, to replace the rods on a Mercian HC 0-6-0DM (the less said about that the better) and to continue working on a scratchbuilt MR compound I started many years ago.

If I am building a kit (from another manufacturer of course) I don't necessarily use all of what's in the box, if parts are wrong I usually throw them out and replace them. Part of the origin of Judith Edge kits is all the bad language coming from the workshop while I struggled to build someones awful kit, to quote Judith "You design proper kits and I'll sell them".

Can we have a few words on producing steel coupling rods, please?

[Tony Wright]

What a fascinating insight into opinions this thread is.

 

My thanks for all the recent contributions regarding the 'definitions' of scratch-building.

 

I don't really have one now, though I might have had one in the past. For instance, when I used to organise the competitions at the Harrogate/Doncaster/Ally Pally Shows for Warners, there was a scratch-built category (not just for locos). This was way before the likes of CAD/3D-printing or anything like that had emerged in model railways. As I mentioned earlier, it was generally-accepted that bought-in components could be used in a scratch-built project - say, wheels, motors, bits and pieces for locos, etc, and also, say, various Wills' plastic sheets/details for buildings and so on. There was a section on the competition form where one had to state the work of others - perhaps a professional painter for instance. Though others' input didn't preclude an item from winning, it had to be taken into consideration. My judges were highly-respected members of the hobby, and their expertise and impartiality were proven, merely by the fact that I'd invited them as judges.

 

As many have already alluded to, from what materials the models were made was irrelevant. What was most-important that it was personal model-making. The actual creating of something was paramount. Obviously, there were many other categories (modified RTR, for instance), but all required the entrant to have actually done something by themselves. 

 

Looking back, there was no category for (just) research. I'd better explain. To be honest, it never crossed my mind at the time. However, all of the 19 layouts I featured recently were the end-product of a lot of research. Yet, in two cases, the owners were not what I would (personally) describe as 'modellers'. They were (are) facilitators, commissioning highly-skilled model-makers to make their creations for them, based on the extensive research they'd done themselves. They are, in a way, project-managers. Does that also have great-merit? I'd say, yes.

 

In conversation with two chums the other day, the subject of good-management came up. We all agreed that the best managers didn't need to be able to do the jobs of their subordinates. I cited a headmistress I once worked under, as a head of department. She admitted, she couldn't 'draw for toffee', but she had me to teach that subject. She was a brilliant head. 

 

I suppose any 'grey' areas are apparent when 'commissioned' layouts are (automatically) entered into competitions - on the web, or in magazines and so on. I've said it before, but I'd be very uncomfortable if LB were rated 'very-highly' against a layout where the work on it was all that of one man or woman. To that extent, I think there should be separate categories.  

 

And this then brings us to another point for discussion - or does it? 

[jamie92208]

If you have worked out the others, p/e is part etched - usually just the frames and motion. I have been doing full drawings for everything I build for more than 30 years, on CAD since 1993 and it's quicker now to transfer these parts to an etch than it is to saw them out of metal. I have had to remember how to make coupling rods out of steel twice recently, to replace the rods on a Mercian HC 0-6-0DM (the less said about that the better) and to continue working on a scratchbuilt MR compound I started many years ago.

If I am building a kit (from another manufacturer of course) I don't necessarily use all of what's in the box, if parts are wrong I usually throw them out and replace them. Part of the origin of Judith Edge kits is all the bad language coming from the workshop while I struggled to build someones awful kit, to quote Judith "You design proper kits and I'll sell them".

 

Mike you have my condolences re Mercian kits.   If you look at my layout thread, for the past 3 months I've been struggling to build a Midland 2F from the same stable.  The less said the better.  

 

The general debate about modelling is fascinating.   I had been taught engineering drawing but was never very neat, CAD seemed to be the way forward but I couldn't get my head round it. However when I inherited the engineering drawings for the overhead on Green Ayre I realised that I couldn't afford to pay anyone to create the necessary etches. Some hints and tips on a thread on this forum lead me to a CAD package and also a set of tutorials on YouTube. I watched two of those per night for a week and by the end of the week had produced my first etched artwork.  Much support from the etchers also helped as the artwork was finally got ready for production and the rest as they say is history.   I do feel however that the warren trusses and other parts that make up the bridges, overhead gear and platform awnings are in my own sense scratchbuilt.   I did do some coach sides for a friend who had made some buildings for the layout and they sort of morphed into what could be made up into a 6 wheel North British Coach.   Several of these have now been built and no doubt the builders will be cursing the designer just like I did when I assembled some of my bridge parts.    I've learned from the experience and have got immense pleasure from seeing the results.

 

I just hope that some of these modelling journeys that are described on here encourage others to take the plunge.   There is some anecdotal evidence that actual modelling helps to stave off dementia due to the way that it encourages the development and retention of fine motor skills in 3 dimensions that keyboard work doesn't.

 

Jamie

[Chamby]

....As many have already alluded to, from what materials the models were made was irrelevant. What was most-important that it was personal model-making. The actual creating of something was paramount.....

 

I suppose any 'grey' areas are apparent when 'commissioned' layouts are (automatically) entered into competitions - on the web, or in magazines and so on. I've said it before, but I'd be very uncomfortable if LB were rated 'very-highly' against a layout where the work on it was all that of one man or woman. To that extent, I think there should be separate categories.

 

And this then brings us to another point for discussion - or does it?

 

. You have answered your own question there, I suggest. It is the modelling input that is being assessed, irrespective of the ownership. But yes, it doesn’t feel right when it is the owner rather than the modeller(s) who takes the credit. That is why your own policy of crediting key contributors is so important. Credit where credit is due. But, once contributors are acknowledged, Is it any different to a ‘best film’ award at the oscars, or the winner’s trophy at a Grand Prix, where one person receives the award on behalf of the team?

 

Phil

Edited December 5, 2018 by Chamby

[Tony Wright]

Mike you have my condolences re Mercian kits.   If you look at my layout thread, for the past 3 months I've been struggling to build a Midland 2F from the same stable.  The less said the better.  

 

The general debate about modelling is fascinating.   I had been taught engineering drawing but was never very neat, CAD seemed to be the way forward but I couldn't get my head round it. However when I inherited the engineering drawings for the overhead on Green Ayre I realised that I couldn't afford to pay anyone to create the necessary etches. Some hints and tips on a thread on this forum lead me to a CAD package and also a set of tutorials on YouTube. I watched two of those per night for a week and by the end of the week had produced my first etched artwork.  Much support from the etchers also helped as the artwork was finally got ready for production and the rest as they say is history.   I do feel however that the warren trusses and other parts that make up the bridges, overhead gear and platform awnings are in my own sense scratchbuilt.   I did do some coach sides for a friend who had made some buildings for the layout and they sort of morphed into what could be made up into a 6 wheel North British Coach.   Several of these have now been built and no doubt the builders will be cursing the designer just like I did when I assembled some of my bridge parts.    I've learned from the experience and have got immense pleasure from seeing the results.

 

I just hope that some of these modelling journeys that are described on here encourage others to take the plunge.   There is some anecdotal evidence that actual modelling helps to stave off dementia due to the way that it encourages the development and retention of fine motor skills in 3 dimensions that keyboard work doesn't.

 

Jamie

Good morning Jamie,

 

If the MR/M&GNR girder bridge you designed for me is anything to go by, then you've learned a lot about CAD.

 

Come Christmas (because I loath Christmas TV more than the usual tripe), the soldering iron will be wielded!

[Chamby]

Good morning Jamie,

 

If the MR/M&GNR girder bridge you designed for me is anything to go by, then you've learned a lot about CAD.

 

Come Christmas (because I loath Christmas TV more than the usual tripe), the soldering iron will be wielded!

Very prototypical, Tony! Major engineering works taking place during the Christmas holidays... just make sure that the works don’t over-run and services can resume on 2nd January... and don’t forget to model the replacement bus service.

[Tony Wright]

. You have answered your own question there, I suggest. It is the modelling input that is being assessed, irrespective of the ownership. But yes, it doesn’t feel right when it is the owner rather than the modeller(s) who takes the credit. That is why your own policy of crediting key contributors is so important. Credit where credit is due. But, once contributors are acknowledged, Is it any different to a ‘best film’ award at the oscars, or the winner’s trophy at a Grand Prix, where one person receives the award on behalf of the team?

 

Phil

Interesting analogies, Phil,

 

And, I don't know whether I have any answers. 

 

In the case of film directors/actors winning awards, often the two are the same. Many of the best directors have also been actors and vice versa. And, most film directors (if not all) have probably wielded a camera at some point in their career. A film director who knows nothing about the physical processes in making a movie will probably be not that good.

 

As for racing drivers winning trophies. I agree, to be a brilliant driver one doesn't necessarily have to be a brilliant car designer/mechanic, but it must help if you understand a little (or a lot?) about what's going on 'under the bonnet' so to speak. I'm sure the late Jack Brabham was equally brilliant at both racing driving and racing car design. 

 

Regarding 'credit where credit is due', unless it's acknowledged at every opportunity that what's seen on and in a layout is the work of someone else, then there's the risk of it being believed that it's solely the work of the layout owner. Not only is that not fair, it isn't right! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited December 5, 2018 by Tony Wright

[queensquare]

In 2mm we have a phrase,(it may be used in other scales), scratch aid, which I think is useful in the context being discussed. A scratch aid is exactly what it says, its not a kit but a selection of parts to aid the scratchbuilder. Worsley Works market their bits as scratch aids in both 2mm and 3mm scales and they are extremely useful. For locos you would get the basic body bits, cab, splashers and so on but no castings, instructions etc - essentially the difficult bits. For coaches you would get sides and ends but often little else. Etched kits that have simply been shot down from larger scales are often treated as scratch aids as well. For locos I would tend to use the body components but little of the chassis beyond the coupling rods as the way 2mm chassis are made usually means its easier to simply make a new set of frames.

 

Whether the resultant models are scratchbuilt or kitbuilt, Im not sure, but then I'm not too bothered either  .

 

The SDJR small Johnson 4-4-0 is a case in point. The cab and splashers are Worsley, boiler, smokebox from tube, chassis scratchbuilt with Worsley rods. The tender is a severely cut down Johnson 3250 gallon type to represent a much smaller SDJR prototype. Scratch or kit?

 

 

 

Jerry

[Jol Wilkinson]

. You have answered your own question there, I suggest. It is the modelling input that is being assessed, irrespective of the ownership. But yes, it doesn’t feel right when it is the owner rather than the modeller(s) who takes the credit. That is why your own policy of crediting key contributors is so important. Credit where credit is due. But, once contributors are acknowledged, Is it any different to a ‘best film’ award at the oscars, or the winner’s trophy at a Grand Prix, where one person receives the award on behalf of the team?

 

Phil

Phil,

 

does the modelling/ownership differentiation apply when looking at a kit built model? Where is the designer/builder input recognised?

 

Photos of models built from kits on internet forums often receive praise but the kit designer/producer often doesn't get any credit. There are exceptions to that such as Tony W's references to the LRM D3 he built earlier this year but usually, the a kits origin is only mentioned if it has been difficult to build. I too have been guilty of that.

 

Jol

[Chamby]

Phil,

 

does the modelling/ownership differentiation apply when looking at a kit built model? Where is the designer/builder input recognised?

 

Photos of models built from kits on internet forums often receive praise but the kit designer/producer often doesn't get any credit. There are exceptions to that such as Tony W's references to the LRM D3 he built earlier this year but usually, the a kits origin is only mentioned if it has been difficult to build. I too have been guilty of that.

 

Jol

Do we need to draw a distinction here between ‘original’ work and that which is commercially available? Take, for example, two people building the same commercially available kit. Both complete it to the same high standard, displaying similar modelling skills and ability. But one of the builders also had an input into the kits design. Does that make his construction of the kit merit greater recognition than the person who has only built the kit? In my view, it merits a separate recognition, apart from the kit building skills which are equal. Interestingly though, it tends to be the kit manufacturer that is usually referenced rather than the person who designed it, I guess that is the convention that goes with modelling associated with commercial activity.

 

Phil.

Edited December 5, 2018 by Chamby

[gr.king]

I suppose that no matter what the nature and quality of a kit, some buyers will consider that there is something (or almost everything) wrong with it.

 

Seeing things another way, in hindsight one of the "worst" loco kits I've ever tackled, compared to no kit at all, still gave me a much better chance (at that time) to build the loco. Credit ought still to be due in part to the kit producer for what had been achieved.

[t-b-g]

I will happily give credit to a top drawer kit designer.

 

Stand up Mr Edge!

 

The only kit I have ever built where I didn't have to change a single component to make it more accurate or to fit better was a Judith Edge LMS diesel shunter kit.

 

I had to slightly alter the outside crank arrangement to build it in EM, to sort out clearances on the outside gearing/crank arrangement, which basically meant longer crankpins and some spacers. Other than that, it was build up exactly as intended.

 

In a perverse way, a kit that is easy gives slightly less satisfaction to me. A highly accurate three piece 3D printed loco kit would be no fun at all to build. Taking a dreadful kit and turning it into a good model is much more challenging and the end result more satisfying than putting together an easy kit.

 

For me, kits are not just about getting the loco/carriage/wagon/building I want as easily as possible. They are about the challenge and fun of getting a set of parts and turning them into a good model. The worse the kit, the greater the challenge and the higher the satisfaction if I win!   

[Enterprisingwestern]

Just to prove that my evening has not been wasted totally on the internet here are a couple of snaps of the nearly finished tender, complete with round brake pull rods with forked joints onto the cross stays.

 

Sand boxes and operating handles plus a few other details to fit but most enjoyable so far!

 

Tablet camera used so probably poor quality but I can't be bothered with the proper camera tonight.

 

Aye, not bad Tony!

 

Mike.

[MJI]

How about this method.

 

I NEED a GRCW 119 Cross Country DMU

 

Worsley Works sides and ends

Modded Lima underframes (cheap off Ebay, centre car chassis off a donor conversion)

Triang Mk1 roofs

MJT vents

Lima Gangways

Plastic card to profile ends

Scratch insides

Will be running on a kit power bogie when purchased with simple brass bogie frames for the other 5.

 

Resin casting for bogie frames (using modded Lima frame beefed up).

Resin casting for roof dome with Derby style destination blind copied from a Lima DMU converted to 116

 

So using Scratch aid, RTR, kit, home small batch produced, and a small amount of scratch.

 

Do I care what it is?

 

No.

[t-b-g]

Aye, not bad Tony!

 

Mike.

 

Thanks Mike. I keep telling myself that if I keep practising, I might get somewhere one day.......

[Clive Mortimore]

I suppose that no matter what the nature and quality of a kit, some buyers will consider that there is something (or almost everything) wrong with it.

 

Seeing things another way, in hindsight one of the "worst" loco kits I've ever tackled, compared to no kit at all, still gave me a much better chance (at that time) to build the loco. Credit ought still to be due in part to the kit producer for what had been achieved.

Hi Graeme

 

MTK didn't make any LNER locos so you wouldn't have had that everything is wrong experience. If two parts fitted you had a at last one part that didn't belong to that kit.

 

Oddly the moulds are in many cases very good, the results Alastair was getting from the them was very good and I have seen some of the test that Chris has done since he took the range on. From what I see his biggest problem seems once he has found all the moulds to make a complete kit and tested them Heljan/Bachmann/Hornby/Dapol and the others say they are going to make a RTR model. Five years later they are still flogging the same CAD on the interwebthingy at the same time taking pre-orders.

[Lecorbusier]

I will happily give credit to a top drawer kit designer.

 

Stand up Mr Edge!

 

The only kit I have ever built where I didn't have to change a single component to make it more accurate or to fit better was a Judith Edge LMS diesel shunter kit.

 

I had to slightly alter the outside crank arrangement to build it in EM, to sort out clearances on the outside gearing/crank arrangement, which basically meant longer crankpins and some spacers. Other than that, it was build up exactly as intended.

 

In a perverse way, a kit that is easy gives slightly less satisfaction to me. A highly accurate three piece 3D printed loco kit would be no fun at all to build. Taking a dreadful kit and turning it into a good model is much more challenging and the end result more satisfying than putting together an easy kit.

 

For me, kits are not just about getting the loco/carriage/wagon/building I want as easily as possible. They are about the challenge and fun of getting a set of parts and turning them into a good model. The worse the kit, the greater the challenge and the higher the satisfaction if I win!   

Prototypical modelling adds I think to all of this. Unless you are drawing and designing the etches yourself, it seem to me that you are extremely unlikely to find a kit that is perfect for your purposes straight from the the box. Most steam loco classes had multiple iterations with a myriad of minor differences. Added to this is the fact that locos were often very long lived with many more adjustments and alterations over time. All this means that it will be a very specific loco that will have run on your chosen line and will have been in a very specific condition during your chosen time period. Given all this, even the best kit offering will be a starting point rather than end product ... and of course with the choice of gauge/suspension followed by the need to paint, line and weather there is so much scope for creativity and personal expression. 

[Tony Wright]

With regard to (loco) kits and how good (or bad) they are, the provenance of them should always be mentioned, praise given and constructive criticisms noted. That's true whether it's a mention on the web or (especially) in a magazine article. 

 

Though I've scratch-built in the past, I've never designed a kit. I have, however, test-built for manufacturers and written instructions (I'm still doing it). 

 

Though I'm not condoning grotty kits (far from it, as I hope my articles from the past have shown), I do take issue where a person is highly-critical of a kit, when, in fact, he/she should be hyper-critical of his/her own model-making ability. Acting once as a tutor, some chump (I could use other words to describe him) was shouting to anyone in ear-shot (those outside as well!) about how awful a kit was he was trying to make. When I examined his 'work', what a mess. He was a past-pupil of the 'Mr Blobby School of Soldering', and it showed. Since the manufacturer of the kit was a friend of mine (sadly, now deceased), I let it be known (in no uncertain terms) what I thought of his model-making abilities. 

 

The truth often hurts!