Charlie VlK...sticking his head up above the trench where the bullets are flying<G>...says:

I guess I don't understand why HERE there is a perceived need for an
organized authority to certify accuracy of paint schemes.

I think the term "organized" and "certify" might need to be examined. Certainly I would not favor the NMRA or MRIA or even the RPM to establish a board to approve [ certify ] a model. OTOH, as I noted before, we accept, not by appointment, but by their proven knowledge and actions a group of so-called gurus. In some ways this IS the market speaking because such individuals are accepted by their actions rather than appointment or decree. This is, IMO, one of the strong points of the STMFC, one writes and others accept...or reject...based on what is written rather than the writer's position.

I don't know how many

people are willing to accept some individual's or group's evaluation or
rating of a particular product at face value or consult same before making
purchase decisions.

Well...I'm certainly one who pays particular attention to the comments of Richard, Ed, Tony, Ted and others who have PROVEN that they know what they're talking about.

I did not say that no one should make evaluations or ratings.....just that
they should not hold themselves out as a certifying authority
without having any way of being held responsible for their actions.

In some ways, our gurus ARE held responsible. Like all such experts, to be found in error is to possibly longer be treated as a guru...not good.

Mike Brock