If we view "relative accuracy" in terms of how one need modify
commercial model X to accurately model prototype Y, the judging scale
is even more contextual. I remember someone saying a boxcar model was
totally off, but meaning it had the wrong running board, door, brake
gear, and trucks; and there were ladders not ladder *grabs*. To me
those are all matters of applying the right detail parts: but I want
the right height, width, ends, roof, side framing, rivet pattern if
it's a steel car. Underframes (even truck spacing) can be modified
surprisingly easily if they're separate plastic parts, much less so
if the frame is cast integrally with the car floor. So, to me the
useful form of "ratings" would be notes about what features are
accurate and what aren't.
Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.
--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Martin McGuirk <mjmcguirk@...> wrote:
I've found on F&C models, as can others. So, when did F&C kits getan
automatic "given" for accuracy???and
predecessor freight car, lists . The problem remains the same --a
rating system is going to be subjective by its very nature. Myaccuracy"
is, of course, impacted by the era each individual is modeling.Take
for example a boxcar painted in NYC/PC Jade Green. the model maybe
dead on accurate for the car, as it was built, (an "A") -- butdoes
not include shortened ladders, steel (or no) running boards andor "D"????
In any event, not having the all details to match the later patinsimply
needs to be detailed.if
it's (1) Close Enough, (2) Dead on, or (3) Something that's worthto
arrive at a consensus on how accurate each model is, or isn't.