Well, maybe a list like that would turn out to be rather small, about
which model cars were very true replicas of the prototypes. But,
perhaps one (or more) of the prototype masters on this list could
produce such a book or booklet for SALE on the subject.
Our fellows like Richard Hendrickson, Ted Culotta, Mike Brock, Tony
Thompson, yourself and many others contibute to such a source, yet
one apparently is not compiled.
Like you stated, models could be listed as, "Close enough", "Dead
on", or "Worth fixing". Then the potential "purchaser" could decide
what route to take with the model.
One case in point. I impetuosly purchased Walthers, Proto 2000 Series;
Mather 40ft Stock Car, GM&O
Mather 40ft boxcar, C&IM
Mather 40ft Boxcar, C&EI
It was late, I'd had a couple of beers, I liked the way the cars
looked and assumed that PROBABLY (?) the manufacturer had done their
prototype research duty. (Or "close" enough)
Now, I have to do some research, as to how close I'd come to
my "guess" at such accuracy.
Also, F&C models at least LOOK very good and seem to have followed
deep prototype research?
Thanks, Paul Hillman
--- In STMFC@..., 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.