Jack Burgess wrote:
I think you will get what you pay for. I've seen a closeup of the MM rivets and they in no way compare to the Archer rivets. They might look okay initially but you might very well be disappointed after painting. If you feel they will be okay, go ahead and buy a sheet but I'd suggest applying them to a piece of styrene and then painting them...it would be frustrating to use them, paint the model, and then find out that they lack relief.
Jack is TOTALLY spot-on here.
There has been some recent discussion about the new MicroMark rivets, and their very reasonable pricing.
I do a lot of scratch and custom building for myself and others, and thought I'd lend my 2cents, based on personal observations.
What MM is putting out looks great on the sheet to the naked eye, but if you look more closely, you might just be dismayed. After application to the model and once painted (as Jack mentioned), the issues with the product will be come obvious.
The black areas on the sheet appear to be crisp and well defined, the result of a simple printing of black ink. However, the thing that gives a product like this depth and dimension is the clear placed on top, and therein lies the problem.
There is no precision application of the clear top-coat on top of the printed image, just random puddles that are clearly visible on their tread plate and can also be seen on the rivets.
I have made a close up scan of the product, that I have posted on my website. I did not include the link in the post, as I would then have to wait for approval. If you wish to see the MM product up close, please contact me directly, mforsyth127 at yahoo dot com, and I will provide you with the URL.
Tougher to see in the scan is that their louvers are only partially covered by random puddles of clear, resulting in just randomly shaped, raised areas.
As I said, looks great on the sheet, and with the black base color printed below, your eyes will be tricked into thinking that the details are sharp, but once a colored top coat is applied, and the black printed base disappears, what you'll then see are just poorly defined random blobs and puddles.
Given what I have observed, I think I'll be sticking with Archer.
Just an FYI...
Modeling the D&H Penn Division
Erie Jefferson Division
in Proto 5-0, late summer of 1950