MAINLINE MODELER


WILLIAM PARDIE
 

Very few of us can claim to be perfect and I guess that this applies to Bob Hundman.
The reality ( to me) is that Mainline Modeler was the best thing that happened to the
hobby in the 70's and for a long time after that. Prior to Mainline we had Model
Railroader and Railroad Model Craftsman which we all bought each month with great
anticipation that there might be an article that pertained to our modeling interest.
Mainline Modeler provided us with a whole magazine full of pertinate articles, drawings
and information every month. This went on for twenty five years.

I had the good fortune of meeting Bob a few years back at Naperville. He was very gracious
and great to chat with. I had a question for him concerning the series of articles and
drawings for Southern Pacific steam locomotives. They did an article on the P-10 4-6-2 pacifies.
There was to be article the following month for the version of this locomotive with the
skyline casing. This was the issue of the magazine that was lost on the way to the publisher
and it never came out. Bob explained this situation and he was more than gracious.
When he got home he sent me the photos and drawings thgat were to go into this lost issue.

I appreciagte everyone's contribution of information and skill that they donate to the hobby.
I may not find everything to the level of accuracy that I am seeking but they area sharing
their information. Bob's contribution to the hobby ws enormous and I will always view him in that light.

Bill Pardie


paul.doggett2472 <paul.doggett2472@...>
 

Well said Bill its all to easy to pull people to pieces i suspect that most of us could not even attempt to start putting a magazine together.
Paul Doggett UK




Sent from Samsung mobile

"WILLIAM PARDIE PARDIEW001@... [STMFC]" <STMFC@...> wrote:
 


Very few of us can claim to be perfect and I guess that this applies to Bob Hundman.
The reality ( to me) is that Mainline Modeler was the best thing that happened to the
hobby in the 70's and for a long time after that. Prior to Mainline we had Model
Railroader and Railroad Model Craftsman which we all bought each month with great
anticipation that there might be an article that pertained to our modeling interest.
Mainline Modeler provided us with a whole magazine full of pertinate articles, drawings
and information every month. This went on for twenty five years.

I had the good fortune of meeting Bob a few years back at Naperville. He was very gracious
and great to chat with. I had a question for him concerning the series of articles and
drawings for Southern Pacific steam locomotives. They did an article on the P-10 4-6-2 pacifies.
There was to be article the following month for the version of this locomotive with the
skyline casing. This was the issue of the magazine that was lost on the way to the publisher
and it never came out. Bob explained this situation and he was more than gracious.
When he got home he sent me the photos and drawings thgat were to go into this lost issue.

I appreciagte everyone's contribution of information and skill that they donate to the hobby.
I may not find everything to the level of accuracy that I am seeking but they area sharing
their information. Bob's contribution to the hobby ws enormous and I will always view him in that light.

Bill Pardie


Mark Stamm
 

I was not in the hobby during the 25 years of Mainline Modeler so I only have a passing understand of the content and its value. So with the C&O Historical Society offering the complete works on DVD for $249 the question is, with all the changes in the industry is the information still relevant today? In other words is the price paid worth the hobby dollar?

Thanks
Mark

Mark P Stamm
Mark at Euphoriatt dot Com

Sent from my mobile device

On May 22, 2016, at 3:18 PM, WILLIAM PARDIE PARDIEW001@... [STMFC] <STMFC@...> wrote:

 


Very few of us can claim to be perfect and I guess that this applies to Bob Hundman.
The reality ( to me) is that Mainline Modeler was the best thing that happened to the
hobby in the 70's and for a long time after that. Prior to Mainline we had Model
Railroader and Railroad Model Craftsman which we all bought each month with great
anticipation that there might be an article that pertained to our modeling interest.
Mainline Modeler provided us with a whole magazine full of pertinate articles, drawings
and information every month. This went on for twenty five years.

I had the good fortune of meeting Bob a few years back at Naperville. He was very gracious
and great to chat with. I had a question for him concerning the series of articles and
drawings for Southern Pacific steam locomotives. They did an article on the P-10 4-6-2 pacifies.
There was to be article the following month for the version of this locomotive with the
skyline casing. This was the issue of the magazine that was lost on the way to the publisher
and it never came out. Bob explained this situation and he was more than gracious.
When he got home he sent me the photos and drawings thgat were to go into this lost issue.

I appreciagte everyone's contribution of information and skill that they donate to the hobby.
I may not find everything to the level of accuracy that I am seeking but they area sharing
their information. Bob's contribution to the hobby ws enormous and I will always view him in that light.

Bill Pardie


Charlie Vlk
 

Mark-

As a consultant to the Model Railroad Industry, Mainline Modeler is one of the go-to periodicals I use as a reference.

If I did not have a complete print run of the magazine I would certainly get the DVD, and still might if the resolution of the drawings is better than the Model Railroader scanned collection just for the convenience of having the search function.

Model Railroader, Railroad Model Craftsman, and some of the other general interest magazines often had/have good information but not in the scope and depth of Mainline Modeler.

Specialty magazines like X2200 and Diesel Era are the other ones that are key references.

Charlie Vlk

Railroad Model Resources

 

I was not in the hobby during the 25 years of Mainline Modeler so I only have a passing understand of the content and its value. So with the C&O Historical Society offering the complete works on DVD for $249 the question is, with all the changes in the industry is the information still relevant today? In other words is the price paid worth the hobby dollar?

 

Thanks

Mark

Mark P Stamm


Nelson Moyer <ku0a@...>
 

Charlie raises an important point about the quality of model magazine scans. I’m disappointed that the MR DVD scans are such low resolution that printed text is fuzzy (pixilated). I would consider purchasing the Mainline Modeler DVD if the quality of the scans is better than the MR scans. How about a review of the Mainline Modeler DVD from some of the C&O or other users? Are the drawings sharp? How well did the B&W photos scan? Can the photos be enlarged to study car details without pixilation? Are pages scanned individually or as two page spreads like Morning Sun did with their eBooks? Can the DVD be printed (unlike Morning Sun eBooks)? Can he DVD files be downloaded to a computer (unlike Morning Sun eBooks which are on the cloud even though you bought them!).



Nelson Moyer



From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...]
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 12:32 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: RE: [STMFC] MAINLINE MODELER





Mark-

As a consultant to the Model Railroad Industry, Mainline Modeler is one of the go-to periodicals I use as a reference.

If I did not have a complete print run of the magazine I would certainly get the DVD, and still might if the resolution of the drawings is better than the Model Railroader scanned collection just for the convenience of having the search function.

Model Railroader, Railroad Model Craftsman, and some of the other general interest magazines often had/have good information but not in the scope and depth of Mainline Modeler.

Specialty magazines like X2200 and Diesel Era are the other ones that are key references.

Charlie Vlk

Railroad Model Resources



I was not in the hobby during the 25 years of Mainline Modeler so I only have a passing understand of the content and its value. So with the C&O Historical Society offering the complete works on DVD for $249 the question is, with all the changes in the industry is the information still relevant today? In other words is the price paid worth the hobby dollar?



Thanks

Mark

Mark P Stamm





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Ray Breyer
 


>I was not in the hobby during the 25 years of Mainline Modeler so I only have a passing understand of the content and its value. 
>So with the C&O Historical Society offering the complete works on DVD for $249 the question is, with all the changes in the industry 
>is the information still relevant today? In other words is the price paid worth the hobby dollar?
>Thanks
>Mark P Stamm


Almost without question, the information in Mainline Modeler is fantastic, and more than relevant today. Unlike most hobby magazines that focus on layout tours, better box opening for success, and on whiz-bang electronics, MM focused on quality prototype research and on how to accurately model a given prototype, all of which is 'timeless information'.

If you plan on being anywhere near a 'sincere prototype modeler', the styrene scratchbuilding techniques of Al Armitage and Bob Hundman are worth the $249 sticker price alone. Not only do the articles show you what and how, but how not to be AFRAID of actually building a model from nothing more than an assortment of raw materials.

One caveat: while prolific, the plans in Mainline Modeler are generally good, but almost always suspect in some way. It's OK to use them as a general guide for modeling work, but never be afraid to print out a few hardcopies and start marking them up based on a lengthy examination of prototype photos.

Ray Breyer
Elgin, IL


Benjamin Hom
 

Ray Breyer wrote:
"One caveat: while prolific, the plans in Mainline Modeler are generally good, but almost always suspect in some way. It's OK to use them as a general guide for modeling work, but! never be afraid to print out a few hardcopies and start marking them up based on a lengthy examination of prototype photos."

This is a supremely important point - at least three manufacturers (Gould, Ertl, Branchline) learned this sad fact the hard way. Hundman completely ignored redlines on drawings that accompanied one of my articles (the errors were pretty egregious), and the drawing that was published is a trap fro the unwary.


Ben Hom


Curt Fortenberry
 


I asked the Chessie Shop if they would post a sample to view the quality.  They said they would but I'm not seeing it just yet.  They did send me a sample PDF so it's available.  If interested I would contact them, they were very responsive.  I'm reluctant to post it since it's their product. 

Curt Fortenberry


Charlie Vlk
 

Ben-

This is true of most if not all published plans…..including railroad and manufacturer general arrangement drawings, no matter how well presented.

Way back in the beginning of my careers I worked in an architect’s office and one of the worst jobs you could be assigned was making “As-Built” drawings…..correcting civil, architectural, mechanical, electrical and structural drawing tracings to what the contractors actually built.   It involved deciphering cryptic field notes, cross-referencing brochures and shop drawings for individual components, etc.  

Even the Dean of Model Railroad Drawings, J. Harold Geissel, made boo-boos on his drawings.   Some time after he passed I was able to pick up a pencil sketch of the “Burlington Bobber” that appeared in the November 1954 Model Railroader.   His pen and ink version of the drawing was not as accurate as the original sketch when compared to railroad mechanical drawings and photos.

One always should use photos to check drawings, as until the advent of the computer and photoshop “photos do not lie” (except when artfully airbrushed).

Charlie Vlk

"One caveat: while prolific, the plans in Mainline Modeler are generally good, but almost always suspect in some way. It's OK to use them as a general guide for modeling work, but! never be afraid to print out a few hardcopies and start marking them up based on a lengthy examination of prototype photos."

This is a supremely important point - at least three manufacturers (Gould, Ertl, Branchline) learned this sad fact the hard way. Hundman completely ignored redlines on drawings that accompanied one of my articles (the errors were pretty egregious), and the drawing that was published is a trap fro the unwary.

Ben Hom


WILLIAM PARDIE
 

 
I replied directly to Mak's question on the relavalance of Mainline Modeler in today's world.  I wanted to share with him photos of a model that I did in the 70's to one that was recently completed.  I would challenge someone to identify which was which.  The point being that we model a period 60 plus years ago.  The content of the material has not changed.  Many new products have come on the market to aid in modeling  (such as the Yarmouht etchings) but also many quality  products have diasppeared (Tomalco clevised and Right-O-Way code 81 flex track).

We have many more quality modelers and models today thanks in large part to the STMCE list.  It
is great to get an instant answer to a question as opposed to taking months to determine the proper brake wheel.

I continually refer to MM for drawings and information.  Almost always when brousing through 
the issues I find something thwt was not relavent at the time but that I now need.  To me the
best modeling article ever was Gene Demling's article in an early 70's  Model Reilroader on
buiding anERIE covered hopper from styrene.  He included the complete rivit detail.  Gene is still
active4 and recently did a coboose article in RMC..  His modeling canalso be viewed on the
Proto 48 webiste and I believe that he has a blog.   This was a single article.  Mainline offered
quality articles every month.

Is the DVD worth the price?  I guess it depends on the modeler.  If I did not have a complete set
of MM it certainly would be for me.

Bill Pardie




On May 23, 2016, at 8:28 AM, Benjamin Hom b.hom@... [STMFC] wrote:

 

Ray Breyer wrote:
"One caveat: while prolific, the plans in Mainline Modeler are generally good, but almost always suspect in some way. It's OK to use them as a general guide for modeling work, but! never be afraid to print out a few hardcopies and start marking them up based on a lengthy examination of prototype photos."

This is a supremely important point - at least three manufacturers (Gould, Ertl, Branchline) learned this sad fact the hard way. Hundman completely ignored redlines on drawings that accompanied one of my articles (the errors were pretty egregious), and the drawing that was published is a trap fro the unwary.

Ben Hom



Dave Nelson
 

I’m missing two just issues (I suspect one wasn’t actually published and the other is just some date in from the late years that I havn’t yet found).

 

The scratch building techniques are good.  Why all that effort never became masters for resin casting COMPLETELY escapes me.  I understand Bob always said nobody builds resin kits, exactly as if everyone was a master scratch builder like himself!  I also recall stories from the early years of these freight car lists where various list members recalled difficulty getting Bob to accept corrections and such.  Those stories left me with the distinct impression he knew what he knew and wasn’t interested in having that change, which should be at least a slight warning.

 

Lots of drawings and here’s where I have a problem: IMO the drawings are fine for making HO scale scratch built models.  They are not of any use for making 3d cad models so they’re difficult to use to create models for simulators and/or 3d printing.  Too much detail is left out and far too few dimensions are printed.   You’d do just as well with an ORER and some photos.  For some, this is a boon, for others a missed opportunity.

 

There are times when his lack of photos led him astray.  I think his Stock car book is one such example… a dogs breakfast of images having little to nothing to do with the text.

 

ALL that said, Mainline Modeler was, IMO, vastly superior to anything else published at the time.  It’s just not a panacea.

 

Dave Nelson

 

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...]
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 12:12 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: RE: [STMFC] MAINLINE MODELER

One always should use photos to check drawings, as until the advent of the computer and photoshop “photos do not lie” (except when artfully airbrushed).

Charlie Vlk


Tony Thompson
 

     I've been interested in this thread, being the possessor of all published issues of MM. I realize many don't know, or have forgotten, that Bob Hundman explicitly began by recognizing both the production quality, and state-of-the-hobby techniques, in the Narrow Gauge and Short Line Gazette, and he intended MM to be the equivalent for the "main line modeler." I would say he accomplished that, and then some. For the first 20 years, every issue was beautifully done, though in the late years, his attention may have wandered, and I felt the quality fell off.
       Bob was a skilled draftsman, and produced a prodigious quantity of work, but unfortunately was a little cavalier about details, and many of the drawings contain various errors. Most are minor to be sure, but Bob's ego would not let him EVER admit error or publish any correction, whether of text or drawing. In fact, for most of the life of MM, he would not publish any letter that contained a criticism. When he did his reprint volumes, he reprinted every drawing as it originally was, even when he did know there were errors.
        I agree with those who say the impact on the hobby was immense. He did prototype coverage in a way undreamed of at MR and RMC (then and to some extent now), and as I said, the publication quality was simply excellent. I don't think the errors or idiosyncratic style should loom larger than the contribution.

Tony Thompson             Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705         www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; e-mail, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history






destorzek@...
 




---In STMFC@..., <tony@...> wrote :


        I agree with those who say the impact on the hobby was immense. He did prototype coverage in a way undreamed of at MR and RMC (then and to some extent now), and as I said, the publication quality was simply excellent. I don't think the errors or idiosyncratic style should loom larger than the contribution.

Tony Thompson             Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
==========

Just to add to what Tony said, I seem to recall that before he started MM, Bob Hundman had done a lot of drafting work for one or more of the brass importers, PFM for sure. This was both a blessing and a curse; it gave him a lot of practice, and source material when there wasn't much available, but it also formed his opinion of just how much detail, and auxiliary views were needed to convey adequate information. After all, if the brass builders in the Orient could figure out how to build something from his drawings, the average modeler should be able to, also. Details where there was incomplete information, Bob would just "wing it", knowing full well it would look just fine on the finished model.

Dennis Storzek






Curt Fortenberry
 


Having done a few drawings for Mainline, I can say that when drawing up a subject, you're never in possession of all that you need.  Experience can sometimes get you to guess, sometimes you just leave it out, sometimes you use a standard detail (couplers come to mind).  I've got a hopper drawing stalled for lack of a brake system drawing.  I visited Bob a couple of times and picked up quite a few drafting tips (and this was back in the ink and mylar days).  There was a knack to doing a presentation drawing.  Bob knew that, and so did the others (they all had standards to look good when printed).  They were not straight drawings.  Line weights and shading were important.  I would think the resources on Bob's shelf are worth saving as much as the magazine material.  

Back to my point.  Be gentle on those who draw stuff up.  

Curt Fortenberry


Gene Deimling
 

Bob Hundman was a crusader of sorts. He greatly admired Bob Brown's Gazette. A number of the magazine features like heavy coated stock and an even heavier cover stock, modeling techniques, lots of drawings and exceptional craftsmanship. The Gazette could draw upon many talented readers to fill the pages. In my opinion, the standard gauge scratchbuilders had not approached the numbers and level of skill as the narrow gauge RS supporting the Gazette. Hundman tried to fill the voids with his own work. In the early years, MM tended to be extremely selective as who and what got in the magazine. I think this attitude had a chilling effect.

Ready-to-Run models and highly accurate resin kits killed any thoughts of developing the Cadre of readers who would contribute worthy articles.

I for one owe a debt to Bob Hundman for enriching my knowledge of the prototype. Accuracy of scale drawing in all magazines have had errors. They are a human endeavor and humans do make mistakes. As Curt said, go easy on the draftsman.

Gene Deimling


Douglas Harding
 

What I recall, and miss, about MM was the how to focused articles demonstrating skills and techniques for model building. Scratchbuilding with styrene, harvesting rivets, soldering, numerous articles on tools and how to use them. I learned a lot from reading the magazine, and I mean a lot. Combined that with the focus on the prototype and MM was a magazine like no other.

 

Doug Harding

www.iowacentralrr.org

 


destorzek@...
 




---In STMFC@..., <proto48@...> wrote :

Ready-to-Run models and highly accurate resin kits killed any thoughts of developing the Cadre of readers who would contribute worthy articles.

Gene Deimling
=================

That's an interesting way of looking at it that I had not thought of, although it was resin kits destroying the pool of authors long before ready-to-run. The first issue of MM was December of 1980, IIRC (and I'm not looking it up.) Al Westerfield started selling his resin kits in 1982, I believe, and I followed in 1983. Martin Lofton came on board with Sunshine just a few years later. Hundman was running articles with all these scratchbuilding techniques, and it seemed the only people making use of them were a handful of pattern makers.

Meanwhile, Hundman was busy encouraging the plastic kit manufacturers to provide more separate detail parts. Bill Gould signed on for sure, and I think it also had some effect on Bill McKeen, Bill Glass at E&B Valley, later Robbins Rails, and the two Freds at Front Fange, all of which came out with separate detail car kits in the mid eighties. When Front Range went kaput, Fred Brummet took the concept with him to Intermountain.

As a related side note, about '84 or '85 I ran some coded advertising for my resin line in MR, RMC, and MM. MM had the cheapest rates, so got an ad two or three times the size of the other two. No matter, it generated not a single sale, and I never advertised in MM again.

Dennis Storzek


D. Scott Chatfield
 

The question here is mainly "are old issues of Mainline Modeler still pertinent to today's modeler?" I think the answer is yes, for two reasons. First, the reproduction quality of the photos was generally first rate, and there were plenty of photos in each issue. Second, many of the modeling articles were scratchbuilding articles, which don't "age" as fast as kitbashing articles. You can learn a lot from just about every issue.

There were a number of kitbashing articles, many of which were groundbreaking, but nonetheless you wouldn't copy most of them today because they helped create a demand for the models that replaced them. Two excellent examples are Bob Zenk's Amtrak F40PHs, which used Life Like toy-train bodies (three generations of RTR models have superceded them), and Mont Switzer's Monon F3, built from the old Athearn/Globe F7. Publication of those articles helped change my modeling ideals, and I gather the F3 model and prototype articles that accompanied it was intended to whet our appetites for the upcoming Highliners F-unit kit (itself inspired by Bob Zenk). Which of course is today's Athearn Genesis model, many of which haul STMFC-era freight cars on our layouts.

Same was true of the many freight car articles. Mr. Hundman scratchbuilt an ACF Center Flow in the early '80s (I know, Center Flows are post-STMFC, but bear with me). Only masochists scratchbuild Center Flows, even though the then-available Center Flow models all had incorrect side curvatures. Several Center Flows that have since become available have equaled Mr. Hundman's model, but around the same time he also scratchbuilt an open-air diesel loco service shed that I think would still be hard to improve on. I don't need an open-air engine shed for my railroad (South Dakota has this stuff called "snow" that is regularly measured in feet, not inches), but I learned a lot from reading that article. I think you would too. And there was something of use to freight car modelers in just about every issue of Mainline Modeler.

Is it worth buying the $250 DVD? MMs regularly sell for about $3 an issue (Issue #1 often fetches $50), so 25 years worth will cost you over $900. Personally, I like having paper in my hand, but MM's magazine index wasn't always the most useful, so having the ability to search it digitally could be handy. So the real question is, are the PDF scans of a high enough quality to justify $250? We don't have that answer yet.

Scott Chatfield


Nelson Moyer <ku0a@...>
 

Actually, we do have an answer, at least in my mind. I was fortunate to see a sample of the pdfs from Volume 1 No. 1 and volume 27 No. 8. The text quality is slightly better than the MR scans, the B&W photos are well lighted and sharp with mostly very good grayscale reproduction, and the color photos are vivid. Line drawings vary in crispness, but are suitable for enlargement or reduction. The only down side is that photos and line drawings are frequently split over two pages as they were in the print version.



For modelers like me who were inactive during the 25 year run of MM, the DVD is probably worth the money (having seen only a sample), and I’ve decided to order it as soon as funds are available.



Nelson Moyer



From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...]
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 1:27 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] MAINLINE MODELER





The question here is mainly "are old issues of Mainline Modeler still
pertinent to today's modeler?" I think the answer is yes, for two
reasons. First, the reproduction quality of the photos was generally
first rate, and there were plenty of photos in each issue. Second, many
of the modeling articles were scratchbuilding articles, which don't
"age" as fast as kitbashing articles. You can learn a lot from just
about every issue.

There were a number of kitbashing articles, many of which were
groundbreaking, but nonetheless you wouldn't copy most of them today
because they helped create a demand for the models that replaced them.
Two excellent examples are Bob Zenk's Amtrak F40PHs, which used Life
Like toy-train bodies (three generations of RTR models have superceded
them), and Mont Switzer's Monon F3, built from the old Athearn/Globe
F7. Publication of those articles helped change my modeling ideals, and
I gather the F3 model and prototype articles that accompanied it was
intended to whet our appetites for the upcoming Highliners F-unit kit
(itself inspired by Bob Zenk). Which of course is today's Athearn
Genesis model, many of which haul STMFC-era freight cars on our layouts.

Same was true of the many freight car articles. Mr. Hundman
scratchbuilt an ACF Center Flow in the early '80s (I know, Center Flows
are post-STMFC, but bear with me). Only masochists scratchbuild Center
Flows, even though the then-available Center Flow models all had
incorrect side curvatures. Several Center Flows that have since become
available have equaled Mr. Hundman's model, but around the same time he
also scratchbuilt an open-air diesel loco service shed that I think
would still be hard to improve on. I don't need an open-air engine shed
for my railroad (South Dakota has this stuff called "snow" that is
regularly measured in feet, not inches), but I learned a lot from
reading that article. I think you would too. And there was something
of use to freight car modelers in just about every issue of Mainline
Modeler.

Is it worth buying the $250 DVD? MMs regularly sell for about $3 an
issue (Issue #1 often fetches $50), so 25 years worth will cost you over
$900. Personally, I like having paper in my hand, but MM's magazine
index wasn't always the most useful, so having the ability to search it
digitally could be handy. So the real question is, are the PDF scans of
a high enough quality to justify $250? We don't have that answer yet.

Scott Chatfield





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


water.kresse@...
 

Bob still does it that old fashioned way at 1/2" to the foot . . . . which is scanned and reduced digitally.  

Al Kresse


From: "curtfortenberry@... [STMFC]"
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 8:17:50 PM
Subject: RE: [STMFC] MAINLINE MODELER

 


Having done a few drawings for Mainline, I can say that when drawing up a subject, you're never in possession of all that you need.  Experience can sometimes get you to guess, sometimes you just leave it out, sometimes you use a standard detail (couplers come to mind).  I've got a hopper drawing stalled for lack of a brake system drawing.  I visited Bob a couple of times and picked up quite a few drafting tips (and this was back in the ink and mylar days).  There was a knack to doing a presentation drawing.  Bob knew that, and so did the others (they all had standards to look good when printed).  They were not straight drawings.  Line weights and shading were important.  I would think the resources on Bob's shelf are worth saving as much as the magazine material.  

Back to my point.  Be gentle on those who draw stuff up.  

Curt Fortenberry