Awesome... F***ing Awesome

[JMaurer1]

I suffer from ADD and OCD: everything has to be perfect, just not for very long...

Look, something shiny!

[cjm413]

Unfortunately, I checked about 100 photos covering NACC and they are all like this. I have been focusing on this era of the car because later Trinity and Thrall cars have different end cages and weld lines.
The additional pipes are just bent .020" bronze wire. The stanchions could not be used and each car uses about 50 hand bent grabs. I think the entire parts count for each car is now about 100.

I know it's not a big detail. But I see it EVERY time I look at these models now. FWIW, it appears that Walthers biffed both the N scale and HO version. After searching, I don't see any mention of the error online. I can't be the only one who noticed this.

Re: Walthers HO model, the Plano part is only meant to be a drop in replacement for the plastic roof walk and end platforms:

http://www.planomodelproducts.com/114.htm

That being said, your efforts are still ahead of any HO cars that only received a new Plano roofwalk/end platforms...

[peteski]

Daniel, I suspect that you might have some OCD tendencies.    MY suggestion would be not to do anything for a week or two - put them aside.  Then, if you are still totally disgusted, don't throw those nice and fine-looking model in the trash.  Post them on sale here. I guarantee that they will be an instant sellout.

I'm not even quite sure exactly what the problem is (I'm not up on the covered hopped minutia), but it seems that the problem (to an average model railroaded) is insignificant (and the mistake was already made by a "real" model manufacturer, and they sold bunch of those models anyway).  Most modelers will not give a rat's a$$ about this slight error.



. . . about such a small error.

[nscalbitz]

And the subject spelling? Is that deliberate too??

[nkalanaga]

Probably not, but it DOES fit the topic.  Until you mentioned it, I didn't notice the mistake!

[peteski]

Probably not, but it DOES fit the topic.  Until you mentioned it, I didn't notice the mistake!

I don't see any misteaks in the Subject line.  Awesome is spelled correctly and there is a correct number of asterisks replacing the "uck".  Right?
Yes, my misteak was deliberate.

[MK]

Title was corrected starting with Reply #49.  Before that was

Re: Awesome... F***ing Awome

[signalmaintainer]

If I had to guess, it would be that the one instance of the shortened distance between walkway support stanchions should be at the "B" end but Walthers got it wrong and it was just repeated, but like everyone else, I'd say Frig it.

Yep, no sense in letting "perfection" be the enemy of "good enough," especially when "good enough" rates very high.

It's not as if the OP is a student of the Greek philosopher Mediocrates.

[peteski]

Title was corrected starting with Reply #49.  Before that was

Re: Awesome... F***ing Awome

That might be a good sign that Daniel is reading this thread, while maybe cooling off.   

[CRL]

Title was corrected starting with Reply #49.  Before that was

Re: Awesome... F***ing Awome

Per the Urban Dictionary

Awome

A misspelling of "awesome" made by user orch10, and a user submission to YouTube video series "Your Grammar Sucks".
Pronunciation made by Jack Douglass -- hence the only correct one -- is "OWMMMMM".

First usage spotted in JacksFilms' Your Grammar Sucks #18.
"YES OH MY GOD! I cleared this game!"
"Wow, that is totally awome, man."


😆😆😆😆😆

[JMaurer1]

Peteski: I guess I am the only person to catch your joke (and I'm going to use it in the future). I have a T shirt that says "I don't make mistrakes", but I like misteaks better...usually medium rare.

[peteski]

Peteski: I guess I am the only person to catch your joke (and I'm going to use it in the future). I have a T shirt that says "I don't make mistrakes", but I like misteaks better...usually medium rare.

Excellent, excellent!

And on a semi-related note, back in my High School days I used to wear a T-shirt stating "NOBODY'S PERFECT AND I'M A PERFECT EXAMPLE". 

[DKS]

Ah, the old "This sentence does not exist" paradox.

[daniel_leavitt2000]

So it's been a few days and I've been cooling off.

Yes the subject line had a misspelling, as most of my posts do. TBH, if I'm posting here, I'm on my cell phone and don't proofread enough. In this case I was rage typing and so annoyed with the whole situation that I didn't check my work. Which is ironically the whole reason I got into this mess to begin with.

I dumped modeling for periods of time before. In high school, and again after college. I have so much inventory now in not even sure I could get rid of all of it even if I want to.

Before I found these errors, I was planning on writing an article on how to build your own detailing. That's certainly not going to happen now.

To fix these cars, I would need John/Keystone to redesign the entire fret and start over with totally new cars. And new trucks, couplers, brake appliances, piping. And certainly more money and work than I am comfortable with.

Can I live with these? I dunno. These won't be cars I whip out to show people what I can do like the FGE 5145. They are just going to get lost in the background with everything else.

[peteski]

Before I found these errors, I was planning on writing an article on how to build your own detailing. That's certainly not going to happen now.

Why not?  It sounds like a very interesting article. The process you want to document into he article is still valid - error or no error. The only mistake was the research part.  Whether some "part A" is on the correct side of the car is really irrelevant to the subject of the article (building your own detailing).  You are documenting the process, not the minutia involved in research of your model. 

Can I live with these? I dunno. These won't be cars I whip out to show people what I can do like the FGE 5145. They are just going to get lost in the background with everything else.

Why not whip them out and show them off?  Only you know the "flaw".  Those are still superbly detailed cars.  I strongly suspect that 9.9 out of 10 people you show-off those cars to will have no clue that there is a "serious" (to you) error.  Nobody has to know the truth.

As others have mentioned, no model is ever 100% accurate and 100% perfect. A good example is plastic models of automobiles (my other hobby).  Even the best built and decorated car will have a flaw that the builder of the model is aware of.  If you show it to others or even enter it in the contest, the viewers or judges will likely not see the flaw that is there.

I build a 1:6 scale Tamiya model of a Harley Davidson Fatboy.  I added working lights and super-detailed it.  I entered it in a TamiyaCON (model contest in California sponsored by Tamiya).  I know that there is more than one flaw on that model, yet it earned me the title of a Master Modeler (the top honor in that contest), and an all-expense-paid trip to Japan, with my model being prominently displayed at the Shizuoka Hobby Show (large exhibition for model industry). That was a huge honor for me!  As you see, the flaws are in the eye of the beholder.  Trust me on that Daniel.  As for the flaws on that model bike, I built it in 2004 and by now I forgot what they were. I don't know if even with a magnifying glass, would be able to find them all.

Hopefully you will cool off some more, finish the cars and, learn to accept them for what they are: superb models, much, much nicer than the factory models.