Boaz wrote:
> > Ok, let's rewind, and playback: ...
> > So we are back to sqare one.
>
> wow, that's using selective omission for your advantage (just of this
Hehehe, I just couldn't resist. What I saw was the use a synonym
("typical") as if it amounts to an alternative definition.
> "back to" anywhere, but we have a common ground now, which is
> orthodoxy as assembly design, not customization approach.
Hardly, I just let a bunch of things slided and try to get at why you
think GC WB (and by extrapolation, GC Musai) is not so
orthodox/typical.
To me, assembly vs customization is purely semantics. 'assembly' is
the 'means', 'customization' is the 'ends'. You choose to define
typical by assembly, fine... if you want. But why do I care about
assembly? Only thing I can think of is customization.
> I think I'd refine the way I am trying to ask you: why'd you think GC
> BZ is less orthodox than GC QM or GC WB. Even if they don't assemble
> the upper body of GC BZ, it'd just be probably 5 pieces... only that
The 1/550 kit takes 12 parts to do that one single
(pre-assembled/pre-painted) part in 1/400 GC BZ.
> they're bigger chunks of vinyl than the GC QM's body. For GC WB, I
> can take your word of it as I can't tell which pieces are vinyl and
> which are styrene, yet for assembly they're probably still different
> from HGUC/MG type assembly method. Correct?
GC WB is middle of the road typical conventional orthodox average
unadventurous like HGUC/MG. GC WB sits somewhere between an HGUC and
the old 1/1200 kit. GC QM sits somewhere between HGUC and MSIA.
I think perhaps for you it's not about customization or assembly. You
have a hang-up about vinyl so in your mind QM and BZ are in the same
class despite the fact that assembly philosophy is so difference.
Well here is a complete list of vinyl parts in GC WB:
1. Gundam
2. Guncannon
3. Guntank
Rather less, proportion-wise, than HGLM Eva and MG Patlabor. There's
also some use of metal screws, about a little less than PG models.
Ok, we covered customization, assembly and materials. Now you will
still disagree with me, and I will still be wondering why you disagree
with me. So we are actually still stuck at square one.
> That's all I'm trying to say. As said, our range on "model" is
> already different.
That's a whole can of worms I avoided getting in to. Trust me we
agree about 90% what is a model. Only the 10% boundary cases, I can't
tell where a model ends and where a toy begin. I agree with you
MSIA/GFF/HCM/HCMpro are not model. But can I categorically place
HGUC/MG/PG kits into the model bin? Not honestly.
You confused my point, I wasn't putting MSIA inside the model range, I
am putting HGUC kits in the so-toy-like-it's-barely-model bin.
--
Dr. Core
--------------------------------------------------
The Gundam Mailing List MK-II [email protected]
Archives: http://www.gundam.com/gml
Help: Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this in
the BODY: help list
