Chuck and All,
The amount of shine on the Warbonnets is one of those things that
can be debated for a long time. However, I think the effect is right.
There is a difference between the SS inserts and the painted silver
surface (as on the real one). When I did the photo that appeared in
SHS's ad and catalog, we tried to emulate that factor. If you look at
the man's reflection you will see the reflection in the satin silver
finish as well as, the SS inserts. I think the extra effort made this
particular scheme outstanding and well above the effort AM did with his
all chrome PA's from a few years back.
All that being said, one of our club members had a conversation
with John Verser of Gold Coast Models. John (who has produced some
colorful, bright cars over the years), couldn't believe modelers didn't
weather their rolling stock to tone down those overly bright cars. I
think a little reduction in the surface on the SS might be in order,
depending on layout conditions. I think too many of us, myself
included, won't weather because it might make the unit less desirable on
ebay. Some day, after a cocktail or two, I'm going to get out my
weathering stuff and do my RR gas turbine--'cause they just don't look
right all 'nice and clean'! they need a good case of soot. But it is
hard to dirty up something that cost as much as my first car did!
Bob Werre
jayhoo64 wrote:
>Jim Stapleton wrote:
>
>
>
>>During the years that the F7 Warbonnets were used in passenger
>>service, a majority of them were well maintained.
>>
>>
>
>
>I've no doubt of that, Jim.
>
>Also, I'm not disputing the fact that these passenger units' side
>panels were indeed stainless steel, and were "polished" to some
>degree. The issue is: Were they polished to a MIRROR finish? Could you
>read the schedule on the depot wall in #37's sides? Could the crew use
>the sides to check their grooming just before climbing into the cab?
>My 1/64 scale crew could in their SHS F7. (Don't think I don't check.)
>
>I'm told by some that unit #37 was so finished. I'm sceptical because
>I've seen lots of "polished" SS, including some very shiny SS tank
>trucks, photos of very clean, very new WB F7s, and a real AB pair up
>close. Some of these were polished finely enough to make out a vague
>image in the reflection, but never so fine as the mirrored sides of
>SHS's Warbonnets.
>
>Nevertheless, I've been "gently admonished" to point out that I never
>actually saw unit #37 when it was brand new, so I can't say
>AUTHORITATIVELY how fine 37's finish was when new, or that
>SHS's WB finish is inaccurate for unit #37. Certainly she was kept
>clean, but how well polished did those panels remain after being
>scrubbed a few times? I suppose I could take some 1/64 scale steel
>wool to my own WB F7 (yes, I do own one), just to dull it a little.
>
>I certainly didn't mean to discredit the fine points of SHS's WB F7
>rendering. There ARE many fine points. As I say, I own one. I'd LIKE
>to own a B unit, BUT...
>
>That brings us to the issue I was probing. Suppose, for discussion,
>that #37's sides, when fresh, were actually as polished as rendered by
>SHS's F7s. Even if #37 did carry an optical grade finish, was it wise
>to produce the replicas with such reflectivity? I've been advised by
>certain knowledgeable folks that it isn't likely that SHS will issue
>more ATSF passenger B units because that chrome coating is expensive
>and problem-prone to produce. I can't help thinking it might have been
>wiser to render them in a finish that is not only easier and cheaper
>to do, but better represents the appearance of the MAJORITY of ATSF
>red/silver WB F7's, like the ones in a couple of the image links
>posted earlier. I'm just sayin'.
>
>And having said that, I'll get off here. This typing is too easy.
>
>
>Chuck F.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
