posted 08-01-2011 05:30 AM            

As a new builder, I've seen some 'museum quality' models, that shouldn't be... and I'm very curious as to the criteria a model should meet to be considered museum quality.

posted 08-01-2011 08:06 AM            

To answer your question "is it critical to you the differences, in, say, an Apollo 14 LM and an Apollo 16 LM... assuming you wanted an Apollo 14 LM?"

posted 08-01-2011 11:11 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by kosmo:
Yes, but your example has some major differences, one i.e. Apollo 16 LM carried a Lunar Rover and Apollo 14 LM didn't.

---

Take a peek at some of my models.

posted 08-01-2011 12:30 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by K2Pete:
I'm just curious about what satisfies a collector. A super accurate model, or one like the Dragon 1/72 LM, which isn't quite there. Is it good enough?

---

In my opinion (and it is my opinion I am stating) I feel there is great value in building a kit "out of the box". A number of these kits are historical in of themselves as they were what we built during the time when the program was new and changing. The "out of the box" build is the way it was back then, the only way of having something that looked like the real deal that you could touch. For me they could be built that way and still be of great value. For example the Revell 1/48 "Apollo Spacecraft" kit, out of the box it is block I full stack, basically all white with no boost protection cover (BPC). If you are looking for the flight configuration then you have a lot of work to do, but the kit itself is historical so don't discount the kit as is.

posted 08-01-2011 12:41 PM            

In my own eye, I try to get as accurate as I can. I know it's not perfect, but most people looking at the piece, won't see the imperfections (only other modelers). Only I now were they are.

Some collectors buy already built models (they may not have the time or patience to build themselves) or you have modelers (may also be a collector) like Vincent Meens who will take almost five years to build a 1:24 Apollo Lunar Module (LM-5) and the results are... I genuflect and wonder why I bother. Take a look, just amazing!

posted 08-01-2011 01:11 PM               

I started out collecting the Code 3 Space series and quickly decided that these and other commercial offerings lacked the level of detail I wanted in my models.

To answer your question, would I accept a generic build of a LM when I ordered LM5 the answer is definitely not and this simply wouldn’t happen when dealing with quality builders like Steve or Pascal.  They always get the best from the kits they use and strive to detail it as accurately as possible.  The Reheat Cosmonaut in my collection is a perfect example of Steve's commitment to accuracy.  He spent hours going over photos to accurize the kit and make it look more like the real thing.

Another constraint on accuracy can sometimes be budget. On a couple of occasions Steve’s brought to my attention a small detail on the base kit that isn’t right but to correct it would cost several hours work and it's been my call whether to pay the extra to have it corrected or to let it go.

Gary summed it up perfectly when saying that the "Feel" of the model must be right and sometimes this can be at the expense of absolute accuracy.

posted 08-01-2011 02:07 PM               

All but very few of my models are made from paper as most of the paper model designers I know aim for perfect accuracy (And any models that are inaccurate can be fixed easily in photoshop).

posted 08-01-2011 08:57 PM               

Re: The last... I'd submit that there are essentially four categories for procuring models (I'm excluding auctions and private sales where you know "up front" exactly what you're getting):

1. Pre-finished, mass-market models, which may encompass anything from the current Dragon Space Series to the Bandai releases of the last couple of years and anything in between

2. Unassembled model kits bought with the intention of building them up yourself

3. Pre-finished models built to order by professional modelers (such as Nick Proach)

4. Unassembled kits purchased with the intention of commissioning builds by professional/highly skilled modelers, especially with the intention of depicting specific events, or hardware specific to a particular vehicle or mission.

In the meantime, as a collector of the Dragon and Bandai series, I can say that given the demands of mass production and reasonable price I'm willing to accept imperfections and inaccuracies in detail that fall within the "only a cSer would notice" range.

But if I were paying worthy prices for professional work, I'd expect the result to withstand serious scrutiny.

posted 08-01-2011 09:31 PM               

For a slightly different opinion, I have almost exclusively collected the models produced for the Mercury-Gemini-Apollo contractors and NASA during the 1960s. In almost all cases they lack the amazing "flight accurate" detail that some of the stunning spacecraft produced by members of this site have created, but I love the "period" authenticity and am therefore not all that concerned with the detail. To me, the holy grail are the Saturn models from the Marshall model shop.

I enjoy seeing photos of them in NASA offices and/or used by Cronkite, etc. on the air. The downside, of course, is they can be pricey -- but so are some of the current-day versions!

K2Pete referenced 'museum-quality'; you'll often encounter these models in museums for their historical significance.

posted 08-01-2011 10:01 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Go4Launch:
I'm somewhat surprised no-one has mentioned original contractor models yet in this thread. Might that be a fifth category or are they a different animal?

---

Assuming I'm correctly interpreting the spirit of the original inquiry, I guess that I would indeed categorize period and/or contractor models as a "different animal" with respect to this discussion, given that collectors of such models prize them primarily for their historical significance rather than for accuracy of detail. JMO.

posted 08-02-2011 05:16 AM               

First, a good model should have lively appearance, or rather a used look.

Second, a good model builder always has a saying, the following is always better.

Third, the more details he stopped in it, does also time, the more money he loses it.

posted 08-02-2011 11:19 PM               

Now, when it comes to building for people, I haven't done it very often and I usually try to spell out up front what I am trying to do (and layout the cost options) and the people are usually pretty good about that. Ultimately though when it comes to models, it will come down to a judgement call. Three modelers doing the exact same subject are never going to do it exactly the same, even though all might be accurate.

Every customer will be different in their criteria and that will also be reflected in the price of the subject you build, should you build for collectors (which it sounds like you are considering). Just don't promise what you can't do (and I know you can do a lot Pete). Some will be happy with an OOB Gemini model as long as it looks right in its paintjob and has the nice foiled back end of the service module, even if it doesn't have the Realspace accurization kit on it. Others may rip your head off if you build a model of an Apollo 7 CSM and leave the docking probe in because A7 didn't have the docking probe.

Another factor I tend to keep in mind for building "museum quality" (which I have done as I've done two models for museums thus far) is helping to disaster proof the model or help build it more robust to keep something from breaking. I know I could put fourth extra effort to get one piece looking proper in scale. But if it is something that could potentially get handled and broken and if the not quite as good looking piece on it will do the job for the most part with some slight modifications, yet be more durable, I use it instead. The biggest thing to keep in mind is we as modelers know how delicate a piece can be, especially if we've built it. A customer doesn't always necessarily know that and you can save yourself some headaches if your model can handle the occasional careless finger prod. At the very least, it will help with transporting the model if it can survive the trip.

posted 08-03-2011 05:47 AM            

...but after having been in a deadline oriented profession for many years, I'm just building what I want, at my speed, as a hobby... at this moment anyway.

I'm simply curious as to what standards satisfy a collector.

I guess, my next question would be how on earth do you builders ship something like a LM with all the delicate antennae and probes, without suffering any damage or do you ship it at all?

posted 08-03-2011 10:52 AM               

I can tell you this, accuracy is of the utmost importance to those collectors, as are owners of other genres of models be it armor, aircraft or figure builds. Spacecraft model collectors are also the most passionate of all concerning accuracy.

posted 08-10-2011 11:31 PM               

If there is a way the delicate antennas can be left off until the model arrives at its destination and they are placed on by the customer, that can be a good thing to do as well (pack them in a little cubbyhole with the instructions on how to place them on the model). You can't do that with every model, but some you can.