I know of no other association than the NMRA having such a program running. Inspite of maybe a handful of MMRs outside of the US and Canada, this seems to be a specific Northamerican cultural issue, in which people are constantly thriving for the "bigger, better, wider, deeper, higher".
The closest to the MMR in terms of getting recognition is the UK exhibition circus, with a layout exhibition nearly every weekend, year around. UK railway modellers are proud to win a "Best in Show" award, but that´s not really comparable.
For trhose who like to participate in the MMR "race", great for them, for those who don´t, well, no one is telling you you have to!
The whole NMRA is not relivent anymore in my opinion. This did not have to be the case but too much infighting and a paid staff (average paid out per year is $250,000), now the amount paid to employees is not that much but it dose kinda irk me. At one time the NMRA set the standards but they have not kept up, take for example their weight per car, this was very impotant back in the day but with todays wheels and the engines that pull the cars, no longer very important if at all, will they ever change them, no. I have been a member and the control from the top is non existant which means the local chapters are in charge and depending on who they pick for their learders can be good or bad and it changes so no consitancy. Some regions are fantastic but others are terrible. Remember one member who had to travel a long distance to get to his division but because of where he lived and an artifitial boundry could not join the division just a few miles from his home. One thing that bothered me at times was when we had the monthly auction, the e-bays would ussually win instead of local people building their empires to the point you had pre negotiations before hand for certain items and you had to go the the e-bayers if you wanted something at times, freindly faces were few and far between.
mlehman MMR relevant? It still is and those who think it's long life as a program is due to detailing Blue Box stuff just don't understand wgat it's about. MMR important? Depends on what you mean by important. Is t something that modelers in general spend much time contemplating? No, not at all. Nonetheless, wed be much poorer as a hobby without this effort nudging things forward. Many MMRs have developed products still in use in the hobby and run other hobby businesses. To some extent, that has changed in recent years as the hobby itself has changed. but innovation in modeling is still a large part of the results of the program. I'm a longtime NMRA member, but only started considering pursuing it recently, Like most MMRs I've actually known (online only so far), my interest is in self-improvment, not "bragging rights." We don't (most of us anyway) discourage people from getting a better education. Pursuing a MMR is no different. If it bothers you someone else got a college degree, the answer usually is to get one yourself and this is no different. If the degree doesn't matter to you, that's understandable, but it doesn't make much sense to me to feel aggrieved about others trying to better themselves by study, work, and writing. While Brakie is right, there are many with skills like those a MMR would typically have, only those who've done the paperwork and submitted it in a systematic way are actually MMRs with the qualifications that entails. Jimmy recently commented favorably on my work in WPF by saying he felt my work qualified me toward the MMR (Thanks, Jimmy!). That could very well be the case, but it won't happen until I get off my lazy bum and write it up. No one's responsibility to do that other than mine own. Kevin, Given, what I've just noted, I'm not sure how the MMR "is not good for the hobby." What a MMR layout looks like can vary, but there's no judgng of overall layouts as part of the MMR qualifications. I have the Golden Spike award, which shows demonstration of basic competence needed to build a layout, but it doesn't count toward the MMR itself even though it's part of the Achievement Program. In the MMR, you are judged on specifc pieces of modeling, which need not even be in the same scle, era, or roadname. betamax The Master Model Railroader designation means you invested the time effort to learn and master the skills required to complete various tasks under the Achievement Program. It defines the goals to be met, and your work will be judged accordingly. SNIP It's not so much about a plaque, but really about becoming a better modeller. Betamax's concise summary once again emphasizes the personal development aspect of the MMR. It's about improving your modeling, not crowning you the best modeler for the here and now. That's what contests are for and as other have noted, that's entirey optional to the MMR qualifications. emdmike if getting that MMR is something you enjoy achieving as much as I enjoy working on brass trains. Then by all means, go for it. Mike, That's exactly why people pursue the MMR, because they enjoy trains. The motive power AP cert includes just the sort of thing that would be of interest to a builder or repair person interested in brass. But I can also totally see someone having no interest in the formal recognition of their skills. The only drawback to your lack of participation is that you're probably missing out on further opportunities to share your skills and knowledge with others who would be eager to hear from others on this topic. LW&SF points out how few have actually qualified to be a MMR, suggesting that it's not a gimme, pushover, or the result of merely flicking throgh checklists. While few aspire to it and even fewer successfully pursue it, the MMR and its basic requirements also suggest a useful guide to learning a lot of basic and very practical knowledge about the hobby. Ray, Congrats to you on MR's publication of your build on the stone tower a few issues back, parts of which incidentally appeared first in WPF as it went together. I don't seen anything at all threatening or mysterious about Ray's work on that, more like a lot of inspiring, educating on methods, and a willingness to help. Me? I'm stil undecided about how seriously to take up the MMR, but I do have an interest. My success in pursing the MMR depends on my own efforts and it seems pretty pointless to argue my success or failure is a bad thing for others so long as the opportunity is there for others to follow if they want. Or to ignore like most do.
MMR relevant? It still is and those who think it's long life as a program is due to detailing Blue Box stuff just don't understand wgat it's about.
MMR important? Depends on what you mean by important. Is t something that modelers in general spend much time contemplating? No, not at all. Nonetheless, wed be much poorer as a hobby without this effort nudging things forward. Many MMRs have developed products still in use in the hobby and run other hobby businesses. To some extent, that has changed in recent years as the hobby itself has changed. but innovation in modeling is still a large part of the results of the program.
I'm a longtime NMRA member, but only started considering pursuing it recently, Like most MMRs I've actually known (online only so far), my interest is in self-improvment, not "bragging rights." We don't (most of us anyway) discourage people from getting a better education. Pursuing a MMR is no different. If it bothers you someone else got a college degree, the answer usually is to get one yourself and this is no different. If the degree doesn't matter to you, that's understandable, but it doesn't make much sense to me to feel aggrieved about others trying to better themselves by study, work, and writing.
While Brakie is right, there are many with skills like those a MMR would typically have, only those who've done the paperwork and submitted it in a systematic way are actually MMRs with the qualifications that entails. Jimmy recently commented favorably on my work in WPF by saying he felt my work qualified me toward the MMR (Thanks, Jimmy!). That could very well be the case, but it won't happen until I get off my lazy bum and write it up. No one's responsibility to do that other than mine own.
Kevin,
Given, what I've just noted, I'm not sure how the MMR "is not good for the hobby." What a MMR layout looks like can vary, but there's no judgng of overall layouts as part of the MMR qualifications. I have the Golden Spike award, which shows demonstration of basic competence needed to build a layout, but it doesn't count toward the MMR itself even though it's part of the Achievement Program. In the MMR, you are judged on specifc pieces of modeling, which need not even be in the same scle, era, or roadname.
betamax The Master Model Railroader designation means you invested the time effort to learn and master the skills required to complete various tasks under the Achievement Program. It defines the goals to be met, and your work will be judged accordingly. SNIP It's not so much about a plaque, but really about becoming a better modeller.
The Master Model Railroader designation means you invested the time effort to learn and master the skills required to complete various tasks under the Achievement Program. It defines the goals to be met, and your work will be judged accordingly.
SNIP
It's not so much about a plaque, but really about becoming a better modeller.
Betamax's concise summary once again emphasizes the personal development aspect of the MMR. It's about improving your modeling, not crowning you the best modeler for the here and now. That's what contests are for and as other have noted, that's entirey optional to the MMR qualifications.
emdmike if getting that MMR is something you enjoy achieving as much as I enjoy working on brass trains. Then by all means, go for it.
Mike, That's exactly why people pursue the MMR, because they enjoy trains. The motive power AP cert includes just the sort of thing that would be of interest to a builder or repair person interested in brass. But I can also totally see someone having no interest in the formal recognition of their skills. The only drawback to your lack of participation is that you're probably missing out on further opportunities to share your skills and knowledge with others who would be eager to hear from others on this topic.
LW&SF points out how few have actually qualified to be a MMR, suggesting that it's not a gimme, pushover, or the result of merely flicking throgh checklists. While few aspire to it and even fewer successfully pursue it, the MMR and its basic requirements also suggest a useful guide to learning a lot of basic and very practical knowledge about the hobby.
Ray, Congrats to you on MR's publication of your build on the stone tower a few issues back, parts of which incidentally appeared first in WPF as it went together. I don't seen anything at all threatening or mysterious about Ray's work on that, more like a lot of inspiring, educating on methods, and a willingness to help.
Me? I'm stil undecided about how seriously to take up the MMR, but I do have an interest. My success in pursing the MMR depends on my own efforts and it seems pretty pointless to argue my success or failure is a bad thing for others so long as the opportunity is there for others to follow if they want. Or to ignore like most do.
Mike, great reply.
While In my earlier reply I noted that I am not personally interested in the achievement program, I did at one time consider it.
And I have a specific personal reason for feeling that the achievemment program is not a good fit for me, despite respect for the MMR's I know, and for the program itself.
The achievement program has several requirements related to the social side of hobby.
For me, I don't have the right level of interest in this aspect and don't feel I would do justice to those areas. The recognition as a MMR comes with a promise to assist others, a defacto promise to "be involved" with others.
While I have and do help others with the hobby from time to time, my personal family obligations and overall personal situation do not allow me to be comfortable with such a promise as an ongoing responseablity.
I have never attended an NMRA convention, I have never felt motivated to do so. In fact, as much as I enjoy the hobby, and have been at it my whole life, I can't even begin to rationalize spending significant time or money to travel to another city, stay in a hotel, and attend a convention.
I have happily paid my membership dues since 1969, I enjoy and use the resources provided by the NMRA. As noted before, I personally know one of the earliest recipients of the MMR, but this level of social interaction is just not for me.
I tried it several times over my 50 years in the hobby, each time reaching a point where I seemed to lose interest in the actual activities of the hobby, interest that returned when I backed away from the socializing.
So while I respect and support the Achievement Program, I can understand that it is not for everyone, especially not me.
Best wishes to you if you decide to move forward toward MMR.
Sheldon
LOTS of different opinions here. Not surprising.
I considered working on my MMR, but then I hate paperwork, and injecting bureaucracy into my hobby time wasn't something I wanted to do. I can probably earn about four of the required seven Achievement Awards just by filling out the forms, too.
Then when that pre-teen got his MMR a couple years ago, that kinda capped it for me.
If someone needs to put part alphabet soup behind their name to feel validated, then good for them. I don't.
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
Am enjoying this thread. :-)
Out of curiosity, how many staff and regular contributors from MR have the MMR designation?
Mark
iawesternOut of curiosity, how many staff and regular contributors from MR have the MMR designation?
.
I do not think very many.
I seem to remember a couple of articles where they promoted "We Visit a Master Model Railroader's Layout", but tit does not happen very often.
I think it also shows up occasionally in Trackside Photos captions.
Some prominent MMRs:
Michael Tylick
Dean Freytag
Al Westerfield
Allen McClelland
Not MMRs:
Jim Hediger
Andy Sperandeo
Gordon Odegard
John Allen
-Kevin
Living the dream.
To Kevin and all readers,
An important fact to keep in mind, by all accounts, only a small percentage of people who indentify themselves as "Model Railroaders" even belong to the NMRA, and that is a seperate topic already covered too many times on this forum.
So yes, MMR's are a very small club, 603 people in the whole history of the NMRA, an organization who's membership is likely only 5% or less of those currently involved in the hobby.
Those MMR's who made great contributions to the hobby but who are not longer with us include:
Paul Mallery
William Walthers
Ed Ravenscroft
Lorell Joiner
Wolfgang Dudler
The MMRs I know did it to challenge themselves and are happy with the results. They don't care how anyone else feels about it.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
You can add Gerry Leone to the list of prolific MR (and MR VideoPlus) authors who has his MMR. Master draftsman Harold W. Russell is another. On the list in the NMRA website
https://www.nmra.org/master-model-railroaders
are many respected names from published articles, layout visits, and clinics. Go down the list. If you don't see names you know and respect then you have not been paying much attention IMHO.
I see such familiar names from the past as Doug Smith (a name anyone who uses car cards for operations should know) and William K Walthers.
I will say that the practice of using MMR after your name, as a professor uses PhD, a lawyer would use "J.D." or a dentist uses "D.D.S." seems rather new. I know one MMR who never uses it after his name even on published articles. Others seem to use it everywhere.
Probably the best overall modeler and scratchbuilder I ever knew personally, the late Don Manlick, had his MMR. Many remember Don for his custom decal work but he had talents far far beyond that. Carl Traub is another MMR whom I knew. That guy could (and did) build anything, including live steam. I think he built his own drill press, and I know he threaded his own rods. He did the tool and die work for Globe, later Athearn.
Do not downplay the power of designations. There are professions, such as financial planners, real estate salespeople, insurance, medicine, law -- where professional designations are extremely coveted and valued to the point where some would easily prefer the designation to an increase in income. By no means do the designations mean that that planner or salesperson or other professional is invariably superior to those who lack the designation. But it means (if the designation has any value) that they did something or many things to an externally imposed standard of difficulty.
And there are professions, such as accounting and actuarial science, where designations such as CPA really do mean something significant, indeed just about everything, and not mere self esteem. An accountant without his or her CPA designation is in a different world. Ditto for an actuary without FSA.
I am not a broadly skilled modeler. There are a few things I think I am reasonably good at. I wish the list was longer. I think there is virtue to working to and being evaluated under an established and pretty objective set of standards particularly if thereby is created some motivation to expand your modeling efforts to areas that you otherwise would avoid. I am not going for NMRA merit awards or my MMR but it would be just about the only reason I would go back to trying to handlay track, for example, and I can certainly see the satisfaction (the self satisfaction) in knowing that my efforts in that area met those objective standards.
The observation above that some MMRs do not have wonderful layouts and whose modeling does not match the standards of some fellows who lack the designation is certainly on point. MRR has relatively few criteria related to having a wonderful layout. You can get your MMR (but not I think the NMRA's Golden Spike) designation with no layout whatever.
Dave Nelson
BruntonIf someone needs to put part alphabet soup behind their name to feel validated, then good for them. I don't.
I already have a title that was given to me eons ago..PEFM=Poor Excuse For a Modeler.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Those MMR's who made great contributions to the hobby but who are not longer with us include: Paul Mallery William Walthers
Really? They did all the special things ya gotta do, and got signed off on each one, and all?
Ed
Well, I think the MMR credentials are okay if that's one's goal in life but I also think they are more for one's own ego than anything else. They only have true value among the Enemray Elite and really don't mean anything outside that small group (As compared to the total number of model railroaders).
Many more modelers are truly Master Model Railroaders but don't seek the back slapping recognition and adoration and content themselves with the fact that they can do awesome model work. After all, the real goal of doing modeling is for personal satisfaction in our hobby and lives. Having some meaningless initials attached to one's name is just to boost someone's ego.
My 2¢!
oldline1
Mine is GWPWT ("Guy who plays with trains"!)
BRAKIE Brunton If someone needs to put part alphabet soup behind their name to feel validated, then good for them. I don't. I already have a title that was given to me eons ago..PEFM=Poor Excuse For a Modeler.
Brunton If someone needs to put part alphabet soup behind their name to feel validated, then good for them. I don't.
Bubbytrains
7j43k ATLANTIC CENTRAL Those MMR's who made great contributions to the hobby but who are not longer with us include: Paul Mallery William Walthers Really? They did all the special things ya gotta do, and got signed off on each one, and all? Ed
Ed, help me out here, I really don't understand your post? Are you suggesting that these two individuals did not earn their MMR like everyone else?
What facts would you present to support such a claim?
In my personal view, Paul Mallery was, like John Allen, so far ahead of the curve in his approach to model railroading that his contributions cannot even be measured.
[quote user="ATLANTIC CENTRAL"
[/quote]
I belong to the Gorre & Daphetid yahoo group, as this very matter about John Allen getting the MMR designation. According to some people John Allen and Whit Towers were to get MMR #1 and #2 but they refused to take it and if any of their regular operators ever mentioned it they were put at the bottom of the call board.
Rick Jesionowski
Rule 1: This is my railroad.
Rule 2: I make the rules.
Rule 3: Illuminating discussion of prototype history, equipment and operating practices is always welcome, but in the event of visitor-perceived anacronisms, detail descrepancies or operating errors, consult RULE 1!
[quote user="dti406"]
And true or not, that supplies no facts related to Paul Mallery or Bill Walthers.
When I got back into model railroading in the 1980's, I often attended NER conventions in eastern Canada and the US. I always entered my most recent models in the contests just to participate. I quickly earned enough merit awards to qualify for Master Builder Cars and Structures in the AP program. I really didn't think much about it, other than being the next step in my model building.
I earned the Scenery award for my work on 3 pairs of HO scale modules. The Author one came quickly as my work appeared in the hobby press. I was active in our local division, which lead me to Association Volunteer award. I chaired the NER AP Program for five years and chaired two local NER conventions, which got me the Assoctiation Official award.
I have most of the requirements for Master Builder Locomotives, all I need to do is scratch build a loco. But I haven't been motivated to do so. I also have much of the requirements for Conductor on a friend's layout, but don't have any interest in being a dispatcher for 10 hours, so that one is out. I need these two for the MMR designation, so I guess it won't happen for me.
I've never mentioned much my awards, they're all in an album in the closet. MMR is not something that I really aspired for, I was just able to accumulate the Merit Awards along the way by participating in my hobby. It's been a small but rewarding part to me.
Bob Boudreau
CANADA
Visit my model railroad photography website: http://sites.google.com/site/railphotog/
dehusman Bayfield Transfer Railway The whole AP system is no longer "Learn these skills to build a better railroad," but "learn these skills .... because." Please explain why learning the skills to do quality modeling is irrelevant. I would be horribly disappointed if all it took to be a "master model railroader" is a lot of money. What people seem to overlook in a lot of this is the documentation. You have to explain what you did and why you did it. Its not just that the car has brake rigging, its that this type of car has this type of brake rigging and this is how you resrached it and this is how you modeled it.
Bayfield Transfer Railway The whole AP system is no longer "Learn these skills to build a better railroad," but "learn these skills .... because."
Please explain why learning the skills to do quality modeling is irrelevant. I would be horribly disappointed if all it took to be a "master model railroader" is a lot of money.
What people seem to overlook in a lot of this is the documentation. You have to explain what you did and why you did it. Its not just that the car has brake rigging, its that this type of car has this type of brake rigging and this is how you resrached it and this is how you modeled it.
It's irrelevant because cars COME with the brake rigging.Sure, some people like researching and scratchbuilding cars. But on a layout, is their GP7 a better looking or better running GP7 then my Athearn Genesis one?Nowadays, to "superdetail" a typical locomotive or car... six superdetailed cars are required for Master Car Builder, if I remember... I first have to start by TAKING OFF THE EXISTING SUPERDETAILS.That's my point. The day of carving off GP7 grabirons and putting real ones on is GONE. The achievement awards are no longer a matter of "helping the average modeler make their equipment look better" because the manufacturers have done that already.
Disclaimer: This post may contain humor, sarcasm, and/or flatulence.
Michael Mornard
Bringing the North Woods to South Dakota!
Railphotog I have most of the requirements for Master Builder Locomotives, all I need to do is scratch build a loco. But I haven't been motivated to do so.
I have most of the requirements for Master Builder Locomotives, all I need to do is scratch build a loco. But I haven't been motivated to do so.
This is part of what I mean by "not relevant." I'd like a CNW AS-616M (Baldwin AS-616 repowered by EMD).I could scratchbuild one... OR, I could buy a Bowser AS-616 and a Proto 2000 GP18 or GP9 and kitbash it in a fraction of the time. It would look just as good, and it would be on my layout participating in operations much, much sooner.Also, remember the computer programmer's credo: "Never write what you can copy."
Bayfield Transfer RailwayThis is part of what I mean by "not relevant." I'd like a CNW AS-616M (Baldwin AS-616 repowered by EMD). I could scratchbuild one... OR, I could buy a Bowser AS-616 and a Proto 2000 GP18 or GP9 and kitbash it in a fraction of the time. It would look just as good, and it would be on my layout participating in operations much, much sooner. Also, remember the computer programmer's credo: "Never write what you can copy."
While some aspects of the MMR require scratchbuilding, other parts can be satisfied by thoughtful work that involves some aspects of kitbashing. Perhaps the idea that it's all scratchbuilding is one of those MMR myths that circulate?
Of course, you have to have the desire to do something other than develop your skills at copying. If you can buy what you need to satisfy your hobby needs, that does remove one small spect of the many reasons to pursue the MMR. But lack of desire to do that is your biggest hurdle to what you can gain going for it, not really any aspect of the MMR itself. But it's not for everybody, so there's really no need to justify a decision to do something else with one's time. What's surprising is how many claim this is something they really don't care about, but they thwn spend a lot of effort making clear how much the idea bothers them in some way. It really is OK to not want a MMR. I'm not sure I do myself, but I just don't see that as undermining the reason for the MMR's existence.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
mlehman What's surprising is how many claim this is something they really don't care about, but they then spend a lot of effort making clear how much the idea bothers them in some way.
The Bear.
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
ATLANTIC CENTRAL 7j43k ATLANTIC CENTRAL Those MMR's who made great contributions to the hobby but who are not longer with us include: Paul Mallery William Walthers Really? They did all the special things ya gotta do, and got signed off on each one, and all? Ed Ed, help me out here, I really don't understand your post? Are you suggesting that these two individuals did not earn their MMR like everyone else? What facts would you present to support such a claim? In my personal view, Paul Mallery was, like John Allen, so far ahead of the curve in his approach to model railroading that his contributions cannot even be measured. Sheldon
7j43k ATLANTIC CENTRAL Those MMR's who made great contributions to the hobby but who are not longer with us include: Paul Mallery William Walthers Really? They did all the special things ya gotta do, and got signed off on each one, and all? Ed Ed, help me out here, I really don't understand your post? Are you suggesting that these two individuals did not earn their MMR like everyone else?
Sheldon,
I didn't "suggest"; I asked. I didn't "claim"; I asked. "facts"; few, so I asked.
The MMR was established in 1961. #1 was named in 1962. Paul Mallery was #4. William Walthers was #6.
As you claim, Paul Mallery was "far ahead of the curve". So I just ask myself: Why would Paul feel compelled to be one of the very first modelers to go through the process? He apparently didn't need to learn anything, so that's out. He was already known and well regarded, so he didn't need the "fame".
For Bill Walthers, it's also a puzzle. He may well have needed the learning part, as he seems to have been in model railroading as a business for a VERY long time, and perhaps needed at the very least a brushing up on his modeling skills. Yeah, that's probably it.
So, it's just a wonderment to me why these two (old, well-known, established) guys would go throught the hoops to get an MMR certification.
So I asked.
7j43kThe MMR was established in 1961. #1 was named in 1962. Paul Mallery was #4. William Walthers was #6.
Is it possible that these might have been honorary awards based upon their contributions to the hobby, or did the NMRA never do this?
maxman 7j43k The MMR was established in 1961. #1 was named in 1962. Paul Mallery was #4. William Walthers was #6. Is it possible that these might have been honorary awards based upon their contributions to the hobby, or did the NMRA never do this?
7j43k The MMR was established in 1961. #1 was named in 1962. Paul Mallery was #4. William Walthers was #6.
I suspect it had to do with the stature of those involved, their widely recognized skills, and because they were willing to do it in order to promote the hobby.
Did they not complete all the forms we're familiar with now? Probably not, as that has been an evolving process that has seen much improvement over the years. Does this somehow suggest they were unqualified? I doubt you would be able to make that case. In fact, their work speaks to the very promotion of the standards and practices inherent in the MMR process, details that still ensure the interoperablity of equipment.
Of course, there are those who believe that no one does anything for anyone else's benefit. The purpose of the MMR program refutes that, so I suspect it's one reason why it seems to rub some the wrong way.
I suppose. And it is a very neat thing to honor "forerunners". But if it's honorary, I would think it would be so specified. There are doctorates, and honorary doctorates, after all. It looks kind of funny to effectively say: "We do have "rules" on how to get this award, but since you're so wonderful, we'll just skip that part."
And, if the point of MMR is to get modelers to become well rounded or better or whatever, then the honorary ones, named or not, do not do that. Now, perhaps they did in the past. And perhaps Bill Walthers collected his early achievements and submitted them. Very early in the program. And Paul, too.
So, if NMRA wants to honor those forerunners, which is a great thing to do, it might be nice to specifically say they are doing just that, with an HONORARY MMR.
What might make even more sense would be to separate the two groups. Ya got one group who did all the required work and filled out all the forms and get their badges. And ya got this OTHER group, on a different page, that get a "FORERUNNER" awared. Not an MMR, but a FORERUNNER.
But I'm still interested in an answer to my question: Did Paul and Bill submit the "proper forms" so they could get their MMR's? A simple question.
mlehman While some aspects of the MMR require scratchbuilding, other parts can be satisfied by thoughtful work that involves some aspects of kitbashing. Perhaps the idea that it's all scratchbuilding is one of those MMR myths that circulate? Of course, you have to have the desire to do something other than develop your skills at copying. If you can buy what you need to satisfy your hobby needs, that does remove one small spect of the many reasons to pursue the MMR. But lack of desire to do that is your biggest hurdle to what you can gain going for it, not really any aspect of the MMR itself.
Of course, you have to have the desire to do something other than develop your skills at copying. If you can buy what you need to satisfy your hobby needs, that does remove one small spect of the many reasons to pursue the MMR. But lack of desire to do that is your biggest hurdle to what you can gain going for it, not really any aspect of the MMR itself.
A lot of us are reacting to the notion that "only scratchbuilding is REAL modeling." And you're kidding yourself if you don't think that's out there. In fact, the first part of the Tuxedo Junction series back in 1951 or 1953 says that.There have been a lot of threads right on this forum that say, in essence, "nobody builds models any more." Some of us get tired of that, so don't be surprised when we overreact.
Your words "something other than develop your skills at copying" is a good example. If I can get what I want by kitbashing, and I don't particularly like scratchbuilding for its own sake, why shouldn't I kitbash?As long as this notion that scratchbuilding is the "purest" form of modeling lasts, people who don't particularly like scratchbuilding will resent being told they're not "real modelers."
7j43kBut I'm still interested in an answer to my question: Did Paul and Bill submit the "proper forms" so they could get their MMR's? A simple question.
Ed,
Like on Perry Mason, sounds like YOU know the answer, so please enlighten us. If my collection of NMRA Bulletins went back that far, I'd look it up. But it's a curiousity at this point whatever the case. The NMRA was friendly with manufacturers back then in ways that were common then that probably would raise questions now. As a historian myself, it's always an interesting study to look at past behavior in terms of the present, but ultimatley doesn't tell us much about the past, whivh really needs to be taken on it's own terms.
I don't see any argument about their lack of qualifications passing muster. These were among the founders of the hobby, people whose contributions established the need to spread accurate information and knowledge about the hobby, though, through the MMR program among other ways. The're certainly examples of the way to get the practice of the hobby right that any MMR would be happy to associate themselves with, another reason why they were likely picked as the introductory group.
As for "proper forms" is even possibe they had not yet been formally developed in 1961/62, but
In any case, I don't think the answer is particualrly relevant, one way or the other, to the original question, the relevance of the MMR today.
I would find it curious for anyone to be nursing a "grudge" (maybe it's not, but it sounds like you have some sort of beef here that bears better explanation of your concerns) over "proper forms" or whatever, wherever, or however the MMR started. I know I'm not still upset at anyone who yanked my chain in 1961. Hundreds of people involved, decades of change in the NMRA and society, and various changes in the MMR program itself all suggest that 1961 was 1961 and now is...rather different. Virtually no one alive then and in the MMR program is still on the sunny side of the dirt, but really there's nothing sinister about that either.
I was six in 1961.
cuyama The MMRs I know did it to challenge themselves and are happy with the results. They don't care how anyone else feels about it.
I see it the same way.
Perhaps I could quickly relate this reasoning to the way the Canadian Armed Forces looks at degree programmes in their officer applicants. Leaving aside the relative/subjective merit of a degree, whether it is in the arts, engineering, or sciences, we were more interested in the fact that you have the learning ability and motivation to actually complete a degree while submitting to the rigours and assessments of people other than yourself. That orientation to tasks is the best predictor of future success in a military learning environment. We really didn't care, exept for hard requirements like dentistry, engineering, medicine, or law, if you had a relevant degree in an officer occupation of interest to you; no, we wanted reasonable proof that you were not going to fail in the few training seats we had in the few courses we run each year because of a lack of learning ability.
In our hobby, some, a few, wish to receive extrinsic affirmation that they measure up in some defined way. They undertake a prescriptive process and offer to submit their achievements for review and assessment. They win both the gold star AND a superior result that they can plunk into a layout some place. A win-win, and rather efficient if you'd like a title of some sort.
Let the others laugh, or deride, or sneer. They clearly have troubles of their own. One of them won't be getting the gold star, but as some have admitted, they may still be able to plunk really excellent models onto their layouts. Either way, and like Sheldon and others have shrugged, it's just no skin off my nose.
Lots of room for all types in this hobby, something I have said often in this and many other related threads over the years.
Mike,
It may "sound" to you like I know the answer to the question I asked. But I don't.
I see that you feel that the question is meaningless in several ways, the answer isn't relevant, and someone asking it is nursing a grudge.
And that you don't know the answer.