I don't know if it's relevant or not to anyone else, but it's never been to me. I don't take my hobbies very seriously, and participate mainly for something to do. I don't need to be part of a hobby organization or to seek achievement or recognition from anyone.
I read about some of the "big names" of the hobby past and present, and sort of feel sorry for their families. It seems that for some, this hobby is the most important thing in their lives. For the ones that have a spouse or kids and devote all kinds of time to a hobby, I wonder if they will regret not spending more time with those who love them.
Modeling the Baltimore waterfront in HO scale
NMRA member originally just to stay part of my club (100% NMRA membership. But, since I've started going to division meetings, it has paid off. I'd say my modeling has improved due to the bring and brag contests. Plus it is nice to be around like minded individuals. As for the MMR? I might try for it, but right now I'll be content with just having a Golden Spike certificate.
(My Model Railroad, My Rules)
These are the opinions of an under 35 , from the east end of, and modeling, the same section of the Wheeling and Lake Erie railway. As well as a freelanced road (Austinville and Dynamite City railroad).
Part of it, of course, is what one's objectives are.My primary and strongest interest in the hobby is operations. I have spent a considerable amount of time trying to learn how real railroads do certain things, including a lot of time working to become at least halfway compentent at dispatching by timetable and train order. I want a layout with "good enough" rolling stock, track, and scenery that I can have satisfying and enjoyable operations on. If I had to choose between a layout with scenery and no operations or operations and no scenery, I'd pick operations every time.I also am 62 years old without a current place for a layout. If I am very, VERY lucky I've got thirty good years left.Spending time on anything that does not directy affect my desire to have a "pretty good" layout that has fun operations makes no sense to my personal viewpoint. I've done enough operations to know that during operations, the fine underbody details of a car (for instance) are irrelevant. As I once observed, "if you can see the underside of one of my freight cars, things have gone seriously wrong."If building models for the sake of building models is what's fun for one, then one will look at the question differently.In this as in so many other things, the key to success is proper management of expectations.
Disclaimer: This post may contain humor, sarcasm, and/or flatulence.
Michael Mornard
Bringing the North Woods to South Dakota!
mlehman Ed, The non-myths are pretty well covered here: https://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/education/achievement/doc/2017-ap-history.docx and here: https://www.nmra.org/education/achievement-program
Ed,
The non-myths are pretty well covered here:
https://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/education/achievement/doc/2017-ap-history.docx
and here:
https://www.nmra.org/education/achievement-program
Mike,
I read the above documents and am surprised that you would submit those documents as containing non-myths, both positive and negative, about MMR. Why would you ever think that one could find a well balanced presentation there?
One learns in doing research that many (most?) documents have an inherent bias towards the reporter's views and interests.
Ed
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
mlehman I thought about listing all the myths already laid out as justifying various negative opinions about what the MMR means, but decided that was counterproductive.
I thought about listing all the myths already laid out as justifying various negative opinions about what the MMR means, but decided that was counterproductive.
And not include the non-myths, I guess.
Nor include the myths justifying various positive opinions.
I can definitely see why you might think your inclination could be viewed as "counterproductive".
I am much less clear about why you felt you should announce an action you WEREN'T going to take.
Many of us here, I am sure, had ideas, concepts or thoughts that they decided not to include here. But, so far, no one else has also chosen to tell the rest about that fact.
striven to reach a qualitive standard.
That's it in a nutshell. There's a rather detailed list of criteria that's used to assess models in the AP program and NMRA contests. Like all human endeavour, there's room for a bit of subjectivity, but judging has to assess against the basics in a community that is incresingly linked by media that tend to make clear what makes for more points and what detracts from the total for each model (in the categories that involve these criteria). The same standards are used both for "contests" and for assessing models for AP certs towards the MMR. Sometimes these overlap, but they don't always, just one of those facts that gets bent in these arguments sometimes. Thanks for pointing that out, Bear.
I thought about listing all the myths already laid out as justifying various negative opinions about what the MMR means, but decided that was counterproductive. It is much easier to discuss facts, though, as this points out.
Looking at the positive side of things, despite their relatively small numbers, it's interesting how many do mention reference in their own modeling or inspration taken from MMRs they know. For the NMRA, and for the hobby in general, that's the real benefit to what the AP program does and how the MMR fits in by supporting its many facets in promoting the hobby. Sure, it's not the only thing going in that regard, even at the NMRA, but it does matter and would not happen except for the personal interest of those who participate and volunteer.
Sir Madog I just wonder what the "outside world" will think of one introducing himself as a Master Model Railroader, while the majority deems us to be just a crazy bunch of ageing males with a childhood trauma, still playing with toy trains. I don´t think the comments would be favorable ones.
I just wonder what the "outside world" will think of one introducing himself as a Master Model Railroader, while the majority deems us to be just a crazy bunch of ageing males with a childhood trauma, still playing with toy trains.
I don´t think the comments would be favorable ones.
For sure the MMR initials after the name would be lost on people who are not fairly serious into the hobby. The only reason I was even aware of it was because Model Railroader magazine would introduce some modelers with the title after their name and pretentious looking photo of a man posed with a suite and looking over a pair of reading glasses and appearing very serious.
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 MMR topic comes up periodically here and there do seem to be more members who feel it is not worth their time for whatever reason. And, to be fair, many have to spend time in training for certificates required by jobs or to upgrade their earning ability, such as a Bachelors Degree, Masters Degree or (ahem) PhD, or IT or medical field certifications. Model railroading is a hobby, something we do in our spare time which is often very limited until retirement. After retirement, then it may be more practical to pursue a MMR for some.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
SeeYou190I love contests
Cheers, the Bear, the unreal Model Railroader who isn’t playing with matches.
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
There is nothing wrong in having an achievement program, but with all due rspect to those pursueing it, it should not be uses as a tool to discriminate others who don´t go for that. Life is too short to be taken too serious!
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.
Is it possible that these might have been honorary awards based upon their contributions to the hobby, or did the NMRA never do this?
You need to go back and look at the requirements in 1961. The requirements have significant changes over the years. I don't know what they were in 1961 as my documentation only goes back to 1972.
For example. in 1972, the requirements for 3 categories could be effectively satisfied by winning a national contest, i.e. one win and no evaluation for the other models in in the Cars category was required.
Paul
SeeYou190 ... I do have a problem with "Master Model Railroader" being bestowed like a title. I specifically have a problem with people using "MMR" after their name. ...
...
I do have a problem with "Master Model Railroader" being bestowed like a title. I specifically have a problem with people using "MMR" after their name.
It isn't a title. It's not like Sir, or Doctor, or Professor either. It's at best a designation, and much more commonly taken as credentials. Credentials are something one doesn't normally bandy about, or add to their signature except perhaps in a business card. In other words, there's a context and a place to place PhD, MA, MSc, MMR, FRCPS, PE, LCol, Gen, along with one's name as one does with rank or levels of education or acheivement, or with specialties and affiliations.
As to your last point, that it's outdated, I couldn't disagree more. If it ever happens that someone even feigns a whiff of interest in my hobby, and and it turns out that I mention my interest in achieving the designation of Master Modeler, I would expect the person to wonder what that entails, if there is a cost, and if there are standards against which my work will be assessed or rated. It would be quick and dirty to simply say that yes, there are some standards, but that it isn't necessarily a competion. They don't have a quota to limit admission to that exalted status to only six people across the country each year, for example, and one doesn't need to beat others in a competition in order to get the points the way dogs do. One only needs to have others who have similar experience and designations agree that your work is at least as good as theirs ever was. I think most self-actualizing adults would be pleased to know that an arcane hobby offers motivated practitioners the opportunity to submit their crafts for inspection and comparison with the average advanced modeler, and to be awarded points toward a designation signifying mastery in the greater set of crafts upon which the hobby depends for examples of excellence, advancement, evolution, development, or just artistry.
I have read this thread for the past few days and I am a bit surprised with some of the comments. my vote is congratulations to those that choose to fulfill the MMR requirements.
Here is how I look at it. Fulfilling the requirements will push you out of your comfort zone and try new things until you get it mastered. I was at the LHS last weekend and another customer had brought in a sample board with a several options for controling a switch. Very impressive. Personally, electronics are not my thing, so if I was to pursue my MMR, I would have to get outside comfort zone and push myself to learn and master new things. Then, I would be growing in the hobby of my choice and improving my skills!
And, for the record, the Federation of Fly Fishers has several achievement programs - casting and fly tying. This is not the ONLY hobby achievement program.
Here's what Gerry Leone had to say about the process:
https://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/mmr.pdf
First off, just for claritys sake:
A little misconception about the merit judging. You are not necessarily being judged against any one else. Your model must stand on its own merits. Hence Merit judging.
For most things, you are judged based on the supporting documentation you provide and the complexity and level of detail you put into your work. You must earn 87.5 points out of 100 for your model.
You could win first place at a judged model competition and not receive 87.5 points for merit judging.
Technically you could come in 2nd or last and get 87.5 points.
Here is the trackwork (Civil engineer) juding form:
https://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/2006-jf-mrec.pdf
Build 3 of Part 3 on this sheet is the list is the requirement and earn 87.5 points:
https://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/2006-rv-mrec.pdf
The first turnout I built probably would not even earn 50 points. But it works, and thats a start. The next one I will try for getting judged.
Second:
BubbytrainsMine is GWPWT ("Guy who plays with trains"!)
Can I use that?
Third:
JDL56How many are pursuing it or intend to?
I am.
Why? I dont know how to develop an operating plan, build a locomotive from scratch, and didnt know how to hand lay a turnout (I do now). The MMR is a set of goals to achieve, a sort of carrot for learning the modeling skills I might not otherwise learn. Broadening my horizons, self improvement and the like.
I want to work on public speaking and leadership skills. So when a leadership position in my division became open, I raised my hand. I was immediately elected, unanimously.
Am I that charismatic, no. You can tell that by my posts on this website.
Was I the only voluteer in a room full of people, yes.
Did I forget what N.A.V.Y. stands for...most definitely yes.
Will I earn a certificate for it. Most likely.
Fourth:
SeeYou190To claim you earned a "TITLE" for a leisure time activity... To every onlooker, that seems to be an undefendable combination of pompousness and pretentiousness. . That is why I think the "MMR" is outdated. I believe it does more to hurt the image of our hobby than help it.
Kevin you make an interesting point.
Golf is a leisure time activity. Has titles. (even golf balls called titliest). This was a broken attempt at levity.
It is all in how you spin it.
Try to think of MMR as a standard instead of the pompous title you make it out to be. Maybe more like a series of standards one has to meet or exceed to earn a title. That person has been there and done that. Has the title to prove it.
That person might be a good person to ask about winning contests. That person might have really neat cost saving tricks that he could share with you. That person might be able to give you advice about how to get that brass steam locomotive working.
That MMR might not be a good person to ask. Actually they are a great person to ask about any subject in which they are a certificate holder, as they sign a statement at the bottom of their statement of qualification that they will help ANY member seeking the same certificate or modeler who is having an issue with the topic of concern.
It really depends on the person how good they are at communicating.
You might be also good person to ask.
SeeYou190I do have a problem with "Master Model Railroader" being bestowed like a title. I specifically have a problem with people using "MMR" after their name.
Its not really bestowed, its earned. That having been said, Im not really sure why you would use MMR outside of a NMRA publication.
It is really no different than earning a degree. A degree is a title. That degree and $2.50 (it may be more now) will get you a coffee at dunkin donuts... Just like every other degree.
Ive never met a MMR with an 'I'm better than you attitude", and Ive been to three national conventions (crossed paths with several MMRs). Even talked to a few about different things. Not really any different than talking to anyone else at the convention.
SeeYou190The Historical Miniature Gaming Society (HMGS) has no such achievement program, but we all KNOW who the masters are among us. I am not a master. Nobody thinks I am a master. I can name the masters. .
I dont know who the masters are among your other hobby. I know the names of 603 people are who took the time to meet set requirements in my hobby to earn the title Master Model Railroader (no I cant name them all, but there is a list on the website).
Like you said, we could probably name some of the same people, both MMRs and not who we would consider masters of the model railroad hobby.
SeeYou190I do not want to start a flame war in here, so please be civil with you responses. The MMR thing is not good for the hobby.
.
I posted that response three days ago, and I have read every response in this thread since then.
First... Thank you to everyone for keeping this pretty well on the civil side. It is actually nice to read responses on a subject that obviously people have strong feelings about, but still stay respectful to one another.
Second, I just want to clarify my point just a bit. Please stay with me.
I love contests. I love being judged by my peers. I love winning contests. I proudly display my awards. My Golden Daemon, Golden Sophie, and Rogue Trader Griffon are all on display in the living room. If I ever win a CMON Golden Paintbrush... That will get its own display case! The walls of my workshop are covered with framed awards and plaques I have won through the years. 90% of these are wargame related, but there are a couple of plastic model awards in there too.
I also love losing these contests. There is something to be said for giving something your all and getting bested by another. I learn, I know when I have been beaten, and I come back again.
I have nothing against competition, or the bragging rights associated.
The Historical Miniature Gaming Society (HMGS) has no such achievement program, but we all KNOW who the masters are among us. I am not a master. Nobody thinks I am a master. I can name the masters.
I think we all know who the masters in model railroading are, at least there would be a lot of overlap in our collective ven diagram.
We are grown up adults that build and operate our electric trains for leisure and enjoyment. We are no different than grown up adults that play with toy soldiers (or any other silly thing).
If you want to win contests... HEY! More power to you. I can show you the models that won my awards. I am very proud of them. You should all be proud of your accomplishments too.
To claim you earned a "TITLE" for a leisure time activity... To every onlooker, that seems to be an undefendable combination of pompousness and pretentiousness.
That is why I think the "MMR" is outdated. I believe it does more to hurt the image of our hobby than help it.
More contests... Less titles.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
Bayfield Transfer Railway It's irrelevant because cars COME with the brake rigging.
But not necessarily the correct brake rigging (Some times they do).
Bayfield Transfer RailwayNowadays, 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.
Which is why it is preferable to start with say an Accurail car, or maybe a flat resin kit.
Check out Speedwitchmedia kits..
There are still cars that you cant buy, that will likely never be mass produced, because the railroads that owned them arent the PRR, NYC, UP, SP, or any of the other major-wide appeal roads.
Not everything is available superdetailed. And not everything is correct. Somethings are. Some people prefer to spend time vice money to make a superdetailed car. Its still a skill worth learning.
Bayfield Transfer Railwayhat'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.
What if you want to paint your GP7 for a shortline that doesnt get manufactured...you kind of need to remove all those details so you can get an even paint coat and so that you can install decals that run through where a detail goes (at least thats what Cody Grivno said).
I don't see Ed's question as irrelevant, and I don't see any grudge, either.
What I think he's asking is whether these guys got their MMR by acclamation or something. Kinda like being awarded an honorary doctorate from Harvard. Or whether they sat for hours at the workbench, or wrestled with small little tiny gears and even tinier little screws and bolts. I'd be curious to see the models and trackplans and whatnot Walther submitted to an impartial jury for for judging and read the scores and comments. I'd like to see his hand-laid turnouts and the handrails of his reefers. Twelve structure models; six scratch-built? Those Cornerstone things had to come from somewhere. Merchant's Row No 1 would be very interesting to see.
The articles about Rod Stewart working on his structures at an elaborate portable workshop he took on the road were interesting not because he is Sir Rodney Stewart, but because he puts on the nitrile gloves and visor just like everyone else.
So don't be so hard on Ed. Legitimate question. Interesting, too.
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
7j43kI 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.
No, I don't know the answer, either, but I do know that whatever it might be, it's not particularly relevant here in discussing the significance of the MMR in 2017.
I also don't know if it's a grudge. Rather, I thought the question makes it sound like there might be a grudge, even if that wasn't what was intended. I'm willing to take your word that it isn't a grudge even though that tends to amplify its lack of relevance to the current debate.
The few MMRs I know are the most humble and sharing people I've ever met; Lloyd Keyser is #1 in that respect.But nothing exists in a vacuum, as you know.
Bayfield Transfer RailwayA 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.
I guess I completely fail to see what thathas to do with the MMR. Most people who make such an argument are NOT MMRs. In fact, I would like any actual cases where an MMR made such a statement pointed out, as that would likely show that any such sentiments that might exist are very much a minority view among MMRs.
Now if the beef is that the MMR promotes scratchbuilding (Oh, the horror! ), well, it is part of the requirements and I don't see that changing. You wouldn't want surgeons operating on you with no hands on experience in surgery. Likewise, any award that does claim to represent an individual as a well-rounded and competent model railroader MUST include scratchnbuilding as a major requirement. The last model railroader on earth will be scratchbuilding, not because of any innate superiority of theirs due to what is nothing more than a technique, but because when the hobby is otherwise dead because of the collapse of manufacturing, meteor strikes, nuclear war, or other features of a zombie apocalypse, those who have these basic skills will still be able to keep at it, rather than wiat for new releases that are no longer coming along.
Bayfield Transfer RailwayYour 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 for kitbashing, I certainly don't see that as a bad thing, do it all the time myself, in fact, it's a rare kit I don't modify in some way. And the main difference between it and scratchbuilding is that you;re recycling the parts yourself with the former, while you pay someone to come up with all new materials for the latter.
I used the phrasing I did specifically so I did not limit the range of alternatives only to scratchbuilding. More power to you however you do it as far as I'm concerned any time someone does more than unbox a model.
Bayfield Transfer RailwayAs 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."
Even if all MMRs were killed by a meteor tonight, it would not make a bit of difference about scratchbuilding. Scratchbuilding exists wholly independent of the MMR. And I'm likely going to be waiting awhile if I insist on a specific example of any MMR claiming someone isn't a "real modeler" for any reason. Such statements, where and when they exist, actually undermine the MMR program and none of the MMRs I know are interested in promoting such divisive and pointless comments.
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.
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.
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.
I was six in 1961.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
7j43kThe MMR was established in 1961. #1 was named in 1962. Paul Mallery was #4. William Walthers was #6.
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?
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Those MMR's who made great contributions to the hobby but who are not longer with us include: Paul Mallery William Walthers
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?
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
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.