After giving this subject more thought, I realize that part of my distaste for FSM and Bar Mills kits is a case of sour grapes. If I modeled depression era New England, I would probably own several of their kits, and would have assembled them in a "toned down" manner so that they were not as cartoonish. I would probably have spread the detail parts out over the whole layout to accent the other structures.
But, because I don't model that place/time, I can't justify the cost of the kit and the time to build it when it would seem out of place on my North Idaho-based layout. If either firm would release a kit based on a western prototype, or free-lanced but with obviously western architecture, I would probably run out and buy one today. Again, I would work to play down any cartoonish parts of the kit's design, and the detail parts would be used with several other structures. And, I'd probably have a lot of fun doing it.
So I guess our like or dislike of them probably has something to do with our personal vision of how to best represent the world, as we see it, on our layouts.
Tom
CNJ831 wrote: I honestly believe that, were it not for the clearly intended tongue-in-cheek models of John Allen and a few contemporaries that followed his lead, there would be very little evidence of caricature modeling in our hobby today. Likewise, with few exceptions, I appears to me that the folks who emphasize caricature in their modeling usually do so not as an artistic style but quite purposefully, in an attempt to make their layouts stand out from the efforts of others through representation of a skewed reality. CNJ831
I find this a little hard to buy. You give credit to John Allen for starting the tongue-in-cheek movement, and in a way you are right. But he was just the first who did it well enough, and with self-promotion, to get recognized.
For all the seriousness we place upon model railroading, there are quite a few out there that recognize that we are just a bunch of big kids playing with trains. Many will attempt to diffuse some of this "seriousness" with whimsy. The artistic ones will do it well and become recognized.
If not John Allen, it would have been someone else.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
IRONROOSTER wrote: I agree with MArk B. that selective compression is not caricature in and of itself although it may be done as part of caricature. One of the many continums in this hobby is the photograph vs painting. Some of us are into very exact reproduction in minature and some of us are into an artistic interpretation in minature. Most of us are somewhere in between.
I agree with MArk B. that selective compression is not caricature in and of itself although it may be done as part of caricature. One of the many continums in this hobby is the photograph vs painting. Some of us are into very exact reproduction in minature and some of us are into an artistic interpretation in minature. Most of us are somewhere in between.
While I largely agree with what Paul says, I would caution the use of the words "artistic interpretation" is this discussion. I honestly believe that, were it not for the clearly intended tongue-in-cheek models of John Allen and a few contemporaries that followed his lead, there would be very little evidence of caricature modeling in our hobby today. Likewise, with few exceptions, I appears to me that the folks who emphasize caricature in their modeling usually do so not as an artistic style but quite purposefully, in an attempt to make their layouts stand out from the efforts of others through representation of a skewed reality.
CNJ831
Enjoy
Paul
modelmaker51 wrote:We're all building charicatures to one extent or another. If you're using any selctive compression, ie: distance between towns, making a building fit your space,etc, then it's a charicature, not "scale".
While you may successfully argue that selective compression is exaggeration of a sort (though exaggeration generally implies enlargement, not reduction), I'd venture to say that in most cases it is NOT ludicrous exaggeration. It certainly isn't in my case, though like most my layout has substantial compression from my prototype. Everything on my layout may be an exact scale replica, but that does NOT mean it's caricature, either.
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
Jay
C-415 Build: https://imageshack.com/a/tShC/1
Other builds: https://imageshack.com/my/albums
modelmaker51 wrote: We're all building charicatures to one extent or another. If you're using any selctive compression, ie: distance between towns, making a building fit your space,etc, then it's a charicature, not "scale".
We're all building charicatures to one extent or another. If you're using any selctive compression, ie: distance between towns, making a building fit your space,etc, then it's a charicature, not "scale".
I think it's time to lighten upand loosen up, otherwise some of the folks here are going to start resembling those rivet counters and nit-pickers that have too narrow a view of the world..
modelmaker51 wrote:Realistic structure modeling" is not a function of the kit , but rather the modeler
Realistic structure modeling" is not a function of the kit , but rather the modeler
Many of the larger kits were selectively compressed to "fit" in our HO worlds.
Shilshole wrote: andrechapelon wrote:It's not just the buildings, either. It's the way they're crammed together in scenes in displays that also adds to the caricature. Take a look at some of the scenes on the layout run by the owner of Bar Mills [...] Compare that to some of the scenes on Bill Schneider's version of the New York, Ontario & Western.Compare for what purpose? The Bar Mills scenes show an established and declining urban/industrial area with the requisite zero-lot-line development and high rises; the O&W scenes are small town/rural. The Bar Mills scenes succeed precisely because structures in them are crammed together.I think Jay nailed it: 'It's up to the modeler to finish it [a FSM-class kit] the way he or she wants.' Shingles and siding don't have to be pried up, shutters don't have to be dangling, and the paint can be fresh.
andrechapelon wrote:It's not just the buildings, either. It's the way they're crammed together in scenes in displays that also adds to the caricature. Take a look at some of the scenes on the layout run by the owner of Bar Mills [...] Compare that to some of the scenes on Bill Schneider's version of the New York, Ontario & Western.
Thanks, you took the words right out of my hand, andrechapelon's comparison is like comparing apples and oranges; an urban scene versus a rural scene.
The kits just give you the raw materials, it's up to the modeler to build what they want or need. The ads are usually over the top - they're supposed to stand out, attract attention and get the purchaser's imagination going.
Has anyone build a caricature-ized craftsman kit as a tributre to the memory of John Allen?
This scratch-built Engine House was inspired by John Allen.
http://www.gdlines.com/GD_Galleries/Structures/index.html
Have Fun.... Bob.
hardcoalcase wrote: Has anyone build a caricature-ized craftsman kit as a tributre to the memory of John Allen?
Well...Fine Scale Miniatures did issue a "John Allen Special - A Tribute to John Allen and the G&D" kit some years ago, which built several structures representative of those on John's layout (the engine house, water tank, ash pit, blacksmith's shop and station). However, none of these structures were outstandingly caricaturish in appearance. In fact, I might consider them downright reasonably prototypical...like most of John's more serious models were.
Besides the funky architecture and the cutsey styles, one other thing I think detracts from realism is the over-the-top clutter of signs - I understand many buildings had signs over them, but the craftsman kits go way overboard, recreating 1950s Times Square in a rural waystop.Actually it may not be the billboards so much as the smaller posters/paper signs pasted all-over the sides of buildings in a seemingly random fashion (now, in contemporary Manhattan there are indeed such displays, but only on abandoned buildings or construction hoardings).
Perhaps the photos I've seen of earlier eras are atypical, but I don't see mishmashes of posters and small signs on the average business buildings from the 1920s onward - I do see lines of posters in places like Baseball stadium and sometimes wood fencing, but that's about it (now, the occassional sign or two, especially ones associated with the type of business in the building they are posted on - that I see a lot of in images.
andrechapelon wrote: BTW here in the northeast, you can find a lot of buildings like the FSM stuff if you know where to look. They may look over the top on a layout, but in reality they're sprinkled amoungst hundreds of other buildings and don't really stand out.That's the key. Only OCCASIONALLY do you see one of these buildings. The rest are unremarkable. When you create a scene out of nothing but over-the-top buildings what you get is a caricature. Ferinstance, my wife and I drove up to the town of Jackson in the California Mother Lode. We saw a house that could have been a prototype for a Bar Mills or FSM structure. The house was all cutesy and gingerbready. In addition to the gingerbread, it was painted pink with white trim. However, it was set in a neighborhood where the rest of the houses, while attractive, weren't real eyecatchers. A model of the neighborhood with that one house in it would be OK. A model of a neighborhood full of "gingerbread" houses would be a caricature.Andre
BTW here in the northeast, you can find a lot of buildings like the FSM stuff if you know where to look. They may look over the top on a layout, but in reality they're sprinkled amoungst hundreds of other buildings and don't really stand out.
That's the key. Only OCCASIONALLY do you see one of these buildings. The rest are unremarkable. When you create a scene out of nothing but over-the-top buildings what you get is a caricature. Ferinstance, my wife and I drove up to the town of Jackson in the California Mother Lode. We saw a house that could have been a prototype for a Bar Mills or FSM structure. The house was all cutesy and gingerbready. In addition to the gingerbread, it was painted pink with white trim. However, it was set in a neighborhood where the rest of the houses, while attractive, weren't real eyecatchers. A model of the neighborhood with that one house in it would be OK. A model of a neighborhood full of "gingerbread" houses would be a caricature.
Andre
modelmaker51 wrote: I've built quite a few FSM, Bar Mills, Cambell & others over the years. The great thing about craftsmen kits, is that you can build and detail them any way you want. The ads just show one of the possibillities. I usually build them to look like they're 10 to 30 years years old. Most have that painted in the last 5 to 10 years "look". I love the multitude of detail castings that come with the kits; they get spread all over the layout not just one structure. BTW here in the northeast, you can find a lot of buildings like the FSM stuff if you know where to look. They may look over the top on a layout, but in reality they're sprinkled amoungst hundreds of other buildings and don't really stand out.
I've built quite a few FSM, Bar Mills, Cambell & others over the years. The great thing about craftsmen kits, is that you can build and detail them any way you want. The ads just show one of the possibillities. I usually build them to look like they're 10 to 30 years years old. Most have that painted in the last 5 to 10 years "look". I love the multitude of detail castings that come with the kits; they get spread all over the layout not just one structure.
I agree. Here in upstate NY one can find strange structures with exagerations. Particully Victorian era structures. Here is a link(I hope) to a coal dealers office from early last century. It's current claim to fame was being moved. If you go to photo gallery and pop up some pictures, it seems a little exagerated on the barn or Gambrell style it is. If you hunt further you will see pics of trains in/around that time!(including a wreck, I think)Try this link:
Rounds Coal House - Home
-G
Modeling the RAILS system...
the Rural Allied Industrial System, where any and all may join the collective, share and lease equipment and ROW use for the betterment of mankind and profitability of all.
While I have papers to prove I'm not "all right in the head", the RAILS SYSTEM is a world from inside my head, but its ok, they like me there.(I think)
-G .
Just my thoughts, ideas, opinions and experiences. Others may vary.
HO and N Scale.
After long and careful thought, they have convinced me. I have come to the conclusion that they are right. The aliens did it.
CNJ831 wrote: modelmaker51 wrote: "Realistic structure modeling" is not a function of the kit , but rather the modeler. An FSM (or similar) model built "straight" is every bit as realistic as the LaserArt and JL stuff, if not more so, as they are mostly "stick" built structures. It's up to the modeler to finish it the way he or she wants.Yes and no. The manufacturer's original concept and intent in the case of such kits is for the modeler to built them into run-down, dilapidated, sometimes semi-fantasy structures, based on how the enclosed instructions read, the included details and all the technical advice on painting, weathering and finishing the model. No alternative info is offered for building them in any more pristine or realistic manner. These kits have been designed with the idea of being caricaturish. That's the difference.CNJ831
modelmaker51 wrote: "Realistic structure modeling" is not a function of the kit , but rather the modeler. An FSM (or similar) model built "straight" is every bit as realistic as the LaserArt and JL stuff, if not more so, as they are mostly "stick" built structures. It's up to the modeler to finish it the way he or she wants.
"Realistic structure modeling" is not a function of the kit , but rather the modeler. An FSM (or similar) model built "straight" is every bit as realistic as the LaserArt and JL stuff, if not more so, as they are mostly "stick" built structures. It's up to the modeler to finish it the way he or she wants.
Yes and no. The manufacturer's original concept and intent in the case of such kits is for the modeler to built them into run-down, dilapidated, sometimes semi-fantasy structures, based on how the enclosed instructions read, the included details and all the technical advice on painting, weathering and finishing the model. No alternative info is offered for building them in any more pristine or realistic manner. These kits have been designed with the idea of being caricaturish. That's the difference.
I gotta agree with CNJ. It's not just the buildings, either. It's the way they're crammed together in scenes in displays that also adds to the caricature. Take a look at some of the scenes on the layout run by the owner of Bar Mills:
http://barmillsmodels.com/npc_amherst2lg.jpg
http://barmillsmodels.com/npc_amherst3.jpg
http://barmillsmodels.com/npc_amherst4.jpg
Compare that to some of the scenes on Bill Schneider's version of the New York, Ontario & Western (http://oandw.home.comcast.net/ ), a railroad that was on its last legs in the 1953 period Bill is modeling. Just cruise Bill's website. Bill Schneider works for Branchline Trains and is responsible for some of the items Branchline produces.
simon1966 wrote:This is of course a Spacemouse thread designed to stimulate heated debate while he sits back and enjoys everyone ranting away.
Whaaaaaat???????
Actually I was looking at my RMC last night and the question dawned on me. It occurred to me that our hobby is to a popular extent geared to the surreal, that somehow craftsmanship is equated to Selioesque Furlowism rather brass tacks realism--at least to the extent it is marketed.
I admit that I am guilty of structure caricature to a great degree, partially due to my own sense of humor and architectural presence. In addition to my other reasons for modeling Sacramento in the 1950s, it was also an era when the central city was in a state of decay, before redevelopment and slum clearance took its toll. This means that modeling where I model requires a backdrop of aging and semi-abandoned Victorian and Craftsman homes, multi-story tenements, and various industrial buildings, mostly beat to heck and the worse for wear. The railroad is serviced by a gaggle of comically small 44-tonners, aging steeplecab locomotives, and whatever small diesel power Western Pacific doesn't need at the moment.
Of course, there are monstrous black SP locomotives and Black Widow painted SP diesels in the neighborhood, and the sleek and shiny WP California Zephyr passes through town, but I'm not modeling those parts of town. Of course, there are shiny new suburban developments and brand-new shopping centers to the east of the central city, but I'm not modeling them either. We as model railroaders are artists, and like any artist when we create art we make a conscious choice what sort of view of the world we wish to represent.
This view can be pragmatic or fanciful, bold or subdued, based on what we think of as beautiful and correct (or ugly and incorrect.) For a variety of reasons, centering perhaps because we are still a hobby perceived as grown men playing with small toys, a certain attitude prevails amongst many model railroaders to not take things too seriously. I agree with this point of view because it pretty much matches my idea of life in general.
I may get flamed for saying this, but for most applications, scenery and structures should (IMHO) take a supporting role to our trains. Railroad-related structures would be an exception, those being either company buildings or rail-served industries. Houses, towns, etc., should (again, IMHO) be detailed enough to suggest life and realism yet not take center stage.
I tend to use mundane-looking structures. I paint them so they don't look identical to everyone else's, but generally I don't go for the Sanford & Sons junkyard or haunted-house look. After all, most towns in Central PA in the 1950s (my locale and era) were a bit dirty from coal smoke and may have seen better days, but their residents had pride and kept them generally in good repair.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
I've spoken with George Selios and he told me that most of he structures are taken either from old photos or rreal structures that are/were still standing. Many of the larger kits were selectively compressed to "fit" in our HO worlds.
The fact of the matter is that a considerable segment of hobbyists today seems rather hard pressed to recognize the difference between realistic structure modeling and caricature. So, it is of little wonder that many are willing to spend big bucks on kits that do not resemble anything you are likely to encounter in the real world.
One would have to say that the current situation arose with John Allen's often tongue-in-cheek modeling from the pages of MR and RMC in the 1950's. John unintentionly created a trend or style that was bolstered by the later efforts of certain other, also high profile, hobbyists and arguably peaked with the downright Disney-esque, over the top, modeling of Malcom Furlow.
As a truly outstanding realistic modeler when he wanted to be, J.A. was quite obviously poking fun with many of his scenic vignettes, never considering them examples of serious modeling he was certainly very capable of. Those that followed in this style early on, however, likely did so more to gain attention than out of any belief that it was good modeling. Unfortunately, with time, many hobbyists came to accept the outlandish and improbable as part of the norm, representing some sort of solid reality, especially in cases of depicting the Depression Era or of backwoods railroading.
For my part, I'd rather have an air of reality about my layout than for it to look like scenes from the comicbook-based movie "Popeye." Keep those realistic kits comin' Laser-Art and J-L!
Yup, like flies to you-know-what. I'm here, aint I?
Whimsy, nostalgia, quaintness, powerful imagery, a feast for the eyes before the imagination, and careful scaling. They have it all. They have immense appeal because of their visual nature....but not alone. I think they don't look so hot when by themselves. Or, they look odd. It is when they are placed in a context, a carefully crafted setting that has its own realism in scale, that these models come into their own.
Simon Modelling CB&Q and Wabash See my slowly evolving layout on my picturetrail site http://www.picturetrail.com/simontrains and our videos at http://www.youtube.com/user/MrCrispybake?feature=mhum
Bar Mills is deliberately trying for that New England look. I agree that they tend to overdo the deep Depression Era look for some of their displays and ads, but of course you don't have to finish them as near derelicts with trash, old parts, etc. strewn about. Most of them seem to be pretty New England to me. Wicked Wanda's may be a little fanciful, but then I've seen some pretty strange buildings as a result of additions.
As someone (I forget who) once pointed out, if you want realism then most of your layout should be ordinary and mundane.