The Diecast Zone · Model Car Club Since 1997
Diecast Collector Forums
Eight forums, every scale, and thirty years of shop talk — new arrivals, restorations, reviews, and the finds you won’t see posted anywhere else, with the full archive back to 2002 restored and searchable. Free to Register.
8Forums
195,000+Topics
1,276,000+Posts
10,000+Members
1997Research From
Notifications
Clear all
Forum 18
6
Posts
4
Users
0
Reactions
9
Views
Topic starter
03/12/2012 7:53 am
03/12/2012 8:58 am
Frank, take a look at : CMC Ferrari 250TR - Lucybell II - Le Mans 1958 (ref: M086)
It has all the pieces you need, I wonder if there is a CMC breakers yard in the US, somewhere?
04/12/2012 8:33 am
Frank, your insatiable commitment to historical accuracy is to be admired!
I'd be willing to bet there isn't a 1:18 model collection on the planet that accurately represents specific race cars as does yours.
Topic starter
04/12/2012 10:18 am
Thanks for the kind words.........
but there are more than a few guys out there who do far better work than I do.
It is rewarding though to at least get close once in a while to capturing the look of an actual car and the internet is such an amazing resource that it seems wrong not to use it.
04/12/2012 12:11 pm
Frank, a big thanks for the pics and text you provide when post your builds! I enjoy, as others do, the time and patience you invest.
Topic starter
05/12/2012 4:43 am
Thank you Steve...........
I've always enjoyed doing research.
What I like about race cars prior to big corporate sponsorship is that the cars had a history that could be traced through their chassis numbers. Even at the very top levels of the sport the same chassis were sent out race after race, sometimes year after year, to do battle.
On the other hand, they were constantly 'tweaked' to make them better or to tailor them to specific track conditions. It are those unique details that I find so appealing and allow me to 'tweak' my own models to make them 'real'.
The one danger though is that one can jump to conclusions based on limited evidence. For example I'm assuming that Wolfgang von Trips had a favorite racing seat based solely on a few photographs. It is just as possible that von Trips didn't care one way or the other and that the seat change was prompted by his co-driver. For my purposes I didn't need the why, I only needed to know if the seat change was likely. It turned out it was likely, so I'm switching to doing the Gendebien car.
What I'm saying is that while I might be right on the 'what' side of things I could be completely wrong in my analysis of why.