I do think David's comments were all in good humor, trying to offer some suggestions to improve the product. Sometimes I wonder if a private e-mail is better than a forum post for my own feedback, the former provides some discretion the latter allows other folks to chime in and say if they like the idea or not. Positives and negatives to both sides.
Leo, I never took it the wrong way. I realize what David was saying, and he has a valid point for prototype purists. I just wanted him to get the history in why they are as produced.
Thanks for this explanation, Bob. It's about what I expected. Since I have your ear, here are a couple of suggestions, FWIW.
Since you've almost always got extra brass to work with, why not include two types of shades--ones that are easier to bend, and ones that are more prototypical? The modeler would then get to choose which type suits them best.
My other suggestion would be, at least for the N and Z shades, to omit the fret connector on the rounded end of the shade. This would eliminate the need for the modeler to clean up the end of the shade that shows, which is a challenge.
One last thought... how about a little kit with lots of extra shades, in different shapes and sizes, so existing signals (of any make) can be retrofitted with better shades?
Again, just suggestions, not complaints.
I like the idea of proto shades as a separate item since paying for all new artwork for existing products is just not profitable. The only caveat is that proto shades should be bent out of .0025" (.005" half etched) instead of the .005" (.010" half etched) that the kit is done in. The bad part here is the slot has already been etched to .007". The shade could be lost in the slot. I will have to see what I can do for that.
Another issue may be that small fret connector. Omitting that connector is a recipe for losing it in the acid. I need to rethink these to see what can be accomplished.
