0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Okay, I would have just edited my previous post and added this on, but the controls to edit are gone.Has anyone else noticed this problem?So I have now read Tony Koester's article.Sorry, I see nothing wrong with it. The article and the opening editorial page of the magazine make it clear,repeatedly, that this is a simple, imperfect, way to get some equipment much more presentable than it's new-box-shinestate, and they repeatedly say that there are better ways.Not only that, but Koester's end result, I think, looks pretty good. It's not great, but it's pretty good, and in fact,is probably good enough that if the hoardes of readers who never tried weathering tried this, they would beextremely happy with it and be encouraged to try more. I don't see it at all as a bad or shameful thing for MR to be promoting. As for the cover photo, well, I don't like the weathering job on the engine, but it was perfectly fine to havesomebody else use Koester's technique to try it out. In fact, the editorial makes it clear that they were skeptical, sothey wanted somebody else to try it.Ironically, I think the worst part of the cover engine is the brown drivers, and they were NOT done with the pastels.Grivno airbrushed those! So he added more complexity and time, and in my view, made the end result worse.Anyhoo, there's my $.02. I think it was a perfectly good and helpful article for MR to run.
I think you might be the third or fourth person who actually read the article and editorial. And I agree 100%.
So ... in the time it took me to read this thread, apparently I could have weathered 13-14 cars. Jim