PDA

View Full Version : Criteria for collectors


shockwaveriderz
06-03-2008, 11:26 AM
I'm interested in getting some feedback from peopel who collect old model rockets; and how important certain items are in your decision to purchase such.

For example, lets asy theres a modle rocket that is of significant historical importance; obviously it would be nice if there were plans laying around to clone or make a replica; but what if there ins't? How important is scale or near-scale in a person sdetermination to purchase such a model?


What about the nosec one? Lets say the original was made from paper, plastic or balsa. How important is it to the collector, that the nose coen be made the same way the original was made? Lets say the orginal was blasa: as a collector would you prefer it be balsa like the oroginal or doe sit make any difference?

Does ease of construction coem into play here? Whats more important? adherence to historical accuracy or ease of construction?

Waht about body tubes? If the original was parrael wound, does it really make a differebnce to collectors that the replica is spiral wound?


And what about parachutes and such? Doe it make the modle more collectible if the plastic used for the chute is the same as the otiginal versus just using a typical commercial chute?

What I am trying to determin here is what are the factors that influence you thye coloector when deciiding which apects of a cloned modle is important to you.

Is it a simple case of , well as long as its in the ballpark in terms of "scale" , its ok to use more modern materials and such in the model. But what I'm asking, is, would it be more important for the model to try and be more "scale" like not only in dimensions but also in materials used and such?

If there are criteria please list them and their rlaitve importance.

thanks in your advances for your comments and responses.


terry dean

sandman
06-03-2008, 12:16 PM
I'm interested in getting some feedback from peopel who collect old model rockets; and how important certain items are in your decision to purchase such.

For example, lets asy theres a modle rocket that is of significant historical importance; obviously it would be nice if there were plans laying around to clone or make a replica; but what if there ins't? How important is scale or near-scale in a person sdetermination to purchase such a model?


What about the nosec one? Lets say the original was made from paper, plastic or balsa. How important is it to the collector, that the nose coen be made the same way the original was made? Lets say the orginal was blasa: as a collector would you prefer it be balsa like the oroginal or doe sit make any difference?

Does ease of construction coem into play here? Whats more important? adherence to historical accuracy or ease of construction?

Waht about body tubes? If the original was parrael wound, does it really make a differebnce to collectors that the replica is spiral wound?


And what about parachutes and such? Doe it make the modle more collectible if the plastic used for the chute is the same as the otiginal versus just using a typical commercial chute?

What I am trying to determin here is what are the factors that influence you thye coloector when deciiding which apects of a cloned modle is important to you.

Is it a simple case of , well as long as its in the ballpark in terms of "scale" , its ok to use more modern materials and such in the model. But what I'm asking, is, would it be more important for the model to try and be more "scale" like not only in dimensions but also in materials used and such?

If there are criteria please list them and their rlaitve importance.

thanks in your advances for your comments and responses.


terry dean

WOW! Those are all pretty subjective questions. It is all pretty much up to the individual.

For original kits basically it's kits that were my favorites (Astron Constelation and Sprint).
Or ones that I wanted and could either not find or more than likely couldn't afford (Centuri Black Widow).

As for cloning, again subjective. Would it hold up to the scrutiny of someone that had one. I sure wouldn't let them take a caliper to it. That would be just rude! ;)

I like most of my clones to be upscales anyway. Everything looks smaller when we see the originals again and besides...it makes them easier to find.

I made a clone of an Interceptor that Vern Estes examined at NARAM 43 and thought it was an original until I told him that all of the part that were plastic on the original are balsa on my copy.

That made my day! :D

Arley Davis
06-05-2008, 05:05 PM
Over the years I have collected hundreds of kits from many different companies, I prefer futuristic or unique kits, but have many standard Rockets like the Estes K-2 Mark II, and the Fetes K-4 Streak, l also have Cenuri Kits like the KM-1 Two-Bitz and 5041 Moonraker.

I purchase many just because of its collectability, and will never build them; others will be built someday maybe.

As for cloning, for me I would rather have an original kit, but in many cases its to expensive to purchase or in some cases impassable to build a clone of a rocket that has parts that are not available or impassable to clone. But if I do clone a rocket it has to be as exact a clone as is possible to an original or way bother.

Here is three rockets only one is not a clone which one is not a clone?

scigs30
06-05-2008, 07:07 PM
For me I like to build vintage Estes kits. I use everything in the kit except the shock cord and tape disks. I use brand new rubber shock cords and tape disks. I have only cloned a couple of old kits but as soon as I bought the original I built it.

jetlag
06-16-2008, 04:26 PM
Terry,
After a lot of thought and consideration, I think I'm prepared to comment on your questions.
I must echo Sandman, especially with regard to old kits and how near and dear they are to my heart. A few examples are my insatiable craving for old Orbital Transport kits. The Astons Sprite and Constellation were also favorites. Growing up in the late 60's/early 70's nearly the entire rocket compliment from which we had to choose was Estes. Occasionally, some Centuri offerings would wend their way into local hobby shops, and they demanded attention. Likewise for Cox and MRC and MPC. We never saw Shrox, Canarocs, and FSI kits, which were (are) fabulous.
I would build 10 clones of a Sprite before I popped the package. Opening an old, sealed Estes package, I almost make an attempt to breathe the air from it! Nutty perhaps; the air has in reality probably been replaced over the years; it's just the reverence with which I like to treat it. It's such a rare event. If the original had plastic pieces, and I could replicate or buy pieces that were made of something else (eg. Balsa, resin, etc), I'd do it in a heartbeat. Odds are slim various pieces remained EXACTLY the same through a kit's life, anyway (the recent posts about bertha nose cone variations, for example).
Updating certain kits with regard to recovery items is just a better protection on my investment. I certainly do not 'slit' body tubes any more!
Also, ease of construction really matters not. A Saturn 1B built the old fashion way, yet with more modern adhesives and maybe some carbon fiber (for the fin structure), gives a model one can fly AND take some reasonable abuse. I've built one with white glue before; there are more enjoyable things, I must say!
I'm finishing up a restoration on a Saturn 1 B (1/70) now, and I imagine it will go for a lot on Ebay. Some folks really like the idea of holding an original in their hands, as opposed to a modern clone, like Semroc's or Apogee's. Granted, those are fabulous kits in their own right, but to find, open, lay out, and put together a kit from 1968 is a process to be relished!
These old kits touch us all in different ways. An example here for me is the Mars Lander; some of you may have seen it in the thros of a CATO elsewhere in this forum. It is a clone from Tom at Papa Tango. As such it has a few improvements over the original Estes model. These are great and quite utilitarian; I can launch it over and over, even repair the damage from a spectacular CATO and not bat an eye. The Estes original is on display safe at home, but it has flown its share!
As far as spiral or parallel wound body tubes, I could not care less. Today, I would seal them up, anyway. Besides, I'm not sure if the rockets I ever built had straight parallel-wound tubes.
For parachutes, an original is always good for an original. I flew a 40 year-old Trident I restored at this year's NSL in Orangeburg, SC. I used an original orange and black checkerboard chute that most noticed right away on the descent. Even the announcer commented on it. So folks notice (and appreciate), especially the obvious things. Now, if this model was a clone of the original, I don't think having the correct parachute would make much difference, unless I was just going for the feel of the nostalgia.
Certainly, I would like the clone to be accurate in terms of scale to the original, but really I'm more concerned with the measurements. If the original was 12.5 inches finished, that's what the clone's height needs to be. The fins need to be 'right' also; nose cone shape, too. I would not be averse to building a clone with plastic nose cones , if the original had wooden ones, especially if you can save on weight. It has to 'look' right when you're all done, so much so, that when 'the man' walks by and compliments you on your finished work, he thinks it was one of his. I can imagine Sandman's walking about 3 inches above the earth on that!
Upscales are wide open; they're just clones on steroids!
Hope this helps!
Allen

Arley, is it the Quasar that's 'not a clone'?

Arley Davis
06-29-2008, 08:42 PM
No it’s the Centuri SSV Scorpion, that is not a clone; I could not imagine anyone cutting out all the curves in a sheet of Bristol Board to make all the pieces for this rocket

http://www.dars.org/jimz/cen5307.htm

http://www.dars.org/jimz/centuri/cen5307i.tif

carbons4
07-01-2008, 01:33 PM
You did raise many good points Terry. It has been many yrs since i attended a NAR or other orginized meet. I would guess there would be two schools of thought , kinda like scale and sport scale. To redo a model original it should be original. If you were recreating a estes whatever, this yr 18" orange and white plastic parachutes with white shroud lines and round tape tabs for this specific yr. Did production change from a wood to plastic NC? Did motor mounts change? It would be two schools of thought, neither of which is wrong. Say a person wants a Starship Vega but a original kit is not available. If he builds it with ,i believe they were BT-55 cut to x inches using balsa bt-5 nose cones in the fin pods original or reproduced decals,not paint, lead disc on nose cone, etc. That would be a acurate reproduced kit. If someone wanted the same model but same parts were plastic or decals were painted or any number of things but the model completed looked just kile a original, thats great. That person wanted a vintage kit that was long since gone and he built it. Outwardly no one would probably know the difference but to a historian could tell that was not the way that kit was made. Like I say two schools of thought ,neither are wrong personal prefrence.

John Brohm
07-01-2008, 05:59 PM
...For example, lets say there's a model rocket that is of significant historical importance; obviously it would be nice if there were plans lying around to clone or make a replica; but what if there isn't? How important is scale or near-scale in a persons determination to purchase such a model?


What about the nose cone? Let's say the original was made from paper, plastic or balsa. How important is it to the collector, that the nose cone be made the same way the original was made? Let's say the orginal was balsa: as a collector would you prefer it be balsa like the original or does it make any difference?

...

What about body tubes? If the original was parallel wound, does it really make a difference to collectors that the replica is spiral wound?


...

terry dean


I guess my view sits somewhere on the fence. As others have mentioned, it depends largely on what one is trying to accomplish.

For my collection, I want a sealed, good condition original. In my case, it's not so much about the value of the sealed original kit; it has more to do with the having of an original artifact in my possession of some treasured old model from my youth. This is a personal and nostalgic thing.

As for building, it depends. In my case, I'm quite happy with clones, and with modern tools, materials, and finishes. I want to capture the best representation of the original that I can, and no doubt this is some kind of psychological backlash from the very early days, when as a youngster the skills just didn't match the enthusiasm, and so the results were something less than the card art!

Yet there's something to be said with attempting an original restoration or an original build with all original parts. In a way, it captures not only the original, but the manner in which it was made. World War I aircraft restorers and replica builders strive for this (as is the case in other historically based technologies as well) as the original is just as much a product of the parts as it is a product of the methods and materials used to build it.

So in my mind, the difference between an original build and a well executed clone (apart from eBay) is the purpose for the end result, nothing more.

But the real bottom line is with the technological record. In this there can be no substitute, no "close enough", or "something similar". The written record has to be accurate, right, and definitive, and must record what was when it was made. Sites like JimZ and YORS are vital in this regard, and enable us to know the difference between a BT-50, BT-51, and BT-52, and allow us to make our decisions in an informed and intelligent way should we choose to make a substitution for our clone or replica.

Thirty years from now, we still need to know that the original Red Max had an airframe based on a BT-60 and that it was 8.5" long; its nose cone was a PNC-60AH. Thirty years from now, we may not be able to have access to precise replicas of these parts, but in our future representation, we will at least know what the deviations and difference are so long as the record is right.