Small Scale Military Headquarters

How 'bout dat, sportsfans. 399-499.00 early or later boxes. PWP designs

Nice !

http://www.militarytoyshop.com/prodtype ... istory=cat

i really like the custom P 38 of Richard BONG



Considering the 109 protype : I wonder if any guy will be fooled on ebay ????

I can not believe they are charging $100 more for the older 21st box

I am glad that I have kept almost all of my boxes.

I guess I could pull the model out and sell the boxes for $100 each.

Those ARE very nice customs! Especially the EAST Indies Hellcat.

Don't tell Lumley- he got an original for 1800-1900. 00 off ebay. Maybe he can sue for copyright infringement!!!!!!!!!!

Hummmmm....

500 for a repaint and they didn't even do the swastika?

Ta-152 wrote:500 for a repaint and they didn't even do the swastika?

That's why it's a replica... So you can pass it off as the original on E-bay.

BTW, not that I really care, but this is outright copyright infringement.

King O' Fools wrote:

Ta-152 wrote:500 for a repaint and they didn't even do the swastika?

That's why it's a replica... So you can pass it off as the original on E-bay.

BTW, not that I really care, but this is outright copyright infringement.

Just out of curiousity. Doesn't the Bong Family charge for the use of the "Marge" paintscheme? Thought I read that somewhere around here.

Those are some nice repaints.

But, why do a repaint of an incorrect 109 scheme? Maybe they saw what a real one recently went for on Ebay? But, that one was an original! I don't think I'd drop $500 on an incorrect scheme unless I was planning to push it off as legit. Without having seen this thread, I wouldn't have known about the additional desert 109s out there.

Be careful if you see another desert 109 on Ebay in a few weeks!

NWarty wrote:

King O' Fools wrote:
That's why it's a replica... So you can pass it off as the original on E-bay.

BTW, not that I really care, but this is outright copyright infringement.

Just out of curiousity. Doesn't the Bong Family charge for the use of the "Marge" paintscheme? Thought I read that somewhere around here.

No idea. But certainly making an exact replica of a model (not of the actual plane, but of the model) produced by another company without having previously secured the rights from the original manufacturer is a big no-no. This is not even some derivative work. This is an exact copy of the 21st prototype. (Not that I have a problem with it, but it would seem to me they could be getting themselves in hot water for doing that: basically ripping off 21st, or whoever holds the intellectual property rights to those models now).

Having said that, I think it's just ridiculous that 1:18 scale model replicas of WWII fighters are still generating royalties for aviation manufacturers like Northrop Gruman (and you really have to wonder how much they profit from this, and we're talking solid net profit here, just for modelling the same "useless junk" you can find in a museum, which contrary to the manufacturers' claims does not infringe on their brand image, unless Gruman, for instance, designed their planes that way to impress the Japanese with the slickness of their design... which is, well, laughable).

I guess the Bong family claims to any royalties are based on the picture rather than the livery of the aircraft. Antoher question is whether they can make that claim with a straight face, considering the medium where the picture was rendered was the property of the Army Air Corps to begin with and the 'work' had no commercial value at the time and Richard Bong may have well relinquished any rights he had to it the minute he put it there, which would be akin to claiming anonymous grafitti 'artists' have a right to soil the walls of a factory and can then expect to collect royalties from a photographer who happens to get rich on a picture he took of said graffiti without having to compensate in turn the factory owner. Who knows maybe the USAF should go after the Bong family and the scale model manufacturers for depicting their planes and demand they pay royalties too.

Ha! Seems the greedy basterds at the RAF beat me to it!

A long lasting legal conflict exists between aerospace corporations and the manufacturers of plastic models. Manufacturers of aircraft have sought royalties from model makers for using their designs and intellectual property in their kits. Hobbyists argue that model kits provide free advertising for the makers of the real vehicles and that any royalties collected would be insignificant compared to the profits made from aircraft construction contracts. They also argue that forcing manufacturers to pay royalties and licensing fees would financially ruin all but the largest model kit makers. Some proponents of the aerospace industry contest that the issue is not of financial damages, but of intellectual property and brand image. In contrast, most of the world's commercial airlines allow their fleet to be modeled, as a form of publicity. Many cottage industry manufacturers, particularly of sci-fi subjects, avoid the issue by selling their products under generic untrademarked names (e.g. selling a figure that clearly depicts Batman as "Bat Hero Figure"). Similarly, automobile manufacturers occasionally make an effort to collect royalties from companies modeling their products.

Recently, the UK's Ministry of defense has required model and decal manufacturers to pay licencing fees in order to use Royal Air Force insignia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_model

See? They stole my idea. I'm going to sue them and make them pay!

Not sure about the "legalese".

It is a model,of a model.

After all the buzz about the 21 Century
prototype,I thought that it was only a question of time before some customizer would do this.

Or has already done it.

It would make me VERY wary of paying "big bucks" for an ultra rare model.
I just wouldn't do it.

"Tender Terror" could easily be next.

Sorry John Lumley.
Not what you wanted to see,or hear.

snake wrote: "Tender Terror" could easily be next.

Wasn't there some speculation to that effect here a while back when some guy auctioned one on e-Bay? Apparently the anti-glare paint was different (IIRC), or something like that.

As far as the desert proto goes I'm surprised it's taken this long for someone to fake it. I'm using the word "fake" and not "repro" as imo the chance of some cheesedick buying it and puting it on ebay calling it authentic is likely high.

But to the guys that actually own an authentic one, all that matters is that you know yours is authentic, chances are the guys that do own the real deal ain't selling anytime soon so price is irrellevant. Also it's just a repaint and if examined in person it'll be obvious it's a repaint. The authentic model is molded in very lichtblau coloured plastic with tampo graphics. Regardless of what 109 these "artists" chose to use, there is no way they could remove existing markings of the doner model and replace with the desert proto markings without shooting some paint to cover affected areas. Decals are quite evident when used as well.

Does it all of a sudden only make John's model worth $500...hardly.

JohnLumley wrote:Hummmmm....

I wouldn't worry about it too much. I'd got PWP designs RN Hellcat back in early Oct. It's a very poor custom. Uneven colour throughout, as though the customizer was using up leftover paint from several different colours and makes. The decals were roughly cut in too many ways and there was no setting solution or flat overcoat used. I can't see him suddenly gaining the skill to pull this off competently.