[Fwd: Re: Gorre and Daphetid]

On Sun, 9 May 2004 19:57:39 UTC, Jim Guthrie wrote: 2000

I started modeling in 1947 so I paid a lot of attention to photos of the G&D. Most of what John built was detailed but was accurate only for a class 47 railroad that had been bankrupt for 2-1/2 decades. Far too ramshackle. As for not being crowded (I had only the western U.S. to use as a reference) I could not agree less. More of the usual Kalmbach BS.

I got a kick out of the G&D. It amused me and inspired me but in no way did I desire to emulate it, even if I had the skill.

Reply to
Ernie Fisch
Loading thread data ...

Perhaps because we (Americans at least) started out as a haven for Puritans and other religious types, whereas Australia's white settlement started as a penal colony. (Maybe? Just a thought.)

Jay Back in action once again

Reply to
JCunington

Can't really say the G&D inspired me, either, but then I'm doing the Midwest US, not fantastic mountains!

I AM impressed by it, particularly because of the era and what most other typical modelers accomplished in that timeframe.

Jay Back in action once again

Reply to
JCunington

Now you've done it. He'll think "penal" means something else!

Reply to
Brian Paul Ehni

Highly likely.

Reply to
Mark Newton

No, he won't.

Reply to
Mark Newton

Salvé

Dear Ernie, Nice to hear from a veteran of the hobby who has seen the layout in question, however one thing has struck me the G+D is an inspitational layout as it inspired modellers to DO BETTER ! but it was one amongst many, just because it was made by John it has been almost raised to sainthood (!), there are oither layouts that are just as deserving of accolades, and most would be unknown to North American modellers, John Aherns Madder Valley for instance and ofcourse the original HO layout the amasing folding layout by A.R.Walkley back in 1923 (probably started around 1921 or so!) The Railway in a Suitcase , only 3feet long when folded ! and designed to be able to travel on a bus or a tram perhaps MR should consider doing a series on (scale irrelevant!) layouts from around the world from a historical perspective, the fact is that ARW's layout is the basis for EVERY ho layout ever, and it was a nice layout even for today........

Beowulf

>
Reply to
Beowulf

You may think so, but your post suggests you competely fail to understand what commercial broadcast media is all about in the first place.

Reply to
Mark Newton

OK, and I completely fail to understand what "robust language" is all about too! But seriously, I do understand what commercial broadcasting media is about but I was refering to the effect on the viewer/target.

Reply to
Gregory Procter

On Mon, 10 May 2004 17:00:53 UTC, "Beowulf" wrote: 2000

Unfortunately I never saw it in the flesh, so to speak.

Good point. The key here is that it was a different kind of modeling than was common in that day. I attribute much of it to the influence of the movie industry as well as to John's artistic talent.

Again good points. I feel we have things to learn from a lot of layouts. Sometimes things we want to copy and sometimes just a different point of view on familiar things.

Reply to
Ernie Fisch

I'd like to see it done, an ongoing series on "historically significant model railroads", how we got where we are today. Some of these could be as simple as reprints of old articles (with perhaps colorized pictures?). Why not? They've taken to running old AC, Westcott, and Larson editorials on occasion (or is that a monthly staple now?).

Jay Back in action once again

Reply to
JCunington

And it still is better than anything Mark Newton has to offer so far.

Reply to
Terry Flynn

Come on Brian, sometimes you do the same.

Reply to
Mark Mathu

The difference is that I don't start it.

Reply to
Brian Paul Ehni

Like all your opinions on this forum, I respect your abstention. I was not even born when John Allen began breaking new grounds in the hobby but I disagree with your opinion that's not good enough --

I never saw a "Honeymooners" episode live, only repeats and TV critic's comments, but does that void my opinion of it being a good TV show? There are many who never saw the 1920s New York Yankees or the

1960s Green Bay Packers; does that void their opinion of them being great sports teams?

Likewise I've only seen photos and read articles and commentary on how John Allen challenged the limits of what had been considered "good enough" up to then; I never saw his layout in person nor witnessed an operating session on it. Should that void my opinion of whether or not John Allen was a good modeler? The legacy can speak for itself.

Reply to
Mark Mathu

Doesn't invalidate your opinion at all, but if you didn't see them against the backdrop of their time, you won't be seeing them in quite the same way as contemporaries did, regardless of whether you like them or hate them.  

John Miller, appreciator of John Allen's accomplishments at the time and still Email address: domain, n4vu.com; username, jsm

Always the dullness of the fool is the whetstone of the wits.                 -William Shakespeare, "As You Like It"

Reply to
John Miller

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.