Faustus100, thank you for your explanation - so here is the 'commercial' (well, really financial ) subtext / motivation to this issue I referenced. I can see, with rarity, letting 'the cat out of the bag' so to speak might create further demand than what existed before and consequently penalize those who worked to 'discover' the source parts. In short, it is analogous to moving a kit in a store to a disquised location in an effort to preserve it for later purchase (and of course depriving another of the opportunity.)
In my opinion, this mindset could be countered by the sharing of recast parts, or scratched masters being offered for distro as cast replacements for the original, now defunct styrene bits. Given it all looks the same under a coat of paint plus the ridiculous expense of obtaining these old, OOP kits (the majority of parts often being discarded), the whole resin replacement path seems the way to go - especially if a savings of thousands can be had! Under these circumstances, I am actually shocked that a 'cadre' hasn't formed (perhaps call it a "Guild") expressly for the purpose of researching & creating the parts needed to build the 5' or 32" replicas using original parts as masters. If the work was done under the paradigm of shared, recouped expense, I'd expect it might provide a reasonable and certainly *faster* means of achieving the goal of building these replicas. Sort of a fan-supported, SS MF 'sourcing' organization. Now that would be collaboration!
Not to mention 'destroying' the original kits & preventing someone who might actually want to *build* those kits from doing so!
Of course, many would point to the whole "re-casters are robbing the original makers of their due income" concept (which I normally favor protecting a kit makers' sales potential) but that doesn't really apply to second-hand sales under the guise of 'collectibles' nor even perhaps when an entire kit isn't the goal but rather the piecemeal component(s) assemblies. In effect, the individual parts, as intellectual property, are irrelevant - it is the compilations that matter. Also, I expect AMT reissuing the Kenworth Cabover kit (for example) is certainly getting their due; AMT being, btw, an entirely different entity than that which engineered & produced the kit originally! I say, if the manufacturers or holders of those kit artifacts (assuming they even exist any longer [Aurora Sealab comes to mind]) are interested in a smattering of parts recasters meeting a need which they are themselves failing to capitalize on, then they should "have at it".
This idea isn't from whole cloth as just such activity is ongoing here (and I expect elsewhere) at RPF. Which is as it should be - folks are building models of the model MF after all. If however someone wishes to build a completely "authentic & accurate to the original" down to using the same grade of plywood, etc. then I wish them the best.
So, what to do? Perhaps, once someone has reasonably taken time to obtain their source kit, they can then share their findings? That would mitigate the demand impact for original 'finder' while meeting the need to share & promote collaboration. Even better would be the second idea which is to 1) ID the part 2) obtain a specimen then 3) use it as a master for sharing replicated parts & dimensions (for the CAD folks...) End result: instead of one hard to find source, there may be several developed sources for the needed pieces, plus at reasonable prices. Just needs to be more organized, I suppose, since it sort of is already happening (to a degree...)
Anyway, there you go.
Regards, Robert
