Hurin

Just some background. . . The spoiler tag is something we have over at Macross Nexus Forums (link). . . but to be honest, it's a pain to maintain. They are a custom hack that is manually edited into the IPB code and just about every patch for IPB (which happen once or twice per month) overwrites the files again. So, every time you patch, you have to go in and re-insert the code (about 20 lines per file, four or five files). Best, H

. . .

Darn near perfection. I always love your weathering. Only one very minor quibble. . . the blood should be much darker. Other than that, beautiful as always! H

Well, yeah, but at least for the 1/48's flaws, there's a mitigating reason. In contrast, why in Baby Jesus's name would they make the 1/60 1S head so tiny?

I've always heard this "skinny arms" thing regarding the 1/48. Yet I just don't see it. Are we talking about the shoulders? The biceps? Or the forearm? Cuz while each might be slightly smaller than the 1/60, I don't see a glaring difference. And I especially don't notice when looking at my 1/48 w/ GBP. As for the skinny hands. . . it's perfect transformation. . . well worth the "cost." Personally, the skinny hands never bothered me and I've always been slightly perplexed/amused by the fixation on them here (much as bsu legato was regarding Vader's). H

The VF-1S head on the 1/60 is terrible. 1/48 Battroid FTW! H

Universities usually have a book store that sells Apple products at a pretty substantial discount (often 15-20%). If you have a relatively major university nearby, you might drop by and pretend you're a student.

I'd buy all my 1/48s all over again if they'd Tampo Print "U.N. SPACY" on the legs and gunpod.

I was twelve when it came out. I thought the beginning kicked ass. I thought the Megatron and Optimus duel was great. I was sad that Prime died but also thought it was a cool thing to do. I hated all the new additions and thought the rest of the movie was pretty f'ing terrible. But that's me. I fear change. H

I always assumed that the DYRL 1A head is just sorta retroactively "canon". . . since it's been said a few times around here that Kawamori and the Macross powers-that-be consider the "look" of DYRL to be the "official" look of Macross now where character and mecha appearance is concerned. All the while, however, the TV series remains the canon plotline. So, picture the DYRL characters and mecha appearance with the TV story. . . and that's official Macross. And somewhat explains why they wouldn't put out a "TV 1A head." H

Those look really nice. Perfect color choice! It has a really cool "contrast" with the darker grey. Edit: Whoah! Just noticed the 1S head too. Even nicer!

You got it!

Everybody sing with me now: The retail price is set by how much we're willing to pay (demand). And how much we're willing to pay is also influenced by how many there are available (supply). But, Yamato's production costs hardly enter into it. They wouldn't lower their price unless they thought it would benefit their profit margin in the long-term (selling more valks at lower price eventually gaining them more profit than selling fewer at a higher price). As for why they're doing this? They're clearly leveraging their earlier investment. . . these repaints are not expensive to produce. . . Really, they're finally doing what I think many of us expected them to do from the beginning. . . just slapping a new paint stripe or two on them and selling them by the boatload until we just can't take it anymore. Cha-ching! More power to 'em! Keep 'em coming! H

Updated the 1/48 release list with all the recent news here. A 1/60 release list is in the works (probably a week or two away though). I'll post here when we have it finished. Best, H

Looks to me like he's got a "George Lucas" complex going on.

Apparently the bad-word filter is now allowing that one.

There is an ignore function. Feel free to put me in there. And I'll shut up now. If you want to start storing your valkyries where it's hot, go ahead. Skull-1 said it's fine. H

How much of a public service will it have been if people take your conclusions (stated as scientifically proven fact) and store their valkryies in their hot attics, only to find fifteen years later that their valks have yellowed more than they otherwise would have?

I just noticed...All the subject headers are adjusted right....in Firefox and Opera. 417784[/snapback] I assume you mean "adjusted to the right" and not "correctly". . . cuz to me things are still mess up. At first, I thought you meant that it was fixed.

*You* are the one attached to humidity. I keep talking about heat *and* humidity. You keep just focusing on humidity. I personally don't believe that humidity has much (if anything) to do with yellowing. But, it's also a fact that you haven't proven that it doesn't. Regardless, you really seem like you're from Mars or something because you just can't seem to grasp simple concepts like: "scientists never claim to have proven a negative because it's never possible to be certain that they are aware of (and have accounted for) all possible factors." I really don't think you understand what: "You can't prove a negative" means. . . and it's a principal tenant underpinning the scientific method. That's my only explanation for your errors here and attitude. I'm glad that the inner thigh of your valkyries are still white. However, that doesn't really account for how valks yellow at all when stored in total darkness. And, believe it or not, there are possibly alternative explanations for why the inner thighs don't yellow. Anything from a flaw in how the plastic is cured, the manufacturing or painting process, to air circulation within the original factory boxes, or similar circulation around storage boxes. . . perhaps exacerbated by the mode in which the valkyrie is stored. The point is, I don't know, and neither do you. Because . . . wait for it. . . It's impossible to prove a negative. H P.S. And you haven't "posited a theory" (as you put it). . . you've stated a conclusion that is absolute. And that's the problem.

Sigh. . . look, there's just no getting through you to you. You're impervious to logic and seem somewhat ignorant of proper scientific method (in a nutshell, you use the word "prove" entirely too liberally and discount other possible reasons for the outcome of your "experiments" as well as contradictory findings by others). At this point, I'd just be repeating myself. I trust that anyone even moderately trained in the proper use of the scientific method (or even rudimentary logic) will see what I'm talking about above. Best, H

Apparently, we have to. Because your conclusions don't match your findings. Of course, when you originally stated your "findings," we weren't capable of drawing our own conclusions because you hadn't supplied any of your "data." We were supposed to just take your word for it and stop concering ourselves with where we stored our valks as long as it was dark. Weren't we also discussing heat?. . . but I digress. . . Is it not also possible that some valks (within the same line) were made with a higher quality of plastic less prone to yellowing? is it not also possible that some valks might have higher quality paint less prone to yellowing? There are more factors possibly at play here than you're acknowledging. Before you could even being to approach such definitive conclusions, a lot more "testing" would have to be done. Incidentally, I've had two valks, stored identically, yellow at entirely different rates (while some of my Joke Machines yellowed and some didn't at all). Some have noticed yellowing with valks that have always been in cool, dry, dark places. Others have noted no yellowing with any combination of the above. So, given all the variables and factors, is it not possible that you got "lucky" in that your "humidly stored" valk didn't yellow? Honestly, I find it odd that you seem so dead-set against moderating (at the very least) the definitive nature of your findings to be more in-line with what the evidence actually proves. It means that you seem to keep pulling longer and longer duration tests out of your butt. First one year. Then five years. Now twenty-one years. . . I think you mean "anecdotal." Best, H

You are also stating, absolutely and unequivocally, that you have scientifically proven that heat and humidity have no effect on yellowing. No scientist would back that conclusion based on your research. You can't prove a negative. You can say that something is "unlikely" to have an effect. Or you can say that you did not witness a discernable effect within the timeframe of your "study." But you can't make bold, conclusive, unequivocal statements about timeframes that fall outside the scope of your (rapidly increasing in number) "studies." It's Science 101 dude. You can't prove a negative. You're making "conclusions" that your data doesn't prove.

Suit yourself. You seem to be under the mistaken belief that you can prove a negative. You can't. But go on with your bad self. I just hope people don't behave foolishly based on your "research." H

Everything is great until the conclusion. You cannot state, based on your evidence, that heat and humidity can't cause yellowing. You can state that you saw no evidence of yellowing within the timeframe of the study. But beyond that, it's speculation. Saying that you observed no heat/humidy-caused yellowing over one (or five) years is not the same as saying that heat/humidity can't cause (or accelerate) yellowing over ten, fifteen (or even six) years. Look, I'm no scientist. But I remember the basic rules of logic that dictate the scientific method. The experiments are valid and provide useful information. . . but then you jump to conclusions that aren't warranted. So, really, all I'm saying is: Do you really want people to start storing their valks in warmer or more humid conditions based on your unfounded assertions? After fifteen years, you might feel awfully bad if you found out that your "one year study" (and anecdotal "five year study") didn't go far enough toward dismissing heat and humidity as long-term accelerants for yellowing. . . and then a bunch of people have prematurely yellow valks because of faulty reasoning and bad "science." So, it just behooves you to be careful when making such definitive, broad statements that people might take to heart when storing their own valks. Best, H P.S. My own belief is that yellowing is inevitable on (especially older) toys. The environment can accelerate the process. UV rays are an obvious accelerant. I doubt humidity or temperature have an accute effect. But I wouldn't be so sure that they may not accelerate things over the long-term. And, now in my thirties, I've lived long enough (and had valks long enough) to see yellowing on toys that I know have only ever been stored in darkness. I can't say it was heat and humidity. . . because there's another factor. . . time. . . and for all I know, time may be the only factor at play in those scenarios.