VBD2 is closed. Please go to https://vbd3.co.uk instead.

Huh,
Me speak Spanish, not with our wonderful education system.
In my first year I was learning Spanish, then in the second year I was put up a stream and they were learning French, Then at the end of the second year they realised their mistake and put me back in the Spanish class, so I did 2 years of Spanish and a year of French.
It did not matter much as I left school at 15 and went to Canada so I never sat any exams.

Thank you everyone for the positive response.
I would just like to clarify exactly what it is that I am proposing since I fear that Ghosty’s post may have muddied the waters somewhat (albeit with the best of intentions).
What I think we should be doing is, for each model, arriving at a list of credible variations which have been described in reputable published sources but which are not yet to be found in Nick’s online catalogue. These can therefore be thought of as ‘missing’ variations and, once we are aware of them, we can actively search for them.
If members so wish, we can also add in models which should logically exist, but examples of which have not yet been found.
What i do not think we should be doing is incorporating discoveries from private collections into the thread. Such discoveries are best left as individual topics where discussion and corroboration can take place.
As regards format, on the basis of what I’ve read, it appears that the board can cope with real HTML. It seems to work using BB-code – a greatly simplified form of HTML with very few commands. We must therefore reconcile ourselves to simple listings, highlighting the feature(s) to look out for. Once a missing variation has been located, the necessary additional details can be determined by the finder so that a new entry in the variation code table can be made by Nick.
I would like to highlight the fact that the referencing of the source documents is vitally important in this exercise if we are to approach this in a structured and professional manner.

So, assuming we’re all agreed on the above, I would hereby like to request Nick to create a new area on the Forum where we can start posting. Obviously it will take quite a while for us to work through every single RW model, but you have to start somewhere.
I would also strongly suggest that the SF enthusiasts on the Forum consider whether a similar initiative might not be useful to them. (Obviously the problem there would be the cut-off point, and the most logical approach would be to mirror the current extent of Nick’s catalogue.)

I would be willing to participate in this, but any variations that I could list would only be different casting that could be seen externally with-out taking the model apart as some of the collectors do,

George T.

Nick, I know you wouldn't want to change your whole site, but the way your HTML is written although technically correct, is a bit overcomplex.

The same thing can be achieved with this:
All the comments (the <!-- bits) are, in this case unnecessary, and the styling is much easier to apply using CSS, because then you can change the look of the entire site by only changing a few lines of code.

Martin

Idris's suggestion is brilliant and a wake-up call as we may find the future generation without this "filled gaps" if we do not act straight away while the early die-hard collectors aka "The Oldboys" are still around to lend-a-helping hand.What Idris has proposed is actually what should/could have been done much earlier.
In my past 3yrs of collecting,i certainly had come across quite a few unlisted variations (only what my eyes could see without dismantling) so im sure others had experienced the same over their collecting years but some are/wish to remain mum about it due to time constraints,other reasons and/or apprehension as to finding their new discoveries falling on deaf-ears.
We are actually gifted/blessed to have Tinman,Kwakers,Schenk,Jason,Johnboy,Nick,Kerbside,Mrmoko,Idris and the likes on board our forum who constantly dedicate their time & efforts in sharing their knowledge to vast lay collectors like myself.The contributions they made/make is priceless so i say that we politely & humbly request their combined wealth of knowledge remain for the benefit of the entire fraternity and generations to come.The help of newer members could also make a difference.
Sorry Mr Jones...."another heavy load" on your shoulder but thank you very much for all that you had done for us.
Great idea Idris and im all for it!!!.....but right now i have to prepare lunch on this my day-off and i hate it.
numi

Between the missing variations mentioned in other catalogues and the newly found model images constantly being uploaded on Nicks forum means there are so many others just waiting to be discovered .

Sorry Idris and fellow collectors, (muddied the waters), I do tend to get carried away, (should be carried away more like!) hopefully you can see some of the valid points I was trying to make.

Ghosty.

Hi Martin.
When adding a new variation I don't type out the whole of the list but I copy and paste the nearest version to the model to be added and then change the details to match the new model, and then renumber the whole lot of course!. The comments are just left over bits from the original MS Frontpage, It's much easier to work around them than remove them all.

By the way, if you think HTML is difficult you should try working with javascript ebay ads, and don't even talk about PHP

ilapi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?EKServer&ai=nys%7B%3Dz%7F%7Euc%3D%7Cuc%7Eui%3D%7Dqdsxr%7Fh&bdrcolor=666666&cid=0&eksize=1&encode=UTF-8&endcolor=FF0000&endtime=y&fbgcolor=EFEFEF&fntcolor=000000&fs=0&hdrcolor=FFFFCC&hdrimage=2&hdrsrch=n&img=y&lnkcolor=0000FF&logo=4&minprice=13&num=2&numbid=y&paypal=y&popup=n&prvd=9&query=(mbox,matchbox,lesney,moko)+rare&r0=2&sacategoryin=2507+36507+123828+56348+56349+761&shipcost=y&sid=abcd&siteid=3&sort=MetaEndSort&sortby=endtime&sortdir=asc&srchdesc=n&tbgcolor=FFFFFF&tlecolor=0033FF&tlefs=0&tlfcolor=FFFFFF&toolid=10004&track=5335959558&watchcat=56350&width=570"

The only parts of this proposal I would modify are these two:
1. I believe the actual main source of 'New Variations' has always been those we have discovered ourselves. Whether they are already in our collections or have been published elsewhere, we have always discussed any new additions to Nick's Guide in Great detail. It may be a bit embarrassing to have an old-timer point out that some variations were documented 40 years ago, but we have always laughed and lived with the humor of our 'forgotten past'...... I basically feel having both cataloged and newly found variations in threads together has always worked for us, why limit what has always been successful in showing odd models we have in our collection, even if not cataloged anywhere or those known just to a select few?
2. Even though we are tempted to document POSSIBLE variations that are still unknown, I believe that idea will just confuse us all and should be handled in the manner we always have. Discuss them in our Posts, let collectors look in their collections for new added details, but do not start any kind of a formal and confusing secondary list of SUSPECTED variations. A list of variations needing to be varified with a second example is fine, but keep our life free of speculation Please.
In looking over Harold Colpitts list in detail recently, both he and Bob Brennen did have light and dark Gray Plastic wheels documented in their Guides as Ghosty says. Stannard and Nick have chosen not to catalog in that manner, but perhaps the measuring of diameters and counting of their treads is much more precise than our old friend's methods and listings were. A third color GPW would apply to the later Fine GPW I am sure, but in general the size and tread count at Nick's site make the light and dark, big versus small wheel questions their older Guides used irrelevant today. We may find certain early GPW were made using both lighter and darker gray plastic in their molding, but only a few of us note that in our collections today, and for the most part they are totally different style wheels.
Just a last note about our most detailed new casting threads: I believe that in having to show some casting variations in detail, a beater has to be drilled and split to show each for comparison and our comprehension as collectors. Much has always been said of Mike Stannard's 'hidden details' on some of his variations, but all can be seen externally. Some are just a matter of patience, and others are just frustrating and tedious to get right. I for one wish to Thank Antonin for his ability to share what has taken him years to discover about the early Lesney casting updates on some of our favorite RW diecasts. kwakers