No precise definition of Meccano "Purity" has ever been agreed, as Tim Gant rightly says, and to do so would involve the splitting of whole hanks of cord. To the pure, all things are pure, but most would accept "Made by Meccano and not mutilated" as near enough.

The real debate is about whether purity or impurity is important, and how and to what extent it should influence the judging of models. It also involves the wider question of "What is a Meccano model?"

The purist sees no point in using the Meccano system if the modeller avoids the discipline it imposes. The non-purist sees no reason to be restricted by an archaic and arbitrarily limited tool. The argument will go on forever until it is recognised that Meccano is not one hobby but two. The non-purist and purist versions are discrete yet equally valid, and their two philosophies can be stated as follows:

Non-Purist

Meccano is a means to an end. It is a convenient, ready made medium for table-top engineering, the limitations of which can be overcome by the use of foreign parts or the adaptation of existing ones. For greater realism, prototypical models may be embellished with any materials of the right appearance. The Meccano System should be enlarged, brought up to date and should continue to evolve in keeping with contemporary engineering practice. Evolution is outwards, towards extending the scope of the hobby through greater technical sophistication.

Purist

Meccano is the best of the construction systems and is an art form and an end in itself. Its parts have an intrinsic beauty of form and colour, and the finished model derives its beauty and realism from those parts and the skill with which they are chosen and assembled. The shortcomings and omissions from the system are regarded as a challenge to be overcome by ingenuity. Evolution is inwards, towards improved modelling techniques and discovery of new applications for the parts provided.

A prime example of a non-purist model is Tony Rednall's Robot. Technically a quantum leap ahead of most Meccano models, but electronics are its essence and Meccano incidental; anything could have been used in its place. Two examples of purist models are Geoff Tomlinson's all nickel Blocksetting Crane, an elegantly nostalgic period piece, and Richard Stevens' immaculate Traction Engine - a pure celebration of the beauty of the medium.

The extreme of non-purism is personified in Rod Rich - even his first name is non-Meccano. Any other non-purist with Rod's capabilities would, logically, follow the same route. To the fanatical purist, Meccano was conceived by benevolent and omniscient persons, and is perfect and immutable. The eternal mysteries of why it has a fan yet not a ball-joint, nine varieties of crane hook yet not an elbow connector (the list is endless) are but deficiencies in our understanding of the higher purpose of its creators. "Loyalty to Binns Road" is a matter of honour and duty!

There is a compromise position. Meccano is an inspired creation, but for historical and commercial reasons a case of arrested development. Richini, Wright and others have carried it forward in the way its originators would or should have done, still preserving its essential character. Theirs is Meccano in all but name.

Our clubs and exhibitions have room for both hobbies, but let every Meccanoman think through and decide which is his.