1/25 Revell '70 Plymouth HEMI 'Cuda 2'n1

[Brett Barrow]

It was actually not even about the whole "perfect kit" thing with you, Case - that's why I posted that bit before I quoted you. You'd be far from the only one making reference to it.

I just thought it was significant that the 1:1 pics in themselves actually diverge far less from one another than the model does with any one of them. And while there's certainly dissension from one builder to the next as to exactly what level of inaccuracy is acceptable, I'd counter that if the model is accurate from the start, there won't be anything (or at least, a great deal less) for people to disagree about.

It's the very fact that the model has provided room for debating its closeness to "perfection" that's the problem in the first place. That '57 Ford, or Revell's '64 Impala, or their 1/25 '69 Camaro really tighten down the margin for any dispute, by comparison.

Funny you would invoke the 57 Ford as a comparison, since it's the same designer doing the 70 Cuda. That particular designer has a 50 year history in the model industry and is a member of the industry's Hall of Fame.

I know I always have a little different perspective on these discussions since I often know a little more of the human element that goes into these kits.

And the 57 Ford has its issues - take a look at the inside of the fins compared to the 1:1, though that could have more to do with molding limitations than a design flaw.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Yeah, but it's more than just the designer, now, isn't it? John Mueller's credited as the designer for some disasters that would have turned out very differently if the master patterns and molds had simply lived up to his intentions. Between Racing Chumps and Trumpeter, ya gotta wonder if they made so many Charmin rolls out of his plans.

Do we know that the same people crafted the masters, for instance? And whatever the Ford's got in the fins or in the side window framing, it's nothing nearly so loud as what's going on with the 'Cuda.

... we have gone a looong time without some cool new offerings and I dont think we should bite the hand that feeds us.

Fwiw, Fred, item five on that same list has already anticipated your last point: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=55&showentry=107

[moparfarmer]

Here we go with the whole "there's never been a perfect kit" thing again. Item #1 on this list: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=55&showentry=107

For anybody paying attention, the point of that whole exercise is not just that all these tropes have been refuted, but that they've been refuted in advance. Ya need some new material, people, and bad.

But what you've demonstrated, Casey, is that the prototype deviates from ALL of your examples:

Now there's a big difference in the angle of the model versus the varying angles of the 1:1 profile shots, but where the differences in the 1:1 can just about be accounted for in factors like camera lens distortion, subject angle and focus, you can't say the same about where the model goes off course. Every single example you use points to a front wheel arch that's flattish and over-prounounced, and an upper fender-door-quarter surface that's a bit beefy relative to the surface just below the crease (the black one, less so, thanks to the same focus and lighting issues creating the illusion of a blending rear wheel arch). And the top two shots only bludgeon Ron's and Bill's points about the two-scoop hood home.

By the way, there's room to point this out and still acknowledge that the new model overall is just stupid better than any previous Revell/Monogram 'Cuda. It's probably good enough (straight down to chromed taillights which can be done-in-one with a fine-tip red Sharpie). Thing is, we're just coming off a '57 Ford that's everything you could want out of a Revell model - way better than "good enough"- and a '50 Olds only a little shy of that standard. Revell can be more consistent than this, and they have been in the recent past. But nobody's gonna encourage them to do so by rationalizing every little instance they go wide of the target.

The black car seems to be a poor restoration job compared to the other two. Looks like a lot of bondo/putty used to smoothen out the lines. Not a very well done car...

[Brett Barrow]

Yeah, but it's more than just the designer, now, isn't it? John Mueller's credited as the designer for some disasters that would have turned out very differently if the master patterns and molds had simply lived up to his intentions. Between Racing Chumps and Trumpeter, ya gotta wonder if they made so many Charmin rolls out of his plans.

Do we know that the same people crafted the masters, for instance? And whatever the Ford's got in the fins or in the side window framing, it's nothing nearly so loud as what's going on with the 'Cuda.

Fwiw, Fred, item five on that same list has already anticipated your last point: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=55&showentry=107

Having seen some of the Trumpeter masters (a couple of them still reside in the very building I work in) in the flesh, I have to say that it wasn't the pattern makers that let those designs down, it was definetly in the tooling.

And still, I've asked, and nobody has ever responded - what are the acceptible innacuracies and what are the unacceptible innacuracies? Since perfection is obviously an unobtainable goal (and save the pre-written "nobody is asking for perfection" schtick...) it seems like roof lines and wheel openings/fender flares seem to garner the most "outrage". Because it's a little hard to follow the logic of "we can live with this" for one subject with flaws and "this is unacceptible rubbish" for another subject with flaws. And everything has its flaws - they always have - and they always will.

As I see it, if they release this kit as it stands, it's still going to be number one with a bullet, and if they "fix" it, I doubt it will do substantially better, we're definitely into the 99.9th percentile - and you'll drive yourself crazy chasing down that .1% that will never be satisfied - but let's face it, that .1% are the folks that tend to populate message boards like this one.

[gtx6970]

As I see it, if they release this kit as it stands, it's still going to be number one with a bullet, and if they "fix" it, I doubt it will do substantially better, we're definitely into the 99.9th percentile - and you'll drive yourself crazy chasing down that .1% that will never be satisfied - but let's face it, that .1% are the folks that tend to populate message boards like this one.

agreed 100%

You can please all of the people some of the time.

or

You can please some of the people all of the time.

you can pick only one

[azers]

If it was perfect there would be nothing for us modelers to do except assemble it. Where is the fun in that. How many of us ever just just build from the box. I don't. I for one am looking forward to getting several.

[Casey]

If it was perfect there would be nothing for us modelers to do except assemble it. Where is the fun in that. How many of us ever just just build from the box. I don't. I for one am looking forward to getting several.

Before Chuck responds to this , let me add that I'd be perfectly happy with a kit which required me to do nothing but clean up mold seams, paint and assemble it. I can live with that.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

lol, nice timing, Casey.

Having seen some of the Trumpeter masters (a couple of them still reside in the very building I work in) in the flesh, I have to say that it wasn't the pattern makers that let those designs down, it was definetly in the tooling.

And still, I've asked, and nobody has ever responded - what are the acceptible innacuracies and what are the unacceptible innacuracies? Since perfection is obviously an unobtainable goal (and save the pre-written "nobody is asking for perfection" schtick...) it seems like roof lines and wheel openings/fender flares seem to garner the most "outrage". Because it's a little hard to follow the logic of "we can live with this" for one subject with flaws and "this is unacceptible rubbish" for another subject with flaws. And everything has its flaws - they always have - and they always will.

As I see it, if they release this kit as it stands, it's still going to be number one with a bullet, and if they "fix" it, I doubt it will do substantially better, we're definitely into the 99.9th percentile - and you'll drive yourself crazy chasing down that .1% that will never be satisfied - but let's face it, that .1% are the folks that tend to populate message boards like this one.

Oh, the "nobody's asking for perfection" bit ain't the only "schtick" I have prewritten (and the invitation remains open at the blog for anyone who, y'know, wants to actually challenge the logic of it). I also started answering your question sight unseen back in post #290, the very one you quoted - sorry I missed it, or I would have addressed it much sooner 'cause the answer is not nearly so tricky or vague as the question frames it: NOT ALL FLAWS ARE CREATED EQUALLY. Some shout; some sit there quietly until you mine them out after hours of comparison to the 1:1. There's no use pretending that all flaws are subject to .1%-scale analysis. The ones which truly are within that .1% tolerance create less margin for controversy because they are generally closer to the subject, so sorry, that old "pleasing all people all of the time" saw is not of much use in our particular context.

I can tell you where I'm personally coming from on this: where I can instantly tell, from comparing a master with my memory of a given subject, where that master goes off course, then reinforce those impressions with a bit of research, I'm gonna call it out. And I'm not the only one who thinks like this.

My recollection of a '57 Ford Custom was pretty fair, and the model gave me a strong initial impression. I ultimately found the side window perimeter framing not quite thick enough maybe, but that was only by poring and poring and poring over several different 1:1 profile shots. As for that extra material webbing the area between the deck lid and the tops of the rear fins, you can file it away with not much more effort than it takes to remove parting lines if it even bothers you in the first place. Front bumper pan is covered, so bingo. Far as I'm concerned, best and closest in a long time from Revell, and where it's off, it's really marginal and fairly easily fixed. And oh, don'cha know - the '57 Ford thread here is relatively unburdened by dissection, error highlights, and Photoshop or GIMP corrections. How about that.

THE VERY FIRST SIGHT of that 'Cuda master was a wtf moment, and - this is the important part - not just for me. It seems someone is resolutely determined to flatten wheel arches at Revell, so I was actually grateful to see the crease into the fender a little rounder than the lip below; a little filing should do ya right nice about there. Is the upper drip molding just a little too sharp and flat in the transition from the A-pillar? I personally could slide that one 'cause it won't be near the adjustment I made to the '95 kit. It was that upper fender/door/quarter surface that sucked my eyes right to it, that has drawn the most commentary, and there's another rub for ya: this ain't no filled fin that might escape your first glance, it is a proportioning deviation gross enough for MANY, apparently, to catch it immediately, 1:1 unseen for comparison. And fixing it looks bitchy.

You're approaching this as if there's some arcane sliding line impossible to place for a given group of modelers, but there are at least some firm general guidelines. The closer the model is to the 1:1, the less controversy there will be. If a lone quibbler picks on the number of bolts you have molded to the starter solenoid bracket, that's one thing. If you have pages of internet discussion where people are showing things pretty drastically off with grid lines and 1:1 comparisons, or making dramatic improvements with a bit of photo manipulation, that's quite another.

And sure, there's plenty of gray area between. Revell can probably dwell there and shift plenty of units, 'cause honestly, we car modelers are a pretty low-standard bunch - and nothing demonstrates that like the fervor with which a fair number of us rationalize "good enough".

Edited April 25, 2013 by Chuck Kourouklis

[Guest]

The aircraft modeling community demands far more accuracy than we car modelers seem to. Trumpeter stopped production on a aircraft kit, before anything was sold, and corrected issues, why not for cars? Why do we have a "close is good enough" mentality? As long as we do, close enough is what we will get.

[martinfan5]

The aircraft modeling community demands far more accuracy than we car modelers seem to. Trumpeter stopped production on a aircraft kit, before anything was sold, and corrected issues, why not for cars? Why do we have a "close is good enough" mentality? As long as we do, close enough is what we will get.

Because car modelers are cheap, the aircraft guys are not, the old saying, you got what you pay for, they pay 100% correct kits and get them, we complain that model kits of cars cost more then $10 , or a not as cheap as they were in 50's( its still the 50's you know), so as whole, us car modelers do not want to pay for the 100% perfection in the kits

[CJ1971]

I dunno. I know from mustang experience I cant just take a fender from one 66 mustang and put it straight on another without some fiddling around. all cars have slight variences and I think this cuda kit looks very nice. I will build a ton of them in many variations. be careful what you ask for sometimes. models are by design for kids! lol not us grown men to nit pick them. we have gone a looong time without some cool new offerings and I dont think we should bite the hand that feeds us.

While this might've been a correct observation 30-40 & 50yrs ago, kits are no longer designed nor produced for "kids", well not kids of today. Manufacturers are well AWARE of that. Most kits these days are bought by people over 25-30yrs old minimum. 90% of kids today have NO interest in building model kits, they don't give them the INSTANT satisfaction or gratification they crave.... Like they get from video games. Simple.

Kits are designed to sell, save a few "snap-tites" & curbsides, to us, men, in general, over 30-35yo. People who grew up long before the Sony/Xbox/IPhone/iPad Generation.

Then take into account ALL the after-market companies & their products. Their stuff isn't designed nor made for under 20yos. They're made for the detail freaks etc. People who have $ to burn to make their builds more accurate, better customized etc. Please don't tell me kit makers don't believe this & they only produce kits for "kids". That era has ended, long ago. They know exactly who their most important clients are. They know they can't get away with producing rubbish anymore. We have EVERY right to nit-pick just how good or bad the kits they produce are, whether its a $15 kit or a $100+ kit. It's the 21st Century & technology has come a long, long, long way since 1950. They really don't have an EXCUSE to provide us with highly accurate subjects/kits. I vote with my wallet... Make a BLAH_BLAH_BLAH_BLAH kit... I won't buy it. Simple. Make an accurate kit, of a subject I'm interested in, & I'll buy it & usually I'll buy more than 1.

Regarding the 70 Cuda tail-light issue... Has Revell not heard of PE? Is there some reason the Japanese kit manufacturers can add PE sets to nearly ALL of their new kits but Revell/Round 2 have NEVER added PE detailing sets?? Am I missing something here??

It's going on close to 4yrs, ( Nov' being the release date for this 70 Cuda ) to bring this kit to market... Yet how many brand spanking NEW toolings/kits have Fujimi/Aoshima & Tamiya brought to the shelves & will have brought to shelves BEFORE November???

Cliff

[zenrat]

Didn't some of the Pro-Modeller kits have PE?

[TooOld]

Because car modelers are cheap, the aircraft guys are not, the old saying, you got what you pay for, they pay 100% correct kits and get them, we complain that model kits of cars cost more then $10 , or a not as cheap as they were in 50's( its still the 50's you know), so as whole, us car modelers do not want to pay for the 100% perfection in the kits

I think you are right Jonathan . I wouldn't say we are cheap , but most of our money is spent after the initial purchase of a kit . When you buy a kit of a F-18 Hornet everything is included to build a very highly detailed model except paint . They can easily cost $100 or more for a nice " off the shelf " kit !

[gtx6970]

I grew up in a time when $5 for a kit was expensive, when I first started my kits were under $1

and IMO, to see it today when the average kit price is $20 more or less (usually more ) I personally have a hard time with it. Thats why I usually/lately have been buying 2nd hand . Actually I think the last time I bought a new release off a store shelf was when the Polar lights funnycars came out or possibily the AMT 71 Duster was 1st released. Actually 90% of what I have been buying in the past few years are kits I can't buy off any store shelves.

That said when this Cuda arrives I'll kringe but will buy a few, how many will depend on how much. Mainly because its near the top of my want list. same with the 71 Demon kit when it shows up. And I don't need kits with a bunch of photoetch stuff in it or one thats 1000% dead nuts on to make me happy with it. And yes I am a scale snob or I might be happy with converting a monogram 71

So yes what I see so far is IMO good enough and I'll work with it . And I'll bet I am of the majority

[CJ1971]

Didn't some of the Pro-Modeller kits have PE?

Actually yes. The Revell Pro-Modeller Daytona Charger did... A radiator fan & a little grill mesh... Whoppee do. If they did it back then, then why can't they do it now??

[Brett Barrow]

Oct 2012 to Nov 2013 is 4 years on what planet exactly?!?!

16 pages on a kit that's got another 6 months before anyone holds one in their hands, 3/4ths of the posters can't tell a 70 Cuda from a 71 Cuda...

I'm done with this, see y'all when the plastic hits the shelves. Peace out.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Brett Barrow

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Well not for nothin', B, but the areas of deviation in Revell's sample are actually common between '70s and '71s. And I've explained why this one's going on 16 pages while the '57 Ford thread isn't. And the best way to avoid links to that blog is to stop perpetuating the fallacies it addresses, like oh, number 4.

Smoke and fire, baby. You can't get around it. Do love the Cosby gifs, though.

[freakshow12]

The pro modeler Torino gt also came with a nice PE honeycomb cover for the tail light.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Actually yes. The Revell Pro-Modeller Daytona Charger did... A radiator fan & a little grill mesh... Whoppee do. If they did it back then, then why can't they do it now??

Well comes to that, the Willys gassers based on the Mazmanian tooling from 2001 come with a PE grille, and there's a steering wheel frame in the new Midget cars that didn't really need to be there, 'cept it makes the kit that much nicer.

Hate to come across as a twisting vane on this - but while Brett and I are clearly having a difference over the amount of criticism appropriate for a kit's flaws, I get right back on his page when it comes to the chrome taillight panel.

The photoetch presents an extra expense which usually carries to the retail price (though not so much in each example we covered). You might pay extra for that. I'd certainly pay the premium, and for multiples. I'd even guess many in this thread nit-picking on the sample - evidently out of ignorance over exact model years (??) - would pony up for the privilege.

But we gotta look at what's cost-effective for Revell in this analysis, and the fact that most car modelers would NOT pay that premium. And honestly, chrome taillights are pretty easy to deal with and dress when the lenses are as slender as they are in the '70 (but maybe not the '71 - ).

Edited April 25, 2013 by Chuck Kourouklis

[Brett Barrow]

Well not for nothin', B, but the areas of deviation in Revell's sample are actually common between '70s and '71s. And I've explained why this one's going on 16 pages while the '57 Ford thread isn't. And the best way to avoid links to that blog is to stop perpetuating the fallacies it addresses, like oh, number 4.

Smoke and fire, baby. You can't get around it. Do love the Cosby gifs, though.

Oh, I'm not perpetuating anything - I know that what we see now, especially if it's a 3rd-round test shot, will most likely be the exact plastic kit I hold in my hands when it's released, so I'm not playing the "it's just a test shot" defense. Test shots are for checking how the plastic flows through the molds, not for checking shape issues. Shapes need to be fixed while still in the design or pattern stages.

As it stands, warts and all, this will be me when I finally get to hold this puppy in my hands -

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Well here's the funny part - for all the noise I'm making, that'll likely be me too.

[Monty]

Oh, I'm not perpetuating anything - I know that what we see now, especially if it's a 3rd-round test shot, will most likely be the exact plastic kit I hold in my hands when it's released, so I'm not playing the "it's just a test shot" defense. Test shots are for checking how the plastic flows through the molds, not for checking shape issues. Shapes need to be fixed while still in the design or pattern stages.

I'm trying to make sure I understand what you're saying since I only have a vague idea as to how the whole mock-up / test shot / release thing works. Feel free to correct anything I've misunderstood.

About 6 months ago we saw pics of what looked to be a complete kit (parts on sprues) of this 'Cuda. If it made it to that point, it's already been tooled, correct? I assume that once the tooling process has been completed, there won't be any opportunity to fix any problem areas (I've heard the Mopar guys say the Raisin Bran (their term) two-scoop hood is just...off.

Second, if the kit is done, why are we having to wait till November/whatever to get it?

[Drake69]

Wow, this whole thread makes my head hurt.

How about letting Revell put the kit out, have someone review it, have someone else post a thread about correcting issues with this kit (if any), and all of you that are arguing about it not buy it until this list is complete?

That way I can actually get ahold of three or four of them before they disappear off the shelves.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Well, how about because arguing about it, snapping it up, and fixing it are not mutually exclusive? That's exactly what I plan to do, in fact.

[Casey]

That's exactly what I plan to do, in fact.

Which one? Or all? The width-of-an-Xacto-razor-saw sectioning is going to be a bit tricky, though.

I think the vast majority of us would be worse off if all we had to discuss were kits after they'd hit store shelves. I live for the sneak peak, the test shot tease, the what-might-be-coming but not quite yet. Sometimes it's more enjoyable to discuss what might be than what it ends up being, especially for those like me who buy a handful of new kits each year with no intention of ever building any them.

I think Dave Metzner at Moebius has shown that there is value in showing test shots to the modeling public, regardless if the public's comments, suggestion, and critiques have an affect on the production model or not. I get enough surprises when I buy older kits, so it's nice to see things before they're "new" for a change.