Moebius 1961 Pontiac news

[unclescott58]

The more I see and hear here. The more excited I'm getting about this kit. It's looking better and better to me. I can't wait for it to hit market along with the Ford pickup.

Now I'm concerned with how accurate the Johnny Quest Dragonfly will be! Good luck on that one Dave, since the plane did not appear the same in every episode. I hope nobody seriously complains about that one.

Scott

[Art Anderson]

I've watched this thread since I got to the La Quinta in Andover on my trip to Classic Plastic, but without my password, all I could do was read some of the comments. Harry would do very well to take some lessons in comparing a model to a photograph, as he's way, way wrong in his assessment of the dimensions and proportions of the Pontiac, period--I have a set of the test shots, which I showed at the contest, and I've scoped out the body--comparing it to pictures. I'm quite comfortable that it is the correct length, width, height and is in proportion.

Laying lines on a pair of completely disimilar photographs will never tell the story, UNLESS the model car body shell is placed/held as close to the exact same angle as the real subject--anything less is an exercise in futility at least, and at worst results in useless information--period.

FWIW, over the past 40-45 years, I've done probably close to 200 model car conversions, even a few scratchbuilt Indianapolis 500 cars, and this is something I had to learn to do, if I was going to do a conversion (not all that much different that developing a new plastic or diecast model car body shell to be even close to accurate.

Art

[Danno]

Brett, I assume you posted your photo comparisons to show that mine is invalid. Fair enough. You may be correct. But just for fun, I added a few lines to your "legitimate" photo comparison. Just for fun...

A. The point where the bottom of the rear glass meets the sheetmetal.

B. The corner of the rear glass.

C. The point where the roof meets the top of the rear glass.

D. The point where the roof meets the top of the windshield.

E. The front edge of the door.

It looks like points A through D would line up if the greenhouse on the model was moved back. But I may be way off base.

On your 'Points A thru D' observations, I agree, Harry. I had a little bit of an impression of it being a Trumpeter top, but because of the skewed perspective pics before, I didn't feel competent to comment. But, these two pics seem more closely matched and the comparison seems more apples to apples. Looks like the roof needs to shift rearward a tad . . . or a tad and a half.

[gtx6970]

To me the roof looks like it needs to be extended towards the rear and down just a smidge.

BUT, I'll be brutally honest if NOTHING gets changed I'll buy a half dozen of them . It looks that good to me.

Is it safe to say the center cap lettering will be added in the final tool stage ?

Edited October 7, 2014 by gtx6970

[Brett Barrow]

Brett, I assume you posted your photo comparisons to show that mine is invalid. Fair enough. You may be correct. But just for fun, I added a few lines to your "legitimate" photo comparison. Just for fun...

A. The point where the bottom of the rear glass meets the sheetmetal.

B. The corner of the rear glass.

C. The point where the roof meets the top of the rear glass.

D. The point where the roof meets the top of the windshield.

E. The front edge of the door.

It looks like points A through D would line up if the greenhouse on the model was moved back. But I may be way off base.

The roof might be a tick too forward, but I think that's minor compared to the rear overhang.

[mr moto]

All I have to say is that whether it's 100% correct or not, this is way better than the old way where the mfr. doesn't show the model builders anything until it hits the shelf - take it or leave it! It seems like a very brave move on the part of Moebius to expose their product to this level of scrutiny.

[Harry P.]

It seems like a very brave move on the part of Moebius to expose their product to this level of scrutiny.

Brave... or very smart.

Smart to take comments and input before the tooling is cut rather than after.

Even if the criticisms (including mine) are wrong, the fact remains that Moebius puts it out there for our feedback.

[Harry P.]

Harry would do very well to take some lessons in comparing a model to a photograph, as he's way, way wrong in his assessment of the dimensions and proportions of the Pontiac, period.

Only me?

Or Brett, too?

[Dave Van]

I was privileged to get to help a well known tool designer help measure a car to create a new kit.

This person took photos but not for any scale usage.....for reference only.

He said photos lied more than gave you good data. His most important tools were a cloth tape

measure, drawing pad, poster board, markers and scissors.

He relied on a series of drawings and templates made from the car. Photos were never used to measure from.

One or two degrees off dead center or two to three feet from center........the camera altered.

Today's methods of creating 3D drawings to make tooling is different....and maybe better....but has it's own issues.

Most of the guys working in this field today care and do a good job.

IF and it's not for me....but IF it's an issue a good modeler can fix it. 99.9% will not see the errors we are debating.

I'd say chill some until it's here.....they are working on it.

[Art Anderson]

Only me?

Or Brett, too?

Wherever the chips from the axe fall, Harry! If you are gonna critique a model car, then learn how to do it right--got that?

Art

[Art Anderson]

Brave... or very smart.

Smart to take comments and input before the tooling is cut rather than after.

Even if the criticisms (including mine) are wrong, the fact remains that Moebius puts it out there for our feedback.

Feedback is always welcome, but get your freakin' facts straight, Harry, is all I ask!

Art

[Harry P.]

Wherever the chips from the axe fall, Harry! If you are gonna critique a model car, then learn how to do it right--got that?

Art

Yes sir.

But Brett critiqued the model in the same exact way (in his case, to show that the model is correct).

I guess using that technique is ok as long as the results are what you want them to be.

[Force]

I never judge the proportions of a car or model from a photograph as pictures more often than not lie abouth these things due to the reasons already given earlier in this thread...I can't give an opinion about this body until I have the thing in my hand see it with my own eyes.

So if Dave Metzner says it has close to correct proportions I take his word for it, after all, he has the kit to measure and compare to others.
But obvious things like the missing Pontiac Motor Division script on the hub caps and the missing kick up for the rear post I can see, and hopefully they can do something about it before it goes to production, otherwise I'm excited to see this model kit on the hobby shop shelfs and I will for sure get one...or two...or three...

Edited October 7, 2014 by Force

[rickcaps55]

I have got to tell you guys reading all the post on this get over it ! It's a model a toy it's a fricken hobby when people come into your home and look at your work 99.9.9.9.9.9.9 % of them will look at you and it and say nice them have not a clue if it's right or not. It's been years that we have seen a model on a 61 let's get it in the stores and let's build them. There is a lot of people that need to get a life it's a toy.!!!!!! Build them be HAPPY.!!!!!!

[peekay]

I have got to tell you guys reading all the post on this get over it ! It's a model a toy it's a fricken hobby when people come into your home and look at your work 99.9.9.9.9.9.9 % of them will look at you and it and say nice them have not a clue if it's right or not. It's been years that we have seen a model on a 61 let's get it in the stores and let's build them. There is a lot of people that need to get a life it's a toy.!!!!!! Build them be HAPPY.!!!!!!

It's NOT a toy!

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Bingo, Peter. Rick, I covered your angle fifty ways from Sunday almost a year and a half ago - prob'ly best you don't hit the link in my signature.

The roof might be a tick too forward, but I think that's minor compared to the rear overhang.

Um, I think it's only fair to point out that maybe Brett wasn't doing his comparison entirely to vindicate the model.

Now Art, I don't mean to minimize your input - and evidently Tom Montgomery, the man who partnered with John Mueller to give us that nice run of new AMT tooling 'round the turn of the century, needs an introduction around here. Applause here, Tom! And if you'd like to weigh in on this one, all the better.

But it's incumbent on anyone who says Harry needs to get his facts straight to be a little more specific than that, 'cause frankly, the focal length/camera position arguments have been played before, and I still got a '56 300 in my hands with headlights that look like they're on eye stalks.

We're no longer talking just one photo comparison, gents. We're talking a series now, and a composite analysis begins to emerge. And Brett's comparison is the one that most minimizes those camera position and focal length issues.

So I'm gonna toss every other concern aside and boil it down to one, specific question: in Brett's shot, how can it be the focal length, lens position, or any other aspect of photography so throwing off the greenhouse position relative to the profile of the 1:1?

Guess I can't avoid the aspect of a challenge here, but I'd be very much interested in a detailed answer.

[Art Anderson]

I was privileged to get to help a well known tool designer help measure a car to create a new kit.

This person took photos but not for any scale usage.....for reference only.

He said photos lied more than gave you good data. His most important tools were a cloth tape

measure, drawing pad, poster board, markers and scissors.

He relied on a series of drawings and templates made from the car. Photos were never used to measure from.

One or two degrees off dead center or two to three feet from center........the camera altered.

Today's methods of creating 3D drawings to make tooling is different....and maybe better....but has it's own issues.

Most of the guys working in this field today care and do a good job.

IF and it's not for me....but IF it's an issue a good modeler can fix it. 99.9% will not see the errors we are debating.

I'd say chill some until it's here.....they are working on it.

Dave,

You make my point even clearer! I've done a ton of model car conversions, even scratchbuilt more than a few--and yes, a single photograph (even more than one!) can lie without meaning too. I guess there's a difference between those who do, and those who build primarily models of horseless carriage subjects (not that there is anything wrong with that genre'!) having little or nothing in the way of serious bodywork.

Art

[Harry P.]

I guess there's a difference between those who do, and those who build primarily models of horseless carriage subjects (not that there is anything wrong with that genre'!) having little or nothing in the way of serious bodywork.

Art

Art, have you ever built a Pocher kit? Like a 1930s Rolls or Mercedes Benz?

If not, then you obviously have no idea how much bodywork is necessary to get the various body panels to line up correctly and to get the body to look right. I would go so far as to say the typical Pocher kit requires some very serious body work. Much more than a "horseless carriage" needs...

[Guest]

Like the Hudson's and Chrysler's, I don't have any interest in this kit. Sorry, I just don't. I still have hopes for the F-100. But, I'm not counting on it judging by the last test shots of it. The Hudson's and Chrysler's all have issues. It just annoys me that some people absolutely refuse to see flaws on a model. Paint, foil and details will make any model look better. But, it does not make it correct. Sometimes, it will magnify the issues rather than gloss over them. I think the best way to compare a model to a real car (I know Harry can probably do this) is do an overlay comparison. The real car and model ghosted in one photo. Then, I believe you would have a good comparison.

[Dave Van]

Like the Hudson's and Chrysler's, I don't have any interest in this kit. Sorry, I just don't. I still have hopes for the F-100. But, I'm not counting on it judging by the last test shots of it. The Hudson's and Chrysler's all have issues. It just annoys me that some people absolutely refuse to see flaws on a model. Paint, foil and details will make any model look better. But, it does not make it correct. Sometimes, it will magnify the issues rather than gloss over them. I think the best way to compare a model to a real car (I know Harry can probably do this) is do an overlay comparison. The real car and model ghosted in one photo. Then, I believe you would have a good comparison.

All I can say is I thank God I still enjoy this hobby with all the flaws it (reportedly) has........

[Harry P.]

All I can say is I thank God I still enjoy this hobby with all the flaws it (reportedly) has........

It all depends on one's level of acceptance of flaws.

To some people, flaws don't matter. To others, they do. Different strokes, you know? Doesn't make one man's level of acceptance right or wrong... just maybe different from yours.

[High octane]

I enjoy the hobby, and when I get a new kit I don't get out the micrometers and calipers and check all the dimensions. If I think that I might like a new kit on the hobby shop shelves, I buy it and hopefully build it someday.

[Dave Van]

It all depends on one's level of acceptance of flaws.

To some people, flaws don't matter. To others, they do. Different strokes, you know? Doesn't make one man's level of acceptance right or wrong... just maybe different from yours.

To many flaws in todays kits????

You are always free to start your own company qnd show the others up!!!

But I know first hand how much time that will take from your life!!!!

[SteveG]

Although the comparison photos I've seen are all well meaning there's no way to support the dimensional accuracy. Even photos that appear to be close may have been taken from different focal points and with different lenses. I think the way only to accurately do it is to set up both the 1:1 and scale subjects somewhere perfectly level and square to the camera. Next you have to set up a measurable focal point and be able to scale that down. Then you would have to find the proper lens to work at both distances. Assuming all that's possible you would have something you could work with to compare dimensions.

It seems to me that breaking out a pair of calipers on the test shot would make much more sense. Now talking about specific details in the photos like the brake drum fin spacing for example is perfectly fine but I'm not going stick my neck out and say this point is too long or that point is too short based on some quickly taken photos.

Hopefully Moebius will be at the Toledo NNL this Sat. and maybe I'll get to see it with my own eyes and get a better look.

Steve

Edited October 8, 2014 by SteveG

[jbwelda]

what I love are people pontificating on this sort of subject and all the while showing they do not know proper words to use in a sentence. for instance: "know" for "no", "braking" for "breaking", "to" for "too", etc.

the point being: how can people who cannot get simple words correct be taken for any kind of authority on "errors" or what is correct and what is not?

carry that further with examples of apparent "quotes" or drawn conclusions from a group of words that do not state or even seem to imply the conclusions drawn.

this place is a barrel of new laughs every single day. all I can hope is that these people are not involved in the day to day running of a country or something actually important.

jb