Moebius Chrysler 300 Photos

[Harry P.]

Just for the record... Judging from the photos I think that both the Hudson and the Chrysler (apart from the roofline), are going to be very good kits... for sure a cut above many other kits. The detail level looks to be top notch, and I'm sure these two kits are going to find their way onto a lot of contest tables.

[Eshaver]

Ya know , I'm really offended here ! You Armchair engineers who have egos the size of Mt Shasta should be ashamed of yerselves . These kits have yet to go to market and you're on then like stink on Poop. No wonder the Model companies only want to do re=pops of 32 Fords !!!!!! Thats all..... Ed Shaver

[buffalobill]

I wasn't being negative w/ my comments re: the issue I raised re: the shape of the rear quarter panel (approx 12" behind the door's rear cutline) but quite to the contrary, my comments were based on the images of the pre-tooling example, and, that particular character line doesn't seem to replicate one of the most pleasing & identifiable features of the '55 Chrysler's design. This kit is obviously being aimed at the adult marketplace, and w/ the approx $30. msrp, one would expect to get an accurate replica of such a 'milestone' car. Ditto for the apparant issue w/ the too-fast roofline. Moebius is obviously sweating the details on both the Hudson & the Chrysler; I hope that they get them right, and that both kits exceed their sales expectations. As a contrast, Revellogram flopped w/ their alleged retooled '70 AAR Cuda a few years back, and discerning modelers walked away from that kit. . .

[Harry P.]

Ya know , I'm really offended here ! You Armchair engineers who have egos the size of Mt Shasta should be ashamed of yerselves . These kits have yet to go to market and you're on then like stink on Poop. No wonder the Model companies only want to do re=pops of 32 Fords !!!!!! Thats all..... Ed Shaver

Ed, since this topic was posted under New Kit Reviews, I figured that it would be ok to post an opinion here, but it seems that my opinion isn't too welcome.

It wasn't my intent to be an "armchair engineer." If I offended anyone I apologize.

[Art Anderson]

To me that is not "very close"... don't know about the rest of you, but that "fastback" roofline jumped out at me immediately. And I'm no 1955 Chrysler 300 expert, not by a long shot.

Harry,

There are a couple of problems with your analysis here:

First of all, the pic of the real car you chose is a carefully posed photograph, done professionally for a Chrysler advertisement. Are you not aware that in the era of "longer, lower, wider", artists renderings, AND photographs done for advertizing purposes were deliberately altered to reflect this trend? Yes, they sure were. Ever hear of Boulevard Photographic Studios? They were the first to invent a special film holder for the camera's their professional photographers used, which actually curved the film in a concave manner, which had the effect, with custom made lenses, of making the actual car look longer, which they experimented with, to find that balance between a slightly stretched view of the car when shown from the side, yet not so much stretch as to make the wheels and tires appear obviously oval in shape (there was a book published some years back--we had a copy of it in the company library at Playing Mantis when I was there--describing their techniques). Also, the photographer used a tripod, set at eyelevel for a person of at least average build, if not a bit higher, and far enough away from the car to minimize the at least a bit of distortion. In addition, the roof of the '55-'56 Chrysler has a very pronounced crown to it, which gets more pronounced as you get to the rear. That "crown" makes the roofline of the car in your photograph appear at its true height.

Now, Dave Metzner's snapshots are in no way "beauty shots", but rather documentation of the tooling mockup, for the purpose of pointing out to the Chinese pattern shop the corrections we three (Dave, Bill Coulter and myself) saw upon review that require correction before it can be approved finally for tooling (note the disclaimer watermarked on each pic of the mockup please). Dave's side view pic was not taken with scale eyelevel in mind, if it were, it too would reflect that pronounced "crown" toward the rear of the roof which shows in the pic of the real car. In reviewing the mockup, we had pics of actual cars, none of them advertising/publicity shots, so no photographer's tricks. We did look very closely at the roofline, and all three of us judged it to be pretty darned correct. One thing we did note to the pattern makers is that the front wheel arches are too far forward, and a bit short in their fore-aft dimension, which will have to be corrected before approval is given for tooling (I suspect that is also now a requirement from the licensor as well). It's things like that which reviews are absolutely necessary, and this one has gotten a ton of scrutiny before the mockups were even sent to the US.

One thing that I suspect most modelers are still unaware is, with a photograph, the camera can pick up ONLY two dimensions, length and height (or width and height), but NOT depth. However, as humans, we are blessed (or as modelers cursed!) with "stereoscopic vision", which is what allows us to see height and width (the same 2 dimensions the camera sees) plus the ability to judge depth. The spacing of our eyes apart allows us to see more of the model kit body shell than any camera can see of either model or the real thing. So, in judging such shapes as a body shell, it almost always behooves at least me to close one eye, negating my stereoscopic vision (and my corresponding depth perception) and then hold the body shell as close to exactly the same angle at focal point as the camera did of the real thing--simply put, there really is no other way to do that, and I think I've done enough serious model kit body conversions over time to know that is basically true.

Also, in order to get a true comparison by camera, the camera simply must be positioned as close to the same focal point on the model that the real one was when the pic of the real car was taken. If the real car was shot with a camera on a tripod, set at say, average eyelevel, well, the average adult male in 1955 stood about 5' 7" tall, add an inch or so for shoe heel height, 5-8. But his eyes are what, a good 3" below the top of his head? Just rounding off to the nearest 1/2 foot in scale, that means that the camera focused on the model must have the center of its lens at, or very close to, 2 3/4 inches above table top height (and I haven't even allowed for the tire "squish" of an inch and a half or so on the real car, which almost cannot be duplicated with any scale model car tires you and I would buy).

So, I think you have jumped the gun a bit here.

Art

[buffalobill]

I agree w/ Harry, and none of the comments that I've read are those of armchair modelers w/ massive egos. They've all been honest remarks meant to critique a new kit, that's all. There's lots of enthusiastic anticipation surrounding the release of the Hudson & Chrysler, and we'd be remiss if we didn't raise the issues now, esp since neither kit has been committed to tooling yet. . .Would it be better to remain silent, and wait 'til the kit's on the shelf, and then complain about discrepencies that would keep one from purchasing it? That would not benefit Moebius nor us modelers who eagerly await these subjects. 'Good enough' is not what I think Moebius has in mind, nor should we settle for what might have been.

Edited July 29, 2010 by buffalobill

[Harry P.]

BTW... some of you may notice that a few previous comments here have been deleted. They were mine and those of another member. We both have agreed that those particular comments weren't adding anything constructive to this thread, and per that member's suggestion, I deleted them.

Just wanted to make that clear in case anyone wondered what happened.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

[Art Anderson]

Let's hope that Moebius also corrects the shape of the 300's rear qtr panel - specifically, the area above & in front of the rear wheelwell; in other words, the 'hump' of the character line that ties into the horizontal body side sculture just above the side trim, & approx 12" rearward of the door's rear cutline. The test shot shows a much too edgy & severe character line in that area, while it should have a much softer & more rounded profile, esp noticable in a 3/4 frontal view. http://wallpapers-free.co.uk/background/transport/cars/1955-Chrysler-C-300-at-Chrysler-Technology-Center-Lobby-Red-High-fvl/

First of all, NOT test shots! Tooling mockups please--which are what the tooling will be cut from. And yes, all three of us noted the anomaly of the rear quarter panel sculpturing--that is one thing about the car that good usable pics are hard to use (this doesn't show up well in pics of a white car!), but we managed to cook up a sketch or two of what that area needs to look like, perhaps the most major of all our comments. The Chinese surely are aware of the expectations expressed as to the importance of such being correct now. They won't get the nod to start cutting steel until all comments are satisfied.

Art

[Luc Janssens]

I agree w/ Harry, and none of the comments that I've read are those of armchair modelers w/ massive egos. They've all been honest remarks meant to critique a new kit, that's all. There's lots of enthusiastic anticipation surrounding the release of the Hudson & Chrysler, and we'd be remiss if we didn't raise the issues now, esp since neither kit has been committed to tooling yet. . .Would it be better to remain silent, and wait 'til the kit's on the shelf, and then complain about discrepencies that would keep one from purchasing it? That would not benefit Moebius nor us modelers who eagerly await these subjects. 'Good enough' is not what I think Moebius has in mind, nor should we settle for what might have been.

Agreed, now's the time to make comments and Art, Dave & Bill can touch them to the tooling models with the photographic material & dimensions they have on file.

The showing of the tooling models show that the Moebius team is committed to release just what we the "lunatic fringe" need.

Thanks Art, Dave & Bill too!

Ps who's your European distributor?

Luc

Edited July 30, 2010 by Luc Janssens

[Ron Hamilton]

Very Nice!!!!

[charlie8575]

Art,

I think you might have touched on this once before, but what are those mock-ups made from, solid blocks of plastic cut with one of the 3-D pattern machines or hard maple like the mastering bucks used to be made of, with some plastic here and there?

Charlie Larkin

[Foxer]

Thanks for the well done explanation, Art. I know too well from my 3D work how "photos" can lie.

Now, back to the cars, rather than the photographs.

[Art Anderson]

Art,

I think you might have touched on this once before, but what are those mock-ups made from, solid blocks of plastic cut with one of the 3-D pattern machines or hard maple like the mastering bucks used to be made of, with some plastic here and there?

Charlie Larkin

I've worked with several Chinese factories/pattern making shops over the years (diecast and slot cars when at Playing Mantis, along with assisting Dave M. when he was the go-to person at Polar Lights--plastic kits), and the tradition over there is pretty much "make the mockup exactly as it will be tooled for molding" rather than using solid basswood or white pine (not hard maple BTW) body mockups as was once traditional in the industry here in the US.

The parts in these mockups are made pretty much from sheet and strip styrene, with catalyzed putty for finessing shapes, smoothing out the inevitable tool marks. Time was, I suspect, when body shells were carved entirely by hand, but anymore, CAD-CAM does apparently get used for at least body shells, particularly if the model kit being developed is a subject for which CAD files are available (they aren't of course, for the majority of cars extant, simply because thousands upon thousands of car designs were done well before CAD was even a draftsman's pipe dream.

Some confusion comes from looking at the pics of mockups (or the mockups themselves, as the Chinese use grey primer all over; helps them with their work of judging shapes and contours. So to the untrained eye, a grey primered mockup can very easily look convincingly like at least test shots in styrene, but trust me, the pics Dave has shared are not even close to test shots.

In short, those pics show some of the most amazing scratchbuilt models I have ever seen in my entire model building life.

Art

[Dave Metzner]

Yesterday, I spent some time comparing the roof of our mock-up and a number of photos of several different 1955 C300s.

And I've overlaid two different sets of real car and mock-up photos.

To my eye and according to my own overlays the mock-up roof from the mid point of the roof to the rear does slope a bit to fast.

I've shown this to China and I expect that we will make some small revisions in that area.

[Darin Bastedo]

In short, those pics show some of the most amazing scratchbuilt models I have ever seen in my entire model building life.

Art

So how long before these pattern makers wise up and make the trip to Utah and clean up at the GSL?

[Darin Bastedo]

Let me say first WOW!. second yes I see a couple of small detail flaws in it but as Art said they are working to corrct them. I have confidence that with Art, Bill, and Dave watching over this project it will come out right.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Yesterday, I spent some time comparing the roof of our mock-up and a number of photos of several different 1955 C300s.

And I've overlaid two different sets of real car and mock-up photos.

To my eye and according to my own overlays the mock-up roof from the mid point of the roof to the rear does slope a bit to fast.

I've shown this to China and I expect that we will make some small revisions in that area.

AWESOME, Dave, and this more than anything shows how good are the hands in which this project lies.

UNLIKE others who would presume to pule about the offense they take, you and Art actually HAVE personal investment in this, and therefore at least the vaguest business getting defensive about critiques. It's great to see you responding in the best possible way. It would be nice if the Anti-Critic Jihadists would see how superior your example is and follow it...

but the rest of us know better than to hold our breaths. We'll hold 'em for these kits instead.

KUDOS, Brother.

[Harry P.]

Yesterday, I spent some time comparing the roof of our mock-up and a number of photos of several different 1955 C300s.

And I've overlaid two different sets of real car and mock-up photos.

To my eye and according to my own overlays the mock-up roof from the mid point of the roof to the rear does slope a bit to fast.

I've shown this to China and I expect that we will make some small revisions in that area.

Sweating the details is what separates a great model from the rest of the pack. Good move!

[Danno]

Yesterday, I spent some time comparing the roof of our mock-up and a number of photos of several different 1955 C300s.

And I've overlaid two different sets of real car and mock-up photos.

To my eye and according to my own overlays the mock-up roof from the mid point of the roof to the rear does slope a bit to fast.

I've shown this to China and I expect that we will make some small revisions in that area.

It is great to see the degree of committment to accuracy Moebius has and the efforts they are taking to get it right! When have you ever seen any other kit manufacturer vet its products with the consuming public this early in their game? And, then go back to revise the product/process to make adjustments or corrections based on the consumer feedback?

Purely winners in my book, and Dave (with a little help from Art) has already pre-sold at least two to four kits each (Hudson 4, Chrysler 2, Lonestar 2) to me, just based on my desire to reward their desire to produce such accurate, well-engineered, desirable adult model car kits. It truly is a win-win.

[Harry P.]

When have you ever seen any other kit manufacturer vet its products with the consuming public this early in their game?

A big thumbs up to Dave and the crew for caring enough to get it right.

[Jim Gibbons]

It is great to see the degree of committment to accuracy Moebius has and the efforts they are taking to get it right! When have you ever seen any other kit manufacturer vet its products with the consuming public this early in their game? And, then go back to revise the product/process to make adjustments or corrections based on the consumer feedback?

Purely winners in my book, and Dave (with a little help from Art) has already pre-sold at least two to four kits each (Hudson 4, Chrysler 2, Lonestar 2) to me, just based on my desire to reward their desire to produce such accurate, well-engineered, desirable adult model car kits. It truly is a win-win.

I'm in full agreement with Dan here. As a former lighting applications/design engineer, one of the biggest complaints I had (and often verbalized) with the two companies I worked for was not doing sufficient product prototyping and review by the lighting specifier and end user. In defense of these companies (and my engineering staff,) it must be said that many products we produced were custom specials, and we often had to meet a construction schedule that didn't allow that luxury. However, it usually created problems that had to be fixed in the field which ate up share of the profit margin, or made a specifier or user angry enough not to use our products again. Kudos to Dave, Art, Moebius, and all the others involved for allowing us this input and showing us these prototypes. I'm sold!

[bluemoose]

I want to thank you guys for the thorough and fascinating discussion/debate over the mocked up Chrysler. I thoroughly enjoyed reading all sides of the issue, and learned a lot about the model in the process. I hope all opinions from those in the know will continue to be expressed for future releases, even though they may get a little heated at times. Because of previous postings I've made, I admit I'm a little gun shy when it comes to jumping in on discussions like these, and I'm not very familiar with that car so I held back on any comments. Lastly, it sure seems like Dave Metzner is a receptive person, and the end product will benefit from the discussion here.

[Swifster]

I need to kneel and kiss someone's ring. I'm a big fan of the Chrysler letter cars and I'll pick up a few of those. And with any luck, the decision will be to continue with the '56, '58, '59, etc. so that we'll have access to all 11 cars. What I wouldn't give for a NICE '63 300J.

(I wish they had a drooling smilie)

[charlie8575]

I need to kneel and kiss someone's ring. I'm a big fan of the Chrysler letter cars and I'll pick up a few of those. And with any luck, the decision will be to continue with the '56, '58, '59, etc. so that we'll have access to all 11 cars. What I wouldn't give for a NICE '63 300J.

(I wish they had a drooling smilie)

I wouldn't mind a new kit of a 1965-66 Chrysler of any model. I always thought those were one of the best-looking cars of the 1960s.

Dave, Art- taking notes?:)I know where there are a few you could probably arrange to measure up and photo if interested.

Charlie Larkin

[Eshaver]

I want a Chrysler wagon like what "Sky King & Penny rode in to grab de plane ! Ed Shaver