Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location
    Witless protection
  • Full Name
    Just, Will.

Contact Methods

  • Facebook
    thats funny

Recent Profile Visitors

16,663 profile views

jbwelda's Achievements

MCM Ohana

MCM Ohana (6/6)

  1. I lived in papua new guinea for four years; I know what a Bird of Paradise looks like. it don't look like that. jb
  2. > Save the showcar comments, and I won't comment on flimsy lump Loti, mmkay? mmm no kay. "flimsy lump Loti"? you mean the most beautifully shaped cars in the world? probably rather have another tom daniels nightmare, eh? I have had that Tamiya lola for quite some time too, 10 years at least...I was tempted to buy another when it was reissued with photoetch. . and I recently passed on an opportunity to buy a nicely built one in the box for 35 dollars, still kicking myself for that one. someone was standing behind me overhearing my conversation with the seller and as soon as I stepped away, he swooped. smart fellow...me, not so much. I was trying to visualize where I could display it and coming up with a blank. well solved that problem and saved myself 35 dollars too...guess that's the only way to look at it. I would probably happily drop a couple bills on a Cobra Daytona GT of similar proportion and detail, but without the motorized compromises of the Lola, which weren't much but they were there. jb
  3. yeah all that hidden detail really separates the "replicas" from the toys. especially when you cannot see it. but it looks good when you drop it on the floor because you made it so the wheels turn so it would be a "replica" instead of a toy. do you also make the seat belts retract on a closed car? how about the steering wheel turning the wheels? opening ashtray? no wonder nothing ever gets finished. jb
  4. Gary: who said they were "too hard to build"? that wasn't what I said at all. congratulations on building them when you were eleven. I have gone back and edited my post to make it more acceptable to you. jb
  5. Brilliant! don't use the decals! now why didn't I think of that? because...without the decals you still have a very dumb looking sled of a car. to think Thunderbird once was a proud label. this one was well into the thunderturkey years. the decals actually help conceal that fact, so it gets points as a clown car. always willing to help you out Keyser...which way did you come in? I am sure these will sell in the tens. not tens of thousands, tens. jb
  6. I always wondered why manufacturers do this: very intricate engraving in areas that are sure to be covered up. The classic example has to be the Revell Parts Pack engines...all that detail on the head surfaces of the block, on the heads themselves, under the valve covers, etc. sometimes complete pistons and crankshafts and connecting rods. and never a mention of building the engine halfway as if it were on a workbench, apart. but that must be the reason, right? its just that I have never really seen many models with that detail exposed other than in garage dioramas. But would a company like Revell (lots of others have done it too) really take the time and expense to do that engraving and then not really offer a reason for it like also selling a diorama base kit or at least a mention on the box art or instructions as a selling point for the kit? even today, kits that use the parts pack engines display this same fairly useless detail...example Ivo's Showboat, but I am sure that's because the original was like that so why change it. another example is the Fujimi enthusiasts series Porsche 356 in its many guises. but with that there is included an engine stand as well as photos of the car in what they also offer as a diorama garage scene so it makes more sense in this case. in some cases this useless detail makes the assembly of the engine (or etc) more difficult by not presenting smooth clean surfaces for glue to adhere to. I guess my question boils down to whether there was some plan for using this detail that never surfaced? jb
  7. I am about to throw up at the sight of those decals (rowan and martin laugh in anyone? but about 5 years too late which was par for the course) but what is the deal with the rest of the kit? looks like there is an engine insert and also a separate engine. can you build it simplified or full detail? or is the "real" engine for display only? never seen both included in a kit. and I sure as heck ain't gonna spend my money getting a closer look at this one thanks! jb
  8. is there a shadow on the tarmac? at first I thought you meant he assembled the tarmac grain by grain. jb
  9. by the way, didn't JoHan make an AMX and/or Javelin along with some other AMC stuff? was there anything way wrong with those? maybe they were released as funny cars only? I don't believe I have ever inspected one to know. also btw I don't really hate on AMC, they made some interesting cars, its just their shapes never really did much for me with only a couple of exceptions. heres another interesting car at Billetproof yesterday, only faintly related, but a kit of one of these would ring my bell! that's the word from the lunatic fringe. jb
  10. by the way, the correct spelling is "loser", not "looser" unless you are talking about the machining tolerances of AMC cars. if so, then they were looser as well as a loser. not to put too fine a point on it (not that it matters, that dave van guy has me on ignore mode anyhow), but that javelin looks really dumb with the rear end up in the air like that and pretty much any wheels in the universe look better than those ones on it. fix that stuff and you might have something there...a Rambler, but something still. only thing worse is a Matador (or, egad, a Pacer) but it all runs in the family. I actually like the Javelin more than most of those cars from amc in that era but it was no wonder they are no longer around. their basic problem was there were a whole shatload of better cars available in those years. speaking of American motors, attached is a pic from yesterdays billetproof show in cali. jb
  11. what Tamiya may or may not have done 30 years ago doesn't really relate to the discussion. even IF they "fudged" proportions to "look right" in those days, what they were selling were essentially motorized toys. things have changed drastically since then and I would bet my bottom dollar their kit mirrors real life 99% of the time in the past two decades. I know when I have questioned wheelbase etc on their models and then measured and compared, they were dead on the money to the factory specs. and as Art has pointed out many times, the mold makers "art" always comes into play up until at least the widespread computer imaging that we all know today, so JoHan probably did at least the same if not worse back in their day. I don't think there is any comparison between those dinosaurs which might miraculously "look right" and the modern high quality kits available from japan and elsewhere (even the USA on odd occasion) today. but what do I know...not being an "insider" but merely a kit assembler jb
  12. What do you have to say to that, Art? Could it be that you are incorrect? (Naw, couldn't be) Anyway I would have to be willing to wager that as far as accuracy goes, never mind level of detail, that even the most mundane Tamiya mom bomb model kit is MILES above anything JoHan ever dreamed of producing (with possible exception of the Chrysler Turbine car...and even then). I would be willing to bet that every body line and nuance is right there dead on in any Tamiya kit of the past 20 years, the only possible problem might be ride height but I would bet the Tamiya offerings build to exactly the ride height given by the manufacturer. I know every one I have measured vs the mfg specification (as indicated on the Tamiya instruction sheet) was dead on. JoHan had its day way back in the sixties, but half height interiors, or no interior at all, combined with closed hood and elementary chassis detail put it way back there in my book. jb
  13. > the lunatic fringe skewed the results jb professional lunatic fringe element
  14. so...if there are fifteen rivets per side of something and those rivets constitute a major or even a minor but easily observed part of "the look" of that something, then you can bet I am going to count those rivets and if there are 14 or 16 or some number other than fifteen of them, I and I would expect anyone else with half a lick of sense, would scream about it or at least not "review" it without bringing up a most obvious defect. And that would be regardless of whether anyone thought me a "rivet counter" or otherwise serves as an apologist for sloppy work (members of the Manufacturer's Defense League in other words) in presenting a supposedly SCALE MODEL of something that exists in reality. The "right" to artistic interpretation notwithstanding. so there is quite some merit to being a "rivet counter" despite the fact the term can be considered prejudicial on its face. jb
  • Create New...