Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jbwelda

  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
  15. and I would like to apologize to Bill for calling him on his chat. I realize he probably wrote what I quoted in the heat of passion as it were, and we all regret statements made under those circumstances from time to time. it was just too big a target to ignore. Bill, love your models and your attempts at pointing out lack of fidelity to reality, it just gets a bit much sometimes. jb
  16. yeah Mike I agree. I think in general chrome headers are just too bright for me, strip off the chrome and then you can really see them. edit to add: koolest little generator/alternator mounting bracket I have seen in quite a while! nice engraving details and everything! here it is finished posed on a stand I built for it. very nice little engine. next up is a 409 with a Latham supercharger set up. see pic below building little projects like this help keep me interested. jb
  17. wrote that last one at the airport in Miami on my GFs laptop, had a couple (or more) before (and during) so perhaps my communication skills were not at their best. nonetheless, PM was not forthcoming, rather a disappointment as I had some ideas of my own. I like it and I especially like how it all fits together well, no alignment issues at all for me anyway. on another subject talked to Norm Veber the other day and those NH valve and plug covers have been available for a long time. picked up a couple sets though and also the cheater slicks which should go great on another something I am working on. jb
  18. just back from a week in Cartagena y Habana, heres some stuff I saw before I left. got some good shots from abroad will post later after I unpack transporters: a relative: BoomBoomDONKBoomBoom... something old with a serious rake: some rods by the bridge one morning: best of them being this: bad tuner, body kit by crash: and here is a Holden Monaro disguised as a Pontiac GTO, slightly modified: adios! jb
  19. saw one just the other day, week ago actually,kinda rare around here. jb
  20. >This ruins the first impression of the engine for me entirely. I'll be putting all the engines from this kit up for trade... for those of you who don't see it > or don't care... >I guess if a couple of scale inches is considered "very close to being correct", well...that explains a lot. >But hey, what do I possibly know about anything anyway. In MY world, accurate measuring counts. kool! I will take you up on that trade of all the engines from all the copies of this kit you buy. and trade, sure I will trade something of like value. you say this engine is basically worthless to someone like you in whose world accurate measuring counts? great. then the value would be pretty much zero. tell you what, I will split the postage with you to relieve your world of these abominations unto God. just PM me and we will take care of it, kool amigo? because in MY world its a pretty neat little engine and I am always there to help a fellow modeler achieve their successes, even if its only to relieve them of the horrible stresses that inaccurate "models" present. Remember, just after you said what was quoted above you stressed how important first impressions are to you, so please, help me help you, and get those pieces of junk over to me pronto! or should this be in the trading forum? jb
  21. sorry, I keep confusing the Daytona coupe for the ford GT. mea culpa. Gunze high tech kits are definitely not as "mainstream" as Fujimi kits in general but you are right: a full detail cobra Daytona coupe for a reasonable price is a great idea and way overdue. but then so are any number of, for instance, vintage Lotus cars, starting with the Eleven. I personally would rather see any number of them than a Cobra of any type. no shortage of cartoon "show rods" though, nor mid seventies sleds. that must tell us something. jb
  22. Fujimi isn't "mainstream"? hate to break it, but they probably sell more kits than all the USA "manufacturers" (there are none, nothing is made in the USA except toothpicks and wood pellets evidently) put together. and to a much higher standard of detail for what is there. jb
  23. to get the Plymouth back in its box I had to cut down some sprues, liberate the chassis and put it under the body etc. then it fit back in the box and the lid was able to close completely. as it was all the parts sans the body would just barely fit back in the box jb
  24. hasegawa kits are 1/24 scale. aren't there some with solid roofs? I was pretty sure there were but could be wrong. jb
  • Create New...