The Report function of the forum works well. If you see someone acting up, acting out, or just being an okole, use the Report function. It works! I have it set up so it not only sends me an email, but that email is then marked with a flag, and get's put to the top of my email list. I will try to access/look at the report/topic as soon as possible, but remember, I'm on a six hour time delay, and other mods not only have a life, but a real job as well. k den
In all honesty, I simply don't see a viable scenario to keep things going, other than moving to a digital only format. Perhaps if he could get some operating capital upfront from Ingram by fulfilling the B&N order for them he could get a little breathing room, if that is an option. Without that he can't rely on other point of purchase sales since as he said, the point of purchase sales are paid back as the magazine is sold copy by copy. I'd bet it's the printing costs that are the back breaker here, & that's the rub. Those usually have to be paid up front to get any magazine printed up for publication until you can establish enough steady business to hopefully get a line of credit. Of course bigger magazines & those under a large publisher usually have the printing done in house, so the costs are factored into each issue & amortized that way. For a smaller niche publisher relying on an outside printer no money to print means no magazine.
The thing is, when I did the numbers crunching, it was out of curiosity, it wasn't trying to drag Gregg or the magazine down. Going by Gregg's post, & the info he provided about his plan & how he intends to execute it, it's a mathematical impossibility. The math simply doesn't lie, no matter how one tries to spin it. The average sales, (newsstand & subscription), is right around 5,000 an issue, not including the now apparently canceled order for B&N. Now, for his plan to work the subscriptions have to increase by 435 issues exponentially every single month, not just sales, because he needs to rely on 435 new people each month sending him $23 in order to raise enough funds to produce the next issue. Even on a bi-monthly publishing schedule,it seems that's the number required in order to make this work, based on the info Gregg provided. Not being able to afford to fill the order of 1,800 issues each time to Ingram for B&N cripples the magazine financially, even if the payment is made after the mags sell, (which seems odd to me, to have a contract like that where you're not paid your wholesale cost upfront), & trying to rely on the possibility of exponentially increased subscription sales to hopefully offset part of that is quite simply impossible. It's just not going to happen. Many far better established magazines, with larger customer bases & more revenue, (including ad revenue), are practically giving away subscriptions in this "brave new world" in order to get people to see the ads, (as that's really what it's all about financially for them, not sales or subscriptions), so how can a much smaller niche magazine with no national ad revenues, (no beer, tobacco, or other types), an erratic publishing schedule at best, & no financial base to fall back on make this work? It simply can't. Especially since it's sale figures without the B&N order have remained at much the same level for several years now. There comes a point where you have to be realistic about something like this, & it looks like that point has been reached.
From the data at hand, (& from data derived from other threads about this same subject, the magazine continuing), I've done some number crunching & these changes won't be a solution either. In another thread it was figured up that with the then planned yearly subscription price increase to $40, & the cost of printing a single issue being $10,000, roughly 250 new subscriptions would have to be sold to raise enough capital to publish that single issue, (disregarding retail sales for the moment). Now, with the lower subscription price of $23, that total rises to 435 subscriptions sold each time to raise the capital to publish that single issue. Getting 250 new subscribers just to raise the needed capital was an impossible task, (remember that's 250 new subscribers needed each time to raise the capital for publishing the next issue), so how can raising the number of new subscribers needed to ensure the capital for a new issue by another 185 be feasible? You're looking at having to increase the subscriber base by 2,610 new subscribers a year in order to get the magazine out. The possibility of increasing the subscriber base that much every year is pretty much impossible, with the overall track record of subscriptions generated so far, let alone thinking you can increase it by 435 every month. Gregg saying that the 1,800 issues needed by Ingram to fulfill the order for Barnes & Noble, (& other media outlets), can't be done at this time because of financial problems is the real nail in the coffin. Those issues could raise some much needed capital to ensure the magazine continuing. Now, I understand that the other 1,900 non subscription copies delivered, the ones that are according to Gregg; "Dealer/hobby shops are billed with an invoice after the magazines are sent out, and they pay their invoices after the magazines are sold", but does that hold true for Ingram's order as well? If not, perhaps something can be worked out with Ingram to get some money up front to get to a more solvent point. Also, does this mean that the other 1,900 issues that go to other outlets, (not through Ingram), can't be printed & distributed because of these financial problems? If so, there's no way this can even get off the ground, let alone work. Relying on an exponential growth in subscriptions such as suggested in this thread is quite simply neither logical nor a sustainable concept, especially if that's your sole means of increasing capital. I'm sorry to be the bearer of such bad news, but this just isn't going to work without an outside injection of capital, above & beyond that of more people subscribing. Numbers simply don't lie. At this point you would be just as likely to get just as much of a return on your $23 investment by setting the money on fire as you would by subscribing, since this seems to be little more than rearranging the deck chairs after hitting the iceberg.
A lot of inaccurate misinformation on using the AMT 32 Ford frame for a Milner coupe has been tossed about in this thread. Let me clear things up. The AMT 32 Ford frames are indeed completely inaccurate for any 32 Ford highboy, & not just due to the lack of a molded in reveal on the frame sides. The frame is also too narrow to build an accurate highboy from, as it was deliberately designed & tooled up to be able to build a fenderless channeled lowboy rod from back years ago. In the early 90s, the late Ron Cash, once of the better resin casters of his era, took the time to cast up corrected 32 Ford frames based on the ancient AMT tooling. Besides adding the missing reveal, (which is also needed for a full fendered car to be accurate, as it follows the sweep of the front fenders), Ron also discovered he had to widen the frames to make then correct & accurate. Once Revell brought out their 32 3W coupe in 1996, such issues became moot, as the frame's dimensions were correct for an accurate 32 Ford street rod of the era, Plus, it's far, far easier to simply adapt a buggy spring crossmember, (or make one using styrene C channel), to the Revell frame, (along with using whatever buggy spring & rear end you choose), instead of grinding out reveals on the AMT frame. In the latter, you're merely creating more work for yourself than needed, you also run the risk of screwing up the frame, plus you still have to address the issue of the AMT frame being too narrow to be correct. Use a suitably modified Revell frame as your starting point, you'll find it much easier. The MPC kit does have mostly correct fenders, (though as suggested looking into the front cycle fenders from the AMT 25 T kit might be a better option there), & a properly sectioned grille shell, but the body of that kit leaves much to be desired in terms of accuracy, buildability, & overall looks once finished, given all of it's issues from the era it originated in. Yes the top section is chopped, but it's ill fitting to the lower body section at best, requiring a lot of adjusting, bending to fit, (as I recall, the back of the top section is flat, & where it attaches to the lower body is curved, which leaves a noticeable & not easily filled gap), & shimming to get things lined up correctly. Even with all that work, the body doesn't really capture the look of a 32 Ford all that well. The SAE article that was mentioned is full of great info on this, but with the easily available Revell kit, you would be better off using the MPC chopped roof part as a guide & chopping the top of the Revell body instead. On to the engine. Since it's based virtually 100% on the old Switchers kit, the intake & carbs are indeed wrong. In fact MPC's graphic artist of the time merelt air brushed the dual 4 BBL intake, carbs & air cleaners onto a photo of the 1/1 car! As mentioned the Revell Parts Pack Cadillac has a somewhat more accurate four carb intake in it, along with carbs that resemble the 1/1's Man-A-Fre carbs as closely as you'll find in scale.
Are you sure you're looking at the magazines correctly? The most recent issue of MCM I have, (#195 from last year), has around six or so pages with B&W pics in it, I can't recall the last issue of SA that had a B&W pic in it, & I have every issue from #50-current of that mag. I know it's been at least 15 years or so since SA had a B&W pic in it, it's certainly been all color since changing from Scale Auto Enthusiast to Scale Auto in 2002/2003, & I do think it was for several years before then as well, if memory serves it's been 100% from the first graphic update their publisher did around 1997 or so, except for an article on doing B&W photography from about that same time period, which of course used B&W pics for it. I can go through my binders of SA & pinpoint exactly when if I so choose. For the record, I have no problem if magazine pics are B&W or color, as long as they are reproduced crisply & sharply, so this isn't a knock on MCM, just setting the record straight.. Also both mags seem to run roughly 60 pages per issue, give or take a couple of pages, so I'm not sure what you're looking at or seeing there. MCM is printed on a thicker paper stock than SA is, so it can seem to have more pages, but that's not necessarily so, Nor is the thicker stock an improvement either. Because the cover is sometimes of thinner stock, I've had several covers of MCM rip on me, Also the thicker stock can make it harder to use the mag as reference at the workbench, because it tends to not lie as flat when open as a copy of SA does. None of this is a commentary on the content of MCM or SA, merely pointing out that someone either wasn't looking at the same magazines, or was merely blowing smoke for whatever reason. I find the content of both magazines equally average at best, a far cry from what each one used to be. If MCM were published on a steadier schedule & were available in more outlets, I'd still be buying every issue like i used to do when I lived in a bigger city. Both SA & FSM are available in the magazine section at the local grocery store in the small town where I live, while MCM, (when it's available), can only be found in a larger city at one of the two Hobbytown USA stores & a local hobby shop I sometimes go to, )I've never seen it at either of the two B&Ns in the city), all of which are 45 minutes or more away. That's what influences my buying decisions here.
Very interesting project here Harry. I might have to pick one up myself. On filling in the ejector pin marks, before you go sanding away, try this: Put a bead of CA on each one, hit that with a Microbrush filled with accelerator, let dry, & then sand flush. Much easier that way I found.
*Sigh* Where in my comments did I even say I wanted a "100% accurate, museum quality, exact reproduction of whatever subject they represented"? Are you unable to comprehend what I've plainly posted, or are you just attempting to put words in my mouth & spin my comments in order to make it look like I'm wanting a "perfect kit" or to justify Moebius' continued failure to get one single automotive kit out that's not deeply flawed in one area or another? All I want is an accurate representation of the 1/1 in scale, (I'm going to address the assembly foibles of this particular kit in a moment), not something with a pebbled texture, (F100), that's even pebbled under the chrome plating, or a rear end that sorta, kinda, somewhat resembles the 1/1, if you squint really, really hard, (Chrysler 300B). Other manufacturers manage to do this kit after kit. Stop making excuses for Moebius. Heck even Revell/Monogram has corrected some of their more gratuitous errors over the years. Witness the sloping DLO on the initial run of the 69 Charger kit that they corrected, & the reversed gas tank on their 69 Nova that they fixed. Too bad they neglected to correct the numerous body flaws in that kit, but at least they did fix one issue. Point two; we're discussing a currently tooled kit, not something from 15, 25, 35 or 50 years ago, so your argument there is completely invalid. There is simply no excuse, none, zero, zilch, nada for such an egregious fit problem in a kit designed & tooled up in this day & age, with all they have at their disposal. As a fan of their S/F & monster kits, I know from personal experience that they can do better than they have in the filed of automotive kits, which is why the garbage they crank out for the auto segment of our hobby is so damned frustrating, combined with how nice their Lonestar kit is in comparison. Gaffes such as I've listed in this thread on all of their auto kits are par for the course for them, & sadly not the exception. Part of the problem is this segment of the hobby is so notorious for accepting anything the manufacturers churn out if the subject matter appeals to them, that they'll accept inaccurate or flawed kits that builders in the other segments wouldn't waste their time with. But no, we get people saying "Tamiya like quality!" "Best kit ever!" "I don't care how inaccurate or bad these kits are I've waited so long for them that I'll re-engineer them completely if needed! I'll buy a case...., no two cas.....wait! I'll buy three cases of them!" Remember, it doesn't cost them one penny more to get the kits right the first time than it does to get them wrong. And with that said, I'm done with this conversation. It's time to put you on ignore, as you simply aren't worth my time in trying to get you to see the forest, & not only the trees. Have a nice life.
Actually no, my comments fit in here well, because it's the typical deal that Moebius does, as well as the first time I've been made aware of the flaws in this kit. Until now, this was going to be the first Moebius automotive kit I bought, (their excellent Lonestar kit aside), as it seemed they had worked out their accuracy issues for once. Now, with this additional info, even with the means to correct them, I've lost the desire to purchase this, simply because I tire of most everything that they do being flawed &/or otherwise so terribly compromised, & I shouldn't have to re-engineer a kit for what should be an OOB build. In every review post about Moebius kits, glaring errors & issues have been seen, only to have their apologists making every excuse for them that they can think of. I just found said apologists to be conspicuous by their absence overall in this thread, as if they couldn't find an excuse or a spin to justify this problem.
And that's an excuse for their constant accuracy & now it seems buildability problems? Again, as long as people are apologists for them there's no incentive for improvement on their part. I'm not asking for a "perfect kit", merely one that I don't have to re-engineer to build correctly out of the box or that fails to look like an accurate scale representation of the 1/1.
Sadly no, you don't get it. At no point in my comments did I mention subject matter, I was commenting on standards of accuracy & quality, which Tamiya has down pat, but which Moebius consistently falls short in. If you actually comprehended my plainly stated post, you would have seen that the subject matter Moebius turns out I do often desire, it's in the execution that keeps me from opening my wallet to purchase their automotive kits. But go ahead & be an apologist for them by grabbing up their often deeply flawed kits & defending them for making such flawed kits in an era when those problems should be a thing of the past. As long as they aren't held accountable by the customers, they'll never see the need to improve. Enjoy those diminishing returns until you do open a Moebius box & see nothing more than that block of wood, carving knife, & a note telling you to carve away until that 1966 Dizzmobile emerges.
Simple way to do that, (with both Tamiya stands), is to glue the top part to the bottom one. It'll still rotate properly & not come apart that way. Other than fixing that, I've yet to find a better paint stand, (homemade or otherwise), in nearly 50 years of model building, (off & on that is).
Where, oh where pray tell are all the apologists for Moebius that are always attacking those who can see that much of their product is sub par, (be it in accuracy or assembly issues), at in this post? Where are the comments comparing Moebius' quality to Tamiya? A ludicrous thought in & of itself that had to be from someone that's never built a Tamiya kit, (especially from the 90s on), as Tamiya kits don't require this level of re-engineering to make the parts fit correctly. Where are those that blindly & illogically praise every single thing that Moebius does, to the point where one feels they would accept a block of wood & a carving knife in a Moebius box, & being told in the instructions to carve the 1966 Dizzmobile from that as their next kit release? Sadly, this kind of issue is just the perfect example of their attitude that I got first hand when I contacted them about accuracy issues a couple of years ago: Please do not reply or email us ever again, we do not need to be harassed, especially since no one is forcing you to buy, look at or build our products. No worries whomever that person was who sent me that reply; I have no intentions of ever parting with my money for your products ever again, based on this kit, the problems with the pebbled surface texture, (especially under the chrome plating!), on the F-100 kit, the accuracy issues with the 65 Satellite, & that horrid back end on the 56 300B, a car that I'd desired a model of since the early 70s. In this day & age there's no excuse that can be made for these kind of continuous errors, flaws & gaffes from any manufacturer, especially one that is now past "start up" problems & has been around a while.
The MPC Super Stocker series consisted of the Dick Trickle Mustang, the Jegs Camaro, the Bob Larrivee Chevelle & a fictional GTO, fictional Cuda, & a fictional Monte Carlo. All but the Monte Carlo used a modified version of an annual kit body, with one partial exception to be seen. The Monte Carlo used the body tooled up for the Coo Coo Marlin #14 NASCAR Monte Carlo tooled up by MPC, as MPC never did a Monte Carlo as an annual kit at that time. The GTO is also only partially part of the MPC annual series, because in 1970, apparently they got a huge promo order for GTOs from Pontiac, & thus tooled up two different bodies. One went on to be the basis for the GTO annual kits from 1970-1972 & the other wound up as the body for the David Pearson driven NASCAR GTO he ran in a few races in 1971. That body then wound up as part of the Super Stocker series. Other than the Monte Carlo & the GTO, the bodies for all the rest were later retooled back to stock, & have been reissued in that form many times over the past thirty or so years. That's why when the Model King reissues were done, the GTO & the Monte Carlo were the only two that could be reissued. The chassis used in the kits are very close to what Ed Howe & Ray Dillon were producing for short track racing in the 70s, & thus were indeed able to be put together with differing wheelbases for use under different bodies, so those kit chassis are highly accurate for both the cars & the era. What isn't accurate, at least for the Mustang, Cuda & GTO is the big block Chevy engine used in all the kits. Here's a link to some Howe Racing Enterprises catalog pages from back in the day so you can see just how close MPC got the chassis on these cars: http://public.fotki.com/RodM/canadian_short_trac/howe_racing_enterprises/