Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum

Return of the 1/25 MPC '68 Coronet/Super Bee RT Convertible...


Recommended Posts

And, as a convertible guy, very happy they’re doing it first. I’d think a coupe 68/69 and a 69 convert would be logical changes, similar to the Cutlass. 65 and 68 GTO unsure if converts possible, but certainly doable I’d think. Lots of potential. Great use of new technique. 
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, keyser said:

And, as a convertible guy, very happy they’re doing it first. I’d think a coupe 68/69 and a 69 convert would be logical changes, similar to the Cutlass. 65 and 68 GTO unsure if converts possible, but certainly doable I’d think. Lots of potential. Great use of new technique. 
 

The 3D scanning is indeed a game changer, anything in the back catalog from Amt and Mpc can be brought back by Round2, if there's a good ROI.
In some cases scanning a mint original kit is far better than working on an old tool, which was stored improperly, repaired once too many times, or has far too many miles on the odometer, and I'm not talking the slow boat to China miles.
Also with the upcoming '68 Coronet, for example, they can incorporate in the tooling (cluster) a ''69 and even a '70 model, without having to worry about the layout/design of the vintage tool.
Another advantage of the scanning process is, once you have the digital files, you can produce the final product anywhere on the globe, and play out one vendor with another, the tool is just a vehicle to produce nothing more nothing less.
The same can be applied to the Jo-Han estate, but it all depends on who can claim the rights to the past designs, once that is sorted out, the sky is the limit.

Fun times, hobby wise that is ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand this "rights to past designs" business.  I don't think it is possible to copyright the "design" of a kit, or to prevent another company from making a kit of any particular subject just because one company made it in the past (whether or not they can make it again is irrelevant). 

The original Jo-Han company couldn't do anything about Ertl doing a new '69 4-4-2, even with the new kit's engine being a near-perfect copy of Jo-Han's "design". 

If anyone copied the "design" of a model car kit, it was the original Jo-Han company.  Compare the parts layout, decals, and instruction sheet from a 1959 Jo-Han annual kit to those in a 1958 AMT or SMP kit...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Mark said:

I don't understand this "rights to past designs" business.  I don't think it is possible to copyright the "design" of a kit, or to prevent another company from making a kit of any particular subject just because one company made it in the past (whether or not they can make it again is irrelevant). 

The original Jo-Han company couldn't do anything about Ertl doing a new '69 4-4-2, even with the new kit's engine being a near-perfect copy of Jo-Han's "design". 

If anyone copied the "design" of a model car kit, it was the original Jo-Han company.  Compare the parts layout, decals, and instruction sheet from a 1959 Jo-Han annual kit to those in a 1958 AMT or SMP kit...

Dunno Mark, in the US lawyers are known to come out of the woodwork for less than that ;)

That why I always include that remark in all my post about possible future Jo-Han projects, but if you're right, what's the hold up, Ha!

You should know that I would love to see certain Jo-Han design back.

Cheers

Luc

Edited by Luc Janssens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF, we were to talk JoHan, the obvious kits to copy would be the '70 GTX and Road Runners,, possibly a Javelin.  

BUT, those Caddys. Humm?? Most of the earlier ones were 4 door cars. IF I was to clone one I would make it a 2 door variation instead.  The '61 2 door was a gorgeous car, for example.  

 

And, besides, wouldn't it be the car company that holds any rights to the design and/or image of any car in question? 

Edited by Can-Con
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Can-Con said:

IF, we were to talk JoHan, the obvious kits to copy would be the '70 GTX and Road Runners,, possibly a Javelin.  

BUT, those Caddys. Humm?? Most of the earlier ones were 4 door cars. IF I was to clone one I would make it a 2 door variation instead.  The '61 2 door was a gorgeous car, for example.  

 

And, besides, wouldn't it be the car company that holds any rights to the design and/or image of any car in question? 

IIRC The problem with the Caddies, is box size, not box scale. cuz think they were indeed in scale but shortened in some places to make them fit in their standard boxes.

Think Mark Budniewski can explain further.... ;)

But concerning the GTX and RR, you got my vote! IMHO the first one should be a '70 and later the earlier models so the market knows these are all new bodied kits. JMHO

 

 

Edited by Luc Janssens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Can-Con said:

IF, we were to talk JoHan, the obvious kits to copy would be the '70 GTX and Road Runners,, possibly a Javelin. 

I agree with all of those. Those Johan bodies' proportions are unbeatable! IIRC, the interiors were -in the USA Oldies era- recycled 1970 interiors for the '69 Road Runner/GTX. 

Upgrades should or could include filling the hole-in-the-engine-block; redoing the interiors with separate seats (the 1970 Maverick has a moulded-in bench seat in the front); and suspension revisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Luc Janssens said:

IIRC The problem with the Caddies, is box size, not box scale. cuz think they were indeed in scale but shortened in some places to make them fit in their standard boxes.

Think Mark Budniewski can explain further.... ;)

 

Funny thing about that,, I recently acquired a '63 basket case to rebuild. I measured it out and it is indeed the correct length and width for 1/25. 

Then, there's the "short deck" '61 to '63 4 door cars. I don't think many people know about those but they were 7 inches shorter in the rear 1/4s and deck then a "regular" sedan. 

Here's an article on those,,

https://www.indieauto.org/2021/07/23/the-compact-1961-63-cadillac-that-went-nowhere/

 

BUT, even if they were originally undersized, that would be easily corrected with the software. My buddy who's been printing wheels and tires for me tells me he can very easily print them in any dimensions I like. I would imagine it would be a similar process with a body file.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ask that guy who made the wood mockup of the Gar Wood garbage truck body about "owning the design" of it.  Round 2 couldn't reach an agreement with him (who knows why), so they redesigned it from scratch (and improved it).  If it can be done with a garbage truck, it can be done with a car body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Mark said:

Ask that guy who made the wood mockup of the Gar Wood garbage truck body about "owning the design" of it.  Round 2 couldn't reach an agreement with him (who knows why), so they redesigned it from scratch (and improved it).  If it can be done with a garbage truck, it can be done with a car body.

yes, but Round-2 didn't get their data from copying the wooden masters, they again started from scratch. 

BTW still find it odd, that the guy asked too much for the use of these, as he as an employee of Amt at the time was paid to make these..., the guys at Round-2 really showed him what it was worth ;)

 

Edited by Luc Janssens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Luc Janssens said:

yes, but Round-2 didn't get their data from copying the wooden masters, they again started from scratch. 

BTW still find it odd, that the guy asked too much for the use of these, as he as an employee of Amt at the time was paid to make these..., the guys at Round-2 really showed him what it was worth ;)

 

I surely cannot speak for the owner.   But from having talked with him several times and meeting him for lunch one time, I think he was very cautious about wanting to deal what he saw as a large company, he did not want to really let the 1/10th masters out of his hands, even just for a loan and to be returned, and he may have been a little skeptical about the financials as I am not sure he fully internalized the kit market today as a mere fraction of what it was in the late 1970's when the masters were created.   I know Round 2 had several discussions with him but not much of the details.  

But I do want to emphasize that he was a really sincere person, and he was not looking to get rich out of the deal.  In the end, things worked out for the best as the new kit is far beyond what it would have been if the original masters had been scanned and tooled, as was pointed out above., and he was able to hold on to his archival material as well  

Best...TIM  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, tim boyd said:

I surely cannot speak for the owner.   But from having talked with him several times and meeting him for lunch one time, I think he was very cautious about wanting to deal what he saw as a large company, he did not want to really let the 1/10th masters out of his hands, even just for a loan and to be returned, and he may have been a little skeptical about the financials as I am not sure he fully internalized the kit market today as a mere fraction of what it was in the late 1970's when the masters were created.   I know Round 2 had several discussions with him but not much of the details.  

But I do want to emphasize that he was a really sincere person, and he was not looking to get rich out of the deal.  In the end, things worked out for the best as the new kit is far beyond what it would have been if the original masters had been scanned and tooled, as was pointed out above., and he was able to hold on to his archival material as well  

Best...TIM  

I stand corrected, Tim.

In today's world one easily assumes it's all about the money, as in most cases it does. So my apology to the person in question, as he was only concerned about conserving what up until the news broke was one of the best kept secrets in the model kits world.

Luc

 

Edited by Luc Janssens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm looking forward to this, and I think the targeted upgrades are a good thing. The semi-simplified chassis is a good thing. It's a nice step in-between the plate chassis and the full-detail chassis, and can be seen (and sold) as a way to move your skills up a level without having to go to a full-detail modern design.

I think they're going to have a very good seller on their hands.

Charlie Larkin

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Can-Con said:

Funny thing about that,, I recently acquired a '63 basket case to rebuild. I measured it out and it is indeed the correct length and width for 1/25. 

Then, there's the "short deck" '61 to '63 4 door cars. I don't think many people know about those but they were 7 inches shorter in the rear 1/4s and deck then a "regular" sedan. 

Here's an article on those,,

https://www.indieauto.org/2021/07/23/the-compact-1961-63-cadillac-that-went-nowhere/

 

BUT, even if they were originally undersized, that would be easily corrected with the software. My buddy who's been printing wheels and tires for me tells me he can very easily print them in any dimensions I like. I would imagine it would be a similar process with a body file.

Back in the late 90's I had a 62 Cadillac Town Sedan (short deck). From the side is looked very chopped off but it was a lot easier to park than my 65 Bonneville.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George P., as the author of the original rant on "Why You'll never see the '68 Coronet", I apologize most completely, and humbly.

Hopefully, I'll never see that thread again. When I am wrong, I am really wrong.

"Good On Ya, Mate!" for keeping up the faith. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stavanzer said:

George P., as the author of the original rant on "Why You'll never see the '68 Coronet", I apologize most completely, and humbly.

Hopefully, I'll never see that thread again. When I am wrong, I am really wrong.

"Good On Ya, Mate!" for keeping up the faith. 

 You're spot on.  I agree.  I don't think that thread will continue.  I beleive we've closed the book on that one. We'll probably see new threads on this kit where builders are showing their completed Coronets.  Thanks for the compliments.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/19/2022 at 12:17 PM, Mark said:

I don't understand this "rights to past designs" business.  I don't think it is possible to copyright the "design" of a kit, or to prevent another company from making a kit of any particular subject just because one company made it in the past (whether or not they can make it again is irrelevant). 

So, it is possible on both counts. Things like parts breakdown, sprue layout, and even the molding process if uniquely manufactured fits under the category of "intellectual property" in that it is the unique and intended creation of an entity. Corporate IP fits under this bill in that their designers and engineers are paid to create that which the corporation owns - thus it's General Motors who owns the '63 Stingray rather than Bill Mitchell as a for instance. If a corporation still exists, its trademarks and therefore its rights to its wholly owned intellectual property still exist. 

As to preventing other companies from producing a kit of a subject, again, 100% possible. Exclusivity contracts CAN exist that negotiate that a model company has the exclusive rights to produce models in the likeness of a particular manufacturer's vehicles. As a for instance, Tamiya has produced their kit of the Nissan 400Z and got it to shelves well ahead of anything potentially planned by Aoshima or Fujimi. If Tamiya had been so inclined, they COULD have negotiated a deal with Nissan to enforce that in exchange for a larger up-front licensing fee Nissan would not enter into licensing agreements with any competing 1/24th scale model kit company. Thus, until the terms of that arrangement ran their course, producing a kit of the Nissan 400Z would legally be solely Tamiya's right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Justin Porter said:

So, it is possible on both counts. Things like parts breakdown, sprue layout, and even the molding process if uniquely manufactured fits under the category of "intellectual property" in that it is the unique and intended creation of an entity. Corporate IP fits under this bill in that their designers and engineers are paid to create that which the corporation owns - thus it's General Motors who owns the '63 Stingray rather than Bill Mitchell as a for instance. If a corporation still exists, its trademarks and therefore its rights to its wholly owned intellectual property still exist. 

As to preventing other companies from producing a kit of a subject, again, 100% possible. Exclusivity contracts CAN exist that negotiate that a model company has the exclusive rights to produce models in the likeness of a particular manufacturer's vehicles. As a for instance, Tamiya has produced their kit of the Nissan 400Z and got it to shelves well ahead of anything potentially planned by Aoshima or Fujimi. If Tamiya had been so inclined, they COULD have negotiated a deal with Nissan to enforce that in exchange for a larger up-front licensing fee Nissan would not enter into licensing agreements with any competing 1/24th scale model kit company. Thus, until the terms of that arrangement ran their course, producing a kit of the Nissan 400Z would legally be solely Tamiya's right. 

So (maybe) nobody can do a direct copy of an old Jo-Han kit.  But who would do that?  

They currently have no licensing agreements with any major auto manufacturer, and have little if any usable tooling for the older subject matter.  I don't recall seeing anything regarding Revell, for example, having to have any interaction whatsoever with any company other than General Motors regarding permission or licensing on a new '71 Olds 4-4-2 kit.  The only "past design" owned by any other company would involve the "design" of the original kit, which nobody would copy directly anyway.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mark said:

So (maybe) nobody can do a direct copy of an old Jo-Han kit.  But who would do that?  

They currently have no licensing agreements with any major auto manufacturer, and have little if any usable tooling for the older subject matter.  I don't recall seeing anything regarding Revell, for example, having to have any interaction whatsoever with any company other than General Motors regarding permission or licensing on a new '71 Olds 4-4-2 kit.  The only "past design" owned by any other company would involve the "design" of the original kit, which nobody would copy directly anyway.  

Well, yes, you're absolutely right. In all technical sense, Okey Spaulding holds the IP for Johan and its associated artwork, designs, and catalog but that doesn't preclude other model manufacturers from going to Stellantis and negotiating the rights to producing an all-new kit of the '71 Javelin. Producing a kit based upon the Johan tooling without securing the rights to reproduce a Johan designed piece - such as copying their kit's body without alteration even to mount to an entirely new chassis - IS an infringement on Johan's Intellectual Property. Producing a kit with an entirely new design of all associated parts does not infringe upon them UNLESS somehow Johan held an exclusivity contract with a manufacturer that was somehow honored through the exchanges in Johan's ownership between the original founders, Seville, and then Spaulding.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...