Moebius 1961 Pontiac news

[Ron Hamilton]

Model cars are toys. Some can accept that fact. Some can't. I can. Some people just happen to take their toys more serious than others. That's all. No one way is right or wrong. Some people build them straight out of the box and are happy with them. That's fine. Some people like to build serious models making corrections, improvements, adding details etc. whether it's for showing them or placing them on a shelf. That's fine too. What is wrong is when the people who are happy with a kit straight out of the box wants to crucify the people who do serious models because they dare to point out a flaw in a kit. How many times have you seen people who build seriously jump someone for building a model straight out of the box? Each side should show the same respect for the other. If I see a flaw in a model, I'm going to point it out like it or not. If it's there, it's there. Some people are so scared if someone points out flaws on a model because they think the kit companies will just up and quit making models. It's been told many times that kit companies don't really care what we that frequent forums think because we are such a small percentage of their sales. That's obviously pretty true judging by some of the kits put out in recent years. They know that younger builders and kids will never notice the flaws and snatch them right up and build them. The rest will fix and build them or simply not buy them.

Nail hit right on the head. Thank you Roger.

[Harry P.]

What is wrong is when the people who are happy with a kit straight out of the box wants to crucify the people who do serious models because they dare to point out a flaw in a kit.

EXACTLY.

If person A is happy building a kit as is, flaws and all, and doesn't care about flaws or inaccuracies, that's great... for person A.

But person B might take the hobby more seriously, and strive to correct the kit's flaws, and go the extra mile to add details that weren't in the box, and put in the extra time and effort needed to make his model as correct and as accurate as he can. And that's great for person B.

Neither person A's or person B's approach is "right" or "wrong," just different.

What is wrong is when person A attacks person B because person B enjoys the hobby differently than person A does.

[Deano]

OK ... one last thing ... this is not rhetorical. I say that model kits are toys; I'm told that's just my opinion. Roger Hayes says EXACTLY the same thing;

"WINNER.

Chicken dinner to Mr Hayes, please."

"Nail hit right on the head. Thank you Roger."

How can my saying it require a repeated beat down and Roger saying it get kudos? How can one be correct and one be ... um ... not so much?

Up the board a way someone said (in all caps) "THEY ARE NOT TOYS". That is the faulty perspective I was addressing. If I'm wrong on that, then Roger deserves the same beat-down, not kudos. If I'm not wrong on the perspective thing, then I'm owed an apology (not that one would be forthcoming, the beatdown squad is never wrong.) So .... are they toys or not?

[Harry P.]

So .... are they toys or not?

It depends on one's own particular viewpoint.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Chuck, I think the term I'm looking for is perspective distortion. I don't see how you can take two separate photos taken with different cameras from different focal points with different angles of view and expect object points to line up exactly as far as side by side comparisons go. I do think the photos have brought out valid concerns but I have some real doubts about some of them.

For what it's worth, I'm going have some faith in Dave and the rest of the Moebius team to do the best job they can and cut them some slack ..... at least until I see a test shot up close

Steve

Oh, there's no way they're going to line up perfectly. You can tell the model was approached from a different distance relative to scale than the blue 1:1, because the opposite-side daylight opening is smaller relative to the near one, where there's very little difference in size between the same two areas in the 1:1 shot. But both shots have the opposite side DLOs pretty neatly centered in the near one, indicating that both the model and 1:1 were shot at angles very close to one another.

Exactly? No. Close enough to start circling around potential problem areas? I think so. There's nothing in perspective distortion to account for horizontal elements shifting relative to one another at the same vertical points in the lens field when the pics are this close.

But as you say, we'll only only know when these hit the shelves, and I mean to experience at least two first-hand, regardless. For all we know, Dave M and crew may have seen all this and gotten on top of it already.

[crazyjim]

I don't care about blue or red lines, toys, or whatever. I just want to get my hands on a couple of these Pontiac's and build them.

[John Goschke]

Sorry but that chrome trim that is molded on the front edge of the kit hood IS chrome trim ON the hood of the REAL CAR it is NOT part of the grille, and it's just to thin to make as separate parts !

So you'll just have to suck it up and foil it!

Right, and if I remember correctly those moldings are stainless, not chrome, on the real car, so you're better off foiling them anyway. Then just foil the plated front fender leading edge moldings to match!

Edited October 8, 2014 by John Goschke

[Danno]

OK ... one last thing ... this is not rhetorical. I say that model kits are toys; I'm told that's just my opinion. Roger Hayes says EXACTLY the same thing;

"WINNER.

Chicken dinner to Mr Hayes, please."

"Nail hit right on the head. Thank you Roger."

How can my saying it require a repeated beat down and Roger saying it get kudos? How can one be correct and one be ... um ... not so much?

Up the board a way someone said (in all caps) "THEY ARE NOT TOYS". That is the faulty perspective I was addressing. If I'm wrong on that, then Roger deserves the same beat-down, not kudos. If I'm not wrong on the perspective thing, then I'm owed an apology (not that one would be forthcoming, the beatdown squad is never wrong.) So .... are they toys or not?

That all depends. In your mind and in Roger's mind, apparently, model kits are toys. In my mind, and the minds of many, many hobbyists they are not toys.

But, saying one opinion or the other is right or wrong is like saying 'all green cars are good and all yellow cars are bad.' There's nothing factual or true or about either statement, they are both nothing more than opinions.

So, have your opinion if you will, but don't tell me my models are toys. That's just your opinion. It's not my opinion.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

OK ... one last thing ... this is not rhetorical. I say that model kits are toys; I'm told that's just my opinion. Roger Hayes says EXACTLY the same thing;

"WINNER.

Chicken dinner to Mr Hayes, please."

"Nail hit right on the head. Thank you Roger."

How can my saying it require a repeated beat down and Roger saying it get kudos? How can one be correct and one be ... um ... not so much?

Up the board a way someone said (in all caps) "THEY ARE NOT TOYS". That is the faulty perspective I was addressing. If I'm wrong on that, then Roger deserves the same beat-down, not kudos. If I'm not wrong on the perspective thing, then I'm owed an apology (not that one would be forthcoming, the beatdown squad is never wrong.) So .... are they toys or not?

You really don't see why Roger gets the kudos and you don't? It's because even in accepting the debatable premise of models as toys, Roger allows that those toys may be more important to one hobbyist than the next.

You, in stark contrast, hold that anybody who doesn't share your opinion of what that importance should be needs an adjustment in perspective.

Who appointed you the final arbiter of how seriously we should all take our toys?

But whoah, let's ACCEPT you as the final arbiter and your personal standard as hewn in stone.

Where exactly, then, is it getting violated? 'Cause I'm still a little hard-pressed to find examples of people treating accurate models as a matter of survival.

[Deano]

You really don't see why Roger gets the kudos and you don't? It's because even in accepting the debatable premise of models as toys, Roger allows that those toys may be more important to one hobbyist than the next.

You, in stark contrast, hold that anybody who doesn't share your opinion of what that importance should be needs an adjustment in perspective.

Who appointed you the final arbiter of how seriously we should all take our toys?

But whoah, let's ACCEPT you as the final arbiter and your personal standard as hewn in stone.

Where exactly, then, is it getting violated? 'Cause I'm still a little hard-pressed to find examples of people treating accurate models as a matter of survival.

Show me .... SHOW ME where I said my opinion was the only one that mattered. I was actually addressing a singular post (which I mistakenly thought I had quoted) that said (IN ALL CAPS) THESE ARE NOT TOYS! (peekay; post 215) But, they are. Very serious toys to some, but still toys! I never said toys should or should not be taken seriously; just remember that they are toys.

I have lots of toys. More models than I care to count, a dozen or so guitars, three project cars. The cars are very serious toys; the guitars, only slightly less; the models are not, shall we say, my stressors. do I expect you to share my priorities? Of course not but I am rather bemused and amused by those who deny that their toys are, in fact "Toys".

As far as "accurate models as a matter of survival." When the arguments start over the accuracy of vastly different photographs of First Round Test Shots, then I think things are a little too "serious".

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Some of you folks need to get some perspective because YES, THEY ARE TOYS! Unless your very life depends upon them, they are toys and all the getting upset in the world doesn't change that. All the money and effort and artistry and craftsmanship in the world doesn't change the fact that they are still toys.

Well when you put it in absolute terms like that, Dean, it's easy to confuse you for judging any differing opinion subjugate to your own. You literally characterize that differing opinion as a shortfall in perspective, don't you? And pointing out apparent deviations does NOT automatically qualify one as "upset", btw.

But hey, "I THINK things are a little too serious" is an entirely different animal, and if that's what you really mean, I'll take you at your word.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Chuck Kourouklis

[Robberbaron]

Glad to see that many of the initial concerns about exaggerated rear overhang, etc. seem to be unfounded in light of Dave Metzner's additional pics. I agree that I'm not going to judge the roof placement/proportions based on any of the current pics, since this thread has offered ample evidence of how deceiving some photographs can be. Also, this is the first test shot, and Dave has already stated that they will be looking into some issues such as the kick up at the C-pillar.

Even if (and that's a big IF) this model is eventually released and the roof is, say, a scale inch or two too far forward, I personally won't have a problem with it. Why? Until Harry drew his red comparison lines on that picture, I had looked at the picture as originally posted by Brett, and didn't see that discrepancy. That is usually the test for me: if I can visually compare a model to a picture of an actual 1:1 subject, and nothing jumps out at me as wrong, it's good enough for me.

I can totally respect someone who does notice such a discrepancy and wants to correct it (which, remember, is theoretical right now - this thing is still being developed).

As someone else stated earlier, I took it for granted that the PMD engraving wouldn't be on the wheel centers yet, since this is the first test shot. I am a bit more concerned about the spacing of those spokes though, since that is an issue that does "jump out" at me. I seem to recall hearing that the Catalina version would have steelies and poverty caps, as opposed to the Ventura with the 8-lugs (or was that just someone speculating?). If the spacing of the 8-lug spokes can't be corrected for the Ventura kit, my solution will be to get the Catalina instead (although to be honest, I might do that regardless, since I dig the dog dish look anyway)

[gtx6970]

Even if (and that's a big IF) this model is eventually released and the roof is, say, a scale inch or two too far forward, I personally won't have a problem with it. Why? Until Harry drew his red comparison lines on that picture, I had looked at the picture as originally posted by Brett, and didn't see that discrepancy. That is usually the test for me: if I can visually compare a model to a picture of an actual 1:1 subject, and nothing jumps out at me as wrong, it's good enough for me.

I can totally respect someone who does notice such a discrepancy and wants to correct it (which, remember, is theoretical right now - this thing is still being developed).

Couldn't agree more. Well said

[Chuck Kourouklis]

x2

[Junkman]

I placed a pre-order.

[Erik Smith]

Just getting back into things after the summer...and going through this thread of a car l love...

Lots of good stuff and it looks like Moebius is making headway towards a great, very needed model.

Now...about the wheels. I really like Pontiac 8 lugs and there are few sources for decent teplicas, I was hoping Moebius would come through. However, the test shot leaves a little to be desired. Lugs are oversized. But, on the fin spacing, not all of the drum fins are spaced evenly on one to one cars. Here is a 1960 Pontiac wheel:

The fins are spaced similar to the Moebius wheels, but not so exaggerated. A little tweaking could fix them. Mainly, I think the wheel rim and lugs look oversized and over power he overall look of the kit wheel.

Edited October 10, 2014 by Erik Smith

[unclescott58]

'60 wheel? Maybe on a '60 Pontiac, but I'm pretty sure the 8-lug wheels didn't come out until '61. Like Buick 5-spokes on some Buicks, you'll find Pontiac 8-lugs on Pontiacs that didn't originally come with them.

Scott

[421gto]

Scott, 60 was the first year for the 8 lug.

If the 8 lug proportions are fixed or not, i'll still add a few kits to the stash

[Art Anderson]

'60 wheel? Maybe on a '60 Pontiac, but I'm pretty sure the 8-lug wheels didn't come out until '61. Like Buick 5-spokes on some Buicks, you'll find Pontiac 8-lugs on Pontiacs that didn't originally come with them.

Scott

Wikipedia shows that Pontiac offered the 8-lug wheels as an option, beginning in 1960, discontinued after 1968.

Art

[Edsel-Dan]

Trumpeter included 8-lug rims in there 60 Bonneville kits, so Yes, They must have been available then.

I personally don't care for them myself. So will look for standard Hubcaps. I happen to have an extra set from AMT's

61 Bonney, so will look at adapting them, unless the Moebius Catalina/Ventura includes them

[Bob Ellis]

Isn't that interesting, the lug spacing on the Pontiac wheel is not the same around the whole wheel according to that photo.

It appears this model has been slammed 2X for items that appear to be correct now.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Riiight.

This is a '61 wheel:

and here's the model again:

No point even bothering to comment.

[unclescott58]

Riiight.

This is a '61 wheel:

and here's the model again:

No point even bothering to comment.

Boy the beauty of the 8-lug wheel is just not there in Moebius' kit wheel as of yet. The more I see them, the less I like them. And I've always liked the ones on other models and the real thing.

Scott

[John Goschke]

Just getting back into things after the summer...and going through this thread of a car l love...

Lots of good stuff and it looks like Moebius is making headway towards a great, very needed model.

Now...about the wheels. I really like Pontiac 8 lugs and there are few sources for decent teplicas, I was hoping Moebius would come through. However, the test shot leaves a little to be desired. Lugs are oversized. But, on the fin spacing, not all of the drum fins are spaced evenly on one to one cars. Here is a 1960 Pontiac wheel:

The fins are spaced similar to the Moebius wheels, but not so exaggerated. A little tweaking could fix them. Mainly, I think the wheel rim and lugs look oversized and over power he overall look of the kit wheel.

That looks like a later wheel, or at least the later, wide trim ring fitted to that '60. From '60 through '62 and possibly '63 they used a narrow polished stainless trim ring.

The eight-lugs available in '60 were mostly seen on425A-equipped Super Stock drag cars and were mega-rare on the street. Here's Arnie Beswick's '60...

For what it's worth, though, Trumpeter's version of this wheel is even more awful than the rest of their kit.

Dave Metzner and Co. already said they're going to try to address the issues with the wheels. Let's give them a chance.

Edited October 11, 2014 by John Goschke

[Erik Smith]

Wheel was on a 1960 at the LeMay Auto Museum in Tacoma, WA...I just had never noticed uneven spacing on them before. Didn't have any info about it so wheels could be from later model.