Bob Turner2

What!?! Your analogy is roughly equivalent to saying if I want a good meal at a fine restaurant I have to cook it myself. That's completely off base. Wanting an accurate, buildable kit from what I purchased is laziness? Where do you get that idea? If I chose to modify or customize a kit, then yes, I should & do expect to do more work to get it to look like I envision. But for crying out loud, I shouldn't have to do their work for them to get a kit to the level of accuracy it should have been at in the first place. If all of this is part of model building, then why do I rarely have to do more than basic cleanup with a Tamiya or a Galaxie Ltd kit? Why did the Revell midget kits I built, (a shining example of Revell getting it right), just fall together? Why did my Moebius International ProStar, ( a shining example of Moebius getting it right), not only build up well, but look accurate & true to the 1/1 when completed? Why was my Moebius Frankenstein kit, (another that they got right), such a joy to build & so great in capturing the look of Boris Karloff as the Monster? That one did require a lot of putty in certain areas, as well as much flling & sanding of seams, but that's to be expected given the way those kits are designed & tooled up & as to how they assemble. it's not the amount of work involved in buidling a kit, it's the reason that the work is required. Trust me, I am far removed from a ten year old building a model with glue on the windshield & have been for years. I was building in the 70's as well, (the 60's also, to be exact), but this isn't the 70's anymore. My skills & abilities have indeed progressed from where they were 40+ years ago when I was that ten year old boy. Why shouldn't I expect the model manufacturers to have upped their game as well? It's not a matter of being "skilled enough", it's a matter of we shouldn't have to do this because Moebius or any other manufacturer didn't get it right. By your crteria we hould be happy if a model company put a block of wood in a box & said "Carve away at that until a 69 Ford pickup emerges."

Bravo sir! I could not have said it better myself! Anyone that tries to argue even a single point of this accurate, on target & rational comment simply needs to reread it as many times as it takes for comprehesion to set in for them.

I'm sorry, but on this forum I do all my communicating out in the open. I have my PM's disabled & prefer it that way. I have no interest in getting into a debate by PM over things. Just for the record, these aren't my "opinions". They are observations made based on the evidence at hand. That test shot simply isn't accurate enough, & no amount of excuses or cheerleading can change that. If you can't see the accuracy flaws in the test shot in comparison to only the 1/1 but also to the tooling master than I simply don't know what else to tell you. The kit is likely buildable, but I personally wouldn't be happy with it on my shelf. All that a model car is supposed to do once finished is to look like an accurate miniature replica of the 1/1, nothing more & nothing less, if it is indeed meant to be a miniature replica of the 1/1, in other words, a replica stock model. It serves no other function on the shelf. That's also why I would never buy a diecast such as the one of a similar model Ford pickup as was shown a few pages back, as it didn't do any better of a job of replicating the 1/1 either, at least overall. It was closer in some areas, but not close enough in others.

Whoa there, why one earth should I support a project like this when the end result isn't going to meet even basic standards of accuracy that have been pointed out ad infinium in this thread? That "impossible to please" comment sounds a lot like those tiresome canards that we're wanting a "perfect model", when all we want is an accurate one. There are countless model companies that get things more accurate than Moebius has in their vehicle kits thus far. To expect less from Moebius is doing ourselves, the hobby & Moebius itself an injustice. They should strive to create the most accurate kits for the money as is humanly possible, not make nor accept excuses of "good enough". We, as a community should hold them to the same standards before we part with our money for their product. As I said, I didn't place their International models in the same category, & I will also say that they are very accurate & were a pleasure to buy & build, so I have purchased their kits in the past, when they've met my criteria & been worth spending my money on. As long as we blindly cheer & support Moebius, (or any other manufacturer), for churning out kits that fall short as to accuracy, or buildability, or any other basic criteria that should be expected by the modeler, then we do ourselves & the hobby a disservice. Wanting a model to be an accurate miniature of the 1/1 isn't being "impossible to please", it's wanting basic value for the money. If you can't grasp that concept, then I simply don't know what to say.

Thanks. Glad I made someone laugh & also that someone did pick up on that reference. Despite what a lot of people here think, I do possess a sense of humor......

Invaild comparison, as in a 1/1 vehicle they can & do make running changes to correct flaws. The only flaws in this case that I'm speaking of are as to the kit's accuracy, or the lack thereof. In this case we can see from the tooling master to test shot #2 that something was lost as to accuracy in the process from master to test shot. Ray Charles can see those issues between the two & he's both blind & dead. Such accuracy flaws need to be addressed before the kit makes it to market. Granted Revell & Monogram have made corrections to flawed kits during production runs, (the reversed 69 Nova gas tank & the sloping DLO on the initial 69 Chargers spring to mind), but said running changes are usually few & far between. The aforementioned Nova is proof of that as Revell has admitted that the 1/1 car they based it on had poorly fitting & inaccurate aftermarket replacement rear quarters, which is why it's rear fenderwells are so far off. They didn't bother to fix that, & I won't even mention that 90 Mustang LX abomination. Having valid complaints, (such as a kit being inaccurate), has merit. Complainng that they should have tooled up the "extra rare Canyonero option package that was only ordered on five trucks", which is what I would consider miniscule & insignificant, isn't valid & thus lacks merit. If the kit is no more accurate than prior Mobeius vehicle kits, (excluding the International rigs), then like all the rest of their vehicle kits, (again excluding the Internationals), I too will pass on spending my discretionary income on it. So far Moebius is zero for six in selling me one of their vehicle kits, & that's not including the Model King variants. I want to add that as far as subject matter on those six kits & variants goes, each one of them was a subject I had lusted after in scale for more years than I care to admit. The fact that they have yet to sell me a single one, due to major accuracy issues, speaks volumes.

Unlike many here that "can't wait" for this kit, (or any other kit from any other manufacturer), to be released, I'd personally rather that all the flaws & issues get corrected, all the kinks worked out & all the "I's" dotted & "T's" crossed instead of rushing to meet an announced release date. It's not like the release of any kit is vital to solving world hunger, bringing about world peace, or easing the heartbreak of psoriasis. Taking the time to make it as accurate as possible, (please note all, I'm not asking for it to be "perfect", I know that there's no such thing), to me is more important than rushing it to market. Please get this one accurate.

That was the first & only reply to my initial email. i didn't bother following up with them after that.

I understand. I could fix the too thin rear door pillars, but correcting the hood/grille desgin & the windshield are beyond the abilities of most of us I fear. The rest of the kit is acceptable or can be corrected, from what I see, it's those two areas that are glaring right at me.

Call it what you wish, here's the reply I got back, in it's entirety: 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.

I'm thinking it could be fact that Moebius has a presence here, sharing test shots & the like & Revell doesn't. Because of that it likely makes people here feel privy to "insider information", (or so they think), so they look more kindly upon them than they do Revell, for that reason. Not me. I don't care who is here, if it's wrong, it's wrong. Bottom line. Also note that this time Moebius got farther along in the process before exposing this kit, perhaps so they wouldn't have to go back & fix all the errors in this kit?

Nice to see you know exactly what I, (& others), are really doing. Wanting a kit to look more like the 1/1 vehicle it is supposed to represent is whining? It seems that some folks hobby is complaining about those that have a different, (& factually based at that), opinion from their perceptions. You can call it whining all that you like. Flawed is flawed & the test shots & other photos I've seen show a serious step down from the masters first created for the tooling design. Something was lost in translation between those & anyone who looks can clearly see the differences.

I can address the first part of your comment easily; I did just that, & it was this very company about the flaws in this very kit. What was their response? I basically got my head ripped off by the anonymous replier & was told they didn't want my business. Now, I didn't mention that in my first post because it didn't change the fact that this model is fundamentally flawed & inaccurate, nor did I want anyone to accuse me of bias against the company due to the reaction I got for daring to be critical of something they did wrong. I still hope that was just the reactions of one person there & not the attitude of the company itself because I have enjoyed building several of their other kits. It's in the realm of automotive subjects that they fall short. My personal take on their presence on FB & forums like this is so they can gets lots of cheerleading for their products. They seem to quash any negative commentary about what they create on their FB page from what people have told me & judging from my experience they seem to not want any actual & relevant feedback. Second part of your comment; there is a difference between some "sacrifices" made in scale & tooling up something so inaccurate in so many places. Other manufacturers get it right consistently, time after time. Moebius & Revell seem to fail to do so. Consistently. Time after time. Obviously there's a pattern here with both companies & the design & or tooling that they do. Perhaps it's communication issues between the people in the USA & the ones in China that actually cut & run the tooling. Third part of your comment is self defeating, but I'll address it as well. It doesn't matter if we know of the limitations of the manufacturing process or not, simply because since other companies get it right consistently, (remember that), & while dealing with the same limitations. Obviously the problem lies within the company at some point. Just where I don't know, but as stated above I suspect it's in design or tooling.

Agreed. Plus all the people complaining about the "complainers" are overlooking a few things here. To wit: 1-Yes, we know that we're looking at photos of the 1/1 compared to the model from different angles in two dimensions. Most people have the ability to unconsciously compensate for that when they are viewing two different things for purposes of comparison. Thus they can see where something is flawed, simple as that. 2-If we are seeing said flaws in 2D, from vastly differing angles & perspectives, then they obviously do exist & are going to likely be even more glaring & noticeable in 3D. When something is inaccurate & shows up as inaccurate in 2D, seeing it from all three dimensions doesn't magically correct that. 3-"That said, until somebody invents an incredible shrinking machine, model kits will have to be made by artisans who "interpret" what they see or sometimes don't see and try to reduce it in scale." There is no interpretation here. Something either looks like a miniature replica of the 1/1 or it doesn't. This kit doesn't. Even without the benefits of CAD, with today's easy access to photos of a subject online, "interpretations" doesn't cut it as an excuse, & that's all it is, just an excuse, not a reason. 4-"Perfect models". Not once in the comments made by those who can see this is seriously inaccurate was the desire for a "perfect model" to be made, just an accurate one. We are intelligent & rational adults, we not only know that nothing is perfect nor do we expect it to be, we also know the difference between "perfect" & "accurate". It's time for others to understand that difference. It's a simple concept to grasp, really. For those not in the know that might see this as my "first" post & try to start something that way, no it's not. I changed email addresses & lost/forgot my original password, so I had to create a new profile. In other words for those that disliked my honesty before, I'm back.... I suggest that you might want to adjust your block/ignore preferences accordingly.