Chuck Kourouklis

At the risk of overplaying it, here's one of my favorite recent ones to point out: - 'cause it's documented as based on 3D SCANS of a 1:1, and older scans at that. Sho' 'nuff, it ain't obviously wrong in any gross proportion I can make out. How that jives with "accurate scaling doesn't always look like the real thing", I dunno. Also think Aoshima's Countach series represents the most accurate ever of those in body shape (LP400 most particularly). AMT's 2010 Camaro is a trainwreck to build relative to the Revell kit, but it sits there and looks more like the 1:1 once you've beaten the parts together. Revell's 2nd-gen 197 Mustangs look more accurate than their '06 - '09 kits, Moebius's big rigs are generally more accurate than their vintage cars. Current C7 'Vette snapper? Looking really good so far. Wonder what all the better examples might have in common...

Not only does everybody agree, but some of us have had the "no such thing as a perfect kit" angle called out as pretty obvious and inept misdirection for a few YEARS now. The Defense Brigade has to treat that concept as if people don't understand it in order to gain any traction for their arguments - and that's only one of a legion of false premises involved in these discussions. As for kids not appreciating proportioning and detail problems, I wouldn't be too sure about that. I recall being perplexed by the '65-'66 clip on front of the bastardized '67 Malco Mustang '70s reissue in yellow plastic, and the smooth 500-style backlight on the General Lee - both before I turned 12. On the other hand, I snapped Zingers and Tom Daniel kits right up; 'cause even at that age, I knew they weren't supposed to be serious.

And yet - what's one of the most recent releases to have the fewest gross proportioning issues? This one:

X2. Beautifully stated. Eubanks was funny, though.

Exactly, jb. And one's ability to see such a thing frankly has shag-all to with whether or not he can fix it. And maybe there are some who appreciate the heads-up on what they'll need to fix.

Yeah, well. I'm doing my level best to avoid name-calling, but some sort of shorthand is needed. And it kinda is what they do...

First: NIIIICE looking kit! Second: minimum threshold of accuracy is something that'll be almost impossible to hammer down. One man's "eh, it's barely a millimeter and a half!" is another's nearly 20% proportional error. It's too subjective and dependent on factors like a modeler's enthusiasm for the subject, his objectives, whether the deviation flatters the subject or not, and on and on. The heat in these discussions comes from intolerance of the variations between one modeler's personal threshold and another's. And I believe the record shows it's the Manufacturer Defense Brigade showing far greater intolerance than the actual rivet counters themselves - the very term "rivet counter" itself is in fact a vivid embodiment of that intolerance.

What do I think? The title of the thread asked for OUR thoughts, not skittles, rainbows and My Little Ponies. Garbage. Modeling junk food. Absolutely MY KIND of nonsense, just like the MPC Zingers. Lime green "street machine" version of the Pinto was actually my first focused attempt to duplicate the box cover as a kid. Nostalgia re-release would be a kick.

Your English is vastly superior to my Deutsch, Daniel. But all four of my B8 wheels seem to have a perfectly perpendicular shaft, and there's maybe just the slightest angle on B9's pin. Is that what you're talking about?

Revell SB is a converted diecast, Mont; pure Slab City in the body shell. If you look closely at the pics, you can make out how much tubbier the Revell kit is below the belt line. Ideally I'd look to mosh up the better bits between both kits. Gun to head for either-or? AMT has its problems, but even with the funky roof, it's the one I'd go with (yes, it is the "Yankee Challenge").

See, I took Mark to mean the MK VII, which I really love; think it's a bit stronger overall in proportion than the T-Bird. If so, I think more of the homework than you might expect has been done - sorta remember stock door panels, IP and steering wheel in that Pro Street. Think the wheelbase may need adjusting to stock, and while similar adjustments might be needed for the running gear from the '90 Mustang LX, this would be a chance to get the better parts of that kit up under something presentable for a body shell. Wheels may be a thing...

Gentlemen. The WHOLE PREMISE of the test is for rivet-counters to pick nits on an actual 1:1 car posing as a model. BY DEFINITION, they'd HAVE TO BE MISTAKEN to do so. And the behavior forecast for this photo test would have far greater credibility if more rivet counters had a track record of being mistaken in what they observe of models. So these nits would get picked based on a follow-the leader suggestion, then, and sod all comparative analysis? Alright, and I suppose there's a pattern of behavior in the discussions around here to support that notion? Cool ain't the word for it. It's BEAUTIFUL, Del. I am so ACHING for something like this to happen, perhaps to an extent you might not believe. Oh yes, you can bet it'd be quite the social experiment. And if somebody finds a way to set such a thing up, I just might. On the order of 5 to 1, say.

Yeah, about fools - Okay. So in order for this little test to have any basis in reality, it's really most advantageous to you if "rivet counters" have a pretty consistent track record of being WRONG about the errors they point out - otherwise, how likely are they to be mistaken in your 1:1 photo test? So I guess you all have this whole litany of rivet counter mistakes to lift your test scenario out of a fond little fever dream. Right?

YES, actually, I'd be very interested in an experiment like that too. I think the backfire on the anti-rivet counter types would be hysterical.

The RPP stunt with the Del Rio got me good 'n ready for this kit. Made sure to request one get set aside on what I thought was an early date - and nope, two of 'em had gone already. Nabbed the last just in time. Prob'ly gonna put in special orders from here out.

Actually, I ain't fer sure that it's in stock - thought I saw words to that effect in my billing email, but I can't find that confirmation after looking again. But I do know that I plowed through, placed my back-order, and immediately got billed.

HAH! Guess what - got billed for mine too. Seems like it's magically in stock now.

Yeah, lemme pile my thanks on with everyone else, Tim. That's a little beaut.

Goody gumdrops. Since I have a standing PW at HLJ, I put in for a back order - hoping it might come with the Mosquito in September and not the Sesto in December. This'n's a mandate for moi, and I was mightily ticked to see an order stop practically soon as it was listed. Maybe shoulda gone with Search this time.

Man. That looks good.

HUH. Well we see now what might justify that finned tranny pan, anyway; and as such, I ain't got a huge problem with Moebius leaving us to file it smooth. Ain't having much problem at all with the street car, actually. Its design, engraving, and execution are more than enough to compensate for that slight windshield crown and those funky vent wings, far as I'm concerned. In fact - possibly excepting Revell's '68/'69 Charger once they corrected it - I think this model easily has the measure of any other Chrysler B-body kit engineered in the last 30 years.

I'd look a little sooner at the P/L Coronet greenhouse than at the Lindberg '64's - that latter is pretty sweet to build, but it has its own pretty obvious accuracy issues (a beltline kink at the C-pillars? Really?) In fairness, even with its quirks, the Moebius kit really appears to be the best recently-tooled stab at a Chrysler B-body of this vintage. There's some nice design and engineering here - really admire the sharpness of the tires, the treatment of the headlights, front grille, and supporting sheetmetal; the general interface between floor pan, interior and body shell - and the inaccuracies are such that they shouldn't take a huge amount of effort to fix. Should we have to? Y'all know where I stand on that. But in relative terms, for the resources Moebius has available to them, their auto kits are definitely trending in the right direction if this Satellite is any indication. Really looking forward to the promised drag versions.

That'd certainly make the the most sense to me - I just thought I heard word 'round the campfire here how difficult GM was being about sharing that stuff.

I'm just STOKED that they're actually going LIDAR now. Can't wait to see how that turns out. They claim on the website that the '14 'Vette body is "computer designed". Wonder if that's what they mean...

General footnote - 'Member the Fujimi and Revell 430s, where the Japanese kit wiped the floor with the German one and then Fujimi's Scuderia trounced them both? Yeah... NO, this time around. One might swipe the wheel and tire package from the Fujimi kit, but Revell's 458 is otherwise far more complete all-'round. If you can find a US version intact, it should come in all-white plastic instead of white & gray as in the RoG. That and some decal variations are probably the chief differences between the two Revell boxings, and maybe price - usually cheaper stateside for the US version, depending on the vendor.