Chuck Kourouklis

This is in NO WAY a challenge, Les; I'm just curious - we're essentially seeing a plain rear bumper that might have better used shortened guards/license plate lights, and maybe some front and rear fender issues carried over from the sedan, or not - nobody's commented on that yet. I won't even begin to question your entitlement to your feelings about the kit. I'm just wondering if these are the issues you're thinking of, or if there's anything else you caught.

This is in (lengthy) response to Charlie Larkin's post above, so please skip this post if the subject matter doesn't interest you. Trust me, I'd much rather I hadn't gotten beaten to one of the three lousy Del Rios my local pusher got in, so I could get some photos and a brief analysis up here. But that ain't the way it worked out, and unfortunately, what follows is topical to the tenor of this thread, if not the title. Your fairness and balance are so admirable, Charlie. And I'd dearly love to keep it classy. That's going to be difficult, though, as long as the challenges faced by current kit manufacturers are exploited for such a corrupt purpose as what we've seen here earlier. Where that litany has constructive use is as Tim intended in the Model A thread – a counterpoint to the “no excuse in this day and age” angle. I personally found the mutations wrought on that poor Moebius Ranger/F100 from tooling mockup to test shot very elucidating, for example. In the end, some folks like Bill E aren't convinced by that rationale and they tell you why. By your standards, Charlie, you might suppose a civil rejoinder or two in this situation, maybe, and then leave it to readers following along to draw their own conclusions. But no. One rebuttal after another dredges that hackneyed “perfect kit” angle, no matter how Bill tries to preface against it, no matter how blue in the face he gets explaining that a “perfect kit” has nothing to do with what he’s talking about – an understandable tactic, because it’s only by insisting he wants a perfect kit that anyone can fake any traction with a rebuttal. You’ve got to sell that demand for a perfect kit even if there's nothing to support it, because only then can you come back around with claims of “overdemanding” from domestic manufacturers. And Bill's patience frays quite understandably when he’s gotta explain for legitimately what, the tenth time? The fifteenth? that he’s not asking for a perfect model. And then his opponents resort to the very basest gaslighting once they've worked him up. (gaslighting defined) But even when he's provoked by such silly extremes, and then made out to be the agitator by pretending there's nothing to provoke him, I’m a little hard-pressed to see where Bill resorts to the classic bullying tactic of calling names. Where cataloguing a manufacturer's difficulties can start to seem a little quixotic – rather like boxing at air or an actual charge at a windmill – is in deploying such a narrative at a thread where nearly all participants have claimed an intent to buy the kit regardless of its problems. In the ’31 thread we actually had someone jumping the gun to such an extent he had to be reminded that nobody said they weren’t going to buy the kit. And for all the fur flying in this thread, most have stated a similar interest in the Del Rio. Sure, you got that steady, “no excuse” drumbeat, but most of the time, the drummers still make it clear they'll take the kit even as-is. So what is that litany really responding to in such a context? What makes it essential to the discussion? Maybe Revell has occasionally fallen all over itself to delay a release at the urging of an online thread, but again, in light of what’s made it to production before, it’s far from obvious just when they've done that. But where wielding those tales of manufacturer woes gets downright abusive is as a carte-blanche justification for attacking anyone who calls out problems in kits. I'm sorry, but as both sides scramble for moral superiority, it’s the critics who actually have the more solid ground. For trying to communicate issues about a model that are on-topic for the discussion, they have their building credentials mocked, they get called names, they get cartoonish, nefarious motives ascribed to their behavior; they are WRONGED. OBJECTIVELY. The “injuries” and "damage to the hobby" motivating Self-Appointed-Defenders are so far largely speculative and imaginary in nature. Perhaps they’re fueled by interaction with frustrated executives pulling their hair out over what’s lost literally in translation from one product development stage to the next, or over a competitor getting exclusive access to CAD on a hot subject; and perhaps they’re fueled by executives who have a tantrum about any review that doesn’t amount to free advertising. But until somebody shows us statistical documentation – hell, scratch that; till somebody shows us even a shaky correlation between negative online threads and revenues lost on a given subject, the basis for a S-A-D attack is all theoretical. The Kit That Must Not Be Named, perhaps? Chugging into its third catalogue year so far, or about as long as the far more favorably reviewed Offy Midget kit managed to last in Revell's catalogue listings, for whatever that may mean in the overall sales scheme of things. Critics: objective self-defense in the name of free discussion about car models, at least at the start of most exchanges. Their “bullying” is basically the sum total of what they don’t allow the other side to get away with. Overbearing at times, but easily outmatched by the S-A-Ds: personal attacks and broadsides, in the name of stifling free discussion about car models, based on a premise that’s hardly even demonstrated, let alone proven. With a reliably healthy dollop of gaslighting besides. THAT would be where any fair analysis dictates it’s really “over and done with”. There's no reason to tolerate that behavior and some of us just aren't gonna do it. But y'know, Charlie, while we all slog it out, I'd hope you won't tire of reminding us how things should be. Seriously. No irony intended here. Maybe we'll all wise up, eventually.

Sometimes opening the box to admire the parts is its own reward.

Well now, it's a little tricky to say - MAYBE there's someone who'd pay over retail knowing he's getting the orange one. Down the road, however, it might appreciate 'cause it's rarer and it's something the box keeps a little "surprise" for you. I side with thems what say model kits are fer buildin', so if you wanna see how that orange would come out finished, go do it! If you'd prefer a white kit, though, that might be reason enough to stash this one.

Tim is one of THE classiest people you will find in this hobby. I may cross pens with him occasionally, but I love the guy. Others… not so much.

"Ace Bandage Guy"? And you wanna talk about who's a bully? Now why don't you explain this "damage" we're doing to the hobby? Revell follows its own MO no matter what anybody says, and despite what appears on any message board, it sells what it's gonna sell, and people buy what they're gonna buy. You really mean to accuse us of sabotaging Revell's sales of that '31 this far in advance? Do you really think Revell is gonna be better off if people buy the kit and find out on their own? Or if Revell somehow offers previews without anyone commenting on the images? Does the raging absence of logic in that scenario really get past you? If there's gas in the mine, there's gas in the mine, and no effort to make it all about the canaries is going to change that. And I got a nearly 20-year track record on congratulating Revell nationally for what they do well, btw. Was anything you ever wrote used by Revell for promotion? 'Cause my conclusion about their '64 Impala kit from 2000 was, and that's far from the last good published review I've given a Revell product. But that all doesn't suit your little funhouse mirror assessment of anybody who'd dare point out a problem, does it? The only one beating anything to death is you with all your pious pronouncements about how anyone who isn't the perfect manufacturer toady is a traitor to the hobby, and your magical-Kresken mind-reading of everybody's motives. Key difference between you and me? I know you're one of the prime drivers of one the biggest car modeling events in the country, and despite your fine little character assassination - and as arrogant as I knowingly get in response to some of the tripe I see - I still can't quite bring myself to the blind, unreasoning hubris necessary for any high and mighty judgments on whatever good you do or don't for the hobby.

*deleted for accidental duplication*

I'll gladly take whatever you call "clueless" as a badge of honor, Geiger. That very inability to resist another personal dig PROVES that if it riles the likes of you, it must be right.

Thanks a bunch, Lee!

Personally, I take advantage of the fact that perimeter glass trim is usually a strip of uniform width, and just use straight edges to cut a thin strip of foil against the backing and then apply it to the plastic. Not only does this method dispense with the possibility of gouges around the border, you can even use it to help define those rubber seals. Look close and you can see that trick 'round the windshield borders of these fiddy-seb'ns: The rubber bits might not be so easy with the Moebius method, but I still think trimming the foil to shape before application will be the way to go with 'em.

Uh, no. Wasn't your joke at all, which was actually pretty funny.

For number 3, that's certainly one perspective. I'm gonna offer another: Years ago, you'd have the occasional slam on a manufacturer, and the post would just largely speak for itself in that act. Only more recently have nitpicking and slamming manufacturers become ANYTHING LIKE the "sport" of belittling and attacking people for calling out what they see, and that latter has been going on for years. I try to stay off the ground of slamming manufacturers myself, but you go through some of the more notorious threads 'round here, it's as if various critics under constant character assault finally gave up and started serving some BS back, possibly along with some outliers who figure that if people are going to be so infantile about kit criticism, they might as well bait those True Believers with an actual excuse or two. Whichever seems to apply more I leave to those reading along to decide. We're not quite on the same page about parity between military and automotive kits, but after that, I have very little disagreement with the rest of what you had to say.

Thanks for your response, Tim. Because yours wasn't the only content I was addressing and because we don't disagree so sharply on a lot of what you said, I'm just going to trim down a bit to keep this from going on too long: Sure, and to go on to the conclusion of that point, even the Kit The Must Not Be Named has a certain seductive pull in its drag version, enough that one sorely wishes they had gotten the body right. But honestly, Moebius has the more visible track record of refinements from previews to production. Not to say that Revell doesn't - I couldn't help but notice what looked like some re-engineering of the front suspension pin bosses in the '62 Impala to help center the front wheels better - but if you see something off in Revell previews, history shows more often than not it'll be exactly that way when you buy it. And not that I personally care whether or not the firewall or blower or Deuce roof pad get refined, 'cause I see a scat-ton of other stuff I gotta have between this and the '29. Oh no, Mr B. That argument is far from settled for me. Not when I don't see the comparison discrepancies in the more accurate models that I do with the problematic ones, and not when I can reverse-engineer a conversion as accurate or more so than any of the other ones I've seen, strictly from profile photos, of that '50 Olds. Of course, I didn't work from just one photo on that. I took a mean of digital caliper measurements across a slew of 'em, and I focused on one specific relation: that between the lower borders of the front and rear side windows. Most of the shots were as perpendicular-to-profile as possible, but even in the more oblique ones, that ratio didn't vary much. I risk sounding as if I boast on this, but really, it's just a straight mathematical proportion that got such a solid result. And it was derivable from 2D photos. What has been instructive is an attempt to zero in on what's off the the '70 'Cuda wheel arches in their curvature, not just the depth of their lips. It's clear once you've been through a few shots that perspective and focal length can cause the same sweep to vary wildly from shot to shot. But these factors are perceivable without a background in design, and accounted for by many of us. And while I realize in retrospect how badly I inadvertently dismissed the very thoughtful input of a fellow poster in the exchange I was thinking of, my attempt to augment whatever knowledge I might be lacking went without a definitive answer: a car's greenhouse and its lower body have a fixed relation on largely the same vertical plane. We had a shot of a 1:1 and a shot of the model body with at best minuscule angle variations off a dead profile. Maybe the height perspective varied a bit, but that should have had little ultimate effect on the fact that the greenhouse didn't look in the same position from the model to the 1:1. If the model is correct and if photo artifacts alone can cause that apparent shift in those horizontal elements relative to one another, then somebody with the right background should be able to explain HOW. And one other possible sticking point involves the notion of 100% correct conclusions - fact is, we don't have to get anywhere near 100% correct to see where the firewall or the blower deviate from the norm.

I don't think that swipe was particularly necessary - but I also don't see why that brace can't be dispatched with four neat clips from a set of Xuron sprue nippers.

Fair enough. Here you go: Somebody says a part or a body shell looks off and explains why. Many of the responses he gets clearly indicate a level of personal offense at him bringing up that problem - from people who had nothing to do with the actual development of that model. Some go so far as to express outrage at the very idea he should have the nerve to point that problem out. Some responses devolve straight down to personal attacks. WHY? WHAT JUSTIFIES that personal offense?

Great preview as always, Tim, and thank you. Still have a reservation or two about the body shell, but I'm at the point where I want it in my hands now. The tulip panel kick-up at the C-Pillar looks incredibly better, and all credit to Art if he's the one who dialed that in for them. The engineering looks undeniably cool, no question.

Hmm. Good question. Here's a quick fix till a more skilled photo manipulator than I brings better resolution, maybe: Now it's all well and good, far as this discussion's gone afield, I suppose. But beyond all the claims of how corrupt photos of 1:1 subjects are as a comparison basis, and the byzantine logistics faced by minimal kit development staffs, and the fact that the prime movers are good guys driven by passion and doin' it for the love the very best they can, and what there's a market for, and language difficulties and licensing and time zones and culture shock and sprawling gestations and missed deadlines ad nauseam infinitumque, it STILL, after all the rationalizations, misdirections and voluminous justifications, comes down to one question: If somebody points out a part that doesn't look entirely right, just WHAT is so inherently offensive about that? What is it to any fellow modeler that he should take such personal umbrage as to resort to anything from another rotten little "rivet-counter" drive-by, to falsely attributing behavior to critics that just isn't there, to declaring who's a real modeler and who isn't? ANYTHING to have some chilling effect on a discussion that's not only topical, but should be expected when we see preview shots of a future product? Now I certainly don't know everything there is to know about comparing a 3D miniature to a 1:1 photograph. But amidst all the talk of lens distortion and focal length and perspective - as if none of us who've compared models with photos could ever have accounted for these factors on our own, by the way - what I have found is the more correct models out there seem to agree with 1:1 photos just fine, FANCY THAT. Also, that I was in fact able to come up with a pretty convincing conversion of my own by analyzing photos of a 1:1 and the mathematical proportions they express. And when I've seen a grid comparison between a side profile of a model body and a 1:1 that appeared to show discrepancies difficult to account for with camera artifacts, I've asked an honest question about it and gotten a field of crickets for a response. And having seen an actual example of how test shots can go weirdly awry of a pretty decent tooling mockup, I can only imagine my own blood boiling as the overseer of that whole process. I can just barely get my head around the exasperation of being denied manufacturer CAD data or wrangling engineers a world and a language away, and I can't help but sympathize. But in the end, a target missed is a target missed and if you want an accurate product, it doesn't much matter why. And I don't know everything there is to know about refinements from test shot to production; but what we have seen in previews has wound up on the shelves so elfin' frequently that the notion of waiting for the production kit is almost nonsensical at this point, at least from one of the domestic manufacturers. Neither the production '70 'Cuda nor the production '62 Impala proved us wrong about the fender arches in preview shots. Hell's raised months ahead about the tubular front axle in the Rat Roaster, and what winds up in the box you take home? Grille bars look funny on the '67 Camaro in previews, and what shows up on the shelves? The Kit That Must Not Be Named is clearly going way off the rails in October '12 preview shots and it arrives seven months later living down to every expectation. NOBODY'S talking about final judgments here, just the details looking off in previews that almost ALWAYS wind up that way in your hands. Discussion about this stuff is NOT going away. It has no reason to, it's TOPICAL. Just WHY anyone besides a designer or manufacturer himself should find it offensive, or necessary to temper that discussion in some way or make it conform to what HE thinks is proper, is a question I've asked countless times before. And now I pose it again. Just in case somebody has an answer this time. Or, to demonstrate the absence of any logical response once more.

They can do all-new tooling and still use old patterns, y'know. '69 Shelby/Mach 1 re-scale of Boss 429 patterns, '67 Chevelle chassis from '64 GTO patterns, and so on.

Ayuh, all I wuz sayin', 'cause I thought we were talking about tire changes too. Poly caps all around, far as I'm concerned, 'cause those one-piece wheels also relieve the rims of any tire-holding duty. Though I think the closest we'll probably ever get with the domestics were the styrene caps in the AMT Escalade.

Huh. Maybe the fault lies with the terms I used, but what I was talking about was this: How much time do you need to spend per day looking at the inside edge of your model's tires sighing with contentment over the prototypical inner tire rim/bead, to see that the rim on the left is far cleaner and less distractingly out-of-scale than the one on the right? Yeah that's what I thought...

They are funky, mostly because the rear posts run nearly parallel to the A-pillars, instead of converging more noticeably toward them as they run to the top. I promise you you'll see just exactly that when you have yours in your hands. Those people who've made you feel it necessary to qualify your statement with that classic "wait-and-see" that almost NEVER disproves an early observation? They're the ones with issues. Not you for pointing out a potential flaw. Fortunately, that one small deviation looks like a pretty easy fix. In defense of the hollow-tire-support-rib approach: as long as vinyl is the medium for the tires, one key thing we have gotten in trade for that loss of interchangeability is a much more convincing scale interface between the tire and rim. It used to be that when functional locating rims were molded to the wheel halves, the beads would stick out way too far for a scale appearance - AMT's new-tool '60 Sunliner from 2000 being a prime example.

HAH, it's funny you mention that, Bill - just remembered the very kit that got me honing the just-off-boiling-water technique was in fact Monogram's first-issue, metallic blue '59 Impala in that same big box. Body was twisted up like a braid, but I managed to flatten it out.

Exactly. Same issue here, but mild enough to fix with hot water.

Both 1/12 GTOs are so gorgeous, there was no way I could resist this. Looks like the P foregoes a die cast block with moving pistons. GOOD. Then maybe I'll finish it before I die.

Kool, and thanks. Too bad they didn't have any Sesto or Diablo prototypes yet...