Chuck Kourouklis

Not only do I like it, I think I might wanna copy it somewhere down the line...

^FUNNY^ I mean, isn't that always the way? Dual-carb supercharged?? woooooooooooooooooooooowww Where has that setup been all my life?

X2. On all counts. Anybody even bother to notice how thread discussions of the better models have much less fur flyin' in them? This '57 wagon ain't followin' in the footsteps of the Kit That Must Not Be Named. So far, it's lookin' reeeeal good, like a worthy successor to the '57 Custom Sedan - a kit far less controversial because there was far less obviously wrong with it. And anybody pretending there isn't a clear cause-and-effect relationship between kit problems and kit criticism only proves who the scat-stirrers really are.

Informational, maybe, but it's working for me so far. Nothing any too strange or off-looking just yet...

Riiight. This is a '61 wheel: and here's the model again: No point even bothering to comment.

x2

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.

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.

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.

WINNER. Chicken dinner to Mr Hayes, please.

That's a question that would have a shot at making sense if people truly treated accurate models as a matter necessary for life. Or kit inaccuracies as life-threatening. Again, am I missing something?

Yup, I caught that the wheelbase is not perfectly centered in the wheel arches and wondered about the wheel centers as touchstones. But if you place them more optimally, you slide the front bumper inside its "mark" and the rear bumper outside its, reinforcing the impression of a too-long deck. So something's gonna be off - if the greenhouse winds up placed properly within the wheelbase, then the rest of the body work will be that smidge too far back(!) And the proportional relationship between the door and the area behind the front wheel arch will remain the same; if the front door gap lines up, the rear one will be off alignment. And I don't yet see how these things can be explained away by lens artifacts. I see how extremities can get distended or compressed by lens curvature, but as I understand it, that distortion will be uniform, so a C-pillar touchdown should be pulled back by the same amount the rear quarter is getting stretched, and the horizontal relationship between the two shouldn't shift. Now nowhere do I suggest a retooling based on these pics alone. I do think they might be helpful in pointing out areas to examine the master, however. And I'm sorry, but time and time over time besides time again, the funk in preview photos has landed right in my hands with production kits. Except in the case of The Kit That Must Not Be Named. Which actually got worse by comparison.

Uh, 'cause foiling hood trim is a far more bone-headed proposition than hacking plastic to scootch a roof back? Eh, did something like that with the Revell '50 Olds, and I'm gettin' me some Moebius '61 Ponchos irrespective - if the '61 comes out the way it's looking, I'll pull out the knives and show everybody again. That's a very good question prompting another one: when's the last time anybody insisted you agree Kit X is a screwed-up mess? Did I miss something there? Cause sure, that'd be effed up. For my part, I'd just be happy if I could evaluate a kit like a grown-up without all the attendant hysterics from people who can't handle that. And I don't mean simple disagreements - got a blog full of all the puerile nonsense I'm talking about. I, like MOST, very rarely call a kit out-and-out garbage and NEVER insist everybody else toe some arbitrary line.

Oh, well now, I think some of the commentary here is more knowledgeable than heat-of-the-moment typos might allow. But I do wanna make sure I'm reading the deafening silence following my question correctly: In Brett's pic, the blue lines largely vindicate the Moebius model along the lines of wheelbase and overall length: but Harry's red lines - in the very same comparison - show the greenhouse is off on the very same horizontal orientation. So, anybody offering commentary on the quality of the photos should have the wherewithal to explain exactly how the very same lens artifact variation between the two shots can simultaneously vindicate and contradict an accurate model as stacked above. In light of what appears to be convincing graphic evidence, it's incumbent on you to do so. Is somebody gonna break this down? Or will this comparison stand as a refutation to the whole photo comparison objection?

WOW. It's like a checklist, this thread. Just five days shy of a clean 18 months since I've lined all this up and shot it down in one place, ya got plainly visible inaccuracies written off at the "micrometer" level (#6, High-friction Slippery Slopes), ya got criticism of major flaws herded together with people complaining about option levels (#2, False Equivalencies), ya got "crybabies" and "whining" as infantile variations on the whole name-calling exercise (#10, "Rivet-counters"), ya got supposed inevitable complaints about a 100% flawless kit recalling the classic "perfect kit" misdirection (#1), and ya even got a sprinkling of "are you a MODELER or not" (#3, Credential-challenging). Which I guess leads to the conundrum of that whole "Failed Tactics" exercise: if somebody had the capacity to understand the deficiencies in these approaches after you drew him a picture, he'd probably have the sense not to use them in the first place. Let's just set aside for a minute how… typical the whole "smell your farts" angle is. Look at the instantaneous, contemptuous ease with which keyser flipped that whole analogy around to something FAR more truthful. This is the difference between an actual point, and those sad little shams upon which the most basic logic visits a rough, prison-cell kind of justice.

Bingo, Peter. Rick, I covered your angle fifty ways from Sunday almost a year and a half ago - prob'ly best you don't hit the link in my signature. Um, I think it's only fair to point out that maybe Brett wasn't doing his comparison entirely to vindicate the model. Now Art, I don't mean to minimize your input - and evidently Tom Montgomery, the man who partnered with John Mueller to give us that nice run of new AMT tooling 'round the turn of the century, needs an introduction around here. Applause here, Tom! And if you'd like to weigh in on this one, all the better. But it's incumbent on anyone who says Harry needs to get his facts straight to be a little more specific than that, 'cause frankly, the focal length/camera position arguments have been played before, and I still got a '56 300 in my hands with headlights that look like they're on eye stalks. We're no longer talking just one photo comparison, gents. We're talking a series now, and a composite analysis begins to emerge. And Brett's comparison is the one that most minimizes those camera position and focal length issues. So I'm gonna toss every other concern aside and boil it down to one, specific question: in Brett's shot, how can it be the focal length, lens position, or any other aspect of photography so throwing off the greenhouse position relative to the profile of the 1:1? Guess I can't avoid the aspect of a challenge here, but I'd be very much interested in a detailed answer.

No, Harry, you're not.

No disagreement from me there. But we're far further along on the development curve this time...

Thanks, Tim & Bill, and I agree this time about seeing it in person.

Were the Bonnevilles longer in the rear quarters, Bill?

Thanks, Gerry!

Well, to get the kool design trick in, they had to compromise the spacing of the fins, which isn't even, as it is on the 1:1: But that's alright - I'm all good, long as they please, please, purty PLEASE get that body closer than the Ford pickups, anyway...

True - no way 'round the model year timing issue, no 2 ways about it. Far as the simplicity, though, it delivers almost exactly on the formula promised by Monogram's previous late-model 1/8 and 1/12 scale kits, and those did alright in their day. The finished piece looks impressive, imposing, and largely correct; and not only didn't it tax a modeler's skills too bad, it also didn't hit his wallet that hard. Tamiya knows it has the market to go all the way to a 600-piece opus if it wants, but for Revell to venture even into 160 parts or so for posable steering and a few more opening panels? Doubt it would have done them any better, and there was nothing in their history with large scale kits to indicate that was necessary.

HUH? I don't recall a double post from yesterday. Wooops... * E D I T *

Monogram Big Deuce for me all the way, E-Type tucked very tightly behind. They set a standard half a century ago for a combination of accuracy, buildability, and detail that's not often matched since. Jury's not entirely in yet, but there's another eighth-scaler I'm finding one of the most impressive of this day and age - I'll wrap that one soon enough. And man, there's something about that Revell Thunderbolt that just gets me - crispness, subject matter, kool factor. Just love it. Subject matter is probably a plus for me, driving something closely resembling it, but I thought Revell's 1/12 GT500 didn't get half the enthusiastic reception it deserved. Haven't seen a 1/12 Tamiya to go wrong yet, Enzos in both scales are a killer one-two punch. Fujimi's downright polar in execution from one kit to the next, but their recent 250GTO is another that drills me dead center, and the 288 and Daytona are my gotta-have-it EM series cars. Loove me some Hasegawa 250TR. Most consistently impressive across the board right now is Aoshima, far as I'm concerned. To answer Mark Jones's question, Jo-Han Turbine car. Looked so killer in the box, sooo killed me trying to build it. Gotta revisit that one now that I got more grown-up skills.