Art Anderson

That certainly makes sense, Brett. In a way, what you say here goes along with my firm belief (based a good bit on experience, BTW) that when the big chain stores (you know, the "-marts") were the major buyers for new releases--their computer-addicted numbercrunchers could never wrap their buying heads around anything that wasn't already a proven seller (at least in theme or concept) over the years for them. Art

In truth, JoHan was very much into current, contemporary product, just as was AMT, back in the heyday of promotional model cars for the automakers, and just a year after AMT they issued their own line of "3in1" Annual Series kits (AMT started their's in 1958, JoHan following in 1959). Where AMT had the strength to land promo model contracts from the biggest marques such as Ford, Chevrolet, Pontiac etc., JoHan instead worked not only with American Motors, but Chrysler Corporation (with the exception of Imperial), Studebaker (while AMT Corporation did Studebaker promo's through 1956, JoHan did the Lark 1960-62), Oldsmobile (then truly "Your Father's Oldsmobile") and from 1957 all the way to the end of promotional models--Cadillac. In 1964-1966 JoHan, swept up with the then-perceived craze for models of antique and Classic cars, introduced virtually alongside Monogram and the fairly new-on-the-scene MPC, their 3 1931 Cadillac V16's, the Mercedes-Benz 500K roadster and Coupe Limousine. Those 5 cars gave no quarter to the offerings from Monogram or MPC. In addition, JoHan truly "moved the goalposts" downfield with their Gold Cup Chrysler Turbine Car, which set a pretty high standard for high detail and working features that in many ways still stand the test today. My perceptions of JoHan back in the 60's (when I was both a model car builder and an employee of a very large local hobby shop here) were that while their kits were always very nicely done--the subject matter left a lot to be desired at the time. The car scene in the 60's was dominated by GM, with Ford nipping closely at the General's heels, and Chrysler (particularly Plymouth and Dodge) not all that far behind. However, modelers (our customers) tended to walk right on by JoHan's Plymouth and Dodge kits--based I think on their perception that they were just as "ho-hum" as JoHan's offerings of Ramblers and Oldsmobiles--those subjects tended to scrape the bottom of the barrel popularity-wise--kids just didn't much care for them. Every summer, Lafayette's downtown held a 3-day sidewalk sale, and we were no exception to that--we'd have 3-4 8' tables on the sidewalk out front, stacked high with closeout stuff--and it was pretty hard to get rid of unsold JoHan stuff even at 1/2 off. It's the modern-day popularity of those AMC, Oldsmobile, Studebaker and Chrysler "grocery getter" cars that colors a lot of thinking nowadays as to how popular those kits were back in the day--simply put: On the scale of things model, they weren't nearly as sought-after back 40-50 years ago as they became once the "USA Oldies" kits started trickling out circa 1980. Art

Greg, There are several who post on this forum, as well as at least one other very large forum who've either "been there, done that" or are at least involved to some degree as "outside, or extra" help when it comes to product development for model car kits. Their experience can range all over the desktop in this regard. As for modern technology--oh yeah! That does get used. Most of the tooling mockups I've seen in recent years have been made in part, or in their entirety by 3D printing, laser scanning is most certainly used, as is CAD/CAM all the way along. However, rather than being a complete replacement for other, older, less technologically advanced methods, the modern hi-tech "tools" simply add another layer, replacing a lot of the former hand-work, etc. But most definitely, research photographs, measuring sticks and tapes, and any/all other printed information is still highly valuable. And, in the end, no camera, no laser, has yet replaced the human eye as the final source for judging the correctness or incorrectness of a model. Art

With such subjects as the Kurtis Midget, I suspect that it took the loss of mass merchants as buyers for model car kits in any sort of quantity for that to happen--I rather doubt it took 10 years to develop that kit, for example. Having been in the position of developing diecast models (Johnny Lightning 1/64 scale) for a few years, it was often both amazing and frustrating to see the limitations on what we might bring to market, based on such expectations as expressed by buyers from the big chain stores. In fact, many of the model car kits we've seen these past 4-5 years simply would not have happened had model kit manufacturers had to "toe the mark" with some toy department buyer in Bentonville AR. Art

Brett, It can take, sometimes, 3 or more years from the point that someone decides "Let's develop this "_______" as a model kit, to the final, finished model kit headed for store shelves. Art

Robert, trust me, it does not. Technology has made the job of creating tooling mockups (masters, if you will) much easier, much quicker, but still it takes the human eye to judge those parts, and it takes all the photographic "evidence" to evaluate whether or not the scanner, the computers, AND those who operate them, did really capture the look of the real thing, and from all angles. A read of these forums should show that while probably every model car kit tooled in say, the last 10 years or so resulted from laser scanning etc., there is lots of room for criticism when the product hits the shelves, and modelers get to fondle the kit parts, and see them for their own eyes. Remember the first rule of computer technology: "GIGO". Art

Let's just take a look at what it takes to create an all-new model car kit: First, it takes extensive research. That means finding (ideally!) an actual example of the real car. From this, extensive photographs will need to be taken, from all angles, all perspectives--it can easily take several hundred photo's to capture every line, every detail, every contour and shape of just the body shell itself. These are not "beauty shots" such as one might find in a magazine article or "coffee table" book (those are pretty, but they do not tell the "complete story". Next, dozens, perhaps in the hundreds, of measurements need to be taken off that real car, simply because photographs alone don't tell the tale on their own either (measuring sticks --such as measuring tapes, carpenter's rules get the call here--generally laid across or along body panels and other details in the photo's) to give information that can be taken back to the design "studio". In addition, parts of the car that are going to be depicted in the model kit have to be found, and the same information as derived from the body shell need either to be found, or at least good pictures located, to do the very same thing as with the model. To understand how complicated this can get, just think of all the parts it takes to make up any car. One can develop a considerable "library" of information, of course--shop manuals, factory drawings, even junkyard pictures. This all takes time to do, of course, and may well involve traveling some distance to find the actual example(s). An exploded drawing of the proposed model car kit has to be made--otherwise, just how is anyone going to figure out just how all the parts of the model car in question going to "relate" to each other (assembly!). That takes someone and equipment (be that a draftsman's table or modern hi-tech stuff) with an understanding of how a model car kit needs to go together. Along this line, bear in mind that of course, a 1/25 scale model car kit meant for mass production and sale can't really have more than say, 100-120 parts if it's going to be saleable (and buildable!) by a large number of model builders--so subassemblies come into play (consider the thousands of individual parts and pieces it takes to assemble a real car!). Finally, drawings (either done by the human hand and eye in the old, time-honored way of drafting, or by modern digital computer aided desigh--CAD) have to be made, From this step, each and every part that will be tooled for the model kit have to be "mocked up" as they will be molded, and representing exactly how each part assembles to the rest (will Part 1 fit properly to Part 2 to result in Part 3?). Along the way in this, everything, each and every part, has to be checked and re-checked by someone knowledgeable about both the real car AND the expected model kit for accuracy, fit and simply "can it be molded that way?". If not, then any offending part will have to be looked at once more and revisions made to correct it. Once all these mockup parts have been corrected and approved, and it's accepted that they assemble into the expected replica or model kit, cutting the tooling can begin. Once the tooling has been cut (but not "finalized") the tool can be loaded into an injection molder, and molten styrene forced into it. for test shots. These have to be checked out, examples assembled, to determine fit and accuracy--not to mention "did the plastic flow everywhere in the tooling as it has to?". And so the review and analysis of the test shots begins. Errors of fit, mold alignment, plastic flow, and certainly final accuracy have to be found, noted and corrections made. As the model kit goes through this process, corrections will be made, and small details such as scripts, emblems and the like engraved into the tooling--often this is done by hand, by highly skilled toolmakers possessing skills rivaled by the finest of manufacturing jewelers. Once the tooling is approved finally, all the inside surfaces are polished to give that smooth finish we all like to see on the model kit parts we're going to find when we crack open that kit for the very first time. All this has to happen, no matter whether it's an old AMT kit from the 1960's, or something brand new from today some 50 years later. It doesn't matter if the model kit was done by once time-honored hand-craftsmanship, or through the use of high-powered computers, laser scanning, and computer aided machining, nor whether the steel tooling is cut with old-fashioned rotary milling cutters or modern "electro-discharge machining"--it all has to happen. Sure, modern, high-tech methods change the skills needed, even reduce the costs and certainly can shorten the time frame--but all the steps pretty much have to happen today, just as they did 50 years ago. Art

Both of you are way too low. Art

From my experiences doing conversions which involved reworking a roof: Chances are not likely that you will find exactly the roof you need in any existing kit--unmodified that is. You might look at say, the Tamiya VW Karmann Ghia, of course the Aurora or (pretty rare) MPC/Airfix Aston Martin DB-5 (Doyusha--??-- made this body style A-M as well). Whosever roof you wind up with as a starting point probably is best considered as a source for the curves at front, sides and rear--and more than likely the roof panel itself will have to be widened, perhaps stretched in length front-to-back as well. But, at least, these two kits may well have some of the basic shapes you are needing. Art

My wish list: 1950 Cadillac Coupe de Ville 1953 Cadillac Eldorado convertible 1953 Buick Skylark 1954 Buick Skylark 1953-54 Mercury Monterrey 1955-56 Mercury Montclair Sun Valley 1955 Thunderbird 1957 Thunderbird (the AMT kit is way long in the tooth--it would sure be grand to have one done in 21st Century model kit design!) 1958-60 Thunderbird 1957 Mercury Turnpike Cruiser 1956 Desoto Adventurer 1957 Imperial 1959 Dodge Custom Royal Lancer HT 1959 Plymouth Sport Fury HT 1956 Plymouth Fury 1955 Studebaker President Speedster 1951 Ford Victoria HT 1950 Ford Crestliner 1949-50 Ford Station Wagon 1957 Oldsmobile 88 2dr sedan w/J2 engine 1957 Oldsmobile J2 88 HT 1957 Oldsmobile station wagon 1957 Buick Caballero station wagon 1958 Buick Roadmaster HT 1958 Buick Limited HT 1959 Buick Invicta HT 1959 Oldsmobile 98 Scenicoupe HT 1958 Ford Fairlane 500 HT 1959 Ford Galaxie HT 1957 Ford Fairlane 500 Skyliner 1958 Ford Fairlane 500 Skyliner 1959 Ford Galaxie Skyliner 1959 Mercury HT 1959 Mercury Commuter HT 1957 Rambler Rebel any 1954-59 Metropolitan 1957-60 Ford F100 pickup 1957 Dodge Sweptside pickup 1950-53 Dodge "Job-Rated" pickup 1951-52 Ford F1 pickup 1957 International Harvester Centennial pickup 1955 GMC Suburban Carryall pickup 1955 International Harvester Travelall 1950-59 Studebaker pickup 1946-57(?) Dodge Powerwagon 1956 Dodge Lancer HT 1953-54 Chrysler Dual Ghia 1955-57 Pontiac Safari 1958 Pontiac Bonneville HT 1957 Pontiac Star Chief HT 1957 Pontiac Bonneville Convertible Frankly, I would take any one (or 3 or 5 or all of them!) Art

Crosley Corporation today was formed in 1976, and it appears their tradename and product line are strictly home appliances and electronic gear. Now, it is questionable, I think, that this would carry over to automobiles--for a trademark or brand name to be protected, it is my understanding that it must be "in commerce" in the product area in question--in this case, cars. Now, that hasn't been the case since at least 1954-55 or whenever the Farm-O-Road and the small line of industrial engines manufactured under the Crosley nameplate went away. Art

Hmmmm, Crosley's you say? Why, a model company could do a Crosley at 6 to the box! Art

Tom's got it pretty right (and I trust Brett Barrow's thoughts on this as wel!). Being somewhat peripherally involved in new model kit development, I can only reiterate what Tom Geiger says here--in times past when all product development was done in-house, it had to have been lots easier (and faster as well) to not only do all the upfront work, but also monitoring and reviewing the work being done by those old-time pattern-makers (just walk down the hallway and get updates immediately--or at least in a very timely fashion). Today, as opposed to yesteryear, additional complications do come from both language and cultural barriers--both of which, even with the most complete reference information and instructional text does tax the communication skills of all involved. But somehow, it all does come together--but it does take time, lots of time, not to mention patience and perseverance (hmmm, aren't those skills and traits part of what we model builders need to have as well?). Just because the very latest in computer-connected technology does the "grunt work" of creating the drawings, rapid-prototyping the tooling mockups, and CAM the final steel dies, NONE of this is worth much without the serious input of humans (GIGO, as my computer science professor put it back 44 years ago in my college classroom!). So, hang in there folks. When Revell has finalized something (or several somethings!) to present for our (and the retail industry as well) anticipation, they will make their announcements. Art

Having dealt with VW in my time at Johnny Lightning, I second what you say about VW being difficult, even demanding to work with, especially if you are an American company wanting to do VW models for the US Market. VW's licensing people have a reputation for insisting that only the German domestic version be produced in toy or model kit form, regardless of whether that is the version most seen by people here in the US. There are differences, albeit in details. Art

For starters, there has been but just one 1955 Chevy sedan produced in kit form, and that is the AMT '55 Belair 2dr sedan. There are far too many serious differences in bodywork (besides the obvious pillarless 2dr hardtop roof) between say, a '55 Chevy hardtop or convertible and a sedan to make it at all easy to change the hardtop into the "post" sedan body. Art

Not necessarily true, in my experience. Art

True enough, but I've found (at least for me) that #11 surgical scalpel blades lack the extremely fine point of an Xacto #11 blade. When I can, however, I pick up Excel #11 blades, as they have the same very sharp point as Xacto, but are considerably sharper, better honed. Art

In my opinion (and I've been using BMF since it first came out circa 1970), Chrome (now called "Improved Chrome") is the only way to go. Bare Metal Foil Company's "Ultra Bright Chrome", while certainly bright and very shiny, is way too thick, and way too stiff to be able to conform to the generally tight, minutely detailed chrome trim on a 1/25 scale model car body. It should go without saying that following the very simple, but explicit instructions given by Bare Metal Foil on their packaging is important. I cannot emphasize enough the necessity of using fresh, never-before-used #11 blades each time you work with the stuff, as it's thin and delicate enough that even the slightest dullness, or a minute bit of the tip broken off the blade can, and almost always will, cause the foil to not only curl up along a cut edge, but will cause "3-cornered" tears in the foil. Additionally, a fresh #11 blade, with the knife held at a fairly shallow angle, can be made to follow the edge of a chrome spear very easily. Art

I think one ought to consider where IPMS and IPMS/USA got their start here: The original IPMS was formed in the United Kingdom (England) as an organization focused on the building of plastic scale models of aircraft, in a time when the "serious" scale modeler there did his/her work in WOOD. Those wooden model builders looked severely down their noses at plastic model builders as little more than "kit assemblers". Fast forward to about 50 years ago: A small group of primarily 1/72 scale model aircraft builders (1/72 was just then beginning to appear on hobby shop shelves here in the US) got together, by phone and snail mail to form IPMS/USA. One of those founders was a woman from here in Lafayette, whom I knew very well until her untimely passing in 1999-Doris I. Reeves. The club's focus was military aircraft, and that with a fairly rigid rule that the model (in order to be entered in competition at a regional or national convention) simply HAD to be built from plastic--no metal, no wood allowed. Sometime about 1970 or so, they broadened the scope of the organization to admit armor modelers (and, there was a good bit of angst over that on the part of some original "purists"!). Shortly thereafter, IPMS/USA allowed the entry of 54mm (approximately 1/35 scale) military figures and the modelers who were painting and detailing them. This was followed in a couple of years by the encouragement (at least tacitly) of modelers of ships. But in all this, there still was a fairly rigid requirement that the models for contest entry be all plastic (with the exception of those 54mm white metal military figures). Sometime in the early 70's, as metal detail parts, even metal kits became available in IPMS/USA's main areas of interest, there was even an attempt to specify a limitation as to non-plastic content of a model entered in competition--even that created controversy--was that to be a percentage by parts count, by weight, by visible portions of the model? Some even went to the point of reminding people that even metal is "plastic" in its characteristics, capable of being molded from it's liquid state, bent, pounded or otherwise formed into infinite shapes, and so on! About 1975 or thereabouts, IPMS/USA began to recognize car modelers (I was one of the early entrants of model cars at the Region IV Convention hosted by the Roscoe Turner Chapter of IPMS/USA in Indianapolis--which group, by reason of their proximity to Indianapolis Motor Speedway embraced car builders early on. However, rather than just classifying model cars as exactly what they were/are--model cars--termed them "Non-Military Vehicles". That "Non'" handle spread across IPMS/USA, their not realizing (perhaps not caring) that classifying the cars and trucks we here like to build as "Non-Military" was seen (and I think rightly so!) as somewhat of a slight against our part of the larger scale modeling hobby. An even older scale modeling organization existed here in the US: The International Association of Automotive Modelers, or IAAM. IAAM began in 1951 as the Chicago Association of Automotive Modelers in 1951 (later morphed into the Lake Michigan Model Car Club--making that club perhaps the oldest model car club in North America I believe). IAAM considered automotive modelers to be legitimate ONLY if they scratchbuilt their models, from wood, metal, paper, or even raw plastic materials--but model cars built from kits were decidedly looked down upon--and even when IAAM tried to broaden their scope to include kit-originated models, the older "purists" tended to have a collective cow. Needless to say, by the early 1980's, IAAM (never a huge organization to begin with) gradually faded away as their membership was reaching their seventies and eighties (Hmm, now that is beginning to sound familiar?). The interest, even "thrust" of any scale modeling organization pretty much depends on the collective interests of those who spearhead(ed) that group: If they are primarily a military modelers' group, of course the interests of the members of that group will be biased toward military models. If a car group, then when they decide to hold a contest embracing all manner of scale models, often the non-automotive subjects placed on their tables are at least considered to be just that, non-automotive, whether or not they are officially classed as such. We as model builders, when going to a contest as car/truck builders, tend to cluster around the model subjects that interest us, do we not? Sure we do! Factory stock enthusiasts tend to seek out their fellow travelers, drag race builders gravitate to other drag race builders, and the same thing goes on with truck builders, custom car builders, NASCAR builders--and so on ad nauseum. With only a small number of exceptions, that does seem to be the case. It's pretty much the human condition--we, all of us, tend to seek out and interface primarily with others with whom we share common interests. And, so it goes, or so it seems to me--and I've been attending model car contests (with more than a few IPMS Conventions) for a good 40 years. Art

I think mostly because the market, as defined by the number of aircraft and armor modelers who do buy and use PE details, is much larger than it is in model cars. I know that sounds almost discriminating, but if there aren't enough model car builders actually buying PE details, why would anybody make more such details? As for the resin cockpit kits for existing plastic model aircraft--well, the sheer small size of model aircraft cockpits can make molding the parts for those as exacting as modelers want them is often pretty difficult, not to mention expensive, if done in styrene plastic. To a great extent, model car builders like you and me are far more likely to be either satisfied with kit interiors as they come in the kit, and they are large enough in scale and size to superdetail fairly easily. As for a lot of the PE details such as screening and the like, with aircraft and armor, a lot of those screens can be made from bulk stock, as they often were/are on real aircraft and vehicles, as opposed to being brand and/or subject specific. After all, those are more like industrial machinery than is say, a car. Art

The cooling was by "thermosyphon", working on the physics principle that hot water (like heated air) rises, and cooler water settles to the lowest level. In a closed water-cooling system, the radiator (or at least a major portion of it) is mounted higher than the hottest part of the engine which will have a "water jacket". The thermosyphoning system creates a circulating flow of water without any mechanical assist from any sort of pump, and will keep the engine within safe operating limits. This is why the Model T Ford had no water pump for several years after its introduction in 1908, and even after the water pump was added, most of the water circulation for cooling was still propelled by thermosyphon. The Model A (and the Model B 4-cyl) engine was also designed around thermosyphoning, a Model A (and certainly the Model B as well) water pump being mostly an agitator rather than truly moving much water from the cylinder head to the top tank of the radiator. Even the Ford flathead V8 was originally conceived to rely on thermosyphoning, but the internal layout of exhaust ports THROUGH the water jacket made water pumps absolutely necessary--some like to say that the Ford flathead V8 was the best water heater ever developed and produced in Detroit (well, Dearborn, anyway). Art

I can add that I saw the tooling mockups yesterday (I get called onl to help with evaluating tooling mockups and test shots BTW) and I can confirm what Dave has said here--it's getting VERY close folks! Should be a lot of fun to see the test shots, see how it all comes together! Art

I assume it will come with vacuum-formed glass?

Getting an even coverage will be a problem--given that Sharpie inks (to an extent even the black) are somewhat transparent. In addition, they do fade over time--if you've ever seen a sign or writing with black on paper, it tends to turn brown with age or prolonged exposure to light. That said, there are uses I think: I've used the Micron brand of razor point pens from Sakura--which come in a WIDE range of colors, with points ranging from .5mm down to a very fine .2mm--these are finding more and more uses at my bench. Art

Not, but I am beginning to detect a delicious aroma! Art