Art Anderson

joemac, AAM did make, years ago, a 1935 Ford 1.5 ton conversion kit in resin. It's of course, long out of production, but still, the project you mention can be done today, albeit not inexpensively. Danbury Mint produced a 1/24 scale 1935 Ford pickup in diecast a number of years ago, may still have a version of that model still available. Yat Ming produced a 1938 Ford fire truck in diecast, also 1/24 scale, with the wheels, tires and suspension characteristic of a Ford truck of that era as well, which would work for your project with modifications. So what's the difference between a 1935 and a 1936 Ford truck? Very little, actually! The biggest difference is the grille shell, which while 1936 carried over the same styling from 1935, was much thicker front-to-back due to Ford's constant battle with overheating of the early 21-stud flathead V8 (those long exhaust passages through the water jacket coupled with water pumps mounted in the heads SUCKING the coolant out of the heads themselves, leading to the formation of steam pockets around the valves. Ford's solution? Double the thickness (number of tubes) in the radiator core!. There are some little detail differences, but they aren't as noticeable as the much thicker grille shell. But that's something that can be altered on the diecast FM grille shell with a little bit of work. The Franklin Mint '35 Ford pickup is fairly expensive if bought new, but I've seen examples at flea markets, model car swap meets, even on eBay for a fraction of what they cost new in recent years. The Yat Ming '38 Ford fire truck model was lots less expensive to start with, and was still available as of about 2 years ago, again I'd keep an eye on the 'Bay, as well as at flea markets and swap meets for a used one (all you would need there is the rolling chassis and the pumper bodywork). To adapt the '35 pickup cab, fenders hood and grille to the '38 model, the biggest issue beyond the obvious shortening of the running boards and splash aprons (and how to mount it on the somewhat dissimilar Yat Ming chassis) would be to enlarge the wheel arches in the front fenders to clear the much larger 7:00-20 truck tires used on Ford's heavy duty trucks. With only minor details, the wheels of the Yat Ming model are correct for any Ford 1.5/2-ton truck mid-1929 to the end of the 1952 model year, as is the rear axle unit. Hope this helps! Art

Monogram made the 2D coupe in 1/24 scale way back in the day, was reissued as an SSP kit in not long ago. Art

The very first cars used laced wire wheels, primarily, given their light weight and strength relative to the cars on which they were mounted. However, as vehicle weights increased dramatically in the first decade of the 20th Century, given also the very poor inadequate streets and roads of the time, wood spoked wheels became the thing, simply for durability and yet moderate weight themselves. Pretty much the standard wood used in those wheels was 'second growth" hickory, for its tendency to be at least a bit springy, and resistance to breakage (although, given sufficient side impact, a wooden wheel will collapse!). The term "Artillery" was used to describe these wheels, as they were made to be rugged, with fairly heavy, oval-cross section spokes, very much like heavy cannon used from their beginnings through the First World War. However, there is very little reference to "artillery wheels" in automotive literature until describing the wheels of 1930's cars. Even after the introduction of heavy-spoked triple laced wire wheels, even the early disc wheels, several carmakers continued to offer wooden spoked wheels, albeit with all steel rims permanently fixed (Packard and Chrysler were known for this style wheel, both companies still offered them as late as 1933). That's when the term "artillery wheel" began to appear (from everything I've ever read), to describe that type of wheel in more modern, rugged terms, rather than to just say "wooden wheels", thus-described to differentiate them from wire wheels, and the upcoming second-generation steel disc wheels. The demountable steel disc wheel was first popularized by GM, Nash, Hudson, Hupp and even Auburn, and to give them some style, designers came up with center sections having short, stubby spokes pressed into what otherwise would have looked very much like the steelies of our time. Those too, were characterized in sales literature, advertising and in enthusiast magazines of the day as "artillery wheels". And if nothing else, the steel artillery wheels did have more resistance to side impacts, which made sense, given the still rather poor roads along with tires that still could not be depended on to keep a car from sliding sideways in wet or snowy weather--nothing like a hard smack of a steel wheel into a curb to create a permanent wobble! There were also a few cars, mostly in Europe, produced with cast iron artillery wheels, those had demountable rims for the most part, the same sort of rim design and attachment popularized with wood spoke wheels. As an aside here: The "wire wheels" on Fords 1926-35 were NOT wire wheels at all, in fact, Ford went to great lengths to say that. Rather, those are more correctly termed "welded steel spoke wheels", and were a Ford development which they then engaged Kelsey Hayes to produce, and later licensed their use by GM, Chrysler and others. Those wheels use a forged steel spoke, mushroomed at both ends, which were pressed into place between hub and rim in a jig, and then resistance-welded together into a very tough, yet light weight wheel. The only way to bend one of those wheels is to bend a spoke or two, which didn't often happen outside of a major accident. Early rodders used '35 Ford 6:00-16 steel spoke wheels simply because they would bolt up directly to any Ford brake drum made from April 1928 clear through to 1948, and yet they were still lighter than the commonly available steel disc wheels Ford introduced in 1940. It wasn't until decades later that Kelsey Hayes started producing welded spoke steel wheels again, under their own brand name, as aftermarket equipment. Art The very first cars used laced wire wheels, primarily, given their light weight and strength relative to the cars on which they were mounted. However, as vehicle weights increased dramatically in the first decade of the 20th Century, given also the very poor inadequate streets and roads of the time, wood spoked wheels became the thing, simply for durability and yet moderate weight themselves. Pretty much the standard wood used in those wheels was 'second growth" hickory, for its tendency to be at least a bit springy, and resistance to breakage (although, given sufficient side impact, a wooden wheel will collapse!). The term "Artillery" was used to describe these wheels, as they were made to be rugged, with fairly heavy, oval-cross section spokes, very much like heavy cannon used from their beginnings through the First World War. However, there is very little reference to "artillery wheels" in automotive literature until describing the wheels of 1930's cars. Even after the introduction of heavy-spoked triple laced wire wheels, even the early disc wheels, several carmakers continued to offer wooden spoked wheels, albeit with all steel rims permanently fixed (Packard and Chrysler were known for this style wheel, both companies still offered them as late as 1933). That's when the term "artillery wheel" began to appear (from everything I've ever read), to describe that type of wheel in more modern, rugged terms, rather than to just say "wooden wheels", thus-described to differentiate them from wire wheels, and the upcoming second-generation steel disc wheels. The demountable steel disc wheel was first popularized by GM, Nash, Hudson, Hupp and even Auburn, and to give them some style, designers came up with center sections having short, stubby spokes pressed into what otherwise would have looked very much like the steelies of our time. Those too, were characterized in sales literature, advertising and in enthusiast magazines of the day as "artillery wheels". And if nothing else, the steel artillery wheels did have more resistance to side impacts, which made sense, given the still rather poor roads along with tires that still could not be depended on to keep a car from sliding sideways in wet or snowy weather--nothing like a hard smack of a steel wheel into a curb to create a permanent wobble! There were also a few cars, mostly in Europe, produced with cast iron artillery wheels, those had demountable rims for the most part, the same sort of rim design and attachment popularized with wood spoke wheels. As an aside here: The "wire wheels" on Fords 1926-35 were NOT wire wheels at all, in fact, Ford went to great lengths to say that. Rather, those are more correctly termed "welded steel spoke wheels", and were a Ford development which they then engaged Kelsey Hayes to produce, and later licensed their use by GM, Chrysler and others. Those wheels use a forged steel spoke, mushroomed at both ends, which were pressed into place between hub and rim in a jig, and then resistance-welded together into a very tough, yet light weight wheel. The only way to bend one of those wheels is to bend a spoke or two, which didn't often happen outside of a major accident. Early rodders used '35 Ford 6:00-16 steel spoke wheels simply because they would bolt up directly to any Ford brake drum made from April 1928 clear through to 1948, and yet they were still lighter than the commonly available steel disc wheels Ford introduced in 1940. It wasn't until decades later that Kelsey Hayes started producing welded spoke steel wheels again, under their own brand name, as aftermarket equipment. Art

Ed Shaver is correct. Back in the day, AMT Corporation was the largest single model kit producer anywhere around, and as such, had the brand recognition to go along with it. So, Johan either sent the tooling over to Maple Road (which I doubt, given that Johan's tooling was made to fit their injection molding machines, which reportedly dated back to the very earliest types built during WW-II or shortly thereafter) As for the '34 Ford pickup, that tool was sent out to AMT's Windsor Ontario toolmaker (one of a family of tool & die shops in Windsor, just across the Detroit River from Detroit) toward the end of Lesney AMT--and when Lesney filed for bankruptcy in March 1982, somehow that tool got missed in the inventory admitted to the Bankruptcy Court. It sat at the tool shop for the next 10-11 years, until someone from the newly reconstituted Lindberg (quite possibly George Toteff, who founded MPC, and at the outset of the 1990's, bought up Lindberg, started doing some new tooling, likely at the very same tool shop. Reportedly, the toolmakers considered that tooling to be abandoned, and sold it to Lindberg for the cost of the work, plus storage. Lindberg did have to pay for new PVC tire tooling, as that remained at AMT. Art

Also the Austin-Healey 100-6, the Mercedes Benz 190SL and their Porsche race car. Art

Zamak can be soldered, but it does take the right flux to do the job, and it matters not if the solder used is lead/tin or silver solder, or even one of the silver-bearing low temp solders. Years ago, I built the Hubley Duesenberg Phaeton, and didn't like the idea of having a huge seam down the middle of the body shell, nor that deep pair of holes in one side of the body where the self-tap screws showed. I used what was called Sal-Met, which was a soldering flux widely available in the 60's, and a 300-watt soldering iron, solder flowed, tinned the surface perfectly, filled the seams, and the screw holes over top of the screw heads. Some filing, sanding, then priming and painting, you could never have guessed that the body was screwdriver assembled. With zamak, though, bear in mind that torches get hot enough to melt this alloy, which melts below red heat, so be a bit careful. As for piano hinges, Phoenix Model Development in the UK makes a number of sizes of piano hinge stock, in various lengths, all you need do is cut it to the right length, and it can be either soldered or epoxied into place. Google their website, worth a look! Art

This has been an interesting thread to say the least! Dave Metzner took a pretty big risk, by allowing pics of the first round test shots of the Hudson to be put up online--as a general rule, model companies NEVER allow any images of any as-yet-uncompleted model kits to be made public. In doing so, Dave allowed some real transparency to happen with the development of the two car kits from Moebius, and while some vituperant rhetoric has evolved here, in general, public input has been valuable! I can say this, I think, that the input from members of these forums has lead to what will be a few serious modifications to the Hudson tooling--and that's a good thing, it seems to me (even though it will mean some added expense to the company) that Moebius will do what can be done to make the model more accurate, more palatable to a larger audience. Hopefully, everyone here now has a better idea as to the challenges faced by anyone in the business of creating scale models for mass production. While there is technology available today that pushes so much of what used to be done almost into oblivion, bear in mind that when one is working with a car subject from decades ago (1953 was 57, almost 58 years ago--a time when computers were massive, room-filling machines, tended by stereotypical men in white coats, with balding heads and thick eyeglasses!), but still, in the final analysis, it's the human factor which comes to the forefront--it's still artistry, folks--no matter the high-tech means available, at some point in the process, the human eye, the human hand still have a huge part to play. I think I can say (with confidence that Dave won't just shoot me!) that the input here, while some of it has been pretty hard to take, has been welcome. It won't always be a matter of seeking modelers' input where a new kit is in the works, but this has been an interesting and valuable exercise, I think. So, sit back, buckle up the seat belts, folks! There's going to be some more good subjects done, I believe. Art

Andy, On the descriptions of scale, not really, at least not in the area of plastic model kits--those have pretty much always been expressed just as we do today, as a fractional description. But yes, architects and engineers used the descriptions you mention, and often still do from what I see. As for 1:43 scale, I believe that is something that evolved out of the UK, with Dinky Toys diecasts which settled on a common scale what, at least by the late 1940's? Corgi and the French company Solido, along with others on the Continent seem to have gravitated to that scale with the rise of numerous toy manufacturers in the 1950's doing diecast miniature toy cars and trucks. Now, HO scale is an interesting animal indeed. Beginning in a time when there were basically two sizes of toy trains, Standard Gauge (Very close to G gauge today) and O Gauge (you can think Lionel or Marx tinplate toy trains of the 1950's, although O gauge had its beginnings in the 1920's); someone came up with the concept of a scale model train using just two rails of a 3-rail O gauge system, with DC current. This quickly became known as Half-O, or HO, but it was scaled to the track rather than a specific fractional scale reduction such as say, 1/96, due mostly to the fact that it evolved out of a toy train size. It took awhile, but finally the newly (1930's) formed National Model Railroad Association (NMRA) settled on 1:87, or 3.5mm to the foot for standardizing HO. Some scales for modeling have evolved simply due to convenience. For example, I believe the classic Britains toy soldiers were worked up around a 54mm tall figure, which lead to a popularity for this size among figure modelers of the 1950's and 60's. This evolved into 1:35 scale when Tamiya started up in the 1960's, with their line of ever-more-sophisticated armor and soft-skinned military models--Tamiya simply "went with the flow", basing their scale around 54mm figures. Art

What's REALLY interesting is, 1/25 scale works out ot just a hint over 1mm per scale inch, a far easier conversion than say, 1/24 scale. It's often hard to realize that when Monogram Models began producing model car kits in 1/24 scale, overseas, it was 1/32 scale that was the primary scale for plastic model car kits, principally Airfix. For whatever reason, when Japanese companies began model car kits, they gravitated to 1/24, and I would guess that they were emulating Monogram, thus their scale choice. And yes, AMT Corporation did release several Heller model car kits in the US, which are 1/24 scale. Art

You might try using acetone or one of the fingernail polish removers containing acetone. Acetone is the debonder (solvent) for cured CA (Super Glue). Straignt acetone should be available in most any paint store, or paint department of a home improvement store. As a word of caution, try it on another tire that doesn't matter, or perhaps the vinyl sprue from the center of another tire or which it is attached to. Art

Ken, ejection pins can be adjusted to be flush, and unfortunately, they are a necessary evil sometimes, especially on highly detailed parts with little or no "draft angle" to them. Also, more than likely, AMT/Ertl did look at restoring the old tooling, and discovered that the cost to do so was high enough to be very close to that of making a new tool. In addition, the old tooling was "ganged up with the '29 Model A roadster as a double kit, if you recall--and that also creates production, logistics, and even public perception problems. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Art

Actually, the Hemi in the Ala Kart is smaller than most modelers realize: It's the 241cid DODGE Red Ram Hemi, much smaller than the 354/392 Chrysler Hemi. Other than that, there are some fairly minor bodywork contour issues, that any modeler can fix, but that some of the "kit assemblers" in this thread cannot handle (apparently!). Art

Etzel made an excellent resin/white metal Kurtis Midget, but his equally fantastic Offenhauser engine was a 274cid unit, as raced at Indianapolis 1935-55. Art

In the era represented here, the basic specs were (USAC--United States Auto Club): Midget: Wheelbase 72" minimum, Displacement (DOHC pure racing engine): 110cid; Stock Block:144cid. Sprint Car: Wheelbase 84" minimum. Pure racing engine (such as an Offenhauser) 220cid, stock block 305cid. Championship (Indianapolis legal) Car: Wheelbase 96" minimum; Pure racing engine Offy, 4-cam Ford etc., 255cid normally aspirated, 161cid supercharged; stock block 305cid normally aspirated, 244 (I believe) supercharged. There were corresponding minimum weights as well, but I'm not all that sure of those anymore--and they really don't matter in a scale model, of course. Race car drivers aspiring to run at Indianapolis back in those days (1950's and 60's) generally started with Midgets, then graduated to sprint cars or even dirt track Championship cars, then "Roadsters" on the mile-track parts of the USAC Championship Trail, and finally, if they were good enough to be noticed, an offer to drive a roadster at Indianapolis. It was hard to make the big time back then--took not only skill, but also perseverance and a big dose of good luck as well. Not all that many Midget or Champ car drivers drove sprints back then, given the almost deadly nature of those early sprinters with no roll cages, very little in the way of safety or protective systems for the driver; and those who did drive them, once they advanced to Champ cars, seldom ever went back. Only a few drivers made the transition from stock cars to open wheel back then, mostly due to a lack of recognition/publicity of stock car racing outside of the SE United States. The same was also true of Grand Prix drivers--even though they were aware of Indianapolis, few tried it back 50-some years ago; and almost none of the Grand Prix drivers ever tried midgets unless (like Phil Hill, Jack Brabham or Mario Andretti) they'd pretty much gotten their open wheel careers started with midgets. Art

I've used Goldberg Superjet with Bob Smith Accelerator to do this for perhaps 25yrs now. works just fine. SuperJet is a medium viscosity CA, Bob Smith Accelerator works without bothering the neighboring styrene one iota. Art

One of my all time favorites, from YEARS ago: A sign on the entry door to a local restaurant (one of my favorite places as a kid--great classic 50's Drive-In!) THE FINEST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD EAT HERE OUR CUSTOMERS! (Always made me wonder just who was in that hamburger I just ate!) Art

One of the problems with using exact scale wire for plug leads, in my experience is--it's so small as to seem underscale, even when it isn't. Real plug wires are what, about 1/4" diameter over the insulation (or for metric, just under 6mm) in diameter. In 1/25 scale, that translates to .010" or .25mm. Most modelers I've conversed with about this issue tend to like plug wires that are larger, fatter, they just seem to look better. While scale fanatics may, and most likely will, disagree with me here, I like going just a bit overscale on plug wires as well, particularly as when I do wire an engine bay, I have a tendency to add the underhood wiring harnesses as well--and those single wire lead outtakes from a wiring harness are MUCH smaller than spark plug leads. I tend to use .020" (.50mm) diameter wire for spark plugs, which leaves the smaller diameters (generally around .010" (.25mm) for single wires branching from any wiring harness I might add to the engine bay. To my rather untrained eye, these somewhat oversized wires don't overpower the rest of the details, but they do stand out a bit more under the hood, which I think gives at least the illusion of being in scale. That's my story, and I'm sticking with it. Art

Jim Hall's Chaparral 2C and 2D both wore COX decals, as in LM Cox, who produced 1/24 scale slot car kits of both cars. But, those were at the "accessory" level of sponsorship. Art

NOt exactly model companies involved--BUT, at Indianapolis, in both 1970 and 1971, Johnny Lightning beat Hot Wheels! Yup, Hot Wheels decals on Dan Gurney's Olsonite Eagles, and of course, Al Unser Sr's cars? Johnny Lightning Special. Cox, the model airplane engine and also slot car kit mfr, was an accessory sponsor on All American Racers' Olsonite Eagles in 1966-67 at Indianapolis. Art

I've been watching all this discussion while not really commenting, but it's time now: For starters, virtually EVERY model car kit (for that matter, VIRTUALLY EVERY SCALE MODEL KIT EVER PRODUCED, regardless of subject area!) has been, or is, at least to some extent, an "artist's rendition" of the real subject, no more and certainly no less than any famous painting or sculpture you can shake a stick at. As Dave Metzner points out, CAD files for cars as old as this Hudson are simply do not exist anymore. Also, with the demise, merger, moves, remodels and just about every upheaval one can imagine in the industrial world, for most cars, few if any of even the "loft drawings" exist even today. This is a situation no more prevalent than with an "orphan car" such as this Hudson. Bear in mind, that Hudson, as an independent company, ceased to exist nearly 57 years ago when they were forced to merge with Nash to form American Motors Corporation. That alone meant the end of the Step-Down concept--1955 Hudsons were facelifted Farina-inspired Nash bodies, with your choice of either the 308cid flathead 6 or a Packard-supplied V8 up front. It meant the closing down of Hudson's factory, offices and design studios in Detroit, with AMC having corporate offices in Southfield, and all production moving to Kenosha WI. Now, I suspect that just as with virtually every other marque of car in production in 1954-55, little real thought was ever given to retaining the sheer volumes of styling renderings, drawings, archival photographs--back then, I submit that almost nobody in the auto industry then could imagine that their grown children, their grandchildren or even great-grandchildren would ever collect and restore the cars they were building, let alone seek out toys or model kits of them 55-56 years out in the future, in that misty far-ahead time called the 21st Century. With any artist or artisan (and I WILL submit here that all the mockup/pattern makers who work/have worked in this model car kit industry are both!!), there are going to be limitations--when last I looked, they are still very much human, with all the strengths and frailties extant in our species. As such, every one of them, just as every one of us, is different--different in how they view anything under their observation. A very good written poem about that very difference comes to mind here (casting absolutely no aspersions on anyone living or dead please!!!), "The Blind Men and the Elephant", which is a very good way to understand, albeit a bit politically incorrect, and roughly humorous, to think about how differently we each of us see things. However, any artist or sculptor worth his salt, when working on any project that portends to reproduce in scale (either larger or smaller than real life)any object, be it animal, vegetable or mineral, will work pretty danged hard to make that project portray reality. Those who are the most successful find continued gainful employment; the others? One wonders. Back to the project at hand: From all my years of model building, converting one kind of model car into another, even scratchbuilding, one of the most difficult things is converting what I see in photographs to something in three dimensions, and getting it to look just like the photo's. In this process, nobody's dealing with a rectangular box ala a U-Line or USPS Priority Mail shipping carton here, but an object having multiple angles, planes, all tied together with curves, bulges, humps and bumps (Oh, and did I mention a sharp point here or there along the way?). Even technical information is of limited help here--most references will give just length, wheelbase, tread base and curbside weight (now this last item is Sooo helpful in scaling down a real car into a model--I really don't care how flat it will crush an insect on the tabletop!). Few if any give the overall height, ground clearance at rocker panels, that sort of thing. When the legendary Gordon Buehrig styled his "signature car", the 1936 Cord 810, using his invention, the "styling bridge" (a wooden, "analog" unit that predicted pretty well the present day laser scanning technology), he styled that car in 1/4 scale, using the styling bridge to not only make one side exactly as the other, but also to get the dimensional coordinates necessary for creating the rather complex shapes for cutting stamping dies for production. Having seen many pics of the actual 1/4 styling clays, and perhaps half of the extant Cord 810/812 cars, there are a lot of discrepancies in how the real, 1:1 car appears vis-a-vis the 1/4 scale model from which it was tooled. So, discrepancies appear in the world of real cars as well. Have we become like the IPMS, the model car version of an "international picky modeler's society", where nothing will suit us short of absolute perfection to the last 10/1000th of a percent? Sheesh, some of those guys are still debating wingtip shapes of Messerschmitt Bf-109's, not caring to believe that of the thousands that were built, there likely were hundreds of slightly different shapes of wingtips! Does the model car we look at LOOK like the real thing overall? Is it a good representation of what it purports to be? If so, and if one individually perceives an inaccuracy, then a modeler will correct it, a kit assembler likely not. And I don't say that lightly, as if to make someone accept something they don't truly like, no way. But I am saying, given that any model car kit ever made had, has, and will continue to have anomalies that appear to some, but not to others. There are some who will do whatever it takes to correct those anomalies, and there are those that won't. A perusal of onesself in a mirror might help in one's determining just which kind or level of modeler one is. I for one, have gone through that process since I was perhaps about 20 or so, and that's been a long time ago, and I STILL find myself having to make that determination. OK, enough. Art

You're dealing with 55-yr old vacuum plating here, Jeff. This type of plating has used many different clears for base-coating the plastic over the years, varnishes, non-penetrating lacquers, modified clear enamels, the whole gamut. My stripper of choice for "chrome" for decades has been sodium hydroxide, commonly called lye, which is the active ingredient in oven cleaners (Easy-Off), drain openers (Drano in every drain once a week stuff), and of course is available in crystalline form as "Lewis Red Devil Lye", which is available in most every supermarket in the land, in the cleaning supplies section of the store, right along with drain openers etc. Lewis Lye can be mixed to just about any strength you want, simply by adding more of the crystals to room temperature water (NEVER add water to lye crystals though--Vesuvius can, and will erupt, right in your face!) I like to use about 5 teaspoons of Lewis Lye to a glass cereal bowl of lukewarm (room temperature) water, and stir that gently to dissolve the lye. At all times, PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) needs to be worn--gloves (try the modern Nitrile Exam gloves), eye protection (safety shield), and at least a long sleeved shirt--as Lye burns, will dissolve skin, severely injure the eyes). Generally, with this concentration, plating comes off the plastic faster than it can dissolve, and with the parts left in the solution for a couple of hours, the clear basecoating can be scrubbed off with an old toothbrush under running water at the sink. Another thought as well: With some clear coats, especially those that yellow, they can actually stain the plastic (some styrene blends are notoriously porous!), and while the plastic surface itself is clean, that staining can mislead one to believe that the clear basecoat isn't gone yet (been there, experienced that!). It goes without saying, however, that lye should never be used in any sort of non-ferrous metal such as copper, brass or aluminum (lye will dissolve aluminum in a NY minute--remember that plating in nearly all model car kits is extremely thin pure aluminum!), but glass, plastic or stainless steel vessels are just fine with it. Lye is also bio-degradable, in fact it occurs in nature--simple water on any sort of wood ashes creates the stuff, which is more than can be said for some of the other chemicals that get mentioned in threads such as this one. It can be poured down the drain safely, will dissolve grease in the kitchen sink drain for example. For some of the modern "modified enamels", especially Testor's and Tamiya lacquers, lye seems to have virtually no effect, that's when 91% or stronger isopropyl alcohol (so called "rubbing alcohol" in high concentration) comes into play. Trisodium Phosphate will also dissolve most of those clear coats used in vacuum plating, A/K/A Westley's Whitewall Cleaner. Straight TSP can be had at any good home improvement or paint store selling furniture refinishing supplies, it's used in stripping some kinds of varnishes from wood. Hope this wordy missal helps! Art

No customizing parts. Future releases will include NASCAR (Tim Flock), and a convertible. Art

Well Mark, Sorry if you are disappointed, but this Hudson kit is anything BUT an angular, boxy, sharp edged shoebox. Like Charlie Larkin, I've spent a lot of hours around Hudsons of this era (Dad owned three of them when I was growing up), and it captures the look as well as anyone ever has. As for that "resin" Hudson mentioned above, not bad for a "putty custom" done off an AMT '49 Mercury (yeah, that is what it is, folks!), well I'll let that one sink or swim on its own. Art

Yeah, Separate chrome trim would be so cool--and sooo very delicate as well. Consider that the trim spears will be 1.5mm wide (high) and about .5mm thick--does anyone REALLY think this would be an advantage? I, for one, do not--given the necessity for some manner of positively locating the spears--either a 'trench" down the side of the body shell, or a series of locating holes, which wouldn't likely correspond with those on the actual car. Additionally, with the parts count already in this tooling, I'm more than willing to foil my own trim. Art

Easy answer! Bill Coulter and I have been helping with this project from the very beginning, at the invitation of both Dave, and Frank Winspur (principal owner of Moebius Models). This began with our being asked to come up with short lists of potential model car subjects, to reviewing the tooling mockups and suggesting changes, to what we are now doing, which is reviewing the test shots. Sean Svenson is the guy doing the box art model, so he has to do that from test shots, in order for all of this to come together, together, and in a timely fashion. Working with test shots of a new kit isn't all just fun, it gets very tedious, as any test shot is from a brand new tool, done for the purpose of seeing how it all comes together, and finding stuff that needs correcting, noting those issues, pointing them out to the toolmakers. As such, it can take almost as long to work with test shots that won't be painted and detailed, as it would were we building and finishing out a production kit. It's just a very necessary step in helping bring a new model kit to market. Art