Art Anderson

That's not a sedan roof, but rather the Club Coupe roof. Art

Keep a couple of things in mind: For starters, Marmon's market (much like say, Pierce Arrow or Peerless, even Franklin) was primarily in the northeast quadrant of the US, where super-luxury, coachbuilt cars tended to be bought by rather conservative people. Although certainly a car for the very wealthy, most were "old money", more given to rather polite, reserved society, than being seen driving, or riding in, flashy brightly painted exotic luxury vehicles. In addition, by 1932, it was the darkest of dark times economically, and people with the money to buy such cars, particularly in the cities of the upper midwest and the east coast from say, Baltimore north to Boston (where breadlines stretched seemingly interminably) were even more cautious about flaunting their wealth--so their cars tended to be painted in colors like these, intended to "tone down" their appearance on the street. The more flamboyant cars of the era tended to be out on the west coast, or in South Florida, where rather "loud" color schemes didn't really attract negative attention. Hollywood was a hotbed of the very stylish roadsters, convertible sedans, and phaetons, closed car body styles being pretty much the rule east of the Mississippi in that era. Art

I don't believe it's from the '50 Convertible kit, as the only optional tops I've ever seen for that in styrene were the padded Carson top in the original issue, and the "half-top" that's been in just about every reissue since. Art

And, an often-overlooked fact of the model kit business is: Today's sales of kits (both new and REISSUES) funds next year's new tooling. Truthfully, banks almost never loan money for new model kit tooling--so that next new model car kit you see in all likelihood was self-funded by the manufacturer themselves. Art

Yes, Button and Carpet thread is a great choice, as it's heavier thread (and with some searching, comes also in different weights as well)! So far, the largest diameter I've seen is about .020" (.5mm) which is right on for 1/2 inch cable in 1/25 scale. For anything heavier, perhaps heavy fishing line? Art

OK, enough of my faux pas a week or two ago, this is in the correct thread now! I'll backtrack to the picture I took once the kit chassis was assembled, just to show the changes that have been completed since: Now, the chassis is completed! I didn't like the fact that ICM left the rear of the engine just hanging in midair, supported only by the kit driveshaft, so I made a rear (transmission) engine mount. On the actual car the rear mounts follow what was pretty much GM practice, with a pair of engine mounts extending inward from the frame rails to the sides of the transmission housing, but some problems exist there. First, there are lightening holes right where those mounts would attach, and second, there are almost NO good reference pictures of the chassis which show just what those mounts even look like (Just 3 I've found showing the chassis, even the GM cutaway illustration doesn't give any really usable information, given the angle of the illustration!), so I made a simply crossmember, with reinforcement on the top side, and used a simple brass pin on the bottom of the transmission that locks into a corresponding hole in that crossmember. Second, there are a pair of channel section braces just forward of where the rear legs of the X-member attach to the inside of the side rails--ICM didn't capture those either. They were pretty easy to make: Three strips of Evergreen, the channel flanges made from .015" thick styrene, and once glued up, a bit of carving, filing and sanding stick work, just shaping their ends and gluing into place. Last, I added the brake and clutch pedal arms to a home-made cross shaft, which also has an actuating bellcrank on the inner end that serves to engage/disengage the clutch, and inserted that assembly through a drilled hole in the frame. Now it's really starting to come together--next up on the chassis is to add the fuel line and brake lines, which fortunately are pretty much the only lines that show on the frame itself--the electric wiring harness is almost completely within the bodywork, as the battery is mounted underneath the front seat, with virtually no wiring visible in the engine bay save for the generator harness, starter cable and ignition wiring. Art

I suspect that choosing any car subject for a new model kit, especially if the car in question has never before been produced as a model kit, is very much a gamble, and one that involves putting a lot of money on the table. While there are a lot of automotive subjects that are as near to a sure thing as can be, many if not most have already been kitted, some subjects several times over the years. Given the serious dollar investment in any new tooling (while the investment by a Ford, a GM, a Toyota is HUGE, so is the investment that has to be made by a model company, in comparison to its size when compared to the vast resources available to a 1:1 scale automaker), the decision to make a new set of tooling is not taken lightly, not made on mere whims. There are many car subjects that have been and still are, perennial winners--trouble is, it's harder and harder to find that "key to Ft Knox" subject matter any more (which makes it amazing that some of the once-esoteric subject matter we've seen in new model kits over the past 5-10 years pretty astounding!). In all dicussions such as this topic, it should always be considered that injection-molded model kits simply have to be mass-produced, and sold in rather large numbers if the companies that make them are to succeed, move forward to the next new subject--and those mass sales aren't merely a given--serious consideration just has to be given to just what subjects will do that. As for reissues being almost all profit, that's truly an urban legend--a reissued kit has significant costs involved just to bring it back to production in many cases. Just because the tooling was made, and hopefully amortized does not mean it's any sort of cash cow. With very few exceptions, a reissued kit never sells in numbers like it may have when first introduced--it will sell in numbers that are only a percentage of what it did the first time around--that's been a fact of life in the plastic model kit industry for decades now. And, the payback to the company of the $$ spent to create that tooling is only part of the equation--one has to factor in the costs of bringing an older tool (molds if you will) back to life again---there are often issues involved that require a toolmaker, certainly a millwright, licensing, more than likely new packaging. In addition, the mold presses that such tooling is loaded into did not come free of charge--those have to be paid for, and eventually a new one purchased. Also, unless the model company in question is no longer adding any new tooling (new subject matter), then there is the accumulation of funds for that next new tooling has to be considered. And of course, the cost of the labor involved after the plastic parts are spit out of the machinery, along with transportation etc. have to be factored in--and still yet, all those unavoidable fixed costs. With all this, that reissued model kit had danged well produce some profit, otherwise, why even think about bringing it back out again? Art

One thing for sure: No other car will block your forward vision! Art

Take a good look at some of the thread available in craft stores such as Michael's or Hobby Lobby--some of those are pretty convincing! Art

Saran Wrap (or any other "cling wrap" is made from PVC, which has a high level of plasticizer in it in order to make it very flexible, and cling to itself. The problem here with using it to "protect" a plastic model is that Saran Wrap will attack and soften any paint job, from acrylics to enamels to lacquers, much like the once-dreaded "Revell Tire Disease" of years ago. Art

That video was shot, I believe, at the Chevrolet plant in Flint MI, where the first Vettes were built (St Louis came a couple of years later IIRC). Art

Consider too, that Chevrolet built only 300 Corvettes that first year, without knowing for sure that the car would continue (they likely would have axed the Vette after 1954 had it not been for that upstart from Dearborn, the all new 1955 Thunderbird! Art

Actually, with most any C1 Corvette, all the way out through 1962, spider web cracks were at every body panel joint--seen many that problem over the years. Art

Look's more like a trike to me

As a hobby retailer when that kit came out, in 1987, there apparently was still some old-school thinking in Dyersville, and quite possibly some fairly tight cost considerations as well: Where today, someone such as Moebius or Revell more than likely would not cut corners with such as thinned channels on the underside of a hood in order to make it "easy" for someone to cut out a hole for an injector scoop or a blower (both companies are pretty much beyond that with new tooling--in a case such as this "Mold two hoods". In the 80's though, was still the "transition" of this hobby from being one primarily populated with young kids to that which we have today, pretty much an adult hobby. Even as late as the first RCHTA trade shows in Chicago, I was pretty much turned off by AMT/Ertl reps a their booth who seemed to be of the genre "By Cracky! How the heck are ya? Come see the new kits guarranteed to get the kids into your shop for the neatest model kits from AMT/Ertl! (and yes, I encountered one of those at RCHTA as late as 1991!) That said, it's very possible to eliminate (or minimize to near invisibility) the "ghosting through" of such as the "groove" on the underside of that hood. None of the techniques I've seen posted on forums for as long as online forums have existed, nor either of the procedures I have used to counteract this problem are at all complicated. Art

Of course, a Surrey is a horse-drawn vehicle. Art

Great advice as always, Bill! If I were to add just one more thing: I almost always polish window "glass" as part of building, and have found that I can make the glass "so clear it almost seems to disappear" by waxing it as the very last step. Art

Uh, neither of those songs are even close. Try "In My Merry Oldsmobile", written in 1905 by Gus Edwards and Vincent Bryan. Youtube audio/video from a very old recording, quite possibly a cylinder as opposed to a disc: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7QnPtkn8q0#t=24 Art

Bear in mind that with Round2, virtually every model kit they produce is done in tooling cut decades ago, and is hardened steel. With that, I suspect it's pretty hard to modify that tooling by simple re-grinding, without potentially causing other problems--and to avoid that would mean tooling up a new section of the once-acceptable but now no longer desired mold, cutting away the old part to insert a new block of steel--again not necessarily a simple process. Reissued older kits (which is essentially what Round 2 is doing right now) almost never are produced in production runs anywhere near as large as when a particular kit was first introduced (a newly tooled model car kit might see, say, a production run of 100,000 to 120,000 kits). A reissue of a model kit that's not seen the light of day as a new release in 40-50 years may well only see a short run of perhaps 10,000 or so. If making and installing a new tooling insert into an old tool were to cost say, $10-grand, that will add a dollar to the cost of the model kit FOB the factory dock, which could well translate to another dollar and a half by the time the model kit reaches a store's shelf. At some point in a discussion behind closed doors, someone will (and rightly so) ask the simple question: "If we make this change to this old tooling, how many more kits will we sell?" If (as probably is often the case) the answer is either "I don't know." that will almost assuredly end the discussion, If whomever proposed the idea to begin with throws out a number for the discussion, he/she will surely be asked to substantiate such a figure, the result often being the end of the discussion with a negative answer from upper management. There are some who read and post on this (and other model car message boards) who have been a part of such product meetings (I myself spent almost 3 years working for Playing Mantis, in product development for Johnny Lightning diecast model cars just before PM was sold to RC2) and those are questions that are regularly asked by management people whose job it is to move the entire company forward, keep the balance sheet in the black. Even sales and marketing gets into those discussions, as they simply have to know what price-point any given model kit can be sold at (even the mass merchandisers, hobby wholesalers and any savvy hobby retailer get considered, as they are just as price-sensitive as you and I are!). So, any modification to a model kit tool simply has to "pass muster", that is be something that is clearly recognizable as a difference or upgrade to an older (in the case of the kind of thing mentioned in the post which started this thread) kit tool, if it is to actually get done. Again, the key phrase almost always will be: "If we make this change, invest the dollars, how many more units will we sell because we did?" And that is a very tough question to have posed. Art

As someone mentioned above, we who frequent and post on message boards such as this are but a very small percentage of model car kit buyers and builders (consider that any LHS or other retail store selling model kits moves a lot more kits than just we and others we are acquainted with could ever hope to accumulate); and the same is true as well of those modelers who stop to chat with any representative from any model company at an NNL or other model car event. In any business producing and marketing consumer products (from real cars down to tiddly-winks) I think it's a safe bet that people in positions of responsibility in those companies simply have to pay attention to what consumers are saying, as if for no other reason, we consumers tend to "vote with our wallets" do we not? It seems to me that we would all do well to stop and consider that while any model company exec might pick up a gem of an idea from anyone at any time, they ought not to be held "feet to the fire" because they seemingly ignore any one person's comments or suggestions. Art

There's not much in the way of interior photo's of a stock '25 T Coupe out there, this black & white shot does show the top of the seat, stock upholstery pattern, and indicates that there's really not much of a package tray behind the seat itself (Model T's, while tall cars, are also quite small in comparison with cars you may have seen--in fact, the overall length and width of a Model T Ford is almost exactly that of the aircooled VW Beetle--Dr. Porsche used Model T as his benchmark for size, etc.) As for the sides of the interior, again not much in the way of pics--the kit interior is just a one-piece unit, very typical for an AMT kit first released in the fall of 1961, so it does lack a lot in the way of detail. However, the interior door panels are very simple, covered in a medium brown wool cloth having a welting stitched horizontally about 2/3 of the way up the panel, just a handle and a window crank, with window framing that was made in 4 sections (upper frame, vertical frames, and a sill which ended at the inside surface of the vertical framing (these four parts were stamped sheet metal). The interior fabric was a wool, medium brown in color, with rolled and pleated seat/seat back, the sides, upper interior quarter panel and headliner covered in the same medium brown wool cloth, with all sheet metal parts painted black. The door handle and window crank were nickel-plated. Art

Well, it isn't separate chrome side trim..... Art

Consider this: The Hurst Hemi Under Glass, just as with any Model Products Corporation kit on the market today, is a reissue of a model kit first tooled and introduced several decades ago. Art

Crosley's COBRA engine was designed right at the outset of World War II in 1940 or thereabouts, for the US Army, to power radio controlled target drones for use in training anti-aircraft gunners. In that role, the COBRA 4-cyl engine performed very well, given that the engines generally used either plain water or water/ethylene glycol coolant. Where the COBRA ran into trouble was when it was installed in passenger cars, in the days before modern antifreeze compounds came along. Back in those days, most people used methyl alcohol (wood alcohol) to mix into the radiator water for use as antifreeze, and methanol is very corrosive to metals, even iron and steel, compared to even plain water. As for the "Why hasn't any model company produced a kit of [fill in any marque here]", consider that with just American makes of cars, more than 1500 different makes of automobiles have been produced in the US since the Duryea Brothers pushed their first production automobile out the factory door in 1895 (just over 500 makes of cars built in Indiana over those years alone). Many, if not a majority of those makes are all but unknown today; with no examples left in existence. That sort of rarity, of obscurity would I think, make any kit of such cars a pretty hard sell. Even the Crosley would be a tough sell, if for no other rreason than its size, which in 1/25 scale would be about the length and width of a 1:43rd scale model of a fairly large automobile. That said, it would be cool to have a styrene kit of any year Crosley! Art

Over the years, I've cast literally thousands of wheels, from mags to open steelies, and this is a trick I used: I took ordinary toothpicks, and dipped an end of each into freshly mixed resin (only takes a little bit. getting a smooth surface at the tip with just a tiny "ball point" to them. Then, when pouring wheels, I took one of those toothpicks, and very quickly "wiped" it around down in the lip of the rim, with about 95% success in getting wheel rims with no air bubbles in the rim. I also used the same toothpicks to quickly push resin down into the little cavities which formed the lug nuts, for the same reason and with even better results. Art