Deano

But, but ... in Cleveland you could meet Howard the Duck! Errr ... maybe not.

as mad as a box of frogs ! I love it! May I steal it??

And no mention of the 49 Merc Woodie? I am appalled!

Like my daddy used t'say "you all would complain if they hung you with a new rope." Basically, you all ain't happy unless you're complaining! I thought it was the full moon but that's passed, maybe it's the weather.

I just checked it out ... it's apparently a new site/work in progress. No useful information, yet.

Thanks for the comments, guys! The wheels are from an issue of the AMT 40 Ford Sedan Delivery. Jim, shhh ... don't tell anyone!

I figured since I've rediscovered this place, I'd jump in and join the fun! This 49 Ford Custom was supposed to be done today for the contest over on the HAMB. Needless to say, it ain't gonna happen! Here it is in its first color coat (needs a little more, I see). Anyhow, this is what I'm up to (well, there are a couple of others but this'll do for a start)

An old friend of mine in another hobby (Medieval Recreation, as it happens) has a phrase that describes this: "Making the good the enemy of the best." Basically, if it's not perfect, it's poo (he does not subscribe to this theory, BTW). The problem, of course, is it CAN'T be perfect. EVERY kit is going to have errors. Some will be minor, some will be glaring. We would hope that a company that produces these toys (and make no mistake, the ARE toys) for mass consumption would attempt to minimize the "glaring errors." Sometimes, however, the "glaring error" gets out there anyway. Somebody misreads a measurement, a machinist/engraver isn't quite as careful as he ought to be because, after all, it's not really critical (ie. no one's gonna die!). Perhaps, albeit more rarely, the reference prototype actually HAD THAT ERROR. I'll use my own 1953 Plymouth Cranbrook hardtop as an example. MegaModel Company wants to do a kit of a 1953 Plymouth. They come out and they measure, photograph, laser scan and use whatever other methods they use. Their numbers are a accurate and precise as they can be. Their research is solid. And it is (I guarantee) WRONG! Why? My car is not a perfect example. The previous owner deleted all of the stainless trim. I replaced it, mostly. There are trim pieces that I LIKED being missing, it looked good to me. And then there's the grill. I had an unfortunate, less than 1 mph incident. The grill wasn't obviously damaged, just tweaked upward a bit. For whatever reason, they don't catch these issues. The kit, if my car is their only reference, is going to be wrong and some errors will be GLARING to someone. OK the kit comes out and in spite of it all, is reasonably successful. "Let's do a sedan!" they say. The look at the kit, look at a few photos of sedans and say, "Yeah, minimal changes. We can do this." Now, let's say money is a bit tight so they don't go out and find a 1953 Plymouth Cambridge 2-Door Sedan to measure, photograph, laser scan, etc. They go by photos and modify the tool to make a sedan. They look fairly close but the rooflines ARE DIFFERENT. Nobody notices, the kit comes out. And, again, almost nobody notices the "glaring" errors, except, maybe, a few experts on 53 Plymouths. My point? If most people don't notice (or don't care) is there really a service being done by pointing out the "glaring errors" and calling the kit "poo"? I recall several (many several?) years ago the kit manufacturers were taken to task for the emblems on the car kits being "out of scale". They had too much relief, they stuck out too far! The kit manufacturers started engraving them to scale. Now three coats of paint on the model and the emblems were GONE! Buried in the paint.., but they were to scale! Now, lest you think I don't care about accuracy, I do. One of my ongoing projects is to convert an R&R 1954 Plymouth 2-door hardtop into a 1953. Now, I assume that one person did the master, converting the 1954 Plymouth 4-door promo into a 2-door. That makes the errors all the more puzzling. The doors are not dimensionally correct and they are different from each other! I HAVE TO FIX THAT. There is also that pesky roofline, but I won't bother with that, it's WAY more work than it's worth, call it "return on investment". Some glaring error are more "glaring" than others. The early issue of the Hudson has its rear wheelwell issue. It's obviously not concentric (nor even close) with the rear wheel! Unfortunately, I didn't notice until after I had painted, cleared, polished and bare-metalled the whole thing. It will not be fixed on my model; I WILL still show it. I'll fix it on the next one. There is the front wheelwell on the 62 Chevy. I'm still not entirely certain what is wrong there, perhaps I'm an idiot. Whatever is wrong there, it is not glaringly so in my eyes. I'll build it, I will not drag out the saws, fillers and grinders to "fix" it, because I simply am not seeing it. In my world, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is, most likely, a duck. Thanx, here's my ducat, keep the change!

Um ... they weren't supposed to be. Prototypical Pintos and Vegas don't really fire the imagination (although, I must confess that a certain 1974 Pinto wagon stirs up fond memories).

Ooops! I think we broke something.

There can be only one, so you'll have to change your name ... or, we can all change our names TO Greg(g) and avoid the confusion!

The car in the contest issue is definitely similar in style but it IS a different model. It's also pictured in show coverage from 4 months before the model in question was stolen. Definitely not the same car.

Thanx, Mark! Every little bit helps.

Anyone have any shots or links to reference pictures for this one? Thanx!

Oooo ... how do I get a subscription?

Awesome work, Mark. You have me torn between wanting to drag one of those kits out and building it or just throwing in the towel! :wink: If I may, here are a couple shot of mine that I built way back when the kit first came out. I never could get the seat belts to lie down properly.

You might try here ... they've got quite a selection of springs and other stuff. http://www.smallparts.com/

Too Much Information!! :shock:

I was gonna play your game, Don but I changed my mind. I feel no need to trot out my previous builds so that you will lend me credence. My input is this ... if you can't check your attitude at the door, DON'T COME THRU THE DOOR! I don't come here to read your bickering and griping (or anyone else's, for that matter). I would title this topic as "Grow Up Or Shut Up."

Ya haven't? Here, let me fix that fer ya! Granted, it's a mild custom. Just some light de-chroming, custom paint and rims, but it's what I would do if I had the means. :wink:

This thread >was< locked on April 10 and then opened up again some time on April 11. Why it was resurrected, only the moderator who reopened it can say ... I would have left it dead. I've seen people I've considered to be friends (not close friends, but friends) saying things that I really would rather have not seen. Makes me sad in a way.

I LIKE the Volvo P1800 and would do possibly terrible things for an ES!

Man! What a weekend for the Lear to be in the shop! :wink:

I've never built a lowrider in my life, I've just never felt the urge. That said, those graphics ROCK! Did you do that by hand? I'm impressed! Hmm ... I said I've never felt the urge, that's not strictly true; I want to build the 64 Chevy from 'Up In Smoke' but it ain't nuthin fancy like THAT!