Harry P.

Nice and clean...

The interior looks very good... you have that "vinyl" shine on the seats just right.

And who's to blame for the fact that model kits are made in communist countries? The communist countries? Or the manufacturers who sent the work there to cut their production costs?

I agree, as long as model kits are produced by humans, they'll be imperfect. But the basic argument we've been having on this thread is whether or not the flaws and inaccuracies in the Hudson kit are a problem... or if that's just "part of the deal" of any kit. Some people are ok with inaccurate kits... they figure it's the modeler's "job" to fix the inaccuracies. Others feel that a model kit should be accurate to begin with, and shouldn't require the modeler to fix the mistakes the manufacturer made. I guess it all boils down to what each person expects and is willing to accept. Everyone has their own idea of what makes a good model kit.

I'm talking about accuracy... not minute detail. Isn't a model supposed to be an accurate scale replica of the real thing? Obviously there are many items that can't be scaled down 24 or 25 times smaller than "real life"... not every bracket, nut, and bolt can be reproduced in scale, and nobody is saying that it should be... but basic accuracy–the shape of the body; the contours, the proportions– ought to be correct.

Your orange-peeled paint, your clogged airbrush and your bad BMF have nothing to do with the design and manufacturing of the kit, though. What comes in the box and what you do to what comes in the box are two completely different things. The kit manufacturer controls what comes in the box, but they have no control over what happens to it.

An equally good argument can be made that a scale model kit is supposed to be an accurate and realistic scale representation of the original straight from the box–and not needing the modeler to fix problems or inaccuracies found in the kit. Just sayin'...

I love the little dog!

When you say "original 1963" do you mean that's when you built it? Or that it's an original 1963 issue. Either way, looks great!

Nice clean work! And extra points for doing such a rarely seen model. I agree with Andy, you should have drilled out those chrome headlight lenses and went with something more realistic. Oh well... next time.

That looks so coooool! The weathering and rust and stuff looks perfect!

Very nice. The weathering and "wear and tear" look just right.

Cranky has hit another grand slam!

Looks like this one was too easy! Final vote 46 REAL, 10 MODEL. And you got it–it's REAL!

http://www.autocolorlibrary.com/

And kudos to Moebius for being upfront with us and telling it like it is. And even bigger kudos to them for having the cojones to actually post photos of their test shots and open themselves up to public scrutiny and comment. The fact that they are so open to our comments tells me that they are a company that truly cares about the consumer. I give them all the credit in the world for that. Their attitude toward the customer is refreshing and appreciated.

Chuck, I think what irks many people is the fact that in 2010, with all the technology we have at our disposal, we still are seeing new kits coming out that are just flat-out wrong to one extent or another. This Hornet, judging from the photos, has quite a few issues. I know I said in a previous post that the flaws are very minor, but I was trying to be "politically correct" and trying to be a "good ambassador" for the hobby... I actually see some very major goofs in these photos, just as I saw in the 300 shots. There's no way to sugar-coat that, it's just a fact. But apparently some people take great offense when those issues are commented on, so I decided (at the time) to be a cheerleader instead of being 100% honest. But you know what? The people at Moebius posted these photos here for a reason... they knew that they would get feedback, and I think they welcome the feedback and are willing to take comments into consideration and do what's needed to make this kit the best it can be. That's a credit to the people involved in this project. The fact that they are willing to take criticism, and even more importantly, willing to take that criticism to heart and act on it, speaks volumes for them.

On the other hand... If a test shot is posted on a modeling forum, aren't the members supposed to comment on what they see? I mean, isn't that the whole point of a "forum?" I don't see any problem with people pointing out perceived flaws and inaccuracies. Better that we hash out that stuff now, before the final tooling is cut. I don't understand why some people take such offense if someone points out an inaccuracy or other issue with the kit. We're here to discuss model cars! So why the hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing by some people every time a discussion breaks out???

Sometimes the camera does not lie. For example: If you have a straight-on side view of both the model and the full-scale car, and you see that the wheelwell openings on the model are shaped completely differently than the 1:1. Or the roofline is off. Or the door opening is too long. Or the top appears chopped, etc. I don't mean in this case, necessarily, but in general. To say "the camera always lies" isn't exactly accurate.

Are you sure it's a good idea to post a photo of your house???

I assume you're aware of the no swearing rule? If you're not, you are now.

I think you're wrong. A Hudson Hornet has been on the wish lists of many modelers for a long time now; it's probably the number one (along with the Tucker) "Why is there no kit of this" subject out there. And if the custom builders won't accept it, so what? There are plenty of other builders who will not only accept this kit, they'll buy multiples of it.

I love the toxic waste flowing into the drain... nice touch!

Virgil, if the mood strikes you, you might want to add a couple of floor drain grates for a little visual interest.