Atlantis Models has bought another lot of tooling/molds.....

[Rodent]

1 hour ago, Tom Geiger said:

It's like the guy forever whining that we need a new (insert any model here) and he'd buy a case or two!

Model actually gets done... now he's whining that he can't get one for $10 at Ollies!

Let me refer you back to Paul Hettick's "I'm gonna make resin Ford station wagons" thread. I realize that they aren't styrene kits that you can get at Hobby Lobby for 40% off of MSRP, but I think  that a grand total of two of us on this board actually have one after pages and pages of "that's great" and "I'll buy some".

The other member that I know of that has one commented that it cost him more to get the kit than the 1:1 back in the day that he wants to replicate in 1/25.

[Shon Wittenbarger]

1 hour ago, Snake45 said:

An inaccurate, wrong, or badly fitting model is still inaccurate, wrong, or badly fitting whether it's new or old. Revell's Nova wasn't a huge improvement over AMT's in some ways, in fact to get an accurate Nova you have to kitbash the two of them together. And remember Revellogram's first two attempts at the '70 AAR Cuda? They certainly didn't do us any favors with either of those kits. 

That's exactly my point, nothing is ever good enough for some people.  An inaccurate kit is better than nothing. When you get down to it, its a toy.  And I doubt very seriously if anyone here could do a better job than they do. I appreciate what we have out there to build, yes some are off but big deal. If they all stop putting out kits for one reason or another,  it would give us time to stop and think and wish that we haven't had been whiny little bitches. 

[Dave Darby]

11 hours ago, Shon Wittenbarger said:

That's exactly my point, nothing is ever good enough for some people.  An inaccurate kit is better than nothing. When you get down to it, its a toy.  And I doubt very seriously if anyone here could do a better job than they do. I appreciate what we have out there to build, yes some are off but big deal. If they all stop putting out kits for one reason or another,  it would give us time to stop and think and wish that we haven't had been whiny little bitches. 

I guess everybody is supposed to think alike. Imagine the creativity and progress in a world like that... 

[Dave Darby]

On 8/5/2020 at 8:12 PM, Tom Geiger said:

No doubt older nostalgic modelers and toy collectors, same as Round 2!   Most of the tooling is old and clunky, per the technology available when it was created. Today’s modelers are looking for Tamiya quality cut from 3D models.

Well.... Not all of us. Some of us like that old "clunky" tooling. besides, much of that old Revell stuff is not only not all that clunky, it's as good or better than some of Revell's newer stuff. And besides - where else are you going to get a 62 Valiant, Lancer, Dart, etc?

Direct from a 1959 era Revell mold.

[Dave Darby]

On 8/2/2020 at 8:35 PM, tim boyd said:

Sadly....the Aurora Drag Parts Kits tools no longer exist.  This topic is briefly touched on in a new book that will be coming out in a few weeks....  TIM 

Bob Johnson went into further detail (and perspective) on this subject via Facebook a little while back, but the late Tom West described what happened to the Aurora tools here:
https://culttvman.com/main/aurora-faq-6-what-is-the-story-about-the-aurora-train-wreck/

In a nutshell, Monogram (then owned by Mattel) acquired the Aurora tools to keep them out of the hands of competing or upstart companies. Mattel financed the acquisition via a loan to Monogram, which would be repaid (as I understood it) by scrapping any tools that were not considered to be viable sellers, or were duplicates of existing Monogram products. Not that many tools were actually damaged in the train wreck.

When does this book come out, and what is it called, Tim?

[Tom Geiger]

28 minutes ago, Dave Darby said:

Well.... Not all of us. Some of us like that old "clunky" tooling. besides, much of that old Revell stuff is not only not all that clunky, it's as good or better than some of Revell's newer stuff. And besides - where else are you going to get a 62 Valiant, Lancer, Dart, etc?

Agreed! I’m with you, my point was about new modelers who don’t know the history.

A while back, a modeler who had just bought and opened the AMT 59 Chrysler kit. He was shocked by its clunkiness and simplicity since he had previously purchased and built the AMT 58 Fury kit. He expected to find a similar kit in the Chrysler box since they were the same manufacturer.  

He posted his thoughts and people on the board explained the history etc.  There are guys who don’t know, and outside of models it’s rare to find products being produced from 60 year old tooling, so he didn’t anticipate it.

Round 2 has taken to posting a depiction of box contents on the box bottom, but still there are guys who don’t read, and are still disappointed. That’s the danger of releasing these old classics into general market, such as Walmart, since people will   not only not buy from that manufacturer again, but will also return item to store. Walmart penalizes companies with returned product.

 

[Snake45]

15 hours ago, Shon Wittenbarger said:

That's exactly my point, nothing is ever good enough for some people.  An inaccurate kit is better than nothing. When you get down to it, its a toy.  And I doubt very seriously if anyone here could do a better job than they do. I appreciate what we have out there to build, yes some are off but big deal. If they all stop putting out kits for one reason or another,  it would give us time to stop and think and wish that we haven't had been whiny little bitches. 

My standards are pretty low--maybe THE lowest among the semi-serious or better modelers here. Ask anybody.  But the two things I demand of a kit are that it look pretty much like what it's supposed to be--or can be made to look like it without too much time or effort--and that it be pretty much the right size. Meet those two criteria and I can take it from there. 

IMHO there's no excuse in the year 2020 to put out a new kit that can't cross those two simple hurdles. 

Life's too short to waste time on bad kits. Not when I've got a pile of good ones yet to build. 

Model on, everyone! 

Edited August 7, 2020 by Snake45

[Justin Porter]

14 hours ago, Shon Wittenbarger said:

 An inaccurate kit is better than nothing.

No. It's not. 

And no. CUSTOMERS have no duty to be grateful that their corporate overlords deigned to manufacture a product. Manufacturers produce products for the purpose of selling them. If those products do not suit the desires of their customers then the customers have no reason whatsoever to purchase them. The argument "But if we don't buy from them then they'll go away" is ridiculous. If a manufacturer cannot produce products that meet the expectations of its customers, why SHOULD it stay in business? 

We have seen more new companies in the past ten years move into the 1/24th scale automotive space than leave it and most of them have come in with fantastic products whether it's Belkits embracing vintage rally or Ebbro answering the prayers of vintage F1 builders or ICM giving us the first truly good stock Model T in decades. If there's a hole in the market that actually represents enough earnings potential SOMEONE else will definitely move into the space and start manufacturing. 

And one more thing, did you defend Trumpeter this vociferously when they fumbled through their initial attempts at 1/25th scale American classics or is this sort of "You have a moral duty to save these brands" nonsense reserved only for American brands from when boomers were kids?

[Luc Janssens]

23 minutes ago, Justin Porter said:

No. It's not. 

And no. CUSTOMERS have no duty to be grateful that their corporate overlords deigned to manufacture a product. Manufacturers produce products for the purpose of selling them. If those products do not suit the desires of their customers then the customers have no reason whatsoever to purchase them. The argument "But if we don't buy from them then they'll go away" is ridiculous. If a manufacturer cannot produce products that meet the expectations of its customers, why SHOULD it stay in business? 

 I agree, it's that kind of reasoning that killed Detroit. 

Those who don't innovate and invest get passed by, by those who do, and for those of us here who complain about the complexity of certain new model kits, well clever engineering goes a long way, Kaizen!

Oh well....

 

 

 

Edited August 7, 2020 by Luc Janssens

[Snake45]

38 minutes ago, Justin Porter said:

We have seen more new companies in the past ten years move into the 1/24th scale automotive space than leave it and most of them have come in with fantastic products whether it's Belkits embracing vintage rally or Ebbro answering the prayers of vintage F1 builders or ICM giving us the first truly good stock Model T in decades. If there's a hole in the market that actually represents enough earnings potential SOMEONE else will definitely move into the space and start manufacturing. 

And don't forget diecasts. There are a number of reasonably priced 1/24 diecasts of cars that have never been kitted, or are no longer available at affordable prices. And I can name a few that are actually better than commonly available "mainstream" kits.  Last time I counted I had somewhere around 100 of them. 

[martinfan5]

2 hours ago, Justin Porter said:

No. It's not. 

And no. CUSTOMERS have no duty to be grateful that their corporate overlords deigned to manufacture a product. Manufacturers produce products for the purpose of selling them. If those products do not suit the desires of their customers then the customers have no reason whatsoever to purchase them. The argument "But if we don't buy from them then they'll go away" is ridiculous. If a manufacturer cannot produce products that meet the expectations of its customers, why SHOULD it stay in business? 

We have seen more new companies in the past ten years move into the 1/24th scale automotive space than leave it and most of them have come in with fantastic products whether it's Belkits embracing vintage rally or Ebbro answering the prayers of vintage F1 builders or ICM giving us the first truly good stock Model T in decades. If there's a hole in the market that actually represents enough earnings potential SOMEONE else will definitely move into the space and start manufacturing. 

And one more thing, did you defend Trumpeter this vociferously when they fumbled through their initial attempts at 1/25th scale American classics or is this sort of "You have a moral duty to save these brands" nonsense reserved only for American brands from when boomers were kids?

What Justin said, there is no excuse for inaccurate new tooled kits in 2020.

[Shon Wittenbarger]

3 hours ago, Justin Porter said:

No. It's not. 

And no. CUSTOMERS have no duty to be grateful that their corporate overlords deigned to manufacture a product. Manufacturers produce products for the purpose of selling them. If those products do not suit the desires of their customers then the customers have no reason whatsoever to purchase them. The argument "But if we don't buy from them then they'll go away" is ridiculous. If a manufacturer cannot produce products that meet the expectations of its customers, why SHOULD it stay in business? 

We have seen more new companies in the past ten years move into the 1/24th scale automotive space than leave it and most of them have come in with fantastic products whether it's Belkits embracing vintage rally or Ebbro answering the prayers of vintage F1 builders or ICM giving us the first truly good stock Model T in decades. If there's a hole in the market that actually represents enough earnings potential SOMEONE else will definitely move into the space and start manufacturing. 

And one more thing, did you defend Trumpeter this vociferously when they fumbled through their initial attempts at 1/25th scale American classics or is this sort of "You have a moral duty to save these brands" nonsense reserved only for American brands from when boomers were kids?

I don't know where you read if we don't buy the kits, they'll go away. I said for one reason or another. Me I don't get upset over a toy being a little off. There way more important things to worry about.

[Shon Wittenbarger]

2 hours ago, Luc Janssens said:

 I agree, it's that kind of reasoning that killed Detroit. 

Those who don't innovate and invest get passed by, by those who do, and for those of us here who complain about the complexity of certain new model kits, well clever engineering goes a long way, Kaizen!

Oh well....

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Luc Janssens said:

 I agree, it's that kind of reasoning that killed Detroit. 

Those who don't innovate and invest get passed by, by those who do, and for those of us here who complain about the complexity of certain new model kits, well clever engineering goes a long way, Kaizen!

Oh well....

 

 

 

What killed Detroit was the UAW. 

[Justin Porter]

Just now, Shon Wittenbarger said:

I don't know where you read if we don't buy the kits, they'll go away. I said for one reason or another. Me I don't get upset over a toy being a little off. There way more important things to worry about.

Yeah, but if they close because of divorces or embezzling or a sudden invasion of lazer-wielding woodchucks, that isn't relevant to a discussion of as to why it's entirely reasonable for modelers to criticize bad models. 

You want to level the "we should be glad they made kits at all" line at those of us who do take accuracy into account when choosing which companies get our hard earned money, then OWN that statement instead of trying to mealy-mouth it. 

[SSNJim]

4 hours ago, Justin Porter said:

...lazer-wielding woodchucks...

Criminy, murder hornets weren't bad enough?

[Chuck Kourouklis]

GO.

JUSTIN.

And let's not pretend the whole driving-manufacturers-out-of-business-with-criticism angle hasn't been run ragged over the past decade-plus. That's a lame, wildly hackneyed rationalization plank surpassed in wobbliness only by the mandate that a scale model can't be seen as anything other than some Mattel-grade toy.

[Dave Van]

14 minutes ago, SSNJim said:

Criminy, murder hornets weren't bad enough?

Zombie Cicadas here in WV.....look it up! 

[dbostream]

11 hours ago, martinfan5 said:

What Justin said, there is no excuse for inaccurate new tooled kits in 2020.

You should send this to Revell regarding the E-Type...

[SSNJim]

8 hours ago, Dave Van said:

Zombie Cicadas here in WV.....look it up! 

I did look it up, and it's true. I just can't wait to see what else 2020 has in store for us. Unbelievable.

[stavanzer]

For sad stories about Models that were begged for and then flopped, look at the Revell-o-gram 1/48 scale PBY Catalina. This was (and still is) a huge, beautifully detailed kit. 1990's detailing, but state-of-the-art at the time. I had one, and drooled over it,in the box many times before finally trading it for a stack of car kits, I wanted even more than the Big Cat. It is an outstanding kit.

But..

It was a huge shelf sitter. Our local hobby shop got in three kits. Two sold in the first week. The other one, was still on his shelf at the original price, when he closed the shop 10 years later. I've heard, and read similar stories about this kit many times over the years. It gets crazy prices on the 'Bay, mostly because it took RM a very long time to sell the first run.  It has been re-issued at least once, with different markings, so sales did eventually justify a further run of the tool. But, that second run was a small one, and they are hard to find now.

"Just Tool It,& They Will Come" is a great story on the Web. In Real Life, Not So Much. Yeah, Moebius has a HUGE hit with it's Ford Truck series, and the Hudsons and Chryslers are a big hit too. What we, the model buying public don't see, is the absolutely enormous amount of research, work, time & money that had to happen before the first steel was cut. Tim Boyd, Dave Van, and others with Industry Access, will hint (sometimes fairly broadly) about just how much effort, that even small changes to existing tooling take. 

Two Recent Examples...

All the Sturm und Drang over (1) the Full Bumper '70 Camaro, and (2) the "NEW" Vega Drag Car. Recall when we first heard rumors about these kits? Then how much longer before ROUND2 verified that the kits were, indeed, a certainty? And Now? How long before you will have them in your hands? For the Vega it has been a journey of 3-5 years, no? And the Camaro? We have all heard the stories about getting "new" 1990's tooling to play nice with 2020's tooling, and exactly much trouble that was...................

Now, imagine a whole new kit. We all know (or should by now) that no modern model company plans a new tool, without building in from the beginning 3 or 4 variations in the basic kit. This is not new strategy. If you look at the Coca Cola VW Beetle (or it's Harley Quinn version) you will see optional parts (wheels, seats steering wheel) that have been part of the tool, but blocked off since the Herbie the Love Bug Kit was sold by Polar Lights in the early 2000's. The same with the "new" second version of the Revell Rubicon Jeep kit. This tooling is a modified Die Cast that dates back to the original Angelina Jolie, "Tomb Raider" franchise. According to Wikipedia, that movie dates from 2001, and is now 19 years old. We have been reliably informed that the 'optional stock parts' have been in the tool, but blocked since the beginning. They've finally seen the light of, some 17 or 18 years after the tool was cut?

So, You want a 1968 Cornet Kit? Bring a Million Dollars of your money to the table. Know exactly what other cars can be derived from the basic Body Tool. Know what optional engines, wheels, and hoods can be used. And last, but most importantly, have some real, Market Tested Numbers to justify the sales potential of this, or ANY other subject that you care to present.

I know that my MPC Stutz Bearcat kit, no matter how much I love it, is a happy accident, of the time period it was tooled in. A TV Show tie-in provided both the idea and possibly some of the tooling costs. The rest came from a much lower cost to develop kits, and broad, projected sales. (which probably did not occur, since the show lasted only one season). In today's business world? That kit simply would never have had a chance!

 

[Shon Wittenbarger]

6 hours ago, alexis said:

For sad stories about Models that were begged for and then flopped, look at the Revell-o-gram 1/48 scale PBY Catalina. This was (and still is) a huge, beautifully detailed kit. 1990's detailing, but state-of-the-art at the time. I had one, and drooled over it,in the box many times before finally trading it for a stack of car kits, I wanted even more than the Big Cat. It is an outstanding kit.

But..

It was a huge shelf sitter. Our local hobby shop got in three kits. Two sold in the first week. The other one, was still on his shelf at the original price, when he closed the shop 10 years later. I've heard, and read similar stories about this kit many times over the years. It gets crazy prices on the 'Bay, mostly because it took RM a very long time to sell the first run.  It has been re-issued at least once, with different markings, so sales did eventually justify a further run of the tool. But, that second run was a small one, and they are hard to find now.

"Just Tool It,& They Will Come" is a great story on the Web. In Real Life, Not So Much. Yeah, Moebius has a HUGE hit with it's Ford Truck series, and the Hudsons and Chryslers are a big hit too. What we, the model buying public don't see, is the absolutely enormous amount of research, work, time & money that had to happen before the first steel was cut. Tim Boyd, Dave Van, and others with Industry Access, will hint (sometimes fairly broadly) about just how much effort, that even small changes to existing tooling take. 

Two Recent Examples...

All the Sturm und Drang over (1) the Full Bumper '70 Camaro, and (2) the "NEW" Vega Drag Car. Recall when we first heard rumors about these kits? Then how much longer before ROUND2 verified that the kits were, indeed, a certainty? And Now? How long before you will have them in your hands? For the Vega it has been a journey of 3-5 years, no? And the Camaro? We have all heard the stories about getting "new" 1990's tooling to play nice with 2020's tooling, and exactly much trouble that was...................

Now, imagine a whole new kit. We all know (or should by now) that no modern model company plans a new tool, without building in from the beginning 3 or 4 variations in the basic kit. This is not new strategy. If you look at the Coca Cola VW Beetle (or it's Harley Quinn version) you will see optional parts (wheels, seats steering wheel) that have been part of the tool, but blocked off since the Herbie the Love Bug Kit was sold by Polar Lights in the early 2000's. The same with the "new" second version of the Revell Rubicon Jeep kit. This tooling is a modified Die Cast that dates back to the original Angelina Jolie, "Tomb Raider" franchise. According to Wikipedia, that movie dates from 2001, and is now 19 years old. We have been reliably informed that the 'optional stock parts' have been in the tool, but blocked since the beginning. They've finally seen the light of, some 17 or 18 years after the tool was cut?

So, You want a 1968 Cornet Kit? Bring a Million Dollars of your money to the table. Know exactly what other cars can be derived from the basic Body Tool. Know what optional engines, wheels, and hoods can be used. And last, but most importantly, have some real, Market Tested Numbers to justify the sales potential of this, or ANY other subject that you care to present.

I know that my MPC Stutz Bearcat kit, no matter how much I love it, is a happy accident, of the time period it was tooled in. A TV Show tie-in provided both the idea and possibly some of the tooling costs. The rest came from a much lower cost to develop kits, and broad, projected sales. (which probably did not occur, since the show lasted only one season). In today's business world? That kit simply would never have had a chance!

 

VERY WELL SAID. I also had the Bearcat kit when came out. I also enjoyed the series, and your right that's the only reason I got the kit. The time and money spent to develop new kits  when we do get them if something is not right, the bashing begins. I understand that some are anal about things being off, but constructive criticism is the way to go instead of finger point and name calling. Sending a calm email pointing out the error's instead of (should I say hate mail?) doesn't help either side. When a subject comes out that is not favored by all, that is your right not to like it, why say it's a waste of plastic and so on.  I, for one am glad that Atlantis purchased the molds, there again it's not everyone's favorite subject's it was almost like it pissed some off, there again some us of happen to like them. It is definitely a different world out there than it used to to be when I started building kits in the late 60's, but nothing stay's the same and no one stay's on top forever.

  And to those that said I back out of what I post, I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. I don't back up for anyone, and I can back it up. So if you have a problem send me a personal message, this board isn't the place 

[Chuck Kourouklis]

And so, in the latest attempt to justify this arcane tendency to take personal offense at criticizing kits that go a little wayward in their stated objective as scale models, we now circle the moebius loop back to a point I made on another forum some ten years ago:  kit manufacturers drove themselves just about bankrupt by doing what we asked them to.  Not sure what-all that has to do with tooling amortized decades ago, which I thought was the topic here, but it's a point, anyway.

I mean, I don't recall just exactly where '41 Chevy pickups or 1/6 scale visible engines ever listed that highly on the most-wanted polls, but by and large, we didn't do 'em any favors demanding subjects and then giving them little more than a flash of initial sales.  So yes, quality products aren't quite as guaranteed to fatten the bottom line as inferior products are to diminish it.  Far as that hugely impressive PBY goes, it's one of a litany that deserved to do better.

But as arduous as the whole development process may be, there's some reasonable expectation and reliable delivery of profit overall, or it wouldn't be happening.  There may be a lotta love going into the product - in fact, it's possible to appreciate the sweat that went into a kit that was ultimately inaccurate - but this ain't a charity, or some goodness-of-their-hearts enterprise for which we all should be prostrate with gratitude. Subject selection complicates the picture a bit, but generally, as a consumer, you have a right to expect something living up to reasonable expectations, and it's not quite the affront to humanity some would have you believe to express disappointment with a product that doesn't meet some obvious, objective standards.

And as much as some fellows on the forum have projected onto me their own need always to be right, I have to concede, well into another decade of seeing this sad little pattern repeat, that maybe I'm the one who needs come clarity here.  It's all the sort of conduct that would make the vaguest kind of sense if this forum's stated objective were strictly to celebrate kits and not offer any sort of criticism about them.  This is a privately owned forum and the owner can do whatever he wants. There'd be nothing wrong with sanitizing the content that way, so maybe I missed a memo someplace.

But I participate here with what I see to be a conventional understanding of a modeling forum (and again, I'm open to correction even on that).

Straw men premises, such as this fantastical cabal for whom "nothing is ever good enough" - that's what goes off topic. For one of a panoply of examples, take a number of us for whom a certain Kit That Must Not Be Named was a bitter disappointment, who also happen to be delighted with a new kit of that same marque even though it's curbside, simply because the new kit is accurate while the one from 7 years ago was not.  The whole fable of the unconditional whiner is demonstrably a fairly tale, but it's what you need if you're going to make any sense out of a certain viewpoint.

"More important things to think about", well DUH. Everyone has more important things to think about than kit inaccuracies, this year most particularly. But last I checked, this wasn't Twitter or Facebook, this was a forum about model cars.  Not only is "having more important things to think about" blatantly off-topic according to my understanding of a conventional modeling forum, taking a break from those "more important things" may be why we come here or even build models in the first place.

Mandating that we're talking about "toys" routinely drives the discussion off topic - even though I don't necessarily disagree with that.

I mean there are toys...

and then there are TOYS...

and then there are TOYS:

But even accepting the notion of "toys", who is any one of us to dictate the elasticity of that concept to the rest?  If certain forum members take their "toys" a little more seriously than others, just what is it to you?  Mandating one rigid notion of the appropriate seriousness is what drives these discussions off topic.

What might have stayed on-topic would be a suggestion to temper your expectations a bit because in the case of Atlantis, we're talking about the purchase of tooling half a century old - but no, instead we got somebody telling everyone else how they should feel, once again.  That's always driven the discussion off topic, as it has in this case and it will every time it happens again.

Unless I missed the memo.

[mikemodeler]

Thank you Chuck for your observations, spot on.

[keyser]

+1MM CK. 
See what happens when ya forget to check scale on the box? Oops. My bad. Still no place to put my sunglasses or phone though. 

[Chuck Kourouklis]

^^^^