Moebius Official Announcement 1964 Mercury Comets

[Luc Janssens]

14 hours ago, Erik Solie said:

Hardly.  There would be some VERY different choices of what gets made if that was the case!

Is that good or bad? 😉

[Mark C.]

8 hours ago, Chris V said:

While most seem concerned about the hood, I’m keeping my fingers crossed that we’ll eventually see a Caliente version with the additional side trim (like we did with the ‘61 Pontiacs) - Ideally with a Sachs & Sons (Jack Chrisman) drag version down the road…

But for now I’ll definitely buy the Pro Touring version!

 

A flat hood would be part of a correct Caliente version, so maybe that’s where they are going?  We’ll see… patience is the key.

TBH, at this point I’m way more excited about the upcoming Maverick and Chevy pickups.  When they hit the shelves, I probably won’t even notice what’s going on with the Comet. 

[Mark C.]

17 hours ago, Erik Solie said:

Hardly.  There would be some VERY different choices of what gets made if that was the case!

You’ve piqued our curiosity… would love to hear your thoughts, but given your situation I wouldn’t expect to.  🙂

[Ragtop Man]

On 9/5/2025 at 3:09 PM, Mark C. said:

I could be misinterpreting the intent of this version, and I apologize in advance if this is the case… as it stands, however, I’m just a little perplexed as to why a ‘stock’ version would be conceived with a hood that was reportedly not available for that model.  Granted, it’s a cool-looking hood, but it’s in the most visible location on the model, such that anyone wanting to build it out of the box as a stock vehicle has to rob another kit.  It’s not like having an incorrect carburetor or wiper motor that only the purists would notice… it’s the hood, out there in plain sight.

The last thing I want to do is to turn this into some sort of issue, as it’s really not a big deal.  I already have an AMT kit, and I like these cars, but not enough that I want to build every version of them.  So for me, I’ll probably just pass on this one and build the crude but stock appearing ex-Craftsman kit.  If it had a stock hood, that would be the final push to get me to purchase one for the extra details, superior chassis, etc.  I will still likely get the pro touring version though.  And as you say, maybe there is a version coming with a flat hood that will satisfy folks like myself.

I did buy the almost-stock versions of the ‘65 Belvedere and Dodge 2-door sedans, however.  So I’m sure this philosophy has enough of a business case behind it to make sense to the bottom line for the company, and capture the majority who don’t mind scavenging parts from other kits, and TBH I’m happy to see it coming out.  It just frustrates me a little to see it go 95% if the way when it seems to the layman like myself that it wouldn’t have required much effort or expense to put the proper hood in the stock version and the scooped hood in the pro touring and race versions… or put both hoods in all versions (again, maybe my protestations are premature…).

But in the end, not a big deal, nobody lives or dies because of it, but IMHO still worthy if discussion on a discussion forum about model cars. 👍🏻

I'd be very surprised to learn a stock hood was not in the offing at some point for a version of the  kit (Daytona Durability Run, anyone? E. African Safari?)  I sure wouldn't let one of these get away for that reason. 

 

[Mark C.]

5 minutes ago, Ragtop Man said:

I'd be very surprised to learn a stock hood was not in the offing at some point for a version of the  kit (Daytona Durability Run, anyone? E. African Safari?)  I sure wouldn't let one of these get away for that reason. 

 

Sounds reasonable.  I would definitely pick up one or more in this configuration.  👍🏻

[ChrisBcritter]

If a stock hood version is forthcoming, I'll wait. Would like to see a body-to-body comparison with the AMT Caliente.

[Ragtop Man]

8 hours ago, ChrisBcritter said:

If a stock hood version is forthcoming, I'll wait. Would like to see a body-to-body comparison with the AMT Caliente.

I would be very surprised to learn there had been much remastering of the '64; Moby has been pretty clear that if there's something close in the kit world, they're going to copy it ('61 Catalina is virtually identical to the AMT '62, etc.) 

Bet the AMT and this are very close... 

FWIW, though, as we have discussued quite a bit in the past, a "K-" engine code in the Comet for 1964 or 1965 does not mean it is the Hi-Performance version of the 289. I'll spare the bandwidth, but it is very confusing to know what is a true original car with the HP engine bits - they WERE built - because so few actual survivors are available to reference with solid docs to day one.

[Luc Janssens]

3 hours ago, Ragtop Man said:

I bet the AMT and this are very close... 

Bob, I remember that when the Moebius '65 was released, comments about the position of the C-pillar, yet the Amt 64 an anual which means the "gold standard" for some, had the exact same shape 😉

Cheers, from across the puddle.

[RancheroSteve]

57 minutes ago, Luc Janssens said:

Bob, I remember that when the Moebius '65 was released, comments about the position of the C-pillar, yet the Amt 64 an anual which means the "gold standard" for some, had the exact same shape 😉

Yes, I went to a fair amount of trouble to correct that C-pillar. WIP thread here (unfortunately, the pics don't link any more because I must have re-arranged the Fotki album they were in) : 

 But here's a shot: 

Worth it? I don't know - it was for me, but judge for yourself. Subtle, I'll admit.

 

[66c10]

What motor is the 64 pro touring mercury comet going to have 

[Ragtop Man]

18 hours ago, RancheroSteve said:

Yes, I went to a fair amount of trouble to correct that C-pillar. WIP thread here (unfortunately, the pics don't link any more because I must have re-arranged the Fotki album they were in) : 

 But here's a shot: 

Worth it? I don't know - it was for me, but judge for yourself. Subtle, I'll admit.

 

Well, hell yes. This is one I missed, superb buld and the roof really does look better. Wondering if the '64 Falcon might have a better roof? Honestly, I really never noticed the annual/Craftsman, but now that I see it, it's like people clicking dentures or cracking gum. I can't NOT see it. Great job. 

[Mark C.]

For those of us less well-versed on these cars, could you elaborate on what’s wrong with the C pillars?  When I look at the pics, the only obvious thing that jumps out at me is that the roofine/window opening seems to slope downward from the A pillar to the C pillar, whereas it should be parallel with the top of the door.  Might just be photo distortion from the closeup camera angle, not sure, and I don’t have a kit at arm’s length.

[RancheroSteve]

4 hours ago, Ragtop Man said:

Well, hell yes. This is one I missed, superb build and the roof really does look better. Wondering if the '64 Falcon might have a better roof? Honestly, I really never noticed the annual/Craftsman, but now that I see it, it's like people clicking dentures or cracking gum. I can't NOT see it. Great job. 

Thanks, Bob.

Just for comparison purposes, here are a couple of AMT '64 Comets I've built, both with unaltered roof lines. My general feeling is that the AMT looks better straight out of the box. I don't have any unbuilt Comets - either AMT or Moebius - around, so I can't do a better comparison.

[mikos]

On 9/5/2025 at 3:55 PM, Justin Porter said:

Who's this "they" that you're talking about? 

Moebius has offered stock versions of every subject they've kitted. Chrysler 300's, '61 Pontiacs, the various Hudsons, all of the 1965 Mopar products, the Novas, the Ford trucks. ALL of them have factory stock kit versions. 

Revell's general idea of modern "street machine" is a vaguely lowered suspension option, some wheels, and maybe an air cleaner or some disc brakes (case in point, the '56 Del Rey kit) which reveals their focus on factory stock. Their most popular all-new tool kit - the 1971 Mustang - hasn't even BEEN offered in a non-factory stock version.

Round 2 has spent this decade so far restoring or remaking tooling so that factory stock builds are possible with kits like their '68 GTO, the Nova II wagon, the '64 Olds, and the '64 Malibu. They even "unmade" the Street Machine version of the Mueller-era 1971 Charger to create a never before offered factory stock '71 Hemi Charger kit. 

I don't know what you're on about because from where I'm sitting, factory stock builders are being treated better by the industry currently, not worse. 




 

This ”they” I’m referring to are the people that argue modified stockers/race drag cars sell better than the stock version when the subject is brought up about restoring the tools back to stock.  I would like to see the old circle track/modified stockers from MPC/AMT…the ‘70 GTO, ‘72 Monte Carlo, ‘65 Olds 88, ‘66 Impala, etc, restored back to stock.  Obviously, it would be much cheaper to clone an original non molested stock body tool and do it that way.  However, hacking up the tooling back in the day was very short sighted.  It doesn’t take much for a young builder to radius the wheel wells on a stock body.  In fact, on a lot of the real cars that were modified for racing back then, the wheel well shapes remained basically intact with perhaps only the front wheel wells on some of them modified for racing.  So, there was no solid reason for them to hack up the body tooling like that.  It seems like they did it on purpose to make the tooling unusable for a possible later stock reissue.  

Even Round 2 has followed this trend somewhat by offering just the “lowrider” build option on the current (Mueller era) ‘70 Monte Carlo reissue.  AFAIK, you can’t build it stock.  Revell has never offered a stock build option on their popular ‘80’s “notchback” Cadillac.  Though, even if they did, I probably would not have purchased it.  There were too many problems with the (diecast sourced?) body.  It was lowrider/donk or nothing for that one.   The ‘77 Monte Carlo from Revell was configured as a “lowrider” from the beginning with its toy like adjustable suspension feature.  It wasn’t until nearly a decade later that they finally offered stock wheels/tires to make building a stock version possible.

Yes, Round 2 has been making some great kits like their newly tooled cloned Craftsman kits that they have been coming out with recently.   I hope the trend continues.  However, some here have criticized them for not offering super duper detailed versions of those models.  All the detail in the world is not going to turn that mis-proportioned turd of a body into a work of art.  That’s why I will take a well proportioned realistic body over a super detailed kit that has a cheap diecast looking body.

As you mentioned, Moebius has been coming out with a lot of great kits as well.  However, whenever a race or drag version subject is mentioned, people seem to go gaga over them.  I guess I was never into those types of cars when it comes to building models.  As long as they offer a stock version, I’m happy.  However, this trend of offering the race version first and then offering a stock version at a later date concerns me.  Why not just offer both versions at the same time, or better yet, offer both build options in a single release.  The extra cost to provide that option should not be too prohibitive because many in this hobby have no problem springing for a simplified snap kit style 3D printed kit for much more.  
 

 

Edited Sunday at 08:24 PM by mikos

[Justin Porter]

- Modified Stocker Kits

The tooling practices of MPC in the 1970's are not relevant to the tooling practices of Round 2 at present save for what the costs involved are of undoing what's been done versus the sales potential of the "undone" kits. Round 2 certainly has proven that if the sales potential is there they will step up to the plate and give builders some form of replica stock option. 

- Round and the Lowrider '70 Monte Carlo 

The stock 454 Monte Carlo was most recently reissued by Round 2 in 2015. It will likely make a reappearance. By comparison, the lowrider Monte Carlo hadn't been seen since 2002. In this instance, the lowrider genre builders were the ones who had been underserved in terms of kit availability. 

- Revell and the Custom Cadillac Lowrider

This kit was never designed to be a replica stock Cadillac and wears body modifications typical to lowrider Cadillacs of that generation. Regarding it as being flawed for not being able to be built stock is like regarding the Revell Foose FD100 or the AMT Wagonrod as being flawed for not being able to be built stock. 

- Round 2 Craftsman kits 

I am reasonably certain that the Craftsman trend will continue for as long as there are customers to support it. Round 2 has already made their next batch reasonably well publicized with the '60 Chevy wagon and the Plymouth Barracuda. They have their target audience and they have enough subject matter to choose from that I would say it's safe to assume they'll serve that target audience for as long as it's viable. 

- Moebius 

We have no evidence to suggest Moebius is uninterested in producing replica stock kits. As to offering 2n1 kits, their stock and non-stock versions are usually sufficiently different from each other (restomod Nova kits aside) so as to justify completely separate boxings, instruction sheets, and releases. If we consider something like the Nova Gasser kit, if we were to combine that with the stock Nova II kit, we're looking at a box with two separate chassis, two engines, a full engine bay that isn't used by one fashion of building, and nearly two complete interiors. I'd be willing to safely bet that'd be an MSRP of around $55-$60. I can definitely tell you that even with all of the "spares" in the box, that pricetag would cut the kit's shelf appeal off at the knees and instead of the Moebius Nova Gasser being one of my top volume car kits, it would be a dust collector sold to one or two diehards.

[Ragtop Man]

2 hours ago, RancheroSteve said:

Thanks, Bob.

Just for comparison purposes, here are a couple of AMT '64 Comets I've built, both with unaltered roof lines. My general feeling is that the AMT looks better straight out of the box. I don't have any unbuilt Comets - either AMT or Moebius - around, so I can't do a better comparison.

To 

[Ragtop Man]

... fat fingers. 

... To quote Kramer from Seinfeld, "I'm out!!!"  Your Comets are fantastic, wanted to do BOTH of those builds! Would love any details you have on them, I think they are awesome.

[Repstock]

On 9/5/2025 at 6:17 PM, mikos said:

It seems no one likes to build stock model car kits anymore.  Everything seems to be ProStock, Gasser, Street Machine, Lowrider, Circle Track, Dirt Track and Drag

I feel your pain. This is why I'm not in a model car club.

[RancheroSteve]

16 minutes ago, Ragtop Man said:

... To quote Kramer from Seinfeld, "I'm out!!!"  Your Comets are fantastic, wanted to do BOTH of those builds! Would love any details you have on them, I think they are awesome.

Bob, I've got a library full of reference! One of my favorite parts of building is doing the research and trying to get the details right. I built both of the above for the Lynx Project and was able to get the decals made on spec, so I can't help you there, but would be happy to share other materials that I have with you.

BTW, links to both of those builds here (WIP links within the Under Glass threads):

 

[niteowl7710]

2 hours ago, mikos said:

This ”they” I’m referring to are the people that argue modified stockers/race drag cars sell better than the stock version when the subject is brought up about restoring the tools back to stock.  I would like to see the old circle track/modified stockers from MPC/AMT…the ‘70 GTO, ‘72 Monte Carlo, ‘65 Olds 88, ‘66 Impala, etc, restored back to stock.  Obviously, it would be much cheaper to clone an original non molested stock body tool and do it that way.  However, hacking up the tooling back in the day was very short sighted.  It doesn’t take much for a young builder to radius the wheel wells on a stock body.  In fact, on a lot of the real cars that were modified for racing back then, the wheel well shapes remained basically intact with perhaps only the front wheel wells on some of them modified for racing.  So, there was no solid reason for them to hack up the body tooling like that.  It seems like they did it on purpose to make the tooling unusable for a possible later stock reissue.  

Gotta remember back when the changes were made, nobody thought anyone would want what was a kid's toy 50-60 years later. It wouldn't be until the mid-80s that the tradition of permanently modifying tooling was put to rest and the modular tooling design trend was undertaken. Revell and Monogram were just as guilty of modifying tooling when it outlived it's perceived life span.

[Ragtop Man]

On 9/14/2025 at 7:06 PM, niteowl7710 said:

Gotta remember back when the changes were made, nobody thought anyone would want what was a kid's toy 50-60 years later. It wouldn't be until the mid-80s that the tradition of permanently modifying tooling was put to rest and the modular tooling design trend was undertaken. Revell and Monogram were just as guilty of modifying tooling when it outlived it's perceived life span.

I found a few annual reports from AMT "in the day" - they were as cyclical as Detroit or any other factory town, maybe worse.

AMT made some bad business decisions at the peak of their success, particularly with regard to slot cars, as the big three were dialing back promo contracts and MPC was ascending in product. Were it not for the class-8 series trucks such as the Peterbilt "Californial Hauler," and to a lesser extent, some quick saves like Mod Stockers and the Countown series, there wouldn't even BE and AMT now.

 

[tim boyd]

45 minutes ago, Ragtop Man said:

I found a few annual reports from AMT "in the day" - they were as cyclical as Detroit or any other factory town, maybe worse.

AMT made some bad business decisions at the peak of their success, particularly with regard to slot cars, as the big three were dialing back promo contracts and MPC was ascending in product. Were it not for the class-8 series trucks such as the Peterbilt "Californial Hauler," and to a lesser extent, some quick saves like Mod Stockers and the Countown series, there wouldn't even BE and AMT now.

 

Bob is correct here. 

Further contributing factors were AMT's extension into being a parts supplier for 1/1 scale automakers, the entire 1/1 scale "Piranha" and 1/1 scale AMT Speed and Custom (located in Phoenix) adventure, and the general problems that are typical of small enterprises that experienced phenomenal growth in their early years in an industry that is faddish and just as likely to contract as to grow in successive years.   And by the very late 1970s, some unrealistic demands and a strike by the UAW represented work force, and some very questionable business decisions by the "Office of the President" with its (IIRC) three leaders. 

Factors which helped AMT stick around during some very difficult years included the loyalty and creativity of much their staff, particularly in the product development area, the 1968-ish hiring of Tom Gannon as President, who took a no-nonsense businessmen's view of the industry and AMT's role in it, and the entire Class 8 product range as Bob mentioned.

TB

Edited 14 hours ago by tim boyd