Harry P. Posted July 16, 2011 Posted July 16, 2011 But, for someone in an official capacity with the magazine whose forum this is to make some rather blanket criticisms, particularly if that person has (to my knowledge anyway) never participated in any way in the design and development of any model kit--simply begs all reason. I should think that anyone in such a position with a model magazine would be far better served (and increase his or her credibility among readers) to ask a few questions off the board, do a bit of research before making any bald, blanket statements. Of course, I would not expect those who are laypersons in a situation such as this to do that, after all that is one of the definitions of "layperson" that being one who's not a professional in the area under discussion, not someone even indirectly involved in the process of developing a model kit. But perhaps my hopes are a bit too high--"SIGH!" Art I assume you mean me... I don't think it was necessary for me to do any research or ask any questions before saying that the hood support props are a bit heavy. But otherwise, yeah, ya got me, Art. I'm not a "professional," I've never participated in the design or production of a model kit, I'm not an industry insider, I've never run a hobby shop... and I've never driven a Hudson. I'm about as lay a layperson as they come... But I do have two functioning eyeballs, a functioning brain, the capacity for thought, logic and reason, and a membership here on this forum. That gives me all I need to post my comments, opinions and observations. I don't see any reason why I should be required to keep quiet. I'm not a member of this forum to try to increase my "credibility" with readers; I'm here for the same reasons as everyone else, and if my comments don't meet your professional standards, well, what can I do? I'm just a simple layperson. Gee Art... if only "professionals" and "insiders," people who have had direct involvement in the design and manufacturing of a model kit or only those who meet your standards are allowed to have opinions here, there wouldn't be much to read, would there???
Art Anderson Posted July 16, 2011 Posted July 16, 2011 With all due respect, Double D, in terms of model car kit product development, and the issues that have to be resolved therein, unless you are involved within the model kit industry, you are a layperson--that term merely indicates that you aren't involved in the industry--it's NOT a derogatory comment in any way, and I would have thought you would have taken it that way, but I guess I was badly mistaken. All I tried to do was to give a look at some of these issues from the point of view of being "on the inside looking out", sorry if I appeared to mislead you. As for "God" I acknowledge that there is just one of HIM, and he sure as heck ain't me. Art
Harry P. Posted July 16, 2011 Posted July 16, 2011 Pardon me for interrupting the fireworks, but I have an actual question related to the model. There are several of these Hudson threads flying around, and they're BIG... and I really don't want to go and search through them all, so I'll just ask (sorry if this has already been covered), but will the kit include any racing (stock car) decals?
Harry P. Posted July 16, 2011 Posted July 16, 2011 Harry, please answer my PM to you. Art Harry, apparently you do not have the balls to answer this, nor my PM to you? Sorry, buddy... I'm just a simple layman. I'm sure anything you explained to me would just go right over my head...
Harry P. Posted July 16, 2011 Posted July 16, 2011 So is Moebius getting around licensing issues by having Model King do the NASCAR version? And if that's the case... how does Model King get away with it?
sjordan2 Posted July 16, 2011 Posted July 16, 2011 Just to be irritating, but so far we're on page 24 of a heated discussion about a car that is not yet on the market and no one has built yet. Therefore, we are not so much discussing a kit as a theory. Yet we seem to have a number of members who are confirmed in their opinions on something they haven't experienced yet. As Plato observed, we are not reacting to the reality of a thing, but merely the shadows on the cave cast by the fire. These are abstractions of reality, not reality itself. Therefore, we should all go have a beer and come back when the kit is out there.
Harry P. Posted July 16, 2011 Posted July 16, 2011 Just to be irritating, but so far we're on page 24 of a heated discussion about a car that is not yet on the market and no one has built yet. Therefore, we are not so much discussing a kit as a theory. Yet we seem to have a number of members who are confirmed in their opinions on something they haven't experienced yet. As Plato observed, we are not reacting to the reality of a thing, but merely the shadows on the cave cast by the fire. These are abstractions of reality, not reality itself. Therefore, we should all go have a beer and come back when the kit is out there. True, but we do have photos. Did you really think that when Moebius posted photos of their Hudson kit that there would be no responses? I mean, this kit is the "Holy Grail" for a whole lot of people! You bet there's going to be interest in this topic! no idea Harry and i really don't care if that's the case. the only thing i will care about is if because the Model King is doing that version it will be much higher priced than the factory stock version. while i do think it's been pretty awesome that the Model King as brought back many old kits as re-issues it's been the price of many of them that stopped me from buying. and yeah, that price difference between the two if there is one may be enough to turn that kit from a buy and build it to a pass and build something else. I'm sure aftermarket decal sheets will be coming...
sjordan2 Posted July 16, 2011 Posted July 16, 2011 (edited) It may not be on the market but it is getting built, http://dmetzner.smugmug.com/Other/1953-Hudson-Hornet-coupe-test/17864225_w9DFB5#1366320817_mQQQB6p That's a professional builder working with a prototype, not a normal modeler's build of a kit off the shelf. Edited July 16, 2011 by sjordan2
Harry P. Posted July 16, 2011 Posted July 16, 2011 Ken, I understand the dynamics of MK paying someone up front to do a run of say, 5.000 kits, and MK then reselling those kits under the MK banner. Basically MK was placing an order, and the kitmakers obliged. And like you said, most of those kits were old tooling that was sitting around anyway, not generating revenue... so a win-win for sure for all parties involved. But in the case of the Hudson, we're talking about a brand-new kit. i have to wonder why Moebius would partner with MK in the first place, when Moebius could (theoretically, at least) sell a NASCAR version of the Hudson itself! (Or just include the NASCAR decals in the kit). I'm not suggesting that there's anything wrong with Moebius and MK partnering up... I guess I just don't see why.
sjordan2 Posted July 16, 2011 Posted July 16, 2011 there was this one posted awhile back, http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=40152&st=0&p=416027&hl=+hudson%20+hornet&fromsearch=1&#entry416027 who cares who built it, would you be happier if it was someone else like young Nick Winter maybe? You talkin' to me? You talkin' to ME? If so, I don't get your point. Both builds mentioned are of prototypes before they went into production, regardless of who built them, and therefore can't be depended upon to be the same as the production version. I'm just saying that the jury is out until the kits hit the shelves and go home with builders like you.
sjordan2 Posted July 17, 2011 Posted July 17, 2011 (edited) best thing said in this thread yet! that kit going home with builders like me? that's Art's worst nightmare Dave, I will pay great attention to what you do with this build after you open the shrinkwrap and start working, because I've seen what you can do and I will respect your opinion. When I say "builders like you," that's a compliment, because I'm talking about high-end builders, not pros with prototypes. Edited July 17, 2011 by sjordan2
Harry P. Posted July 17, 2011 Posted July 17, 2011 Now, I will concede there is one aspect of this presumed arrangement that doesn't make a lot of sense to me ... if NASCAR modelers who would've bought the stock kit and converted it to NASCAR-spec themselves pass over the stock kit because they know the MK kit is coming, that's obviously gonna siphon off some sales from Moebius. Ah, but Moebius already has those sales in their pocket! MK bought them... remember???
Chuck Most Posted July 17, 2011 Posted July 17, 2011 To me, the 'solid-mounted' rear axle isn't even an issue... really... I like to display my models with the chassis pointed down, so I'm not too concerned about how the rear axle is mounted on a full-bodied car. As far as the kit being in the same league as the Trumpeter Falcon? Well, if you add up all the little flaws and hiccups (obvious, not so obvious, and perceived), yeah, perhaps the scorecard is close, but which one is closer to the real deal? Yep, the Hornet. Then again, I'm one of the guys who LIKES the Trumpeter Falcon (I can think of several good uses for it BESIDES a window prop ), so maybe I'm not qualified to comment on such matters!
Art Anderson Posted July 17, 2011 Posted July 17, 2011 IMO it's worth mentioning because i could tell it was mounted to the frame. and like i mentioned in that regard earlier, if i want that kind of crudeness i have a whole pile of 60's era solid metal axle kits with that sort of nonsense. for a newly tooled kit in todays market to have something like that? come on, to me it's unacceptable. on the NASCAR thing it may be that Moebius wasn't that interested in going that route with the kit and the Model King stepped up and said if you tool up the parts, we'll do the rest and do it as a limited run. in the end if that was the case it should work out for everyone. Actually, the Nascar stocker has been a part of the Hudson tooling from day one, before Model King got involved. Same with the upcoming Chrysler C-300. Art
Art Anderson Posted July 17, 2011 Posted July 17, 2011 That's a professional builder working with a prototype, not a normal modeler's build of a kit off the shelf. Skip, the build from Dave Metzner's pics is truthfully the final round test shot of the kit, lacking only a tiny bit of engraving in the headlight lenses, which will happen before mass production. The test shot parts ARE the same as those in the production kits will be; it's no prototype. If one were to see the first issue boxart builtups of completely newly tooled model car kits from any manufacturers using photo's of the model in the boxtop--almost invariably, those were built up from test shots, no special advanced skills needed. Done from last round test shots for one very simple reason: The short lead time between when those test shots are ready for such assembly, and the production and packaging of the kit itself for shipment to the customer. Art
Chuck Most Posted July 17, 2011 Posted July 17, 2011 When you factor in that the Falcon retails for $50 while the Hudson will retail for $30, the Hudson emerges a solid winner. Well, I'm not even going to think about getting a Falcon unil it hits the clearance shelf, so for me, the price issue is totally moot. But yeah, factor in the respective MSRP of each kit and the Hornet is a solid value. Know what? If the Moebius Hornet were selling for the price of what Trumpeter wants for the Falcon, I'd still think it was a fair enough price. (Not trying to give Moebius any pricing ideas, just sayin'...)
Harry P. Posted July 17, 2011 Posted July 17, 2011 ...no matter how many times I press on the rear end of my model, the suspension is NOT gonna work! Are you sure you're pressing hard enough?
Harry P. Posted July 17, 2011 Posted July 17, 2011 Harry et.al., That assembly concept assures that this "Rocket" installs at the correct angle on the rotund, bulbous "Rubenesque" (look up Ruben, the 19th Century painter of very amply filled out women, "fat ladies" if you will!) trunk lid. Art Actually it's Rubens. With an S. Peter Paul Rubens. And he wasn't a 19th century painter, he was a 16th-17th century painter. You're only off by a few hundred years, though. No, I didn't have to look it up... I knew it. Not bad for a simpleton, eh?
Keef Posted July 17, 2011 Posted July 17, 2011 Actually it's Rubens. With an S. Peter Paul Rubens. And he wasn't a 19th century painter, he was a 16th-17th century painter. You're only off by a few hundred years, though. No, I didn't have to look it up... I knew it. Not bad for a simpleton, eh? dont you mean a mere layman?
Keef Posted July 17, 2011 Posted July 17, 2011 Is that anything like a talentless hack?? 6 of one, half dozen of the other
Harry P. Posted July 17, 2011 Posted July 17, 2011 dont you mean a mere layman? See, I'm so dumb I don't even know the right word to call myself!!!
Art Anderson Posted July 17, 2011 Posted July 17, 2011 Actually it's Rubens. With an S. Peter Paul Rubens. And he wasn't a 19th century painter, he was a 16th-17th century painter. You're only off by a few hundred years, though. No, I didn't have to look it up... I knew it. Not bad for a simpleton, eh? So, when it comes to the fine arts, I plead guilty to being a mere layperson. OK?
Harry P. Posted July 17, 2011 Posted July 17, 2011 I definitely don't consider myself part of the "rainbows and ponies" crowd here, but, I have to say that based strictly on the evidence I have at hand, i.e., the photos in Dave Metzner's album, this kit looks really good to me and I'm looking forward to getting one and building it. The alleged flaws that seemed to have sparked the majority of discussion in this thread _ too-thick hood supports, solidly mounted rear axle _ are not things I believe will detract from my enjoyment of this model. Ken, you're right, of course. We're talking about a freakin' model car here, not the cure for cancer.
Harry P. Posted July 17, 2011 Posted July 17, 2011 i'm not so sure this thread is JUST about a freaking model car Well, no, I guess it morphed into something more! BTW...I added my "full name" under my avatar in the interest of full disclosure. Just so we're all clear that I don't know what the hell I'm talking about!
SteveG Posted July 17, 2011 Posted July 17, 2011 (edited) I definitely don't consider myself part of the "rainbows and ponies" crowd here, but, I have to say that based strictly on the evidence I have at hand, i.e., the photos in Dave Metzner's album, this kit looks really good to me and I'm looking forward to getting one and building it. The alleged flaws that seemed to have sparked the majority of discussion in this thread _ too-thick hood supports, solidly mounted rear axle _ are not things I believe will detract from my enjoyment of this model. Amen to that .... I'd like to consider myself as the glass is half full kind of guy. Here's two photos from Dave Metzner's album showing the rear suspension and I don't see the issue. FYI, the Lindberg Charger kits rear axle mounts in a similar fashion and I don't recall it ever being an issues. (In the spirit of full disclosure I have plenty of other issues with those Charger kits but I still enjoy building them.) For all those folks who have been crying about too many Tri-Five Chevy and '32 Ford kits here's your something different kit. The only noise I expected to be hearing is sound of refrigerators chilling your favorite beverage that you'll be enjoying as you pull the cellophane off of your new full detail Hudson Hornet kits. Heck, I'd be cracking open a cold one over a decent Curbside version. Somebody please explain to me how we got to almost virtual blows over the scale fidelity of some hood supports. There's nothing wrong with some constructive criticism but I have to tell you that really I don't understand what goes on here sometimes. This is still a hobby ..... right ? Edited July 17, 2011 by SteveG
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now