Chuck Most Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 The suggestion that people just like to complain is hogwash too. I get branded as "anti Revell" all the time, but when I say nice things about their kits, it's ignored. The 2009 Challenger? Nice kit. The Magnum, also very nice. I only worked for Chrysler for 11 years, so if there were things to miss, I'd see them...they did an excellent job. Their '72 Cutlass? Not nearly so good. Trying to make it black/white that anyone saying what is clearly visible is somehow relishing hurting a kit is just incorrect. Actually, Mark, you're one of the 'fair and balanced' ones! You can point out a kit's faults, but still outline what's good with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darin Bastedo Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 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. While it's true that if something is grossly off you can see it in the photo, but what you see still isn't axactly the way it is. Subtle shapes can be obscurred enough to look wrong, and even an unfortunate reflection of something near the model can fool us into seeing a different shape than what is there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Cranky Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Well, if they are still working out the kinks, that would be excellent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darin Bastedo Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Not to dispute what you say, because that's not what I mean to do, but I'd merely counter by asking how many times you took a digital photo of a model, and noticed something legitimately "wrong" with it only after examining a photo? Maybe I'm the only one, but I've caught errors that needed correction that I missed working on the model, that are very clearly errors or imperfection, not any kind of distortion brought on by the camera itself then felt compelled to make alterations/repairs to the model as a result. "Looked fine" before I started shooting, then I though "yikes, how'd I miss that?" after looking at the picture. Least for me, looking at photos often illustrates problems my eyes gloss over at first blush for myriad reasons. I think there's a chance for photos to tell the stark truth eyes overlook sometimes, as well as lie. That has happened to me often, but not nessesarily because the camara sees things more accurately than my eyes, but because the model I see on my computer screen is four times larger than the one on my work bench. small scratches or imperfections show up that much larger when i look at them in Photoshop. That said, I'm not saying that anyone is wrong about the percived inaccuacies, i'm just saying that for most of them I'm waiting to see it in the plastic before passing final judgement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Hall Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 I figure I'm good for 1 of 'em..I don't do customs, generally don't do NASCAR (other than '60s-80s era), but it's offbeat and alien enough to be appealing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darin Bastedo Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 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. Unfortunately, as dave pointed out in an earlier comment, the technology exists, but they cannot afford it. someday perhaps, but until thenwe have to rely on human input, which can be flawed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Hall Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Unfortunately, as dave pointed out in an earlier comment, the technology exists, but they cannot afford it. someday perhaps, but until thenwe have to rely on human input, which can be flawed. Also,keep in mind how freaking old this subject is..it's not like a new or late model car where the model companies have access to the real thing and the automakers... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Unfortunately, as dave pointed out in an earlier comment, the technology exists, but they cannot afford it. someday perhaps, but until thenwe have to rely on human input, which can be flawed. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sak Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 (edited) Never seen the real car so I cannot appreciate the ability of others to see the imperfections but in my opnion, this kit will be badass !!! No matter how unaccurate it is. Its different and correct me if I am wrong but the only non-big three vintage american car that has been made into a model kit . It certianly looks like the best made anyway. Now if only somebody from Moebius is reading this. What about a muntz jet next. jeff Edited December 10, 2010 by sak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old-hermit Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 When Lindberg came out with the Tall T in 1/8 scale all I heard was whining & complaining about it. How it wasn't right and it was an undesirable kit. But after it hit the shelves there were some VERY nice builds of it. Hopefully the same will happen with the Hudson. I'm just happy that a model company is putting out something that hasn't existed before. And BTW, I've already started saving $$$$ for several new Moebius Lonestars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 ...NOBODY who has been brave enough to say they see problems, in the face of an angry mob who immediately start with the same-old-same-old attacks, has claimed to be an "Expert" on Hudson Hornets. Please...any of you. Show me where. Bet you can't! That tired "Expert" nonsense needs to be dropped. These issues don't require a historic knowledge of Hudsons to explain away, they require a casual glance. Anyone with 2 eyes can see them. Roger that. Most of my life I lived with the '67 Mustang hardtop my mother ordered new, drove it, washed it, loved it - before I finally realized, only a few years ago, just how different that rear fender belt line kick-up is between it and a fastback. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darin Bastedo Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Never seen the real car so I cannot appreciate the ability of others to see the imperfections but in my opnion, this kit will be badass !!! No matter how unaccurate it is. Its different and correct me if I am wrong but the only non-big three vintage american car that has been made into a model kit . It certianly looks like the best made anyway. Now if only somebody from Moebius is reading this. What about a muntz jet next. jeff Well not quite the only non-big three vintage kit... AMT 1953 Studebaker Johan 1959 Ramblers muliple 1940-41 willys from AMT and Revell Revell Henry J Revell Austin coupe Monogram 1931 Deusenberg (muliple variations) Monogram Cord Lindberg/pyro Auburn Speedster I'm sure there are others but I think you get my point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darin Bastedo Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Roger that. Most of my life I lived with the '67 Mustang hardtop my mother ordered new, drove it, washed it, loved it - before I finally realized, only a few years ago, just how different that rear fender belt line kick-up is between it and a fastback. But I bet if you had owned both a fastback and a coupe you would have noticed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blake Rogers Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 I don't see anything TOO untoward going on... I look at it, and I see a Hudson. I really don't understand how anyone can possibly expect any model kit, even one engineered with today's technology, can be 100% accurate and true to the 1:1 in every way. Hasn't happened yet, doesn't happen now, probably never will happen until we've developed some type of Star-Trek-like miniature replicator technology. Am I absolutely, positively, 100% confident that this kit is totally accurate? Nope. And I don't care. No kit is perfect. The rest of the kit looks up to snuff, and besides, I haven't seen the Hudson built up yet, so I really don't want to judge any inaccuracies it may have until everything is painted, detailed, and assembled. I've cracked open a few kits and thought "Man, that looks terrible", only to be proven wrong once the model was done. agreed chuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darin Bastedo Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 I've been really studying the photos of the model, to see if I can tell if the body is "shoe-box like" and because of the lighting and the angle it's reall hard to tell, but it looks to me like in some of the shots, the angle of the door lines, is making it look that way. I'm judging this by how different it looks from the rear 3/4 angle and the front 3/4 angle. I went back and looked at the earlier hand built master, and unless they changed the shape since then it looks pretty round to me. but I could be wrong. Another conern that was brought up in this topic was that it appeared that the axle in the rear mounted to both the frame and the springs. From this picture that appears to be the case. whether that bugs me or not will depend on how visible it is after the model is complete. Again we will all know soon enough when the model hits the shelves. I know I will buy at least one for sure, if only because I like the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie8575 Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 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. I agree completely with this. They've earned my business for this kit, whether it needs any tinkering or not. It will look great on my shelf and I can tell I'll enjoy building it. Charlie Larkin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Cranky Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 I've never seen on in person either, although I was there when they released the Gremlin and the Pacer! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Most Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 And this still is a test shot after all, so there's still a chance of them catching any issues with it. Will they catch ALL the issues with it? I doubt it. I do know I'll be plunking down my twenty five bucks for one when they hit the shelves,though I do confess that perhaps the 1:1 subject is clouding my judgement just a little! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 But I bet if you had owned both a fastback and a coupe you would have noticed. Kinda my point, Darin - my memories of the car, vivid as they are, weren't enough to catch that relatively major deviation on their own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjordan2 Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 (edited) A lot of good comparisons between the model and the 1:1 here. However, while I think many of the issues raised here could wait until the final kit is on the shelves to see if there's a problem, there's no question that almost all of the glass surrounds in the kit are too squared-off in the corners and should be more rounded (the backlight looks better than the rest) – and that's not a camera-related illusion. It's clearly something that needs to be addressed. After all, the styling on this car is all about "smooth and rounded," and the windows don't fit in with that. Edited December 10, 2010 by sjordan2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Most Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 The windows are my biggest gripe thus far- the other problems may well be a figment of the imagination, mine or someone else's. If the final kit does still have issues with the widow shape, I think I'll just whack off the roof and put on a padded Carson top. That'll fix it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Well, don't know if anybody's seen 'em, but Dave has added a few lower-angle shots: lower perspectives at beginning of album I will say I see what everyone is talking about, and I'll have to agree. Still eagerly awaiting a couple of these, though, plus whatever variations they come up with afterward... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjordan2 Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Well, don't know if anybody's seen 'em, but Dave has added a few lower-angle shots: lower perspectives at beginning of album I will say I see what everyone is talking about, and I'll have to agree. Still eagerly awaiting a couple of these, though, plus whatever variations they come up with afterward... Yeah, after I saw those I felt it confirmed my opinion of the windows. I would add that I wish the windshield visor (which I would use anyway) could be a separate part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Oh, I think it is, Skip - the main reason we didn't catch those upper windshield contours in the pattern pics was that the visor shielded them. I just can't picture my Hornet without one, which is why I'm not too worried about that detail - but I do believe you can make it out in the test shot pics as separate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.