'53 Hudson Hornet is coming....

[Danno]

I think by this point we're dealing with two separate but related issues.

First is the Hudson itself and the flaws and inaccuracies it either has or doesn't have, depending on how rosy your glasses are. I think we've all agreed to wait and see on this one.

Second is the issue concerning the fact that many of those who have dared to point out said flaws in the Hudson have been characterized as something less than assets to the hobby by those in the "gee, this kit is absolutely fabulous and it always rains lollipops and ponies" crowd.

So, Harry, are you decreeing that there's only two camps in this matter? I ask because I simply don't fit into either group you've deliniated. Help me figure out where I belong.

[Danno]

So, Harry, are you decreeing that there's only two camps in this matter? I ask because I simply don't fit into either group you've delineated. Help me figure out where I belong.

Is there a third option for those of us who see both sides?

[Harry P.]

So, Harry, are you decreeing that there's only two camps in this matter? I ask because I simply don't fit into either group you've deliniated. Help me figure out where I belong.

What I said is that we're talking about two separate issues here... the accuracy (or lack of) of the kit, and the separate but related issue of whether it's a good or a bad thing to comment on the perceived problems in the first place.

[Danno]

... those who have dared to point out said flaws in the Hudson have been characterized as something less than assets to the hobby by those in the "gee, this kit is absolutely fabulous and it always rains lollipops and ponies" crowd.

Otay. I misunderstood. I thought you were indicating there were those who do and those who don't. I'm more like one who does and doesn't and sometimes cares not so much either way. Didn't see room in there for me without carrying a 'do' or 'don't' flag, but looks like it's kewl for us third-partiers, too!

Now, c'mon, relax. I'm just messin' wid ya! Thread-lightening time.

I've gotta run ... gotta close the windows ... it's starting to rain ponies!

[Mike Kucaba]

WOW 14 pages of commentary and the model isn't even on the shelves yet. :D

I do hope this does well for Mobieus,maybe we'll see other none big 3 subject matter Packard Caribbean?

[Jairus]

... gotta close the windows ... it's starting to rain ponies!

I want one!

[charlie8575]

Packard Caribbean?

Please?

Charlie Larkin

[Chuck Most]

I will say that I am now satisfied with how the Moebius Hudson looks. This weekend, I subjected it to the "Ed Test".

A bit of background is in order- Ed has a very good eye for a car's lines, even though he really doesn't know much about the car itself. Know a guy who thinks Olds 4-4-2s had 442 ci engines? Or one who thinks all Ford 429s are of the Boss variety? Or insist GTO stands for 'Grand Touring Option?' Yep- Ed's one of those guys. But, he can correctly ID just about any vehicle built before 1980 or so. He's not a modeler, but he has noticed the flaws and proportion problems on quite a few kits of mine he's seen. He noticed the crooked, faint body crease on the AMT/Ertl '67 Comet before I did- sure, to a modeler such a flaw might be obvious, but remember, Ed is a non-modeler, he isn't 'trained' to look at a model car kit in the same context as we would. Ed did take note of the close-but-no-cigar shape of the window openings, but overall was fairly pleased with what he saw.

There you have it- the "Ed Test". Not very scientific, but works for me!

Then again, should I really trust a guy who who insists a 2010 Impala is rear drive?

[jeffb]

im more worried that the ponies will be raining.....

[niteowl7710]

Then again, should I really trust a guy who who insists a 2010 Impala is rear drive?

I think your friend Ed might have gotten hit one too many times by a sticky sopping wet pony...

[Chuck Most]

I think your friend Ed might have gotten hit one too many times by a sticky sopping wet pony...

Nah- I think it has more to do with what he was up to in the late '60's...

[Chuck Kourouklis]

What, too much LDS?

[Chuck Most]

What, too much LDS?

Ah, a variation of one of my favorite lines from Star Trek IV! Guess ol' Spock should've layed off the limited slip diffs, huh?

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Hell, man - sometimes I peer around here and wonder if we aren't doing a little too much DSL...

[Chuck Most]

I'm sitting here trying to remember what I did in my 'off' time before I beheld the magical power of this Internet thingie. I remember rocks and sticks... but that's about it.

[Eshaver]

Nah- I think it has more to do with what he was up to in the late '60's...

Gee Chuck, ya really know how to make a guy feel real good . Iguess I'll go get depressed now.............. Ed Shaver

[jbwelda]

yes well i apologize for bringing the ala kart into this, except for its tangental relationship re: fidelity to prototype. i did pull out both this weekend and see exactly the situation you pointed out. i think its actually pretty pronounced and the grille and nose especially are bothersome. as for getting emotional...are you kidding? and yeah i knew exactly the situation re: reissue vs new tool. i was using the former as shorthand to acknowledge the car had been kitted before, i didnt mean to imply it was a direct reissue of the new tool. i figured everyone knew the story there. by the way not that it matters but i believe i recall seeing the ala kart at the st louis some custom show or another that i got my dad to take me to and remember thinking it was the total hit of the show. drawer pull grille and all. and i recall building more than one of the original kit. i used to like to use the hemi with the short stack hilborn injectors for kitbashing and the suspension for projects as well.

so...sorry for the digression but i learned a bit from it. thanks for pointing out the differences so graphically.

as for the hudson, arent there prototypes parked in many back lots, under blankets, in yards etc, everywhere? because there sure seem to be in california. ive noticed at least two of similar model (im not an expert) in the past week. once the model is out it should be pretty easy to find a real life example to compare with.

[Modelmartin]

What, too much LDS?

Latter Day Saints? Mormons?

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Hey, man, that wuz Cap'n Kirk's line. Though I think he woulda gone for the polygamy.

Just sayin'...

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Ah, a variation of one of my favorite lines from Star Trek IV! Guess ol' Spock should've layed off the limited slip diffs, huh?

WAITAMINIT - wouldn't Kirk have had you believe Spock's problem was really those limited-dip spliffs?

Yup, yup, just came up with that one.

[Chuck Most]

WAITAMINIT - wouldn't Kirk have had you believe Spock's problem was really those limited-dip spliffs?

Yup, yup, just came up with that one.

Uhhh......

I got nothin'.

[Art Anderson]

This has been an interesting thread to say the least! Dave Metzner took a pretty big risk, by allowing pics of the first round test shots of the Hudson to be put up online--as a general rule, model companies NEVER allow any images of any as-yet-uncompleted model kits to be made public.

In doing so, Dave allowed some real transparency to happen with the development of the two car kits from Moebius, and while some vituperant rhetoric has evolved here, in general, public input has been valuable! I can say this, I think, that the input from members of these forums has lead to what will be a few serious modifications to the Hudson tooling--and that's a good thing, it seems to me (even though it will mean some added expense to the company) that Moebius will do what can be done to make the model more accurate, more palatable to a larger audience.

Hopefully, everyone here now has a better idea as to the challenges faced by anyone in the business of creating scale models for mass production. While there is technology available today that pushes so much of what used to be done almost into oblivion, bear in mind that when one is working with a car subject from decades ago (1953 was 57, almost 58 years ago--a time when computers were massive, room-filling machines, tended by stereotypical men in white coats, with balding heads and thick eyeglasses!), but still, in the final analysis, it's the human factor which comes to the forefront--it's still artistry, folks--no matter the high-tech means available, at some point in the process, the human eye, the human hand still have a huge part to play.

I think I can say (with confidence that Dave won't just shoot me!) that the input here, while some of it has been pretty hard to take, has been welcome. It won't always be a matter of seeking modelers' input where a new kit is in the works, but this has been an interesting and valuable exercise, I think.

So, sit back, buckle up the seat belts, folks! There's going to be some more good subjects done, I believe.

Art

[Zoom Zoom]

This has been an interesting thread to say the least! Dave Metzner took a pretty big risk, by allowing pics of the first round test shots of the Hudson to be put up online--as a general rule, model companies NEVER allow any images of any as-yet-uncompleted model kits to be made public.

In doing so, Dave allowed some real transparency to happen with the development of the two car kits from Moebius, and while some vituperant rhetoric has evolved here, in general, public input has been valuable! I can say this, I think, that the input from members of these forums has lead to what will be a few serious modifications to the Hudson tooling--and that's a good thing, it seems to me (even though it will mean some added expense to the company) that Moebius will do what can be done to make the model more accurate, more palatable to a larger audience.

Hopefully, everyone here now has a better idea as to the challenges faced by anyone in the business of creating scale models for mass production. While there is technology available today that pushes so much of what used to be done almost into oblivion, bear in mind that when one is working with a car subject from decades ago (1953 was 57, almost 58 years ago--a time when computers were massive, room-filling machines, tended by stereotypical men in white coats, with balding heads and thick eyeglasses!), but still, in the final analysis, it's the human factor which comes to the forefront--it's still artistry, folks--no matter the high-tech means available, at some point in the process, the human eye, the human hand still have a huge part to play.

I think I can say (with confidence that Dave won't just shoot me!) that the input here, while some of it has been pretty hard to take, has been welcome. It won't always be a matter of seeking modelers' input where a new kit is in the works, but this has been an interesting and valuable exercise, I think.

So, sit back, buckle up the seat belts, folks! There's going to be some more good subjects done, I believe.

Art

Excellent! I'm sure this transparency will result in a better final product. I'm looking forward to it.

[Jairus]

Well said Art!

(He's my friend!)

[Harry P.]

And what have we all learned from this little exercise? A few things...

1. We've learned that yes, there were errors in the Hudson.

2. We've learned that the people who had the "nerve" to speak up and point out the errors are responsible for the fact that Moebius will now correct those errors as best they can.

3. We've learned that Moebius cares about its products and its customers. Posting the photos of the Hornet publicly and taking comments and criticisms to heart–actually acting on those comments–tells us a lot about the kind of people who are involved in the project, and what it tells us is all good.

4. The most important lesson, IMO: The people who pointed out those errors are not enemies of the hobby (as some have suggested) and were not bashing anyone. They were just being observant and honest in regards to what they saw in the Hornet.. not giving opinions of the people involved. And their opinions, comments and suggestions regarding the model are ultimately going to result in a better kit for all of us.