charlie8575 Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 I'd like to take a moment now to note a distinction, possibly due just a L-I-I-I-TTLE more respect 'round here: Maybe it doesn't really boil down to intelligence of the sharpness of your eyes; maybe sensitivity to proportion is just more a matter of habit or self-training. And there IS a difference between affably pointing out you don't see a given problem... (^^) and continuing to be so uselessly snide about the observation - or insisting that people need micrometers and other "engineering tools" to pick nits - out of your own inability to see that problem. Here, here! We all come to our own acceptance level on quality, some of us were born and raised when Americans built and did their best. Today everyone's used to the cheap Chinese meritocracy at Walmart. The majority won't pay for quality, so we don't get quality. Read the book Cheap. It does a wonderful job of illuminating so much of what's wrong in the marketplace today. Charlie Larkin
charlie8575 Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 Absolutely! We're on a bad streak at my work, dealing with AutoCAD assistants. We usually try to employ at least one college age student part time to do minor revisions and corrections to our ACAD drawings. If things work out, we usually try to transition them into a full time position when they get their BA. The previous kid we had just couldn't get up to speed, so we didn't offer him a full time position. After he left, we got another junior level student. Again, he JUST. DOESN'T. GET IT. As many times as we walk him through it, and try to drill into his head to CHECK YOUR OWN WORK before giving to us to review, he overlooks basic details. I'm convinced that some people just don't have it in them. The difficulty is convincing these guys that they need to find something else that's more suitable to them. The thing that amazes me is that these guys are engineering students with decent GPAs, yet I can't picture them functioning in an engineering capacity in any circumstance after they graduate. Because, you know, details usually matter in engineering... My dad has been an engineer for well...his entire adult life. He has nearly fifty years' experience in all sort of aerospace, missile, tank, radar and computer systems. The computer stuff I don't have a clue about, but that's besides the point. A few years ago, when I was attempting to sell real estate in the worst market this country has seen since the first depression (don't kid yourselves, we had a short depression and are now in a long recession, but I'll deal with that later,) and I ended up having a youngish couple (I was 35 or so, they were about 26 or 27,) looking for an apartment. Both were engineers of differing specialties. I grew up around engineers. Most of my dad's friends and most of the people I've known have been either engineers or employed in technical fields. The engineers could have conversations about almost anything. Their specialty, music, art, movies, sports, books, cars, trains, you name it. But, these two.....they couldn't even articulate their own specialties well. And it was something I noticed about a lot of people about my age or younger that are involved in engineering or other technical fields. I asked Dad about this, and he agreed that I wasn't seeing things. He had noticed the same things, too, that the people now going (and in some cases, being pushed) into these fields were, as he described it, "over-educated, over-focused, inarticulate fools who, while intelligent, aren't as smart as they think." I described them as combining the worst attributes of a savant and a child with very high-functioning Aspberger's. Dad, who has to work with this bumper crop, used words I can't repeat here! So, where things require human interaction, an artistic eye, or a sense of design, those students are either being barred from entry to the respective fields, or being driven out of the studies, leaving only room for these laser-focused, very smart, but old-knife blunt kids who can't handle anything outside of very specific, highly-controlled and directed studies that require creativity. Or, for that matter, an appreciation of the greater world. I think some of the major problems we've seen with kit engineering may be another manifestation of these problems, as younger people who have no appreciation for art, design or similar topics replace those who not only possessed technical expertise, but an appreciation and knowledge of the larger world. Having been substituting occasionally at a charter school focused on math and science, I have seen the future. The school plays a "song of the day" in the morning, and there were several kids who decried music and art as "worthless" because it interferes with their learning about microbes or indecipherable math (well, indecipherable to me.) If you have kids, grandkids, nieces, nephews, or somehow have children in your life, PLEASE make sure they get exposed to the world around them, particularly if they display attributes like this, no matter in what disciplines those attributes manifest themselves. I had a similar experience. I worked at a shop that made parts for the aviation industry, along with other customers. We were pretty used to dealing with the F.A.A., and Military Specs. We got a bright, shiny, new manager one day straight from running a local restaurant chain into bankruptcy. He was a "Too good to pass up" hire for the owner, because he had two business related Masters degrees and a PhD in Management. Before he killed the restaurants, he had run a group of car dealerships that went bankrupt. After we folded, he ended up running a Medical center into the ground! I don't know where he is now, but I bet it will fail. On his first day i the shop, he asked us what everything was called, not understanding even the basic tools, let alone the types of parts we made. The second day, he was telling us how everything we were doing was wrong and how we needed to change all of our procedures. He streamlined inspections down to writing the target number down on the inspection sheet and signing it. He banned process control charts (Waste of time and perfectly good parts) He made the machinists turn up their speeds and feeds to the highest speed where they could still cut. (Woe to the guy who was making precision grooves in threaded stainless on a lathe adjacent to the guy who was turning a piece of scrap aluminum rod down to make a quick and dirty handle for a shop fixture. He was told to "Match that guy's speed or go home!") I agree management has its place, but Managers and the College educated guys usually manage to talk their way into jobs they aren't qualified for, and proceed to prove their worth to their bosses by making all kind of changes. It can get pretty ugly when the "Pretty little certificate" is allowed to trump actual relevant experience. The entitlement culture of management is one of the big reasons America is in the sad state of affairs it is in right now. These two comments work together, actually. Disclosure: I'm an MBA student, and presently hold an M.Ed. and graduate certificate in management. In addition, I taught high school business classes previously. Like many of the engineering students, we've also begun to attract people with the same fatal flaws into the managerial field. Only, they focus exclusively on one thing: the bottom line and how to wring every last penny out of every operation, reality and necessity be hanged. This is the continuing trend of driving any and all common sense and reason out of many of the professional fields our country, and the world, so heavily rely upon to function. It's something I've picked bones with on many occasions with teachers, classmates, and have tried very hard to drive home to my students. Yes, numbers matter, but if you become myopic about it, you'll be out of business because you'll micro-manage yourself into oblivion through stupid, short-sighted, brain-dead techniques like Dave outlined rather nicely. I think it makes a rather strong case for eliminating business from college and going back to Nineteenth-Century style apprenticeships and under-studies to learn what works and what doesn't from people who have done it for a living, not a bunch of academics who haven't. Charlie Larkin
Agent G Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 I see what Charlie speaks of every day in the casino industry. Nevada relies on tourism, Las Vegas being the mecca for all things party related. The "issues" with our economy prompted drastic measures by corporate executives. You can't make money if no one walks in the joint. To quote Charlie, "Like many of the engineering students, we've also begun to attract people with the same fatal flaws into the managerial field. Only, they focus exclusively on one thing: the bottom line and how to wring every last penny out of every operation, reality and necessity be hanged." No one, and I mean no one, working in a casino has the authority to grant a "comp" any more. No decisions are allowed "on the fly" by experienced Floor Supervisors. Upper management will terminate any Floor who takes the initiative and rectifies any but the most mundane issue at the table. I truly wonder why anyone would ever consider a career in the gaming industry anymore. Don't let me get started on my office either. G
Ron Hamilton Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 I have some comments concerning this thread. Have we ever heard of the term "Attention to Detail"? In terms of the latest model kits, it is lacking, and not at all of the companies, or one in particular. I don't mind someone with what I call "The Critical Eye", making a comment concerning certain aspects of a model kit, promo, or diecast, as long as they can truly back up what they are saying in knowldge of the subject, and their ability to do a good build. Unfortunately, the final person signing off on some of these kits either have no clue as to what they are looking at, never saw one in person, or in a series of photographs. These people have no business making the final decision on any product that is supposed to be an exact replica of an estblished product. I can honestly say, until it has been brought to my attention by certain "Critical Eyes" about some design aspects of a few kits. Either I did not notice them, or the flaw was not so glaring as to stop me from buying and building a particular kit. Part of my modeling enjoyment is to fix some flaws as I see them in the tool to my satisfaction. Unfortunately, some of the kits I bought in the past are not going to get built, due to my not having the want or desire to fix some of these "problem children" to my satisfaction. At this point I am not going to name them, as I am quite sure that the kits and the manufacturers of them have been hammered into oblivion by some of the members of this board, and else where, and even though some of the critiques and opinions are gospel to me, some I take with a grain of salt, or ignore the source. I take my hat off to Mobieus for re-working their kits to a more acceptable level when it comes to proportions to mine and other "trusted" critical eyes on trim on the final product before it is in the store. Are they perfect? I don't know, but the one I have in my collection are very satisfactory to me. Trumpeter did not sweat the details on some of their kits, and now seems to be an "also ran" in today's market, even though I hope they can get their act togther. Isn't it funny that back in the '60's the kits were right on the money in most cases when it came to the bodies and interior trim. I will put an AMT '65 Ford Galaxie 500 XL up against many of the newer kits short of some of the Tamiya, or Fujimi "Enthusiast Series" offerings in terms of overall detail and propotions. JoHan kits from the '60's look great except that some of the Cadillacs and Chryslers were 1/4" short in length (They hid it pretty well). The second coming of Revell's '69 Dodge Charger R/T is another nice kit, even though I have seen fitment problems with the hood-to-fender-to-grille on a lot of builds on the various model boards and in person, and the side door trim is not true to the 1-to-1, but pretty close. The first edition of the kit was a charature of the real car at best, but at least Revell made good on replacing the "Ill proportioned" parts to any modeler who wanted them. My "Critical Eye" has noticed a few "Foibles" on some of the offerings out there, and I have made the decision either to "fix them" to the best of my ability, or leave it alone, if I positively have to buy and build a particular kit, or leave it in the store for someone else. I've heard and read the reasoning behind why a particular tool was off kilter from certain manufacturers, as well as rumors of no knowledge of, or complete denial of the product proprtion problems by some manufacturer's reps. Recently, I have been working over old '60's previous builds and derelict promos I have been picking up here and there over the years. Not only for the subject matter, but because the kits look great to me, and I truly enjoy building a model that I will not see on the table at a show, or on the board built by someone else. Yes I plan on getting my hands on a Revell '57 Del Rio Ranch Wagon, as well as the new Mobieus, AMT, and Revell offerings that "float my boat", and layng some glue, paint, foil and modeling skill to them while I can still see, have some sort of manual dexterity, and have the desire and ability to build them.
FordRodnKustom Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 Yes I plan on getting my hands on a Revell '57 Del Rio Ranch Wagon, as well as the new Mobieus, AMT, and Revell offerings that "float my boat", and layng some glue, paint, foil and modeling skill to them while I can still see, have some sort of manual dexterity, and have the desire and ability to build them. Well said Sir. My thoughts exactly. I am thrilled to have a Del Rio kit in the pipeline as my father had a Cumberland Green and Colonial White one with the T-Bird hub caps sometime in the early 60's when I was a kid. I thought that was the coolest car I had ever seen...still do. I might buy a few of the kits and don't care about all these so called flaws.
Ron Hamilton Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 Well said Sir. My thoughts exactly. I am thrilled to have a Del Rio kit in the pipeline as my father had a Cumberland Green and Colonial White one with the T-Bird hub caps sometime in the early 60's when I was a kid. I thought that was the coolest car I had ever seen...still do. I might buy a few of the kits and don't care about all these so called flaws. I can't wait to see you do your magic on one of the Ranch Wagons. Revell and AMT should hire you to do their box art builds for the 1957 Fords. By the way, I hope that AMT sees fit to reissue the '57 Fairlane 500 hardtop.
ChrisBcritter Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 I can't wait to see you do your magic on one of the Ranch Wagons. Revell and AMT should hire you to do their box art builds for the 1957 Fords. By the way, I hope that AMT sees fit to reissue the '57 Fairlane 500 hardtop. Yes, with ALL the original custom parts including front and rear ends.
gtx6970 Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 I have some comments concerning this thread. Have we ever heard of the term "Attention to Detail"? In terms of the latest model kits, it is lacking, and not at all of the companies, or one in particular. I don't mind someone with what I call "The Critical Eye", making a comment concerning certain aspects of a model kit, promo, or diecast, as long as they can truly back up what they are saying in knowldge of the subject, and their ability to do a good build. Unfortunately, the final person signing off on some of these kits either have no clue as to what they are looking at, never saw one in person, or in a series of photographs. These people have no business making the final decision on any product that is supposed to be an exact replica of an estblished product. I can honestly say, until it has been brought to my attention by certain "Critical Eyes" about some design aspects of a few kits. Either I did not notice them, or the flaw was not so glaring as to stop me from buying and building a particular kit. Part of my modeling enjoyment is to fix some flaws as I see them in the tool to my satisfaction. Unfortunately, some of the kits I bought in the past are not going to get built, due to my not having the want or desire to fix some of these "problem children" to my satisfaction. At this point I am not going to name them, as I am quite sure that the kits and the manufacturers of them have been hammered into oblivion by some of the members of this board, and else where, and even though some of the critiques and opinions are gospel to me, some I take with a grain of salt, or ignore the source. I take my hat off to Mobieus for re-working their kits to a more acceptable level when it comes to proportions to mine and other "trusted" critical eyes on trim on the final product before it is in the store. Are they perfect? I don't know, but the one I have in my collection are very satisfactory to me. Trumpeter did not sweat the details on some of their kits, and now seems to be an "also ran" in today's market, even though I hope they can get their act togther. Isn't it funny that back in the '60's the kits were right on the money in most cases when it came to the bodies and interior trim. I will put an AMT '65 Ford Galaxie 500 XL up against many of the newer kits short of some of the Tamiya, or Fujimi "Enthusiast Series" offerings in terms of overall detail and propotions. JoHan kits from the '60's look great except that some of the Cadillacs and Chryslers were 1/4" short in length (They hid it pretty well). The second coming of Revell's '69 Dodge Charger R/T is another nice kit, even though I have seen fitment problems with the hood-to-fender-to-grille on a lot of builds on the various model boards and in person, and the side door trim is not true to the 1-to-1, but pretty close. The first edition of the kit was a charature of the real car at best, but at least Revell made good on replacing the "Ill proportioned" parts to any modeler who wanted them. My "Critical Eye" has noticed a few "Foibles" on some of the offerings out there, and I have made the decision either to "fix them" to the best of my ability, or leave it alone, if I positively have to buy and build a particular kit, or leave it in the store for someone else. I've heard and read the reasoning behind why a particular tool was off kilter from certain manufacturers, as well as rumors of no knowledge of, or complete denial of the product proprtion problems by some manufacturer's reps. Recently, I have been working over old '60's previous builds and derelict promos I have been picking up here and there over the years. Not only for the subject matter, but because the kits look great to me, and I truly enjoy building a model that I will not see on the table at a show, or on the board built by someone else. Yes I plan on getting my hands on a Revell '57 Del Rio Ranch Wagon, as well as the new Mobieus, AMT, and Revell offerings that "float my boat", and layng some glue, paint, foil and modeling skill to them while I can still see, have some sort of manual dexterity, and have the desire and ability to build them. Very well said . I agree 100%
Bob Ellis Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 People that complain and are highly critical of others projects should consider doing their own manufacturing. Instead of risking their $25, they will understand how it is to risk a far larger sum of money. I started making photo-etched model train car sides for specific railroads about 25 years ago. I had to buy a lot of reference books, photos (before the internet) and any other information I could find. The up front cost of purchasing AutoCAD (a licensed copy) and the computer with enough muscle to run the program was expensive. Add that to more expense of converting the DXF files to film, and you have spent a lot before even making one part. I used to chrome plate the brass sides to imitate the stainless steel sides. That operation at the made rejects of about 20-40%. I was dealing with reputable companies, but these things happened. I am sure that I spent enough to buy a new Corvette after 10 years of designing more car sides. I had a lot of people reviewing the drawings before it went into production. Even that didn't stop small annoying errors totally. One time it was 10 years later that the mistake was brought up to me. I am not an expert about injection molded plastic parts, but I can appreciate the trouble it is to create a new product. Of course, in 1990, I didn't have the continuous online commenting about my products. Some of which is good and some not.
Monty Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 Bob, while the criticism may seem harsh, it often stems from far more knowledgeable people hoping to influence the model manufacturer into offering a better overall product. Think of what Moebius' Hudsons might've turned out like if all those former owners, restorers and other well-informed people hadn't critiqued the early test shots and made specific recommendations for corrections. No one's claiming it's a perfect model, but it's a far better one than we would've gotten without outside input. If you saw the thread about Revell's '57 Ford wagon a few days ago, the OP had a question no one could answer: How can a car be measured and photographed, showing specific creases,angles and shapes and not be tooled that way? He showed great examples of 1:1 cars, and it's obvious the Revell kit will require more than a little body work to look like the real thing. These are the kinds of details we expect a manufacturer to get right from the outset. When they don't, it's always going to be a cause for speculating why not. In the internet age, you can't blame your failure on lack of information.
keyser Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 (edited) Bob, didn't you read Ron Hamilton's post #289 http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=95522&page=15#entry1388399 (quoted directly before your post) before you told us to "mold our own kits", number 4 on the criticism response knee jerk? Ron put it well, succinctly, and easy to read. Or the photos in post 230? http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=95522&page=12#entry1385679 Not subtle since you made parts more esoteric and obscure than these I'd guess Guess it baffles me why it's defensible to do it wrong, and offensive if someone points it out. No kit manufacturer (literally) left behind! Mediocrity-We do it best!!!111!!! Forgot to add- Ron and Andy are not the "usual suspects" when it comes to issues. So must be something there, ya think? Edited March 21, 2015 by keyser
Art Anderson Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 In the end, it all comes down to "model builders" VS "kit assemblers". I know of no model car kit (and my experience goes all the way back to 1952 and my first Revell/Gowland & Gowland Highway Pioneers kits--OK?) that is entirely free of anomalies visible and important to some, yet perfectly acceptable to others. Why not wait until the kit comes out, rather than carp about stuff we've only seen in pictures, most of which are questionable due to looking at images pulled from online of a real car, and then a handful of snapshots of a model kit in test shot form? Food for thought here? Art
Rob Hall Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 (edited) In the end, it all comes down to "model builders" VS "kit assemblers". I know of no model car kit (and my experience goes all the way back to 1952 and my first Revell/Gowland & Gowland Highway Pioneers kits--OK?) that is entirely free of anomalies visible and important to some, yet perfectly acceptable to others. Why not wait until the kit comes out, rather than carp about stuff we've only seen in pictures, most of which are questionable due to looking at images pulled from online of a real car, and then a handful of snapshots of a model kit in test shot form? Food for thought here? Art Given Revell's recent track record, it's perfectly normal to expect issues, though... People that complain and are highly critical of others projects should consider doing their own manufacturing. Instead of risking their $25, they will understand how it is to risk a far larger sum of money. Wrong answer. These aren't toys for children, Revell has to be held to a standard of accuracy as any other kit maker is held. It's weird how people get villified for criticising obvious mistakes in kits (such as some Revell's recent botch jobs) and expecting a high level of accuracy in this hobby, yet other forms of modeling (aircraft, armor) seem to have much higher standards and expectations. Too many complacent people in model cars seem to accept mediocrity and inaccuracies without speaking up... Edited March 21, 2015 by Rob Hall
DaveM Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 When I made aircraft kits back in the '80s and '90s, I had one thing figured out pretty quickly. It is far easier for me to fix a mistake once, in my master, than it is for 100 customers to all have to fix the mistake in the final product. I bet Revell makes more than 100 copies of each kit. I don't expect a perfect kit because the perfect kit doesn't exist. That does not mean you can't at least try to make it correctly. I applaud Moebius for showing their test shots, as the back and forth tends to give us better kits. I can see where they really fixed the bigger glitches in the Ford Pickups, and that will get them a couple of extra sales from me. (I am buying at least 3 of each, and I don't buy that many kits any more.) Revell needs to earn my trust again, as I have been burned on a few of their recent kits. I may buy one of the Del Rios if I think the worst flaws can be reasonably fixed. I will probably not grab the first one off the boat like I used to. I will wait until the kit has been reviewed and vetted on this board before parting with my hard earned money. The '57 Fords were not terrible kits, although they aren't in the running for "Kit of the decade" either. I bought one factory kit, and one NASCAR version. I have the factory one on the bench now. It is a pretty nice kit. The fit, so far, is really nice and the molding is fairly crisp. Details are well molded and pick out easily with paint. The motor is going to be a little jewel! But, they have made some basic shape errors. Revell has tooled some of the best kits in the business and many of their reissues are must haves. (I am up to 4 of their '70 Torinos!) I have bought many multiples of their '55 through '57 Chevy kits from their new tools, and I buy the '69 Camaros as fast as they can crank them out. I also have multiples of their '59, '60, '64, '65 and '66 Impalas, lots of Thunderbolts and enough Chevelles to fill a rowboat Hopefully their next couple kits will get me trusting them again. (Pretty stoked for the '29 "A" roadster)
southpier Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 ..... Too many complacent people in model cars seem to accept mediocrity and inaccuracies without speaking up... perhaps, but then there are those of us who embrace their fecklessness
Ace-Garageguy Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 (edited) People that complain and are highly critical of others projects should consider doing their own manufacturing. Instead of risking their $25, they will understand how it is to risk a far larger sum of money. Frankly, my own criticisms of shoddy work are backed up by a career often heavily involved in developing and manufacturing parts for the high-performance automotive and aviation industries. I didn't have something to copy, like the kit makers do. I had to start with a need, and a clean sheet of paper. Make it work, make it economically, and make it on time. And look good. I simply did not have the option of multiple re-works and re-designs, and often when I was doing freelance design work (which I still do) if my first design had deficiencies of any sort, I'd be held accountable for the second and subsequent prototypes, and corrections to tooling if necessary. We're talking serious money out of my pocket if I didn't hit it dead-on, first time. Personal accountability and just giving a damm, and putting more effort into providing job-one quality than excuses when it's lacking...that's what's necessary. And one more time: I LIKE the Revell '57 Fords I have multiples of. Overall they're very nice kits. I'll correct the flaws when I build them. BUT I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO. Edited March 21, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy
Guest Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 You are right, you shouldn't have to, in a perfect world. Unfortunately, mistakes happen.
Ace-Garageguy Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 (edited) You are right, you shouldn't have to, in a perfect world. Unfortunately, mistakes happen. I'm certainly not trying to get a flame war starting again, but I just don't get that attitude. If I told my employers or clients that...you know, people who PAY me to do a job... I'd be out of work and on food stamps. Last week I cut a piece of hose 1/2 inch too short on a custom AC install I'm doing in the '47 Caddy. I also decided I'd rather have a 45 deg. #8 service-port fitting at the compressor than the 90 deg. fitting I originally specified. Who do you think pays for the replacement hose, the new fitting and shipping? I do. Who does the rework for free? I do. Voluntarily. Mistakes happen? Yeah, they do. And I eat my own. I don't try to pass off half-assed work as "good-enuf". But maybe I oughta try it. Seems to be "good enuf" for so many of you all here. Nah. I'll do it right. There's a principle here. Remember those? Edited March 22, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy
keyser Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 Nobody all along has ever mentioned "perfect model" or "perfect world" except the excuse-niks. Mistakes are accidental oversights, random, not predictable. Mistakes, if real, can have varying degrees of excuses. Hiya Art. I'm excited about the Del Rio. Tried to get you to do one way back. It isn't model builder vs kit assembler. It's about expectations of quality, care, presentation of product. You have a Sherline, have made tons of masters, scratchbuild. You have a far greater technical level of building than I. We both have a dumpload of knowledge, albeit in diverse areas with overlap. But I'm not a kit assembler. I'm a builder. We all build to best of our abilities, and nobody here has right to call someone a kit assembler. You didn't, and I never would. I don't like flaws. I was paid to fix flaws, and not allowed luxury of "mistakes" with humans I worked on. Standards are pretty low with model cars, but unlike years ago, technology and research is hugely easier than tracking down a Malks or Elbert book, going to museums and measuring, etc. Case I'll return to is bumperguards that are tall, would dent the tailgate when dropped. I hope they are correct with wagon, not just carryover from sedan. So will they be there, or other issues with bumper splash and lower fender? Do I feel lucky? Are they easy to fix? Mostly, save chrome on guards. Do I want to fix them, when a 54 year old tool doesn't have an issue? Nope. Does that make me a "kit assembler"? Nope. Still can't wait for this kit, bought a stupid 57 Bel-Air convertible anyway, it'll be in my estate sale soon enough. Embraced fecklessness. Seemingly raising to art form in politics, business ethos, Murdoch media, and literary skilz. Meh. It's not what we do. It's who we are
Guest Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 (edited) I'm certainly not trying to get a flame war starting again, but I just don't get that attitude. If I told my employers or clients that...you know, people who PAY me to do a job... I'd be out of work and on food stamps. Last week I cut a piece of hose 1/2 inch too short on a custom AC install I'm doing in the '47 Caddy. I also decided I'd rather have a 45 deg. #8 service-port fitting at the compressor than the 90 deg. fitting I originally specified. Who do you think pays for the replacement hose, the new fitting and shipping? I do. Who does the rework for free? I do. Voluntarily. Mistakes happen? Yeah, they do. And I eat my own. I don't try to pass off half-assed work as "good-enuf". But maybe I oughta try it. Seems to be "good enuf" for so many of you all here. Nah. I'll do it right. There's a principle here. Remember those? The thing is, these mistakes are not that bad. Frustrating, yes, but not worth all the drama. Lest you do not think I care about mistakes and quality, my job demands it. I have spent my life doing custom cabinetry finishing. In most cases, they had to be perfect, and even if they didnt reqire it, I made it that way. I take pride in what I do, and mistakes are NOT acceptable. I just do not see the things being complained about in this thread as worth it. These are MODELS. Edited March 22, 2015 by midnightprowler
keyser Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 Funny thing is, many of us have same drive for excellence (not perfection, impossible, and only mentioned by refuseniks). Yes, they're MODELS. Should be pastime. It is a great one. But fixing something that should be correct, or at least closer, isn't really ok for a lot of us. Especially when all the research, design, tooling is as easy as it's ever been. My standards don't change per activity. So making a sandwich, building a kit, helping with homework, or in ICU, same standard, just less intense. The subjects coming now are pretty awesome. All have flaws but most aren't awful. I still buy stuff, just less, don't need another "fix this before I build it" sitting there. The drama comes from someone mentioning an issue/potential issue. Then the refuseniks start the "rivet/just models/be happy it isn't Palmer/looks good to me you're nuts/whatever", and demand adoption of their standards, or lack thereof. Lee, Bill, Tom, Chuck, all of us wouldn't let "meh" fly in our work, or for our kids. Why should we for a hobby? It isn't a hobby for the manufacturers. Lee
Guest Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 As far as I am concerned, most of these "issues" in MY eyes are not that bad. Rarely have I seen something that far off. The only thing I have seen that bad really since getting back in the hobby in 92 is the 58 Belvedere, and the twice attempted 70 AAR Cuda.
Chuck Kourouklis Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 ...The drama comes from someone mentioning an issue/potential issue. Then the refuseniks start the "rivet/just models/be happy it isn't Palmer/looks good to me you're nuts/whatever", and demand adoption of their standards, or lack thereof. Between this and "defensible to do it wrong, offensive to point it out", I'd like to nominate a new poet laureate for the thread. That IS what the drama all boils down to in the end - the inability of some of you to deal with the fact that people point out flaws in kits. It's YOU ALL who start the name-calling and the snideness and the fur-flying because people who criticize kits do not behave the way you think they ought to. And Art, with all due respect, "food for thought" - ? How about grist for vaporization, years gone now? I'll "just wait for the kit" when I start seeing meaningful corrections between previews and what's on the shelf after more than a decade otherwise, thanks (#4 - again - at the blog linked below). And as long as that patently false "Builder vs Kit Assembler" dichotomy keeps coming up, I'll keep pointing out that I gave that sad little canard its richly deserved vivisection long ago, at #2 in the link below... and then that I undertook a project to prove the irrelevance of that angle by meeting its baseless challenge ANYWAY: never mind the Steve Bouttes and the John Goschkes and Bill Gearys and Bob Downies and countless others before me who've long shown even more conclusively that pointing out problems doesn't immediately impugn your qualifications as a builder. DEMONSTRATING a point is also something you guys don't do very well - because you need to have a valid point in order to demonstrate it.
southpier Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 i'm a little confused what the vote is for, but mine will be "Yes".
johnbuzzed Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) Whatever. I still can't grasp how, with all of the reference material that is available and almost instantaneous forms of global communication, suitable for text and graphics, the final product can be messed up. This is not rocket surgery or brain science; it's injection molding of styrene. The technology, knowledge and skills are there. Yet, balls continue to be dropped. I guess it's good that the people involved don't work for any critical industries... We all should realize that mistakes are made; that's why we have a "delete" function, cyanoacrylate debonder, e-z outs and erasers. Unfortunately, some are far more costly than others. That's life. Who here hasn't made any mistakes? And, some people prefer to just assemble and paint- there are times when I do just that. Others prefer to modify what's in the box using a multitude of techniques- I am one of them at times, too. Labels are good to identify inanimate objects. When applied to people, problems arise. Edited March 23, 2015 by johnbuzzed
Recommended Posts