|
Post by cfesmire on Apr 2, 2007 14:11:08 GMT 1
Over in "Recent Acquisitions" the discussion started about accuracy in the models we buy. The Reel Rides Plymouth GTX was singled out for it's pros and cons. So I'll ask the question, how close is close enough? Any specific models you feel can be corrected easily, any that aren't worth trying? This is an excerpt from one of the last posts. to me if this mismatch can be corrected( wheels, grill etc) then fine. would you buy a model that is 75% correct and 25% wrong? I guess that depends on 2 things. One, whether or not I think I can make those percentages better with a little work. And two, how much do I want that model in the scale. Getting every model in the scale to be 100% is just wishful thinking, we know that. Getting it as close as possible is what being a modeler is all about. But the starting point has to be worth the effort.
|
|
stanhas87
87thScale addict
1978 Dodge Monaco CHP
Posts: 4,906
|
Post by stanhas87 on Apr 2, 2007 19:05:00 GMT 1
Dear All:
My policy always been to get as most makes/models as possible.Hence,I am aware that some cars will not make it due to the million and a half reasons explained here. This way,if a car no one did is announced,I take it and grade accordingly.
I will call 'toy' the item someone made (something with wheels,with no pretension to reproduce a real car) just for the fun of it.As I read around,the definition of toy and model is being blurred even further.
On my collection quest,I got models such as the Brazilian Volkswagen 1600 4-door sedan.Trust me,no one will mold this car,so the plastic toy which i have is for me,a 40% represation of it (meaning,one can tell it what that is) - that the way I measure a so-called 'toy' - is enough,and I will call these items as both,toy and model,and be happy that exists.My Opala 1968 is further detailed (i.e.,the front grille and rear are well represented) but the undercarriage is not,and that is still a one-piece item (as the resin items which are not shallow),so if 'customized.it will become a decent model.My Ford Corcel 1971 have very vague details,but the separate tailights which are visible ,put it again on the 40% range (I can tell what it is and even what year model).The models from MPC (you know,the little plastic ones with no interiors,not the kits) have the only Aero Ace miniature I know with split window and 4 doors;I put this guy on 35% range and again remind anyone that it can be recognized what it is.
Bill stated that I will defend the diecast versions of any model car.I would not agree much,because I posted my inventory statistics and I have monumental amount of plastic models as well,some of these being the models which are so appreciated here and the diecasts which are constantly billed as toys,albeit 1/64 items such as Auto Art,Kyosho,Konami,ERTL Muscle cars are not so.In the case of the GTX,I will put that on the 75% and remind anyone one can tell what that is (and also stated that the manufacturer has a newsletter that one can acess and state such problems,as is the case of their Chevy 1954,which is not 1/64 scale and the collectors were vocal about it,because it seems a good model of it) despite is problems with grille and body proportions.
And items such as the GTO and Trans Am hit the spot with,as I read,few irregularities.I saw the pick up,and despite is irregularities,it has a good wealth of detail for a $2.00 toy.Is to be seen how the next batch will look like;if the errors will be the norm,then all the bad reviews will be merited,albeit one should keep in mind that the model can be recognized and there is not,at the time being,no other representation of it.
These are my views.Many will not agree,but their policies is different than mine,and not all care if model X or Y finally made it,or,if did so,it should be a rolling perfection of it.On all my years of collecting,I learned that it does not work like that,and I do not have the ability to do something better,as some in this group,so I accept what comes on my way and graduate the items accordingly,20% at least it I can tell what make/model the miniature is supposed to represent.
Finally,if that would be a $10.00 + model,I will understand the moaning,and I should point vehicles in that range,such as CMW Ford 1959 and 1967,Ricko Continental.Herpa Alpine and Escort were also target of irregularities.But that GTX is from a lower priced series.The rest of the tought must will undestand;I will add,at least,they tried and bought a model no one did or will do.
|
|
BillC
87thScale addict
Posts: 2,541
|
Post by BillC on Apr 3, 2007 2:41:46 GMT 1
The cost of the model is immaterial. I've seen what can be done with diecast and I have seen what can be done with plastic. I don't expect a Herpa PC, Busch CMD or top-of-the-line Ricko for five dollars, but I do think it's reasonable to see models closer to the quality of the Olds 442. In a two-dollar model, I think it's fair to expect the quality of one of the better Reel Rides.
The important thing to remember is that is doesn't cost that much more to tool a model to proper scale, or get the proportions accurate, or make the wheels the proper size. It takes getting proper measurements, doing the research, etc., before you start the tooling master. Most of all, it takes looking at the real vehicle and asking yourself, "Does my model look like this?"
In fairness, once again, there is a large difference between what one should expect from an inexpensive toy and a piece that is presented as a scale model. I can forgive a lot more in the case of a Motormax Fresh Cherry or a Reel Ride than I can in the case of products selling for four to six times as much.
|
|
|
Post by swampdaddy on Apr 3, 2007 4:41:28 GMT 1
Hi all: BillC is quite on as usual. I think part of the problem is that the Fresh Cherries, Reel Rides, Malibu Models and Model Power sit right on the line between toys and scale models. Obviously they are aimed at the toy market; but, with some pretensions to scale so they can sell to the auxiliary markets of model railroaders, diorama builders and scale collectors.
I have, at times, had a hard time trying to explain to my kids (awhile back now) why they could not treat my 'scale models' as toys to be pushed around and run in the dirt. The only thing that worked was explaining the cost difference and the penalties if they screwed up.
Oh, at any rate these inexpensive lines are well done; far better than the really poor junk we sometimes had to use decades back on our layouts. Back then quality 1/87 was hard to find.
Now, even the cheap lines do offer quality for the price. Not up to the more expensive ones but far better than it's been before.
It wasn't that long ago that layouts (regardless of scale) were populated mostly with Matchbox, Hot Wheels and their like, with every vehicle a different scale and mostly no where near the train scale.
If I wanted to go with mostly diecast I would be in 1/64 with Nick and I would run S-gauge trains. And, indeed I do run S-gauge; but, only at Christmas now. The cars available there are super great for the price.
But, like most, HO is it for the layout. So, I am all for a few more Fresh Cherries, more Reel Rides; and a whole new set of Malibus. And, I'll live with most of the short comings; or, I'll try to make them look better with the skills I have left.
Harry
|
|
|
Post by keroliver on Apr 3, 2007 8:58:09 GMT 1
I collect anything close to 64th and 87th scale... for the latter, between 1/80 (some japanese models, forgot the names) to 1/96 (Furuta for example). The exact scale and the accuracy are not my main concern. I have, at times, had a hard time trying to explain to my kids (awhile back now) why they could not treat my 'scale models' as toys to be pushed around and run in the dirt. The only thing that worked was explaining the cost difference and the penalties if they screwed up. I am having the same 'hard' time right now. He is 4. I am teaching him the difference between 'model' ('miniature' in French) and 'toy' ('jouet' in French). The French language is a bit more accurate for explaining the difference. The noun 'jouet' (toy) is similar to the verb 'jouer' (to play). It is then obvious that toys are to be played with until destruction. Break them, then buy new ones... ;D. That's it, simple as that. (wikipedia says... 1. An object for children to play with. and 2. Something of little importance; a trifle.) 'Miniatures' (models) are the 'mini' (smaller) representation of something real... (Wikipedia says: 'A copy or model that represents or reproduces something in a greatly reduced size'). They (should) carry some kind of truth, details and art. However, the new techniques of 3D computer drawings, hand creating or CAO/DAO, casting and painting, marketing and price policies... have created a confusion between these two categories... as toys and models can overlap each other. to be continued...
|
|
|
Post by superba on Apr 3, 2007 15:27:40 GMT 1
This is a tough question:
The model has to be detailed enough so that at a quick glance the viewer knows what it is. The problem with this concept is that when you look at the Reel Ride Plymouth GTX, at a quick glance I know what it is, but I also notice what's wrong with the model.
I guess I am looking for acurate detail, grilles, chrome and body lines.
I am less concerned with the detail of the wipers or where a gas cap or wheels, but more concerned about general lines body and roofline, grille and rear end accuracy.
|
|
|
Post by DavidJohnson on Apr 4, 2007 1:46:58 GMT 1
As a modeler I tend to look at the potential of models. Can I make it resemble the prototype and is it worth the effort?
Body line is most important to me. The model needs to be recognizeable for what it is.
Next is scale. I have accepted some variance in my collection. For model railroad use a over sized Galoob Corvette can be fit into a scene. However in a collection display with properly scaled Corvettes it stands out.
Grilles are next in importance. I have only a fraction of the Woodland Scenics models I would have purchased if they had decent grilles. But I have purchased some for modification later, as the scale is right and body line within reach by modification.
Stance and wheels are easy to modify. They are a great way to improve a model that is otherwise good.
There are some poorly presented models that can be made great, for example the Tyco AMX. There are also some well presented models that only deserve to be scene fillers, for example the Reel Rides GTX. When I brought one home for inspection I had to find a GTX photo to learn what it was supposed to represent.
|
|
|
Post by cfesmire on Apr 4, 2007 4:11:26 GMT 1
Some right on views there in my opinion Dave. Sometimes scale does take a backseat if the model is really well proportioned. I'm afraid the Wiking Peterbilt still holds a place for me, even though it works out to 1/90. A little move forward for the front wheels fixes what else is wrong.
And yes, the WS pieces are poorly done but the general shape and scale accuracy makes them worth playing with.
I'll add to your Tyco AMX, a few Eko pieces that fit into that catagory of poorly presented models that can be made into nice models.
Most of the responses confirm my opinion that this group is a discriminating one but not to the point of being retentive (I wonder what the admin would do to the word anal)
|
|
|
Post by Sylvain on Apr 4, 2007 11:17:01 GMT 1
For my part, I think it depends in which part of my collection the model will take place.
My main collection is of american cars of the 30's to the 60's. In this category, I'm looking mostly for potential models, as I very seldom let a model unmodified. Like for Dave, bodyline is most important here, and scale is less important. I don't care much if the model is a little too small, or a little too large, if it's recognizeable and looks like the real car. Painted chromes or added details like windscreen wipers or rear-wiew mirrors are not important, as I can add them if necessary. In fact, what is most important is what I can't change or add myself.
For the second part of my collection, of models I just like or of french cars of the same period, well, I'm rather lazy. Bodyline is still important, but models must be, when I buy them, already well detailed without any effort of my part.
Though, one thing I think is important for me in a model are the wheels. To get the right wheels for a model is not always so easy, and a right or wrong wheel can change the look of a model.
|
|
BillC
87thScale addict
Posts: 2,541
|
Post by BillC on Apr 4, 2007 19:02:00 GMT 1
I figure plus or minus a few percent in scale is okay, as long as the model looks reasonably close to others in my collection and looks right with scale figures.
Lack of detail isn't as important as getting the details you do include correct.
|
|
|
Post by hofan on Apr 5, 2007 10:24:12 GMT 1
Hello: I think because of the tiny details that have to be shrunk 87 times it is impossible to get 100% model. The overall dimensions have to be close enough so the model does not look weird when parked next to modern Busch and Herpa models. The overall look and the lines that distinguish the model have to be there. besides I think our interpretation of a model differs when for example you find a model made by a company that does not make 1/87 models is close enough to add to our collection (for example Matchbox Pontiac) compared to a model that is made by well known companies in this scale or the model appeared in a set of new models and all the other models are scaled right and on the model it says 1/87 scale. In the case of the Plymouth I think it is very disappointing for at least the Pontiac GTO and Firebird looks good so I have to ask why not the Plymouth. Regards
|
|
|
Post by Cor_DutchArt on Apr 5, 2007 11:29:54 GMT 1
Lately I saw a picture of a scale vehicle next to a Matchbox. And it didn't look too bad. Can anyone make a list of matching diecast models??? The we can fix it with better details and other wheels uo to a real model! Like the Tuf Tots Stingray for example.
Cor.
|
|
|
Post by Alan on Apr 5, 2007 21:57:43 GMT 1
As someone living in the UK, and having to contend with a plethora of 1/76 scale models, I know all too well about the level of difference in scales. As such, I only aim for '87th or as near as possible. I reckon '76th is too much, but '90th a lot less so. As for detailing, I think that if it's worth making a model look better, I'll gladly have a go at doing so!
|
|
skunk
87thScale addict
5th B-day
Posts: 2,762
|
Post by skunk on Apr 7, 2007 0:59:04 GMT 1
I think my opinions are shared with most people on the board:
The scale should be close - depending on how well known the original is; a Davrian Dragon can get away with being in 1:92, but a Datsun 240Z cannot.
The proportions are everything. Any detail work that's wrong or missing can be fixed. What I hate about the WalMart vehicles is all of the chrome parts and frills that just don't fit. If they had spent that effort perfecting proportions instead and given me a correctly shaped, no-frills minature, I would buy them by the boatload. Separate chrome bumpers and grilles on a model that has the wrong shape only serve to highlight the problem areas. Of course, the main market for these cars is kids, who supposedly prefer lots of extra "features" over the right shape.
As for buying bad models of prototypes I love - I will buy something out of scale, but never a model which is a bad representation. Unless modification is possible, I own a few Jouef Aston Martins precisely for that reason. I also have a number of Takara Silhouettes in 1:80, but some of the Furutas only serve to frustrate me (like their awful Civic).
|
|
|
Post by only87 on Apr 7, 2007 3:33:49 GMT 1
I also have a number of Takara Silhouettes in 1:80, but some of the Furutas only serve to frustrate me (like their awful Civic). What's so awful about that one? It's one of my favorite Furutas, sure the wheel arches are too big and the model stands no contest to premium models, but all in all it's more than we 1972 Honda Civic lovers deserve, way more. C'mon, it's a 1972 Honda, how can a model, any model, of a 1972 Honda Civic, be a disappointment, or even a source for frustration. If that gives you any kind of frustration, what doesn't? Man you're getting seriously spoilded here. Watch out, soon life itself will frustrate you, no matter how bad it will turn out for you. Kidding aside, I really think the Civic is one of their best, not the best of all, but one of it. There's also some very tiny grille detail hidden under the more or less badly smeared on prints you may have missed. I say the model is worth a second look and has a lot of potential. The model itself has some nice sides, is almost perfectly scaled and the little problems of the model can rather easily be fixed. So what's the point? A model that does frustrate me is the Ricko Miura. A model that was eagerly awaited by thousands, and I would have done without the whole chrome and print schlong if they just had gotten one angle of the vehicle in the right proportion. But the baddest thing about the model is that it is even there, now that we have a 'premium model' of it already, chances for a model that catches the grandeur of the original design in the slightest sense are off to Neverneverland. That's a thing I would get very frustrated from, if I didn't have that very nice 1/64 Kyosho model to ease the pain...
|
|