Usually always written in a "pro" indorsement style but this one actually points out some early flaws with fit and quality. Very surprised the author writes it off as "new company" issues since I figure he is already well aware that the factory making them is the same used by JL who have the exact same issues on many castings as well. Little mention of the superb wheels and rims but does give kudos to the casting choices. In my opinion, a little nit picky towards the end, especially taking into consideration the direction others seem headed in die-cast but at least they got some ink. Mostly worth the wait? I guess that is in the eye of the beholder since I think we all agree these were more than worth the wait.

Anybody else catch this?

Do you have a link to the article?

http://www.hemmings.com/newsletter/newsletter.html?volume=2&issue=30&id=871&refer=news&emlid=144607#871

hope that works.

Worked fine. Thanks.

Jeff seems to have left out the excellent wheels, and the attention to detail, he really picked on the paint in the small areas. Not a bad review, great cars!

I don't see anything technically wrong with what is said in the article. Everything mentioned is truthfull. I think the mention of Greenlight being a new company is a good reason for there being quality issues despite the fact that they are made by the same manufacturing company as JL's. Just because a product comes from the same manufacturer does not mean that one buyer can not have tighter quality standards then another. Also some of the complaints mentioned had nothing to do with the manufacturing process but rather design and color issues which GL is responsible for.

The article states that the good aspects far outweigh the bad. What do you really want, a cool aid everything is wonderful review? I think it is a rather positive review article for GL and maybe it will encourage improvements down the road.

thanks for the link Mark.

I don't see anything technically wrong with what is said in the article. Everything mentioned is truthfull. I think the mention of Greenlight being a new company is a good reason for there being quality issues despite the fact that they are made by the same manufacturing company as JL's. Just because a product comes from the same manufacturer does not mean that one buyer can not have tighter quality standards then another. Also some of the complaints mentioned had nothing to do with the manufacturing process but rather design and color issues which GL is responsible for.

The article states that the good aspects far outweigh the bad. What do you really want, a cool aid everything is wonderful review? I think it is a rather positive review article for GL and maybe it will encourage improvements down the road.

thanks for the link Mark.

Agreed, but I've never seen another article done by them that I recall anything being negative. I think the issues here are pretty common amongst all die-cast companies and to pin GL with it seemed off especially since from what I have seen have a pretty good handle on details.

A fair article all in all.

The biggest goof I've seen so far on the few GL diecast I have are the missing quarter windows on the '69 Mustang Boss 302 and Boss 429 castings...it's a common mistake other diecast makers have made.

The mis-matched roof on the 67 mentioned in the article:
http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/500/medium/IMG_2629.JPG

I have to say that this is unexcusable and is a terrible flaw in an otherwise nice casting.

The front grill and non-closing hood on my 67
http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/500/medium/IMG_2631.JPG

I can accept that the grill may have been hard to detail appropriately but it does look rather odd being all silver. The part that I don't care for is what was mentioned as not being a problem, the painting. I have silver all over my hood and black smundges all over the front part where the radiator framing would be in the front of the engine compartment.

Another painting issue. The black around the passenger side headlight was not done properly
http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/500/medium/IMG_2632.JPG

Being nitpicky, prehaps. However if GL chooses to price their cars so I am paying over $13.00/case for their cars over other makes (who make no mention of their cars being for the adult collector) then I feel that GL should be held to a higher standard.

On the plus side I did get a custom 442 green machine and also picked up a 98 and Z06 1/64 Corvette pace car.

Did anyone also notice that the article also contained a couple of errors -- one incorrectly stating the number of pieces per casting produced as 5,000 per color?

"High quality, limited production (just 5,000 pieces each color), metal bodies and chassis, opening hoods, great-looking wheel and tire combos and spot-on subject matter (including vehicles not done in small-scale before) were all part of the appeal."

In MCG Rel 1, there were actually only 2,500 pieces produced of each color. The article also contained a typo:

"Still, the good overwhelmingly outweights the bad." (Should be "outweighs"). Oops!

Overall an interesting article -- but it just goes to show that no one's perfect (lol) :drunk:.

gr6120

Did anyone also notice that the article also contained a couple of errors -- one incorrectly stating the number of pieces per casting produced as 5,000 per color?


So how many of each color/casting are being produced?

I know Milizones stated there are 3500 of each being made but I have two GT500s (Black one and white one) that are numbered 3798 and 3983 respectively.

I really wanted to order these cars, but all of the casting/paint problems that have been mentioned in the Hemmings review and in this thread are visible in some of the official photos that I've seen online, and they stopped me from buying any of the cars.

That is very disappointing to me, because I really like the subject cars, and I had expected to order them.

That mis-matched roof trim on the Coronet is a huge deal-breaker, and the front of the Mustang just doesn't look good to me at all.

Don't these cars go through some kind of prototype quality review before they are approved for production? That should be a really important part of the design process. Come on, GL, Wake Up!

On the plus side I did get a custom 442 green machine and also picked up a 98 and Z06 1/64 Corvette pace car.
SWEET! please share some pics with us! :tongue:

So how many of each color/casting are being produced?

I know Milizones stated there are 3500 of each being made but I have two GT500s (Black one and white one) that are numbered 3798 and 3983 respectively.
Greg,

The error in the article refers back to the first releases of the MCG series (2,500 pieces produced of each color per casting) and, possibly, the MCG Stock & Custom series (3,500 pieces produced for each respective S & C casting), rather than to the second, current release of MCG Stock & Custom, which we've been told is 3,500 pieces produced for each S & C casting. Here's a longer excerpt from the article to support my point:

"Breaking from its tradition of Indy-500-based vehicles, Greenlight made a splash in early-to-mid 2006 with its 1:64 scale range of muscle cars. High quality, limited production (just 5,000 pieces each color), metal bodies and chassis, opening hoods, great-looking wheel and tire combos and spot-on subject matter (including vehicles not done in small-scale before) were all part of the appeal."

An easier fix for the error (at least, as it pertains only to the very first release of the MCG series) would be to say "just 5,000 pieces each casting" (rather than "each color").

Regards,
gr6120

Dang it! I had not caught that roof issue until the picture provided. Now it sticks out like a sore thumb. :roll:

Maybe gr6120. I think it depends on how you read it. Jeff states that the first series had limited production but the 5,000 number is in parenthesis which I am taking to mean the current series production number, otherwise why use parenthesis in the sentence? I think the 5,000 is an editorial side comment telling the reader how many cars are being made in the series being reviewed. To be honest though grammer and spelling are my weak skills.

Well, that roof issue should not be too much of a problem on the rag top versions.:p


Tha caution I'd like to add is, when supper clear and large photos are used on die-cast, especially 1:64th, it tends to make issues look far worse then they often are. No excuse for the roof but I did not notice that in casual observation and neither did Mike G when we saw them last month.

Maybe gr6120. I think it depends on how you read it. Jeff states that the first series had limited production but the 5,000 number is in parenthesis which I am taking to mean the current series production number, otherwise why use parenthesis in the sentence? I think the 5,000 is an editorial side comment telling the reader how many cars are being made in the series being reviewed. To be honest though grammer and spelling are my weak skills.
Hi Greg.

I appreciate your perspective, but must respectfully maintain a difference of opinion (lol). The article begins with a retrospective look at GL's "early-to-mid 2006" introduction of "its 1:64 scale range of muscle cars" and is written in the past tense. Since this is the case, it wouldn't make sense for the writer to suddenly introduce production stats for cars being produced in the present -- in the middle of a sentence discussing GL's past. The parenthetical figure in the sentence has been used only to provide the reader with supplementary information to support the writer's comment about "limited production" being "part of the appeal" of GL's 2006 1:64 muscle car releases.

Either way, to the best of my knowledge, GL has never produced 5,000 pieces of "each color" of any MCG 1:64 cars. To date, give or take a few pieces, 3,500 of each color per casting has been the most produced by GL for its various MCG series.

If I should be mistaken about this, I encourage anyone to jump right in here and set me straight (lol).

Regards,
gr6120

P.S. - I'm a writer, which accounts for my insistence (and stubbornness) with words, context and grammar ;).

Hi Greg.

Either way, to the best of my knowledge, GL has never produced 5,000 pieces of "each color" of any MCG 1:64 cars. To date, give or take a few pieces, 3,500 of each color per casting has been the most produced by GL for its various MCG series.

If I should be mistaken about this, I encourage anyone to jump right in here and set me straight (lol).


I am not sure how many are being made in this latest series but as I said I have two different GT500s that are over 3900 number wise.

Get that Koch fellow in here so he can explain all this. :)

Well, that roof issue should not be too much of a problem on the rag top versions.:p


The error with the car makes me wonder if they were going to do a convertible originally and then changed their mind. Either way you are correct, a convertible version of that car will be very easy to do especially if you look at how the roof is attached. It is not part of the rest of the casting.
This technique would be a smart and cost effective idea if the company wanted to make hardtops and convertibles of the same car.

I am not sure how many are being made in this latest series but as I said I have two different GT500s that are over 3900 number wise.
Fair enough Greg, and I'm certainly not disputing this ... but as I've pointed out, the article in question is discussing production of cars from early-to-mid 2006. The new GT500s from this year were not included in the context of the article's introductory paragraph ... I'm trying only to establish that the article is referring to erroneous past production figures. We can only speculate at this point as to what production will end up being for the latest MCG Stock & Custom release :thumbsup:.

I have to say that the article in Hemmings is not without its flaws, just as the new GL set is not without its flaws, either. Personally, I was somewhat disappointed in this set, I have to agree that if you are charging a premium over everyone else, then you better get it right. When I took the 67 Coronets out of the shipping box, I immediately noticed every one of the flaws mentioned (I had not even seen the article yet) and thought that the roof not only looked disjointed, it looks way too tall for the car itself! The blue one has black and silver and paint smudges all over it, as does the white 70 Olds. The Olds casting does not look right to me either.......it looks too tall and the rear roof/quarter windows are not quite right. Somehow, the proportions are off from the side profile view as well. The 65 Coronet fares much better, as does the Camaro concept, yet the 65 Coronet I have suffers from too high stance in the rear. My only other gripe is I really wish they had more older cars in this set. The 50/50 new old mix may sound good in theory but I think most adult collectors are going to want more classic cars, not current ones. I could have done without the new Mustangs and Camaros, myself.

Ok, so I opened the second set of these cars that I got and was keeping as the collectibles set........much better quality control, no paint smudges, and they look better overall. The roof on the 67 Coronets still looks awkward though all the other issues on the first set of 67s are not present. In looking at the 65 Coronets, I wonder why they did not just use a separate roof exactly like this on the 67s? It is virtually undetectable on the 65s, and had the same type of setup been used for the 67, would have been much nicer. I still feel Greenlight makes nice models and will continue to buy them.........I just hope they lean heavier on the older cars and less on the newer ones. In the next set, that Viper and Charger I can do without. The Viper has been done to death and the Charger is just another boring, ugly 4-door using a great old name to garner sales. Quite frankly, it looks totally ridiculous in Daytona trim and high impact colors. Looks very much like an elderly lady trying to dress like a 16 year old.......just does not work!