http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg66/dew88itjr/DSC07163.jpg

I like the car , but had to swap the tires for whitewalls . Hope they do a white or blue version without vinyl top ....

wheels and the back window just dont line up right it seems.

I just got mine today and though I like it, overall all the car is shaped like an arch! I think they just missed it on this one regardless of what they say.

Of couse they missed it, pix don't lie. At this scale however flaws are always a bit more
promenent when the size of the pic is larger than the actual car.
So Ward, given that and now that you have it in your hand, how do you think it compares to the pix?

Also just be cause some models have many flaws, that shoulnt stop anyone from making their own choices and standards. If you like, buy it!
Cause let's face it, being in the autobody business I'mm reminded almost daily that the "average" person isn't gonna see a fraction of what I would see.
Like any profession one developes an "eye" for certain things when practiced over and over again for years on end.
Also the TYPE of vehicle comes in to play too. If it's a certain type of car I collect and own in 1:1 and nobody makes a diecast of it...but finaly does, I'm sure as hell gonna buy it no matter how rough it is!(I would however do my best to improve it !)
-DAV!E-

5th picture I have seen of it, don't like it, but will get it anyway since I buy GL by the case

Well Dave, in some ways, it's better than the photos I had seen, but not enough better. Does that make sense? Like you say, taking it out of "super size" mode and looking at it in real life eases the effect. But it's still there.

The ride hight also seems to high (Which drives me crazy with most Greenlights) but overall, it's just OK. They have done better.

For some reason, they missed points on several cars in this release. That's two in a row, first the Speed release and now this release of BJ. I am a Greenlight collector so I have them all, but I am less pleased right now than in the first few MCG releases.

Ward

Sorry, please ignore this post. Lack of specific knowlage forces me to do so. Thanks.
LMX

Of couse they missed it, pix don't lie. At this scale however flaws are always a bit more
promenent when the size of the pic is larger than the actual car.
So Ward, given that and now that you have it in your hand, how do you think it compares to the pix?

Also just be cause some models have many flaws, that shoulnt stop anyone from making their own choices and standards. If you like, buy it!
Cause let's face it, being in the autobody business I'mm reminded almost daily that the "average" person isn't gonna see a fraction of what I would see.
Like any profession one developes an "eye" for certain things when practiced over and over again for years on end.
Also the TYPE of vehicle comes in to play too. If it's a certain type of car I collect and own in 1:1 and nobody makes a diecast of it...but finaly does, I'm sure as hell gonna buy it no matter how rough it is!(I would however do my best to improve it !)
-DAV!E-

Couldn't have said it better myself! I bought the GL 68 Impalas because I have owned a 68 Impala since 1975 and was thrilled to see one made in this scale. knowing those cars the way I do, I can tell you GL missed the boat on the wheel openings, cowl area and hood opening. 68's had hidden wipers and the hood opening did not extend to the grille, yet the GL version has exposed wipers, a distinct cowl panel, and the hood opening would be more correct for a 67, not a 68. The wheel openings should be more oval shaped and the rocker panel moulding is missing paint to show it. I was disappointed in these errors, but still bought them since I love 68 Impalas. The JL version fares better in the hood/cowl area but still isn't right in the wheel openings and roof so, I still do n't have a correct 68 in this scale....

When I look at this photo of the GL 65 Chevelle, I see the same things I saw when the picture of one was first posted: The hood is flatter than the grille below it, leading me to believe a 64 is in the works, as 64's had a flatter hood with less of a "V" shape., the length between the front wheel opening and door looks too short, the rear overhang is too short and the front end droops down. Additionally, since this casting is also serving duty as a convertible, the roof on this one looks a tad short and the distance between the bottom of the rear glass and the silver vinyl top moulding is far too wide. I still feel the 65 Chevelle from the old RC2 line was far more accurate in every respect.

My question is this, Why do companies think they can fool us? After all, we know these cars and we are the ones buying them. I guess they know we will buy incorrect castings because they represent cars we love, so, we will still buy them....correctly or incorrectly replicated.

Good lookin' car... Gotta get that one on my "WANTS" list !!!

My question is this, Why do companies think they can fool us? After all, we know these cars and we are the ones buying them. I guess they know we will buy incorrect castings because they represent cars we love, so, we will still buy them....correctly or incorrectly replicated.
Now this is the question of the hour!!!!
I wouldn't seriously think they are "trying to fool us" literally speaking, but I do
hear what you're saying. This is a question that has been messing with my head for a long long time. Is it really any harder to CORRECTLY replicate the lines and proportions of a particular car? Maybe we have to give diecast makers the benefit of the doubt and say that it is. But as a layperson I would have to guess it's just as easy to get it right. On the other hand, one important thing I've come to learn though that "right" in 1:1 does NOT always translate to "right" 64 times smaller. In other words correct does not allways look right in 1:64. Given THAT fact shrinking a full size car down 64 times is more of an art than a science.


Ready for another long wind?
One thing that has entered my mind in the last 2 or 3 years is - for the lack of a better word "cultural translation". I'm not sure to what extent GL or JLs designing goes on in China or in America, but I would think this could come into play.
Let's say for instance you were born in 1963(who, me?) and all through the decades all you did was identify passing (American)cars on the highway with your two older brothers and your father teaching you car I.D.ing to the point where you could identify every single last car passing you on the highway or at the car shows or the weekend autodealer stopovers to pick up the latest dealer brochures.
All the lines, the proportions, colors, shapes and sizes gets POUNDED AND POUNDED into your brain so much so that consciously and more importantly subconsciously you can tell what type of car it is just from looking at a tiny 5"x5" area of the C pillar of a '62 Valiant!
Like I said, I don't know if the Chinese workers are the ones translating 1:1 to 1:64, but this is clearly an ART dictated by our culture, not a science dictated by a pair of vernier calipers.(Or at least a finely balanced mixture of the two).
LMX

Dave, I wish we were having this discussion on the Greenlight club board. This is the kind of open, honest input they need to hear!

I have said it over and over on these threads, it really is just as easy to do it right. Why stop at close? I have been rebuked by others (including GL themselves) for questioning the true scale. What I learned it just what you are explaining, scale is subjective. It truly is more art then science. As a designer, you need to "look" at your piece and make sure it is appealing to the eye, not simple in scale with a mic-meter.

I love GL, and I am thrilled to be a collector (and yes, a club member), but I want them to grow as a true replica diecast company, and not just produce a lot of cars for the heck of mass production.

Ward

Ward, check this action out - this seriously taught me a thing or two! Enjoy!
http://www.jsssoftware.com/diecast/stories/raffi_minasian_design.htm#top

Ward, check this action out - this seriously taught me a thing or two! Enjoy!
http://www.jsssoftware.com/diecast/stories/raffi_minasian_design.htm#top

That was a very good article, thanks for the tip. :thumbsup:

What you say makes a lot of sense. I just don't understand how two companies can replicate the same car in the same scale and one can be so accurate while the other is not even close. I do think there is something to what you say about the diecasts being made in China and the cultural differences. If you look at a Motormax 71 Impala, it has overly long 1/4 panels, much more exaggerated than the actual car (which were pretty long to begin with) I would guess to the average Chinese person, this looks right given cars they are used to have short 1/4's and our older cars look looooong. It would seem the same to younger generations of Americans who have grown up with cars with short overhangs I guess. Something to ponder.......

I like the 1965 Chevelle SS 1:1 car. A friend of mine had a 327/350.

I had to pass of the Greenlight 1965 Chevelle SS casting though.

I guess what it comes down to is does the diecast company have THAT person -
the person with the artistic gift to make it all work. It's something that cannot be taught.
One has to be born with it and no amount of formal artisic/design training is going to make up for someone who has the "eye".
Car bodies are very complicated imo from a design standpoint. Balance comes into play in a big way. For instance it might not be that the Motor Max Chev. qtr. is to long, it might just be that the wheel weel/fender skirt area is too low, giving the impression of a qtr. thats too long. Or the roof proportions could even be throwing off the whole mess.
Possibly the reason why some GLs look great and some don't and some JLs look great and some don't is I'm guessing these companys employ more than one model maker.
And the person above him - the head of the design team - who knows if he has the "eye" or not.
The culteral thing I spoke of could have an impact, but what it really comes down to is does the model mker have the "eye". A true gift indeed.

And hey - I would really LOVE to here from some folks on the "inside" on this.

Possibly the reason why some GLs look great and some don't and some JLs look great and some don't is I'm guessing these companys employ more than one model maker.
And the person above him - the head of the design team - who knows if he has the "eye" or not.
The culteral thing I spoke of could have an impact, but what it really comes down to is does the model mker have the "eye". A true gift indeed.

.

It almost appears as if there is freedom for individual designers to put as much attention and detail into a casting as they want to satisfy their creative juices, as long as they are on time and within budget.. The head of the design team may be in the management position because he\she sucks at the detailed creativity.

GL and JL have both shown signs of inconsistency... IMO, The GL guy/team in charge of the 70/71 Cuda, 63/64 Chrysler, 67 Mustang GT , for example ,are a step up in the " looks like the real thing" dept.
I wasn't so impressed and was a bit let down with the effort put into the release of the 65,66,67 Dodges..And the 68 "Road Runner" carelessly
has a GTX rear end... The rear end of the 64 Sport Fury looks great... but they hosed up the look of the front end ..
It seems that GL is in a race to quickly come out with releases of cars that haven't been done by JL yet... but I haven't had the feeling that they can quite compete with the realism yet..

As for JL , my God , if the person responsible for the 62 Plymouth , 62 BelAir, and even the 65 and 69 Impalas , were solely given free reign on All the releases... WOW... that would work...

Oh.. as for the 65 Chevelle .... They missed it ... does not look close enough to the real thing to make it in my displayed collection of my favorites........

Steve - Great to hear your response on this.
Myself and probably the majority of us collectors here will never know and can only speculate on the multi-faceted workings of a diecast company.
I think that was good insite on your part that the head of a design team is a "suit" - and one that if the company is lucky, he might be blessed with an artists eye.
Who knows how all these inner workings play out.
It could go something like this; "We" just hired this new apprentice to start carving on a resin 1963 X- Mobile schedueled for an upcoming release. Meanwhile, the head of the design team decides to quit and go on a quest looking for WWII war remains in Dresden. The poor kids '63 X-Mobile, margianal at best gets hastily pushed through because of cost over-runs and there it is..staring you in the face right there on the pegs.
I don't know, it's fun to speculate. I mean no disrespect in doing so - just forever curious...

As far as the person as you say in charge of the '62 Plymouth and COUNTLESS other jems from LC2, I would say it might be more of a case of a team effort. It's like...I don't know if you play music, but when you have just the right guys backing you up - they can second-guess your next note that even YOU didn't know you were going to play, it's just majic!!!
But as any band member can tell you, some nights just suck - the energy just ain't right.
I'm sure we'll see many more great castings than bad ones from GL. :thumbsup:

Let's say for instance you were born in 1963(who, me?) and all through the decades all you did was identify passing (American)cars on the highway with your two older brothers and your father teaching you car I.D.ing to the point where you could identify every single last car passing you on the highway or at the car shows or the weekend autodealer stopovers to pick up the latest dealer brochures.
LMX

I thought I was a FREAK growing up cuz I was the only one of my family of 8 kids that would watch and study EVERY American car going down the road . You had a whole family into it ...
It was such a blast every fall waiting for the mailman to deliver mom's LOOK magazine or SATURDAY EVENING POST that had articles of the NEW 65s , 66s and so on ..
Talk about twisted ....I used to cut the pics of cars out of the magazines and play with them .. Modify them with tires/wheels from pics in my older brothers Hot Rod mags.. Smash em up ... I never really grew up , cuz I'm doing the same thing with these diecast .... :rolleyes:

I thought I was a FREAK growing up cuz ...
Talk about twisted ....I used to cut the pics of cars out of the magazines and play with them .. Modify them with tires/wheels from pics in my older brothers Hot Rod mags.. Smash em up ... I never really grew up , cuz I'm doing the same thing with these diecast .... :rolleyes:

lol Yep! I was right there with you - scissors flying everywhere!lol :thumbsup:

Gasoline in the vains, brother !

DAV!E

"I'm sure we'll see many more great castings than bad ones from GL..."

Mac Ragan is there at Greenlight now.

He will listen and do the best job at replication and scale and so on.

Hopefully GL will be what we all want it to be and Mac makes a difference ...
But... it's a business that's competing for the same thing that the others are ..to creatively make money.
Sell the product near the same price as the others but for a better profit margin..
It basically sucks when the gifted "idea" person with an eye for the craftmanship that a buyer appreciates gets screwed by a company run by pencil-pushers ... Not saying GL is that type of company , just speaking from what I've experienced with some of the outfits I've work for...