LAND OF THE GIANTS

I get that George, but sadly if you remove visors from these beautiful HW61 '57s, you see holes in the roof above the windshield.  It's hard to see, but on this '57 I removed the visor, fixing/filling in the holes will be another story.  I have that red/black one but left the visor alone. Others I have do NOT have that visor! 😀 😀

That red and black 1957 Oldsmobile looks excellent, George ! I have three H61 hardtops (one with the visor) and two Yat Ming convertibles. All are favorites of mine.

Posted by: @chris

I get that George, but sadly if you remove visors from these beautiful HW61 '57s, you see holes in the roof above the windshield.  It's hard to see, but on this '57 I removed the visor, fixing/filling in the holes will be another story.  I have that red/black one but left the visor alone. Others I have do NOT have that visor! 😀 😀

 

 

I understand about the "holes" left if the visor is removed.  But with the visor looking so out of place, and honestly I have no idea why ACME/HW61 decided to put it on in the first place.  Sometimes you have to wonder how something so rare gets included.  I've NEVER seen a real '57 Oldsmobile with a visor on it, so what no-mind was able to get this past the done.  

It is probably almost a "no-win" situation that the diecast manufacturers end up in. Some collectors literally demand that they do some "low-production" examples and others want only the "high-production" vehicles. It is a beautiful car, so I have some of each example and I am delighted with all of them. 

Posted by: @mikedetorrice

It is probably almost a "no-win" situation that the diecast manufacturers end up in. Some collectors literally demand that they do some "low-production" examples and others want only the "high-production" vehicles. It is a beautiful car, so I have some of each example and I am delighted with all of them. 

You present some good logic.  I've also felt over the years that most manufacturers were out of touch with what collectors would really want.  At the onset, some big wig in the company comes up with the idea to do models, but instead of researching the market and polling collectors, they burst on scene with a "cult" car.  In most instances it's a the '57 Chevy, the '49 Mercury, or the '59 Cadillac.  Their logic being, everyone loved those cars.  But after that, the producers start coming out with cars that "they like" rather than what their buyers would like.  

There are many cars that seemed to be no-brainers that should have been produced, but never were.  Then there were cars that were produced that have us scratching our heads asking, why this car?  

I wouldn't doubt that everyone would like to be in complete command of a diecast/resin/white metal model car company and be in complete control of the automobiles that get modeled ! Of course, they have to do several (sometimes contradictory) things at once : (1) Stay in business with models that (supposedly) "everyone" wants. (2) Do models that someone else is not necessarily doing..... unless they are "classics" (maybe sure sellers ? ) or you think you can do them better OR cheaper than the competition. (3) Do them economically enough so that the model cars are really good ..... but you can stay in business by being aware of your market AND the bottom lime. (5) Decide what scale is the best for your company ..... or maybe do them in more than one scale. (but this can get difficult or expensive) (6) Know how your model cars may be sold : Direct ? Mail order? Hobby stores ? Big box stores ? E-Bay ? All of them ?

I think I already mentioned a case from many years ago already but I am kinda forgetful now days, so I apologize if I already have ! Anyway, supposedly both Highway 61 and Maisto were going to do the Dodge 330 from the early 1960's. Reportedly, once they realized they were both doing the same car (and maybe might cannibalize sales), they agreed that one (Maisto) would do the 1963 and another (Highway 61) would do the 1964. Both were in 1/18 scale and I have and like them both very much, even with them being at different price/detail points.

Posted by: @mikedetorrice

I wouldn't doubt that everyone would like to be in complete command of a diecast/resin/white metal model car company and be in complete control of the automobiles that get modeled ! Of course, they have to do several (sometimes contradictory) things at once : (1) Stay in business with models that (supposedly) "everyone" wants. (2) Do models that someone else is not necessarily doing..... unless they are "classics" (maybe sure sellers ? ) or you think you can do them better OR cheaper than the competition. (3) Do them economically enough so that the model cars are really good ..... but you can stay in business by being aware of your market AND the bottom lime. (5) Decide what scale is the best for your company ..... or maybe do them in more than one scale. (but this can get difficult or expensive) (6) Know how your model cars may be sold : Direct ? Mail order? Hobby stores ? Big box stores ? E-Bay ? All of them ?

I think I already mentioned a case from many years ago already but I am kinda forgetful now days, so I apologize if I already have ! Anyway, supposedly both Highway 61 and Maisto were going to do the Dodge 330 from the early 1960's. Reportedly, once they realized they were both doing the same car (and maybe might cannibalize sales), they agreed that one (Maisto) would do the 1963 and another (Highway 61) would do the 1964. Both were in 1/18 scale and I have and like them both very much, even with them being at different price/detail points.

Again, you bring out some great points.  With regard to companies duplicating models, how many times did we see both Danbury and Franklin Mints do the same car?  Many!  Some that come to mind are '57 Chevy's, '55 Ford's, '57 Chrysler's, '69 Oldsmobile 442's, and '58 Plymouth's. 

And again, there are others.  This never made any sense to me when there are so many, many different cars that could have been done and should have been done. 

As for picking the scale to produce them in, again each mint should decide what meets their bottom lines and customer base.  When it's all said and done, over the last decade we've been force fed every imaginable excuse why they can't produce models at an affordable price, and I'll always be convinced that is nothing but poppycock. 

Back in the DM and FM heyday's, their business bottom-lines were met through 1:24 scale sales and accounted to over 60% of their annual sales revenue.  So I'm not convinced that finding ways to still produce 1:24 scale isn't out there.  One thing that's always bothered me is that as these models were produced, the mints kept trying to include more and more "working parts".  This just in folks, that drives up the cost of producing them.  How about we go back to the basics and give us a nicely replicated model without opening doors, windows that go up/down, gas caps, moveable wheels, and even trunks that open?  These are models that sit on shelves and in cases, they are NOT toys!  So having all these "working parts" are not needed for the model to be nice.  

George, I don't mind the '57 Olds visors, so long as non-visor models are available. As you know, the 1950's was fraught with a plethora of aftermarket & dealership add-ons. 

And speaking of '57 Chevys... for what it's worth, despite the fact that MANY manufactures have churned out '57 Chevy models... still, to this day, there's not one decent 1/18 1957 Chevrolet hardtop replica available.

Whay hasn't anyone figured this out?   (I'll take a 4-dr sedan too! )

I heard decades ago that with the Mint models 4 easy payment plan that 1st payment covered the model's cost. Has anyone any knowledge about this ?

@100ford2003 I do NOT know for certain, but I suspect markup was very good, akin to jewelry (which is at minimum 50% ).  Afterall, at one time the MINTS  were tooling up different replicas on monthly basis; therefore, profits had to be substantial.  I doubt, however, they were once as good as a 75-80% margin, but who knows?  Maybe? 😯 🤔

This is an interesting discussion.  I have zero model car manufacturing experience, and I don't know the net profit structure of models.  But just applying my general business experience, I'm guessing manufacturers were seeking a production cost-to-retail sales ratio of 5:1 at the minimum.  From my perspective, as George Schire mentioned, some of the production decisions made by model car companies were a total mystery to me.  I remember wondering the rationale behind some of their choices of what models to produce as it seemed from the outside looking in to be questionable decisions.  Indeed, sadly, a lot of my puzzlement was validated because those companies that mystified me with what I thought were dubious production decisions are no longer in business.  The companies with the most viable business model are still pumping out scale model cars.  

Today, it appears companies are far more circumspect in understanding the fiscal realities.  As we know, ACME has been reconstituted from the old GMP/Ertl/H61 family of model cars.  As they have acquired the old molds, they are reproducing many models made years ago.  However, with the understanding of the fiscal realities, the content of operating features that used to be a requirement no longer applies.  Gone are the articulating suspensions, rotating driveshafts, operating windows, opening gloveboxes, and keys in the ignition.  Heck, do you remember the visible rear seat springs in the Ford Fairlane Thunderbolts?  I remember saying I would NEVER purchase a resin model with no opening or operating features.  I must have adjusted my opinions of totally static models because now I own about 25 of 'em.  LOL!   

Posted by: @100ford2003

I heard decades ago that with the Mint models 4 easy payment plan that 1st payment covered the model's cost. Has anyone any knowledge about this ?

I've not specifically heard this, but as I mentioned in my prior post ^^^ that makes total sense to me.

Posted by: @marty-johnson

This is an interesting discussion.  I have zero model car manufacturing experience, and I don't know the net profit structure of models.  But just applying my general business experience, I'm guessing manufacturers were seeking a production cost-to-retail sales ratio of 5:1 at the minimum.  From my perspective, as George Schire mentioned, some of the production decisions made by model car companies were a total mystery to me.  I remember wondering the rationale behind some of their choices of what models to produce as it seemed from the outside looking in to be questionable decisions.  Indeed, sadly, a lot of my puzzlement was validated because those companies that mystified me with what I thought were dubious production decisions are no longer in business.  The companies with the most viable business model are still pumping out scale model cars.  

Today, it appears companies are far more circumspect in understanding the fiscal realities.  As we know, ACME has been reconstituted from the old GMP/Ertl/H61 family of model cars.  As they have acquired the old molds, they are reproducing many models made years ago.  However, with the understanding of the fiscal realities, the content of operating features that used to be a requirement no longer applies.  Gone are the articulating suspensions, rotating driveshafts, operating windows, opening gloveboxes, and keys in the ignition.  Heck, do you remember the visible rear seat springs in the Ford Fairlane Thunderbolts?  I remember saying I would NEVER purchase a resin model with no opening or operating features.  I must have adjusted my opinions of totally static models because now I own about 25 of 'em.  LOL!   

Those Thunderbolts were an awesome surprise when released !!

Posted by: @100ford2003

Posted by: @marty-johnson

This is an interesting discussion.  I have zero model car manufacturing experience, and I don't know the net profit structure of models.  But just applying my general business experience, I'm guessing manufacturers were seeking a production cost-to-retail sales ratio of 5:1 at the minimum.  From my perspective, as George Schire mentioned, some of the production decisions made by model car companies were a total mystery to me.  I remember wondering the rationale behind some of their choices of what models to produce as it seemed from the outside looking in to be questionable decisions.  Indeed, sadly, a lot of my puzzlement was validated because those companies that mystified me with what I thought were dubious production decisions are no longer in business.  The companies with the most viable business model are still pumping out scale model cars.  

Today, it appears companies are far more circumspect in understanding the fiscal realities.  As we know, ACME has been reconstituted from the old GMP/Ertl/H61 family of model cars.  As they have acquired the old molds, they are reproducing many models made years ago.  However, with the understanding of the fiscal realities, the content of operating features that used to be a requirement no longer applies.  Gone are the articulating suspensions, rotating driveshafts, operating windows, opening gloveboxes, and keys in the ignition.  Heck, do you remember the visible rear seat springs in the Ford Fairlane Thunderbolts?  I remember saying I would NEVER purchase a resin model with no opening or operating features.  I must have adjusted my opinions of totally static models because now I own about 25 of 'em.  LOL!   

Those Thunderbolts were an awesome surprise when released !!

Actually I'd heard close to the story about the payment plans with the mints, that the first payment was close to covering their costs to produce the models, and then after that the rest was profit.  And another point that I've shared previously is that when I (briefly, for kicks and giggles) worked at the Franklin Mint store that was in the Mall of America in the 1990's and early 2000's, managers claimed that 67% of all their sales were from the 1:24 scale diecast cars.  They relied on those sales, as the rest of the "trinkets and stuff" they sold was not even close to FM making their profit margin.  This being said, and if true, that would lead me to believe that it was the same for Danbury Mint (and others).  Bottom line is this, all the talk of the mints not being able to produce cost affective models is B.S.  It can be done and I'll go to my grave not believing otherwise.