[Closed] Danbury Mint ... California Kid ... ( Question )

Calif Kid

No issues on mine.

Nor on mine...(PICS)...

photo no longer available

photo no longer available

Nor on mine.

Nor on mine.

I'm no expert, after going through a lot of Franklin and Danbury Mint models and quite a few 1/18's it seems to me there are some models that had problems from the time they were made and like ticking time bombs, it's just a matter of time before they show it (CMC's Mercedes Grand Prix cars as an example). Many people have told me it's from problems with the metal they were made from, some say it is in the prep before they are painted and all this may well be; I believe the way they are treated may have some effect too. I boxed up a lot of models that looked good to me at the time, put back in their original boxes, but then stored in a damp basement, over 100 of these models three years later when unboxed looked terrible. Some of these models were already over 10 years old so I believe it was related two their treatment. I may be crazy but it seemed to me models put away with a lot of finger prints on them came out with problems. I wonder if anyone has tried to compile a list of the really bad one's where it show's in a whole line models. That would be interesting. My California Kid looked fine. I would keep looking for a good one, or pay well under $100, it will not get better, only worse. Good luck Dennis.

I'm no expert, after going through a lot of Franklin and Danbury Mint models and quite a few 1/18's it seems to me there are some models that had problems from the time they were made and like ticking time bombs, it's just a matter of time before they show it (CMC's Mercedes Grand Prix cars as an example). Many people have told me it's from problems with the metal they were made from, some say it is in the prep before they are painted and all this may well be; I believe the way they are treated may have some effect too. I boxed up a lot of models that looked good to me at the time, put back in their original boxes, but then stored in a damp basement, over 100 of these models three years later when unboxed looked terrible. Some of these models were already over 10 years old so I believe it was related two their treatment. I may be crazy but it seemed to me models put away with a lot of finger prints on them came out with problems. I wonder if anyone has tried to compile a list of the really bad one's where it show's in a whole line models. That would be interesting. My California Kid looked fine. I would keep looking for a good one, or pay well under $100, it will not get better, only worse. Good luck Dennis.

Have had no issues with either of mine.

Mine's clean and perfect.

One thing I've noted over the years is there seems to be no real consensus

I've had models develop slight rash and one model (an FM Nash Metropolitan) literally disintegrated. With every report, the majority response has usually been like this thread, "Not mine".
It seems like there really is never going to be a definitive listing.

"Not mine" comes from the the different ...

? understanding and grading of the paint rash by every collector. Very fine rash is even seen on the top of Tony's pictures.

I simply don't believe that my models are different than the models of the collectors who say that their cars have no paint rash. Probably 30 to 40% of my DM and FM models have some degree of fine rash that is polishable, occasionally there are models with higher bumps, and I have probably 10-15 models with disintegrating cancer. I do not believe that the fine paint rash, which affects the majority of the models, progresses to paint cancer. I think they are 2 separate entities.

This is what I call mild paint rash (see the picture below), look at your models, you are going to see it. What is interesting that if you have 2-3-4 copies of the same models, you will see it on the same surfaces and in similar patterns, which for me clearly indicates that the factory did not prepare correctly that surface for many models in the batch. Whether this is a residual oil from the molds of fingerprints I have no idea, but these surfaces were contaminated on many models in similar fashion.

Also, the paint rash micro bumps are raising from the metal not from the paint. When you aggressively polish them, the metal will eventually show underneath as the layer of paint is removed. George Boyaciuk recommends waxing the models to prevent the fine rash from happening. While I love my models, waxing all of them is a task I would never accomplish, in fact I haven't even waxed completely a single model. But I do maintain very strictly low humidity in my basement.

photo no longer available

There are two very different potential issues being discused here.

Not to be confused with zamac pox or cancer, is paint rash - caused by surface contamination of the model being painted being poorly prepared for painting. These flaws can often be corrected by a re-paint.

What is far worse is what reveals its self as a pox or cancer due the the actual breaking dowm or degredation of the metal used to cast the model.
Here is a description copied from a wikipedia entry
"The metal used in die-casting is commonly, Zamak (called Mazak in the UK), an alloy of zinc with small quantities of aluminium and copper. Lead or iron are impurities that must be carefully avoided in Zamac, as they give rise to a deterioration of the metal most commonly called zinc pest"

If you have a model in your collection afflicted in the way the tell tale signs are a softening of the metal that will allow hood and trunck lid hinges to break. The worst effects reveal slithers, shards of metal start to separate and break the paint surface from beneath. Some models are well known for this to happen to them while others it's more random. I have two: both I bought knowing they had the Pox because I needed some of their parts and because of this they were very cheap.