[Closed] This may be a FIRST....

Jeff, when the mints were in business, they would have taken a care like that back and reissued a new one at no charge. No one dreamed of suing them. Here is the explanation for the failure that I copied from the Internet.

What is lntergranular Corrosion?

When a zinc alloy solidifies, the material's matrix forms microscopic grains. As the name implies, Intergranular Corrosion is corrosion which occurs at the boundaries between the grains.

Intergranular Corrosion can cause catastrophic failure in stressed applications. In fact, after only 90 days in a humidity cabinet at 203 F (95? C), zinc castings containing only marginally out of Spec. Pb, Cd or, Sn will lose most of their impact strength. Catastrophic failure caused by Intergranular Corrosion may occur very suddenly without any prior notice.

A low magnesium content in a zinc casting alloy can also promote the rate of intergranular corrosion when the levels of Pb, Cd and Sn are at or even near the maximums specified.

This is just a theory with regard to some of these mint cars, so here goes. And I'll use the 2 FM 1955 Pontiac limited editions of 550 each as an example.

I think it's possible that FM felt they could turn around a quick profit on an existing mold (they already did the 55 Pontiac previously in white/green two tone and 2 previous convertibles) and they figured they could do a quick run of the two LE's to garner that quick cash.

So they do the 2 cars (one in black over red and the other in red over black two-tones), but they cut their costs by using sub-par materials with regard to paint and metal. They produce 550 of each color combo, hype them as limited editions, sell them for $140 each with the thought that collectors will snap them up in a hurry.

I admit, I was one of those collectors. When I saw the two striking color combos, I placed my order for both cars immediately.

Also it should be noted that when these two Pontiac's were issued by FM, the company had already pretty much gotten out of the 1:24 die-cast business. But this was a quick fix to just bring in some quick cash flow, and they cut corners to get it.

Can there be legal action? I don't think so. Though to most of us the cost of these little cars is a tidy sum, in the long run, it would cost us more to pursue legal action to attempt to gain redemption.

As I said above, just my theory.

I doubt there was anything so nefarious on FM's part. Having worked with Chinese suppliers in my career I know first hand how they will cut corners whenever they can to save a dime. Likely some metal supplier sold FM's vendor a subpar batch of material and they never knew if was bad. Just my theory but having been burned by this type of thing I am very suspicious of Chinese suppliers.

Yeah, that is what I remember. If they didn't have rash when they were sold they soon did.

Well if it was a suppliers fault, it still falls back on FM (or any other mint). It is their obligation to assure that the materials being used on THEIR products are to the specifications of quality they are building the reputation of their company and product on. And as a buyer, we deserve that guarantee, regardless whether it's these little cars or a 1.1 car.

Sure the blame can be passed on to someone else, isn't that the good old American way? Bottom line though is, FM was selling the product and they were putting their quality stamp on it when doing so. if the product is or becomes defective, it's FM's fault. Period. And too, we all know that FM was noted for consistent quality issues on many of their cars, so for that reason, the issue with these two Pontiac's (and likely others) is not that surprising. And let it be said that if DM has this same situation, they too, and they alone are also responsible....NOT the Chinese suppliers.

After looking at the companion '55 Pontiac (red over black) hardtop, it is evident that it is on its way to being just like the black over red one.

What's really sad about this find of mine and hearing some of the stories of others cars, it has completely destroyed my confidence in both mints.

For the big dollars that we all paid for these cars, there is no way this should be the result on a single one of them.

I agree Mark, not a conspiracy on FM's part..........

I just examined my Black over Red FM '55 Pontiac, which has been boxed for a long time and stored in an air conditioned climate. I don't have crumbling or warped metal yet, but the paint is starting to craze on the hood, trunk and top. You can tell the metal is not healthy on those pieces. But both front and rear fenders and one door are fine - not even any signs of rash. This tells me that different batches of metal were used for different parts of the car. If FM was trying to minimize costs, they would have gone with cheaper metal on the whole car. But your opinion supports my belief that factory cost cutting with inferior metal or poor paint prep is responsible for the rash seen so often with both FM and DM cars.
So now my Pontiac is a 3 footer now while waiting for further deterioration.
But in light of all this, doesn't it make it kind of risky to buy any model in a "new never opened box".

David Harvey...the condition you describe your Black over Red Pontiac in right now, is how my Red over Black one is at present. I'm thinking all of us who own those cars are going to have to watch them deteriorate before our eyes over the coming months.

Last night after I took the black over red one out again, it is really a mess.

You are right, George. I just examined my Red ......

over Black. It didn't do as well as my other one. No crumbling metal yet, but its roof panel is rising (warping) upwards on the driver's side, and all parts of the car look affected. The cars will probably continue to deteriorate over time, which is really a shame as these were very nice models.
I wonder if anyone out there has an example in either color scheme that is free of bad metal. If the only problem is paint rash, consider yourself very lucky.
Also I wonder if the number, assuming they were issued sequentially, makes any difference. My Black over Red is #121 while my Red over Black is #65.

replies thanks for the replies gentlemen, all valid points raised. I'm of the opinion the mints, GMP,CMC, Ebbro, knowingly sold us defective product. I agree any legal action would be complex and time consuming. In a way I was hoping there maybe a lawyer amoungst us who would be passionate enough to pursue a case

This was a known problem wight from the start.

The black/red and red/black '55 Pontiacs all were bad from the date of issue, only to get worse. There are several others that have had the same problems: Bugatti Esders, 1955 Black/Silver Rolls, 1966 Mossport Green Corvette, DM 1925 Railway Express all are notorious for the bad Zimex mix. I have had 2 CMC 1937 Horch's fall apart as well. Both were the 2-tone burgundy top down versions. I know there are several others, but these come to mind.

This was all explained in a post by either Raffi or Rich Hanmore several years ago.

David Harvey...my Pontiac numbers are: #199 (Black over Red) and #58 (Red over Black).

The black over red one is the one that is really a mess. But the other one has some very serious paint rash on the hood, top, and trunk.

David Applebaum...the paint rash issue may have been known, but mine were very much perfect when they arrived. After checking them over as I always did with all my cars when they arrived, they were put on my shelf in their protective plastic display case. And if the paint rash problem was known by FM, then they knowingly sold defective cars.

Had there been any paint cracking or rash, I'd NOT have kept them. So how is one to know that 7 years down the road the car is going to be a crippled up mess?

Face it, there is no way any of us can know that. Take this to a different level. What if General Motors knew of a defective parts problem with one of their model years? Are they not held accountable? You bet they are! And they would be obligated and forced to do a RECALL of those cars to fix the problem.

FM on these Pontiac's is completely responsible for this warping and paint problem! And since they can no longer fix the problem, every customer that has one of those cars should be able to get a full refund from FM.

Geoff...read my post about the mints (in this case FM) having to take the responsibility, and

NOT passing it on to a supplier. When a company builds a product, it is up to them to assure that the parts and materials used to build it, are of a quality grade and NOT sub par. But it has become the American way to pass the blame on to someone else.

The more I think about this, the more I'm of the belief that FM knew of the problem, but didn't care, as they were pretty much out of the die-cast car business by 2009 anyway.

And yes, it would be nice if there was an attorney among us here on the Forum to want to gather all of us up and take our case to court. I do believe FM should be held responsible for not selling us what we thought we were getting, that being a quality die-cast car that would last for decades and decades as they should.

I have a few GMPs with rashes, but.....

I have a LeMans with blisters! (chicken pox?)

photo no longer available

photo no longer available

I'm not a lawyer, but having owned many companies I've been on both sides of the lawsuit scenario.

In other words, I've been sued and I've brought action against others. Over the course of my career, I've probably been involved in at least a dozen actions. In my experienced opinion, there is nothing here and ultimately would not prevail.

One of the various underlying components that must exist in a lawsuit is proving harm. We all purchased a product with no implied warranty against defects such as metal fatigue. The question to ask is what has been the harm and how much is that "harm" worth? Has anyone been physically injured as a result of the model falling apart on our shelves? What are the extent of those "injuries" and how much did it cost to treat them? Did those "injuries" cause a loss of income? How much income was lost? Has anyone died as a result of metal fatigue? Is there a warranty that states the model will not degrade to metal fatigue?

One might say our harm is the $150 we spent on the model. We've been "harmed" because we spent our money on a defective product. Can any of us prove that the Mints (or other manufacturers) knowingly sold a defective product? What is that worth? Even if by some wild imagination that the court (or jury) agreed that we've been harmed, what financial redress would be appropriate? At best, possibly the cost of the model. There certainly isn't going to be any punitive damages. Who is going to spend $100,000+ on a lawsuit to get back $150 x the number of models that are suffering from diecast Cancer? Even if it were a class action, we'd be looking at pennies on the dollar. It has been said, the only people who win in a class action lawsuit are the lawyers. The plantiffs end up with only a fraction.

The other component is cost. If a lawyer waived his legal fees, until the complaint was resolved there are still costs involved for research, Superior Court filings, producing expert witnesses (very expensive), etc. I've known a lot of attorneys and I have some friends and family who are lawyers too. I seriously doubt any of them would take a weak case like this unless someone was ready to fork over $25,000 as a retainer. Any of them working on contingency? Forgetaboutit!

Again, I'm speaking not as an attorney, but just as an experienced businessperson that over the course of my career has been involved in a number of legal actions. In my non-legal opinion, there is no case here. Not even a remote chance.