If you look hard enough, you can find flaws and inaccuracies in any model, no matter how good, or how expensive they are. For me, that kind of nit-picking would suck the joy out of the hobby in about 5 minutes. I usually enjoy the model for what it is, warts and all. What matters to me is that the ESSENCE of the 1:1 is captured in the model, even if some of the details aren't quite right.
In my opinion, the new 1956 Cadillac Town Car concept from Matrix fails to capture the "essence" of the 1:1. The 1:1 has grace and elegance, while the model does not. While the build quality is fine, the shape and proportions of the rear half of the car are grossly inaccurate, which destroys the beauty that the original car has. The body itself is not actually banana-shaped, but the crooked rear fender trim makes it LOOK banana-shaped. I overlaid a photo of the model onto a photo of the 1:1 car, and drew some guidelines. I originally scaled the image of the model to align both sets of axles, but that made the whole model much bigger than the image of the 1:1, so I aligned only the front axles and eyeballed the image of the model to be roughly the same length as the image of the 1:1. It is not precise, but close enough to show that the rear bumper of the model is too large and too low.
From the Dagmars to the windshield, the model is fairly true to the 1:1, but things fall apart the further you go aft. The rear ramp angle is flattened out on the model, which requires the chrome trim on the rear fender to shoot upward to clear the rear wheel well. In the images, the green highlights the bumper and trim on the 1:1, the red highlights the same area on the model. The third image is an overlay to show how far off the model is. The roof line is also way off, but that is something that I could have lived with.
The Matrix brand has offered many breathtakingly beautiful models over the years, and I am proud to say that I have many of them in my personal collection. For this reason, I fully believe that they were capable of having this model produced accurately. The question is, why didn't they?
Like any other business, I'm sure they are experiencing the typical supply chain issues, staffing issues, etc. that is so common these days. But, think about this:
Unlike many other items we purchase, this model has only one reason to exist: to look good. You can't drive it, you can't eat it, you can't live in it, you can't shave with it. If it doesn't look good, why bother?
After many years of being in product development myself, I understand that there are many tradeoffs and compromises involved in getting any product to market. But it is the responsibility of the people involved in every stage of that endeavor to make sure that the product actually "works" when it is offered for sale, in spite of the tough decisions that needed to be made along the line. If the product cannot be made to work due to time or budget constraints, it should be scrapped or shelved for a more opportune time.
Since the function of this item is purely aesthetic, I guess you could say that it doesn't "work". It's broken. DOA. Defective.
Great graphics and overlays! I guess one problem with perception is that once you see it, you can't unsee it! I am not sure if I would have noticed it on the model itself but now it's very obvious! ☹
Thanks for the good evaluation, Dave. I appreciate not only your explanations for your conclusions, but also your carefully done artistic proofs. Well done!
Dave, (if I may use a current catch-phrase) there's alot to unpack here.
But I'll refrain, except to say I agree 100% with your in depth and accurate assessment; in so many words, I've "shouted it" countless times before. Current technology can easy replicate scale miniatures faithfully. Why then, invest so much just to produce a model that's not historically accurate? Whether 100% correct or 40% wrong... it requires basically the SAME effort.
"Unlike many other items we purchase, this model has only one reason to exist: to look good. You can't drive it, you can't eat it, you can't live in it, you can't shave with it. If it doesn't look good, why bother?"
I've passed on models for not 'capturing' the 1:1 [IMO], often by making the greenhouse too shallow. But what I dont get is Matrix placing photos of the 1:1 right next to their model on their site where the difference to me is enough to pass on purchase. So I agree with Tom Look at pix through the eyes of a lover of that marque, capture that Essence. Photos are easy to find in 2022
And the reason we're complaining, Matrix, is that you usually knock it out of the park. Here's my latest, you tell me folks: Ferrari 250 Superamerica 400 Cabrio.
Thanks for the good evaluation, Dave. I appreciate not only your explanations for your conclusions, but also your carefully done artistic proofs. Well done!
