NEO Miscues

Find a model with an issue? Post your findings here.
User avatar
thetrooper
Posts: 7728
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 5:23 pm
Location: Born in Scotland/Live in Weston-super-Mare

Re: NEO Miscues

Postby thetrooper » Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:25 am

The CSL wrote:
JSB33 wrote:
The CSL wrote:I still reckon the roof height is fine, as the windshield looks to be in proportion, but the header rail above the side windows is too thick.


Look at the side window opening. It like a chopped top.

I have a feeling having grown up around this car, it makes it a bit easier to spot an issue right away.


That's what I mean. The side window is lower, making a thicker header rail.

Leaving it up to you to see if this is closer to reality, because as you say, you've been exposed to these cars. Just a crude photoshop to bring the top of the window to meet the windshield line, as it does in the 1:1 picture. I won't argue the front being too angled, as it's obvious even to me.

EDIT: This is a second attempt, as looking at the 1:1 on this page, the windscreen wasn't wide enough either, leaving a thick a-pillar. Actually I think that's it. Rather than being too low a roofline, the pillar work is so off that whereas the 1:1 has a narrow A-pillar and the door meets close to the pillar line, this model's window line is further back from the door shutline and then with the thick header rail as well, it throws off the proportions all together. If I were Neo, I'd rework the whole glass area, as front and side it's way off.

Image


The header rail looks right as it's just the light colour that makes it look thicker. If you look at the edge of the roof you can see the thickness is the same as the real car. If you could get a picture of the real car with the same colour roof it'll look the same. I agree with Jeff that it looks chopped.
Steve

User avatar
dcast
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 8:40 am
Location: Finland

Re: NEO Miscues

Postby dcast » Sat May 28, 2011 8:48 am

Mazda 323F, basically well captured shape and nicely done model but there's two little mistakes, the black paint at the bottom of the car should go a bit higher than it is now in the model. Also the hubcaps don't have black Mazda badge in them, instead just the MAZDA text pressed to the center of the plastic hubcap. The holes in the hubcaps might need further attention also:
Image

The black paint problem will be resolved when they release the black version of this car and probably the black badge is easy to rub off from the hubcaps. Haven't dared to do that though at least yet :P

User avatar
GarageOnAWall
Posts: 5933
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 10:26 pm
Location: Florida

Re: NEO Miscues

Postby GarageOnAWall » Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:00 am

Found this photo on eBay of one of the latest NEO releases...the 1972-76 Jensen-Healey

Here's NEO's 1:43

Image

And a 1:1

Image

Hmmm? Is it me or does the rear-end of the NEO seem too drop way too low? And compare the top of the vent window frames? I am NOT an expert on these cars, but I couldn't miss these differences! Perhaps they are related to differences based on year etc? I'd love to have the NEO, but.... :)
You Can LIVE in a Car, But You Can't DRIVE a House

User avatar
DeadCanDanceR
Posts: 25817
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 3:34 pm
Location: Guadalajara, MEXICO

Re: NEO Miscues

Postby DeadCanDanceR » Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:13 am

I'm not sure about the rear end dropping too much. It's a bit hard to tell. But, that vent window certainly looks different from the one in the real car. And, the angle of the windscreen also looks a bit different! :geek:
-Julio-

Image

jeff f
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:35 pm

Re: NEO Miscues

Postby jeff f » Tue Jun 07, 2011 5:29 am

i left the jensen in the shop. back end is wrong, in fact not alot sits well with this model in my eyes, could not pay the £55 that was asked, think i would had left it at £25, which is a shame as i was waiting for this model to arrive,

User avatar
David MG
Posts: 13941
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:27 am
Location: North Wales - UK

Re: NEO Miscues

Postby David MG » Tue Jun 07, 2011 5:34 am

jeff f wrote:i left the jensen in the shop. back end is wrong, in fact not alot sits well with this model in my eyes, could not pay the £55 that was asked, think i would had left it at £25, which is a shame as i was waiting for this model to arrive,


Think I am there with you mate.
If I see one @ £25 im'in in but not at this price.................I think they should rename Spark to Spectre.
Cheers,
David

User avatar
JSB33
Site Admin
Posts: 37983
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 11:25 am
Location: Bedford
Contact:

Re: NEO Miscues

Postby JSB33 » Tue Jun 07, 2011 6:48 am

Was really hoping that this one would come out without the usual NEO issues.
For some reason, I like the Jensen quite a bit but I am not so sure about the model.
Another shame.

Now NEO has made it so others will be less likely to produce one and on top of it, they didn't get the job done.
Not very happy about this.
Jeff
ImageImage

User avatar
thetrooper
Posts: 7728
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 5:23 pm
Location: Born in Scotland/Live in Weston-super-Mare

Re: NEO Miscues

Postby thetrooper » Tue Jun 07, 2011 6:48 am

DeadCanDanceR wrote:I'm not sure about the rear end dropping too much. It's a bit hard to tell. But, that vent window certainly looks different from the one in the real car. And, the angle of the windscreen also looks a bit different! :geek:

I agree with Julio on this car.
Steve

User avatar
guitardave_1
Posts: 9484
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:13 am
Location: Hampshire, UK
Contact:

Re: NEO Miscues

Postby guitardave_1 » Tue Jun 07, 2011 4:07 pm

The whole body looks too banana-shaped to me, but only based on those two pictures. The door is also totally different - to the extent that the two images surely can't be of exactly the same version of the car?
Click my banner to visit my diecast site
Image

BertOne
Posts: 2275
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:50 am

Re: NEO Miscues

Postby BertOne » Wed Jun 08, 2011 4:08 am

dcast wrote:Mazda 323F, basically well captured shape and nicely done model but there's two little mistakes, the black paint at the bottom of the car should go a bit higher than it is now in the model. Also the hubcaps don't have black Mazda badge in them, instead just the MAZDA text pressed to the center of the plastic hubcap. The holes in the hubcaps might need further attention also:
Image

The black paint problem will be resolved when they release the black version of this car and probably the black badge is easy to rub off from the hubcaps. Haven't dared to do that though at least yet :P

I don't think such minor details would bother me but I seem to remember reading somewhere that this model is over scale - If so I'd find that more of an issue.

k1w1taxi
Posts: 3426
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 11:13 pm
Location: Hamilton, Shakey Isles

Re: NEO Miscues

Postby k1w1taxi » Sun Jun 12, 2011 1:02 pm

Image

Image

Image

Image

Need one say anything?

Most obvious is the door windows. Basically that whole inner frame section needs to go.
The front does not look to have enough droop to me, hard to tell exactly.
The rear through flow vents should be body coloured and should match the line of the rear pillar.
The rear wheel arch should be closer to and follow the line of the tyre better.

Cheers
Lee

User avatar
dcast
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 8:40 am
Location: Finland

Re: NEO Miscues

Postby dcast » Sun Jun 12, 2011 2:42 pm

BertOne wrote:
dcast wrote:Mazda 323F, basically well captured shape and nicely done model but there's two little mistakes, the black paint at the bottom of the car should go a bit higher than it is now in the model. Also the hubcaps don't have black Mazda badge in them, instead just the MAZDA text pressed to the center of the plastic hubcap. The holes in the hubcaps might need further attention also:
Image

The black paint problem will be resolved when they release the black version of this car and probably the black badge is easy to rub off from the hubcaps. Haven't dared to do that though at least yet :P

I don't think such minor details would bother me but I seem to remember reading somewhere that this model is over scale - If so I'd find that more of an issue.


It may be a bit over scale too, here's a comparison photo I took with Minichamps VW Golf III, Mazda looks indeed a bit big compared to the Golf. Haven't done the measurements though.
Image

BertOne
Posts: 2275
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:50 am

Re: NEO Miscues

Postby BertOne » Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:23 am

dcast wrote:[It may be a bit over scale too, here's a comparison photo I took with Minichamps VW Golf III, Mazda looks indeed a bit big compared to the Golf. Haven't done the measurements though.
Image

Actually, even if it is oversize it's not too overdone - not enough to be a deal breaker.

jeff f
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:35 pm

Re: NEO Miscues

Postby jeff f » Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:51 pm

k1w1taxi wrote:Image

Image

Image

Image

Need one say anything?

Most obvious is the door windows. Basically that whole inner frame section needs to go.
The front does not look to have enough droop to me, hard to tell exactly.
The rear through flow vents should be body coloured and should match the line of the rear pillar.
The rear wheel arch should be closer to and follow the line of the tyre better.

Cheers
Lee


boy o boy, thats a real howler, it looks just like a £5 cararama model. the grill looks wrong and that front door is so totaly wrong, cant understand how you can get a common escort so wrong

User avatar
Chris Sweetman
Posts: 721
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:19 pm
Location: England UK

Re: NEO Miscues

Postby Chris Sweetman » Mon Aug 29, 2011 9:31 am

Here is an old Airfix (1970) representation of an Escort:

Image
Airfix Escort 1 by Chris*4, on Flickr

Image
Airfix Escort 4 by Chris*4, on Flickr

OK it is plastic and 1:32nd scale but it just shows that if someone has seen the actual car in person one should not make such an error as NEO has!

BTW this is a conversion of the original Airfix saloon to a PANDA car. Hornby Hobbies (Airfix's current owners) have re-issued this model using original tooling.

Cheers Chris

User avatar
IFHP
Posts: 1043
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:25 am
Location: Olympia, WA, USA

Re: NEO Miscues

Postby IFHP » Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:40 am

Shame about them blowing the Escort Estate. I agree with the critique of the Dodge Dart too. How can Neo be so inconsistent? I though resin was supposed to make for better detail? As for the 1973 Ford LTD, it doesn't look too bad to me. The car in the 1:1 picture is a 1975-77 model.


Here is a picture of the back end of a 1973 LTD in 1:1:

Image
1973 L T D -- P1040009 by Lance & Cromwell, on Flickr
Last edited by IFHP on Sun Nov 11, 2012 6:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Collector of 1:43 Scale Fords

ImageHighway Scene by Michael, on Flickr

User avatar
JSB33
Site Admin
Posts: 37983
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 11:25 am
Location: Bedford
Contact:

Re: NEO Miscues

Postby JSB33 » Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:21 am

Resin does allow more cast in detail but the master has to be done correctly, many times NEO has done abstracts.
Jeff
ImageImage

User avatar
Arvid
Posts: 2221
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 5:27 am
Location: Turkey

Re: NEO Miscues

Postby Arvid » Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:21 pm

iso grifo is using alfa giulia rear lights(as you can see)

Image

but the neo's light do not look like alfa lights...

Image
~~Murat~~

User avatar
GarageOnAWall
Posts: 5933
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 10:26 pm
Location: Florida

Re: NEO Miscues

Postby GarageOnAWall » Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:36 pm

many times NEO has done abstracts.


So THAT'S their approach? They're making true 'art' rather than sometimes sloppy, expensive models ;)

BB
You Can LIVE in a Car, But You Can't DRIVE a House

k1w1taxi
Posts: 3426
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 11:13 pm
Location: Hamilton, Shakey Isles

Re: NEO Miscues

Postby k1w1taxi » Fri Dec 21, 2012 12:53 am

The green Neo doesn't look too bad. The red one on the other hand the lights are too narrow widthwise in my eyes, also what happened to the overhang above them?

Cheers
Lee

User avatar
Arvid
Posts: 2221
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 5:27 am
Location: Turkey

Re: NEO Miscues

Postby Arvid » Fri Dec 21, 2012 12:59 am

k1w1taxi wrote:The green Neo doesn't look too bad. The red one on the other hand the lights are too narrow widthwise in my eyes, also what happened to the overhang above them?

Cheers
Lee


the green is not Neo Lee

its tecnomodel.

so thats a comparison of the rear light how to manufacture it right:)
~~Murat~~

Joe Hohmann
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 4:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia PA USA

Re: NEO Miscues

Postby Joe Hohmann » Thu Apr 25, 2013 8:57 am

These are NEO/American Excellece models that interest me (I collect cars prior to 1960).

'54 Mercury: Production car did NOT have chrome rims around headlights, grill and top details not quite right, whitewalls a bit too narrow, the only 2 colors this Skyliner was offered in was light green/green. and light yellow/green.

'49 Cadillac sedan: Whitewalls WAY too narrow, wire wheels not a factory option until 1953 (plus, the "Sombrero" hubcaps were a Cadillac icon for years)

'58 Chevy: All have Impala trim, but some have Bel Air body two-toning. Two-toning was body/top only on Impala...not two-toning on body itself.

'57 Buick wagon: some have incorrect two-toning. All should be top and upper body same color. Doubt that wire wheels were a factory option this year.

BTW, I have 7 AE cars so far, and I love them. It drives me crazy that simple paint choices screw some up. I think part of the problem is using photos of cars that have been incorrectly restored.

User avatar
DeadCanDanceR
Posts: 25817
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 3:34 pm
Location: Guadalajara, MEXICO

Re: NEO Miscues

Postby DeadCanDanceR » Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:46 am

Joe Hohmann wrote:These are NEO/American Excellece models that interest me (I collect cars prior to 1960).

'54 Mercury: Production car did NOT have chrome rims around headlights, grill and top details not quite right, whitewalls a bit too narrow, the only 2 colors this Skyliner was offered in was light green/green. and light yellow/green.

'49 Cadillac sedan: Whitewalls WAY too narrow, wire wheels not a factory option until 1953 (plus, the "Sombrero" hubcaps were a Cadillac icon for years)

'58 Chevy: All have Impala trim, but some have Bel Air body two-toning. Two-toning was body/top only on Impala...not two-toning on body itself.

'57 Buick wagon: some have incorrect two-toning. All should be top and upper body same color. Doubt that wire wheels were a factory option this year.

BTW, I have 7 AE cars so far, and I love them. It drives me crazy that simple paint choices screw some up. I think part of the problem is using photos of cars that have been incorrectly restored.


Finally! :)

I'm glad that you've also noticed and mentioned all those errors. In other threads I've complained about NEO's constant use of wrong whitewalls, incorrect two-toning and wire wheel addiction, and how discouraging they are! By the way, I must confess that I had not noticed the colour problem with the Mercury.
-Julio-

Image

User avatar
dcast
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 8:40 am
Location: Finland

Re: NEO Miscues

Postby dcast » Thu May 30, 2013 12:04 am

They've released the Opel Ascona C now in 2-door sedan form. They claim it's the 1981 version but it's not, according to the grille it's the last facelift model about 1987-88. Turn signals next to the headlamps should be clear and not orange in this version, grille might need some black detailing in the openings, also the roofline is a bit too round. 80's cars had pretty straight, flat roof, round lines came in the 90's. Lower GFX are missing between wheels and back of the car. Mirrors should be in body colour. Looks like the model is mix and match from original '81 Ascona and facelifted version.
Image
Real Ascona GT (4d version):
Image
Real 1981 Opel Ascona C in 2-door sedan:
Image


Return to “Manufacturer Miscues”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest