Hello - This is my "James Bond - Dr No" collection
Big missing is the Ford Impala from Leiter !
IMAGE REMOVED.I don't know if this was your intention, but clicking on the picture you used goes to a site with pornographic links. Please be careful, and consider yourself warned. Hardyboy
I just came across the blister pack my TB Merc ambulance was delivered in (long box) - it has 'Universal Hobbies' printed on it with an address in France after it.
I just came across the blister pack my TB Merc ambulance was delivered in (long box) - it has 'Universal Hobbies' printed on it with an address in France after it.
If that's the case, it's probably a type-setting error and a widespread one, at that. The Mercedes-Benz Binz Europ Ambulance actually says "Ixo" on the bottom of the base. Given the refusal of PCT to simply put the word "Ixo" and even "PCT" on the outside of various partwork boxes and blisters in the past (instead, you get the "Ocean Metal Factory" type deal, though the factories differ), I can't imagine they would allow production to be farmed out without at least removing the logo.
Love this site I learn stuff all the time here. Fascinating discussion this one. If this all revolves around the blister package into which plastic cases are inserted I suspect that Fabbri have them made by the cheapest source and sent to the model makers who then seal them in blisters at end of production line and ship. I suspect Fabbri control over what goes on Boxes is as erratic as the facts and illustrations in the magazines. Given many models have more than one production run the first lot of boxes could be wrong and then corrected on second - or given Fabbri even the other way round.
I am looking forward to Lada and MB220 but that is some way off for us back order guys. Not even taking orders till next week.
Looking forward to seeing picks of these blisters with wrong info. LIke Dalko110 I am pretty convinced its mess up and not mould sharing. But then could be wrong.....
I have checked my other Ixos, and can confirm that all (LaSalle and Cadillac hearses, Binz ambulance and Range Rover convertible) have the Ocean Metal Factory address and a 2011 copyright date.
Today went to the shop to look if the other Country Squires had the same packaging but it was already replaced by the Consul [terribly boring car I have to add, and one of the main reasons I cancelled my subscription]. This too comes with the UH address.
As other Ixo cars have been delivered in UH branded boxes before I do not feel it necessary to take some photos, or do you still need to see the Ford packaging? After all the car and diorama are the same as posted before.
The Goldfinger Mercedes is now listed for sale on e-bay along with an actual photograph of the model. The good news is that it appears they've finally made a bit of an effort with the diorama. Can't tell from the photo whether there's any figures involved or not though.
From my limited view of the model, it looks like they did the 180 involved in the chase...no figures, either, but at least an effort to make a diorama base. If it actually has 220S badging, it's tampo-printed and you can remove it with T-Cut or something similar. The 180 in the film did NOT have rear badging (again, you can barely see it, but it's a pan shot and there's nothing...the 190 shown on the front cover also has no badging...I wonder why they took the badging off?).
As other Ixo cars have been delivered in UH branded boxes before I do not feel it necessary to take some photos, or do you still need to see the Ford packaging?
No, no need, but thanks for being willing to do so had your car been a one off.
The Goldfinger Mercedes is now listed for sale on e-bay along with an actual photograph of the model. The good news is that it appears they've finally made a bit of an effort with the diorama. Can't tell from the photo whether there's any figures involved or not though.
The Goldfinger Mercedes is now listed for sale on e-bay along with an actual photograph of the model. The good news is that it appears they've finally made a bit of an effort with the diorama. Can't tell from the photo whether there's any figures involved or not though.
Seriously though, the Merc's looking good - a perfect companion piece to the factory scene DB5 (issue 25). If anybody wants to add their own figures, get hold of the YOLT Toyota, it has 4 figures that do the job perfectly with a lick of white and 'bad guy blue' Revell acrylic paint. Just pop them in and hold them in place with a tiny bit of blue tack.
Yet again we see the model first from someone in Darlington just down the road from where all the models are despatched from and before you can even order them as back orders.......... Co-incidence I think not...
Pics make Merc look too tall but hopefully that is an illusion and boxes are a step forward. Think figures are ruled out by Licensing but would be nice if Fabbri admitted it. But since they treat subscribers with contempt they are hardly likely to communicate such things.....
Think figures are ruled out by Licensing but would be nice if Fabbri admitted it. But since they treat subscribers with contempt they are hardly likely to communicate such things.....
I agree completely and would add "depictions" to the list of ruled out things.
Pics make the Merc look too tall but hopefully that is an illusion[...]
I think I've identified the exact mould used to make this car (the Ixo 180...this one is from Replicars' Cold Wars Series, which was worth buying for the figures if nothing else, though both East Bloc cars as well as the 1947 Ford Fordor were very well-done). It's placed alongside a Minichamps 220S, which, while it would have been longer, would have also had the same ride height, I think. Tell me what you can glean from these two photos (they were the only ones out of SIX that turned out), aside from the fact I'm a lousy photographer. )
Note that the 180 is on the left in both photos, with the Minichamps 220S on the right.
As we can see, the 180 isn't a bad model of a 180, fortunately. As a matter of fact, it's actually pretty solid. Since a 180 played a pretty fair-sized role in the chase, I don't really object to its presence. HOWEVER, look at how many differences you have with the 220S.
But there was one feature that hurt our forthcoming 180, which Maz correctly identified as ride height. While not terrible (again, I think the mould has more pros than cons), it flat-out just rides too high. Although there were a great many dimensions that differed on the 180 and the 220S, ride height was not one of them. The car roofs should be the same height. Minichamps nails it. Ixo, with the help of oversized tires (that could possibly be replaced) misses the boat on this.
Given both the mislabelling of this model as well as the comparatively minor ride height blunder (I could live with being promised...and getting...a 180 with a bit of a ride height error and not much else), this one may get a bit of a backlash, despite NOT being a bad model. If you get the car wrong, I think you better make a near-perfect model of it to get any kind of good reception (the DAF Ford Econoline, for example, which is a 1972 model with the sliding door option....in the film, we see a 1971 Ford Econoline with regular side door). It would appear to me that Ixo (which, as someone pointed out, IS currently overstretched due to introducing FOUR MORE East Bloc partworks...at least our East Bloc stuff will look good, despite having minimal film roles...) is trying to use up all of its recycled moulds before it shows us its newer developments.
Think figures are ruled out by Licensing but would be nice if Fabbri admitted it. But since they treat subscribers with contempt they are hardly likely to communicate such things.....
I'm beginning to wonder if anyone from the company is keeping an eye on forums like this anymore since Fabbri was taken over. It might be that information like that will only be gotten out of them by writing to them, as per Diecast007's recent valiant efforts. If memory serves, he did actually get a reply from them saying figures (and dioramas) haven't been ruled out, so perhaps licencing is still 'under discussion'.
It's a pity about the lack of figures alright - I would have thought that by just using generic "bad guy" figures instead of identifiable Bond characters they would have avoided any potential licensing issues.
For example, wasn't there a figure included with the Casino Royale Ford Crown police car in issue 100?
Still, at least we got a half-decent diorama this time. It's not the one from issue 25 just turned around either; the boxes are not the same dimensions and are also positioned differently.
For example, wasn't there a figure included with the Casino Royale Ford Crown police car in issue 100?
I often wonder if this was the figure/issue that may have cost them.
We know for a fact that no character is allowed to appear from the Daniel Craig Bond films. Yet, Ixo uncharistically added one, probably on the grounds of "well, this was the policeman that the terrorist bonked over the head before stealing his patrol car. Just don't pay attention to the diorama, okay?"
I also believe that this went over like a lead balloon in terms of an excuse and Fabbri was probably restricted severely in terms of what they were able to put into a set. Just ONE issue after #100, the Bondola, even contained depictions of people in the background. The people are all in motion, by the way, and somewhat blurred. Fabbri could have argued they represented no one, almost assuredly lost on that, and as a result, everyone got penalized. The price for such things was either hiked up exponentially or they were simply forbidden...I don't know which. If it's the former case, there was yet another complicating factor: Eaglemoss's takeover of Fabbri.
Fabbri had filed for bankruptcy and was in no way in any kind of financial position to pay for jacked-up licensing fees, especially after having Ixo (which, like them or not, charges more than Universal Hobbies to make their cars) brought aboard. We don't know what Eaglemoss's approach was or is, but they're likely still trying to turn Fabbri around. This may include an unwillingness to pay for representations in order to prevent Fabbri from from going under, or maybe they are just complete penny-pinchers. I really don't know, but that's what seems to make sense.
If memory serves, he [Diecast007] did actually get a reply from them saying figures (and dioramas) haven't been ruled out, so perhaps licencing is still 'under discussion'.
The problem was that in his response, EM/Fabbri specically says "figures", BUT while the issues specifically cited all had very good diorama bases, they included not one, but SEVERAL that included no figures. The one that immediately comes to mind is the superb model of the DN 1957 Chevy Bel Air, one of my favorite UH cars. Great diorama? Yes. Figures? Nope, Bond and "Mr. Jones" were depicted fighting on the cardboard insert.
The problem was that in his response, EM/Fabbri specically says "figures", BUT while the issues specifically cited all had very good diorama bases, they included not one, but SEVERAL that included no figures. The one that immediately comes to mind is the superb model of the DN 1957 Chevy Bel Air, one of my favorite UH cars. Great diorama? Yes. Figures? Nope, Bond and "Mr. Jones" were depicted fighting on the cardboard insert.
There's never been any figures outside the cars, have there? - Unlike the 3D figures in the 'Route Bleue' series (which are usually way too big I hasten to add), all the figures outside the vehicles in the JBCC have always been represented in 2D on the diorama backing card. I wonder if that's some sort of licencing condition i.e. 3D figures within the car come under a different licencing arrangement to any 3D figures that are part of the diorama??
I suspect you're right about the CR Ford Crown, it's possible IXO thought "Ok it's an ordinary police car, let's put an ordinary police driver in it" totally forgetting or unaware of licencing conditions and actors' rights.
There's never been any figures outside the cars, have there? - Unlike the 3D figures in the 'Route Bleue' series (which are usually way too big I hasten to add), all the figures outside the vehicles in the JBCC have always been represented in 2D on the diorama backing card. I wonder if that's some sort of licencing condition i.e. 3D figures within the car come under a different licencing arrangement to any 3D figures that are part of the diorama??
That's correct, I don't believe there ever have been any figures outside of the cars. Incidentally, you're right about LRB, except for the drivers, who are usually well-scaled. Also well-done are some of the figures that actually interact with the cars and don't merely stand or sit to the side. For example, the guy working the jack on the Peugeot 203 that's blown a tire is 1/43 scale. Likewise the woman sitting on the hood of the Mercedes-Benz roadster and a few other outliers. A shame, because the dioramas themselves are wonderfully conceived. But I digress.
As for Diecast007's response, I'll repost it here...
We are sorry you feel that there has been a difference in the quality of recent issues of the James Bond Car Collection. That’s certainly not the intention. It has always been the case that some but not all of the cars feature figurines, and the complexity of the replica scenes varies according to the scene that we are able to recreate. Recent models are extremely similar to say issues 16, 17, 22, 21, 32, 35 and so on.
There are also some licensing issues relating to the use of certain actor’s licenses in the collection. This is why there are no figurines in the cars from the most recent movies. I hope you will be reassured to hear that there are several more complicated movie scenes in development and that there will be more figurines in the forthcoming releases.
In the first paragraph, they don't cite the '57 Chevy, sorry. For some reason, I thought they did. However, they do cite Issue 35, Tilly Masterson's Ford Mustang. This car comes without any figures.
The second paragraph seems much more telling: "There are also some licensing issues relating to the use of certain actor’s licenses in the collection. This is why there are no figurines in the cars from the most recent movies."
It may be why there are no figures from the most recent films, but NOT SO FAST: I believe that with this latest issue where a concerted effort was made to do a completely new diorama stand, they have to be encountering legal problems with more than just the DC Bonds.
To make matters worse for all of us, but for Diecast007 more than anyone since he actually wrote the letter, I also think this letter was a form letter written quite some time ago; note that the newest issue it refers to is 35 (!). As a matter of fact, I believe this letter may be as old as Issue 50 in terms of when it was written. Why? Simple: From Issue 36 to Issue 50, just EIGHT cars featured figures (the ZAZ-965A Zaporozhets, Citroen Traction Avant 11BL, Felix's T-Bird, the Chevy Nova, the AMC Matador Coupe, the Land Rover Series III, the Ford Fairlane 500 Skyliner [DAD version, top down], and MP Lafer). A whopping SEVEN did not, and this was from the height of the Universal Hobbies era (also, neither Issue 51 nor Issue 52 had a figure; out of the 20 issues from 32-52, only half had figures!!!)!
Interesting, I never realized that there was no model with figures standing outside the car. Also, that there were that many issues without figures. E.g. I didn't remember that Tilly's Mustang had no figures. But it shows that we didn't demand figures with every issue.
I think it is only fair that when they include three or four figures with one issue then another has to be produced cheaper to level out the expenses. It became annyoing only when the lack of figures and then even different diorama bases had become a constant.
And while I think that the new diorama for the GF Mercedes is a good sign, I am disappointed that the car and base do not match. We had the Anglia with the correct car and the wrong film, now we have the film right but a wrong car for the description - I find both equally annoying. Give us a 220S and write 220S, or give us a 180 and call it a 180. Both would have been welcome (the black 180 is perhaps even the better choice) but what we got is just wrong.
Is this true that Fabbri had filed for bankruptcy? I thought the Eagle Moss takeover was just that, buying a competitor. But why take over a company that would be heavily losing money instead of just waiting a little to get rid of that competitor?
What I also find strange is that the same models are sold with different manufacturers. If I were from Ixo or UH, I would not want my products sold under a competitor's name or a competitor's products with my name on it. Okay, there may have been an error on the first 2010 run of Ixo cars with the wrong UH address that was later changed to Ocean Metal Factory. But why is there now - on a later run - a 2011 UH address on the Country Squire and Consul? Very strange ...
Is this true that Fabbri had filed for bankruptcy? I thought the Eagle Moss takeover was just that, buying a competitor. But why take over a company that would be heavily losing money instead of just waiting a little to get rid of that competitor?
No, I'm sorry, they'd merely filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection. Still, that's pretty close to bankruptcy. But you raise an interesting economic question: why take over a company that's losing money instead of letting it go under? Simple: to turn that company around. Plenty of once-falling-apart businesses were taken over by better-managed (financially) firms that actually became famous under new ownership. Take Mattel's buyout of Matchbox, which was financially struggling, or Richard Kughn's purchase of Fundimensions, the inept parent corporation of Lionel Trains (although you could literally walk up to Mr. Kughn, suggest something be looked at, and either he or Lionel bigwig would look at it as an idea and take it seriously...how'd you like THAT for service in this partwork?). Eaglemoss took over Fabbri to get the JBCC, much as Mattel took over Matchbox to get their moulds and brandname and Mr. Kughn took over Fundimensions to get Lionel Trains. Mattel took a couple years to really start introducing new moulds vs. recycling them and Richard Kughn, from about 1987-1991, was essentially running an increasingly glorified version of Fundimensions (the turning point is usually seen as Lionel's semi-scale lift bridge). You buy as an investment in the future, basically.
I think it is only fair that when they include three or four figures with one issue then another has to be produced cheaper to level out the expenses.
Although I've nothing save track record and the going out of their way to edit out any and all depictions to back me up...what if it's not a matter of money? What if it's a matter of "we can't legally do this because EON only let us use depictions in the magazine" (which is technically printed by a different company and therefore subject to different rules and regulations)?
And while I think that the new diorama for the GF Mercedes is a good sign, I am disappointed that the car and base do not match. We had the Anglia with the correct car and the wrong film, now we have the film right but a wrong car for the description - I find both equally annoying. Give us a 220S and write 220S, or give us a 180 and call it a 180. Both would have been welcome (the black 180 is perhaps even the better choice) but what we got is just wrong.
In that case, I wonder if they wind up re-doing not only the base, but the magazine, as well...after all, I'm sure it winds up describing and picturing a 220S. By the way, I would agree that the 180 is actually the better choice. You certainly saw it or a 190 far more than you saw the 220S.
What I also find strange is that the same models are sold with different manufacturers.
No, not really. It even has precedence. I hate to invoke the former East Bloc yet again, but there's a Russian series called Nash Avtoprom that's made by both Ixo and Hongwell. And they also managed to get more than a few addresses wrong. If you look hard enough on the KIM-10-50 (first Hongwell car) boxes, you'll find a few with Ixo addresses on them. It's like Maz said; once those Ocean Metal Factory blisters start getting scarce, they're pretty much just using up any spare (as in, never used or packed in any way) blisters they happen to have around.
Do we know the next issue after the GF Mercedes?
Not sure, but if anyone could email that eBay seller and ask, I'm sure we'd all be quite grateful.
Incidentally, if Eaglemoss happens to be reading...I've decided to write them (and Ixo) an open letter from the perspective of a Car-Centric...
Dear Eaglemoss and Ixo,
In the past, before and including Issue 113 as well as Issue 116, I gravitated quite naturally toward your product, being someone who is a big James Bond fan and a fellow who likes the types of cars that Ixo produced from Issue 88 up to Issue 113. With that being said, not counting the superb Issue 97 and strong Issue 91, I was underwhelmed by the cars made by Universal Hobbies during this period and fully understand why Fabbri, at the time controlling the partwork, essentially switched over to Ixo.
With all of that said, however, I sense a certain complacency...perhaps on the part of Ixo, perhaps on the part of Eaglemoss...that has set in recently. The rushed paint scheme on Issue 115 and incorrect research as to the actual model on Issues 114 and 117 are quite disappointing. I can understand the use of partially re-used moulds, but outright laziness is something I've little tolerance for.
If it's the fine folks at Ixo that had a hand in deciding this, I should point out that you even had a correct bull bar and front bumper for the Lada Niva, Issue 116, but chose not to use them. Given the overall excellence of this model and the inclusion of the correct, "slab-side" truck mirrors that wound up producing the first and only scale depiction of a Lada Niva 1600L 4x4, I'm willing to overlook that. But on the other hand, I think I can speak for everyone when I say I'd rather this not become the norm. Do I understand meeting deadline limits? I sure do. As a matter of fact, Eaglemoss, if you're pushing Ixo, I think everyone on this forum agreed that we would rather have a single correct model be released every two months than a rushjob given to a somewhat overtaxed company every month.
As for the Mercedes-Benz 180, it is a radically different car than the 220S, and the folks at Ixo sure know that. I believe this to be the work of Eaglemoss. I will buy it simply because I want another black 180 and personally do not use dioramas or figures, though must compliment Ixo's design of the base for this car. Still, I seem to stand alone on the issue of figures and depictions. If you could clarify what's going on, especially since I doubt you're permitted to use depictions anymore, you may calm some people down on this thread as well as gain their understanding.
Finally, I understand there are some cars that are going to be released up until Issue 130, all made by Ixo. I also understand that some of these cars will reuse existing moulds. This is because I happen to know personally an individual who deals with Ixo (or at least their parent company, PCT) on behalf of the Russian model distributor VVM Models of St. Petersburg, located in Leningrad Oblast.
I know that there will be, as per your letter to subscribers, a Mercedes-Benz 450SEL Sedan released in this series, appearing in the film For Your Eyes Only. Please make sure that it is indeed a 450SEL with a correct, lengthened W116 chassis and not a 280SE with incorrect trim and an incorrect wheelbase. The latter HAS been produced by Ixo for their Altaya partwork dealing with Mercedes-Benz cars. It was a partwork that I very much enjoyed, but one of the reasons I very much enjoyed it was due to its accuracy and attention to detail.
I also see that a 1965 Lincoln Continental Lehmann-Peterson Type 53A Executive Limousine is on the list that was emailed to everyone. I ask you not to re-use the 1967 mould, which has not only a different roof material (metal instead of the correct landau roof) and different grille, but also a distinctly different body shape. For an example of a correct Type 53A that would not only appeal to James Bond collectors, but also to the coveted former East Bloc and CIS market, I ask you to look at this car here, which I will ask you to note is in the same color as the car featured in the film Thunderball...although it may not be completely clear in the photo, please note that both cars have the landau style roof, not the metal one.
I know that there is also a VAZ-2105 Zhiguli in the works, which appeared in the film The Living Daylights. If this is anything like the car made for USSR Auto Legends/SSSR AvtoLegendy, I would ask you to please keep the mould exactly the same. I would also ask the Mercedes-Benz 220D (W114 chassis) from For Your Eyes Only be kept the same in terms of its mould (which had appeared in the aforementioned Mercedes-Benz partwork), as it is a correct model.
You also put a Scaldia-Volga M24 Sedan in the list, which appeared in the film Octopussy (the Belgian-assembled car stood in for a Soviet GAZ-24 Volga due to the politics of the time). It is of the "second series" type. I will take the time to note that you have twice done a correct, "Second Series" GAZ-24 Volga sedan for VVM Models of St. Petersburg (1980 Olympics Militsiya patrol car) and for Ist Models (1979 Volkspolizei, Leipzig District). The "Second Series" car has bumper overriders and underriders on the front and the rear as well as fog lights. You actually used a GAZ-24-10 baseplate for this car and the results, in both cases, were superb. As the first model of a Scaldia-Volga M24 and the first model of a "Second Series" Volga in 1/43 scale not representing a police car, I'm really going to ask you to recreate the moulds you used with the two police models with this car. Please do not make this a "First Series" car. I happen to know a number of customers in Russia that are looking forward to the car as a Second Series black sedan.
No other car save the 1973 Chevrolet Bel Air, which borrows parts from your excellent 1973 Chevy Impala Custom Coupe that also appeared in this collection, is the result of a reused mould. However, for those cars with only partially re-used moulds such as the Mercedes-Benz 450SEL, 1965 Lincoln Continental Lehmann-Peterson Type 53A Executive Limousine, and (technically) the Scaldia-Volga M24 Sedan, I would ask that you please get the cars correct and not just re-use moulds wholesale.
I look forward to these cars as well as those that do not re-use moulds, hope you keep up the good work with the dioramas, and wish you the best of luck trying to get figures. If you cannot and it is a legal impossibility, I believe we will all understand. All I believe that we want is no more complacency or re-using moulds wholesale when inappropriate to do so, which is what the promised Goldfinger Mercedes-Benz 220S (W180 chassis) that became a Mercedes-Benz 180 (W120 chassis) represents to not only myself, but I believe the majority of people posting on this thread. I am sure that you can and will correct this in the future and look forward to said future models.
Regards,
"Dalkowski110", Active Collector of the James Bond Car Collection located in the USA
Can someone send me their address (isn't it something other than what's printed on the magazines)? I live in the United States, after all! ) But yes, I would be glad to use snail mail to shoot one off with my real name and email address in it.
does anyone know the email address of nick bennett, a big bond collector in the uk???....a friend in usa has some important information for him........my phone is o7545 243300
Comments
Big missing is the Ford Impala from Leiter !
IMAGE REMOVED. I don't know if this was your intention, but clicking on the picture you used goes to a site with pornographic links. Please be careful, and consider yourself warned. Hardyboy
Jag, by this I mean saying UH is in France.
If that's the case, it's probably a type-setting error and a widespread one, at that. The Mercedes-Benz Binz Europ Ambulance actually says "Ixo" on the bottom of the base. Given the refusal of PCT to simply put the word "Ixo" and even "PCT" on the outside of various partwork boxes and blisters in the past (instead, you get the "Ocean Metal Factory" type deal, though the factories differ), I can't imagine they would allow production to be farmed out without at least removing the logo.
I am looking forward to Lada and MB220 but that is some way off for us back order guys. Not even taking orders till next week.
Looking forward to seeing picks of these blisters with wrong info. LIke Dalko110 I am pretty convinced its mess up and not mould sharing. But then could be wrong.....
Today went to the shop to look if the other Country Squires had the same packaging but it was already replaced by the Consul [terribly boring car I have to add, and one of the main reasons I cancelled my subscription]. This too comes with the UH address.
As other Ixo cars have been delivered in UH branded boxes before I do not feel it necessary to take some photos, or do you still need to see the Ford packaging? After all the car and diorama are the same as posted before.
http://www.ebay.ie/itm/JAMES-BOND-CAR-COLLECTION-MERCEDES-BENZ-220S-GOLDFINGER-117-MINT-BOXED-MAG-/150773375538?pt=UK_ToysGames_DiecastVehicles_DiecastVehicles_JN&hash=item231acb2232
No, no need, but thanks for being willing to do so had your car been a one off.
I emailed the seller and he confirmed no figures in the car. Half way there at least!
Yay!!!! Boxes!!!
Seriously though, the Merc's looking good - a perfect companion piece to the factory scene DB5 (issue 25). If anybody wants to add their own figures, get hold of the YOLT Toyota, it has 4 figures that do the job perfectly with a lick of white and 'bad guy blue' Revell acrylic paint. Just pop them in and hold them in place with a tiny bit of blue tack.
Pics make Merc look too tall but hopefully that is an illusion and boxes are a step forward. Think figures are ruled out by Licensing but would be nice if Fabbri admitted it. But since they treat subscribers with contempt they are hardly likely to communicate such things.....
I agree completely and would add "depictions" to the list of ruled out things.
I think I've identified the exact mould used to make this car (the Ixo 180...this one is from Replicars' Cold Wars Series, which was worth buying for the figures if nothing else, though both East Bloc cars as well as the 1947 Ford Fordor were very well-done). It's placed alongside a Minichamps 220S, which, while it would have been longer, would have also had the same ride height, I think. Tell me what you can glean from these two photos (they were the only ones out of SIX that turned out), aside from the fact I'm a lousy photographer.
Note that the 180 is on the left in both photos, with the Minichamps 220S on the right.
As we can see, the 180 isn't a bad model of a 180, fortunately. As a matter of fact, it's actually pretty solid. Since a 180 played a pretty fair-sized role in the chase, I don't really object to its presence. HOWEVER, look at how many differences you have with the 220S.
But there was one feature that hurt our forthcoming 180, which Maz correctly identified as ride height. While not terrible (again, I think the mould has more pros than cons), it flat-out just rides too high. Although there were a great many dimensions that differed on the 180 and the 220S, ride height was not one of them. The car roofs should be the same height. Minichamps nails it. Ixo, with the help of oversized tires (that could possibly be replaced) misses the boat on this.
Given both the mislabelling of this model as well as the comparatively minor ride height blunder (I could live with being promised...and getting...a 180 with a bit of a ride height error and not much else), this one may get a bit of a backlash, despite NOT being a bad model. If you get the car wrong, I think you better make a near-perfect model of it to get any kind of good reception (the DAF Ford Econoline, for example, which is a 1972 model with the sliding door option....in the film, we see a 1971 Ford Econoline with regular side door). It would appear to me that Ixo (which, as someone pointed out, IS currently overstretched due to introducing FOUR MORE East Bloc partworks...at least our East Bloc stuff will look good, despite having minimal film roles...) is trying to use up all of its recycled moulds before it shows us its newer developments.
It's possible that the model is 'up in the air' again and the wheels are dangling down a bit which wouldn't help the ride height appearance.
I'm beginning to wonder if anyone from the company is keeping an eye on forums like this anymore since Fabbri was taken over. It might be that information like that will only be gotten out of them by writing to them, as per Diecast007's recent valiant efforts. If memory serves, he did actually get a reply from them saying figures (and dioramas) haven't been ruled out, so perhaps licencing is still 'under discussion'.
For example, wasn't there a figure included with the Casino Royale Ford Crown police car in issue 100?
Still, at least we got a half-decent diorama this time. It's not the one from issue 25 just turned around either; the boxes are not the same dimensions and are also positioned differently.
I often wonder if this was the figure/issue that may have cost them.
We know for a fact that no character is allowed to appear from the Daniel Craig Bond films. Yet, Ixo uncharistically added one, probably on the grounds of "well, this was the policeman that the terrorist bonked over the head before stealing his patrol car. Just don't pay attention to the diorama, okay?"
I also believe that this went over like a lead balloon in terms of an excuse and Fabbri was probably restricted severely in terms of what they were able to put into a set. Just ONE issue after #100, the Bondola, even contained depictions of people in the background. The people are all in motion, by the way, and somewhat blurred. Fabbri could have argued they represented no one, almost assuredly lost on that, and as a result, everyone got penalized. The price for such things was either hiked up exponentially or they were simply forbidden...I don't know which. If it's the former case, there was yet another complicating factor: Eaglemoss's takeover of Fabbri.
Fabbri had filed for bankruptcy and was in no way in any kind of financial position to pay for jacked-up licensing fees, especially after having Ixo (which, like them or not, charges more than Universal Hobbies to make their cars) brought aboard. We don't know what Eaglemoss's approach was or is, but they're likely still trying to turn Fabbri around. This may include an unwillingness to pay for representations in order to prevent Fabbri from from going under, or maybe they are just complete penny-pinchers. I really don't know, but that's what seems to make sense.
The problem was that in his response, EM/Fabbri specically says "figures", BUT while the issues specifically cited all had very good diorama bases, they included not one, but SEVERAL that included no figures. The one that immediately comes to mind is the superb model of the DN 1957 Chevy Bel Air, one of my favorite UH cars. Great diorama? Yes. Figures? Nope, Bond and "Mr. Jones" were depicted fighting on the cardboard insert.
There's never been any figures outside the cars, have there? - Unlike the 3D figures in the 'Route Bleue' series (which are usually way too big I hasten to add), all the figures outside the vehicles in the JBCC have always been represented in 2D on the diorama backing card. I wonder if that's some sort of licencing condition i.e. 3D figures within the car come under a different licencing arrangement to any 3D figures that are part of the diorama??
I suspect you're right about the CR Ford Crown, it's possible IXO thought "Ok it's an ordinary police car, let's put an ordinary police driver in it" totally forgetting or unaware of licencing conditions and actors' rights.
That's correct, I don't believe there ever have been any figures outside of the cars. Incidentally, you're right about LRB, except for the drivers, who are usually well-scaled. Also well-done are some of the figures that actually interact with the cars and don't merely stand or sit to the side. For example, the guy working the jack on the Peugeot 203 that's blown a tire is 1/43 scale. Likewise the woman sitting on the hood of the Mercedes-Benz roadster and a few other outliers. A shame, because the dioramas themselves are wonderfully conceived. But I digress.
As for Diecast007's response, I'll repost it here...
In the first paragraph, they don't cite the '57 Chevy, sorry. For some reason, I thought they did. However, they do cite Issue 35, Tilly Masterson's Ford Mustang. This car comes without any figures.
The second paragraph seems much more telling: "There are also some licensing issues relating to the use of certain actor’s licenses in the collection. This is why there are no figurines in the cars from the most recent movies."
It may be why there are no figures from the most recent films, but NOT SO FAST: I believe that with this latest issue where a concerted effort was made to do a completely new diorama stand, they have to be encountering legal problems with more than just the DC Bonds.
To make matters worse for all of us, but for Diecast007 more than anyone since he actually wrote the letter, I also think this letter was a form letter written quite some time ago; note that the newest issue it refers to is 35 (!). As a matter of fact, I believe this letter may be as old as Issue 50 in terms of when it was written. Why? Simple: From Issue 36 to Issue 50, just EIGHT cars featured figures (the ZAZ-965A Zaporozhets, Citroen Traction Avant 11BL, Felix's T-Bird, the Chevy Nova, the AMC Matador Coupe, the Land Rover Series III, the Ford Fairlane 500 Skyliner [DAD version, top down], and MP Lafer). A whopping SEVEN did not, and this was from the height of the Universal Hobbies era (also, neither Issue 51 nor Issue 52 had a figure; out of the 20 issues from 32-52, only half had figures!!!)!
I think it is only fair that when they include three or four figures with one issue then another has to be produced cheaper to level out the expenses. It became annyoing only when the lack of figures and then even different diorama bases had become a constant.
And while I think that the new diorama for the GF Mercedes is a good sign, I am disappointed that the car and base do not match. We had the Anglia with the correct car and the wrong film, now we have the film right but a wrong car for the description - I find both equally annoying. Give us a 220S and write 220S, or give us a 180 and call it a 180. Both would have been welcome (the black 180 is perhaps even the better choice) but what we got is just wrong.
Is this true that Fabbri had filed for bankruptcy? I thought the Eagle Moss takeover was just that, buying a competitor. But why take over a company that would be heavily losing money instead of just waiting a little to get rid of that competitor?
What I also find strange is that the same models are sold with different manufacturers. If I were from Ixo or UH, I would not want my products sold under a competitor's name or a competitor's products with my name on it. Okay, there may have been an error on the first 2010 run of Ixo cars with the wrong UH address that was later changed to Ocean Metal Factory. But why is there now - on a later run - a 2011 UH address on the Country Squire and Consul? Very strange ...
Do we know the next issue after the GF Mercedes?
No, I'm sorry, they'd merely filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection. Still, that's pretty close to bankruptcy. But you raise an interesting economic question: why take over a company that's losing money instead of letting it go under? Simple: to turn that company around. Plenty of once-falling-apart businesses were taken over by better-managed (financially) firms that actually became famous under new ownership. Take Mattel's buyout of Matchbox, which was financially struggling, or Richard Kughn's purchase of Fundimensions, the inept parent corporation of Lionel Trains (although you could literally walk up to Mr. Kughn, suggest something be looked at, and either he or Lionel bigwig would look at it as an idea and take it seriously...how'd you like THAT for service in this partwork?). Eaglemoss took over Fabbri to get the JBCC, much as Mattel took over Matchbox to get their moulds and brandname and Mr. Kughn took over Fundimensions to get Lionel Trains. Mattel took a couple years to really start introducing new moulds vs. recycling them and Richard Kughn, from about 1987-1991, was essentially running an increasingly glorified version of Fundimensions (the turning point is usually seen as Lionel's semi-scale lift bridge). You buy as an investment in the future, basically.
Although I've nothing save track record and the going out of their way to edit out any and all depictions to back me up...what if it's not a matter of money? What if it's a matter of "we can't legally do this because EON only let us use depictions in the magazine" (which is technically printed by a different company and therefore subject to different rules and regulations)?
In that case, I wonder if they wind up re-doing not only the base, but the magazine, as well...after all, I'm sure it winds up describing and picturing a 220S. By the way, I would agree that the 180 is actually the better choice. You certainly saw it or a 190 far more than you saw the 220S.
No, not really. It even has precedence. I hate to invoke the former East Bloc yet again, but there's a Russian series called Nash Avtoprom that's made by both Ixo and Hongwell. And they also managed to get more than a few addresses wrong. If you look hard enough on the KIM-10-50 (first Hongwell car) boxes, you'll find a few with Ixo addresses on them. It's like Maz said; once those Ocean Metal Factory blisters start getting scarce, they're pretty much just using up any spare (as in, never used or packed in any way) blisters they happen to have around.
Not sure, but if anyone could email that eBay seller and ask, I'm sure we'd all be quite grateful.
Dear Eaglemoss and Ixo,
In the past, before and including Issue 113 as well as Issue 116, I gravitated quite naturally toward your product, being someone who is a big James Bond fan and a fellow who likes the types of cars that Ixo produced from Issue 88 up to Issue 113. With that being said, not counting the superb Issue 97 and strong Issue 91, I was underwhelmed by the cars made by Universal Hobbies during this period and fully understand why Fabbri, at the time controlling the partwork, essentially switched over to Ixo.
With all of that said, however, I sense a certain complacency...perhaps on the part of Ixo, perhaps on the part of Eaglemoss...that has set in recently. The rushed paint scheme on Issue 115 and incorrect research as to the actual model on Issues 114 and 117 are quite disappointing. I can understand the use of partially re-used moulds, but outright laziness is something I've little tolerance for.
If it's the fine folks at Ixo that had a hand in deciding this, I should point out that you even had a correct bull bar and front bumper for the Lada Niva, Issue 116, but chose not to use them. Given the overall excellence of this model and the inclusion of the correct, "slab-side" truck mirrors that wound up producing the first and only scale depiction of a Lada Niva 1600L 4x4, I'm willing to overlook that. But on the other hand, I think I can speak for everyone when I say I'd rather this not become the norm. Do I understand meeting deadline limits? I sure do. As a matter of fact, Eaglemoss, if you're pushing Ixo, I think everyone on this forum agreed that we would rather have a single correct model be released every two months than a rushjob given to a somewhat overtaxed company every month.
As for the Mercedes-Benz 180, it is a radically different car than the 220S, and the folks at Ixo sure know that. I believe this to be the work of Eaglemoss. I will buy it simply because I want another black 180 and personally do not use dioramas or figures, though must compliment Ixo's design of the base for this car. Still, I seem to stand alone on the issue of figures and depictions. If you could clarify what's going on, especially since I doubt you're permitted to use depictions anymore, you may calm some people down on this thread as well as gain their understanding.
Finally, I understand there are some cars that are going to be released up until Issue 130, all made by Ixo. I also understand that some of these cars will reuse existing moulds. This is because I happen to know personally an individual who deals with Ixo (or at least their parent company, PCT) on behalf of the Russian model distributor VVM Models of St. Petersburg, located in Leningrad Oblast.
I know that there will be, as per your letter to subscribers, a Mercedes-Benz 450SEL Sedan released in this series, appearing in the film For Your Eyes Only. Please make sure that it is indeed a 450SEL with a correct, lengthened W116 chassis and not a 280SE with incorrect trim and an incorrect wheelbase. The latter HAS been produced by Ixo for their Altaya partwork dealing with Mercedes-Benz cars. It was a partwork that I very much enjoyed, but one of the reasons I very much enjoyed it was due to its accuracy and attention to detail.
I also see that a 1965 Lincoln Continental Lehmann-Peterson Type 53A Executive Limousine is on the list that was emailed to everyone. I ask you not to re-use the 1967 mould, which has not only a different roof material (metal instead of the correct landau roof) and different grille, but also a distinctly different body shape. For an example of a correct Type 53A that would not only appeal to James Bond collectors, but also to the coveted former East Bloc and CIS market, I ask you to look at this car here, which I will ask you to note is in the same color as the car featured in the film Thunderball...although it may not be completely clear in the photo, please note that both cars have the landau style roof, not the metal one.
http://www.desoto58.com/peoplezone/peoplelehmannpeterson65lve.html
I know that there is also a VAZ-2105 Zhiguli in the works, which appeared in the film The Living Daylights. If this is anything like the car made for USSR Auto Legends/SSSR AvtoLegendy, I would ask you to please keep the mould exactly the same. I would also ask the Mercedes-Benz 220D (W114 chassis) from For Your Eyes Only be kept the same in terms of its mould (which had appeared in the aforementioned Mercedes-Benz partwork), as it is a correct model.
You also put a Scaldia-Volga M24 Sedan in the list, which appeared in the film Octopussy (the Belgian-assembled car stood in for a Soviet GAZ-24 Volga due to the politics of the time). It is of the "second series" type. I will take the time to note that you have twice done a correct, "Second Series" GAZ-24 Volga sedan for VVM Models of St. Petersburg (1980 Olympics Militsiya patrol car) and for Ist Models (1979 Volkspolizei, Leipzig District). The "Second Series" car has bumper overriders and underriders on the front and the rear as well as fog lights. You actually used a GAZ-24-10 baseplate for this car and the results, in both cases, were superb. As the first model of a Scaldia-Volga M24 and the first model of a "Second Series" Volga in 1/43 scale not representing a police car, I'm really going to ask you to recreate the moulds you used with the two police models with this car. Please do not make this a "First Series" car. I happen to know a number of customers in Russia that are looking forward to the car as a Second Series black sedan.
No other car save the 1973 Chevrolet Bel Air, which borrows parts from your excellent 1973 Chevy Impala Custom Coupe that also appeared in this collection, is the result of a reused mould. However, for those cars with only partially re-used moulds such as the Mercedes-Benz 450SEL, 1965 Lincoln Continental Lehmann-Peterson Type 53A Executive Limousine, and (technically) the Scaldia-Volga M24 Sedan, I would ask that you please get the cars correct and not just re-use moulds wholesale.
I look forward to these cars as well as those that do not re-use moulds, hope you keep up the good work with the dioramas, and wish you the best of luck trying to get figures. If you cannot and it is a legal impossibility, I believe we will all understand. All I believe that we want is no more complacency or re-using moulds wholesale when inappropriate to do so, which is what the promised Goldfinger Mercedes-Benz 220S (W180 chassis) that became a Mercedes-Benz 180 (W120 chassis) represents to not only myself, but I believe the majority of people posting on this thread. I am sure that you can and will correct this in the future and look forward to said future models.
Regards,
"Dalkowski110", Active Collector of the James Bond Car Collection located in the USA
Issue 118 will be the Lada Vaz 2105
All right! At least we'll wind up with a very accurate model! Ixo doesn't have to alter the moulds AT ALL to get this one correct.
Thought you'd be pleased with that one
1st Floor, Beaumont House,
Kensington Village,
Avonmore Road,
London W14 8TS
England
Tel: +44 20 7605 1200
Fax: +44 20 7605 1201