You can still find those here and there. Mostly on eBay. Too bad there aren’t any Esso gas stations anywhere anymore. Kind of the same way with thew Mobil Gas Stations.
Reyneir, A++
The other hobby…
… used to have a flag with the Mobile Gas Pegasus in my garage…plus Chevrolet Racing, Porsche etc…
Can only find a picture of Pontiac flag however.
Other favorites…
@Armor_Buff have you still got the chrome bumper C3?
Yes David, I still have the vette. Stays garaged at the other place.
Oops yeah that’s what I meant 
Dang it, I was really looking forward to all the cool accesories that come in the Takom mid tiger, and the awesome deal for all three and the figure, but knowing that the engine deck is just wrong has really deflated my interest.
The intake grate is 1mm too narrow. You wouldn’t even notice it if you didn’t measure them. It’s not a major deformity.
@Tommi_Lukkarinen Tommi, thank you for checking out the thread. I understand what you mean. Matt makes an excellent observation that it’s a fairly small dimensional error.
Hopefully Tommi, this soap box 
ramble will be at least mildly amusing…
Stuff like Italeri’s old Panther D & A being off ~ 6mm in the rear engine deck & behind the turret send me ballistic.
I can see the error from 3 feet away!
I’ve paced and measured with friends at model club as a lark testing this long ago!
Got about 4mm of that fixed on my, Italeri Panther A to Panther D conversion. While this is still wrong, in my opinion, the ~2mm error is much less noticeable. With zimmerit counted its down to a 1mm error.
So my opinion is only hard core well inform Tiger fans or folks with a very keen aesthetic sense will likely be able to discern the error in the Takom engine deck from most common viewing angles.
My opinion is shaped by one of my friends who’s a master mason and bricklayer. He can tell when the corner brick work is off 1/16 of an inch on a brick building with one glance.
Roughly a 1.5 mm error window. Likewise, I can spot ~1.5 mm to 2mm errors in Pz III’s, Pz IV’s & Tiger’s normally.
I absolutely hate Takom’s Pz III & Stug III because they look wrong. Have multiple ~1 mm to 2 mm diminsonal errors on rectangular features.
Likewise, I’ve been told Tamiya got the road wheels wrong on their Late Model Tiger 1. They are supposedly off ~2mm definitely in the window of error that’s detectable. I can’t see the error if it exists.
The Tamiya’s wheels look good enough that I’ve never bothered to check if they are off specification.
It is a gamble with the Takom Tiger kits.
However, in my opinion - only when looking directly down from above will the engine deck error be blatantly visible. At other viewing angles I think it will be far less noticeable. That’s very different and less severe than screwing up a dimension that changes the basic shape of the whole vehicle.
BTW - I’ve cursed out loud at Takom for their prior travesty of a Pz III which looks wrong to me from practically EVERY angle, front, sides, rear and above.
So yes, a Takom HATER is giving Takom one more chance with their Tiger release. If the Takom Tiger proves as atrocious as the Takom Pz III, I will NEVER purchase another Takom product. I’m OCD enough to stick to that statement for at least ~30 + years…ask Italeri…LOL!
I’m sure between the supplied clutter, a tarp, a tool box and a little planning a creative modeler can hide at least 90% of the error even if someone is looking down from above. Two mechanics on the engine deck could go a long way in obscuring the air intakes.
So I’m willing to give Takom a chance on the Tiger.
Just my conjecture & opinion…
FWIW I’m a hard hearted, unforgiving retired AMS, OCD, Panzer Police rivet counter grudge holder who still hates Italeri 30 years after they screwed up that Panther A release! I don’t buy Italeri kits…~30+ years and counting with one exception. I bought an Italeri 232 6 rad when I found one on clearance for 75% off at a closing Hobby Town USA.
Peace 
Chicken & Waffles move over it’s Tiger’s 
& Waffles 
Today
First completed the details for the opposite side.
Second used plastic strip to plan a pair of weld seams.
Achtung Panzer #6 Tiger has a sketch inspiring my gizmology approach. Not going to try to fix the kit just trying to make it more acceptable.
Plastic strip attached and starting zimmerit with thinned Molak Stucco Putty.
How thinned is the Molak Stucco Putty or Tamiya Basic Gray Putty?
Like slightly thick Tamiya paint. Note the droplet 
on the brush. Liquid wet and almost self leveling.
A little brush work and then the putty skims over. Let sit for a few minutes.
It’s not level but fairly close. There’s a clumps in the application. I think they will be OK because instead of raking this will be press & play zimmerit.
Never made press & play zimmerit before or practiced it either. I should practice but my hobby time is so thin after the wife’s surgery, I decided to roll the dice 
.
Had to clean stamp mid application with Testor’s Liquid Cement. I’m OK with the tear outs. This Tiger should have damaged zimmerit I think. I can always fill the tear outs and restamp if I don’t like it later.
Needs to cure over night and a gentle sanding to knock the high spots down.
Oh, the 1970’s going to be 502’s 218.
Yes, Kali is trying to get a serving of lasagna. She had to settle for a snack of deli turkey.
I don’t believe waffle was used on Tigers. I thought it was a Stug thing only.
I agree that is the general consensus according to most folks. However, at least one Tiger of had waffle zimmerit as show in prior photo and show below. Please see area circled in blue for details.
502nd Heavy Panzer Battalion Schwere Panzerabteilung 502 Tiger 218 was one such Tiger with waffle pattern.
My guess SWAG is that’s field work shop applied. I can’t help but make up a story.
The maintenance Master Sargent caught two mechanics goofing off in the field work shop one day when Tiger 218 was in for repair. The Sargent couldn’t find the standard zimmerit trowel so he grabbed a Stug waffle pattern trowel on the workshop table and came up with “a task” to keep our lazy friends “busy”, mixing and applying zimmerit…with the wrong applicator. The whole company probably had a good laugh over the incident 
Alright, how are we supposed to keep all this info straight if we keep finding exceptions to the rule?
That’s a fabulous question.
I hope some of our fellow forum members will reply too.
I’m not an expert or guru on any of this stuff. I dislike research, can’t read German or speak German, so only have limited knowledge on the topic.
With that said, my .02 worth…
Many of the folks that made up the rules on WW2 German AFV’s in 1970’s, 1980’s & into the 1990’s didn’t have enough information available. Plus there’s actually a fair number of internet clowns pushing bad narrative. Maybe to sell their wares, crappy kits or be regarded as a guru etc.
Example this “discovered” picture from a scrap yard, proved “the Panther F was produced and saw action” in the WW2.
Picture is a photo chop from the early 2000’s or so. It still circulates on occasion. There’s a photo of a Panther G in the real picture where the wishful thinking F resides.
I usually try not to entrench my views. I like ask someone for supporting information or documentation if I see something peculiar looking.
Credibility wise, what’s credible?
A) War time photos, undoctored of course. German language documentation from the war, especially from manufacturer etc.
Be warned, some dolts will still argue the real pictures are wrong. It’s happened several times to me. Luckily, I had multiple reference pictures or Jentz & Doyle to shut them down and shut them up.
B) I’d just ask my friend Rick P. who was a walking Encyclopedia of WW2 German AFV knowledge. He had access to real researchers plus five bookcases stuffed floor to ceiling with every worthwhile German AFV book etc.
C) Find the credible authors.
Who’s a credible author? Model forums really help point one in the right direction.
On Tigers, that’s Jentz & Doyle, they have proved so in my experience. David Byrden, has proved credible as well.
What makes them credible?
If new information calls into question an old finding, they investigate and on occasion issue revised information. That’s a sign of someone seeking truth. The body of their work will reflect this over time.
Despite this being an 80+ year old subject, new information still comes to light on occasion.
There are other well proven excellent sources like Achtung Panzer #1 to #6, but these aren’t necessarily 100% perfect.
D) Accept that the fine points in many of our favorite references from the 60’s,70’s, 80’s & even 90’s may have been over turned by new information. While I still occasionally use Panzer Colors I, II & III it’s mostly for the pictures as the written text has in many cases been superceded. The books are still a valuable starting point but not definite.
Its very simple, the people that made up the so called Rules were never in the military.
Yeah it’s the eternal issue for all of us, research. My own experience has tended to go like this: find a written source…find a second written source that contradicts…find a third written source that confuses…find a fourth written source that posits a completely different scenario…finish that half-bottle of bourbon…find a fifth written source that endorses the first written source.
Ultimately I put my faith in period photos provided I’m confident they haven’t been doctored. If by pure coincidence the majority of written sources confirm what I’m seeing with my own eyes, that’s when I reach for the glue rather than a shotgun.
No Tiger in my tank. I’m just here for Kali Kat’s professional opinion. 
—mike
On Missing Lynx, someone mentioned the Otto Carius’s 1/35 Tamiya figure from the limited release Otto Carius “217” Tiger…
…has resurfaced in a variant of Tamiya’s 1/35 Panzer IV G kit…
Calling the identical twin brother in the thin skinned early Panzer IV G kit, “Otto Pre-Carius”
(J/K)
…just for the Wade’s World humor haters out there…wink