Critiques of the New Age Mercury!

First Place; Rik Hoving, Amsterdam

Hello Mark,

I read you r request on the HH message board to critique your New Age model in the latest Scale Auto magazine. Here is my critique on the New Age Mercury.

First of all I would say that I feel it very interesting that you build your 49 Merc with a sort of Chevy fleetline-shaped roof. I always have wondered how that would have looked. Well I know now it sure does not look good on a '49 Mercury. The rear end of this design appears to be too molded, almost like a potato, it screams for character, to overcome this, a sort of relieved line has been added that starts somewhere at the top of the "A" pillar and ends somewhere at the rear of each fender. This line only appears to flatten the otherwise round shapes of the custom. Perhaps a Fleetline roof works on the mercury, but then it most likely need the help of longer 51 styled fenders, so that the trunk would sit in between the two rear fenders, and the rear end would get much more character. 

I principally agree with Rik's analysis of the rear quarter panel design of the model. The incut character line that commences atop the A pillar serves two purposes: to relieve what might otherwise have been a too-monolithic roundness to the roof, and, as Rik supposes, to introduce some definition to the rear quarter panels. Rik may have missed the main problems with the roof design: the rear quarter window ends too far back on the quarter panel, and there should be a defined tulip panel at the base of the rear window! As it is, there isn't a trunk (no one caught this!). 

Another solution might have been keeping the original top of fender shape, perhaps have the rear of the top slightly narrowed from what it is now, and not add the relieved line, or perhaps do so, but have it started at the bottom of the 'A' pillar and run alongside the side window opening, much like the original drip rail, but a bit more streamlined towards the rear, to tie together the side window shape, and the Fleetline roof more. Also the rear corner of the side window could have been much sharper to create more visual length and character. Also the very large and square 60's style rear window is very much out of place on this '50 shaped body. A bit more rounded corners and lower edge raised a few mm version would look much better. The much more sloop added to the rear corner of the character line at the rear fender adds to the too- much potato shaped rear, had it been left the original shape it would have looked much better. (modifications for the sake of doing modifications, not creating a better design).

Keeping the original shape of the rear quarter panel would have been a mistake because it presents no less of a "melted butter" shape than does my inept design. I really like Rik's idea of ending the incut line earlier than I did. I eliminated the character line that started at the front door/went along the sill, and then inexplicably ends on the factory car near that awful trunk design to relieve the design of that disruptive baroque detail. 

Moving forward a bit, the very large doors, make the sides of the custom look unrealistic long, it gives me the impression it needs a whole scale foot removed to look proportional right. Since the sides of the custom look already rather plain, it would have been a good idea to keep the dogleg in the doors, perhaps slightly reshape it, section the dip and moving it further backwards, but keeping that character line would have helped the making side view interesting again.

Rik and I really part company on the door design. The factory door length has always been so short, and the vertical line at the back of the door is utterly out of place on a custom Merc. My lengthened door, with the rear line angled forward, tends to move the eye forward and introduces a sense of movement to the design. We should consider reshaping doors – otherwise, apparently, taboo among customizers – to ease the ergonomics of getting in and out of the car, and to use the shape of the door as a design element. 

The windshield could have been raked and in the process the height of the side windows could have been reduced a bit as well, a scale inch reduction would be enough. The very wide windshield frame seems also odd for a new age custom, a thin chrome strip would have been much more in place, and the reason why it does not continue on the lower edge puzzles me . . . the thin chrome trim would need to be on the lower edge of the model as well.

I can see Rik's point about laying the windshield back a bit. Another 10-15 degrees would be in order and would slick up the design a bit. Good call. But I don't get Rik's critique about the windshield being too wide. The problem with custom Mercs has always been the absurdly claustrophobic small windows – let's open these cars up to lighten the design and make them useful in the real world. Design must pay at least as much attention to actual use as they do to mere style.

Moreover, there are a lot of modern windshield molding designs that don't include lower window moldings.

The hood, well that's odd, I always thought customizing and restyling cars was to go back to the basics, to keep things as simple as possible. The hood design of the 49 Mercury always has been one of my favorites. The beautiful peak at the center, the way it's mounted in between the fenders, wraps around the cowl, and especially with some mild rounded corners at the front it cannot be beat. I know you always talk about that dolphin look on 40's and 50's cars I have to say that if I squeeze my eyes tight and look at the profile of the new age Mercury it has a very nice contour line at the front, I love the way the hood is sectioned, but what I don't understand is why the hood is now pancaked, and when viewed from the side it has gained a character line . . . and that is even made worse by scribing and accenting the top of the fender line by scribing a line there. The rather heavy peak on the hood and cowl is very much out of scale and has lost all of it elegance the original hood had.

Well, this is a clear difference of opinion. The Merc hood is just awful – it's bulbous, over -shaped, grossly out of proportion, and presents a bottle-nosed dolphin appearance.  A hood peak doesn't make an otherwise awful hood beautiful. There isn't much more basic than substituting a good shape for a bad one, and that's what I attempted here. On any analysis, the '49 Ford hood design is a better one than the Merc hood. The new Ford hood is only partially pancaked - I'll admit that's a mixed bag stylistically, but I don't like the Merc hood which opens all the way back to the door.

What is very interesting, though, is the extending of the peak onto the very nicely shaped cowl. One more note on the hood. Why is the center character line on the hood not recessed like all other character lines on this custom, perhaps the hood peak should have beer recessed as well to tie-up the added design elements. 

I don't see any reason to recess all character lines on a design any more than all character lines would have to be raised.

The frenched headlights look very traditional . . . I like them very much, on any customized Mercury, except for this one perhaps. Since this is a new age Mercury, one would have expected a bit more modern approach on the headlight treatment here.

The article title shouldn't guide our assessment of a design here. The "new age" phrase doesn't necessarily imply an angled Mercedes-headlight design which headlight layout is entirely too trendy these days. One could critique these headlights for being too deeply recessed with too wide a bezel, but not on other grounds. 

A few more things that would have helped sharpening up this custom would have been not rounding of all bottom corners of the body so much, and making the otherwise very nice fender flares a bit sharper where they are molded into the fenders. They now look like they where added on with to much bondo.  The rolled pan up front and in the rear are fine, but the corner on the rear of the front wheel opening could have been a smaller radius

Fair comments.

On to the front. I think the bumper should have had the same "V" shape as the grille and the front of the hood, again this would have helped adding character to the custom, and some more sharpness to the design.

Good point.

I like the idea of recessing the bumper into the roll pan at the front, but at the rear it could have run on to the sides a bit more, now it appears the rear quarters are several scale inches too long, when the chrome bumper had curved around the corner it would have made the rear quarters much more interesting.

Another good point.

I like the simple grille, but perhaps the opening is a bit too high, the grille seams to be floating around in a way to large hole. The ends of the grille are mounted to the sides of the grille opening and create a sort of second opening underneath the grille where the bumper has a recess. A very nice styling element but it does not seem to work here. Perhaps the grill opening itself (the painted area) needs to be more rounded inwards, act like a visual tunnel, perhaps the top outer edge could have used a small chrome strip as well.

I disagree. I think the front grille shell is just right, and a chrome surround molding would have added unnecessary and distracting glitzy-ness to the front end.

Two more overall criticisms. I think that all custom cars should be lowered in some way.

Sheesssh!!! This model has been lowered a lot. The body has been deeply channeled over the frame. A pre-eminent commitment to lowering may look cool if all one is after is the "gotcha" appearance, but real world, sensible operation means that stylists need to think about ramp angles, crossing road obstacles, and avoiding the insane preoccupation these days with shrouding so much of the radius of wheels and tires.

Especially with available air bag systems it should not be any problem any more to create a car that sits low and beautiful when standing and could be raised for highway cruising.

This point about modern "lifting" technology entirely misses the point about esthetics. Why is it preferable to lower cars, at any stage of their operation, so that the body/frame come close to scraping the ground? I challenge Rik and others to challenge their most basic assumptions about this issue. 

In fact Citroen in Europe has been outfitting most of their production cars with a certain system. So this custom could have been much lower, and even better overall lowered a few inches and slightly lower in the rear than in the front. To create visual speed.

Why? What is the (supposed) esthetic "magic" about a ground scraping body? And on what esthetic theory should the rear of a car be lower than the front?

And those wire wheels . . . they certainly don't work on a custom like this, it almost looks like somebody want to make a sports car out of a '49 Mercury. Smooth perhaps modernized 49 Caddy (like the first version of Cadzilla had) sombrero hubcaps or some other modern smooth wheels or hubcaps would have added much more elegance to this custom. 56 Lincoln style hubcaps come to mind as well, simple elegant hubcaps that don't take away attention like these wire wheels do.

Again, I wanted to challenge the largely automatic assumptions that are made about custom Mercs. As if a more "sporty" look to a custom Merc is an esthetic offense, I don't see any strength in the argument that hackneyed Caddy hubcaps or Cadzilla-like too-large wheels are preferable. And the wire wheels take attention away from what?

So overall I have the impression a lot of modifications are made for the sake of modifying, customizing a body, but not necessarily to create a more interesting or elegant custom.

So that is my opinion on the 49 Mercury New age custom. The way I would have done it will be further described by the digital renderings I did. 

I am intrigued that you didn't comment upon the body which is much "lighter" now through the body sectioning. While I'll concede that the back of the roof and rear quarter panels are largely a 'miss," the lightened body, resculpted front clip and open-air window design have really kept this from being just another boring traditional custom Merc!

I am grateful for Rik's thoughtful and adventuresome critique! Rik's a great friend , and I appreciate the time he took to critique my half-successful Merc design.

Bob Dudek:

I have only two comments. The elimination of the character "Merc" line on the body and also if the hood is peaked, the grille in the middle comes to a point, why is the roll pan rounded? Do you have any other colors of paint besides red?

I eliminated the "hip" in the door/side character line because it is ugly. You make a great point about the inconsistency between the smooth front bumper/rolled pan and the peaked hood and front grille shell. I have a LOT of colors except red – did you read my Car Modeler articles on the metalflake green restyled '62 Pontiac Grand Prix and the pearl light blue restyled '60 Chevy?

Karl Sheffer:

Greetings Mark!

Below is my critique of your Merc based on the published photos in the magazine (no rear shots are included).

Overall this is a nice design. The mild sectioning was well done to remove the bulkiness of the body after the top was chopped. The flow of the new roofline is helped by the elimination of the B pillars and the new size of the window openings. 

However, I feel that there are a few confusing elements in the modifications that were performed.  The recessed headlights are in contrast to the flush windows, taillights and bumpers. The "flat" front bumper does not mimic the pointed hood and grill assembly. 

These points are well made. Good critique!

The whitewall tires and spoked rims also seem to be at odds with the "flush" features mentioned above.

Well, maybe. 

The cowl cleanup and removing the windshield peak were great ideas and come off well. The stance is excellent, but I would recommend a different tire and wheel setup (maybe some modern billets (16 – 17 inches – no bigger) and blackwalls). The windshield wipers almost look like an afterthought and appear to be too small to be effective. They should be repositioned, replaced with larger units, or removed altogether.

Yeah, the windshield wiper design and placement were an absolute disaster!

There is something about the roof incut that I do not like, but I cannot put a finger on why. Maybe the angle of the incut vs. the angle of the back window?

The back window isn't a success. If I were to do it again, I'd taper it to be narrower at the bottom that at the top. Good catch!

This is a great new look for a body style that has been modified in numerous iterations over the years. Thanks for the opportunity. I look forward to the other installments and your own critique. Lots of great information so far!

Thanks, Karl, for your thoughtful remarks!

Jason Herring:

Overall, a very nice looking custom Merc (we've both seen some bad ones! LOL!). The windshield's relationship to the Apillar disturbs me a little. The rounded corner falls short of the top edge of the pillar, leaving an odd shape where most cars and trucks have a nice parallelism in their designs. The width of the pillar, and/or the overall shape of the windshield needs a bit more rework for proper flow. You were correct in choosing to rework the upper corner to reduce the bulge, but the upper corners lack a total cohesiveness. That, and the windshield edge would probably look better if it were integrated into the edge of the incut you designed into the roofperhaps the incut could start at the top corner of the windshield?

Generally, I agree with you here, Jason.

The windshield wipers show that the car is meant to be street driven, but they are far too short to clean the windshield! At best, with their length and placement, the middle third of the glass is going to be left unswept. I suggest that moving the wipers inboard a few scale inches would solve the coverage problem, and maybe a slightly longer wiper blade would workthe current blades appear to be shorter than the height of the glass.

Yeah, you're right. This element of the model is a disaster!

The front end styling works for me. It reminds me of a custom '502 Chevy that was featured in at least one of the custom car magazines back in the '50s (I forget which mag, but IIRC, the car was a hardtop). The understated grill is a nice touch. The chop and section jobs are visually satisfying. Not too much, and the work is not heavyhanded. This car does pull off the 'dechromed' look quite well.

It's probably my imagination, but to my eyes, the roof profile has the faint resemblance to the roof line of the 'aborted' '49 Mercury fastback sedan that was proposed early in the real car's design phase. That body appeared in earlyproduction factory service manuals, but apparently was never released to the public. Hmmm...

You're the only one to catch this. I was influenced by that stillborn Mercury design study. I don't think my "take" on this worked any better than the Ford version!

Excellent insight, Jason. Thanks for your time.

Jon Cole:

Sorry, but I just cannot. With all due respect, I cannot. Obviously, many cannot tell that info about their own builds. The only person(s) that I would seek out a styling opinion of a model that I built

would have to be formally trained as an automotive stylist, as a minimum. Just my personal opinion here, not to say anything to disqualify you. So I do respect such requests, but do not participate. Again, with no disrespect meant, I just frequently disagree with your assessments of other people's work in your past magazine contest. But I must admit, I really do think that you are one of the countries top builders.

I respect your point here, Jon. I think styling knowledge can be picked up in many ways, and not strictly through formal study at the Art Center (for instance). I have a very large library of vintage and contemporary auto styling books and manuals and I have profited from those tomes. And I am grateful for your nice compliment. 

Jeff Worsham:

Mark, that's funny I had started thinkin' about it and picked up the article again to take a look. Kinda stalled in the process due to lack of rear view. How does the taillight assembly look? Bumper treatment and rear pan? License plate treatment? BTW, thanks for doing the article in spite of your time constraints. Speaking for myself, your work is very influential.

Please check out the rear shots on this page. Thanks for your nice remarks.

George Christy:

Never say anything about other people's work, You only hear about it for a week.

Well, you know, I think you're onto something here. I got some really tough letters when I first started the Custom Clinic Photo Contest ten years ago. Since then, my commitment to critiques, not criticisms, has become clear (I hope). I think thoughtful critiques are very helpful and can assist us in becoming better model car stylists and builders. 

Darin (Asheville modeler):

Actually over all I think it is a good-looking car. That said I'll start with the things I would change if I were the builder. then I'll finish with what I like about it.

1. The rear of the belt line catches my eye (in a bad way). I would have either given it an increasing radiused curve down to the rear bumper or had it go almost straight back and disappear into the body as it curved around the back.

Hmmm. Interesting thoughts.

2. The front end doesn't say "Merc" to me I've always believed that the best customs retain enough of the original styling so people almost have to guess what you did. they would say " that Merc looks great what did he do?" I would have left off the peaking of the hood and left in more of the Merc bull nose. a heavier bumper would also give the car some more visual length. Custom Mercs should be low and long.

I think the front end is a success except for the inconsistency between the peaked hood/front grille shell and the smooth front bumper and rolled pan. Dispatching that UGLY Merc hood was a central goal and I think that was a good decision.

3. The chrome trim around the windshield and back lights and the wheel and tire combo. the roof line of this car says Modern hitech custom, but the windows and the wheels say 'fifties & sixties lowrider custom. Some flush mounted windows and some low profile tires would give the car less of a split personality. The whitewalls definitely have to go.

Good points. There is a bit of automotive schizophrenia here! 

Ok what I like about it. It is built in the style of its owner. The car screams "Uncle Gus" from the rounded lines to the soft details in the body work, I can tell right away it's one of yours. Just like Roth, Starbird, and Watson had a style this is your style.

Well, thank you very much. I am very complimented!

I like the new roofline it is something that hasn't been done yet on a Merc (that I've seen).

The stance is good it sits well and would be drivable. over all it's a very attractive car.

Ragtop Man:

To me, customs are hard to grade; individual parts really are only meaningful in the context of the whole thing. For example, I might love a frenched headlight, but feel it is out of place in the overall picture.

My first impression, overall, was very favorable. It is difficult, at best to find something original to do with a '4951 Merc that hasn't been done a million times already. You definitely took it out of '56 and well into the 60's with the look, especially the recontouring of the DLO's. Knocking down the hood, removing the bulbous-ness creates a much more continental feel that the traditional bullnoseandflames with Appletons look.

However, taking down the hood seems to overemphasize the greenhouse. The visual mass is not overpowering but you can see it from there. Giving a car this crouched for action look is not unheard of (see, Mach 1, 1969) but there's not a lot in a custom to pay off this high performance proportioning. Feels a lot like the Aeroback GM cars of the late '40s.

Yup, and intentionally so. I just wished I had pulled off the '41 Cadillac torpedo-roof styling better!

I'm not wild about the modifcation of the fadeaway sculpture on the side it didn't go away, but it's not a prominent cue to relieve the bulk in the way the original was intended. Needs to land one place or the other.

Interesting point.

The rest of the details are quite good, really. My only question would be defining which era the car truly belongs to ... it seems to borrow from a lot of them. I'm not so retentive as to believe that you just can't mix one with the other, but the overall theme isn't as clear to me as something like a CadZZilla, or Matranga's Merc, or the Abrother's Adonis, etc.

Yeah, no kidding. I'll think through the design a bit better next time! 

It's really not fair; this is a model built by a well-read enthusiast, while CadZZilla was designed by a guy with the bonafides to eventually sit in the Chief Designer's chair at a big time car company.

Well, I don't mind your point at all. I don't pretend to be Bob Bordinat, and I think that an "amateur" education about auto styling can be a very effective thing.

Thanks for your excellent insights! 

Darryl Gassaway:

I know we have already talked about this model, but I couldn't resist. Being a traditional custom builder it is hard for me to judge the more modern styled customs. In my opinion a custom lives and dies with style and design. All customs have aspects that are worthy of some praise, if for no other reason then the body work performed or the design changes. It is the rare custom that combines both aspects. In the case of your Merc there are many great design aspects and from the pictures the craftsmanship looks excellent.

When I look at a custom the first thing I look for is the "does it work" factor. This means do the modifications flow together to make a pleasing presentation. Secondly, I look for a theme. To me that means picking a style and staying true to the style. Nothing is worse than a hodge -podge of different styles being thrown together and being called a custom. Finally I deplore the "because I can" school of customs. These are cars that have incredible amounts of superior body work performed with no thought given to the overall look of the car once finished.

In the case of the New Age Merc there are many favorible design changes. The hood for instance, was brilliant. It completely changes the profile of the car without destroying the design. I have mixed feelings about the fastback roof line, but that is acceptable since the overall design of the car supports this change.

As soon as other views are made available I will be able to critique the model completely. As for what I have seen so far, I'd say this has a chance to be a truly superior custom. That by the way is not something I say often about many models.

Ok now you've picked what's left of my brain.

I appreciate your comments, Darryl. I think there are some real problems with this design, and then there are some new design elements that are first rate! I'll do better next time!

From Juha Airio:

Hi Mark,

Here's my critique on the New Age Mercury.

At a first glance, the most significant feature of your customizing work on the New Age Merc seems to be the overall roundness of shapes and simplicity, almost up to the point of general lack of details or even character. While such features can be virtues and are basically OK in many customs, it appears to me that combined in this manner and on the basic '49 Mercury design, they do not work in the best possible manner, the end result being simply too round and basic. Not perhaps like a potato as Rik pointed out, but still.

I think you're certainly correct about the rear half of the rear quarter panels and the back of the roof. However, I think the front end design generally works really well (there are some minor design elements on the front clip that could be improved).

Up in front, the frenched headlights work well, as does the peaked hood and extended front rolled pan with its recessed bumper. However, perhaps the bumper/pan combination makes the lower front end appear somehow weak, especially in the center. What I might change is the grille though as I feel it is now all too simple, even for a custom; perhaps adding more teeth would relieve this, in combination with a slightly thicker front bumper with more vee to it. As for the hood, it and the front fenders look in side view nice but, I'd go back to the original, nonpancaked design. This would eliminate the additional indented character line between the front fenders and hood and the original style hood/fender line would be a natural starting point for the character line continuation in the doors. I would thus keep this line in the doors and rear fenders the way you did it, as this gives the model a nice, somewhat Lincolnesque look.

I think you're onto something with your front clip critique. Good insights.

Moving backwards, there are all too many mail box slot windowed chopped customs, but I'd still reduce the height of your windshield opening slightly; this area now reminds me of a Revell '53 Chevy, which certainly is not a positive feature in my book.

I agree, I think. I think the "problem" you see could be visually reduced by angling the windshield back a bit the way Rik did in his Photoshop redesign.

Also, I'd make the chrome windshield surround thinner and extend it to the lower window opening as well. Finally, I'd move the massive windshield wipers slightly inboard.

Right on. I agree.

The top chop is OK as such, as is basically the Fleetline style rear roof section; after all, this is the most prominent design idea on this car and I'd keep it as is. The too rounded overall appearance I criticized might originate at least partially from the lower side window opening, or more likely from the lack of the lower window frame/character line and the lack of the continuation of this line to the

Cpillars, as on the original Merc design. Keeping/adding this line at least partially might also relieve the slabsideness of the upper rear quarter panel/Cpillar area.

Yes, I agree with you here. Eliminating the visually obnoxious original belt line character line on the factory line exposed the problem of which you speak, and I didn't solve the problem very well. 

Also, the indented character line in the roof, starting in the Apillars would not be needed in this case and could be deleted altogether.

I really disagree with you here. That roof character line defines the edge of the roof, and restrains the eye just falling over the side of the roof to the upper doors.

Also, keeping the original Merc door line might work better than the widened door which makes it simply too large in my opinion.

My door maybe a bit too long, but the factory door is obviously too short for the size of the body.

The problem of the too much rounded shape is most noticeable in the rear view. The solution here might be to add '51 Mercury style rear fenders so that the trunk (kept basically as you did it) would be partially "indented between" the rear fenders. Your rear bumper/valance design is in concert with the front end of the car but I'd suggest altering this area by making the bumper somewhat stronger in overall appearance: perhaps slightly thicker and extended more to sides to the rear fenders.

I think you and Rik have really made a good point here. Wish I'd thought of it!

 I might also lower the rear window opening, to better match the lowered windshield; perhaps making the corners slightly rounder could balance the design.

Right on! The base of the window should be narrower than the top. I really screwed this up!

Finally I'd replace the wire wheels with some traditional custom style full wheel covers, plus lower the suspension, especially in the rear; this would not mean the traditional heavy lead sled appearance as you did not add any fender skirts (which seldom seem to work properly).

I like the wire wheels, and wish I'd better examples of the same. Why are wire wheels anathema to so many stylists? 

Some minor critique could be pointed towards the too soft fender flares, especially in combination with the rounded lower wheel opening corners.

The wheel well flares could have been made more crisp. 

Ditto for the absence of drip rails; while this latter is certainly a traditional custom trick the rails might in this case add to the design, perhaps even as chromed items, as there is no chrome trim anywhere else to be seen in the side view. 

Interesting point, but I think that drip rails would have been "at war" with my roof character line.

Taken together, I apparently found much to critisize and consequently suggested many alterations, up to the point almost loosing your original idea, making this all sound like a referee's comment to a scientific article submitted for publication in a well cited journal with a high impact factor. Customizing model cars isn't meant to be science (despite the title of a certain model car magazine in the '60s!) or to be taken too seriously. It is true that for instance I do several sketches before attempting any customizing project. Sometimes I feel that being too thorough in such a process may lead to losing the original idea or fun factor of the entire process. Thus, the above is only a collection of my comments about some of the features of your model. With all the alterations I suggested the model might not become any better, perhaps even vice versa. It is always easier to present a critique than to be the original designer/builder of the model to be critiqued.

Thanks, Juha, for your excellent and thoughtful points.  I am grateful for the time and effort you took. 

From Dave Mikrut:

I haven't been buying Scale Auto lately, but today I saw the February 2004 issue and the cover car -- and Mark Gustavson's new custom Merc REALLY caught my eye. I also have always liked the way he still shows his styrene dusted fingers in the photos so you feel you're along with him on the build. I have read and reread his article and it once again confirmed what I already knew and that is Mark really knows his stuff about modeling and automotive styling. I've been reading car magazines for 40 some years and this Merc is at the top of my favorite Mercs. It's styling is so different yet the same that it seems as though every inch has changed but it still looks like a custom Merc! If any design deserved a second look as to maybe becoming a future concept car, this one would be it.

Sheeshhh... I'm blushing! I appreciate your remarks, Dave, but there are some real design glitches with this model.