Jump to content


In the 60s and '70s model kit bodies were soo much more accurate


  • You cannot reply to this topic
37 replies to this topic

#21 pharoah

pharoah

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 658 posts
  • Location:Shelbyville,IN
  • Full Name:John Farrow

Posted 21 January 2014 - 01:07 PM

Agreed, but, who made that and what kind of quality control department do they have?  A bunch of chimpanzees and monkeys? 

It's a Palmer kit. actually the parts fit wasn't all that bad except for the windshield and frame. it has those horrible hard vinyl tires that you have to  force the wheels on to. I get the feeling they didn't want to get (or couldn't afford) the licensing fees to make an exact replica. .So they made this thing that kinda looks like a Corvette.

I build this probably about 5 or 6 years ago mostly to see how bad it really was. Hey, it was cheap. It didn't disappoint me in it's badness either. I knew to stay away from them when I was a kid.



#22 Tom Geiger

Tom Geiger

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,470 posts
  • Location:Exton, PA
  • Full Name:Tom Geiger

Posted 21 January 2014 - 01:13 PM

Remember it was a different market back in the day.... the main customers were kids and we didn't know any better.  How far do you think a kit manufacturer would get putting stock bodies in funny car kits today?  

 

Funny thing. The target audience back then was the very same people who are in the manufacturers target audience today.  Only we growed up against our will and we're a cranky lot!



#23 pharoah

pharoah

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 658 posts
  • Location:Shelbyville,IN
  • Full Name:John Farrow

Posted 21 January 2014 - 06:16 PM

 

  Only we growed up against our will and we're a cranky lot!

Maybe we grew up physically ,but we still have our toys!



#24 Ron Hamilton

Ron Hamilton

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,415 posts
  • Location:Bowie, MD
  • Full Name:Ronald Hamilton

Posted 21 January 2014 - 07:11 PM

Were they really?

 

:unsure: :rolleyes: ;)

 

BTW can anyone guess which brand released this pony?

 

DSCN2060_zpsa3053c54.jpg

 

DSCN2059_zps682b522d.jpg

It was the MPC annual kit. I built one of those in 1967, and had a ball doing it. Of course I was 10 years old. I also built an AMT kit. I guess I like Mustangs. Hey! I have a '67 Mustang under construction.

 

2009_0117janmomameeting090028.jpg


Edited by Ron Hamilton, 21 January 2014 - 07:15 PM.


#25 Skydime

Skydime

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,358 posts
  • Location:Eastern Kentucky, US
  • Full Name:Ken Black

Posted 21 January 2014 - 07:14 PM

It's a Palmer kit. actually the parts fit wasn't all that bad except for the windshield and frame. it has those horrible hard vinyl tires that you have to  force the wheels on to. I get the feeling they didn't want to get (or couldn't afford) the licensing fees to make an exact replica. .So they made this thing that kinda looks like a Corvette.

I build this probably about 5 or 6 years ago mostly to see how bad it really was. Hey, it was cheap. It didn't disappoint me in it's badness either. I knew to stay away from them when I was a kid.

Oh yeah!  It's bad!  But the work putting it together doesn't look shabby!  B)



#26 Modelmartin

Modelmartin

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,738 posts
  • Location:Minneapolis, MN
  • Full Name:Martin, Andrew O.

Posted 22 January 2014 - 01:44 AM

Were they really?

 

:unsure: :rolleyes: ;)

 

 

 

 

 

In most cases the accuracy of the bodies was excellent. The car manufacturers supplied the drawings of the cars body shapes for making the promotional models. No measuring or interpretation required. I think Palmer went from memory!

 

 

 

 



#27 ZTony8

ZTony8

    MCM Avid Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 442 posts
  • Location:Eastpointe,Michigan
  • Full Name:Tony Buglione

Posted 22 January 2014 - 05:54 AM

I wonder how many of the "accurate" models of yore were sized to fit their box(?)

I've been doing some repacking of old builds into a particular sized box and am amazed that a Jo-Han '69 DeVille and an AMT '66 Wildcat each just fit into this box.The real Caddy was longer that the real Buick.



#28 plowboy

plowboy

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,231 posts
  • Location:in the middle
  • Full Name:Roger Hayes

Posted 22 January 2014 - 07:39 AM

Exactly Andy! Every promo I have from the '60s and '70s looks practically dead on to the real car. I'm sure there are some that I don't own that don't. But, for the most part, AMT and MPC were capturing the look of the real car about as good as could or can be expected. Maybe the kit companies should go back to the way they were doing things before.

 

Here's a photo of a restored promo from MPC's first year of producing promos for Chevrolet. The only thing I found wrong with it was the location of the emblem on the header panel. It should be just above the top of the grille. I didn't notice it until it was way too late. More than likey, that was due to a change by Chevrolet after the drawings were sent to MPC.

 

002-18.jpg

 

 



#29 JS23U

JS23U

    MCM Friend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Location:Germany
  • Full Name:Jens Kriete

Posted 22 January 2014 - 10:01 AM

Great build!

I agree with you on the accuracy of most old models. There are although some that are not so nice. The 69 Firebird is such an example. I would love to build an accurate Trans Am or Firebird 400.

AMTs 68 Ford Galaxie isn't the nicest one either. Too large wheel wells, funny looking vent windows among other things. I have yet to see a corrected build of that beautiful car.



#30 moparfarmer

moparfarmer

    MCM Avid Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Location:Winnipeg Manitoba Canada
  • Full Name:Wayne Farmer

Posted 22 January 2014 - 10:15 AM

The older bodies were great, the chassis and engines and underhood detail let lots to be desired..The best older kits were the JoHan 64 and up flat boxed kits..The early JoHan stuff the body was nice but interiors and chassis and engines with holes were not..The interiors were too shallow but the bodies were right on with good detail and engraving...My two cents...



#31 blueovl150

blueovl150

    MCM Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Location:Grandview, MO
  • Full Name:Pat Volenec

Posted 25 January 2014 - 04:23 AM

Is that the big Renwal kit??

#32 Art Anderson

Art Anderson

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,733 posts

Posted 25 January 2014 - 11:31 AM

I wonder how many of the "accurate" models of yore were sized to fit their box(?)

I've been doing some repacking of old builds into a particular sized box and am amazed that a Jo-Han '69 DeVille and an AMT '66 Wildcat each just fit into this box.The real Caddy was longer that the real Buick.

Good point!

 

Most are unaware (and were back in the day), that automakers (GM in particular) were rather adamant that all promotional model cars fit in exactly the same box (or as in the case of the new-for-1962 compact cars, two standard sized boxes).  That lead to some rather creative "dimensioning" on JoHan's part for their 59-62 Cadillacs:  Overall, their bodies are only slightly longer than a 1/25 scale Chevy Impala, but yet are a tad narrower.  Their front clips and trunk area's are shorter than they should be, while the "greenhouses" are very close to the correct length front-to-back, the entire body shells are a good 1/8" too narrow (3" in 1/25 scale).  From 1963 all the way out to the last JoHan promotional and kit Cadillacs (their last one was the 1979 Fleetwood Coupe de Ville) are all seriously undersized, no larger than an early-mid 1970's Impala, as you noted.

 

JoHan's Studebaker Lark promos (1960, 1961 and 1962--the 62's were morphed into 3in1 model kits) are all oversized, approximately 1:22.5 scale, which makes them tower over most any other 1/25 scale model car kit.

 

AMT/SMP comes in for some criticism as well, at least from me:  The SMP 1959-60 Chevrolet Impala convertible kits all have a terribly inaccurate windshield frame, that having a pronounced upward, curved "arch" to the top of the windshield frame, and the '60 Chevy grille only barely resembles the real car's--and does not begin to fit the kit body shell at all correctly or cleanly.  Their 1960 El Camino and '60 Impala Nomad 4dr station wagon bodies have roof lines that are the lower hardtop/convertible height, when the real cars' rooflines were a good 2-3" taller, with a more vertical windshield.  In fact, the only accurately done Chevy bodyshell from that era of Chevy is on the '59 El Camino (which started out as a much more highly detailed "Trophy Series" kit.  The SMP 59-61 Corvette kits (as well as the AMT '62 Corvette) have a front end that is almost as blunt as a brick--and the lower pan is far to square--to the point it almost suggests a chipmunk with cheeks full of unchewed nuts.  The chrome "wheel covers" on the SMP '59 Impala HT kit are not wheel covers at all--SMP tooled up the standard equipment "dog dish" hubcap on a steelie, as opposed to the very stylish and popular Impala full wheel cover.

 

AMT's almost iconic '61 Pontiac Bonneville kit bodies are not symmetrical--that bold, raised character shape down the sides closely matches the real car on the right side of the body, but the left side?  Ewwww!  It's not even done straightly!.  Their '65 Bonneville HT kit has a correct shape to the right rear quarter window opening, while the left side is way off--too arched, the C-post too vertical as well.

 

AMT's '32 Ford kits?  Lots of inaccuraces there, roadster and coupe bodies whose shapes only resemble the real thing (Revell has gotten their 21st Century kits of the Deuce much, MUCH more accurate.  The AMT '32 Ford Phaeton and Tudor sedan bodies are considerably too narrow behind the B-post, and the Tudor sedan body is far too rounded at the roof behind the B-post as well.  While AMT's 40 Ford coupe and sedan kits are actually pretty accurate, their '40 Ford sedan delivery body is considerably too narrow aft of the B-post, and much too slab-sided--all this happened apparently to allow the use of the coupe/sedan fender/running board unit.

 

Now, lest anyone think I'm just dissing those old models and the people who created them, I'm not, really.  They were the product of companies just learning the fine art of creating decent plastic model kits--in the case of their "annual series" customizing kits, they were handicapped by having to deal with only such information as the styling departments of the automakers were willing to let out to them, and only minimal measurements at that.  The pattern-makers were still in a learning curve I suspect--most of them, while highly skilled, were more than likely recruits out of other industries and had to transfer their basic hand skills from creating tooling for say, consumer goods to miniaturizing real cars into model kit tooling.  There were only limited factory drawings of those body shells, most real car body shapes were transferred from clay mockups to steel tooling without benefit of drawings or certainly 3D scans (that technology in the late 50's was a good half century out into the future.

 

But, since the premise of this thread is accuracy yesterday VS today, in general, model car kits of those days of yore weren't necessarily better than what we see today--albeit they were masterpieces of the designer's and toolmaker's art.

 

Art



#33 ZTony8

ZTony8

    MCM Avid Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 442 posts
  • Location:Eastpointe,Michigan
  • Full Name:Tony Buglione

Posted 27 January 2014 - 06:46 AM

Fine observations,Art.And why,even to this day,I hesitate to say that an old version of a model is either better or worse than a newer version.Liberties are still taken with sizes and shapes.



#34 johnbuzzed

johnbuzzed

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 930 posts
  • Location:Indian Land, SC
  • Full Name:John "the Buzzard" Buzzerio

Posted 27 January 2014 - 10:02 AM

Agreed, but, who made that and what kind of quality control department do they have?  A bunch of chimpanzees and monkeys? 

Keep in mind that Palmer Plastics produced the Stingray kit in the mid '60's.  Their kits (along with just about all of the other manufacturers then) were meant to be built by kids (who are now around my age) who really didn't care too much about scale fidelity and exact realism (as we do now).  Plus, they were cheaper than the other manufacturer's kits at that time.


Edited by johnbuzzed, 27 January 2014 - 10:23 AM.


#35 pharoah

pharoah

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 658 posts
  • Location:Shelbyville,IN
  • Full Name:John Farrow

Posted 27 January 2014 - 06:21 PM

Keep in mind that Palmer Plastics produced the Stingray kit in the mid '60's.  Their kits (along with just about all of the other manufacturers then) were meant to be built by kids (who are now around my age) who really didn't care too much about scale fidelity and exact realism (as we do now).  Plus, they were cheaper than the other manufacturer's kits at that time.

I was one of those kids and I knew back then they were a piece of BLAH_BLAH_BLAH_BLAH. Cheap-yes.

I imagine a lot of them ended up being the victims of firecrackers and various other forms of destruction.

(See other thread about that)



#36 Danno

Danno

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,988 posts
  • Location:Okay. By now you all know ~ Aridzona.
  • Full Name:Nameless Natural Luminary

Posted 27 January 2014 - 07:49 PM

Even as a kid "way back then" I knew accuracy.  I wasn't as knowledgeable then, but I certainly knew when a model just didn't look right.



#37 slusher

slusher

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,385 posts
  • Location:tennessee
  • Full Name:carl slusher

Posted 27 January 2014 - 08:48 PM

It's us that have become more particular.

 

 

 Some of the builders here have more experience and a few years on me. I am 48 and been building like most since I was a kid. Kits today that are talked about things not being accurate I can't notice unless its pointed out and I really doesn't  bother me I guess because I see kits as being real good quality in todays market like Revell. I built some bad kits as a kid that I know are not great. Now that Palmer Stingray I would have known something was wrong as a kid. I do agree with Craig we are more particular.   



#38 Art Anderson

Art Anderson

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,733 posts

Posted 27 January 2014 - 10:10 PM

Fine observations,Art.And why,even to this day,I hesitate to say that an old version of a model is either better or worse than a newer version.Liberties are still taken with sizes and shapes.

 

 

Tony, it is hard to say, without some serious reference work, and careful review on most issues--yes, every so often, a new model car kit gets released with even small but (to some) still glaring errors.

 

I would, however, submit that every so often in the model kit industry, there comes a "learning curve" which has almost always been the case as designers, pattern makers, even the "product development executives" leave their respective companies and are replaced (turnover).  In addition, for all the "ballyhoo" and almost "religious devotion" to new and upcoming technology--again I am certain that a serious "learning curve" is very much a part of that equation as well.

 

Art