Revell Ed Roth 57 Bel Air - Suddenly It's 1963!

[Harry P.]

I think Jairus Watson did it. Maybe he will confirm that since he posts here.

Jairus did it. His signature is right in front of the rear wheel.

[John Goschke]

That's a business decision that model companies are making over and over and over again. That's exactly what a "re-issue" is. Same old kit, maybe new decals, maybe new box. It's done all the time.

Yep. I get that.

Fortunately, in most cases the re-issued product has some redeeming value and, if we're lucky, someone will realize they need to add more value than new decals. Round 2's recent re-issue of the '36 Ford being a case in point where they included long-lost parts from previous issues, though they still couldn't see their way to fixing longstanding problems with the original product.

In the case of the re-release of this notorious '57 Chevy kit the cynicism behind the "business" decision seems clearly evident and, from here, seems inexplicable given the existence of a much better kit of the same car in their portfolio of molds. Of course, looked at with the widespread corporate vision that values profits over quality and a desire to give the customer an enjoyable experience, I'm sure it makes sense.

[Harry P.]

In the case of the re-release of this notorious '57 Chevy kit the cynicism behind the "business" decision seems clearly evident and, from here, seems inexplicable given the existence of a much better kit of the same car in their portfolio of molds.

I agree with you, it's tough to figure that one.

[Brett Barrow]

Jairus did it. His signature is right in front of the rear wheel.

Ah yes, I see it now, thanks. Great job, Jarius!

[Spooky Benson]

In the case of the re-release of this notorious '57 Chevy kit the cynicism behind the "business" decision seems clearly evident and, from here, seems inexplicable given the existence of a much better kit of the same car in their portfolio of molds.

But marketing a snap kit to the same folks who bought the Roth '56 Ford pickup would have been a tough sell. And, at the same time, it isn't likely that youngsters ... the audience to which Revell primarily markets its snap kits ... would have much interest in a Roth product.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Spooky Benson

[unclescott58]

Tell us and show us more of the kit itself. How bad is it? People say that Revell's '56 Ford truck is bad too. I didn't find it too bad. Again, not as good as AMT's '53 Ford truck. But it was not so bad that couldn't build into a fairly decent looking truck. I understand how tough some of the old Revell kits could be to build. In general I avoided them back in the 1960's and 70's. I always found AMT, MPC, Jo-Han, and Monogram models cars easier to build, and much more satisfying when finished. But, I am a little better builder now than I was then. At the same time I still find some of Revells older kits, like their gassers, with their weak front axles and such not worth bothering with. Which is this? Is it more like Revell's gassers? Or more like Revell's '56 Ford truck and Hemi Hydro which I find both to be OK?

In these reviews I'd like to see more of the kits themselves. And less on the opinions on whether a kit should have been reissued or not. There are several older kits that I may like that others do not for one reason or another. For example I still like AMT's '32 Fords kits. I like Revell's more modern tooled '32s better. But I still enjoy the old steel axle AMT kits. There things about AMT's '32 roadster I dislike. Like the firewall setup if your going to use the Hemi. I'd like to hear more about problems like that. More facts and less opinions. Note I say less opinions. Doesn't mean we need to stop giving our opinions. I just want to know more about the models themselves.

Scott

[Karl LaFong]

I'd have to agree that reissuing this 57 Chevy vs. the snap kit is an odd business decision. When I bought it I was well aware of the pitfalls of this kit (like I said, I like the challenge), but it seems that this kit would give the Revell haters plenty of ammo. I'm not a rivet counter, but it's even obvious to me that it doesn't look right - not as bad as a Palmer, but not as good as AMT's circa 1962 version. Coupled with the ill-fitting parts, it's hard to imagine what Revell was thinking in '63. BUT, people did build the kit and even won contests with it (check out old issues of Car Model & Model Car Science) and it did lead to the original 55 & 56 Chevys, so somebody was buying the kits. Moving to the present day, I'm guessing that because of the smaller parts content (& less styrene), Revell could have issued the snap kit with correct wheels and the Roth decal sheet and made a nice profit. More importantly, they would not have had further tarnishing of their reputation.

In answer to Scott's question, I guess it's closer to Revell's 56 Ford truck kit - with patience, it can be built, but probably would be best displayed with the doors open..

[Spooky Benson]

The bottom line with this kitis that it takes a tremendous amount of work and skill to get it together, and, if you do manage to finish it, you're rewarded with a poorly proportioned model that looks less like a '57 Chevy than a caricature of one.

[62rebel]

this is one kit i struggled with several times over the years, right up until the Hot Rod reissue. there are some things about it that i like; it has some of the nicest chromed reverse steel wheels in a kit of the era; it has a pretty detailed small block engine with several induction options; it has operating features that, while fiddly and loose fitting, don't require a master's degree in building to open as you would a "normal" kit... now; it is poorly proportioned, and there are inaccuracies that AMT long ago dealt with very effectively in their landmark kit. the chrome tree is probably 3/4's flash by now, and removing the molded-in side trim is nearly impossible... yes; modern beginner modelers would find this kit abominable. i would probably warn off ANY less-than-experienced builder except that they would learn from building it, as they would any challenging kit. sometimes you have to try a little harder than you want to get the result (or not get it; frustrating, isn't it) that a modern kit can provide right out of the box.

Revell paid the mortgage with the tri-five series in spades. there must have been a rough dozen iterations of them over the years; the '56 IIRC had an optional full-custom interior; the '55 a 409 engine MUCH better than the one in the '53 delivery/sedan kits.

[hemi]

I for one welcome this old kit back with open arms.

[unclescott58]

I for one welcome this old kit back with open arms.

Mr. Bentley. Why do you welcome it back with open arms? When everybody else hates this kit. Is there something good there that others are missing? Since I've never built the kit, I can not say one way or another what is good and what is bad. I suspect from what I've read I will not be buying this kit anytime in the near or even far future. So again, why are you welcoming it back? Convince me this kit has some worth.

Scott

[Guest]

Good luck Kevin. I as well have built the 57, the 56, the 55, and the 57 Nomad, and all of them suck.

[hemi]

Scott it my not be worth the price of a hot wheels car,everything said is pretty much true,it takes a great deal of work to make it look good,but that is part of the fun for me I have always loved these revell kit from that era I have 3 of these and 2 of the 55 and a 56, now if I can find the yellow 57 nomad I'll be in hog heaven

Midnight prowler I agree they are rough but I still love them,but even as a kid I loved them built them all and thought they liked good (my eyes are better now lol.

[Karl LaFong]

I have to agree with Kevin - love it or hate it, it's one kit that will test you skills as a modeler. In spite of all the negatives, I welcome it back - I tried building it when I was 10, now that I'm 58 I intend to finish it!

[Dominik]

I'd have to agree that reissuing this 57 Chevy vs. the snap kit is an odd business decision. When I bought it I was well aware of the pitfalls of this kit (like I said, I like the challenge), but it seems that this kit would give the Revell haters plenty of ammo. I'm not a rivet counter, but it's even obvious to me that it doesn't look right - not as bad as a Palmer, but not as good as AMT's circa 1962 version. Coupled with the ill-fitting parts, it's hard to imagine what Revell was thinking in '63. BUT, people did build the kit and even won contests with it (check out old issues of Car Model & Model Car Science) and it did lead to the original 55 & 56 Chevys, so somebody was buying the kits. Moving to the present day, I'm guessing that because of the smaller parts content (& less styrene), Revell could have issued the snap kit with correct wheels and the Roth decal sheet and made a nice profit. More importantly, they would not have had further tarnishing of their reputation.

In answer to Scott's question, I guess it's closer to Revell's 56 Ford truck kit - with patience, it can be built, but probably would be best displayed with the doors open..

...hmmm....i just finished my 56 Ford PU and it looks good with closed doors. Sure, some more work as the new kits for a "good" finish. But it is an old kit!

The only fault that i missed is to work on the hood...that fits bad...but i am happy with the result.

I have to agree with Kevin - love it or hate it, it's one kit that will test you skills as a modeler. In spite of all the negatives, I welcome it back - I tried building it when I was 10, now that I'm 58 I intend to finish it!

x2!

i always loved the old kits were trunk, doors and hoods are open. for my opinion it doesn't matter for me, if rooflines or some other things aren't correct.

I also built the tri-chevys and the nomads from it. like i wrote: just a little bit more work to make i fit

[Harry P.]

Ah yes, I see it now, thanks. Great job, Jarius!

Jairus. J-A-I-R-U-S.

[Jairus]

Big difference between Revell and Round 2.
At Round 2 John Greczula is the talent behind the boxes and choices of which molds to use. (Plus he hires Brad Leasure from time to time)
It's one mind, with approval from Tom Lowe of course.

At Revell it's a committee. And you know what they say about a committee?

Oh... to those detractors who say Revell can't produce this in the USA. Revell still owns and has use of two injection molding machines here in the U.S.!
So it could be possible...

[Jairus]

Example of that Committee: The illustration in post #1 has three sets of wheels on the photoshop file. The original were first (Buick or Chrysler tri-bar of some year) on the original drawing. Then a set of chrome reverse added to the illustration on another layer. Then they said they wanted the stock hubcaps.
They changed their mind on a lot of things through the process of creating this piece.

But it wasn't nearly as bad as the story regarding the illustration for the "Hemi-Hydro" kit... (That one still hurts)

[Brett Barrow]

Jairus. J-A-I-R-U-S.

Never even noticed that. Been reading and saying it wrong all these years... Thanks, Hairry!

Edited May 29, 2014 by Brett Barrow

[Harry P.]

Never even noticed that. Been reading and saying it wrong all these years... Thanks, Hairry!

You're not the only one. For some reason a lot of people make that same mistake.

[Brett Barrow]

You're not the only one. For some reason a lot of people make that same mistake.

Lots of folks call me "Bart" or "Burt", or they pronounce my last name "borrow" - it's an English word, as in "wheelbarrow"! I can't image what they do to yours or other furrin'-soundin' names...

[Harry P.]

I can't image what they do to yours or other furrin'-soundin' names...

Yep. it's an adventure for a lot of people!

[Guest]

Yeah, it is a lousy kit as I remember. But, I'll still snag one with a coupon to have another crack at it. I'm willing to bet a lot of other people have the same thoughts. I mangled every Revell kit with opening everything I built as a kid. Those kits were the reason I switched over to AMT and Monogram kits.

[Deano]

I have fond memories of the Revell Tri-Fives from my childhood. Them and "Black Cats"!

[Spooky Benson]

Lousy kits need love, too ...

Edited May 29, 2014 by Spooky Benson