StevenGuthmiller

Dry is dry. doesn’t make a difference how, or how fast it gets there. Steve

I was only disagreeing with your statement that "handling did no harm". I suppose it may have looked that way from the beginning, but as the seat back exhibits no "chrome" characteristics whatsoever, as the photo appears to me, I assumed that the handling was the reason for that. In any event, yes, it appears that we agree on the overall performance of Molotow. In my estimation, almost any other chrome substitute will do an equal, or better job. Steve

I’m not trying to be difficult Bill. It was just a simple statement of fact. The photo you posted was a ‘60. My assumption was that you meant to post a photo of a ‘61. I just thought that you might like to have the opportunity to make that correction in lieu of the fact that the ‘60 does in fact have a molded in top. Steve

That’s a ‘60. I would certainly think that the promo would have been molded from the same molds as the kit with a stationary top. Steve

But that does little to explain the differences in the roof construction. My ‘60 Imperial was produced by SMP, as you say the ‘61 was, yet the SMP ‘60 shares the same construction as the AMT ‘62. Steve

I disagree. Looks pretty dull on my screen, and very little like chrome to me, especially the seat back. I’ll repeat what I’ve said before. In order for a chrome substitute to mimic actual chrome, it has to come as close as possible to exhibiting the main property of chrome......reflectivity. By that I mean that the finish should be absolutely smooth and mirror like. You should be able to see your reflection in the finish, and not just some blurry facsimile of your face, but every pimple and errant nose hair should be apparent. If not, it’s just another shiny silver paint. In all honesty, I often see more mirror like properties in well painted bodies than I do in most Molotow finishes. Of course, this is just my opinion. Likewise, I have used Molotow, and nobody is ever going to convince that it will be anything approaching “durable” over the long run. Steve

That was what confused me. After 1959, I don't understand why they would produce separate convertible and hard top kits in 1960, then go back to producing a combined convertible/hard top kit again in '61, and then return again to the separate hard top and convertible kits in '62, especially being as all 3 years shared the same roof design. Usually there's some sort of pattern that you can follow with these old annuals, but apparently not in this case. Steve

Just an old fashioned "Dust Buster", or as in my case, a "Dirt Devil" power sweeper works perfect. Everything goes into a small receptacle smaller than your fist, making finding tiny parts simple. Steve

Just a couple of things that might possibly help you in your search Rich. First, there are several kits that you listed parts wants for that will do just as well with parts taken from more modern kits, especially things such as wheel covers. For instance, the '58 Chevy, '59 Edsel, and '60 Impala all have modern counterparts that you can take wheel covers from. (The '58 Edsel "spinner" wheel cover was an available option in 1959) A few of the other parts, such as the '61 Impala chassis, (should be interchangeable with several other annual style Chevrolet chassis from '61-'64) and the '61 Galaxie fender ornaments can be found in the AMT '61 "Club Coupe" reissued in recent years. Another one to scratch off of your list is the '62 Pontiac Bonneville "stock wheel covers". The AMT '62 Bonneville kit never contained stock wheel covers. Only "8-Lug" wheels, which can be found in numerous other kits. I'll scrounge through some of my stuff to see if I can help you with any of the other stuff Rich. Good luck! Steve

Tried something new tonight. Moroccan Harissa-Garlic shrimp with grilled bread. Steve

Well, in retrospect, I suppose it’s possible that the ‘61 may have been offered with the separate top. I may have been too hasty in my observation, as I don’t have a ‘61. But I do have 60 and a ‘62 Imperial hard tops, and they’re molded to the body. I guess I just assumed that they wouldn’t produce a dedicated hard top in ‘60, revert to the separate top in ‘61, and then back to the molded in top in ‘62, but I suppose it’s possible. Steve

The ‘60 and ‘61 Imperial kits had separately tooled bodies for the hard tops and convertibles. There were no separate tops. Steve

Calling it “Molotov” is a very common screw up that I see on Facebook all of the time. Apparently for a lot of guys, Molotov is the correct spelling. 😊 I’m no “spelling Karen” but I do find it amusing how so many people that swear by the stuff still think it’s called Molotov. That would be like if after using BMF for years, I were calling it “Bright Metal Foil”. 😁 Steve

Correct. A Molotov is a bottle filled with gasoline with a rag stuffed in it. 😁 Steve

It’s not that the ink transfers to your fingers. It’s that the finish dulls if it’s handled too much. Steve