Jump to content


Who thinks Revell should team up with more car builders?


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

#1 greymack

greymack

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 570 posts
  • Location:B.C Canada
  • Full Name:George Mack

Posted 04 January 2013 - 05:53 PM

Hey guys who here thinks that Revell should team up with some famous car builders such as Jessy James,Jay Leno and others? I know that Revell has teamed up with foose and thats great but there should be more exciting models coming out don't you think?


Edited by greymack, 04 January 2013 - 05:54 PM.


#2 dmk

dmk

    MCM Friend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 173 posts
  • Location:NC
  • Full Name:Dave Koch

Posted 04 January 2013 - 05:59 PM

I don't know. Those Foose cars don't look anything like his cars. I doubt he was involved in the design at all. Revell probably just bought the license and that was that.  I'm not really interested in a name on a product if they don't have any involvement in its design.

 

 Some of Revell's kits are very nice, but then there are some that you wonder if they involved anyone who knew anything about cars in the project.


Edited by dmk, 04 January 2013 - 06:00 PM.


#3 martinfan5

martinfan5

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,399 posts
  • Location:Los Santos, San Andreas
  • Full Name:Jonathan Stephens

Posted 04 January 2013 - 06:00 PM

I did not know Jay Leno was a car builder, I thought he was a collector.

 

If done right, and I mean 100% correct to the 1:1 subject, then yes, I am all for it , but we have seen what Revell does with these type of release's , and they half ass it,  so if thats what they would could continue to do, then no.



#4 Ace-Garageguy

Ace-Garageguy

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,598 posts
  • Location:Down two, then left.
  • Full Name:Bill Engwer

Posted 04 January 2013 - 06:29 PM

I don't know. Those Foose cars don't look anything like his cars. I doubt he was involved in the design at all. Revell probably just bought the license and that was that.  I'm not really interested in a name on a product if they don't have any involvement in its design.

 

 Some of Revell's kits are very nice, but then there are some that you wonder if they involved anyone who knew anything about cars in the project.

 

Yup. Pity. Monogram had Darryl Starbird as a design consultant and some of his radical customs (Ultra Truck / Orange Hauler, Predicta) ended up as quite well done, stand-alone kits back in the dim recesses of time. T'would be nice to see a real, talented designer working on things like that again, but the 'name' guys probably want too much money to make it cost-effective, and the insane cost of tooling today probably means management think they have to base a 'licensed' release on existing dies.



#5 MachinistMark

MachinistMark

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Location:nova scotia
  • Full Name:Mark fulmore

Posted 05 January 2013 - 04:04 AM

I'd like a revel/Winfield collaboration to kit up the solar scene or genes blue shop truck. Or the jade idol.

#6 b_lever1

b_lever1

    MCM Avid Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 455 posts
  • Location:portage la prairie manitoba canada
  • Full Name:bob leverington

Posted 05 January 2013 - 04:45 AM

the firebird is a foose design it is picture not at all a complete design just like the pictures chip does up at the begining of overhauling it is a picture it still has to be built ! yes model car builders do need more input we have to ask for it as a group and support by the sales to make it worth it to make new molds .tell them what we want!!!!!!  be atrend setter not follower.....maybe we can do a poll of what we builder want it worked back in the 80's amt 66 nova for an example



#7 mikemodeler

mikemodeler

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,046 posts
  • Location:NASCAR Country!
  • Full Name:Classified

Posted 05 January 2013 - 05:02 AM

One cannot forget the great AMT kits that were part of the Boyd Coddington collection! 

 

Honestly, unless a kit manufacturer follows the creation of the kit exactly like the 1:1, I feel the person has sold their name (and possibly soul) to the highest bidder.



#8 Guest_G Holding_*

Guest_G Holding_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 January 2013 - 05:23 AM

One cannot forget the great AMT kits that were part of the Boyd Coddington collection! 

 

Honestly, unless a kit manufacturer follows the creation of the kit exactly like the 1:1, I feel the person has sold their name (and possibly soul) to the highest bidder.

 

I have forgotten most of those nightmares...This 32 still wakes me up screaming....

 

amt38254.jpg



#9 dmk

dmk

    MCM Friend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 173 posts
  • Location:NC
  • Full Name:Dave Koch

Posted 05 January 2013 - 05:26 AM

I did not know Jay Leno was a car builder, I thought he was a collector.

 

He's a bit more than just a typical collector IMO. He's actually quite a historian and know the cars very well, He also modifies a lot of his cars. He has a beautiful Buick Roadmaster that is heavily modified with a Corvette chassis, a roadster with a monster tank engine and a motorcycle with a Jet engine out of a helicopter. He also writes articles regarding automotive history and theory for Popular Mechanics.

 

 Regardless, he's a celebrity associated with cars and that's all Revell cares about. They design a kit and then they approach a "big name" and ask if they can put his name on it. That is the extent of the relationship. 



#10 slantasaurus

slantasaurus

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 790 posts
  • Location:some place less Chicago-ie
  • Full Name:Ron Wagonrod

Posted 05 January 2013 - 05:35 AM

The only thing that these associations really create is another licensing fee for Revell to pay for. I would rather see them spend that money cleaning up older tools and updating them or used on new tooling. Even better ask yourself, would you rather have Revell put more money in Chip Foose's pocket or spend that money on licensing Good Year so that we could have kit tires with sidewall detail again.



#11 Tom Geiger

Tom Geiger

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,614 posts
  • Location:Exton, PA
  • Full Name:Tom Geiger

Posted 05 January 2013 - 05:39 AM

The only thing that these associations really create is another licensing fee for Revell to pay for. I would rather see them spend that money cleaning up older tools and updating them or used on new tooling. Even better ask yourself, would you rather have Revell put more money in Chip Foose's pocket or spend that money on licensing Good Year so that we could have kit tires with sidewall detail again.


Agreed. A Jay Leno series would be like the old Reggie Jackson series. For a big name like his, he'd no doubt want big bucks, and I don't believe the investment would be worthwhile.

#12 A.R.C.

A.R.C.

    MCM Avid Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 401 posts
  • Location:B.C.
  • Full Name:Adam Cordoza Cortez

Posted 05 January 2013 - 06:17 AM

the firebird is a foose design it is picture not at all a complete design just like the pictures chip does up at the begining of overhauling it is a picture it still has to be built ! yes model car builders do need more input we have to ask for it as a group and support by the sales to make it worth it to make new molds .tell them what we want!!!!!!  be atrend setter not follower.....maybe we can do a poll of what we builder want it worked back in the 80's amt 66 nova for an example

 

Its built.

 

http://www.cardomain...rd/#32636270006

 

Attached File  32636270007_medium.jpg   8.82KB   4 downloads



#13 blunc

blunc

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,234 posts
  • Location:phx, az
  • Full Name:mike cassidy

Posted 05 January 2013 - 06:18 AM

Anyone that has the time should go browse the "golden years" of car modeling at modelencyclopedia (google it).

 

Most (if not all) the rants/raves and even praise that we do here now has all been done at least fifty years ago but unlike now there was no internet and stock analysts didn't have the power to kill a company virtually overnight. I bet most here don't know that the Dodge Deora was "Named" in a national write-in contest or that the Orange Hauler was a grand prize in a sweepstakes.

 

Model car makers are not likely to be driven by the passion about models that we have (personally) because they "have to be profitable", there may be one or two exceptions but I think you'll find that not one of the companies is doing it to "break even". There are no budgets to sponsor nationwide contests where you can win an actual car just for entering the best model in that particular contest (even if you're not old enough to drive yet).

 

At this time it looks like the closest thing to a national contest is being sponsored by Revell and Gearz, I hope they succeed in generating a resurgence in model building because the hobby shops which previously ran/sponsored model contests have all but disappeared seemingly due to lack of support from the builders (us) and rising costs of stocking their shelves and business expenses.  Most model contests are now run/sponsored by clubs and most hobby shops still existing don't seem to have the time/manpower or money left to get back into public visibility.

 

My respects go out to any car function that sponsors or allows a model contest to be run during their events, the internet is a great place to display your personal masterpieces I feel it is the local contests which should receive as much focus/help as we can give. I have a personal goal for 2013 of getting back into local model club and assisting with contests if I am allowed.

 

I may have wandered off the original topic, you may all now dissect my post as you will.


Edited by blunc, 05 January 2013 - 01:11 PM.


#14 Guest_G Holding_*

Guest_G Holding_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 January 2013 - 07:17 AM

The only thing that these associations really create is another licensing fee for Revell to pay for. I would rather see them spend that money cleaning up older tools and updating them or used on new tooling. Even better ask yourself, would you rather have Revell put more money in Chip Foose's pocket or spend that money on licensing Good Year so that we could have kit tires with sidewall detail again.

Pay Foose, Thomas, or a multitude of designers to give us custom rides....GOODYEAR ??? No I can't read 1/25 scale tire letters, don't care to and we know that costs a small fortune. Yeah The stock  /  resto builders need those..Modelhaus or the resin guys will fill that need, 

 

Lots of builders do not care about the tire details, just as many do..I

 

Look at DETAILED KITS...The new $600.00 Tamiya kit comes to mind..out of my league. Face it...we want cheap detailed kits, that are perfect....HOW ??



#15 sjordan2

sjordan2

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,857 posts
  • Location:Knoxville, TN
  • Full Name:Skip Jordan

Posted 05 January 2013 - 07:22 AM

I could see the manufacturers issuing "collection" series kits such as cars that are in the collections of Leno, Lauren, Blackhawk, etc., and not necessarily based on custom builders. Maybe that sort of branding might increase interest.



#16 Erik Smith

Erik Smith

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,894 posts
  • Location:Spokane, WA
  • Full Name:Erik Smith

Posted 05 January 2013 - 08:05 AM

I don't think Leno is the market draw for the age group Foose and others would be. He has an awesome collection, yes, but my kids don't even know who he is.

As far as collaborating, I think the Gearz deal is a win/win. The contest and presence on the show help Revell sell kits, which means thu can make money and all that follows. We builders get a newly tooled kit based on Stacey David's car.

The main reason to put recognizable names on a model box is to draw new customers. Somebody unfamiliar with the hobby could care less if Revell has a new tool '57 Ford. They would think it's cool to see a Foose model, though, something "regular" customers may or may not give a hoot about.

So, what was the question? Oh, I think they need a balance of dropping names and developing new kits - much like they are doing now. Seems like a good balance as is but I don't know the numbers on sales, so...

Edited by Erik Smith, 05 January 2013 - 08:06 AM.


#17 Patrick2005

Patrick2005

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 520 posts
  • Location:Meadville, PA
  • Full Name:Patrick Myers

Posted 06 January 2013 - 09:29 AM

I'd love to see some of Troy Trepanie or Steve Strope's cars. Troys "Fast Forward Fastback" and Steves "Hammer" would be on the top of the want list!



#18 Jon Cole

Jon Cole

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,423 posts
  • Location:NH, USA
  • Full Name:Jon... although my parents used to call me "KNOCK IT OFF!"

Posted 06 January 2013 - 10:09 AM

No matter who endorses a model, odds are, if Revell had the tooling already in their bins, the finished product will be cast with as few alterations as they can get away with. New tooling, or tool alterations cost money. If you keep the expectations low (and realistic), you won't get an unpleasant surprise.Not the answer we would like, but that seems to be the reality of it.



#19 MachinistMark

MachinistMark

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Location:nova scotia
  • Full Name:Mark fulmore

Posted 06 January 2013 - 10:22 AM

Yes. Rad rides by troy is a helluva shop.

#20 Art Anderson

Art Anderson

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,087 posts

Posted 06 January 2013 - 10:58 AM

While I agree that there surely are modern-day customs and rods that would be great if offered in model kit form, I wonder just how lucrative most of them would be in the long run.  In any discussion along these lines, older modelers bring up the kits of "iconic" cars that were produced 40-50 years ago.  Yes, it's quite true, more than likely, that some of those kits sold in HUGE numbers, even for the day and age when they were first kitted; but what happened to the tooling after that initial rush of popularity?

 

Some tooling got altered, modified (fill in your own blank) based on decisions that made good sense commercially in later years (regardless of what we modelers think of those decisions today, what were model companies to do with tooling for kits which had run their course in the hobby shops and variety stores of the late 1960's-early 1970's?  Let that tooling just take up storage space, gather dust, even rust?

 

As a model car builder for now better than 60 years, and having some experience in both the retailing and the kit industry, the car kits I see as having had the longest runs of popularity have been those kits which were primarily factory stock models, albeit with added custom parts, changes of wheels and tires, while still leaving a lot of room for modelers' imaginations and tools to run wild.  Of those kits, beyond the very long-in-the-tooth AMT '32, '36, and '40 Fords, I believe the single model car kit having seen the longest production run of all was the original-tool AMT'57 Chevy Bel Air Hardtop, which was cataloged by AMT, Lesney-AMT, and AMT Ertl every year from 1962 to 1996--34 years.  Another old kit I see as lighting fires whenever it sees a reissue from that era is the AMT '57 Ford Fairlane 500.   One thing I believe we all tend to forget is, that back in the 1960's, the apex of custom cars and still with a lot of hot rods being built and shown, model car kit subjects were a lot fewer in number, and sales were much higher for just about any new release the model companies put out than kits of today.

 

I can see, almost hear, in my own mind the discussions that would go around the conference table at any company's product planning meeting if the subject of seriously teaming up with a top flight custom car builder for a kit or series of such cars:   "OK, so you think this (fill in the blank here) would be a hot subject?  Just how many do you estimate we can sell within the first year?"  "OK, what can you do as a second release off that tooling, with perhaps a body change?"  On and on, such questions do get asked when new model kit subjects come to the table in meetings like that, and they should--tooling $$ don't grow on trees, and wholesalers & retailers will have to be persuaded that any model subject that does make it past the initial planning stages will generate profit dollars for those who will ultimately market the new kit(s) to us modelers.  The higher the likelihood of a particular model car subject being a "one hit wonder" with very little possibility of being able to be altered into another version (by adding tooling to the mix, NOT re-cutting the existing tools) the less likely such a subject will make the cut.  On the other hand, a model car subject that can, by adding additional, optional tooling say, for a different body style, different engines and so forth will tend to get a lot more positive read from the people who have to approve, and more importantly, commit the capital to making it happen.

 

That has been my experience, as I am sure just about anyone who has ever worked in the industry at some level.

 

Art