Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by fseva

  1. Thanks for the input so far, but still hoping someone who has actually built this kit can tell me if it's kit design or just me...
  2. I'm wondering if any who built this kit are having the same problem I am... It seems that the final assembly is marred by design errors - first of all, the slots for the radiator support are a little too far ahead of the actual support. Sure, you can muscle the support into position and epoxy it in place, but you better not do that until a problem with the dash and windshield are corrected - am I mistaken or is the dash too far forward so that it actually pushes the windshield out? I tried removing some of the dash (up to the first set of vents), but that didn't seem to be enough, and no matter how well glued the window seems to be, the dash keeps forcing it out of position (also, there could be a bit more clear plastic to aid in gluing the window in place... but then again, that might make the positioning of the windshield more difficult). Any help would be appreciated!
  3. fseva

    1932 Vicky

    I'm thinking they were in the AMT Model T "3 in 1" . . . #626.
  4. I've finished this kit and the final photos can be found in "Under Glass"... http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=100034
  5. You can buy them at Mike's Decals - http://www.mikesdecals.com/ By the way, I have assembled the body to the chassis, and although the "bigs" fit fine, they just look too big for this car - they rub the top of the fenders.
  6. Here is the engine compartment from the rear...
  7. Here is the underside of the chassis...
  8. Here are the tires and wheels I'll be using (the wheels are original equipment; the tires are not)... The tire lettering is decals by Powerslide.
  9. I'm working on this kit right now...
  10. Can't say - perhaps someone can answer your first question. You would think that at the very least, a car would come equipped with a rear-view mirror inside the car!? In regard to the box art, it was probably decided well before the project went into manufacturing what the box would look like, and they would have had to dump XXX-number of already printed boxes and then reprint the boxes with the corrections. In this case "retouched" means that there may have been some paint smears or something that would not have looked good on the box, and the final photo was retouched to remove the errors before it went to the printers.
  11. Tim, the long and the short of it is that even if I could show you an instance in which I expected to see a negative comment that did not show up in one of your SA reviews, it wouldn't change your mind about this issue. You and me are not the ones who ultimately make these kinds of decisions anyway. But it matters not, and I won't be losing any sleep over it. I will simply use other methods to find the info I need. And SA will survive because that's what they do best. Who cares? Life is too short!
  12. Thought you guys might like to know more about this kit... well, today I realized that the photos of the finished models on the box are correct in that they show no mirrors! I wonder if this was common practice back in 1993. Also, the cover photos plainly show a "GT" decal inside the side stripes, but there is no GT decal in the kit. The photo shows a colorful logo on the front quarter panels, but only the engraving is included - there is no decal. I've just read a post in this thread telling us that there are small chrome rectangles that should have been engraved with the GT - they are on the chrome tree, but they are not engraved, as he reported. They would be useless to me without a GT decal, and that is pretty small. So, I doubt very much that I'll be able to find any in my stash of unused decals. I may simply decide to leave the side-stripes off, and that isn't a bad idea, given the age of these decals. As of today, I have searched through my decals and could not come up with appropriate GT decals for the tiny chromed rectangles. There are also no license plates, but I get the idea that AMT expected these to be cut out and glued to the space in the bumpers. Good thing I have lots of extras, and that's what I decided to use (plus my own license plate decals).
  13. Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm pretty much confined to my home. So, I'm relying more and more on online info.
  14. Wow - ain't that the truth!
  15. Thanks for the warning! However, I'm not really a newbie - been back in the hobby for about 4 years, and since this ain't rocket science, I've built enough kits to know what I'm talking about. Of course, as usual, an opinion is an opinion - not the word of god...
  16. I couldn't have said it better myself! In regard to the model car forums, though, even if you were an active participant, you still might not hit on the info you want. That's why I have looked to print media in the past, but after getting a 3-year taste of SA, I see nothing that gives me confidence in their reviews, which to me, are little more than consumer pep-talks.
  17. Thanks for weighing in, Tim. OK - in answer to some of your points... The 8 negatives, while exceptional in length, are not really all that important to a new builder or a returning builder. I'm not worried about pin marks, etc., which for the most part are going to be pretty much hidden from view (unless you're building for a competition, which I'm not). I have a general feel for what's happening, not that I have specifics in mind because I don't have that good of a memory. Since some reviews are published well after release of the kit, I have built (or attempted to build) a kit that is reviewed later, and I have not found the problems I discovered even being mentioned. Oh, I suppose the editor could say they just ran out of room, but boy oh boy, they sure do get in that final positive comment "I would recommend this kit to... When are they going to say something like, "I can't recommend this kit to new builders or returning builders who are expecting modern tooling, because they probably will get frustrated, throw the thing at the wall and move on to another hobby" (embellished to make a point). I do agree that anyone who wants to do reviews (I did reviews of game software for many years) has in mind telling the whole story; that's why I feel it's the editors who are to blame for removing negative points that could actually be helpful to non-contest builders, and might keep them from buying a sub-par kit. Finally, I am referring to the print media - not private web publishers who have no vested interest in their publications... unless they accept advertising!
  18. I just started this kit today, and thought someone out there might like to hear my initial reactions. Even though this is a 1993 release, it looked as if it could have been a newly tooled kit! Granted, there wasn't much in the way of chrome, but the plastic here was very nicely cast. For example, the 1-piece chassis was nicely engraved, and there is separate dual exhaust. Everything is very clean, with little in the way of flash. I've finished the engine so far, and even though the only parts that are chrome include the air cleaner and the alternator, the plastic castings are so clean and detailed, it's one of the better looking engines I've built. I airbrushed the valve covers in Alclad Polished Aluminum, and the nicely engraved legend "Power by Ford" really pops! There are 2 transmissions (automatic and 4-speed manual) and 2 driveshafts.
  19. I also wanted to add a disclaimer for the decals - I used the black side stripes on my Hugger Orange model, and both decals broke up into several pieces when I attempted to remove them from the backer. Mind you, these were not pieces that were designed to break at certain panel lines - even the word "eliminator" broke into 3 pieces on one of the stripes!
  20. Wow, that's the nicest thing someone has said to me since the flames burst forth! I'm glad to know that no one is going to lose sleep over my review, and that we can all remain friends, even though our differences are quite far apart! Thank you!
  21. Read just about any "review" the media publishes, and you won't find hardly anything negative. I know for a fact that SA won't even allow negative comments in their gallery postings - I had some of my submissions rejected for that reason!
  22. Now that's the kind of healthy attitude I was hoping to find here! And I hope that if I say something that seems to be "whining", that the forum in general won't jump all over me and make me feel like I don't belong here. That is not healthy and it's one that will eventually discourage open discussions.
  23. That's a very nice offer and I will definitely keep it in mind. Just one thing though, does knowing when the kit was released guarantee that it won't be unchanged when it's re-released? Or would the manufacturer say something like "complete upgrade to tool"? I know Revell says "Limited Edition - New Tool", and that's really become my go-to type of kit.
  24. Steve, you obviously have a background that gives you the necessary info on what is accurate and what is not. I don't have that luxury, and so I have to be satisfied with whatever the manufacturers put out. And believe me, I don't need someone to tell me that I should do my research. The point I have been trying to make is that the info out there is tainted. And now I can see how much forum members don't appreciate the truth from my perspective, and it leaves me wanting an alternative... but there ain't any others...
  25. I think that I basically said that - I know what the score is right now in the media - that's why I said that until they find a way to publish without pandering to advertisers, I'm basically stuck - If I don't get the info I need from the media, and the forums prefer nothing negative to be said, I just keep spending my limited income on kits that aren't that satisfying.
  • Create New...