Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum

fseva

Members
  • Content Count

    1,547
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by fseva

  1. I'm sorry - are you talking about the Lindberg Chevelle or a Revell version?
  2. Does anyone here know the condition of the tool they intend to use? From my understanding, this was the first kit R2 released after they bought Lindberg; and now it's been discontinued. Why would they bother to discontinue a kit if they intended to simply re-release a kit based on the old tool?
  3. I think what I'm most ticked at right now is that I posted what I thought was a helpful review, and even promised updates (which I have fulfilled), and it seemed the vast majority of responders wanted to burn me in effigy! Actually, I wasn't saying that I think R2 should have offered it at the same price it was released, but I looked at the R2 website before I bought mine, and they didn't say anything about it being based on a 50-year old tool. That's the kind of thing I was hoping to learn here, but if guys here think that I want to be pandered to by saying that 40-50 year old tools still produce great kits, like... (whatever I'm asking about), that isn't helpful to me, and it's no better than the media, which can't seem to say anything negative about the kits they review. (I wouldn't be surprised if the truly bad kits never get reviewed, for that very reason.) Until the media figures out how to make money on publishing that doesn't involve pandering to advertisers, I guess I'm stuck.
  4. Hmmm... a "moderator" already told me about the "search" function here, and I intend to put it to good use. BTW, photos of a kit's contents don't tell how well it builds up. If you think that's all I needed, perhaps I'll just start searching the internet instead of trying to offer some info of my own so that guys, like me, know what they're in for when they buy a new kit.
  5. Please let me know... lots of comments keep referring to "SOTA", but I haven't got a clue what it means! Please enlighten an old fart... and thank you!
  6. OK - it seems as if you're trying to offer an olive branch, and I'll accept that. I understand what the other guys were saying about the big picture, specifically the look of the completed model. I now have one as well, and have already posted a message to this thread that indicates that I am now happy to make a complimentary comment on this kit. I hope you will see that as my olive branch.
  7. Scott, I think you need to re-read my posts - I'm only trying to answer the instant and volatile replies that have been posted here. BTW, are you the moderator?
  8. Boy, ain't that the case! BTW, I hope you don't mind, but I'm borrowing your signature...
  9. Wow - I wonder what went wrong? I built the Pro Street version twice, and the positioning of both bumpers was impossible to obtain... without a specialized 3-handed clamp of some kind. Neither one of them is on display because they got so gooped up with glue, I was embarrassed to display them!
  10. I did promise, and now I am fulfilling my promise! Final assembly did go surprisingly well - both of the bumpers fit in the areas designed without modification of any kind. And once the kingpins had been firmed up with a bit more Tenax, the wheels rolled very nicely. I am surprised and over-the-moon that I could finally say something nice about this kit.
  11. In addition, I would have liked to know all of this BEFORE I went and bought one. I hope that hobbyists here at MCM will be forthright in their appraisal of releases by R2, and tell me what I need and want to know instead of giving a lilly-livered manufacturer-pandering thumbs-up to everything they put out. I mean, aren't you guys tired of the stuff the media shovels in an attempt to hide the fact that reviewed kits are NOT always as good as the writers/editors tell you they are? Don't you just hate to have to pay for such drivel and then "get taken" by the manufacturers, too!?
  12. Called me "on the carpet"? You just said, "You're dead wrong" and then wouldn't stand behind your opinion by giving some evidence. And why do you jump to the conclusion that I should not even "want" to build an old tool? Where did that come from? Would you prefer that I NOT be in the hobby?
  13. You know what? It can be "that bad" to me if that is my opinion and I'm not trying to start a boycott of the company's product! Sheesh! You're doing enough whining over my review - talk about the kettle calling the pot black...
  14. You sure did a nice job on yours! No, I didn't buy one on auction - just this latest release. I understand what you mean about "it built up well", but at these prices, I feel you should be able to show off all of the final model, not just the body.
  15. Thanks for sharing! I think this will wind up being one of my next purchases, as I'm really hooked on 65-70 muscle cars.
  16. I found both of the Revell's rear and front bumpers a little too narrow and messed them both up trying hold the body closer together to match the bumpers. Glad to hear your recommendation about the AMT release... thanks!
  17. No, I'm not a chassis-guy... I only said something about the Cougar's chassis because it was so unusual. I'm also not a body accuracy type of modeler, since I never had much interest in the nitty gritty of cars. I attempted to build both of the Revell kits and they turned out to be undisplayable, mainly because they both had the same problems with the bumpers, which were just a little too narrow for the corresponding areas. That's also kind of why I'm looking into the AMT release, because I still don't have a Chevelle from the period in my display case. I purchased the SS396 version from A/K Model Cars and am looking forward to building that one.
  18. OK - I was told that if I read this forum, I'll discover whether or not a kit is worth the money, before I buy one... So, I'm going to give it a try... I have not yet purchased the 67 Chevelle Pro Street by AMT/R2 - is it worth the money? Why?
  19. I think someone mentioned earlier that this was a possibility. I still wonder why they'd bother given the chassis isn't exactly an eyecatcher in the first place?!
  20. And Rob, you must not be reading the entire thread, or you'd know more about me and would not have to make such wrong and offensive assumptions. Sure do hope this forum isn't dominated by "elitest" hobbyists like the ones you find on SA's forums. By the way, Round2's re-releases haven't all been this bad! I bought/built the 68 Camaro and the 69 Hurst Olds, and they were much better than the Cougar. I couldn't say the same for the Chevelle convertible, which was absolute trash.
  21. Well, thanks for your concern Scott, but I'm doing fine with the kits I've built or are still to be built. I don't have many years of kit-building left; so, I will enjoy the ones that are worth the money, and complain like crazy about the ripoffs. BTW, you will find 4 of my really good builds in my gallery. They are by no means the only ones.
  22. I promised that I would take some photos of the chassis texture - make sure you zoom in to get a better idea of what it really looks like...
  23. I would be more than happy to buy 40-50 year old kits if I were paying 40-50 year old prices! Or, if the kit was actually worth the money!
  24. OK - since you said it, what specifically have I stated that is not factual?
×
×
  • Create New...