Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum

StevieB

Members
  • Content Count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About StevieB

  • Rank
    MCM Member

Previous Fields

  • Are You Human?
    Yes
  • Scale I Build
    1/25

Profile Information

  • Location
    USA
  • Full Name
    Steve Bolander

Recent Profile Visitors

333 profile views
  1. No, it wouldn't be. The MPC "stock" 60 Vette & the flip nose 60 are two slightly different toolings. Both use the chassis, drivetrain & interior from the ancient MPC 56/57 Vette kit, (thus my quotes around "stock"), as does the 57 flip nose Vette. In fact, the 60 Vette flip nose shares the same back body with the 57 flip nose. But, the front ends of the 57 & 60 flip nose are different tooling from the one piece body kits. The 60 flip nose was first seen in the 70s as Chris Lang's Malco Super Vett, (their spelling, not mine), & the 57 flip nose came about from that. I pick
  2. There's even less logic on display in this than in the other comments I've replied to. Of course I, (& others), are aware that MCM is not their primary source of income. Only a child would think that. But, there's no way that actually keeping people up to date with soldi info "will only add more time to actual completion and shipping". Keeping people informed in this case, (especially given MCM's rather checkered past) is just much a part of the task at hand as every & any other aspect of getting the mag back out is. If the associate editor or the one forum moderator that see
  3. How is stating that on a FB post from an actual hobby shop the owner said he'd been in contact with people at MCM "spreading unsubstantiated rumors"? Here's the direct quote: I had a chat with the folks at Model Cars magazine. The next issue is at the printer and we should have it late this month or early next. Now, while the statement may or may not be true, that's not the same as an "unsubstantiated rumor", it's a statement. Do a search on FB for Hobby Depot & read it for yourself. And, we have yet to have any response from "the team" at MCM confirming or denying this, &
  4. Good point. But, by that criteria, since this is also a form of social media, it seems wise to be skeptical of the cheerleading "non news" being parceled out here, does it not? We've been told that MCM is "Coming back better than ever!" more than once before this latest claim. Eventually they need to deliver, & part of delivering is giving solid information, not more vague posts that tell people less than nothing.
  5. So, this was posted two days ago on a hobby shop's FB page: I had a chat with the folks at Model Cars magazine. The next issue is at the printer and we should have it late this month or early next. That is good news. Model Cars is looking for authors to write articles for the magazine. Photos are a key consideration as to whether or not an article is accepted. Very high resolution so that the editor can zoom in on a picture for publication. And yet, not a mention of that in this thread, or on MCM's website, or on their FB page. Is there anyone here actually involved with this th
  6. If funding is a major hurdle, then that needs to be addressed, & these useless puff piece & cheerleading threads halted. Vague allusions to things are not a sign of any real progress.
  7. I didn't mention that at any point in my post. I was commenting on the lack of a timeline, the lack of concrete info as to where they stood right now, the lack of knowing who's doing what at this point, ("the team" as a vague reference notwithstanding), & so forth. Right now all we have to go on is vague & indistinct cheerleading about what's coming at some indefinite & undetermined point down the road. After two months, since Larry is the associate editor, one would think that more solid info would be forthcoming, since he should know where they stand in regards to getting MCM goi
  8. So far there have been two separate threads started by Larry Greenberg, two months apart, with nothing but cheerleading & vague references to what's purportedly going on in each thread. No specifics, no timeline, no facts or actual, useable information, merely vague promises. One would think after two months that some more concrete information & pertinent facts regarding this would be available & offered. There are references to "the team", with no mention of who's on "the team", besides Larry Greenberg & Gregg, & that's a guess at best. It's obvious that neither you n
  9. There is indeed nothing wrong with Michelle doing it "her way", as I mentioned: "Before I'd have started cutting anything, I'd have done the research, asked questions & laid in the kits & supplies, (such as Evergreen or Plastruct styrene sheets), needed to accomplish something like this, even if it's not an exact replica, but inspired by the 1/1 car.." Such a build might be more easily accomplished by doing it as "inspired by", instead of attempting a replica, as no matter what kits one starts with, a lot of scratch building & modification of kits parts would be required
  10. All the help, advice & reference material in the world won't do you a bit of good if you don't master the basics, plan out a build such as this, & take the time to do it right. You're extremely prolific, but slowing down, concentrating on your work, planning it out & working on problem areas are keys. Before I'd have started cutting anything, I'd have done the research, asked questions & laid in the kits & supplies, (such as Evergreen or Plastruct styrene sheets), needed to accomplish something like this, even if it's not an exact replica, but inspired by the 1/1 car.
  11. Lemme see, AMT's reign as a model kit manufacturer started with marketing & selling unassembled promos, (with a few added customizing extras), as kits in 1958, & by & large they were considered toys at the time. And, Revell marketed that Mustang as a kit. as right on the box art, it reads "1 Plastic Kit". Now, we can argue the semantics of that all we desire, but it is an unassembled model kit, simplistic as it may be. Either way, the question as to why Revell, (& for that matter Round2, as they marketed a full detail Camaro glue kit & not a whimper on the Mustang), ge
  12. "Tamiya chose "easy to build" over detail, and the others went the opposite and offer more detail and more challenging kits." What!?! Are you serious!?! Have you ever actually looked at a Tamiya kit, let alone built one!?! Engine or not, Tamiya makes very detailed kits, as evidenced by Chuck's comments on parts count compared to domestic kit & Daddyfink's Enzo pics. I'm sorry, & no offense meant nor intended, but from that very comment I have the feeling that you have no idea what you're talking about. You had to have just pulled that out of thin air, with no proof to back it
  13. The two Model A kits, (coupe & roadster), have been announced as returning in 2020, hopefully as soon as the 1st or 2nd quarter, depending on how long the tooling repair takes them. Revell is on the rebound with their German owners willing to put the money into them that Hobbico couldn't. The 69 Boss 302, 68 Chevelle SS, & the return of the 70 Charger R/T are proof of this. Care to share the proof to the opposite? Also the modified reissue of the AAR Cuda, the reissues of the Monte Carlo SS & the Frank Iaconio Pro Stock Camaro belies the demise of Revell.
  14. I understand that you weren't asking about that. I was merely trying to clarify some inaccurate info to help everyone. In the future I'll avoid communicating with you so as not to upset you. Better yet, I'll simply block you. Problem solved.
  15. If you're referring to the old Revell 56 F100, with the opening doors, it is 1/25th scale. The Monogram 1955 F100 is 1/24th scale.
×
×
  • Create New...