StevieB

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 picked up a sealed "Gas Attack" issue 60 Vette for $20 about 3 years ago. The headlight openings in the nose are molded shut, & there's chrome parts to replace the headlights in it, just like the Malco version. In fact, other than the updated rimes & wider rear slicks, the kit is 100% identical to the Malco version. The stock 60 Vette has fully opened headlight openings, for the chrome buckets to fit in. I read years ago that the body tooling for those two kits were based on MPC 1/25 scale slot car bodies. I've never been able to verify this for sure, but I do know the tooling is different, as the stock bodied 57 was reissued in 3 kit Vette gift sets with 2 other Vettes both after the release of the 57 flip nose & with the 57 flip nose reissued again after allegedly being tooled back into the stock bodied one. Even with different inserts for the tooling, that's simply not logical in the design of the tooling itself. The real issue is that Round2 isn't very aware of much tooling that hasn't been released since the mid-late 80s, or hasn't been in near constant production since then. That's not their fault, as RC2 managed to royally screw up the tooling inventory, & they're just now really starting to locate some of it.

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 seems to be on this vaunted "team" can take the time to post little but vaporous nothingness & non-answers about the situation then they can post actual information that they're privy to, such as if the next issue is actually at the printers or not. All these two have to post is something like this: "We're taken care of "Point A' & 'Poin tB' so far. We're at 'Point C' right now. We hope to be to 'Point D' soon.", with the understanding that the info would be more concrete than merely "Point A" or "B". That's it. No timeline required. No set point as to when they're ready to go again. Just some simple facts is all that I, (& others), ask for.

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, & at least one of "the team" seems to be a moderator here, so one would presume he's privy to such info & would actually confirm or deny it here. Instead, if we're not getting a bunch of empty cheerleading posts, all we get are crickets.

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.

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 that really knows what's going on? A lot of vague "Rah! Rah!" cheerleading posts, with no factual info, (& I'm not talking set deadlines, but just some solid information), a lot of promises with no substance, & nothing else anywhere online that's a part of the mag. It's ridiculous that the core of the magazine's fans, who are on this very forum, are being kept in the dark.

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.

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 going again. The post he made in this thread is little different than the post he made in the prior thread. Lot's of "Wait & See!" & "Soon!", nothing of substance.

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 nor the other mod here are on "the team", as neither of you are any more in the loop as any other member here. This "wait & see, biggest & best" attitude has been constantly propagated regarding the magazine for years, & there's been what, three issues published in the past three years? And there's supposed to be six issues a year. Given the track record & lack of info, you should be able to understand why many people remain skeptical.

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 for that. That's why measuring, (& I'd go as far to say that blowing up as many photos of the 1/1 to 1/25th scale & measuring those would be the 1st step), everything before cutting up a single part of the body or other parts needing modification is simply essential in a project such as this. However, she did ask for advice. And, to try to start her down the right path to building something like this, I gave the straightest, most honest & helpful advice that I could. Many here have just offered vague, "try this kit or that kit" comments, without addressing the first steps, measure & plan accordingly. Especially since it's very obvious that such a project, exact replica or not, is going to require a lot of styrene sheet, putty, sanding & scratch building to be anywhere near successful. Kit parts for the body in the case of this concept car are going to be suggestions of the shapes at best. I really admire Michelle's enthusiasm & ambition. But, those two traits alone won't get a person very far in completing something like this successfully, without patience, the right tools, the right material to work with, the right reference material, & having a firm grasp of the basics.

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. I'd also have a set of digital calipers, (mine were $12 or so at Harbor Freight, not expensive at all), a 6" straight edge & a miter box & a razor saw. Next up, based on your prior posts are several grits of automotive sandpaper. Many of your models show a very rough & unfinished appearance, (even when you haven't used any putty), like you hit the body with some 180 grit & then threw on the paint. 180 or so is the grit to start with, not to finish with. Check Walmart's auto section or the local parts store, (NAPA, Advance, Auto Zone, whatever is nearby), & get from 180 to at least 600 grit for basic bodywork & sanding. Higher & smoother grits than 600 are also recommended. There's no need to rush a build. This isn't a race or a competition. You don't get extra points for finishing a model in 2-3 days, or whatever. The longer that you work on it, (& having the proper tools, down to putty, cement, paint & paint brushes as well), the better your models will look. Blobs of roughly sanded putty under a paint job that shows sanding scratches from rushing really doesn't impress anyone, & makes models look crude & poorly finished at best. There's a lot of good advice, tips, techniques & info to be found on here & other places online. Start with that. Right now you seem to be constantly biting off more than you can chew, & it shows. Master the basics first. Everything flows from them, everything.

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), gets a pass on this generation of the Stang sans engine & Tamiya does not is still a valid one.

"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 up. News flash! A kit doesn't have to be challenging to be detailed. The Moebius 65 Plymouth I gave up on was a challenge all right, but lacked the detail of any Tamiya kit I've ever built, even curbsides. The amount of work it required to even get it reasonably presentable was an insult to every modeler there is, and I've built vintage Revell & IMC kits. If more of their subject matter appealed to me, (& a lot of it does), I'd build nothing but Tamiya kits. There simply is no comparison.

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.

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.

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.