Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum
Junkman

Terrible Box Art

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Justin Porter said:

Paint the box art model practically flat orange, build it with the tail end sagging like it's carrying bags of concrete with blown out shocks, and superimpose it on the first image that comes up on Shutterstock when you search "Rural Highway". 

Nailed it. -_-

AMT-30054-3.jpg

Edited by Casey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

So...maybe what the manufactures should have done would have been to photograph a model built by the average buyer...slathered in glue where it didn't belong, parts ill-fitting or upside down, no sprue stubs removed or great gouges and holes in the parts where they were twisted off the trees, and bugs, runs, drips, and brush-marks in the paint.

That certainly would have portrayed quite accurately what Joe Consumer could really expect to end up with.

Funny, that's the way we buy glue bombs on Ebay - so maybe it WOULD work! 🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2018 at 10:49 AM, Greg Myers said:

How did they miss the third aux vent ?

This does not build up bad . The tailpipes are exaggerated for sure . I left these alone . A far as the third  Vent , these bodies were hand built . I saw pics of these with 2 Vents like the kit . Monogram was a reissue . Chinea Russo , because Enzo says so  :) .. Thanx .. 

 

Aurora '62 Ferrari 250 GTO f.JPG

Aurora '62 Ferrari 250 GTO r.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Casey said:

Nailed it. -_-

AMT-30054-3.jpg

Aside from those hideous wheels , that engine is such a phantom setup ! B / RB exhaust manifolds and an unrealistic air conditioning setup . Sure , those are easily corrected / replaced , but...

On a positive note about this kit : Ramcharger hood , and "Bazooka" exhaust tips --- neither of which the stock 440 R/T kit has (though I am partial to the turndown exhaust of the stock R/T , as it replicates the Noise Reduction Package exhaust.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Gramps46 said:

The early GTOs only had 2 side vents behind the front wheels so Aurora got a it right. 

5c129809494ad_Aurora_Ferrari250GTO_sml.jpg.3ee69f073e1dfbd2219927b4c722fbe3.jpg

When this kit was introduced it was such great kit with lots of detail through out but then the reality of the body proportions set in.  I took the body off and put the Revell slot body on the stretched chassis instead.  

gmlm05.jpg.2b312023cf8c545c826040ac6fe95f3c.jpg

Talking about the ones one the nose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Greg Myers said:

Talking about the ones one the nose.

Got it now and see what you meant, that is strange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 8:45 PM, 1972coronet said:

Aside from those hideous wheels , that engine is such a phantom setup ! B / RB exhaust manifolds and an unrealistic air conditioning setup . Sure , those are easily corrected / replaced , but...

On a positive note about this kit : Ramcharger hood , and "Bazooka" exhaust tips --- neither of which the stock 440 R/T kit has (though I am partial to the turndown exhaust of the stock R/T , as it replicates the Noise Reduction Package exhaust.)

John....I presume you are referring to the "Hemi" engine....from what I recall being told by an AMT/Ertl insider, this was patterned after a real 1/1 conversion setup intended to allow engine builders to make a 'pseudo Hemi" (my description) out of an R/RB engine.  

Agree with you on the Air Grabber hood and "Bazooka" exhaust outlets.....those would have been in the R/T version of this tool if I had been in charge.   

The kit was also flawed in that the split bench seat was not a factory option on the R/T version that was the first release of the tool (although it was offered on the Super Bee), and the rear taillamp setup is wrong for a SuperBee unless the car building built was painted one of the several colors that included the painted front and rear elastomeric bumpers.     Finally, though the manual driver's side rearview mirror is technically correct, virtually every R/T and Super Bee I've seen since the day they were introduced has the dual racing mirrors upgrade from the factory option list.  

Those building the model should be aware that it positions the front wheels/tires too far forward in the wheelwells.  It's an easy fix, detailed in my two articles on these kits in Scale Auto and Car Modeler Annuals circa 2001.   And the side stripe in the R/T version of the kit is wrong, which was finally corrected in the "Dirty Donny" kit reissue in recent years.    

Tim 

Edited by tim boyd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tim boyd said:

John....I presume you are referring to the "Hemi" engine....from what I recall being told by an AMT/Ertl insider, this was patterned after a real 1/1 conversion setup intended to allow engine builders to make a 'pseudo Hemi" (my description) out of an R/RB engine.  

 

That's what I had read back at the time too about the heads. IIRC, they were supposed to represent aftermarket "Stage V" heads made to be used with the 383 or 440 block.

http://www.stagev.com/pages/hcheads.html

Edited by Can-Con

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 7:51 AM, Can-Con said:

That's what I had read back at the time too about the heads. IIRC, they were supposed to represent aftermarket "Stage V" heads made to be used with the 383 or 440 block.

http://www.stagev.com/pages/hcheads.html

That's what I meant to specify : the now-obscure Stage V hemi conversion for B / RB engines . I'd neglected to mention that as I'd presumed (however incorrectly) that no one would remember that conversion (especially since Direct-Connection had Stage V heads which were of wedge origin (can't remember if those were angle-plug heads or not) .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 6:50 AM, tim boyd said:

John....I presume you are referring to the "Hemi" engine....from what I recall being told by an AMT/Ertl insider, this was patterned after a real 1/1 conversion setup intended to allow engine builders to make a 'pseudo Hemi" (my description) out of an R/RB engine.

That Stage V conversion would've been okay *except* that the stock HP 383 / 440 exhaust manifolds were present --- those wouldn't work on hemi heads (please correct me if I'm wrong) . 

Agree with you on the Air Grabber hood and "Bazooka" exhaust outlets.....those would have been in the R/T version of this tool if I had been in charge.

Would've been nice to have a choice -- via a 2-in-1 -- of bonnets and exhaust pipes . I prefer the Noise Reduction Package system in the stock Charger ; and , I like the standard louvered base bonnet of the R/T (especially since the N96 Ramcharger wasn't available with air conditioning ) . Regarding the latter ; just like with the '71 Duster , a non-A/C belts & pulleys setup would've been a nice option (though the Street Machine version of the Duster is sans A/C) .  

The kit was also flawed in that the split bench seat was not a factory option on the R/T version that was the first release of the tool (although it was offered on the Super Bee), and the rear taillamp setup is wrong for a SuperBee unless the car building built was painted one of the several colors that included the painted front and rear elastomeric bumpers.     Finally, though the manual driver's side rearview mirror is technically correct, virtually every R/T and Super Bee I've seen since the day they were introduced has the dual racing mirrors upgrade from the factory option list.  

I remember that incorrect-for-an-R/T front bench (like you stated , it's okay for a Super Bee) . Next one that I build will have buckets , no console , column-shift , just as the base R/T would be equipped . I didn't know about the incorrect tail lamps ! I know that the '71 'Bee had lamps like the base coupe and 500 ; I didn't know that they were incorrect for non-Elastomeric Super Bees ! 

I Agree regarding the O/S , R/V mirror ---- standard fare , but not as nice as the Dual Sport mirrors . Again , however , I like the base models' mirror ; the Dual Sports would've made a nice option . 

Those building the model should be aware that it positions the front wheels/tires too far forward in the wheelwells.  It's an easy fix, detailed in my two articles on these kits in Scale Auto and Car Modeler Annuals circa 2001.   And the side stripe in the R/T version of the kit is wrong, which was finally corrected in the "Dirty Donny" kit reissue in recent years.    

I found that the lower-edge of the windscreen (the part which attaches under the cowl) to be intrusive ; it's too thick . I file that part down until it's almost tissue-thin ; that solves that fitment issue . 

Do you have a link to the articles regarding the front wheels' alignment fix ? Is it in one of your Photo Bucket files ?

Tim 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seen on eBay just now...

palmus-1.jpg

palmus-2.jpg

Edited by Mike999
error2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 1972coronet said:

 

John.….and I didn't know that the Air Grabber hood was not available with A/C....don't recall reading that in the Salesperson's Guide info either, but it does make sense and I bet I'd find it listed if looked close enough. 

What I meant to say on the standard SuperBee tailamps is that, as you mentioned, they were shared with the (base) Charger and Charger S/E (my personal favorite), but when the painted bumper group was ordered on SuperBees, the tailamps were changed to the Charger 500 and R/T lamps, thus meaning that those of us building the AMT/Ertl "SuperBee" kit in factory stock form need to paint the car in one of the colors available with the Elastomeric bumpers, and dechrome/paint the front and rear bumpers as well.  (Not to mention correcting the engine back to 383 or 440 magnum/six pack or swapping in a "correct" Hemi)  

The stripe issue I was referring to is that in all but the latest "Dirty Donny" kit, the stripe had an incorrect jog where it crosses over the base of the C-pillar.  It could be massaged during decal application but most builders missed the error and applied it as it came from the kit.  The Dirty Donny version corrected the decal with a smooth and correct sweeping curve over the rear wheel well opening/below the base of the C-pillar.  

The fix on the front tire alignment was detailed in a how-to in the April, 2002 issue of the other mag.  It still shows available here. 

Thanks again for the tip on the A/C and Air Grabber!!!.....TIM 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, tim boyd said:

John.….and I didn't know that the Air Grabber hood was not available with A/C....Thanks again for the tip on the A/C and Air Grabber!!!.....TIM 

71_Charger0018.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Mike999 said:

Seen on eBay just now...

palmus-1.jpg

palmus-2.jpg

TERRIBLE! The box art shows 7's on the car, while the actual car has 3's!!! I would have been SOOOO angry if I had gotten one of these!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Mike999 said:

Seen on eBay just now...

palmus-1.jpg

palmus-2.jpg

The box art may be BAD but it looks like a Rembrandt compared to kit that was inside!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the days when we were just lucky and grateful to have ANYTHING re-released...though I suppose these give you the option to test colors on the box instead of the model, itself.

20181221_104132.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, AMC ROB said:

From the days when we were just lucky and grateful to have ANYTHING re-released...though I suppose these give you the option to test colors on the box instead of the model, itself.

20181221_104132.jpg

I am sure this kept the cost down for these Model retailers to not have shiny, glossy boxes vs. plain printed boxes. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Daddyfink said:

I am sure this kept the cost down for these Model retailers to not have shiny, glossy boxes vs. plain printed boxes. 

 

No doubt! And we, the modelers were just eager for the product/contents. Just not a lot of shelf or eye appeal...sort of like early generic food offerings....mmmmm, Corn Flakes!

large_30ab0684f6a23087afc2d9c8d276501f.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Daddyfink said:

I am sure this kept the cost down for these Model retailers to not have shiny, glossy boxes vs. plain printed boxes. 

 

And when it comes right down to it, would you rather they spent the money on the kits, or the boxes.  I will say the thing that irritates me is the trend to charging extra for fancy "Collectible boxes".

Though I suppose for the ones who fill a room full of kits they're never going to build, and the "investors" who are never going to open it,  I suppose it they would at least want a nice box to look at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Daddyfink said:

I am sure this kept the cost down for these Model retailers to not have shiny, glossy boxes vs. plain printed boxes. 

 

 

11 minutes ago, Richard Bartrop said:

And when it comes right down to it, would you rather they spent the money on the kits, or the boxes.  I will say the thing that irritates me is the trend to charging extra for fancy "Collectible boxes".

Though I suppose for the ones who fill a room full of kits they're never going to build, and the "investors" who are never going to open it,  I suppose it they would at least want a nice box to look at.

Yes friends, I get all of this (heck, I'm the one who bought them for the contents), but the topic thread has nothing to do with the kits, themselves...the topic is "Terrible Box Art" and these 4 boxes are fairly uninspiring. Cheers.

Edited by AMC ROB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, AMC ROB said:

the topic is "Terrible Box Art" and these 4 boxes are fairly uninspiring. Cheers.

But are they terrible? I agree, they are rather bland, but I wouldn't consider them terrible by any means. Even the Palmer '68 Mustang convertible above fails to qualify as terrible, IMHO. Most Palmer box art is so bad it's actually appealing in an exaggerated, cartoonish, distorted way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Casey said:

But are they terrible? I agree, they are rather bland, but I wouldn't consider them terrible by any means. Even the Palmer '68 Mustang convertible above fails to qualify as terrible, IMHO. Most Palmer box art is so bad it's actually appealing in an exaggerated, cartoonish, distorted way.

Palmer box art looks much better than what is in the box..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any idea what’s happening here? Dude in short cut offs flipping a chubby mechanic a coin...makes me want to buy it. 

1F9F2D5A-3C1B-4646-9657-4E9B1C54C046.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...