That ol' "Had MONOGRAM did 1/25 " argument....

[Southern Fried]

Yeah, I know...It's been beat to death.

However, having built models since the early '60's, I was more particular to 1/25 scale. Compared to 1/24, it looked "just right.

In conversations with many of my friends whom modeled, we were of the opinion that we would have bought MANY MORE MONOGRAMS had they been in 1/25. 

Don't get me wrong. I bought many of their kits because they were the "only game in town".  But, as opposed to buying MANY of the same kits as I did/do in 1/25, usually ONE MONOGRAM kit was all I bought. I would have bought multiple copies had they been in 1/25.  Kits include: '68 GTO, '66 Chevelle, "70 GSX, '40 Ford PU, '70 Trans Am, BOSS 429 Mustang...etc.

 

[Richard Bartrop]

Who knows?  Monogram still stayed in business for a good long time, and outlasted companies that went with1/25, and 1/24 is still the preferred scale in the rest of the world.  Factoring in how much the kits actually deviate from their stated scale, how you can interchange parts between 1/24 and 1/25 kits, and how the same kit has been boxed as both 1/24 and 1/25, I still maintain that any issues over the differences between the two scales are largely the product of people's imaginations.

[Mark]

The difference is often more pronounced because Monogram's kits usually measure out to 1/24, while many "1/25 scale" kits are actually smaller.  For example, the IMC/Lindberg Dodge A-100 (Little Red Wagon) measures out to about 1/25.7 scale.  The AMT, SMP, and Jo-Han kits of larger cars (Imperial, Continental, Cadillac) are often undersize as well.

On the other hand, Jo-Han AMC promotional models and kits from 1961 on are actually 1/24 scale, and Jo-Han's '62 Studebaker Larks are about 1/23.

[Richard Bartrop]

This got me curious, so I took a ruler to the Revell '40 Ford kit in my stash.  It's labelled as 1/25, but it measures out closer to 1/24.

[Southern Fried]

3 hours ago, Richard Bartrop said:

Who knows?  Monogram still stayed in business for a good long time, and outlasted companies that went with1/25, and 1/24 is still the preferred scale in the rest of the world.  Factoring in how much the kits actually deviate from their stated scale, how you can interchange parts between 1/24 and 1/25 kits, and how the same kit has been boxed as both 1/24 and 1/25, I still maintain that any issues over the differences between the two scales are largely the product of people's imaginations.

Disagree. Imagination is one thing, actual eye/brain perception is another. There is a pronounced visual difference when looking at similar auto bodies. A Monogram 1/24 Chevelle is WAY bigger than the AMT, or Revell offering. Same goes for the Mopars.

 

[Richard Bartrop]

3 minutes ago, Southern Fried said:

Disagree. Imagination is one thing, actual eye/brain perception is another. There is a pronounced visual difference when looking at similar auto bodies. A Monogram 1/24 Chevelle is WAY bigger than the AMT, or Revell offering. Same goes for the Mopars.

 

But as was mentioned before, even if they had gone to an accurate 1/25, they'd still be the "wrong" size.

[dshue76]

I don't mind the scale difference too much, it's as easy to ignore when looking at a display as it is to ignore the immense lack of 4 door cars and subcompacts. I'm the polar opposite of the OP. Growing up in the 80's and loving all things racing I prefer 1/24 since Monogram was always a favorite of mine, their subject matter was great. From the sprint cars and modifieds to Winston Cup, NHRA to street machines, prostreet, hotrods, Indy cars and IMCA, they covered the bases. And I must add that during my formative building years ANY Monogram kit was 1000% higher quality than AMT/ERTL. Monogram moulds were cleaner and crisper. All of these were factors in making me a Monogram fan and by association, a 1/24th scale fan

[Fabrux]

6 hours ago, Richard Bartrop said:

I still maintain that any issues over the differences between the two scales are largely the product of people's imaginations.

Compare the Monogram 1:24 '70 Mustang with the Revell 1:25 '69 Mustang. That should clear up any lingering doubts. ?

A comparison between Monogram 1:24 '73-'87 Chevy pickups and the MPC 1:25 versions will also show a big difference.

Edited July 30, 2018 by kataranga

[Richard Bartrop]

3 minutes ago, kataranga said:

Compare the Monogram 1:24 '70 Mustang with the Revell 1:25 '69 Mustang. That should clear up any lingering doubts. ?

Are there difference4s?  OF course there are.  There are also differences between a 1/25 Revell Model A  and a 1/25 AMT Model A.   The engine in the Double T kit  is a different size from the one in the Model T Touring, and it's the same engine made by the same company.  It still doesn't change the fact that the miniscule differences between the scales is wiped out by the variations from the true scale, and if you switched the number on the box, most would be none the wiser.

[droogie]

I wonder how much expectation influences perception, i.e., if the stated scale on the box is 1/25, but the kit actually scales out to something different, would it still look 'just right'. I recall an ancient kit (Monogram coincidentally) of a popular aircraft subject was stated to be 1/48 scale. It was the only kit available of the subject in that scale for decades and several companies offered dedicated aftermarket accessories/upgrades for it. Someone finally measured the actual airplane and discovered the kit actually scaled out to 1/51. Surprisingly, the fact that the kit is oddly scaled was almost universally dismissed by modelers that had previously professed strict adherence to scale fidelity and many comments along the lines of ' well, it still looks like a T-28' were made'. Ironically, a few years ago a Ukrainian company released a kit of the same  subject that was a true 1/48 scale. That kit proved to be much less popular than the old Monogram kit despite being far more detailed and accurate which causes me to wonder how much nostalgia plays a role in perception.

[Jantrix]

A few years ago my uncle left me his stash which  had a LOT of Monograms. I've built a fair amount of them and frankly I like the 1/24 scale. Parts swapping is a little tougher, and there are fewer parts in the kit, but they really do build up well.

[Oldcarfan27]

4 minutes ago, Jantrix said:

A few years ago my uncle left me his stash which  had a LOT of Monograms. I've built a fair amount of them and frankly I like the 1/24 scale.

And besides, the Camaro and Trans Am bodies are SUPERIOR to anyone else's version. If you want one right, Monogram is the only game. Corvettes are really good too!

[Snake45]

2 hours ago, droogie said:

I wonder how much expectation influences perception, i.e., if the stated scale on the box is 1/25, but the kit actually scales out to something different, would it still look 'just right'. I recall an ancient kit (Monogram coincidentally) of a popular aircraft subject was stated to be 1/48 scale. It was the only kit available of the subject in that scale for decades and several companies offered dedicated aftermarket accessories/upgrades for it. Someone finally measured the actual airplane and discovered the kit actually scaled out to 1/51. Surprisingly, the fact that the kit is oddly scaled was almost universally dismissed by modelers that had previously professed strict adherence to scale fidelity and many comments along the lines of ' well, it still looks like a T-28' were made'. Ironically, a few years ago a Ukrainian company released a kit of the same  subject that was a true 1/48 scale. That kit proved to be much less popular than the old Monogram kit despite being far more detailed and accurate which causes me to wonder how much nostalgia plays a role in perception.

I first thought you were talking about their TBF Avenger, which scales out to 1/50 (I measured it myself), apparently to fit the box. The older (and kinda cool) Lindberg kit is really 1/48. The size difference is apparent. 

I've never measured it but I suspect their first SB2C Helldiver is undersize, too. 

The Ukranian T-28 didn't sell as well as the old Monogram because of its high cost. I'd like to have one or two, but have never been able to pull the trigger on one. Of course Revell is now asking $16 for what were originally $1 and $2 model airplanes. 

[Fat Brian]

Personally I wish everything was 1/24. I like having a little extra size for my big fingers and detailing is a bit easier since things don't have to be quite as small.

[Jantrix]

59 minutes ago, Fat Brian said:

Personally I wish everything was 1/24. I like having a little extra size for my big fingers and detailing is a bit easier since things don't have to be quite as small.

I quite agree.

[Richard Bartrop]

I'd always seek out the Monogram kits.  They always seemed a little more solid and went together better than the others,  and as a kid I liked that the instruction streets told you what the parts were supposed to be.   I prefer 1/24 because conversion is so easy to figure out, and architectural rulers had 1/24 on them.  That said 1/25 has never been a deal breaker for me.

[Casey]

On 7/29/2018 at 1:15 PM, Southern Fried said:

I would have bought multiple copies had they been in 1/25.  Kits include: '68 GTO, '66 Chevelle, "70 GSX, '40 Ford PU, '70 Trans Am, BOSS 429 Mustang...etc.

Funny you mention those, as I did purchase multiple copies of most of the above, as well as the '70 Challenger T/A, '70 Superbird, '66 Malibu SS kits, and so on. Scale wasn't nearly as critical to me back then as good fit and finish based on good design and engineering. Monogram kits of the '80s were head and shoulders above AMT and MPC kits back then IMHO, despite the simplifications in some areas.

When Monogram's Pro Stock and Funny Car kits debuted in 1984, there was no need to even consider an AMT nor MPC kit. Plus, the new Monogram NASCAR kits, which had the same fit and finish, as well as very nice details, were yet another option for spending money. My biggest problem was a lack of money, not a small difference in scale.

[Ace-Garageguy]

4 hours ago, Jantrix said:

... I've built a fair amount of them and frankly I like the 1/24 scale. Parts swapping is a little tougher, and there are fewer parts in the kit, but they really do build up well.

Agreed. And interestingly, several of the "1/24" engines measure out extremely close to their 1/25 counterparts from other manufacturers...identical in some instances.

[maltsr]

1 hour ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

Agreed. And interestingly, several of the "1/24" engines measure out extremely close to their 1/25 counterparts from other manufacturers...identical in some instances.

I'm no expert, but Google says a small block chevy is 29.42'' long.  This works out at 1.1768'' at 1/24, and 1.2258'' at 1/25, less than 5/100 of an inch difference - not a deal breaker for me.

I'm happy to build in both scales, but don't venture beyond those to say 1/16 or 1/32.

Edited July 30, 2018 by maltsr

[SfanGoch]

38 minutes ago, maltsr said:

This works out at 1.1768'' at 1/24, and 1.2258'' at 1/25

It's the other way around.

[maltsr]

2 hours ago, SfanGoch said:

It's the other way around.

So it is, I'm in New Zealand where everything is upside down!

[Ace-Garageguy]

18 minutes ago, maltsr said:

So it is, I'm in New Zealand where everything is upside down!

 I guess I should have mentioned the flip side, with some 1/24 engines being as much as 1/8" longer than the same thing represented in 1/25, and visibly much larger than their 1/25 counterparts. Math is hard.

(And I've seen two of the same engines in the same supposed scale from the same manufacturer also showing almost a 1/8" discrepancy. Math is really hard.)