Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Casey

1/25 AMT '63 Chevrolet Impala SS Hardtop

Recommended Posts

Wonder if it's still missing the firewall and has the taillights molded in.   Nice box art, the design resembles the '64 annual. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in for one of these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Rob Hall said:

Wonder if it's still missing the firewall and has the taillights molded in.   Nice box art, the design resembles the '64 annual. 

Those would probably be pretty easy fixes.

I think I would use the guts from the Revell '63 Impala.

The chassis, interior and engine are far better than the AMT kit, but the body from the Revell kit is a disaster!

Basically, I would swap bodies.

The Revell kit also has separate tail light lenses.

 

 

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Odd. I've owned both '63 Impalas in the past and saw no real difference in the bodies.

I love the hyperbole that dominates discussions about the shape of bodies in model kits. They are always "Disasters", or "Fatally Flawed" or some such phrase. I also love the phrase, "Once I saw it, I can never unsee it" as too suggest that the final product of the toolmakers art, is so repulsive, that to merely view it is akin to looking at images of all-out war and death. I understand that feelings and opinions run high, especially considering the shapes of iconic vehicles, but the over-the-top language employed by some commenters evokes the Titanic, rather than the trivial.

But that is the point I suppose. In the end, these are replicas of Cars (or Tanks, or Ships, or Airplanes), and the emotion that we pour into them is a reflection of their value to us as totems.   Having read through the complete disembowelings used used by partisans of of both camps,(Get it Right the First Time, or Why Bother to do It at All) and The (Hey it looks like a Duck, from here.) I can see that both sides make valid complaints. Yes, given today's High Technology, Almost Perfect Bodies should be in every new kit. On the Other Hand, given that we practice a hobby shared by thousands, (not Millions anymore), the bulk of whom don't speak English, and could not give two figs for any American Car,, we really should be grateful for what we are still getting.

(I'd wager that the Japanese and Chinese Home markets, are larger than the American market by an order or two of magnitude)

So, here we are. My Bemused Diatribe will ultimately change no minds. Nor was it really meant to. Just venting about what to me is one of the absurdities of our collective Hobby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Sorry Alan, but I gotta agree with Steve on this one. While the old AMT annual kit of the '63 Chevy is not a bad kit, there are some things about the shape (namely the roof) that I simply don't like. OTOH, Revell's to my eyes is worse.

I'd go one better and I can 'bout guarantee no one will go this route. Take the roof off of Revell's VERY good '64 (most accurate to my sight) and graft it on the lower part of AMT's '63 (which is dead on right). Use the guts out of the Revell '63 (chassis, interior bits, etc) and to my way of looking at it, you'd have a darn good model.

Now I know that most won't go this route, but this car is in my list of to-do's one of these days and that's how I want to build it.

Flame suit on! ;)

P.S. I really DO like the box art of the reissue so that's part of the reason I'd get another one! :D

Edited by MrObsessive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All that is necessary is to view the AMT kit and the Revell kit in profile to see my point.

The front and rear of the Revell kit look like they were chopped from a block of wood with a rusty meat cleaver.

The shape on both ends is completely wrong.

In normal circumstances,  I'm not the type to nit pick, but this is one example of where the instant that I pulled the body from the box, it was obvious that something wasn't right.

The way I see it, we have two 1963 Impalas to choose from.

Is there any reason why we shouldn't choose the one with the accurate body?

 

 

Steve

 

2v29NCaJMxwUbWP.jpg

2v29NCaEzxwUbWP.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, StevenGuthmiller said:

The front and rear of the Revell kit look like they were chopped from a block of wood with a rusty meat cleaver.

The shape on both ends is completely wrong.

Okay, but there is that exaggeration and Hyperbole again.  Rusty Meat Clever? Would a clean meatclever have done a better job?

Seriously, I see how the shapes differ when compared side-by-side. However I see nothing offensive on either one. Neither looks better to the other, TO ME!! And only TO ME. For the rest of you, carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just painted one that I bought from a guy in our club for $5.00..Its going to be a box stock build..In the picture also is a 62 Plymouth..I only have this picture of the Chev with the Plymouth..This is an older issure with tail lights molded in..A guy in our club brought a 64 Chev(AMT) to a meeting with just parts in the box..I scored the firewall,radiator and rad hose..Now I'am set..LOL  I build simple because of dexterity and patience..Wish I could do as some, but just don't have it anymore after a stroke and being 71 yrs old..

1962 Plymouth and 1963 Chev at model meeting April 28,2019,Check out the shine.jpg

1963 Chev and 1962 Plymouth April 28,2019.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beautiful Paint on those bodies, Wayne! I really like that Blue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, alexis said:

Beautiful Paint on those bodies, Wayne! I really like that Blue.

Thanks, It an old smaller can of Duplicolor Lacquer,  some light Ford blue..Was close to Mopar blue so I used it..Who's going to know the difference..Big mistake on the Plymouth, I didn't sand out the dimples on the truck or fill them or the one on the front of the fender..No filler..Oh well, it is what it is..Not changing it now..

 

Share this post


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

Okay, but there is that exaggeration and Hyperbole again.  Rusty Meat Clever? Would a clean meatclever have done a better job?

Seriously, I see how the shapes differ when compared side-by-side. However I see nothing offensive on either one. Neither looks better to the other, TO ME!! And only TO ME. For the rest of you, carry on.

I suppose the Revell body might not seem "offensive" to you Alan, but none the less, it is completely inaccurate if you want a finished product that actually looks like a '63 Chevy is supposed to look.

As I said, I am not the type who generally picks apart a kit for it's inaccuracies, but when it's this bad, ( and not really correctable) and we have another kit of the same subject that is readily available and is accurate......well, it's pretty much a no brainer to me.

If there was no other alternative other than the revell kit, well then we would have to make due.

But there is a perfectly good alternative.

We don't have to settle......and we shouldn't.

 

 

Steve

Share this post


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

I just painted one that I bought from a guy in our club for $5.00..Its going to be a box stock build..In the picture also is a 62 Plymouth..I only have this picture of the Chev with the Plymouth..This is an older issure with tail lights molded in..A guy in our club brought a 64 Chev(AMT) to a meeting with just parts in the box..I scored the firewall,radiator and rad hose..Now I'am set..LOL  I build simple because of dexterity and patience..Wish I could do as some, but just don't have it anymore after a stroke and being 71 yrs old..

Don't sell yourself short Wayne!

I'm seeing some pretty nice work there!

Your '63 Impala has me thinking that maybe I should dig mine out and get going on it.........the AMT kit of course! ;)

 

 

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely agree that the AMT shape is way better than Revell's. Here is a promo I did a few years back and I assume the body shape of the kit was based on this. It looked very accurate to me, even the roof (but when someone sees a problem they're nearly always right). The promo did have separate clear red tail lights, does the kit not have them?

8aa66ee8fc688d6b37_zps107ac698-vi.jpgHosted on Fotki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter that is a GORGEOUS '63! :wub:

AMT got the roof right on theirs for the most part. It just seems to me the C pillar is a bit 'thin' compared to the 1:1 and Revell's '64 gets this pretty much on the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, peekay said:

 The promo did have separate clear red tail lights, does the kit not have them?

Hosted on Fotki

The original annuals did, later issues haven't. 

Edited by Rob Hall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intereting debate on the body shape issue.   I built the Revell Lowrider version for something different.  And it is an iconic lowrider.   I do not know the intimate details of the body.   My reference points on most of my models are some sort of memory, not actual study of the real car.  Dodge Darts being the exception.  my reference point on the 63 Impala is the red SS that sat in the woods at my grandfathers house.   Not sure of it's story.   other than it was not running and my uncle would get parts off of it occasionally for some other project.   The family car was a 64 4 door.  Grandpa had a 63 wagon that was loaded to the bump stops for his work car - he was a carpenter and eventually upgraded to a van loaded to the bumpstops.  The 63 wagon became a storage unit in the woods.  Like so many cars were down there.  

So... when I built my kit, I remember the general shape of the front and rear. And that grnadpa did explain the differences in 62, 63, and 64 bodies to me.   65 and 66 were easy because uncles had one each.  And so on.

So when I build a kit, my mind has fuzzy reference if any.  So it has to be a pretty big error. 

Big error:  the Danbury mint 68 Chevelle - the side windows on that thing are atrocious enough to notice the error.  As is the front of the Franklin Mint Falcon.  

But the 63 didn't set off any alarms for me.  

As for the argument that with todays technology there should be perfect bodies?  A computer can only reproduce what it is given and that often misses the little things that really define an iconic shape.  

So which oil should I use?

Share this post


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

I definitely agree that the AMT shape is way better than Revell's. Here is a promo I did a few years back and I assume the body shape of the kit was based on this. It looked very accurate to me, even the roof (but when someone sees a problem they're nearly always right). The promo did have separate clear red tail lights, does the kit not have them?

8aa66ee8fc688d6b37_zps107ac698-vi.jpgHosted on Fotki

Wow Peter!

That is Pretty!!

 

 

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, randyc said:

Intereting debate on the body shape issue.   I built the Revell Lowrider version for something different.  And it is an iconic lowrider.   I do not know the intimate details of the body.   My reference points on most of my models are some sort of memory, not actual study of the real car.  Dodge Darts being the exception.  my reference point on the 63 Impala is the red SS that sat in the woods at my grandfathers house.   Not sure of it's story.   other than it was not running and my uncle would get parts off of it occasionally for some other project.   The family car was a 64 4 door.  Grandpa had a 63 wagon that was loaded to the bump stops for his work car - he was a carpenter and eventually upgraded to a van loaded to the bumpstops.  The 63 wagon became a storage unit in the woods.  Like so many cars were down there.  

So... when I built my kit, I remember the general shape of the front and rear. And that grnadpa did explain the differences in 62, 63, and 64 bodies to me.   65 and 66 were easy because uncles had one each.  And so on.

So when I build a kit, my mind has fuzzy reference if any.  So it has to be a pretty big error. 

Big error:  the Danbury mint 68 Chevelle - the side windows on that thing are atrocious enough to notice the error.  As is the front of the Franklin Mint Falcon.  

But the 63 didn't set off any alarms for me.  

As for the argument that with todays technology there should be perfect bodies?  A computer can only reproduce what it is given and that often misses the little things that really define an iconic shape.  

So which oil should I use?

I'm not a huge expert on the '63 Chevy either.

It's quite possibly my least favorite of the Chevies from the 60s with the possible exception of the '69.

But having owned several of the AMT kits over the years, a quick glance at the body of the Revell kit when I opened it was enough to set off an alarm in comparison.

At least enough to prompt me to do a quick google search for photos of the real car to see if my suspicions were correct.

What I discovered was that the front and rear fender profiles were both far too blunt and squared off, especially the rear.

They should both come to a more pronounced point.

The entire rear quarter of the car should have a gradual taper, upper and lower, from the door to the bumper.

The Revell fender has virtually none and just looks square.

Revell entirely lost the sleekness of the car with these mistakes.

To my eye, while it might not have been evident what the problem was upon first inspection, it was obvious immediately that something wasn't right.

It also became obvious that fixing these issues would be difficult at best, and absolutely not worth the effort when there is a good body available.

In conclusion, if anybody wants a Revell '63 Impala body, you're welcome to it! ;)

 

 

Steve

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did anyone else notice it looks like the headlights are on ? hmmm .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, towtruck said:

did anyone else notice it looks like the headlights are on ? hmmm .

Yes, it looks like they used the '64 annual box art as inspiration, including that detail. 

 

1153513-26866-59-pristine.jpg

Edited by Rob Hall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/1/2019 at 1:04 PM, Casey said:

AMT63ImpSS.jpg.309d939db8333fea8bf4c03d1cb1b1c6.jpg

WARNING!  The box art is also inaccurate.  Only the non-SS had a rear cove painted body color.  This should have the engine-turned aluminum rear panel.  Seriously, though, I always thought the AMT '62-64 Impala bodies had nice lines and accurate proportions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Motor City said:

WARNING!  The box art is also inaccurate.  Only the non-SS had a rear cove painted body color.  This should have the engine-turned aluminum rear panel.  Seriously, though, I always thought the AMT '62-64 Impala bodies had nice lines and accurate proportions.

AMT and Johan did a very nice job on all of their annual kits!

 

 

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally as far as the real cars go, I much prefer the 63 Impala over the 64 Impala, that’s  just my opinion. With that being said, the AMT or REVELL 63 would make a great starting point for a mid 60’s custom. Just an idea.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...