1/25 AMT '63 Ford Galaxie

[MrObsessive]

Interesting thread here about the '63 Ford. I have the old Prestige kit from the '80's and until you guys started talking about it, I never noticed the incorrect interior as far as the door patterns and whatnot.

Now the body while to my eyes is spot on, IMO the rear backlite could stand to be "shrunk" just a bit as it seems too large to me. Of course, I'm not a fan of molded in chassis detail especially if I'm going to put a lot of attention on the engine. So I'd modify the '60 Starliner as that was basically the same (through '64 actually) and I can do the necessary mods to make it work.

As far as new kits are concerned...........as others have said it's sad but true that we are a shrinking market. I have to look no further than a model show and can't help but notice all the gray hairs and the 50+ crowd that dominate the shows. Let's face it................30 years from now (I'll be pushing 90 if I make it that long) not too many of us will be around that'll remember when a '57 Chevy and '69 Camaros populated the roads.

That's the reality that time takes on all of us.

[StevenGuthmiller]

I look at it from the view point that we are supposed to be modelers, not necessarily just "assemblers".

I think that the '63 Ford kit that we already have is more than adequate if you are really interested in building one.

If you are not an advanced modeler that can manage the modifications necessary to transform what is provided in the current kit into a fully detailed model, then what is already in the kit should be sufficient to depict a relatively accurate model of the subject.

There are plenty of options available for kit bashing on this kit.

This sort of subject comes up on these boards all of the time, and every time it's exactly the same argument with different subject matter.

"The old ________ kit is not adequate. When are they going to give us a new tool ________kit?

Well guys, the answer is very likely NEVER, so consider yourself lucky that a '63 Ford kit exists at all.

This exact same question and argument could be pondered for about 5,000 other old annual style kits.

The '63 Ford is no different, and no more worthy of a new tool than any of the others.

 

 

By the way, the interior door panel and seat patterns are correct for an XL on the current kit.

The convertible top "wells" are an issue that needs to either be addressed or ignored on nearly every hard top annual produced in the 60s.

You can either fix them, or live with them.

 

 

Steve

 

Edited November 10, 2019 by StevenGuthmiller

[stavanzer]

Yep, Steve, I agree with you.

[Brian Austin]

Hah.  Fords and Chevys.  Try being a Studebaker fan. 

:-P

[StevenGuthmiller]

14 minutes ago, Brian Austin said:

Hah.  Fords and Chevys.  Try being a Studebaker fan. 

?

That exact sentiment is accurate for a whole host of subject matter.

Even more mainstream makes like Oldsmobile, Buick, Mercury, etc.

 

Think of it this way.

There hasn't been an example of any full sized Mercurys produced since 1966.

No big Oldsmobiles since 1965.

Even something as common as a Plymouth Fury has been ignored since 1968.

These are just the tip of the iceberg.

All of these kits have the exact same issues that the '63 Ford has.

Which of them is more worthy of a new tooling?

 

 

Steve

 

[Classicgas]

All are worthy!?

[Force]

Well if we don't push the manufacturers and ask for things we will never get anything new, that's my opinion.

[Force]

5 hours ago, Casey said:

Nothing wrong with being more of the latter than the former, but I think we all know, unless there's some involvement from one of the 1:1 manufacturers, an all-new automotive kit from Round2 isn't part of their plan.

There is also nothing wrong with trying to get them to change their plan.
Yes they can continue reissuing old kits with some small additions for a while but the market for that shrinks even more with time, I don't know if anyone wants to buy the same kits over and over if that's what we have to get used to, new boxart, decals and pad printed tries doesn't make the 50-60 years old kits any better.
If they are putting the tooling dollars into the Sci-Fi market may be because they ask for more, if we don't do that too they might think we are satisfied with what they give us and I thought they would have done a few new tooling automotive kits by now 12-14 years after they got control over the old RC2 brands.
It also seems like they may have hit the bottom of usable old molds in the tooling bank as they are starting over with some of their earlier reissues and what they have announced lately is not the best they have, for example the 63 and 64 Impalas and the 69 Camaro.
Maybe some other manufacturer will step up and do new kits of the 1963-64 Galaxies...there still is a questionmark for Revell but Moebius maybe.

Edited November 10, 2019 by Force

[StevenGuthmiller]

1 hour ago, Force said:

Well if we don't push the manufacturers and ask for things we will never get anything new, that's my opinion.

Sure, you can make suggestions, but there is very little probability that anybody is ever going to do an all new tool of virtually any full sized American automobile any more.

It's all about muscle cars and hot rods.

 

As I said, if we haven't been able to even get a new tooling of something as basic as a Plymouth Fury or Pontiac Bonneville since the mid to late 60s, what are the chances of seeing anything else.

 

 

 

Steve

[SfanGoch]

49 minutes ago, StevenGuthmiller said:

...what are the chances of seeing anything else.

 

[gtx6970]

Ive got a few of these already . And at a lot less then Im sure retail will be in this one

[MININORTHFORDMAN]

6 hours ago, StevenGuthmiller said:

I look at it from the view point that we are supposed to be modelers, not necessarily just "assemblers".

I think that the '63 Ford kit that we already have is more than adequate if you are really interested in building one.

If you are not an advanced modeler that can manage the modifications necessary to transform what is provided in the current kit into a fully detailed model, then what is already in the kit should be sufficient to depict a relatively accurate model of the subject.

There are plenty of options available for kit bashing on this kit.

This sort of subject comes up on these boards all of the time, and every time it's exactly the same argument with different subject matter.

"The old ________ kit is not adequate. When are they going to give us a new tool ________kit?

Well guys, the answer is very likely NEVER, so consider yourself lucky that a '63 Ford kit exists at all.

This exact same question and argument could be pondered for about 5,000 other old annual style kits.

The '63 Ford is no different, and no more worthy of a new tool than any of the others.

 

 

By the way, the interior door panel and seat patterns are correct for an XL on the current kit.

The convertible top "wells" are an issue that needs to either be addressed or ignored on nearly every hard top annual produced in the 60s.

You can either fix them, or live with them.

 

 

Steve

 

i totally agree with you Steve

[Force]

I don't.
All this negativity will not help to get anything and this hobby will for sure die sooner than you think if this keeps up...if you don't want any new kits and feel that what we allready got is adequate, well that's fine by me, I allready have kits enough to last me a couple of lifetimes so it doesn't matter.
Here I try to be positive and wish for a new kit, give creative suggestions on how it could be done and try to get support from fellow modelers for it but allmost immediately got sabled down, I don't care to try anymore as it seems to be a huge waste of time because not many who wrote in this topic seems to be interested in getting new tooling kits of anything...at least that's what I read between the lines.
Haven't you seen what public pressure can do, you only have to look at the 69 Boss 302 Mustang, the AAR 'Cuda and the 69 Pro Modeler Charger kits from Revell and the 61 Impala kit from Lindberg to see what I mean...without it Revell and Lindberg  would not have cared as it was a lot cheaper for them not to do anything and leave the kits as they were...the AAR 'Cuda got three attempts and it's not perfect yet but a lot better than the first try and a new body tool was cut for the 69 Charger and 61 Impala.

Edited November 11, 2019 by Force

[StevenGuthmiller]

38 minutes ago, Force said:

All this negativity will not help to get anything and this hobby will for sure die sooner than you think if this keeps up...if you don't want any new kits and feel that what we allready got is adequate, well that's fine by me,

It's not about being negative.

I see it as just facing reality.

The future of this hobby is not in full sized American cars.

It's in foreign exotics, tuners, hot rods and show cars, and a muscle car here and there.

 

It's not that we all don't want new kits, it's just with the market as it is today, there is just not enough interest in a lot of these kinds of cars.

It breaks my heart because these are the cars that I love as well.

 

45 minutes ago, Force said:

I don't care to try anymore as it seems to be a huge waste of time because not many who wrote in this topic seems to be interested in getting new tooling kits of anything...at least that's what I read between the lines.

As I said, it's not because many of us are not interested.

I love these cars!

It's pretty much all that I build.

 

48 minutes ago, Force said:

Haven't you seen what public pressure can do, you only have to look at the 69 Boss 302 Mustang, the AAR 'Cuda and the 69 Pro Modeler Charger kits from Revell to see what I mean...without it Revell would not have cared as it was a lot cheaper for them not to do anything and leave the kits as they were...the AAR 'Cuda got three attempts and it's not perfect yet but a lot better than the first try.

All muscle car kits.

These are the type of subjects that is popular today, but that doesn't equate into the viability of a '63 or '64 Galaxie.

As I stated before, All that you need to do is look at the type and number of full sized cars that have been newly tooled in the past 10 to 15 years.

A couple of '57 Fords and tri-five Chevies.

Otherwise, it's been pretty much all intermediates, rods and muscle cars.

That's where the market is right now.

 

A couple of decades ago when Revell/Monogram, AMT and Lindberg were churning out kits like the Monogram '59 Caddys, '59, '60, '64 '65 and '66 Impalas, AMT gave us the '62 and '67 Chevies as well as the '60 Ford, '58 Edsel, etc, and Linberg produced kits like the '61 Impala and the '53 Ford, I would have said, yeah, there's a possibility that a little pressure might produce a few other full sized '60s cars.

But today, with Revell and Moebius hanging on by their finger nails and Round 2 basically just re-popping old stuff, I don't know where any of this stuff would come from.

With today's atmosphere, we will be BLAH_BLAH_BLAH_BLAH lucky to get anything new anymore.

 

 

Steve

[the other Mike S.]

13 hours ago, Force said:

Quote

I can't believe I'm sitting here arguing about new possible kits with fellow modelbuilders, I can understand if manufacturers have arguments for this and that but not model builders..I belive all of you as well as I want new kits now and then.

I'm a realist and not a dreamer and here I see a possibillity to do "new" and better kits for less money than what a new tooling kit costs, yes it's expensive to do but it's a suggestion for someone at Round2 if they see it, and all I want is to get some support from my fellow modelers to get more leverage, and all I get is arguments against...one can give up for less. *sigh*

I agree with this.  It's almost as if they're arguing against new product development.  The only logical conclusion I can think of is investment collectibility.  If new and better tools are made of these older kits, their old kit stashes may be worth a lot less on Ebay.  Just like all the Johan tooling that mysteriously vanished 25 years ago.  We're supposed to believe that most of the tooling was either lost or stolen for scrap value by disgruntled workers.  Yeah right!

For me, I'd rather have a new tool kit that has spot on body details and proportions and simple detail than one with tons of detail and a cartoon for a body.  It seems when a model company ventures into making an all new tool of a vintage car model, it takes them several tries to get the basic things right, if they ever get it right.  I don't know why that is with the tech that is available today.  The new tools of current models seem to be spot on though.  Does it just come down to having the original manufacturer's blueprints?            

 

Edited November 11, 2019 by the other Mike S.

[niteowl7710]

I'd also like to point out the reality that exists that there's pretty much nothing in the Round2 tooling catalog past the current Camaro kits, the CoT Nascar Snapper, the General Lee Snapper, and the Showroom Replica kits that exists as a digital CAD file.  Everything that was made prior to AMT/Ertl being sold to Racing Champion were made the old fashioned, pre-computer aided design way.  So it's not just so easy to take a "X" that exists and spin into a "Y" without have severe compromises in how it all comes together in the end.  I mean how long has the recombinated '70 Super Bee existed now, and no one has every bothered to tool up a new runner of clear parts so you don't have to perform surgery on the bottom of the old MPC Coronet glass to get it to mate to the AMT Roadrunner chassis.  When they tooled up that new stock grille for the original Gremlin kit, it didn't fit.

If modelers would suck it up and pay what it would actually cost to get new tooling made - and not act like the sales at Ollie's and clearances at Hobby Lobby are the only way kits are affordable - then maybe you'd see some movement towards getting some of these wish list items fulfilled. 

[DukeE]

4 minutes ago, niteowl7710 said:

If modelers would suck it up and pay what it would actually cost to get new tooling made - and not act like the sales at Ollie's and clearances at Hobby Lobby are the only way kits are affordable - then maybe you'd see some movement towards getting some of these wish list items fulfilled. 

This. Really not much else. Sci-fi and military guys far less miserly. People even complain about resin prices with all that hand labor. 

We're not negative, the market isn't there. Amazed they did the '60 actually, and it's nice. I love Fords, and I love the old annuals. Still, a Camaro, Mustang, Chevelle will sell 8-1 or better than a full-size anything. They don't kit current pickups. Ford sells 2-3 per minute, 24/7/365. Lunatic fringe here a smaller audience. 

[the other Mike S.]

4 minutes ago, niteowl7710 said:

I'd also like to point out the reality that exists that there's pretty much nothing in the Round2 tooling catalog past the current Camaro kits, the CoT Nascar Snapper, the General Lee Snapper, and the Showroom Replica kits that exists as a digital CAD file.  Everything that was made prior to AMT/Ertl being sold to Racing Champion were made the old fashioned, pre-computer aided design way.  So it's not just so easy to take a "X" that exists and spin into a "Y" without have severe compromises in how it all comes together in the end.  I mean how long has the recombinated '70 Super Bee existed now, and no one has every bothered to tool up a new runner of clear parts so you don't have to perform surgery on the bottom of the old MPC Coronet glass to get it to mate to the AMT Roadrunner chassis.  When they tooled up that new stock grille for the original Gremlin kit, it didn't fit.

If modelers would suck it up and pay what it would actually cost to get new tooling made - and not act like the sales at Ollie's and clearances at Hobby Lobby are the only way kits are affordable - then maybe you'd see some movement towards getting some of these wish list items fulfilled. 

I think they're making enough money, even at HL 40% coupon prices, to have the parts fit correctly.  I certainly don't want to be paying Tamiya prices on '60's era kit tool reissues.  $40-$50 a pop for a kit would price me, along with a lot of other people, out of the hobby.   Also, Round 2 can do a lot with the new tool '69 Charger snapper. When you think about, that's probably the only way they were able to get that one done.  Perhaps making it a simplified snapper reduced costs compared to a full on detailed kit.  Same thing with the old and new Ford Raptor snap kit by Revell.  That is, unless these were failed promos that the manufacturer did not approve for some reason.  Revell's excellent '69 Camaro SS/RS snapper was supposed to be a retro promo from Chevrolet until GM killed it.         

[Motor City]

Once the car companies decided to stop using promotional model cars as a marketing tool, AMT and MPC were suddenly in trouble.  Aside from the GM B-body convertibles and hardtops from '71-75, the '70 XL, and '69-'71 300 and Sport Fury, there haven't been many large cars made for modelers to potentially get excited about.  We don't help matters when someone wants an oddball like, say, an early to mid '70s police car - something with a limited appeal - and others here agree that would be a good choice.  Something like that is more suitable to the resin manufacturers.  What needs to happen is people need to go to the model car shows and talk to the model car reps, ask for realistic choices, and see what happens.  There is a business case for Round 2 to continue churning out the reissues as there are always some people just getting into modeling or returning to the hobby.  If you don't like new box art, pad-printed tires, etc., tell them or email them on their website to let them know why you aren't buying the kits.  This hobby was in its prime from 1958-1970, and has been dying a slow death ever since.  How many people on this forum would be willing to pay $45-$50 for a '62 or '63 Grand Prix, '70 XL, '70 or '71 Sport Fury GT?  I'm guessing most of us wouldn't be willing to pay a higher price to pay for the tooling.  Yet, some like me would pay $75-$100 for a resin version if it was a complete kit with plated parts.

[Force]

12 hours ago, DukeE said:

This. Really not much else. Sci-fi and military guys far less miserly. People even complain about resin prices with all that hand labor. 

We're not negative, the market isn't there. Amazed they did the '60 actually, and it's nice. I love Fords, and I love the old annuals. Still, a Camaro, Mustang, Chevelle will sell 8-1 or better than a full-size anything. They don't kit current pickups. Ford sells 2-3 per minute, 24/7/365. Lunatic fringe here a smaller audience. 

The AMT 1960 Ford Galaxie Starliner was developed in the late 90's and issued in 2001 in two versions and was one of the last new tooling kits AMT did together with the 1958 Edsel Pacer, 1970½ Z/28 and Baldwin Motion Camaro's, 1962 Thunderbird Convertible, 1957 Chrysler 300C, 1971 Plymouth Duster and some more, all this was before Racing Champions bought the ERTL company who owned the AMT and MPC brands...so the mid to late 90's and early 00's  wasn't bad when it came to new kits, but we haven't got much from them the last 17-18 years.
I don't know but the last kits ERTL/AMT did before RC2 could have been done by computer assisted design as it was widely used by then in many industries.
We will most likely get used to higher prices on the kits because the labour and materials isn't free even in China, and you have the transportation wich has gone up the last 10 years.

[SfanGoch]

14 hours ago, niteowl7710 said:

If modelers would suck it up and pay what it would actually cost to get new tooling made - and not act like the sales at Ollie's and clearances at Hobby Lobby are the only way kits are affordable - then maybe you'd see some movement towards getting some of these wish list items fulfilled.

 

13 hours ago, DukeE said:

This. Really not much else. Sci-fi and military guys far less miserly. People even complain about resin prices with all that hand labor.

You get what you pay for. In plain English, car modelers are cheap. More than a few balk at paying the extra money for more detail and better quality. I never complain about the cost if it's something I have an interest in. The $30 list price for a car kit is less than half of the cost for a PE set to use on one of my $80+ armor kits. The total cost for AM 3d printed upgrade parts for my $39 Revellogram 1/32 Apollo CSM kit is over $375. My $185 Italeri 1/35 S-100 Schnellboot requires almost six bills to make it RC-ready. I'm getting an HPH Models 1/48 B-52H as a birthday present to myself. This bad boy costs $855 USD.

3 hours ago, Motor City said:

How many people on this forum would be willing to pay $45-$50 for a '62 or '63 Grand Prix, '70 XL, '70 or '71 Sport Fury GT?  I'm guessing most of us wouldn't be willing to pay a higher price to pay for the tooling.  Yet, some like me would pay $75-$100 for a resin version if it was a complete kit with plated parts.

Again, you get what you pay for. Model manufacturers aren't in the business to be philanthropic. Primary consideration is to operate in the black by raking in the green.

Edited November 11, 2019 by SfanGoch

[von Zipper]

46 minutes ago, SfanGoch said:

 

 In plain English, car modelers are cheap. 

SOME are cheap , but others go deep if it's what they want .

I built the '63 Galaxie that came in the 'millennium' issue, as it happened i had just finished the '64 Mercury Marauder that had a convertible boot in the kit. I cut the roof off of the '63 and the boot fit. It's a nice shelf model to fill the gap.

I always wondered how the '61 Ford Galaxie survived but the '62  seems to be gone forever.

Edited November 11, 2019 by von Zipper

[SfanGoch]

You're definitely not the "short arms, deep pockets" type, Chris.

Your number still good? Haven't gabbed in a while.

Edited November 11, 2019 by SfanGoch

[gtx6970]

15 hours ago, niteowl7710 said:

 

If modelers would suck it up and pay what it would actually cost to get new tooling made - and not act like the sales at Ollie's and clearances at Hobby Lobby are the only way kits are affordable - then maybe you'd see some movement towards getting some of these wish list items fulfilled. 

I think cheap is a touch harsh. then again,,,,maybe not.

 

BUT

I'll use myself as an example here. I have no problem paying the current average price point ,,,which seems to be about $30 ea for modern tooled kits.,,,,,,, IF ,,,,,,,,,the modern tooled kit is right . Even though I'm of the time period when $5.99 was the norm for many years. But I realize the past is past and we live in the now. and except it for what it is,,,,or do we ?

I chose to support the manufactures with my money IF and ONLY if the product is a quality one.

 

I'll use the 2 modern kits that have my interest. The Revell 1970 Cuda and the Moebius 1965 Plymouth. Neither of which is very close to correct. What makes it worst is BOTH supposedly used CAD software to engineer and  tool up from scratch. The Cudas over exaggerated wheel lips and to low of a body line shouldn't happen.  Then we have the Moebius Plymouth with its fat lip looking leading edge of a roof combined with the hardly there door opening gaps. WHY and HOW did this happen in the 1st place. 

If both of these were done right, I would be buying a lot more of them I assure you . If the upcoming Mobeius  1965 AFX Plymouth suffers the same roof issue. I  will probably buy , one, maybe 2 and not the dozen or so I have plans for .

 

IMO, the primary issue is all the  test run cars All go  to the same people to critique it. Which may be fine,,,or maybe its not. Said person may be an expert on the 1968 Chevelle, but know nothing about the 1988 Mustang. Neither of which interests me so I have not held or plan to get either one to see with my own eyes .

I'm not trying to bash said people in any way shape or form . its just one persons opinion. If I'm wrong someone PLEASE enlighten me .

 

I'm well aware of the issues with the talked about 63 Ford. Which is mainly the interior. But give the body to a 1963 Galaxie aficionado and I'm told its extremely close to the 1/1  and this kit was designed WHEN 1962 or maybe 1963 ???????

Once completed on on the shelf one cant see the interior, yet the body is out there for the world to see . and 1st impressions are EVERYTHING

That said , I have ZERO problem waiting an extra six months for a product to arrive once its announced. IF it rights and to me the body HAS to be right to get me to open my wallet wider and wider.

 

Edited November 11, 2019 by gtx6970

[SfanGoch]

27 minutes ago, gtx6970 said:

I'm well aware of the issues with the talked about 63 Ford. Which is mainly the interior. But give the body to a 1963 Galaxie aficionado and I'm told its extremely close to the 1/1  and this kit was designed WHEN 1962 or maybe 1963 ???????

Once completed on on the shelf one cant see the interior, yet the body is out there for the world to see . and 1st impressions are EVERYTHING

That said , I have ZERO problem waiting an extra six months for a product to arrive once its announced. IF it rights and to me the body HAS to be right to get me to open my wallet wider and wider.

Bingo! It's perplexing that the pattern makers of 50+ years ago were able to design 99.9999% accurate scale kits without the benefit of the technology available today and their 21st century counterparts can't figure it out. What's preventing today's designers from incorporating 3D laser scans of their prospective projects. Reedoak uses it to create absolutely accurate and detailed figures.