Revell 1971 Boss 351 Mustang

[Bucky]

I sprung for three. One was the pre painted version, and one has the continental kit.

[StevenGuthmiller]

1 hour ago, Snake45 said:

You do now. 

Yeah well, there's always one in the bunch.

 

 

 

 

 

Steve

[Classicgas]

Well they released 2 versions of it and one more than once.  Dont really see how that's a bomb completely. 

[niteowl7710]

2 hours ago, Classicgas said:

Well they released 2 versions of it and one more than once.  Dont really see how that's a bomb completely. 

Well in 2020 numbers it probably would have been a nominally solid release in terms of sales.  BUT we're talking about 1999 when models were still in Wal*Mart, K-Mart, Target, Toys R Us and there were a lot more hobby shops around.  Kit runs were in the 5 digits, rather than 5k today, and anything less than 25-30k kits being sold per release was considered a flop.

[Justin Porter]

It's been some time since I've moved one of the AMT '58 Edsels so at least in terms of the most recent reissue it hasn't been a door-buster compared to other kits. It's not a kit I wouldn't stock at all, but it's definitely a "restock as needed" on my list rather than keeping a supply on hand. 

But I will also say this, 50's cars seem to be more of a turn off to my casual builder crowd than a turn on. Big swaths of chrome trim that either need foil or careful detail painting make for a daunting build regardless of which particular big American barge it happens to be. It's like how on my aircraft side, NMF airplanes aren't as popular as ones with easier to master OD or solid block camo patterns. 

[Classicgas]

2 hours ago, niteowl7710 said:

Well in 2020 numbers it probably would have been a nominally solid release in terms of sales.  BUT we're talking about 1999 when models were still in Wal*Mart, K-Mart, Target, Toys R Us and there were a lot more hobby shops around.  Kit runs were in the 5 digits, rather than 5k today, and anything less than 25-30k kits being sold per release was considered a flop.

True enough. 

[martinfan5]

7 hours ago, Justin Porter said:

But I will also say this, 50's cars seem to be more of a turn off to my casual builder crowd than a turn on. Big swaths of chrome trim that either need foil or careful detail painting make for a daunting build regardless of which particular big American barge it happens to be. It's like how on my aircraft side, NMF airplanes aren't as popular as ones with easier to master OD or solid block camo patterns. 

Justin, yes, a lot of chrome trim is a big turn off for me, and its one of the reasons why I rarely build anything pre 1980, I loathe BMF, while the result looks great, I just don't enjoy the process of applying it one bit, but the end result of course is worthwhile,  its interesting to hear that its a big turn off to the casual builders, but I can't say I am surprised either.   NMF?

[Justin Porter]

39 minutes ago, martinfan5 said:

Justin, yes, a lot of chrome trim is a big turn off for me, and its one of the reasons why I rarely build anything pre 1980, I loathe BMF, while the result looks great, I just don't enjoy the process of applying it one bit, but the end result of course is worthwhile,  its interesting to hear that its a big turn off to the casual builders, but I can't say I am surprised either.   NMF?

NMF - Naked Metal Finish, like on a B-29 Superfortress or F-86 Sabre. NMF build techniques range from being unhappy with a single shade of "silver" or "aluminum" to attempting to cover the whole build in Bare Metal Foil to careful multi-toning with metal paints like from Alclad, Vallejo, or AK Interactive. Heck, I enjoy working with Vallejo Metal Color and Alclad and I avoid NMF airplane builds if I can.

[GMP440]

It's interesting how this thread veered off from discussion of the Revell 71 351 Mustang to model cars of the 50's. 

[sfhess]

4 hours ago, GMP440 said:

It's interesting how this thread veered off from discussion of the Revell 71 351 Mustang to model cars of the 50's. 

Squirrel!

 

[vamach1]

4 hours ago, GMP440 said:

It's interesting how this thread veered off from discussion of the Revell 71 351 Mustang to model cars of the 50's. 

Yeah - that is odd.

[niteowl7710]

Well I mean beyond making the point to the group that this FB post was made (and then retracted) what IS the point of this thread at this juncture? Obviously we're getting a '71 Boss 351, anything beyond that (although it has to baked in from Day 1) is speculation, wish listing, griping about too many Mustangs in general, and so on and so forth.  The kit most likely has at least 9 months to a year of lead time before it comes out as they go around and scan other '71-73 cars and their engines and all of that.

[Richard Bartrop]

-Me, I think Revell should be praised  for making the effort to get it right.  though I'm sure someone will let us know why a scan directly off an actual Mustang is totally wrong.

['70 Grande]

Still would enjoy seeing Revell make the unprecedented move of showing the general public the entire process of developing a model car kit like this, from start-to-finish. 

[Chuck Kourouklis]

^^Roger that.^^

As for the thread, yup, it's just doing what threads do.

[stavanzer]

Mark D, I think your suggestion is foolish. Revell is simply not going to open themselves up to a 9 month Torrent of online nitpicking, from folks who have MANY STRONGLY HELD OPINIONS, but little actual knowledge of the Technical, Business, and Financial issues involved in successfully getting a kit to market. Model Magazines, (the Late SAE/SA, Finescale Modeler, and even older magazines) have run pictorial articles showing the basics, of how 1/10 scale masters were carved, and how production was run. Even Chroming was shown.

Now the Tools and Design are done on computers, so no Wooden Models are used, but everything else is going to remain much the same. 

And here is a secret nobody mentions. This should be known to every adult who has a job in the First World. Business is Boring. 90% (heck 98%) of the processes involved in the kit are too dull to be worth even one photo. Would you like my Outsiders Guess as to how the process happens now?

First: Meetings to decide what subject matter is to be chosen for the next kit.Lots of talk about which (Car-Truck-Plane-Tank-or Ship), should be tooled next. Everyone in the meeting has an opinion on why THEIR favorite thing should be the next kit tooled. They will have few bits of research, some W.A.G. thoughts about why the "Burp-mobile2000" is better than the " Thunderbolt Oil-Dropper" everybody else wants, and a loud voice. Eventually, after a couple meetings, the choice will be narrowed to two or three subjects. A vote will be taken. Then a second vote will be taken. After that the winner may be announced, unless somebody pitches the Mother-of-all-Hissy-Fits, to try to change the results. At this point the decision is final.

Second: Finding a subject to be used as a pattern.Much drama ensues with the usual arguments about why(or why Not), a particular subject is suitable to be used. After settling this, we move on to the rest of the Industrial Processes involved in Commercial CAD/CAM Pattern Making, and Industrial Injection Molding. There are the usual problems, errors, and misunderstandings along the way. Fixes are devised at the last minute, under great pressure. Temper Flare. Somebody Drops the Ball.

Eventually, the product reaches the market. 

Some Fellow at a keyboard finds a 3/4 view photo of the subject the kit represents. He then pronounces the kit fatally flawed because the "Framistat" is exactly 3mm too far from the "Upper Fold" of the Fender. Or Wing, Or Armour Plate........

 

That is why Revell, (and everybody else) are never going to give you the Lovingly Shot video, of "How We Made This Kit", that you've asked for.

[vamach1]

9 minutes ago, alexis said:

Mark D, I think your suggestion is foolish. Revell is simply not going to open themselves up to a 9 month Torrent of online nitpicking, from folks who have MANY STRONGLY HELD OPINIONS, but little actual knowledge of the Technical, Business, and Financial issues involved in successfully getting a kit to market. Model Magazines, (the Late SAE/SA, Finescale Modeler, and even older magazines) have run pictorial articles showing the basics, of how 1/10 scale masters were carved, and how production was run. Even Chroming was shown.

Now the Tools and Design are done on computers, so no Wooden Models are used, but everything else is going to remain much the same. 

And here is a secret nobody mentions. This should be known to every adult who has a job in the First World. Business is Boring. 90% (heck 98%) of the processes involved in the kit are too dull to be worth even one photo. Would you like my Outsiders Guess as to how the process happens now?

First: Meetings to decide what subject matter is to be chosen for the next kit.Lots of talk about which (Car-Truck-Plane-Tank-or Ship), should be tooled next. Everyone in the meeting has an opinion on why THEIR favorite thing should be the next kit tooled. They will have few bits of research, some W.A.G. thoughts about why the "Burp-mobile2000" is better than the " Thunderbolt Oil-Dropper" everybody else wants, and a loud voice. Eventually, after a couple meetings, the choice will be narrowed to two or three subjects. A vote will be taken. Then a second vote will be taken. After that the winner may be announced, unless somebody pitches the Mother-of-all-Hissy-Fits, to try to change the results. At this point the decision is final.

Second: Finding a subject to be used as a pattern.Much drama ensues with the usual arguments about why(or why Not), a particular subject is suitable to be used. After settling this, we move on to the rest of the Industrial Processes involved in Commercial CAD/CAM Pattern Making, and Industrial Injection Molding. There are the usual problems, errors, and misunderstandings along the way. Fixes are devised at the last minute, under great pressure. Temper Flare. Somebody Drops the Ball.

Eventually, the product reaches the market. 

Some Fellow at a keyboard finds a 3/4 view photo of the subject the kit represents. He then pronounces the kit fatally flawed because the "Framistat" is exactly 3mm too far from the "Upper Fold" of the Fender. Or Wing, Or Armour Plate........

 

That is why Revell, (and everybody else) are never going to give you the Lovingly Shot video, of "How We Made This Kit", that you've asked for.

No surprise in how the process actually happens.  I appreciate your sense of humor also in these days where more is badly needed. ?

[Spruslayer]

37 minutes ago, alexis said:

Mark D, I think your suggestion is foolish. Revell is simply not going to open themselves up to a 9 month Torrent of online nitpicking, from folks who have MANY STRONGLY HELD OPINIONS, but little actual knowledge of the Technical, Business, and Financial issues involved in successfully getting a kit to market. Model Magazines, (the Late SAE/SA, Finescale Modeler, and even older magazines) have run pictorial articles showing the basics, of how 1/10 scale masters were carved, and how production was run. Even Chroming was shown.

Now the Tools and Design are done on computers, so no Wooden Models are used, but everything else is going to remain much the same. 

And here is a secret nobody mentions. This should be known to every adult who has a job in the First World. Business is Boring. 90% (heck 98%) of the processes involved in the kit are too dull to be worth even one photo. Would you like my Outsiders Guess as to how the process happens now?

First: Meetings to decide what subject matter is to be chosen for the next kit.Lots of talk about which (Car-Truck-Plane-Tank-or Ship), should be tooled next. Everyone in the meeting has an opinion on why THEIR favorite thing should be the next kit tooled. They will have few bits of research, some W.A.G. thoughts about why the "Burp-mobile2000" is better than the " Thunderbolt Oil-Dropper" everybody else wants, and a loud voice. Eventually, after a couple meetings, the choice will be narrowed to two or three subjects. A vote will be taken. Then a second vote will be taken. After that the winner may be announced, unless somebody pitches the Mother-of-all-Hissy-Fits, to try to change the results. At this point the decision is final.

Second: Finding a subject to be used as a pattern.Much drama ensues with the usual arguments about why(or why Not), a particular subject is suitable to be used. After settling this, we move on to the rest of the Industrial Processes involved in Commercial CAD/CAM Pattern Making, and Industrial Injection Molding. There are the usual problems, errors, and misunderstandings along the way. Fixes are devised at the last minute, under great pressure. Temper Flare. Somebody Drops the Ball.

Eventually, the product reaches the market. 

Some Fellow at a keyboard finds a 3/4 view photo of the subject the kit represents. He then pronounces the kit fatally flawed because the "Framistat" is exactly 3mm too far from the "Upper Fold" of the Fender. Or Wing, Or Armour Plate........

 

That is why Revell, (and everybody else) are never going to give you the Lovingly Shot video, of "How We Made This Kit", that you've asked for.

As Allen said that is very likely how the process go'es.What i cant wrap my head around is why Revell let the 69 Chevelle out with an obvious  flaw that is the rear end/bumper.

In my working days I was a Mold/die maker,not models but bottle molds and tool dies.If i tried to pass something off as screwed up as the rear end of that model i would either be doing it over or depending on how much the financial  hit was i could be fired.yes i do realize virtually every model out today has some sort of flaw that one for me puts the kit in the "do not buy bin"

The 69 is some of my fav classic cars and i was excited to see what Revell would do with that subject  but with the AMT mishap and now this looks like ill be waiting a bit longer for a better example.

Looking forward to see what materializes with this Mustang,so hopefully no design train wrecks to try a make workarounds for  or worse another kit to put in the "do not buy bin" 

Edited September 12, 2020 by Spruslayer

['70 Grande]

Well, certainly not the first time that I've made a suggestion that was labeled as "foolish"... pretty sure I'll do it again tomorrow!

[martinfan5]

On 9/10/2020 at 1:47 PM, Justin Porter said:

NMF - Naked Metal Finish, like on a B-29 Superfortress or F-86 Sabre. NMF build techniques range from being unhappy with a single shade of "silver" or "aluminum" to attempting to cover the whole build in Bare Metal Foil to careful multi-toning with metal paints like from Alclad, Vallejo, or AK Interactive. Heck, I enjoy working with Vallejo Metal Color and Alclad and I avoid NMF airplane builds if I can.

Thanks Justin,  l learned something new?

[THarrison351]

On 9/9/2020 at 10:07 PM, Bucky said:

I sprung for three. One was the pre painted version, and one has the continental kit.

I've had three too! One pre-painted and built, one kit robbed of many parts and eventually the body and and trim was sold by itself and an AMT Masterpieice completed car. I thought it was a great kit for building and to rob for other Fords from the late fifties.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Oh, now - but isn't that final, squabbling rush to deadline pretty much the boilerplate plot of any product development show you've ever seen, from aerospace on down to cottage motorcycle manufacturing?  Of course board meetings are boring, which is why, y'know, you only cover the highlights if you spend any time with those at all.  That's why EDITING was invented, you see.

Actually, Mark, you've outlined something that's not only got quite the precedent in other industries, but might actually serve to mitigate all this alleged uninformed opinion.  Here's a fun trick: say something was LIDAR scanned - somebody criticizes the overall proportions and if the math is on your side, you get to say "GOTCHA!"  Sounds like that should be irresistible to some of you 'round here.

Of course, the risk in such an approach is that you may actually end up proving that a given kit's controversy is directly commensurate with its flaws; that all this fake-news criticism is actually correct relative to the problems a kit has, that the kits from LIDAR aren't complained about so much.

And THAT would tend to erode these sweet little fever dreams of the Complaining Cabal or "professional (insert kit manufacturer here) haters", these mythical klatches of modelers who are never happy with anything no matter what's put in front of them.  One discussion thread after another lays bare the lying fantasy of that premise, but if you're going to nurse a certain pathology about kit criticism, cherishing it so much you can't help bringing it up in discussions having little if anything to do with kit criticism, then the never-happy hobbyist is the sort of fairy tale you need to justify that pathology, whether great masses of them truly exist or not.

Which may actually be why some wouldn't want Revell to do such a doc. 

Not that Revell would have the time even if they wanted to. ?

Edited September 17, 2020 by Chuck Kourouklis
typos

[GMP440]

15 hours ago, Chuck Kourouklis said:

Oh, now - but isn't that final, squabbling rush to deadline pretty much the boilerplate plot of any product development show you've ever seen, from aerospace on down to cottage motorcycle manufacturing?  Of course board meetings are boring, which is why, y'know, you only cover the highlights if you spend any time with those at all.  That's why EDITING was invented, you see.

Actually, Mark, you've outlined something that's not only got quite the precedent in other industries, but might actually serve to mitigate all this alleged uninformed opinion.  Here's a fun trick: say something was LIDAR scanned - somebody criticizes the overall proportions and if the math is on your side, you get to say "GOTCHA!"  Sounds like that should be irresistible to some of you 'round here.

Of course, the risk in such an approach is that you may actually end up proving that a given kit's controversy is directly commensurate with its flaws; that all this fake-news criticism is actually correct relative to the problems a kit has, that the kits from LIDAR aren't complained about so much.

And THAT would tend to erode these sweet little fever dreams of the Complaining Cabal or "professional (insert kit manufacturer here) haters", these mythical klatches of modelers who are never happy with anything no matter what's put in front of them.  One discussion thread after another lays bare the lying fantasy of that premise, but if you're going to nurse a certain pathology about kit criticism, cherishing it so much you can't help bringing it up in discussions having little if anything to do with kit criticism, then the never-happy hobbyist is the sort of fairy tale you need to justify that pathology, whether great masses of them truly exist or not.

Which may actually be why some wouldn't want Revell to do such a doc. 

Not that Revell would have the time even if they wanted to. ?

  Well, in short;  if there is a model car subject announced for release or being developed there still will be those that will find something to complain about or nit pick .  That's the way the world is.  As one of the board members here eloquently illustrated;  it's like a record player, round and round, here we go.

 

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Alright, and if somebody could show me all the nitpicking drawn by Tamiya's 300SL Gullwing, say, or even Revell's Midgets or Round 2's 2016 Camaros or the big rigs from Moebius, I'd appreciate it - missed all that somehow.  And even if someone can show it all to me, fact is, reality aligns a bit more with certain kits presenting stuff to "nitpick" than it does with miserable hordes desperately digging for stuff to complain about.

Because we're not talking "some" here, now, are we? We're talking inevitable dog-piling of a sort to prevent Revell from ever showing the process all on its own as a reason.  And that just doesn't happen with EVERYTHING Revell or anyone else puts out.

And in well more than a decade of me asking, what nobody's been able to explain to me without some kind of inherent exaggeration or logical fallacy is just what is so upsetting about "nitpicking" on a kit you had nothing to do with developing.  Even if you accept the inevitability of some manufactured complaint about any new subject, so what?

Somebody brings up an issue.  It's there or it isn't.  If it's not there, you likely have evidence to point that out very quickly.  If it is there, it means something to you or it doesn't.  If a roof 10% too low for scale doesn't bother you, why shouldn't you enjoy the kit regardless of what anybody says?  And if it does bother you, is that the fault of the person who pointed it out? Because that's where you see the real dog-piling in one kit thread after another, squarely on that poor idiot who doesn't realize he's supposed to STAY QUIET ABOUT THE EMPEROR'S BLOOMERS, who actually dares to talk about issues topical to forums like these.

It's beyond time for people to grow up and acknowledge that even if we're talking about "toys", we're talking about toys taking on a mandate of being executed TO SCALE.  And if something is visibly inaccurate, it is entirely topical to discuss that in a forum like this, and wholly counterproductive to hector people for doing so and try to stifle that entirely topical discussion.

Will people grow up about this?  Welp, as you and Jesse have said, "round and round"...

[Justin Porter]

1 hour ago, Chuck Kourouklis said:

Alright, and if somebody could show me all the nitpicking drawn by Tamiya's 300SL Gullwing, say, or even Revell's Midgets or Round 2's 2016 Camaros or the big rigs from Moebius, I'd appreciate it - missed all that somehow.  And even if someone can show it all to me, fact is, reality aligns a bit more with certain kits presenting stuff to "nitpick" than it does with miserable hordes desperately digging for stuff to complain about.

Because we're not talking "some" here, now, are we? We're talking inevitable dog-piling of a sort to prevent Revell from ever showing the process all on its own as a reason.  And that just doesn't happen with EVERYTHING Revell or anyone else puts out.

 

Wait, so you're suggesting that rivet counters don't just spontaneously generate issues with kits if they're properly designed from the get go? That's absurd! That would suggest that they merely want accurate model kits!