fseva Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 What info is "tainted", and what is the source of the "tainted" info? Read just about any "review" the media publishes, and you won't find hardly anything negative. I know for a fact that SA won't even allow negative comments in their gallery postings - I had some of my submissions rejected for that reason! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fseva Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 fseva, it is a helpful review. Everybody knows what this kit is now, if they didn't before. We are all friends. Not going to get mad at each other over this Cougar kit. Wow, that's the nicest thing someone has said to me since the flames burst forth! I'm glad to know that no one is going to lose sleep over my review, and that we can all remain friends, even though our differences are quite far apart! Thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1930fordpickup Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 That's a very nice offer and I will definitely keep it in mind. Just one thing though, does knowing when the kit was released guarantee that it won't be unchanged when it's re-released? Or would the manufacturer would say something like "complete upgrade to tool"? Mostly anything produced in the 60's and 70's are going to be just like the kit you do not like. The stuff that has more detail are very hard to put together and things do not always line up well in these early high detail kits. Not all but of them but most of them. If the question is asked you will get an answer on here, it just may take awhile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbuzzed Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Read just about any "review" the media publishes, and you won't find hardly anything negative. I know for a fact that SA won't even allow negative comments in their gallery postings - I had some of my submissions rejected for that reason! Well.. let's just agree to disagree, and leave it at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fseva Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) I also wanted to add a disclaimer for the decals - I used the black side stripes on my Hugger Orange model, and both decals broke up into several pieces when I attempted to remove them from the backer. Mind you, these were not pieces that were designed to break at certain panel lines - even the word "eliminator" broke into 3 pieces on one of the stripes! Edited March 10, 2015 by fseva Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) Frank, I was going to make a personal apology to you and give you some decal tips. Too bad you are being a jerkand blocked me. You know, I was not the only one to defend the kit. Edited March 10, 2015 by midnightprowler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sledsel Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Fellas, I want to know if anyone will release the Dyno Don "Super Cat" drag car decals along with his Pro Stock Cougar decals ??? I haven't seen many pics of the ProStocker, I wonder if there was ever a magazine article on the car ? billygooche on ebay has them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim boyd Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) Read just about any "review" the media publishes, and you won't find hardly anything negative. Frank...I've been following this thread since the beginning, and since no one else representing the "media" has weighed in here yet (at least that I've seen), I guess I need to speak up. First of all, for someone returning to the hobby after quite some time away, it's not hard for me to understand why you would be disappointed by a kit like this one based on late 1960's kit tooling technology. Point taken and understood. Second, I have written kit reviews occasionally, for Model Cars (such as the recent two-part "Odd Rods" kit series), for the "other" model mag, as well as for my own Fotki site. I always endeavor to include a kit's history at the start of a kit review, and then I also try to give a fair assessment of the plus points of the kit, as well as the drawbacks. As an example, I am looking at a kit review I did of the AMT 1940 Willys Coupe/Pickup Gasser I did for the other mag in their February, 2014 issue. In addition to the first two paragraphs of the review which recapped the kit's origins and history (including dates), here were the "negatives" of that kit that I mentioned: 1) Excessive flash 2) Ejector pin marks on some parts 3) Rear metal axle needs to be shortened 4) Front axle needs to be moved forward to align properly in fender wheel well openings 5) Supercharger drive belt guard too thick 6) Seat mounting points in floorboard need to be filled from underneath 7) PIckup bed locater holes for fenders need to be opened up on the outside and filled on the inside 8) Interior was a tight fit in the body, requiring Super Glue and Accelerator to stay put Hmmm....that's a pretty comprehensive list of "negatives".... As for my Fotki site, here are links to two reviews I did (I don't usually do reviews of old kit reissues there, but these two were an exception): Round 2 AMT 1968 Plymouth RoadRunner: http://public.fotki.com/funman1712/first-look-at-all-n/refreshed-amt-round/ Here you'll see that I provide a history of the kit including photos of prior releases (Slide 9), and while I am highly complimentary of the new box art, I point out areas of the kit that have been criticized (slides 14 and 15), and then i conclude with several slides comparing the AMT body to the original JoHan 1969 Road Runner kit. Again....pulling no punches, just an attempt at a factual, matter of fact review. Round 2 AMT 1969 Chevelle SS396 Convertible: http://public.fotki.com/funman1712/first-look-at-all-n/first-lookwhats-new-1/ - Here I include the kit history (again showing, in this case, the box art of the single prior release), and I have a photo showing the additional work required on the passenger side rear quarter panel (slide 7) and the oft-criticized rear tailamp feature (slide 10). Even so...some people thought I was too kind with this kit (as you'll see in some of the review comments). In all, there are over 30 kit reviews posted here http://public.fotki.com/funman1712/first-look-at-all-n/ and most of them follow a similar format (I recommend you use the "Roll" feature to see the photos in full size and read the captions that go with them). I always call 'em as I see 'em. I've been doing this for over 35 years, and I honestly can't recall, except for one instance about 13 years ago, where I was told that I had made a not-factual statement (it was an assumption, but an educated assumption that has never been proven wrong), that my kit reviews have ever been toned down by "the media" that published them. I can't speak for others that review kits, but my overall take is that most all kit reviewers try to give an honest assessment of the kits, both the plus points and the negative points. I also realize that many participants in this forum don't read either of the model car magazines, so it is possible that in this case, maybe the "media" you are referring to is some other venue than the two magazines. One final comment; I don't have this latest reissue of the Cougar Eiminator, but I have built the original kit (in my case, the 1978 "Countdown" series issue, pictured below), and I have also built the Boss 302 engine that was added in the 1990's redo of this kit, and I presume is in this new reissue (if that is not the case, please disregard the following comment). My take is that the original kit was among the better of the late 1960's model kits that were tooled then, and that the Boss 302 engine may be the best miniaturization of that engine to be found in any scale kit. But again, this comes from my perspective as one who has built models pretty continually from the early 1960's to today. I can certainly understand your point of view as someone who left the hobby, then returned years later and expected that the kit quality would have uniformly improved during that time. Best regards...TIM Edited March 10, 2015 by tim boyd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete L. Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Andy, Thanks for the heads up !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete L. Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) Tim, Super nice build of the yellow Cougar above and the orange Cougar a few pages back by Tim Harrison is also very well done !!! Edited March 10, 2015 by Pete L. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1972coronet Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Thank you for sharing your perspective and comprehensive overviews (including links) , Tim ! To all ; you can take Tim's word as solid gold . The very first article I ever read by Mr. Boyd was in a late-1985 issue of SAE ; it was a comparison-contrast of the fledgling 50's F-100 kits of the time ( MPC [1953 , with tilt front clip] , AMT [ 1953 , when AMT was a completely-separate entity from MPC] , Monogram [ 1955 , when Monogram was a separate entitly from Revell] , and Revell [ 1956 , and separate from Monogram] ). At the risk of hyperbole : best kit review I'd ever had the pleasure of perusing ! Mr. Boyd pulls no punches . His reviews are firm , and most importantly , absolutely fair . Thanks again for chiming in , Tim ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Frank...I've been following this thread since the beginning, and since no one else representing the "media" has weighed in here yet (at least that I've seen), I guess I need to speak up. First of all, for someone returning to the hobby after quite some time away, it's not hard for me to understand why you would be disappointed by a kit like this one based on late 1960's kit tooling technology. Point taken and understood. Second, I have written kit reviews occasionally, for Model Cars (such as the recent two-part "Odd Rods" kit series), for the "other" model mag, as well as for my own Fotki site. I always endeavor to include a kit's history at the start of a kit review, and then I also try to give a fair assessment of the plus points of the kit, as well as the drawbacks. As an example, I am looking at a kit review I did of the AMT 1940 Willys Coupe/Pickup Gasser I did for the other mag in their February, 2014 issue. In addition to the first two paragraphs of the review which recapped the kit's origins and history (including dates), here were the "negatives" of that kit that I mentioned: 1) Excessive flash 2) Ejector pin marks on some parts 3) Rear metal axle needs to be shortened 4) Front axle needs to be moved forward to align properly in fender wheel well openings 5) Supercharger drive belt guard too thick 6) Seat mounting points in floorboard need to be filled from underneath 7) PIckup bed locater holes for fenders need to be opened up on the outside and filled on the inside 8) Interior was a tight fit in the body, requiring Super Glue and Accelerator to stay put Hmmm....that's a pretty comprehensive list of "negatives".... As for my Fotki site, here are links to two reviews I did (I don't usually do reviews of old kit reissues there, but these two were an exception): Round 2 AMT 1968 Plymouth RoadRunner: http://public.fotki.com/funman1712/first-look-at-all-n/refreshed-amt-round/ Here you'll see that I provide a history of the kit including photos of prior releases (Slide 9), and while I am highly complimentary of the new box art, I point out areas of the kit that have been criticized (slides 14 and 15), and then i conclude with several slides comparing the AMT body to the original JoHan 1969 Road Runner kit. Again....pulling no punches, just an attempt at a factual, matter of fact review. Round 2 AMT 1969 Chevelle SS396 Convertible: http://public.fotki.com/funman1712/first-look-at-all-n/first-lookwhats-new-1/ - Here I include the kit history (again showing, in this case, the box art of the single prior release), and I have a photo showing the additional work required on the passenger side rear quarter panel (slide 7) and the oft-criticized rear tailamp feature (slide 10). Even so...some people thought I was too kind with this kit (as you'll see in some of the review comments). In all, there are over 30 kit reviews posted here http://public.fotki.com/funman1712/first-look-at-all-n/ and most of them follow a similar format (I recommend you use the "Roll" feature to see the photos in full size and read the captions that go with them). I always call 'em as I see 'em. I've been doing this for over 35 years, and I honestly can't recall, except for one instance about 13 years ago, where I was told that I had made a not-factual statement (it was an assumption, but an educated assumption that has never been proven wrong), that my kit reviews have ever been toned down by "the media" that published them. I can't speak for others that review kits, but my overall take is that most all kit reviewers try to give an honest assessment of the kits, both the plus points and the negative points. I also realize that many participants in this forum don't read either of the model car magazines, so it is possible that in this case, maybe the "media" you are referring to is some other venue than the two magazines. One final comment; I don't have this latest reissue of the Cougar Eiminator, but I have built the original kit (in my case, the 1978 "Countdown" series issue, pictured below), and I have also built the Boss 302 engine that was added in the 1990's redo of this kit, and I presume is in this new reissue (if that is not the case, please disregard the following comment). My take is that the original kit was among the better of the late 1960's model kits that were tooled then, and that the Boss 302 engine may be the best miniaturization of that engine to be found in any scale kit. But again, this comes from my perspective as one who has built models pretty continually from the early 1960's to today. I can certainly understand your point of view as someone who left the hobby, then returned years later and expected that the kit quality would have uniformly improved during that time. Best regards...TIM Beautiful build Tim! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ellis Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 With regard to seeing this '69 Cougar kit reissued as a Dyno Don's Super Cat, it would have to be the AMT kit presented as an MPC kit. There were 2 '69 Cougar kits; one was an AMT and the other an MPC. The MPC '69 was not sold as a 1969 annual but as a Super Cat. It could be built stock and all I ever saw were red plastic. While the AMT got reissued in 1977, the MPC became a 1970 in an annual style box. There was a MPC 1970 Cougar hardtop and convertible. The MPC Cougar was again converted to a 1971, 1973 and finally a 1973. The 1973 was recently reissued from ERTL. While some of the parts from the 1969/1970 MPC Cougar exist (in the 1973), the bodies are missing, with the exception of the 1970 convertible boot which is found in the latest issue of the 1973. I guess Round2 could duplicate the box and decals with an AMT kit inside? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveM Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Fantastic build, Tim. I really like that one. I might be biased a bit, though. On the aircraft boards, and photobucket, my handle is "Cougdave". In the '80s, I used to use things like "1970XR7" and "351Cougar" for passwords, and I still have one Cougar in the garage needing restoration. (Waiting for life to allow me to get back to it) Great looking model. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fseva Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 First of all, for someone returning to the hobby after quite some time away, it's not hard for me to understand why you would be disappointed by a kit like this one based on late 1960's kit tooling technology. Point taken and understood. Second, I have written kit reviews occasionally, for Model Cars (such as the recent two-part "Odd Rods" kit series), for the "other" model mag, as well as for my own Fotki site. I always endeavor to include a kit's history at the start of a kit review, and then I also try to give a fair assessment of the plus points of the kit, as well as the drawbacks. As an example, I am looking at a kit review I did of the AMT 1940 Willys Coupe/Pickup Gasser I did for the other mag in their February, 2014 issue. In addition to the first two paragraphs of the review which recapped the kit's origins and history (including dates), here were the "negatives" of that kit that I mentioned: 1) Excessive flash 2) Ejector pin marks on some parts 3) Rear metal axle needs to be shortened 4) Front axle needs to be moved forward to align properly in fender wheel well openings 5) Supercharger drive belt guard too thick 6) Seat mounting points in floorboard need to be filled from underneath 7) PIckup bed locater holes for fenders need to be opened up on the outside and filled on the inside 8) Interior was a tight fit in the body, requiring Super Glue and Accelerator to stay put Hmmm....that's a pretty comprehensive list of "negatives".... I can't speak for others that review kits, but my overall take is that most all kit reviewers try to give an honest assessment of the kits, both the plus points and the negative points. I also realize that many participants in this forum don't read either of the model car magazines, so it is possible that in this case, maybe the "media" you are referring to is some other venue than the two magazines. Thanks for weighing in, Tim. OK - in answer to some of your points... The 8 negatives, while exceptional in length, are not really all that important to a new builder or a returning builder. I'm not worried about pin marks, etc., which for the most part are going to be pretty much hidden from view (unless you're building for a competition, which I'm not). I have a general feel for what's happening, not that I have specifics in mind because I don't have that good of a memory. Since some reviews are published well after release of the kit, I have built (or attempted to build) a kit that is reviewed later, and I have not found the problems I discovered even being mentioned. Oh, I suppose the editor could say they just ran out of room, but boy oh boy, they sure do get in that final positive comment "I would recommend this kit to... When are they going to say something like, "I can't recommend this kit to new builders or returning builders who are expecting modern tooling, because they probably will get frustrated, throw the thing at the wall and move on to another hobby" (embellished to make a point). I do agree that anyone who wants to do reviews (I did reviews of game software for many years) has in mind telling the whole story; that's why I feel it's the editors who are to blame for removing negative points that could actually be helpful to non-contest builders, and might keep them from buying a sub-par kit. Finally, I am referring to the print media - not private web publishers who have no vested interest in their publications... unless they accept advertising! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dublin boy Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 I suppose you're making a good point in general Frank. I'm not sure of the price points over there, but let's assume the US Revell kits are the same price as the old AMT Cougar. You could walk out of the store with something like the Revell 49 Merc which is almost shake and bake, pour some glue and paint into the box, shake it around and out comes a beautiful kit, not quite so with the Cougar, which would naturally dissapoint. It's easy for us that have built the Cougar many years ago to say 'oh well, you should have known better' etc, but how would you know how if you were not very involved in the hobby and didn't watch model car forums? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jantrix Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) I kinda like kit's like this. Seems silly I suppose. But when I get a great kit, I find more difficult to do something like this to it. These old and comparatively poorly executed are perfect for beating up/weathering/cutting on because if I screw it up, all I'm out is the cost of a kit ($8 from a swap meet) and I haven't ruined a great kit. The OP is entitled to his opinion, and since he's been out of the game a while, it's mostly based on ignorance. I for one am glad Round2 is repopping these no matter how lame & old they are. And Frank, if this kit upset you, stay away from the AMT 66 Mustang Coupe that just got repopped. That one might cause a cerebral hemorrhage. Edited March 11, 2015 by Jantrix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbuzzed Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 The model magazines- the three that I read from cover-to-cover, and those imports that I occasionally go through- all advise when a particular kit is not recommended for beginners. They do also advise when a particular kit is best suited for modelers of different skill levels, and what that level might be. The reviews in each do advise the good and bad points of a kit, whatever they are, from ejection pin marks to tolerance issues to difficulty or ease in assembling. I have seen reviews in which the builders have admitted to omitting parts for various reasons. Mind you, those who do the reviews are experienced builders, who would be able to overcome such problems if they were not building strictly box-stock for kit reviews. The reviews are seen after the kit is released because that is what the consumer will see. A build-up of that kit is what is necessary to demonstrate the positive and negative points of the kit. As far as throwing a model at a wall, that is probably something which we all have done at one time, at least metaphorically, even as experienced builders. In my 54 years of building, I distinctly remember one unfortunate MPC kit meeting it's demise under my foot; I'm sure there were others along the way. As we gain experience, patience and better skills, the desire to stomp or throw or whatever wanes and the model gets put back in the box, to be continued at a later date when a little more experience can help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ellis Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 I wish somebody had the resin pieces to turn this '69 Round2 kit into a '70 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exotics_Builder Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Thanks for weighing in, Tim. OK - in answer to some of your points... The 8 negatives, while exceptional in length, are not really all that important to a new builder or a returning builder. I'm not worried about pin marks, etc., which for the most part are going to be pretty much hidden from view (unless you're building for a competition, which I'm not). I have a general feel for what's happening, not that I have specifics in mind because I don't have that good of a memory. Since some reviews are published well after release of the kit, I have built (or attempted to build) a kit that is reviewed later, and I have not found the problems I discovered even being mentioned. Oh, I suppose the editor could say they just ran out of room, but boy oh boy, they sure do get in that final positive comment "I would recommend this kit to... When are they going to say something like, "I can't recommend this kit to new builders or returning builders who are expecting modern tooling, because they probably will get frustrated, throw the thing at the wall and move on to another hobby" (embellished to make a point). I do agree that anyone who wants to do reviews (I did reviews of game software for many years) has in mind telling the whole story; that's why I feel it's the editors who are to blame for removing negative points that could actually be helpful to non-contest builders, and might keep them from buying a sub-par kit. Finally, I am referring to the print media - not private web publishers who have no vested interest in their publications... unless they accept advertising! Might I suggest, since you live in SE Wisconsin, that you should seek out the AMG model group. Not only would you get a depth of knowledge on kits (reissues, modified reissues or whatever) but also build techniques and other benefits. There are several members of AMG on this board. If you have not yet become involved with them, this would be a great opportunity for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fseva Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 I suppose you're making a good point in general Frank. It's easy for us that have built the Cougar many years ago to say 'oh well, you should have known better' etc, but how would you know how if you were not very involved in the hobby and didn't watch model car forums? I couldn't have said it better myself! In regard to the model car forums, though, even if you were an active participant, you still might not hit on the info you want. That's why I have looked to print media in the past, but after getting a 3-year taste of SA, I see nothing that gives me confidence in their reviews, which to me, are little more than consumer pep-talks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fseva Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 The OP is entitled to his opinion, and since he's been out of the game a while, it's mostly based on ignorance. I for one am glad Round2 is repopping these no matter how lame & old they are. And Frank, if this kit upset you, stay away from the AMT 66 Mustang Coupe that just got repopped. That one might cause a cerebral hemorrhage. Thanks for the warning! However, I'm not really a newbie - been back in the hobby for about 4 years, and since this ain't rocket science, I've built enough kits to know what I'm talking about. Of course, as usual, an opinion is an opinion - not the word of god... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fseva Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 As far as throwing a model at a wall, that is probably something which we all have done at one time, at least metaphorically, even as experienced builders. In my 54 years of building, I distinctly remember one unfortunate MPC kit meeting it's demise under my foot; I'm sure there were others along the way. As we gain experience, patience and better skills, the desire to stomp or throw or whatever wanes and the model gets put back in the box, to be continued at a later date when a little more experience can help. Wow - ain't that the truth! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fseva Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Might I suggest, since you live in SE Wisconsin, that you should seek out the AMG model group. Not only would you get a depth of knowledge on kits (reissues, modified reissues or whatever) but also build techniques and other benefits. There are several members of AMG on this board. If you have not yet become involved with them, this would be a great opportunity for you. Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm pretty much confined to my home. So, I'm relying more and more on online info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim boyd Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) Thanks for weighing in, Tim. OK - in answer to some of your points... The 8 negatives, while exceptional in length, are not really all that important to a new builder or a returning builder. I'm not worried about pin marks, etc., which for the most part are going to be pretty much hidden from view (unless you're building for a competition, which I'm not). I have a general feel for what's happening, not that I have specifics in mind because I don't have that good of a memory. Since some reviews are published well after release of the kit, I have built (or attempted to build) a kit that is reviewed later, and I have not found the problems I discovered even being mentioned. Oh, I suppose the editor could say they just ran out of room, but boy oh boy, they sure do get in that final positive comment "I would recommend this kit to... When are they going to say something like, "I can't recommend this kit to new builders or returning builders who are expecting modern tooling, because they probably will get frustrated, throw the thing at the wall and move on to another hobby" (embellished to make a point). I do agree that anyone who wants to do reviews (I did reviews of game software for many years) has in mind telling the whole story; that's why I feel it's the editors who are to blame for removing negative points that could actually be helpful to non-contest builders, and might keep them from buying a sub-par kit. Frank...sounds like your mind is made up....but for the rest of you following this thread.... I have had work published in over 30 publications during my modeling/writing career, and I cannot recall a single instance where any editor materially altered a negative comment or overall conclusion I made about a kit. And if it ever happens in the future...well I probably wouldn't be doing kit reviews for that publication going forward. I'm not saying it never happens, but I can definitively say it's never happened to me. And I can say that, whatever disagreements I may have had with one editor or another on unrelated subjects, my overall impression is that they have all prioritized "the truth" about a kit over other considerations, including advertising considerations. TIM Edited March 11, 2015 by tim boyd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.e0420fe52e683c60d19e843462316523.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.