Revell 67 Camaro

[Harry P.]

The problem is with the folks who come along after a flaw has been pointed out and pile on - "How do they let these leave the factory", "How could they do something this bad in 2014" "They're idiots" "Nobody with any sense works there" - that's the type of stuff I'm talking about, and it happens on every single one of these. Folks that don't even build 60's muscle cars or 1/25th scale come along and pile on whenever the topic is Revell. And I see those same folks blowing smoke up Moebius' you-know-what in their threads, even though Moebius is guilty of some of the same flaws, not to mention they tend to miss release dates by months or years, but hey, we'll cut 'em some slack because they have a guy who posts on the board. It's hypocritical. I don't favor one over the other, I sell 'em both and they both sell well, but c'mon, let's treat them both the same.

I agree that the piling on is unnecessary.

As far as Moebius getting all the hugs and kisses... obviously they have developed a rapport with us, because Dave actually participates here. And they actually take input, and act on it. They are actively involved with us, and that goes a long way towards creating good feelings among your customers. That's why Moebius seems to be getting all the love. They make an effort to take part here.

[Rob Hall]

Ignoring the comments by the rainbows and unicorns crowd, there has been plenty of legit criticism of Moeibus kits. They are nice, but have flaws...

[Brett Barrow]

, then they need to start producing kits like the '50 Olds & '57 Ford again. Nobody said two words about those kits in a negative way,

You don't remember the fracas over the La Carrera Panamerica decals in the 50 Olds?

[Harry P.]

Ignoring the comments by the rainbows and unicorns crowd, there has been plenty of legit criticism of Moeibus kits. They are nice, but have flaws...

And the flaws were talked about at length in the Hornet and Chrysler 300 threads. Moebius didn't get a pass.

[niteowl7710]

You don't remember the fracas over the La Carrera Panamerica decals in the 50 Olds?

Well yeah cause the decals went to a car the model didn't represent. That's a legit criticism no matter how nit-picky it might seem to anyone else. They included the NASCAR decals for that kit too, I don't understand why THAT wasn't the 2nd version of that Special Edition kit and just leave the Panamerica thing out of it all together.

But besides that the KIT itself wasn't demolished, because the base kit was again one of Revell's better (if not best) efforts in many years. In full disclosure I have both the '50 Olds & '57 Ford kits, and along with the '62 Corvette (Hard top fracas not included) represent the last I've bought since then. Probably get the '49 Merc Wagon & '57 Bel Air Convertible at the show this weekend, since they too are better than the recent offerings, but that has less to do with "Good Revell", and more to do on what kits they're based on to begin with...

I want to support Revell, I want to buy their kits, I have over 150 domestic kits in my collection, and by far the majority are Revellogram. But I vote with my wallet, and I'm not going to buy this current crop of "Ehhh...looks good enough to me, no one will notice" models we've gotten in the past 12-16 months.

[jbwelda]

>I think I'd rather have good sales than good reviews any day of the week...

that's what Brittney spears (late of even good sales) says too.

see, people buy a lot of stuff. whether its good or not doesn't really seem to make much difference.

jb

[jbwelda]

I would like to have it pointed out where exactly someone called someone at Revell or anywhere else for that matter, an "idiot", in this thread.

that whole thing with the olds decals is an excellent point. no way to explain that one other than "no one will ever notice".

jb

[Harry P.]

that whole thing with the olds decals is an excellent point. no way to explain that one other than "no one will ever notice".

Or poor research.

[Snake45]

You forgot option #7 - Don't buy it but bitch about it on the message boards anyway.

That's actually part of #6.

I bought the thing, I'm gonna bitch about it, and I'm gonna build it. Prolly with some fixes of my own and some aftermarket help. Or I might get creative with the little backbirth.

[Brett Barrow]

I would like to have it pointed out where exactly someone called someone at Revell or anywhere else for that matter, an "idiot", in this thread.

that whole thing with the olds decals is an excellent point. no way to explain that one other than "no one will ever notice".

jb

Or poor research.

They knew Tom Coolidge/Promolite was going to do the sedan (they even gave him an early test shot so he could get started on it before the kit was on the market) they knew the decals would be the harder part to source, so they put them in the kit. I know it's hard to believe, a little foresight on their part. How could that be?

You know what, I need to take my own advice. Is this fun? The back and forth on the Car Kit News & Reviews section? Being Mr. Revell defender? No. Not anymore. So have at it, you won't have Nixon Barrow to kick around anymore because, gentlemen, this is my last post in this section. For a while anyway. If there's a question about a release date or something that I know the answer to, I'll post it, but I'm not going to get involved with these types of post anymore. I'll be in the On The Workbench sections and maybe even one day I'll have something for Under Glass...

[/tongue-in-cheek]

Edited September 25, 2014 by Brett Barrow

[Harry P.]

You know what, I need to take my own advice. Is this fun? The back and forth on the Car Kit News & Reviews section? Being Mr. Revell defender? No. Not anymore. So have at it, you won't have Nixon Barrow to kick around anymore because, gentlemen, this is my last post in this section. For a while anyway. If there's a question about a release date or something that I know the answer to, I'll post it, but I'm not going to get involved with these types of post anymore. I'll be in the On The Workbench sections and maybe even one day I'll have something for Under Glass...

See you "Under Glass!"

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Ri-ight. Olds McGriff decals. Guilty as charged. This whole concept of expecting a group of notoriously skinflint hobbyists to double down gladly on resin for the sedan those markings demand - I've characterized it all as "pea-brained" (although as anybody with half a mind might recall, I wasn't the first to wield the phrase "pea-brain" on this subject, now, was I?).

And of course, I only ever brought those decals up out of a total inability to build a coherent model.

I only ever puuuled and bleated about it all out of comprehensive modeling incompetence.

In fact (one more time), I undertook that whole conversion to serve notice that yes, Virginia, Santa MAY EXIST as long as he lives in a corner of your little heart - but FAIRY TALES are NO BASIS for a rational argument.

And there's been a pretty constant stream of dope-slapping beat-down evidence against this TRIPE some of y'all yet cling to so desperately, about people complaining 'cause they can't build their way out of a paper bag, 'cause "their hobby is complaining on message boards" God forbid they ever finish a kit. But the fact that you might not be attentive enough to catch WIPs on models not "perfect enough to build" don't mean they ain't happenin', Cuz.

I don't know what's worse - that we've got hobbyists who won't let that horse dung go, or that we apparently have company executives spreading it, too.

And calling manufacturers "idiots" is a pretty recent development, people. It's useless to pretend that this line of civility in the sand wasn't crossed looong ago and far more decisively by people who can't handle kit criticism, and it's not hard to make out who's at the more constant moral disadvantage in these exchanges:

We all have our own expectations.

What I'm really tired of seeing, though, is the "I don't care about the kit's flaws" group always jumping on anyone who does care...

If you don't care about a kit's accuracy, great! Build it and have fun. But don't bash the people who DO care and who DO have higher expectations and who DO expect the manufacturer to get it right. I mean seriously... if you don't care about the flaws in the kit, why are you even commenting on them in the first place?

Thank you, Mr P.

See Harry! The attitude that Brett and Fred are showing is why we can't have anything nice around here. Between Brett implying in a wordy albeit polite way, that that anyone who wants an accurate kit is somehow miserable AND deserves it, and Fred saying people are crying all the time, and then pulling out the "What have you built" card...

This thread had actually been one of the more civil and informative critiques of a Revell kit as of late, with even a tone of cooperation and understanding between the two "sides", and yet SOME people couldn't just leave that well enough alone and have to come in here and start flinging barbs around and try to start a fight where there wasn't even an argument.

Remind me again who the miserable people on this forum are again?

And thank you, Mr D. "What have YOU built", indeed - as if I would have been ANY less qualified to point out compressed windshields and cockeyed rear fender arches and incorrect body styles even if I HADN'T methodically corrected each one.

Which was really the point of that whole exercise.

[jbwelda]

so then thank you brett for implicitly agreeing that no one called anyone an idiot in this thread but by the way to style yourself after Nixon and take the attempted martyr way out is pretty hilarious dude, so thanks for the laughs.

and really, now Revell was doing a favor to the AFTERMARKET (isn't that what "promolite" is, or am I not enuff an insider to know that secret?) in putting the decals for an imaginary car into the kit? wow...isn't that pretty unprecedented?

because I am having a hard time believing that it was anything more than a goof up. look a goof up isn't that bad, you don't typically go committing suicide (virtual or otherwise) because of one goof up.

anyway...I agree with whoever said it, we build these things anyhow, how about letting someone make honest observations without getting all panty wadded that gasp the manufacturers might be reading? its market research and its free; back when I studied business that seemed to be manna from heaven. get it? usually companies have to spend good money on that sort of thing and im sure they realize that whether they let mere mortals in on it or not.

ps: and the reason you don't see much from me in the building categories here lately is there really doesn't seem to be much readership there nor much interest in stuff I build, so I have been building but not posting in process stuff...and others may well feel the same way.

jb

Edited September 25, 2014 by jbwelda

[Brett Barrow]

so then thank you brett for implicitly agreeing that no one called anyone an idiot in this thread but by the way to style yourself after Nixon and take the attempted martyr way out is pretty hilarious dude, so thanks for the laughs.

It was meant to be a joke. Glad to see it landed.

[turbo nova]

Well, I'm selling the heck out of 'em. Revell said they had sold the entire first run out before they even hit the shore. I'm sure they're pleased with how well they're selling. I don't have an MBA from the Wharton School or anything like that, but I think I'd rather have good sales than good reviews any day of the week...

This saddens me greatly, yes I bought multiples of this kit but that attitude is one of the things that has lead to the fall of american industry. Im 35 years old and miss the days when pride in a job well done was as important as putting money in ones pocket as it deminishes the reputation in the buyers mind about the company and product.

[Daddyfink]

[timc]

Does this kit share any parts with the '68 Firebird kit from a few years back?

No drama just a simple question.

[Daddyfink]

I did a quick comparo between the ktis and found almost nothing matched. Close, but no real matches.

[1972coronet]

I did a quick comparo between the ktis and found almost nothing matched. Close, but no real matches.

Just like their "1:1" counterparts ; both are F-Bodies , but that's where any similarities begin and end .

[Robberbaron]

The problem is with the folks who come along after a flaw has been pointed out and pile on - "How do they let these leave the factory", "How could they do something this bad in 2014" "They're idiots" "Nobody with any sense works there" - that's the type of stuff I'm talking about, and it happens on every single one of these.

As others have pointed out, there was no name calling or personal attacks aimed at anyone associated with Revell, anywhere in this thread. I do recall the "idiots" comment being thrown out by someone recently in a different thread, but that's not the case here, and I think all but a handful of the members on this board would agree that that was over the line. Things only seem to be getting personal between certain members here.

As for "How do they let this leave the factory" and "How could they do something this bad in 2014", I think those are perfectly legitimate questions to ask when we are seeing basic proportional errors or omissions of details that are OBVIOUS the instant you compare the model to a 1:1. I also think it's perfectly legitimate to ask why this kind of thing seems to be happening on a regular basis lately, when that did not used to be the case with new Revell kits.

Since I've gotten back into the hobby the last couple years, I never buy a new tool kit without reading online reviews such as this - they are invaluable. When I discover all the different pros and cons of a certain kit, I make my judgement of whether I'll vote with my wallet. The '50 Olds, '57 Ford, and Merc wagon all got my vote within the last year or two. I had every intention of getting the 5.0 LX Mustang and this '67 Camaro, until I learned about the problems with each kit respectively (problems that made me say to myself "do I really want to go through the trouble of trying to fix that"?)

Well, I'm selling the heck out of 'em. Revell said they had sold the entire first run out before they even hit the shore. I'm sure they're pleased with how well they're selling. I don't have an MBA from the Wharton School or anything like that, but I think I'd rather have good sales than good reviews any day of the week...

I don't doubt for a second that they're flying off the shelves, and that the first run has already been sold out to retailers. This is one of those kit subjects that's pretty much guaranteed to sell. To me this is more an issue of short term vs. long term profit. From this point on, they will be able to sell this kit to the general public in perpetuity, like they're doing with the old 1/24 Monogram 1970 Chevelle kit. There are certain subjects the casual buyer will always be willing to buy, and 90% of them will be perfectly happy and not even notice proportional/detail issues that we're discussing here.

Even many members of this board, after reading this entire review thread, will go ahead and buy a copy or two of this kit because they can either live with the problems or they plan to correct them (and more power to them). Here's the key: how many of these people will buy additional copies of the kit in the future if, at a minimum, the problems with the grille and taillight panel aren't fixed by Revell?

Many people who build it straight out of the box will be of the opinion "yeah, it was a nice kit, but it looks kind of goofy sitting on my display shelf." For the people that do correct the flaws, will they be willing to buy either photo etch or resin replacement grilles for every version of this kit that they build? Will they be willing to pie cut the quarters to tilt the tail panel out at the appropriate angle, then fill/sand/etc. to get it looking right? Maybe on one or two builds. How many will do it 4 or 5 times? What I'm saying is that for many people, a kit like this will be a "one and done" proposition.

One of the charms with the Revell 1/25 1969 Camaro is that it pretty much goes together the way it should, and the darn thing pretty much looks the way a real '69 Camaro looks (can't say that about the old 1/24 Monogram '69 Camaro that I built when I was a kid!). After building the Revell '69 Camaro in the mid-90s, I subsequently bought several more. How much repeat business will Revell lose if they don't correct some of these flaws? How many other potential buyers won't buy a single copy of this kit due to these problems? Not sure if there's any way to quantify those numbers, but I think a little more money and time spent to get things right before they released it would actually pay itself back in the long term...

Edited September 25, 2014 by Robberbaron

[ZTony8]

At our club meeting last Sunday we compared the Revell '67 Camaro,'68 Firebird,and '69 Camaro kits.We found three noticeably different chassis plates(the new '67 Camaro having the least sharp engraving-somewhat a surprise) and saw that the engines in the Camaros were done differently(the '69 has the old style split oil pan molded to the block,the '67 has a separate pan.

The question is why do a new chassis plate for the '67 kit since Revell already had two others available ?Seems to me that tooling money could have been saved to add other features to the new kit. Or am I wrong about that?The engine in the '67 kit is an improvement over the '69 kit so I could see that change.

Edited September 25, 2014 by ZTony8

[Snake45]

At our club meeting last Sunday we compared the Revell '67 Camaro,'68 Firebird,and '69 Camaro kits.We found three noticeably different chassis plates(the new '67 Camaro having the least sharp engraving-somewhat a surprise) and saw that the engines in the Camaros were done differently(the '69 has the old style split oil pan molded to the block,the '67 has a separate pan.

The question is why do a new chassis plate for the '67 kit since Revell already had two others available ?Seems to me that tooling money could have been saved to add other features to the new kit. Or am I wrong about that?The engine in the '67 kit is an improvement over the '69 kit so I could see that change.

And don't forget their snapper '69, another, promo-style chassis. That's a rather nice kit, BTW, and builds into a very nice curbside/shelf model for those who don't care that much about engines and such. Actually, I think the snapper body might be just a little better than the full build Yenko/Z/28 kits.

[Custom10]

Does anyone have any news as to what if anything will be done about the kit? I've already emailed Revell but haven't heard anything back. I fear it's a lost cause but I'd like to think there's employees there that really care.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Custom10

[AC Norton]

frankly, that's why I never buy anything Revell.....and probably never will.

[Guest]

The kit isn't that bad, imo.