unclescott58

The above discussion reminds me of my all time favorite joke. Why do chicken coops have two doors? If they had four doors, they'd be chicken sedans.

Then why do the four boxes above list the kits as Sedans? And not just two-doors? Normally when I hear talk about two-doors, it's talk about coupes. Talking about sedans, normally revolves around four-doors. Plus, my criticism was not to be taken to seriously. You'll notice, this was my second post on the subject. And I made no mention of the issue in the first. And, yes the Revell's are the best. Two-door sedan, two-door coupe (three-window or five), and two-door roadster. Lastly, for those who may not know. Ford back in the day called their two-door sedans, Tudor Sedans. And their four-door sedans, Fordor Sedans. I always especially liked the term "Fordor." Cute.

I agree with Lee above. "Very nice."

Finished as of last night. Fujimi's 1/24 scale De Tomaso Pantera kit. It a curb side, so no engine. And it is not a perfect replica of the Panteras as they were sold in Lincoln-Mercury stores in the 70's. But, this kit is a close to any small bumper U.S. spec Pantera that I've seen.

The only mistake here is that you really should have titled this thread "Best '32 Deuce two-door sedan kits. For there are other '32 Ford two-door model kits other than the ones shown here. In fact two I like even better than those above. The roadsters and the coupes. Still, the one I don't have and want is still AMT's two-door sedan.

Can you tell us more about the Doozy Roadside models above? How are they? And what all comes with them?

Two that are not cars, but models I've always wanted. I finally got a chance to build both last year.

The best one of the four above? Probably the newer Revell kit. I have it and the MPC Switchers kit. But, the one I really want is the old AMT one. (But without the Willys. I have enough of those already.)

This is like asking, "which of your children do you like the best?" Despite that, I'm more of a Deuce guy. I also wonder what happens if we throw the "T" in there too?

In today's mail I received Atlantis Models I Want to Believe flying saucer kit. To go along with my Atlantis Models Earth vs. the Flying Saucers kit. Interesting that they rate the I Want to Believe kit as a skill level 2 kit. The Earth vs. the Flying Saucers kit is only rated at a skill level 1. I didn't find the I Want to Believe kit any harder to build than the Earth vs. the Flying Saucers kit. Though the I Want to Believe kit does indicate using glue on building its stand. But, I found this wasn't at necessary. And did not use any glue on mine. Even if I did use glue, I'd have a hard time rating the kit skill level 2. I'm really not sure either kit really deserves the rating of skill level 1. They are the two easiest kits I think I've ever encountered. Despite how simple and easy they are to put together, I really like both Atlantis flying saucer model kits. For their simplicity, their detail is very good. I like the L.E.D. lights that come with both kits. Though they work a lot better with the I Want to Believe kit, than they do with the Earth vs. the Flying Saucers kit. On the Earth vs. the Flying Saucers kit, I like that it can be displayed with either its ray gun or landing tube down. Since the ray gun comes out from under the saucer, there is another stand to display it in that mode. All in all, two very fun kits. That I enjoy very much.

The wheel spinners look a little out of scale. They look a little too big to me.

It looks good to me. Am I missing something Snake? Other than the slight warping of the hood, I like the looks of it. It's a good representation of what a '65 Sting Ray big-block coupe looks like to me. And other than paint, your right Snake, it is strictly "out-of-the-box." Some may question it? But yes, even though kit came in red molded plastic, I did paint it. As I do with every kit I build. Basically another one of my "promo" style builds.

Again, I enjoyed Chad's latest video. I especially like the other guy taking the Coke at the end. Sad to say though, there was nothing I am interested in adding to my collection other than maybe the N-scale Coke truck and trailer. I like the '69 442 and the '70 Corvette, but already have earlier versions of each kit. The one I'm waiting for is the AMT 1/32 scale '63 Corvette.

Thank you.

Fun. Just proves that old Beetles can be used in many different ways. The Universal car of all time.

A decent looking Deuce. Very Kool.

Looks good. I like the '62s and '63s better. But, it's still a nice car. And you did a nice job building it.

Wow! Very nice. I like it a lot.

Looks great! Very nice.

Looks very nice.

A week or so ago, Snake asked if I ever finished building my Monogram '65 Corvette? Which I had. But, had not put up photos until this moment. This is Monogram's 1/24 scale kit. And yes I do know that I did not paint or foil the trim like others think I need to. I like my kits way. So there is no need to mention or point it out.

As noted by JC above, Impressive.

You are correct. I forgot about those two.

Tom Daniel has talked about designing this kit several times. The engine was not taken from any other kit Monogram or anything anybody else had in their inventory at the time. The engine is based on a real WWI Mercedes aircraft motor. Again as noted, it was scaled differently from the rest of kit. For it would have been way too big otherwise. But, it was designed and tooled up specifically for this kit. Several of Daniel's designs took liberties with scale to get the right look. The Beer Wagon is another great example. A real Mack AC it was designed after is much larger than what the Beer Wagon would be in real life. The only Daniel kits that I can think of that used parts designed originally from other another kit, is Rommel's Rod. And maybe the Badman '55 Chev. Other than that. Everything else as far as I know, was specifically tooled up for each kit. These are fantasy vehicles. Designed to look good. Not to be 100% accurate scale wise.

Dave, If you go in a couple of pages you can see more detail on both N scale structures.