unclescott58

Very cool. I've always been a big fan of Chevy's Suburban Carryalls, and have seen many photos of the Ford Rangers. I never understood why Ford let Chevrolet dominate this market with their factory direct built Suburbans. Especially by the early 70's. This is one of the few times I have to disagree with Art by the way. Chevrolet still can hold the claim of being the first with a factory built steel wagon. Ford and others were all converted by other companies. Until International's Travelall and Dodge's Town Wagon in the 50's. Which reminds me another blogger here brought up International using the Carryall name? I maybe wrong, but this I don't remember? But, both the "Suburban" and "Carryall" names were used regularly on many early car and truck wagons. These were more generic terms, than specific names. For many years, right up through the late 70's Plymouth used the name Suburban on many of their station wagons. It's not until the last 15 or 20 years that Chevrolet has registered the name as theirs. Scott

Wow! Very nice Meyer's Manx. A great choice of a color I would have never thought of. That and the Corvair Turbo. Very kool. Scott

First it's good to see Mr. Kampmann here. I heard something about him being in accident? But, I hear your all right? About the '67 SS-369. Mr. Kampmann is right, the 1967 Camaro was introduced on September 26, 1966. Along with it, Chevrolet's new to the SS-350 only, 350 small block. The SS-396 was not brought on line until November of 1966. And this seems to be an after thought, because no reference to the 396 engine being available, appears in early Camaro sales brochures or other factory literature. I would prefer that Revell's new kit is an SS-350. But, I will be happy if it is an SS-396. I will be even more happy if they ever bring out a '67 SS/RS convertible. But, I think I've mentioned this more than one time before. Scott

Looks very good, Eric. Scott

Ah, a Miami Vice Corvette Daytona. Not the real thing, but nice non the less. Scott

What does the term "Slump Buster" mean? That a new one to me. Scott

Sorry, I did not find this link overly helpful. A lot more pictures of the model box. And one or two Jeep kits that could be based on the same kit. Scott P.S. I do know how to Google search are ready. I have found many great links to older models and topics in this forum that way.

This discussion brings up a question that has nothing to do with what Round 2 may or may not have. And this deals with a company like Revell retooling an old kit like Monogram's Sizzler/now Slingster kit. Or Rommel's Rod. How economical or practical is that? I wonder what the future is of seeing more old or lost kits come back in ways like that? I still hope Round 2 finds more stuff in their inventory that's been reported lost. And I keep hoping the stories about Jo-Han's toolings are not true, and we see someone get a hold of that stuff and reissue more of their old kits in the future. Scott

Again, anybody have any photos? I'd love to see what one looks like, since the box art is so off. Scott

Boy, I can tell the time period you grew up in Tony. Your dad's LTD II Squire sounds interesting, but a tank? To those of us growing up in the 60's and 70's that's just a nice mid size car. A tank would the full size '77 Country Squire. One of GM's pre '77 B body wagons. Or the '76 and earlier Chrysler Town and Country. The LTD II was a nice size car. But, no tank. Scott

So is it a CJ-5 or a CJ-7 in the box? And any photos? Scott

Notice when they do show the clay model, it's mainly the '59 Buick. The Buick design proposal is the one General Motors based their new B and C body cars for '59 on. All share the common Buick front doors. Once the basic Buick body was agreed upon, all other divisions designed their front and rear clips to fit this design. For cost savings all '59 GM cars shared the same bodies. In 1958, Chevy and Pontiac shared the A body. Oldsmobile and the small Buicks were based on the B body. The big Buicks and Cadillacs, the C body. For '59, the A body was dropped. And the C became basically a stretched B body. Fleetwood 75s were built on a so called D body. As in the past, this was basically a modified C body. This saved General Motors a lot of money. The 60's changed all of this again, as other size cars, requiring other bodies came on line. But, for 1959, there was basically one GM body that year. Scott

I was happy to be driving anything back high school. I was plain car crazy, and I even thought wagons were cool. Look at my three of favorite post war surviving brands of cars. Buick, Packard, and Chrysler (pre war add Cord). I've always loved Buick's Caballero and Estate Wagons. Plus Chrysler's big Town and Countrys. Mercury Commuter, Voyager, and Colony Parks were also cool. I like big luxurious cars. And have always thought big three-seat, nine-passenger station wagons were cool. Other kids may have thought me strange for lusting over these cars as much as (actually more than) Mustangs, Camaros, and Barracudas. But, my tastes have always run on the odd track. And that's okay. They still do. Scott

What your talking about Dave, is not the Hydragraphifics shown in the two videos above. Your back to what Harry was talking about. This Hydrographifics is not what I saw in magazines back in the early 70's. Never tried the 'Psyco Swirl'/"swiradelic" thing you, Harry, and Andy were talking about. But, I've thought about trying it several times over the years. Hydragraphic is simular and different at same time. Scott

The purrer is the most important part. If that's working, the rest can't be in too bad of shape. At least as far as the cat is concerned. Scott

Very cool. Now that's model building. Scott

JB do have to contradict everything? A couple of months ago I started looking for the Stevens Interenation parts, because I wanted the t-body. I have yet to see one at a decent price. So I'm glad AMT is reissuing this stuff. I am courious JB, in reading your postings. Do like anything being issued or reissued out there? And are you ever happy when something is released that others will enjoy? Scott

We are our own worst critics. There is nothing wrong with how you did this car. It's prefect as it is. Scott

I love the primivite old AMT Craftsman kits. The detail was good enough for me. I done care if it a curbside, or full detailed kit. It's the subject that interests me. And the old Craftsman kits looked close enough to the real cars for me. I've read before about Dave Burket hearing that most of these kits being lost. I'm not doubting him. But, I'm hoping what he was told is wrong. I wonder when he was told this, and by which owner of the molds at the time? Round 2 seems to be doing a very good job of finding, and/or restoring these kits to their former glory. I'm not giving up hope. Scott

Wow! Is this cool! Think of the possibilities. I wonder how soon, if ever we'll be able to do stuff like this at home. I can see some real cool looking street rods using Hydrographics. Scott

Hey, I think they photoshopped the photo on box way back when! With computers just above rocks and stone knives. Obviously they air brushed the photo taken from the show of the CJ-5, and converted it to a more modern CJ-7. The show came out about same time as the CJ-5 was fazed out, and CJ-7 was being fazed in. If your tooling up a new Jeep kit aimed at kids, wouldn't you look long term and do the CJ-7. Most kids would never know the difference. Interesting observation about "Keyser (and Joe)", Tim. Wrong spelling for Kaiser. And wasn't Joe gone by the time Kaiser got Jeep? I'm assuming that's what your referring to? Scott

OK, I made a mistake. I should have taken a closer look at the wagon in the photo I posted. It is not a '67 Grande Parisienne Safari. It is an Executive Safari with a Grand Prix nose. It says "Executive" right on the front fenders. The Grande Parisenne nameplate was on the rear fenders on that car. So I went searching for another, correct picture of a '67 Grande Parisenne Safari. This looks like one. Scott

It is missing from Round 2's web site. It was there a few days ago. I'm hoping they've decided to relook at this kit and find a way of backdating to an earlier version of the kit. Like they done with a few other kits. The late 70's/early 80's decor and four-wheel drive did nothing for me. Offering a stock van with options to build it into other things, makes a lot more sense to me. I hoping that's what's going on here. Scott

They putting out stuff like this, they can have all of my money. Scott

I missed that Rob. And your right. Scott