Robberbaron

Well, since I recently got a Modelhaus recast of the original AMT '69 Chevelle bumper and taillights, along with their '68 conversion kit, I'll claim my share of the credit for new tool '68 and '69 Chevelles getting developed! ? However, I'd also caution everyone not to get too ahead of themselves as far as expectations. It seems like old Revell had about a 50/50 track record over the last decade or so as far as accuracy/proportions of new tool kits. Seemed like for every well done kit such as the '50 Olds or '70 Charger, we'd also get hot messes like the Mustang LX and the '67 Camaro. If the '68 Chevelle made it to the test shot phase before the Hobbico meltdown, I'd say it's even odds whether the basic shape and details are accurate. However, since the Revell USA development team was vaporized, has new Revell (Germany) found somebody competent to step in, iron out the details, and shepherd it to completion? This may be a good test of their capabilities with new tool American subject matter. Lucky for them, old Revell set the bar pretty low. Also lucky for them, the old AMT '69 Chevelle also sets the bar pretty low for the subject matter As it stands now, you can't build a presentable model out of the box with that kit due to the birth defect taillights that were grafted onto the bumper in the mid-70s. So if Revell can make decent looking '68 and '69 Chevelle shelf models, they'll have a happy customer here. I don't even care if they simplify the dirty bits, as long as it looks correct sitting on the shelf.

Well, a further test to see if any of these guys can pay attention to details: As shown in the 3D renderings shown earlier in this thread, the 74 bumper/grille combo above still has cover plates for 76/77 style parking lights. They're tooling a separate bumper for each version: no reason not to correct this detail. And preemptively for anyone already prepared to make excuses for this, too: No it isn't possible that someone possibly/couda/maybe raced a Monte in '74 with this type of bumper. Which didn't even exist yet. If they haven't cut the tooling yet, this would be about the simplest correction possible in the 3D model. Will they do it?

Would have been nicer if they made an attempt to get it right the first time.

Oh, good call on the '34 pickup, too! How many people have been looking past that awful Lindberg box art for years, while 90-95% of the original AMT Trophy series kit remains intact? My local Hobby Lobby quit carrying them only about a year ago. With the trusty 40% off coupon, the last one I bought was only about $10, was even molded in white. I'm sure Round 2 is retooling what they need to get it back to original, but to me it's not worth paying more than double the price to get a handful of additional parts, decals and box art.

X2 on the '77 Monte. Revell pretty much nailed the body/interior on that one. A lot of people couldn't care less about those cars, but as a former owner of a 1:1 '77, I just about died of shock when they released it. I got several of the first issue, and have bought at least one of each of the modified reissues. Now that we have no idea what the future holds for Revell here in the U.S., I really wish I had several more. I think I'd also put a couple classic AMT curbside kits in the sleeper category. The '59 Imperial and the '64 Comet were reissued by RC2 for Model King, but they were pretty pricey at the time, so a lot of people took a pass. So far, Round 2 doesn't seem to have any interest in reissuing these. I'm guessing they are reluctant because they're curbside, therefore they might not be able to peddle them at the $30-ish MSRP of most of their other stuff. The stock '64 Galaxie may also qualify. Its been available a few times, but not recently. And I'm betting we may not see it again for quite a while.

Ugh! That thing looks like a pile to me, but no surprise after everything I've seen and heard of this seller. Those quarter windows are all kinds of wrong. For reference here's how they should be shaped, as Casey said no moldings around the 1:1 either:

Apparently they also race a '40 coupe:

More pics here: http://winterportdragway.com/photos109july11.html http://winterportdragway.com/photos209july11.html These seem to have been taken/posted in 2011.

I'm intrigued by the 2 different versions they're showing. The round-eyed version is a 74-75 model year based on the rear bumper/taillight panel shape. The four-eyed version is 76-77 model year, with a different rear bumper and taillight panel shape. Only way I see for them to share a common body would be to have separate quarter panel end pieces for each version. Looks like the 74-75 rear bumper should have some height taken out from the lower section. They were chunky, but not to the degree shown in their rendering. Hopefully they realize that they need to create separate front bumpers, too (if they want to make more of an attempt at accuracy than the Olds kit). The bumper shown on both rendering versions has the 76-77 parking light covers. 74-75 model years had the parking lights next to the headlights in the fender extensions, no openings in the bumper beneath the headlights that would require these covers. Note also that the 74-75 front bumper wraps around the side and extends back further than the 76-77 style. As currently shown in their renderings, the bumper more closely resembles the 74-75 shape, but with the 76-77 parking light covers.

As can be Sen in the picture of the 1:1 above, there should be a subtle curvature to the B-pillar, not arrow straight as currently shown in their rendering. Trailing edge of the quarter window also follows this curvature, and yes, the quarter window does need to be a bit wider.

If any individuals involved in these "arguments" are interested in facts, said arguments can be easily settled. Show me a single photographic example of one of these NASCAR Cutlasses running this type of rear bumper. It's not correct for the 76-77 body style. It more closely resembles the 74-75 type bumper, but it's not correct for that either. Even if it was a correct 74-75 bumper, it's not correct on the 76-77 body, and NASCAR would not have allowed it. Facts are stubborn things. If none of this bothers you, that's fine. Honestly, buy and enjoy. But let's be realistic about the flaws that are a matter of fact. Another fact is that they've lost a sale to me by failing to make their model actually LOOK like the car it's intended to represent. I expect they will also lose a LOT of other sales by releasing this kit, as their debut product no less, with some glaring errors. Last I checked, that's not too good for cash flow.

Stopped at my HL the other night. Really didn't expect mine to have much marked down, boy was I wrong! Got all of the following for $7.49 each: AMT '57 Ford, '64 Dodge, Revell '48 Ford, '64 Thunderbolt. Got 2 of the '69 Yenko Vettes: $6.74 each! Also had both Torinos for $7.49, but I have several already, so I had to pass.

Nope, not close. And it's neither fish nor fowl. Ends are 74-75 style, but there's no license plate opening, as on a 76-77. There was never such a bumper on 1:1 Cutlasses. They obviously copied the (incorrect) rear bumper from a resin kit. Not sure where you're going with your comment about the 77 Chevrolet. I'm guessing you're referring to the 77 Monte Carlo body style? Issue #1 is that it has no resemblance to a Monte rear bumper (at least to anyone familiar with these cars). Issue #2: even if it did look like a Monte bumper, who cares? This is an Oldsmobile, which had totally different bumpers (and sheet metal, for that matter).

Gotta wonder what happened to the body for the MPC 1970 Impala? From what I understand, the chassis and drivetrain were repurposed for the 1971-1976 annuals, but I wonder if the tooling for the body and interior are still in Round 2's possession? As is, it's not really of much interest, since we still have the very nice AMT 1970 kit. However, it wouldn't take much to backdate the tooling to 1969. Heck, according to the instructions, MPC kept the interior buckets and console intact from the '69 annual. Imagine combining the MPC interior tub and backdated '69 body with the chassis/drivetrain of the AMT 1970 kit! (ala the recreated 1970 Super Bee) Who knows how everything would match up between the 2 kits, but theoretically it should be possible. I know, probably a pipe dream, even if the MPC remnants do still exist...

The '85 442 and the '70 Charger came and went within a week or two at my local HL (they're always slow compared to other HL's as far as getting new releases). When I stopped in last week, now the '68 Charger space is empty: get 'em while you can!

Anything I plan to build, I open ASAP to confirm that everything is intact & undamaged. Perfect example is the AMT 1970 Baldwin-Motion Camaro I got the other day. Looked everything over, and noticed one of the front bumperettes was missing from the chrome tree. If I waited to open it till I was ready to build it (what: 5, 10 years from now?), I'd be out of luck.

Really wish they'd left the '69 side markers on the body, since I believe they're inset a bit. Don't see any practical way to recreate that without a ton of work now, but filling them in and creating the '68 side markers seemed more doable. Glad I got one of the '69s before they did this change. I'm guessing they must have been getting a fair number of complaints about this issue from buyers of the '68 kits - so they split the baby and now it's not really accurate for either version (if you don't consider the decal solution accurate) Still great kits overall, though.

Outstanding work, as always!

Same thing happened with the '80s Cutlass kits. Before the Revell kits were released, several self-proclaimed experts on this board declared that there was not enough interest, it would never happen, no manufacturer would ever dare to release it, yadda yadda yadda. When the '83 and then the '85 kits miraculously materialized, low and behold they seemed to sell like hotcakes, to the point that in my area the '85 kits seemed to come and go pretty quickly in my local retailers before the whole Hobbico implosion happened.

Too bad, but I'm not surprised. I would have ponied up if it had a clean set of Hurst mags in it, but I've got umpteen sets of Torque Thrusts already.

Glad to see it turned out so nicely. Paint sure looks nice in the pics.

Another well thought out build, as usual! I like it!

Very well done! I don't think I've ever seen anyone create a '69 Impala with the Sport Coupe roofline. I also like the Caprice hidden headlights, which are a popular upgrade with owners of 1:1 '68 and '69 Impalas. (Why GM didn't offer it as a factory option with the SS package is beyond me)

Amazing! Truly looks like a 1:1 in most of the pictures!

Great work! Never would guess you had started with such a mess.