StevenGuthmiller

I guess it’s a nice “diecast”, but then again, it should be for 40 G’s. I would have been more impressed, or at least more interested, if was a ‘57 Chevy. ? Steve

A little primer helps. Steve

Thanks guys! I appreciate it. I found a couple more details that I felt needed to be added to the door panels. The molded in ash trays just looked as if they were going to be too faint to deal with, so I fashioned new ones from a piece of plastic sheet. Then, I decided to add the "interior lights" on the rear arm rests. This was done by simply gluing a small square of plastic in position to replicate the lens, and then surrounding it with thin pieces of stretched sprue for the trim. Steve

The rear end is a bit of a mess. The most glaring mistake being the shape of the rear wheel opening. not even close to the 1:1. Steve

Here’s another one that “could” be around in some form. Went from the annual, to this re-pop, and then finally to the stocker. Possibility that there could be enough of this one left to still do something with? I suppose the first question would be, is there any interest? Steve

I don't know. Maybe it came to me in a dream. Steve

That’s not to say that you will have issues with adhesion, but I can see the possibility with a low solvent paint. Steve

I have a good ‘62 convertible body that I might be convinced to let go. ? Unfortunately, I only have the body and hood. Steve

Agreed. At least with lacquers, the solvent should take care of the adhesion issues for you. But I can absolutely see the point of sanding for extra adhesion if you’re working with enamels or acrylics. I will attest to the fact that I myself have had adhesion issues with enamels in the past. Part of the reason that I no longer use enamel for bodies. Steve

I also sand the body prior. I don’t generally worry about too much primer sanding, unless I feel it’s necessary. I figure that the lacquer paints that I’m using have enough natural “etching” ability of their own that adhesion won’t be an issue. At least I’ve never had any paint adhesion problems with the lacquers that I currently use. But I can absolutely see the benefit depending upon the processes and materials being used. Steve

I understand Mike. We all need to experiment and discover a process that works for us, is consistent, and as close to fool proof as possible, and that can often take years to perfect. Everybody has different limits and expectations, and sometimes, no matter how much advice we receive, we just have to figure it out ourselves. Steve

So sad. When this sort of definitive information arises, it becomes obvious that models like the ‘60 Mercury are gone forever. Nobody is ever going to spend the time, effort or money to create an all new tooling of such a car. ? Steve

If I do any sanding at all to remove debris on a metallic color coat, I will give the entire body another light coat to ensure even coverage. Sanding metallic paint can cause strange blotches that might not be entirely evident, but can be greatly magnified under clear coat. Steve

Of course. But as I always polish my models anyway, I just do them all the same way. The more consistent your painting regimen, the less chance you will have for issues. Luckily for me, my regimen includes nothing but lacquer paints, and an average of 5 coats of Duplicolor clear, which even if applied wet with all coats, goes on thin enough that it won’t hide detail, or exhibit any excess buildup, and provides plenty of depth and toughness to guard against burning through the clear during the cutting and polishing process. Steve

I never sand color coats. (especially if the paint is metallic) As a matter of fact, I don’t do a lot of sanding on the primer coats either. I save it all until the end, after the clear coats are finished. Steve

You definitely have to be sure that you have adequate clear coat depth to cut and polish. That should go without saying. Steve

I can’t remember, but I thought I saw something somewhere. It’s not really that high on my want list, so that’s probably why I didn’t pay a lot of attention. Steve

Am I nuts, or did I see somewhere that Round-2 is re-releasing the old SMP 1960 Chevy Nomad station wagon? Steve

Hmmm, that surprises me as apparently these molds weren't destroyed after their initial runs. I believe that the Flower Power kits were re-released in the early to mid 60s, so I assumed that possibly these molds might still be around and intact. But I suppose that there are many other factors that determine whether or not a mold has survived. Steve

Agreed. It’s always been my opinion as well that even a model that doesn’t require any sanding or polishing can benefit from it. Something about the polishing process that creates a more realistic looking finish, especially if you’re building something close to stock. I like to use the analogy that an unpolished paint job can often have a toy like appearance, not unlike a piece of hard candy. Polishing will not only eliminate that overly shiny appearance, but it will remove any imperfections or orange peel in the paint, while still giving you a very nice reflective finish. Think of it this way. The best high end 1:1 paint shops will still “cut and polish” no matter how nice the finish is right out of the booth. Steve

Just be sure that you know what you're dealing with going in. It's apparently very nasty stuff! And in all honesty, it's not necessary to do well in a contest. There are many different ways to skin a cat. Steve

I couldn't tell you how many times that I've had to fit and re-fit, mock-up and mock-up again, but I think I've about got the interior, body and chassis symbiosis figured out. It's actually kind of a fun challenge getting all of these mixed, matched and modified parts to come together and look like they belong together. The easier everything falls into place, the closer you know that you are. Steve

Well, I suppose that's subjective. Personally, I prefer the rear styling on the '69/'70. Cleaner.....less busy. In my eye, the '71/'72 rear looks too "Cadillac-ish". I prefer the more subdued '69 look, but then I have an obvious bias. I think the cleaner rear end gives the car a little more of a muscle car bent. The '71/'72's lend to more of a luxury car look. Steve

The only difference in the front end between the '69 and '70 was that the '69 had horizontal grille bars, and the '70 had vertical. The front parking lights on the '69 also had white reflectors on the sides, versus the '70 which had amber. The white reflector lenses are very difficult to find, which is why you will often see '69 restorations with amber reflectors. Other trim differences include the chrome hash marks on the C-pillar on the '69, versus the "Grand Prix" script on the '70. Like wise, the hash marks were moved to the lower front quarter panel in '70, replacing the "Grand Prix" and "Model-J" or "Model-SJ" scripts from '69. The model call out script was moved to the passenger side trunk lid in '70. I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that the back ground color on the Rally II wheel's "PMD" center caps was changed from black in '69, to red in '70 as well. Steve

I have always been pretty impressed with the detail on these old small scale Revell kits from the 50s, although I've never built one. Although they are multi piece bodies, they look as if they would fit together quite well, and if you assembled the body and then did some filling and sanding, they really shouldn't be any different than a one piece body. The chassis and engines are rudimentary, but still just as good, if not better than most of the early AMT and Johan kits, and the interiors are much better. I have the '56 Caddy, the '56 Chrysler New Yorker, and the '56 Lincoln Continental, and I really think they would all be great fun to build some day. No glass in most of these kits, but some do include a sheet of thin clear plastic with which to make some glass. Steve