StevenGuthmiller

I suppose if you consider talking, (unintelligibly I might add) with nothing in the background but ear splitting base, yeah.......you "might" be able to call it music. Steve

Yes, but when the people vote with their wallets and buy 45 million albums, it seems to me that it's probably a better indicator of what's a "great" album than what some egg head at Rolling Stone thinks. Steve

I've seen it on lists of top selling albums of all time. Right up there in the 40 to 50 million copies list with Michael Jackson "Thriller", AC/DC "Back in Black" and Pink Floyd "Dark Side of the Moon". (top 4). I don't remember seeing Dr. Dre or Jay-Z anywhere on those lists. But I guess with a paltry 3 million or so albums sold, I guess you wouldn't! Steve

Very good to have you AJ! We share a love for vintage kits. As a matter of fact, that's pretty much all that I've done for the past ten years is to restore old annual kits, and I've bought parts from you on many occasions. It's so good to have someone out there that can help provide hard to find vintage parts for those of us that are addicted to restoring them! I look forward to getting to know you a little better on this great forum. Steve

I guess you could say that there's a difference between a "Top Best" and "Top Favorites" list for this sort of thing. I have my own personal favorites as well as everyone else. But to not include some of the top charted, highest selling albums of all time at the very top of the list just shows you how unserious this list is. No mention in the top 50 of albums like Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon", AC/DC "Back in Black", Meat Loaf "Bat out of Hell", and The Eagles "Hotel California", but they didn't miss stuff like "Jay-Z" and "Dr. Dre", (which isn't even music in my opinion) tells you all you really need to know. Steve

I don't have a lot of confidence in a list of "the best albums of all time" that doesn't even include Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" album in the top 50. An album that has sold over 45 million copies, (4th all time) and charted in the "Billboard" top albums chart for 950 weeks doesn't make the top 50? Yeah, right. Steve

Who wants to be the $24.00 guinea pig? Steve

Well, it's a little time consuming, but the first of the scratch built door panels is pretty much finished. The detail is more pronounced than the actual 1:1 door card, but I think that I actually prefer that anyway. It will add more definition to the interior. Steve

It is! Unfortunately it's the only example of a full sized 60s Ford that AMT saw fit to produce an entirely new tooling over the original. If this were not the case, anyone wanting a detailed model of a '60 Ford Starliner would have to do a considerable amount of slicing and dicing to do it well, as with most of the annual kits from that period. Remakes like this are unfortunately few and far between. By the way, one of the best parts about the new tooling of the AMT '60 Ford is the fact that all of the guts make a great starting point for creating a detailed build of a '61- '64 Ford or Mercury. Steve

Thank you for the information Russ, and for taking the time to dig it up for me. I appreciate it. I guess I wasn't really aware of any "attacks for my building style" but I suppose that I might have missed something........or ignored it! I really don't give much weight to anyone who wishes to attack me for my style. I try to let the results speak for themselves. I'm pretty happy with the results most of the time. Steve

I didn't want to get too long winded. Steve

My point was, if you are shying away from subject matter that was initially produced 40 or 50 years ago, and "substandard" by today's specifications, these models are not going to make you happy when you open the box, just like the Duke's Charger pictured above. The OP was wondering why recently issued kits can vary so much in detail level. We were all describing why this is so, and I was just pointing out that if highly detailed kits are what you are striving for, these old "annual style" kits are exactly the sort of disappointment that he is trying to avoid. I think both Snake and Greg understand that I am not the type to shy away from this type of kit. My entire collection consists almost solely of these types of models, and I love re-working them. But if high detail without a lot of parts swapping and re-engineering is what you're after, you're not going to find it in these kits. Steve

It really doesn't surprise me. It was never developed for modeling purposes in the first place, and I always suspected that longevity might be an issue. Steve

This was my first thought. They don't get any more "super" than Petty, Dylan and Harrison! Steve

Let's put it this way. If we were limited to only more highly detailed kits initially produced within the past 25 years, a large majority of us would have stashes a fraction of the size that we have now. I suppose that would be fine for those in our hobby that only want to build models that require very little work to be able to produce a nicely detailed model regardless of subject, but I think I might speak for a fairly large segment of individuals within our hobby when I say that for many of us, subject matter is often vastly more important than detail level. Go take a look at your collection of kits and just remember that almost all of the full sized automobiles represented in that collection are very likely repops of kits that started life back when the 1:1 was actually produced. I suppose that it might be hard to get excited about an AMT 1970 Impala, '65 Ford Galaxie or '66 Buick Wildcat when they're so readily available today, but our views might change a bit if they didn't exist at all, which they wouldn't, and probably never would if we were relying on modern kit manufacturing to produce them. They might not be all that they're cracked up to be when placed next to one of the more modern tooled kits, but when given the choice of a more simply molded model versus none at all for a large portion of what we have available, I'll take a simple kit every time. I guess that I would echo what some others have already said by repeating that if the engineering of the kit is what's more important to you over subject matter David, simply pose the question to the board and most any of us will be able to give you a general idea of what you're in for before you buy the kit. You'll likely be happy with a kit like the '68 Charger pictured above, but don't plan on building a '63 Ford Galaxie, '65 Pontiac Grand Prix or a '69 Plymouth Barracuda. Steve

I might just take the easy way out being as the Coronet has pretty good bezels cast into the body already and just drill out the centers, foil the bezel and replace the lenses. That will save me from having to make the bezels. Steve

Thanks guys!! Steve

Very nice idea, and very good execution. I'm considering something similar for my current '68 Coronet project. I'll probably steal this! If I may, just be certain that your lens doesn't fit to tight so as to allow for the thickness of the paint. You really don't want to have to re-drill the holes in the body after all of the paint work is finished. Steve

While we were on our annual anniversary weekend respite, my wife insisted upon purchasing a pair of display cases for me as an anniversary gift. I'm sure mainly because she was tired of seeing stacks of plastic cased models sitting on the family room floor. She wanted antique furniture, and I wanted display cases, so we both got what we wanted. There is room for the addition of up to 3 more shelves in the table top unit, and I will likely figure out adjustments in the floor unit to raise the models up higher for easier viewing with the doors closed. I'll also very likely add some lighting to both cabinets as well. Steve

Absolutely not!! A good portion of WD-40's formulation is mineral oil which works great for removing things like stickers and tape residue. Been using it for things like that for years! Just be aware that yes, it is a petroleum oil based product and you don't want to try painting, foiling or decals over it without thoroughly washing the item clean of the oils after using. Some folk's concern, and in my opinion the real "urban legend" is that somehow, this is some really insidious stuff that cannot be removed once applied and floats through the air like some plastic seeking virus looking for a model paint job to destroy. Personally, I think that's a lot of hooey. I've been using it for many many years without a single poor reaction that I can think of. It's just another product that needs to be respected for what it is and handled as such. Steve

I think that we can all take solace in the fact that this guy will very likely not be in business much longer. With any luck at all, maybe an actually "responsible" individual will pick up the mantle and run the operation the way that it was back when Bob Dahl ran it. Steve

I get grief from some folks about this all of the time, but I use WD-40 to remove tape and foil residues. Yeah, I know........but before I get the usual gasps of horror from some of you, I do it all of the time and then just follow it up with a thorough washing with a good grease cutting dish detergent. Never have any issues with it and it works like a dream and won't damage the paint. At least not the paint that I use. Steve

Wow!! That's just sweet! Really terrific work right there! Steve

!!!! Isn't that the truth!! Steve

Thanks Craig. But part of the fun of building for me is working through these kinds of issues. Even though it can be trying at times, it's also enjoyable and gives me a sense of accomplishment. I have to get something out of this hobby I guess. Steve