StevenGuthmiller

I almost bought one of those in high school. It was maroon with a tan interior and a three on the tree. I basically passed on it because of that. Steve

No, it will more than likely be built as a full detail factory stock vehicle. Steve

Yes, Johan did produce ‘67 and ‘68 Plymouth Furys in both hardtop and convertible. I have one of the ‘67 hardtops. These kits were produced only once and were never re-issued making them expensive and difficult to find. Actually very nice kits with the standard fantastic Johan body and very nice interiors, but the engines and chassis were also of usual Johan quality......not so great. Luckily, there are a number of kits that would make great donors for more detailed chassis and engines. This ‘67 has been on my “short list” for a while. Steve

I owned a 1967 Chrysler 300 2-door hard top in high school. Bright red with a black vinyl top and interior. And a 440 auto. Just spotted these “large” gems at a car show on Sunday. Steve

I don’t know about anyone else, but I have a lot of fun researching this kind of stuff. It’s not always fruitful, but you’ll almost always learn a lot in the process. Steve

Say hello to my little friend, ? Steve

That’s impressive! Steve

Yup! Steve

Fun stuff. Steve

Just saw a 1969 Dodge Daytona Hemi sell on Mecum for $3,000,000.00!! ? Steve

Yes, I know that. I am quite aware that they don't "manufacture" the paint. They offer it to the public, "designated" as a paint to be used on model cars. Likewise, yes.....I agree with you. What all of these paints, including Rustoleum, were designed for, is a moot point. None of these paints, were designed to be used on styrene plastic model kits, except for Tamiya and Testors, which makes their formulation in conjunction with modeling a "moot point". "Which brings us to the elephant in the room. What is hobby paint? And what is paint in general. Because House of Color is NOT made for plastic models. Nail Polish is NOT made for plastic models. Automotive (duhh) hot lacquers are NOT made for plastic models. Are you ready for it? MCW, Splash, Gravity, Scale finishes, SMS etc.,etc. are NOT made for plastic models. All of them are companies where someone had a large quantity of factory code paint mixed in an auto paint shop and then brakes it into smaller bottles with their label. Inside is the exact same hot automotive lacquer you will get if you walk into a PPG shop and order paint for your real car. And as we know, all these paints WILL give us trouble depending on how are we using them and what we combine them with". I'm not concerned in the least what the paints were "designed" to do. Never was, and never said I was. My concern is what they have the "ability" to do, or what they are "likely" to do, when used for our hobby. Formulation is only important in respect as to how it needs to be prepared for. What matters are the basic "properties" of the paint, and how it acts, and the delivery system by which it's delivered. Granted, lacquers require more preparation to protect the plastic from damage. But when compared to enamels such as Rustoleum, that take forever to dry, have basically untenable re-coat windows, are highly susceptible to temperature and humidity fluctuations, have much more of a tendency to run, sag, fish eye, obliterate detail, and have to be baby sat when it comes to using it in conjunction with any other paints, (ie, whether or not a particular clear is going to destroy it or not is a complete BLAH_BLAH_BLAH_BLAH shoot). Not to mention the notoriously bad spray cans and nozzles, which I'm certain is pretty common knowledge. In contrast, lacquers dry extremely quickly, lay down much thinner allowing multiple coats without completely destroying detail, virtually never have running or sagging issues, have no archaic re-coat windows whatsoever, and will take virtually anything you want to throw at it as far as top coats after application. Now why on God's green earth would I ever recommend the prior over the latter? Steve

I can tell you this. I don't do it on Facebook anymore. In all honesty, although I enjoy the Facebook groups for some purposes, I would never, ever, ask a serious question that I hoped to get a genuine answer for. There are so many hacks and imbeciles offering answers to questions that they obviously know nothing about, that I seriously don't know how some unsuspecting kid, or an older builder just returning to the hobby after many years away, would ever be able to weed through all of the absolute dreck to find the kernels of usable information. But here on the forum, I believe that most members are fairly well seasoned veterans and are able to process most information without getting terribly overly excited. As a general rule, I believe that you're much more likely to get good, relevant information, and in a more civilized manner on a forum like this than in the pandemonium of Facebook. Of course we have our occasional lapses here as well. Steve

I found what might possibly be some relevant information on a Ford truck board. Who knows, but this appears to be some of the more reliable evidence that I saw there. This comes from "Ford Trucks 1957-67" by Paul G. McLaughlin......... 1957 272 .................Block = red, Accents = black (Valve covers, air cleaner box, and so on). 1958 272/292............Block = red, Accents = black 1959 292..................Block = Black..... Red, blue, black accents. 1960 292..................Block = black..... Red, blue, black accents. 1961-64...................Doesn't say. One thing I do know for sure, The 1959 292's in trucks had black blocks, blue valve covers (lighter than Ford Corporate Blue), orangeish-red intakes, black air cleaner. Both my '59's were colored this scheme. One was owned since the early '60's, the other has 20,000 plus original miles on it. underhood shot of a 27,000 original mile 1960, on ebay about a year back. Judging, by the carb, fuel line and other odds, it has never been touched. -4speed That's all I got right now. Steve

I saw that chart too, but it appears to be passenger car colors. Steve

I don't know if I've been successful or not, but that's all that I'm trying to convey. And then put yourself in the shoes of someone who's painting his third model ever, and think of how he would feel if he just finished painting his third failed paint job because people are telling him, "Just go to Home Depot and get yourself a few cans of Rustoleum". Steve

Okay, to begin with, you've never heard me say that you "must use" paints "made for models". You're apparently thinking of someone else. I'm completely aware that MCW and Scale Finishes are automotive lacquers, and I use Duplicolor primers and clears, also automotive paints. I have said however, that aftermarket paint providers, such as MCW and Scale Finishes produce paint for the hobby, which is a fact. Whether or not they are designed to be used on styrene plastic is a moot point. Rustoleum isn't designed for that purpose either, but that has nothing to do whatsoever with the efficacy of either. By the way, you're also not going to see me endorsing Testors enamels. In my experience, there's little difference between it and Rustoleum. If I'm wrong, I can fully accept that.....If you can offer me a reasonable alternative to my assumption. I have no interest in pursuing a crusade against anyone who chooses to use Rustoleum paint who is aware of the properties of the product. What I do have an interest in doing is saving unsuspecting young or inexperienced modelers the difficulties that they're very likely to encounter with the use of it. Just because some might have reasonable success with it doesn't make it any less difficult to work with in comparison with most other paints, and I guess you could say that I have a little bit of an issue with endorsing things that I know for a fact are inferior products to people that I also know are very likely to run into problems when using it. All one has to do is spend ten minutes on Facebook to find one after another failed attempt with Rustoleum paints of one form or another, to understand that these problems are not just some rare anomaly. They are frequent, and nearly constant. As I've said before, ad nauseam, I really don't care one bit what paint people choose to use. What I do care about is when young or new modelers are encouraged to use something, (whatever it might be) and then end up completely discouraged by constant paint issues that can be easily avoided with better materials. Call me crazy, but I believe in giving "the best" advice I can, not necessarily shallowly defending my own choices. Even though I don't use them myself, I OFTEN suggest to new builders to consider using Tamiya paints. Why? Not because I'm a brand loyalist who wants to promote my preferred brand, but because I happen to know that Tamiya makes a fine product that is likely to produce a result that they can be proud of without having to have a degree in chemistry. I'm not interested in stroking my own, or anyone else's ego. I'm interested in offering legitimate help to those that need help the most. Steve

Agreed. That goes for quite a few other products as well. Sometimes I believe that people put way too much stock in what the "Youtubers" say. Just because someone happens to be good at making videos, doesn't mean that they're particularly good modelers. I've seen some pretty cheesy stuff coming from some Youtubers. Steve

Here, here. Steve

I've always been of the opinion that price had to be the sole factor in the use of these paints. That and the availability factor. I can't imagine any other reason. I have to say, and I understand that some may not agree, but how much you spend, runs completely parallel with how you approach the hobby. By that I mean, I find it somewhat humorous that the people who usually complain the loudest about kit and material prices are those that feel the need to force out finished models like they're working on an assembly line. If you slow down, take your time, and try to the best of your ability to put out something of higher value, cost suddenly becomes a moot point. If you feel the need to pump them out like little rabbits, then of course, money begins to come into play. Concentrate on producing a finished product that is to the highest standard that you can achieve, and take the clock out of the equation, and you'll save. It always drove me up the wall seeing individuals tear through a kit in a week and half and then upon completion, immediately begin whining about the cost of the next kit! Steve

There's no way that I could put it any better than this. It's very difficult to arrive at a reliable painting regimen, (It took me decades to come up with one that worked for me consistently) and if you're continually going all over the map, it makes it that much more burdensome to arrive at. Steve

Of course, but for a good number of us, the only real guidance is to suggest to use a different product. That's where the problem arises. When we offer that suggestion, we're often ostracized as being rigid and uncompromising. I absolutely want to help people with their paint issues, but the best way that I feel that I can do that is by suggesting that they move on to what I believe to be much better materials. Steve

The occasional failure can be expected with any paint. That's a given. I've even had a few issues with MCW paint, but those instances have been extremely limited. The problem with products such as Rustoleum is not so much that the product itself is bad, but that it's entirely user unfriendly for a number of reasons, and especially in the case of inexperienced modelers, those reasons can be a major problem. The fact that it's an enamel, with highly troublesome protocols for re-coat seems to be the largest difficulty. Nine times out of ten, the issue that I see is the builder missing that microscopic re-coat window and winding up with a wrinkled mess with the second coat, or a coat of clear over the color. Then of course there's the delivery system which is similar to blowing the paint through a garden hose! Couple that with the fact that the cans and nozzles appear to be designed for one time use, as the vast majority of Rustoleum spray cans that I've used throughout my career wound up in the trash after one or two uses after they plugged up and became unusable with half of the product still remaining. With all of that, what irks me more than anything is the fact that within some of the Facebook groups, the Rustoleum aficionados have essentially won the argument, due to the fact that dissent has basically become inadmissible, so any young or inexperienced builders are left to the wolves with the idea that if they just keep trying, they'll eventually be successful. That may or may not be the case, but I think we're all aware that a different direction is probably more practical. Steve

Had several families of turkeys amble through my back yard in the rain last night. A half dozen adults along with 10 or 12 little ones. Steve

The Rustoleum faithful really get their panties in a bunch when you dis their paint, so it follows that there’s going to be some heated back and forth. Funny part is, it’s almost a 100% guaranteed that even before you begin reading the thread or the comments, that the paint used for the screwed up paint job was Rustoleum. As soon as the suggestion is made to use a different product, immediately you begin getting the “there is no bad paint, only bad painters” argument. Funny, but they’re so immersed in their “correctness”, that it’s more desirable to attack the individual than it is to admit that the product that they’re using is trash. Steve

Maybe it’s Johan. ? Steve