StevenGuthmiller

Maybe if a guy closes one eye and squints with the other?.......... Steve

I already apologized for that! It was a nice straight on profile shot to illustrate the point. Thank you. Steve

The first time that I saw one built, I really didn't pay a lot of attention, but I thought it looked a bit dumpy and stodgy. I just thought that it was probably due to the fact that it was a sedan version. Just recently I saw a build of one & really got an eye full of that front quarter trim. Next I decided to look at some 1:1 photos & I was thoroughly surprised that it was actually a pretty long & sleek looking car for being a 2 door sedan! Completely unlike the short stumpy looking thing that Lindberg produced! Steve

I agree Michael, but I just looked back & read through an entire 4 page thread bashing the '58 Plymouth. I have seen nothing about this kit, & it's easily just as bad or worse. Maybe it's just a case of the people who were interested in the '58 being a little more finicky, or maybe people just did not notice the issues with the Dodge. While I find that a little difficult to believe after seeing the really bad trim on the front fender for the first time, I suppose it's possible. But It just seems a little odd that some kits don't seem to get the same scrutiny as others. Steve

I'm a bit like you when it comes to subjects I'm interested in like the AMT '58 Belvedere. I'm willing to live with the inaccuracies. I just think it's a little weird that a lot of the same people who would rant about how horrible the '58 Plymouth is are curiously silent when it comes to a kit like this, which in my opinion, is much worse than the Belvedere. A bit of a case of blissful ignorance I guess. The '64 330 kit has been around for a long time & I don't recall ever hearing any criticism of it. As I said, I have not paid much attention to subjects involving this kit due to low interest, but I sure don't remember hearing anything. Steve

I agree, it's a nicely detailed kit. I think that the convertible version may look a little more accurate. I appreciate the fact that you built it anyway. Steve

That's one that I had not seen, but then again, I don't have one in hand to look over completely, and at this point, I can't see wasting the time to do so. I fail to see how this kit could ever be corrected without completely rebuilding the body. I'm thankful now that I have one of the Johan '64 Dodges! Steve

Looks like nice work! It's just too bad that Trumpeter did such a bad job on the roof & deck lid proportions of this kit. I have one of the hardtops, but if I ever build it, the top is coming off. Even more likely, I'll just build the old AMT annual. Nice job though! Steve

I was just curious if anybody remembers ever seeing any posts about how inaccurate the body looks on the Lindberg/AMT Dodge 330 kits. I will admit that I was never really all that interested in this kit, but after getting involved in a discussion about these kits on another forum, it kind of became an interesting topic to me. After viewing a few side by side photos of the kit and some 1:1 cars I was surprised to see how inaccurate the kit looks. The body overall appears to be too short in nearly every aspect. The door & rear quarter as well as both side windows appear to be entirely too short & the c-pillar too long, not to mention that the front fender, or at least the side molding, is obviously completely misshapen. If I missed the critique of this kit, forgive me, but I find it a little humorous that people are quick to point out the inaccuracies of a kit like the AMT '58 Belvedere kit, but when it comes to a "popular" kit like this one, people are more reluctant to point them out. I had thought about the possibility of purchasing one of these kits at some point, but after making the comparison to the real car, I can't justify spending the money on one. To the builders of the kits pictured, forgive me for stealing your images. Steve

I would expect nothing less! That makes 4 of us. Anyone else? Steve

This is pretty much exactly my approach. Steve

They are very close. The center cap is a bit different. Steve

This is the perfect solution for the badly proportioned roof & deck lid on this Trumpeter '60! Steve

Guess it's just the three of us! Steve

Have you ever seen the headlights & turn signals on a '70 Camaro? They are not supposed to be painted any color. Kind of defeats the purpose of a head light or turn signal. Steve

I have a Photobucket fix for you. Pretend that they never existed!! Fixed! Steve

Sorry, but one of the dumbest things I've ever seen. Some people obviously have far too much time and money. Steve

You know, it has it's pluses & minuses. It's a 1/24th scale kit & there are a few things about it that seem a little bit out of proportion, but all in all I think it looks pretty good. The up top obviously needs some mods to look right, but it's a pretty well detailed kit with a nicely detailed chassis with steerable wheels, real springs front and rear and separate exhaust. There is a fairly well detailed 16 piece engine assembly, a platform style interior with separate chrome touches like door handles, power window "plates", speaker grille & horn ring. The body has nice extras like clear headlight, parking light & backup light lenses, separate fin & rocker panel trim, door handles, wipers & a 2 piece rear view mirror. It gets a bad rap, but I think that if done well, it will make a very nice reproduction. Steve

Some recent posts in some other areas have got me thinking about this long abandoned Imex '58. Not sure if or when I would get back to it, but it is back on the radar screen. Steve

PM returned. Steve

After doing a little research David, here's what I've come up with. The "Fawn Beige" in 1960 is not listed on the chip lists as a "Poly", or "metallic" paint. The paint code for Fawn Beige in 1960 is "938", the same as "Almond Beige" in 1961 which also appears to be a non-metallic color. They don't appear to be an an exact match between the two years as the '60 color is listed as "938 A", and actually the '61 "Almond Beige" color appears to be closer to the "Buckskin Beige" that I used. The "Fawn Beige Poly" in 1961 has at that point apparently become a metallic color & the paint code is now "920". I may have gotten lucky and selected a closer color to a correct '60 Chevy color than I had originally thought and Fawn Beige would be the correct name to use for it in 1960. The main discrepancy was that the "Suntan Copper" in 1960 was not listed as a "Two Tone" option on the chip sheet. Steve

Well, there's a big part of the problem, isn't it. So many people whine and moan about how they would like to see a kit of this model or that one, but the caveat is always that it has to be a super detailed kit for under $25.00. Personally, I would be more than happy to spend over $50.00 on a nicely detailed '57 Cadillac kit, or just as well, $20.00 on a well proportioned curbside version. Either one would be fine by me. Unfortunately, I believe that I am in the minority on this. Steve

Actually, this tan is not a metallic color, so it's not Fawn Beige. I went to my paint box and discovered that the colors that I used were MCW 1958 Plymouth colors called "Buckskin Beige" & "Copper Glow". Steve

I have seen some pretty nicely done examples of the Imex kit, ( Imex, Arii, Heller, all the same thing). While they are not optimal, they are your only real choice for a 2 door '58. I also have one of the Johan/X-EL Fleetwoods. They are a pretty nice, although, very simple model, as all of the Johan promos were. I'm planning on re-doing mine in the not too distant future. I happen to have 2 of the Imex '58s, one convertible and one hardtop, (exact same kit with different tops) If you're exceptionally nice Bill, we might be able to strike a deal! Steve

Yes, I do all of my scripts in this fashion. You should absolutely remove the scripts if you plan on using the decals. I would just sand the large badges smooth such as the one below the trim on the trunk lid and then apply the decal to the top. Steve