StevenGuthmiller

I was only disagreeing with your statement that "handling did no harm". I suppose it may have looked that way from the beginning, but as the seat back exhibits no "chrome" characteristics whatsoever, as the photo appears to me, I assumed that the handling was the reason for that. In any event, yes, it appears that we agree on the overall performance of Molotow. In my estimation, almost any other chrome substitute will do an equal, or better job. Steve

I’m not trying to be difficult Bill. It was just a simple statement of fact. The photo you posted was a ‘60. My assumption was that you meant to post a photo of a ‘61. I just thought that you might like to have the opportunity to make that correction in lieu of the fact that the ‘60 does in fact have a molded in top. Steve

That’s a ‘60. I would certainly think that the promo would have been molded from the same molds as the kit with a stationary top. Steve

But that does little to explain the differences in the roof construction. My ‘60 Imperial was produced by SMP, as you say the ‘61 was, yet the SMP ‘60 shares the same construction as the AMT ‘62. Steve

I disagree. Looks pretty dull on my screen, and very little like chrome to me, especially the seat back. I’ll repeat what I’ve said before. In order for a chrome substitute to mimic actual chrome, it has to come as close as possible to exhibiting the main property of chrome......reflectivity. By that I mean that the finish should be absolutely smooth and mirror like. You should be able to see your reflection in the finish, and not just some blurry facsimile of your face, but every pimple and errant nose hair should be apparent. If not, it’s just another shiny silver paint. In all honesty, I often see more mirror like properties in well painted bodies than I do in most Molotow finishes. Of course, this is just my opinion. Likewise, I have used Molotow, and nobody is ever going to convince that it will be anything approaching “durable” over the long run. Steve

That was what confused me. After 1959, I don't understand why they would produce separate convertible and hard top kits in 1960, then go back to producing a combined convertible/hard top kit again in '61, and then return again to the separate hard top and convertible kits in '62, especially being as all 3 years shared the same roof design. Usually there's some sort of pattern that you can follow with these old annuals, but apparently not in this case. Steve

Just an old fashioned "Dust Buster", or as in my case, a "Dirt Devil" power sweeper works perfect. Everything goes into a small receptacle smaller than your fist, making finding tiny parts simple. Steve

Just a couple of things that might possibly help you in your search Rich. First, there are several kits that you listed parts wants for that will do just as well with parts taken from more modern kits, especially things such as wheel covers. For instance, the '58 Chevy, '59 Edsel, and '60 Impala all have modern counterparts that you can take wheel covers from. (The '58 Edsel "spinner" wheel cover was an available option in 1959) A few of the other parts, such as the '61 Impala chassis, (should be interchangeable with several other annual style Chevrolet chassis from '61-'64) and the '61 Galaxie fender ornaments can be found in the AMT '61 "Club Coupe" reissued in recent years. Another one to scratch off of your list is the '62 Pontiac Bonneville "stock wheel covers". The AMT '62 Bonneville kit never contained stock wheel covers. Only "8-Lug" wheels, which can be found in numerous other kits. I'll scrounge through some of my stuff to see if I can help you with any of the other stuff Rich. Good luck! Steve

Tried something new tonight. Moroccan Harissa-Garlic shrimp with grilled bread. Steve

Well, in retrospect, I suppose it’s possible that the ‘61 may have been offered with the separate top. I may have been too hasty in my observation, as I don’t have a ‘61. But I do have 60 and a ‘62 Imperial hard tops, and they’re molded to the body. I guess I just assumed that they wouldn’t produce a dedicated hard top in ‘60, revert to the separate top in ‘61, and then back to the molded in top in ‘62, but I suppose it’s possible. Steve

The ‘60 and ‘61 Imperial kits had separately tooled bodies for the hard tops and convertibles. There were no separate tops. Steve

Calling it “Molotov” is a very common screw up that I see on Facebook all of the time. Apparently for a lot of guys, Molotov is the correct spelling. ? I’m no “spelling Karen” but I do find it amusing how so many people that swear by the stuff still think it’s called Molotov. That would be like if after using BMF for years, I were calling it “Bright Metal Foil”. ? Steve

Correct. A Molotov is a bottle filled with gasoline with a rag stuffed in it. ? Steve

It’s not that the ink transfers to your fingers. It’s that the finish dulls if it’s handled too much. Steve

You absolutely can use Testors “Wet Look Clear”, or standard Testors “Clear Top Coat” lacquer over enamel. I do it often for chassis and engine parts. My understanding is that “Extreme Lacquer” is hotter, so I would pass on that, but the others should not cause an issue, as long as the enamel is completely cured. Steve

I was thinking about it last night and some names came to mind. Many of them are members of this board. Bill Geary, Dominick Filbotte, Rod Maskew, Bob Jernigan, "Yura1961", just to name a few. They don't all build factory stock exclusively, but they're some of the best builders I've ever seen! (Sorry if I messed up any of your names!) Steve

Strange. Some of the best models I've ever seen, and some of the best modelers I know, build factory stock. I don't think I've ever heard of such a thing. Steve

Well, there you go. Steve

He probably would have gotten a chuckle out of it. Being an “old guy” like most of us, and an observant student of the human condition, he most likely would have thought to himself, “sure, now that I’m gone, they all love me”, but what he might have missed is the fact that many of us honored and respected him while he was here, even though we may not have expressed it. I think that we could all agree that the same sort of reverence could be applied to other past members of the board. Roger Hayes and Richard Manson come to mind. (I hope I got those names right. My name recollection skills are pretty horrendous!) Steve

Chalk it up to experience and move on, right? This is part of the reason why I like to do extensive build threads with my projects. I haven’t built a model in the past 10 years where I didn’t learn something that I wasn’t aware of, and in most cases, in time to correct it on this forum. Build threads have proven to be an invaluable tool for me. Steve

Didn't go that far, but I had a lot of fun on this engine, and discovered a few little detail adding tricks along the way. As you brought up the heads, one simple addition was to do a little additional drilling on the plugs and bolt holes on the ends of the heads. Little things like that can add a lot of depth and dimension to parts that can be a little lacking in detail, and are simple to do. Just fun little things to experiment with. Steve

I may have gone a little too far on my '64, but I scratch made a valley pan for it. Might go a little simpler for my Lemans, but then again, for me, the point was having fun doing it. Steve

The Revell '68 Firebird's intake will work just fine on the '66 GTO engine. I used this exact combo on my '64 Bonneville, and again, modified into a 2-bbl intake for my current '64 Lemans project. As the intake was "open" to the valley pan, I opened up the '68 intake. Steve

Nice work Brian. Yes, the rear suspension could have been moved forward, but it might not be too late. If you could pop the rear axle and springs off without doing any major damage, you could just trim some material from the leading portion of the springs and move the whole thing forward a bit. Just a couple of notes, and not to be an a-hole, but the '62 Chrysler was a uni-body car, and not a full frame construction as is the '57. With that in mind, any of the later Mopar uni-body chassis from the 60s would have been more accurate, and would have very possibly gotten you closer to the correct wheel base. Likewise, the Hemi was not available in '62, so any big block Mopar engine with the dual quad intake would have been more faithful to the '62. In any case, it's a nice representation of a pretty rare kit. Steve

Are there diecast models available of the cars that you're looking for? If you're just looking for something to put on a shelf, you're gonna come out way ahead with a diecast. There are issues with commissioned builds that you probably don't want to deal with. If you can find someone to do it for a reasonable price, you're very likely to get something that's going to be much lower in quality than a diecast. If you can even find anyone who will do it at all, and do it well, it's going to cost you much more than you're likely going to be willing to pay. Just the cost of materials alone to build a "fine" model can get quite high, and then time comes into the equation. How much is an "expert's" time worth? I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I certainly wouldn't even consider working on anything today, unless it was my own, for less than $10.00 an hour, and that would probably only be a possibility if I were doing it for a friend. I don't keep track of my time on a project, but I'm pretty certain that it would reach into the 100s of hours, which at $10.00 an hour, will get you into the thousand dollar range, and that's just labor, and extremely cheap labor at that! Is anyone willing to pay $800.00, $1,000.00, $1,300.00, $1,500.00 for a NASCAR model? I can tell you that I wouldn't! So, your most likely options are, build it yourself, find a diecast equivalent, or get ready to open your wallet beyond it's breaking point if you want a nice commissioned piece.......that is, if you can even find someone. Steve