StevenGuthmiller

Sounds like you have your work cut out for you! There's a gentleman on ebay right now selling a bunch of parts for this kit. The body is in great shape & the "buy it now" price is $35.00. Not "too" bad if someone really needs a good body. Steve

I've had it happen to me too. I've concluded that Testors bottle enamel does not play well with plain old paint thinner. (mineral spirits) I use it all of the time for cleaning brushes, etc, but if you use it for thinning the paint, it seems to really speed up the "gelling" process. As Scott said, it only seems to happen with certain colors. Steve

I really don't know a lot about the quality of the Revell kit. I've never had one. But I can tell you that it's much more rare that the Johan! Steve

Great tip! Don't know why I never thought of that! Steve

Why? Have you got one that you want to get rid of? Oh, well, I guess I could take it off of your hands. Steve

Well, you sure can't beat that price! Looks like you will be searching for a lot of hoods. I'm sure that you will be "not" happy to hear that the hood for the LeMans came from Modelhaus! Steve

Pretty nice haul for $30.00! I'm getting a feeling of dejavu looking at that '64 LeMans! Steve

After a couple of coats of Duplicolor rattle can clear, a good sanding, & then a coat of Duplicolor "Paint Shop" clear. Steve

I can tell by the first photo that it's most likely the "USA Oldies" kit. The interior is incorrect. The USA Oldies series had the interior tub from the 1965 Chrysler 300. Evidently the original '62 300 interior tooling was lost at some point, so the '65 interior was substituted. Steve

Nice Chuck! I'm in the process of building the convertible version of this kit right now, & in the same color. Steve

I think that I would give it some sort of clear coat. If this is the paint that I think it is, it's extremely fragile & is prone to all sorts of problems. The Testors Metallic silver, copper & gold can have some real adhesion problems. Since you thinned it with lacquer thinner, it may not have quite the same issues, but I wouldn't be too sure. Steve

Ain't that the truth! All of these Revell tri-five Chevies were a real paint in the backside! Steve

Nice Bill. I've had the hardtop version of this kit since I bought it new back in the early 80s. Some day maybe I'll actually build it. Steve

No need at all to clear coat if you're happy with the finish. There are only two reasons why I clear coat. 1: The lacquer paints that I use are a "base/clear" paint that require a clear coat to achieve a shiny finish. 2: If you plan on polishing a metallic paint, a clear coat is a good idea to avoid any "smearing" of the metallic particles. Steve

Color is on & ready for clear coats. Nothing earth shattering. Just plain old bright red. I did have to strip & redo the hood after absent mindedly breaking one of my cardinal rules & not getting enough material trimmed from the edges of the hood to allow for paint thickness. I was obvious after a couple coats of color that the hood would not close correctly once all of the clear coats were applied. Not a major deal. Steve

"Why not" is because it didn't work for "him". Why don't you use Testors clear coat? It was never my intention to have any "wars". To me it's just a discussion. Just as you're curious as to why Rich thinks that Future is an inferior clear coat, I'm interested as to why it seems to upset you that he feels that way. Steve

I never mentioned his methods either. We're talking about a product. A product that obviously Rich did not find to be useful for clear coating paint. Just because something "obviously" works for particular purpose does not mean that everyone will have a positive experience with it. Obviously, at some point, Rich tried using Future as a clear coat & was not satisfied with the result. For "him" it was a lousy clear coat. Why is that so difficult to accept? Steve

This is the only photo that I could find of a '60 Lincoln in "Deerfield Green". I'm not sure if the color that I have is this dark, but I'm not entirely sure that I would want it that dark anyway. Steve

That's objective too Harry. What' smooth for some, may not be for others. One example I immediately think of, while we're on the topic of clear coating, is Testors "Wet Look" & other clears. A lot of people swear by them, & I'll admit, I have had good results with them for the most part. But just that couple of times that I didn't was enough to sour me on their usage. Some may think me a fool for not using them, but from my personal experience, I will not. This is what needs to be taken into consideration when someones experiences may not be the same as your own. Steve

Thanks Charlie. I was kind of leaning towards the tan myself. I'm really not much of a fan of tan for interiors, but in certain circumstances, it just seems to be the "best" alternative. The Lincoln was as high end as you could get, so it only seems fitting that it should have a tan leather interior with the green paint. The '62 Chrysler I'm working on is kind of in the same arena. To me it just looks like it "should" have a tan interior. I'm confident that I'll be doubly tired of tan interiors by the time I finish those two up. Steve

I agree that a Burgundy would look nice Kevin. I've just been doing too many dark red builds lately. Time to try something different. Steve

Fair enough. I'm just playin' with ya. Steve

You're a relic Harry. All you have to do is look at our government to see how few people there are left that base their opinions on fact. Steve

Understandable. I'm going to weird you out a little Bill & tell you that that we're taking our vacation in AZ this summer as well. Leaving in a couple of weeks. Steve

Now you're asking for "facts". Facts have little to do with opinions. Steve