Mark

The "other" wheels are Foremost Ventures "Indy 500" wheels. Jo-Han first put those in one of their 1964 annual kits, the Plymouth Fury if I remember right. They used them in some other kits too. The 1:1 wheel was marketed under a couple other names also. AMT modeled the same wheel in one or both of their '64 Corvette kits, and early issues of the '59 El Camino. Of course, their version looks a little different, as usually happened back then when two companies handled the same subject matter. The Jo-Han version looks more accurate to my eyes, though the outer rim should be a bit deeper.

With the scale issue, you've got to want more detail really badly to go through all of the work and expense necessary to get it. I've got a convertible kit ('62 Indy 500 pace car) but besides moving the door line and altering the side trim to Daytona spec, I'll probably leave the rest alone. Other kits we "think" are 1/25 scale turn out to be otherwise once the dreaded ruler comes out. I'm trying to not burst the bubble on too many more things... The snap kit is pretty much the annual kit minus the optional parts, and some simplification (wire axles, metal screws, and separate wheel backs eliminated). Some Jo-Han '62 annual kits had engines, the Studebaker Larks were not among them. Jo-Han only made '62 Larks as kits, no other years. Earlier ones were made as promotionals, in acetate plastic. I don't bother with acetate stuff so I can't speak to what scale any of those measure out to. As for the pickup, pieces of the convertible could be used but being a '62 the front clip is somewhat different. The Champ pickup used the '59-'61 style four-door body (the front half of it, anyway) and the '62 through '64 pickups never adopted the concurrent car styling. For the few pickups built by then, Studebaker probably just used up leftover "early" Lark body panels. For an early Lark, or a pickup, there is another option. Premier made an early Lark sedan kit. It isn't perfect by a long shot and is slightly smaller than 1/25 scale. The multiple piece body might lend itself to stretching to true 1/25 scale though. I have one, was thinking about finding a second one (even a built one) to combine with it, to get a proper 1/25 scale early Lark sedan (think "Flintstone Flyer" here...)

The later Studebakers got more individual styling. The coupe evolved into the Hawk and GT Hawk, the sedan became the Lark. But the '53 bodies were the last all-new ones Studebaker ever did. Even the '53 chassis wasn't all new, parts of it were taken from earlier models.

Anyone know what that box art sold for? I haven't paid much attention to eBay in recent years, and already have too much stuff, but then again...

The two bodies pictured do have some commonality; however, neither has anything in common with the body depicted in the AMT or Revell '53 kits. Studebaker used two different bodies starting in '53: the AMT and Revell kits are based on the "coupe" body which is lower, and on a slightly longer wheelbase than the "sedan" body pictured (which did evolve into the Lark). Several books about the history of Studebaker agree that the decision to build the Loewy (Bourke) coupe was made late in the game, and that the coupe's sloping front end styling was adapted to the sedan which was very much further along in development at that point. The Lark was basically the '53 sedan body on the shorter wheelbase, with some changes made in the interim: mid-'55 wraparound windshield, '58 flattened roof skin, and for the Lark the front and rear overhangs were pared to the bare minimum. The center section was pretty much the same as the '58 sedan. Studebaker couldn't afford to do anything else by then. They stumbled along for the next few years redoing one area one year, another the next, but the core of that '53 sedan body was still under the skin of the last '66 sedan that rolled out of Canada.

How about a Coca-Cola salesman's car?

It might fit, but definitely isn't the same piece because the kits themselves are from different manufacturers. The Wildcat rear window (clear part) is on the narrow side, not much extra material on the sides, if the Impala window opening is much wider than the Wildcat's then the clear piece won't work. I wouldn't buy a kit to try it, but if you have a Wildcat or can borrow one then try it. I doubt it will work though.

The Drag Strip Accessory Pack was included in a short-lived kit issued in the late Sixties: the ACcellerator custom Corvette (itself based on that nasty '68 Corvette kit that AMT cobbed together for '68 only). The Deora-based Alexander's Dragtime kit may have included it also, but I'm not 100% certain about that one. The hardtop in the Prestige Series '63 Corvette was newly tooled for that issue, as was the convertible body and the stock wheel covers (and the raised convertible top for the "regular" version issued around the same time).

The AMT stock version hasn't been issued since before the Round 2 era. They'll probably bring it back at some point, not right away though. They've had the pro street version out for a while, it seems to be selling well. It has survived a number of Hobby Lobby "resets".

The front of the roof (over the windshield) on the Monogram flip-front '66 does have that "dip". Sometimes those kits are assembled with excessive amounts of cement, installing the windshield that way could accentuate the problem. You wouldn't be using the body from that kit for a serious build with the other kits that are out there. The AMT '67 body has thicker A-pillars than other kits replicating '66-'67 GM midsize cars. The Revell '67 is pretty good in that respect. Years ago, I combined the Revell '67 roof and engine compartment with a sliced and diced Monogram Hurst Hairy Olds body to create the master for a resin '67 4-4-2.

I too have an old Monogram '66 that I started converting to stock, using the chassis from their '70. All those parts are paid for, some of the work is done...might as well try to make something out of it...

If you are in this far, may as well go all the way and bring in the Revell El Camino and the old Monogram flip-front '66. The Revell El Camino and wagon bodies are different widths. I want to say the El Camino is narrower, not 100% certain though. I do seem to remember that when the wagon came out with the SS hood, some folks tried the El Camino hood on the wagon and found it a loose fit. The old Monogram kit is 1/24 but seems to taper off to 1/25 at the ends. There might be something useful there, the taillight panel for one piece. If the front clip rises up towards the front, maybe take a thin vertical "wedge cut" to tilt it down a bit? If you are set on going further, I'd probably start with the '67 hardtop body and graft the '66 styling onto it. The size/width thing has happened often. Of all the kit manufacturers, seemingly only Jo-Han has been consistent in getting different cars on common bodies right. I've bought kits with cracked windshields guessing that the piece from another kit would fit, and I haven't been disappointed yet.

Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure the Jo-Han decal sheet (unused ones can be found on eBay) has the white area around the side panels. There might be a Slixx sheet for this car too, if so it will probably have everything.

Maybe two layers of shrink tubing over the original parts? Sand them smooth, apply one layer of shrink tubing, wrap with wire, then apply the "top" layer of shrink tubing?

I too never got around to putting together a "master list" of "needs", nor did I get an order in after the initial retirement announcement. But I did think of a few things when the "last call" was announced last year. Of the things I did want, I only got two, one being a Jo-Han '72 442 rear bumper. I had a complete kit, but the place that replated the original bumper flubbed it, so I bought another one.

Looks like a Lindberg kit from the early Sixties, though it could be a later reissue if it has vinyl tires. I believe the early issues had plastic tires.

There might be some additional work involved, as the Lark is larger than 1/25 scale.

It will be more a scratchbuilding project than a conversion. The Waldorf Nomad was built on a '53 Chevy car chassis. The kits you will likely start with would be a Tri-Five Nomad (roof, windows), a '53 Corvette (trim pieces, portions of the body) and an AMT '51 Chevy (chassis is very close to the '53). I would try to use some of the Nomad lower body (mainly the sides and tailgate area) and adapt portions of the Corvette body to it to get the Waldorf Nomad styling. Any way you approach it, short of lucking into a resin body (none exist that I am aware of) this will be a lot of work, and will not be an easy project.

Losing the separate taillight lenses in the Craftsman series kits meant no tiny parts tree floating around in the box. Remember too, the parts weren't bagged in those days. One less step in manufacturing, one less molding machine tied up. They started doing this with the regular kits in the Seventies, again to eliminate personnel. They also tried plastic rod axles, those didn't work too well because they were the same gauge as the wire ones. AMT wasn't alone in this. Jo-Han got rid of wire axles (and metal screws) in the early Seventies, and substituted plastic ones. Small additional amount of plastic, easily cut tooling to produce axles and chassis pins. The USA Oldies kits also eliminated decals and (in all but a couple of kits) optional parts.

Palmer is Palmer, except for a couple of 1/32 scale cars they did which are outright copies of other companies' kits.

The Pinto and Vega suffered from their manufacturers' not really wanting to build small cars, because they felt they would make less profit per car with them. HFII's popular remark was "minicars, miniprofits". Apparently they felt that younger folks would buy Toyotas and Hondas, then switch to GM, Ford, or Chrysler products when they wanted or needed a bigger car. Where they whiffed was in thinking that Toyota, Nissan, and Honda would never build bigger or more expensive cars.

The downsized GM intermediates (particularly the station wagons) were bad in respect to rear impacts too, particularly in areas where cars rusted. The frames would rot out behind the rear wheels because of the winter slop tossed up by the rear tires, leaving the rear part of the frame separated from the rest. The Pinto was worse in that it had no "frame" back there. A book I read about Ford awhile back blamed the design on cost-cutting, or "thrifting", as directed by the guy who was running Ford in that period. His own book distanced himself from the Pinto, of course. Where they really screwed up, is when someone at Ford weighed the cost of fixing the design against the estimated number of accident claims, and decided it would be cheaper to pay out the accident claims. The cost per claim was supposedly based on guidelines established for use after plane crashes.

HL "resets" their stock twice a year, usually around September and March. Round 2 hadn't received the second shipment of Dodge pickup kits until after the last reset, they had none to sell anyone until that second shipment arrived. HL on rare occasions replaces an existing item midway between resets, but not often. If they do decide to carry this kit, they probably won't do so until the next reset.

There were two versions of that '57 Chevy supercharger: one eas called S.C.O.T., the other Italmenica (sp?). One was a refined/perfected version of the other. Not sure which came first. The first version didn't work well, nor did it last long. The second company straightened it out and started selling the improved version, only to be undercut by someone dumping the original, poorer version at a much lower price, which wrecked the reputation of the good one. If I remember right, there was an article in Rodders' Journal about them.

Yes. The 9-1/2 box contained 11 boots. No 11 box or boots marked 9-1/2 to be found.