Mark

The huge blower in the pickup kit is neat in its own right. It resembles (to me, anyway) the superchargers used on the Harry Miller/Gulf Oil Indy cars of the late Thirties. That said, for a more "factory appearing" setup, the Revell '57 Ford parts are the way to go. The AMT '57 Ford also has a blower setup, but that one is a custom deal. The carb is enclosed/covered with a pressure box, and I think the supercharger is on the opposite side from the factory '57 setup.

So far, no fisheye problem for me. No different from any other paint, in that cleanliness is key, but I guess some paints are more forgiving than others. The 1K doesn't leave room for error...

I have used it straight from the can, and am satisfied with the results. I don't know if it changes over time, but in my experience there is no "sand and recoat" ability with this clear. You might be able to recoat, but wet sanding seems to "crack" the outer surface leaving it dull and soft, with the recoat then attacking it. As for the fisheyes, they would be caused the same way they would with any other clearcoat or color coat... contamination on the surface being coated. I wouldn't necessarily recommend this to anyone, but it worked for me: before shooting the 1K clear, I wiped the item to be cleared down with a soft, clean cloth moistened with Windex. I didn't want to use a tack rag, as those can sometimes leave deposits on the surface. The glass cleaner seems to have cleaned the surface, without leaving a soapy residue that would create fisheyes. Like I said, I wouldn't out-and-out recommend it, but I did try it and it worked, so I'll likely do it again until it doesn't work.

Nope...engine make is not mentioned on the box, to not pay for licensing from a second manufacturer. Nothing new, Ertl did the same for many years.

The '34 Ford coupe includes a Chevrolet engine, not a Ford as stated.

Kit cab looks exactly like the '72 (Baja Brute) which was the first version of the kit. MPC didn't always keep up with changes from year to year if the kit in question wasn't based on a promo. They'd update the grille and/or other separate parts and call it good. MPC's Dodge pickup also had the separate gas cap for the cab (indicating fuel tank behind the seat) a couple of years longer than the 1:1 trucks had that.

I'm pretty sure Rod & Custom did a two-part article on the construction of the Expo Toronados. They later ran an article on the one Barris built for himself after the fact. R&C also did an article on the Toronado custom that Dean Jeffries built; it's the best looking of the bunch IMO.

Surf Woody was designed by Tom Daniel. There is an issue of Rod & Custom with a Sketchpad by Daniel, that predates the Surf Woody. TD designed the Munster Koach too. The original one was built by Tex Collins at Cal Automotive as a running car, the finishing touches were done at Barris' shop. The Barris Toronados (built for Expo '67) were stretched in the middle by about 10". One was built from steel and used to make molds for fiberglass body panels. Barris built a fifth one for his own use. Not sure if any still exist.

Barris' Toronados were built in '67, Bradley designed the MPC Californian sometime in '68, if not '69. MPC liked to reuse old kit tools, the Californian was just another one of those deals like the Magnum GTII where they got one more hit off the tool before it got shelved. Dean Jeffries also got in on the Toronado customizing thing, his interpretation is the best of the bunch.

When I first got my cell phone, I did get a call from one of my (two) credit card companies. They described a transaction I had made earlier that day, using their card at a gas station that I frequented. Yes, it's legit, was my reply...no asking me for any card number, PIN, or anything else. Now, if they'd only asked about the transaction immediately before that one, which was something like $800 at a men's store in California (I've never been west of Denver). I had to wait for the statement to see that one...

The company doing the promo would have the more accurate kit for that year.

The sink marks on anything are usually in thick areas, or where there is a quick transition from thin to thick. Probably a tooling design thing, not much to be done about it.

Especially '71-'72.

Actually, no. A guy I went to business school with (he was a "born again") actually invited two JW's into his house many years ago. They always go in pairs; while you are replying to one, the other is formulating the next point to hit you with. He actually debated them to a standstill, one versus two, until they got discouraged and left. Never came back. I just tell anyone handing out material of any kind that I'm glad they are happy in their lives, I'm also good, so let's just leave it at that...

No Soliciting signs posted at my home, and for the most part they have worked. Only two bell ringers in the last 5 years or so. The town/village/city cannot ban solicitors completely, as apparently that infringes on their rights. But they can allow the signs, and enact ordinances to get the solicitors to observe them. Only two have ignored them so far: one handing out religious pamphlets, the other wanting me to switch cell phone providers.

MPC did '67 and '68 kits. Jo-Han did '66-'72. '67, '68, and '70 are in AMT boxes but were manufactured by Jo-Han. Jo-Han did all promos except '67. MPC's '67 is the more accurate of the two, Jo-Han's '68 will be more correct than MPC's.

Before there were texts, back when more people had telephones wired into their homes, there were phone calls. My mom got them every so often, even though she never set up online banking nor ever used an ATM. She never fell for any of them, she'd later tell them "I couldn't give you an account number even if I wanted to, I'm legally blind and couldn't read the small print on the bank statement". After a while they seem to have stopped trying. I picked up a couple of the phone calls. They'd say "we are calling from your bank", not mentioning the name of any bank. I'd ask them the name of the bank, and they'd try to bluff their way around it or not answer. After I asked them to go outside and check the name of the bank, they'd finally give up. I can’t believe anyone would give information to strangers that easily, yet here we are talking about how it still works every so often...

Expensive as it is on this side of the ocean, I can't picture too many people spending that much on a spray can only to decant it...

Building a back story can inflate the selling price, this tactic is often employed during the buildup to the car hitting the auction block. The Tucker "convertible" that was created after the fact, the "Tobacco King" '64 Galaxie that got built but never did anything, and this Challenger (how many of us ever heard of it before now?) are three such examples.

That particular Ferrari looks like it could have been cribbed for a fiberglass body (for a VW Beetle pan) back in the day. It's surprising nobody did one.

I think Revell still had people writing letters to them asking for "parts packs", so they brought those out as opposed to reissuing the early Sixties parts packs. Those wouldn't have sold at that time; department stores wouldn't have stocked them as the small packages would have been easy to shoplift. Besides, custom vans and pickups were The Big Thing at that time anyway. Those packs didn't work well with Revell kits simply because many of the items in them were duplicates of parts already in Revell pickup and van kits. MPC's van kits (Dodge, and later, Ford) had interior detail but the AMT Chevy van did not. MPC never got around to putting fender flares in their Dodge van kits. So there was something of a market there. The pickup parts pack seems to have not done as well, as they turn up more often today. I never saw those packs in any department store back in the day. I forget when those came out (1976-77) but they were a one-shot deal. I didn't remember Auto World ever carrying them...looked in their catalog for whatever year that was...AW wasn't carrying any Revell items that year! The van pack has some interesting items and might be worthwhile if you find one at a reasonable price. The pickup pack, not so much. I don't think Atlantis could do much with these if they have the tooling...don't think they'd sell well at today's prices (probably pretty close to what a complete car kit would sell for).

If the last issue of the retractable was indeed molded in Poland (I don't have that issue so I can't verify) then Revell would still have that tool. From what little is known about the Revell/Atlantis deal, the latter company bought tooling stored in the USA that the new Revell organization had no intention of doing anything with in the future. When thinking about what Revell/Monogram/Aurora/Renwal items could be reissued by Atlantis in the future, the first question should be: "where was the last issue of that kit produced?" If the answer is China, that's a definite "no". USA = "maybe". Until Atlantis announces a particular kit, there's no guarantee.

The most recent (current) reissue of this kit is in replica 1964 packaging. I'd expect the instruction sheet to be that way also, as it indeed is. The instructions illustrate every part in the kit and explain logically how it goes together...what else is there to be expected? In fact, there are only three reissues of this kit. Two were/are in original annual kit style packaging, and the third was done during a time when the (then) people running the AMT brand really didn't care too much about it.

My reply was in error. With the older chassis (originally '66, updated through '69) being the incorrect one, if not swapping to the new-tool '66 piece I'd probably just leave it alone. Using the newer '66 pieces gets you more detail and accuracy all around. You do still have to keep the '69 engine however.

If the older chassis is correct, I'd be inclined to leave the '69 as-is (I've got an original '69 kit). It's not like the chassis was ever the focal point of those cars. I would, however, fix the mistake on the newer '66 kit.