Mark

For the sedan, I figure the sides were tweaked to make the bucket a little bit narrower, to slip inside the sedan body. The rear door lines were definitely wiped off the sides. Undoing the width alteration (if it was done) to make the interior fit the phaeton body again would make the interior not fit the sedan again. The door line apparently wasn't an issue, as I don't think that was reversed for the phaeton reissues.

The old Car Model Magazine ran a series of articles on kitbashed versions of the original Moon Scope kit. Not my thing, but a reissue of it as originally produced with the six wheels would probably do okay.

That sedan used the phaeton interior bucket. I never got around to comparing them, but I'd suspect that it was altered to fit into the sedan body. If so, Ertl having made it fit the phaeton again would have made it (again) not fit the sedan body. That said, maybe now it would be possible to just tool a new sedan interior, copied from a sedan kit piece. If anyone at Round 2 thought there would be enough demand for a reissued sedan, that is.

It's worth learning, especially if you have several unique or hard to find items that you would like to have multiple copies of. Just a thought.

There are five versions of that four-wheel SMP (later AMT) trailer that I can account for: -the first version in the Chevy pickup kits -second version as a stand-alone item. The stand-alone trailer does not include the fuel can boxes, there are other differences too. -third version as included in the late Sixties drag combo sets. Side skirts deleted, new deeper open wheels, trailer generally looks more up to date for the time. -fourth version as included in the Modified Stocker Hauler set, with the tire rack and "wind breaker" up front. -fifth version as sold via the Ertl Blueprinter mail order offer: chrome slotted wheels replacing the previous open wheels.

If you are making one, two, or three standard size mufflers and intend to use them in multiple projects, casting them should be considered also. Make one of each, make it as perfect as you can, then make castings of them as needed.

Any two part filler should not shrink, as it cures by the chemical action of the two parts being combined. Many other putties are at their essence extremely unthinned primer. Those cure by the evaporation of the small amount of solvent in them (compared to primers) so naturally those will shrink as they cure.

The Longnose body is a '69, probably modified from AMT's '69 annual kit. Not the "AMT" '69 that has appeared in the last twenty years, that is an ex-MPC kit.

Looks like AMT '59 El Camino to me.

For Stock class, it's shipping weight / advertised HP, not cubic inches.

L/Stock would be way up there for a six-cylinder car, wouldn't it? No factory installed V8 for '63, you could get installation parts over the parts counter from day one but those conversions weren't legal for stock classes...

I'll have to pull that out again and check the instruction sheet. I've been wanting to take some measurements off of some of the parts, to scratch a copy of it built as the display base.

The SMP "mail order" trailer, which is the four wheel unit from the '60-'61 Chevy pickup kits. I got two instruction sheets, two decal sheets, and two chrome trees with mine. Notice that the chrome trees are not identical, they are mirror images of each other. That would seem to indicate that these were molded separately from the pickup kits, at least for the mail order version. I wonder why they didn't try to issue it as a stand-alone kit in a regular box.

The separate trailer was mail order only. No box art, just shipped in a mailing box. I'm pretty sure it has a unique instruction sheet though. I've got one, if I think of it I'll get it out and take a picture of it.

The crazy stuff is changing hands between collectors. That Mustang isn't even a particularly accurate kit. It had some unique parts but not enough of them. Someone wanting to duplicate it as a builder could get 90% of the way there with currently available parts, and with a small amount of work would have a more accurate one to boot.

The Dyno Don issue Maverick hasn't been $85 or less in about thirty years, at least in unassembled form. So much for that value guide. Between the Maverick and Comet pro stocks (same kit, few different parts) the generic pro stock Maverick went OOP way before the Comet did, and thus has been harder to get. Now, with any real Jo-Han kit production being twenty years in the past, expect everything to go through the roof.

It's probably traceable to its promo model origins. To make the seats one piece, they would have been engineered to have hollow seat backs. The core part of the tooling that forms the seat probably had to be a certain thickness, which added to the thickness of the seat. Had they tried to mold it solid, the seat back would have been relatively thick, possibly the hot plastic injected into the mold would have taken too long to cool enough to allow removal from the mold. This also happens when an interior is re-engraved over last year's upholstery patterns. The area is smoothed off and the new pattern engraved further into the tool. That would make the seat thicker too. This didn't happen with the Wildcat though, as it was new for 1965 and was not reworked or updated for '66.

The wedge bodies came off as soon as it was figured out that the airfoil over the rear wheels accomplished the same purpose...downforce on the rear wheels. The airfoil was cheaper, lighter, and didn't have to be taken off to get at the engine between rounds.

As long as the parts have cooled (thicker/larger ones generate heat during the curing process) and are fully cured, prep and paint any time you like. If you use mold release on your molds, you have to make sure no trace of it remains on your parts. Once that is cleaned off, the parts are ready to work with.

The information seen most often would indeed indicate that the lacquers and Model Master lines will be going away, the "plain old Testors" sprays and bottles will be sticking around. A lot of local hobby shop guys will sometimes spread bad information because they don't want to add or continue a product line. They'll take the gamble that you'll find a "close enough" product or item that they already have on the shelves, a gamble they often lose with me.

Much of the chassis and engine from the annual kit were recycled into the '71-'73 annual kits. The '73 ended up as the Warren Tope Trans-Am racing version, which was reissued a few years ago.

I might be wrong, but I'm under the impression that Chrome-Tech did the plating for Modelhaus, and Bob decided to quit the business after losing them, by far his biggest customer.

They're the same kit. The grille filler and other parts to smooth off the body were in the 1970 annual kit, which is where the body and related parts came from. Both are numbered T-341. The red one came first, it is in the 1970 catalog. The box art changed in 1971, the white/blue stripe scheme on the box tied the car in with the stripe decals in the Ford Louisville LNT-8000 race car hauler. Not sure if the decals in the kit needed a change to match the new box art. The Mach Won (with the white/blue color scheme box art) stayed in the catalog through 1973. Some of these kits had bodies molded in yellow (chassis and related parts molded in white). I've got two of these, one all white and the other with a yellow body.

The green of the built Cobra looks like metallic. It might be sprayed over molded green, but the kit green is solid. It's pretty much the same green as the Barris Cruisin' USA '66 Mustang. The Reggie Jackson Cobra was molded in that green, there is also a Lesney issue in that green. It and the Reggie Jackson issue may have been produced together for a while...same plastic parts and tires, dropped into different boxes with different paper (instructions/decals). Lesney did that with several kits during their ownership of AMT. Heck, even the original AMT did that every so often.

One book I have on Canadian automobiles states that, for a good part of the Sixties, Pontiac actually outsold Chevrolet there. It's credible...the price difference was less there than here, and the buyer did get the differences that were visible, if not those under the skin.