Snake45

The C-pillar shape doesn't look right on that one, but it might be possible to cut/file the window line back to correctness. Interesting!

I bought one off eBay about a year ago, I believe the seller was TMR which I think is Time Machine Resin.

I was beginning to think you'd never show up!

Again, Tim, I'm going to respectfully disagree a little. The two major flaws in the Revell '67 Camaro body--the backslanted rear panel and the rectangular, incorrectly shaped grille opening--are readily apparent in photos. (The missing bars in the grille are hardly worth mention; that's easily fixed.) The grille in particular completely screws up the whole "face" of the car. And this is a shame because the rest of the body is actually very, VERY nice--possibly the best '67-'68 Camaro kit ever. I'm currently working on building one of these. I'm correcting the rear end, removing the rocker trim, and then I'm gonna see what can be done about the grille. I'm building it as a '60s custom using the custom grille from the original annual AMT kit, so if that end of the car isn't perfect, I can write it off with "Hey, it's a custom anyway." One of the functions of this build is to figure out what's needed to fix this body for a GOOD build that I want to do. I've got the hard part of the rear end fixed. There's enough meat in the rear panel to shave it back at the top and get the panel vertical, or nearly so, which I've done. I haven't cut the lip of the trunk lid back yet, but the depth gauge on my dial caliper tells me I've moved the top edge of the rear panel back about .050-.060", which will help a LOT. The pic shows both fixed (top) and unfixed rear panels. Another thing to keep in mind is that we all have our areas of specialization. You have a major in Mopar, with a minor in Boss Mustangs. My friend Vamach1 can find errors in Mustangs I can't see. I'm a first-gen Camaro guy, so the wrong shape of the grille on this kit bothers me a LOT. But I realize that others might not see it at all. So I guess that "accuracy" is a relative term, depending on who's using it and what they're talking about.

Gonna have to respectfully disagree with you a little bit on this point, old friend. If you're talking about things like parts fit, ease or difficulty of assembly, and so forth, you are absolutely right. You can't comment on the thing until you've built it. OTOH, I didn't need to own, much less build, the Revell '67 Camaro to spot the egregious errors in both the front and back ends of it. Net-published photos (including excellent ones from you) told me that the kit had serious (shape) accuracy problems that would have to be addressed for a serious build. And I think everyone here could name three or four kits that have struck them the same way. Conversely, one can purchase and build a kit and still not produce a "valuable critique" of it. The "other magazine" for years had on staff a reviewer who routinely gave "Recommended" and "Highly Recommended" and even "Must Have" ratings for kits that I consider to be wretched backbirths. He'd give a good description of what was in the box, but didn't seem to have much of an eye for shape accuracy. Come to think of it, I don't recall ever seeing a build article or built model from him of any kind, ever, either. And to this day the magazine publishes full build reviews that don't mention major shape or accuracy problems (though they do highlight fit/assembly problems).

That's not bad at all. In fact, I'm planning to paint a '29 in rattlecan dark green sometime in the near future, and if it comes out that well, I'll be VERY happy. Tell him Well Done and Model On!

They are not even interested in "getting the story," they are only interested in pushing their own agenda/narrative.

Completely different situations. The Cosby accusers had all sorts of facts and details and corroboration and witnesses. There is NONE of that with the SCOTUS nominee so far. Not a single credible bit. But I guess we'll see what tomorrow brings. Who knows?

A friend of mine calls such a car a "road pillow."

I'm with you and Jantrix on this one.

Very, VERY sharp! Some detail painting on the wheels would really bring it to life. Well done and model on!

I used Duplicolor red on an Alumicoupe. I had moderate blushing but it polished right out and looked great. Tried the same can on another project, spraying it over Rustoleum red primer. Didn't have any crazing at all and it went on fairly smoothly but the blushing was moderate to heavy. I spent a LOT of time polishing it out and it looked great except for a few areas where I polished through. I decided that there was no way to touch up the burnthroughs and have it look good (sometimes you can get away with it), so, sadly, ended up stripping the paint (Easy-Off took off both the Duplicolor and the Rustoleum, no problem at all). It's awaiting a repaint now. I won't be using Duplicolor again.

Very, very cool! You are inspiring me to finally get started on my own custom Monkeemobile. Well done and model on!

Forgot to add this pic to that post.

Very nice! I have GOT to get one of these built sometime soon....

Beautiful work, and very creative. I don't understand why this was moved down to the "Truck" section when it's clearly a rod (on a car frame, no less). Plenty of early truck rods have been posted in the Cars Under Glass section, where they're entirely appropriate. Oh well, as I said, nice work!

The Falcon was, IMHO, the best looking car built in America in 1960, and Edsel managed to screw even THAT up!

Interestingly, it can be pronounced as "super silly ass." Fitting!

I'd have gone with "toyiferous" or "toyatatious," but that's just me.

Interesting! And the kit instructions seem to show a third hood, too.

I have three diecasts that are exhibiting paint bubbling and/or evidence of metal corrosion under the paint. Believe it or not, all three are Corvettes.

VERY interesting! I wonder if that means they made a complete new set of body molds for this kit? Because the '63 reissues all have the poor mold alignment in the turn signals that all the original annuals did. The CAT has a lot of other unique parts, too, such as the side exhausts, not seen in any other variant. Or is it that after the '63 annuals, they set the roadster molds aside and made new ones with solid headlights, which got updated each year until they were finally backdated to '63, and then when it came time to make this one, they just dug out the original '63 roadster molds and used them for this?

Oh, I don't think the song itself is anywhere near close enough for a suit, it's just got a strong SFTD backing rhythm going on. It's not like the "I Won't Back Down"/"Stay with Me" case of a couple years ago. There's another country song out now that's pretty much an homage to John Campy Cougarmelon's "Jack and Diane." No plagiarism case there, either, just a tribute.

Their '67 full-detail coupe is just as good, and the '63 snapper roadster is also good. Their '67 roadster has problems, though. You did a great job with it--looks fantastic! Well done and model on!

One of the best/cleanest builds of this kit I've ever seen. The color looks great, too. What's the paint?