Snake45

Different and therefore interesting. I like what you did with the body. I don't think I've ever seen two Testor Icy Blue paint jobs that look the same. The can I have looks like it's going to produce a much lighter color, and much "flakier" as well (from spoon test shots).

I'm amazed that the 1/25 Snapper hood fit the 1/24 kit body so well. I'd have thought it would be too small. Actually, after cutting out the Snapper's hood, I'd have gone ahead and just put a good chassis under it and full-detailed the thing. The Revell Snapper body is much more accurate than the old Monogram Chevelle's. (Ron Hamilton might disagree with me, but that's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it. )

You beat me to it. My Walmart has some good deals on budget diecasts. M2s, which are pretty decent models, are around $20, and Motor Maxes are even less than that. You never know what's going to be there week to week, but it's always worth a walk down that aisle to check it out. I've probably bought a dozen or so diecasts there over the last two or three years.

As Art Fern (the late, great Johnny Carson) would have said, "Not exactly a sale point, Matinee Lady!"

Huh. I bought one last week but haven't opened it yet. From the "map" on the bottom of the box, it looked like it still has the Cragars, anyway, right? So it doesn't have the custom front end parts either? Oh well.

What he said.

Looks good to me, and well done with the Snake-Fu you laid on it. I've seen these once or twice and have almost bought one--I think I'll get the next one I see, after seeing how good yours looks. I have a '75 Monza promo painted almost the same color that needs restoring.

I have two '65 Rivs, one silver, one blue. I THINK they're Welly, but not sure. They ARE very slightly undersized at about 1/26 (it might even say 1/26 on the chassis). I wonder if the Motormax is the same thing just with a different name on the chassis. At any rate, I'm pretty pleased with shape and overall look (after some extra added Snake-Fu, of course ). I have a '72 or '73 Trans Am by, I think, Wild Cherries. It's not perfect but it's not bad at all--good enough to sit on my shelf. Again, I wonder if just the branding on the chassis is changed? If you want a really nice inexpensive diecast, check out the Welly '70 Challenger TA. I think it looks at least as good as--and probably better than--the AMT or Revell kits.

Very nice! I like the slight rake. Well done and model on!

They look great! You do realize that to live up to the excellent looks of the lights, now you're going to have to open up those vents in the front, don't you?

They no doubt left the glass out of the model to avoid glare or distortion in the photo. As to what he's doing with the glue, only thing I can figure is he's about to install the upper radiator hose. (He's looking at it from a pretty weird angle to see what he's doing, though.)

They're never going to fix it. If you don't like it, you're going to have to suck it up and fix it yourself, or do without. I get where you're coming from. I'm constantly having to fix incorrect shapes or contours on kit bodies myself. That's what modelers do.

There is no proper application of makeup to cover up "idiot."

Oh snap! It does, doesn't it?

They're as close as I've ever seen to the pics you posted, and the first thing I thought of. But I agree, they're not exactly the same thing as your pics.

Very nice, very clean! I've heard that it's very difficult to get that body to all match up, but it looks like you did a good job with that. Well done and model on!

I'd a never guessed. Pretty ingenious!

I have a glue bomb/survivor of that very kit that is getting very near the top of my "Things to Rescue" list. Might get to it real soon!

I could have written every word of that post, especially the first two paragraphs. Robberbaron, if you and I were to actually BUILD our Modelhaus-parts '68 and '69 Chevelles, that would seal the deal!

But she's such an idiot that she's not attractive to me at all.

I don't have this problem often, but I did recently on the Revell '68 Corvette. It was TIGHT even in bare plastic. I took off what I thought was enough and even so, it was tight again after it was painted. Shoulda taken about two more strokes with the sanding block on both sides.

Is that a phantom or "tribute"? Couple tipoffs that it's not genuine....

Pretty much the story. You'd need two different bodies to do '68 and '69, at least to do '69 SS and COPO/Yenko, though with the chrome side trim you could do '69 Malibu from the '68 body. And then there's the taillight problem--for one shared body, you'd have to have the modeler cut out the areas for the '69 taillights (or maybe break the body at the end caps and have those as separate pieces). And then there are the different emblems between '68 and '69. In short, it's nowhere as easy to get both '68 and '69 Chevelles out of one tool as it is to get several different versions of, say, the '69 Camaro. (All of which, are, of course, the same basic '69 Camaro.)

I agree. Hiding the headlights really cleaned up the whole front of the car and instantly made the '63s and '64s look like "last year's model." IMHO, though, as nice as the rest of the car was, they never got the whole back end of the thing right. It always looked to me like something they threw together on Friday afternoon of the last day of the design period. Image how good the car would have looked with the taillights and whole rear end treatment of the '64-'65 Skylark, especially the full-width taillights. It would have been gorgeous. I might try building such a model sometime, maybe by using the spare custom rear end parts from the common reissued '69 Riviera.

Good to know!