Dave Darby

He meant Photoshopped. That's a 66 Nova Wagon on his box art. Neat idea.

Has RoG killed off the Monogram label?

Pretty cool Pyro grab. The red and green ones might look nice with polished plastic and the necessary detail painting, such as chrome details, and black tires with whitewalls when appropriate. I built a bunch of the old Chevy and Ford Pyro kits as a kid. Pyro really shined with their brass era kits. I had a Pyro Renault Town Car when I was around 9 or 10, back in 70-71 when they were still in stores. Mine was molded in blue, and I recall it being a really nice kit. Someday, I'd like to take another stab at one.

At one time, Revell made a seriously understatement 34 Ford Coupe (with a rare roadster variant) based off of the John Buttera T sedan chassis. I seem to recall someone sitting building one with the Fiat body on it. While the fenders aren't prototypically correct, it did fit pretty well. If I had more convenient access to my stash, I'd pull my parts out, and grab a pic of the combination for you.

Other than a dual 4 barrel carb intake from the 57 300C, I don't think there's ever been a stock intake kitted for that engine. You might try modifying that one, or the AlaKart/Mod Rod Manifold to a single 4 barrel version.

Depending on how close to stock it is, the 66 Fairlane chassis would be more correct. The Revell 70 Torino would be even better, as it's more accurately done. The 60-65 Falcon/Comet architecture wasn't designed to accommodate a big block.

Are you sure that 260 was the original engine?

But I think there is a big difference between sales at a locally owned hobby shop and big box stores such as Hobby Lobby. Locally owned hobby shops cannot compete price-wise with big box stores, due to their volume discount pricing, and the fact that they also don't depend solely on model kits to keep their lights on. The crowd that buys those clone tools isn't going to the locally owned hobby shop, when they can buy the same kit at Hobby Lobby with the 40 percent discount, The guys chasing Tamiya kits can't find them at Hobby Lobby, so they buy local. So quite honestly, you may well be comparing apples to oranges. It's kind of like saying such and such rare kit is going for 300 dollars on eBay, so it's sure to be a big seller if you reissue or retool it. Most of the time, those kits were rare because nobody was buying them. I'm pretty sure both Hobby Lobby and Round 2 know who their customer base is. You know what sells at your shop, but the big box stores and kit companies know what sells on the overall level. I'll finish with a reminder that the model car industry isn't what it used to be, and tools with a high parts count are expensive. That's why, when the the 71 Demon finally came out, it was a clone, instead of a new high detailed tool. It was the only way it could financially happen. It sure beats going without. The same applies to those old Johan kits.

Very cool pair of "Revivors".

While I'm pretty sure the Thunderbird was the only Ford you could get a 430 in, the concept, and the execution are first rate, and the only thing I'd change is the zip code of the shelf it's sitting on. It looks factory, and the detailing is first rate. I love it.

Most of these guys never go into that kind of detail. They just say "Nothing fits on this thing". Such and such's kits are all junk. Typically, it's a kit that's been around a long time, and has built successfully by both kids and adults for generations. So the question of are you a builder or are you an assembler, might be better articulated by the Henry Ford quote: "Don't find fault, find a remedy."

Looks like right out of the 70s. Love it!

Looks great!

AMEN, brother! TB My point was actually aimed at the complainers, not judging one building style or process over another. Take the bumps in stride, instead of damning the kit or the manufacturer. I have some builds that are just polished bare plastic. It's all good. In a way, you did make my point though. Your average Johan kit is basically an unassembled promo with an engine. The person I was responding to said that new tools have to have modern level details to be worth producing. I'd take extra options over extra complexity. Anyway, I'd love to see this come back.

It's been a long while since I was able to work on this last, but I do have an update to share. The windshield and frame that come with this kit are pretty crude. I wondered for a while, what I could use in Its place. Then I had a flash, and tried the Monogram 32 Roadster frame in place. With a little grinding inside the stanchions, and a spacer on top of the cowl (just like real Deuces), the Monogram frame fits like a charm. Looks much better than the kit frame. I picked up a bag of junk parts from the last Kustom Kemps In Miniature meet last fall, and it had this seat, which looks like a perfect fit. This way, I can cut the molded in seat out, and paint it separately from the body. Any idea what it's from? Til next time - hopefully sooner than later....

The execution and attention to detail are top notch on this one. Great job!

Maybe I'm being misunderstood here. Building models is indeed just for fun, and you should build to your ambition/skill/enjoyment level. There's no shame in that. I do. I don't build for contests. I build to my vision. Paint by numbers Vs freehand original, it's all good. There is no one size fits all approach. My issue is with people taking their own failures out on the kit, as though it's the kits fault, then complaining about it. Or worse, saying every kit by such and such manufacturer is junk. Facebook groups are clogged with that crowd. Tell me that doesn't get old. It's nothing new, I remember a guy reviewing the AMT 66 Mercury for SAE, who put the cylinder heads on upside down, then complained that nothing fit. That wasn't the kits fault. The point is, buy some files and basic tools, test fit parts, and rope that horse in. And yes, some sometimes there are design flaws. Like the re-engineered rear bumper on the AMT 57 T-Bird. Lesney/AMT raised the bumper mounting plate to accommodate the new continental kit, making it necessary to modify it if you didn't want the spare on the back. By all means call things like that out. But keep in mind that any US model company that's been around more than 60 years has been bought and sold numerous times, with different design staff, and different engineers and design philosophy. Some of the worst kits ever tooled happened in the 1970s. That doesn't mean all of them are bad. There is also a lack of understanding of the financial aspect of kit development/production. The model kit industry is not the behemoth money maker it was in the 60s and (to a lesser extent) in the 70s. And smaller runs translate to higher production costs, which have to be passed on to the consumer. New kit tools run roughly 150 to 200 K. Demanding a Tamiya level, highly detailed 63 Ford Galaxie, especially when there is already an existing tool of one is a losing proposition. This is why you see Round2 cloning so many of the old kits, lessor detail and all. I'm not passing judgement on anybody, I'm just saying I'm glad to have those old kits available. If someone could clone those old Johan kits, there are plenty of us older guys that would buy them. The "new" tool 58 Edsel has a ton more detail than the old annual kit, but the annual kit has a far more accurate (and better proportioned) body.

I'm in! As soon as I can find one.

I don't pick kits based on how they are engineered. I pick them based on the subject matter. Last I knew, if you wanted a 60 Plymouth, Johan is the only game in town. Nobody is going to invest Tamiya level money to tool up a high tech version either. But Round 2 has been blessing us with 60 and 63 Ford F100s 64 Chevelles, and the like. You don't have to be an Augie Hiscano or Gerald Wingrove to develop patience and craftsmanship. I don't claim to be a Bernini of styrene either. I just like to make them my own. As far as the "builder vs assembler" line getting tiring to you, I get more tired of people whining when kits don't fall together. "Such and such kit is the worst kit ever!" Yet 12 year olds back in the day managed to build them. If you want easy, get a jigsaw puzzle or some Lego blocks. Here's some of those ancient "poorly engineered" kits.

Maybe one day they'll clone the early body, and bring it back to the more attractive first iteration. I'd be in.

I must be in the minority then. I love that old tool style stuff. I don't need a 100 piece chassis with detailed suspension. I rarely flip my builds upside down. I want accurate looking old school subject matter. With lots of options and extra parts. And that is where Johan and AMT shine. That's probably why Round2 gets most of my money. I also know how much new tools cost. There are too many modelers that are only assemblers these days. I was kit bashing and making my own stuff when I was 13. It's amazing what you can do with a set of pin drills and some evergreen plastic. When I see grown men complain about kits not falling together, or not being detailed enough, it chaps my hide. Not to be mean, but those guys need to break out some craftsmanship and creativity, or switch to jigsaw puzzles. Everybody wants instant gratification. I dunno, maybe blame the video games?

I agree in many instances, but there are exceptions. The AMT/Ertl ProShop 32 Ford Roadster had a horrendously erroneous instruction sheet, calling the chromed roll bar brace a radiator hose, and instructing builders to section the injector pump. They also had you install the triple carburetor set onto the blower manifold as an option. I don't think the old instructions were all that bad. They may not have used numbers and paint color call-outs (which in the case of the new tool Ala Kart were completely wrong, having you paint chrome suspension parts flat black), but millions of 12 year olds still managed to successfully complete most of those kits.

It's entirely possible that some of MPC's engineering staff came over to Ertl with the sale. John Mueller and the late Dave Carlock are/were industry veterans.

Ertl bought MPC in 1986, before either of those kits were tooled. The Olds was the last new tool sold under the MPC/Ertl label, which was discontinued in 1989. The engineering looks very similar to the 66 Nova, and other Ertl kits from around that era. I'm pretty sure both kit tool designs originated in Dyersville.

Man, what a beauty! Gorgeous paint job, great color. Only one very minor, but noticeable glitch. Your driver side low beam headlight lens is clocked 90 degrees off. The other three are perfect.