tim boyd

This is only a guess...but if you think back to the time that Galaxie owner Gary Schmidt published the other model car magazine, he took great joy in incorporating occasional little (and sometimes bigger) surprises and "insider" quips/references in the magazine. (Clearview 2000????) My guess would be that this license plate is simply an extension of the past in that regard. Cool, huh? TB

Like the other model companies, R2 does indeed capture customer input, and when they are in position to respond (e.g. the business case makes sense. as explained well in one of the other posts above), they have shown a willingness to go ahead with changes and improvements. One of the best examples yet is the reissued MPC Malco Mustang Gasser, which for the first time ever, includes a correct front body clip. This change (an all new, sliding tool piece) was the result of input from modelers, including one of Model Cars Magazine's longest running regular contributors (not me). The kit also contains other (less extensive) improvements including an all-new decal sheet that includes decals for all the different liveries (as least as far as I could tell) that the 1.1 scale car ran during it's multi-year career. I recently provided them an extensive list of prioritized changes/corrections that would significantly improve one of the best kits from the late AMT-Ertl era, should they decide to reissue it in the future. It's not anywhere near the top of their reissue list at the moment, but if/when it does get reissued, I'd bet at least a few of the suggested improvements/corrections get incorporated. Best regards...TIM .

http://www.allnew5700.com/ This website was just opened at midnight last night...VERY interesting all-new design...and as a former Marketer, I'm fascinated by the unveiling approach, including a two-minute marketing launch video that looks like it came from Harley-Davidson rather than a Class 8 truckmaker. Enjoy....TIM

The differences in the bodies are shown on pictures 4-7 at the attached link..... http://public.fotki.com/funman1712/first-look-at-all-n/revised-corrected-r/revised-corrected-r/ Best Regards...TIM

I think so but let me check.....TB UPDATE.....yes it's on this page....but only a few pictures http://public.fotki.com/funman1712/tim-boyds-124th--12/boyd-street-rods-ra/boydstreetrodsratro/ Maybe this would be a good time to get the car and the camera out and do a more extensive photo session.....Best...TIM

Bernard...turned out great! Wish there was some way we could display our two Y-Block powered '27 T's together somehow....so much in common yet also so much different (highboy vs. lowboy, paint color, high finish level of your interior vs. my "basics only", etc. etc. etc.)..... Have really enjoyed your project and coverage, and as always, can't wait to see what you have up your sleeve next...TIM

Tom Woodruff's latest project has just been completed. Check out his 161 images/full beginning-to-end tutorial at the attached link. http://public.fotki.com/misterNNL/1925-ford-model-tt-/ Thanks for looking....TIM

Over the last few days, I have been accused, several times, of being biased in favor of Revell. Most recently, an accuser said of me “His defending of revell (sic) seemed entirely bought and paid for.” The accusations appeared in the Revell ZL1 and Revell Snap Kit threads. (His ZL-1 statement was subsequently altered by one of the Mods as it originally included a vulgarity in his accusation). My model work has been seen publicly for 46 years (contest-winning models) and for 36 years (writing about models). I have authored over 450 articles appearing in over 30 magazine titles, including many in Model Cars magazine. I learned many years ago that in this endeavor (building and writing about model cars) you’ve got to have a thick skin. But these accusations are so troubling to me that I will respond this once. First, it seems to me that this Board is generally critical of the model makers, but (with some posters) particularly so about Revell. Given that I have worked with model companies since 1975, I have the benefit of having seen their side of the model car business. I also know from 35+ years of work at one of the auto companies, that it helps to better understand a situation when you hear both sides of an issue. As a result, on some of the negative review threads, I’ve tried to add my perspective of the how the model companies might view the issue, where I thought it would add the missing viewpoint to an otherwise one-sided discussion. As many of the negative comments are directed at Revell, undoubtedly more of my “here’s a possible other side of the story” posts have about Revell than other model companies. I have also advocated for discussions here that would make sense to the model makers if they were to read it (which, as I’ve pointed out, does happen from time to time, based on what I’ve been told). Using words like “idiots” to describe Revell’s management, which one poster did, would certainly cause any model company employee to question the discussion thread and discard otherwise relevant/helpful information therein, or to disregard the discussion board entirely. If you want them to read it, you’ve got to keep it factual and non-inflammatory. Those of you who know me personally know that I am very upbeat about the hobby and try to take a positive view even when the news is sometimes negative. I also factor in the entire 58 year history of the modern 1/25th scale model kit industry when I review and comment on kits, rather than just focusing on the current era of generally really well done kits (which I date from more or less 1998 to present). Finally, I include my knowledge of the challenges faced by the model companies, and my knowledge of what it takes to run a successful business and some of the trade-offs you have to make to accomplish same. For all these reasons, my comments and reviews on all kits (regardless of manufacturer) undoubtedly read more positively than those by some others. But I call them as I see them, and that includes assembly problems, inaccurate equipment/features on the model, inaccurate body proportions or detailing, and quality issues like flash or plating. If you read my on-line review of the new Revell 1967 Camaro, or my review of the otherwise excellent Revell ’50 Olds Custom in the new issue of other model magazine, you’ll find I mentioned several areas that could have been better. Like many of you, I don’t always agree with decisions made by the model companies. In most cases, other Board members do a good job of summarizing my views and I don’t see much value in repeating things that have already said well by others. I do, on occasion, however, voice my views directly to the model companies when I think they’re headed in the wrong direction. In my ZL-1 thread responses, I made two errors. First, I tried but failed to tactfully steer the discussion back to a less emotional/accusatory, more factual debate. Instead, it inflamed the situation further. Second, I had scanned the ZL-1 thread quickly, and I commented on the paint job on my own ZL-1 kit which I had just bought last Wednesday. I failed to make the link that a poster was speaking to a new Revell Challenger kit he saw at the store and snapped a picture of; anyone who looks at his photo in the thread can clearly see the paint on that sample (with a large sag on the door) was unacceptable. So he was entirely right about that particular sample (although I strongly suspect that sample was an unusual exception rather than overall representative of this new Revell product line). At this point I want to comment a bit further on a different accusation (not specific to me) that appeared not long ago, wherein the poster (I don’t recall who it was) suggested that kit reviewers were paid by the model companies to make positive reviews. I can’t speak to everyone who reviews kits, but in my case, I have NEVER been paid by the kitmakers to give a positive review. Further, in most cases (all cases since the mid 1990’s) I paid my own money for the kits I reviewed, unless I was sent a sample in advance (examples of that that I recall include multiple tests shots for the Monogram Pro-Stocks around 1984, test shots for the original Revell-Monogram 1932 Ford Street Rod Series in 1996, and test shots of the Revell ’32 Ford Tudor circa 2007, plus ‘first off the line’ commercial kits of the Revell ’32 Ford Five Window, ’48 Ford Coupe, Kurtis Edelbrock V8 Midget, and ’70 ‘cuda). In each of those cases, I believe I disclosed the source of the kit, and also in each case, I’ve subsequently bought several more copies of those kits with my own money. As long as we are on the subject, I also pay for the aftermarket parts I get. For instance, I paid Norm for all the parts from his lineup in a recent story about his ’31 Model A Coupe. Back to me specifically, from the mid 1970’s through today, I have also provided general marketing input and advice to all of the domestic model companies, when asked. I did paid, commissioned work for AMT when I was in college (1975-1978), and have done two projects for two model companies since retiring last year. One project was free, the other was an involved, multi-week project early this year for which I was paid. At that time, I advised the staff of the other model magazine (where I occasionally do kit reviews) of that project, and that if/when it finally comes to market I can’t do the kit review because of my earlier paid work. Should said project reach the market, I do plan to post news of it on my Fotki site, but also disclose my earlier involvement. Since I am now retired, I will continue to do paid work for the model companies in the future if requested, and also plan to take a similar disclosure path should that occur. I highly value the respect and integrity the model car community has awarded to me over my long modeling career. No model company could EVER pay me money to buy my loyalty – my independence to tell the story the way I see it is way too valuable to me personally and professionally. To try avoid further controversy, I will no longer comment on posts by this author, nor will I have anything further to say here on this Forum about my role as a reviewer or commenter on model car kits. If any of you have further specific questions, please send me a PM and I will respond as time allows. Thanks, Tim

Thanks for the links and info, Jon. Best regards...TIM

Found this Revell of Germany LaFerrari kit release buildup thread by Tom Ruijter from The Netherlands elsewhere here on the MCM Forum. He's been working on the kit for about a month and is nearly as of today. Well worth checking out! TB http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=92245

Oh YES!!! Going to be watching this one for sure. Great start, Kerry. TIM

Well said, Austin. I feel exactly the same way. Best Regards....TIM

39 images and commentary at the link on Revell USA's LaFerrari kit: http://public.fotki.com/funman1712/first-look-at-all-n/new-revell-laferrari-/new-revell-laferrari-/ Thanks for looking....TIM

,,,,, ,,,,, I have no objective to boast for Revell, specifically, or Round 2 or Moebous, for that matter,. What I DO have an objective for us to have a fair and informed debate. And to try to make it so that the model companies, when they do read these comments, say..."wow....good point there...maybe I should consider that". Or...."great...we are being recognized and complimented on doing a good job on xxxx product - all that extra effort was worth it.....". And to convey that the people at the model companies are hard-working experts doing their best to deliver products in a very small and demanding market these days. One wishes that the model companies themselves could defend and/or explain themselves directly in these discussions, but that doesn't generally seem to be the case with industry as a whole, nor the model kit industry either (Moebius being the exception on some occasions) Where possible, with my experience both as a builder and as someone who has knowledge of and deals with the kitmakers from time to time, I will share that information here to help enable an informed debate representing both sides of an issue. As for the finish on the Revell ZL-1 and Challenger kits, if I was a young builder and got a paint job result like these, I would be have been overjoyed with the result. (Maybe you were a great painter when you started the hobby, but most of us were anything but accomplished in that regard.) I am looking at the ZL-1 kit body right now, and the quality of that paint job could have won some local model contests I have judged over the years - by a wide margin, at that. Is it perfect? No, there are two tiny dust bits I see, along with one other slightly larger dust bit on the trunk. But even to this day, if I had a shelf model build with this paint result (and with the addition of some wax), I would be proud to put it in my case. I didn't buy the Challenger kit at my local hobby store, but the sample I looked at appeared to have even better paint than the Camaro kit that I did buy. Makes me wonder...maybe there is some variation in the quality of the paint applications - so that the one you looked at was way on the other end of the quality scale? But the kit I bought is fine. Best regards...TIM

My thoughts are that this is a bit of apples and oranges to suggest that the precedent of the Charger body replacement should also apply to this Torino kit. The original Pro-Modeler Charger body was wrong in basic proportions on a number of levels. All of us realized something was wrong the minute we opened the box. Not only that, it was a very premium-priced kit at the time. This Torino body was always correct all basic proportions, and has now only seen a minor change to correct an incorrect body feature line and a minor change to two bucket seats. Most of you have commented that you never even knew there was something incorrect about the Torino body, until I pointed it out, some 14 years after the original kit hit the market. Again....much, much different than with the Charger body. If we ask Revell to replace the Torino bodies, I could predict that they would be adverse to making any future minor corrections/improvements on other kits they've offered in the past. Another words, if you ask for a replacement, the whole idea of "continuous improvement" in other Revell model kits could backfire on us. No insider info on this, just my concern about unintended consequences....and something to think about... TIM

Guys...a bit of advice if you are willing to listen....comments like these do not help our case. People from the model companies - Revell included - do read these boards from time to time. This new Revell pre-finished kit series represents an attempt to broaden the base of hobbyists out there. That is in EVERYONE's best interest. Prefinished kits not only offer accessibility to a much younger audience, but also serve the casual adult builder who doesn't want to get involved in painting, or doesn't have the skills to deliver consistent results. I bought the Camaro myself earlier this week. Yes, there is some minor orange peel on the body but overall it was well done. Can we as serious modelers make it better? You bet...I wonder what it would look like with simply a couple of quick coats of The Treatment Model Wax.... I might feel a little more disenfranchised if we weren't getting our own new glue kits at the same time these kits are introduced. And while I (obviously) am not authorized to divulge the details, I am aware of at least one (non-prefinished) kit project underway at Revell right now, right alongside development of these pre-finished kits, that I suspect will make your eyes pop when it is finally announced, as well as several other cool new variations of (non-prefinished) kit tools that are already on the market. Do I agree with every decision made at Revell? Absolutely not. Should I expect you to agree with all their decisions? No way. But I think it helps to remember that the people that work at Revell (and Round 2, and Moebius, et al) are all dedicated business people (and in many cases, practicing hobbyists as well) who are trying to grow their enterprise. Pre-finished kits are an excellent attempt to do just that. TB

Sorry, can't let this one go by. The '70 'cuda is not a bad kit, in actual fact, if you build one, you'll find out it's the best kit yet of that make and model. We've been over this before. Could it be better? Yes, no doubt, there are about ten minor tweaks that would benefit the body execution, and a couple of minor parts fit tweaks that would help. But overall, it yields an outstanding replica out of the box, gives you a great choice of correct factory options, and provides the basis for kitbashing yet other alternatives. A review of the completed builds of this kit, both on this and the other boards, as well as in our favorite model car magazines, proves this point. I can't comment intelligently on the '90 LX as I have not built it, but many others have, and I accept their verdict. TB

I'm sure more good stuff awaits in multiple kit genres and from multiple kit makers....but you may have to wait until early next year to hear about it...TIM

Update here. Revell sent me pictures of the two cars they used as the basis for these kits. They both contained what was called the "Bright Lower Body Side Molding" that was standard on the RS (not SS) Camaros. I have found no indication that so far that this upgrade was available from the factory on '67 SS Camaros, but back then, pretty much anything was possible if you knew the right people at the factory. Given that information, the lack of "roll under the body" as Gerry calls it, or "tuck under" along the lower door and quarter, as I called it in my review, is now explained. So....just go ahead and foil this area and call it an owner-specified RS bodyside upgrade to his or her car....TIM

Thanks Gerry...that's a better picture of the correct 1/1 scale grille than the one I referenced in my review. And not only did they mold the seatback releases, they also molded the vent levers in the kick panels (which I meant to mention in my review - I'll go back and update it thus). Best regards...TIM

John...be still my heart! I would love to see a kit of the '70 Ranchero GT, or even the Ranchero Squire. The owner of the local repair garage in Ann Arbor, Michigan, called "Illi's Auto Service" (on Huron, just west of the old Ann Arbor Railroad overpass), got a new '70 Ranchero Squire in the dark green metallic, with (if I remember correctly) the 429 SCG/Shaker hood setup! It was great! But if it had been me, I would have gone for the Ranchero GT 351c 4bbl HO, Shaker hood, setup just like yours. Ah....memories....TIM

Thanks Lee....you just reminded me that I actually have one of those AMT annuals myself down in the cellar....and it looks just like yours (!)....thanks for the clarification/confirmation

Roger...understand your point and it is a good one. But the reality is, with today's relatively small adult kit market, a manufacturer has to do multiple versions of a kit (to sell multiple copies to us builders and collectors) to make the financials/investment work out. It's really as simple as that. Today, if a first run of a kit sells 10,000 or 20,000 copies, that's considered a success. Back in the days of the old AMT 3 in 1 kits, they sold in the 100,000's of thousands, occasionally even in the millions (for some of the Trophy Series kits). That difference in sales volume/revenue, plus the much higher level of detail and fit/accuracy demanded in today's market, makes for a much different business equation. Yeah, I'd like to have more extra parts too, but I'd much rather have the current approach than no newly tooled kits at all. Thanks again for your comment/feedback. TIM

Bob...I don't have the most recent Cobra issue, but the comments on another model car message board lead me to believe that this is the first version of the kit with the corrected body. If anyone knows differently, please speak up! What I really want to do is build this kit with the Air Grabber/Shaker hood and air cleaner setup from the Revell '70 Cobra kit. And use the innards from one of the original GT kits (with the incorrect body) to update the old MPC Cyclone kit, just as you suggest. Of course, what I'd REALLY like to see is for Revell to do a new interior/body using this same basic kit tool but featuring the '70 Cyclone GT or Elliminator body. Best regards...TIM

Frank...the tires looked to me like the generic ones that Revell uses in their late sixties/early 1970's kits. There are drag racing slicks, and they are the somewhat tall, and relatively narrow, type that would be used on a '70 Torino in the Stock drag racing classes (e.g. a car without fenderwell/floorpan/rear suspensions-axle mods). Both the stock and drag racing tires were smilar to those of the original kit. Best regards...TIM