tim boyd

Excellent kit history, as usual. Minor point, Monogram actually acquired Revell and joined it together with Monogram as a new, combined company operating out of the Chicago area Monogram facilities. The Monogram staff carried over into the new entity. I'm a little foggy on the exact details (not near my reference library right now), but this was the jest of the action. Thanks again for the great kit history info...TIM

Thanks Chucky...I just sent them my ideas. Really appreciate the info and the link....TIM

Frank, I heard rumors a couple of years or so ago (from sources outside of Revell) that such a project had apparently been considered. Haven't heard anything since, either from inside Revell or sources outside. I personally think the '48 Ford Custom Chopped Coupe was a brilliant move on Revell's part, but I also believe an unchopped/restored stock and street rod version would also be successful, as long as it would include the dropped suspension parts that were in the Custom Coupe version. That's part of the reason why I was so surprised by the number of (unchopped) '46-'48 Coupes at the Nats North. Thanks...TIM

Thanks Andy. I finally gave up on the weather at 12:30pm on Friday when it started raining (for the third time that morning). Weather didn't get much better (judging from what I drove through back home and the weather there hours laters). Ugh. The Orphan show was today, but I wasn't there (had other obligations to my girlfriend). But the weather today was about the same - about 20 degrees below the normal temps for this time of year. Best Regards....TIM

Frank...yes there were....I posted a separate album of just the "unchopped" '46-'48 Ford Coupes here.... http://public.fotki.com/funman1712/correcting-or-kitba/1946-48-ford-un-cho/ Best regards...TIM

Andy....near as I could determine, it was. But it was just too blasted cool and damp to get on the ground and look underneath the front fenders to tell for sure. Best...TIM

...all hiding out at the attached link. Thanks for looking....and be sure share your model projects here if they are inspired by any of these photos.... TIM http://public.fotki.com/funman1712/11-scale-automotive/2014-nsra-nationals/

Got to give Howard Cohen credit for this one... Our 2014 NNL Nationals 'cult theme' is "Vintage Model Preservation Society". Basically, your favorite models that you built prior to summer 1980, which marked the date of the first-ever NNL meet in Jackson Center, Ohio. If you have any models that meet that criteria, be sure to bring them along with all your others.... Thanks Howard! And thanks all in advance for those of you who are able to make your plans to attend the 35th NNL Nationals....TIM

Harry makes a good point here (and I know some of the other board members have said the same thing as well). No inside line here, but my guess is that there might be one or maybe two factors involved: 1) the model car companies today are extraordinarily short-staffed vs even ten years ago, much less decades ago. There just simply isn't time or manpower for them to consistently maintain a view of the boards and respond. Stated another way, if there are only so many hours in a day, I'd rather see them working on new kits for us, than shuttling that aside to man the message boards. 2) companies in general (not so much the model companies specifically) have sometimes found that when they attempt to respond to criticism on message boards, it turns into a very negative situation. E.G. the situation worsens rather than resolves itself. They sometimes get better results by responding to individual messages rather than posts on a publicly-accessible message site. Again, I have not spoken to the model companies about this in detail, so it's only a guess on my part. But as Harry also noted in an earlier post here, there is a downside in that rumors, innuendo, and guesses (such as mine here) don't always tell the true story. Now, I have to get back to work myself! TB

Good point. I'd only be interested if they do it all new, from the ground up. Just like Moebius did with the LoneStar/ProStar. TB

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