tim boyd

Scott...thanks for your interest on this...here's one other that was in Car Model sometime in late 1972 or early 1973....from the '72 Washington DC MPC Contest....won Best in Show without the trailer and the matching pickup...the judges didn't read the instructions and disqualified the matching components...(just like the 1/1's back then, the judges were instructed to remove the header extensions so the car could fit on the trailer...there was even a compartment in the trailer expressly designed to hold the header extensions...but the judges 'forgot"....GRRRRR!!!!! ...working front suspension and steerable wheels/tie rod/drag link.... entirely scratchbuilt frame (from plastruct rod) and interior paneling (from .015 and .010 sheet styrene).... ...hard to see in there but there's a blower pop-off valve on the intake manifold with two tiny springs....and note the header braces.... More pix of this one... http://public.fotki.com/funman1712/tim-boyds-124th--12/boyd-scale-funny-cars-/boyd-funny-cars-models/ The one in the August '71 issue of CM above won 2nd seniors at both the 1971 MPC Detroit and Dayton shows....Scott Sullivan (yeah, that one) beat me in Dayton.... TB

Lookin' really, really sharp so far and a great stance! Will be watching this one closely as it comes together. TIM

Heh guys....yeah...it's me. That would have been my third big contest win (after 4th place nationwide in the 1968 Dodge/Car Model/MPC Funny Car Contest and 1st place senior/Best Detail at the 1969 Flint MPC Contest). The two cars in the photo still exist...the '69 Charger is relatively intact after being reassembled when Car Model asked me to mail it in to compete at the 1970 MPC National Championship (it qualified with a Best of Show at the 1970 Indy Contest) and they sent it back to me in a box with no packing. Needless to say, it was in a million parts. They sure didn't get any plus points from me for that maneuver. The 'cuda was a hurry-up build from a 1970 MPC annual kit which came out just before the contest. The bodywork eventually sunk so I built a second body from the MPC '69 Malco Mustang Gasser kit. The chassis in its original form (complete with a working "Hydra-Slide" chassis and the second body are in relatively pristine shape and there are a number of photos at my Fotki site. http://public.fotki.com/funman1712/tim-boyds-124th--12/1970-mustang-funny-/1970-mustang-funny-/ (15 more pictures at this link) JB...yeah I was a stereo/rock geek back then. My "system" was based around an Olsen AM/FMS receiver and two Utah floor speakers (for those of you not familiar with these brands...let's just say they were known for their volume, not their quality of sound...!) When I started working at Ford in 1978 after graduating college, my first expenditure was a set of JBL4311BX studio monitors - the speakers that were supposedly used in the studios where the best rock bands mixed their albums. I still have those bad boys today, some 36 years later, in my family room downstairs. They seldom get asked to jam these days, but when the do, they still kick it out just like the day I bought them. The rest of the stereo system these days is comprised of Kenwood components. Thanks everyone for your interest and your kind comments....and there are a few more pictures of me and my work in those old Car Model Magazines....always fun to look at them....TB PS - just realized this model is 44 years old! Cheez Louise, where does the time go????

Interesting topic here. As someone who worked for 11 years in an executive position in the Design Department of one of the OEM's, I can assure you that creating 3D replicas from 2D pictures and line drawings is very, very difficult to accomplish with an exact degree of accuracy. Starting from data scans of the real car is much better, but even that requires a good deal of experience to translate into 3D sculptures. Combine the very real difficulty of being asked to create 3D scale sculpture without having the benefit of seeing the real thing in person, along with differences in language and time zones (the East Coast of China is 12-13 hours ahead of US time zones, depending on the time of year), and you can only begin to understand the challenges of these Craftsmen - and let me assure you, they ARE Craftsman - in the assignment that they have been given. Like Chuck's view on this topic, I think 3D data scans of the real car are a key "next step" in improving body accuracy of scale kits where the original OEM design data no longer exists. For various reasons, which I will admit I partly but do not fully understand, several of the kit manufacturers don't see it this way right now. TIM

Not exactly germane to the topic at hand, but don't forget about the AMT 1/16th scale '57 Nomad kit introduced during the Jim Snedden years at AMT. Kit #T- or Y-483, it came on the market in 1977 and has a current value of $70 according to the Bob Shelton/Bill Coulter kit pricing guide. At the time, AMT commissioned me to build one of their 1/16th scale Nomads in box stock form, to be used at their annual national sales representative meeting and for other purposes. I painted it Testors Metallic Gold with Pactra Clear, but I just can't remember if it was the '55 Nomad or the '57 Nomad that I built for them...whichever one it was, i remember it being a pretty competent kit - not breaking any new ground (as Revell's 1/16th scale funny car kits did earlier), but generally well detailed, relatively easy to assemble, and a big - in fact, really big! - model that required a ton of Bare Metal Foil to complete! TIM

I just got photos today from Alan Barton of his relatively recent box stock XR-6 build (including the fenders). It looks super-sharp. (UPDATE: Alan just posted a few pictures of his XR-6 - see post #18 - thanks Alan!) I've heard back from several people on this topic (including the comments posted here); maybe interest in this kit (at least among the highly involved modeling community represented by Model Cars magazine readers and participants in this Forum, is higher than I thought. Very, very cool. TIM

Steve...those are way cool pictures - thanks for those and the feedback on the article....TIM Harry - no worries in the least! Layout (and the photos - you work magic on those!) look great. Thanks...TIM

Thanks Harry for adding a print publisher/editor perspective, and for what it's worth, I fully agree with you. TIM

Steve....me too! Nicely stated...TIM

According to today's Wall Street Journal, Source Interlink Media Distribution, a SIM company that handles distribution of many magazines to newstands, is basically ceasing operations. According to the WSJ story, this came after one of their biggest magazine sources said earlier this week, they would no longer do business with SIM Distribution. While the article did not mention the closing of the various SIM magazines this past Thursday and the concurrent rebranding of that company, the two events could be related in that they are both part of SIM overall. If you have access to today's Wall Street Journal, definitely check out the article. TIM

Steve, excellent three sentence summary of a multi=page, many months in the development article. When i sat out to do that comparo, I wanted to send some messaged to the model companies.: 1) stop repeating the exact same topic across three or four manufacturers (these were the days when AMT, MPC< Revell, and Monogram would all do their versions of new topics like the third generation Camaro/Firebird), 2) if you persisted anyway, your kits were going to get ranked and there could only be one winner 3) unrealistic body proportions - which were a frequent problem with some of Monogram's new kits at the time - were a key factor in evaluating kits and were going to be called out, and 4) ease of assembly was also a key factor in how kits were going to get ranked. Don't know how effective it was in achieving any of those objectives, although I do think all four elements improved in the following years. I do know that the Monogram team noted their third place finish and expressed a desire to do better in the future. (They didn't challenge my conclusion, or complain, though). And when AMT/Ertl, Lindberg, and Revell all introduced their 1997 F-Series pickup kits, each company did a different configuration of the 1/1 scale lineup rather than them all being SWB 4x4 XLT's.... Also Steve I think I would probably agree with your current rankings as well. IF someone forced me to do it, I'd come out the same. But I still really like the original AMT kit! Best regards....TIM *************** PS - this reminds me that about seven or eight years ago, Revell contacted me and told me they were doing a new, full detail '57 Chevy kit. They wanted to know whether I thought they should do it as a Bel Air or as a 150/Black Widow. Now remember, this was back when Walmart and their ilk were dictating the fate of our hobby. I told them I thought that the 150/Black Widow would be a way cool kit topic and that was my personal favorite, but from a marketing /kit volume/sales standpoint, the Bel Air was a safer bet. I would imagine they asked others the same question, but to their everlasting credit, they swallowed a brave pill and went with the 150/Black Widow. IMHO, the success of that kit helped give Revell and others (Moebius???) the impetus to go ahead with some of the more "specialized" kit topics we've seen in recent years. TB

Scott...thank you so much for the nice compliments. Hope we do get a chance to meet somewhere down the model car road. Best Regards...TIM

Thanks Chuck for the comments. Regarding the paragraph above, we do depart a bit from each other and here's why. Paint does play visual tricks, but that occurs both in 1/1 and 1/25th scale. The OEM's widely use blacked out window trim (both on the outside and underneath the window itself) to hide the actual scale of the supporting structure underneath (which will quickly become even more of an issue with the recent Fed's changes in rollover structure standards). If a non-paint scale buildup is done, it will duplicate the 1/1's roof structure (a, b, c pillars et al) but will not provide an accurate portrayal of the appearance of the OEM 1/1 scale car, due to the visual tricks played by the 1/1 scale car's blackout treatments. This is a factor, for example, on the '90 LX, (though I doubt it changes the overall conclusion about the roof shape - probably lessens it to a degree, but certainly doesn't account for 100% of the explanation for the difference in the real vs. the kit). So does BareMetal foil play visual tricks - or in the following case, it emphasizes what was an otherwise undiscovered error. I'm about 30 minutes away from finally completing a full paint detail build of kit that I've long considered the very best of its marque, including the chassis, engine, interior, and a body that appeared to me to be 100% correct. After I got the chassis installed in the body and the red lines and wheels installed, it has now drawn into question whether the rear wheel arch/cutout is correctly shaped along its rearmost semi-vertical edge. It doesn't look right to me. I'm going to have to check this very closely against my 1.1 scale references. I would have never noticed this (I have had the kit in my hands for probably 15 years now) had it not been visible on a painted and bare metaled body, along with the tire/wheel assembly to provide visual reference. Speaking of wheel well openings, this is one of the areas where you and I are in complete agreement - that all the kit manufacturers need to put a lot more emphasis on validating and correcting their in-process kits. I could rattle off a number of new kits introduced in the period since 2005 with incorrectly shaped wheel well openings. It's not just that they are incorrect, it's that this incorrect visual reference then upsets other parts of the body appearance. One example - many, many people have pointed out the incorrect flairs of the wheel openings on the '70 'cuda. But the incorrect shapes of the front wheel well openings themselves (when viewed in profile - straight on from the side) not only are incorrect but they then disorient the eye to other correctly-rendered design features, and that impacts the overall appearance of the completed model. These are not huge errors by any means, but little elements that should be done more correctly. And Revell is not the only one with problems here, by the way. Chuck, thanks again for your added perspective on this subject, and the examples you cited! TIM

JB...smile....cool to know that the kit is of interest to more than just myself....TIM PS - I built mine without the fenders for just the reason you state....TB

Danno.....thanks for the feedback, much appreciated. I did consider for a bit the Wild Dream/King T Double Kit. But most people seem to know about that kit and the follow-up MPC releases (at least us hard core hot rod modelers since these were both Oakland Roadster Show winners back in the day,,,of course, now that I write that, the XR6 was also an Oakland winner....hmmm....maybe I better double check my logic on this!) The others I have in mind are ones that most people don't know about....the other feature model buildup is done but I've got to get busy and finish the text and the other box art photos for "Part 2", now that "Part 1" is finally in print... TIm

Harry....varying post and theories on this regarding both mags - not clear as to the correct answer (at least from the posts I saw). There was no R&C at all in the new org chart they showed....TIM

I realize many of you probably already have some or all of these references at hand, but for those that do not, here they are: 1.1 scale XR-6: · “Tex Smith’s XR-6”, by LeRoi Tex Smith, Hot Rod magazine, August, 1963, pp.60-67. Includes centerspread “Phantom View”. · “Milestones – The XR-6 – The Concept Rod That Started It All”, by LeRoi Tex Smith, Street Rodder magazine, February, 2003, pp.34-40. · “XR-6 Roadster”, Lost Hot Rods – Remarkable Stories of How They Were Found, by Pat Ganahl, pp. 158-159, CarTech , Inc. · Also: Rod Action, May, 1976 pg. 9; Rod and Custom, October 1992, pp.94-96, Hot Rods and Customs of the 1960’s, pg. 54, Andy Southard, Jr., 1997, Motorbooks International AMT XR-6/’27 T Double Kit: · “Looking Back – AMT 1927 Ford T/XR-6 Double Kit #2107”, by Dennis Doty, Model Cars #126, October, 2007, pp. 9-13. · “Building Hot Rod Tubs from Two Forgotten AMT Trophy Series Kits”, by Tim Boyd, Model Cars #174, January, 2013, pp20-25. Best regards....TIM

...appear to be undergoing major changes today. Other web sites are reporting that Rod and Custom will no longer be printed, and that much of the Automobile Magazine staff has been let go and their Ann Arbor offices will be closed. A sad, sad day for print enthusiasts. TIM

Still thinking about this subject... I really think there are two types or "stages" of kit reviews. The first stage of kit review is the initial impression. The box art, the instructions, the kit subject chosen, the appearance of the body and kit parts in their original, unpainted/unassembled form. This is the stage at which we, as builders, decide whether we want to invest the time and effort to build the model, and if so, in what order vs. our other "on deck" ;projects. In my view, anyone who has purchased the kit has a right to make their views know at this stage. The second stage is when the kit is actually built, painted, and detailed. This is, if you will, the "final verdict". In this case, and I feel really, really strongly about this, the only valid "Second Stage" viewpoints come from those who have taken the time to build, paint, and detail the kit under discussion. Personally, I have found, time, and time, and time again, that the conclusion for the "Initial Impression/First Stage" is different from the conclusion after the build is completed. This works both ways - kits I thought were terrific at Stage One, underwhelmed at the completion of Stage 2. Kits I was convinced were wrong in Stage 1 actually turned out to be very accurate once accurately build and painted. Having said this, it would be really helpful to know on what stage each person's contribution to the dialogue is based. For example, the much-discussed '90 Mustang LX. Don't get me wrong, everyone has a right to make a comment, but it would be great to know which comments come from those who have actually built, painted, detailed, and then assessed the overall kit, vs. those that are making the kit assessment at the "Stage One" phase. I haven't built the LX, so I can't contribute to that discussion on a Stage 2 level. But others have built it, and it would be interesting to me to see if those people changed their view of the kit (either toward the better, or toward the worse) based on the final result. Much as those of you how have built the '58 Corvette here have contributed highly valuable "Stage Two completion" comments. TIM

blubaja, martinfan, and mike 51, on 25 May 2014 - 10:58 PM, said: This is a really intersting series of questions. I can only speak for myself....as Chuck has already done for himself. ************************* First....I pay for most of the kits I've done reviews on. Most all of the kits on my Fotki Site online "first look" kit reviews were paid for. In some cases, the magazine requesting the review has provided a kit that they received from the manufacturer, but much as Chuck experiences, I take the time to build my review kits exactly as I do my other shelf models. Removing parting lines, adding fully correct engine/chassis/interior paint detailing, Bare Metal, et al. So in most cases, I buy the kit at the local hobby store (my favorites - Model Cave in Ypsi, Michigan, or online at Spotlight Hobbies) as soon as it hits the shelves, to get a "head start" on getting the build completed for the review. In those instances where I used the kit from the magazines, I bought an additional copy (or several additional copies) on my own dollar anyway. Again, I can't speak for other reviewers, but my own independence and credibility as a model car builder and writer far outweighs any influence a kit manufacturer might have tried to exert to get a positive review. In my case, I can't think of a single example - at least since the early 1980's (when I was consistently critical of some of the body proportions of a certain kit manufacturer's efforts), have I ever received direct negative feedback from a kit manufacturer on one of my kit reviews or articles. Having said all that, the one thing to keep in mind in my reviews is that I do have some level of insider knowledge of what it takes to develop and bring a kit to market. Maybe somehow that knowledge makes me less critical of the result than I might otherwise be (or said another way, makes me have a more holistic view of the overall effort in terms of what the results are given the task at hand). ************** One more thing to get out on the table here. From 1975-1978, I was paid by AMT for various projects they commissioned. From 1978 (when I started the Street Rodder's Modeler's Corner monthly column) until 1995 (when I chose to to give it up when i was appointed overall Team Leader at Ford SVT), Monogram, MPC, and AMT (and their successors) did provide me with samples of their new kits. Wasn't always consistent during that period, but it did occur. From 1995 to my retirement last fall, I received no free samples that I recall - in a few cases I got test shots at no charge, but these were not complete kits. I also got a few advance kit samples from Revell in recent years (the four that come to mind are the Edelbrock Midget, the '32 Sedan, the '32 Five Window Coupe, and the '70 'cuda). In the last three examples, i had provided some reference material to Revell at no charge that helped them develop the kits, plus in all four examples they were provided so that I could do online builds which I posted here and elsewhere (I was not paid anything by Revell for these online builds). Gary Schmidt at Galaxie Limited also sent me the new tooled parts for his '48 Chevy kit a few months back. I got an advance test shot of the AMT Louisville Liner Transport bed from Round 2 last summer for a two-part article that will soon appear in our host's magazine here, but i sent a check for its value (the check was not cashed as far as I know). I know, way too much detail, but I want to get it all on the table for those that have questions about the subject. Now that I am retired and living on a pension, I have accepted some paid and unpaid future model kit development assignments from several of the model companies,. When the kits come to market that resulted from my paid work, I will recluse myself from doing reviews of those kits, both at my own Fotki site, and for any magazines I write for. I may do kitbashing articles later, but not pure kit reviews. I think that is only fair and should be followed to make sure that there is no temptation (however slight and unintentional it might be) to give a better than justified review of that particular project. **************** Those are my thoughts - i welcome any follow-up questions you guys might have on this subject....TIM

Jonathon, you're entitled to your views here, as am I. My view is that the first paragraph of the response above you copied in response to the request for examples if "stuipidity" is highly flawed in its accuracy. I won't repeat why I feel that way here, but you can look at post #24 if you want the details. Beyond the inaccuracy here, this type of response undermines the credibility of much of the otherwise worthwhile critiques that take place on this board, and in particular, this specific thread. The model company employees do read these boards from time to time (they are really busy these days and just don;t have time to cover them in detail). When they see comments that are inaccurate or clearly wrong, I suspect it has the effect of causing them to "tune out" the entire dialogue, thereby missing the chance for good, open, and honest feedback. So while it may have made the individual poster feel good about "putting down" the efforts of (in this case) Revell, it also has a negative overall effect, besides being less than fully accurate. As I said in my earlier post, no one is perfect, and there are certainly plenty of legitimate opportunities to criticize Revell (and for that matter, Round 2 AMT, Moebius, Tamiya, and others). But I would also point out that in general, the types of legitimate complaints we have today pale in comparison to what we faced in prior years (lack of new releases during the last ten years, and quality/accuracy/completemess/choice of kit topics in years prior to that. Not to say that we should not mention them - just to say that the level of the issues is in total less than it was in the past. TIM

I'm not here to defend Revell (any more than I am to defend any of the other model companies), and you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but there are some statements in here that are, in my view, not accurate. * The 'cuda kit does not have significant proportional problems. There are about ten minor points in detailing of the body casting, that could be revised to be more accurate. But so are there similar detail mistakes in the '70 'cuda annual kit from MPC and the '71 'cuda from JoHan, kits we held as the "gold standard" up until this kit debuted. On the other hand, there is so much "right" about this kit on so many levels that it deserves every bit the accolades it has received from most modelers, and the near "sell out" sales results so far. * The conscious decision on the part of Revell to package the roof with the gasser version of the '62 Corvette, and the entire Paxton supercharger with a different kit of the '57 Ford, is a reality of today's model car world, where we get kits that far exceed the detail level of those tooled in the 1960's and '70's, but that sell in a small fraction of the volume that they did back then. Packaging different versions of the basic kit tool in multiple kits offerings (and the increased total sales that result) helps make the new tools affordable. And oh, by the way, a similar business model being is being followed by Moebius and (I'll speculate here on the future...), Meng. * Most of my Revell kits manufactured in China over the last year have NOT had Chrome plating issues. * Any debate on Revell should also include mention of the '50 Olds and "57 Ford kits - kits that are among the best new tooled model kits since the turn of the century, IMHO. Having said that, to err is human, and Revell has certainly had errors, some of which you and others cite above. And that becomes fair game on a forum like this one. But I felt I had to speak up here to make sure we have a balanced debate. TIM

Scott and Rex...congrats! Both your cars are personal Mustang favorites of mine....TB

Andy....why hot? There's an AMT Scirocco kit in my stash...and I shot a bunch of pictures on Sunday of a pristine 1979 example that are included in the album (3 below and another seven at the link) AND ....you already have some VW's in your build colleciton IIRC....amd worst case scenario, I have an unpainted but assembled AMT Golf/Rabbit kit in the original box....TB

http://public.fotki.com/funman1712/11-scale-automotive/2014-michigan-vinta/ Includes tons of detail shots of a restored '62 Transporter Pickup and a '79 Scirocco for anyone building models of those... 200 pix at the link above...thanks for looking! TIM