tim boyd

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

Thanks in advance for looking....link directly below; five sample pictures follow. TIM http://public.fotki.com/funman1712/11-scale-automotive/2014-billetproof-an/

Well I just bought my first kit of this model from The Model Cave in Ypsilanti, Michigan, yesterday. In addition to everything else that's been said above about this kit, I was highly impressed with the presentation of the kit (the box art and especially the sleeve that fits over it), as well as the instruction sheet and the color printing on the last several pages (reminiscent of Moebius' best work here). Prior to any assembly (which is a highly important qualifier), my conclusion so far is that this is a highly impressive first 1/24th scale automotive kit from Meng. It does make me wonder what they will do as a follow-up automotive topic, and it really does raise the bar for the domestic manufacturers in terms of asserting "first to market' positioning for other automotive kit topics that have remained unkitted in recent years. TIM

I believe Jim may be referring to a planned series of 1932 Ford-based Parts Packs This was a very detailed and well thought out proposal, and if I recall correctly, I wrote an article on this stillborn Revell Parts Pack series that appeared in a mind 1990's issue of The Model Car Journal (published by Dennis Doty and Bob Woolley at the time). The article was based on copies of discarded documents that Jim had provided to Mark Gustavson, who then sent them to me. While my article was pretty comprehensive, it would be extremely interesting to hear the story first hand from its inventor and developer. Jim....over to you...! PS - my apologies in advance if this is not what your earlier note refers to! TIM

The first run of the stock '70 'cuda "2 in 1" is essentially sold out from what I understand. The tooling was converted over to the Sox and Martin kit version for the next assembly plant run. When that is done, presumably they will go back and run more of the stock kit version. TB

Still following this thread; interesting comments all. As for Revell in all of this, they appear to me to be targeting multiple markets. The '50 Olds, and '70 'cuda kits, have both sold extremely well from what I understand. Those are clearly targeted at the, ahem, "Mature" market that believes modeling is starting its third "Golden Age". But Revell is also very busy targeting new segments, with their just-announced '15 Mustang GT snap-kit and their simplified Pre-Painted models lines. The shop in Illinois is very, very busy with these projects art the moment, from what I understand. And while some of you may think that the '15 Mustang is targeted at the grey-beards, let me assure you that any '15 Mustang replica or kit will have extraordinarily strong cross-generational appeal. It is one of those truly timeless and classless automotive nameplates.... I'm just glad that we have such a broad range of new kit subjects these days,....from the latest exotics and imports, to newly tooled Bumpside Effies and F250 Super Duties, such longed-for, never before kitted topics as '65 Cyclones and Satellites, and even newly tooled Model T's. Who could have dreamed of all this just a few short years ago? TIM PS - just one more thought on this thread. Some kit topics are tooled and brought to market fairly quickly (in under a year), while others are projects that take multiple years to research, design, tool, go through several rounds of correcting test shots, and bring to market. So in a couple of years from now, when this thread gets resurfaced here, and if one or more of these kit suggestions have actually made it to the market, it would be then be tempting to conclude that this thread was the source of the idea for that kit. Given this variation in "development time to market", depending on the kit topic, that might - or might not - turn out to be the case. In any case, let's hope as there are a number of very good suggestions for kits (and "business cases" to back them up), in this thread. TB PSS - one more suggestion from this end beyond the '57 Ford Styleside, and '61-'63 F100 Unibodies, and '64-'66 F100's I mentioned earlier in this thread, would be the '67 and '68 Chevy pickup. These two model years had a very different, more passenger-car like front end vs. the later '69-'72 pickups. In the 1.1 scale community, the '67 and '68 Chevies are revered for this reason, and have seen countless features in the magazines that cover the aftermarket truck scene. Of course, there are countless reissues of the '72 Chevy and GMC pickups, but the original AMT ('67) and MPC ('68) annual kits reflecting this unigue front end are very hard to find on the collector market and are greatly simplified vs. today's kits. And of course, these would support all the future kit variations (both model years, stepside, fleetside, swb, lwb, cab/chassis w/ light duty wrecker bed, etc.) cited above in other responses to this thread. TB

One of the guys at Detroit Resin Automotive Group offer a resin '66 Valiant with a corrected two door hardtop roofline.... Thanks Mark for filling in the gaps on the Valiant Kit history. TIM

Chuck - that is one sharp kitbash! Way, way cool. TIM

Well stated, Robert. TIM

Scott said..."Valiant? Doubtful to me. Did AMT ever do a Valiant model? I know JoHan, Revell, and possibly MPC. But AMT? I don't remember". ********************** Yes, AMT did 1960(?), '61 (?) and '62 Valiants - the '62's were "Styline" kits - and some (or all) may have been under the sister "SMP" label AMT then the '63-'66 Valiants as promos and at least some of those years also as urbside-type "Craftsman Series" kits. I have the '62 and a couple '63's in my stash. I don't recall JoHan or MPC doing any Valiant kits (by '71, the year of the first MPC Duster, the 1/1 was no longer called a "Valiant Duster" by Plymouth as it was during the 1970 model year). TB

Harry is exactly correct. It was a multiple article series that ran starting in 1969. I used it as one of my references in building the funny car models that won Best Detail at the 1970 MPC contest at the Detroit Cobo Autorama... Tim

Mark,...it's been in scheduled for production overseas since late February....should be here in July/August (latest info as of several months ago from Gary Schmidt). Don't worry...it is coming. TIM p

Yep, Luc, agree fully. The '71 GTO's, particularly the Judge versions, were extremely low production vs. the '70's, but this seems to make them all the more valuable in the 1/1 scale auction world, where I would say they are near to the values for '70 GTO Judge converts. And yes, for a '71, the 455 HO was THE engine to have, and thus would be exactly the right choice for the kit version. TIM

Andy....again, fully agree with you on this. At the top of my pickup list (especially since Moebius is now doing the Bumpside '67-72 series) are the 1957 Ford Styleside and the 1961-63 Unibody F100. These are both iconic body styles, growing in popularity in the 1/1 scale hot rod world, and capable of many kit derivatives. The '57 has never been done as a 1/25th scale kit (though you can get one through Holthaus if memory serves), and the '61-63 Unibody has only been done as a LWB annual kit, and the old AMT '63 (due to having been reissued) is the only one you can realistically actually find (albeit with a 3 digit price tag for an touched kit), so I'd probably further narrow the focus to a SWB '61 or '62 Unibody. The '57 would lend itself (which some clever die design) to later '58, '59, and '60 kit versions, and the '61/'62 could later deliver some Flareside and/or chassis cab (e.g. wrecker) kits although these would be more difficult due to the need for a second body tool (due to the single unibody cab/pickkup design), and a second, longer wheelbase chassis. In that regard, maybe it might be better (from a business case perspective) to do the '64-66 versions, which returned to a separate cab for the Styeside pickup and also have never been done as a 1/25th scale kit. These would more easily support later, derivative kit versions. TIM

Robert...right on, man! Love that '70 LS6, and would also love to see it as an El Camino (ergo my article in the latest Model Cars magazine). Not to mention that '70 GTO Judge convertible you suggest, which would also need to include the first-ever in 1/25th scale correct Ram Air IV engine as well. That one is at the top of my personal "new muscle car model kit list" right at the moment, now that the '70 'cuda has made it to the market ... TIM

Alan, Cheers yourself, mate! Fully agree with you on a '34 Chevy series, although from my point of view, I would be happy with anything from a '33-36 model year vintage, Master or DeLuxe series. I heard a rumor that a kit topic something like this might have been under possible consideration at one point, but that was several years ago and I don't recall where I heard it (it wasn't directly from the model companies, that's for sure, because if it was, I couldn't be mentioning it here!), and I can't remember to what company (if any) the possible development was attributed, either. A few years back I would have said "no way ever on this face of this earth", but what with chopped '49 Merc and early 50's Hudson kits having been developed and selling successfully, these days a more topical statement might be "Never say never". TIM

Jeff...those are actually an early ('28/'29) Model A on the left, and a late ('30/'31) Model A on the right, but I fully agree with you, these would make excellent kit topics and particularly the chopped and channelled '31 A Coupe on the right is about THE hottest subject in the 1/1 scale Hot Rod world right now. I just finished a model build very similar to the one of the right, using the new Replicas and Miniatures body from Norm Veber, and I was extremely pleased with how it turned out. TIM