Chuck Kourouklis

Must say, that does look very good. Now all I need is the Pontiac to go around it.

Eh, like the 24-hr format myself. Nice, succinct, no AM/PM confusion once you're used to it.

Bill and Joe, I'm not unsympathetic. But keyser has a point in that flame wars are often inevitable 'round here even when we're keeping to accessories in 60+-year-old model kits.

Mine is reasonably clean there - certainly no craters like the silver shells have.

Wiewed as about half what original Monogram '79s were going for on Ebay, or about 15% of a parts work kit for something that won't give away much visually by comparison, that really ain't bad. Original in the stash stays original while this one gets served up most likely with a far superior decal sheet? I'll take it.

Yeah, that stuff's for geeks...

Thanks, Alan! Luc covered it quite nicely. Only thing I can think to add some clarity on is "DLO", which might not be such a universally understood term. That's short for "daylight opening", the area defined by the side window openings on a car or truck's body. In the first run of AMT's '55 Cameo back in '91, the most often-seen complaint was that the lower edge of the side window openings swept up into the A-pillar as it ran from the rear of the cab, when instead it should have been level and flat. Personally, I was also a little irked at the absence of an entire cab floorpan in such an otherwise nicely executed kit, but that's just me. ? AMT heard about the side window problem and eventually corrected it. I was wondering if my memory served, but Luc confirms they made that correction for the '57 Cameo version released in 1998, and then subsequent '55 Cameo reissues sharing that cab inherited it. They made this correction at the mold, which only stands to reason if you think about it. Problem is, if you don't fix the wooden master pattern and then you base a future model on it...

Welp, the JL Cameo trailer sets verify for us that the DLO ramp-up to the front was corrected at the 1/25 kit mold, not the master pattern. There it is again in 1/64. And yeah, this Slave 1 reissue is still hauling Solo around in carbonite, so prob'ly a bit early in the curve for Fennec Shand. '68 'Vette outta curiosity. 'Nother Dyno Don couldn't hurt.

One of the nicest seen in this forum and not a word. Bet it's 'cause people think you've put up a photo of a 1:1.

REALLY. I kinda like my Delta Inaccurograle - certainly find it and the 8C2300 and the Cinquecento superior to many a finer ESCI reissue. Well, smashed body shell aside, of course. But Italeri's promised to make that right. ? And a Type 35 to the same standards is one big YES PLEASE, imnsho...

Easy there, Mr Croat - that's not the sort of hypocrisy you'll catch BVC in with any kind of frequency. Otherwise, you have a point. People who assume their lack of interest means nobody has any interest are really saying more about themselves than they are anyone else. A pokey, underachieving, malaised-out GM colonnade is one of the most idiotic automotive subjects ever conceived to lust after, but at least any of 'em is way uglier than its A-platform antecedent. But hey man, that's just, y'know, like my opinion.

I like red lenses, though I have no great animus against paint over plating - but Chris B took the words right out of my mouth.

Thanks MUCH for that, Tim! I see one little thing I'm not going to mention again, don't think it would take much more than an hour, two max, to make it the way I think it should be. The design and the little bonuses are really promising - enough to light up your imagination with cross-pollination possibilities for other recent Novas...

Very cool! Guess that'd make the first 350 in plastic, then...

Welp, can't say I object to that color scheme...

Wasn't that the car that debuted the 350, Snake?

Major likeage on the 1:1 P1s, Doc. ☺️

Nice! I like the engine too. ? Might the highlighted area on the rear mesh be where a badge or script is supposed to go? Think we're seeing the back side of that PE fret, and the final page of the instructions appears to point something to that general vicinity on the passenger (right) side...

Nice to hear from you, Mr J! The 308 is my favorite; where it diverges from the 1:1, it flatters the subject - not an easy feat with a 308. I really love it. Also find it interesting that the 924 was the most challenging - for my money, it's decisively the most accurate of the group. (woops, wrong Porsche)

Funny! I shouldn't undersell the changes - they were limited, but very nice. When I finally got the '79, it was like DANM, this is what the kit shoulda been in the first place. Don't dislike the turbines and the blister, but snowflakes and a shaker are SO much cooler. The catalogue shot Revell chose indicates a good chance of the '79 coming back out in black. I'm really anticipating the new decal sheet; the recent RoG 1/16 Porsche 928 reissue got an entirely new lease from the decals alone (though the far superior F-car Gatorbacks certainly didn't hurt).

You recall that correctly, Mark. The Turbo came out in 1980, then was modified in 1987 to make the '79 (the box art styles prove this). I have both, with their copyright dates on each box. I don't believe there's been a release of the '80 since the '79, but as you probably know better than I, that's not necessarily proof of a permanent alteration. The differences are relatively modest, iIrc: wheels, induction, hoods, and I think "Eagle GT" on the tire sidewalls for the '79, "GT Radial" for the '80, since the later model came out before.

Uh-huh. So now we're down to demanding apologies for statements of fact in one breath, even as we posit that same "tempest in a teapot" prompted - exact words - an improved product in the other. Everybody see that? The more critical among us are supposed to apologize for prompting a more accurate model for everyone. I mean it is a little thick to suppose the critics alone prompted the change - I bet the fix was literally in just as the chopped preview kits went out, or even before - but that is exactly what's being said here in the most literal sense. Look at all the logical pretzel twists necessary to justify that particular p o v. What happened to Tim is unconscionable, most especially because his hands were clean. But elsewhere in that exchange, there were dirty hands AAALLLLL AROUND. Apologies to TIM, most certainly; but this whole idea of apologizing for pointing out a plain inaccuracy is about as useful as a forcefully self-administered suppository. Congratulations and thanks for fixing the issue, on the other hand, are in order. Well, as it happens, Mr Metzner, I observed a month and a half ago in the link above that the ratio of the bottom edge of the front DLO to the height of the opening in the 1:1 hovered right around .32. What do I see now in the correction? @.31, well within measurement error, plus a vastly improved shape to the rear DLO. Just as previous pictures bode poorly, these portend something far better. And so I loudly applaud you and vociferously express my gratitude to Moebius for dialing this in. For all any sort of online praise or castigation is worth - because there's only one practical kind of appreciation that means anything to Moebius, and improving your product to enhance that is good business sense. I'll be ponying up a few shares of hard, practical appreciation, and I sincerely wish you the best of luck with enough others going beyond lip service to do likewise.

Nope. Same problem. At least the windshield height isn't an issue for this one...

Yup, mistake. Mine came with the correct body/DLO sweep. Not just the B-pillars - different contours along the beltline and rocker panels, too.

Absolutely! Right spoon was the initial color test repurposed for gloss clear, decal and a flat finish. Left spoon has sloppy scribing to try the Tamiya panel line accent on the Mission color coats. The middle spoon is most indicative of what I intend, so thank you!