Chuck Kourouklis

Huh. I was gonna suggest looking around online auctions for the original issue with the stock wheels, but apparently that's become hen's teeth... A few more of the Revell sedan and the '97 AMT hardtop, just for purposes of discussion: You can see a bit of the comparative "bloat" in the Roman Red hardtop. The bodywork just seems to billow a little more, though most of this effect manifests at the front - the "new tool" AMT model seems a lot more convincing from the rear. It may be helpful to remember that the original AMT kit erred on the side of a slightly leaner and sleeker presentation. Too thick for scale in any event, the antenna is particularly obnoxious on this model. Tried fixing the huge sprue parting marks with a foil wrap, occurs to me now I should ditch that and touch it up with Molotow. This is the "Pro Shop" variant with photoetch, ignition wires and soft vinyl hoses and dagmars. AMT was looking to thump its chest a little and produce a new opus, right about the same time Revell was releasing an all-new '56 Nomad - which became the basis for the '56 Del Ray, which then shared its running gear with the 150 Black Widow and the eventual Bel Air sedan you see here. Though the new tool AMT had a fully separate chassis frame and some other groundbreaking touches, the Revell undercarriage didn't much suffer for comparison in overall detail - and there's no denying the body's proportional superiority, particularly from the cowl forward. Revell's sedan came out some 14 or so years later than AMT's hardtop, and that time was evidently put to good use. For its complexity, the '97 AMT kit builds very nicely. The optional wheel package was a pain to use for the Revell sedan (it didn't at all seem particularly designed for the kit) but I'd guess if you went with the stock wheel option, the building experience would be far better; the rest of the kit was very agreeable to put together. Those stock wheels and tires present a bit better than AMT's, with wider whitewalls and rims a little more flush to the tires.

Kinda like that seafoam green plastic, though. Very vintage. Tim Boyd wrote one of the best comparison articles ever and found this original-tool '57 the best of the lot - not the very highest plaudit, because the contemporary Revell, MPC and Monogram kits dropped the bar pretty low for accuracy, ease of building, or some combination of the two. I'm honestly not super-keen on the Revell snapper/Monogram 1/12, either - roof crown at the rear and the front fender arches weren't the greatest matches to a 1:1. If I were to put a good Bel-Air coupe together, it'd probably graft the front clip from the left one onto the rest of the kit on the right: The new-tool (1997) kit on the right was a game attempt to make a new mission statement for AMT, but I think on balance, the Revell 150/Bel Air sedan variation on the left is decisively the best '57 Chevy kit we've seen so far. That "face" is just bang-on, and the front bumper is not only the most accurate in a plastic '57 Chevy kit, it's also the best-processed. The mold parting lines were moved to the rear edges so there were no obvious seams marring the sides - an industry-first, I think. But even with its wonky side trim and rifle-straight fender/headlight transition, the old '62 kit still looks pretty okay overall.

Yeah, I'm really diggin' that strictly as a piece of new tooling - not so much into rigs, m'self, but I'm sure after one of these. Thanks, Tim!

Well sure, Tim, and yours is very pretty. The 'Cuda at least has the advantage of errors in excess, where you can knock off the stuff that doesn't look like a 'Cuda - from the wheel arches to the drip molding height to the front fender mass - till you get a better result. As you demonstrate, it's those of us who see these things and point them out who have an actual track record of fixing them. But we have DECADES and innumerable examples now laying bare the folly of all this righteous heckling about picking on a kit before it's even released. Some of us fall all over ourselves to declare WE'RE STILL INTERESTED IN THE KIT despite what we see. It's a topical discussion. It's on point. And still you have people trying to dictate to everyone else how we need to sanitize the conversation, gaslighting about things like the whole "accepting mediocrity" angle when that was only ever brought up as self-defense in the first place. The beat goes on.

Early previews of the '70 'Cuda show funky fender arches, production models show funky fender arches. Early previews of a bumpside truck show some greenhouse weirdness, production kits have that greenhouse weirdness. Early previews of the Kit That Must Not Be Named show a chopped roof, production kits have a chopped roof. Early previews of a Jag E-type show a funky windshield, production kits have a funky windshield. And facts and history are disregarded in the mad rush for irony lost on complaining about the "complainers" with about three times the vitriol of anyone "complaining" about the kits themselves. The beat goes on.

If I may offer one minor correction - these were actually glue-together kits. Not very complicated for all that, but they weren't snappers.

Courier looks cute, but that's the one grabbing my attention, strictly because it's all-new tooling. I'll have one and I didn't even whine ask for it.

Yup. Immediately. Online 1:1 sedan pics seemed to verify it, though it's mild like Snake sez and doesn't much diminish my enthusiasm for the kit. I'm more in the habit of choosing what inevitably becomes a battle these days, so I wasn't going to say anything. But now that the ice is broken...

FIRST thing I'd go after is a '48 Tucker. Then a C8 Corvette - forget GM licensing, just go measure (scan) one at the dealer. Maybe get the lead out once and for all on a current 911 or a vintage BMW CS too. Here's a fun thought: corrected bodies for some currently produced kits that need 'em. OH yeah. I'd prob'ly run my company right into the ground. ?

lol, oh boy - sometimes a body should check on what he posted two years before...

Uh huh. With so many dark backgrounds to set off Tamiya car illustrations, I do love how this one looks like it's coming straight out of the rising sun...

C'mon, though. We can't just let a Blazing Saddles reference go entirely unacknowledged...

Thank you, Tim! I'm especially pleased that one caught your eye. I envisioned it right from the release of the Toretto car, was a little miffed when Revell also went with it - they made it up to me with the "HEMI" billboards, though. ?

Thank you gentlemen, very much. Both are polished Mr Color 46 clear over Model Master auto lacquers. The MM was decanted into jars and everything was cut with Mr Color retarding thinner and shot thru a gravity-fed pistol-grip Grex with a fan tip. All of it over block-sanded Tamiya fine primer, white with grey guide coats.

Thanks, Lee! Glad you like it.

Oh, I think they were just being coy. Maybe under-promising and over-delivering? ?

THANK YOU, Doc. Very kind and far better than ok.

some - ? ?

Exactly.

HA! I saw that too. I mean, nobody wants a kit that stinks. Maybe they've taken it too literally?

Sorry, Alan, guess it's all a little arcane, innit? It's about recalling and settling an old debt. "People obviously can't build a model, so they complain about them online instead." It's about that particular notion. It's about how STUPID phrases like "go build something" are. O b v I o u s l y, you BUILD a kit on your bench, as I did with these Chargers. You get on an online forum to TALK about kits. And anyone who can't let a peaceful and friendly discussion thread go without suggesting there's too much talking and not enough building should watch for falling pianos. It may take a while, but if you stick to this whole notion that people point out problems in a kit only because they have no building skills, somebody's eventually gonna make you look pretty dumb. And people are sticking to these little notions. Despite ALL REALITY to the contrary, they cling to these justifications they've made up out of thin air for personal attacks. And there was a thinly veiled one I never fully addressed in my other thread that this one had a nice little answer for. But the good news is, I've gotten tired of harping on all that. It's like religion or politics, NO higher brain functions, just straight-from-the-amygdala fight or flight any time anyone has the nerve to delve into a plastic model kit in a forum about plastic model kits. There's just no point. I've addressed it less and less over the years, and this was my last loose end. I've made a pretty final statement on the whole thing that follows me around from post to post No guarantees I might not yet serve up what somebody's asking for, occasionally, but by and large, any attempt to reason with these folks has become Einstein's definition of insanity.

Yeah, but have you seen the knockoffs? way too big...

SO, now that publication has been over and done with for a while, and I’ve been reminded of some older discussion threads, a half-decade postscript for this one: As I’ve mentioned before, I do a number of reviews from kits at personal expense. Every so often, and not so long ago, my favorite pusher would get early Revell releases as an RPP partner – once in a blue moon, early enough I’d find myself in a position to give everyone else here a decent preview ahead of time. I can think of two occasions, this thread and one other. And I gotta say, there wasn’t a lot of controversy in either, not near so much as some long-timers here might fairly expect. But in that other one, there WAS this gratuitous, kinda chickenscat drive-by business about “East Coast gets it done” ‘cause someone hammered that subject together in a week. Strongly implying, y'know, the West... doesn't? Now WHAT does the OP's coastal address have to do with anything? Was that thread just going on a little too peacefully, too much civility and all? Might it have been in service to this pathetic little fever dream about people critiquing model kits only ‘cause they can’t build ‘em, much less correct ‘em? Yeeeeeaaaaah… ABOUT THAT... These have kinda followed the proverbial long arc from print to buttoning up this thread, now. Didn't start that geographic bs, but I'm gonna FINISH it by letting "The West" speak for itself. ?

HHHHHHA

Your quip about gaining capital to finish the conversion was not only funny, but something that halfway occurred to me as the one factor to make this whole exercise excusable. If Columbia Pictures TV - pimping that '80s version of the band - fronted a few promotional dollars for the kit, maybe it helped Monogram deliver a complete '89 for that short-lived "Performance Series". A 2-in-1 parts donor for more legitimate Monogram Fox-body kits pre- and post-'87. Not such a discredit to manure after all, I guess!