Chuck Kourouklis

Well, from about 2000 on, Revell/Monogram vastly improved the decal carriers over the cellophane-like stuff Monogram had before, much more pliant to curvature and reactive to solution. So there's an outside chance you can tease the strobes into line with some strategic prodding here and maybe a small relief cut there. Still 'n all, yup, they should be straighter on the sheet. *EDIT* - actually, scratch that. One thing Cady gets right that Revell blows is the rise in height of the stripes directly over the door handles. While you can almost certainly tease the rear of the graphics closer to the deck line of the rear quarters, it's going to be very difficult to get the Revell graphics to follow the beltline kink establishing the upper rear quarters at the front. I'm thinking black decal stock trimmed to extend those bars upward to meet that line... or maybe just the Cady sheet. As for body snafus, I think maybe the Hapsburg wheel arch lips might have been pulled back a bit without breaking the bank, using the existing side cavities, but the rest? Yeah, probably too expensive to correct in production and possibly not too hard to fix by the cognoscenti among end users.

Thanks, Tim, and AWESOME ALBUM! I couldn't have asked for any better angles than the ones you chose. That'll be immensely helpful.

Pretty sure it's a reissue, guessing Monogram by the 4x4 stance - though I don't know enough to rule out the old Revell tooling just yet. Re the 'Cuda: yeah, the body's the thing I've been very deliberately leaving alone up till now. For anyone wondering, there are no changes to the basic shell from Hemi to AAR that I've made out so far. Here's what I think gives the body a swollen impression: the first thing to grab my attention in those preview pics years ago was actually not the over-flared wheel arches (though those are obvious), but the sheer, billboard expanse of the front fender sheet metal just over the wheels. What comparison with 1:1 pics revealed to me was that previous kits were a little too lean in this area, but this looks over the line the other way, just a bit too tall. After knocking down the wheel arch flares, I would try to file the tops of the front fenders incrementally down, and if I could somehow cheat that midline crease just above the arches upward a bit by sanding it, maybe that would make that upper front fender expanse a bit less "thick" looking. And yes, the DLO seems pinched, bloating the expanses surrounding it - but again, incrementally. I'd redo the drip moldings upward by about the width of the molding that's on there now, less than 1mm, and after that I'd look to knock the doors down at the beltline ever so slightly if the first adjustment didn't fix the problem on its own. Which is not a knock on anyone who thinks the body is fine the way it is. Revell/Monogram's previous bars were pretty low, but this is still clearly the best they've done overall with a 'Cuda. You can take or leave the body and still appreciate the attention lavished on the other parts and options. The 340 trees make a very positive first impression.

...and that's exactly why it's so ridiculous for you to feel ridiculous. That's an objective FACT you've discussed, whether anybody likes it or not, and you get to be a little disappointed about it if you want to. It's not as if you've declared the entire kit garbage, no matter how convenient it would be for anyone to interpret you that way. And with that. I'm now off to get mine.

But you see, Vince, I'm not even beginning to suggest anyone should have to agree. I'm merely pointing out from thread to thread the unending demonstrations of which side is so pointedly less tolerant of the other's viewpoints. The more critical modelers criticize objects, mostly making observations of where a purportedly scale miniature falls short of its purpose, going wide of the 1:1 it's there to represent in the first place. Some certainly go to extremes, but as far as rationality goes, the very definition of ratio and proportion is often at the heart of what they point out. And the less critical ones attack the more critical persons for saying so. It's really that simple. One behavior is unmistakably more ad-hominem and belligerent than the other, and there's no point pretending any moral equivalency between the two. It's only when the more critical modelers start serving the less critical ones their own game back that their conduct devolves and sinks to the same level. Tim B has ever been affable and agreeable over the decades, and his observations in this thread serve as a fine example of a counterpoint that's not only civil but hard to dispute. John S, after agreeing there's a problem with the 'Cuda's Dana axle, went leagues out of his way to show more graciousness to the less critical faction than any of them have shown him. Honestly, now. One side literally says "shame", "tough to swallow". The other aggressively infers "evil machinations" by the manufacturer in response. Where's the balance in that?

The rear-facing cover is where the differentials differ most from one another. Catch it from a low enough angle without even picking up the model, and those who care about it will see it. So once again, rinse, wash, repeat. Certain modelers are annoyed by something they see that is objectively inaccurate, and because they DARE to point it out in a forum where that kind of thing is topical, they get ridiculed. I think I first sought a rational explanation of this kind of behavior more than a decade ago. Still waiting.

YEAH, you OUGHTTA. I recall being mightily impressed with that when you first broke it out. Might just follow your m o if I should decide to correct this one along with the new kit and the one I did in '95...

Ayuh, in fact that box art blows its contents back into the stone age. Might like to print and photochop the Revell logo in there, 'cause that's the cover Revell's kit deserves!

All I can say to that is there must be a difference, or Revell wouldn't have spent the money and resources on three distinct attempts to get it right.

For the record, the sharpest language I've seen used so far for this is "a shame", or "tough to swallow", to quote directly - and that last, followed up with a pretty comprehensive qualifying remark by the same author. Several steps shy of any "evil machination" remarks, or am I mistaken?

Fwiw, the green '95 issue, with its drip moldings yanked up some: versus this unmodified body: Because they fixed that Helen Keller-obvious drip molding mistake, I was pleased enough with the '07 re-do at first that it took me a while for everything else wrong with the body to sink in...

The rear end is frankly obvious enough to those who notice it that there's no point trying to impugn anybody's credibility for lack of a progress thread, a diversion entirely immaterial to the main discussion. Notice, on the other hand, how nobody's trying to dictate how you should feel or what you should discuss if it doesn't bother you. Buy and build away! Maybe somebody swapped axles in anticipation of beefing the motor? Stranger things 'n all. One thing that's gotta be pointed out in fairness, and it might explain the location on the tree: thanks to Revell's latest axle pin m o, that one-piece axle is accomplished with a sliding mold arrangement that's probably costlier to modify as a result.

Sure, there are metric tons of 1/25 8-3/4s out there. Me, I'm glad enough to have an unused set of Rallye wheels in the Sox & Martin 'Cuda to swap right over for the wheels the '70 Charger Hemi really needs. And no, I don't care what metric anybody uses, 30 bucks won't get you a decent dinner for two these days. BUT. Should you have to go looking for the right rear end, and are the modelers who don't appreciate that wrong for pointing it out? Well, least it ain't no 7-point distributor. Right, boys?

OH yes. I think the vinyl GT Radials MPC used for their 1/16 Firebirds are at least a little lower in profile, if the rim is right.

Guys, I think we don't see a lot of mainstream 4-doors 'cause they just don't move off the shelves. That said, I'm certainly up for the '67 Chevy sedan if they do it right. Can't see why anyone would have a malaise wagon festooned with wood decals, either, but I'd certainly be all over a new kit just for the laughs. If Round 2 ever develops plastic Bluesmobile/Service Monaco kits from the diecast patterns, I'm certainly there.

Well now, I wouldn't have recommended the chrome without having had some success with that technique - though now that you mention it, I do think the chrome works better if you grind any post projection flush at the back first. Been a while since the last one for me. I'll definitely be giving the white a try, though.

I've always found those pretty easy to deal with - just cut the posts, and for those 1-in-100 lenses that aren't opaque enough to cover that move, do a little finish work from behind. If it's not too out of scale, you can round off the post you trimmed and use it to fill the hole and dummy up a bulb at the center of the reflector. There are even some instances where the post nearly disappears if you back it with foil or Molotow chrome from behind the reflector/grille instead of just leaving it clear. Yup, general design MO is similar, but the '63 is greatly simplified relative to the '64, which was practically Pro Modeler in its detail level. And I'm gonna go a bit against the grain here in that I seem to recall the '63 was simplified for the purposes of being a plastic prepainted kit. Not ready to swear to it, but I'm under a pretty strong impression that the Revell diecast '63/'64 Impalas featured yet another design distinct even from the plastic '63. This diecast '64, por ejemplo, has "positionable" axles. For the plastic '63, you have stance options, but whatever you choose is permanent once you glue it in.

Tellya what, Bill - I actually took the fit-assessment '64 Impala I did for the 2000 ranking article, sawed the roof off, and grafted it onto the AMT '62 Catalina - Cat looked a lot better afterward, to me. The C-pillar proportioning and the gentle curvature in the drip rails make Revell's execution of that particular roof the best of any we've seen in 1/25, imho.

Hmm. Nothing saying you can't try Revell's grille on the AMT shell - the newer grille will also have clear headlight lenses.

YEEESH, those domestic-market Ford GT decals... maybe the slam locks aren't out of register, but there's no denying the REST of that dreck posted above IS. Like I said, you wanna get after another livery from an aftermarket supplier, the Revell US kit is probably a better bet for that purpose - though of course, if you go in with that specific objective, your kit-supplied decals will likely turn out just fine.

Welp, unlike the '64:'64 comparison where the newer Revell kit pretty roundly slaughters its AMT counterpart, the newer Revell '63 doesn't look quite as good as the older AMT - but it's got separate taillights, a complete firewall, really an entire chassis and interior that might serve the AMT shell pretty well, if you wanted to go that far.

In any event, just from what I've seen in this thread and live in my Revell AG kit, the decals alone justify the German offering - my gamble with the boxing paid off this time. The American version might be better indicated for aftermarket liveries, for whatever modest price advantage it offers here in the States.

Oh, I resisted for as long as I could, and bitterly. If you can't get me at the office, that usually means I'm either asleep, or I just don't wanna be reached 'cause I'm with the only person or people I care to hear from at the moment. Thing is, as virulently opposed as I am to the concept of instant gratification for anyone who wants to pester me... I also have a weakness for gadgets. And these smart phones are the most killer gadgets ever. 13 years ago on signing with my agency, they told me, no cellie, no bookie-bookie. So I very reluctantly got on with the most basic pay-as-you-go burner, then a Blackberry at an ex-gf's urging, then a Samsung Note II THEN a Samsung Note V, incentivized JUST before the one the FAA wouldn't allow on planes. I'm in gadget heaven, just loving all the scat I can do with it. For actual phone calls, it's just as irritating as I would ever have guessed: 97% of the important calls come in that 2% window of time I'm away from the phone.

You yourself put it very nicely, Chris. The "whining" really makes no difference in the end, does it? And therefore it doesn't really merit any attempt to silence it, does it? Btw, corrected '69 Charger bodies, fixed GT500 air filter boxes, and pad-printed tires for the '50 Olds didn't happen in a vacuum - why? Precisely because Revell was more professional and mature than to simply ignore some of that more consequential "whining", leaving some of those apocryphal "never happys" pretty pleased after all. Far as false binaries go, would you believe a number of us have actually had some fun correcting some of the kits we've criticized? Shut the front door, I know...

Let me try joining something that's been made a topic here a little closer to what I should have done at first: we have a suggestion that we shouldn't "tick off" a company executive. The logic of this is inscrutable from nearly every angle of approach. First, there's the assumption that this exec is inclined to get overly "ticked off" in the first place. The man is a veteran of several decades in this hobby industry, and while I'm sure he finds less-than-ideal feedback annoying, I'd humbly suggest he hasn't lasted as long as he has through an inability to keep things in perspective. But let's assume he's given to taking negative feedback that personally. He's still got the bottom line of the company to think about. So he's going to do what, cancel all new product development in a fit of pique? There is actually a pretty serious issue in the lack of professionalism attributed to the man in a line of argument like this.