Chuck Kourouklis

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.

x3!

Excellent. Thanks, Sylvester! Wow - I thought I saw something similar with asymmetric drip moldings on the AMT annuals, a little too curvy on one side particularly. hmm. So I may like one of these after all 'cause even so, it gives a more accurate impression overall than the R/M '65. Just stuff some Monogram guts up in the Hase shell and call Uncle Bobs. Diggin' how there's an actual '66 on the original boxcover, too - and a Caprice instead of an Impala no less.

Yup, this. ^^ Don't get me wrong, where licensing is a thing, it's a legitimate THING. Still 'n all, I gotta wonder sometimes where that fact has been leveraged a bit to excuse marketing impulses begetting a new Aerovette kit(?!) or a cartoon-shellacked Rambler convertible snapper over the Cobra Daytona we've clamored about for decades.

Awwwwlll ova the Starion, R8, Starlet and LHD Z. Maybe the next-version R92 as well. Don't know if I can justify the livery variation on the AMG GT but I'll have another look when it's released. Went looking at the Hase "'66" Impala to see if it had any medicine for what ails the Revell - ummm, yeah... not sure about that greenhouse - although reshaping the drip moldings might help (and THIS kit is what James was talking about, btw). Certainly looks better at rocker panel level. Anybody remember if this is true 1/24, or might the scale be fudged a bit? As for the Buick, Alexis, it appears that for some reason - too sharp a "W" contour to the front grille in overhead plan view perhaps? - the outer headlights are way too proud relative to the inboard ones. Although the model gives the impression that if you could cut the outer headlights out and re-seat them a bit deeper, it might go a long way to improving the accuracy in that area.

Wow. NICE reporting on all that, Tim!

Welp, Rob, they just collected from me...

Kool! So I should see a charge now for the one I've had in PW since the late Pleistocene, then.

What Gary (not far from the purgatory of my youth, Fredericksburg) said. Thanks for having us along on this one, Chris.

Thought the mediocre Revell AG kit cured me of any excitement about ANY subsequent R8 model, but THAT is HOT. The question becomes, what can I get finished in the interim to make room...