Chuck Kourouklis

Spotted in the wild this Sunday, Castro Valley, CA:

YES I WAS ready to let it go. I haven't been so active with this sort of thing recently in case you failed to notice. But then there was the kind of behavior I described in item #9 of the big collective joke I've had posted at the link in my signature. Second to last paragraph is a pretty precise description of what's happened in the last few posts of this thread - as of five and a half years ago. Now assuming it's accurate, Lee, you've got that one anecdote against what - the Del Rio thread here. The Revell '62 Impala. The Moebius F-series. The '70 'Cuda. The '29/'31 Ford. The Kit That Must Not Be Named. One thread after another where somebody looks at a preview pic and says "I dunno..." and then a mob comes out to pile up on the guy like a pack of hyenas. That side hasn't reaped the HALF of what it's sown. But y'all are right, this IS very much like politics - straight down to either a loose interpretation or the outright dismissal of a few core facts. In fact, I think I observed that before anybody else did in this very thread.

Well that's all great to present out of context, gentlemen, but people who criticized inanimate models were subject to personal attacks for it first, and the whole "accepting mediocrity" angle only came up as a response to those broadsides. Now apparently I can't resist setting history straight any time someone tries to revise it, but otherwise I was ready to just let this go. Interesting that you all apparently aren't.

WERD! RS200 is the baddest of the Belkits subjects so far, i m h o.

X2. I don't quite miss it enough to chase after one online, but I'd LOVE a reissue.

That Lancia is on like Kong. Diggin' the Starion too, waay more than I woulda when it was new - looks like it's got space between the strut towers, huh? If not the first release, maybe a later one... But man. Looks like Aoshima is gonna leave it to us to spackle that bashed area between the doors and front fenders again on the Huracan.

Hmm. Lookit. Two sets of spindles. Drums and disks.

Now I don't care what the circumstances, that's just funny right there. Thanks for the laugh, Tim! That's actually the most trenchant observation in this entire thread, Richard, so much so I admire it. It also describes a pattern that's recycled over and over again from one new subject thread to the next for years, now, so you might be skipping a number of discussions here if you're serious about what you say elsewhere. I'd point out that one side talks about objects, while the other devolves quickly into personal attacks. Also, you can count all the dire prognostications about the product pretty much on one hand in this discussion - can't quite say that about the chorus and all they stirred up. Then again, when the apologists scatter their chum on the water, it probably doesn't help the discussion much to take off after them like a torpedo with your doll-dead eyes rolling backward as you go in to rip your pound of flesh. All that gaslighting tends to get lost in the quaint little afterglow of an ICBM after all. I try to remember that - without much success, clearly. But it bears repetition: there have been other preview pics in the past of Revell products brandishing some obvious problems. This '68 Chevelle does not, and as you've observed, if it marks Revell's return with a win, it's cause for celebration. And beyond Tim's overview and Robert Glucksman's glowing report of the detail and fit, there's clearly not much reason to expect anything beyond speculation till the kit is released.

1996, this one's first release. Think it was also the kit to mark Revell/Monogram's change from colored to white plastic. Caught the flat drip rails, and I'd also take the forward edges of the front wheel arches and pull them just a bit into a more forward slope, just a bit closer to the front bumper, m'self. Built beautifully, though; very nicely detailed. Anticipated the raised door locks on the Moebius '65 Plymouth by around 20 years.

Well actually, Snake, what i was saying was that AMT's wheel arches were closer, but that Revell seemed to get everything else about the front end better. Right withya on the Nova (and honestly, the problem is of such a magnitude to defy any explanations of non-stock replacement panels, though the rest is good), and the Camaro actually took a while to seep into my awareness with its little deviations - '68 Firebird really seemed better overall for accuracy, though not so sharp in its design by comparison. And now, in a straight-out sop to those who don't keep track of exactly HOW a discussion goes off topic, lemme just say that so far, neither I nor many others are picking up such problems in this new kit as it presents to this point. The essential message - for those who might need one of us to DRAW A LI'L PICTURE - is SO FAR, SO GOOD on Revell's '68 Chevelle.

And maybe the digressions aren't strictly about "complaining". And maybe the discussion wends this way because the kit ain't out yet so there's not a lot to say strictly about it just now. But whatever. Some of you are just gonna see what you wanna see no matter what the facts say, and in fairness, that's hardly a phenomenon unique to this forum.

Yeah, on the reviewing-from-photo discussion, guess it's at this point I'll just have to diverge a little more. For example, I saw the fender flares on the '70 'Cuda in preview pics, and they just looked no different to me on a finished model than they did in gray test-shot plastic. Didn't matter a whit that there was a coat of paint on the fender and a wheel in place, the flare was just wrong. This was evidently a problem for a while at Revell, 'cause here came a '62 Impala something that looked funky in preview pics. And sure enough, when I finally bought one... It's a sub-optimal comparison; the neighbor's Impala was shot at night and it has a bumper and rocker trim in place to distort comparisons of the entire front fender. But let's just isolate down to the outline of the wheel arch. Just narrowing down to that linear contour, it's clear that the AMT Bel Air on top, though not dead-on, is closer than Revell's in the overall contour. The pictures tell you e v e r y t h i n g you need to know about that one detail. They also provide enough information for you to see that Revell probably has everything else about the front fender closer than AMT's model. And sure enough, a live comparison in 3D bears this out. And what of a complete build-up review that demonstrates the legitimacy of 2D photo analysis? The 1950 Olds 88: I could see from comparisons of Revell's own 1:1 promotional shot against early pics of the model that the door frame and drip molding didn't follow quite the right contour from the A-pillar over the DLO (found later that Steve Boutte noted that problem publicly before I did), and that the rear wheel arch lacked certain subtleties present in the 1:1. For the straight build review, I wanted to show the box-stock result, and the fender skirts camouflaged one problem anyway: But through 2-dimensional photo analysis for converting the coupe to a sedan, taking a mean of caliper measurements directly from profile shots, I came up with - begging everyone's pardon - something more accurate than what the manufacturer gave us to start with: No resin in that, just surgery. Sorry to belabor it, but as long as anyone still clings so pathetically to such inane and ridiculous precepts as "critics can't build"... I figured out the proportioning of the rear DLO window to the front from analyzing several photos, and just exactly where the C-pillars were supposed to land. I actually sized a profile shot to 1/25, then cut out the outline of the rear wheel arch to come up with a template to something better. Proportioning is a matter of hard mathematics, and again begging everyone's pardon, some of us have the basic capabilities to see where the photo angles distort and where they may actually represent that math more accurately. And then there's this thing: which from a proportional standpoint looks pretty bang-on to any photo of the 1:1 you compare it with, NO reworking needed at all, and has borne far less controversy as a result. Need I remind anyone here just why?

Yup, I'll toss in with everyone else on the bespoke racing tires and the wonky rear axle centering. Front suspension/roll bar lowers may hang a bit low for some individual tastes. Corrected P/M and all its derivatives are pretty gorgeous otherwise. The new '70 kits will at least have your torque boxes if you want to go that way.

Suure, sign me up. Do I spy one of those open chassis plates grouped in the Starion shots behind?

^^ True dat. ^^ I'd only diverge slightly in that there's been plenty from a proportion standpoint that's stayed the same from preview to production (and in the rare case of the Kit That Must Not Be Named, actually looked worse in your hands than the preview pics). But you've got no idea of the engineering in the model, or how it all fits, parts breakdown or design; and these also have a profound effect on a modeler's experience of a given kit. I'd suggest that Revell has had the latter factors dialed in so well for so long that those who don't mind proportional deviations so much might wonder what the big deal is. And this one looks good out of the gate. If it's at the same level as the '70 Chargers, I'll be delighted. Till it's released, though, we've got nothing but Robert Glucksman's feedback to go on so far.

Thanks, Alexis. Thaaaaankss, Casey. more fodder for my spectacular nuclear-grade stash reduction trainwreck...

Tom, I'll just refer you back to the first posts in this thread to call names and ridicule other modelers, perpetrated by the same side that reliably starts the ad-hominems from one thread to the next. When that stops, maybe the other side will too. (word to the wise: after all these years, I wouldn't count on it stopping. I'd also maybe skip the August 22 comment posted by "SW" to the blog linked below.)

Aw MAN. Failed even to hear of those cheater slicks till these pics. Am I REALLY gonna pick up another one of these just for those?

Eh, a loose Starion hood would'na got me speculating much on its own. But a loose hood and all that yawning space in the chassis plate between the front wheel houses?

Yeah, yeah. I'll see anybody's "same old thing" and raise them the litany I've had at the blog linked below for half a decade now. Maybe it's projection. Projection-fueled tribalism. Ain't such a unique phenomenon, I guess.

And lemme just say WHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT... Wow! Wonder if this'll be an R8 kit that actually fits together.

Kool! Just popped one into the PW.

Okay, Jesse, you got me. Not sure how we got here when you and I agree so fundamentally on that basic point. In fact, NOBODY has stated any better than you just why it's so ridiculous to get all hung up on kit criticism.

YES SIR! The right to express opinions and to ignore them cuts right to the heart of what I'm saying - notice that although I'm pointing out what's wrong with trying to mandate how a discussion goes, I'm not actually trying to tell anyone to stop doing it. I mean y'know, #2 at the blog linked at the signature - for more than five years now. With a pinch of #4 thrown in. But hey, I can humor everybody. Let's pop the hood for a sec on "Buy Or Don't Buy" (but shut up with the "complaining", amIright?) Makes me think of "IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T BUY IT" - though I suppose there's a problem "Buy Or Don't Buy" side-steps. You can criticize a kit and still like it - hell, the Salvino's Olds lands waaaaayyy wide of its target and I still like it, I bought one, and I look to the Monte Carlos with eternally springing hope - but what the buy-or-don't-buy guys really seem to be saying is that they'd rather Revell lose sales than have to bear such horrific things as a peccadillo or two pointed out in a thread about a kit. What's to prevent anyone from drawing such a conclusion? And if that's the case, it ain't really about supporting kit manufacturers. Is it?

Actually, no. Discussing potential kit problems in a thread about the kit is topical. Trying to stifle that discussion runs counter to the very purpose of the forum.