Chuck Kourouklis

Mmmhmm. Guess I better look at making this another blog post... http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=92517&p=1271431

I'm just diggin' on this whole notion of "blind criticism". That's a new one. Prob'ly 'cause the inherent screaming oxymoron is just a wee too ear-splitting for most anyone else to drop it. And another company may scoop you on CAD data from a given manufacturer's current models. And you may have a payroll to meet. And you may have to cut tooling in a blizzard uphill, both ways. And you might throw a tantrum 'cause a published review wasn't the free advertising you thought it should be. And despite your attitude of an entitled executive who needs a b-smacking back into adulthood, at least in that moment, I might even yet contrive a fair amount of sympathy for you and the hurdles you face. In the end, what's off in your product is NO LESS SO for all of that. Can't handle the blowback, you're in the wrong effin' bidness.

Ri-ight. Olds McGriff decals. Guilty as charged. This whole concept of expecting a group of notoriously skinflint hobbyists to double down gladly on resin for the sedan those markings demand - I've characterized it all as "pea-brained" (although as anybody with half a mind might recall, I wasn't the first to wield the phrase "pea-brain" on this subject, now, was I?). And of course, I only ever brought those decals up out of a total inability to build a coherent model. I only ever puuuled and bleated about it all out of comprehensive modeling incompetence. In fact (one more time), I undertook that whole conversion to serve notice that yes, Virginia, Santa MAY EXIST as long as he lives in a corner of your little heart - but FAIRY TALES are NO BASIS for a rational argument. And there's been a pretty constant stream of dope-slapping beat-down evidence against this TRIPE some of y'all yet cling to so desperately, about people complaining 'cause they can't build their way out of a paper bag, 'cause "their hobby is complaining on message boards" God forbid they ever finish a kit. But the fact that you might not be attentive enough to catch WIPs on models not "perfect enough to build" don't mean they ain't happenin', Cuz. I don't know what's worse - that we've got hobbyists who won't let that horse dung go, or that we apparently have company executives spreading it, too. And calling manufacturers "idiots" is a pretty recent development, people. It's useless to pretend that this line of civility in the sand wasn't crossed looong ago and far more decisively by people who can't handle kit criticism, and it's not hard to make out who's at the more constant moral disadvantage in these exchanges: Thank you, Mr P. And thank you, Mr D. "What have YOU built", indeed - as if I would have been ANY less qualified to point out compressed windshields and cockeyed rear fender arches and incorrect body styles even if I HADN'T methodically corrected each one. Which was really the point of that whole exercise.

1st: FUNNY. 2nd: sounds like a great idea to me...

Yup, it's true, and it's the end run: calling a corporation "idiots", useless as it is, doesn't break any forum rules - so that's how you get your jab in without an explicit person-to-person attack. And i'm guessing by a similar rationale, calling groups of people "whiners", "rivet-counters", "crybabies", "no-lifers", "kit assemblers", and etc ad nauseam doesn't really break any forum rules either. Do I really need to explain where I'm going with that one? Which came first, and which still occurs with far greater regularity than the other? Look what's happening in this very discussion - even as the thread bends decisively in the direction of how inappropriate it is to call names, we get "Tamiya worshippers" slid right under our noses. Seems the doubleness of this standard could walk up and bend people hard over a barrel, and they STILL wouldn't acknowledge it. Ain't sayin' nobody would've ever leveled "idiots" at a manufacturer otherwise - but that kind of attitude sure facilitates it.

Thanks, keyz! But just in case it isn't clear, the one I posted was the older full-detail Special Ed '10 SS kit, with a funky ride height out of the box and a wheelbase too short for the body. There are ways to fix that, but within my parameters it wasn't appropriate to do so. Brett wound up demonstrating that the new kit appears to sit a lot better, even before you make any adjustments for height.

with Joe, +4 here. Got your Revell '68/'69 for the full-outs, the old MPC with corrected roof buttresses for the less ambitious projects, and now this snapper covers the wham-bam. I'll have one or a couple, funky wheels or no. Room for a '70? I wouldn't mind one, but as Steve said, there are worse ways than this to subsidize more serious new tooling in the future.

Thanks, Harry! Had to do it box-stock, and what you see there is the front axle as far forward as it could be mounted, and the rear shoved as far back as possible on slightly trimmed pins - which is why I was wondering if the ZL had a better stance, and apparently, it does.

Oh yeah. Wheelbase match looks a lot better in the new kit.

Nice, and thanks for the preview! Ran my fingers over 'em and I could swear the "CAMARO" script was raised on each front fender - do I spy that on your nekkid body shell? Don't seem to recall such on either the Revell '10 SS or AMT's...

Wha - ? But Frank, don't you understand? You don't get to. Don't you know the rules? They ain't written all explicit-like, but they're there in nearly every little challenge and drive-by directed at you. If you complain about a kit, it MUST be because you can't fix it! You're either an unaccomplished COMPLAINER or you're a cheerleading FIXER! Don't you see that there's a certain ideology here that makes no sense if you claim to do… *gasp*… BOTH? One side or the other, baby, and it'd better be a straight ticket. What's all this thinking-for-yourself nonsense?

Comma, maroon. Everybody geddit? Niiiiiice goin' there, officer. *golf clap* Gotta say, though, I'm more than okay with the ones I picked up. Quality's a bit variable, but you can examine the body shell thru the window from one box to the next till you find the best one on the shelf, and when you do, what you get is really not bad for 20 bucks and its intended audience. The 11-year-old me who wondered why the backlight was so jacked on the MPC General Lee would have been pretty happy with these. If the ZL sits any better than the full-detail SS, it'll have a major advantage. Challenger's never been high priority for me, but thanks to this variation, I'm a lot more likely to have a finished one some time soon.

Custom Jr's the rarity, Jon. Yours are probably all variants of the Trophy Series. Other things equal, the earlier releases of a given tool are generally better since they reflect less wear on the molds - depends on what they did to maintain the TS, but your kits should be mostly the same.

Well, Round2 still has 'em in the Lindberg 2013 listings, but who knows - setting aside the friend who has contacted Revell and found out that their new tooling covers the same basic car as Lindberg did but in a more simplified fashion - I suppose the fact that Revell's never run any MPC or Hawk or Lindberg molds, far as I can tell, doesn't automatically mean they never will. But based on the apparent strategy in the flyer, it would have made more sense to put that in the SnapTite line than in Build & Play. I'll have one, and I'm certainly not pulling for it to bomb - if it meets with holiday success, fantastic. I just wonder if it occurs to anybody that the Mustang was a hit not just because it was simple, but also maybe because it's the only game in town for an interesting car that hasn't hit the market yet. That's the first time in an age Revell has pulled such a coup, and maybe there's a little timing lesson in it as well. But whatever. I'll be very curious how the CV moves, and most particularly, how successful it is relative to the Mustang and the other Build & Play cars.

And if that doesn't speak for itself, I don't know what does. As for the angle of "How can all the Revell-haters possibly have enough rapport with them to get the word straight from the source?" - what, there's NO WAY the "haters" might have heard it passed on by someone less inimical to Revell, who's contacted them directly? There's NO WAY even a harsher critic could introduce himself to Ed Sexton at a show and ask? I emphatically disagree with what Frank had to say to Tim Boyd, but the reactionary belligerence in some of his posts has an impetus I understand perfectly, and I'm often the barest scrape from fully engaging in it myself. Now, there's a certain logic right there in Revell's flyer for anyone with eyes to see: two separate lines, one at the top called "SnapTite Build & Play", and one simply called "SnapTite". Based on widely exposed precedent, the "SnapTite" line looks like the one hewing closest to the traditional unassembled promo, in the mode of the Ferrari Enzo and the '10 Mustang convertible, with some chassis plate detail and a parts count in the 30s - 40s. The possibility of shared tooling between the "SnapTite" C7 and its simplified glue counterpart may support this. The 2015 Mustang represents a drop in parts count to the 10s-20s, with an emphasis on simplicity and robustness, and it's documented as the one to kick off "Build & Play". Lindberg's Crown Vic is notably more complex than the '15 Mustang and far more consistent with the "SnapTite" line than it is with "Build & Play". It wouldn't fit the objective of the "Build & Play" line even if Revell were in the habit of leasing Lindberg tooling - which, unless I've missed something, they haven't done yet. In fact, has any Round2 property shared tooling under the Revell banner since the Revell/AMT kits from the '50s? Honest question, and I'll thank anyone for even the obscurest answer. Of course, the proof will be in the pudding served. But I'm betting yet another rake handle's gonna fly right up with an almighty *whack* when Revell's new, non-Lindberg CV drops. I'd put 10 to 1 on it. And frankly, it sounds to me like one of the most ridiculous things they could have chosen to do. I'll be very interested in seeing if sales prove Revell understands something we just don't on this one.

Thanks, Tim! Very, VERY pleased that Revell did this! Voted immediately with my wallet, and I'm delighted with the result. I'll be all too happy to harden up the drip molding corners like Bill, 'cause they saw to these other two more major corrections. We get some head-scratchers like an all-new snap tooling of a '97 Vic, and some very encouraging signs like this retooling and a '67 Camaro that indicates Revell may be getting gross proportions, at least, under control again. Here's hoping the encouraging developments eventually outpace the w-t-fs...

I'd also hope Art wouldn't bother to tease something unless it were truly novel - we've seen separate chrome trim before, after all.

Having some familiarity with the (full-detail) glue kit, this looks totally swappable so far. Too-big bosses on the front wheels may even accommodate the full-detail kit's retainers better...

x 2. Usual Suspect nailed it again. Conversely, I have a hard time seeing why more people don't have Roger's philosophy about it - if it's good enough for you, then why should it matter to the point of personal offense what anybody else has to say about it?

^THAT'S^ the one I gotta do.

X3. Good Lord, that car is so gorgeous. There were some good-looking '61 - '64 GM full-sizes, but that '61 Poncho is the one that really had everything dialed in, imho.

I've had my fun with that other blog. For whatever it'll accomplish, I somehow can't escape the feeling it's time now to refocus the sig back on the first one. That's nearly a year and a half old.

Little bitty change that pays heeeeUUUUGE dividends. Thanks, John!

Don't know if I'd hold my breath. How many tens of thousands of times do we point out the bone-headed obvious fact that nobody's asking for a perfect kit, and yet it keeps coming up. Without patent exaggerations like that one, what would there be to rail against?

Well I wanna say the entire profile looks a bit chunky in height, but you've hit upon the one mitigating factor for me, Dave - the later model Torino as repped by the S&H has a lower chrome molding that works to visually slim and lower the flanks. Finished in the 1:1 S&H profile, body color in both yours and the bare plastic shell. That's why - even after decades of test shot previews proving to be very reliable indicators of issues making it to production - this is that rare exception I'd rather see in the plastic before rendering any final observations.