Chuck Kourouklis

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.

Oh YEAH, Gerry - I'm down-and-a-half for that danm where-is-it-WHEREIZZZIT?! Stingray. Yup.

And that brings up a very good question - is anybody telling anyone not to buy the kit? We'll see some very general commentary like "long as we buy this stuff, it's as good as we'll get" (and I have to confess to being a prime violator of that whole principle 'cause I'm constantly buying this stuff regardless). But as I recall, last time I saw any directive not to buy a kit, it was more in the context of "If you DON'T LIKE it, DON'T BUY IT!" 'Less I'm mistaken, that's the party line specifically mandating somebody deprive a manufacturer of a sale.

I personally found a fairly wide disparity between the 430s, such that Revell AG's really seemed useful for its engine and not a whole lot else. Then Fujimi's Scuderia came along and murdered them both. The 458s, on the other hand, shift the balance waay in the other direction for overall detail - the Fujimi has a crisp body but otherwise seems useful mostly as a wheel and tire donor to the Revell kit. But for proportions, the two are very close iIrc. The area under the front grille seems thicker on the Revell shell, but I believe that's because they molded in a lower lip that's separate on Fujimi's.

Yup, John, right as rain. I've always known Tamiya erred on the side of "too wide" for its tires, and now I've got confirmation on why the 360 looks just that wee bit rotund. The Fujimi 430 doesn't seem to have any of that - wonder if they also saw fit to tease it some.

Thanks, Gerry! Okay, a few more filing strokes, maybe. But abrasives will ilkely solve the problems, as opposed to a full roof transplant.

Well if anybody's heads wanna explode Scanners-style over this, by all means, don't let me stop you - but that Torino's an order of magnitude better for proportions than The Kit That Must Not Be Named. High belt line? Possibly, especially looking at where the door handle lands. But I'm thinking the rear quarter window has been installed a bit too far backwards, and that by itself can throw the entire relation of the DLO elements off. So far it's looking like a few file strokes (and maybe filling in the front marker lights and using the decals) are all that's necessary to sort this one out. And that's an entirely different story than what you need for the other one.

I'm lovin' the Rabbit (which I hope is really the GTI), but for different reasons - always thought it and the first-gen Scirocco were some smart and pert-looking little Giugiaro designs.

In the flyer, the S&H is right next to the Snap Tite '14 Corvette, so one might assume for a minute that "Snap Tite" applies to the whole row. If you examine it, though, each model in that row has its own caption, so that should clarify the Torino's case some. It also appears that the Corvette is a snapper distinct from the Snap Tite "Build 'n Play" kits listed at the top - so it's more in the mold of the '10 Mustang convertible or Enzo, perhaps? Shared tooling with the predecorated glue kit maybe?