Chuck Kourouklis

Sure, man! Sorry for anything I might've inadvertently landed on you too. We's ALL good!

Of course I only quoted the problematic part of your post, Kevin. You can't just throw it out that fixing problems is WHY we all build models without expecting a challenge on that, because other people may have other objectives in building models. A fair number, maybe even a majority, are likely to, in fact. And at this point, we're talking more a mistaken assumption than anything "right" or "wrong". The rest of your post seemed plenty reasonable, enough to give me the idea I could lay out the very specific conditions of that "IQ drop" - that tired, old, constantly refuted idea that people only point out problems 'cause they're either too lazy or totally unable to fix them - without necessarily ensnaring you. 'Cause it's not at all certain that's what you were going for in your post. Some people, not necessarily you, take grave personal offense to discussion of kit flaws, to the extent that they'll always turn the conversation to personal broadsides. And the thing I always try to keep track of is, that grave offense itself is not wrong. It's a feeling, it has no right or wrong. So if it really just cranks somebody to hear word one about a kit's problems, that in itself is not a personal reflection on him. Where it does become wrong is to move from that personal impulse to judge your fellow hobbyist and stifle conversation that you deem to be unfit. That's where the fact that there's nothing terribly rational behind all that personal offense becomes a factor. There's really not a lot of that in your initial post, so only you can judge how much of that observation applied to you. Now as for campaigns to get Revell to fix the body, pffffft - I knew it was jacked in October of '12 and I was 90% sure it was gonna stay jacked. We had the example of the '69 Charger to prop up that 10% uncertainty for a while, but now we have our answer. I'm still gonna get my LX done, I'm just gonna have to set aside a lot more time for it now than I would have under better circumstances. And I may be on a "campaign" about something here, but it concerns an issue involving a bit more than what personally offends me.

Uh, no, what I did was pose you a question. You trotted out a premise as if it's an absolute: And I showed you how that statement is anything but self-evident. There are a lot of people who just assume that notion and others like it are solid enough to develop the conclusion that people who point out problems in a kit are necessarily lesser as modelers for doing so, and they're demonstrably mistaken about that time and time again. By the way, did you? In your all-too-typical response, showing who really has a problem with disagreements, did it ever occur to you that maybe you weren't necessarily included in that IQ-dropping scenario? Or did you just take offense because the shoe fit after all?

That actually brings up a very good question: just where is there any explicit mandate about fixing problems in building models? The actual definition of modeling entails crafting a miniature that's as close a representation of a full-size prototype as possible. To borrow a phrase people like to use a lot - but to consider that phrase completely now, including the less convenient aspect of it - there's no such thing as a perfect kit. Meaning, even model kits that capture the 1:1 look very closely are apt to present problems in the building - and this is where some problem-solving might be IMPLIED. But there isn't the first iota of anything rational obliging you to address stuff incumbent on the kit manufacturer to execute properly, on top of the problems you might reasonably expect to be inherent in assembly. Now is there a certain measure of satisfaction in addressing some of those issues? In having more correct drip moldings and more accurate wheel arches in your build than pretty much any other one you've seen, in having your model sitting there and looking subtly and quietly more correct than danm near anybody else's attempt at the same kit? There certainly is. Where the discussion abruptly drops double digits in IQ, though, is to suppose that the modeler who'd rather hold the manufacturer responsible for what it should have done is somehow inherently inferior as a builder, to automatically assume he's either unable or unwilling to fix those problems just because he discusses them. And there's been plenty of great modeling, btw, involving kits that didn't need their proportions "fixed."

I've had some belly laughs today, but thanks, Scott - you just gave me the loudest one.

Early aughts, sure! Less of a stretch than the Buicks. Yeah, hope they don't miss the C7 boat completely...

Oh I dunno, guys, just dig through it some: “I’ve been a Corvette builder since 1958 – in fact, I went through the entire string of Corvette model years till I had to sideline from the hobby for a while in 1979 and sold ‘em all out. When I got back into the hobby in 1984, I decided to rebuild that string, and I finally got it back up to speed in 2000 – and uh-oh, hang onto my hat, Revell’s pretty much taken over 1/25 scale by then! Yeah, the same manufacturer that seems to believe only hot rods sell – can’t say I fit that mold. I build factory stock. So the Henry J, Willys ’41 coupe for example, and many more especially including reissues - no stock versions, nothing for me, just old rods from a manufacturer declares on the instruction sheet, “Discard extra parts.” And if these are the people running the 1/25 game, I knew my model year string wouldn’t go much further. Sure enough, had to stop ‘round 2006 – only a promo was available for 2007, lacking the same detail as my other built-ups. So 2008, 2009, ’10, ’11, ’12, ’13, ’14 – don’t count ‘cause I can’t find ‘em. And being proud to collect America’s sports car, I’d be happy to finish that string. Not to say I’m a GM goober-smoocher – less so every year in fact. Got Vipers in the mix, pretty disgusted I can’t have a new-generation kit. I did work directly or indirectly for GM, most of the 35+ years I spent in the automotive field, but I also spent a fair portion of that time with other makes. Spent another ten driving 18-wheelers - yes, some of the General’s finest, too. Upshot? I’m again disappointed with Revell’s utter lack of ’14 GMs, to put it mildly. But for those of you who think Revell wouldn’t be able to sell some of the automotive oddballs I’ve mentioned, may I just say one word: Moebius. Hudsons, anybody? That “red-headed step child” from Mother Mopar, the Chrysler letter cars? And then – in the very same breath – I wonder why certain Buicks haven’t made the grade to be kitted… No GM. Again. Hmm. I believe I might know after all. Thanx…” Now I gotta cop to a W-A G on "Ralphie Centuries" - Ralphie from Stephen King's Storm Of The Century - ? "Give me what I want and I'll go away"? That's the only "Ralphie Centuries" google reference, but if you treat "Century" as a Buick, you can bend it all back to a "No GM" context. 85%, anyway?

WOW, great shot, Brett, and thanks for that post! Right, 'cause complaining ABOUT the complaining is such an obviously superior approach. Diecasts are the ONLY REFUGE of the "nit-picker", then, huh? So say somebody points out how pea-brained it is (not an accidental choice of words, btw) for a manufacturer to include historic sedan markings in a coupe kit... well that's just necessarily, inevitably, absolutely 'cause he's TOTALLY INCAPABLE of FIXING that problem, right? Without a molecule of resin, by the way. Right? Have I thanked you guys lately? 'Cause your comments exemplify a great deal of what that whole Olds exercise was about. And I'll be having my rough little way with that kind of "logic" AGAIN when I tackle my own '70 'Cuda.

eh, don't ride him too hard, Harry. Least he spells "Svendsen" right (I knew I was bobbling that one somehow). And guess what: for being one of the more unapologetic go-pound-it-if-you-don't-like-it "rivet counters" 'round, think I'ma get one of these and backtrack on the '56 pickup, too. Prob'ly nostalgia more than anything else for me. I'm happy to call some kits out for the dogs they are and take out whatever trash results from that. But for all the inane challenges some of us get for NOT liking kits, I do refuse to challenge anybody for liking one. That's entirely a matter of personal judgment, exempt from right or wrong.

- Should stop for a minute to thank Jonathan H for putting up his build! Looks very nice and every inch the top C1 'Vette kit on the market. - Always a pleasure having an exchange with you Tim, and I have no doubts about every factor you list - I just simply have yet to find myself in a position where paint or foil had any effect on what I observed in bare plastic. On the KTMNBN, some people found a big improvement when the door frames and moldings were blacked out. Some thought hacking out any additional material after the main drip components was all you needed to do. For me, the roof looks just as wrong no matter what, unless you go the Maindrian/Schnur route. Doesn't mean I won't ever experience that change in perspective, just that it ain't happened with me yet after hundreds of examples. I hear you absolutely on the 'Cuda, though, and that's why I'm not so down on it; really seems as if its major issues can be solved with an hour or two of filing and strip replacement. With those front wheel arches, the 1:1's have a tighter radius at the upper leading edge and a wider radius as it trails back and arcs down, and for some reason, Revell got this backwards. This creates extra visual mass over the upper forward sheet metal which in turn exaggerates the thickness of the upper front fender expanse over the top. I'm still of the opinion Revell overdid that mass, but not to such an extent that a judicious knock-down won't take care of it. And what the Revell body revealed was that some of the older 'Cuda shells held in higher regard actually slimmed that mass down relative to the 1:1. I'd say the reason there wasn't a lot of talk about that has to do with a phenomenon I've covered before: deviations that actually flatter the subject aren't quite so likely to get noticed.

**deletion of duplicate post**

Ah, Tim Boyd. Really the only reason I didn't name-check him earlier is that he's been so much more than "merely" a kit reviewer for so long. Big influence and I'll also attest he's a class act. Like Tim, I find that the building process can influence your final judgment of a kit, and that this had the odd occasional effect of putting kits I actually liked better at lower comparative ranking positions. You wouldn't know it from the '99 article ranking '98 kits, but I actually liked AMT's '62 Catalina a lot better than it showed. In the end, though, I had to penalize it for its lack of vent wing windows (fixed in the Round 2 release), for the rear track and slicks that didn't quite tuck in the bodywork, and for its slightly slab-sided quality and funky greenhouse (I've found that grafting a Revell '64 Impala roof on makes it look a lot better). The act of assembling it brought a lot of this to light. Where Tim and I diverge a bit is that I find painting the kits totally inconsequential to any judgment of what's proportionally off. Some builders are practically magicians at so dazzling you with their builds as to DISTRACT you from proportioning problems - Sean Svenson comes to mind - but in the end, wheel arches that have looked too square and quarters too distorted in raw plastic preview photos REMAIN too square and distorted no matter how well the production item is finished later. And that goes for every build of the Kit That Must Not Be Named I have seen, with the notable exception of Mike Schur's - 'cause he corrected it. To such a degree that I can't stop looking at the pics for a while every time I come across 'em. Some of the language in this thread goes further than I would have, but it points to consistency problems that either weren't so prevalent at the turn of the millennium or are getting cast into sharper relief by competition from other manufacturers. Revell's challenge is not in overall design and ergonomics - they've had those nailed for quite some time. It's in managing material quality and the little niggly stuff, and more importantly than that, moving on from 20th century scaling techniques. Digitally reduced models look more like their subjects for a reason, and frankly, a lot of the "fudging" we've been told needs to happen winds up suspiciously like the proportioning errors we catch. I actually wonder if that certain roofline weren't cheated down on purpose - and if so, that bullscat needs to STOP, and FAST.

As a yet-active contributor, I'm not going to comment much on what a manufacturer brings to bear on a review of its products... well, except for the commentary implicit in my silence, of course. I'm very appreciative of your enjoyment of those ranking articles. Thank you for that. It's always nice to get good feedback, but it's particularly satisfying to hear about those rankings because in fact, I did 'em out of my own concept and on my own dime; except for two or three an editor thought I should cover in addition one year, I bought every single kit I reviewed for all of those rankings. Tried getting compensation for them one or two years, but in the end found it simpler to write off the cost against what I got back for those articles. Did unpainted fit-assessment builds for each from the '97 ranking of the '96 kits on, and yes, that hurt a bit for the Accurate Miniatures kits and the Japanese kits that came on line later on. And yeah, I've heard apocryphal tales 'round the camp fire of tantrums from more than one executive over those and other comparison reviews I've done. As for dissing kits, I don't know if it counts to say one kit's main redeeming feature is as a parts source for another better kit, but I'm in print with stuff like that. It's still often the case that I've snatched up my own before the editorial office gets their review samples, and because I'm among the slower builders, I just get started on the one I bought, with the sample mailed as a replacement - and that happens to go for the monster I'm trying to work through right now. What I manage to get done for reviews from free kits is a pittance of 1-3 compared to what I buy in a given year, so "gravy train" doesn't really apply to me - nor, do I suspect, to many if not most of the more prominent reviewers. One little aside: the age-old false dichotomy between critics/writers and builders/real modelers has begun to fuel some of my work. Never mind the Bob Downies and Clay Kemps and Dave Thibodeaus and countless others who've been around forever to give the obvious lie to such tripe. I did what I did with my second piece on Revell's '50 Olds expressly to vaporize that whole premise and prove nationally what vapid nonsense it really is.

Okay, then. If I may beg your pardon for speaking on it just a bit further, that, Sir, is exactly the right response. On the '58 kit itself, as I broadly hinted, it's a bit more accurate and a bit sharper than the new '62, posable steering and an opening trunk, and it goes together pretty nicely. If the '62 impressed you, you should really like this one.

With all due respect, Mr Barrow, I'm sorry, but it ain't washin'. Fact is, that instruction photo and the observations about it in post #1 told you exactly where this discussion was going, and if anything, it was going down the rails faster, but still on the rails. Let's say Frank wants to go bonkers and call Revell the most inept bunch of losers ever to squeeze a loaf of plastic. It is still not you he's attacking. So just where exactly is it your place to take that personally enough to start dealing personal blows back? You don't work for Revell. You didn't develop their products. Whatever quality issues raised are no reflection on you. And if "good enough" is really good enough in the marketplace, what effect are these discussions really going to have on your bottom line? So if somebody bags on Revell, What. Is. It. To. You? I've asked this question over and over again of many people without anything approaching a rational answer, and I'll keep doing it, because each time it meets silence or nonsense it gains that much more rhetorical weight. The difference between Dave Sciano's response and yours is stark. Dave questions Frank's conclusion and there we might have the beginnings of a rational discussion. But apparently that isn't enough for you. You gotta make broad hints of hypocrisy at... whomever. It's a shame, really. Comes so far under the bar of your worthier content, and you have plenty of that. And as long as somebody's gotta step in, make it personal, and ratchet the tension up, the dominoes will get tipped in the direction of Revell's biggest recent pile, and most likely sooner than later.

Had a feeling.

It's something to do with "bearer of salt" or "salt merchant", I think (and there are some who'd find that quite appropriate). Thanks just the same. You might find the link in my sig amusing, if you're not familiar with it already...

"Facts in the way of a rant", indeed. Let's not forget the pancaked '72 Olds, the taffy-pulled '69 Nova, the square-lipped '62 Impala, the half-baked Rat Roaster, and indeed the new '62 'Vette that withers a bit in the presence of this reissue of 16-year-old tooling. Or maybe we should forget 'em. And Brett, if you don't fancy non-topical stuff, it'd be helpful if you didn't open the door for it by calling names. What was the point of your initial response if not to call Frank a hypocrite? Doesn't matter how clever or indirect you are, in the end, the first ad-hominem in this thread is yours, and it's bleeding-fresh bait for anyone who wants to support Frank's contention. As ever, it's at this point, always THIS EXACT POINT, that the discussion truly starts going off the rails. There's an inevitable and constantly repeated fact that needs to start getting in the way of some rants around here. Anybody wants to see a more grown-up response, I refer you to post #5. THAT one was appropriate and perfectly symmetrical with what prompted it. Too bad that standard couldn't be maintained, but things will always go this way long as a good number of you refuse to realize that your inability to deal with anything less than rosy about kit manufacturers is your problem, and NOT that of ANY online forum.

Doesn't have upholstery seams for the stripes molded in as I remember. Just very fine raised lines to help locate the decals, I think, and while those might help for paint masking, the stitching will be a trick in itself.

WOW, okay. Tricky one to crack there. My single best guess is to find a way to get light gray dots printed on clear decal film, 'cause there'll be hell to pay trying to capture that actual perforated texture to a convincing scale effect, far as I can figure. I'm wondering if playing with periods on a word processing program then changing the color to as light a gray as you can, testing it out on paper, then printing it to the decal stock and sealing it might do the trick. Otherwise, the best cheat may be to paint those perforated sections in a coarse dark metallic shade close to the black of the seat.

Oh, no apologies necessary. As I recall - been a while since I did this one, some 2 1/2 years - I believe there are some very faint raised guide lines to indicate where to place the decals. As for fully embossed detail or a difference in texture, though, pretty sure there's nothing molded to the plastic. Now I'm not certain of the texture differences as they apply to same-color stripes, but a trick I tried to simulate the alcantara/suede-ish patches was to mask off the seats and steering wheel and shoot gray Testors "fabric" lacquer as a base to add some texture in those strategic places. You might experiment a bit with that on some scrap parts, maybe sand it down some, compare it with bare plastic or primers under your color coat of choice to see what subtle effects you might find, and there you might discover an approach for your stripes.

Well. Not all of us - but I thought this was Dave T's thread (least up till now), so "all" - ? One thing to bear in mind is that every so often kit manufacturers mold like-colored elements of the 1:1 together, so it wasn't entirely unreasonable to suppose that the front of the blower might be silver/aluminum, since it's molded to the front engine cover iIrc. As for the decals, the ones on mine were of a delicate sort. They tended to delaminate even under a few coats of clear when you pulled your masking medium off. But what they traded back was very thin and flexible carrier that responded well to setting solution; that took care of most of the silvering even on flat-finished pieces, and then the Mr Color flat overcoat I sprayed on the seats pretty much wiped out any remaining traces.

For my money that '61 Pontiac is the best-looking of any of the '61-'64 B-body GMs. Lookin' forward...

How about before it knew it was a Mustang?

Wow, just about missed this thread! Let's see... Yeah, think I could dig up one or two... This'n was my first new car: This'n I grew up with: and this'n handles my daily chores: Course, you link back to the album, you might see that scat-for-brains little shagwit who took the trouble to stop by and wring his little panties out on what "junk" this and my other car are, in the comment section. 45,000 miles now, wanting absolutely nothing except routine maintenance - the first of four new American cars I've bought that I can say that about. She does have expensive tastes in tires and fancy little German and Japanese snacks, be ye in no doubt. But she's absolutely MY kind of "junk".