Chuck Kourouklis

No, photo artifact I think - chrome's pretty shiny, Jonathan.

Hey, man, no reflection on you. It's thems what refuse to evolve in their thinking need the crow...

WOOOPS, forgot one! Off-road exhaust, crossmember brackets for the new front suspension, heavy duty diff cover. 26 new parts in all - account for the cop car bits in the Special Ed and you get close to Revell's 12-piece spread between it and this one.

That was good for a laugh. It goes even deeper than that, Mr P - this latest version is actually a more effective 2-in-1 than the Special Ed squad car, which was really more like a 1+. I guess you're not totally bereft of clues - if you pay attention to parts count, you'll see that this one mysteriously has 12 more pieces by Revell's reckoning. But nope, nothing like the nice bold emblazoned graphic it deserves. Something it now occurs to me you might not yet have seen a lot of, Kevin, but which sort of explains my attitude: some guys around here so lose their mud at the sight of any kit criticism that in addition to insisting you're less of a modeler for pointing it out, they'll spout such helpful platitudes as "IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T BUY IT." Has not ever been, nor will it ever be, ANYTHING but rocket fuel for well-earned snark in forums like this, but you can still catch them flinging that chimp scat around as if it somehow gets less inane with repetition. Clearly, they'd rather some of us deny our contributions to Revell's bottom line than hear anything less than sunshine and rainbows about a kit, and as it happens, if I'd been stupid enough to take that seriously, I might not have these pictures to post. After ruminating for a minute on all that rocket surgery, though, I've decided to put 'em up anyway. Don't thank me, I'm a giver. New chrome: Wheels and a dash-mounted tach, I suppose - no boost to measure after all. Does have an option of gauge faces on the decal sheet. Here you see the gate opened for the tube crossmember/suspension on the axle tree. On the left is a new tree with Edlebrock intake parts, headers visibly wider than stock, and the exposed distributor. This new tree has the high-back racing seats, roll cage, cowl induction hood, and the decklid wing (mounts like a spoiler, seems a bit big to be called one, though). Might have seen these slicks before - Impala or Nova, perhaps? Need to check, might be new... Decal sheet, which in addition to all the cool aftermarket logos also includes rear quarter rubber spatter if you elect to go with something other than the provided 2-color body graphics.

Nope, nowhere, Harry. It's just a little "Wow!" left for you to find out on perusing the contents. Yeah, Kevin, that's exactly it - that "oh, soooo close" feeling you get taking the whole kit in. There are other little niggles - clamps on the stock tailpipes? - but with the right body, this kit would've been so bad-a$$. Such GREAT planning and design, to end up so undone by the body's execution. Couple things - you can indeed verify an Edelbrock Performer intake complete with engraved logo once you pull it from the baggie, and there's a set of race headers too. There's also an uncovered distributor. and as many have observed, the tires you run up front are the stock ones from the SSP. The Special Ed kit was essentially a stock car with a go at a light bar, a spot, and a radio - kinda "meh" more than compelling. THIS kit is so nicely conceived, it really makes you crave that MasterCaster body. Heck, more than anything, I wish I had the funds to cut some steel from Mike Schnur's pattern and run plastic shell replacements and windows at some ten-fifteen bucks a pop or so, since they ain't getting' off the thumb in Elk Grove Village. Wonder if Pegasus Models would ever consider a venture like that...

Yeah, it's got more parts and far more builder-determined variety than the SSP. It's enough to make you wonder why this one wasn't the Special Edition. It actually manages a decent amount of kool even with its funhouse-mirror body(!) Man, what this sucker coulda BEEN...

Yup, 2-in-1 at least. Totally stock, totally drag, and many points of your choice between - you want a stock-look sleeper that's got it where it counts, i halfway wonder if you can close the stock hood over the performance intake. Looks feasible.

Actually there are those who would say (and I might agree) that the greenhouse of the 1/24 Cobra is enough under scale that it's probably closer to 1/25. Be that as it may... One very nice surprise in this drag kit, for those who find the unchanged body agreeable enough, is that the entire stock car is also included, down to the stock hood, all four wheels and tires, stock interior, and the stock intake. So you can determine your own mix between street and strip if you like. Yup, no power adders as people have guessed from the bracket - got to raid your '98 Saleens for that. Roll cage, cowl hood, two slicks and four added five-spoke competition wheels, and a custom intake presenting a triangular upper surface - looks like the Edelbrock Performer if my guess is right. Deck-mounted wing, straight pipes and the tubular front suspension arms too.

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...