Chuck Kourouklis

See? Goofed again.

That's a good question, and it was helpful to see - however briefly - that another builder had the same problem. I've found Gunze Mr Color gloss benign enough to go on chrome and preserve the shine without attacking it. Maybe Krylon Low-Odor (water-based) clear? S'pose you can clip off sections of sprue to see how your favorite clear helps to seal it...

Last time I actually tried this, I was mistaken. The irony was delicious. 13? Missing vent wings and an A-pillar slant that's off ten degrees are consequential enough to make this comparison a little silly, btw...

The kit has 'em molded to the doors. The builder of that box cover car hacked 'em off for some reason...

Two reasons: 1) You yourself stated the most obvious one. The usual relation between the full-size and the miniature is that the full-size is metal and the miniature is plastic. For that very 1% you mention, the Corvette scenario not only deviates from that relationship, it inverts it, presenting an opposite one might view as ironic. 2) The second is conditional on accepting the premise that - as I stated in post #7 - one of the draws about die cast models is that they're made of materials roughly matching those of the subject (and in the case of the higher-end Mints, CMC and the like, perhaps not so roughly). Not only does a die cast Corvette model break that association, but your typical die cast Corvette body shell on a plastic chassis once again pretty neatly inverts it.

Love 'em or lump 'em, that 1/16's gonna need work. A-pillars is just all kinds of wrong 'n the front fascia's pretty cocked-up too. And yet... poring over shots of builts and thinking back to the last one I had, I'm wondering how hard it'd really be. *sigh* This fool and his money...

Hmm. Coulda sworn the headlight bucket and door were integrated into one piece at some point, but I could find no verification. Did find this... http://www.svs.com/zim/mustang/64body.html

Wasn't there also something about the headlight nacelles changing to a one-piece design later in the '65 m. y.? Always thought that C-scoop chrome side accent was specific to early '65s (64 1/2s) too, while the later '65s were clean there - but I'm not certain about that...

Lol, ABSOLUTELY, Tony! I've always thought the big draw about diecast cars was that they're made from the same (roughly) materials as the 1:1, and a diecast Corvette just blows that out the window. You just gave me my first big laugh of the morning. Always thought it was just me! Oh, well, no, not particularly - it's just that there's now a gap in our plastic where the greatest Corvette since the mid-year C2s should reside.

I was once asked why I didn't just take the highest setting and call it "ten". "'Cause it goes to eleven", I says. Made sense to me. And it was the one time I wasn't being sarcastic.

Not even incorrect, Mike. Just "squarish". And it wasn't even me. And look how pointing that out has just totally ruined your anticipation of the kit… actually, I don't even know if my sarcasm has an off button. Eh, well. Somebody seems to get it. Thank you.

And by the way, any idiot who'd drop a friendship over a discussion like this probably wasn't really your friend in the first place.

See how that works? YOU are actually the first one to mention any specific model. That "horse" is far from the only body shell I could have been describing. A "bad name." To whom exactly? And WHERE is this "blown proportion" on the seats, exactly? The only proportion I see starting to distend is at the reaction to one reference. You don't want the discussion to go this direction, don't start overreacting to one bland mention of squarish seats. And don't even TRY TO PRETEND that it's not THAT OVERREACTION where the discussion starts going off course.

Time for another reality check here, I see. 'Cause once again, we got the agitatin' for a problem before a problem even really exists. Talk about squarish seats, and this thread will go down in flames, and Meng will just cut the production run and never explore this line of subjects again 'cause we had the NERRRVE to point it out, right? Yeeaaah, NO. Slightly squarish seats that'll take about 15 minutes to sand rounder in the middle of an otherwise very nice-looking kit are an entirely different animal than a kit that needs major surgery in its body shell to look acceptable, and that's why, as much as some guys need such fantasies and wildly exaggerated imaginings of "rivet-counting" to justify their own hysterics, there won't be ANYTHING LIKE the controversy we've seen elsewhere on other kits about these seats. And sittin' here like a bunch of online magpies goin' "RA RA!" no matter what's served up is meaningless. The only "encouragement" worth a warm steaming scat to Meng is not to get hung up on idiotic factors like it being one off that holy precious 1/25 scale, or that it costs as much as a pretty unambitious night out with your honey, and just buy the danm thing if you like it. Meng is like any other manufacturer. They wanna shift units, and whatever is said online about their products, if they care at all, will be MIIILES behind in importance relative to sales. And having the attitude, "Funky seats. I'll take two please", will make a far more tangible contribution to the hobby than trying to police the content of some online thread.

I've always wondered about the mirror-reflected gas tank arrangement between this one and the older '69 kit - and which of the two is correct - and I've always thought the '66 would be improved a wee by filing the chromed lower fender areas just ahead of the front wheel openings for a bit more roll-under to the center, and by cobbling up the retracted headlights which are quite visible from certain angles. Otherwise, yes. This is one of the best of that turn-of-the-century "Mueller-era" series of AMT kits, and one of my favorites. The stock version is notable not only for that fine nailhead, but also for a nice set of tires not used on any other AMT kit since, far as I know.

So sorry, Frank! Yes indeed, I will chuck any further mentions.

Well. A rare agreement here, with the qualification that I'm just fine spending double to get a good-looking LX: Stupid unbelievably ridiculous better to me, Mike Schnur's conversion and build above, but your mileage may vary on how spendy ya wanna get for something that should have been in the original 26-buck box. But let's save Jesse a BIT of trouble, anyway: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=65168&page=19 Post #370 here shows one owner who took measurements, and despite various efforts to flail at that hard data, another member finds it sound. Go through and you'll find all manner of comparisons to demonstrate that the eyeball really doesn't lie on this one.

The reason the roof issue came up again is simple: the last time we saw something this bad or worse from Revell, they fixed it. And some of us were merely wondering if they might do it again between these two versions of the '90 Mustang. Personally, I wouldn't have thought it likely even without considering the photo and the fact that Revell/Monogram has recently suffered a major, institutional-scale loss in personnel - but we'll know for sure when it's released, I guess. I'm in for one or two irrespective, myself. Ironic, that. I think the body is the most serious cock-up since the '69 Charger, but I'm still actually going to contribute to Revell's bottom line, as opposed to all those who would have us just shut up and deprive Revell of those sales in doing so. For those who seem to have some difficulty comprehending it without help, this is why some of us feel compelled to point out what we've spent with Revell/Monogram. 'Cause they can talk about making kits for builders rather than writers, and y'all can pass any judgment you like on what supports the hobby, but in the end, what matters to Revell is how many kits they sell. But I'm gonna remind everybody here - a g a i n - that there weren't no arguments in this thread before the flaming started. And the flaming started waaay before now, btw, exactly in posts #8 and #12. And guess what that flaming was about. AGAIN: This immediate association of a frank discussion about a kit with "whining" and "complaining". Y'know somethin', people? The fact that you have a personal distaste for it doesn't immediately qualify such a discussion as "drama" or "whining" or "complaining". There IS NO inherent "drama" in discussing the problems with the roof and hoping it gets fixed. The "drama" stems almost entirely from the way YOU ALL REACT to that discussion. Some of the most flamboyantly dramatic posts I've seen in this forum have been about "drama" (sometimes with a PM about hypocrisy to boot!). Much of the most bitter complaining I've seen has been about "complainers". And just about all of the blue-ribbon whiniest, crybaby-est posts EVER 'round here have been about - you guessed it - the "whiners" and "crybabies". And yet there hasn't been a one of you to offer the first coherent reason that talking about these issues is wrong or inherently offensive. You just take it upon yourselves to judge it as some inferior mode of thinking - even so far as to dictate when a thread should be closed and who should be kicked out of this forum - and then treat this on-topic discussion as if you're the only ones in the room who should be allowed any drama about it! It's on you. You don't like it, you pule on about it, time and time again it is you all who make it personal; but the FACT is that nobody's holding a gun to your head to read any of it. And unlike any of us who were waiting a very long time for an accurate model of an Aerofox Mustang, it ain't as if you don't have literally thousands of other places to go right within this topic heading. So tell me again: WHO EXACTLY is looking for drama, here?

*PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTT* Don't do that when I got a mouthful of water, Lee!

James, seriously - I just wanna take it down a minute and ask you a question: you really don't see any irony in calling us "crybabies" and "whiners", and then accusing US of "drama"? Can you truly point out any name-calling and drama in this thread before all the "apology" and "get over it" nonsense started getting thrown around? I'll grant you, the Revell '90 did at least manage a fair front graphic, the first acceptable '87-'93 Mustang front fascia in scale, and if you combine it and the rocker panels and the rear bumper with an MPC/AMT '88 GT, you can solve the weaknesses of both. It's just a shame that a newly-tooled body shell in this day and age falls apart so comprehensively behind the cowl. And hurling epithets at the people you somehow contrive to accuse of drama isn't gonna change that issue. It's just gonna provide vivid, living-color examples of approaches I have long refuted and debunked for their inherent irrationality and hysteria.

Y'know, for being such a crybaby and taking it all too seriously, I just had a from-the-toes belly guffawing laugh at that one... I TELL people exactly what's gonna happen! And they do it anyway! Oh God, I need some water or something...

ONE MORE TIME: it is not mentioning the top that's going to get this topic closed - that's something grown-ups should be able to discuss. What'll get this thread closed, if anything, are those who cannot handle the mention of the top and who turn the discussion personal as a result. The first-issue kit is clearly not 1/25 in all dimensions. It does not live up to reasonable expectations. This topic covers the next version of that kit. It does not violate reasonable expectations of this thread for those inaccuracies to be covered in it. And it is those who somehow find that topical discussion offensive who are truly demonstrating an inability to "get over" it. Funny how it's always about us who take things too seriously, and never those who take comments about a kit they had no role in developing too personally. What freshens the whole issue of the top for this conversation is that we are dealing with something on very nearly the magnitude of the first-issue ProModeler '69 Charger here - something Revell/Monogram has actual precedent for fixing. So it's natural, predictable - no surprise at all - that it's going to come up once again as people wonder if R/M will follow or abandon their precedent with the next version of the kit, the subject of this thread. Now in fairness, a couple other things to consider: To ask Mr Sexton about this is to put him in a no-win. Either he concedes the first one needed fixing or he toes the party line at some expense to his credibility, and for right now, it looks like the latter. If the response is terse, maybe it's because of internal stress at the company right now, or simply having too many other fish to fry - they did just lose Roger Harney, arguably the heart and soul of Monogram for over fifty years and by association, that of Revell for around half that time. Is the product any less deficient for all this? No - but it might be helpful in understanding why we get the responses we sometimes do.

Sure. We need fresh air, we gotta get over, we take it too serious, whatever puts us in an inferior position for not agreeing with you. We see what you're doin' there. Did you really think you could say "get over it" without people getting "serious" and "edgy"?

Good for you, Jesse. Seriously, nobody's even beginning to suggest you shouldn't buy and build to your heart's content. But it doesn't really serve your purpose to try and mandate what we need to get over, tell us we need fresh air 'cause we don't see it your way, and then wonder at the "edgey"-ness.

Painting the drip moldings and door frames black does minimize the problem somewhat. Looks pretty much the same to me, straight down to the 5.0 badge pre-correction, if that ain't a decal - but hey, I'm ready and willing to be surprised and delighted, and I'll be hollering A T T A B O O Y Y! from the rafters if they have indeed fixed it. But an apology? I've dropped more than fifty bucks on a pair I don't know if I've got the time to make acceptable, and I ain't lookin' for an apology! An apology to Revell is appropriate if the criticism is off-base and incorrect, but Mike Schnur - though he doesn't like to make a big deal of it - has demonstrated conclusively with his vastly improved body shell that the criticism is bang on-target (the upper-echelon's apparent attempts at whitewashing it all to the contrary). So the very concept of an apology to Revell for getting around to what they should have done in the first place is "are-you-putting-me-on??" LAUGHABLE. But with all due respect, that mentality once again demonstrates that what really needs to be "gotten over" is this same old allergy to kit criticism that like it or not, is entirely topical to the subject at hand. When a model has visual deviations from the prototype, it fails to live up to its very reason for existence. I'm going to borrow somebody's notion of "reasonable expectation", except that I'm actually going to be more REASONABLE about it: while this chimerical, straw man diversion of the "perfect kit" is anything BUT reasonable to hope for, a roof height without a clearly visible variance from true scale IS a reasonable expectation. Now let's try another angle: just how exactly does a discussion thread pointing this out, asking if there's been any progress from one release to the next, fail to meet the reader's expectation? Long as there are no personal attacks, that too-low roof IS on topic, and what's more, some folks actually come in with the objective of FINDING OUT about problems like this. So not only is the "don't like it, don't participate" approach just as apt here, it is in fact MORE appropriate. After all, it's not as if any of you has been waiting over two decades to drop your cold cashish on some sunshine-and-ponies Stepford thread about a problem kit. In the case of the model, it plainly does not live up to its own stated mandate of being 1/25 the size of the subject in all dimensions, so discussion of that in a thread about the very kit is not only logical and on-topic, it's inevitable. That a truly topical discussion should somehow be muted in pointing out all these problems is the expectation that's actually irrational. It's really the people with that expectation who need to "get over" the fact that a topical discussion will include pointing out problems with the kit. And If you don't like it, don't read it. Btw, notice how THAT suggestion doesn't nick Revell's bottom line.