Chuck Kourouklis

Tricky business, that credential-challenging. Minefields are wa-a-ayy safer. And then you come across the occasional clown who first demonstrates what blithering nonsense that challenge is, but then decides to blow it into pizza toppings by meeting it anyway. Got a nice little story out of that. Not that I want any of you to stop, mind. It's great for that step-on-a-rake entertainment value if nothing else.

We're just gonna skip how OBjective those very measurements you referred to in the correction are, and how difficult it is to sell something as "dreamed up" when there's empirical data to back it up. This "scream(ing) bloody murder and slander" business is what interests me. I've seen James fire off a brief round of all-caps after you've indirectly called him a loudmouth; otherwise, "screaming bloody murder" matches what your side of the argument is doing more closely than it does his content. And if you're gonna accuse him of slander - "a false statement damaging to (Revell's) reputation" - then the burden falls to YOU to prove the falsity of what he says. Where is that, exactly? In his all-cap claim? Do you KNOW for a fact that Revell was NOT alerted to other issues at the same time they were told about the oversize 5.0 badge? This is what I mean when I say all this drama is more about how you all react to the criticism than it is any of the root criticism itself. And as for Duff's lack of personal experience with the kit, maybe all he needs is pictures of the finished product - never mind the consensus of a significant number of us who owned FOX LX Mustangs, have bought multiple kits, and really wanted it to be right in a way that transcends murky notions of subjectivity (and before ANY of you even try, there's still a significant gulf between that basic level of "rightness" and a "perfect model"). Because look what else you have to do to make your position appear rational. You have to pretty much state that a dimensionally correct model is an "extraordinary" expectation, that a model kit which basically lives up to the mandate of a scale model is beyond "reasonable" expectations. Did I misread that last part?

Preach on, n.o.77. Thanks, Cato, and I'd hope so - it'd only be a sign I'd done something right.

Well and good - except that this thread started with someone who HAS that very point of view that allegedly doesn't produce nice models... and is doing it anyway. As have I, and who knows how many others in this thread and out, with the same viewpoint. Not trying to mosh you in with the crowd I was addressing, Andrew - I know you're more thoughtful than that - but what you said kinda begs this exception.

Yup. Right in line with something I've asked before: Just what is wrong with preferring to spend your time and skill ​augmenting a kit rather than correcting it?

Yeah, and I'm one of the vocal guys who's pestered Greg twice for one and is about to go yank his sleeve again via pm. So? This "point" is really no point at all. And that's true of all the "points" made by that noisy faction in this hobby who can't get over the fact that some of us, anyway, expect a scale model to do its main job of looking like the subject. I have asked you guys time and time again, I've pled with you to offer some vague description of just what it is that gets YOU ALL soooo defensive about something you had no part in designing. Several times I've done my level best not to pose it as a challenge, but I guess in the end, the challenge aspect is inevitable - because I'm asking you all to explain something that makes NO SENSE. Your own arguments have you shivering at the prospect of negative feedback driving a manufacturer to stop making new models, and then you turn and snap phrases like "DON'T BUY IT IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT". Tell me, which of these approaches is really MORE likely to hurt a given manufacturer? 'Cause kit manufacturers have chugged along just fine through criticism (I mean you all DO realize that certain ebbs in the flow of new product really had more to do with the ECONOMY, right?), but I'm not at all keen about seeing how encouraging fellow hobbyists not to buy their products is gonna work out for the hobby. You "get your dander up" and you fairly demand to categorize something as "damnation with faint praise" whether the content actually supports that or not, simply to justify a reaction to that content that's totally hysterical and nonsensical - not to be mealy-mouthed about it or anything. You make broad statements about people taking their toys too seriously, and not having a life, or not enjoying life, and then you have the a s t o n i s h i n g brass to carp about name-calling when some of that scat heads back your way. You guys can't even bring math into it without it biting you. It's a fact established in INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL that mass is a function of volume, and that volume varies by the CUBE - so a replica half the size of the original is ONE-EIGHTH its volume. Third scale is 1/27th the volume, and so on, down to a 1/25 scale model having 1/15,625 of the volume and weighing 1/15,625 of the 1:1 as constructed in the same materials. Of course, even THIS observation is negated by the fact that at this point, you guys have long veered into PRECISION rather than the ACCURACY that's really the topic. Let's get back to BRASS for a minute. With a total absence of irony, you all carp about the "fire" that "Harry started", when all that's really demonstrated here is that you all can't even handle it when we're not talking about a specific subject! Harry gets deeper into a kit and finds problems obvious enough that no halfway-vigilant manufacturer in 1870 would have let them pass, let alone 1970, and oh lo and behold, the project gets stretched, more difficult than anticipated, more troublesome. Now before anybody offers one more pious trope about thriving on such challenges, I suggest for YOUR sake, not mine, that you go review what Harry's finished at "Big Boyz", because you run a serious risk of stepping on yourself otherwise. But there's a LOGICAL CIRCUMSTANCE to influence Harry's outlook one way or another on this project, to drive him to vent in a posting online in a forum about, *gasp*, CAR MODELS. And that post is topical to today's releases, no matter how some of you would appear to want to whitewash it all. There's no manufacturer listed. Maybe it's rhetorical, or maybe the Dave Metzners, Sean Svensons, and Steve Goldmans of the hobby are meant to pipe in. But WHAT exactly IS the "fire"? I'll tell you what it is. It is a fire of YOUR OWN MAKING. You KNOW it is. Because there is NO RATIONAL BASIS for all the interrogation, the cross-examination, the fatuous credential-challenging that followed, and all the other personal focus that YOU ALL introduced into this discussion about an inanimate object, just as you have done time and time immemorial. YOUR INABILITY to handle a frank discussion about kit issues in a forum inviting such discussion is the constantly recurring problem, and it's YOUR PROBLEM. NOBODY'S. BUT. YOUR. OWN. What impact does such a post have on any project you're doing at the time? What effect can such a post possibly have on you but the one YOU CHOOSE to LET it have? And all the dime store psychoanalysis here is doubly rich in light of that. But hey, please don't read me as not appreciating and loving you all. My latest major project had a prime impetus in demonstrating concretely and completely the utter brute folly in those sad old devices you all constantly regurgitate, most particularly that champion of logical ineptitude, "REAL modelers vs. kit-assemblers." And for the record, I DID hold my execution to a higher accuracy standard than what was in the box. So really, despite all this controversy that you lot are truly at the root of, this is actually my round-about "Thank you!" Because in your acceptance of mediocrity, in your inadvertent encouragement of it, you've actually driven me that much closer to excellence. Note: edited to correct the spelling of Steve Goldman's name.

Yup, and the Polyglas tires, the multi-stripe Firestones, most of the slicks - all debuted in Round 2 kits before being sold as parts packs. But you're dead right about Revell, Cliff. Their '70 'Cuda tires are very clearly patterned after the Polyglas, but have a look and you'll see no manufacturer logos on them. I wish Revell would have sprung for some 3D scanning on that kit, but I generally don't have a problem when they tell a tire manufacturer with its hand out to go pound sand.

Man, I just go where the conversation goes. It stays on topic, I will too. And in light of other content not deleted, I'm putting this pic BACK in the discussion - no inflammatory language this time, just letting it speak for itself. 'Cause in light of what was off-topic first, it's got a point that needs to be made: Think I'll simply reiterate that we seem to be treating the whole notion of the simplified pre-decorated glue kit with a bit more novelty than it's due, and I'll be very interested in seeing how Revell's latest approach evolves that 15-year-old concept. Of course, those plans for the '83 Cutlass that circulated a while back, while very retro-Monogram in their design approach, would also appear to fit right into this apparent strategy.

What, are you kiddin'? I do snappers ALL THE TIME. Sometimes I slap 'em together with a promise-to-self I'll eventually pull them back out 'n finish 'em proper. But you betcha I get a kick out of a well-done snapper, and frankly it's kinda dumb for anyone to feel shame over such a thing.

Oh, that Tamiya Mustang was terrible, a truly mutant exercise of proportional tease gone wrong. It may have had other crucial elements of Tamiya appeal in the material quality of the kit, but the Cobra R in particular had a mashed greenhouse with way too much tumblehome, and the front end of both kits looked as if it were a different scale than the rear. The Monogram SN95 had its own issues but it was tons better, and AMT had everybody beat on that one for overall proportions, even if the tire profiles were way too high. It would take nearly 20 years before we saw another Mustang kit as botched as Tamiya's. But what Tamiya has always delivered irrespective of proportion issues is a palpable sense of quality and presentation when you crack the lid, and this is why that company has its loyalists. They still have an edge in tooling refinement and content arrangement, to this day over just about any other manufacturer in the world. You have to go into the military field to find the closer competitors; they just don't seem to be there in automotive. And what Tamiya taketh away under hood, they almost certainly giveth right back in engineering and parts fit. There was a time I had to scramble a car for a photo shoot. The Tamiya kit which concentrated its 135 parts in interior detail rather than an engine just pulled right together in 3 days, as compared to a balky contemporary Revell kit with 90 parts including an engine. The difference in engineering and the advantages that engineering held were stark. Fujimi's heart is in 1/20 F1 right now, and perhaps that's why their 1/24 kits are so hit-and-miss. We went from solid MX-5s and Porsche Caymans into brilliant 250 GTOs and world-leading R35 GT-Rs only to wind up with that truly hideous Pantera kit a few short years later. Haven't been very keen on their revival of interior tubs for so many of their kits, and their McLaren F1 road car would have been so much more - if it were made by Aoshima. Japan's true up-and-comer, Aoshima, with kits of ever-escalating quality and great social media leverage to boot. Theirs are the proper GT86/BR-Z models, and their Lamborghini series has been on an upward pull since the Countach. Their McLaren F1 GTR looks to take their game out a whole new door, and one hopes they don't backslide from the new paradigm they've established. Maybe the current market is different, but even accounting for the distinction between Revell's newly-announced glue series and the snappers, there's a definite whiff of "been there" - remember the pre-decorated Stock Cars and the '63 Impala from around 2000? Those were also simplified glue-together intermediates to both pre-decorated snap kits and molded-in-white full-detail kits. But who knows, maybe they'll hit the sweet spot with further-simplified snappers and subject matter this time.

Put another way, there won't be any fire to "stoke" if Revell doesn't set it in the first place. It's the misplaced angst and personal attacks arising from kit criticism that will always be the larger, more indefensible issue, no matter how anybody would try to redirect the focus. All that aside, Casey appears on-point about the front tires, and the body shell appears just as you'd expect - the same - though warpaint seems to flatter it more. Of course, we have no idea right now whether or not those carry-over tires are the ONLY fronts Revell's gonna include...

Hey, mediocriphiles might contrive this kit as some excuse to throw the term "rivet-counter" around, but as it's been said, it really depends what you need. Makes sectioning pretty easy, and I think it looks best either as John's done it above, or in some of the rat configurations we saw earlier.

x2. That E-Type and the Big Deuce have been two of my favorites forever. I'd have guessed from the chronology that the Monogram kit appeared first, and if the tooling has anything in common, the Imai kit might have been the one derived. Never heard of any 1:8 E-Type with an opening hatch! Would be very interested in knowing more about that Imai...

Hmm. Guess they got it on the GT500 rubber. Maybe that's for the best - the Camaro P-zeroes are a bit high-profile and square-shouldered.

Meng is bad-a$$. Their 1/35 vehicles are gorgeous, and if this 350 is anything like those - and the trees indicate it will be - it will easily be worth Meng's asking. But be ready for something steep. Based on their aircraft, I wonder if something in a size $70 is a more likely price...

Well my day is ruined. Deeply, deeply bummed to see this.

Well, the wobble in the character line seems to stem from a subtly flat area that radiates roughly 1/8" around each wheel arch, front and rear. There was a point in some early review samples where the fender lips were not only too prominent, but too flat in their arcs as well. We might be seeing remnants of a little nip-'n-tuck on the way to production.

Oh I wasn't taking a dig at you, 340 - just responding to what I saw in Tim's post without being mindful you said it too. When you got people who can't handle an emperor's true state of dress jumping down your throat for pointing it out, it's easy to misdirect your aggression back at it, as I know all too well.

Nope, but here's a fun bit... http://www.ebay.com/itm/MINT-2015-FORD-MUSTANG-COUPE-1-24-SCALE-RED-PLASTIC-AUTO-SHOW-PROMO-MODEL-CAR-/310849328411?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item486010551b Nice 'n minty...

HEAR HEAR, Tim. If they'd just scan the body of the 1:1, I'd happily deal with funky distributors, mixed-up venturis, odd little bracket projections off the oil filter, and whatever else came about. To harp on the human factor would be responsive to the discussion if anybody were suggesting 3D scanning is the magic bullet or that it would replace human input at that level. Fact is, nobody's claiming that. But for some reason, while it seemed to work okay in the past, the traditional method of scaling 3-dimensional objects from 2-dimensional pictures just isn't getting it done these days. Mathematical conversion of 3D scan data will not just put every linear dimension into scale, but every radius of every curve of every surface. And while I assiduously avoid attacking model company executives or making an epithet out of "suit" - honestly, I think some of that is backlash at other modelers getting personal over stuff it makes NO SENSE to be sensitive about - I do wonder if they might not have some culpability in failing to implement this technology. Compromises in things like nameplate scripts are understandable and easy to deal with. As for material thickness and the like, you just make those adjustments where they aren't visible - I'm quoting an industrial designer on that one. The Polar Lights '66 Batmobile has been a proof of this concept now. For years.

Well, one key reason somebody probably wouldn't dissect a badass vintage car in such a way is that it has a job other than resembling something 25 times larger as closely as possible. Just sayin'...

Seriously. I once heard about how injection molding was on its way out - to be replaced vacuum-formed kits. In 1986. The Stones wrote a nice little ditty about it: http://youtu.be/rPFGWVKXxm0

Mission accomplished.

Admire Ford's marketing acumen and be glad they pulled Revell in on this, I suppose; and kinda rock back on your heels 'n wait just a bit - your favorite online auction site will surely have a few, and you'd have to imagine Revell will limit supply only as long as they're contractually obliged for the promotion. At least it augurs well for a next-gen Mustang before 2017, and maybe even a full-detail kit at that. And I just can't quite work up the offense over Mr Lab coat "expert toy car model builder" - is he really so much stupider than . . . maybe I best not finish that sentence.

There you go. The foam blocks Tamiya gives you for supporting the tires in its latest 1:6 Harley kit had me thinking you'd want to do something like that, but I had no idea what to recommend for your stuffing material. Looks like you hit on the best solution!