Chuck Kourouklis

All looks good to me! Wonder if some Trumpeter dirty bits might be raided to spiff this one up a little...

Wow. Such a sudden flood of sentiment totally beyond dispute for me. Right as rain, Harry. mod·el (mdl) n. 1. A small object, usually built to scale, that represents in detail another, often larger object If we accept that a model must have the accuracy implicit in that definition, and that a model kit's very reason for existence is to satisfy a reasonable expectation for that accuracy, then yours is really the only correct and reasonable contention.

Bang-on, Mr B.

Very. Think Revell could benefit from having a look at this.

Yeah. Mirror was originally engraved to the windshield, then they cleaned that up right quick but never supplied a separate piece. Figgered it might be a nice thing to fix for this reissue in the same spirit they finally provided for vent windows in the '62 Pontiac - but if it's a choice between a mirror or steelies and a bench, I'll gladly snap up the latter, thanks.

EDIT - Sorry, know what? it's kinda silly to pimp a blog when you can just point right to an example (and actually even make it more topical in doing so): Gee, Mike, that's quite an imagination on ya there. That said, there's no quibbling with your results. Much, MUCH better. In fact, I think your progress shots would be very helpful for Revell to see.

Thanks for the reminder! That's a really classic and obvious tactic I've forgotten to include in the blog from the very beginning. Actually, this is the PERFECT sort of thing for Revell/Monogram to do. Plays on nostalgia, hammers down the scale, refines the tooling, ramps up the detail, doesn't hit any single specific subject too literally. Very eagerly looking forward to mine, and they're really gonna have to botch something to get any "whining" from me.

I would be dee-lighted if Revell confined the direct scans to the 1:1 body and did everything else the way they've been doing. I may be mistaken about this, but isn't the notion that a model can be mathematically right and still look wrong based on the old paradigm of taking myriad discreet linear measurements of a 3D subject? The Monogram 1/24 '69 Camaro is supposedly "right" by that standard (much as a sugar cube could be about a 1/24 miniature of a basketball in length, width, and height). I'd wager the reason every scanned subject I've seen looks proportionally correct is that the process not only captures linear dimension, but precise surface curvature as well.

It was suggested here earlier that the revelation of Revell's Mustang project ahead of schedule truncated their development time, bringing us the results we see now. This premise was handled as all material of such ilk should be, but it demands an interesting counterpoint, so let's accept it for a moment. How, then, to rationalize certain other problematic kits Revell has recently released, that had no such "prematurity" involved? Because ANY discussion countering an objective assessment of a kit's deviations in a forum labeled "Kit Reviews" is RATIONALIZATION, and there's really nothing ANY of you can do about that except continue to demonstrate it luridly, beyond the faintest shadow of dispute. Just to give a few of you an idea how wildly off-target some of your premises are, Bradley, by way of f'rinstance, was involved in private discussions where we ALL saw the problems IMMEDIATELY back in October. This was before any measurements were taken, and he got genuinely upset at our "attack" on the kit. He did not come willingly to the conclusions he has, he got dragged there kicking all the way, by cold hard FACTS far beyond anything he could influence for good or ill. It's the provocateur's easy luxury to push somebody's buttons and then make an ostentatious display of how reasonable he's being as opposed to the person he provoked. Bradley is one of the more eminently credible FOX resources out there, and it took a right beating from the very kit itself to pummel him and a number of others into the conclusions they've reached. To go so far as to imply his complicity in what has plainly and sadly become Revell's SOP is only to scuttle your own credibility, and the removal of that post was a distinct favor to the poster.

What Del said - Duplicolor dye also solved my Olds whitewall problems (till we all found out Revell was sending out tampos). Those vinyl parts also take Tamiya TS flats like there's nothin' to it. You can even sand down some of the swirl marks with their primer.

Yup, lotta fun parts in this'n - AMT's P/S Mickeys debuted in this kit, and that DOHC hemi's just bad - and it's kool that it's all in white this time.

Eeyup. Add to that the fact that some folks who have seen the kit (and may EVEN have provided the very cars for Revell to measure) note that both light bar lenses are red, and well, it's kind of inevitable now, isn't it? As to whether noting that qualifies you for shellacking with yet another creative epithet, I leave it to the 180 or so of you paying attention to decide.

Page one, post #10. Last pic in Steve's series. Not that the light bar tree also has the red sections of the taillights, and that both light bar sections are on that tree. That's about as much corroboration as you can have without the actual kit.

'Nother modeler dude 'n me was speculatin': GT500 tires, whirly cheese-grater wheels, *boom*, Foose car.

Eh, good enough. Can cast up or use a parts box mirror like befo', can sand off SS bits. Grille might be tricky, but steelie wheels, Grumpy graphics, and a bench will make it all up 'n then some...

Yeah, why not. We got previous issues for the SS. They actually tool up a rearview mirror for this one, too, it's golden.

Oh yeah. Stoked. Couldn't think of a better way for them to do this reissue - almost exactly 25 years from its debut, no less...

Yeah, that's kinda what I thought you meant - but I didn't wanna put words in your mouth.

Darn straight people have wanted this for years, and yeah, Revell's due some appreciation at least for the attempt. And absolutely, this one is far superior to any they've done before. But it's still got visible deviations, and THAT is what starts the discussion veering away from nice and comfortable. What are people supposed to do when they see those problems? Suppress themselves in the name of some arbitrary notion of decorum? And then you've got a group who have this curious compulsion to defend their notion of Revell's honor, like some sort of self-appointed hall monitors. Those are the ones who first resort to personal attacks, and THAT's where the "war" starts. It's a pattern as old as online discussion itself. Wouldn't blame you if you still had a headache - whenever I get one, I find it helpful to remember nobody's forcing me to read these things.

Quite right. 'Scuse me. THOSE are ALL what I plan to do; first part's already in execution, natch. And of course, in the very process of sawing, that Xacto blade will actually remove its own width of plastic - if it comes to that...

Well, how about because arguing about it, snapping it up, and fixing it are not mutually exclusive? That's exactly what I plan to do, in fact.

Well here's the funny part - for all the noise I'm making, that'll likely be me too.

Well comes to that, the Willys gassers based on the Mazmanian tooling from 2001 come with a PE grille, and there's a steering wheel frame in the new Midget cars that didn't really need to be there, 'cept it makes the kit that much nicer. Hate to come across as a twisting vane on this - but while Brett and I are clearly having a difference over the amount of criticism appropriate for a kit's flaws, I get right back on his page when it comes to the chrome taillight panel. The photoetch presents an extra expense which usually carries to the retail price (though not so much in each example we covered). You might pay extra for that. I'd certainly pay the premium, and for multiples. I'd even guess many in this thread nit-picking on the sample - evidently out of ignorance over exact model years (??) - would pony up for the privilege. But we gotta look at what's cost-effective for Revell in this analysis, and the fact that most car modelers would NOT pay that premium. And honestly, chrome taillights are pretty easy to deal with and dress when the lenses are as slender as they are in the '70 (but maybe not the '71 - ).

Well not for nothin', B, but the areas of deviation in Revell's sample are actually common between '70s and '71s. And I've explained why this one's going on 16 pages while the '57 Ford thread isn't. And the best way to avoid links to that blog is to stop perpetuating the fallacies it addresses, like oh, number 4. Smoke and fire, baby. You can't get around it. Do love the Cosby gifs, though.

lol, nice timing, Casey. Oh, the "nobody's asking for perfection" bit ain't the only "schtick" I have prewritten (and the invitation remains open at the blog for anyone who, y'know, wants to actually challenge the logic of it). I also started answering your question sight unseen back in post #290, the very one you quoted - sorry I missed it, or I would have addressed it much sooner 'cause the answer is not nearly so tricky or vague as the question frames it: NOT ALL FLAWS ARE CREATED EQUALLY. Some shout; some sit there quietly until you mine them out after hours of comparison to the 1:1. There's no use pretending that all flaws are subject to .1%-scale analysis. The ones which truly are within that .1% tolerance create less margin for controversy because they are generally closer to the subject, so sorry, that old "pleasing all people all of the time" saw is not of much use in our particular context. I can tell you where I'm personally coming from on this: where I can instantly tell, from comparing a master with my memory of a given subject, where that master goes off course, then reinforce those impressions with a bit of research, I'm gonna call it out. And I'm not the only one who thinks like this. My recollection of a '57 Ford Custom was pretty fair, and the model gave me a strong initial impression. I ultimately found the side window perimeter framing not quite thick enough maybe, but that was only by poring and poring and poring over several different 1:1 profile shots. As for that extra material webbing the area between the deck lid and the tops of the rear fins, you can file it away with not much more effort than it takes to remove parting lines if it even bothers you in the first place. Front bumper pan is covered, so bingo. Far as I'm concerned, best and closest in a long time from Revell, and where it's off, it's really marginal and fairly easily fixed. And oh, don'cha know - the '57 Ford thread here is relatively unburdened by dissection, error highlights, and Photoshop or GIMP corrections. How about that. THE VERY FIRST SIGHT of that 'Cuda master was a wtf moment, and - this is the important part - not just for me. It seems someone is resolutely determined to flatten wheel arches at Revell, so I was actually grateful to see the crease into the fender a little rounder than the lip below; a little filing should do ya right nice about there. Is the upper drip molding just a little too sharp and flat in the transition from the A-pillar? I personally could slide that one 'cause it won't be near the adjustment I made to the '95 kit. It was that upper fender/door/quarter surface that sucked my eyes right to it, that has drawn the most commentary, and there's another rub for ya: this ain't no filled fin that might escape your first glance, it is a proportioning deviation gross enough for MANY, apparently, to catch it immediately, 1:1 unseen for comparison. And fixing it looks bitchy. You're approaching this as if there's some arcane sliding line impossible to place for a given group of modelers, but there are at least some firm general guidelines. The closer the model is to the 1:1, the less controversy there will be. If a lone quibbler picks on the number of bolts you have molded to the starter solenoid bracket, that's one thing. If you have pages of internet discussion where people are showing things pretty drastically off with grid lines and 1:1 comparisons, or making dramatic improvements with a bit of photo manipulation, that's quite another. And sure, there's plenty of gray area between. Revell can probably dwell there and shift plenty of units, 'cause honestly, we car modelers are a pretty low-standard bunch - and nothing demonstrates that like the fervor with which a fair number of us rationalize "good enough".