Chuck Kourouklis

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".

Yeah, but it's more than just the designer, now, isn't it? John Mueller's credited as the designer for some disasters that would have turned out very differently if the master patterns and molds had simply lived up to his intentions. Between Racing Chumps and Trumpeter, ya gotta wonder if they made so many Charmin rolls out of his plans. Do we know that the same people crafted the masters, for instance? And whatever the Ford's got in the fins or in the side window framing, it's nothing nearly so loud as what's going on with the 'Cuda. Fwiw, Fred, item five on that same list has already anticipated your last point: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=55&showentry=107

It was actually not even about the whole "perfect kit" thing with you, Case - that's why I posted that bit before I quoted you. You'd be far from the only one making reference to it. I just thought it was significant that the 1:1 pics in themselves actually diverge far less from one another than the model does with any one of them. And while there's certainly dissension from one builder to the next as to exactly what level of inaccuracy is acceptable, I'd counter that if the model is accurate from the start, there won't be anything (or at least, a great deal less) for people to disagree about. It's the very fact that the model has provided room for debating its closeness to "perfection" that's the problem in the first place. That '57 Ford, or Revell's '64 Impala, or their 1/25 '69 Camaro really tighten down the margin for any dispute, by comparison.

Here we go with the whole "there's never been a perfect kit" thing again. Item #1 on this list: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=55&showentry=107 For anybody paying attention, the point of that whole exercise is not just that all these tropes have been refuted, but that they've been refuted in advance. Ya need some new material, people, and bad. But what you've demonstrated, Casey, is that the prototype deviates from ALL of your examples: Now there's a big difference in the angle of the model versus the varying angles of the 1:1 profile shots, but where the differences in the 1:1 can just about be accounted for in factors like camera lens distortion, subject angle and focus, you can't say the same about where the model goes off course. Every single example you use points to a front wheel arch that's flattish and over-prounounced, and an upper fender-door-quarter surface that's a bit beefy relative to the surface just below the crease (the black one, less so, thanks to the same focus and lighting issues creating the illusion of a blending rear wheel arch). And the top two shots only bludgeon Ron's and Bill's points about the two-scoop hood home. By the way, there's room to point this out and still acknowledge that the new model overall is just stupid better than any previous Revell/Monogram 'Cuda. It's probably good enough (straight down to chromed taillights which can be done-in-one with a fine-tip red Sharpie). Thing is, we're just coming off a '57 Ford that's everything you could want out of a Revell model - way better than "good enough"- and a '50 Olds only a little shy of that standard. Revell can be more consistent than this, and they have been in the recent past. But nobody's gonna encourage them to do so by rationalizing every little instance they go wide of the target.

Oh, don't I friggin' know it - my '93 LX bit me on more than one occasion. One time I let my ex drive it, about a tinkle's worth of water on the ground had her shrieking in panic as she gently squeezed the throttle around a corner. Seriously. The water she lost in that 90-degree spin was about three times what there was outside.

Gotta say, these mock-ups are striking me initially as a huge improvement in general proportions over the Chrysler and Hudson. Very, very nice!

Not the impression I meant to give. I only got confused earlier 'cause you're credible enough that I've been taking you at your word.

Alright then, Brett - it's just that with the particular way you brought them up in the 2014 Camaro thread, it was easy to confuse those tuners for a failure from the start. I'm still stuck agreeing on one thing, though - two years late ain't viable. Long as Revell can't get that stuff out as quickly as they used to or as the Japanese continue to do, current releases are iffy at best.

I'm a little confused now, Brett - I thought earlier you had some of those Revell tuners listed in the context of a mistake. When Monogram announced its '59 Cadillac was gonna be 1/25, it actually gave me pause. I'd have liked having that car match the scales of all my international stuff and my favorite Monogram muscle. If I had my druthers, the standard scale would be 1/24 'n that would be that. But I got over that pause quickly, because in the end, I figured not having things in my exact scale would be one of the more imbecilic reasons I could come up with to screw myself out of some great new tooling. I'll stop, teetering, a gentle breeze shy of tossing "old codger" around. And Monday morning quarterbacking with those 20/20 hindsight specs is an easy indulgence for sure. But these tuners were not muscle cars. They were never going to be geared for the traditional 1/25-or-die crowd, as the great majority here delights in pointing out over and over again. And while we'll never know for sure, many of us can't help wondering what would have happened if Revell waded into the field a little earlier, matching the typical Japanese scale for these mostly Japanese subjects, and offered their powertrain detail edge in that context. Sell well, did they? Mighta sold even better. What a pity they apparently felt so badgered into 1/25 they may have missed a key forest for the trees here. And while we're at it, what a crying shame a pretty magnificent piece like the 1/12 GT500 should apparently turn out to be such a pearls-before-swine exercise, if their current stance on big scales is any indication.

Well. If they come right in at the meat of a hot trend instead of waiting till it nearly dies out, and then mold the kits in a scale the target builder gives a gen-u-ine solid spit about, it might all play out better next time. I could relate the anecdote about our little Petaluma Hobbytown build-'n-bull - where of all the finished bits I had on display, it was the Aoshima Evo X that managed to get any admiration from people in the store under forty - and try to quote that as "evidence" of some kind. Makes no less sense than trying to vindicate my opinion with sales figures that might ultimately fail to tell the whole story.