Chuck Kourouklis

HO! Hadn't heard about the Eduard Nine! As for the rest, ah, okay, I getcha now.

Those krispy kreme kartons hit a bit later than '95, but oh yes, were they a scourge. I seem to recall the low rider Impalas from that series of Monogram 1/25 classics having a disproportionate case of the flimsies.

That's essentially correct. The pace car was labeled Revell-Monogram, but the very first release in '95 - Coral and Gunmetal two-tone with a Continental kit - was branded Monogram.

Got no reason to doubt ya, Johnny, though I gotta say armor's still getting good stuff too. Warning: possibly off-topic continuation... HK Models, Bill. Here's a taste: Off-topic for car models, definitely ON-topic for "awesome".

I wonder if it's a shifting philosophy on the domestic (US) releases, then. From what I understood - even though staff-wise, the company generally is Monogram, and Revell cars have essentially been 1/25 Monogram cars from around '87 on - they led with the Revell brand after the merger because it had greater global penetration than Monogram did. Guess they're still toying with all that these two-plus decades on. Seems like assigning Revell all the 1/25 and Monogram all the 1/24 would be the simplest answer, but then what happens? Ya gotta make sure the Revell AG tooling is boxed domestically as Monogram? No wonder even they themselves seem confused...

I think you and I are making flip sides of the same point, though I gotta say, if the AFV guys are dyin' out, it ain't quick enough yet to stop manufacturers from sinking cubic dollars into new military tooling. We got a 1/32 B-17 with forty inches of wing on the horizon, which would indicate that the 1/32 B-25 that preceded it found a sufficient audience - to say nothing of manufacturers like Tamiya being rather more ambitious lately with all-new military tooling than it is with autos, or the scads of smaller Cyber-Hobby, AFV-Club, Zveda, ICM, Eduard and Meng- type manufacturers that treat street cars on a very limited basis if they bother with them at all. On the other hand, Revell's latest Facebook posting has a general observation that "New technology, however, may soon make pattern models a thing of the past" and a staff comment specifically on digital scanning. And I hold that if Revell adapts its process to 3D scans of the prototype, that step alone will raise them to a much more consistent level of "awesomeness" even if they don't change a single other aspect of their current design m.o.

Yup. Wheel and tire mastering work has me shaking my head... Duuude. I madly MADLY love this series! My absolute favorite of the late '60s and possibly all time, and yes, it takes a powerhouse to knock Star Trek from that perch for me. I don't think there's ever been a single episode of network TV as intense as "Once Upon A Time", before or since.

It's got a fair bit of the Glickenhaus P4 mixed in for good measure, and that ain't no bad thing imho. Checked out the official release video yet? Hoo boy... We're moving to a different paradigm in surface development these days; for some it works, and for others, not so much. Count me in the first group.

Why thank you, Mr P! That's a very good suggestion and duly noted!

So as not to pull this conversation off course, item two at this link addresses anybody saying it's all up to the builder: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=55&showentry=107 Let's forget the reissue angle for a minute. Simply isolating new tools, if we compare different genres of kits, the level of "awesomeness" among current military kits is rather more consistent than it is in current auto tooling. This is a truth irrespective of anybody's personal philosophy on "fixing" kit problems, and it's more responsive to the initial post to point out that things are this way because the AFV guys will tolerate higher prices vastly over mediocrity, whereas it's usually the exact opposite with car modelers. Forget detail and just focus on accurate proportions for a moment: a car body shell accurate in all three dimensions is now essentially a 3D scan away. But while the cost of that technology is dropping, it might not be dropping fast enough to suit your cost-benefit analysis when you know your prospects will only spend so much, and that most of them might not even notice where you're wide of the target anyway. Not to be Duff's broken record, but there we are.

Blows the Enzo and F50 clean outta the water, far as I'm concerned. AWESOME.

Long promised from Hawk, would be cool....

You can blame this very model for getting me started in kit reviews. I read one appraisal of this kit looking for the reviewer - I forget who - to say something, ANYTHING, about whether or not AMT actually tooled up a new longbox for the kit instead of just recycling their '94 short bed, 'cause a new bed would justify a purchase but the same bed wouldn't. Not a word. I harrumphed to myself that I would at LEAST have pointed that out one way or another if I were reviewing the kit. Then I thought well, we have all these new-tool kits for '95 - how would I review those? And the rest is sad, sordid history.

You just made me bray like a jackass laughing! I did that too! Was a bit more careful with the second one, offered a show 'n tell in high school driver's ed and they accepted.

They do an 87, they can sign me right up.

X2. I'm familiar enough with the Camaro and Nova, particularly, to appreciate how subtle and effective your corrections are. You've got a VERY good eye for proportioning.

http://ia600501.us.archive.org/13/items/Revell_Visible_V8/RevellVisibleV8.pdf Haven't bothered with the hand-crank version, but I can tell you the Revell kit from '75 had all the Renwal features, and it stayed that way up till Revell dumbed it down. Judging from pics and the assembly manual posted on line, I am just about positive that it is the Renwal kit bereft of the electrical features. I was pretty surprised to see from the instructions, though, that the distributor drive isn't acknowledged. I'd have guessed it'd be cheaper to leave the parts on the trees even if they aren't delivering actual current, but I can't verify that for you. The Testors 1:4 Hemi also delivers pretty much everything the Revell kit now demonstrates, and it's motorized, fwiw.

Moebius, yes. They should give that Bullet-nose a good hard look. As for ICM, though, as it's been pointed out, they don't generally know from yanks; they're all about late '30s/early '40s stuff, European and linked to WWII. Besides the odd workhorse truck or two, the Packard's an exception only 'cause it was Stalin's. And I wouldn't be looking for any Revell USA price points, either; the 1:35 cars are in the $40-$50 range stateside. But man, are they worth it. The Admiral Sedan I have is so detailed, it can be upsized without anything added and still blow most biscales into the weeds. Outside of the Japanese renaissance in 1/20 F1 kits, Hasegawa's Jeep and Kubelwagen, and those increasingly rare occasions when Tamiya gets serious with a new car model, it's hard not to notice the ever-widening gap between automotive and AFV kits in precision and detail. I've long wondered what would happen if the same design discipline currently used in military subjects were applied to a mainstream automotive subject, and it's ICM that's come closest to answering that question, far as I'm concerned. Only things I'd ask for are chrome parts and rubber tires, and lo and behold, looks like they're addressing that. Excited about the Admiral and six-wheeler as it is; if the Packard and the "Leader" car cross over, I'll be ecstatic. Maybe a '42 Ford staff sedan would fit in ICM's mandate, and if such a thing ever sees the light of day, watch out. Prob'ly won't sell to the WalMart crowd, but it'll be unlike any preceding model of a Ford from that era.

'62 and '66 Impalas have been covered recently by Revell, and AMT did a newer-tool '62 Impala convertible 'round '98 or so. Pretty sure AMT and MPC had annuals for the '69 as well - imagine those will be a bit spendy.

Here's something else I'll be curious about: I think AMT's '94 Mustang GT (possibly thru the '96) came with Gatorbacks that were distinct from the ones that debuted on their '89 promo-based line. AMT was still in the habit of doing every wheel in a scale 15-inch diameter at that point, so I distinctly recall these tires being rather too high-profile for the 17-inch 6-spoke design - bu-ut, maybe not for an earlier car...

The ones on my '93 were 225/55VR16 Gatorbacks - never heard of a GS-C factory-available on a standard FOX 5.0, as they were brand-new for '92. The tires could easily plus-size to 245/50, though, and they'd look pretty bad when you did. I think the gatorbacks even carried over to the SN95 Mustangs. But yes, the VR60 Eagles you speak of were available from '85, as I recall.

I distinctly recall Gatorbacks and Michelins with what I thought was a TRX-looking tread in 1993, when I went shopping for a new one. Mine had the gators. I was under the impression the gatorback was the most frequently used tire for 5.0 ten-holes from '85 on. What's a '93 225/55-16 got to do with a '90 225/60-15? Well, when you check what was oem Michelin for '93 (recall the kit was nominally a '92 at the start), you find a Pilot XGTZ4. Got no idea whether this is truly accurate to what was available 20 years ago, but it sure seems to have tread and sidewall properties similar to what's in this kit:

Yup, true. You could be onto something there.

Funny, I don't remember 'em tires to be so tall in the pics from October. Eh, well, I'll do my part buying a few to encourage the rumored drag release. Think a fair amount of the funkiness could be diminished just by shimming the rear end up a wee...

Ah, okay then. Tooling isn't always final for those.