Chuck Kourouklis

Beer to you John. Glad I ain't the only one sees it.

Yessir. Depending on their opacity and surface conformity, the decals might be a more desirable approach than masking and laying on white paint, even with the steps you described. **edit** - Hey Harold, sorry about that - I just realized I was essentially repeating what you said...

Wow. Duff goes to all that trouble, with the photos and everything, and some o' you guys either ignore it outright or give him that same ancient, tired attack-his-MODELER-credentials scat.

Well thank you Daves Metzner, Van, and Burkett! Far as vehicles sticking with me from my youth, this one hits me far squarer than any colonnade or G-body. Meantime, I'll just whistle innocently and float a bug in y'all's ears about an early- to mid-sixties Ford styleside, maybe wonder aloud if "series" might encompass something like that...

I think the deal with the whitewalls is that there's some stretching and prodding required to get the tire over the wheel - nothing traumatic, but maybe a bit more than a tampo print would tolerate.

Well, I picked up the 7th one my local H-Town had, they put aside an eighth, and there's only the 9th left - of course, I didn't know I was shoppin' with Pryor Passorino. Heard tell he ordered and absconded with the first six...

I hear ya, Andy, and that's why I brought the two images closer together in size. It's arguably subtle, but fairly clear if you look close, that the radii are too tight even for scale. And I'm sorry, but there's no argument for perspective that can support Revell's deviations there. Fwiw, I went back out to the neighbor's car, and closely as I could without actually touching it, took a few tape measures. The easiest one was at top-of-bumper level, measuring a clean 9 inches from fender arch to the forward edge - and don'cha know, the Revell kit measures about 9mm at close to the same area. I tried a few other measurements too, but they were too problematic; the forward fender peak really interests me now. I may give 'er another go earlier in the day at some point.

Part of that length is exaggerated by the missing bumper on the model, and the upper arch taking too sharp a corner downward toward the front, too. The model's rear contour going down to rocker panel level seems to have the gentle curvature that the top border is supposed to have, and its top border is about as flat as the 1:1's rear contour. The general feeling is that Revell's arch is a little too "square", and they repeat an eccentricity of their '65 Impala in that the perimeter lip is a bit exaggerated and it doesn't fade gently into the bodywork as it goes to the rocker panel level. Also, the 1:1's upper arch is parallel with the character line just above it, and the model's is not. Like I said, more apparent to some than to others. I still love the kit, and I don't think it's too hard to get something closer with a bit of filing and filling.

This. ^ Well-put, Bill. It's not to discount the experience of people who have done some very good work. But I often wonder if many of the things we pick out as errors actually started out as compensatory tweaks.

And yet, what's the pattern we see ever more frequently with current releases? That a manufacturer's own offerings can vary from one another depending on the availability of the 1:1's CAD data. Revell's kits of contemporary subjects - presumably with factory-supplied files - are generally more accurate than their kits of vintage subjects lacking that data. The edge the Moebius Lonestar has over its Hudson and Chrysler kits is pretty stark, in pictures as well as in the 3D presence. And then we have the new Polar Lights '66 Batmobile which is documented as being developed from Mattel's 3D scan data. There are certainly details to nitpick in the kit, but the overall fidelity in proportion and contour is some of the best currently available, far as I can make out. Where Tamiya shows mastery is in figuring out how to tease their masters in a way that's flattering to the subject, and I've long maintained if the deviations don't offend the aesthetics of the 1:1, they're more likely not to be noticed. One of the clearer examples is their Ferrari F40. Look it over carefully, and you can see how the front end has been gently pulled out and the cowl has been tugged up a bit for a more voluptuous overall shape. The overall effect is more graceful and flowing than the actual car. But this numerical accuracy they describe is basically a comprehensive breakdown of a three-dimensional shape in many discreet one-dimensional measures - so all the linear dimensions may have scaled spot-on, but there may yet have been contours not perfectly reduced in scale, and perhaps THAT is why those masters didn't look right. A dice cube may be exactly 1/20 the scale of a bowling ball in length, width, and height - but there's clearly a vast difference in surface expression between the two. This is why I think the old Monogram 1/24 '69 Camaro, supposedly exact in every scale dimension, went so horribly awry. The necessity of a human touch goes without saying, far as I'm concerned. The sharpest 3D printers to date produce masters needing some refinement; and even when we get to a stage where originals are reproduced to near-duplicate quality, you'll still have a master that won't get anywhere without a human imagination to plan its breakdown as a kit. But as you have pointed out, 3D scanning brings an unprecedented advantage: it will not only scale every linear dimension, but every curve and contour. What I'm really talking about is a hyper-sophisticated pantograph here, and that's how I advocate its use. I'm not so sure how necessary interpretation of a shape will be once collecting reliably precise and accurate three-dimensional data from a scan becomes standard practice, but then, that could be because my frame of reference is different. My acid test is how easily a model can be confused, at least in proportions, for the 1:1 in a photograph. And I find that models which pass that test well reliably look more accurate in my hands.

Bill, ya had me all the way up to the part about skills possibly being not up to par - if your skills aren't up to par to correct a kit, there ain't much hope for anybody else on that kit, either. But what's really nice about your topic is that it allows me to address this issue semi-politely for once. Because there's an inevitable gulf between TooOld's type of rivet-counter - someone who claims the wiper motor on a national-caliber finished model doesn't have the correct number of speeds (still so risible after all these years) - and someone who simply observes that this does not entirely equal this: While the deviations may be more obvious to some than to others, this latter example doesn't sink to anything like the extremes of the former. And that's why "rivet-counter" - assuming you can even find it spelled correctly - is so off-base in these cases. Yeah, it's just a hobby. But it's a hobby predicated on a miniature resembling its full-size counterpart as closely as possible, and there's no getting around that. 3D scanning and rapid prototyping are out there, and we're already starting to see manufacturers using that technology gaining an advantage in accuracy over those who don't.

Yeah, well. I'm trying to use some restraint...

Terry, for a man who was called a "rivet-counter" for having the temerity, the audacity to point out that the fender arches on Revell's '62 Impala weren't 100% - from pictures, no less - you've got an equanimity on the subject I genuinely admire. I, on the other hand, have no patience for that kind of sandbox hysteria among supposed adults. And here's the thing: Revell's Impala was certainly no Trumpeter Falcon, its options and engineering were beautifully conceived, and in most respects it was a big improvement over the AMT bubble top. I have a couple myself, and I love 'em. But that fender arch problem made it onto the shelves, and it's just as visible in your hands as it is in the pictures, isn't it? You don't have to crave some mythical perfect kit to see that. You don't need to have a gallery of finished models posted online either. You DON'T always need the kit physically in front of you, and actually, you don't even particularly need to be a modeler to observe such things. All you need is a functioning pair of eyes.

**edit** - well, now that all the antecedents have been removed, this post as originally written is missing some context and it kinda sticks out. Suffice it to say that people continue to take kit critiques personally, and they continue to respond with personal attacks. For about the 48,752nd time, we saw the false dichotomy between real builders and those with a critical eye - surely, those nasty wags are too busy complaining to get anything built. Riiight.If Bill Geary is such a critic, SIGN ME RIGHT UP for that "inaction". Conversely, if you don't have a gallery of projects up for everyone to see, your impressions of a kit are instantly divested of any credibility. This makes about as much sense as demanding to see a Director's Guild membership card from anyone who claims Jaws 3D stank compared to the original film. Actually, it makes even LESS sense, because noticing a model's deviations from the 1:1 is a far more objective exercise than watching a movie. They're big boys over at Revell, folks. Anybody noticed how they haven't quit manufacturing new kits yet?

WOW... I hadn't heard of the new Firestone pack! If they're sellin' 'em, I need several. Hope they do the same with the new Polyglas tires too - much as I detest the notion of G$$$Y$$$ getting ANY licensing revenue, there's just too much muscle outta Dyersville and Des Plaines on totally unsuitable rubber.

Yup. That's what I got from HLJ. Think the Japanese kit is number 7 in the plain white box, where the international version is number 8 in the mostly green Italian flag-bordered package. Bear in mind that the "full engine" is still simplified, about 12 pieces with no representation of the sump or transmission; probably drops in where the one-piece insert goes in the international one. The exhaust manifolds and valve covers uncompromised by draft angle are probably the big selling points. Even with its body sink marks and its limited use of sliding molds, it's still got a decisive edge over that other Aventador kit. Factor in the price advantage, and Brand X pretty well gets murdered here.

Yup, beautiful bird. Now if nobody minds, I need to excuse myself to go to the nearest corner and fall over laughing...

Now THAT is a pretty FOX. Styling-wise, the '85-'86 models were my absolute favorites of those cars.

Got these two malcontents: The black one is semi-retired, maybe looking for a project goody or two to help it keep up with the new kid, the blue daily driver for which it's doing its sumo bow. Will be taking custody of Mom's restored '67 Mustang hardtop soon, can't find my pics of it. And I don't know on what planet a Camaro's easier to get into than a Mustang, but it ain't mine. The 4th gen, anyway, has NO headroom compared to the S197, and it's far tighter between console and seat, making for a ridiculously vast p i a just to get in and out of it. The new Camaro I tried may have a bit more elbow room, but no improvement in headroom and even more of a bunker slit feel out the greenhouse. I don't have to take my hat off in the Mustang. Then again, I'm not particularly petite, and your mileage may vary depending on your size. And the Camaro's faster? 6.2 SS to 5.0 GT? Not exactly my experience.

Thanks a bunch, Steve! Well and good, Monty, as long as you accept that the perspective can be vastly different to other ways of thinking. While that "passion for realism" may be a precluding factor for some, I submit to you that it is in fact that very same factor making these car-toons a fun diversion for others. Do I need to name the national champion car modeler who vents by refinishing Hot Wheels cars? Look at one of that guy's 1/12 TamiyaCon-winning models and challenge him on his passion for realism. And if that were a "failing" unique to car modelers, where would the market have been for this - and where would the market be for these: Maybe there are some folks who thrive on chasing down the exact ejection seat design or prop blade shape or firing order reference, and that's cool, nothing wrong with it. But the pursuit of those details can drive other modelers a little batty, enough to want to change gears and take a break with an odd project that won't worry them so much about all the minutiae, before delving back into the museum piece. I acknowledge your strategic dismissal of one of the most logical answers as "trite", but there's a REASON you hear that so much. And the one pillar in your premise that not only is easily refuted, but in fact may offend some serious modelers, and lend you an air of staring down your nose that you may not really mean at all, is that nobody with a passion for realism would countenance building one of these.

I'm reaching waaaay back in memory now, but didn't the Revell AG SL have an opening hood and an engine? If it's a pure curbside, I'd think the odds are on Fujimi.

The same adult figure in my childhood who had me look up the word "hypochondriac" when I thought myself coming down with the measles (and I was right about that) also had me look up the word "model" for the exact reasons you list, Monty, over the very Zingers themselves. Begging your pardon, but it's kind of an oppressive line of thought. As serious miniatures, of course they fail. They WANT to, just as no cartoon or caricature ever aims to be a serious portrait. But if you delve into a Rembrandt for its near photo-realism, does that automatically preclude you appreciating a well-done political caricature or the Sunday Funnies? It's the exact same reasoning in three dimensions; a serious modeler can still find room to enjoy these kits through the simple realization that their reason for being is entirely distinct from the more serious models. Yet as exercises in honing your building technique, they function no differently than the more prototypical kits. In fact, there's a certain wit in giving one of these the same loving finish you would your top contest contender. I also have to cry foul a little on the notion that there's some holy grail lost in the mists of time for want of the resources squandered on these kits; they came out during that "golden age" when model kits were ubiquitous enough to find in grocery stores, and manufacturers could afford a little more frivolity. Just as the Porsche Cayenne plays on the bad taste of certain well-heeled to fund a cornucopia of 911s, Monogram might never have been in a position to develop their NASCAR series if their coffers hadn't been fattened by Tom Daniel kits flying off the shelves. Models in general are far more limited in appeal now, and don'cha know, about four decades have passed since we've seen such widespread frippery in new tooling. I'm generally a replica stock builder myself (what a surprise, considering the history above), and honestly, I was delighted when they put the Zingers back out. Nabbed them all up with great satisfaction.

Now as somebody with actual experience of several generations of Mustang, I can only characterize certain observations of the current one as ridiculous on their face, redolent and reeking of willful, mulish ignorance and the very worst kind of nostalgia. It was my Mom's original-order Frost Turquoise '67 289 hardtop more responsible than any other vehicle for starting me on this crazy love affair. It was the first car I learned to drive on. It's beautiful to this day. You stop it by slamming all your leg muscles onto the non-assisted, 4-wheel drum brake system and praying. Cornering and steering feel are theoretical at best. But hey, for its 190 gross ('round 135-140 net) hp, you might get 22 mpg downhill with a tailwind. My first car was a '70 hardtop with the first of three 302s I would own. Brakes were a lot better on that car; in fact, it would gladly swap lanes in a panic stop, they were so quick to lock. Had more feel in the steering too, even though you'd spend all day muscling it from one non-assisted stop to the other. It had some notion of handling too, long as that notion was sideways. Did time in a '77 Ghia II, one of the key reasons I have no nostalgia at all for ANY p o s built between 1973 and around 1982. Less said about it, the better. My first new car was a 1993 5.0 LX, the 2nd 302. Now we were getting somewhere. You could lean on a front fender and not compress the suspension. It rode like a freakin' coal cart, and it could get tail-happy at the most inopportune times. But it would have spanked either of my two first-generation Mustangs on ANY level of performance, with better economy to boot. On to my '11 GT, the anodyne, the faceless government car with less room than an Opel GT, oh PLEASE. It's been trouble-free these first 18,000 miles, the first of the four cars I've bought new I can actually say that about. It's got a level of comfort and confidence-insipration the previous cars couldn't even imagine. It is violently more capable than both the '93 and the '01 LS F-car that preceded it, and it trumps the '93's fuel economy with double the horsepower. And ANYONE who feels retarded enough can turn off traction control with one press of the Advance Track button and hoon its Pirellis down to the bare belts. Now THERE are some "facts".

awww, Ken, I am so sorry; but I first heard about this thing 20 years ago, then got distracted by Pocher's 1/8 only to lose track of it. I waited two decades for this to pop up somewhere, and found it pretty much worth the wait - which also means I'm not apt to part with it any time soon. It was $350, and considering how infrequently I've come across it over the years, I wasn't unhappy about that price. If you'd like me to at least give you a more complete description so you can decide if it's worth looking out for, I can redirect over to "What Did You Get Today" and give you a more complete review...

Awesome! I was wondering when we might see this one...