Chuck Kourouklis

Well here's a fun bit off the "getting started" tab at Revell.com, anyway: A 1:32 2010 Mustang?? When did this come about? But that 1:32 is finished just like one of the initial 1:25 build-ups, isn't it? So maybe they just reduced the size of the pic for illustration's sake...

Absolutely. The guy's drollness was pretty clear - but you have to come from a rational place to see that. And I think you're dead-on in your assessment of the various ways to quantify all the various peccadilloes - that's what I was getting at when I wondered how close to "100+" we'd actually (ironically) get, given enough time. Ah, my sweet AMT Mustang. If only it coulda been uniformly brilliant all the way thru... but that's alright. Some more appropriate Revell rubber and '68 headlight buckets make all the difference in the world. Gitcha self some MCG and R&MCo aftermarket love, and you're golden.

Well dang. I was thinking that even a black sharpie to fake those indentations on the alternating bars might go some ways to helping things out, but the way the grille is arranged kind of scotches any hope for putting a thicker chrome lip around the top perimeter - you'd have to cover up a few of those top-most grille openings to do that. I'd agree about the engine bay appointments, though - and if those separate accessory drive belts can be installed without looking out of scale, they might just be a neat little touch on their own. Your pics remind me of one other current phenomenon: inaccurate parts of nice material quality. Sometimes it's tricky not to get so seduced with crisp molding and clean processing that you overlook other shortcomings in a kit. That's happened to me on more than one occasion...

Gee. Why didn't anybody think of that before?

Nicely put. I'd go one further and say that personal reactions to a kit critique only betray the objector's own insecurities - but that's just me. Champion of Revell/Monogram that I've been, my own personal favorite is a pretty flawed kit: AMT's new-tool '67 Mustang. Funky stance, iffy headlight diameter, roof maybe a bit too crowned, odd-looking engine details thither and yon - but I just love that kit beyond all reason. You can call it "garbage" for those factors and many others, and I'll just shrug my shoulders and say "more for me". Now wasn't there a wee bit of chuffing over someone at another forum calling out "100+ things wrong" with the Falcon kit? While I do have to wonder what'll surface given enough time, sure, "100+" is an exaggeration... Kinda like calling someone a "rivet-counter" 'cause he says this front fender arch - doesn't look entirely like this one - Or pointing out that "no kit is perfect" in spite of the fact that we've yet to see the critic who claimed he was looking for one... Or calling nearly anything that deviates from unqualified praise "bashing"... Or harping on "dead horses" while failing to come up with any rebuttal that hasn't been uttered over and over again (and debunked nearly as often)... Or condemning all the "negativity", often after turning the exchanges personal themselves and refusing to let up... Come to think of it, do any of you critique objectors have a leg to stand out without wildly exaggerating things yourselves?

Mine broke.

Oh, I'm just fine with "naysayer", myself. Of course, the messy little reality I represent is that of the "naysayer" who's getting a kit or two anyway.

Seriously! No-brainer subject, right there...

Yeah. From the looks of it, maybe some of Revell's moderately beefy vintage slicks from recent kits might fit in - or MAYBE the slightly smaller treaded rear meats from the street '41 Willys? - but even though nobody'll know till they try it, I'd be very surprised if Revell's '90s pro-street rubber managed to wedge in there.

Oh, I heard that "thank you" loud and clear, Bob - that's why I steered more toward the corrections I'd make. I too would have to observe that the deviations are far more serious than nits, and that the real hand-wringing is going on among people reacting to the critiques - but I appreciate your last post just the same Mr. P.

That's all well and good, Harry, but your comparo photo has exposed a whole new set of problems around the front end for me. Geez, look how far Trumpeter's fender peaks jut past the headlights. I'm still hopeful about filing down the fenders as they drop just behind the front bumper and ahead of the rear, but I'm now a lot less sanguine about minimizing the grille's apparent height with that perimeter strip. And if these deviations offend everybody's eyes a little less than the Moebius Hudson originally did, the pattern is still the same: overstating the critiques in the service of impugning the reviewers. I've seen some pointed observations, but if the words "horrible" or " disaster" were used anywhere, I missed ' 'em...

Well, one thing I'll look into doing is putting in a thicker chrome perimeter strip around the sides and upper edge of the grille. That should go some way to filling that gawky space between the headlight buckets and the leading edge of the hood. As for getting the body to roll under a bit more at rocker panel level, looks like a cut will be necessary between the lower rear quarters and the rear fascia behind the bumper - kinda hope boiling the body and bending it in that region will do the trick. Always wondered how clamping a still-warm rocker panel into a vise and trying to curl it a bit there might work...

Oh, not to worry. I always make my meaning clear.

To each they's own, I sez - but I do find it odd that I can't type a certain anagram of "carp", yet that word makes it thru...

Well, as I consider what might be done to rehabilitate this kit some, I'm encouraged to see a slightly more plausible dual exhaust option. Of course, that might be academic if you go the full '67 Mustang bash route. I was also thinking an A/FX - style mashup with a Thunderbolt right from the start - looks like the kit fairly cries for something like that.

And you know something else, people? If the kit is what it is, then the COMMENTARY on the kit will also be what IT is. If you don't like it, don't read it.. You know where that ignore button is by now. Use it. Now, for anyone who has a problem with my tone: how am I being any less reasonable, or any more belligerent, than YOU are?

Yup, the very one first released in the American Graffiti series.

And yet there's that Ford licensing seal on the box. Didn't AMT's recent '56 Thunderbird have to go through a few rounds of correction before Ford granted the license? And if so, how did this thing make it through in its current... uh... condition?

It sure does - and don't even ask what's going on with them tie rods...

Oh boy. That's... uh... unfortunate. I'll get one just to see what might be dragged kicking and screaming out of it, but man - it's a little eye-watering. 3-D scanning. They really need to cut the ###### and just get to it. (y'know, that censor mark suggests a whole lot worse than I actually wrote...)

Yup, like they said earlier in the thread, not only a complete drivetrain, but a stand-alone with front and rear subframes if you want. Alas, it doesn't look practical to fix the model so you can remove it all and put it back in whenever you have the whim.

Oooh. Yeesh. That is lame. Eh, well. Somebody out there has an "A"-game, I'm sure...

I'm pretty impressed widdit. Nice at least to have something from Tamiya saying "no, we're not asleep". Btw, Mark - wouldn'cha just paraphrase Marv from "Sin City"? "I love trolls. No matter what you do to them, you don't feel bad."

Dude. That was, like, uncanny. You got an inside line or something?

Yup, and Ken abides. Although Most here is a runner-up. His has, like, Adonis balls 'n stuff.