Chuck Kourouklis

That's what I'm gonna reserve judgment on till I have mine. It does look that way, but it would be a little curious were it so - that's one of the areas they really nailed on the '64 Impala.

Hear ya, Mr G. With any luck, they'll file down to something a little closer...

Huh! Well, the body looks a lot better from the angles you shot it at. Also miss the separate frame, but I'm liking the overall design and the Bel Air cross-pollination prospects. Full covers AND dog dishes? Very impressive! Here's hoping...

Sheesh. I'm halfway inclined to order an extra Prius for Billy myself, if we get to see that...

Well I love Academy's birds, and I don't think they're that notorious for announcing projects and pulling them back. A legitimate, somewhat mainstream Daytona kit - original or Superformance - would be most welcome to me. Based on their aircraft, I'd anticipate something at least on the order of the Accurate Miniatures GS Corvettes (with 15 years of progress in tooling refinement). Time will tell...

Huh. Alright, let's consider that for a minute. Using an online inflation calculator, you see a roughly 7:1 ratio in 1962:2010 spending power for the dollar. So I guess this double-dragster kit should be available for just under $14, then. And that 1962 price had to cover new tool amortization. Of course, it didnt have to cover that lovely new tin, or the added parts, or the expanded decal sheet. It did have the advantage of a much larger 1962 consumer base and distribution network, where you could find plastic model kits nearly anywhere. And it didnt have to contend with auto and tire manufacturers bilking licensing fees from AMT for the dubious privilege of promoting their brands (I swear the fires of eternal perdition will never burn hot enough for the scum-sucking shyster leeches who ever devised such a plan, but thats another story). Meh, well. Same inflation calculator dictates I should be able to get a new V8 Mustang for around $18,000, and a six-bedroom house in Virginia for around $150,000... come to think of it, Id like to take a minute to acknowledge those bottom-feeding licensing vampires again, because if it werent for that exact same beady-eyed mindset proliferating big business (The NFL owns "Who Dat"? Oh really?), maybe those figures above wouldnt seem so quaint. Thanks guys! Hey, from the bottom of my ever-loving heart, go pound it sideways, okay? Dang. That felt good.

Alas, Tim, it would also be par for the course in recent Tamiya automotive releases (c.f. Merc SLR & Nissan R35 GT-R), so that's what I'm betting on. I'd LOVE to LOSE that bet. Heck, I would have bet against ever seeing a DBS in the first place.

I'd say let's just expect an engine insert but hope for the whole deal...

Call you weak. HEH. Walt, it's more a matter of you having good taste and knowing quality work when you see it, than weakness. And those who'd call you weak - particularly over the missing up-top - would be thems what cain't take a joke. And there's a famous saying about what to do with 'em if they can't take a joke...

Stirling Moss edition SLR woulda really been da bomb, but we takes what we can gits. Aston seems a slightly oddball choice, but BRING IT! Revell's coming along nicely enough that they'll probably do a great 458; wonder if they'll pop the doors on that SLS...

Yeah, but those fender flares were a problem on the '65 Impala, too - looks like they carry right over, in fact. Meh. I still want one.

My condolences too, Bill. And my congratulations and gratitude for this thread - it's truly one of the greatest I've ever seen on finishing a car model.

You're talking spraying the insides with the exterior color to get the jambs and inner body-color details, right, Chuck (great name, btw)? Yup, that's just what I'd do m'self...

Had a look at the body panels next to my old Revell/Hasegawa release, and dimensionally, they look nearly identical. Wheelbases certainly match. I was wondering if the doors were carrying a little too much material with the upper window frames, perhaps for the same reasoning they might have used in having a wee bit too much front fender underneath. All told, I'm pretty stoked about the design of this kit. Been a while since we had this many opening panels, and if they all actually fit together, sweet. Just contemplating whether or not taping the panels together from the inside might be the best way to skin the painting cat...

Not to thrash a topic that's calmed down, but this reissue has actually been improved over the last one in one major way: the decal sheets now feature black and white stripe graphics, whereas the 2000 original only had the black ones. I mean sure, I guess we could mewl about the orange plastic too - but a bit of Future and a 1" foam brush will seal that off in about 90 seconds. Something I recommend for the wheels: after you've painted them the proper argent color, you might consider using a compass to cut the trim rings out of a sheet of foil. I happen to have a small drafting compass with a hobby blade chucked in where the lead is supposed to go, and that's proven immensely useful for applications like this...

Ridiculous, as usual, Tom. Amazing work. One more question - I've heard one approach on this, and I'd very much like to hear yours: TS13 is notoriously difficult to lay down wet without it attacking Tamiya's own base coats and washing the color away from corners and panel lines. How do you get around this? Is it simply by building progressive coats with a lot of flash time between? Or do you lay down some kind of barrier/sealer first before finishing with the Tamiya clear?

I'm pretty much with you on most of this, Harry, except that where you fall on one side of the buy-or-don't line, I fall on the other. I love car models not only because I'm a car guy, but also because I enjoy poring over the handiwork that goes into new tooling, and examining how techniques have evolved in comparison with older tooling. It's actually the 40-years-after reinterpretation that has my interest here, and that's why I'll be picking a few up, even though the subject matter isn't of great interest to me.

Very interesting aside, Ken - a little surprising, seeing that Revell has recently used the "Hot Wheels" moniker on a recent series of snappers, but who knows how these things work. And yeah, I'd also bet we'll be seeing the "new sprue" in this one, too...

Just fyi, folks - If you go back and have a look at Gregg's pics, you'll see that the sprue design tells kinda tells the tale of the RR. If you've noticed, recently-tooled Revell sprues have a certain look - usually uniform and curved at the corners, rather than jagged and random as you typically find in older Monogram tooling. Check out the sprues on the RR, and it's no surprise that the tooling is new. And oh lookie - the sprues in the TT appear just about the same...

Bummer. On further examination, I was wondering a bit about the all the suspension pivot points in particular, which seemed a bit large for scale. I'm still not sure I'd come to the same overall "toy-like" conclusion, but I may see that point better once I start building. If all's the same to you, Bob, I'm gonna reference the same section myself...

Well, I gotta say: on sight of the new box, the very first question to pop in my mind was, "Mmmmhmmm... what was wrong with Jairus's picture again?"

Yup, like Bill, I was under the impression the Commodore was a pattern for diecast - the chassis screws give the game away - but I'll definitely be interested if it's plastic. Was anybody else amused by the pains Revell AG went to in distinguishing their new Trabant from their old one? And yup, that van looks GREAT - wasn't there a '60's-vintage Revell USA kit with opening everything? Somehow, that test shot doesn't quite look like it to me...

ROCKIN'! THANKS, Gregg! And I'll try not to hate ya too much for rubbin' it in... Yep, definitely coulda broken down the engine more conventionally - though I have a feeling that once it's all together, it'll present well. Prepaint will have to go, that's for sure...

Ken covered it, so there's no point in me following up. Truce agreed upon - for whatever fight we really had, Harry.

Ee-a-asy, Jefe. Now that you've blown off some steam, why don't you re-examine the post and see where I denied you any right to your opinion, or even stated that one was superior to the other. You oughtta be able to quote a section that supports your contention - if there is one. I mean, for defending your right to post opinions, you seem to have a real problem with the one I posted. Don't you? And now - coming from the SAME GENERAL STANCE, that YES, a stock version WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE - I'm going to explain WHY posts like these are a downer in a thread like this. Tim's coming in here with something he's enthused about, and a good-faith effort to share his enthusiasm. It takes some time to set up those shots and report on the details. And sure enough, there's quite a bit to get enthused about. There's a nice little parade setting up here. To harp on the lack of a stock version is to RAIN on that parade. Taken in a certain light - though I doubt Tim himself sees it this way - it's actually a pretty flippin' RUDE thing to do. People can maintain that Revell SHOULD have done a stocker. History frankly DOES NOT SUPPORT that contention, but who can say for sure till Revell releases one? So no, there's nothing inherently deficient in such an opinion. And there's nothing to deny anyone their right to express it ad infinitum nauseamque. But to continue to point that out in a thread like this in all likelihood won't goad Revell into producing a stock kit, it WON'T improve the mood of the thread, it WON'T accomplish anything except to make the poster look petulant. But hey, that's what y'all wanna do, knock yourselves out.