Casey

No idea, but here's a fotki album showing what was once offered: http://public.fotki.com/modeltrucks25thscale/resin_roundup/clint_freeman_compo/

I'm guessing the Surfers have been OOP for a long time, since the Mini-Men were put back into production not too long ago after a long absence?

Fixed it for ya. To those of you wanting this hood, keep your eyes peeled on ebay, as AFX is selling again via the user ID "rdsxfan2"

http://www.masonb2b.com/Gofer_Racing_Decals_s/242.htm

I merged all the existing post regarding Perry's Resin, so please read the entire thread if you're considering purchasing from Perry's. I have never purchased direct, but did buy a NOS early Chevy S-10 grille conversion and the quality was good. Two air bubbles on the backside of the under-grille filler piece were the only flaws, but the parts were nicely mastered. I have no problem recommending Perry's products, with the caveat that you should buy Perry's product(s) second hand (ebay, swap meet, trade with a fellow modeler) instead of direct.

The kit contains some very nice parts, like the base three-spoke steering wheel, the chromed plated Sport side view mirrors, and the "cheese grater" grille. The transmission appears to be a bit undersized, especially when compared to other 1/25 scale A-833s, but this is definitely the best 1/25 scale LA-series small block Mopar engine done to date. I think the intake manifold still looks a tad bit "flat", but otherwise it's top notch. The inclusion of the A/C compressor and lines was as nice touch, too, and that compressor has no doubt found its way onto other Mopars, too. The rearend looks a bit funky, too, as the transition between the axle tubes and centersection of the housing appear to be incorrect, and like the transmission, the rearend looks a bit underscaled to me.

I always remembered the forced perspective cardboard art by Tony Sikorski shown in SAE some years ago, so I finally scanned the pic I remembered seeing...: ...then did some Googling tonight, and wow, he's good. http://blog.motorn.com/tony-sikorski-rolls-out-unique-automotive-sculptures-from-a-different-era-for-the-holidays/ http://blog.dodge.com/lifestyle/sculpting-speed-auto-art-by-tony-sikorski/ http://www.hemmings.com/hcc/stories/2005/10/01/hmn_feature12.html

I would agree that's the exact reason the vast majority of people aren't bothered by a slightly overscale engine or a roof which appears to have a bit too much crown. Without getting into a sociological analysis, going the more conservative route of toleration and acceptance is almost always end in a positive outcome for the majority, and make no mistake, the model companies aim to please the majority with each run of 50,000 kits they produce.

Correct, you can not change your screen name.

Here are some of Fremont Racing Specialties' products, including what looks like a Pierson's Brother's '34 coupe in front, a stock '47 Crosley body at the rear, a chopped Model A body, a Bantam roadster Altered body and nose on the left, a '32 Bantam Sedan "The Animal" dragster body, and a few others: '47 Crosley Altered(?) body close up: '32 Bantam "The Animal":

No, no images visible. See your post in Gen Disc, please.

The images you uploaded using the attachement feature in your On The Workbench Ala Kart topic show up just fine: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=71150&st=0&p=894962 Are you trying to upload the same images to the Under Glass section?

Were your ears ringing? I was going on memory, as I think you used to run a 1/3 page vertical ad in SAE? I might be thinking of Mad Dog, though...should I add your company name and e-mail address to the Aftermarket Directory post, too? Good to have you here.

That kit definitely falls under the "gross error" category, should never have proceeded, and is probably Revell's biggest blunder in 25+ years. The new '70 Hemi 'Cuda should win a few jilted modelers back over to their side though. In Revell's defense, they did correct the "chopped" roof on the Pro Modeler '69 Charger R/T kit soon after it was first released, so they do sometimes fix things, but not everything.

I can vouch for the fact Brett has inside info very few of us (save for maybe MrKnowItAll and John G from Round2, who are both members here) would ever know or have access to, and I don't think he's coming across as a KIA-- he simply knows the facts.

I think (gosh I HOPE!) we all would agree that gross inaccuracies are something we all agree should not be acceptable in a bi-scale car kit, and I will use Monogram's 1/24 scale '69 Camaro Z/28 as the whipping boy in this case: Nobody can honestly deny the body in this kit is innaccurate. Nobody. It's fact. That said, once we get past the gross inaccuracies, it's gets tricky, and I think that gray area is where we're at in this discussion. When it comes to things like the roof crown on the Moebius '56 Chrysler 300B, where does that fall for each of us on the acceptability scale?

Sorry, I left out the , as my comment was stated in jest. It does look about right for V-10 length, at least compared to the V-8 above it. It comes back to the "How close to perfect do you want it to be?" idea, which always reminds me of: "Speed costs money. How fast do you want it it be?" How perfect a kit do you want, and how much are you willing to pay for it? Unfortunately for us, it really doesn't matter, as we are in no position to either create our own mass-produced kit by the thousands nor able to directly influence a company such as Revell as far as kit design and production is concerned. That puts the burden of perfecting the kit on ourselves, once we buy the kit and it's in our hands. The sliding scale of "acceptable error" is different for each company, each model, and each customer/end user, so can we realistically expect a narrow range which all would agree upon? I understand Brett's "fudging" comment, and while it goes against the "true to scale" mentality to increase the size of an engine so it appears to be in better proportion with the rest of the kit, sometimes it's in the best interest of the business to do so. Maybe not other businesses, maybe not even the business in question's direct competitors, but for the business making the decision, it might be, even if it's for strictly monetary reasons.

I'm still not sure how the whole tooling insert things specifically works, at least in relation to interchangeable inserts which could be swapped into the exact same size cavity in a mold base for a different kit. I agree with your logic/thinking regarding why/how the same 1:1 engine could and should be shared between kits which use the same engine, but there's probably something we aren't aware of which explains why they don't do just that. Maybe the inserts would wear more quickly than the rest of the individual tools, but then why couldn't they cut the exact same insert and use one in each kit? I think we need a guided tour of one of the model companies molding facilities. Who has an "in?"

The silver engine was supposed to be a V-10? That is a good example of an extreme case, though. Which two kits are those engines from?

Kit #2262's decal sheet. Remember the "Better idea from Ford" ads featuring Bill Cosby? You can see the remnants of that ad campaign on the second license plate:

.

One thing I didn't care for on the MPC stepsides is the fact the bed and fenders are all molded as one piece. I suppose this helps keep everything aligned, but the detail just doesn't seem to be as nice, at least compared to the Revell 1/25 and Monogram 1/24 scale multi-piece beds. Here is the decal sheet for kit number 1-0416. Feel free to copy/move/use this at will, Chris:

Was it Freeman, perhaps? Any idea where the company was located?

Found it in the C-600 reference pics topic: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=36901 Thanks for posting the link to pics of the p/e set, Ben.