Casey

I think we have a new leader in the "best score" category. They look to be mostly '60s vintage, too. Love that '56 Ford pickup original box art.

Revell has included uptops with some of their kits ('48 Ford, '72 Olds), so it only applies to a few of their convertible kits. But, if an uptop is a make or break deal, pass on this kit.

Yes, the front wheels are a smaller diameter.

Joe did a nice job of slicing and splicing so the cut is in the tire tread's grooves. It's a bit of a bummer that Monogram didn't see fit to make those Eagle ST tires as 15" tires, instead of 14".

www.modelempireusa.com

Try sprinkling the tires with baking soda, letting them "soak" for a day or two, and rinsing one off to see if that removes the musty smell.

Go with Danny's stuff. Quality is excellent, and he ships very quickly.

No, because then we'd have to make every aftermarket company's website/fotki page a sticky so they are all treated the same.

Yes, but I don't think a huge number of them would sell to be honest, considering the Mod/Floral Tops were only available for two model years. But, yes, I would buy two sets for sure if VRM produced them.

I think David's asking about his grille?: The MPC "Stunt Van" and "Sunrunner" vans contained this grille, but I don't think I've seen it offered as a separate resin part.

That would be very interesting to done on a model. With vinyl that thin, you'd still need perfect bodywork underneath, and unless the vinyl is totally opaque, you'd still need to paint the body, and paint it well. At .002" thick, even orange peel would show through.

Yes, Revell released two versions of this kit, so it depends upon what you plan to do with the kit. Personally, I think the optional wheels in the purple and black version make that kit "better", but opinions will vary.

Gremlin + one of those custom Renwal thingamajigs = ^^^^^ ?? A bustleback Gremlin would be rather classy, no?

Maybe they are including these new slicks with their forthcoming Funny Cars, or the Young American dragster kits, too? I guess we'll wait and see.

I like to be optimistic, so I'm going to guess Round2 didn't swing and miss that badly when they showed this box/kit at iHobby. Round2 has access to tons of vintage box art, and they can always hop on ebay and buy one of AMT's earlier releases to get the earlier box/box art if needed. A mistake this huge from Round2 would be, well...

Some '49 Mercury Woodie-specific posts were moved when this topic was created, so the timestamp of each posts ranks them, even after they've been moved. Your post was the oldest, so it's now the first in this topic.

I tend to agree. Just because the printer and software is available, doesn't automatically mean buyers will be able to print top quality stuff. IF a customer bought a top of the line printer and the best software, containing the most detailed files (most detailed being something like an Aurora Racing scenes 417 Donovan engine, compared to, say, a Palmer '71 Cuda), and bout the best printing medium and materials, then, yes, I would agree the end product they print will be top quality. I doubt most people will ever do that, however, and therein lies my skepticism. I won't deny 3D printing technology is going to have a significant impact of our hobby, but I'm still skeptical as to how much of an impact it will have. For new kits, it will have a definite impact, but what about older kits made via injection molding (IM)? If we consider the 1958 SMP/AMT promos/models to be the "start" of mass-produced IM models, that's 44 years of existing kits/tooling/models-- are those all going to be converted to 3D files? And how will that be done? That's literally thousands of models without any existing 3D data, so traditional IM models aren't going anywhere. Now, concerning new kits, 3D tech and printing makes a lot of sense, and I like a lot of James' ideas and thoughts, but still have to wonder if there won't be problems, or more specifically, will we have the same complaints we have now with IM kits? Let's use Revell's and AMT's '67 Chevelle SS kits as the example. One person thinks the trunk lip molding is off slightly, another thinks the rear window is a bit too small, and the roof butresses taper off too quickly, and the...you get the point. Will we sit here in ten years and say "Don't buy Company ABC's Tucker Torpedo 3D file, it's junk! The body proportions are all messed up when you print it out, and the cyclops headlight is too small, the hood peak too wide", and so on. Your answer is probably "Company ABC will go back and fix the software to correct the inaccuracies, just like Revell fixed the roof issue on the Pro Modeler '69 Charger R/T kit in 1996". Yes, they might, and even if they don't, we can fix the inaccuracies or kitbash as necessary, right? Well, then we're right back to where we were with IM kits, and 3D printing hasn't improved upon the old way of doing things when we look at the quality of the end product. I really don't see the future being all that different from what we have available now in terms of kit selection to be honest, and see the 3D model printing marker being much like the model aftermarket is now. How many people buy a resin casting set and think "I can do this", only to become dejected when realizing it's not as simple as it seemed? I don't see more than a handful of us (using MCM forum members as the "group" for this example) ever being able to write/create/modify 3D files, much in the same way that very few of us can machine a Halibrand Sprint wheel out of an aluminum billet, create a '74 Chevelle body, or print an 8.5" x 11" decal sheet with metallic colors. The technology alone isn't going to be the magic elixir which makes all our dreams come true. Skill and craftsmanship used to create the "master" (in this case the software) will still trump the hardware, and those of us (myself included) who aren't fluent in the 3D software will be dependent upon those who are, and we have to hope whoever creates (or modifies) the software has an eye for quality and getting the details correct on each and every model that is created. Will that happen? I don't know. I hope it does, but I like to think I'm realistic enough to know of probably won't. And what about older, existing kits? Will Revell scrap the molds for the '69 Dodge Dart GT-S when they can 3D scan a 1:1 car, convert the data to a file, and allow the end user print it out? What happens when Joe Schmoe buy a cheap Lexmark 3D printer, gets a poor quality model from it, and swears off Revell 3D models forever? At least with IM tech, Revell can control the quality of the end product for the most part, but they can never say that with 3D printing, as quality will be limited by the hardware the end user is running. Will that 3D printed Round2 '61 Ranchero still have the same "feel" as an original AMT '61 Ranchero kit? I'm not out to make 3D models as some sterile, untouched-by-humans product, but emotion can have a pretty big effect on us and on what we buy/build, and the human element of certain models designs (and imperfections) is something to be considered. The other issue I forsee (and I think I touched upon this somewhere above in my rambling ) is availability. Fred wants a '77 Olds Cutlas 442 hardtop with the 5-speed manual trans, the- wait. Does anyone offer the 3D software to print out such a car? Kitbashing is the answer, right? Wait, then I need to buy two, three or four 3D files to print out all the parts I need? Or does Revell allow me to buy and print out the individual parts I need from their various 3D kits? I don't think there are any easy answers nor simple solutions when it comes to 3D printing technology. I agree it's coming, and within the next decade (probably less), but I think it may end up being one of those "solutions" which ends up creating more "problems". They may just end up being good problems to have.

Does the current Revell '49 Mercury Custom kit include a totally stock chassis and suspension?

Here are the pics Steve Goldman took of the '49 Mercury Woodie: Looks like a modified reissue of the Custom Merc ..... no stock engine or trans. The rest looks all Stock

In the last two years or so, Rock Auto has changed their shipping system, so that it makes it near impossible to combine items so they can ship from the same location, i.e. the brake drums ship from warehouse A, and the booster ships from warehouse B....you pay extra shipping is the short version of the story. RA does always have the 5% discount code, which usually amounts to covering the 5.6% sales tax for me, since they are located in WI. I used to order a lot from RA, always got great service, and found a lot of things there I couldn't find elsewhere (hydraulic clutch line for a manual trans Chevy Astro, etc.), but I find Advance Auto is cheaper, for the same parts, and AA always has at least a 30% discount code online...plus $75+ ships for free. I have literally saved hundreds shopping at AA, and they have several stores within ten miles of my home. Granted, I don't buy the cheapest house brand AA offers, but they have many of the same brands RA does.

Yes, it's supposed to be released in December 2012.

*edit* Here's pic #65:

And that seems to be what the Make & Take booth satisfied- the hands on building experience. I'm not saying cost was the only reason Revell, Inc. didn't attend, and I don't even think it was the main reason. As you hinted at, I think the tipping point for attending vs. not attending may have been a year or two ago, and the largest car model oriented manufacturer chose not to attend (for whatever reasons), but the significance (to me) is their absence, not why they didn't attend.

Glad to see you back, Steve.