mikos

No pics of the body?

It’s about time we finally got a stock ambulance out of the Ghostbusters kit. We had to wait almost 35 years for it to happen, but we finally got one.

Nice! I like the new color too.

It was, but that was the era of slide rulers even on the real thing. It wasn’t a car that was around for almost 35 years with tons of information and pics about it. Unfortunately, we model kit buyers got stung by the China gap syndrome.

Maybe Round2 will do this for us with a cloned reissue.

Where are you getting $200k+ for each cloned kit to be produced? I don’t think it’s costing Round2 $200k+ per model kit tooling for the cloned kits that they have done. I think you’re talking about brand new tools like the Revell ‘71 Mustang. Since kit sale totals are a fraction of what they used to be compared to the old days, according to many sources, there’s no way they would be able recoup that kind of investment if all those cloned kit reissues were state of art new tools. I believe Round2 has only released two brand new model kits this year, the new Ford Bronco and the 1/25th scale Black Beauty from the old Green Hornet T.V. series. However, their cloned kit reissues usually come out several at a time, not 1 or 2 per year, like it is with a brand new tool. This tells me that the cloned reissues, although more expensive than a straight reissue, are significantly cheaper than making a brand new tool of a subject. I’m pretty sure it cost Revell a lot more money to produce their ‘71 Mustang kit than it was for Round2 to reissue their cloned ‘63 Nova wagon. I don’t think I’m overstating the nostalgia factor about those old Johan kits. I think there is still a lot of that around. However, if we continue to wait…5….10….maybe….20 more years, then yes it will eventually erode away as new customers in the hobby will not have had the experience that we did in buying and building those old Johan kits. Scanning and cloning a kit/promo that is already done cuts down on the development costs and the time it takes to get it out to market like Steve G. said. So, even though we’re stuck with a more primitive kit than what a modern tool would give us, it costs less. That means less kits have be sold to recoup the initial investment cost. With the way the market is these days, that is probably the best strategy to use at this time. The more cloned kits that you can sell, the more money there is to spend on brand new tools that may come in the future. It’s a win/win for them and for us. When I compare the Johan kits to what they’re selling for on that auction site, it’s not really the prices they are commanding so much as the popularity of them. The subject matter seems to be very popular these days which leads me to conclude that a cloned Cadillac, Oldmobile, or American Motors model kit would sell well. It just has to be the right model from those respective makes. A lot people around here got worked up over an esoteric PU from the 50’s. Imagine the buzz if they announced a ‘68 Olds 442 reissue, ‘70 AMX reissue or a ‘65 Cadillac reissue. I think the place would burn down.

Okey has the rights to the name and I believe there is enough of a nostalgia factor in that name to sell it to Round2. Cloning some of those old (Johan) kits under the Johan name would be the best way to do it IMO. Of course, you can probably do it without, I suppose. However, you would lose a big part of the nostalgia aspect like how the MPC/AMT brand name is utilized by Round2.

What nonsense? I, like a lot of others would love to see some of those Johan kits produced again. It’s rather obvious to me that no one is going to make a modern tool kit of a ‘65 Cadillac Coupe Deville, or ‘66 Olds Toronado. So, why not use cloning technology to copy what was already done and reissue them again. It would be less expensive and the business case would be more favorable due to the lower costs involved in a project like that. Also, I think what you and Justin fail to realize is that there is a lot of built up nostalgia associated with these types of kits. A lot of people would buy one just for the fact they remember buying/building one as a kid. The Boomer and X gen market. A new modern tool wouldn’t have that and it would significantly be more expensive to tool up a modern kit like that compared to cloning an already existing example. Round2 is proving it can be done and it can be done within budget constraints and licensing requirements.

That’s your opinion. What you think SHOULD hold true is not what is actually selling by the truck loads. Apparently, Round2 is having a lot of success with these recent cloned up kit reissues so there is a market for them, a big market. These short cuts, as you call them, allow consumers to have access to kits that were thought long ago missing, destroyed or simply just too expensive to buy and build on the collector market. Except for their limited detail, the bodies were typically dead nuts accurate due to the promo tooling most of them were based upon. If that means we can get a lot more kits of this vintage than just 1 or 2 new tools every year, I am all for it. It’s very clear to me that it’s less expensive to clone an old kit than it is to tool up a brand one with modern detail.

Thanks Niteowl! That explains a lot. In the Gone in 60 Seconds example, wouldn’t Revell have to pay an additional licensing fee to the H.B. Halicki estate (or whom ever owns the rights to the movie) to do a version of the movie car?

SuperFly was converted into the Sweathogs “Dream Machine”. They opened up the roof. I’d rather not see that one come back, but if they fixed it back to stock version, heck yeah!

He replied 10909. The non fuel proof clear.

Wish it was 1/25th scale so it would look good with the Green Hornet “Black Beauty” custom Imperial that’s coming out next month.

I think I got my answer concerning fragility on the Spotlight Hobbies message board. Board member Terry I. used Revell Chrom spray on a bare plastic spoon and sprayed Spaztix clear acrylic over it and the finish looks great. Still shiny with no dulling. He posted a pic compared to a factory kit chrome bumper and it looks like a 100% match. Revell Chrome spray with Spaztix clear spray over it (everything sprayed from the can) and it looks just like the kit chrome. I think this may be the holy grail answer we’ve all been looking for.

This is a nice kit. I’m glad to see it coming back.

That’s sounds great Steve! Any chance in finding the old MPC ‘72 Chevelle? I know it was reissued a few times in the early 2000’s, but the box contents were that of the AMT ‘70 updated to the ‘72 again with a badly rendered front bumper and grill. I think the last time the MPC ‘72 Chevelle was last reissued was back in the mid ‘80’s. I hope the MPC ‘72 Chevelle can be found again.

Very good points Niteowl. As for the ‘71-‘73 Mustang convertible, I was thinking more along the lines of them converting the old AMT body tool into one. They have two separate tools of the big Mustang, the MPC and the AMT Mustang version. The current AMT kit is based on the MPC tool, I believe. However, like you stated, they may have to make a brand new tool for a convertible body style which would make it cost prohibitive. Even though a brand new tool would always be preferred, if they can possibly modify the old AMT body into a convertible body style that would be great too.

The body looks great! Revell did a good job.

No one here has it, yet.

1. Yes, Round2 basically caters to the U.S. market in their plastic model car kit product line. However, if the international market is so important to Revell, why didn’t they make their ‘71 Mustang 1/24th scale? Isn’t that the more popular scale world wide? 2. The Goldfinger DB5 (correction) is 1/24th scale, I believe. The Mustang which is 1/25th scale. It’s clear they wanted to steal sales directly from Round2 by making a direct competitor Mustang kit. Yet, they have no problem staying with 1/24th scale for the Bond DB9 and the upcoming C8 Corvette. They sacrificed international sales for a more limited U.S. sales market with the ‘71 Mustang. 3. Yes, the Revell of today is very different than the Revell of a few years ago under Hobbico. That’s unfortunate because they were really stepping up to the plate with a lot new releases. New releases of new stuff like the Ford Raptor PU, the SRT-8 Challenger, the 5th gen Camaro ZL1, the C7 Corvette, ‘83 Hurst Olds, ‘72 Hurst Cutlass and many others. Revell expanding into paint and glue is partly the result of the huge vacuum leftover by Testors when they discontinued their Model Master paint line and other products. 4. Round2 could retool the AMT Mustang body into a convertible (slice the top off and tool up a convertible boot) and throw everyone for a huge surprise with that. Unfortunately, I think the reissues of old kits is a niche Revell wants to ignore. That’s why I suggested that if Revell could use cloning technology to remake the ‘69 Mustang convertible kit mentioned earlier, they could have a slice of the market that Round2 is dominating. It’s obvious they wanted to compete with Round2 by making their ‘71 Mustang 1/25th scale. So, why not go even further and start reissuing/cloning some older kits as well.

We keep talking about financial returns, but what is the financial return business case for the new 71 Mustang kit? If the average person doesn’t really care about the notchback Mustang being inaccurate, then why would they care for a super accurate ‘71 Mustang kit? Even though it’s old and simplistic, Round2 already has a ‘71-‘73 Mustang kit that builds into a fairly nice replica with a little bit of work.

Right, but is there a distinction between the two when you want to make a replica? You get the licensing for doing a certain Cadillac model then want to make a plastic model kit of the same car as well. Would that require a whole new licensing agreement to do a plastic model? If not, you can spread out the licensing costs by doing different versions of the same car in different product lines like matchbox type cars, diecast and plastic model kits.

That’s interesting. I guess it was born to sell as a drag car and the slight chop top just adds to the look of a dragster.

I think a business case could be made for it. Potential new sales of a corrected roof Mustang notchback version versus a straight reissue of the old chop top version would favor the new one IMO. I believe sales of a corrected roof version would justify the expense to do it. Just like there’s a justification on tooling a brand new Mustang kit with the exact same variants coming out (007 Bond version and etc) as the 50 year old AMT/MPC kit. Let’s say $40 MSRP. $40 times 20k kits sold equals ~$80k dollars. So, you just made up the expense to do it. Of course, this doesn’t include how much profit Revell is actually making at that retail price. If you make several variations like a stock version, police version, custom drag and race versions, I think you could hit that mark. Then, if you need a little extra profit to pad that number, reissue the incorrect slammed roof version with tooling changes as a pseudo funny car.

Johan still had the early ‘70’s style Eldorado in production at the time the movie came out (1972), I don’t know why they didn’t try to secure licensing to do a “SuperFly” version.