mikos

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.

It’s interesting that the licensor (Ford?) didn’t care about it enough to have it revised. It’s a pretty obvious thing even if it was a cheap diecast model. Wasn’t there another kit they did (Revell) and they changed it at the zero hour because it wasn’t accurate in some detail? Maybe the Charger?

If I did this conversion, I’d do the front bumper/header panel slice and dice. The upper body window section on the MPC kit is not that bad, certainly better than the one on the Revell “notchback” LX. I wonder why Revell never tried to fix/correct it after all this time? It’s like they just gave up on the kit or something.

Just as bad, the MPC ‘72 Grand Prix Sweat Hogs “Dream Machine”. I never understood that kit reissue even back in the day. I don’t recall any of the Welcome Back Kotter clan ever driving a ‘72 Grand Prix in the series, not even Travolta. And even worse, you couldn’t even make the “Super Fly” edition out of it because they butchered up the top. If they kept it as the “Super Fly”, they would’ve had a lucrative reissue on their hands. However, with cloning technology, they can do a straight stock configuration reissue.

With the way they “represented” the turn signal stalk on the new Revell Mustang kit, it probably would’ve been better if they just left it absent like the AMT/MPC version. Here’s one from a 60 year old AMT ‘63 T-bird promo.

Why are you so hostile? There’s really no need for that. The real question is, why are you so opposed to it? It’s almost as if you had a secret agenda to not wanting to let it happen. Would it lessen the value of your vast Johan kit and promo collection? Why do you have such a hostile attitude about it? Starting from scratch would take more time and money. If you did that, you would have to increase the detail which would undoubtably increase the street price of the kit. Utilizing cloning technology like what Round2 is currently using, you would be able to provide a duplicate of the kit for reasonable price. It would give modelers a chance to buy and build the kit instead of spending hundreds for an original, of which many would not build anyway, due to the price and collectibility. I will have to argue that there is a big nostalgia market out there for seeing these models being made again. A super detailed modern tool Cadillac would be great, but if easier money can be made by just cloning them as is with all of their faults while tapping into the nostalgia market as a jump off point, then why not do it that way How hard would it be to make a “low rider” version out of one of those old Cadillacs? Some of them already have the small chassis inserts with multiple holes to make various ride heights with the axles. Adding in a set of smaller wheels/tires on another separate tree to make the low rider would be so easy. That would be your second "variant” as you say. The third variant could just be a Coca Cola edition with stickers. That's what they did to the '63 Nova wagon to make a third variant. Well, it’s painfully obvious you don’t like Johan or their subject matter or the possibility of using cloning technology to reproduce those old kits again for model car fans. That’s okay. Different strokes for different folks. Just continue along with the endless race car variants of Nu Nu and Tamiya of specific race cars at a specific race with different livery. However, I will have to argue, there is a fairly sizable market out there that liked the subject matter of those old Johan kits. $150-$300 to build a vintage kit is just not cost effective for many and the resin repops are not that much cheaper either. That's why I suggested using cloning technology to make some of those old Johan kits again. Obviously, you're dead set against it. I get it.

Thanks Steve. I sincerely thank you and Round2 for deciding to clone those recent reissues from the original kits/promos. I look forward to many more that may be possibly on the way in the near future.

Great detailing! Why did Revell make the turn signal lever so thick and toy-like? If this kit is the holy grail ‘71-‘73 Mustang kit and puts the previous MPC/AMT Mustang kits to shame, why is the turn signal lever so unrealistic?

I don’t know where you are getting $70 for a Cadillac kit. It would be at a similar price point as the recently “cloned” Round2 kits, $35-$40. As far as I know, none of the recently “cloned” kits have three variants. The ‘63 Nova wagon is the only one with three variants. ‘63 Nova wagon, ‘63 Nova wagon with trailer/customizing parts and the ‘63 Nova Wagon “Coca Cola” edition. You could do the same thing for that Cadillac. Make one variant the stock car, make another variant a fantasy race car or low rider edition and another the Coca Cola edition. The good news, the low rider variant will exist for all of them. So, that’s only one more variant you have to come up with if you count the single stock car version and the low rider version. With that, you’ll have your required three variants for that Cadillac as you say. The big three promo work did fund those kits. Why not take advantage of it and clone them. I’m sure that would be a lot cheaper than tooling them up from scratch. Contrary to what many think, there is still a lot of nostalgia appeal tied up in those old kits. Auction prices may not reflect what will actually sell, as I’ve always heard on these forums, but there is a general trend to be noticed and you can’t ignore that. Having a cloned old Cadillac model kit would have sales potential if you can tap into the nostalgia aspect. It would certainly be different than the typical offerings we usually get. I’m sure it would not languish on the top shelf of some hobby store for years. Somebody would snap it up. It would be a low production niche model catered to a specific market. That’s where the hobby is headed to if not already there IMO. Round2 has proven it can be done. This seems to be the holy grail that we’ve always wanted, being able to reproduce a kit that we thought could never be done again without starting from scratch. Why can’t we use that technology on some of those old Johan kits as well?

Those were only on some of the older Cadillac promos like the ‘58-‘60 because they would not fit in the standard promo box of the time if they were true 1/25th scale. I think they just shortened the backend a little, not shrinking the whole car. By the early to mid ‘60’s, that was no longer a problem I believe. Come on now, you make them out to be like Palmer kits or something. Those Johan Cadillacs looked great. If they didn’t, you wouldn’t have people spending up to $300+ to own one on that particular auction site. Scanning a 1:1 car might be the way to go, but why is Round2 cloning the old kits instead to make the ‘68 Coronet Super Bee convertible or the ‘63 Nova Wagon or the ‘68 GTO or the ‘65 GTO hardtop? If scanning the real thing was just as viable, why didn’t they do it that way? For some reason, I’m thinking it’s cheaper and faster the way they did it. However, we don’t really know what they did until Steve G. from Round2 chimes in and tells us about it. Didn’t Revell scan the chop top “notchback” Fox body Mustang from a real 1:1 scale car? If that was the best way to do it, they sure didn’t do a good job.

With production runs being 5k or less, from what I’ve read, I don’t think that would be a major problem as you make it out to be. Sure, if you’re comparing past runs like they were in ‘60’s, ‘70’s and the ‘80’s, you might have a good point. However, is Moebius or Salvinos producing in the tens of thousands? I’m thinking probably not. Also, if you keep the kits simple like many of them were, you can have a price point comparable to the ultra super detailed new tool kits. I would assume Okey Spaulding owns the intellectual property of Johan. He owns the name. The rest comes from licensing agreements, of which, many die-cast models are being produced of those brands. If the die-cast makers can do it, why can’t a plastic model company with a storied history do it? Who owns the intellectual property of Cadillac? Well, I would think GM. I’ve seen models of Cadillacs in die-cast, from a few hundred dollar 1/18th scale models, all the way to the less than $10 dollar Johnny Lightning matchbox style cars. This notion that they can’t be done due to “licensing” or “intellectual property” is pure hogwash. The focus here is not how detailed they can be or how they compare to some specialized super small niche $85+ Tamiya/Nu Nu kit of some racer dude’s car than ran a particular race in a particular configuration. Those kinds of models wouldn’t appeal to me. However, the Johan subject matter, if cloned and reissued, would offer modelers an alternative to the same recycled stuff we’ve been seeing over the last few years. And, the best part is we wouldn’t have to spend $100-$300+ to build something different. How many fastback ‘71-‘73 Mustangs do we need? How many different variations of the ‘70 Chevelle SS 454 do we need? Some Cadillacs and Oldsmobiles added to the mix would be a good thing for the hobby. We DO need JOHAN back. It can be done. Using the technology that is currently available right now and in use by Round2, it’s only logical to start making some of those old Johan kits again. Regardless of what you may think about them, they would sell and they would sell very well in the current limited production market. Round2 could absorb the Johan name under their umbrella with AMT/MPC and produce these oddball subject matter kits under the Johan name. The name still has enough product identity, nolstalgia and history to resonate with model kit buyers. If they wait too long, it will be much more difficult as the market will have changed and the person who owns the Johan name will no longer be around.

Unless it’s a new tool, which I highly doubt, that’s the same kit that has been reissued over the last 30 years. It’s based on the old AMT ‘72 Chevelle which was backdated to the ‘70 back in the early ‘90’s.