mikos

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.

Whether you think I’m wrong or not, there’s no reason to throw Round2 under the bus. Round2 has been bringing out some fantastic older reisues, thought never to be seen again, and you slam them for doing that because they represent older technology. When all is said and done, those kits look pretty good when built and you’re never going to see those wire axles or simplistic suspension set ups when being displayed on the shelf unless you turn them upside down. As displayed, these kits have a scale fidelity and a look when sitting on their wheels that the modern tooling versions just don’t have. Now, the recent Revell ‘71 Mustang is an exception to the rule and it does looks very good and it reminds me of the excellent ‘69 Camaro they did decades ago. However, if we look at some of their other modern tooling efforts like the ‘71 Olds 442, all I see is a too straight inaccurate upper window line shape, elongated stretched out front wheel well and some other things with the body side profile shape that I don’t like compared to the ancient Johan version. The Johan version looked better and more realistic to my eyes. However, at least with the Revell version, you have a more detailed suspension and engine bay compartment which is a lot more important than a dead nuts accurate body, I guess. I’m extremely grateful that Round2 has chosen to clone and reissue some of their older tooling again. The 63 Nova wagon, the ‘68 GT0, ‘68 Coronet Super Bee convertible, ‘65 GTO Hardtop, and others. And, I think their swift sales would agree with me. You just can’t match the factory blueprints for accuracy in body shape when these models were originally made. Revell seems to be hit or miss and they’ve had some major misses. Remember the “notchback” Mustang LX Fox body? I was eagerly anticipating getting multiples of that kit when it was first announced. Unfortunately, after seeing the review pics online and elsewhere, the custom “chopped top” look turned me away and I never bought a single one. How can they screw up a major body proportion on such a popular car like that? I can see the purpose for having modern tooling on many of the classic kits that are out there. However, there’s no reason to reinvent the wheel if cloning can give us some subjects at a faster and less expensive rate. You seemed to have cherry picked the best kit from Revell and compare it to worst from Round2. The MPC ‘69 Camaro may be a dud, but that’s because it has been massaged and altered into a complete mess over the last 50 years. The original ‘69 by AMT, particularly the ‘69 Pace Car issue (both promo and kit) was very well done. The body is just as good as the modern Revell kit even though the latter has more detail. The recent Revell 1981 Z28 reissue is a mess. The wheel well shape is completely wrong, but it’s not a new tool. I’ll wait for the MPC Camaro “ProStreet” reissue that is coming out with in a few months. Sure, that kit has it own set of problems, but at least I don’t have to totally modify the shape of the wheel wells to make it look fairly accurate. I’d rather shorten the rear bumper width than having to reform the wheel well shapes. The Revell Nova is the same way. The wheel well shape just doesn’t look right. They’re too flat and square. I’ll take the AMT “Old Pro” Nova and work with that. Even though less detailed, the less major body modifications I have to do to make it look accurate, the better it is for me. Again, I wish Revell would’ve given us a different body style in the new Mustang kit. Just something a little different than the same fastback models we already have. The MPC and AMT fastback Mustangs, although very simple in nature and not quite as detailed, are really not that bad. They can build into fairly good replicas with some effort.

I know I’m probably in the minority about this, but I think Revell should have done a convertible or a Grande version of the ‘71 Mustang they did. It seems whenever they come out with something, it’s either a straight reissue or a new tool copy of what Round2 is doing. Although their new tool ‘71 Mustang fastback is a great kit and I plan to get one, a different body style would have been great too. I already have the Round2 version and no matter how much better the new tool Revell version may be, it’s hard to justify getting another fastback ‘71-‘73 Mustang kit. I wish Revell was into cloning their old kits like Round2. They could bring back the ‘69 Grande/conv Mustang kit and maybe a few others. They don’t seem to be interested in that though, just reissues that copy the Round2 offerings.

Me too. However, you will run into the same worn out excuses of why it couldn’t, wouldn’t and shouldn’t happen. 1. The tooling is long gone forever destroyed and missing. Even if some of it was found, the tooling won’t work in the modern machines of today. Well, cloning the kits/promos pretty much throws that argument out of the window. Round2 is actually using the technology on some of their reissues, ‘63 Nova wagon and the OBS trucks. So, it can be done and is being done right now. 2. There is absolutely no market for them. No one would buy them. We need more Mustangs, Camaros and Challengers. Well, there is a market for them. Look at the bidding wars on Ebay or how many desire to have them back again on the various forums. Yeah, maybe kids won’t desire them, but this hobby doesn’t really cater to kids anymore. It’s a niche market with 5k or less production runs. I’m sure there would enough older X’ers and boomers who would want this stuff and buy them to make it marketable to invest in. 3. Complex licensing issues. Well, if they’re doing the diecast stuff, which has a lot of the same subjects that we desire in 1/25th scale plastic, it probably can be done. 4. Johan is dead, dead, dead. Not really, but many want it to be for obvious reasons one of which is the big collector market for those old Johan kits and promos. Heaven forbid if they ever cloned the ‘70 Coupe Deville and offered it again as a reissued glue kit or a Craftsman style promo kit for a $30-35 price point. I think the universe would collapse. lol! Just my $.03.

Beautiful build!

I hope they mold it in black. That would be more fitting to do in a kit like this. Or, at the very least, offer it in both black and white colored plastic. They did that on previous kits like the ‘84 GMC “Deserter” PU.

You guys make some excellent points. I do think there is a demand for at least some of the subject matter that Johan did. Personally, I get very bored of the same subject matter being recycled by some of them. First, it was Round2 with the (MPC based) ‘73 Mustang in the heritage box, then it was the 007 James Bond issue with semi corrected “1971” front end and then Revell comes out with their all new tool ‘71 Mustang that blows the Round2 versions out of the water. The ‘69 Charger was another one that was similar. Round2 had the ancient DoH kit and released it with the revised rear window, then Revell did their own new tool ‘68-‘69-‘70 Charger. Years later, Round2 does a promo style snap fit with all new tooling. It can get kind of repetitive. Some older Cadillacs and Oldsmobiles would add some interesting subject matter back into the catalog. I’m thinking it would be easier and less expensive to scan the old kits than produce something that has never been kitted before like the dream models I posted above. If detail is a problem, they can tool up a more detailed chassis, but I don’t really see the need. Some of the later Johan kits were on par or even above what the others were doing back then.Look at the Turbine Car or the models they did under the “Classic Series”. In many ways, those kits rivaled what was being made back then and even compete detail-wise with many of the kits being made today. I know some modelers don’t like the ”Craftsman” kits due to their simplistic nature, but I love them. They offer a lot of value for a low build effort. The ‘63 Nova Wagon sold well from what I’ve read.