Chuck Most

Actually, Mark, you're one of the 'fair and balanced' ones! You can point out a kit's faults, but still outline what's good with it.

I have absolutely no problem with a kits problems being discussed. Sheesh, the at-length and heated discussions about such things are some of the most entertaining conversations you can 'listen in' on! But, even so, show of hands... how many of you think this kit will be absolutely perfect (or even close) when it actually hits the shelves? Nobody? Thought so. Harry- you can lay partial claim to this kit's greatness by pointing out the goof-up you noticed earlier on. So we know Moebius is seeing this, and more importantly, listening. But then again, I'm pretty sure Revell is watching the message boards too, and odds are that Monogram '70 Mustang grille ain't never gettin' fixed no matter how many times it comes into somebody's crosshairs!(Iffy grammar used to enforce my point.) For me, it's the sweating of the 'little stuff' I just don't get. It's stuff like that Monogram '70 Mustang grille, which is so messed up and wrong that even a non-modeler doesn't think it looks right, that I can't abide. Yeah, the little things can and do add up, but if a company can avoid the big ones, the ones that really ruin the kit, I'm pretty happy. But some guys just like to make a witchhunt out of things!

I've never bought anything from you before, but I won't hold this against you. Keep on keepin' on- it'll get better.

And of course, there's always the fact that the images a camera takes are "open to interpretation"...

Here is what I really, really really really, really really REALLY really, re-he-heeeley don't get... When did we become so bogged down in the details that we can't just step back and look at the big picture? As I've said before, I'll reserve my final judgement on this and any other new kit until I have it sitting right there on my workbench in front of me, or on my lap behind the wheel of my car in the hobby shop parking lot. I look at the (mostly) assembled test shot, and I see a Hudson Hornet. Any gaffes I see (or think I see) can be explained away for now, and if there are any mistakes that still slip through the cracks, well, I think I can deal with those issues when needed! I know I may be a bit weird, perhaps outright crazy, but isn't the whole point of a model kit to build it, not to fret over the bumpers sticking .010" too far away from the body, or some other nonsensical tidbit that only you and five or six other people will even take the time to notice? There's never been a perfect model car kit, in terms of 'accuracy' and 'scale fidelity'. Never was, isn't now, and I seriosly doubt there ever will be. As long as it isn't some truly awful Pyro-style piece of junk, why dwell on what's wrong (EVERY kit has at least a few things going for it!)when it seems they got it right for the most part? There are some people who love pointing out what's wrong with a kit(and I can be one of 'em sometimes), but very few who like to talk about what the manufacturer got right!

I was thinking more "Darth Vader" from the post title... but I still dig what I see. Military models are some of my favorites to look at, even though I don't build them myself.

Yes, and somehow that 'knockoff' Hudson body style came out a year before the '49 Merc...

I did not need to narrow the front clip- but I did have to shorten the hood.

Pretty much my verdict from what I see, but I'll reserve my final judgement until I actually get my hands on one of the kits. I am a bit surprised they didn't go with separate plated side trim, but all in all, I'd consider that a tolerable oversight.

Just about any '60's tooled AMT kit- you can build a complete model from one kit, and often have enough spares left over for dozens of other projects. The Mopar pro street kits are similar- you get a stock Dana 60 axle and a set of Magnum 500 wheels left over from other issues of the kits. I've bought at least two Super Bee pro street kits JUST for that Dana 60!

I love a cleanly-built Lightning!

It is about equal to the other early '80's MPC kits- probably not the greatest, but totally workable.

Both were completely senseless acts. As a fan of The Beatles, John Lennon, Pantera and Damageplan, today isn't a good day.

Cool! I'll have to keep an eye on this one.

Thanks Dave- seeing the model in a closer to completed form helps. Still don't see much I take issue with, as far as accuracy goes.

Contest quality or no, I do like it! Great model, Drew. Sure did light a fire under my hiney to get started on mine!

I'd love to see a caster do a repop of the old Premiere Champ. Yes, it was crude and underscale, but I'd still love to have one!

To be totally fair, the Moebius body does not appear to have the ding in the decklid, which the 1:1 The Other Chucker posted does. But if I may be serious for just a moment, I do like what I see with the new kit!

Killdozer... I'll have to try and find that one!

Other than the convertible-specific bodies and related parts, the 1:25 Monogram '55 Chevys are the same, so you shouldn't have any trouble doing that.

Except for the part about not being a Christina Applegate fan, I totally concur! And yeah, Katy Segal does get better looking with age.

I still had the stock Styleside bed left from my old '93 "Retro Ranger", so I combined it with some spare Model King Open Road Camper parts and some spare tires/wheels and made a low-buck beater utility trailer... Now I just have to scrounge up a hitch and hook it to something!

This is basically spares from two parted out AMT El Caminos, and a Regal nose from an old stock car snap kit. I also dropped in a Vortec 4.3 V6 from a '94 Sonoma, just 'cuz I could. I'll probably replace the hood later on, but it's 'pretty much' done! It's loosely based on a local guys's 'beater with style' that I used to see cruising around town about ten years ago, only the paint job on this model isn't nearly as rough as the 1:1 car!

You mean Ed O'Neil?

That's true! "The Car" was pure '70's B-Movie chintz. Since I wasn't yet born, I can appreciate it for what it is without bias, but when I see a movie like that, I'm glad to be a product of the '80's! Then again, I was born the same year 'Tron' came out... Christine took place in 1979 (even though there's a character in it who drives a Reliant!?), and was published first in 1983- I'd guess that 'The Car' might have had some bearing on Christine, but I've never seen anything to confirm or deny that- King has said he had the 'killer car' plot in his mind years before he began writing Christine. He did explore the subject a bit in the short story "Trucks", which I believe came out in the "Night Shift" compilation.