Chuck Most

The actual grenade is from a Gangbuster '28 Lincoln kit, but I am working on a method to make a grenade shift knob. Stay tuned!

Or...uh...playing baseball. In all seriousness, this will be a cool model when done. I'd like to see you pull off the bare plastic and paint two tone setup, that molded color is pretty cool!

Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet!

The best way to get a good R&R kit is to invent a time machine and buy one from, oh, ten or fifteen years ago. I've got more R&R resin than just about any other manufacturer, and the best (most 'buildable') one I have is an old, old casting of a '67 Galaxie. The stuff I've bought this year doesn't even come close. In most cases, those relatively crude and underdetailed kits pretty much 'fall together' and look good- the same can't always be said for the newer, detailed mega-kits out there! I'll be the last guy to knock a kit for it's age or lack of finesse... unless, of course, it needs it! (Be it a worn out mold, the kit has been 'fixed' too many times over the decades, etc.) Question, though- which is more satisfying- a kit that nearly assembles itself, a build that went so well you don't really remember anything about it, or the model that fought you every foot of the way, and now sits there all pretty on your shelf? For me, it seems like the harder the kit goes together, the better the final result.

Well, it's done. Not much else to say, I guess... And here's the drawing I started with as a guide... Considering the drawing wasn't done anything close to scale, I think it turned out pretty cool, and actually looks pretty close to the original idea. Also- big fat props to all the guys who supplied parts for the buildup!

Latest update... I refer you to Under Glass!

Good point, Steve- even a 'stock only' kit can be built into a 'resto rod' style with just a bit of tweaking. (And just for the record, no, that car not having a Flattie doesn't hinder its coolness in any way, shape, or form! ) Still- for this particular kit, which by virtue of its chopped top cannot be built 'stock' in the first place, I guess I wouldn't really see the point in including the stock parts. If a guy is building a rod, and he's going to the extent of chopping the top, sure, he might keep the Flathead, but it's surely going to have some speed parts slapped on, and he might keep the stock wheels, maybe even the hubcaps, but the stock pinky-thin tires will probably be shown the door, as well. And a lowered suspension is pretty much mandatory if you are chopping the top, so... there goes the stock suspension setup. If the '48 kit had a stock height top- absolutely, I'd love to see all the stock parts included! In fact, I'd be rather disappointed NOT to find them. But as it stands, the content of the new '48 kit's parts, looked at from the context it is marketed as a custom, seems satisfactory enough.

That, and to me at least, the headlamps seem just a titch undersized, but that's easier to look past. It's even easier to look past once you fix the ride height/clunky truck tires issues which also plauge those particular kits. The '10 looks pretty good, but I'm sure that even if it has it's flaws and issues, they won't be too tough to work out, just as with the current 'Stang kits.

I don't get that commercial... but the miniature giraffe always cracks me up!

I've never used anything but Testors Dullcote for this purpose- it has never let me down.

Uh... you are aware this is a model car forum, right?

I've been keeping an eye out as well, my LHS owner called on it last week, and was told it was going to press as they spoke. Shouldn't be too long now.

Certainly true (the '56 Effie was part of that lineup, too, but as you say they weren't all junk! The Attempt I was in that line, and so was this beauty...

Revell kits a new Mustang, I buy it. Simple as that. Haven't missed a single hit off the '06 GT tool, and plan not to miss any of the '10's permutations, either.

I think the reason Revell isn't including stock parts (besides the fact the car can't be built stock anyway) just revolves around cost. They know the vast majority of these would be built as rods or customs anyway, even if stock parts were included. Why include a bunch of parts practically nobody's going to use? Still, even a rodder like me could think of quite a few uses for some old stock Ford parts (mostly outside of their intended applications, just as the postwar rodders themselves did), so maybe Revell is missing the boat with a 'non-stock only' kit. I guess time will tell.

A priest, a pastor, and a rabbi were on a boat on a small lake, when they realized they'd left their drink cooler on shore. "Boy, I'm thirsty!" the priest said, eyeing the cooler on the beach. With that, he stood up, stepped out of the boat, and walked across the water. He grabbed a soda from the cooler, then walked back into the boat. The pastor said "You know what? I'm kind of thirsty, too." The pastor then stood up, stepped out of the boat, walked on the water back to shore, grabbed a soda, and walked back out. The rabbi looked at his two companions and said "Ha! My turn!!!!" The rabbi stood up, stepped out of the boat, and immediately plunged to the bottom of the pond. The preist leaned over the boat, his soda in one hand, staring at the bubbles coming up from where the rabbi had fallen in. He then turned to the pastor and said- "Eh, Bob... think maybe we should've told him where the rocks were?"

A Cable Car is still a car...right? SPOILER ALTERT!!!! It's 1:48 scale, despite what the box says!!!! I think it's a pretty cool kit, despite its scale. Since I'm no expert on cable-driven public transport, I can only speculate on its accuracy compared to the real McCoy, but the built up model depicted on the box sure looks like a cable car to me! The brake levers are pretty cool too, and might be usable in a bi-scale rat rod or heavy equipment project. The true nut jobs among our ranks could even use the kit as a pattern, double the dimensions and 'blow it up' to 1:24 scale, or do some fuzzy, head-hurting math and do it in 1:25. (NOTE- I just might do that!) Despite its obvious finished result, many tourist busses are built to resemble old-timey cable cars- one could conceivably use this kit to built one of those, the trick might be finding a 1:48 truck chassis with which to underpin it. At any rate, I think it's a cool subject, even if it isn't done in my 'typical' model car scale!

One other thing to consider... some scripts are much easier to do than others. It's much easier to detail the scripts and badges when they're well-engraved in the first place, than the ones which are so faint they vanish under the first 'mist' of primer!

Latest "progress"... Added the teeth to the windows (yes- there are fewer on the actual model than shown in the drawing, maybe it was in a bar fight or something), and added the 'door handles', a pair of slip-joint pliers on the driver side, and a double end wrench on the other, both pirated from a Fujimi parts pack.

Tom speaks my language! (Golden Retriever, if you were curious...)

Nice work, and it sure is refreshing to see a strip-o Camaro in scale for a change!

Yes, you should.

Exactly! And even if you DO like your Fat Fords with hammered lids, that doesn't mean you'll like the specific chop Revell used. I know of quite a few modelers who liked the fact the Revell '49 Merc had a chopped top, but didn't like it's proportions... see, you can't even please the people who DO want the body done a particular way. Sure, it will lose a few replica stock builders, but then again- how much call is there for a stock '48 Ford kit? I can't imagine there's much- most of the Fords from that era are hot rods now. One of the reasons Revell hasn't done a stock version of its splendid Deuce kits? No demand. Maybe it's the same story here, and by giving the car a chop right off the bat, they're letting the potential buyers know which market the kit is catered to.

I've got a pretty lenient tolerance toward styling, so it really has to be a truly horrific design for me to call it 'ugly'. Plenty of ill-proportined kits, though, and many of those fit into the 'worst fitting' category as well- for example... Revell '56 Ford F-100- Not only is it fiddly and ill fitting, it barely resembles a '56 Effie at all. The fenders and cab are blob-like compared to the 1:1. Want a good looking model of a '56 F-100? Cut a wraparound windshield into an AMT '53 and rob the appropriate '56 bits from a Revell kit to fill in the blanks. IMC/Testors/Union '46 Ford Coupe and Convertible- Suffers from much the same ailments as the Revell Effie, with a much more stress-inducing multipiece body. Pyro/Lindberg '48 Lincoln- I won't get into why, we've been down this road before... MPC/AMT/Ertl '69 Mustang Sports Roof- 1:25, you say? Then why does a built '66 kit dwarf it? It at least looks decent built up (or it can in the right hands, anyway), but the scale discrepancy makes it look odd nevertheless. And a few others that are poor-fitting (at least in my experience), but end up as nice models after all that misery and cursing include... Revell '29 Model A Pickup/'30 Tudor Sedan IMC/Testors Little Red Wagon and Dodge L-700 Ertl/AMT International Paystar 5000 (mixer is worse, dump truck slightly less of a pain)

I've heard many people in various modeling circles speak of Squadron's Green putty. It seems that a lot of people use it, but I've never heard any specifics about it. How long does it take to cure? Is is comparable to, say, Bondo 2-part bodywork putty? I've never heard anything bad about it, but on the other hand, I've never seen any one go on and on about how GREAT it is, either!