2002p51

Such doom and gloom! Geez, go build a model and cheer up!

My thoughts exactly!

I have actually just read through this entire thread and I'm exhausted as if I actually tried to build all those terrible kits! My nominees for the worst kits ever have to start with those Revell tri-five Chevys first issued in the sixties. The ones with the opening everything and well fitting nothing! They could be built, with a lot of effort, but when you were done you had something that didn't really look all that much like a Chevrolet. Except for the engines, might have been the best small block Chevy of the era. Next on my list would the whole series of those awful AMT Modified Stockers. Cartoon cars is what they were and I place them in the same genre as MPC's Zingers! But the winner and Grand Champion worst kit I've ever built is . . . the envelope please . . . the Accurate Miniatures Can Am McLarens! I'm surprised nobody as mentioned these before now but perhaps it's because all of you were smarter than I and never started one of these things in the first place. Nothing in this kit fit properly, every part needed messaging and some never would fit. Huge panel gaps and a stance after final assembly like a 4x4 truck! This kit was a huge disappointment especially coming after their excellent Corvette Grand Sport. I built one for a review in that "other" magazine and, once it was done and photographed, it went right in the trash. (First time I ever did THAT with a model!) In all of the model press mine was the only honest review that pointed out all of the kit's problems. One British reviewer praised the kit to the sky and mentioned how well the panel fit was when right there in the photos you could see daylight through the gaps down to the table! I think the proof that I was right is that today you can occasionally find one these kits on eBay selling for way below retail!

Me too!

I think you can get a pretty good idea of the general size of the various segments of the market by looking at the ads in the niche magazines. Compare the number and size of the ads for aftermarket products in a magazine like Model Cars or that "other one" to what you see in a magazine like Fine Scale Modeler or Model Railroader. When compared to model railroading, the adult model car hobby seems miniscule.

This is something that bothers me too, and I see it all too often on this and other boards.

I think it's because the military side of the hobby just might be a much larger market.

Why indeed. Very, very true!

I knew somebody would come back with that. And of course, you're right. My point was there are certain things that matter for scale accuracy and other things that don't. In the case of the Earnhardt car, black really is black. There is no such thing as a special "Goodwrench Black". Testors Model Master Classic Black is perfectly fine for that car but there are modelers out there who will pay a premium price for a bottle of "Goodwrench Black". I always used to say that unless you're are going to sit the model right on the fender of the actual car, getting the color close enough really is okay. A lot of modelers who never have the chance to see a 1:1 subject in person will swear it's a certain shade based on photographs in magazines or on their monitor looking at something on line. And both of those are completely unreliable sources for judging correct color. A long time ago (in a galaxy far, far. . never mind) I painted a Petty, STP car with regular red because all I ever saw was photographs in magazines. It wasn't until the first time I saw the car in person around 1974 or so that I discovered the red was actually a bright day-glo red. The magazine printing process can't accurately duplicate that color and so, the car always looked just plain red to me. So, I guess my point is, that in the case of color, accuracy can sometimes be let to slide a little for the sake of making the model look "right". But what do I know!

Most of Model Master military colors have numbers. Those that begin with '3' are flat. Gloss colors begin with '1'. Most of the car colors are simply named; i.e. Gloss Black, Classic Black, Classic White, etc. Things like Guards Red, Turn Signal Amber, Stoplight Red, etc. are all gloss colors. Just spend a little time looking over the rack at the store and you'll see the pattern. Hope that helps.

Oh boy, this is an excellent point! It's the same thing in model railroading. Railroad modelers demanded more accurate and better detailed models over the years have been willing to step up and buy them. Compare Revell's recent 1940 Ford Standard coupe to the old AMT '40 Ford coupe. Which one is worth the higher price? Yes, we all love that old AMT '40 'cause we grew up with it and it reminds us of the fun we had then, but I will by the newer Revell one every time when I want to do a really nice model.

I can be all over the board on this subject. While I am very familiar with the general attitude toward accuracy and scale fidelity that permeates the "IPMS" type military modelers, and I'm in favor of that actually, I also can appreciate building a model that merely gives the impression of looking like the 1:1 subject. I'm also a model railroader and I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a devout "rivet counter" when it comes to my trains. Things like colors, road numbers, and the era of everything on the layout must be correct or it just doesn't work for me. I tend to transfer that to model cars too. But I can and regularly do accept some, uh, less than perfect details and scale in my car modeling. It's somewhat selective though. For instance I cannot build a race car model that does not have the correct parts or markings for the type of car depicted; i.e. I won't use decals on tires because they are all wrong. Yet, I will paint a race car in a color that's close enough to represent the car I'm modeling. I've actually seen questions on modeling forums like; "What exact color is Dale Earnhardt's 19XX Goodwrench Chevrolet?" It's BLACK dude, use your favorite black and don't sweat it. (But there are paint companies that sell an "Earnhardt Black", whatever!) I remember a huge debate on another forum that shall go unnamed about a Revell Mustang funny car. It seems the 'experts" on this forum judged the proportions of this body to be so far off as to be "unbuildable"! I spent hours pouring over photos in magazines of the 1:1 cars and, for the life of me, I could not see the problem. But these guys all hated it! So you see, I will be happy to have something that others may feel is awful but I also will cringe when I see certain things that others are just fine with. As to the other part of this thread, several years ago I built a factory stock Dodge Demon. I used an MPC body that was originally tooled in the early '70's and combined it with the interior and chassis from the much more recent AMT 340 Duster. Considering that the various parts of this model were tooled by completely separate companies, a couple of decades apart, everything fit together surprisingly well!

Nice model. This forum needs a place for non-NASCAR circle track cars. There's a lot more to racing than NASCAR!

That is excellent work! Really well done.

The Barnes & Noble in Johnson City, TN doesn't have it yet.

It also won't be a "gasser" by NHRA rules. T-Birds ran in "Modified Sports". Very similar rules as the Gas classes, but it was a separate category.

Even though the Monogram Model A coupe is 1/24, it can be mixed and matched without stretching believability too far. I did this one a few years ago. I'm pretty sure the hood and grille are 1/25 from AMT.

Nice bunch of cars. Some of my favorites too!

[media=]

Thanks everybody for the kind comments. I'm glad y'all like it.

Thanks Harry, like I said in the beginning of the build thread, there's not a sanctioning body in America that would approve it for late model competition and if you could get it approved you'd have to run a full steel body which would make the car too heavy to compete. Besides, would you really cut up a real '72 Dodge Challenger body with what they cost these days? So you ask, what about running with a vintage group? Well, you might, but few of those groups really "race" so you'd just be running around out there and depending on the individual club, they might not like a modern, full race engine, four wheel disc brakes, etc. etc. But as far as the looks cool part, well, that's the only reason I built it!

Really nice work! I was at that race and the first roll out at Lions in Long Beach. Miss those days! Thanks for posting your great model.

I've finished it now and posted the photos in "Under Glass." Here's the link: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=62733

For those of you who might have missed it, here's the under construction thread for this model: http://www.modelcars...showtopic=61625 And here's the "finished" model: The paint is Testor's Model Master Classic White and Chevrolet Engine Red. The decals are from Slixx. The hood is made from a piece of .010" Evergreen sheet as is the rear spoiler. The windshield and backglass are made from .005" Evergreen clear sheet mounted flush from the outside. As always when I post these things I not only welcome critique and comments but I encourage them, so I'll start. Overall I'm okay with the way it came out. I like the stance and the overall look but I'm also a little disappointed in a few things. I had to do some serious hacking and chopping on things that didn't show up until final assembly, so the model isn't as "clean" as it could be. Also, surprisingly, there's no room for front shock absorbers so the car has none. I still need a rear bumper, Modelhaus has them I just need to get my order in. There's a lot that could be fixed and a lot more detailing could be added but I'm finished with it and that's why I titled this post "I'm Calling it Done"!

Those are nice. The CH-46 reminds of my days in HC-3 when I was in the Navy.