MrObsessive

OK, you know when you've got waaaaaay too many kits and you've got to step up your game and get more done! I do HAVE this very kit, and in fact I have HRM's full detail set for it! DUH! Mine is the coupe though and not the P4 Spyder shown on the Daytona Spyder's box art. Now when I'll get to building it is another matter............ You ain't kiddin'! The Porsche 356's can be a handful too!

It was speculated when this kit came out that the car in the background would be the next one in that series. Well, unless I missed something, I've not seen it. I have that Daytona Spyder kit that you've shown------I built one when they first came out back in the '80's and I gotta tell ya...........it's a REAL HANDFUL! Not for the faint of heart at all! A LOT of forethought needs to go into one of these......it's not an overnight project for sure. When finished, they're stunning models, and the one I have I may tackle it again someday. I have the coupe as well, and what I mentioned above applies to that one too.

Dave, first a big welcome back! Second, that's a very good comeback effort! That silver is super smooth and sharp! I liked how GM translated the concept into what became the production car. My only gripe is that they made a post coupe out of it instead of a true pillarless hardtop. Nevertheless, this is one of my favorite Camaros, and while the newest '16 car is nice, I still like this last one better.

Fantastic Engine Steve! Looks very realistic as is!

Tamiya Tape all the way! I've never had any trouble with it in all the years I've been using it, and I highly recommend it! Here's an example of how I used it to paint the stripes on my '05 Mustang................ Results before the whole works was clearcoated.......

I'd love to see a full detail kit of the original Delorean, but I'm resigned to the fact that it'll probably never happen.

No, I'd leave it as is. When I built mine I wasn't worried so much with underside details as this was just a curbside, and not one of my superdetailed efforts. Red oxide primer would be pretty much correct for a GM car during this era.

Hmmmm............close but not quite Houndstooth if one were to be particular.......... 1968-69 Camaro Houndstooth...........

I was going to mention Scale Motorsport, but checking their patterns they're a bit too square and not quite matching houndstooth. Yeah, that would be the route I would go if I couldn't find a supplier. You can "tile" the image as your screen background, do a screen capture, then copy the pattern that way.

I couldn't tell you Carl as I've never painted a single Chryco engine with their version of blue. They've been Hemi Orange, and I've used OSHA safety orange for that shade.

FANTASTIC! Very Nice Jim! Love the contrasting stripes to go with that!

Dave I vote for the stock wheels as I'm biased that way towards stock as a stone vehicles. I did one just like yours years ago with the stock wheels, and if you'd like, you can take a peek here. '59 Buicks are one of my favorite GM '59 offerings. I used to see them quite a bit as a kid in the '60's and yeah-------they always appeared to have a mean, scowling look to them! BTW, I want to add that you painted yours in a BEEYOOTIFUL color! In hindsight, I wish I had painted mine in something other than I did. The copper isn't bad, just that cars of this type scream for flashy colors as their body shapes dictate that.

As others have said, every once in a while, I'll post a pic of something I built on someone else's thread to make a point. In fact, there's '59 Buick thread going on right now that I may post a pic of the one I did to illustrate how mine looks with the stock wheels. I do find it kinda annoying though when someone will post a pic of something they did on someone else's thread "because they can" and it's to no point other than to sorta show off the same build. Some may not see it that way, but that's a bit of a thread hijack to me. What I may do in lieu of posting a pic directly on their thread, is post a link to where the model is located, and they can choose to click on it or not. That way it's not seen each time someone visits the WIP and see my model there. Sigs are a different matter........I don't mind someone's model in their sig as that's well...........their signature! I have my Challenger as my avatar each time I post...........will someone get uptight because they're building a model of a white Challenger and I comment?

Carl, this is what I've used for Ford Engine Blue............ Never had a problem with color separation, and it's what I used on my '67 Mustang WIP. Of course, you may want to decant it into a jar and airbrush it, but it works quite well.

Well...............I have to say that I see many, many threads come and go on here on a daily basis. I'll admit that I'm a bit biased when it comes to modeling subjects. I'm not a street rod type of guy-----I don't hate them, I just don't get as excited over them as say something factory stock. Even with factory stock, if the car is not my cup of tea, I'm not likely to comment. Comments are nice, but I go by how many particular "hits" or "views" of a thread I started. To me the fact that folks are watching (not my own hit of the thread), says more than someone commenting. I have a thread going on right now of a '90 BMW 850i. It's straight out of the box (for the most part), and it hasn't generated as much excitement as my '59 Chevy, or '67 Mustang WIP's did. I expect that as for as far as it goes..........it's not a very exciting project-----I have no whiz-bang working features or opening everything going on with it. Just a relaxing, "sensible" build to get me through till I'm revved up to work on the next crazy thing. What Ace-Garageguy said I echo wholeheartedly as well.............GOOD, CLEAR pics go a looooong way to ensure that someone will comment about what you're doing! Not to poke fun at any one particular person, but I've seen more than a few threads that don't have many comments even though the OP has many pics. Why?? Because IMO the pics are really bad. Too dark, out of focus, or "too far away" to make out any nice details they may have. Just my two cents worth on this very early Saturday morning!

I have to agree with what Ace says-------while AMT's Roadrunner can be built as a nice shelf model, it comes at the cost of not looking quite right to my view. To me, it suffers from the same malady that afflicts their '58 Plymouth. The body from the C pillars rearward is bent down too much compared to the 1:1. I did do a correction to the body (for the most part), but I've never posted it here as it wasn't part of an ongoing WIP that I started. It was something I was curious about when I was at a standstill during the build of my '59 Impala which had me stumped on the glass for a bit. Hmmm...............I'm off after tomorrow for the next four days. I may start a thread on this one, and try to come up with a clever title for it. There's more wrong to me on this one than just the rear quarters------other things on it would need to be fixed as well as far as the body is concerned. And as Ace mentioned, this is not a cut on those that have either built the model or maybe don't really care about the accuracy of the shape. Well, I'm one of those that focuses on certain details of a particular car that distinguishes them for what they are. If it's off to my view, I'll try to fix it if it's one that screams out to me loudly-------witness what I did to Monogram's '59 Chevy Impala hardtop. No...........I have NO PLANS to have this one cast if anyone was wondering! Just a future possible build after I get a couple other much wanted projects out of the way. Stay tuned...............

Jerry, I built the AMT '67 within the last year and as far as it goes, it's a decent kit. IMO though it doesn't quite live up to the GT status as there were a number of body details missing that were on most GT's I've ever seen. Here are a few pics in case you haven't seen it before............. To my eyes, this is better than the Revell '68............something about that one seems "off" to me body shape wise, but I've been told it builds without much fuss. Hope this helps you out!

I should add Jerry that it wouldn't hurt to wash the parts in some mild dish detergent and let them air dry before attempting any painting. This will get rid of any molding release oils that may be on the body and other parts, and will wreak havoc with your paint job. Any kind of degreasing detergent should do.............Dawn, Joy, etc. Hope this helps!

Couldn't resist!

The Scale Scenes mesh screen is good stuff! I used it to replace the molded in grille on my Magnum Wagon model years ago.

I've got a couple I'd like to get back to when the ambition truly strikes. This one............... A '55 Ford Victoria which was a very poorly attempted conversion I rescued off of eBay. I totally redid the roof to suit the lower body better than was attempted, but much to my dismay, the bodywork that I did is showing right through the paint. I guess my attempt at putting on a barrier coat with Future was not good enough. Nevertheless, I intend to totally strip this one down to bare plastic, fix the bodywork (and make some corrections) and repaint the whole works in the same colors. Then there's this one that had me pulling what little hair I have left out........... A resin '64 Olds Cutlass that I was trying to turn into a 442. Practically everything was done on it 'cept the hood was severely warped. I bought another hood from Modelhaus, and that one warped too after I painted it. I learned that thin resin hoods like this need to be painted on both sides to keep the solvents "balanced" and not pull the resin one way or the other. Kinda makes sense, but I've since got a nice original unpainted hood off eBay so that one should work out. Getting a proper air cleaner was a challenge as well as every time I'd see one on the 'Bay, it would be included with other parts and I'd get outbid. Well, Ron Hamilton mentioned to me that the air cleaner in Revell's '65 Chevy kit was 'bout identical to the '64 Olds, and would work with little tweaking. I got one from him, and now once the ambition strikes again, I can finish this one up. I may strip this one too and repaint it. I'm not that thrilled with the somewhat heavy metallic in the paint, and I may stop by my go-to local paint guy and see if he can mix me this particular color with finer metallic flakes. The original paint came from another source in town, and after the last experience I had with them, I won't be going to them again. There are a few more that could post, but these came to mind immediately as I see them each time I go into my model room. Sooooo many builds...........so little time!

Well, I gotta say that I'm a little biased towards the Italeri one. Probably because I spent a LOT of time with this one building it back in '96 or so. These are somewhat recent pics as it's a little beat up now. Particularly the PE headlight surrounds and the one door knob handle is broken. My first attempt with Norm's Veber's engine kit from back then................ If I do build another 250, I'd have to go with Fujimi's. To me the car just "looks right", and more true to the original lines of the car------even though no two were alike with the 36 or so that were built in 1962-63. Not to mention, as was said there are TONS of detail items out there for the Fujimi kit. Not so much the case when I built my GTO 20 years ago. I'm not a big fan of the Protar kit though I have one. I never liked the too short back end, although that is correct for that particular serial # car which was restored after it was in an accident. The original restorers just didn't get the back end correct to my view compared to how it would have looked when new.

Hmmm...........I dunno. I thought I read somewhere that Chrysler's 1961 Imperial had Cadillac beat. If I'm not mistaken by a ­½" or so............ Either which way, they're TREMENDOUS and the last of their kind!