MrObsessive

If you want to spend a TON of time (and some bucks), that '58 Belvedere CAN be fixed. It would take a '59 Dodge roof section (bodies turn up on the 'Bay occasionally) and "bending" the body along with what Jon Cole did on a thread some time ago. Now you'd also have to change the windshield frame, and this is where AMT's '57 Chrysler 300 would come in handy here. A lot of work to be sure, but don't look for them to EVER fix the body on that one. BTW, I figured out that one of the reasons the kit was so wrong, is that RC2 based the kit on diecast tooling, which came out just before the kit IIRC. Now the diecast is just as horrible-------bent body, wrong roof and all. Who knows........after I get done with that '59 Chevy, I MIGHT take on the monumental task of making a CORRECT '58 Belvedere/Fury.

Man, you are BRAVE cutting open doors on a resin body! The bodywork is looking great.............I'd support that dogleg windshield frame as soon as I could though! It looks mighty fragile!

I've never had a problem with Future filling in panel lines as Jacen mentioned as well. Of course, I cut most things open so I guess that's seldom an issue! Here's an example of Future preventing bleed through on that terrible red plastic. I did this '55 T-Bird conversion years ago from Monogram's '56. Of course it was molded in red, and I wanted that light turquoise color (Thunderbird Blue). (pay no attention to the hardtop placed on crooked!) As you can see no bleed through, and yes------it does take a little bit of practice to get it to spray without running.

Future needs no thinning as it's pretty runny right out of the bottle. I've used a Badger Crescendo airbrush for years, and with the pressure set at 10-12 PSI------Future has sprayed well for me. However, you need to make quick passes because it can tend to pool and run, especially at the rocker panels. I don't use Future as a clear, I've used it to seal that nasty molded in red and yellow plastic which thankfully, is not much in use anymore. I've sprayed it directly on the plastic, and then primer coats followed by color.

ABSOLUTELY GORGEOUS!! :wub:

It's limping along for two reasons IMO............ #1 It's too dang expensive. #2 It's Ugly! Fix both of those problems and we might have a winner! Here in Central PA, I've seen VERY FEW on the roads.

Is that a corrected body on the '58 Plymouth??? Or are my eyes deceiving me? The trim appears straighter than the last issue...................

I love oddball subjects like this! Nice build!! Once in a blue moon, I saw these when I was a kid here in the states. I had no idea what they were until years later, and was surprised that it was a Ford. Of British descent of course! I have one of Airtrax's Volvo P1800 kits------very nicely done with just a little cleanup that will be needed. They're a bit pricey due to our Dollar vs. the Euro, but well worth it for subject matter you just can't get anywhere else!

Sad, but very TRUE!

Now that is classic! Thanks for that Greg------that gave me a good laugh! After being in Lexington, KY for the last 10 days (getting home LATE last night), I was able to have a nice, QUIET day at home. Now it's back to the grindstone tomorrow as I'm going to be at work bright and early. Thanks for the well wishes guys!

I truly hope that if there's any tweaking to be done (all indications point to there being very few), that Revell do so and not slack off and let things slide. I can still distinctly remember Revell's second "attempt" at this kit back in 2007, and I was very disappointed when the model went on sale as I saw the test shot at the New Jersey NNL. Nary an error was fixed, and when I pointed out the obvious errors to the rep there------------all I got was an "Oh Well." My hats off to Revell for FINALLY getting this kit right from all appearances!

:lol:

A Facel Vega?? PLEASE tell me it's this one!! I just love those '61 and earlier HK500's!

I'll be out there for a little over a week starting this weekend, and was wondering if any of you guys know of any decent hobby shops in that area besides the usual chain run ones? Thanks in advance for any info you folks have!

Al, Al, Al.........you got me drooling over that Grand Am and that Alfa Romeo B.A.T. 7!! I've been a big fan of the Grand Am ever since they were first intro'd in '72, and was very disappointed when Pontiac revived that name on a FWD econobox years ago. Let me know when they're available...............I'm taking a 10 day trip out of town and will need some time to get the model funds built back up!

Aaahhh-----the much maligned (and rightfully so) '58 Belvedere. This is one of the models I had in mind when I stated in my original post that certain cars can evoke certain memories. My Dad had this car when I was a kid (a '57 actually), so I'm VERY familiar with how this model should've appeared. It's not that the trim is misaligned per se.........it's that it follows the body lines which are incorrect. The problem starts right behind the doors (where the tailfins actually start), in which the beltline should start a gentle slope upwards (take a look at the 1:1's), and then bump upwards for the tailfins. The trim should be in a straight line from nose to tail with the exception where it flares up towards the fins. RC2 decided that the beltline should taper downwards (inexplicable to be sure) and then bump up to the fins. The result is a body that appears to be banana shaped and not like the1:1 at all. Another chance at greatness blown. One look at the box art when this model first turned up and I knew it was wrong. Not to mention a roof that's too low, C pillars that are too wide, (take a look at Johan's '59 Dodges which were 100% correct) and you have a real mess of a model. It can be worked with for sure, but not without a LOT of work! Not something everyone can or wants to do------or if RC2 had really done their homework, should have to do.

Bob I take no offense in your sig......actually I find it quite funny! I've learned the advice given to me by my Mom years ago..........."If you can't say anything nice, say nothing at all!" That's not to say that constructive criticism is not warranted-----when asked for. It can be done in a way though that is not mean spirited, and not to cause hurt as that person may be new, or just not skilled enough to fix a flaw correctly. I also don't chide those that don't care about scale accuracy one way or another. My comments are directed more at the American kit makers, and how they've put out kits in the last number of years that have been substandard body shape wise. I could name a number of them, but I don't want to step on any toes as I've seen some very well done builtups on this board.

There was a recent thread about why some of us are very much into scale accuracy, and why we care. I didn’t say a whole lot in that thread, but recently it got me to thinking about what stirs up emotions about a particular car’s appearance and why that’s important. I have to say that one of the things that appeals to me when it comes to a certain makes appearance in scale, is some childhood or young adult memory that it invokes. It may be a certain song on the radio, or a particular room in a house you were in when you saw that car. It could have been someone you were dating when a car caught your attention. You remember the sweep of the fenders, the sleekness of the roof, or perhaps the arch of the tailfins that stick in your memory. Now a certain model manufacturer comes along and makes an announcement about that model you’ve been longing for many moons now. You wait with anticipation as you see test shots of that car, but the photos don’t reveal everything just yet as they're not very close shots of the car. You see more pics and you notice a flaw or two-----but you keep hoping upon hope that they’ll fix it before it hits the shelves. The model is released, you fire up the keyboard and order online, or you make a mad dash down to the local hobby shop and get that model in a flash! The model is either delivered, or you get home with it and then reality hits------------the model has those flaws that you feared, and even worse……the model has a body shape that’s not quite like you remembered. Close but no cigar. You’re irritated, mad, disappointed, and now you figure out how to “correct” these flaws without ruining the model, or you simply put it back in the box as your frustration is too much to even tackle such a thing. Not to mention your skills might not be up to par to attempt such. The point I’m making is this…………there are more than a few of us that like things to be pretty much as we saw them either in magazines as a kid, or sitting right in our parents (or our own) driveway when they were owned. When a model manufacturer fails to live up to a much wanted and hyped kit, the dream is blown as to what we’d like that model to be------------a piece of a nice memory the first time we saw that car ease on down the road. Now if that makes me a “rivet counter” then I stand proud to be one, as I’m the type of guy that likes to see models as accurate as humanly possible. With CAD, 3D scaling, Internet, a plethora of car shows, clubs, magazines, etc-------there’s no reason why a major model company can’t get the details right. I understand the pitfalls of molding certain details and the like, but glaring mistakes and then writing it off as no big deal to me is a HUGE turnoff. There are kits sitting in my stash right now that I haven’t touched due to flaws that to me stick out like a boil on your forehead. With prices of kits now approaching $30 (!), I’m only asking that the kit makers take a little more time in sweating the details, and not get a blasé attitude when a huge (or not so huge) error is pointed out by the modeling public. OK………….rant over! Comments welcome but let’s be nice Guys and Gals!

Gotta love those one model year Chevies!! That looks really great and yes, I'd rather foil this one than the '58 AMT one I did years ago! Much easier to do since the trim is a lot more defined. Excellent work!

I do somewhat of the same procedures as you've described, but as Curtis mentioned, some of the sanding steps are cut out. I also don't do my final polishing with a cotton rag, as I've found those to leave scratches. Instead, I use a chamois cloth. Pretty much like rubbing things out with your own skin, except of course much softer. Here's a model that did using pretty much the method that you laid out. In the end there was no clearcoat as this is a solid color, and there's enough hardener in the paint that clearcoat isn't needed. I rubbed out the paint with Meguiar's Car Cleaner wax and a chamois cloth. BTW, I strongly advise against rubbing out most metallic paints. When doing so, you can disturb the suspended flakes in the coats, yielding a mottled, swirly appearance. I do recommend clearcoating over your metallics and then rubbing out the clearcoat if needed. Hope this helps!

That body looks super excellent with the work you did! Much, MUCH better than Revell's effort! I wouldn't worry too much about the lower character line. That might involve moving the "vents" higher on the sides------might be a bit more trouble than it's worth. Yeah, when you get a chance, I'd like to see the work involved also! I'll definitely save the pics. You might want to give Fotki a try...........they have free memberships, but I can't remember what the limit is on uploading/linking photos.

Something else I'll need to do if I decide to tackle this one in an upcoming project---------replicate the roof pillar creases that are prominent on the 1:1, as well as depicted on Revell's version. Don't know how I'm going to accomplish that............although I may swap the roof pillars out of the Revell body and put them on the MPC car along with the appropriate roof lowering.

Yeah Roger, looking at the pics of the 1:1------- the version I won off the 'Bay does sit a scooch too high. Although the fellow that originally attempted this was no where finished----------he was heading in the right direction. I would have gone for the conversion as you described, but the one thing that still bugs me about the Revell body is the roof is too flat in the upper part of the backlite. It's no big deal in the grand scheme of things, but it's one of those "signature" styling cues that somehow always gets missed------even with diecasts I have seen. BTW, if you're having trouble posting pics with Photobucket, you might want to give Gmail blogs a try. It's where I've been linking my pics from whenever I make a new post about my '59 Chevy I'm working on. I've had no hassle with it, and best of all---------it's free! Edit: Actually, the pic service is Picasa powered by Google. As I mentioned, very good service and you can't beat free!

I just googled some images of this car, and I'm impressed! I don't remember seeing many of these as a kid, and by the early '60's when I first knew what a car was, I don't think there were that many on the road at that point. I really do like the lines of this car, and it just goes to show what Oldsmobile once was-------as well as GM. A styling leader! So I'll probably get a kit as well, for the mere fact that I love its looks! Who knows when I'll get around to building it though!

Here's a series of pics to show what I'm talking about..............I almost couldn't find this one..............it was buried under a TALL stack of models! The eBay win model................. And now the Revell model.............. The two together for comparison............ Anyway, just a little comparison to show that sometimes the "Big Companies" don't always get things right. Thing is though. we'll probably never see this corrected-----witness the two times Revell missed the mark on the much wanted CORRECT '70 'Cuda.. Hmmm...............that eBay win Coronet has the wheels in my head turning...........maybe a future project?? It sure could use some rescuing which is why I wanted to win it years ago. Hmmmmm..........................