MrObsessive

Alex! So good to see you back! I had no idea that happened to you and I'm very sorry! I've been dealing with health issues too in the last couple years...........mainly vision troubles among other things so I get where you're coming from. Still it's good to see you posting again, and that Ferrari is simply GOREOUS!! I've never seen that model Ferrari before until today, and it's a real beaut! Like others have said, your site has been of inspiration to me, and while I'm not as prolific a builder as I used to be, it's still nice to go back and have that site for reference. Take care, and please do post more often when you can!

More so the '70's but certainly not in the '60's. I was a kid in the '60's and I could tell which cars were what WITHOUT looking at the name plate. That was as early as the age of six or seven. Each division had its own styling cues, and one could certainly close their eyes as even the starters and engines had their own unique sounds. Those finned '50's cars were some of the first cars I remember seeing when I first knew what a car was, and as I got older, I could certainly tell the difference between ALL makes that were made back then. Into the '70's the car industry fell victim to the Safety Nazis whims, and that might have been the start of the 'homogenization' being that things started to look similar. Nevertheless, one could still tell which car was what, and didn't have to guess at what was coming at them. I guess it all depends on what era one was born as to what they're going to be familiar with. My Dad was born in 1933. He could tell all of those '30's and '40's cars apart with no trouble at all, while to me they all appeared the same. Same I guess could be said of today's cars. 'Car kids' I'm sure can tell today's cars from each other, and may think that the cars from yesteryear all look the same. It's all a matter of perspective.

Ha! You got that right!

One saving grace of that Moebius kit is that the sedan and 'bubbletop' hardtops at least shared the same windshield height, thus the rooflines would be the same height. GM did some weird things back in those days with interchangeability. Some things would fit other division's cars while other more common things did not.

Steve, that '61 roofline was unique to that model year only. '62's are a bit different and would need some surgery (resin at that) to be correct.

You might want to check out the inline 6 in AMT's '60 Chevy Pickup. I don't know if they would be the same as a Poncho Canadian six, but that would be a good start. As far the sedan roof, I can't think of any except for MCW's resin and I believe Missing Link did a two door '61 Catalina sedan.

Lee, I did a pretty extensive post a couple years ago on how to fix the troubles with the Pontiac's glass and wheels. If you click here, it'll take you to my original post. Also, I have a Fotki page where all those pics are posted along with descriptions. That can be found here.

A VERY recognizable car for me for good reasons!

Absolutely Gorgeous! Yeah, this can be a fiddly kit, but if one takes their time.....it can be made into something quite beautiful! I believe the glass issues have been a turnoff for a lot of builders. I'd like to tackle this one down the road, and I may have yet a further way to make the glass not so daunting. I get why Moebius did it this way as that's how glass is fitted in 1:1's, but for someone not familiar with the techniques in making the it appear right in the body, it can make for a frustrating build. Same goes for the wheels...........very nice when done, but perhaps too many steps in getting there.

To echo what Lloyd said, it would have been nice if there was an internet back in '78 when I started building models. In fact, I didn't get a computer and internet service until sometime in 2001-02. I used to build models with stacks of books and articles. Now if I need to see a certain detail-----for instance the way a particular car's door might open for instance, the info is just a keyboard away. I can then save that pic and put it right on my phone for me to use as reference......no more stacks of papers and books! Some don't care for that, but my work table is cluttered enough as it is! The less stuff I have in my way of building the better. Speaking of YouTube, I have for example the 1/8 scale DeAgostini 1967 Shelby. There's a channel on YT where they have a whole ton of videos where they show step by step how they built it from beginning to end. I downloaded each one and saved them in a folder, and then when the time comes for me to build it, I can put those vids on my phone and not have my laptop sucking up yet more space if I need to go to the vid for reference! Ain't today's technology grand?.............(well almost!)

Justin, this is coming along nicely and that's an interesting tool you made there! I have one of these to restore in my to-do pile, and in fact was in line to be done but I needed a couple items first before I get started. A restorable '74 is now on the table, so that'll do for now.

Hello Nate and welcome! First and foremost, you want to work as patiently as you can. All of us here have will have different ways of doing things, but you'll need to be patient with yourself in not wanting to rush things. You'll want to work solely on the basics first. Getting rid of 'parting' or mold lines on the body is important. Start with 400 grit sandpaper and then work up to 600 grit. You don't want the surface to be too smooth as you want the surface to have 'teeth' to hold the paint with. I'd be stocking up on some easy and manageable tools to work with. Toothpicks for your glues, files, exacto blades, among some tools. There are various types of glues for different things. NEVER use solvent glue to put in your glass. You'll want to use either 5 min epoxy, or white Elmers type glue for that. Solvent glues if you're not careful will permanently ruin the glass and could also damage your surrounding paint. Which brings me to painting. I'm a VERY BIG believer in building up all of your other assemblies and then see how they'll fit into the body before paint. Way too many times I've read complaints about X kit not fitting right, and this was AFTER the body was all painted and polished up. A very bad idea as you'll never know what kind of assembly problems you'll run into, and meanwhile you're scratching up the paint and making smudges where they shouldn't be. You'll want to wash the body (after you've did the bodywork) in some type of oil removing detergent (Dawn for instance), as the body will have its share of mold release agent which can wreak havoc on your paint job. When it comes to painting the body, the only advice I can give you is practice, practice, practice. You'll get a thousand and one opinions on how to paint a car, but until you practice (preferably on junk bodies), you'll not know what works best for you. Each of us here have our building styles, but with time comes experience and don't get too down if the model is not to what might be too high expectations in the beginning. I've been building for 40 years, and trust me that even after all that time building models, I run into gaffes at times! This is just some things in a nutshell. Your question is pretty wide open and some others I'm sure will add to what I mentioned. Don't be coy about asking questions if you run into issues, and if possible, you may want to post pics of what you're building so we can see what's up. OK, that's my 2¢ worth for what it's worth...........hope this helps and once again, welcome aboard!

That car Joe doesn't have the high beltline like that Camaro which adds to the claustrophobia! I can almost betcha he had reeeeaaal long seat tracks in that Superbird! He's real tall like my Great Grandfather who was seven foot. He never drove though so fitting in a car was never an issue for him!

Actually of the three cars, I found my Challenger to be the least cramped/claustrophic. The new Camaro, I don't care for the way low roof, and the small windows. The Mustang I found to be 'narrow' inside despite its size on the outside. According to the motoring press (and my insurance company), the Challenger is actually considered a full size car due to its dimensions. Comparisons are made to the Camaro and Mustang because of its looks and performance. I don't consider myself an 'old fart' (yet), but my Challenger is pretty easy to get in and out of. No crouching down to get in, and no straining your knees to get out of doing severe knee bends! Yeah, I'm a single guy with no wife or kids, so unless you've got another more practical car for family duty, they aren't that practical. Station wagons? Don't get me started on those! I TRULY miss those wagons as I'm not a fan of the whole SUV/CUV thing at all 'cept for a very few. I hated when Chrysler cut short the life of the Magnum in a few years, only to come out with yet another Crossover-------I can't think of the name of it now it was so anonymous to me. I'm just not crazy about vehicles that sit up so high with their high center of gravity. More often than not, when there's severe winter weather here in PA, what's the first vehicle I see on the road with wheels up and roof down?? An SUV/CUV.....................'nuff said.

Lloyd, welcome back! This site can be VERY addicting!

I really like the Molotow pens for doing touch-up work on wheels and such. In fact, when I restored this Porsche 356 I built many years ago, I used the pens to bring the wheels and mirrors back to life. I haven't tried airbrushing them just yet.........that might be in my future when I get back to working on my Shelby (taking a break), and I need to bring the bumpers back up to snuff. That bumper on the right looks FANTASTIC! If I can get mine to come out looking that good, it'll be worth it!

Snake for a cheap diecast, that ain't bad at all! I can see what you're talking about as far as the roofline/door shape. Hardtops had the upper part of the door (beltline) do a subtle dip towards the rear, while the sedans had the door straight across like this diecast. Also, it seems that the roof itself could stand to be just a teeny bit shorter as the sedan roofs were in fact 'long'. One thing I always noticed about those '55-'57 GM B Body two door sedans is that due to the placement of the wheelwells in relation to the length of the quarter windows, they never really rolled down completely out of sight like the hardtops. There was always a little bit of it sticking up. Thanks for the pics!

The only thing I find Rustoleum good for is their red oxide primer-------that's it! Their 'sandable' primers in no way compare to either Duplicolor, or my favorite which can still be had, Plastikote T-35.

I was in high school when that '77 Thunderbird was intro'd in late '76. A number of friends I knew who were also car guys were SHOCKED when we first saw it! "THAT'S A T-BIRD??"......... we thought as we were stunned by the way it looked as the previous number of years the car was super huge and somewhat ungainly looking. I do believe that the '77 and '78 T-Birds broke records for Ford as far as sales so it definitely struck a chord with the motoring public. I'm always hoping that somehow this car sees the light of day--------kinda like what Revell did with the Torino, 'cept this I think would make a great lowrider subject as well as stock.

One of my FAVORITE cars of the '70's! If you owned one of these back then, you were telling the world that you had 'made it' and were proud of it! Yeah, I miss this size of car too......now they're replaced by imposing trucks and SUV's which annoyingly block my vision if I'm stuck behind 'em.

Pillarless hardtops are sorely missed by me! One of the reasons I dislike four doors and I avoid buying them is I absolutely hate that center pillar blocking my peripheral vision. Because I'm so tall, I need to have that seat back as far as possible. In a four door car, of course the doors are shorter, and that thick pillar is right smack besides my face. Since I'm usually the only one that would drive the car, the seat being further back when I get in, I stand a better chance of ripping my pants as that's happened trying to get in the seat behind the door jamb among other issues. There are some nice four door cars out there-------not a one of 'em is pillarless these days and haven't been since the late '70's. A two door car.....their doors of course are longer, and that pillar is further back. In my Challenger despite it being a pillared coupe, the post is not super huge and at least it has frameless doors to kinda mimic hardtop styling.

Excalibur? Looks like a car based somewhat on the ‘66 Toronado.

Don't know if this was mentioned, but ROG's Jaguar XKSS (reissue) was molded in a dark green. I'd show a pic but I'm at work right now, and of course there are no models here.

To somewhat echo what Alan said, I've built a Heller kit in the past (neither of these two though), and I found them to go together very easily without much drama. The Jaguar E Type I built was especially good, if not a bit oversimplified in some of the details. Body lines were spot on however compared to Monogram's (nee Aurora) version put out years ago.

Two part Dynatron Putty-Cote. Been using it for years, and what's nice about it is that it has some plastic in it, which makes it nice to glue styrene on it. Such as replacing trim and whatnot when doing bodywork.