Matt Bacon

I can't say I find any difficulty in sourcing all the kits I want, via UK retailers, eBay UK and 1999.co.jp (still cheaper for most Japanese kits than official UK imports, even with postage and customs ransom when it gets applied). But I'm no great fan of Detroit iron, hot rods or customs. There's definitely at least one trader at Huddersfield Model Show every year who has NOTHING BUT boxes and boxes of US import kits available, and I think he has an online store. I'm struggling to find him at the moment, but a post on forum.spc.org.uk (or in the Model Cars discsussion on Britmodeller -- I know he's buddies with a couple of regulars over there) might track him down... And try the IPMS UK Hot Rod and Custom SIG: http://rodcustomsig.proboards.com. Lee Croden is the SIG leader: E-Mail: lee.croden@hotmail.com bestest, M.

... 'cos the US one has pre-broken parts that have to be glued back together before you can use them? ;-P Seriously, I don't know WHY they are different, but you can see the instructions including sprue layouts for the Revell AG one here: http://www.revell.de/fileadmin/import/images/bau/67141_%23BAU_458_ITALIA.PDF and the Revell US equivalent here: http://manuals.hobbico.com/rmx/85-4912.pdf The stages of the instructions are identical, as are the diagrams. The US one doesn't have a sprue diagram, but has a named list of part numbers which only runs to Part 111 (the Cavallino for the front, in both cases, in case you were wondering...). Revell DE doesn't count the tyres in their 111 parts. I guess if you count the tyres, the decal sheet, the instructions, the warning sheet and the two box halves, you get to "118+" bestest, M.

The plastic is identical, so the etch will work equally well with either. I'd look for the box that's least likely to have broken parts in it -- or check inside before you leave the shop! Unfortunately, it's hard to know which one that is: my RoG box had a cracked main windscreen, and I've heard of other builders who found the same. But I've also heard lots of criticism on this board of the way some of those Revell Germany originated kits are stuffed/shoehorned into the standard US Revell box resulting in crushed and broken parts, especially fragile A-pillars. If you can possibly buy it in the real world, I would: remember, your retailer is the first port of call if there IS a problem, so it's in their interests to let you check the kit before you pay for it... bestest, M.

Another nicely detailed early 1960s kit of a big and impressive original! These beasties were the flagship steam locomotives of the SNCF (French Railways). Unfortunately, unbuilt complete kits are pretty rare, and command high prices on eBay, so to get this most unusual and impressive Kitmaster model on display, I had to resort to buying a built-up model. It was only missing one set of cab steps (and seeing how easily they are knocked off by the swinging rear bogie, I can understand why!), which I scratch built. It had been pretty reasonably painted, albeit in silver and olive green rather than the more prototypical steel and Brunswick Green: Anyway, aiming for an "in service" but not "uncared for" look, I weathered it as though someone took an oily rag to the green bits every now and then, as befits a locomotive hauling Blue Riband expresses. ... yes, it is a big so and so... This one really brings home the issues of OO/HO Gauge: the track suits 1/87 scale prototypes, but is really too narrow for 1/76 scale. On a big loco like this it's clearly noticeable that the body is really too wide for the chassis, and it would certainly look better with the wheels more outboard. The difference is 19mm in 1/76 versus 16.5mm in 1/87, which is pretty significant. Not much I can do about a pre-built model, but I have a few for which I have kits, and I might see if I can do them with a 3-4mm increase in track width... it's not as if they have to run on any layout! bestest, M.

Lovely job, Jurgen. It looks perfect, especially the interior. I have the kit, too, so I know you don't get a whole lot to work with! Have you got a Heller Bentley to convert to go with it, in memoriam Patrick Macnee? All the best, Matt

The going rate for fully running XJ6s with minor cosmetic issues (wheel arch rust, say, or damaged leather interiors) is around £1000 over here. You're going to spend SO much more on it than it's ever going to be worth that you might as well import a good car from Europe to start on! I've lost count of he number of "restored car" ads that I've seen that say something like "Fully restored and repainted over three years with bills for over £50,000. For sale: £20,000." If you really want a project that ends up as a runner, buy a cheap Mustang -- replacement parts for those are so much cheaper than for a Jag... bestest, M.

So good, in fact, that I liked it so much that I bought the company ;-P Or at least my own Johan 500K for £15 from eBay UK -- I hope I can do it such justice as Jay has. I'm sure I've got an Octane with one that has grey upholstery with a similar battleship grey exterior. It looked REALLY cool... bestest, M.

...or an E-Type Jag, preferably a lightweight, proudly supported by a resurgent Jaguar-Land Rover, who are building new 1:1s as well, providing all the prototype access and info anyone could possibly want! bestest, M.

Utterly brilliant, and perfect colour choices. Looks like you well and truly busted your slump! bestest, M.

I'm gonna go with real... bestest, M.

It does seem rather expensive. My two year overseas subscription to Hemmings Sports and Exotic Cars cost a bit less than $60. The US prices of the Hemmings magazines and MCM are about the same, but the overseas sub is twice as much for MCM.. bestest, M.

Revell Germany have this: down as an August release. They don't say anything about snap together or pre-finished (and they do have a separate range of 1/25 "Simply Snap" kits listed), so I'm hoping that their release will be a regular kit... Anyone know any more? bestest, M.

...seems harsh to have to choose between a Lotus 49 and a Lotus 72 in the first round! And no Ferrari 156 or earlier-vintage 312s... Fun, though! bestest, M.

Another excellent early 60s kit, but this time bought assembled because unbuilt ones go for crazy money! As bought from eBay: After repainting and re-decalling: With weathering (relatively restrained compared to the real things, I reckon...) bestest, M.

OK. You've said it before and I've no doubt you'll say it again, ad nauseum. Thank goodness for "ignore preferences"... Bye... M.

Bill -- are there any kits that meet your high expectations? You seem to dismiss any kit that anyone cares to release that isn't perfect in your opinion... And Greg -- I'm sure it's very satisfying to prove how horrendously wrong every kit manufacturer gets it. How do you find anything that you're prepared to build? There seems to be a great desire to slag off new kits based on minimal information; and then have a personal pop at anyone who suggests it might be better to wait and see an actual kit. Me... I'm going back to actually building stuff; sorry for those for whom that doesn't seem to be an option. bestest, M.

OK, there may be some scratch building to do as well. But since this entire thread is running off one pixelated image of a test shot build taken from an angle that doesn't show the part in question clearly at all, I'm prepared to bet now that if I wanted to, I could make the part that Revell will provide look satisfactorily how I want it to look with the application of a small amount of actual modelling. If I wanted to do that, the blower pictures posted here might be useful reference. On the other hand, it might still be wise to wait until the plastic is in hand before going off on one about it... bestest, M.

Seriously? It it bothers you that much, cut it half way up, sand each of the faces down by a mm, and stick it back together. It'll be barely noticeable, and it looks from at least one of those pictures that a seam line half way up is there on the real thing... bestest, M.

It is. Kinda funny that The Testa d’Oro boasts 750 horsepower at 4000 rpm and 600 lb-ft of torque at 5000 rpm Shows how things have moved on that those kind of numbers are now the province of street cars (albeit expensive ones...) bestest, M.

Shoulda looked in my stash! I can confirm that the Fujimi GT40 P1075 Le Mans 1969 boxing does indeed have the wider-flared rear wheel arches on the clamshell part... bestest, M.

Interestingly, that's basically a Caterham 7 under there, which you can kinda see in the proportions, once you know. The "portholes" that Harry so kindly deleted are there as a tribute to the engine that the beast's fitted with, them being a signature design feature for Maserati. Once I remembered where I'd seen them before (I've only built a couple of Maseratis after all...;-)) it was a pretty quick Google to find it! bestest, M.

Yeah... I think I was misinterpreting what my references said. #1075 was a new-build based on a Mirage tub, but with a GT40 Mk1 body (made, as Ace says, with carbon-reinforced fibreglass panels). So the cabin is not the narrow Mirage cabin. However, both "Ford vs Ferrari" and my Haynes GT40 manual, plus that online reference I posted agree that it had a "wider rear clamshell". You can see the hips flare in the third of Ace's images there. Not sure what's going on in the first one -- the angle's not great, and it does look a bit dinged up around the rear wheel arch! As for the Mirage, Le Mans Miniatures did one: but it's out of production and seriously had to find... bestest, M.

Well, the refs I have mention a "wider rear clamshell"; I think also that the Mirage cabin was smaller, and more tapered toward the roof. Not sure about the front end -- it's just described as "smoother". bestest, M.

http://blog.thehenryford.org/2014/03/gt40-1075-a-two-time-le-mans-champion/ It's actually a Mirage. Based on a GT40 Mk1, but you need to flare the rear wheel arches more, because the BRM wheels they ran tracked wider. bestest, M.

The first poll was bad enough, but this lot are ugly beyond belief. Travesties of looks, style and engineering, the lot of them... So I go with Z: ;-P bestest, M.