johnbuzzed

I'm not saying I won't buy any more kits, nor will I get rid of anything nor stop building anything. I won't even lose any sleep. It's not a matter of expecting perfection. If you have read any of the previous posts, you'll understand that. It's a question of "Why", and while that might or might not bother you, there are those of us who do wonder.

(deleted text)

I once saw the aftermath of a '64 Tempest going over two traffic islands- one rather big and triangular, one a somewhat narrow median strip- then over a curb, across a sidewalk and just about head-on into a brick planter, about 4' deep and tall, that ran the length of a bowling alley fronting on Deer Park Avenue in North Babylon, NY. The car was moving at a good clip, heading westbound, out of the street on which we lived which intersects with DPA. I don't know if the driver wanted to go left (south) or right (north), but the car continued west, toward the structure. Engine noise, banging, metallic banging, then a crash. Lots of dust in the air and hubcaps rolling as we ran outside to see what happened. Considering the damage done to the brick planter, the car wasn't too bad- and both occupants were WALKING AWAY from the car. Seriously. I saw them. My Dad stopped them and the police were called. Were they drunk? Perhaps. That condition can put you in a more relaxed state, which can better your chance of survival because you are not all tensed-up at the time of impact.

Revell (and anyone else, for that matter) has the ability to say "No". Revell is paying to have those kits produced. Money talks.

I don't think the kit selection at any Michaels stores varies, no matter the location.

Yeah, that car's not even red!!!

"looks right"... In whose opinion? All too often lately, kits are introduced that apparently, somewhere along the production process, looked "right" to somebody in a corporate position. But when we see the production version, something is wrong- it doesn't "look right". No, wait- there are problems with dimensions. contours, body lines... that's not just a problem with perception, it's a problem with accuracy. I understand the purpose of a test shot. For reasons stated in my previous post, I don't understand the need for a test shot- especially when the production item is lacking.

And, some more... ">http:// ">http:// ">http://http://s889.photobucket.com/user/jbuzz710/media/Saleen%20Mustang/CAM00012.jpg.html'>

Yes, this is a Revell Saleen Mustang. I'm not a big fan of the actual car but I'm building this for my daughter, something which I promised many years ago. I'm going to have it finished to take to the CKM NNL, then bring it up to LI when we fly up for the block party at our daughter's house. It's basically box stock, with some flock, BMF and decals to add some pop, and some contrasting colors on suspension components. It will be a One-Coat lacquer blue, but I don't remember which one. And, yes, I do have to touch up one big, ugly white area on the chassis. As always, your comments are welcome. Thanks for looking. http:// http:// http:// http:// http://

OK, it's a "test shot" and yes, I am familiar with the term. But, do the molds for the test shot not cost the same as the actual production mold? Granted, there might be just one set of test shot molds (which might make them even more costly), but if you're going to spend the money to try to make money, why not get it right the first time when you have everything you need to do so? Back in modeling's stone age, a lot of manufacturers used to advertise that their kits were scaled from actual factory blueprints, or words to that effect. But we don't see that anymore. We are left to our own to determine if the model is accurate or not- and then, wonder why. I would rather build a kit that was advertised as being dimensionally accurate with all the correct contours, body and panel lines, etc- especially if the manufacturer backed up that info in the kit, on the instruction sheet or box or whatever- than build a kit that was "tweaked" to make it look "right". In whose mind should it be "right"? Think of the song "Dude (looks like a lady)".

"Ill conceived"? Hardly. Poorly executed is a better description. As has been stated in the pages of these forums, time and time again: there is no such thing as a perfect model and no one is forcing any one to buy anything. But I must wonder aloud, again: With today's technology, so much reference material and the availability of the real thing in most (if not all) instances, how can "they" screw things up? The more important question might be : "Why?"

Wow- I gotta get me one of them '39 Plymouths!!! (say, wait- the real car did look like that, right?) One of those fedoras, too!

Currently, it's hard to go wrong with any of the Revell Deuce kits. I've only built two but I have a third and I'm sure there will be more. Otherwise- the original issue of Revell's '55 Chevy. I built this kit when I was ten or eleven and if I could do it then, I can do it now. The box art alone was worth the price, the kit had plenty of options and working features... you don't see that in 1/25 anymore.

I went to a quilt show with my wife on Saturday. One vendor was selling swatches of upholstery material that he got when a manufacturer went out of business. I picked up two squares of nice, soft leather for a buck. Now, I get to learn how to "skiv", and the results will be used in my AMT '57 Ford. Working doors and the smell of leather!

Jason, that really looks good. I would be happy to have it on my shelf.

I think we all realize that publications have routinely "edited" their illustrations for years. While that's part of the business, it, too, is walking a line between reality and fantasy. On one hand, there is realism- this is what the world looks like. On the other... fantasim? This is how we really want the world to look. So nice and pretty and perfect. Even food in ads usually isn't real food- real food doesn't look good enough for the masses. And while I realize that real food won't last too long under hot lighting, why misrepresent a product?

Thanks for the info, Bill. That's one of those things which, until you see it, makes sense but doesn't.

Ahh, the good old days- when a kit could be inaccurate and we would build it anyway

Way back in '75-'76, I used to see cops in Waikiki riding around in such mid-sized cars as Monte Carlos, Cougars, Torinos, etc. These were not plain-jane, 4-door, brown paper wrappers. They were all two-doors, decked out with vinyl roofs, high-end wheel covers, upscale trim levels, whitewalls- and a dash-mounted red (or blue, I forget) light when needed.

As far as I know, a magneto creates it's own power. Grab the plug lead on a lawnmower while someone pulls the starter rope- you'll see what I mean. The coil in a car without a magneto acts a transformer to convert the normal 12 V power from the electrical system (battery, then generator or alternator) to a much higher voltage; the distributor then distributes that high voltage to the spark plugs. The step-up is limited by the amount of turns in the coil of wire that is in that transformer. I'm not sure as I have no schematics but the coil and magneto setup might somehow use the coils to step up the voltage created by the magnetos, then return it to the mags for them to distribute the current. I'm just a technician so I can't wrap my head around that setup. Any engineers out there who can clarify that?

Thanks again for the compliments. I try to not let these "fun" builds get too complex.

Very cool!!! Looks brutally fast.

Sooooo... how's this Hobby Lobby place that I keep hearing about?

Yes, and I am outraged about that!!! Remember when baseball was the "national pastime" and the country was a lot more mellow? Now, it's football- and we're no longer mellow. Go figure.

Unfortunately, Skip, ours has become a society in which one cannot offend anybody via any means about anything. I'm offended by that, but does anyone care? Perhaps I'll sue... somebody!!! Darn it, who's responsible for this situation?