bisc63

VERY cool, low key cruiser! Did you vacu-form a windshield?

That interior looks absolutely real! Very nice shade of gold you've got there as well.

A like-minded man, good to have you here! Look forward to seeing your builds. Hawaii you say, how's the weather there??

Got to agree on your color choice; that rich hue looks so right on that body. It may have fought you, but you whipped it just fine!

Oh, that is so nice! Revell really captured the nuances of the complex curves of the front view of the '57. The grille/surround/bumper looks just right on this model, and I especially love how your model sits. Is it straight from the box with regards to the stance, or did it require tweaking? Great build!

Was fun following your progress on this one, and it looks every bit as sharp as expected. Gorgeous, miles deep blue color. Well done.

Another cool racer, and an obscure one to me. Nice job re-creating it, the color looks spot-on. If my name was Coonrod, I'd paint a cartoon racoon on my race car and call it a day!?

Love these kits, and you've really done it justice. Very well done!

Interesting stuff!

There was a very informative comparison done by Tim Boyd that can still be found, done years ago before the newer AMT kit came along, or the Revell snapper. ( Scale Auto Enthusiast Nov/Dec 1982) It showcased full builds by Tim of the old AMT, MPC, this Revell, and the Monogram 1/24. Lots of side-by-side photos for comparison, and Tim's no-nonsense objectivity made for an excellent read. Properly built, all looked pretty nice, but in the end he gave higher marks to the AMT. Sort of "by default" the Monogram scored better than Revell, even with lighter chassis details and some proportional issues, because the Revell kit had so many fit issues that he reckoned many would never be finished by the average consumer/builder. He whipped it into shape for the article, though! Same article can be found in "Building Model Cars Vol. 1 - Best of Scale Auto Enthusiast Magazine 1979-1984"

They do look better there. Looking at the pics above, one thing I hadn't noticed before, is how much the Lindberg kit more suddenly and drastically tapers the taillight extensions inward, which does take away some of the overall width and strong horizontal line of the real car. The best solution so far is the Lindberg lights in the R/M body.

Could be they are actually 1/25 and the body's a bit scrawny?! I can see what you mean, but I think the part that's not quite right about the rear of the Lindberg is the chrome moldings are a little bulky for the scale. It's even more noticeable before paint, as you can see in the pics above. It makes the rear panel seem crowded. The lights still look way better to me, the Revell/Monogram's are just dinky looking, and their Chevelle letters are almost invisible. Out of the box, your blue car here looks better from the rear than any build of the Monogram kit. I think filing the moldings to about 2/3 to 1/2 their thickness would help a bunch. Now you got me wanting to transplant the Lindberg lights to the R/M body.

A very understated and cool look for a '34, and a great looking model.

Your interior shot is quite realistic; nicely detailed. You're making a very good looking model here!

Mark me down for a nostalgia grab! It's not the first time a model company has played loosely with the phrase "2-in-1", looking at YOU, AMT/ERTL. Some of those were sort of two things in one - both a model and a travesty in one box. Part of my fascination comes from the challenge of wanting to see how much ( if any) I can improve over my boyhood build. If I want to build a drag car, I know I can source all the parts I need without leaving the house. Most of us have a stash we could never have dreamed of having as kids, so not really a big issue there.

BTW Bob, thank you for taking time to post the pictures of the sprues AND for the comparison shots. It's much appreciated.

I think Plowboy is on to something, and his statement brought back a memory of an early review of the Lindberg kit from the now-defunct other magazine in which I believe the reviewer speculated that the kit seemed a little small for scale. As I've noted in another thread, I took some measurements of a friend's '66 and did the math to see how the Monogram kit scaled, and overall it does a very fair job of staying right at 1/24. There are issues here and there, nits to pick, I reckon. One thing that's a bit off is the tail light area(s); the lights are just a little too small, and don't quite sweep around as much as they should. The tail lamp extensions are a bit "pinched", also. The Lindberg kit looks much better to me across the rear. One thing that makes the Lindberg kit look even smaller is a problem shared by most of the Lindberg cars of that generation ( i.e.: '61 Impalas, '67 Olds 442) and that is a shallow body side height. They all need about 1-1/2 or 2mm of additional "meat" spliced in along their length. It really causes the interior tubs to look even more shallow. Don't get me wrong, I have multiples of each, and have built and seen them built quite nicely. Most people don't notice until you point it out to them. Another "oops" from Monogram's Chevelle is the curvature of the trunk lid at the tulip panel: it is curved the exact opposite of how it should be.

Good job getting this one together, it really looks sharp. You definitely got the box art look. Very well done!

Very cool, and I love that red. Well done.

That's a very pretty bird. Nice car, nice clean model. Well done!

Hey, are you familiar with the old technique of cutting styrene along seam lines just by using sewing thread? You just pull thread back and forth through the plastic, pretty much like the blade of a coping saw, and friction does the rest. I remember reading about it YEARS ago in another magazine, and it was a fairly common technique then. Much less chance of blood-letting! That Chevelle is outrageous! Nicely done.

Very sharp model. That green is gorgeous.

Very good work so far!

High quality scratch-building happening! Looking forward to more.

Still two different types of basic chemistry, it just happens that lacquer thinner is a hot solvent that works well enough as a "thinner" for hobby enamels. You won't, however, find anyone thinning lacquers with enamel reducer. Why? Incompatible chemistry rears its ugly head then. The way enamel reducers ( note "reducer" instead of "thinner") work to reduce the viscosity of enamel is different at the molecular level as it acts in harmony with the carrier, pigment, and binder that comprise the enamel paint. " Thinners" can disrupt the molecular bond, and weaken the integrity of the paint coat. Tread carefully; just because you can doesn't mean you should!