Ace-Garageguy

With well known or clichéd phrases, it's often quite possible to substitute a different key word to express a similar or even entirely different thought.

And another thing. One of the most frequent criticisms of Revell's very nice '32 Fords is that they can NOT be built stock from what's in the boxes. The Ford 9" rear ends on coil springs are wrong, the K-member on the frame just doesn't exist, and there's no stock engine or gearbox or wheels-tires-brakes-front axle-interior either. Hardly satisfying for any modeling "purists" I know. EDIT: I'm NOT trying to be argumentative...at all. I like both Revell's and AMT's '32 Fords just fine.

"Lotta people go through life doing things badly." Steve McQueen in Le Mans

Important is in the eye of the beholder...

Change is not always for the better, and change just for the sake of change almost never is.

I'd never had a problem with any Testors product up until fairly recently. It started with one can of dark red enamel that bubbled instantly no matter how you shot it or shook it or warmed it...and then the cans started leaking at the lower seam. And then the line was slashed and dumbed down, with the excellent buffing metalizers gone forever. With the apparent cheapening and offshoring of everything everywhere, it's no real surprise, and I refuse to buy anything Testors offers at this point.

Well that bites. He sure left us a lot of great stuff though...

Pretty cool. Nice clean paint separation. In my misspent youth, I loved watching the A/FX cars and early altered-wheelbase "funnies" as much as the gassers and altereds and "competition coupes" and "modified sports". Boy, it sure was a different world...

The "sprue" is technically the first mold cavity that molten plastic is injected into, with the "runners" being the correct term for what we often call "sprues" or "trees". I'm guilty of occasionally using "sprue" for "runner", but at least it's not a species of evergreen.

Very nice job on a rarely seen model of a fascinating car.

It's "cast" everywhere I've ever encountered English speakers who were paying attention in school. There's a lot of this kind of stuff these days, it's fairly recent, is indicative of changes in the "education" system, and it makes my skin crawl. I'm a big fan of parts runners in kits referred to as "spruce" too.

I disagree, but you can believe anything you want. I've been building real cars for over 5 decades, was an avid fan of the hobby/sport for years before I joined it actively (I was reading the car mags from cover to cover when today's "nostalgia" or "period" rods were state-of-the-art current fashion), and I've NEVER seen a section job anything like that on a real car. Sectioning jobs most frequently...by a large margin...keep the revised post-section lower body line parallel to the original. Look again at the photo of my corrected AMT Victoria above, and it's plainly obvious from the shape of the white added material necessary to correct the thing that the stock body does NOT represent a "3-scale-inch section through the body". I HAVE built a model or two making the excuse for the odd lines that it's a "wedge section" or "wedge channel" necessitated by the imaginary builder having started with a body shell that had much more rust in front than in the rear...maybe even rotted off entirely. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As an aside, I agree that the existing AMT '32 Ford kits can be a lot of fun to build the way they came, as can the early and quite primitive Monogram '32 roadster and their oddly scaled coupe of the same era, but personally, I usually prefer my own models to reflect reality more accurately. Different strokes and all that.

^^^ I see the "journalist" refers to "aircrafts". C'mon, people. The plural of aircraft is aircraft...NO "S". This is becoming pretty common, and sounds idiotic to anyone who actually knows anything about planes. It's like calling a herd of sheep "sheeps".

Much as I like the old AMT '32s, the single most glaring issue is the way the lower body edge is too short (height) and rises way too much...entirely wrong...going forward to the cowl. ALL the AMT '32s suffer from this. It's always been a source of wonderment to me. At that time in history, AMT's kit designers were doing a pretty decent job of measuring and scaling with their "primitive" tape measures and calipers and long division. How they dropped the ball so blatantly on THE MOST ICONIC hot-rod in the history of the known inhabited universe is quite beyond me. It's entirely fixable, but it takes some applied skill and effort. Reasonably correct Revell '32 3W coupe on the left, short-cowl AMT Victoria on the right, below. ALL their '32 Fords get this wrong. Corrected AMT Victoria body shell on AMT rails, with Revell fenders (lower door line needs to be re-scribed too). .

Always a plus to remove unnecessary thrills and drama from the driving experience.