Ace-Garageguy

You must (fortunately) be immune to the more-is-better syndrome some of us seem to be afflicted with. I seem to rationalize that I need one kit to build, one for spares in case I ruin a part (yeah, kinda unlikely) and at least a couple more for off-the-wall projects or donors. Nutso. But hey...I'm having fun, and I no longer spend anything on wine, women and song.

Mine are purple, definitely Revell, but full detail with nice engine, suspension and other useful parts. The snapper is AMT.

This is an AMT '59 hack I started a while back. AMT '59 tail, nose from the old Revell multi-piece-body kit, all on a Revell C5 chassis...

I intend to build one OOB eventually, as I like the design. The rest are donors for other projects...and they were extremely cheap when I was buying.

Mostly hot rod fodder. A box of at least 10 gluebomb AMT '29 Fords, 5 or 6 more kits on the shelf. Same with the old AMT '32 Ford roadster. Multiples of all the Revell '32 Fords, and the recent '29 and '30 kits. Dozens of parts-pack engine kits too. And I think 5 of the Revell '50 Olds kits, the old Revell multi-piece Corvettes, and the Revell Sting Ray III show car. Oh yeah...5 of the Revell 1/8 Big Deuce kits too.

"Can I take your order?" "Ummm...I'd like a Big Mac and a senior coffee and a hundred plastic spoons. To go."

During my research for a Corvette M/SP (later put in the Altered class) build, i came across this terrific resource on the H.A.M.B. Lotsa answers to lotsa questions to be found here, so I figgered I'd share it with the troops. http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/corvette-hot-rods-picture-thread.545759/ A couple of examples:

Really cool, love it, love it, love it.

Yeah, I started to warn you about that. And here's some '49-'50 sales material with interior illustrations...(click on the pix to make 'em bigger). http://classicautofinder.blogspot.com/2014/02/state-of-market-1949-to-1950-mercury.html

Here's a video walkaround of an unrestored '49 survivor (4-dr sedan).

Oh come on Ray. You build some good looking, creative and unique stuff. I agree the airplane IS pretty amazing though.

Man, those both look great.

Seems to me the only differences between the '61 and '62 are relatively minor trim and detail deviations. Looks like the Revell '62 would be the easiest place to start, as the body shells are the same. Far as "heroic measures" go, I just happen to have an otherwise useless AMT '62, the nose is so awful as to be unusable (for me), I hate to waste the kit, I also hate to cut up a nice Revell '62 to build what I want, I also have the upper front clip from an AMT '59 (which doesn't look right either, but it's closer to being in the ballpark than the '62) and the subject of my particular build is a highly-modified drag car anyway...which could have been built up with non-OEM parts splashed from a real car and subsequently modified too...so absolute accuracy isn't that important. Getting a good initial impression of a '62 turned into an M/SP car is the goal, and some of them were almost altereds in reality. But the "look" of the nose of the AMT '62 is just flat wrong...well, to anybody who has to look at the real ones almost every day now, anyway.

I'm in the process of doing just that, but probably not in the way you'd want to. It's beginning to compare somewhat favorably to the Revell '62. You wanna see some pix on this thread, or would you rather I just put them in my own build thread?

I don't think I've put this up before. If I have, all I can say is "duh".

VERY nice. Besides all your exceptionally clean detail work, did you also adjust the stance? This model just seems to sit better than others I've seen, looks right.

I disagree (but I CAN be wrong). I use a lot of both products in my big-car work. A "hammered finish" is essentially a forced fisheye effect. It looks like this in full scale. NOTE: I TOOK THE ORIGINAL FULL-SIZED IMAGE DOWN. IT HAD DEGRADED AND NO LONGER LOOKED CORRECT. POSSIBLY SOME PROBLEM RELATED TO HOT-LINKING TO ANOTHER SITE. I'M LOOKING FOR A SUITABLE REPLACEMENT. HERE'S ONE. The appearance is somewhat similar but also quite different from wrinkle paint.

Why the need for the snide sideways personal remarks? Seems like it's always the "same old suspects" who have to start throwing that carp around. I personally don't see any "measuring contest" going on here. What I DO see is some valid points about understanding the difference between average work and good work and exceptional work. People can't get better at anything if they fail to notice or understand the differences between levels of competence, or if they pretend in the fashionable PC way that every level of performance is identical and of equal value. It's just not true. Your Buick looks great, by the way. It's a very well-turned out model. And in some respects, it's BETTER than some of my own work. Concepts like "better" don't make me feel I'm the victim of a "measuring contest". Rather, they make me want to improve my own skills, where applicable.

Many many more.

I had exactly the same thoughts. It COULD be wrinkle-paint buried in clear. I've seen equally missing-the-whole-point "restoration" work done more than a few times. BUT...wrinkle paint in photos can actually look kinda like the original post too, appearing to be more reflective that it really is. It depends on your mind's interpretation of the image.

If you happen to have way more money than you actually need, you can always pop for museum-quality UV-blocking display cases. https://www.sportsdisplaycases.com/museum-quality-ultra-violet-protection

I've been grafting the upper part of the front clip from an AMT '59 to the front of the '62, and it's working quite nicely...for what I want, anyway. Interestingly, the hoods are different sizes, which is odd, as the REAL hoods will swap around on all the 4-eyed body styles. The old '59 had headlight bezels and headlights molded into one plated part, but at least the lenses themselves are kinda close to the standard 5.75" diameter of real 4-eye headlights. The itty bitty tiny joke things on the '62 Sockitome kit scale out at 4.5". No Corvette in the history of the universe ever came with 4.5" headlamps. Drunk, math-challenged chimps at that. There's also enough meat on the front fenders and pan of the '59 to sculpt the corners of the parts into a more correct-appearing look than the unfortunate flat-faced visage many AMT Corvette models present because of the way the nose is molded, and the placement of the parting lines. It's the same thing that adversely affects the fender corners of the Galaxie '46 etc. Chevy kits, and that rarely gets corrected during the build process. Unfortunately, the relationships of several parts of the front lower pan to the upper body are NOT correct (I have TWO 4-eyed Corvettes in the big-car shop at the moment, so I'm not making this up, and it's not opinion or hearsay) and they also need to be reworked in order to have the initial impression of the model be similar to that of the real one.

I'm in the process of grafting an AMT '59 nose on to an AMT '62 as we speak. Photos shortly.