Monty

I had a model back in the '70s that I really wanted to do paint with gold enamel. Long story short, the paint (Pactra or Testors rattle can) turned out blotchy & I've stayed away from gold as a car color since then. The pics on here show that we have some highly talented modelers who used their favorite variant of gold paint to finish off their builds. I'm loving what I see - several different shades of "gold" and all of them look good on their respective kits. Thanks to all who posted! I'll take more pics if anyone has them.

If what you're saying is true, and it sounds like it is, this could be very good news for those of us wanting a nice (non-diecast-based) '70 Charger. Man I hope they get this thing right. Dumb question (because I don't understand the process) will they be retooling the '68 or '69 molds to make a '70?

This is why I decided to allow builds painted with Dupli-Color paints. It's distinctly different from Pete's '32, but works so well on that Caddy. Thanks Al!

Nice work on that '32. That paint turned out sweet. Thanks Pete!

My post only called for hobby paints, but I changed my opening statement to stipulate omitting Testors' Inca Gold. The highlighted part of your quote is why I am hoping to see various mfrs' versions of "gold". I've seen some that were outstanding and some that looked grainy.

*Let's start with this: I love Testors Inca Gold, but I'd rather you didn't post pics of cars done in that shade as I'm looking for something more stock-looking. I'm hoping to see builds painted in Testors enamel or lacquer gold, Tamiya acrylic or lacquer gold, or Dupli-Color gold. I'm currently not in a position to go out and buy each one for "spoon tests" etc, so I'd appreciate it if you'd specify which paint you used when you post. TIA for all helpful replies.

Years ago, someone recommended Tamiya XF-66 (Light Grey) to me for these type wheels. The color's dead on, but brushing Tamiya acrylics is a PITA for me, for some reason.

I agree. I love the 1:1 car, but I'm not familiar with the kit. From what I can see of yours, it turned out very well. Who makes it and are there any other features we could see? (engine, chassis, interior, etc)

Ken, I hope you won't consider this as me talking down to you, but I'd suggest you use this wheel as a guide to painting the ones on your build. Occasionally we'll see someone only paint the spokes & neglect the back half of the rim, which really looks amateurish. You'll want to use a detailing brush (0/10) to work around the lug nuts. While you're at it, give some thought to how the color of the wheel will look with the dark blue on your build. (See Snake45's picture in post #15) These 14 & 15 inch wheels weren't usually done up in glossy colors; they were mostly light, medium or dark (flat) grey, but there have been some done in a more metallic look that were also striking in appearance. HTH

Tony, this build appears to be progressing along nicely. The paint color you chose really stands out & looks like it went on very smoothly. For those of us who haven't worked with FolkArt acrylics, can you share any tips that might make things go easier? (Best reducer, paint thickness etc).

Art, I will always have to defer to your knowledge of the entire model manufacturing process, from initial research to final boxed product, but while you and Bob may not want those of us who comprise "the great unwashed" to see test shots etc, wouldn't something like that have prevented Revell's Charger from being released and (expensively) replaced? It just seems like you're saying the model companies' mistakes can always be explained away (inexperience, lack of followup) but again, assuming the Chinese are provided with all the measurements as well as reference pictures, how does anyone get something as simple as the hood wrong? Question for my own knowledge: in a typical model company's hierarchy, who is ultimately responsible for the final product? I just can't fathom anyone at Revell seeing that Charger roofline and saying "Good 'nuf for me. Box 'em up!"

Too bad Chuck K isn't here to poke holes in your "no such thing as perfection" means of deflection, but I'll be happy to do it in his absence. No one is expecting perfection, even from Tamiya. Second, feel free to address the points I made in my previous post. Despite teams being sent out to photograph & measure the pertinent aspects of a car they hope to turn into a kit, we still get stupid mistakes like the Lindberg 442's hood, which was originally tooled up with a raised center section instead of the recessed section Olds designed. Sorry, but when you had photographs to work with, that's not a niggle, that's a mixture of indifference and incompetence. And more egregiously, despite the presence of a "professional development team" we still got Monogram's bloated '69 Camaro and Revell's chopped top ProModeler Charger. Was Stevie Wonder in charge of these teams? I've noticed that you like to try and hide behind that "automotive modeler vs kit assembler" line, but did you honestly expect anyone, including the "automotive modelers" to just accept the Charger for what it was, let alone try to fix that roof?

I'm nuts about C3 Corvettes, so I'm glad you were able to rescue that glue bomb from plastic purgatory. I can see how getting results like this would make you want to rescue other gluebombs.

Joe, please accept my sincere, if belated, congratulations on completing such a fantastic rebuild of that old Challenger kit. Between your IPMS award and 4 pages of compliments on here, the consensus indicates that you've earned the respect of your fellow modelers. One thing that impressed me during the WIP stage was you weren't afraid to implement other members' suggestions if you thought it would improve the overall build. OTOH, I doubt I was the only one who learned some neat techniques as you improvised improvements to the engine bay etc, refusing to settle for "good enough".

Is there a particular reason you shut down the thread that had pictures of your Mustang? People on here are more likely to comment in a thread where they can see what you've done. Just a thought... From what I can tell, the 'Stang came out well. Any pics of the engine/chassis/interior?

I went to the University of Wyoming and had to drive I-80 to get there. There are some nasty hills outside of Laramie, which, when combined with typical Wyoming winter weather, virtually ensure that things like this will happen. It got to the point where I used to dread coming back from Christmas break. One year, my poor old Mustang made it to the top of the highest hill and then wouldn't do anything but fishtail. I had to pull it off to the side, hitchhike into town, then get a wrecker to tow it back to my place. On the way out to get my car, I was amazed at how many semis had jackknifed or plowed into another truck because of the conditions. I have no doubt that the local wrecker services make a mint during winter up there. Wyoming is a beautiful state...in the summer.

From what I've read, JoHan was more or less the American Motors Co. of modeling, with the smallest staff and least money of the major US model mfrs of their time. The JoHan bodies are constantly brought up in these conversations because they seemed to do the best job capturing the nuances of various car bodies at that time. I'm sure you could point out an error or two that they made, but I'll bet you any error that you mention won't even compare with Revell's chopped '69 Charger or that bloated Monogram Camaro I posted. Sounds like you're suggesting that we just blithely accept whatever errors happen because "budgets, ROI and other business realities" take precedence over getting the obvious things correct.

Having spent several years doing product returns for the computer industry, I assumed Revell was going to have me ship the chopped kit back to them first. Like you, I was pleasantly surprised that I was allowed to keep the original and still get a new, corrected kit from them. Sad that it happened. but good move on their part.

I'll play. They can say "It's good enough" when they quit screwing up obvious body issues and eliminate some of the really silly errors. Here's an example. From top to bottom these are Revell, AMT & MPC '69 Mustang bodies. The AMT is the most accurate and served as the basis for Missing Links' resin kit. Look at the Revell side window. It's virtually a triangle, while the AMT kit looks far more like the 1:1 item. (BTW, this body, with this window design, originated with the Boss 429 kit in 1982. Revell kept this triangular side window when they tooled up the '70 Mach 1 a few years ago) In a related vein, we probably made a millionare out of that Russian resin caster who was offering the fix-it kit for the front end of Revell's '69 Mustang. Apparently I wasn't the only one who thought Revell made that Mustang too ugly to build. Want some proportional issues? This is why so many on here praise the JoHan craftsmen who were in charge of bodies. More often than not it takes an artist's eye to get some of these things right. I've been told that this Camaro is dimensionally correct, but it looks pregnant & you couldn't give me this kit. OTOH, Revell did an outstanding job on their '69 Camaro. I referred to silly errors earlier, and I'm sure most of us can think of some, but one that comes immediately to mind for me was Lindberg's initial release of their '67 442. The 1:1 car has a slightly lower center section of the hood; Lindberg made theirs with a raised center section (eventually corrected). Or take Revell's ProModeler '69 Charger. More bells, more whistles, more money...and a pre-chopped top. To their credit they made offers to replace all those bodies, but HTH did that thing make it to production in the first place? If they'll hire me, I'll gladly play Office Linebacker & try to stop as many of these errors as possible before they become "uncorrectable".

I was gonna ask the same thing. It's a beautiful shade and it looks like it flowed out perfectly.

I agree with the other guys - your paint seems to have turned out very nicely. What did you use on these? It looks like Italian red.

Holy cow, Tony! Between the striking paint scheme, the wheel & tire combo and that killer interior, my eyes don't know where to look first. Fantastic work!

Well poop, looks like you're right. Guess I better stick to Corvettes.