AMT 63 Vette fact

[jack lira]

while digging in my c2 Vette parts looking for glass for a 66 rebuilder I found out that the 1st issue 63 glass was made to fit the split window new to me

[Snake45]

while digging in my c2 Vette parts looking for glass for a 66 rebuilder I found out that the 1st issue 63 glass was made to fit the split window new to me

I discovered the same thing when I restored one recently. While I was working on it, I acquired a second '63 coupe that came with everything but the engine, the stock wheels & tires--and the glass. But the glass from more recent reissue fit that one just fine, no problems at all, and if you didn't know it, you wouldn't be able to tell.

BTW, both restorations are finished, I just need to find the time to load the pics on photobucket and write them up. Hope to get to that sometime soon.

They're the green and black cars in this thread:

http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/topic/120923-the-snakepit-sting-ray-rescue-resto-shop/#comment-1755629

Edited April 1, 2017 by Snake45

[AC Norton]

while digging in my c2 Vette parts looking for glass for a 66 rebuilder I found out that the 1st issue 63 glass was made to fit the split window new to me

I discovered the same thing when I restored one recently. While I was working on it, I acquired a second '63 coupe that came with everything but the engine, the stock wheels & tires--and the glass. But the glass from more recent reissue fit that one just fine, no problems at all, and if you didn't know it, you wouldn't be able to tell.

BTW, both restorations are finished, I just need to find the time to load the pics on photobucket and write them up. Hope to get to that sometime soon.

They're the green and black cars in this thread:

....I would think that all the AMT glass for any 63 to 67  Vettes of any issue will interchange,,,,I have a 64 annual and the latest 63 issue, and they fit either car, and over the year's I have had other AMT issues  and think all seemed  to be the same. Now, I have an MPC 67 Vette, and believe the MPC glass may be a touch smaller all round, but would have to check......the Ace,,,,,

[Snake45]

 

....I would think that all the AMT glass for any 63 to 67  Vettes of any issue will interchange,,,,I have a 64 annual and the latest 63 issue, and they fit either car, and over the year's I have had other AMT issues  and think all seemed  to be the same. Now, I have an MPC 67 Vette, and believe the MPC glass may be a touch smaller all round, but would have to check......the Ace,,,,,

Oh it all interchanges, no problem. But the backlight in the original annual '63 coupe had a subtle little recess in it for the window split. I wish I'd taken a pic of that before I buttoned that one all back up again.

[Snake45]

Here's another fun fact about the AMT C2 Vettes: On the real '63 Coupes, the windshield pillar and the corresponding area on the door frames was covered with chrome (or some shiny metal) trim. This went away in '64 leaving conventional windshield chrome surround and a thin body-color A-pillar. AMT molded the correct 1963 configuration in 1963, and never changed it. All the '64-'67 coupes are wrong unless you modify them. And it's still that way today, but of course it's now correct again for the '63 configuration.

This is the one area where the MPC body is actually more correct/more accurate/better than the AMT body. (Of course, MPC never kitted the '63, they started with '64.)

[AC Norton]

Here's another fun fact about the AMT C2 Vettes: On the real '63 Coupes, the windshield pillar and the corresponding area on the door frames was covered with chrome (or some shiny metal) trim. This went away in '64 leaving conventional windshield chrome surround and a thin body-color A-pillar. AMT molded the correct 1963 configuration in 1963, and never changed it. All the '64-'67 coupes are wrong unless you modify them. And it's still that way today, but of course it's now correct again for the '63 configuration.

This is the one area where the MPC body is actually more correct/more accurate/better than the AMT body. (Of course, MPC never kitted the '63, they started with '64.)

......the back up light deal I am aware of, the other info you state is something I must look into after coffee  and such this morn....I have one MPC 67 Vette  mib so I will check out both........the Ace...

[jack lira]

the first issue 63 convertible also had a chrome part for the gas filler reissue is molded on.

[boss 302 mustang]

the first issue 63 convertible also had a chrome part for the gas filler reissue is molded on.

The reissue body is not the same as the original.  The original hardtop (which was also in one of the fastback reissues) does not fit correctly.

[keyser]

Don't forget the working headlight doors on the 63 only convertible. 

[Brett Barrow]

Here's another fun fact about the AMT C2 Vettes: On the real '63 Coupes, the windshield pillar and the corresponding area on the door frames was covered with chrome (or some shiny metal) trim. This went away in '64 leaving conventional windshield chrome surround and a thin body-color A-pillar. AMT molded the correct 1963 configuration in 1963, and never changed it. All the '64-'67 coupes are wrong unless you modify them. And it's still that way today, but of course it's now correct again for the '63 configuration.

This is the one area where the MPC body is actually more correct/more accurate/better than the AMT body. (Of course, MPC never kitted the '63, they started with '64.)

The area in question in 1:1

'63  

'64-'67

[Snake45]

Thanks for the clarifying pics, Brett! Well done!

The Revell '63 Snapper coupe has the correct '63 configuration as well.

[Art Anderson]

the first issue 63 convertible also had a chrome part for the gas filler reissue is molded on.

And, rotating, retractable headlights--a feature that was never again repeated by AMT, on subsequent C2's, not even on the '63 Split Window Coupe.

Art

[Snake45]

And, rotating, retractable headlights--a feature that was never again repeated by AMT, on subsequent C2's, not even on the '63 Split Window Coupe.

Art

Well, they brought it back for the rare T.H.E. Cat custom '67 issue for some reason, but otherwise, it hasn't been seen since.

[Howard Cohen]

The original 63 Coupe has a slightly different rear window split in that it the underside is just a tad convex, at least, mine is, hence the indentation on the glass. 

The rotating headlights appear on 1 other model...T.H.E. Cat, released about 1966 or so...and yes, I know what the T.H.E. stands for  

Now for an accuracy check...take the AMT and MPC kits and compare the hoods. At the cowl side, one hood has rounded corners and one has pointed corners...which is correct?  

 

[Snake45]

Thomas Hewitt Edward. How can I remember that?

I think rounded corners is correct, but I've never noticed the difference. I was recently playing around with putting an MPC '66 hood in an AMT '66 body and was struck by how close they were. They were darn close to straight-up interchangeable. In fact, a less-anal modeler might well use that combination as-is with no modification or adjustment, but being a perfectionist (especially for the project in question), I'll have to tweak it just a tiny little bit.

[Ron Hamilton]

I like the '63 thru '67 Corvettes. A future project I plan to do is a '64 Convertible, built from an original '63 Glue-bomb with the rotating headlamps. Why a '64? I like the wheelcovers, and I have a pristine '63 and '65 to be built later. I may do it as the last "Route 66" Corvette form the series in memory of Martin Milner, who was one of my favorite TV actors from the period.

[Howard Cohen]

Thomas Hewitt Edward. How can I remember that?

I think rounded corners is correct, but I've never noticed the difference. I was recently playing around with putting an MPC '66 hood in an AMT '66 body and was struck by how close they were. They were darn close to straight-up interchangeable. In fact, a less-anal modeler might well use that combination as-is with no modification or adjustment, but being a perfectionist (especially for the project in question), I'll have to tweak it just a tiny little bit.

Actually, the pointy hood corners is correct. My guess is at the time the round corners were easier to tool up. 

[Snake45]

 

Now for an accuracy check...take the AMT and MPC kits and compare the hoods. At the cowl side, one hood has rounded corners and one has pointed corners...which is correct?  

 

 

 

 

I took another look last night. BOTH the AMT and MPC hoods have rounded corners at both ends--as I said, they're darn close to perfectly interchangeable.

But I took a look at the Revell '67 and THAT one has "pointed corners" at the back (cowl) end. Could you have possibly been thinking of that?

[Casey]

On 4/5/2017 at 11:31 PM, Art Anderson said:

And, rotating, retractable headlights--a feature that was never again repeated by AMT

Is the the one?:

[Snake45]

1 hour ago, Casey said:

Is the the one?:

Can't tell for 100% certain, but that one SEEMS to be an original issue 1963. 

Another fun fact: The bucket seats were molded to the roadster interior the first couple years, and only became separate parts in, IIRC, 1965. (I KNOW they're separate in '66 and '67). I believe the seats were always integral in the coupes, and I think they've been integral in all the '63 roadster reissues. 

[Gramps46]

I remember building a roadster when it was released with the rotating headlamps.  Foolishly gave it to a girlfriend, dumb move on my part.

The current snapper has really shallow grilles on the hood which must be masked before painting the body, learned the hard way.

This is an older reissue '63 but it has the '67 backup light.

 

[Dave Darby]

9 minutes ago, Gramps46 said:

I remember building a roadster when it was released with the rotating headlamps.  Foolishly gave it to a girlfriend, dumb move on my part.

The current snapper has really shallow grilles on the hood which must be masked before painting the body, learned the hard way.

This is an older reissue '63 but it has the '67 backup light.

 

I have one of those. It's the 70s era Street Rods issue. They had backdated it from the 67 version, but forgot to get rid of the 1967 backup light. They fixed that in the next reissue.