Terrible Box Art

[1972coronet]

2 hours ago, Mike999 said:

Drat! I could have helped you out.  I had an eBay sale end yesterday and one of those '65 El Caminos was in it.  I started the bidding at $9.99, and that's what it sold for, with 1 bid.  It had been up on eBay for 2 weeks.  The first week, it didn't get a single bid, so I re-listed it. Another identical kit did sell that first week.  I have 1 '65 El Camino left and plan to keep it. At least for now.

AMT/ERTL did a "Buyer's Choice" release of this kit once that was a little better. The drag version of the El Camino was on the box top, on a plain white background with no text.  Just the "Buyer's Choice" sticker.   

1996 BCE ( Before the Chinese Era ) , AMT released a grip of their 60's kits in original -- or perhaps 2nd run -- box art . When did Racing Chumps take-over the reigns ?

[Robberbaron]

Revell's recent factory stock '76 Torino is about as bad as they come.  Absolutely awful.

[Richard Bartrop]

2 hours ago, unclescott58 said:

I'm a third person to disagree on the above. I don't think it looks too bad. Especially not compared to the others seen here. The Ertl AMT kits are bad. But, that Monogram box of the old Aurora Ferrari GTO scares me. The GTO is one of all time favorite Ferraris. Yet I was persuaded to stay away from that one by the box art alone. If it would have been a painting that looking like that, I might have taken a chance, and bought the kit. True I would have then disappointed. For I expect better from Monogram. But, since this a photo of the model. It gave one no doubt about how bad the kit is before purchasing it. Maybe I should thank Monogram for letting me see what I was getting. And saving me both the money, and disappointment. 

Put me down as a fourth.  As photo boxes go, it's nicely composed, and it shows that the kit builds into a nice replica of a VW convertible.  If I was in the mood to do a Beetle, I'd certainly be tempted.  

And yes, if Monogram had gon with a nice painting of a GTO,  I might have been suckered into wasting my money on it, but I sure wouldn't be happy about it, and I suspect I wouldn't be the only one.   A first time buyer might well think twice about giving the folks at Morton grove their money a second time.   So from the consumer's standpoint, the less attractive box was the better one, and in the long term, better for the company too.   Aurora tried the pretty boxes with questionable  content approach, and it didn't do them much good in the long term.

[ChrisBcritter]

The ONLY good thing about this art was that it meant another precious few '65 Olds kits went into circulation before the Modified Stocker series consumed the molds.

(From B67ville on Fotki)

Honestly, what were they thinking with these? Somebody had to make a proposal, somebody else had to draw up box art, and some committee had to approve it, and nobody questioned it?

Runner-up: this series.

(image from Model Roundup)

fffffffttt (cough cough)... far out, man. Build the kit! Sniff the glue! 

 

Edited November 28, 2017 by ChrisBcritter

[unclescott58]

19 minutes ago, Robberbaron said:

Revell's recent factory stock '76 Torino is about as bad as they come.  Absolutely awful.

That and the recent '57 Chevy Black Widow reissue. I don't know who the artist is, but they're not as the old Revell or AMT artists were.

[peteski]

5 hours ago, Junkman said:

I find it uninspiring, bleak and depressing.

Now what?

The "real" VW Beetle convertible is a very unimpressive car. So why should the model be any different. The only thing going for it is the fact that it is a convertible. To me the box-art looks perfectly fine and the model looks to be well built.  It shows what is inside the box.  Nothing depressing about it.

[mk11]

truth in advertising ...     how did they sell any of these?

 

 

[Daddyfink]

Only slightly better than AMT, but not by much 

[Daddyfink]

How can we make an awful box even worse? Add bushes! 

or not

[Richard Bartrop]

Yeah, sometimes less is more.   Somebody was way too excited about getting his first copy of Photoshop.

Edited November 28, 2017 by Richard Bartrop

[1972coronet]

I kind of miss the fabulous two-dimensional , Racing Chumps box art ! Whose 2nd grade photoshop project were those ?

[Spex84]

Jeez, tough crowd!
Seriously though, some of those are truly bad (Lookin' at you, Model King!) The beetle doesn't bother me; it's unexciting, but that's all. I save "bad" for boxes with mangled perspective, illustrated people who are too big or too small with oddly-shaped faces, photos of built models with wheels sticking out of the tires or hilariously obvious retouching...I can't remember which kit it is now, but one of my kits has an instruction sheet where a part was missing, so it was drawn back in freehand with shaky lines that don't match the original diagram in the least. Done! Ship it! lol.

[Classicgas]

10 hours ago, unclescott58 said:

I'm a third person to disagree on the above. I don't think it looks too bad. Especially not compared to the others seen here. The Ertl AMT kits are bad. But, that Monogram box of the old Aurora Ferrari GTO scares me. The GTO is one of all time favorite Ferraris. Yet I was persuaded to stay away from that one by the box art alone. If it would have been a painting that looking like that, I might have taken a chance, and bought the kit. True I would have then disappointed. For I expect better from Monogram. But, since this a photo of the model. It gave one no doubt about how bad the kit is before purchasing it. Maybe I should thank Monogram for letting me see what I was getting. And saving me both the money, and disappointment. 

I'm the 4th. I would buy that kit based on the artwork. Nicely done model, nice clean photography. If you like VW's, what's not to like?

[Classicgas]

7 hours ago, Robberbaron said:

Revell's recent factory stock '76 Torino is about as bad as they come.  Absolutely awful.

X2!!

[Classicgas]

6 hours ago, peteski said:

The "real" VW Beetle convertible is a very unimpressive car.

Each to their own opinion. I and many others like VW bugs.

[peteski]

17 minutes ago, Classicgas said:

Each to their own opinion. I and many others like VW bugs.

I didn't say that I don't like those cute little buggers. But as cars go, they are unimpressive as compared to let's say a more impressive car like a Ferrari.  One can like unimpressive vehicles.  I for example like Henry J. , Nash Metropolitan, and many European Eastern Block  vehicles (like Trabant, Syrena or Warszawa), even though they are all unimpressive vehicles.  I like VWs too.

Unimpressive doesn't mean unlikable. We both know that Volkswagens  (especially the vintage ones) have a huge following, even though they are cheap wheels. Remember, VolksWagen (people's car) was a a basic econo-boxes designed for the masses. It was Hitler before WWII who decided to make a car which pretty much every citizen could afford.  He engaged Ferdinand Porsche for this task and the rest is history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen

Edited November 28, 2017 by peteski

[Classicgas]

I see what you are saying. I agree.

[Mike999]

9 hours ago, ChrisBcritter said:

The ONLY good thing about this art was that it meant another precious few '65 Olds kits went into circulation before the Modified Stocker series consumed the molds.

Honestly, what were they thinking with these? Somebody had to make a proposal, somebody else had to draw up box art, and some committee had to approve it, and nobody questioned it?

Runner-up: this series...

Best explanation, from cruising around the internet...both of these series were released in the late Sixties, along with crazy stuff like the Edsel funny car.  At the time AMT was in financial trouble and had little money for new tooling.  So they were making the most out of some old existing molds.  I just wish they had left the molds alone and not butchered them for later releases like the Modified Stockers. One poster mentioned that the box art for some of those late-Sixties series was drawn by artists from MAD magazine, either Mort Drucker or Jim Davis.

As for "Havana Banana," "Beard of Paradise" '65 Lincoln and "Che Riviera" '65 Buick Riv...they almost make you wonder if AMT was earning a little extra money by joining the CIA payroll.  It's hard to see, but in the "Havana Banana" box art, the white-haired character is wearing handcuffs.  Is he a sky-jacker?  A secret agent caught with a chemical to make Castro's beard fall out?  A Congressman caught with a Cuban hooker?  Inquiring minds want to know! 

[Rob Hall]

11 hours ago, Can-Con said:

You got that right. I guess someone thought this pic would sell the model?  ,,Um,, model of exactly what now? car in foreground?, car in background, loader that seems to be featured in the picture??

 

Another error w that box is 'Chrysler Imperial'. Imperials of that era were Imperials, not Chryslers.   

[Rob Hall]

Another naming oddity I recall was the MPC '77-78 Monaco kits never said Monaco on the box..only 'Dodge Sport'.  and I don't recall the police car variations ever mentioning Monaco either.   

Edited November 28, 2017 by Rob Hall

[ranma]

This Bright yellow don't work on this box art, As GM didn't paint a 57 chevy this bright yellow) The actual yellow was a pale yellow.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Another truthful representation of a horribly misshapen mess of a model. The box-art kept me from ever spending a nickel on this pile, too.

Can you say "Palmer" kiddies?      

Edited November 28, 2017 by Ace-Garageguy

[ChrisBcritter]

1 hour ago, Mike999 said:

One poster mentioned that the box art for some of those late-Sixties series was drawn by artists from MAD magazine, either Mort Drucker or Jim Davis.

That would explain the sense of humor involved. Judging by the drawing style, I'd guess the artist was Bob Clarke.

[Richard Bartrop]

2 hours ago, Rob Hall said:

Another error w that box is 'Chrysler Imperial'. Imperials of that era were Imperials, not Chryslers.   

On the subject of naming goofs.  Mercedes and Benz didn't merge until 1926, so there's no such thing as a "1906 Mercedes_Benz"

[Daddyfink]

The crazy thing about the Monogram Camaro is that they just keep pushing that thing onto the market. That tool needs to go away.