Your favourite Box art

[peekay]

Another AMT favourite. This style seems to be making a comeback in recent box art.

[peekay]

Of course these will be familiar to most of you but I think they belong in this thread...

[Brett Barrow]

I'd buy the '56 Chrysler for the box alone. How long has this been out?

Not out yet. Soon. Within a month, maybe?

[mrknowetall]

This one gets my vote, although I'll probably never find an actual kit.

[peekay]

This one is good all round...

[peekay]

This one's from 1964...

[peekay]

I liked this series too...

[Scott Colmer]

I almost bought just the box on the red top view of a gasser vette - AMT or MPC. They wanted too much.

Could someone post the pic? One of my all time favorites.

Thanks

[Fabrux]

Here's another in AMT's race car/trailer/tow vehicle series:

[LDO]

Wow, that Chrysler box is a stunner!

I'd buy that as a poster for the garage!

[sjordan2]

As an ad agency creative director, I think 90% of all the examples posted here are totally second-rate or worse -- crude, unimaginative, etc. The only ones I would call "art" that go beyond bland commercial art depictions are Heller, Hubley and the Batmobile, which also include better overall graphic design and typography. Italeri has also done many very nice painted illustrations, and once upon a time there were some nice Johan paintings (but bad graphic layouts). The Moebius stuff has great car illustrations but poor overall layout and typography. And why would you include kit photos?

Almost none of the box art here is particularly classy or artistic.

Edited December 3, 2013 by sjordan2

[disabled modeler]

This one! The Mercury 71 Cyclone kit by mpc seems to pretty much relate to the status of the real car, absolutely nobody cares much about them and there is very few around, probably as many kits as cars in total, while honestly being the best looking muscle car, in my opinion. I would probably buy like 6 of these if they were re released, a big gap in the performance ford collection.

Me too....love the look of these!

[Greg Cullinan]

As an ad agency creative director, I think 90% of all the examples posted here are totally second-rate or worse -- crude, unimaginative, etc. The only ones I would call "art" that go beyond bland commercial art depictions are Heller, Hubley and the Batmobile, which also include better overall graphic design and typography. Italeri has also done many very nice painted illustrations, and once upon a time there were some nice Johan paintings (but bad graphic layouts). The Moebius stuff has great car illustrations but poor overall layout and typography. And why would you include kit photos?Almost none of the box art here is particularly classy or artistic.

Hey skip,

I hear what your saying. I wonder though what you like or deem creative, if that is not what would sell to the general public?

Like since you know the ins and outs you are a bit more critical than the average buyer.

[Scale-Master]

Whether the examples are or are not art is subjective.

What may be more important is if the box art works, i.e. sells the product well.

In addition, I'd argue most any Jack Lynnwood box art is also "real" art.

[Fabrux]

And why would you include kit photos?

I think they are required by law (at least in the US) to show on the box what comes in the box. Something about "truth in advertising" or something like that, IIRC.

[sjordan2]

I think they are required by law (at least in the US) to show on the box what comes in the box. Something about "truth in advertising" or something like that, IIRC.

I say "why would you include kit photos?" in response to the subject of great box art, which is the subject of this thread, and which I'm taking literally. On the other hand, I am totally on the side of photography showing a built kit so you know what's possible. I think that is the primary way to go and should indeed be required. Beautiful box art can be quite misleading. Photos of a real car, such as on Revell's Ferrari 275 GTB kit, are inexcusable. While that kit has pictures of a built kit on the sides of the box, they are carefully lit and cropped to hide the kit's shortcomings.

[lordairgtar]

So photography of the real car would not qualify as art, sjordan2?

[peekay]

As an ad agency creative director, I think 90% of all the examples posted here are totally second-rate or worse -- crude, unimaginative, etc.

No offence intended Skip but this reminds me a little of the classically trained guitarist who said Jimi Hendrix couldn't play the guitar.

[Greg Cullinan]

I like this one/type.

[Dave Van]

My new favorite

Sean does a good job.....the Hudson Convt is nice too.....

[sjordan2]

So photography of the real car would not qualify as art, sjordan2?

I'm against any box art that misrepresents the contents of the kit. But the title of this thread is "Best Box Art Ever," and I stand by my judgement about what's good painting and what isn't.

Or are you talking about photography showing the 1:1 real car or the real model? The latter was what I was talking about. If it's an artistically taken photograph, fine. Most of what I see is strictly mundane tabletop photography taken merely to represent the contents. Art it ain't, and it doesn't have to be - I still prefer box photography of the built model to even the most beautifully executed painting, so that the box contents can be analyzed instead of romanticized.

If it's a photo of the real car that is front and center on the box, I totally disagree with that because I think it's misleading about the kit inside.

I think this is a beautiful painting, but it's copied brush stroke by brush stroke from a photograph of the real car. The only advantage is that it has very crisp detail as a building and painting guide. But it's not what's inside.

This next one of a 1:1 car is pure deception because it represents nothing of the piece of junk that's in the box -- horribly inaccurate body and everything else, and these beautfiful Borrani wheels aren't in the kit -- the wheels are inaccurate Campagnolo alloys.

I've covered this ground before, but just to complicate things: This painting of the first release of the Revell Ferrari kit above looks like it was done by someone who never saw a 275 GTB --but it is totally accurate to the kit contents.

Edited December 6, 2013 by sjordan2

[sjordan2]

THE INFLUENCE OF PACKAGING. Good art vs. good graphic design vs. intelligent packaging.

This painting is an okay depiction of the kit.

Based on the colors on that package, this is what the builder thought the color scheme should be.

This is a little off the subject, but, as you can see, the car from which the kit was made had quite different colors (doesn't matter -- I wouldn't paint the kit in this color scheme anyway).

I like the very professionalgraphic layout of this packaging, using excellent photography of the car in the box. Better built that what I could achieve.

But I think this has decent graphic design and most accurately shows what's in the kit without hiding too many sins. This approach is what I prefer.

Edited December 6, 2013 by sjordan2

[Deano]

Interesting, Skip. Now I see where you're coming from. For me, whether it's "art" or not means "would I hang it on the wall?". Good graphic design and intelligent packaging would end up in a landfill. The first one would likely end up there, also; I'm not really into the "Classics" but it has a better chance of being on the wall.

[sjordan2]

Interesting, Skip. Now I see where you're coming from. For me, whether it's "art" or not means "would I hang it on the wall?". Good graphic design and intelligent packaging would end up in a landfill. The first one would likely end up there, also; I'm not really into the "Classics" but it has a better chance of being on the wall.

Yeah, I'm really drawing a distinction between what's good art (and I think I identified my opinion of the beautifully creative Heller kit boxes, and RoG has some great ones) and what's good packaging that's of best use to the modeler. So "best box art" depends on one's perspective. But this is like the most horrible question ever asked, "what is art?"

Anyway, I personally would rather have box art photography that shows what's possible with the kit inside the box instead of a pretty painting of a 1:1.

Edited December 7, 2013 by sjordan2

[Deano]

Yeah, I'm really drawing a distinction between what's good art (and I think I identified my opinion of the beautiful Heller kit boxes, and RoG has some great ones) and what's good packaging that's of best use to the modeler. So "best box art" depends on one's perspective. But this is like the most horrible question ever asked, "what is art?"

LOL! I don't know, but I know it when I see it!

It's like the Friday art thread on the HAMB. Some very artistic pieces done and a bunch that I don't consider to be art.

Edited December 7, 2013 by Deano