Revell "Eldorado" model

[Luc Janssens]

On 8/16/2018 at 8:42 PM, Mark said:

The two all-new Foose kits generated more buzz than nearly anything else Revell has done in the last few years.  They're somewhat simplified yet have good detail.  They're accurate as the finished 1:1 vehicles yet leave meat on the bone for those who would do things a bit (or a lot) differently.  And, both kits have chassis, wheels/tires, engines, and interior parts that are adaptable to other projects.  Anyone I know who bought one, bought more than one.  These kits, and the new-tool modified Model A coupe and roadster pretty much knocked it out of the park for Revell. 

A stock '56 Ford pickup would probably sell well...stock Cadillac would sell well among the fanatics, but there just aren't enough of them around. 

And both were voted for on FB by modelers, so they were wanted subject matter.

 

[SfanGoch]

2 hours ago, niteowl7710 said:

I'd love to have a stock '48 Eldorado too.

Considering that the first Eldorado wasn't produced until the '53 MY, that'd be a tough order to fill.

2 hours ago, niteowl7710 said:

But I think what frustrates people is when new threads are created whining about tools (this and the FD-100) that are over a year old, combined with the rabid Anti-Foose nonsense within those threads.  We had all of this debate and discussion leading up to the releases, and then after the release.  What purpose does it serve to continue to lament what these kit are or aren't at this point?

Hmmmmm........same could be said about debating about and critiquing kits that are eligible for AARP membership. Let's be honest, Kit News and Reviews is a veritable elephant graveyard of discussion about models that have died and have been resurrected than Universal Monsters in film. As far as Foose, his designs have that effect on people. You either love them or hate them, with no middle ground. Neither side is short of comments stating their positions. 

[SfanGoch]

3 hours ago, dino246gt said:

I also love replica stock, and agree that the kit manufacturers would do great offering us stock kits and let us do our own customizing, but once in awhile, a custom kit is good to have. We need both, stock and modified kits, new tools too please! (and no whining) LOL

Here's a resin Caddy I built stock!

That's a beaut, Dennis! Who produces(d) the kit?

[niteowl7710]

16 minutes ago, SfanGoch said:

Considering that the first Eldorado wasn't produced until the '53 MY, that'd be a tough order to fill.

Touche...fine a Series 62 if we're gonna argue semantics.

[Casey]

On 8/16/2018 at 4:44 PM, StevenGuthmiller said:

My only point is that you're limiting your audience by producing a "custom only" kit. A stock kit can be customized. A custom kit like this cannot be made stock. There goes half of your sales potential.

You're making assumptions with those statements, but really, there's no way to get either absolute or definite numbers for how many people would or wouldn't buy a particular kit. How do you know for sure that 50% of potential customers would have only purchased a stock kit, and that none of those customers would buy the Eldorod?

I agree nobody but the most hardcore builder is going to try to turn the Eldorod kit into a stock Cadillac, but custom kits can be customized, too. We've seen builders use the parts as raw material for other builds and even built mostly box stock, there's room for customization, as with almost any model. Not everybody wants nor has the ability to heavily customize a model, so pre-customized models like the Eldorod, FD-100, Revell '49 Mercury, etc. do have appeal to buyers. Heck, the Revell '49 Merc has been in their catalog non-stop for almost a decade, and I would bet it outsells AMT's '49 Mercury by a wide margin. Maybe not a fair comparison since the AMT kit was only current for a limited time, but if you gave the mass public the choice of having a '49 Mercury with a pre-chopped roof over one they had to chop themselves, I bet the former would be chosen by a wide margin. Most people just don't have the skill and patience to perform such a drastic modification.

 

[bobthehobbyguy]

A while back there was a thread looking for proposals for new kits. To my knowledge nothing ever happened.

Want a particular kit.  Do some research on the subject matter. An all new tooling is going to have to have broad appeal, be able to support several variations(ie Revell 1957 Ford kit).  The better the proposal the better chance for said kit to be a reality.

[niteowl7710]

39 minutes ago, bobthehobbyguy said:

A while back there was a thread looking for proposals for new kits. To my knowledge nothing ever happened.

Want a particular kit.  Do some research on the subject matter. An all new tooling is going to have to have broad appeal, be able to support several variations(ie Revell 1957 Ford kit).  The better the proposal the better chance for said kit to be a reality.

Or if you want a one and done type of tool - without a built in "collectible" fan base like Chip Foose - then look at what Tamiya & Belkits are charging and figure on paying similar prices.

I think you could sell 5,000 of anything globally to the distribution chain. But how many $60 Cadillacs are gonna get sold in total to actual customers.

[StevenGuthmiller]

3 hours ago, Casey said:

You're making assumptions with those statements, but really, there's no way to get either absolute or definite numbers for how many people would or wouldn't buy a particular kit. How do you know for sure that 50% of potential customers would have only purchased a stock kit, and that none of those customers would buy the Eldorod?

I agree nobody but the most hardcore builder is going to try to turn the Eldorod kit into a stock Cadillac, but custom kits can be customized, too. We've seen builders use the parts as raw material for other builds and even built mostly box stock, there's room for customization, as with almost any model. Not everybody wants nor has the ability to heavily customize a model, so pre-customized models like the Eldorod, FD-100, Revell '49 Mercury, etc. do have appeal to buyers. Heck, the Revell '49 Merc has been in their catalog non-stop for almost a decade, and I would bet it outsells AMT's '49 Mercury by a wide margin. Maybe not a fair comparison since the AMT kit was only current for a limited time, but if you gave the mass public the choice of having a '49 Mercury with a pre-chopped roof over one they had to chop themselves, I bet the former would be chosen by a wide margin. Most people just don't have the skill and patience to perform such a drastic modification.

You're right, I am making assumptions, just as we all are, including Revell.

But just by using a small sample, (this thread) it's pretty evident to me that a fairly large proportion of them would have bought a stock kit & many of those same people will not buy the Foose one.

By the same token, how many of those people who were excited to see the Eldorod would not have bought a stock kit?

I think it's pretty safe to say that very few of them would have passed on it.

Most of those who would have wanted a custom, would have dreamed up their own and bought the stock kit to build it with.

I believe that most of them would have said, "we don't need Chip Foose to imagine for us".

And then there is the potential for Revell to make future tweaks to the kit down the road to maximize the tooling. (ie, different years and configurations)

The Foose custom will likely always be just that.

I doubt that they will do much for substantial changes down the road.  

I agree that there is always the potential for a big windfall with a kit like this, or any other kit for that matter, but there is also potential for failure.

I don't portend to think that this kit will fail, (I highly doubt that it will) but I really don't think that it has the potential to be a decades long success like some of the highly successful 3 in 1 type kits that have been with us for many decades.

Do any of us think that if AMT would have opted to do a radically customized version of their '58 Impala or '57 Ford Fairlaine as examples, rather than the kits that they did, that they would have been as successful as they have been?

We could probably think of something along the lines of comparing the Monogram '60 Chevy flip nose sedan delivery kit to the AMT '59 El Camino.

Both very successful, but I doubt very much that the Monogram kit outsold the El Camino over the years.

Of course, I could be wrong about that.

I have no evidence of it, but I would be very surprised if it were the other way around.

Now, I don't have any of the other Foose kits, but my opinion is that Revell did these right by using existing tooling & revamping it to meet all of our expectations. (ie, '65 Impala, '67 Charger, '67 Coronet, '68 Firebird)

I think that there would be a lot of anguish for most of us if these kits were all only available as Foose customs and were never produced in stock form.

 

As far as the Revell '49 Mercury over the AMT '49 goes, the Revell kit may be out selling the AMT one at the moment, mostly because it's a newer, more exciting kit for some, but it's got a looooong way to go to ever catch up to the AMT '49.

I feel pretty confident in saying, that will never happen.

 

Steve

[StevenGuthmiller]

58 minutes ago, niteowl7710 said:

Or if you want a one and done type of tool - without a built in "collectible" fan base like Chip Foose - then look at what Tamiya & Belkits are charging and figure on paying similar prices.

I think you could sell 5,000 of anything globally to the distribution chain. But how many $60 Cadillacs are gonna get sold in total to actual customers.

The stock Cadillac would not need to be a $60.00 offering any more than the Monogram '59 Eldorado or '65 Impala, or the AMT '58 edsel or '62 Belair.

Is there any doubt that these were, and still are very successful kits?

The Foose kit is the very definition of a "one and done" kit.

Even if there is interest in Foose at the moment, that will not last for long in the grand scheme of things.

Nobody will likely know who Chip Foose is in 25 years.

There is always the potential to use the tooling from a stock kit to advance to something else, whether it be custom or racing versions, or a different year or body type.

AMT, MPC & Johan did this with their annual kits very successfully for a long time.

 

Steve

[Phirewriter]

This is just an observation, many guys in the club I belong to bemoaned the fact that Revell would come out with these when they were announced. Yet after they were released both the Eldorod and the pickup showed up on the display tables for months. Many being built by guys who generally only built replica stock. Almost all attested to the quality of the kit despite some of the windshield post issues with the Eldorod.

Edited August 18, 2018 by Phirewriter

[Luc Janssens]

52 minutes ago, StevenGuthmiller said:

The stock Cadillac would not need to be a $60.00 offering any more than the Monogram '59 Eldorado or '65 Impala, or the AMT '58 edsel or '62 Belair.

Steve

1

1

It's my understanding that Walmart picked up the tab for these and a slew of post promo developed model kits, solely due to their buying power.

Now that said, I'm sure there's a market for those Classic Cadillacs, as well as '50s Buicks, but I suspect companies are gunshy, because they' don't know the numbers, and they do need numbers in order to get their investment topped with profit back.

BTW are the US modelers prepared to spend $50 for a model kit of "non-muscle" cars, the 250K question

 

Edited August 18, 2018 by Luc Janssens

[StevenGuthmiller]

4 minutes ago, Luc Janssens said:

It's my understanding that Walmart picked up the tab for the development of these and another slew of post promo developed model kits, due to their buying power.

That would explain a great deal about why these kits were developed in the first place.

If Walmart is basically ponying up the cash for your project, hell yes you're going to do it!

 

6 minutes ago, Luc Janssens said:

Now that said, I'm sure there's a market for those Classic Cadillacs as well as '50s Buicks, but I think companies are gunshy, because they' don't know the numbers, and they do need numbers in order to get their investment topped with profit back.

BTW are the US modelers prepared to spend $50 for a model kit of "non-muscle" cars, the 250K question

 

I understand that attitude completely.

In today's environment, any new kit can be a big risk.

Which generally explains why companies like Moebius do the kits that they do.

There is lots of room for "tooling maximization".

It seems pretty obvious to me that Revell did not have that concern with the Foose Cadillac, and the Walmart theory would probably have a lot to do with that.

 

 

By the way, I have no issue with paying $50.00 for a kit that I really want, but I may be in the minority on that.

I'm pretty certain that I paid a good chunk of change on the Trumpeter '60 Bonneville kit.

Got burned on that one!

 

 

Steve

 

[niteowl7710]

1 hour ago, StevenGuthmiller said:

The stock Cadillac would not need to be a $60.00 offering any more than the Monogram '59 Eldorado or '65 Impala, or the AMT '58 edsel or '62 Belair.

None of the kits you mention are one and done kits.  The Eldorado & '65 Impala both spawned subsequent H/T Eldorado, and Convertible/Lowrider/'66 Impala (and FOOSE) versions.  The Edsel got a release with a Continental kit, and the Bel Air was also the basis for THREE drag racing versions, four if you count the one they just reissued it as under Round2.

Is there any doubt that these were, and still are very successful kits?

No, but considering the above, this is also an invalid point.

The Foose kit is the very definition of a "one and done" kit.

Even if there is interest in Foose at the moment, that will not last for long in the grand scheme of things.

Nobody will likely know who Chip Foose is in 25 years.

They are one and done kits, but within a franchise of Foose related kits.  Sorry, but this, especially your last statement is all subjective opinion.  Just because YOU don't like him, doesn't mean everyone else does to, and those others would buy the kit to have as part of a collection of Foose items and never build it.  Go look on eBay, there's a slew of diecast cars, clothing, etc.  How many people REALLY thought Thom Daniels was going to still be relevant in 30-40 years when those kits were made?  "Cause it's what I grew up with!" isn't a design style.

There is always the potential to use the tooling from a stock kit to advance to something else, whether it be custom or racing versions, or a different year or body type.

AMT, MPC & Johan did this with their annual kits very successfully for a long time.

Since the mid-90s tooling has been designed to be modular with future releases backed in from Day 1.  No one - despite you intense desire otherwise - is gonna feed the two Foose kits into a paper shredder and make the original tooling unsalvageable.  This after all is why everyone moans and laments all those "great" kits of the 60s.  They were wrecked into each year's body style, and then destroyed into a short track car, drag racing gasser, or wacky LSD based 70s custom.  You're also entirely sidestepping the part where AMT, MPC & JoHan could do what they did because GM, Ford & Mopar were PAYING for that tooling.  AMT/Ertl didn't make Ford Probes & Chevy Berettas because of people crying out for models of econo-coupes.

Steve

 

Edited August 18, 2018 by niteowl7710

[niteowl7710]

 

3 minutes ago, StevenGuthmiller said:

It seems pretty obvious to me that Revell did not have that concern with the Foose Cadillac, and the Walmart theory would probably have a lot to do with that.

Walmart didn't have anything to do with the Foose kits, they stopped carrying models in store a couple of years ago, and I doubt they really do enough volume online to have any clout.  The big elephant in the room right now would be Hobby Lobby, they're buying half or more of the first run of any Revell kit.

Edited August 18, 2018 by niteowl7710

[StevenGuthmiller]

7 minutes ago, niteowl7710 said:

None of the kits mentioned are one and done kits.

You are making my point for me.

Of course they are not "one and done" kits, and neither would a '48 Cadillac be.

But the Foose kit is.

It's very unlikely that Revell will be introducing the Foose Cadillac with a continental kit or in racing versions, but a stock '48 would at least have some potential in this department.

 

14 minutes ago, niteowl7710 said:

Just because YOU don't like him, doesn't mean others do.

I have absolutely nothing against Chip Foose and I don't believe that I ever said I did.

My argument has zero to do with Mr. Foose or any of his creations.

My focus is on the subject of a stock offering in comparison to a strictly custom one.

My opinion would be the same if this was just a custom kit with nobody's name attached to it at all.

 

20 minutes ago, niteowl7710 said:

Since the mid 90s tooling has been designed to be modular with future releases backed in since day one.

The exact same thing would be done with a stock '48.

22 minutes ago, niteowl7710 said:

No one - despite you intense desire otherwise - is gonna feed the two Foose kits into a paper shredder and make the original tooling unsalvageable.

First of all, let's try to not make this conversation personal.

It's a fun discussion And we don't want it to spiral into an insult match.

I have no intense desire for this kit to be destroyed in any sense.

I have nothing but respect for anyone who is excited about this kit and wants to build it.

I am only discussing the merits of a stock kit that has the potential to move on to other things, over a one shot custom.

Nothing more.

32 minutes ago, niteowl7710 said:

They wrecked into each years body style, and the destroyed into a short track car, drag racing gasser, or wacky LSD based 70s custom.

You're correct.

This was the practice.

But I personally never lamented this method.

After all, without this process, we would probably have lost many successive years of automobiles.

In other words, there probably would have been no line of Johan 1965-1968 Plymouth Furys, as an example, without that change to the molds from year to year.

In that respect, I'm very glad that they did it.

The real butchering that you described usually happened at the end of a body style run when an all new model came out.

Case and point, would be along the lines of the AMT Barracudas which started in '66 & continued until the last one remaining, the '69.

The '69 was never chopped up, but it is the only one still in production.

And while the '66-'68 molds are no longer in existence,  the models still exist, which would likely not be the case without this practice.

49 minutes ago, niteowl7710 said:

You're also entirely sidestepping the part where AMT, MPC & Johan could do what they did because GM, Ford & Mopar were PAYING for that tooling.

You're probably correct, but I fail to see how that has any bearing on this discussion.

Revell would be paying for the tooling for either one of the kits in question today.

How they operated 50 years ago is not how they operate today.

In either circumstance, Revell is the one who needs to make the decision of which offering would be more viable, and apparently they made that decision.

I just happen to feel that a stock offering would have been a better option into the future.

1 hour ago, niteowl7710 said:

Sorry, but this, especially your last statement is all subjective opinion.

Exactly!

All of this is "opinion", on everybody's part.

And we should all be able to express those opinions.

That is what a forum such as this is all about.

 

 

 

Steve

[StevenGuthmiller]

1 hour ago, niteowl7710 said:

 

Walmart didn't have anything to do with the Foose kits, they stopped carrying models in store a couple of years ago, and I doubt they really do enough volume online to have any clout.  The big elephant in the room right now would be Hobby Lobby, they're buying half or more of the first run of any Revell kit.

Point taken.

I have no first hand knowledge of this at all.

I was only quoting Luc's post as what sounded to me to be a viable consideration as to what was taking place in this decision by Revell.

If you have that knowledge, I digress.

 

Steve

 

[bobthehobbyguy]

I disagree that the Foose Caddy is a one and done. Case in point the Boyd Smoothster. The original kit was a convertible. Testors did a coupe and van from the kit. Also when Roth fell out of favor with Revell there were numerous variations done on his kits. No reason the same thing couldn't be done with the Caddy.

[StevenGuthmiller]

2 hours ago, bobthehobbyguy said:

I disagree that the Foose Caddy is a one and done. Case in point the Boyd Smoothster. The original kit was a convertible. Testors did a coupe and van from the kit. Also when Roth fell out of favor with Revell there were numerous variations done on his kits. No reason the same thing couldn't be done with the Caddy.

I suppose that anything is possible.

But I do wonder how many units of that kit were sold in total, even with the variants.

Could be a lot more than I'm thinking I suppose, but they pretty much give the Boyd kits away on ebay.

 

Steve

[SfanGoch]

Buyer's remorse. 

I see a whole lot of them Custom Catilack Cornvertables, Corynets an' Impalers on the block for low prices also. Very few F100's which means there were more satisfied owners of that particular kit.

[Classicgas]

14 hours ago, niteowl7710 said:

 

 The big elephant in the room right now would be Hobby Lobby, they're buying half or more of the first run of any Revell kit.

Sorry. I rarely see any first run Revell kits at the Hobby Lobby's around here. Occasionally yes, but by and large at least 6 months to a year after the first issue.

[dino246gt]

20 hours ago, SfanGoch said:

That's a beaut, Dennis! Who produces(d) the kit?

Modelhaus, sadly, they've retired, as well they deserved to, all the best to them!

[Mike999]

You could always start with the TKM resin '48 Cadillac...

 

[niteowl7710]

7 minutes ago, Mike999 said:

You could always start with the TKM resin '48 Cadillac...

 

Or a block of butter...

[magicmustang]

15 minutes ago, niteowl7710 said:

Or a block of butter...

Or as Fido would say, "ruff, ruff".

[martinfan5]

I think a block of butter would yield better results.