Chuck Kourouklis Posted September 27, 2018 Posted September 27, 2018 Yeah, yeah. I'll see anybody's "same old thing" and raise them the litany I've had at the blog linked below for half a decade now. Maybe it's projection. Projection-fueled tribalism. Ain't such a unique phenomenon, I guess.
Repstock Posted September 27, 2018 Posted September 27, 2018 When I run into combative threads like this one, I usually just pass on participating. Since I'm nobody special, that's no great loss to the forum, but I know guys who could add so much to this forum,,,guys much more knowledgeable than I, and you'll never hear from them. It's really too bad. Civility, gentlemen...civility. I like models as much as the next guy, but if we're going to speak to/about each other like this, it's just not worth it. Reread the thread. Are we treating each other with respect?
Chuck Kourouklis Posted September 27, 2018 Posted September 27, 2018 Tom, I'll just refer you back to the first posts in this thread to call names and ridicule other modelers, perpetrated by the same side that reliably starts the ad-hominems from one thread to the next. When that stops, maybe the other side will too. (word to the wise: after all these years, I wouldn't count on it stopping. I'd also maybe skip the August 22 comment posted by "SW" to the blog linked below.)
Richard Bartrop Posted September 27, 2018 Posted September 27, 2018 Just out of curiosity, has anyone posted anything about any actual issues on this kit? There's been a lot of noise about hypothetical issues that might come up, but if anyone has brought up anything about the actual kit, I must have missed it.
tim boyd Posted September 27, 2018 Posted September 27, 2018 (edited) Like Chuck in his consistency on this subject, I will also restate my consistent view on this. The ONLY truly valuable critique on a kit comes from those who have purchased the kit AND actually built it. Since the kit is not on the market yet, no comments to date reflect that level of personal critique and knowledge. I actually think this thread has been fairly tame and fair compared to some other kit critique threads. And like many others I find comments on the accuracy of future, unleased kits to be entertaining and, at times, also informative. But they are no substitute from the posted feedback from those who have actually built the kit, and the more such posts, the more helpful the information becomes for the rest of us. TIM Edited September 27, 2018 by tim boyd
Chuck Kourouklis Posted September 28, 2018 Posted September 28, 2018 ^^ True dat. ^^ I'd only diverge slightly in that there's been plenty from a proportion standpoint that's stayed the same from preview to production (and in the rare case of the Kit That Must Not Be Named, actually looked worse in your hands than the preview pics). But you've got no idea of the engineering in the model, or how it all fits, parts breakdown or design; and these also have a profound effect on a modeler's experience of a given kit. I'd suggest that Revell has had the latter factors dialed in so well for so long that those who don't mind proportional deviations so much might wonder what the big deal is. And this one looks good out of the gate. If it's at the same level as the '70 Chargers, I'll be delighted. Till it's released, though, we've got nothing but Robert Glucksman's feedback to go on so far.
Snake45 Posted September 28, 2018 Posted September 28, 2018 1 hour ago, tim boyd said: The ONLY truly valuable critique on a kit comes from those who have purchased the kit AND actually built it. TIM Gonna have to respectfully disagree with you a little bit on this point, old friend. If you're talking about things like parts fit, ease or difficulty of assembly, and so forth, you are absolutely right. You can't comment on the thing until you've built it. OTOH, I didn't need to own, much less build, the Revell '67 Camaro to spot the egregious errors in both the front and back ends of it. Net-published photos (including excellent ones from you) told me that the kit had serious (shape) accuracy problems that would have to be addressed for a serious build. And I think everyone here could name three or four kits that have struck them the same way. Conversely, one can purchase and build a kit and still not produce a "valuable critique" of it. The "other magazine" for years had on staff a reviewer who routinely gave "Recommended" and "Highly Recommended" and even "Must Have" ratings for kits that I consider to be wretched backbirths. He'd give a good description of what was in the box, but didn't seem to have much of an eye for shape accuracy. Come to think of it, I don't recall ever seeing a build article or built model from him of any kind, ever, either. And to this day the magazine publishes full build reviews that don't mention major shape or accuracy problems (though they do highlight fit/assembly problems).
Richard Bartrop Posted September 28, 2018 Posted September 28, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, tim boyd said: The ONLY truly valuable critique on a kit comes from those who have purchased the kit AND actually built it. Counterpoint: But getting back to the Chevelle kit, I haven't seen anything about the kit itself, mostly worries about Revell might do, which I think is premature, and a chorus of apologists trying to head of complaints for fear we might hurt the feelings of Revell staff, and they'll stop making models in retaliation, which is not how it works. Edited September 28, 2018 by Richard Bartrop
MrObsessive Posted September 28, 2018 Posted September 28, 2018 UGGGH! I heard years ago a story of how this thing ended up the way it did, but I don't want to repeat something and not get it right. Had something to do with Aurora trying to change up midgame on the GTO and this was the result. Heck, I'd take ESCI version over this abomination-----at least that can be corrected with some effort. No amount of effort will EVER get this one to look correct! Seeing a kit that's woefully incorrect BEFORE getting it out of the box?? My favorite 'whipping boy'........the '58 Plymouth Belvedere. I could go on (and have) for hours about what's wrong with that one.
slusher Posted September 28, 2018 Posted September 28, 2018 2 hours ago, MrObsessive said: the '58 Plymouth Belvedere. I could go on (and have) for hours about what's wrong with that one. I know the side chrome on the 58 Plymouth is not right. What else is wrong on it Bill ? I want to look at the one I have and see the rest and learn something...
MrObsessive Posted September 28, 2018 Posted September 28, 2018 22 minutes ago, slusher said: I know the side chrome on the 58 Plymouth is not right. What else is wrong on it Bill ? I want to look at the one I have and see the rest and learn something... Oh my........... The roof is too low.The fins (rearmost) are too low. The trunk is not the correct shape and height. The engine is woefully wrong-----not quite a 318 poly, but not quite a 350 engine either. Of the ones I've seen built....right out of the box the stance seems wonky to me. Proceed with caution! That kit is on my short list of projects.......I'm taking a break from the superdetailed stuff for a while though, but I do have plans already laid out to fix all of those foibles.
slusher Posted September 28, 2018 Posted September 28, 2018 21 minutes ago, MrObsessive said: Oh my........... The roof is too low.The fins (rearmost) are too low. The trunk is not the correct shape and height. The engine is woefully wrong-----not quite a 318 poly, but not quite a 350 engine either. Of the ones I've seen built....right out of the box the stance seems wonky to me. Proceed with caution! That kit is on my short list of projects.......I'm taking a break from the superdetailed stuff for a while though, but I do have plans already laid out to fix all of those foibles. I did notic the fins. I will watch your build of it...Thanks
tim boyd Posted September 28, 2018 Posted September 28, 2018 Good points all and good discussion. * My comments were intended to apply to newly tooled modern generation kits, not kits of the past. * My point about building the kits certainly applies to fit and finish, but equally to judging proportions, and judging the overall accuracy and lifelike appearance of a kit. * Relying upon photography alone to make a valid determination of a kit's accuracy is risky practice. In some cases photography can and will mislead you. * I generally prefer not to talk about my work life experiences when I am discussing our hobby, but I am going to make an exception here. During the last 1/3rd of my professional career I worked alongside some of the auto industry's most talented design executives in a business/organizational support role, and during the last five years, I took over responsibility for my former employer's three global advanced design studios. What I experienced during this 11 year period personally and from my colleagues was the following: I can say with certainty that trying to judge a car's appearance (or a model car's accuracy) from photography alone is not a valid way to make a complete determination. The only way to do that is to see something in person, in 3D presentation. I experienced this time and time again both in my professional career and my hobby. In the case of a model car, that means a built and painted, complete model car. ***** The Revelll 1967 Camaro kit is a good example of a kit where the photography does reveal some flaws; particularly the lack of the two horizontal bars in the grille engraving, and the undersized wheels. The overly emphasized rear fender edge sloping inward toward the ground was less obvious to me but some of you picked it out as well. However, no kit is perfect, and to form an overall, educated conclusion you need to build the entire kit, then assess the finished appearance along with the ease of assembly, fit and finish, parts choice, overall accuracy, etc. I still maintain that's the only way to come to a completely educated conclusion. I have not built that kit myself, Based on what I have observed, it strikes me as an OK but somewhat flawed effort; not among Revell's best kits of the last five years. But unless and until I build it, my conclusion remains incomplete and somewhat ill-informed. BTW, I have personally seen a completed built up sample of the new 1968 Chevelle kit. It was not painted which is a strike against making an educated conclusion, and I was only able to observe and handle it for a very short period of time. As a result, my take on the kit is lacking an informed judgment in a number of areas. What I can say is that I did not see any major alarm bells and the overall impression was favorable. But until a number of us actually build the kit and show the results, my point remains that we will not have a totally informed and fully educated point of view on the kit. Take all this for what it's worth. I doubt I will convince anyone who sees this differently, but at least you hopefully might understand why I would take this position. Best to you all! TIM
Bob Ellis Posted September 28, 2018 Posted September 28, 2018 I don't see the big deal. Revell invests $100,000 and i invest $22. There are no perfect models. Old AMT kits had tons of errors though they appeared good. But, good modelers can fix anything. You can buy an original 1968 Chevelle for $300 if you can't risk a Revell.
Snake45 Posted September 28, 2018 Posted September 28, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, tim boyd said: The Revelll 1967 Camaro kit is a good example of a kit where the photography does reveal some flaws; particularly the lack of the two horizontal bars in the grille engraving, and the undersized wheels. The overly emphasized rear fender edge sloping inward toward the ground was less obvious to me but some of you picked it out as well. However, no kit is perfect, and to form an overall, educated conclusion you need to build the entire kit, then assess the finished appearance along with the ease of assembly, fit and finish, parts choice, overall accuracy, etc. I still maintain that's the only way to come to a completely educated conclusion. I have not built that kit myself, Based on what I have observed, it strikes me as an OK but somewhat flawed effort; not among Revell's best kits of the last five years. But unless and until I build it, my conclusion remains incomplete and somewhat ill-informed. Again, Tim, I'm going to respectfully disagree a little. The two major flaws in the Revell '67 Camaro body--the backslanted rear panel and the rectangular, incorrectly shaped grille opening--are readily apparent in photos. (The missing bars in the grille are hardly worth mention; that's easily fixed.) The grille in particular completely screws up the whole "face" of the car. And this is a shame because the rest of the body is actually very, VERY nice--possibly the best '67-'68 Camaro kit ever. I'm currently working on building one of these. I'm correcting the rear end, removing the rocker trim, and then I'm gonna see what can be done about the grille. I'm building it as a '60s custom using the custom grille from the original annual AMT kit, so if that end of the car isn't perfect, I can write it off with "Hey, it's a custom anyway." One of the functions of this build is to figure out what's needed to fix this body for a GOOD build that I want to do. I've got the hard part of the rear end fixed. There's enough meat in the rear panel to shave it back at the top and get the panel vertical, or nearly so, which I've done. I haven't cut the lip of the trunk lid back yet, but the depth gauge on my dial caliper tells me I've moved the top edge of the rear panel back about .050-.060", which will help a LOT. The pic shows both fixed (top) and unfixed rear panels. Another thing to keep in mind is that we all have our areas of specialization. You have a major in Mopar, with a minor in Boss Mustangs. My friend Vamach1 can find errors in Mustangs I can't see. I'm a first-gen Camaro guy, so the wrong shape of the grille on this kit bothers me a LOT. But I realize that others might not see it at all. So I guess that "accuracy" is a relative term, depending on who's using it and what they're talking about. Edited September 28, 2018 by Snake45
tim boyd Posted September 28, 2018 Posted September 28, 2018 4 hours ago, Snake45 said: Again, Tim, I'm going to respectfully disagree a little. The two major flaws in the Revell '67 Camaro body--the backslanted rear panel and the rectangular, incorrectly shaped grille opening--are readily apparent in photos. (The missing bars in the grille are hardly worth mention; that's easily fixed.) The grille in particular completely screws up the whole "face" of the car. And this is a shame because the rest of the body is actually very, VERY nice--possibly the best '67-'68 Camaro kit ever. I'm currently working on building one of these. I'm correcting the rear end, removing the rocker trim, and then I'm gonna see what can be done about the grille. I'm building it as a '60s custom using the custom grille from the original annual AMT kit, so if that end of the car isn't perfect, I can write it off with "Hey, it's a custom anyway." One of the functions of this build is to figure out what's needed to fix this body for a GOOD build that I want to do. I've got the hard part of the rear end fixed. There's enough meat in the rear panel to shave it back at the top and get the panel vertical, or nearly so, which I've done. I haven't cut the lip of the trunk lid back yet, but the depth gauge on my dial caliper tells me I've moved the top edge of the rear panel back about .050-.060", which will help a LOT. The pic shows both fixed (top) and unfixed rear panels. Another thing to keep in mind is that we all have our areas of specialization. You have a major in Mopar, with a minor in Boss Mustangs. My friend Vamach1 can find errors in Mustangs I can't see. I'm a first-gen Camaro guy, so the wrong shape of the grille on this kit bothers me a LOT. But I realize that others might not see it at all. So I guess that "accuracy" is a relative term, depending on who's using it and what they're talking about. Richard....thanks for your thoughtfully worded counterpoint. I'm looking forward to seeing how this project progresses.....TIM
StevenGuthmiller Posted September 28, 2018 Posted September 28, 2018 22 hours ago, Richard Bartrop said: Just out of curiosity, has anyone posted anything about any actual issues on this kit? There's been a lot of noise about hypothetical issues that might come up, but if anyone has brought up anything about the actual kit, I must have missed it. No, because nobody "KNOWS" anything about the actual kit! Steve
mademan Posted September 29, 2018 Posted September 29, 2018 idk anything about it.... but I just pre-ordered one.... The supplier from my LHS says he is supposed to have them Mid- Late November
Chuck Kourouklis Posted September 29, 2018 Posted September 29, 2018 (edited) Yeah, on the reviewing-from-photo discussion, guess it's at this point I'll just have to diverge a little more. For example, I saw the fender flares on the '70 'Cuda in preview pics, and they just looked no different to me on a finished model than they did in gray test-shot plastic. Didn't matter a whit that there was a coat of paint on the fender and a wheel in place, the flare was just wrong. This was evidently a problem for a while at Revell, 'cause here came a '62 Impala something that looked funky in preview pics. And sure enough, when I finally bought one... It's a sub-optimal comparison; the neighbor's Impala was shot at night and it has a bumper and rocker trim in place to distort comparisons of the entire front fender. But let's just isolate down to the outline of the wheel arch. Just narrowing down to that linear contour, it's clear that the AMT Bel Air on top, though not dead-on, is closer than Revell's in the overall contour. The pictures tell you e v e r y t h i n g you need to know about that one detail. They also provide enough information for you to see that Revell probably has everything else about the front fender closer than AMT's model. And sure enough, a live comparison in 3D bears this out. And what of a complete build-up review that demonstrates the legitimacy of 2D photo analysis? The 1950 Olds 88: I could see from comparisons of Revell's own 1:1 promotional shot against early pics of the model that the door frame and drip molding didn't follow quite the right contour from the A-pillar over the DLO (found later that Steve Boutte noted that problem publicly before I did), and that the rear wheel arch lacked certain subtleties present in the 1:1. For the straight build review, I wanted to show the box-stock result, and the fender skirts camouflaged one problem anyway: But through 2-dimensional photo analysis for converting the coupe to a sedan, taking a mean of caliper measurements directly from profile shots, I came up with - begging everyone's pardon - something more accurate than what the manufacturer gave us to start with: No resin in that, just surgery. Sorry to belabor it, but as long as anyone still clings so pathetically to such inane and ridiculous precepts as "critics can't build"... I figured out the proportioning of the rear DLO window to the front from analyzing several photos, and just exactly where the C-pillars were supposed to land. I actually sized a profile shot to 1/25, then cut out the outline of the rear wheel arch to come up with a template to something better. Proportioning is a matter of hard mathematics, and again begging everyone's pardon, some of us have the basic capabilities to see where the photo angles distort and where they may actually represent that math more accurately. And then there's this thing: which from a proportional standpoint looks pretty bang-on to any photo of the 1:1 you compare it with, NO reworking needed at all, and has borne far less controversy as a result. Need I remind anyone here just why? Edited September 29, 2018 by Chuck Kourouklis agreement error, clarification
MrObsessive Posted September 29, 2018 Posted September 29, 2018 (edited) Snake, you're spot on with your view of Revell's '67 Camaro. I hadn't paid attention to that when the kit first came out, but I went ahead and bought one anyway because I like the car, and can remember them very well when I was a kid. I got real curious about how off that really was, so a last year at a car show I got some nice up close and personal shots of a '67. The lady who owns this one was very nice, and while she wasn't a model person, she understood how our minds operate, and how we like things to be correct. Also, I had to see first hand what you meant about the front end being too 'square'. So I got a nice dead on shot of this '67 Pace car at the same show, and yup...........that kit's front end DEFINITELY needs some work. In regards to the '68 Chevelle, as I mentioned earlier what I see so far looks mighty nice to me. I'm sure though that once the kit's in my big 'ole hands, there may be a point or two that might need tweaking. But nothing I've seen so far that screams out "FIX ME"! BTW, for those of you that were around when Moebius was showing test shots of their '61 Pontiac Ventura, one of the things we noticed IMMEDIATELY, was the lack of the little 'kickup' that all 1961 GM B-Body bubbletops had at the base of their C pillars. It was noticeable enough that they indeed fixed it before the final product hit the shelves, and I give them major props for that as that version IMO has the most correct roofline of those types of kits done. So that goes to show that they indeed do listen..........acting on what they hear can be another story though. Edited September 29, 2018 by MrObsessive Added pics of Pace Car rear end
Snake45 Posted September 29, 2018 Posted September 29, 2018 Bill, your Camaro pics are OUTSTANDING and I'll probably pirate them to my hard drive for future reference. I haven't yet modified the rear "edge" of the back end of mine, just the rear panel itself, and I'm glad I didn't until now. Your photos show that there should be a slight degree of "undercut" to that edge; it's not vertical but the rear panel itself seems to be. Revell has the edge following the same line in profile as the area below the bumper, and your pics show that this just isn't so. The kit also has the rear panel itself following this same angle, which is just wrong. The old AMT '67-'68 kit has this whole area just about right.
'70 Grande Posted September 29, 2018 Posted September 29, 2018 Bill, I hope you got some good reference pics of that nice-looking 1:1 '68 Chevelle showing in the background of your Blue, 1967 Chevrolet Camaro convertible pic! (in a way, the thread seems to have reached back unto itself)!
MrObsessive Posted September 29, 2018 Posted September 29, 2018 No, I didn't get pics of that one. That show comes up every year in here in PA in Lancaster County (LCBC), so hopefully whoever owns it will come back next year. I missed the show this year due to not so nice weather (for me), but I'll try to get there again next year. That show is quite interesting as it's not limited to a certain genre, so just about anything will turn up.
Mike Chernecki Posted September 29, 2018 Posted September 29, 2018 3 hours ago, Snake45 said: Bill, your Camaro pics are OUTSTANDING and I'll probably pirate them to my hard drive for future reference. I haven't yet modified the rear "edge" of the back end of mine, just the rear panel itself, and I'm glad I didn't until now. Your photos show that there should be a slight degree of "undercut" to that edge; it's not vertical but the rear panel itself seems to be. Revell has the edge following the same line in profile as the area below the bumper, and your pics show that this just isn't so. The kit also has the rear panel itself following this same angle, which is just wrong. The old AMT '67-'68 kit has this whole area just about right. Just curious, does the tail end from the revell '68 Firebird fit on the Camaro. It would gove the correct angle, just need to graft in the camaro taillights.
Snake45 Posted September 29, 2018 Posted September 29, 2018 17 minutes ago, Mike Chernecki said: Just curious, does the tail end from the revell '68 Firebird fit on the Camaro. It would gove the correct angle, just need to graft in the camaro taillights. Haven't tried it, but it should, and it's correctly shaped. IIRC, the grille area on the Firebird body is correctly shaped, too, and might be a near-perfect fit for a resin RS grille repopped from the original AMT '67 annual Camaro. You'd need to swap the cowls on the two bodies, as they were different, add the Camaro's header panel and do a couple more little fixes like filling the side vents, but I think overall the '68 Firebird body is more accurate than the '67 Camaro, and might be less trouble to convert overall. (Of course, it would be more expensive.)
Recommended Posts