Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum

Revell 1968 Chevelle


Exotics_Builder

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Chuck Kourouklis said:

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...

2v2JjVy9WxE7KCV.jpg

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.

I always thought the only flaw with the AMT '62 was that the front fender points were rounded off, not sharp and pointy like they should be, but I think that's an easy enough fix. 

I agree with your assessment that (except for this minor point), that AMT front end looks more like the real one than the Revell. Revell got the sharp points right, though. 

Speaking of wheel opening shapes being wrong, they're wrong on the Revell '69 Nova. They're also wrong on the AMT '72, but not in a way that catches the eye as badly as Revell's do. The angle of the rear panel on the Revell '69 Nova is also very wrong, in exactly the opposite way that it's wrong on the '67 Camaro: It sits plumb vertical, instead of having a notable backslant to it. AMT got this right. That said, The Revell Nova body seems to be superior to the AMT in every other way. I've got a project going where I grafted an AMT '72 rear end onto a Revell '69 body. I need to get that thing finished sometime soon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Xingu said:

If we are going to complain, lets keep it on topic and complain about the '68 Chevelle. No need to muddy the waters any further.

Maybe you could make a completely separate thread where we could complain about, and nitpick every model kit ever made since the beginning of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And maybe the digressions aren't strictly about "complaining".  And maybe the discussion wends this way because the kit ain't out yet so there's not a lot to say strictly about it just now.

But whatever. Some of you are just gonna see what you wanna see no matter what the facts say, and in fairness, that's hardly a phenomenon unique to this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Snake45 said:

I always thought the only flaw with the AMT '62 was that the front fender points were rounded off, not sharp and pointy like they should be, but I think that's an easy enough fix. 

I agree with your assessment that (except for this minor point), that AMT front end looks more like the real one than the Revell. Revell got the sharp points right, though. 

Speaking of wheel opening shapes being wrong, they're wrong on the Revell '69 Nova. They're also wrong on the AMT '72, but not in a way that catches the eye as badly as Revell's do. The angle of the rear panel on the Revell '69 Nova is also very wrong, in exactly the opposite way that it's wrong on the '67 Camaro: It sits plumb vertical, instead of having a notable backslant to it. AMT got this right. That said, The Revell Nova body seems to be superior to the AMT in every other way. I've got a project going where I grafted an AMT '72 rear end onto a Revell '69 body. I need to get that thing finished sometime soon. 

Well actually, Snake, what i was saying was that AMT's wheel arches were closer, but that Revell seemed to get everything else about the front end better.  Right withya on the Nova (and honestly, the problem is of such a magnitude to defy any explanations of non-stock replacement panels, though the rest is good), and the Camaro actually took a while to seep into my awareness with its little deviations - '68 Firebird really seemed better overall for accuracy, though not so sharp in its design by comparison.

And now, in a straight-out sop to those who don't keep track of exactly HOW a discussion goes off topic, lemme just say that so far, neither I nor many others are picking up such problems in this new kit as it presents to this point.  

The essential message - for those who might need one of us to DRAW A LI'L PICTURE - is SO FAR, SO GOOD on Revell's '68 Chevelle.

Edited by Chuck Kourouklis
slight tempering of the ending
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those looking for images on correcting both the 1967 Camaro and Revell 1966 Impala kits, check out the highlighted photo albums dating from about four years ago...there are also detail photos of other 1/1 scale cars referenced in this thread at this folder link.....including the Revell 1969 Revell and 1970 'cuda, and Chuck's all time favorite kit of all (Not!). 

I did not mean to imply that photography alone prohibits you from finding errors in a given model kit (as several of you have thoroughly demonstrated above); but only to say that do draw an overall conclusion of the total worth of a given kit, you need to give it the benefit of being built and painted in three dimensional form (just as you need to see a real car in three dimensional form) to come to a solid, final conclusion about its design.  Photography is a great help, but it alone can't get you over the finish line.  

And while Chuck's experience is otherwise, mine is that paint and chrome (i.e. BareMetal) is absolutely essential in drawing a conclusion about a given model kit.  Like Chuck and I, your experience may vary...…:)  TIM 

 

 

 

Edited by tim boyd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Richard Bartrop said:

I thought the initial impressions from the photos was pretty good.  

I can't recall anyone finding anything to complain about from the pics that have been posted. But too many of us have seen Revell snatch Heartbreak from the jaws of Magnificence too often to NOT express concerns. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, StevenGuthmiller said:

If by "disregard this" you mean should we disregard this entire thread........Yes, I believe we should! :D

 

Exactly! What he said!!!!    When it's in my hands...I'll still build it & (as my worst critic)  then I will judge it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Snake45 said:

I can't recall anyone finding anything to complain about from the pics that have been posted. But too many of us have seen Revell snatch Heartbreak from the jaws of Magnificence too often to NOT express concerns. B)

That's just it.   There seems to be an awful lot of test being generated on what might happen, rather than on what actually has happened.   I was wondering if anything of actual substance has come up, and the answer so far seems to be no.

And what what I meant was the photos look fine, but Tim says we should disregard the photo, so does that mean we should disregard that it looks fine?

As for disregarding the thread, seeing how much noise is being generated over nothing, maybe that's a good idea.

But if people really have their hearts set on arguing for the sake of arguing, don't let me spoil your fun.

Edited by Richard Bartrop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Richard Bartrop said:

And what what I meant was the photos look fine, but Tim says we should disregard the photo, so does that mean we should disregard that it looks fine?

 

Richard....I did not mean to imply that anyone disregard the photos. 

I DID mean to express that I do not believe it is valid to make a final, definitive judgement on ANY new kit until  one has painted and built it and examined it in its final 3D glory (or not).  Photography alone sometimes does not tell the whole story. 

As for this particular kit, draw your own conclusions based on the photography presented so far.  Beyond that, I was fortunate enough to see and briefly handle a completed (but not painted or detailed) test shot of the kit.   I was favorably impressed.  But I still want to hold off a final determination (i.e. my own personal conclusion about the new kit) until I see assembled and painted examples by members of this board and others, and possibly assemble the kit myself. 

I apologize as it appears that I have been less than clear about the above points....

Cheers.....TIM 

Edited by tim boyd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 1:46 PM, RichCostello said:

Maybe you could make a completely separate thread where we could complain about, and nitpick every model kit ever made since the beginning of time.

LOL brother I'm with you.!!! Lets just get the new models out we are model builders so fix and build I have said it be for I'm 66 and started in the model car hobby in 1962 so it's been 56 years and in all that time no one and I mean no one has ever come to my house and looked at the cars I have built and said to me dam that's not right it's deferent from the real car.!!!!! and to all the guys my age be for the net if anyone did complain no one ever know about it LOL I like that way.!!!! Sorry but this is the problem with the young builders they want it all perfect when they get it and that's why 90% can't use tools today learn to fix the problems your self.!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/30/2018 at 7:06 AM, tim boyd said:

For those looking for images on correcting both the 1967 Camaro and Revell 1966 Impala kits, check out the highlighted photo albums dating from about four years ago...there are also detail photos of other 1/1 scale cars referenced in this thread at this folder link.....including the Revell 1969 Revell and 1970 'cuda, and Chuck's all time favorite kit of all (Not!)

...…:)  TIM

Now I don't care what the circumstances, that's just funny right there.  Thanks for the laugh, Tim!

On 9/27/2018 at 7:11 PM, Richard Bartrop said:

...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 off 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.

That's actually the most trenchant observation in this entire thread, Richard, so much so I admire it.  It also describes a pattern that's recycled over and over again from one new subject thread to the next for years, now, so you might be skipping a number of discussions here if you're serious about what you say elsewhere. I'd point out that one side talks about objects, while the other devolves quickly into personal attacks. Also, you can count all the dire prognostications about the product pretty much on one hand in this discussion - can't quite say that about the chorus and all they stirred up.

Then again, when the apologists scatter their chum on the water, it probably doesn't help the discussion much to take off after them like a torpedo with your doll-dead eyes rolling backward as you go in to rip your pound of flesh.  All that gaslighting tends to get lost in the quaint little afterglow of an ICBM after all.  I try to remember that - without much success, clearly. 

But it bears repetition:  there have been other preview pics in the past of Revell products brandishing some obvious problems.  This '68 Chevelle does not, and as you've observed, if it marks Revell's return with a win, it's cause for celebration.

And beyond Tim's overview and Robert Glucksman's glowing report of the detail and fit, there's clearly not much reason to expect anything beyond speculation till the kit is released.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Rick I have a year on you I am 67 and have been building since 1961. I don't mean to nitpick but my dad was a tool & die maker and a perfectionist he always said it didn't cost anymore to do the job right. THE 65 Chevelle is a great kit but they made the top flat and it just ruins the look of it. I just think model companies are trying to put too much detail. I loved the 60's kits and still do. I know none of the kits are perfect and I am a pretty good scratch builder but I shouldn't have to pay 30.00 for a kit and have to rebuild it. all in all I think most of the new tool kits are great and look forward to the next one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, mredjr said:

Well Rick I have a year on you I am 67 and have been building since 1961. I don't mean to nitpick but my dad was a tool & die maker and a perfectionist he always said it didn't cost anymore to do the job right. THE 65 Chevelle is a great kit but they made the top flat and it just ruins the look of it. I just think model companies are trying to put too much detail. I loved the 60's kits and still do. I know none of the kits are perfect and I am a pretty good scratch builder but I shouldn't have to pay 30.00 for a kit and have to rebuild it. all in all I think most of the new tool kits are great and look forward to the next one.

PREACH IT, BROTHER! Can I get a AY-MEN from the choir? B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Xingu locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...