1/25 AMT '63 Chevrolet Impala SS Hardtop

[StevenGuthmiller]

40 minutes ago, Daddy Mack said:

The only people who call molds 'tools' are lay people.

My guess is that the vast majority of the people on this thread have never worked in an injection molding facility and are therefore "lay people".

 

Steve

[Snake45]

13 hours ago, magicmustang said:

Here's a Craftsman kit I converted many years ago. Cut out the hood and made an engine bay with parts from a "64 Impala kit. 

Beautiful work! Fred Cady decals? 

This is just about the only '63 Impala model I ever want to build. Nice to see it can be done so well. 

[magicmustang]

1 hour ago, Snake45 said:

 Fred Cady decals? 

 

Yep.

[Bob Ellis]

On 5/4/2019 at 3:41 PM, 1972coronet said:

Lettuce not forget the ill-fated Prestige issue of the '63 Impala SS ! That thing got such a bashing back when it was issued in 1988 ; not because of the kit its self , but because of the "Prestige" nomenclature --- those kits were sold new at a premium over the 'regular' kits . In other words , the ~ $9.00 retail price was , shall we say , overzealous , in comparison to its contents (or , lack thereof)

I paid $14 for this kit in 1987 and have the store sticker to prove it. At best, this kit and later reissues used a combination of the Craftsman kit and annual kit. AMT revised the tool in the 70s to eliminate the firewall and tail lights. Hood clip was gone and the chassis used a funky 2 size axles. There must have been 2 tools, a promo and a annual kit,  and ERTL mashed them together . The AMT 1964 Impala can fix the 1963 engine department.

[1972coronet]

10 hours ago, Bob Ellis said:

I paid $14 for this kit in 1987 and have the store sticker to prove it. At best, this kit and later reissues used a combination of the Craftsman kit and annual kit. AMT revised the tool in the 70s to eliminate the firewall and tail lights. Hood clip was gone and the chassis used a funky 2 size axles. There must have been 2 tools, a promo and a annual kit,  and ERTL mashed them together . The AMT 1964 Impala can fix the 1963 engine department.

I don't remember what I gave for the Bonneville Prestige , but it couldn't have been more than $10 or $11 ; that was in c. July 1987 . The selling points were the display and the BMF-type 'chrome' sheet that were included . beyond that , I wouldn't have justified paying north of $9 or $10 for a single-content kit --- especially since the Diamond In The Rough kit ( 1953 F-100 , trailer , and '39/'40 Ford sedan and the multiple building options therein ) was in the $12 range .

[Rob Hall]

I don't recall what I paid for the Prestige releases--that was over 30 years ago, and I was a teenager----but i do recall the flash, the soft plastic, and warped bodies.  And the bad tires w/ out-of-round whitewalls.  The Lincoln was especially bad IIRC.    They were pretty disappointing releases, to get the silly plastic base and pen holder.

[Bob Ellis]

On 5/4/2019 at 3:41 PM, 1972coronet said:

Lettuce not forget the ill-fated Prestige issue of the '63 Impala SS ! That thing got such a bashing back when it was issued in 1988 ; not because of the kit its self , but because of the "Prestige" nomenclature --- those kits were sold new at a premium over the 'regular' kits . In other words , the ~ $9.00 retail price was , shall we say , overzealous , in comparison to its contents (or , lack thereof)

I paid $14 for this kit in 1987 and have the store sticker to prove it. At best, this kit and later reissues used a combination of the Craftsman kit and annual kit. AMT revised the tool in the 70s to eliminate the firewall and tail lights. Hood clip was gone and the chassis used a funky 2 size axles. There must have been 2 tools, a promo and a annual kit,  and ERTL mashed them together . The AMT 1964 Impala can fix the 1963 engine department.

[Bob Ellis]

What sold the Prestige 1963 Impala was that old unbuilt kits went for $200  so in effect $10+ was a bargain! I was better than the Craftsman(open hood ,custom parts ect). I was crazy about getting a kit back then. The collector kit prices crashed.

[Snake45]

3 hours ago, Bob Ellis said:

What sold the Prestige 1963 Impala was that old unbuilt kits went for $200  so in effect $10+ was a bargain! I was better than the Craftsman(open hood ,custom parts ect). I was crazy about getting a kit back then. The collector kit prices crashed.

I bought one. The body is warped in a little on one side, but it seems to look okay with the interior and chassis installed. If I ever get around to building it, I'll do it as the Strickler/Jenkins car for my Grumpy collection. 

[ChrisBcritter]

Mine's the Model King "generic box" issue:

Same deal - no underhood goodies (which I replaced with original issue parts from eBay) and molded taillights (drilled out and replaced with Modelhaus lenses). Picked up a Revell small-block to replace the 409, and... that's as far as I've gotten. I wish someone made those non-SS wheelcovers depicted on the box art, just to have a choice.

Regarding the base and pen stand - nice big piece of scrap styrene you can test paints on, use for scratchbuilding, or turn over and use as a handy tray.

Edited May 7, 2019 by ChrisBcritter

[Dave Darby]

On 5/5/2019 at 7:23 PM, Daddy Mack said:

Ummmmmmmmmm. No

There was NO annual 'tool' and a different Craftsman 'tool'. I have the annuals AND the Craftsman kits. They are the same body mold.

I worked in a PIM shop. The only people who call molds 'tools' are lay people.

Really.. I built box art.models for AMT/Ertl for 6 years, and Revell for 2. You know what they referred to them as? Tools. Also. Do explain how the the 63 annual chassis and engine ended up in the the 64 kit. And why we still have craftsman 64 Galaxie when the annual kit got butchered into a mofified stocker. You don't have room to be condescending. Try getting up on the right side of the bed next time.

[Snake45]

10 hours ago, Dave Darby said:

Do explain ...why we still have craftsman 64 Galaxie when the annual kit got butchered into a mofified stocker. 

Now that is a very interesting question. And makes me wonder why we don't still have the Craftsman/promo '66 Skylark, '66 Impala, '65 Olds, etc. 

[stavanzer]

Well, A small bit of Info. The '66 Buick Modified Stocker has Promo Wheels on the Stock Chrome tree. Not the Original wheels.  A really odd mixture of parts.I have no idea why that is.

[Mark]

As for the Skylarks, both were produced from one tool (anyone I have communicated with at Round 2 calls them "tools" for the most part).  The promotional model body was produced with a closed hood, for the 3-in-1 kit one section of the body tooling was changed in order to produce a body with a hood opening and a radiator wall at the front.  With other bodies that were produced as hardtop and convertible versions, that was again done by switching sections of the tooling.  One configuration would produce a convertible body, another a hardtop.  

Back to the Skylark, both versions used the same chassis.  The full detail kit of course has a hole in the chassis for the engine/transmission, the promo and Craftsman kit used the same chassis with a separate insert to fill the hole and provide lower-half engine detail.  

Bottom line is this: when one version is changed (stock Skylark becomes Modified Stocker) the other versions (Craftsman kit) are lost because the shared tooling has been changed.

[Snake45]

26 minutes ago, Mark said:

As for the Skylarks, both were produced from one tool (anyone I have communicated with at Round 2 calls them "tools" for the most part).  The promotional model body was produced with a closed hood, for the 3-in-1 kit one section of the body tooling was changed in order to produce a body with a hood opening and a radiator wall at the front.  With other bodies that were produced as hardtop and convertible versions, that was again done by switching sections of the tooling.  One configuration would produce a convertible body, another a hardtop.  

Back to the Skylark, both versions used the same chassis.  The full detail kit of course has a hole in the chassis for the engine/transmission, the promo and Craftsman kit used the same chassis with a separate insert to fill the hole and provide lower-half engine detail.  

Bottom line is this: when one version is changed (stock Skylark becomes Modified Stocker) the other versions (Craftsman kit) are lost because the shared tooling has been changed.

Yes, this is exactly what I've always assumed. That's why I surprised to learn that the '64 Ford Craftsman and full kit are two different bodies. 

[Mark]

19 minutes ago, Snake45 said:

Yes, this is exactly what I've always assumed. That's why I surprised to learn that the '64 Ford Craftsman and full kit are two different bodies. 

It's rare, but there are instances where there were more than one tool (mold) of one subject.  The '64 Galaxie is one.  Parts interchange between the two, but are not the same.  The '63 Impala is not one.  I thought there were two, but have been corrected on that.  Some '63 parts were recycled into the '64 (engine and underhood parts).  The recent reissue '64 has a fuel injection intake manifold that was never in the '64 kit but originated in the '63.  The little chrome tubes that go with that manifold are in the most recent reissue of the '63, but are no longer used in that kit.

[ChrisBcritter]

I guess some kind-hearted person at Round2 opened up whatever gates could be easily opened just so we could get some extra goodies, which is why we got a handful of extra bits now. I'm not complaining - the '65 Olds Modifed Stocker had the horns I needed for my '64 Caddy . (Wonder what might be lurking in the Boss Nova tool? As it is it comes with one stock '63 wheel cover.)

[Dave Darby]

On 5/9/2019 at 8:51 PM, Mark said:

It's rare, but there are instances where there were more than one tool (mold) of one subject.  The '64 Galaxie is one.  Parts interchange between the two, but are not the same.  The '63 Impala is not one.  I thought there were two, but have been corrected on that.  Some '63 parts were recycled into the '64 (engine and underhood parts).  The recent reissue '64 has a fuel injection intake manifold that was never in the '64 kit but originated in the '63.  The little chrome tubes that go with that manifold are in the most recent reissue of the '63, but are no longer used in that kit.

That's odd, because neither the promo nor the Craftsman kit had an opening hood, and the reissues have a totally different hood opening configuration  than the annual did. The annual used a metal hood clip. I can't imagine them going to that trouble if the original opening hood body insert was available.  And the chassis is definitely different.  I had read somewhere that the reissue was the promo combined with some of the extra part inserts from the annual kit. 

[Mark]

16 minutes ago, Dave Darby said:

That's odd, because neither the promo nor the Craftsman kit had an opening hood, and the reissues have a totally different hood opening configuration  than the annual did. The annual used a metal hood clip. I can't imagine them going to that trouble if the original opening hood body insert was available.  And the chassis is definitely different.  I had read somewhere that the reissue was the promo combined with some of the extra part inserts from the annual kit. 

I'm thinking the original opening-hood insert for the body wasn't found, forcing AMT to revise the closed-hood insert and tool a new hood.  They did just that a couple of years later with the '61 Ranchero, because that kit didn't have a separate hood when originally created.

It was a long time ago, but I did check a Prestige series '63 against an annual, and found enough tell-tale marks on various parts to conclude that both were produced from one tool.  Not much carried over from '63 to '64 as I recall, just engine and underhood bits.  Not having both out right now, as I recall the chassis are different (rear screw holes in different places).  I'm going from memory on this though.

[JohnU]

On 5/5/2019 at 7:23 PM, Daddy Mack said:

Ummmmmmmmmm. No

There was NO annual 'tool' and a different Craftsman 'tool'. I have the annuals AND the Craftsman kits. They are the same body mold.

I worked in a PIM shop. The only people who call molds 'tools' are lay people.

Reeealy!? I’ve been in the Tool and Die/plastic injection mold industry for the last forty years and everyone I know from design engineers to set up personal all call stamping die and injection mold assemblies “tools or tooling”! Wow! Guess we’re all “lay men” in the industry!?

[Flat32]

The tool "makers" and anyone directly associated with the actual tool building make the distinction while the folks that don't get their hands "dirty" touching the tools tend to just call it all tooling. From a toolmaker's perspective the rest of the world consists of a sub species that "he" "might" label as "lay people".  I'm a tool and die/mold maker.

[JohnU]

1 hour ago, Flat32 said:

The tool "makers" and anyone directly associated with the actual tool building make the distinction while the folks that don't get their hands "dirty" touching the tools tend to just call it all tooling. From a toolmaker's perspective the rest of the world consists of a sub species that "he" "might" label as "lay people".  I'm a tool and die/mold maker.

I’m a tool and die maker as well. Built and repaired enough “tooling” in my time to understand the subtlety’s of the nomenclature. So,  as far as where I come from molds and stamping dies are all “Tools” for making parts.  I’m just trying to figure out what’s the point of his comment? 

[StevenGuthmiller]

I have a question.

Who cares?!

Every business/industry/job, has different terms for the same thing.

When I was a drywall subcontractor, we called ourselves either "tapers" or "hangers", depending on what we were doing.

Most people called us "drywallers".

I liked to consider myself a "drywall installation technician". 

Hey, everyone should have a mile long title......right?

 

 

Steve

[Junkman]

Them's toolz, ye buggaz.

[250 Testa Rossa]

Would this be a good starting point for building the Dave Strickler Impala?