AMT vs. REVELL

[plumnuts]

I have been building models on and off since I was a kid. Back in the day I never had any luck with the AMT kits fitting right.

I spent more time with rubberbands and clamps getting it to fit together than building. the REVELL kits seemed to fit better and have more detail. is this still true today or have I gotten bad sets and have refused to buy AMT for no reason?

please give feed back cause Im running out of REVELL kits that I like and can't afford TAMIYA kits to cut up on...

thanks and just wanted to throw in that this site has gotten me excited to build again....

[VictorSmalls]

My personal opinion is that the AMT kits that I have build do not fit quite as well as the competitor's kits. The thing that really bothers me about some AMT kits is the extremely simple chassis. A lot of the ones that I have bought have far too simple chassis and even formed in exhaust.

[CAL]

by and large Revell are overall better kits fit and finish.

AMT did do some okay kits, however, the entire line is spoty. In addition, some of AMT's better kits have fit and finish issues. Nevertheless, AMT does have some kits worth building.

[gasman]

one thing too remember is that most of AMT's tools date back to the 60's. there recently tooled kits like the 60 Ford, 71 Charger, and 71 Duster are excellent. but some of there kits are old like the recently reissued 49 Ford. which was originally issued in 1959 IIRC.

[plumnuts]

Thanks for the input guys, that is a great help for the pick of my next build, with the price of kits these days at around 18$ i would hate to bring home a kit and be disapointed with it. im leaning twards the 51 bel-air lay it out of cource but go with more of a street rod look. thanks

[diymirage]

i too would put revell over AMT

i would even put revell over revell (revell germany being the first one)

there are a few other manufacturers out there too but i dnt think i have enough expierience with either one of them to make a well informed opinion on them

[raisin27]

My vote is for AMT, although that doesnt mean I dont like Revell kits. When comparing Revells newer kits with AMT's newer kits AMT wins hands down. The 60 Starliner, 62 Pontiac, 58 Chyrsler 300, 62 Thunderbird , 58 Edsel, and a few others have details far superior to the recent Revell issues like the 55 Chevy, and 49 Merc. I recently built the 62 Pontiac and I think its probably the best engeniered kit I have ever built. The AMT kits have very nicely detailed chassis, engine, and interiors that outdo Revells offerings. This doesnt mean Revell kits are bad, far from it! The Revell 32 Fords are great. and most of there other kits can be built into fine examples of what they represent.

Now if you compare AMT's older kits tooled back in the 60's to the newer Revell issues then of course Revell is a better kit. Much as a 2005 Chevrolet is better equiped and higher quality than a 1960 version.

AMT is often critisized for continuing to sell these old lesser sophisticated kits, but I think its great that they are still avalible to us at reasonable prices. I mean after all more choice is better isnt it? and if you dont want to build an old tool kit nobody is making you buy it.

Let me make this clear before I get a million negative comments..................I LIKE REVELL KITS!, I just think AMT's (newer) kits are a bit bgetter designed.

Raisin

[Harry P.]

It's not fair (or accurate) to make a blanket statement like "Revell kits are better than AMT kits" or vice versa, because it just isn't always true.

Some Revell kits are better than some AMT kits, and some AMT kits are better than some Revell kits. It all depends on which particular kits you're talking about. And like Raisin said, you can't compare AMT kits that were originally tooled 40+ years ago to a Revell kit that was tooled up a week ago...that's apples and oranges. You can't just make an overall assumption that one brand is always better than the other.

[Art Anderson]

It's not fair (or accurate) to make a blanket statement like "Revell kits are better than AMT kits" or vice versa, because it just isn't always true.

Some Revell kits are better than some AMT kits, and some AMT kits are better than some Revell kits. It all depends on which particular kits you're talking about. And like Raisin said, you can't compare AMT kits that were originally tooled 40+ years ago to a Revell kit that was tooled up a week ago...that's apples and oranges. You can't just make an overall assumption that one brand is always better than the other.

Agreed! Most modelers today weren't around in the 60's, when AMT Corporation sold more model car kits annually than did Revell across their entire line (AMT produced ONLY car kits back then, Revell did aircraft, ships, a few armor kits, and some car kits). In point of fact, through most of the 60's, AMT Corporation had nearly 50% of the ENTIRE plastic model kit market in the US, all on model car kits. That's not to say that the others, Revell, Monogram, MPC or Aurora didn't have some great kits, they did--but it was AMT that most kids gravitated to, and for what reason? They were nearly all buildable, by just about any age pair of hands back then.

Now, that "buildability" came at a price, for sure. Revell kits and most of the smaller line of Monogram car kits, even a number of Aurora kits, had parts breakdowns across the board such as separate suspension setups, separate exhausts, some even had opening doors, even some with posable steering, but AMT kits just tended to get built far more readily than the others.

Trouble is, while Revell and Monogram moved their respective envelopes further, AMT was forced, by the realities of the 1970's marketplace, to regress considerably, cost cutting became almost a watchword, it seems. Their kits became less sophisticated, simplified, some even used nondescript, generic engines, and their tires went from very nice (in the 60's) to often grotesque imitations of something purporting to be an automobile tire. Ertl's buying AMT was no overnight panacea either. Some of the earliest new releases under Ertl ownership were rather sad (1933-34 Ford sedan kits come to mind here), until the late 1980's, when they started to actually do some pretty neat stuff. In so many ways, AMT/Ertl turned a huge corner with their 1987 releases of the never-before-done '66 Nova and the '55 Chevy Cameo/stepside pickups. Not perfect, but very easily built, and with only minor accuracy foibles (none that couldn't be fixed). Trouble was, Ertl was in the midst of making a run at the toy market, the bulk of their profit dollars being channeled into things like dolls, and the eternally damned "Bumble Ball", while model car kit tooling budgets languished. And, for a few years, it seemed that they really couldn't get it right at times. Even so, there were some stars there: The '88-'92 Chevy C1500 series of pickup kits, while started as MPC kits, were excellent, still are. And, that '69 Olds Cutlass 442? Nice!

From the mid-90's forward, until just after the buyout of Ertl by Racing Champions, AMT/Ertl did some dynamite car kits: '58 Edsel, '57 Chrysler 300C, '62 Thunderbird Sport Roadster, '41 Ford Woodie station wagon, '70 Camaro, '66 Olds Cutlass (both HT and Convertible--a heretofore forgotten year for the Cutlass, BTW), and their last really great kit, the '56 Thunderbird. If these kits have any supposed "flaws", I see them as having been designed rather tightly, which means there wasn't a lot of room to stuff in some of the details for easy assembly ('57 Chrysler exhaust system can drive you nuts until you get it in place, at which it is simply dynamite!) but they are eminently buildable. Most of these kits moved just that little bit beyond what Revell did in the same time frame as well, and they came off quite well. Alas, though, once past that '56 Bird, things did get a bit iffy--almost as though model car kits were the ugly stepchild of the corporation, but that's life in a wannabe Fortune 500 Company, sadly.

What's all this drivel mean? Well, it does mean one thing for me--I look at the subject first, the manufacturer second. If the subject is what I want, and it's at all accurately done, regardless of mfr, it comes home with me, if not, then not.

But to "blanket" say that one brand is "better" or worse than the others isn't worth the bandwidth, or wear and tear on a keyboard, but it just isn't true.

Art

[novadose71]

I grew up in Iowa about 1 1/2 hrs from Dyersville where AMT was located. Dad, Grandpa, my brother, and I, went to the Nat. Farm Toy show there, every year at the high school. The trip usually included a tour of the AMT model works and the local Dairy Queen there too. Watching the chrome trees spill out ouf the machines is still fresh in my mind etc etc. With that said, I have to admit I have a soft spot for AMT, but I do not discriminate between kit manufacturers. A good kit is a good kit.

Here's my 2 cents........

IMHO Generally, just about any kits by either manufacturer tooled up since the AMT 66 Chevy II or Revells 69 Camaro(late 80's early 90's) are a good kit. I have built several from both companies, and the ones I have done were all nice kits. I'm sure there are some lemons in the bunch, but the good ones stick out more in my mind.

Without digging through boxes, here are some good Amt kits I have, some have already been mentioned 66 Nova, 57 Chevy stock or street machine, 60 Chevy pickup stock and street machine, 68 El Camino stock or street machine, 67 Impala, 62 Pontiac 421 SD and custom. 58 Edsel's, 60 Ford,70 Camaro Z-28 and Baldwin Motion, 48 Woody, 71 Duster and Charger, 62 T-bird, 67 GT-350, 66 fairlane and 67 Mercury Comet, some street rod material in there as well, and I'm sure I missed more than a few.

I bought most of the new releases from both through this time period, and opened all of them and looked them over, built some, but haven't even almost built them all, but the ones I did were all great kits. Some of the older stuff is good, some not so good, but they are models, so I like em all. Everything I just said goes for Revell as well.

BTW I never understood RC2/ERTL's decision to keep re-releasing the ancient kits and ignore the above mentioned kits, a bad business decision by an out of touch management. I think that's why AMT seems to be the whippin' boy when kit quality comes up. That's about all I can say right now,my brain hurts and my daughter is bugging the heck out of me to take her to grandma's. Bye

FYI The National Farm Toy Show is this weekend in Dyersville, Ia if anyone is nearby(yeah right )

[GOTH KUSTOMS]

Here's my three cent's, I'm a builder of model car's, some have fit, and detial problems, some dont, the one's that do, I fix, I build for my plesure, so to say what company put's out the best kit's, all of'em have a flaw or two, but I will still build them, and the more work I have to put In to a kit the more my reward, and as long as they make kit's that I like to build, which ever company, I will continue to build, ok there's my three cents...

Edited November 7, 2008 by unforgiven

[plumnuts]

Here's my three cent's, I'm a builder of model car's, some have fit, and detial problems, some dont, the one's that do, I fix, I build for my plesure, so to say what company put's out the best kit's, all of'em have a flaw or two, but I will still build them, and the more work I have to put In to a kit the more my reward, and as long as they make kit's that I like to build, which ever company, I will continue to build, ok there's my three cents...

very valuable three cents there dude. I am jazed about the feed back and I'v read them all,

I asked the Question so I wouldent waste money ,but after talking with the wife about this forum she

informs me( then not before I read all of them) if you get a kit you dont like ,give it to your son (8 years old)

and let him have fun. I LOVE MY WIFE.. ,but somtimes her timing stinks.

again thanks ALOT I'v learned tons (didn't know about all the tooling stuff) about the kits themselves.

The history and knolage in this hobbie is mind blowing.

[B-dub]

I have to say of the 5 models I have in front of me right now 4 being AMT and 1 being revell I like the AMT's better as far as details and such go... some of the instructions are very bland like only having the "stock" setup and having parts for the custom rod motor and the soft top in my coupe yet no where in the instructions does it mention it so im having to carefully pick out all the correct parts which was a pain at first but It's getting easier..

the thing i hate... the '71 Hemi 'Cuda (the revell)... as much as I like the car more than the cars I have in my amt sets (the cars in general) I have to say the model is terrible... it even says "69 pieces" this is going to be such a simple build it's a bit of a joke I hate the exhaust being modeled in and the motor not detailed well and basically not much to put together.... the AMT's I have have A LOT of random parts ...which I must say I like the revell since I'm just getting back into this so it's helping me get my feet wet on such a simple build

Edited November 11, 2008 by B-dub

[chebbysteve]

As Art said, the buildability of the kits was a very important advantage for AMT in the 60's. Revell had great detail (sometimes maybe TOO much) but were hard to build. Examples are 57 Chevy and Orange Crate. For us younger types, AMT was easier, and you still ended up with a good looking car.

Today, I think both companies are making some really good models for us. Not perfect maybe, but very good buildable kits that look great when done. And for those of us who yearn for some of the old tools from MPC and Monogram as well as Revell and AMT, they are out there in the form of re-issues. Just gotta remember that they are old design, and worn. Buyer beware on the older stuff.

[B-dub]

Again this is an "apples vs oranges" comparison. That Revell Cuda is actually an ex Mongram kit, & the tooling dates back to the early 80's, so it can't be fairly compared to latter kits, either AMT or Revell.

It's actually a decent kit for it's era, & one needs to keep in mind that this model, (& many other Monogram Mopar, GM & Ford muscle & pony car kis from this era, [70 Boss 429, 70 Challenger T/A, 70 GTX, 70 Chevelle SS, etc]), were major catalysts, (along with the Monogram Nascar kits), in reviving our hobby after the "dark days" of the mid-late 70's. These were the first really accurate, (as to options, markings, etc), muscle car kits produced, were very easy to build, & even with a limited number of parts build up into convincing replicas. They are also great bases for super detailing since the basics are nicely covered.

Yeah this one is very nice when completed I seen someone on here with the same kit completed I think box stock.. the only thing I'm doing different is making mine the Sublime green.. In a way I like it b/c it's simple.. but it's kind of too simple but thanks for the info on it being older tooling it's still very nice

[evilone]

ok heres my ideas for this topic

revell:makes real good kits top noch work and are easy to deal with for missing parts

amt:makes hard to find stuff such as the 58 fury and 68 shelby gt500 but the molds suck lots of sanding to get rid of the mold lines

me i personally us revell more then amt but there are a few amt kits in my stash

its all personal preferance

[slamdunk]

I prefer the Revel kits. I just bought an Ertl '70 Dodge Charger and it was shocking. The whole kit was covered in flash and the engine parts have gaping wholes between halves when mated. That said, the Ertl Chevvy Chevelle kit I built last went together like a dream. I guess it depends when the kit was tooled an how well the tooling has been stored.

Slam

[slamdunk]

I prefer the Revel kits. The 1980s VW Vanagon kit went together with no issues, even modifing it was easy. I just bought an Ertl '70 Dodge Charger and it was shocking. The whole kit was covered in flash and the engine parts have gaping holes between halves when mated. That said, the Ertl Chevvy Chevelle kit I built last went together like a dream. I guess it depends when the kit was tooled and how well the tooling has been stored.

Slam

Edited November 14, 2008 by slamdunk

[Aaronw]

Another thing, with the exception of a few very popular cars (most any year Corvette, 57 Chevy) you rarely get the option of who makes the best kit of X subject. Both companies have some great kits and some less than great kits, but you generally have to take what you can get.

If I want to build a 48-50 Ford pickup the Revell Kit is my only option in plastic (very nice kit BTW), if I want a 72 Chevy Pickup I have to buy the AMT kit and live with metal axles and molded in chassis detail (still builds up nice though).

[FloridaBoy]

Great work guys,

Thanks particularly goes to Bluesman Mark and Art Anderson with their accurate version of model car history. Many cars by AMT now issued are rehashes of sixties toolings because the models fill a void in our menus. If you buy a car before 1970, except the 62 Pontiac, 57 Ply and Chrysler, 62 Chev, 66 Nova, 60 Ford, and a few others, you can be guaranteed it has molded in rear axles, holes in the motors for metal axles, molded in exhausts, and spare lakes pipes and exhaust that just are to be glued over the molded in stuff.

But the stuff listed above or any Trophy Series kit, except the 57 T Bird, you are getting sixties state of the art tooling. At the same time, Revell was in my humble opinion was putting out junk. Try putting together a 55, 56 or 57 Chevy, Tony Nancy dragster, spare parts engines, and the list goes on and on.

To me, the benchmark model that now defines Revell was their 32 Ford series starting with the 3 window coupe, which AMT responded with the 32 Ford phantom Vickie, and reproducing the Monogram 37 Ford series under the Revell Monogram moniker.

If you get creative, you can parts swap some of the kits and come up with a detailed car top and bottom. The 62 Chev will fit all sixties bodies, the 60 Ford will fit into the 66 Galaxie, and so on.

If we newbies got one of today's kits back then we would have totally freaked out. It is just evolution. Imagine the growth factor when in 1960 we didn't even paint the underside of the car.

Ken "FloridaBoy" Willaman

[Roadkill2525]

Im just glad that they're still around and you can get a model kit.

[Bernard Kron]

Awesome thread we got going here! I always look forward to Art Anderson's posts on modeling history!

I am a confirmed kit basher and hot rod builder so you should take what I say with a grain of salt.

For me my attitude toward the two brand remains the same as it was 40 years ago when I first started building - Revell kits tend to be more detailed and finely made, but can be fiddly to deal with. Art's point about AMT's "build-ability" was spot on back in the day and no doubt was why as kids we tended to gravitate to the brand. But, despite occasional problems with crudeness, thick plastic and fit problems, AMT, for me, seems often to have more "soul" than Revell in their interpretation of their subject.s I'm currently building a '39 Ford Sedan using the very old AMT tool. But I'm using the Revell '40 Ford chassis because it's so finely made and detailed. However, there's something coldly contemporary about their '40 Ford kits so that I keep finding myself gravitating back to the AMT kit for various bits and pieces. Another example is the various Revell '32 Ford kits. Without a doubt these are light years ahead of the old AMT tools, and yet I find myself constantly re=engineering, replacing and modifying various elements of those kits so that I can escape the late 90's, early 00's vibe of many of the details of these kits. I guess I've always felt that Revell made better kits but that I liked AMT better... Go figure.

But the bottom line is what's been said already: Both brands have produced brilliant kits over the years and it's always down to the individual subject matter and interpretation.We should be overjoyed to have such a rich treasure trove to work from.

[FloridaBoy]

For me, flash is no big deal, as I spend a lot of time with clean up anyway. Flash is the easiest all it takes is an emery board, fine sandpaper, but every kit, no matter who makes it has parting lines, mold marks, sinks, fissures, inconsistencies, thin parts of plastic, and all manufacturers will make a model now and then molded in colors, or even red (ugh) plastic, which bleeds through, so if you want to make a decent long lasting model, clean up and primer is of absolute necessity.

When I judge contests, I am probably hardest on several items. The first one is factory molding by products that are not cleaned up. Second, when one takes stuff off a sprue there is usually a little burr where the part was attached to the tree, and if that isn't taken care of, out the car goes. Third, I look at seams and joints, if they are clean and straight, yes and if not, out!!!! As for finish, a little fine sandpaper goes a long way, and if I see file or sand marks on a body, or a wavy body, whoops!!!

Last I have some personal pet peeves. I always check if the car is conceivably driveable. I check the wheel wells and if tires are touching the fender, zero points, or if it is impossible for any driver to get in or out of the car, or sit on the seat and grab the steering wheel.

Then I timed myself detail painting an interior. I am quite sick of looking at an otherwise nice car painted well and built well, and the builder took a powder and just sprayed the interior flat black. Look again at a real car with a black interior. In daylight it is semi glossy, and gray, and the side panels have chrome and wood pieces, and the dash has lots of buttons in chrome. So, I took an oven timer and a pre-painted interior in tan, and saw how long it would take me to detail a car. 10 minutes!!!! That included cutting masking tape for safety belts, painting knobs and handles, taking a wash of darker tan to highlight the interior details, and I was done. I have never seen a solid color steering wheel or a painted gearshift and knob.

I didn't mean to digress, but I do not mark off as most judges won't molded on exhausts gas tanks and rear axles. Suggestion here is to take the reverse side of an xacto knife and scribe where the two meet, and give it a little separation. Then paint to look realistic, either black, steel, aluminum, or silver. I leave the rear axle molding the same base color as the frame, but paint the rear axle estimating the axle color and size and shape, and you have a little optical illusion.

What turns me off was way back in the early eighties when ERTL came out with their AMT line, many models had totally warped bodies, missing plastic on bodies where the mold plastic didn't reach and those not corrected by AMT were turned into very expensive donor parts car. Only a couple. I have not had any problem with Revell kits.

gbk1

Looking forward to seeing your 39 Sedan top and bottom.

Ken "FloridaBoy" Willaman

[FloridaBoy]

Wow, I never saw that one. The oldest one I ever saw was a 49 or 50 Ford made of metal and closer to the real proportions, and not workable. But now I am remembering back in the early to mid fifties, plastic was starting to take hold, like toys in Cracker Jax, Cereal Boxes, and my first Davy Crockett rifle and powder horn were of acetal plastic. The rifle but bent like a banana one summer when I left it out in the back yard.

Is there anyone who remembers the 53 and 54 Fords in cereal boxes which were about Matchbox size, in styrene plastic, with solid white nylon wheels and metal axles. Then in 58 or 59 they came out with Thunderbird convertibles and hardtops, and I still have a bunch of those.

My wives all have accused me of being a pack rat, only if they really knew how much I tossed out over the years. I just bought a baseball card I had as a kid, paid a penny for it, of a no name player, the card with the Television Set border, and I paid $8 for it just for the memories.

Thanks Mark, for showing that, it made my day.

Ken "FloridaBoy" Willaman

[gfb]

Hi--AMT-SMP is the reason I got into automotive model building. That was in 1959. At that point in time they were the only company that offered models that looked like the real thing. Yes, they were unassembled promotional models, but they went together well and got me started building. At that time Revell had multipiece bodies, without glass. Revell had the best airplane models then. In 1963, I bought a Monogram 1955 Chevy 2 door hardtop. I was disappointed to say the least. The car went together fine, but it did not have the stock wheel covers. Needless to say that was the last one of that brand I bought until the 1980's. I tried another Revell car in 1966. It was a 1956 Chevy 2 door sedan. The detail was great, but the fit for a green hand like me was terrible. Right now Revell does have the best selection, but only because AMT fired their great developmental team.

My 2 cents. Gary B.