After readin a "bash" of ERTL (AMT) kits on another board I had to come to "my" company's defense.

[Art Anderson]

floridaboy, i am not aware of any size differances between the '39-'41 willys other than their different front sheet metal. most people would use fiberglass i piece front ends that seem to always be the '41. i would imagine that was do to the fact most of the fiberglass makers used the '41 to build their molds out of. of course, there were the other fronts used to, but they were probably the original sheet metal. the filthy forty of the s&s racing team comes to mind.

it was the same with the '33 willys too. i am not positive of the years but i think the '33 to '36's fall into this same senario.

The 37-41 Willys Americars are all the same car, only the front clips changed over those 5 model years. Only in the 1942 model year was a new body added, that being a new sedan body, which looked very much like a '41 Chevy sedan, but event that rode on the very same chassis.

Art

[James Flowers]

I can tell you that it is amazing that so many of us who "were there" are here.

There was this guy featured in an old Rod & Custom Model magazine - remember how great a mag that was? - named Bob Wingate or something, who had an enormous collection of promo's dating back to the first one, and some built up kits, which numbered back then around 600. If he is still active, can you imagine how much that collection has grown since the '63 article?

I found another guy named Bob Sieferd who is a prolific modeler who my eroding memory said he was a regional winner in an old Pactra and he had a large collection. Help me look........

http://www.geocities.com/dreamrod2/science.html

Ken "FloridaBoy" Willaman

There is a guy named Donald E Marty in Oregon that had 800 models plus 150 duplicates to trade with. They are in a 10'x12' room floor to ceiling on shelves on all four walls. This was from a article in Car Model magazine August 1967. Could that be who you were thinking of?

[Rick_H]

I didn't want to include this in my former memory moment, but I did want to address the scale issue on early AMT cars. Granted they were curbside models with tub interior and no engines. But to me they seemed to be very accurate. I knew Revell was pretty accurate with their tooling as I had built their 56 Buick, but didn't like the multipiece body. AMT to me was right on, but that was memory.

I'd like to return a few beans onto this gameboard -

Floridaboy: I agree that those AMT kits from the late '50s/ early '60s were pretty accurate. In our heads! They identified the features that mattered, and they hit them on the nose. The overall length or height might have been wrong, but the fins or the distinctive fenders looked right to us. And as the years rolled on, our eyes grew more sophisticated, and the accuracy got poorer, sort of like our parents getting dumber as we got into junior high, and then high school. Later I grew to recognizing fine distinctions between the Ford Mk II at Sebring in 1966 and at Le Mans in 1966 and found Fujimi (and Revell reboxing) to come up short.

I was on that original thread with Luke'57 on that other forum where the person questioned the quality difference between old AMT and new Revell. And after I summarized the identification points of those beloved old AMT 3in1 kits... the screws holding the chassis, the shallow interior tub with the plastic washer thingies, the hood clips, and the metal axles, frequently going through the engine block, I forgot to mention the typical "lowering block" feature, with the multiple holes to set the ride height or attitude. And then just to show what an absolutely foreign concept that was, somebody came back and asked "did that mean that the '65 El Camino was front wheel drive?"

And that was when it really sunk in for me - what a different culture we had been living with in those days. You hardly ever had a problem with getting all four wheels to touch the ground then, did you? That didn't start until the Revell kits with fiddly front ends with individual kingposts and tierods. Or the really fancy AMT Trophy Series cars.

So here's a toast to the good old days of hood clips and steel front axles, going right through the engine block on a rear wheel drive car. And lots and lots of annual 3in1 cars every year.

It ain't love, but it ain't bad.

Rick Heinbaugh

[FloridaBoy]

This theme seems to recur in both of my hobbies, model railroading and scale model car kits. Today's builders mostly those of us who are young, ask why the technology and accuracy of today just didn't appear back then. Model technology is a metamorphosis - then often spiked by some stimulants - like Trophy Series Kits, the Revell 32 Ford 3 window coupe, the AMT Double Kit, aftermarket supplies, new tools, paints, etc, what we had back then isn't even close to what you have today, from the opening of the box.

I view a lot of resin kits as similar to the old annual AMT and Johan series, few parts, curbside, streetside, tub interiors, less than stellar details, but we accept them, and pay a lot more for them.

I celebrate everyday the variety of models available, as over the years, my AMT, Revell, Lindberg, Johann, and other wish lists evaporated by these fine people actualloy making the car kit. my wish list today isn't even remotely like those of old.

A 38 Lincoln 3 window couple!!! A 52 Merc, a 54 Lincoln, a 50 Stude, a 38 Packard 5 window, and those are pretty obtuse from that pimply faced 12 year old 50 years ago asking AMT in a letter for a 40 Ford.

The other thing that we should note is that we are more prolific and better modelers. I have taken the old chasses and cut out all of the molded in details, like rear axles, suspensions, front axles, engine bottoms, exhaust systems, using modern tech I didn't have back then, and with the use of Plastruct, putty and spare parts, or cannibalizing a donor kit, I was able to build a new chassis, had I wanted to. Even the guys in my club showed me how to convert the old 32 Ford frame with the molded in details into a more accurate and realistic frame. This is how far we have come along.

I can remember when IMC came out with a Mustang, a Ford GT, and some other ktis, which most of my fellow club members back then complained as "too hard to assemble". They were like today, and soon IMC bit the dust. Eldon, another company made some great street rods, but again were true to scale and detail, and they were too delicate and the parts just wouldn't stay together with the tube glue, but I endeavored to build three of their fabulous "Milk Wagons'. But they were ahead of their time. I do not know what is coming in the years ahead, but I am real thankful I am still able to put a model car kit together.

I don't bemoan or belittle AMT for the axles through the engines or the poor axle details, I was darn thankful to see a stack of kits at my hobby shop, or even in Kmart, WalMart, Sears, etc. We had to evolve to get where we are today.

Ken "FloridaBoy" Willaman

[LUKE'57]

They looked like the real cars but..............

They captured the essence of the real thing but..............

.....axles through the engine..........

.......molded in chassis parts..........

.........no opening panels.........

.........no working suspensions.......

........no steering front ends..........

Don't confuse accuracy with intricacy. Just because there isn't a large list of "working features" doesn't mean that the kit isn't accurate. As a modeler you should be able to decide just how much or how little detail you want but if all that added detail prices the kits out of reach or makes them too "fiddley" to ever finish then you've shot yourself and your hobby in the foot.

I've been modeling longer than a lot of you have been breathing and I have yet to see a 1/25 ultra tricked out, photo etched, resin detailed, fully wired and plumbed engine crank up and run. So relax and enjoy the ride and build for yourself but don't begrudge the other guy who wants one on the shelf, in less than 400 hours of building time, a chance to enjoy the hobby also.

[Harold]

As an old grump. even I get tired of the whining. So what if the thing has a one piece chassis- find a newer kit of a similar vehicled and swap the chassis. Hole in the block? Fill it, swap engines or maybe have some fun with a scale piston emerging from the hole in the engine. Just quit the carping. BTW:

Merry Christmas, everyone !

Edited December 25, 2008 by Harold

[ramonesblues]

Isn't it interesting what you can learn from this forum as well as the other boards out there ..................Ed Shaver

Ed.

Your picture looks like Nick Nolte's mug shot. Heh heh!

[Fisher61]

They looked like the real cars but..............

They captured the essence of the real thing but..............

.....axles through the engine..........

.......molded in chassis parts..........

.........no opening panels.........

.........no working suspensions.......

........no steering front ends..........

Don't confuse accuracy with intricacy. Just because there isn't a large list of "working features" doesn't mean that the kit isn't accurate. As a modeler you should be able to decide just how much or how little detail you want but if all that added detail prices the kits out of reach or makes them too "fiddley" to ever finish then you've shot yourself and your hobby in the foot.

I've been modeling longer than a lot of you have been breathing and I have yet to see a 1/25 ultra tricked out, photo etched, resin detailed, fully wired and plumbed engine crank up and run. So relax and enjoy the ride and build for yourself but don't begrudge the other guy who wants one on the shelf, in less than 400 hours of building time, a chance to enjoy the hobby also.

I agree totally! What I like to see is an accurate body, interior, and wheels placed in the right place in the wheelwells! A nicely detailed chassis is great, but if everything else is off the mark, whats the point. I look in my display case and none of my models are sitting upside down on their roofs anyway. Compare a 1960 AMT Pontiac Bonneville with a newer tool Trumpeter '60 Pontiac and see which one looks more true to the 1:1 car. Newer tool does not always equal better!

[Ron Hamilton]

I agree totally! What I like to see is an accurate body, interior, and wheels placed in the right place in the wheelwells! A nicely detailed chassis is great, but if everything else is off the mark, whats the point. I look in my display case and none of my models are sitting upside down on their roofs anyway. Compare a 1960 AMT Pontiac Bonneville with a newer tool Trumpeter '60 Pontiac and see which one looks more true to the 1:1 car. Newer tool does not always equal better!

Absolutely!!!! We are all modelers on this board, and we have our preferences. I, for one, like to build and modify kits to capture the subject manner, even with subtle innacuracies, which I enjoy fixing. I will build "new school" kits, like the much maligned Trumpeter '60 Pontiac Bonneville...

I will add detail to "old school" kits, like the AMT Craftsman Series '64 Plymouth Valiant...

And I will correct iconic kits like this AMT '67 Ford Fairlane GT

[Guest Davkin]

Unless inaccuracies are large and obvious they don't really bother me much. I also have built the Trumpeter Bonneville and while there were some quirks to it overall I thought it was a good kit, (I even got the photo-etch hinges to work!). My main problem with some of these old reissues is that sometimes the molds are in such poor shape that it takes hours upon hours of reworking to make the parts look like they were supposed to when the molds were new, IMO kits that bad should not be reissued. For example, a drive shaft is supposed to be round, not oval shaped! Ya, I agree, most modelers can overcome such obstacles, but I prefer spending my time designing/creating my own modifications than repairing poorly molded parts, to me that's just not very fun. Also, kits that bad might drive off beginner modelers. And I'd still like to see more descriptive and accurate box art!

David

[Harry P.]

I think that kitmakers should simply state on every box cover if the model is a reissue of an old kit. For example:

"Note: This model was manufactured with tooling originally created approx. 40 years ago, and as such it does not include as much detail as modern kits. The chassis, engine and interior are simplified and the parts count is lower than most newer kits. Additional parts cleanup and detailing may be required by the builder to achieve satisfactory results."

If they would add that little disclaimer, or something similar, on the box somewhere, there wouldn't be any reason for anyone to gripe about what a poor kit they bought, because we would have known what we were getting before we got the kit home. A little "truth in advertising" would go a long way.

And maybe if they knocked a few bucks off the price (after all, the development costs for these old kits were paid for years ago... all reissue sales are now largely profit), they could sell more of them.

[Art Anderson]

I think that kitmakers should simply state on every box cover if the model is a reissue of an old kit. For example:

"Note: This model was manufactured with tooling originally created approx. 40 years ago, and as such it does not include as much detail as modern kits. The chassis, engine and interior are simplified and the parts count is lower than most newer kits. Additional parts cleanup and detailing may be required by the builder to achieve satisfactory results."

If they would add that little disclaimer, or something similar, on the box somewhere, there wouldn't be any reason for anyone to gripe about what a poor kit they bought, because we would have known what we were getting before we got the kit home. A little "truth in advertising" would go a long way.

And maybe if they knocked a few bucks off the price (after all, the development costs for these old kits were paid for years ago... all reissue sales are now largely profit), they could sell more of them.

Harry,

If you do a parts count of any old AMT (or whomever's) 3in1 customizing kit of the 60's, you will note that the parts count in those boxes is approximately that of any popularly priced model car kit tooled since the early 1980's, just that those custom parts and little accessories in those old classic kits of yesteryear took up space, added to counts, where today that very similar parts count is all details for the factory stock version alone.

But, a disclaimer as you suggest? Talk about "shooting one's foot off"! As one with more than 30 years in the retail game (almost all of that in the hobby field, BTW) I can only say that anyone who reads that sort of negative "disclaimer" as you put it, is more than likely to put that kit right back on the shelf, and move on. OK, so they move on, get something else that doesn't shout out so negatively, but in the meantime, a company such as Auto World simply could not succeed in selling those old kits to anyone but us older, balding and greyhaired coots who remember those glory days, and don't care one whit about the limitations of model kit tooling of nearly half a century ago. Imagine if you will, had Ford or GM pointed out say, in the early 80's that the Crown Vic or Caprice you were looking at in the showroom was like "Sorry folks, you just think you are looking at a modern car, but in reality, it's just the same old, same old, 1950 technology, just wrapped up in new sheet metal, with a few pollution controls because we gotta do that, and some really nice looking vinyl and plastic trim for to make it look pretty". That would have hastened the situation those companies find themselves in years ago.

I appreciate informative advertising, that is truthful, just as much as the next person. However, advertising, be it in print, a TV commercial, or on the packaging, simply needs to be positive, to be upbeat, to convince me, you and the other guy too, that this is a product we want to buy.

Remember those great box art paintings from the 60's, from the likes of AMT, Johan, MPC? While the top and ends of the box showed the complete car that could be built, in either stock, racing or custom versions, the side panels of the box called out the parts and features inside, remember? That was something that spoke very positively about the kit inside, while not leaving any doubt as to what was actually there. That is a feature that could, with relatively little added cost (particularly in this day and age of computer-generated graphics, or even photgraphy) be added to box art, and would not only enhance the anticipation of the buyer, but at the same time, tell the truth about what is inside the box, but without any sales-killing negativity. If the kit in question has say, a separate frame and separate suspension parts, show them, but if it has only a pan chassis with molded on details, show that too. That's the secret, show the product, and the contents of the box, warts and all. Let the person considering the purchase make up his own mind, without putting thoughts, particularly negative thoughts, in his head. At least, the manufacturer will have given the consumer some credit for having at least a miniscule intelligence, while at the same time, satisfying the more informed as to just what to expect.

By about 1972 or so, domestic model kit manufacturers almost universally were feeling the hands of the likes of Ralph Nader, and his "Raiders", who were going after each and every manufacturer of consumer goods in this country, over perceived untruths in advertising/packaging (a little known truth about Nader is that he became a multimillionaire over out-court-settlements with manufacturers, hardly the mythical, altruistic crusader, but that's another story for another time!), even the Federal Trade Commission (funny though, Tamiya, Hasegawa, Heller and the like drew a great big bye in all that malarky, a perfect example of "favoring" the import, while crunching on the domestic manufacturer). With this consumerist drive and the almost meteroric rise in costs, photographic box art became the norm almost overnight. For some of us, building box-art models became almost a business. With this came the first disclaimers (other than "unassembled plastic model kit, paint and cement not included"), especially once Monogram engaged the legendary Shepard Paine (known for his diorama work) to build, paint and weather examples of their aircraft and armor kits. But, AMT was so scared that anyone might misconstrue their box art, that they refused for several years, to even allow me, or Dennis Doty and others, to use Bare Metal Foil instead of Testors 1146 silver for chrome trim. Why, they even for awhile, specified no chromed bumpers and grilles, and NO GLASS, preferring to highlight those details by hand or airbrush on the transparencies used for printing box art.

For a brief period in the late 70's, Revell took to having their box art builders do cutaway versions of a number of their model cars--cutaways in the manner of 1:1 automakers, with the cut edges of the bodywork painted in red or yellow, to show that the model was done up, cut away, to show the interior, the engine, all that stuff. I managed to convince Lesney-AMT to let me do that for them, on a pair of Peterbilt OTR tractors, the conventional, and their cabover. And, in 1998, I managed to convince AMT Corporation to allow me to use chromed bumpers and grilles, install glass, and use, horror of horrors, Bare Metal Foil to pick up all the chrome trim. And, guess what? I don't think any consumer ever complained a bit, as the photographer was able to edit down the glint.

In 2004, as a way of promoting "what was in the box", I tried, until I was blue in the face, to convince the woman then heading up AMT/Ertl model kit development, to go back to using at least photographs of the significant components of the kit inside that box. This fell on deaf ears, as RC2 management would only allow about $500 to create the box art, they deciding to use an outside professional photographer to create the image(s) on the boxes, rather than just pull someone with photographic skills out of the 50 or so on staff in their offices in Dyersville. Contrast THAT with our situation at Playing Mantis, where our in-house graphic arts guy, in conjunction with the Polar Lights manager and those of us in Johnny Lightning product development, learned to take perfect photo's of the product for placement on boxtops and packaging.

Oh, and talking about "Truth in Advertising", nothing goes farther off the deep end than Lindberg's (both when owned previously, AND the "New Lindberg") when they tart up boxes holding those old, crude and very inaccurate Cords and Auburns, by showing a studio photograph of a concours-winning REAL car on the box, not a hint of the old, hopelessly outdated model kit inside. No, the box art photo or illustration NEEDS to show exactly what is inside, with no added verbage needed. Again, let the buyer decide, from honest pics.

Just my .02 worth on that one.

(Oh, and with regard to selling price--IF Auto World or others were to start seeing immediate sales in the neighborhood of say, 50,000 units per year of any reissue, for which all the tooling costs have been amortized, I could agree with your thought that older stuff be offered at a lower price. However, there are significant costs associated with pulling down a really old tool, putting it back into the lineup--but those reissues most generally don't see more than 15-20 thousand units total sales, meaning that even the much lower costs associated with reissuing existing usable tooling are spread across a much smaller number of kits, hence a significantly higher unit cost. Just because the tooling has existed for years, and was paid for decades ago, that DOES NOT MEAN that just popping that die block into a mold press results in found money, with windfall profits. Speaking as one who's been there in more ways than one, it just ain't so.)

Art

[Guest Davkin]

No, the box art photo or illustration NEEDS to show exactly what is inside, with no added verbage needed. Again, let the buyer decide, from honest pics.

I could go for that as long as that included chassis, interior, engine and profile, front, rear exterior pics. Unlike many here I couldn't care less wether the box art is exciting. I want information, I want photos of the actual model. Of course as we learned from RC2 just because there's a photo of an actual model on the box doesn't mean that's exactly what's inside the box!

I do have to give Autoworld credit here though. I went on a hobby shop tour and picked up a few kits today. Three of them are Autoworld reissues and the box art is very informative. I'd still rather see photos of the actual model though.

I agree that Harry's disclaimer is too negative, they just need to say/show what's in the box and I'd be happy. Well, that and stop reissuing kits from molds that are far too worn out.

David

Edited December 29, 2008 by Davkin

[LUKE'57]

Art said it best regarding re-issues, "you don't just go pumping plastic into those old tools." I was working pretty closely with ERTL when they first decided to do their Modeler's Choice reissue program and I was overjoyed that the '64 Merc Marauder was gonna be one of the first four kits done. I knew that it had all the stock car racing parts that the '64 Ford had and I could hardly wait to get some Bud Moore stock cars started.

They sent me a test shot, one of the ones they did to make sure the tool was complete, and it was just like going back thirty years. Well, except for the major rust induced imperfections on the kit. The tool was complete but it would need some extensive polishing and refinishing before any consumer worthy kits could even hope to come out of it.

Add to this the fact that some parts of the tools could be missing or beyond refinished, requiring the cutting of new metal to replace the missing parts and you get the idea. As long as I have wanted a '58 Ford and '59 Thunderbirds to do some of the original Holman Moody cars, the chance at a $15 to $20 dollar modified reissue or repop in plastic versus a $70 aftermarket kit in resin, with all the associated problems that come with it, looks better and better.

[Harry P.]

Well, if a disclaimer accurately describing the contents of the box is a little too much "honesty" for some of you, then why not a photo on the side of the box showing the contents of the kit (parts trees). No words necessary.

Ok, you industry insiders... let's see you rebut that idea!

[Fisher61]

Well, if a disclaimer accurately describing the contents of the box is a little too much "honesty" for some of you, then why not a photo on the side of the box showing the contents of the kit (parts trees). No words necessary.

Ok, you industry insiders... let's see you rebut that idea!

Harry, I just picked up the re-issued MPC '70 Super Bee from Autoworld and it shows on the bottom of the box of what's in there, pretty cool I think !

[Art Anderson]

Well, if a disclaimer accurately describing the contents of the box is a little too much "honesty" for some of you, then why not a photo on the side of the box showing the contents of the kit (parts trees). No words necessary.

Ok, you industry insiders... let's see you rebut that idea!

Hmmmm, how original! Didn't somebody suggest that very thing, just above, a few hours ago?

Art

[Harry P.]

Hmmmm, how original! Didn't somebody suggest that very thing, just above, a few hours ago?

Art

I went back and re-read all the posts, and unless I missed something, nobody mentioned anything about including a photo of the parts trees on the box somewhere. Maybe I need glasses???

[Clay]

I think that kitmakers should simply state on every box cover if the model is a reissue of an old kit. For example:

"Note: This model was manufactured with tooling originally created approx. 40 years ago, and as such it does not include as much detail as modern kits. The chassis, engine and interior are simplified and the parts count is lower than most newer kits. Additional parts cleanup and detailing may be required by the builder to achieve satisfactory results."

If they would add that little disclaimer, or something similar, on the box somewhere, there wouldn't be any reason for anyone to gripe about what a poor kit they bought, because we would have known what we were getting before we got the kit home. A little "truth in advertising" would go a long way.

And maybe if they knocked a few bucks off the price (after all, the development costs for these old kits were paid for years ago... all reissue sales are now largely profit), they could sell more of them.

Hmmmm, how original! Didn't somebody suggest that very thing, just above, a few hours ago?

Art

I believe he was speaking of you Harry, but only about the disclaimer I think.

[billd64]

I havent seen the complaint regarding AMT onthe other site, but if sent a link, ill read, but I have to ask, why is everyone so hostile??? It was, and is a modelers opinion regarding the primary model company here in the US, and it wasnt filtered or edited.

All the posts here are valid, but lets look outside the box a minute, if your going to cry foul about AMT, why not cry foul about the man that could afford a limited run, of a kit that had interest, and "gouge" modelers on the cost??

Either way currently the box art is just that box art, ultimately we decide if we want to dig into our pocket and shell out our hard earned duckets for the kit.

We can complain, the real question is will it make them do anything different? Currently where are all the molds, can they be repaired?? yes it would raise costs a bit, but not as much as initial tooling.... this tidbit of wisdom is something i lived with every 4-5 years as my father and uncles worked for General Motors, so when new models were introduced and plansts closed for 2-3 weeks to retool and stock the assembly line to manufacture something new, hence generic manufacturing started.

Years ago there was a man at AMT that was an engineer and did a series in the "blue printer" Named dave carlock, didnt he start the history thing you mentioned Art??

Whats annoying now, is i've in several months purchased a few kits from the new AMT, and an older R/M mustang, that they re-assigned the kit number too, so there was no way to get parts from them, and AMT wouldnt supply the missing pieces.... I mention this as I've also picked up a few other manufacturer kits, one being Tamiya. Their Cust service dept gave me a few things they needed from me, and helped me with a bunch of parts missing from a kit that is past my skill level, but i'm trying it any way, its the only way to improve skills

bottom is we control the kits manufactured by input to the company, and by the hard earned DUCKETS we shell out.... currently with our economy we want a few dollar's worth for a dollar when our dollar isnt worth what it once was.

We just need to evaluate what we are doing first and think twice, avoid the headaches we just need to accept that the companies are not what they once were, and the quality isnt there either...... i was told awhile back im a modeler, take CA glue, and a #11 BLADE, AND ADAPT AND IMPROVISE and enjoy what your trying to build

i gotta go look fo rthis post

billd64

[LUKE'57]

Maybe you should go look for the comments before you make another one here. It wasn't just one person, it was more like piling on and was totally unfair and compairing apples to oranges. I stand by my comments and still would rather have a kit that was buildable that looked like the real car than one that has so many fiddledy parts that you are discouraged from building it by simply opening the box.

In my opinion, the succesful kits are the ones that look like the real subject when, and not if, they get finished. And don't say that I'm not a real modeler because I've built models for people ranging from David Pearson to Tom Cruise and used to build dirt models for the local racers that took two or three kits just to get the correct body style for their cars. This ain't my first rodeo but I still don't want to pay to get in to one I won't enjoy. I've got a job, this is supposed to be fun.

[toby]

i like the reissue of the kits heck i used to work at a model car factroy jo-han models in michigan seen lot of rejects kits heck when they run the kits in white plastic like the caddy hearse was black turbine kit in white and others i pick up some new kits one draw back i had so far on one amt kit the 55 chevy pu front window does not fit right and as for revell so far i pick up the 29 ford pu nice kit plastic fimlisy the front end parts busted off the chrome tried emailing revell no response so far .seen this on the http://www.in-miniature.co.uk/show_article.asp?aid=1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_car heck in my opion build what you want and buy want you want .it your life live it and build it.................

[flatheadgary]

I have spent my whole professional life building real fighter aircraft, my hobby building real cars and bikes. Like I said in my previous post, I am 60 years old, as of about 2 weeks ago.

I have taken a stab at building models off and on throughout my life but, the real world seemed to always creep in and I would stop.

That doesn't mean I didn't love the little models. It just seemed like the creative juices were more demanding of me building real cars and such.

What I am trying to say here, in a long winded way is, it just amazes me to death how many of you guys know so much about the real history and the way these models are produced!

What a wealth of knowledge you all have.

I would love a promoter to get all you guys at a convention to talk about your lives in the hobby. I would imagine, you would have a lot of us spellbound. I have always loved to hear older people tell about things from their past. Even at my age now, I still love it.

One of the sad facts of this life is, once the baby boomers are gone, a whole lot of stuff is going to stop. I personally don't think there are enough people under the age of 30, that can keep all the hobbies we boomers seem to have created, alive.

Now don't get me wrong, that large sucking sound is not me. I am just always so entertained whenever one of these post comes up. Maybe that's the real benefit of these post, all the info us amatuers get from you guys who know the truth.

Anyway, like I said before, I scratch build more than anything else, so accuracy isn't that critical to me. I guess what i am saying is, I am just greatful we have so many subjects in which to build from, good and bad.

I wonder how many discussions about the quality of models there were in the early '60's? Obviously, not very many.

Ah, time marches on. Now we have all this stuff to play with and we have become so critical about quality.

It's like my mom used to tell me when i was wanting something," don't cry about what you can't get, be thankful for what you've got".

I would imagine that was a life lesson learned from THE GREAT DEPRESSION. Which now that I think about it, we all may be having to relearn real soon.

Now with that happy note, I will leave you to your discussion about how bad we all have it.

Edited December 30, 2008 by flatheadgary

[E St. Kruiser50]

Ah, time marches on. Now we have all this stuff to play with and we have become so critical about quality.

It's like my mom used to tell me when i was wanting something," don't cry about what you can't get, be thankful for what you've got".

I would imagine that was a life lesson learned from THE GREAT DEPRESSION. Which now that I think about it, we all may be having to relearn real soon.

Now with that happy note, I will leave you to your discussion about how bad we all have it.

Hi all

Well, I've been following this thread for a while, and even though it's a horse that has been beatin' to death several times here already since it was first posted, and you guys continue to bludgeon it's poor lifeless little corpse, for me this is the best post in this thread, and I agree with this last quoted statement.

I won't comment on the content or topic of this thread, but I will respond to the attitude's of many of the poster's, as Gary has so respectfully, yet pointedly done here. KUDO"S!

Haven't posted much here in the last few week's 'cause I 've been havin' too much fun building and enjoying the holidays ( I have a few pounds to lose now ).

Gary, as you know, society and our culture has changed a lot over the years, and the idea of gratitude and appreciation has become nearly obsolete.

I see nothing wrong with expressing opinions, because as we all know, that is how great changes are made, but I personally think that if you really want the manufacturers to listen and make some of the changes commented on here, then our appreciation for the positive side of there efforts and intentions should be expressed here also.

I've been building nearly 60 years now, 2010, and have won several nice awards and a bit of noteriety from back in the late 50's and early 60's starting with the Winternationals in the L.A. area, and had several models in car mags, including ROD & CUSTOM, and even a car on the cover once - pretty cool - and have done pretty well at the GSL the last two events, and am still an avvid healthy builder, still trying to get better at this hobby I love, just like the rest of you.

I just consider myself one of the guy's, instead of one of THE GUY'S. You know what I mean) LOL

I'm really not trying to brag here though, even if it's kinda fun - the point I'm trying to make, and beat a different dead horse to death here , is that instead of being labeled as a bunch of "INGRATES" and "WHINNER"S by the manufacturers, why not try to share "positive criticism" here, and tell the kit maker's the thing's we like and appreciate, as well as the changes we'd like to see.

To me, what I've seen over the years, is that these kind of posts are a result of changing values and attitudes in our culture over the last 5 or 6 DECADES.

In some circle's the approach to this hobby has become way too serious and the arrogance, and feelings of personal importance, way too extreme-but laughable. You know-THE SELF-PROCLAIMED GRAND PUBA TYPES , who are the expert's of plastic and "Leaders and Proclaimers" of the style and future of this hobby, and should be listened too .

Why do so many people want to be important and recognized in an obscure plastic hobby? If I wanted to feel important or be a wanna-be, I think I'd find something of real wordly value that people have heard of. Plastic?? For me, just for fun !!

Pretty funny, as this is just plastic, and an unknown hobby to most of the world.

We're right down at the bottom with hand making fly's for fishing lures. No insult intended for the guy's who love to do that, I just think we need to keep it "REAL" about who we are as a hobby, and who really cares.

If this hobby disappeared tomorrow, not to mention the people in it, the rest of the world wouldn't even notice.

So whatta ya say guy's. Let's have more fun here. I've already wasted too much precious building time posting these thought's. Post more pics and less "Literature" and "Attitude , because after all is said and done - IS THERE REALLY ANYONE OUT THERE IMPORTANT WHO CARES ?? NO !!

See ya next year. I'm buildin some really fun stuff - dave

Edited December 31, 2008 by Treehugger Dave