Atlantis '57 Chevy

[Oldcarfan27]

On 6/4/2022 at 7:54 PM, Dave Darby said:

Window fit not withstanding, the Revell 57 is in many areas much more accurate than the ubiquitous AMT 57. Especially the wonky side trim on the AMT. 

Dave, Please clarify what parts are more accurate than the AMT kit?

I have all three versions - old Revell, old AMT and new AMT. Other than a gang of more parts, I find the Revell off in many ways to both of AMTs. (Pictures pulled from online, nice builds!)

Old AMT (Oldtrucker's build ?)

New AMT 

Old Revell 

Not only is the body misshapen but the headlight shapes, bumpers, side trim, fuel injection and valve covers are weak interpretations of the 1:1. The opening features just make it worse. The top even looks chopped compared to the others.

On it's best day it could look like this.

But this model has been really reworked to look better. In fact, the headlights and front bumper could be from another kit (maybe MPC), because the kit parts don't look anything like this! Compare with the Roth car above. 

Edited June 6, 2022 by Oldcarfan27

[OldNYJim]

Curious if anyone has ‘what’s in the box’ pics of this kit (or one of it’s earlier Revell incarnations?

I’m weirdly tempted to pick one up, even though I already know it’ll be hard to build and there’s better options out there…

[Oldcarfan27]

2 hours ago, CabDriver said:

Curious if anyone has ‘what’s in the box’ pics of this kit (or one of it’s earlier Revell incarnations?

I’m weirdly tempted to pick one up, even though I already know it’ll be hard to build and there’s better options out there…

This one's on ebay right now. It's an 80s - 90s reissue, but should be pretty close to current condition (except for the wheels and maybe tires).

Might be interesting to have a build off thread here and see what we can do to subdue this beast!

[niteowl7710]

12 hours ago, ChrisBcritter said:

Build ONE of TWO Versions:

• MODEL
• TRAVESTY

Somehow I doubt we'll be seeing that on the box art anytime soon. 

In reality it should be...

Build ONE of TWO Versions:

• You KNOW what's in here for the past 50 years
• So QUIT whining about it

[Oldcarfan27]

I love it.

If an old kit comes out and nobody comments on it, then new builders complain the kit is junk.

If we do comment, then the old builders complain, we know what to expect so shut up!

Explain to me what the purpose of this chat forum is, please?

[Ace-Garageguy]

14 minutes ago, Oldcarfan27 said:

...Explain to me what the purpose of this chat forum is, please?

Maybe injecting some reality into expectations?

It wasn't an easy kit for novices when it came out.

It's not a kit for builders wanting a shake-the-box-and-a-model-pops-out experience.

In the hands of an experienced builder with some skill and patience, it's every bit as good a kit today as it was 5 decades back.

EDIT: Most kits with working features like doors, decklids, steering, etc. leave a lot to be desired in OOB fit and function.

         And that hasn't stopped a good number of builders from creating exceptional models from them.

         Life is choices.

Edited June 6, 2022 by Ace-Garageguy

[Dave Darby]

11 hours ago, Oldcarfan27 said:

Dave, Please clarify what parts are more accurate than the AMT kit?

I have all three versions - old Revell, old AMT and new AMT. Other than a gang of more parts, I find the Revell off in many ways to both of AMTs. (Pictures pulled from online, nice builds!)

Old AMT (Oldtrucker's build ?)

New AMT 

Old Revell 

Not only is the body misshapen but the headlight shapes, bumpers, side trim, fuel injection and valve covers are weak interpretations of the 1:1. The opening features just make it worse. The top even looks chopped compared to the others.

On it's best day it could look like this.

But this model has been really reworked to look better. In fact, the headlights and front bumper could be from another kit (maybe MPC), because the kit parts don't look anything like this! Compare with the Roth car above. 

Keeping in mind that my words were " in many areas" I'll go down the list. (And I should have specified the old tool AMT kit). Your top photo speaks for itself. That side trim is way off.  The rest of the proportions are pretty good. Looking at the new tool AMT kit, it appears it has a subtle trace of the same problem. Now as far as the areas I am thinking of, I would put forth that the chassis and running gear are far superior. The engine and transmission are as well, when you get down to the nitty gritty. Jim Keeler's small block Chevy is one of the best ones ever tooled from from a scale and detail standpoint, rocker covers not withstanding. Then you have some really nice speed and deatil parts as well. Studying the the two box art cars, I'd say the red one is stock out of box, and had the builder set the ride height correctly, and added some whitewalls, it really doesn't look too awful bad. Definitely no MPC parts, as the the MPC kit doesn't have the separate upper grille trim piece, and has molded in headlight lenses.  I'd be inclined to use the AMT front bumper and headlights on mine though. If you want my opinion on which 1/25th 57 tudor hardtop has the most accurate body, for me it would be the Revell Wheels of Fire Snap kit, followed by the new tool AMT. The worst, by light years is the Monogram 1/24th kit. 

[Oldcarfan27]

New Revell kit goes without saying and the old Monogram is the stepchild nobody talks about. ?

[niteowl7710]

2 hours ago, Oldcarfan27 said:

I love it.

If an old kit comes out and nobody comments on it, then new builders complain the kit is junk.

If we do comment, then the old builders complain, we know what to expect so shut up!

Explain to me what the purpose of this chat forum is, please?

No it's more of a - Why does this forum constantly put forth an unrealistic wish list of upgrades a kit from their childhood will never receive regardless as to who owns the tooling? With a dose of - Can someone please show the contents of the box of something everyone over the age of 30 has owned at LEAST one of? Which then usually spawns a multi-page flame war as to which kit of said subject matter is actually the best one, even though all of the choices involved are at least 20 years old and everyone has made up their mind 5 Presidential Elections ago.

It doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks of the kit, because ultimately some people love it and with enough beating and curse words a perfectly good model can be built our of this kit.

But the seemingly never ending confusion or borderline outrage that the same kit in a different box is in fact no different than it's ever been has to wear on more than me. This kit isn't a full drag kit...well no it has never been that, why would it magically change now in 2022, when it's been offered the same exact way since the Beatles were still a band and all alive?

[TonyK]

I like to read the complaints and the praises of a kit so that I can make my decision if I want it or not. There are so many experienced modelers here that know way more than I do about past and current kits that I learn from their comments. Good or bad I want to read about it.

As far as this not being a full drag kit, I didn't expect it to be but thought it might include some added parts. I should have done my home work first. Have gotten used to some of these re-released kits coming with tampo printed white lettered tires and re-tooled parts so just jumped on this one without looking more closely.

Thinking I might just build an older jalopy racer or something along those lines. The opening doors and all lend itself well to that.

[bisc63]

4 hours ago, TonyK said:

Good or bad I want to read about it.

There was a very informative comparison done by Tim Boyd that can still be found, done years ago before the newer AMT kit came along, or the Revell snapper. ( Scale Auto Enthusiast Nov/Dec 1982) It showcased full builds by Tim of the old AMT, MPC, this Revell, and the Monogram 1/24. Lots of side-by-side photos for comparison, and Tim's no-nonsense objectivity made for an excellent read. Properly built, all looked pretty nice, but in the end he gave higher marks to the AMT. Sort of "by default" the Monogram scored better than Revell, even with lighter chassis details and some proportional issues, because the Revell kit had so many fit issues that he reckoned many would never be finished by the average consumer/builder. He whipped it into shape for the article, though!

Same article can be found in "Building Model Cars Vol. 1 - Best of Scale Auto Enthusiast Magazine 1979-1984"

Edited June 6, 2022 by bisc63
added info

[Motor City]

I just looked at photos of my folks' '57 Bel Air hardtop and agree with Dave that the original AMT model's side trim is too high at the back of the door and leading edge of the quarter panel.  The door handle and lock cylinder are also too high.  The new AMT corrected all of those problems.  I have to finish the original AMT kit that Dad started.  

[Dave Darby]

3 hours ago, Motor City said:

I just looked at photos of my folks' '57 Bel Air hardtop and agree with Dave that the original AMT model's side trim is too high at the back of the door and leading edge of the quarter panel.  The door handle and lock cylinder are also too high.  The new AMT corrected all of those problems.  I have to finish the original AMT kit that Dad started.  

It's actually too high from the very front to past the back of the door.

[Oldcarfan27]

1 hour ago, Dave Darby said:

It's actually too high from the very front to past the back of the door.

I never noticed that before, now it bugs me. It's almost like the whole trim needs to be moved down, but if that's done, then the quill will be too low in the back of the fin. Quite a conundrum.