Objective (non passionate) question on AMT quality

[ismaelg]

Hello,

   In the late 90's (at the end of the last century) the quality of domestic scale models in general was suffering.  The pressure for profits had model companies merge or disappear, moving molds overseas, using inferior materials and speeding up processes.  The result was that the overall quality started to suffer when compared to previous decades while at the same time japanese companies like Tamiya, Aoshima and Hasegawa were known for far superior products in terms of quality and kit engineering.   By the  2000s, AMT was among the worst.  To the point that around 2006-2008 or so, I was so frustrated with AMT I hated the company.  Mis-molded parts, ill fitting kits,  sink marks, mis-aligned molds and excessive flash among other issues.  Those of you who were here around that time may remember the controversy over the Concept Camaro and the unusable mis-molded wheels.  At that point I had it with AMT. I haven't purchased a new AMT kit in over 15 years.
  Time has passed and there have been many changes in the hobby.  Companies were bought and sold and today's landscape is different.  A key factor for us modelers is of course subject. Modern  Corvette Pace Cars, Camaros, Chargers and reissues of cool older subjects have been released.  Yet I never go past seeing the AMT logo and reject it.
     I don't have a local HS where I can touch and see. I rely on mail order.   And yes, with the proper effort anything can be fixed. But having a good starting point is a good thing.
  The question is, and trying to keep it objective (it is OK to disagree); How do these kits compare today? 

Thanks,
Ismael

[1972coronet]

Some of the kits which are labelled AMT are ancient ERTL kits ( International Scout ) with only a couple - that I can think of - which were retooled and remastered ( International 4070A being the prime example). 
Some are old Lindberg (1934 Ford Pickup, which was originally an AMT kit) and some are 1990s era Lindberg (1967 Olds 442, 1966 Chevelle SS-396, 1997 Crown Victoria CVPI, Dodge & Plymouth B-bodies, 1961 Impala) which were rebranded as AMT.

The (awful) era of Racing Chumps branded everything under the AMT banner, though many were - are - ancient MPC kits (1967 GTO, 1972 GTO, 1969 Charger, "1970" Charger F&F, etc.).

Those are to be avoided unless one wishes to perform lots of plastic surgery -- virtually unbuildable out-of-box. 

On the flip-side: 1963 Nova Wagon, 1965 GTO, 1968 GTO, the aforementioned International 4070A [ERTL], and a few others, are de facto new tooling.

Those are the BEST.

Then there's the MPC kits of yore which are also de facto new tooling: 1968 Coronet R/T Convertible and c.1981 K10 Sodbuster.

Likewise, those are the BEST. 

IMO, one should watch videos (YouTube) of unboxings of kits, as those exhibit kits' contents. Same with the forum here.

That way, "surprises" are , in es , avoidable.

[stitchdup]

I think I might be the opposite of the OP. I enjoy starting with a poor kit more than with a good kit. I've built the lindberg 40 coupe and the revell and i had much more fun with the much maligned lindberg kit. I almost think if a kits too nice i find it less enjoyable as there less for me to play with but my satisfaction is the planning and building and very often i'll finish a build and after taking pics it gets dropped in the parts box to be messed about with again another time. At the same time i much prefer the revell 60s chevy fullsize over the amt versions bt the exception to that is the amt 62 bel air, its probably one of my fav kits even though I'm not that big a fan of the real car. Having said that though, i got rid of the vast majority of my 1/25 kits back in october but of the 1/25 kits i kept most are amt with a few of the revell pre war rods but everything else i have now is 1/24. 

[Bugatti Fan]

Kit quality is bound to be an emotive subject. Back in the old days before the Japanese accession to the throne of best quality car kits, Monogram's car kits appeared (to me at least) to be the bench mark in the ear!y 60's.

Rapid forward 50 plus years and we have a totally different scenario. We come to expect much more from newly tooled kits with, you guessed it, Tamiya being at the forefront where they have been since the 70's. The old AMT, IMC, Ertl, Monogram, Revel! and MPC kits that favour popular US subjects that are loved on this forum by many but really are showing their age being continuously re popped down the years. The Japanese and European kit manufacturers make  kits that they consider will appeal more to a world wide customer base so the subject matter will be very different to what many American modellers might desire. The old US firms of yore really mainly just catered for a burgeoning domestic market, hence all the Nascars, Muscle Cars, Dragsters and Custom Show Cars and to a certain extent have remained in a bit of a time warp. So we are where we are as the world market has changed considerably with the advent of more specialist kits like MFH also coming onto the market plus a plethora of 1/43rd scale highly detailed kits too.

Edited April 8, 2023 by Bugatti Fan

[Force]

One must keep in mind when the tooling for the kits are made, 40-50-60 year old tooling are worn and the kits from them are plagued with molding seams and lots of flash, the buildup are sometimes questionable and the quality varies.
The AMT brand was bought by ERTL 1983 and the MPC brand 1985 and all kits were branded AMT/ERTL after that and it continued under the Racing Champions RC2 ownership until Round 2 LLC bought out the tool bank and AMT and MPC brand names from Tomy who now owns the ERTL brand.
And the latest developed AMT kits under the ERTL era in the late 90's was really good, but you have to know what kits they are, among them was the 1960 Ford Starliner, the 1958 Edsel Pacer, the 1957 Chrysler 300C, the 1962 Ford Thunderbird, the "new tool" 1957 Chevy and some others, but most of the tooling is old and worn and developed in the 60's and 70's, many of the kits are issued many times.
The worst period was under the Racing Champions/RC2 era when they did kits with lousy quality and they were in it just to try to make money with the least effort, not to do anything for the hobby itself and they only reissued old kits over and over and did nothing new, that changed with the Round 2 ownership where the owners seems to be interested to do a good product and reinstated the MPC brand and quite recently bought Polar Lights, Lindberg and Hawk lines and they restore and retool kits frequently and has recently done some all new tooling kits.
So just to reject an AMT kit just because it is an AMT kit is wrong as there are some gold nuggets there too if you know the kit histories.

If you take Revell, the old 60's and 70's kits are not that good either, hard and difficult to build and has mold lines and flash, but they continued to develop new tooling the whole time and the quality is a lot better on the more recent kits developed from the late 80's and forward.
Another thing is that Revell and Monogram merged 1986 and the Monogram and Revell brands are sometimes used on wrong kits, Monogram was mostly 1:24 and the Revell kits are and has allways been 1:25, no Revell developed kits are 1:24, so kits developed after the merge of the companies can be both for Monogram branded kits.

Edited April 8, 2023 by Force

[atomicholiday]

I want to start this off by saying I think Round 2 in South Bend is doing a really good job.  Much of the stuff we’re seeing come out of there is awesome.  Of course they aren’t perfect (more on that in a moment), but they’re really making the effort.

The problem isn’t with South Bend, but rather the molding facility they’re using.  I’m not talking about any specific era of kits here.  Seems to be across the board.  Also I’m not talking about some of the engineering issues or inaccuracies of some of the kits.  The problem that needs addressing currently by Round 2 is the molding process itself.

 I work in quality at an automotive plastics injection molding company, so I have some experience with the kind of problems a lot of us are seeing.  Here’s an example: around the Christmas season I purchased five brand new amt/mpc kits.  Three of the five had molding defects, two were beyond repair.  Three kits had badly warped steering wheels (one was twisted 45 degrees off axis), one had the rear package tray warped beyond repair, and one had too many issues to list here.  The 70 1/2’ Camaro was by far the worst model I’ve ever seen as relates to molding issues.

It appears that the issue is related to one of two possible causes.  Part of the molding process near the end is called “hold time”.  Without going into too much detail, hold time is the stage after the plastic has been injected into the tool, when the mold is held closed while the plastic “sets”.  If the tool is opened too soon, the plastic will still be soft.  
One way to increase production and shorten cycle time is to decrease hold time in the molding process.  But the risk is poor quality.

The other possibility is that the parts might be being packaged before they are properly cooled.

 I mentioned that South Bend wasn’t perfect.  I suspect this has something to do with staffing shortages.  I had contacted them about the problems I was having and requested two replacement parts.  Took around two weeks before I got any acknowledgment of the request.  But I did receive the parts eventually.  However, one of the replacements had the exact same issue as the one I was replacing.  When I contacted Round 2 about this I received no response at all.

 I plan to continue to purchase kits from them because I like the subject matter, but I’m aware that there’s a strong possibility there will be problems.

[Pierre Rivard]

   I'm not familiar with the extensive variation of old tool / new tool / annual release kits from AMT but the few I built I knew what I was getting into by researching reviews on the net. These old kits usually had good body shape but very limited on details but it was ok since my plan was to heavily modify them into NASCAR or road racing duty. This is not unlike what you have done with your magnificent Talbot Lago T26C, starting with a very basic kit and starting from there. It involves lots more time and cost but it's what model building is about. Just choose carefully, some of these old kits have magnificent real looking bodies but some just look like toys.

   I've since built a couple Tamiya and Fujimi kits. They are great and fun to build but if they don't offer the topic model you want to do then the vintage stuff from AMT, MPC, Monogram might have it and there the fun and creativity starts.

[Bugatti Fan]

Interesting comments guys. Like most of you have said, there is good and bad, new and old.

Depends on what you want to build can influence what quality the kit will be depending on whether clapped out old tooling was used or new. The Internet is a good source of reviews to find out the wheat from the chaff.

However, an old clapped out mould tooled kit may be the only one in town so no choice sometimes.

[Straightliner59]

I remember a time in the later '80s when their plastic was rather "rubbery". It was prone to ghosting, crazing, warping, and just generally being garbage. But that was also about the time they released the '66 Nova, the '34 Ford Sedan(?) and the Cameo pickup. So, it was a mixed bag!

[oldcarfan]

AMT in particular has tooling from a lot of other manufacturers as well as from many decades. Some of the tools weren't that great to start with and some are worn out or at least in need of maintenance. If I were in charge, I'd probably brand the older kits as 'Heritage' kits or something like that so that people would know that the kit will need patience to assemble.

[Force]

The thing is to get a good kit is to know it's history, when it was developed and first made and how many times they have been reissued, but that's not that easy if you are fairly new to the hobby, because some kits are 40-50-60 years old by now and are still on the market.
Scalemates.com can give you a hint of the age of the tooling for a particular kit if you look at the timelines where you can see when the kit was new and originally issued and approximately how many times it has been reissued after that.
If the molding tool is old and the kit is frequently reissued the quality nowadays is often worse than it was when the tool was new, and the other way around where the tooling is recently developed and fairly new and not used as much the quality is better, not just because the tooling but the details and buildup of the kits are too as development has come forward quite a bit over the years.
So if you know a bit of the kits history you can get gems even from AMT

[Can-Con]

8 hours ago, Force said:

The thing is to get a good kit is to know it's history, when it was developed and first made and how many times they have been reissued, but that's not that easy if you are fairly new to the hobby, because some kits are 40-50-60 years old by now and are still on the market.
Scalemates.com can give you a hint of the age of the tooling for a particular kit if you look at the timelines where you can see when the kit was new and originally issued and approximately how many times it has been reissued after that.
If the molding tool is old and the kit is frequently reissued the quality nowadays is often worse than it was when the tool was new, and the other way around where the tooling is recently developed and fairly new and not used as much the quality is better, not just because the tooling but the details and buildup of the kits are too as development has come forward quite a bit over the years.
So if you know a bit of the kits history you can get gems even from AMT

You have to take Scalemates with a grain of salt. They are sometime incomplete or just downright wrong. 

I've seen this many times in their listings. 

 

[ctruss53]

Because of quality, I am VERY picky when it comes to AMT, MPC, and Revell kits.  Before I buy a kit from one of those companies I scour the internet for reviews to find out if it is any good.

And because of poor quality, I prefer to build kits from Asian companies. Tamiya at the top, Aoshima, Nunu, Fujimi, and Hasegawa.

[Force]

20 hours ago, Can-Con said:

You have to take Scalemates with a grain of salt. They are sometime incomplete or just downright wrong. 

I've seen this many times in their listings. 

 

Yes I know that and I have done the same observation and as you have, there are lots of errors and missing information there for several kits, but most of the time you will get a hint anyway.
They could have done a bit more homework and the timelines would be a lot more accurate, because kits based on the same basic tooling sometimes have different timelines instead of being on one wich they should be if the kit history would be right
I did a timeline here on this forum a while ago on the Revell Germany Kenworth W900 kits with the kits in correct order from the first issue to the most present, Scalemates had them on three different timelines not tied together, but they all are based on the same tooling from the beginning so they should be on only one.

[StevenGuthmiller]

This subject comes up constantly, and I'll just offer the same opinion that I always do.

I could care less who the manufacturer of the kit is, and the initial quality is of no consequence to me whatsoever.

For me, subject matter is the ONLY consideration.

If the kit has issues that bother me, or need attention, I'll fix them.

The best engineered kit in the world means nothing to me if it's a subject that I have no interest in.

I would rather use my skills to re-work a subpar 60 year old kit that interests me, than build a immaculate new kit that doesn't.

It's that simple.

 

 

Steve

Edited April 10, 2023 by StevenGuthmiller

[Ace-Garageguy]

I think it's impossible to make a blanket statement about AMT kits, as they're all over the board in terms of accuracy, complexity, "buildability", and general quality.

The annuals from the early 1960s, being developed from factory blueprints, usually have very accurate bodies and actually look exactly like what they're supposed to represent...but the chassis are simplified blobs.

On the other hand, the classic '32 Ford roadster from the same period (and AMT's other '32s developed from the same basic tooling) have serious body dimensional errors in the height of the cowl that require major work to correct.

The AMT '34 Ford 3-window is, in my opinion, one of the worst kits ever, bearing very little resemblance to a real one, with many of the parts looking like they came from a toy designed by people in some foreign land who had never seen anything but blurry Xeroxed photos of what they were trying to represent.

AMT's much later '34 Ford 5-window is really pretty decent, though it has its share of scaling errors, but their '33 Ford sedan (that shares its chassis and engine with the 5-window kit) has annoying body scaling and proportion issues.

Bottom line: if you want to avoid disappointment, research the particular kit you're interested in. Look at multiple sources, as not everything you'll read on the internet is true. In particular, consult sites like this one, and look at what other competent modelers have to say about a kit, and what they've been able to accomplish with it. And remember that there are whiners who routinely bad-mouth anything that doesn't assemble itself, so take whatever you see with a grain of salt.

Edited April 10, 2023 by Ace-Garageguy
CLARITY

[TECHMAN]

🙄🙄🙄

I started building models on December 26, 1959 (guess who got models for Christmas???!!!!),  and came to like the AMT kits early on as they were "less stressful" to build than many of the multi-piece bodies of that era....  They have not always been "perfect", but over the years have supplied hours-and-hours of enjoyment.   As Steve said in his reply,  the "subject matter" has always been important......   NOT disagreeing with anyone, just saying,  even tho they may not have always been "perfect",  they made items that I have enjoyed over the years.........

DJ

[iamsuperdan]

My 2 cents, for what it's worth.

 

I think AMT/Round 2 are doing a very good job with what they have. But I think they can do better.

When they choose to do a new tool, it's on par with Tamiya. That newer release International 4070A was a dream to build. 

But, AMT does a lot of older subject matter, based on molds that are decades old. Quite often, these kits needs a significant amount of cleanup during the build process, and some of the details have faded over time, and the instructions are really vague. But, they have some very interesting subject matter, and as long as you go in with the right expectations, the kits are actually quite good. And one look around here at some of the builds will show you just how good these kits can look.

Having said that, new tools aren't cheap, and I'm not sure what Round 2's budget is for new kits and new tools. They do seem to be introducing a lot of new tooling and new kits these days, so I think it's looking pretty good. 

 

 

[khier]

I will not argue about AMT quality, neither curse nor praise. I see it from a different perspective, that is, what are your choices if you are looking for a '55 Bel Air Sedan? What about a Nomad? Who offers an 1965 Bonneville? If I am interested in an Edsel, which kit I am going to buy?

Whether we like AMT or not, the answer is clear: AMT

[StevenGuthmiller]

1 hour ago, khier said:

I will not argue about AMT quality, neither curse nor praise. I see it from a different perspective, that is, what are your choices if you are looking for a '55 Bel Air Sedan? What about a Nomad? Who offers an 1965 Bonneville? If I am interested in an Edsel, which kit I am going to buy?

Whether we like AMT or not, the answer is clear: AMT

The problem is that some people don't see it that way.

Apparently some will sacrifice their desires for "easy".

 

I've never understood this mentality myself.

If I want to build a that '65 Bonneville, I'm going to suck it up and go with the only available kit from AMT, and make it better if possible.

I'm certainly not going to consider a Tamiya Volvo station wagon an immediate alternative.

 

 

 

Steve

[ismaelg]

Hi,

  Thank you all for your comments. I think I went too poetic in the first post and the conversation is going in a different direction.  I totally agree with all of you. Subject IS the main criteria. Actually got a chuckle with the Volvo wagon comment     When you are limited in choices there is really no question.  If you want it, suck it up and do whatever it takes.  That's the story of my modeling life: '12 Grand Sport Corvette, Talbot Lago, C8 Corvette,  C7 ZR1 Corvette, '17 Viper, etc. to name a few.  

My question was more on the lines of "has their overall manufacturing quality improved?"  I know each kit is different. I'm not talking accuracy or ease of build. But as Jeremy pointed out, there is a difference between filling a sink mark or sanding some flash vs an unusable steering wheel.
Recent subjects from AMT I may be interested are the 50th Anniv Camaro, the 2016 Camaro SS, the '21 Charger, and so on.  When the time comes, I'll ask and research those kits specifically.

Thanks,
Ismael

[Tcoat]

On 4/10/2023 at 10:41 AM, Ace-Garageguy said:

I think it's impossible to make a blanket statement about AMT kits, as they're all over the board in terms of accuracy, complexity, "buildability", and general quality.

 research the particular kit you're interested in. 

This ^^^ just this.

There are good and bad kits from any manufacturer and blanket statements just can't cover the topic.

[Rob Hall]

It is what it is...I've been building AMT kits off and on since I was in kid in 1977.  Some are better than others, some reissues are cleaned up more than others.  Glad to have them all.  I have my Tamiyas, Hasegawas, Revells, etc..all comes down to subject matter to me.

[Tcoat]

1 hour ago, ismaelg said:

Hi,

  Thank you all for your comments. I think I went too poetic in the first post and the conversation is going in a different direction.  I totally agree with all of you. Subject IS the main criteria. Actually got a chuckle with the Volvo wagon comment     When you are limited in choices there is really no question.  If you want it, suck it up and do whatever it takes.  That's the story of my modeling life: '12 Grand Sport Corvette, Talbot Lago, C8 Corvette,  C7 ZR1 Corvette, '17 Viper, etc. to name a few.  

My question was more on the lines of "has their overall manufacturing quality improved?"  I know each kit is different. I'm not talking accuracy or ease of build. But as Jeremy pointed out, there is a difference between filling a sink mark or sanding some flash vs an unusable steering wheel.
Recent subjects from AMT I may be interested are the 50th Anniv Camaro, the 2016 Camaro SS, the '21 Charger, and so on.  When the time comes, I'll ask and research those kits specifically.

Thanks,
Ismael

I recently built the latest release of the AMT (Round 2) Corvair. It was one of the worst things I have ever laid eyes on with a vaguely car shaped lump of plastic body and part's sprues that were almost unusable.

Next I built an AMT '64 Galaxie that was probably the crispest body and most pristine parts I have ever seen.

The "overall quality" (as said) is not consistent since it comes from the molds they use. Old worn out and unrepaired molds will give trash where new or fully restored ones have perfection. I would guess that the ones in your list will all be fine since they probably haven't made millions of them like that poor old tired Covair mold has. 

[Ace-Garageguy]

19 minutes ago, Tcoat said:

I recently built the latest release of the AMT (Round 2) Corvair. It was one of the worst things I have ever laid eyes on with a vaguely car shaped lump of plastic body and part's sprues that were almost unusable...

Interesting. I still have both these releases of the AMT '69 Corvair here in ATL, and if anything, the Round2 version is better. It's molded of a harder, white styrene, and is very crisp...while the earlier (AMT/ERTL) issue is a softer gray styrene that was pulled from the mold a little hot and exhibits some minor warping of the sides.

Edited April 11, 2023 by Ace-Garageguy
TYPO