AMT = DTR?

[Monty]

Apparently I missed a memo. While sniffing around on ebay last night, I saw AMT kits (ex: 32 Ford Vicky) with a black, silver and red DTR insigina where the old AMT insignia used to be. What's up with that?

[Harry P.]

the problem came in where some of the kits, like the '32 Ford 5-window coupe and Vicky had box art cars that couldn't be built using what came in the box. there was a disclaimer on the box, but most people didn't read it or even notice it.

The real question then is what's up with that???

[Harry P.]

That was a very good explanation!

[Harry P.]

While I agree with much of what Mark said, I think there's one other thing that bears mentioning regarding the DTR reissues ...

The box art models for the '32 Ford "jalopy" kits and for the Richie Evans '35 Chevy (which I believe was actually sold under the Model King banner, but is available on the DTR Web site) all contained significant quantities of aftermarket parts ... wheels, tires and bunch of other stuff. Of course, none of those parts were actually in the box. Not only that, but the disclaimers about them not being weren't exactly what I would call prominently placed. Of course, if you knew what you were buying, that wasn't a problem. However, I can see where a less-experienced modeler, or someone who perhaps wasn't all that familiar with those old AMT/MPC kits, might be upset after buying one, taking it home and opening it and finding out he had to buy $50, $60 or more worth of aftermarket items to make it look like the model on the box.

Yeah, that's the point I was getting at. Regardless of who's reissuing what or how old the molds are or whatever other "caveat" goes with the model, if the picture on the cover is wildly different from what can actually be built with what comes in the box, that's misleading. I know you can justify it and rationalize it, and a "modeler" could kitbash and scratchbuild and buy aftermarket parts and all the rest in order to build the model shown on the box…but try telling that to the people who bought the model based on the cover, opened up the box and were very disappointed.

It's not a matter of a decent modeler being able to handle the kit, it's a matter of the kit boxes misrepresenting what was inside the box, "disclaimer" or not.

[Harry P.]

I tend to agree. If the box art includes a picture or pictures of the assembled model (and I'm not saying I necessarily it has to), said model should accurately represent the contents of the box, IMO.

If DTR had wanted to put callouts on the boxes of the '32 Fords stating that the kits contained instructions on how to build them as jalopies, along with jalopy decals, that obviously would've been no problem. Heck, I think it would've even been fine for the box tops have featured artists' renderings of jalopies, or historic photos of 1:1 jalopy racers. However, to use photos of much-modified models laden with aftermarket parts teetered on the edge of false advertising, IMO, disclaimers or no.

That's not teetering on the edge of false advertising, that's falling smack dab into it.

[Rob Hall]

Instead of disclaimers, it's better to have accurate box art. Don't show anything on the built kit on the box art that's not included with the kit. Simple.

[Harry P.]

Instead of disclaimers, it's better to have accurate box art. Don't show anything on the built kit on the box art that's not included with the kit. Simple.

There ya go, folks. Common Sense 101.

[Harry P.]

I still contend that as long as the potential buyer is made aware that one will need to get parts from other kits, the aftermarket &/or scratchbuild to build an exact replica as shown on the box, then that should be good enough.

So by your logic then, if I was a realtor and showed you a brochure of a "country estate" that looked like the ranch house from the TV series "Dallas," but in reality I was trying to sell you the farmhouse from "Green Acres," you'd be ok with me using the photos of the Ewing spread as long as there was some fine print somewhere that said the property needs "just a little T.L.C" to look like the photos in the brochure???

[Harry P.]

Mark–I contend that if the box art on a model kit is a photo of a model, the implication is that the photo represents a buildup of what's inside the box–no ifs, ands, or "disclaimers."

I guess on this issue you and I will have to agree to disagree.

Wanna buy a country estate?

[Rob Hall]

Heck, by the criteria on box art, Revell should be taken to task for it's reissue of the Monogram 36 Ford. Nowhere on the box does it say that the builder will need to cut off the package shelf before gluing on the three window coupe part & painting it, in order to get the desired appearance, as the package shelf is actually part of the interior, nor does the box art mention that trimming & putty will be needed to achieve the results as shown on the box. Where's the great "hue & cry" there?

As far as I can tell, the roof fits on the body without removing the package shelf, so that's a moot point.

As a related theme, when did kits start showing photos of the actual kit and it's parts on the box art instead of illustrations? It seems like it was sometime in the '70s, as I have kits from childhood from the late '70s that have photos and some that have illustrations..

Edited March 18, 2010 by Rob Hall

[Harry P.]

I have no problem there Harry, & as far as buying a country estate from you, let me think.., NO!!!

Aw, c'mon... it just needs a little work... you have to be able to "imagine the possibilities"...

[Rob Hall]

Rob I know Revell was using photos by the early 70's, as a Baja version of their VW Beetle had box art photos, & it came out about 1972. I have a 1973 reissue of the Revell 56 Chevy that has uses photos. AMT started with photos sometime after that, MPC of course was known for often using photos of the actual car being replicated, such as their drag cars & their circa 1972 & later NASCAR racers.

That's kind of when I guessed it was...one of the earliest w/ a real car on the box that I know of/have is the MPC '71 GTX...love that box art.

The oldest w/ photos of the kit that I have are probably some Monograms from the mid '70s, like an issue of the '58 T-bird w a red buildup on the box.

Edited March 18, 2010 by Rob Hall