Ghost of General Lee

[Greg Myers]

From the Horizon Hobbys site, this will be 1/25th

"On the 26th of October, 1979, the famous Dukes of Hazzard "Ghost of General Lee" episode aired on TV. It featured Rosco getting scared out of his wits by a glowing General Lee charger, back from the dead, or so he thought! MPC has created a special kit of the infamous ghostly General Lee from this episode, and it features glow in the dark plastic parts!"

[Chuck Most]

Ah... the return of the glow in the dark model kit! And this would be, what, the 80th reissue of the Dukes Charger over the last five years or so?

[Eshaver]

try 81................. Ed Shaver

[elan]

Another DOH kits, ridiculous! They must think we are a simple-minded bunch.

[Joe Handley]

I'd actually buy that kit, even if I wouldn't build it just for the "hey that's kinda neat!" factor. It's just odd enough to trip that part of me that digs those kinds of things

[Guest Mustang3.8]

Greg, you got a link to the site?

[Greg Myers]

Greg, you got a link to the site?

Horizon Hobby

[Chuck Kourouklis]

The bias I spoke isn't a new phenomenon ... it's something I've observed for years. And I understand also that today, AMT is a name that today primarily adorns reissued kits, at least for the time being. However, when AMT WAS issuing new-tool kits, under ERTL, Racing Champions and RC2, the flaws of those kits were, indeed, glossed over or not mentioned at all ... the prime examples I can think of being the stock '34 Ford coupe kit that used the splash pans from the street rod kit, which had enormous holes to clear the rod's suspension A-arms; the '67 Impala, were people were so smitten with the separate frame and floorpan that they ignored other major flaws; and the new-tool '57 Chevy, which, body-proportion-wise, was a huge step backward from the original AMT kit.

It's funny you mention that, Ken, because it was just exactly this bias that was a major factor in getting me started on those kit rankings. People I knew at the time were like, "you know, the AMT '67 Chevelle is really more accurate than the Revell kit", and I was like, "WHAT??" They went Lady Gaga over that '55 Cameo; never mind the lower front window sweep they swept right under the rug (and AMT corrected later on), what about the absence of the ENTIRE FLOOR PAN? And let's not even get started on the hunchbacked '70 Corvette.

The irony is, I got to cheerleading AMT pretty enthusiastically as they closed the gap in the late '90s, to such a degree that one person who claimed to have read the articles from the very git called me an AMT apologist - must have had a pretty serious reading comprehension problem, because I lay my agenda out pretty unmistakably in that very first Car Modeler article ranking the '95 kits. And for being such an alleged AM-Tard, it was in fact Revell/Monogram I awarded the most number one rankings, and that usually ranked highest among domestics when the Japanese manufacturers came in and started mopping up. In fact, Revell would have pulled the trick globally in 2007, against all comers with their '49 Mercury, had I done a ranking article then.

That aside, I'm not sure I'm with everyone who thinks AMT's new-tool '57 Chevy is such a step backward in proportions over the old one. Not that the new one doesn't have obvious problems - it does, most notably in the front fender arches, the jowly front bumper, the corners at the beltline that should instead curve into the C-pillar drip moldings - but the old one has plenty of issues too; mislocated side trim, rear fins that seem to taper inward too far especially from a front 3/4 view, a greenhouse that appears ever so slightly low compared to the 1:1. I think the key difference, to pick up on an old favorite theme of mine, is that old model's discrepancies flatter the 1:1 more than the new model's do.

Monogram's 1/12 coupe (and the Revell 1/25 snapper based on it) don't exactly have it down cold, either. Little too round in the front fender arches, not enough crown in the rear roof profile. And while the AMT kit's dimensions appeared a bit large at the time, they seem rather less so next to Revell's latest '57 sedans - the front bumpers just about interchange, in fact, and the AMT kit looks decidedly better with the new Revell bumper.

Edited June 30, 2010 by Chuck Kourouklis

[Guest]

Revell could do the General justice. They have the basic tooling, just need a few parts added, and decent decals. Would be nice to not need 2 or 3 kits, plus aftermarket decals to do the General correctly. Are you reading this Revell?? A no brainer!!!

[Luc Janssens]

Revell could do the General justice. They have the basic tooling, just need a few parts added, and decent decals. Would be nice to not need 2 or 3 kits, plus aftermarket decals to do the General correctly. Are you reading this Revell?? A no brainer!!!

One word:

"Licensing"

[spkgibson]

My oppinion They need to make the "dirty mary,crazy larry version of the car out of this,they have reissued the GL 6 times since 1979,And have never made this kit,Also the best MPC/AMT GL kit with the 500/Daytona rear window to make those cars out of is the 1997 version of that kit,as it is the same as both of those kits,Minus the correct parts,Just use the daytona parts on the GL body,and and for the 500 use the 500 grill and hood,or modify the revell 68/69 charger hood by adding a strip of evergreen to the back,and narrowing the sides of the hood to fit,And use the aftermarket repop of the 500 grill.

[spkgibson]

Only trouble is the "Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry" car was a standard 69 Charger, not a 500, so it didn't have the flush rear window of the Daytona/500. In fact, in one scene of the movie, (I saw it twice when it came out & have it on DVD), you can see where they used a 68 Charger, (likely one of the extra cars they had for the shoot), in lieu of the 69.

I was talking about the current editon with the R/T roof!Not the older versions with the 500/Daytona Roof.Sorry if I confused anyone.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

...The General Lee is to car kits what something like a Spitfire/Me109/P-51 Mustang is to airplane kits, it seems. As soon as you say "gee...how many of these kits do they need to tool up/reissue???" somebody comes out with another. And another...

Boy howdy, Tamiya does a new P-51 at the level of the recent Zero and Spitfire kits, the cash'll be out of my wallet before I knew what happened...

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Chuck, another more recent example I can think of where AMT pretty much skated just cuz, you know, they're AMT (albeit in name only) was the new-tool Ala Kart kit, which, in my estimation, was nothing less than a travesty. The nose and hood were incorrectly shaped, the engine was too small, the decals were the wrong colors, etc. And, on top of all that, RC2 could have EASILY restored the far superior old-tool kit because most of it can still be found in the '29 Ford roadster!

Sure, there was criticism of the new-tool kit, but never the kind of public stoning that you just KNOW it would've received had it been a Revell offering, particularly of such an iconic subject.

I believe my observation of that kit was something on the order of "AMT seems estranged from the very heritage it's trying to trade on"...

[sjordan2]

Point taken...while I wouldn't have the slightest idea of how this license works (I do know they're usually up-front/plus percentage of sales past a given volume), there would be cost savings in spreading it out over multiple items, I'm sure. I have no idea, either, if Hobbico had anything else (RC?) they could use it for. My only point was that it keeps coming back...year after year...like a houseguest that overstayed their welcome on hobby shop shelves to many of us modelers.

If it helps keep the lights on then I'm all for it...although I won't be pre-ordering this one, in glow or no-glow form, myself.

Having faced licensing issues time after time as an advertising professional, I can only add that, when negotiating terms and prices, you have to negotiate (and pay more) for, and distinctly spell out, the nature of every additional usage. It's very unusual these days to get a blanket license.

[Nick Winter]

Ha I was just going to use that florescint road paint on mine.

[Chuck Most]

Lee, I don't disagree, but, odds are, as long as Round 2 holds the rights to produce DOH model kits, that's not something Revell's gonna be doing.

Hmmm... AMT used to sell MPC, Heller, and even Aoshima kits under their own branding... maybe they can tool up some Vector wheels and a bully bar for Revell's kit and market it in their own boxes, with the existing decal sheet!

[spkgibson]

I actually think the DMCL Charger would be a pretty cool kit for Revell to do, and it would give the company another hit off its excellent '68-'69 Charger tooling. I also think Revell could probably do an end-run around the licensing issue by marketing it as a "'69 Charger Street Machine" or something of that nature. Face it, a tie-in with a 26-year-old "B" movie probably isn't gonna help move a lot of kits, anyway!

I have to agree,Yes the General Lee kit was,And is still a big seller,But it has been reissed way to many times,If they would scan a mint 69 annual body to fix the mess that is in the box now,I p I personally think they would have alot more buyers for the kit,But thats a pipe dream there Any ways that is a great idea about the DMCL Charger,I would buy them just for the slotted wheels,DOH,Give it a rest!Make that kit back into the nascar Daytona Or 500!

[MoparWoman Jamie]

Guys, here is the box art for the Ghost of General Lee model.

[Joe Handley]

I kinda dig that box art.

[Artisticndn]

I agree with the views on AMT DOH kits. I'm a huge Dukes fan and when I bought my first General Lee 1/24 scale from AMT, needless to say I was disappointed. Just about everything was wrong, and there was more flashing on it than any model I've ever seen! Several years later AMT comes out with a newer version right after the sucky Dukes of Hazzard movie...same issues...same model....same disappointment. MPC's new Ghost of General Lee will sell. The only problem is that it has issues too. Heck, even Revell's '69 Dodge Charger as issues with lineing up. Put the rear axle on based on the instructions and look and see if the wheels don't set too far back in the wheel well..every one I've bought (and I've bought many) have had to have rear axle alignments. All I'm saying for Dukes model builders is if you want an accurate General Lee model, build it from Revell and get your decals custom made, because there isn't a model company on the planet that can get DOH General Lee decals correct!

[ChrisPflug]

Disappointed by the AMT kit? I can remember being a little disappointed with the original MPC issue

[george 53]

ALWAYS thought the 69 Charger was the MOST beautiful design of ALL the late 60's cars, BAR NONE! It looked like it was goin a 1,000 miles an hour just PARKED! I had one, the PRETTIEST car I EVER owned! I still have two original unbuilt MPC kits downstairs, an let me tell you, they CAN'T hold a candle to Revell's version! The Technology has come SO far that it's not really fair to compare them, except for their scale fidelity. I was REAL dissapointed with the ORIGINAL Dukes release because of the Daytona rear window. So I just modded it into the proper shape. But I made ANOTHER one into a Charger 500 before there was ever a kit of it. Couldn't do too much with it as it came, so might as well convert it into something that it COULD be used for!

Won't bother with this one, as i just get the Revell kits of the 68/9 Chargers anymore. Still like that style, always will.

[crowe-t]

For nostalgic reasons I 'might' pick up this Ghost of General Lee kit. Still it's the same old kit re-issued. I'm planning on building a Revell General Lee soon. Other then the wheels, decals & push bar the General Lee is just a 69 Charger. Does anyone know of where I can get some 1/25 General Lee decals?

[Artisticndn]

Tim Sherry is the go-to-guy for Dukes of Hazzard decals and just about any other custom decals you need. Here's the link to his site.

http://hazzardousdecals.shopping.officelive.com/default.aspx