Telling a lie...

[Jairus]

If you tell a Lie often enough it will soon be accepted as the truth.

Provided someone doesn’t show up with proof of the lie.

This is that proof!

In 1981 Monogram released one in a series of fantastically detailed, very accurate muscle car kits, the Boss 429! I owned a 1969 Mustang as a daily driver back then, wasn’t married and slept, ate and drank MUSTANGS! My favorites were the ’69 – ’70 models of course and I absorbed everything I could read about them… which back then was not a lot!

The lie:

One of the glaring errors Monogram foisted upon us in 1981 with that first kit were the chromed headlight rings from the box art. It was the early 80’s and Monogram was either afraid of paying royalties to an owner for the photographs or afraid of being sued for misrepresentation… whatever the reason they began putting photos of built up models as an excuse for boxart. The problem with this is that the buildup becomes a representation for many builders of what the finished model should look like. Many builders painted their cars just like the box art. The first picture shows the end of the box. I scanned the end because I was sooo incensed at how wrong the headlights were back then that I took a black felt pen to the rings… Anyway, this is how it looked in 1981:

Ten years later, 1991 Monogram releases the Boss 302 kit. The box top contains a photo of a beautifully restored Boss 302. Why do I say restored? Because the grill and headlight rings are painted flat black. Incorrect, as these were suppose to be painted “Argentâ€! Argent is a dark flat gray, not black! Most of the trim pieces are suppose to be painted this Argent color. The hood stripes, rear trunk lid, wing and sports slats over the rear window however are indeed flat black. The side stripes were reflective… NO, REALLY!!! Check it out sometime.

Anyway, the box top is sort of correct but the built up models featured on the box ends are once again perpetrating the lie with chrome rings around the headlights.

Why does this bother me you ask? Because it makes the look of the car appear wide-eyed and simple minded. And it’s simply NOT RIGHT!

Plus, the lie keeps spreading… check out the images Ismael posted of his friend from Venezuela. Felice painted the grill of his beautifully detailed and painted Boss the same way as the box art. It’s really not his fault as his car is very nicely built. He simply followed the box art as a guide. And the lie keeps being told through re-releases of this very same kit!

Now we have as the final picture a beautifully restored, and correct I might add…. Representation of a Boss 302 with the correct grill headlight rings. Breath taking isn’t it?

Notice the hood fit… the grill trim and the hood trim don’t match and they never did. That was a fit problem from the factory due to the use of hoods from 1969 with a new front end for 1970. If an owner were to lower the hood and make the chrome trim line up… it would place the hood lower than the fenders.

From now on I expect each and every 1970 Mustang posted on this forum to have the headlight rings correctly painted!

8)

[Darin Bastedo]

This just proves that it is the small details that really make a model "pop".

[Abell82]

Something like this?

O.k. they are black, not argent, but it was the closest I had at the time, and I was just trying to "get it done".

[Jairus]

[Monty]

I was a Mustang freak when Monogram first released the Boss 429. I remember wondering who @ Monogram actually approved the box art with the "goldfish-eyes" headlight treatment. Luckily I had tons of Mustang magazines around for references, so mine didn't look nearly as childish.

As you mentioned, this cover shot has resulted in numereous imitators, all because they assume he got it correct. I guess I just assumed that even the average builder did a little research on the subject at hand before starting on it.

It's funny that you posted this when you did; I'd been considering this subject for the Rants-n-Raves section.

Thanks for your help in spreading the word!

[Jairus]

Monty, feel free to post some of your views, pictures and ideas about building Mustang models!

[Monty]

Monty, feel free to post some of your views, pictures and ideas about building Mustang models!

Oh, if only I weren't such a Luddite. Sometimes I think I'm the only person on the planet without a digital camera. Pics? I have none. Views? I have plenty :wink:

One thing I really miss is Testors' original Ford Engine blue (#2727), which was darker than their current iteration (Ford/GM engine blue).

It was the closest match I'd seen to the shade on my dad's 390s and my Mustang's 351C.

[Guest roadkill2525]

Thank you for this, I've been thinking of starting my Boss 429 soon and this will help. Thanks again.

[Jairus]

Monty, My 351C had so much of the original paint knocked and burned off I thought it's natural color was cast iron and rust...

Seriously though, take a blue you think is close and add a drop of black. Simple!

Most of the time, after you put on a black wash, the color gets darkened so much that it looks right anyway. Also something to remember, Ford would use whatever blue paint they managed to find at cost. If one supplier raised the price too high then purchasing would find another source that was close enough. Sometimes during one models production! I would not worry about a "Correct" blue... or even a correct firing order. Just make it LOOK like it's correct and the viewer will thing it's correct. It's all an illusion after all!

[JAFFA]

This is really good to know, and actually a good thing to be mindful of in the future.

[Zoom Zoom]

I say the lie continues even if it's painted correctly. Seeing visual proof here I'm disappointed how poorly Monogram rendered the headlight surrounds, corner vent cap and grille height/angle on the '70 regardless of how they finished the boxart models. They really missed the subtleties on this one, there's too much real estate around the headlamps and it looks awful compared to photos of the real car. While this isn't quite as bad as the Revell '69 Mustang fascia that is so bad that it makes my eyes bleed, now that I'm seeing model pics w/photos of the 1:1 '70, I'm particularly disappointed all over again. I guess the original AMT annual '69 and '70 Mustangs are the only way to go if one wants accurate lines, and thankfully Missing Link makes them in resin. I can fix improper ride height and a lot of things, but inaccurate fascias like these Mustangs would be nearly impossible to get right w/o a lot of very tricky resculpting. I really hate it when a model car has the wrong face :roll:

Monogram models seem to be good basic kits, easy to build, certainly satisfied many builders when they came out but they often seemed to miss out on some of the subtle design details on many of their muscle cars :roll:

[mikelo]

I totally agree with the painting (or lack of) of details such as this. I am a fan of Mopars and they use a lot of argent in places people use chrome. It really makes a big difference when little things like these are depicted accuratly. I do have a question though, were all the 70 model mustangs trim pieces painted this way? I ask only because there is a 70 notch back that I drive by very often (original like condition, but not restored) along with others I have seen on the road, and a lot of the time they look like shiney aluminum. It might just be the paint wears off of these pieces easily. Here is pic (again, not that it is original- and not really what I am talking about. but same idea.) I think that helps perpetuates the lie.

[Abell82]

Just wanted to point out, that Revell did FINALLY get it right, with the Motor city version:

And that many Diecast companies also get this detail wrong.

[Harry P.]

What have we learned, boys and girls?

Never trust the picture on the box. With all the info instantly available to us via an image search, there's no excuse not to take that simple step.

[Olle F]

What have we learned, boys and girls?

Never trust the picture on the box. With all the info instantly available to us via an image search, there's no excuse not to take that simple step.

That's true. Now when we have Internet, it's easy to find references. I usually go to eBay and sort them by price, hoping that the high end restorations will be correct. They usually have a lot of detailed pictures too, like engine bays and interiors. Granted, all restored cars are not correct, but if you find a few cars that show the same details, you should be pretty safe. And if it still ain't right, who's gonna be able to tell? :wink:

[MrObsessive]

I can fix improper ride height and a lot of things, but inaccurate fascias like these Mustangs would be nearly impossible to get right w/o a lot of very tricky resculpting. I really hate it when a model car has the wrong face :roll:

I agree 100% Bob!

Nothing drives me crazier than inaccurate grille shapes or even worse, inaccurate roof lines...........witness RC2's 1958 Plymouth Belvedere's wrong roof contours, or Trumpeter's '60 Pontiac 2 door hardtop debacle. :x

I think that also gives a model the wrong "face". :wink:

Like you I can fix the stance of a model------ but I shouldn't have to reshape whole roof contours or side trim, when there's so many references out there for the kit makers to get them right in the beginning!

[Zoom Zoom]

I agree 100% Bob!

Nothing drives me crazier than inaccurate grille shapes or even worse, inaccurate roof lines...........witness RC2's 1958 Plymouth Belvedere's wrong roof contours, or Trumpeter's '60 Pontiac 2 door hardtop debacle. :x

I think that also gives a model the wrong "face". :wink:

Like you I can fix the stance of a model------ but I shouldn't have to reshape whole roof contours or side trim, when there's so many references out there for the kit makers to get them right in the beginning!

Agreed. In one of those "if I worked at the model company" moments I would like to think the model companies would be trying extra hard these days to sweat the details, because we are picky buyers and don't want to pay more than necessary to buy a kit or have to fix inaccuracies that are better left for the kit/tooling engineers vs. making us fix them. Especially when it's a detail that isn't compromised by a production/tooling issue, it's only because someone somewhere wasn't doing their homework. I'm not one of the apologists, I tell it like it is from my perspective as a model fanatic and product designer. I think it's crazy for a company to put out a model these days that doesn't look right.

[Zoom Zoom]

I agree, and I am by no means making excuses for the companies that get 'em wrong, but I'm wondering if perhaps the reason this seems to happen so often these days is that model companies don't have the same access to factory blueprints that they did back when they were making kits of cars like the '70 Mustang when they were new.

Just a theory ...

I don't want to seem too cynical :wink: but I don't think that's the problem; blueprints are/were someone's drawing and photographs tell you exactly how something looks (a good photographer knows how to put scale props into a photo for measurements). Regardless, I think what we see is someone's interpretation of what something looks like, and nobody critiqued/corrected the details properly somewhere along the line due to whatever reason (such as slowing down the project). Could be the kit designer drew it wrong, could be the first modelmaker/pattern maker got it wrong, could be the tooling department took some liberties and along the way that weren't fixed, whatever the case may be.

I can easily see that the '70 Mustang headlight should have nothing above it visually but the chrome surround strip, yet the model has what looks to be nearly 1/16" of bezel above the lamp not including the grille's surround trim. That surround trim and the resulting chrome strip on the leading edge of the hood look roughly 1/16" too high (making the entire grille too tall by the same amount), the character line wrapping from the side of the body shouldn't go uphill to meet the surround trim above the two corner vents; they should be parallel to the ground and the character line above it should also be parallel to the ground-yet someone made it go uphill. Someone took artistic license with the design of the model, and it shows. Perhaps it was the same person who made the '69 Mustang grille too tall, and the resulting centering of the inner lamp is higher than the center of the main headlamp, giving that car the "droopy eyes" look that pretty much ruins it for me.

I do remember when two companies made the same car, the '94 Mustang. AMT claimed to make their kit from factory blueprints (or "tapes") provided by Ford. Monogram made theirs their traditional way. To my eyes AMT did a much better job of making the car look "right". Both kits need a bit of tweaking, but AMT seemed to do a better job of making that car accurate looking, Monogram's has some issues. Historically AMT/MPC/Johan seemed to do a better job of proportion than Monogram. Monogram's Fox-era Mustangs have all had proportion issues, especially prior to the '99 Cobra.

And let's not forget the pending AAR Barracuda from Revell/Monogram. The test shot looked awful. They blew it in regards to the B pillar and rear fender. If they don't fix those issues, they're going to get blasted again for a second time on that poor model. There is no excuse when it can be fixed! How it got to that point is beyond me, there must have been some pattern or model along the way, at least I would hope...or were they pinching pennies and skipping steps and hoping that it would be okay??

Back to the subject at hand (since this thread has been thoroughly hijacked from it's roots :wink: ); how many of Monogram's excellent '59 Cadillacs have been built with properly-painted headlight bezels? The kit was designed w/part of the body-color headlight bezel on the chrome tree instead of being part of the body. It would be tricky to mask/spray body color behind the headlight surround. But it can be done. The boxart illustration of the CV shows it painted, but the boxart model has them chrome. 99% of the ones I've seen built are also chrome. Bugs me to no end

[Olle F]

how many of Monogram's excellent '59 Cadillacs have been built with properly-painted headlight bezels? The kit was designed w/part of the body-color headlight bezel on the chrome tree instead of being part of the body. It would be tricky to mask/spray body color behind the headlight surround. But it can be done. The boxart illustration of the CV shows it painted, but the boxart model has them chrome. 99% of the ones I've seen built are also chrome. Bugs me to no end

Kinda the same thing as on AMT's '57 Chrysler 300C. The bezels should be painted, with chrome trim around the perimeter. Most of the models I have seen have had all-chrome bezels. Makes me want to call the police. :mrgreen:

[62rebel]

when i was working on mustangs and cougars i was astounded especially by the poor factory fit on the cougar hood, fenders, and grilles. you could spend all day getting the left corner to line up while the right would be way out, and the center of the hood never lined up. any cougar that has perfect alignment all the way across has had MAJOR time spent setting shims and body washers. my mother's 81 buick actually had thirteen (!) body washers on the right front fender inside the door jamb area and six on the driver's side. so today i don't bother as long as the hood doesn't bind and chip the paint.

[Pete J.]

Ah, shapes and sizes. One of my favorite subjects. When companies create models using only the manufacturers spec's, they rarely look right. In Mr. Tamiya's book, he pointed out why. We view models from a completely differant perspective than we view the actual cars. Therefore the eye's perception is thrown off. If you check the dimementions of a kit that "looks" right you will find it wider and flater than the real thing. That is because we view our models from above and the real deal from about level. We percieve the real thing as being wider than it actually is. All model companies try to get the look right. IF you shoot a photo of a model at a low angle, more like a "street" view, it will often look out of proportion, because it is.

[62rebel]

perception and proportion are key to any artistic exercise, be it a model, a painting, or a sculpture (isn't a model sculpture, anyway?) and having the talent and ability to make a box of parts look REAL when put together is a gift. architectural models, built by designers and engineers, never LOOK "right"; perhaps because they MUST adhere to strict dimensions and forgo scale proportioning. our childhood favorites; Matchbox cars, were held to fine tolerances early on. when the competition started up, the quality went down, and late Matchbox were never up to the standard of the early ones. it's true of model kits also; scale fidelity was KEY in the 50's and 60's but by the 70's was a sidebar to quantity of units sold. most kits from the '70's have abominable chassis and engine detail, and often poor body proportions. at least the remaining makers have been retooling some of the really junk kits over again.

[Olle F]

perception and proportion are key to any artistic exercise

I suspect that models like Monogram's '57 Bel Air and the "Rampage" '69 Camaro are just artistic interpretations of the real thing. :wink:

[Abell82]

I suspect that models like Monogram's '57 Bel Air and the "Rampage" '69 Camaro are just artistic interpretations of the real thing. :wink:

IF you are insinuating that Monogram's "artistic exercise" ie: the Rampage" '69 Camaro is bad,

then them is fighting words BUB!! :evil:

[Modelmartin]

Nobody mentioned how the hood on this kit needs more of a point to it when looking down on it. I added some evergreen plastic to the nose of it and reshaped it and it was 100% better. In fact it kicked @ss after that was changed. Also the battery box is way too shallow! Laugh , but when you are running the fresh air intake hose through it to make a Parnelli Trans-Am car you notice such things. 8)