AMT Fred Lorenzen '65 Ford Galaxie 500XL

[Deano]

I was going to say the same exact thing. The message is filled with typos and grammar/punctuation mistakes (more than 9, BTW). Not the best way to be taken seriously...

Yeah, that was a quick gloss-over reading; I'm not in a mood to proof read. My usual practice when writing posts of that sort (which I've been breaking all too often of late) is to write the post, read it, delete it and write it again. Repeat until the post is not likely to cause undue offense. I should get back into that practice.

[Harry P.]

Yeah, that was a quick gloss-over reading; I'm not in a mood to proof read. My usual practice when writing posts of that sort (which I've been breaking all too often of late) is to write the post, read it, delete it and write it again. Repeat until the post is not likely to cause undue offense. I should get back into that practice.

When I said "not the best way to be taken seriously," I was referring to the email sent to AMT... not to your post. I was agreeing with you!

[1930fordpickup]

Harry if a letter is "filled with typos and grammar/punctuation mistakes" must the complaint not be true?

Not everyone ( myself included ) is a writer nor an english major.

Maybe a better letter could have been written , like a nice hallmark card included thanking them for the ill fitting subject and incorrect window for the last 40 years .

[Harry P.]

I'm just saying that if one wants to be taken seriously by them, the message shouldn't be filled with so many obvious mistakes. You don't need to be an English major.

[1930fordpickup]

I understand your point Harry .

[tim boyd]

This thing is a mess. The glass doesnt fit at all, there is sometthing wrong with the way the interior tub fits over the back glass, so you thave to cut the tops of the rear wheel tubs off to get the chassis to fit. I remember this kit from back in the day not being so difficult, hmmm... any thoughts?

Has anyone else built this reissue and had similar problems?

I just did a mock-up of this reissue (body, interior, IP, trunk insert, glass insert, and chassis) and I didn't see any of the above problems, other than that Round 2 for some reason added some tabs off the clear rear backlight casting that would be correct for a promo version, but clearly are VERY incorrect for this kit which includes an opening trunk.

Two minutes with a razor saw should remove the tabs - although, this would be just about impossible to do if you were in the final assembly stage and only discovered the problem there.

I have updated my kit preview to reflect this issue and credited Cooltoys1 for the heads-up: http://public.fotki.com/funman1712/first-look-at-all-n/new-round-2-amt-65-/new-round-2-amt-65-/dsc-1000.html

In the meantime, anyone else who has built this reissue, please weigh in here with your experience. Did you see similar problems? Because doing a quick mockup as I did just a few minutes ago, can not substitute for actually building and finishing the kit itself.

TIM

Edited July 1, 2014 by tim boyd

[Deano]

When I said "not the best way to be taken seriously," I was referring to the email sent to AMT... not to your post. I was agreeing with you!

I absolutely understood what you wrote, I was just clarifying that it didn't take a deep reading to find mistakes. I was agreeing with you!

[Brett Barrow]

As someone who receives similar correspondence on a daily basis, I agree with Harry and Deano 100%.

Reminds me of the gentleman who waited 3 months to complain about our lack of timely correspondence during his order. We sent an instant confirmation email upon receipt of the order, and a tracking # email the instant the shipping label was printed. I guess he wasn't too upset if he waited 3 months to tell us...

Or the gentleman who proceeded to tell us that we made a mistake when we described a product as "F4D Skyray" that he was an Air Force veteran and worked on those panes and that we didn't know a blankety-blank thing about fighter jets, that the plane was called a " Phantom" and that the proper nomenclature was "F-4D", all the while failing to realize that there is such a thing as an F4D Skyray, an earlier jet used only by the Navy. But yeah, it was we who didn't know a blankety-blank thing about fighter jets...

[Brett Barrow]

Has anyone else built this reissue and had similar problems?

I just did a mock-up of this reissue (body, interior, IP, trunk insert, glass insert, and chassis) and I didn't see any of the above problems, other than that Round 2 for some reason added some tabs off the clear rear backlight casting that would be correct for a promo version, but clearly are VERY incorrect for this kit which includes an opening trunk.

Two minutes with a razor saw should remove the tabs - although, this would be just about impossible to do if you were in the final assembly stage and only discovered the problem there.

I have updated my kit preview to reflect this issue and credited Cooltoys1 for the heads-up: http://public.fotki.com/funman1712/first-look-at-all-n/new-round-2-amt-65-/new-round-2-amt-65-/dsc-1000.html

In the meantime, anyone else who has built this reissue, please weigh in here with your experience. Did you see similar problems? Because doing a quick mockup as I did just a few minutes ago, can not substitute for actually building and finishing the kit itself.

TIM

I don't have the 65, but I can tell you I've read several online "reviews" about how poor the hood on the 36 Ford is to the various cowls, but mine fits fine. But it's on the internet, so it must be true, right?!?!

[Deano]

I don't have the 65, but I can tell you I've read several online "reviews" about how poor the hood on the 36 Ford is to the various cowls, but mine fits fine. But it's on the internet, so it must be true, right?!?!

They can't put it on the Internet if it's not true.

[Danno]

Wake up, AMY !!!!!

[Brett Barrow]

Wake up, AMY !!!!!

Even funnier because there is actually an Amy at Round2, Amy Curl.

[impcon]

I can see where this thread is going no where and I suggest, maybe it should be locked or deleted. With all due respect, if some of us would put as much effort into complaining to the manufacturers as opposed to criticizing some typos, maybe we would have a better chance of seeing the changes in kit quality and accuracy that we would like to see. To all offended and concerned - and again, I say this with all due respect and not in anger ( Disappointment??? Well, maybe a little.. ) I apologize for my spelling errors. As to the tone of my letter - I just told it like I see it and if anyone is offended - then, oh well..... Correct me if I am wrong, but IMHO, I said nothing untrue and what was stated was as I clearly pointed out, based on my opinions ONLY.

I did not set out to rain on anyone's parade - or to insult anyone.

Now - can we please get back to discussing models and not spelling, punctuation and gramme? I will likely get suspended for this post - or at least get my wrists slapped, but I thought that this "hobby" was about styrene and not spelling. Again, I say what I say with all due respect, but c'mon guys, we are all supposed to be adults - not grade school children. And not all of us here are college graduates with majors in English or spelling. I've seen far worse mistakes on the threads and no one seemed to notice. Ooops! Did I say that?

[Harry P.]

I will likely get suspended for this post - or at least get my wrists slapped...

Why would you? You didn't say anything out of line or break any forum rules. Your post is perfectly fine; I don't see any problem at all.

Even funnier because there is actually an Amy at Round2, Amy Curl.

Oh. ok... NOW I get that comment!

[tim boyd]

Impcon...I do agree with you that some of Round 2's reissues have fallen short in terms of quality, parts omissions, flash, assembly errors, etc.

But I was under the impression that the Galaxie 500 reissue was actually one of the best and most comprehensive reissues that they have done to date.

That's why it would be really great if some others who have actually assembled this reissue would weigh in here with their experiences.

Best regards...TIM

Edited July 1, 2014 by tim boyd

[johnbuzzed]

Impcon...I do agree with you that some of Round 2's reissues have fallen short in terms of quality, parts omissions, flash, assembly errors, etc.

But I was under the impression that the Galaxie 500 reissue was actually one of the best and most comprehensive reissues that they have done to date.

That's why it would be really great if some others who have actually assembled this reissue would weigh in here with their experiences.

Best regards...TIM

Tim's got a very good point. So does Harry. If you choose to write to a corporation (or any person or business) and wish to be taken seriously, you should, at the very least, use the spell check and grammar tools that are standard with just about any word processing software. Or, proofread your text before you hit "send". There is no requirement to be a Rhoads scholar, but at least get the name of the company correct... AMY?

[ChrisBcritter]

I just did a mock-up of this reissue (body, interior, IP, trunk insert, glass insert, and chassis) and I didn't see any of the above problems, other than that Round 2 for some reason added some tabs off the clear rear backlight casting that would be correct for a promo version, but clearly are VERY incorrect for this kit which includes an opening trunk.

Sounds like they used the mold for the '65 promo glass by mistake - wonder if the rest of its molds might be around? Definitely good news if you have a promo with bad glass.

Edit: Except for the lack of front tabs.

Never mind.

Edited July 1, 2014 by ChrisBcritter

[MrObsessive]

Tim's got a very good point. So does Harry. If you choose to write to a corporation (or any person or business) and wish to be taken seriously, you should, at the very least, use the spell check and grammar tools that are standard with just about any word processing software. Or, proofread your text before you hit "send". There is no requirement to be a Rhoads scholar, but at least get the name of the company correct... AMY?

I don't want to stir up a hornet's nest, but there are some posts that to me are unreadable due to either bad grammar/spelling, or "crowding" of the text. In other words, one long drawn out paragraph will get the no-go from me as far as reading it in a heartbeat.

I have to wonder however if folks even know what that means when they see a word underlined when they are typing. It's put on the board by default, so one has to actively uncheck the box to turn this function off.

Just sayin'...........

[Danno]

There is no requirement to be a Rhoads scholar, but at least get the name of the company correct... AMY?

Or a Rhodes scholar.

[1972coronet]

Wasn't there a reissue of this kit back in c.1987 as well ? It was moulded in orange (more of a tomatoe red , actually) , and , to the best of my recollection , it differed in respect to :

- The aforementioned headers (chrome tree)

- decklid moulded-shut

- L60-15 Polyglas tyres

- 'Thunderbolt' teardrop hood

Perhaps I'm thinking of a different model year ? I just remember buying the orange one --it , too , was a 3-in-1-- back in Spring 1987 (and it didn't survive the 1987 Whittier Earthquake) .

[tim boyd]

Wasn't there a reissue of this kit back in c.1987 as well ? It was moulded in orange (more of a tomatoe red , actually) , and , to the best of my recollection , it differed in respect to :

- The aforementioned headers (chrome tree)

- decklid moulded-shut

- L60-15 Polyglas tyres

- 'Thunderbolt' teardrop hood

Perhaps I'm thinking of a different model year ? I just remember buying the orange one --it , too , was a 3-in-1-- back in Spring 1987 (and it didn't survive the 1987 Whittier Earthquake) .

John....I don't recall that one specifically, but I did check it against the 1990's Ertl release (with the brown car on the box art). If I get a chance, I'll try to check it against some other issues....I did look at the

'66 kit and it was an entirely different unit.....TB

[Mark]

Wasn't there a reissue of this kit back in c.1987 as well ? It was moulded in orange (more of a tomatoe red , actually) , and , to the best of my recollection , it differed in respect to :

- The aforementioned headers (chrome tree)

- decklid moulded-shut

- L60-15 Polyglas tyres

- 'Thunderbolt' teardrop hood

Perhaps I'm thinking of a different model year ? I just remember buying the orange one --it , too , was a 3-in-1-- back in Spring 1987 (and it didn't survive the 1987 Whittier Earthquake) .

That's the 66.

[1972coronet]

Thanks , Tim and Mark . I just remembered it as being a mid-60's Ford Galaxie .

[johnbuzzed]

Or a Rhodes scholar.

D'oh! Clearly, it is very kwite obveeus that I is not a Roads skolar

[johnbuzzed]

Sounds like they used the mold for the '65 promo glass by mistake - wonder if the rest of its molds might be around? Definitely good news if you have a promo with bad glass.

Edit: Except for the lack of front tabs.

Never mind.

LOL!!!!!