Revell 58 corvette

[blubaja]

Ok fair. I had opened the kit, looked through all of the parts to see what was what, if parts were there, and if so, if any were malformed. If I had found anymore flaws, I would have posted about those as well. If revell also had some one in their employ that would also find kits' flaws before they go out the door, this thread would have probably never came to be from myself.

Edited May 26, 2014 by blubaja

[Guest]

Name me a kit without flaws.

[unclescott58]

OK, despite all the complaining, like Revell's new '70 'Cuda and their '90 Mustang LX, I'll be buying this kit. The complaints I hear on these are minor to me. I love the 'Cuda and Mustang I've already purchased. And I've seen one or two '58 Corvettes built up. From what I've seen, I want one. It looks good to me. Looks a lot better than Revell or AMT's '59/'60 Corvettes tooled up back in the 1960's. And yet I've built those too and was happy. Very little is perfect. And that's OK in most cases for me.

Scott

Edited May 26, 2014 by unclescott58

[High octane]

I guess you didn't read the part where I said "modelers" Frank, as I didn't say "reviewers." It has been known for a long time that the reviewers don't pay for the kits. I was talking about the "core"(buyers) of the industry, not the chosen few who gets free kits to build, and of course they're not going to "dis" the kit in their review. Many kits from all manufacturers have flaws, and I take them with a grain of salt because I build model kits for the enjoyment, just like I did back in the 50's. If I wanted to count rivets, I'd go to the hardware store and buy a box and make sure that I didn't get shortchanged.

[Spooky Benson]

Revell's '58 and '59 Corvette kits are top-notch all the way ... in fact, I feel comfortable saying that when it comes to Gen 1 Corvette kits, those two are at the head of the class. It is also worth noting those kits were tooled in the late '90s, when Revell was owned by a deep-pocketed parent company (Hallmark) and when its level of quality from one kit to the next was much more consistent than it has become today.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Spooky Benson

[Spooky Benson]

Does Revell spend enough on model car magazine advertising to exert that kind of editorial influence? The various web sites seem to allow very "frank" reviews of ALL the manufacturers.

Not interested in starting a debate..just curious.

Revell exerts quite a bit of influence over the model car publications through advertising and by providing sample models for review.

[blubaja]

I guess you didn't read the part where I said "modelers" Frank, as I didn't say "reviewers." It has been known for a long time that the reviewers don't pay for the kits. I was talking about the "core"(buyers) of the industry, not the chosen few who gets free kits to build, and of course they're not going to "dis" the kit in their review. Many kits from all manufacturers have flaws, and I take them with a grain of salt because I build model kits for the enjoyment, just like I did back in the 50's. If I wanted to count rivets, I'd go to the hardware store and buy a box and make sure that I didn't get shortchanged.

You're right. I missed that.

But still, what is the issue you have with anyone, who do pay for the kits, finding flaws and commenting about them? I would LOVE to know both sides of the review. Knowing negative aspects about a kit certainly has its value. And sure, you can call me out for always finding kits flaws.

There is a huge difference between rivet counting and stating things that are blatantly obviously wrong about a kit.

And actually about this 58 vette. Buy this kit! It is definitely a nice, well detailed kit.

[blubaja]

Revell's '58 and '59 Corvette kits are top-notch all the way ... in fact, I feel comfortable saying that when it comes to Gen 1 Corvette kits, those two are at the head of the class. It is also worth noting those kits were tooled in the late '90s, when Revell was owned by a deep-pocketed parent company (Hallmark) and when its level of quality from one kit to the next was much more consistent than it has become today.

Yes. Aside from the horrible box construction, Binney and Smith seemingly did a much better job than Hobbico is doing currently.

[MrObsessive]

Revell's '58 and '59 Corvette kits are top-notch all the way ... in fact, I feel comfortable saying that when it comes to Gen 1 Corvette kits, those two are at the head of the class. It is also worth noting those kits were tooled in the late '90s, when Revell was owned by a deep-pocketed parent company (Hallmark) and when its level of quality from one kit to the next was much more consistent than it has become today.

I totally agree! I do plan on buying another one when they come out--------I have one I haven't touched yet, but this kit is so nice, a second '58 kit wouldn't hurt!

Edit: I want to add that a lack of a hardtop won't be a deterrent for me. I have a number of junk MPC/AMT hardtops that I could make fit the Revell body, so that's no biggie IMO.

Edited May 26, 2014 by MrObsessive

[Spooky Benson]

Yes. Aside from the horrible box construction, Binney and Smith seemingly did a much better job than Hobbico is doing currently.

There were cost-cutting measures aside from the doughnut boxes that weren't so great, either ... the horrendous decal quality and the unprotected chrome and clear parts are a couple that come to mind ...

[Spooky Benson]

I totally agree! I do plan on buying another one when they come out--------I have one I haven't touched yet, but this kit is so nice, a second '58 kit wouldn't hurt!

I plan to get one of the '58s to kitbash with the '62 gasser.

[Spooky Benson]

There is a huge difference between rivet counting and stating things that are blatantly obviously wrong about a kit.

Generally speaking, when someone plays the "rivet-counter" card against you, it means you've won the agument.

[martinfan5]

You're right. I missed that.

But still, what is the issue you have with anyone, who do pay for the kits, finding flaws and commenting about them? I would LOVE to know both sides of the review. Knowing negative aspects about a kit certainly has its value. And sure, you can call me out for always finding kits flaws.

There is a huge difference between rivet counting and stating things that are blatantly obviously wrong about a kit.

And actually about this 58 vette. Buy this kit! It is definitely a nice, well detailed kit.

There is noting wrong with stating facts about kits, both good and bad, as long as it stays as factual or opinion based and doesnt cross over to the bashing or thrashing side , and there are a lot of people that like to know the good and bad about kits before they buy them, lets be honest, what is the point of a kit review if you are just going to blow smoke up peoples rear end and never talk about any flaws a kit a may have.

[Spooky Benson]

There is noting wrong with stating facts about kits, both good and bad, as long as it stays as factual or opinion based and doesnt cross over to the bashing or thrashing side , and there are a lot of people that like to know the good and bad about kits before they buy them, lets be honest, what is the point of a kit review if you are just going to blow smoke up peoples rear end and never talk about any flaws a kit a may have.

What I have always found odd is how so many people take it as a personal affront when someone else points out the flaws in a model kit, almost as if the person leveling the criticism was insulting something in which they were personally involved. Weird.

And the thing is, there's absolutely nothing wrong with liking a kit in spite of its flaws. Meng's F-350 has a number of them and it's still an excellent model. But, that doesn't mean those flaws shouldn't be pointed out.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Spooky Benson

[martinfan5]

What I have always found odd is how so many people take it as a personal affront when someone else points out the flaws in a model kit, almost as if the person leveling the criticism was insulting something in which they were personally involved. Weird.

And the thing is, there's absolutely nothing wrong with liking a kit in spite of its flaws. Meng's F-350 has a number of them and it's still an excellent model. But, that doesn't mean those flaws shouldn't be pointed out.

You are right , the F350 kit does have it's fair share of issues and flaws, but it really is a very nice kit once you get past those issues, but what I find very interesting is that no one got butthurt when the flaws and issues were pointed out, it seems the only time people get upset over pointing out flaws is when its a Revell kit.............................

[Spooky Benson]

You are right , the F350 kit does have it's fair share of issues and flaws, but it really is a very nice kit once you get past those issues, but what I find very interesting is that no one got butthurt when the flaws and issues were pointed out, it seems the only time people get upset over pointing out flaws is when its a Revell kit.............................

Revell does receive a lot of criticism, perhaps more than its share. But, most of it is well-earned.

[martinfan5]

Revell does receive a lot of criticism, perhaps more than its share. But, most of it is well-earned.

That could very well explain why people get upset.

[Rob Hall]

That could very well explain why people get upset.

Some people can't handle the truth.

[fumi]

There were cost-cutting measures aside from the doughnut boxes that weren't so great, either ... the horrendous decal quality and the unprotected chrome and clear parts are a couple that come to mind ...

The clear and chrome parts were never bagged before they moved production to China. Back then they stuffed every sprue into one single flimsy plastic bag. Clear, chrome and all. Scratch was guaranteed.

IIRC they stopped doing that around the early 90's. Clear and chrome sprues were still unbagged, but are packaged outside the big bag of sprues. They also started using stronger bags.

When production moved to China the clear and chrome parts started getting bagged as well.

[horsepower]

I live here too..

I attempted to make a joke and failed..

it seems odd to make a statement about something you can't clearly see on your phone withoout mentioning why you couldn't tell it was a '58.

But I am sorry,I meant no offense.

[Spooky Benson]

The clear and chrome parts were never bagged before they moved production to China. Back then they stuffed every sprue into one single flimsy plastic bag. Clear, chrome and all. Scratch was guaranteed.

IIRC they stopped doing that around the early 90's. Clear and chrome sprues were still unbagged, but are packaged outside the big bag of sprues. They also started using stronger bags.

When production moved to China the clear and chrome parts started getting bagged as well.

My point exactly ... the decals got better, too, and today are as good as anyone's.

The cost-containment measures employes by Revell were obviously intended to enable it to continue running kits in the U.S. while keeping its pricing competitive. But, in the end, it didn't work out that way, of course.

I see Revell outsourcing its production to China as a bit of a mixed bag for modelers. On one hand, it enabled Revell to do away with some of the things we hated, i.e. the doughnut boxes, crummy decals and unprotected chrome and clear parts. And, kit prices have remained relatively stable. However, many of Revell's kit now are plagued with issues stemming from company execs trying to call the shots on projects from half a world away, and Chinese craftsman trying to produce replicas of vehicles they've never seen in their lives.

Are we better off now than we were then? Tough to say ...

Edited May 27, 2014 by Spooky Benson

[Danno]

Some people can't handle the truth.

So true.

[horsepower]

I live here too..

I attempted to make a joke and failed..

it seems odd to make a statement about something you can't clearly see on your phone withoout mentioning why you couldn't tell it was a '58.

But I am sorry,I meant no offense.

I tried to get back to you yesterday but my tablet wouldn't let me post anything but emoticons. The reason I was using my phone was I was out of town on business. I apologize for ass-u-me,ing that it was an attack on my person, I really should have known better. Just to make it easier on us dummies when you mean something to be satirical, or a joke add an appropriate emoticon,or a simple lol then there's no question it's meant in jest. Don't feel bad I was piled on like a slow NFL running back for the same thing on the dirt oval forums, that's why I should have known better. Like I said it has never happened on this forum before, & actually hasn't yet. Hope all is well now. Peace out

[johnbuzzed]

Name me a kit without flaws.

I don't think that can be done.

BUT- today's world of car modeling, I think that Revell is quite aware that there are so many "serious" car modelers, those of us who might be as particular as we perceive many military modelers to be. I wonder why Revell overlooks or ignores or disregards such things as an incorrect greenhouse height (the Mustang top flop) and an incorrect, but quite prominent, front axle for a replica of a well-known street rod (the roasted green '32). Especially when there is a LOT of research material available as well as the opportunity to actually see the REAL THING live and in-person. I can more easily accept problems on instruction sheets than errors that indicate lack of of 100% commitment.

"Quality control" does not mean don't let quality get out of hand.

Edited May 27, 2014 by johnbuzzed

[horsepower]

Eevidently the "flawless kits" come from Modelhaus.. ;-)