Revell 58 corvette

[blubaja]

I don't think I'e ever said there was a kit without flaws. The megs kit has some mold lines all over the cab. These are easily removable in spots that do not affect any details.

There are flaws in every kit. So when i point them out, no matter what the brand is, feel free to be offended or not. Or just be like anyone else and see them as factual accounts.

This was never an attack on anyone. However, if you are a Manufacturer, maybe it is time for some new eyes/kit-1:1 subject fact checker/quality control on all levels worker.

[niteowl7710]

[Luc Janssens]

All this negativity here, for what...a goof in the instruction sheet?!

[Harry P.]

Actually a lot of the comments here are aimed at the people who pointed out the errors, chastising them for doing so. It happens every time someone points out a problem, flaw, or mistake in a kit. Certain others will inevitably jump in to remind us that there's no such thing as a perfect kit, that the people who pointed out the problem are "rivet counters" or otherwise cranky, whiny complainers, etc. Look back at any thread that revolves around a particular kit's flaws and you'll see the same "no kit is perfect" type of posts over and over again.

The problem is, pointing out a kit's flaws does not mean that the person doing so expects perfection.

Some people just have a problem when other people point out a kit's flaws. It's weird, but they seem to take it as some sort of personal attack.

I don't get it.

[Brett Barrow]

As long as the subject stays on the 58 Corvette, that's fine, but so far, other than the instruction gaff, no one has been critical of this kit, just Revell in general. I think that's what gets most folks (me, for one) riled up, bringing up the #@$#%^ Mustang roof in EVERY thread about Revell kits... In the 4 pages of this thread so far, there has been very little critical content relevant to the 58 Vette or its 59 sibling.

Start a "Revell Rants" section, so that everyone can go there and vent about Revell's general shortcomings instead of clogging up threads about unrelated kits.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Brett Barrow

[mrknowetall]

As long as the subject stays on the 58 Corvette, that's fine, but so far, other than the instruction gaff, no one has been critical of this kit, just Revell in general. I think that's what gets most folks (me, for one) riled up, bringing up the #@$#%^ Mustang roof in EVERY thread about Revell kits... In the 4 pages of this thread so far, there has been very little critical content relevant to the 58 Vette or its 59 sibling.

Start a "Revell Rants" section, so that everyone can go there and vent about Revell's general shortcomings instead of clogging up threads about unrelated kits.

Amen.

[Harry P.]

Start a "Revell Rants" section, so that everyone can go there and vent about Revell's general shortcomings instead of clogging up threads about unrelated kits.

I agree with you that people should stick strictly with the topic at hand and not branch off into semi-related tangents. But human nature being what it is, that's probably asking for the impossible.

[mnwildpunk]

I don't mind when people point out kit flaws I understand there are modelers out there that are More detailed orientated then I am if I can build a kit where 90% of the folks who look at it won't see such flaws. But that is just me. The thing I don't like but on a forum you can't avoid is several pages of complaining about the same flaw then the several pages defending kit maker. But it is unavoidable like taxes. I just skip over those posts most the time but sometimes it can be quite entertaining lol

[Harry P.]

The thing I don't like but on a forum you can't avoid is several pages of complaining about the same flaw then the several pages defending kit maker. But it is unavoidable like taxes.

Exactly.

On any public forum, anyone who wants to chime in can do so, and it's inevitable that you're going to get several posts that are similar or repetitive, because there will always be forum members that have similar views. It's unavoidable.

The thing that bugs me is when someone jumps in and tells someone else that they have no right to post their opinion, or that their opinion isn't valid, because they're a "rivet counter" and "no kit is perfect" and "we're modelers, we can fix it" or whatever.

News flash: "Rivet counters" have the same right to post their opinions as non-rivet counters.

[johnbuzzed]

News flash: "Rivet counters" have the same right to post their opinions as non-rivet counters.

I agree, Harry.

Every manufacturer has their gems and rocks, and we, as consumers of those products, have the right to share accolades or complaints. This is a forum, which is a type of discussion, which means it can meander from one topic to another at any time, much as conversations do in real-life and real time.

But we all should have some faith and hope that all of the manufacturers do pay attention to the noises that we make, whether of glee or dismay, and take the appropriate actions with their products. Face it, we'll all keep buying, so we need to continue to voice our opinions. We might not all get exactly what we want, but we might all get what we need- more good stuff.

[Deano]

Whoever designed these instructions would have you believe the 58 Corvette is a 59. And no, the kit doesn't come with the hard top. Only the soft top.

Has pad printed whitewall tires, and decals for them also.

Ah, but I don't think it was the above post that rattled the hornet's nest but, rather, the post below. Was it really necessary to to opine that Revell is stupid and a "joke of a company"? Is that really a review of the kit in question? I didn't think so. Personally, I'd like to see a LOT more examples of "typical stupidity" before I accept that it is, indeed, typical.

Yes. But it's Revell. This is the typical stupidity that we have all come to accept now. They're just a joke of a company anymore.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Deano

[Spooky Benson]

Some people just have a problem when other people point out a kit's flaws. It's weird, but they seem to take it as some sort of personal attack.

I don't get it.

Me either ... which was I said pretty much the exact same thing earlier in the thread. Edited May 27, 2014 by Spooky Benson

[Harry P.]

Me either ... which was I said pretty much the exact same thing earlier in the thread.

Well, you know what they say about great minds...

[MrObsessive]

Like someone mentioned "there's no such thing as a perfect kit". That being said, I can point out at least a couple flaws with both the '58 and '59 releases-----and they have nothing to do with the lack of a hardtop, or its inclusion. Nevertheless, both of these kits are light years ahead of the hoary old tooling that Round 2 wants to keep giving us. As I mentioned before, I'll be buying the reissued '58 when it comes out--------I may or may not fix those "flaws" that I see when I get around to building it!

Like the '59 Impala that I'm working on, I indeed fixed the roof on that one as I simply hated the way it was shaped compared to the '60. No muss, no fuss, just jumped in and swapped roofs. Some don't mind that the original kit roof looks the way it does, and that's OK.

Everyone has their preferences as to what they want out of a kit------I focus on body lines and such. If something is waaaaaay out of kilter, I like the fact that someone points it out. I see that person as someone who has a good eye for detail, and likes for things to be right. It doesn't make the next person who may not care any less of a builder......he or she just chooses to build to their liking.

That's my 2¢ worth........for the moment!

[mnwildpunk]

Like someone mentioned "there's no such thing as a perfect kit". That being said, I can point out at least a couple flaws with both the '58 and '59 releases-----and they have nothing to do with the lack of a hardtop, or its inclusion. Nevertheless, both of these kits are light years ahead of the hoary old tooling that Round 2 wants to keep giving us. As I mentioned before, I'll be buying the reissued '58 when it comes out--------I may or may not fix those "flaws" that I see when I get around to building it!

Like the '59 Impala that I'm working on, I indeed fixed the roof on that one as I simply hated the way it was shaped compared to the '60. No muss, no fuss, just jumped in and swapped roofs. Some don't mind that the original kit roof looks the way it does, and that's OK.

Everyone has their preferences as to what they want out of a kit------I focus on body lines and such. If something is waaaaaay out of kilter, I like the fact that someone points it out. I see that person as someone who has a good eye for detail, and likes for things to be right. It doesn't make the next person who may not care any less of a builder......he or she just chooses to build to their liking.

That's my 2¢ worth........for the moment!

couldn't say it any beter in fact I tried and failed

[Guest]

Ah, but I don't think it was the above post that rattled the hornet's nest but, rather, the post below. Was it really necessary to to opine that Revell is stupid and a "joke of a company"? Is that really a review of the kit in question? I didn't think so. Personally, I'd like to see a LOT more examples of "typical stupidity" before I accept that it is, indeed, typical.

What he said.

[blubaja]

Personally, I'd like to see a LOT more examples of "typical stupidity" before I accept that it is, indeed, typical.

I'm sure this has been discussed in every thread about a revell product. And previously in this thread as well.

The lack of wheels shown in the instructions in the LX kit, among it's other issues.

The recent modified reissue of the police expedition: newly molded, completely wrong wheels for the year. The list goes on and on.

[martinfan5]

Personally, I'd like to see a LOT more examples of "typical stupidity" before I accept that it is, indeed, typical.

Revell has in the past 12 months released a Mustang with a chopped roof, a Cuda with proportional problems, had a run of bad chrome in EVERYTHING that came out of China, famously included 5 spoke Pony wheels on the instructions AND the DECALS FOR THEM, in the '90 LX kit that doesn't include said wheels. Made you buy a gasser kit to get a HT roof for the '62 Corvette, a NASCAR '57 Ford to get the missing Paxton Supercharger parts out of the 1st '57 Ford. How does the Benny Hill theme song not play in the background in Illinois on a continuous loop?

Then at NNL East proceeded to tell people that "no one" complained to them about any of that, because message forums don't matter to them. Then in possibly the most laugh worthy thing ever heard told someone here they could have made the Meng F-350 kit better than Meng did for half the price.

Excuse me while I BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! If they could have, why didn't they? Yeah that's what I thought. Get them F-350s while you can they're disappearing faster than people can stock them even at the LHS mark-ups. See that boat over there floating away in the breeze, once again like the concept of any of Moebius' car projects, or new Class 8 Tractors, Revell missed that one too.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

"Facts in the way of a rant", indeed. Let's not forget the pancaked '72 Olds, the taffy-pulled '69 Nova, the square-lipped '62 Impala, the half-baked Rat Roaster, and indeed the new '62 'Vette that withers a bit in the presence of this reissue of 16-year-old tooling. Or maybe we should forget 'em.

And Brett, if you don't fancy non-topical stuff, it'd be helpful if you didn't open the door for it by calling names. What was the point of your initial response if not to call Frank a hypocrite? Doesn't matter how clever or indirect you are, in the end, the first ad-hominem in this thread is yours, and it's bleeding-fresh bait for anyone who wants to support Frank's contention. As ever, it's at this point, always THIS EXACT POINT, that the discussion truly starts going off the rails. There's an inevitable and constantly repeated fact that needs to start getting in the way of some rants around here.

Anybody wants to see a more grown-up response, I refer you to post #5. THAT one was appropriate and perfectly symmetrical with what prompted it. Too bad that standard couldn't be maintained, but things will always go this way long as a good number of you refuse to realize that your inability to deal with anything less than rosy about kit manufacturers is your problem, and NOT that of ANY online forum.

[Spooky Benson]

"Facts in the way of a rant", indeed. Let's not forget the pancaked '72 Olds, the taffy-pulled '69 Nova, the square-lipped '62 Impala, the half-baked Rat Roaster, and indeed the new '62 'Vette that withers a bit in the presence of this reissue of 16-year-old tooling. Or maybe we should forget 'em.

And Brett, if you don't fancy non-topical stuff, it'd be helpful if you didn't open the door for it by calling names. What was the point of your initial response if not to call Frank a hypocrite? Doesn't matter how clever or indirect you are, in the end, the first ad-hominem in this thread is yours, and it's bleeding-fresh bait for anyone who wants to support Frank's contention. As ever, it's at this point, always THIS EXACT POINT, that the discussion truly starts going off the rails. There's an inevitable and constantly repeated fact that needs to start getting in the way of some rants around here.

Anybody wants to see a more grown-up response, I refer you to post #5. THAT one was appropriate and perfectly symmetrical with what prompted it. Too bad that standard couldn't be maintained, but things will always go this way long as a good number of you refuse to realize that your inability to deal with anything less than rosy about kit manufacturers is your problem, and NOT that of ANY online forum.

Does "Kourouklis" mean "carpenter" in Greek? 'Cause you totally NAILED it! Edited May 28, 2014 by Spooky Benson

[Chuck Kourouklis]

It's something to do with "bearer of salt" or "salt merchant", I think (and there are some who'd find that quite appropriate).

Thanks just the same.

You might find the link in my sig amusing, if you're not familiar with it already...

[martinfan5]

You might find the link in my sig amusing, if you're not familiar with it already...

I think he is Chuck

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Had a feeling.

[Brett Barrow]

"Facts in the way of a rant", indeed. Let's not forget the pancaked '72 Olds, the taffy-pulled '69 Nova, the square-lipped '62 Impala, the half-baked Rat Roaster, and indeed the new '62 'Vette that withers a bit in the presence of this reissue of 16-year-old tooling. Or maybe we should forget 'em.

And Brett, if you don't fancy non-topical stuff, it'd be helpful if you didn't open the door for it by calling names. What was the point of your initial response if not to call Frank a hypocrite? Doesn't matter how clever or indirect you are, in the end, the first ad-hominem in this thread is yours, and it's bleeding-fresh bait for anyone who wants to support Frank's contention. As ever, it's at this point, always THIS EXACT POINT, that the discussion truly starts going off the rails. There's an inevitable and constantly repeated fact that needs to start getting in the way of some rants around here.

Anybody wants to see a more grown-up response, I refer you to post #5. THAT one was appropriate and perfectly symmetrical with what prompted it. Too bad that standard couldn't be maintained, but things will always go this way long as a good number of you refuse to realize that your inability to deal with anything less than rosy about kit manufacturers is your problem, and NOT that of ANY online forum.

Sorry, but the thread went off the rails at "typical stupidity" and "joke of a company". That's when it went from being about Revell's 58 Vette to being about Revell. I thought others had chimed in by that point, too, so it wasn't necessarily directed at Frank (who I know personally and would consider a friend) but I knew they'd be along, it's the same cast of characters every time. To be honest I had planned to post a response about how part of my job is matching pictures to our website listings and that I screw up at least twice a week and I guess that's just my typical stupidity and my company is a joke for employing me, but in the end I went with the "some people..." response. It was lazy on my part.

Look, I don't have a problem when someone is pointing out the flaws in the kit being discussed, go ahead. It's just that it turns into a game of "well, we've got nothing on this one except the instruction sheet, so let's bring up the Mustang roof one more time..." We're 5 pages into this thread and maybe 1 page is relevant to the 58 and 59 Corvette kits.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Brett Barrow

[Brett Barrow]

I agree with you that people should stick strictly with the topic at hand and not branch off into semi-related tangents. But human nature being what it is, that's probably asking for the impossible.

Aren't moderators supposed to help keep threads on topic?