Revell 58 corvette

[niteowl7710]

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.

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.

That's funny since those words were uttered BY Frank in the 4th post of this thread. So you either possessing selective memory, or trying to back peddle now that you've stepped in it with someone you know off the forum.

As for why I brought up the LX roof again is because there was a challenge to the idea that Revell isn't this error proned gaffe factory across the entire spectrum of their business. That roof being one of their most recent one of note.

You'd think after the chrome fiasco SOMEONE who has an eye for detail would be put in place to make sure nothing embarrassing, like further instruction sheet errors would occur, particularly with the wheels not included but decals provided for in that bloody LX.

Now if you'd quit pouting and tossing around terms like "usual cast of characters" - because you're one of those characters on the Revell "D-FENCE" side of things, and accusing the mods of not doing their jobs that'd be peachy!

[mnwildpunk]

Ok I take back whay I said earlier about sometimes entertaining this is out and out war and I'll have no part in it

[Brett Barrow]

That's funny since those words were uttered BY Frank in the 4th post of this thread. So you either possessing selective memory, or trying to back peddle now that you've stepped in it with someone you know off the forum.

As for why I brought up the LX roof again is because there was a challenge to the idea that Revell isn't this error proned gaffe factory across the entire spectrum of their business. That roof being one of their most recent one of note.

You'd think after the chrome fiasco SOMEONE who has an eye for detail would be put in place to make sure nothing embarrassing, like further instruction sheet errors would occur, particularly with the wheels not included but decals provided for in that bloody LX.

Now if you'd quit pouting and tossing around terms like "usual cast of characters" - because you're one of those characters on the Revell "D-FENCE" side of things, and accusing the mods of not doing their jobs that'd be peachy!

I knew Frank was the one who said it and it doesn't change what I said, I should have said "you" instead of "some folks" but I thought there had been other posters. I knew what would be coming, so I guess it was a bit preemptive. Not my finest moment, but for chrissakes, it's a freaking instruction sheet we're talking about here!

Edited May 28, 2014 by Brett Barrow

[Chuck Kourouklis]

With all due respect, Mr Barrow, I'm sorry, but it ain't washin'. Fact is, that instruction photo and the observations about it in post #1 told you exactly where this discussion was going, and if anything, it was going down the rails faster, but still on the rails.

Let's say Frank wants to go bonkers and call Revell the most inept bunch of losers ever to squeeze a loaf of plastic. It is still not you he's attacking. So just where exactly is it your place to take that personally enough to start dealing personal blows back? You don't work for Revell. You didn't develop their products. Whatever quality issues raised are no reflection on you. And if "good enough" is really good enough in the marketplace, what effect are these discussions really going to have on your bottom line? So if somebody bags on Revell, What. Is. It. To. You?

I've asked this question over and over again of many people without anything approaching a rational answer, and I'll keep doing it, because each time it meets silence or nonsense it gains that much more rhetorical weight.

The difference between Dave Sciano's response and yours is stark. Dave questions Frank's conclusion and there we might have the beginnings of a rational discussion. But apparently that isn't enough for you. You gotta make broad hints of hypocrisy at... whomever. It's a shame, really. Comes so far under the bar of your worthier content, and you have plenty of that.

And as long as somebody's gotta step in, make it personal, and ratchet the tension up, the dominoes will get tipped in the direction of Revell's biggest recent pile, and most likely sooner than later.

[unclescott58]

Back to Revell's '58 Corvette. Other than the problems with the instructions, what else is wrong with this kit? I have not purchased this kit in the past. But, from what I've seen I will be purchasing it the future. What am I missing? How is this kit really?

Scott

[mike 51]

I'm going to buy one....to go with my 429 Vette.

.

[Brett Barrow]

With all due respect, Mr Barrow, I'm sorry, but it ain't washin'. Fact is, that instruction photo and the observations about it in post #1 told you exactly where this discussion was going, and if anything, it was going down the rails faster, but still on the rails.

Let's say Frank wants to go bonkers and call Revell the most inept bunch of losers ever to squeeze a loaf of plastic. It is still not you he's attacking. So just where exactly is it your place to take that personally enough to start dealing personal blows back? You don't work for Revell. You didn't develop their products. Whatever quality issues raised are no reflection on you. And if "good enough" is really good enough in the marketplace, what effect are these discussions really going to have on your bottom line? So if somebody bags on Revell, What. Is. It. To. You?

I've asked this question over and over again of many people without anything approaching a rational answer, and I'll keep doing it, because each time it meets silence or nonsense it gains that much more rhetorical weight.

The difference between Dave Sciano's response and yours is stark. Dave questions Frank's conclusion and there we might have the beginnings of a rational discussion. But apparently that isn't enough for you. You gotta make broad hints of hypocrisy at... whomever. It's a shame, really. Comes so far under the bar of your worthier content, and you have plenty of that.

And as long as somebody's gotta step in, make it personal, and ratchet the tension up, the dominoes will get tipped in the direction of Revell's biggest recent pile, and most likely sooner than later.

Good points, all. This thread is not my finest moment.

This is where it got personal for me, and it was the post that prompted my response:

No. I really don't. There have been consistent foul ups with a lot of kits recently. I got to talk to Ed Sexton in person about another kit. And with him speaking for Revell, their attitude towards any issues was that they simply did not care.

Sorry, but I know Ed and I know he does care.

[mnwildpunk]

The kit as I remember is quite well done but please keep in mind I was a lot younger when I built it 50%+ the age I am now. I rememberit being a well fitting and accurate kit for the time

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Good points, all. This thread is not my finest moment.

This is where it got personal for me, and it was the post that prompted my response:

Sorry, but I know Ed and I know he does care.

Okay, then. If I may beg your pardon for speaking on it just a bit further, that, Sir, is exactly the right response.

On the '58 kit itself, as I broadly hinted, it's a bit more accurate and a bit sharper than the new '62, posable steering and an opening trunk, and it goes together pretty nicely. If the '62 impressed you, you should really like this one.

[Spooky Benson]

Back to Revell's '58 Corvette. Other than the problems with the instructions, what else is wrong with this kit? I have not purchased this kit in the past. But, from what I've seen I will be purchasing it the future. What am I missing? How is this kit really?

Scott

Not a thing wrong with it. Great kit. Buy one. Edited May 28, 2014 by Spooky Benson

[Harry P.]

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

Oh, I can keep threads on topic, all right. By deleting anything and everything that seems just the teeniest bit "off."

But I don't think many forum members would appreciate a forum that's so tightly and rigidly edited that much of what they say keeps disappearing.

Better, I think, for you guys to keep things more or less on track yourselves without the iron-fisted moderators needed to keep you all in the corral. And in that spirit, there will be posts here and there that may not pass your personal definition of "on topic," but that's the way a public forum works.

We either remain an open forum and accept the foibles of such... or I start editing the krap out of everything.

I think most members would go with option A.

[Danno]

Oh, I can keep threads on topic, all right. By deleting anything and everything that seems just the teeniest bit "off."

But I don't think many forum members would appreciate a forum that's so tightly and rigidly edited that much of what they say keeps disappearing.

Better, I think, for you guys to keep things more or less on track yourselves without the iron-fisted moderators needed to keep you all in the corral. And in that spirit, there will be posts here and there that may not pass your personal definition of "on topic," but that's the way a public forum works.

We either remain an open forum and accept the foibles of such... or I start editing the krap out of everything.

I think most members would go with option A.

Thank you, Harry!

ALL moderators should adopt your philosophy. It would be a better virtual world!

[Brett Barrow]

Okay, then. If I may beg your pardon for speaking on it just a bit further, that, Sir, is exactly the right response.

On the '58 kit itself, as I broadly hinted, it's a bit more accurate and a bit sharper than the new '62, posable steering and an opening trunk, and it goes together pretty nicely. If the '62 impressed you, you should really like this one.

Thanks. And, in hindsight, that is the response I should have posted first instead of what I did. Lesson learned.

I always enjoyed your top-ten (or was it however many new kits came out that year?) rankings you used to do for Car Modeler and Scale Auto. Since you're one of the modeling press' review corps, would you care to comment on these (and other) remarks made in this thread about the review process? Did Revell or any other other company ever instruct you or the editorial staff to gloss over flaws in your reviews? Or were you just doing it for the gravy train of free kits?

I'm sure most of the people that write the reviews for the magazines DO NOT actually pay for the kits. So if you don't like HONEST reviews from people that so actually pay money for them, maybe this is not the place for you. Sorry if you are offended by reality.

Its be known that Revell does not like having honest reviews of their kits made

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.

[Brett Barrow]

Regarding the kit, I'll echo what Chuck said: If you liked the 62, you'll love the 58/59 kits. This was originally a Pro-Modeler kit and was just that extra bit nicer than contemporary Revellogram kits. One thing I really like about it is the way the front bumperettes, grille, and surrounds are all molded separately which makes making a road racer like this famous one* sooooo much easier than the one-piece unit in the 62.

*yeah, I know the more well-known PPE is a 59, but the first one was a 58.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Brett Barrow

[blubaja]

Nothing I noticed was wrong with the kit. The rest of the instructions will build you the 58. Just that back page that might confuse some new builders.

I'm sorry Brett. I truly hope Ed cares. But when I was talking to him at the NNL about some kits' issues, he made it clear that revell didn't care about some of the issues. But my take-talking to Ed=Revell.

[Spooky Benson]

I think Ed does care and I think he probably gets frustrated trying to deal with matters beyond his control. I think it is probably helpful to remember Ed has bosses, as well as budgets he has to stay within.

At the same time, when Ed says things like (and I hate to mention it again) "The '90 LX body is accurate and doesn't need fixing!" he certainly comes off looking like a dunce, a blind man, a company stooge or a combination thereof.

[Matt T.]

... when Ed says things like (and I hate to mention it again) "The '90 LX body is accurate and doesn't need fixing!" he certainly comes off looking like a dunce, a blind man, a company stooge or a combination thereof.

The e-mail response you cite, along with Frank's face-to-face experience at NNL East are what bother me the most. There are better responses than seemingly ignoring people's questions.

"We were made aware of the problem too far into the kit's development."

"We cannot change the kit tooling for the second release, it's cost-prohibitive."

"We will be keeping a closer eye on body proportions with future kit releases."

All of these are better than the head-in-the-sand company line of "there's nothing wrong with the kit" or "we don't take into account complaints from internet forums" (read: the lunatic fringe). That doesn't instill me with confidence going forward.

Just my $0.02.

[Spooky Benson]

While we are airing grievances against Revell (not the original intent of this thread, I know, but what the hey ), I wish to add one word to the list that was begun by Chuck. And that word is ... TIRES!!

It is simply beyond my ability to comprehend how Round 2 is not only able to issue kits containing tires with the manufacturers' names beautifully tampo-printed on the sidewalls, but is also able to issue those tires in stand-alone parts packs, and Revell can only provide generic doughnuts that most of the time don't even resemble any 1:1 tires that have ever been produced. It's maddening!

I totally get that Round 2 doesn't have the same tooling expenses Revell does with its product line being based to a much larger degree on reissues, so, therefore, it would stand to reason Round 2 might have more to spend on licensing deals with tire-makers. But, at the same time, a good portion of Revell's product line is also based on tooling that has been around for years and has no doubt paid for itself many times over.

[Brett Barrow]

Yeah, i wish Revell would get something together with their tire licensing. They're doing pad-printed whitewalls, it'd be nice to see some printed RWL's or at least go back to decals. As I understand it, Round2 worked out a blanket tire deal that covers all their lines - plastic kits, die-casts, and slot cars - so they're able to spread the costs across more products.

Revell-Germany's new LaFerrari does have branded tires, so don't give up hope!

[Spooky Benson]

Yeah, i wish Revell would get something together with their tire licensing. They're doing pad-printed whitewalls, it'd be nice to see some printed RWL's or at least go back to decals. As I understand it, Round2 worked out a blanket tire deal that covers all their lines - plastic kits, die-casts, and slot cars - so they're able to spread the costs across more products.

That does make sense ... and that's one obvious reason Round 2 is in a better financial position than Revell generally speaking. It has multiple successful product lines and Revell only has plastic.

[Jonathan]

Since we're talking about the 1958 Corvette here.....

The '58, as built by me from the first release of this kit back in the Pro Modeler days. Now, I ain't the best builder by any stretch; but I had fun putting this one together. I have at least one more in my stash o' shame to be completed "one of these days". As I recall, it was a nice kit. Please, pardon the dust.

[unclescott58]

Nice to see. It looks good to me. I'd like to see more.

Scott

[Chuck Kourouklis]

...I always enjoyed your top-ten (or was it however many new kits came out that year?) rankings you used to do for Car Modeler and Scale Auto. Since you're one of the modeling press' review corps, would you care to comment on these (and other) remarks made in this thread about the review process? Did Revell or any other other company ever instruct you or the editorial staff to gloss over flaws in your reviews? Or were you just doing it for the gravy train of free kits?

"I'm sure most of the people that write the reviews for the magazines DO NOT actually pay for the kits. So if you don't like HONEST reviews from people that so actually pay money for them, maybe this is not the place for you. Sorry if you are offended by reality.

Edit-and yes. I'm sure I will find other kits to "complain" about any issues they have. This will also be known as a review."

"Its be known that Revell does not like having honest reviews of their kits made"

"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."

As a yet-active contributor, I'm not going to comment much on what a manufacturer brings to bear on a review of its products... well, except for the commentary implicit in my silence, of course.

I'm very appreciative of your enjoyment of those ranking articles. Thank you for that. It's always nice to get good feedback, but it's particularly satisfying to hear about those rankings because in fact, I did 'em out of my own concept and on my own dime; except for two or three an editor thought I should cover in addition one year, I bought every single kit I reviewed for all of those rankings. Tried getting compensation for them one or two years, but in the end found it simpler to write off the cost against what I got back for those articles. Did unpainted fit-assessment builds for each from the '97 ranking of the '96 kits on, and yes, that hurt a bit for the Accurate Miniatures kits and the Japanese kits that came on line later on.

And yeah, I've heard apocryphal tales 'round the camp fire of tantrums from more than one executive over those and other comparison reviews I've done. As for dissing kits, I don't know if it counts to say one kit's main redeeming feature is as a parts source for another better kit, but I'm in print with stuff like that.

It's still often the case that I've snatched up my own before the editorial office gets their review samples, and because I'm among the slower builders, I just get started on the one I bought, with the sample mailed as a replacement - and that happens to go for the monster I'm trying to work through right now. What I manage to get done for reviews from free kits is a pittance of 1-3 compared to what I buy in a given year, so "gravy train" doesn't really apply to me - nor, do I suspect, to many if not most of the more prominent reviewers.

One little aside: the age-old false dichotomy between critics/writers and builders/real modelers has begun to fuel some of my work. Never mind the Bob Downies and Clay Kemps and Dave Thibodeaus and countless others who've been around forever to give the obvious lie to such tripe. I did what I did with my second piece on Revell's '50 Olds expressly to vaporize that whole premise and prove nationally what vapid nonsense it really is.

[tim boyd]

Jonathon, you're entitled to your views here, as am I.

My view is that the first paragraph of the response above you copied in response to the request for examples if "stuipidity" is highly flawed in its accuracy. I won't repeat why I feel that way here, but you can look at post #24 if you want the details.

Beyond the inaccuracy here, this type of response undermines the credibility of much of the otherwise worthwhile critiques that take place on this board, and in particular, this specific thread.

The model company employees do read these boards from time to time (they are really busy these days and just don;t have time to cover them in detail). When they see comments that are inaccurate or clearly wrong, I suspect it has the effect of causing them to "tune out" the entire dialogue, thereby missing the chance for good, open, and honest feedback. So while it may have made the individual poster feel good about "putting down" the efforts of (in this case) Revell, it also has a negative overall effect, besides being less than fully accurate.

As I said in my earlier post, no one is perfect, and there are certainly plenty of legitimate opportunities to criticize Revell (and for that matter, Round 2 AMT, Moebius, Tamiya, and others). But I would also point out that in general, the types of legitimate complaints we have today pale in comparison to what we faced in prior years (lack of new releases during the last ten years, and quality/accuracy/completemess/choice of kit topics in years prior to that. Not to say that we should not mention them - just to say that the level of the issues is in total less than it was in the past.

TIM

[johnbuzzed]

Tim, you're correct here, but I wonder how and why Revell (and yes, all of the other manufacturers) allow some of the blatant errors to happen and why we, the consumer/customers, are seemingly ignored in our inquiries or dismissed in an offhand manner. Maybe this '58 Vette kit has no problems in molding, accuracy, etc, but there are at least a couple of kits within the past two or three years that are the "gorilla in the room". We know there are problems, they know there are problems, but... so what? The problems won't be corrected, and that's that.

Some years ago, Revell issued the '69 Charger. The body lines were wrong, so Revell fixed the kit and the customers who bought the initial release. I, myself, was sent an entire kit with the new body (and decals). At the time, Revell was advising that they would merely send just the corrected body, and that's what I was waiting for. But they did acknowledge the problem and took the appropriate action. "We" have come a long way with technology since then and have more than ample reference material for all kinds of stuff, and in many cases, actual examples of the subject material.

Perhaps Revell (and all of the manufacturers) should hire someone to go through this and other modeling forums on occasion. What other way do they have to hear from us as a collective group and not just the casual, letter-writing loner?

Mistakes are made by everyone, and the bigger people will owe up to them and correct them in the best way available.

Edited May 29, 2014 by johnbuzzed