Revell 58 corvette

[tim boyd]

blubaja, martinfan, and mike 51, on 25 May 2014 - 10:58 PM, said:

"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."

This is a really intersting series of questions. I can only speak for myself....as Chuck has already done for himself.

*************************

First....I pay for most of the kits I've done reviews on. Most all of the kits on my Fotki Site online "first look" kit reviews were paid for. In some cases, the magazine requesting the review has provided a kit that they received from the manufacturer, but much as Chuck experiences, I take the time to build my review kits exactly as I do my other shelf models. Removing parting lines, adding fully correct engine/chassis/interior paint detailing, Bare Metal, et al. So in most cases, I buy the kit at the local hobby store (my favorites - Model Cave in Ypsi, Michigan, or online at Spotlight Hobbies) as soon as it hits the shelves, to get a "head start" on getting the build completed for the review. In those instances where I used the kit from the magazines, I bought an additional copy (or several additional copies) on my own dollar anyway.

Again, I can't speak for other reviewers, but my own independence and credibility as a model car builder and writer far outweighs any influence a kit manufacturer might have tried to exert to get a positive review. In my case, I can't think of a single example - at least since the early 1980's (when I was consistently critical of some of the body proportions of a certain kit manufacturer's efforts), have I ever received direct negative feedback from a kit manufacturer on one of my kit reviews or articles.

Having said all that, the one thing to keep in mind in my reviews is that I do have some level of insider knowledge of what it takes to develop and bring a kit to market. Maybe somehow that knowledge makes me less critical of the result than I might otherwise be (or said another way, makes me have a more holistic view of the overall effort in terms of what the results are given the task at hand).

**************

One more thing to get out on the table here. From 1975-1978, I was paid by AMT for various projects they commissioned. From 1978 (when I started the Street Rodder's Modeler's Corner monthly column) until 1995 (when I chose to to give it up when i was appointed overall Team Leader at Ford SVT), Monogram, MPC, and AMT (and their successors) did provide me with samples of their new kits. Wasn't always consistent during that period, but it did occur. From 1995 to my retirement last fall, I received no free samples that I recall - in a few cases I got test shots at no charge, but these were not complete kits. I also got a few advance kit samples from Revell in recent years (the four that come to mind are the Edelbrock Midget, the '32 Sedan, the '32 Five Window Coupe, and the '70 'cuda). In the last three examples, i had provided some reference material to Revell at no charge that helped them develop the kits, plus in all four examples they were provided so that I could do online builds which I posted here and elsewhere (I was not paid anything by Revell for these online builds). Gary Schmidt at Galaxie Limited also sent me the new tooled parts for his '48 Chevy kit a few months back. I got an advance test shot of the AMT Louisville Liner Transport bed from Round 2 last summer for a two-part article that will soon appear in our host's magazine here, but i sent a check for its value (the check was not cashed as far as I know). I know, way too much detail, but I want to get it all on the table for those that have questions about the subject.

Now that I am retired and living on a pension, I have accepted some paid and unpaid future model kit development assignments from several of the model companies,. When the kits come to market that resulted from my paid work, I will recluse myself from doing reviews of those kits, both at my own Fotki site, and for any magazines I write for. I may do kitbashing articles later, but not pure kit reviews. I think that is only fair and should be followed to make sure that there is no temptation (however slight and unintentional it might be) to give a better than justified review of that particular project.

****************

Those are my thoughts - i welcome any follow-up questions you guys might have on this subject....TIM

Edited May 29, 2014 by tim boyd

[tim boyd]

Still thinking about this subject...

I really think there are two types or "stages" of kit reviews.

The first stage of kit review is the initial impression. The box art, the instructions, the kit subject chosen, the appearance of the body and kit parts in their original, unpainted/unassembled form. This is the stage at which we, as builders, decide whether we want to invest the time and effort to build the model, and if so, in what order vs. our other "on deck" ;projects. In my view, anyone who has purchased the kit has a right to make their views know at this stage.

The second stage is when the kit is actually built, painted, and detailed. This is, if you will, the "final verdict". In this case, and I feel really, really strongly about this, the only valid "Second Stage" viewpoints come from those who have taken the time to build, paint, and detail the kit under discussion. Personally, I have found, time, and time, and time again, that the conclusion for the "Initial Impression/First Stage" is different from the conclusion after the build is completed. This works both ways - kits I thought were terrific at Stage One, underwhelmed at the completion of Stage 2. Kits I was convinced were wrong in Stage 1 actually turned out to be very accurate once accurately build and painted.

Having said this, it would be really helpful to know on what stage each person's contribution to the dialogue is based.

For example, the much-discussed '90 Mustang LX. Don't get me wrong, everyone has a right to make a comment, but it would be great to know which comments come from those who have actually built, painted, detailed, and then assessed the overall kit, vs. those that are making the kit assessment at the "Stage One" phase. I haven't built the LX, so I can't contribute to that discussion on a Stage 2 level. But others have built it, and it would be interesting to me to see if those people changed their view of the kit (either toward the better, or toward the worse) based on the final result. Much as those of you how have built the '58 Corvette here have contributed highly valuable "Stage Two completion" comments.

TIM

Edited May 29, 2014 by tim boyd

[unclescott58]

Thank you Mr Boyd for your above comments. I bristle when I hear people accuse reviewers of being bias because an item has been sent to them to review for free. I have not written for any "regular" subscription paid magazines. But I wrote a regular column in the Minnesota Street Rod Association's (MSRA) magazine the LineChaser, for twenty years. During that time, I was given several books in particular to review for free. I was always honest in my assessments of what I reviewed. And that did not make every author or publisher pleased with me. But, I was never told to stop or change my reviews (or views) to please someone else. This is called integrity. Something I believe most reviewers have it. Whether they are paid or not (I was not paid). Or given an item for free. Or buy it with their own money (which I did from time to time also). I'm sure there are a few people out there without integrity. But, most I've dealt with seem to have it. And those who don't, you can sometimes tell.

We have never met, Mr. Boyd. But, I do know people who know you. And I know others who have met you once. From what I've heard and read, I know you to be one of those reviewers with integrity. And just a nice guy besides.

Scott

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Ah, Tim Boyd. Really the only reason I didn't name-check him earlier is that he's been so much more than "merely" a kit reviewer for so long. Big influence and I'll also attest he's a class act.

Like Tim, I find that the building process can influence your final judgment of a kit, and that this had the odd occasional effect of putting kits I actually liked better at lower comparative ranking positions. You wouldn't know it from the '99 article ranking '98 kits, but I actually liked AMT's '62 Catalina a lot better than it showed. In the end, though, I had to penalize it for its lack of vent wing windows (fixed in the Round 2 release), for the rear track and slicks that didn't quite tuck in the bodywork, and for its slightly slab-sided quality and funky greenhouse (I've found that grafting a Revell '64 Impala roof on makes it look a lot better). The act of assembling it brought a lot of this to light.

Where Tim and I diverge a bit is that I find painting the kits totally inconsequential to any judgment of what's proportionally off. Some builders are practically magicians at so dazzling you with their builds as to DISTRACT you from proportioning problems - Sean Svenson comes to mind - but in the end, wheel arches that have looked too square and quarters too distorted in raw plastic preview photos REMAIN too square and distorted no matter how well the production item is finished later. And that goes for every build of the Kit That Must Not Be Named I have seen, with the notable exception of Mike Schur's - 'cause he corrected it. To such a degree that I can't stop looking at the pics for a while every time I come across 'em.

Some of the language in this thread goes further than I would have, but it points to consistency problems that either weren't so prevalent at the turn of the millennium or are getting cast into sharper relief by competition from other manufacturers. Revell's challenge is not in overall design and ergonomics - they've had those nailed for quite some time. It's in managing material quality and the little niggly stuff, and more importantly than that, moving on from 20th century scaling techniques. Digitally reduced models look more like their subjects for a reason, and frankly, a lot of the "fudging" we've been told needs to happen winds up suspiciously like the proportioning errors we catch. I actually wonder if that certain roofline weren't cheated down on purpose - and if so, that bullscat needs to STOP, and FAST.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

**deletion of duplicate post**

Edited May 30, 2014 by Chuck Kourouklis

[tim boyd]

Where Tim and I diverge a bit is that I find painting the kits totally inconsequential to any judgment of what's proportionally off. Some builders are practically magicians at so dazzling you with their builds as to DISTRACT you from proportioning problems - Sean Svenson comes to mind - but in the end, wheel arches that have looked too square and quarters too distorted in raw plastic preview photos REMAIN too square and distorted no matter how well the production item is finished later. And that goes for every build of the Kit That Must Not Be Named I have seen, with the notable exception of Mike Schur's - 'cause he corrected it. To such a degree that I can't stop looking at the pics for a while every time I come across 'em.

Thanks Chuck for the comments. Regarding the paragraph above, we do depart a bit from each other and here's why.

Paint does play visual tricks, but that occurs both in 1/1 and 1/25th scale. The OEM's widely use blacked out window trim (both on the outside and underneath the window itself) to hide the actual scale of the supporting structure underneath (which will quickly become even more of an issue with the recent Fed's changes in rollover structure standards). If a non-paint scale buildup is done, it will duplicate the 1/1's roof structure (a, b, c pillars et al) but will not provide an accurate portrayal of the appearance of the OEM 1/1 scale car, due to the visual tricks played by the 1/1 scale car's blackout treatments. This is a factor, for example, on the '90 LX, (though I doubt it changes the overall conclusion about the roof shape - probably lessens it to a degree, but certainly doesn't account for 100% of the explanation for the difference in the real vs. the kit).

So does BareMetal foil play visual tricks - or in the following case, it emphasizes what was an otherwise undiscovered error. I'm about 30 minutes away from finally completing a full paint detail build of kit that I've long considered the very best of its marque, including the chassis, engine, interior, and a body that appeared to me to be 100% correct. After I got the chassis installed in the body and the red lines and wheels installed, it has now drawn into question whether the rear wheel arch/cutout is correctly shaped along its rearmost semi-vertical edge. It doesn't look right to me. I'm going to have to check this very closely against my 1.1 scale references. I would have never noticed this (I have had the kit in my hands for probably 15 years now) had it not been visible on a painted and bare metaled body, along with the tire/wheel assembly to provide visual reference.

Speaking of wheel well openings, this is one of the areas where you and I are in complete agreement - that all the kit manufacturers need to put a lot more emphasis on validating and correcting their in-process kits. I could rattle off a number of new kits introduced in the period since 2005 with incorrectly shaped wheel well openings. It's not just that they are incorrect, it's that this incorrect visual reference then upsets other parts of the body appearance. One example - many, many people have pointed out the incorrect flairs of the wheel openings on the '70 'cuda. But the incorrect shapes of the front wheel well openings themselves (when viewed in profile - straight on from the side) not only are incorrect but they then disorient the eye to other correctly-rendered design features, and that impacts the overall appearance of the completed model. These are not huge errors by any means, but little elements that should be done more correctly. And Revell is not the only one with problems here, by the way.

Chuck, thanks again for your added perspective on this subject, and the examples you cited! TIM

Edited May 30, 2014 by tim boyd

[dimaxion]

The '59 kit I missed also . I had a second hand '59 Corvette kit w/b . It was released circa 1960 . I did buy the '58 in the '90's . It was far ahead of the original . IIRC , the FI unit was not included in the original kit . Yes , I will buy a '59 when released . Or if I find one someone wants to trade one off first . Quality problems ? Revelle and China ? have any of you read how Business is done in China ? I have , in a word ; TROUBLE ! These US Corps got what they paid for . I do not feel sorry for them at all . I will not support someone ripping me off and ignoring me . Is this the decline of Revelle as was the decline of AMT ? Stat tuned .. I will .

[Chuck Kourouklis]

- Should stop for a minute to thank Jonathan H for putting up his build! Looks very nice and every inch the top C1 'Vette kit on the market. -

Always a pleasure having an exchange with you Tim, and I have no doubts about every factor you list - I just simply have yet to find myself in a position where paint or foil had any effect on what I observed in bare plastic. On the KTMNBN, some people found a big improvement when the door frames and moldings were blacked out. Some thought hacking out any additional material after the main drip components was all you needed to do. For me, the roof looks just as wrong no matter what, unless you go the Maindrian/Schnur route. Doesn't mean I won't ever experience that change in perspective, just that it ain't happened with me yet after hundreds of examples.

I hear you absolutely on the 'Cuda, though, and that's why I'm not so down on it; really seems as if its major issues can be solved with an hour or two of filing and strip replacement. With those front wheel arches, the 1:1's have a tighter radius at the upper leading edge and a wider radius as it trails back and arcs down, and for some reason, Revell got this backwards. This creates extra visual mass over the upper forward sheet metal which in turn exaggerates the thickness of the upper front fender expanse over the top. I'm still of the opinion Revell overdid that mass, but not to such an extent that a judicious knock-down won't take care of it. And what the Revell body revealed was that some of the older 'Cuda shells held in higher regard actually slimmed that mass down relative to the 1:1. I'd say the reason there wasn't a lot of talk about that has to do with a phenomenon I've covered before: deviations that actually flatter the subject aren't quite so likely to get noticed.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Chuck Kourouklis

[tim boyd]

Thank you Mr Boyd for your above comments.

We have never met, Mr. Boyd. But, I do know people who know you. And I know others who have met you once. From what I've heard and read, I know you to be one of those reviewers with integrity. And just a nice guy besides.

Scott

Scott...thank you so much for the nice compliments. Hope we do get a chance to meet somewhere down the model car road. Best Regards...TIM

[oldscool]

Chuck is right about some of the older kits being inaccurate in ways that actually made the subject look better. The first examples that come to my mind are the 69 - 70 Mustangs from AMT and MPC. Compared to the real thing they are slightly sectioned but it looks good in scale. I always thought they looked better than the bloated looking Revellogram kits even though they are less accurate.

The roof on the 90 LX kit looks more pleasing to the eye than the real thing even though it is inaccurate. IMO

[jaydar]

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.

I am trying to get the front end down. I have put it on and off a dozen times taking material off the door interiors, the dash...

everywhere and still i cannot get the body down to the inner wheels around the engine and those two supports stick out like yours.

[MrObsessive]

I am trying to get the front end down. I have put it on and off a dozen times taking material off the door interiors, the dash...

everywhere and still i cannot get the body down to the inner wheels around the engine and those two supports stick out like yours.

When I built my Monogram '57 'Vette years ago (and likewise my '59 Impala), I found it best to build the interior without the platform/tub that they give you. IMO this leads to "stacking" of the parts, and can cause the frame rails to hang down too low, and for those bumper supports to be too obtrusive. Also, you may need to trim down the inner fenders/engine bay to suit what you may do to the interior re-engineering.

1953-'62 'Vette interiors in 1:1 were quite shallow------not good for us six foot plus guys that wanted to drive one!

Monogram trying to give the appearance of a nice/non shallow interior, I believe made it too tall, and thus may have did the same with the '58-'59 kits.

Here's an example of the '57's interior when I was building it back in '01.............

This worked for me.............you'll have to play around with the interior fit and possibly the wheelbase adjustment. A small price to pay as I also hate the 4x4 "sits up too high" look that plagues some of Revellogram's kits.

The '58 built up pictured looks mighty nice though!

[Harry P.]

I am trying to get the front end down. I have put it on and off a dozen times taking material off the door interiors, the dash...

everywhere and still i cannot get the body down to the inner wheels around the engine and those two supports stick out like yours.

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just raise the axle stubs up higher?

[High octane]

That's a great idea Bill, thanks!

[Brett Barrow]

Several new Revell kits have done away with the tub and just use the back of the chassis. The 62 Vette, 57 Ford and 50 Olds are like this, and there are probably a few others I'm forgetting. Some 90's AMT/Ertl kits were designed this way, too.

[Phirewriter]

Quote:

from Spooky Benson "and that's one obvious reason round 2 is in a better financial position than Revell generally speaking. It has multiple product lines and Revell only has plastic"

First off how is that you have access to the financial information for any company? 2nd instead of spending so much time complaining about all the faults of kits and companies perhaps you should look at Revell's website. Last I was there they had (in addition to their junky, terrible, horriffic excuses for plastic kits ) R/C, science kits, Pinewood Derby supplies, Tools, Wood and building supplies.

As for Ed Sexton not caring about the products Revell puts out, I too have known him for years and can say he certainly DOES CARE! If anyone received a response from him like "the kits fine, no issues, etc... Just maybe at the end of a day at whatever show he was at, he may have been tired and frustrated by the complaining of some of you people on a constant basis and just threw a comment out there. Don't know, wasn't there, but that's my guess.

I have been building for 40+ years and in all that time and in the thousands of kits in my collection, I can honestly say I have NEVER had a perfect kit or one that I could not find some issue with!

If I had the same anal, whiney attitudes that I have seen here and on other boards in recent years It's a wonder I've purchased or built anything!! I'm not saying we have to accept total junk but really - just lighten up! Really, when it comes down to it, models are basically a creative outlet. Some need a bit more creativity than others but we're builders here, so build and get on with it!

[horsepower]

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.

I've been going to post about your build since you put it on but my tablet won't let me post on this forum for some reason, I think the dust makes it look a fresh barn find that just rolled out into the sunlight after having the hay & canvas pulled off.

[Phirewriter]

First if you are aware that Revell has numerous other interest other than plastic kits why make the statement that "they only have have plastic"

If you don't know for certain the financial situations and are making conclusions based on unsubstantiated statements it still has no basis in fact.

I don't feel the need to explain myself at this point but I have indeed been, and am involved in the hobby business from both the manufacturing and retail sides, so I do take issue to certain statements. Sorry if you can't take criticisms that you seem to pour on the model companies but to take your position, it's my right and privilege to point out inaccuracies too.

[Spooky Benson]

Contents removed by poster.

Edited June 1, 2014 by Spooky Benson

[Phirewriter]

All the best to you too!

[Danno]

Self-edited.

Edited May 31, 2014 by Danno

[Danno]

That's definitely a two-way street. Welcome to my "ignore" list, pal ...

All the best to you too!

Now, see! You guys DO agree!

[Phirewriter]

Just like I stated in my first post "Just lighten up"

Edited May 31, 2014 by Phirewriter

[Spooky Benson]

Comments removed by poster.

Edited June 1, 2014 by Spooky Benson

[Harry P.]

I wasn't the one who chose to personally attacked another poster for expessing his views. I suggest you look in the mirror before telling anyone else to "lighten up."

Good to see the mods are right on top of this situation, too, as always ...

So the mods are asleep at the switch, is that what you're saying? We're supposed to edit out any comments that you don't like, is that it?

Seems a bit presumptuous for a brand new member to be telling the mods how they should be doing their job, but thanks for the wake up call, "spooky." I'll be watching a lot more carefully.