unclescott58 Posted September 28, 2014 Posted September 28, 2014 The name's Plisskin..... What does that mean? Scott
Tom Geiger Posted September 28, 2014 Posted September 28, 2014 I think we all knew enough not to expect anything from a Palmer or Premier kit. It was obvious at first glance. I think this thread is about the kits that look good but fail I. The build mode. Mine would be the Revell 57 Nomad. That cool box art sucked me in every time as a kid. Never got one finished !
Ace-Garageguy Posted September 28, 2014 Posted September 28, 2014 (edited) What does that mean? Scott Snake Plissken...from the film "Escape from New York". Edited September 28, 2014 by Ace-Garageguy
unclescott58 Posted September 28, 2014 Posted September 28, 2014 Snake Plisskin...from the film "Escape from New York". Never saw that movie. But, thanks for explaining it Bill. Scott
Draggon Posted September 28, 2014 Posted September 28, 2014 Police cop Bob Hauk calls Kurt Russell "Plisskin" the whole movie, and each time he replies "Call me Snake" At the end of the movie, Hauk calls him "Snake" which symbolizes some sort of comraderie or acceptance. He then replies in a contentious manner "The name's Plisskin" One of those you-had-to-be-there things. Youre not that much younger than me, Im surprised you never saw the movie.
rmvw guy Posted September 28, 2014 Posted September 28, 2014 (edited) The Pyro VW Beetle was bad and out of scale and has a flat back. Still a fun build for me, just didn't get too hung up on details and kind of ratted it out. I agree with (post #16), the two- piece mismatched AMT '57 Corvette being a bit of a challenge also. I glued the front end on and still much body work was necessary. Seems like the windshields never fit right on AMT Corvette convertibles. Worst for me AMT '53 Corvette, I have built it 6 times and never happy with the result. The snap version on this one looks much better. I'm sure there are many more worse kits I have built over the years but, they are long gone! Edited September 28, 2014 by rmvw guy
sjordan2 Posted September 28, 2014 Posted September 28, 2014 I have mentioned this many times, but as long as we're here again -- Revell's re-boxing of Renwal's 1/12 Ferrari 275 GTB. I would show pictures, but you can't unsee them.
Harry P. Posted September 28, 2014 Posted September 28, 2014 I have mentioned this many times, but as long as we're here again -- Revell's re-boxing of Renwal's 1/12 Ferrari 275 GTB. I would show pictures, but you can't unsee them. This one? http://amgmodels.mastertopforum.com/printview.php?t=4246&start=0
sjordan2 Posted September 28, 2014 Posted September 28, 2014 (edited) This one? http://amgmodels.mastertopforum.com/printview.php?t=4246&start=0 Basically, he did a beautiful job while fixing only 2 of multiple problems: Wheel well radius and nose. Nice job. But he left the most obvious problems that never existed on the 1:1 -- a strange square hump on the hood, wildly inaccurate and overlong rear fenders, crazy bad roofline and windshield, lack of proper Kamm tail...etc. Not enough photos to see whatever else he didn't fix, like ludicrous Campagnolo wheels (not the beautiful Borranis shown on the 1:1 car on the box top). I did my due diligence on this 1:1 car and the Revell kit (unfortunately, I bought a few kits before I really checked it out), and I invite you to rely on Google to see what I'm talking about. Hawk312 talked about his issues with the Mustang, but that looks like a Wingrove compared to this poor example of a Barbie car. Edited September 28, 2014 by sjordan2
Greg Pugh Posted September 28, 2014 Posted September 28, 2014 The two worst ones I've done to date is AMT's '69 Chevelle SS and Revell's old '57 Belair hardtop. That's basing it on fit and finish and end result.
Custom Mike Posted September 28, 2014 Posted September 28, 2014 The Revell gassers get a lot of bad press as kits, and they were certainly beyond the skills of the average younger, less experienced modelers (I was responsible for a less-than-stellar Anglia myself) but again, they COULD (and still can) make very nice models with enough time and patience. Thanks for using my build as an example of what can be done with a dog of a kit Bill...you have no idea how hard it was to get that kit to look that good! I never want to do another one of those Henry J kits as long as I live!
Greg Pugh Posted September 28, 2014 Posted September 28, 2014 LMAO! Great, I have one that I need to get done. This doesn't sound very good.
philo426 Posted September 28, 2014 Posted September 28, 2014 I never found the Henry J that difficult.I did have to make a brass bracket so that the hood would open easier but certainly not that bad of a kit.My avatar demonstrates how i feel about the Revell '57!Very cool indeed!
Custom Mike Posted September 28, 2014 Posted September 28, 2014 (edited) Great job on your Henry J Phillip, it can look good, but it takes way more work than it should! I love the Revell Tri-Five Chevy kits too, but don't look forward to trying to make one look good...even though I know how to use the kit hinges now and make 'em work right...I learned that trick on the Henry J! LMAO! Great, I have one that I need to get done. This doesn't sound very good. Greg, the worst parts are the hood hinge, the two-part fenders and separate hood (I glued all those the parts together and removed the trim/character line from the fenders), the engine (Swap it out for something a bit more detailed), and the rear suspension is a bear to get straight. I wish I had raduised the rear wheel wells a bit more, but I just wanted to get it done! Edited September 28, 2014 by Custom Mike
philo426 Posted September 29, 2014 Posted September 29, 2014 Yes that is why they call us modelers and not just assemblers!The kits are not jigsaw puzzles kids,fixing problems comes with the territory!
StevenGuthmiller Posted September 29, 2014 Posted September 29, 2014 Yes that is why they call us modelers and not just assemblers!The kits are not jigsaw puzzles kids,fixing problems comes with the territory! Ah! but they are! these kits come with particular parts, that are all supposedly designed to fit together, & instructions on how to get them to that point. If things don't go together as advertised, it's just a case of bad engineering. The builder should not be expected to "re-engineer" the kit as he goes. Granted, a good experienced modeler will be able to work his way through any issues that arrise, but these kits should build into a respectible finished product even for a novice. I'll bet more potential hobbyists have given up on the hobby immediately after having a bad experience right out of the gate on one of these sub-par kits. Steve
philo426 Posted September 29, 2014 Posted September 29, 2014 Point taken ,perhaps that is why kits with known issues are rated at a higher skill level than trouble free kits
kalbert Posted September 29, 2014 Posted September 29, 2014 (edited) Must not leave the Revell '56 F100 out of this list. What a turd. Just completely worn out tools or has it been this bad from inception? I did manage to make something out of it, but wow talk about ill fitting flashy pile. I threw in the towel on the doors and fixed them permanently open. Edited September 29, 2014 by kalbert
ferrarijoe Posted September 29, 2014 Posted September 29, 2014 Worst kit I have done would be minicraft 300sl. Fit problems, the frame was the worst. Huge mold seams, and sink marks. But turned out all right with some filling sanding and clamping. Still don't think I will buy another minicraft.
StevenGuthmiller Posted September 29, 2014 Posted September 29, 2014 Point taken ,perhaps that is why kits with known issues are rated at a higher skill level than trouble free kits I don't think there's much of a link between skill level & how well or how badly a kit is engineered. Has more to do with the level of detail. As an example, the new Mobius kits, which I would argue, are some of the best engineered kits ever produced, are level 3 kits. in comparison, the Lindberg re-pop of the '48 Lincoln continental is a level 2. Believe me, you'll find nothing trouble free about the Lincoln, while the Mobius '55 Chrysler, for example, almost assembles itself. Steve
Snake45 Posted September 29, 2014 Posted September 29, 2014 I'd forgotten about those Revell '55-'57 Chevies where everything opens. Those are notorious monsters to build. I actually managed to get the '56 together when I was 14, but I have NO desire to do one of them again, with what's available today. I recently did a minor restoration/rebuild of that '56 and it took about four times longer than it usually takes me to do this with one of my old AMT or MPC or JoHan builds. Whatta hot mess.
unclescott58 Posted September 29, 2014 Posted September 29, 2014 The Revell '56 Ford pickup Kevin talks about above, is another of those kits I had no problems with. But, like Kevin many do. I don't consider myself to be a better of builder than most others posting on these blogs. So, why do some have troubles building one kit? And others don't? And then it turns around. A kit the first person finds trouble free. The second won't. At the same time, I think everybody has problems with Palmer, Pyro, and Premier. Scott
philo426 Posted September 29, 2014 Posted September 29, 2014 No argument there!I made the Moebius Chrysler 300 and it was trouble free!the Lincoln was a non stop problem!
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now