Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum

Recommended Posts

Posted

Look at it, see something that is obviously poorly designed and just put it back for another day?

Was going through my stash of older kits today, and twice I did this. First with an old Monogram '71 'Cuda, the front and rear valences were so poorly designed and would be nearly impossible to get into place on the finished model, and again on an AMT '53 Corvette where the front and rear valences were so far off it would've required some serious bodywork to get them lined up.

Thankfully I've got a couple modern kits to build.

Posted

I just did with the AMT 57 T-bird, but then the reason for buying the kit was to get my hands on the custom roof in it. Had a sort of vague plane of making a semi custom out of it, with lowered suspension, nice looking wheels and a snazy paintjob but the thing just looks to bad.

Posted

The AMT Sock it to Me Vette that's out now. I bought it and opened the box and was so disgusted with it I had it traded in a week to someone who knew what was in it. I'm not the biggest early Vette fan anyway and that box full of mishapen plastic blobs just wasn't worth my time.

Posted

I have a Walmart-boxed issue of AMT's 1955 Chevy Bel Air that I had every intentions of building up but when I discovered just how much work would be needed to get proper panel gaps around the hood I tossed it back in the box.

Posted

The Revell/Revell of Germany Snap Tite A-10 Warthog, got my hands on a Make and Take version of the kit and lets just say it's not up to the standards of their Snap Tite 1/25 kits.......or their 1/32 snap kits that have been around for as long as I can remember.

Posted

Did that with the Revell '57 Ford 300. The front inner wheel wells and the front of the floor pan are so botched up, it will have to be totally re engineered just to lower the front end. It's a mess for even a stock build as it has so many things wrong with it. I don't know if I'll ever want to build it bad enough to fix the mess up front.

Posted

The new Revell '67 Camaro. What a disappointment that backbirth turned out to be. I WILL get it built someday, but it sure won't be the shake 'n' bake job I was looking forward to.

Posted

When I got back into the hobby in around 2005, I bought a bunch of kits I never had as a kid. Rather a lot of them had the old-style blobular AMT everything-molded-in-one-piece chassis. I put most of them on the shelf until I could decide if I wanted to go to all the effort of building realistic underpinnings.

Same thing happened when the gorgeous box-art suckered me into buying the AMT '62 Corvette. I knew it wasn't very good before I bought it, though.

Posted

>a box full of carp? i bet that smelled after a couple of days.

hey thanks, that's probably whats been stinking up my model closet for the past couple of months. I will have to check it (or chuck it) out.

jb

Posted

Lindberg '67 Olds 442.

I was really looking forward to this kit when it came out as one of my favorite uncles had a 1/1 '67 Cutlass for almost as long as I could remember.

Got the kit home and seen the front end and put it away. Looks more like an early '60s Lincoln front end than a Cutlass. I eventually figured out what was off and how to fix it but the ambition to do it has long since worn off.

Posted

Did that with the Revell '57 Ford 300. The front inner wheel wells and the front of the floor pan are so botched up, it will have to be totally re engineered just to lower the front end. It's a mess for even a stock build as it has so many things wrong with it. I don't know if I'll ever want to build it bad enough to fix the mess up front.

You are the only one I know of to complain about that kit.

Posted (edited)

>a box full of carp? i bet that smelled after a couple of days.

hey thanks, that's probably whats been stinking up my model closet for the past couple of months. I will have to check it (or chuck it) out.

jb

LOL!

Edited by oldscool
Posted

When I got back into the hobby in around 2005, I bought a bunch of kits I never had as a kid. Rather a lot of them had the old-style blobular AMT everything-molded-in-one-piece chassis. I put most of them on the shelf until I could decide if I wanted to go to all the effort of building realistic underpinnings.

Same thing happened when the gorgeous box-art suckered me into buying the AMT '62 Corvette. I knew it wasn't very good before I bought it, though.

I don't mind the old style chassis at all but when the body is warped to the point one wonders if the factory had a fire nearby....its just parts.

Posted

The classic example of this for me, and the one I'll never hesitate to bad mouth at every opportunity, was the infamous AMT '58 Plymouth Belvedere.

Had visions of a Johan '58 Plymouth minus the warp, but the body is so inaccurate it's just as worthless as the most badly warped promo!

Posted

That's because some of us have kept our mouths shut about its annoying flaws.

So what do you think is wrong with it? Seems no one is happy with ANY kit anymore.

Posted

That's because some of us have kept our mouths shut about its annoying flaws.

I built that '71 Cuda from Monogram when it first came out, had very little problems with the valances--I simply glued them in place, then with a bit of filing and sanding (I seem to recall ia quick swipe of putty on one end of the front valance joint), sanded it out, primed and painted it--came out looking quite good.

I note that for hte most part such complaints are about kits that were designed/tooled 30-55 yrs ago or so--lots of anomalies that we don't expect to see in a newly tooled model car kit today (but then, what do I know>) ;)

Art

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...