|
|
Post by junkyardjeff on Dec 2, 2015 21:30:25 GMT -5
They are the ones I started out on over 40 years ago and got into the more detailed kits over the years but I now do not like the kits with too much chassis details,I am building the Revel 50 Olds and it just has way too many chassis parts and just want simplicity from now on. Those kits just are taking me too much time to build so I will be building more of those AMT kits unless something really catches my eye that is not available from AMT,I just care what the body and engine compartment look like and the chassis can be very simple since I never really look at the under sides after they are built and have less parts to break after a few years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Kron on Dec 2, 2015 23:05:36 GMT -5
Great comment. Something I think deserves careful consideration. Thanks!
Here are my 2 bits...
I think the problem with many modern high-detail kits is less about how much work they take to get them built at all, than how they have a tendency to paint you into a corner. Revell has yet to really understand the whole 3-in-1 concept. For example they have had to release two 50 Olds kits just to get out a stocker and a very mild customized version. AMT would have just been getting started and filled only half the box! At the other extreme is a kit like the chopped-top cars Revell has released, the '49 Merc and the '48 Ford coupe. In both cases they really limit you to their vision of a period custom and only radical reworking will release you from their tight little view of things. I've always thought that AMT kits from the 60's (and 60's Monogram kits,too - often ignored and underated) benefited from "being there", in the thick of it, so that they totally understood the "vibe" of the car regardless of their simplifications and inaccuracies. I mean, is their anything that says hot rod as well as a channeled AMT Deuce roadster, curved lower body sides and all? Hopefully Revell (because only Revell is even trying to create new kits in this style) is taking on this challenge. I believe they are, but that it remains a real struggle for them. Someday they'll come out with a real 3-in-1, but with a marvelous modern full detail chassis and motor, too. In meantime the commercial success of kits like the new '29 Ford Roadster 2 (not 3...) in 1 will serve to encourage them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr.409 on Dec 3, 2015 4:09:51 GMT -5
Two great posts in here!
Personally I like both, those old AMT/MPC kits that usually are 3 In 1 kits and modern Revell/Moebius etc kits. Usually I like it when the kit has lots of parts and I can add more details to them. That's the reason to buy those new kits I guess. But when I want to build something a bit more simple or something that goes together faster, I usually choose an older AMT kit...They're not bad either and even if they're a bit more simple than those modern kits, they can be turned into really nice models. The problem with them, however, is that sometimes I find myself modifying or scratchbuilding lots of stuff for those older kits and after that the kit might have just as many parts as the modern Revell kit did.
A big plus on those older kits is that often their subjects are most interesting. Now I'm thinking about old AMT, MPC and especially Jo-Han kits, even though I have to say it that Moebius Models' kits have very interesting subjects too. Revell has interesting subjects as well, but I'm not too crazy about yet another 1st Gen Camaro, '57 Chevy etc as previous releases of those kits are still often seen in hobby shops, eBay etc.
As Bernard said, a problem with Revell kits is that if you go box stock, you can build only one version. That '50 Olds is a good example, as I've built the Stock kit as a Mild Custom and seen the parts on that Custom kit. They're really close and the Custom parts could easily have been included in the stock kit to make it 2 In 1. But of course when they put out two kits instead of one, maybe they get a few more of them sold as many people buy them both.
|
|
|
|
Post by junkyardjeff on Dec 3, 2015 17:57:49 GMT -5
I just do not have the patience to build the highly detailed models any more and I love the extra parts from the 3 in 1 kits to use on other builds,I am finding extra parts from 40 years ago to use on current builds. I wish Revel would include all versions in one kit and get a little more simple on the chassis,I have built the 57 Ford 2 door sedan and working on the 50 Olds custom and there is some parts from the other versions but not all and have the 57 Ford wagon in line to build. The wagon will most likely get built last since I have 3 AMTs to do before it and would like to get those done this winter.
|
|
|
|
Post by junkyardjeff on Dec 3, 2015 17:59:39 GMT -5
I liked the old Monograms but being 1/24 the parts were just a tad larger then the rest that were 1/25.
|
|
|
|
Post by fordrodnkustom on Dec 3, 2015 20:56:15 GMT -5
I agree. I love the simplicity of the old SMP/AMT kits. That's what I glued together as a kid too and I enjoy building them now for that reason. When I retire from my job and have more time on my hands I'm going to attempt build this one.  This truly is the golden age of modeling. |
|
|
|
Post by harron68 on Dec 4, 2015 7:13:44 GMT -5
I had a long piece written, but scrapped it. In sum, the idea that kits have too many pieces for some builders is valid. Why the "snap kit" issue didn't come up surprises me since it solves that problem. If a kit has many pieces in, for example, the undercarriage, then just gluing it together and spraying it flat black saves time. I understand that free time and limitations of age, like arthritis and vision loss can make detailed models too daunting. However, the snap kit idea is still there. Tho I no longer build (having lost my passion for it) I feel the more detailed the better as it offers greater and easier ability to modify a kit to personalize it.
For those who don't like the complex kits and can't find snap ones of fave vehicles, there's a third option. Some folks modify die-casts. Usually they can be taken apart, stripped of paint, and redone to suit preferences.
Finally, the IMC Chaparral was (AND IS!) one great kit. I wish there could be a way to reissue those superdetailed IMCs. Thanx
|
|
|
|
Post by fordrodnkustom on Dec 5, 2015 10:10:53 GMT -5
I liked the old Monograms but being 1/24 the parts were just a tad larger then the rest that were 1/25. Agreed. Those old monogram kits looked good built right out of the box due to the multi colored plastic they were molded in with the bright chrome and decals. |
|
|
|
Post by junkyardjeff on Dec 5, 2015 10:29:51 GMT -5
I have built many Monogram kits without painting except for a little detailing.
|
|
It's an interweb thing.....