Archive
Return to Index
Read Responses
I agree with Marty, I like the AMT better *NM*
In Response To:
To me, the body in the Revell kit seems a bit boxy, as compared to the AMT kit, *NM*
()
Messages In This Thread
Hey Round 2........ *PIC*
While they’re at it, how about returning to separate red tail light lenses like the original. *NM* *PIC*
Tough part might be getting them to invest in fixing it. *NM*
I think it would be a worthwhile investment. *NM*
If any kit deserves to be retired it's AMT's '63 Impala... I really enjoyed the latest reissue with all of the asymmetrical custom parts, but the tooling for the body is so badly worn/damaged by now that it seems hard to justify further reissues without extensive repairs. *NM*
It takes more prep work to get it ready to paint, for sure
It’s not that bad. It’s still better than the Revell. *NM*
AMT already went back at that tool once; Revell would be a much better choice
To me, the body in the Revell kit seems a bit boxy, as compared to the AMT kit, *NM*
I agree with Marty, I like the AMT better *NM*
Great idea but unlikely to happen IMO. A few years ago I picked up a complete, unbuilt annual with a painted body and interior for $30. They are out there. *NM*
For those of us that can't find an annual if it was staring at us, what are clues of an annual kit? Would the Prestige kit be any good? *NM*
The most obvious thing would be separate clear red tail lights. The Prestigue reissue would brobably be even less desirable then the latest reissue, less contents.. *NM*
Was the annual the only kit with clear red taillights? *NM*
As far as I know, plus there was a Craftsman kit molded in dark blue styrene with separate taillights. Separate taillights and screw chassis are tell tale signs. *NM*
Some of those were molded in white also, those were included in a drag team set as the tow car *NM*
Built annual would have a better engine (original one is now in the '64), also screws holding the chassis in *NM*
