SEARCH SCALEAUTOMAG.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

AMT Kits Just Hit the Dumpster

6919 views
23 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
MrB
  • Member since
    October, 2010
AMT Kits Just Hit the Dumpster
Posted by MrB on Saturday, November 06, 2010 2:16 PM

Recently I got back into the hobby and enjoyed completing my first few cars. (3) Nascar, 69 Camero and a 70 Chevelle. All of which were Revell Kits. In the process I aquired quite a few other kits waiting in line for assembly. The last two kits I started, both from AMT are the 55 Bel Air ,Millenium and the 55 Chevy Cameo. Then my Frustration began.

The AMT 55 Bel Air had so many flaws I stopped assembly on the kit, boxed it up and set it aside. Thinking maybe I just got a bum kit. Then I started on the AMT 55 Cameo. The same frustrating experience. Some of the fixes I was going to make parts to correct, but I just drew the line on this kit too. When I test fitted the Front and Rear Glass for the cab, both are so small for the opening, it would make you laugh.

Anyone else share my experiences with AMT or am I just lucky?

 

  • Member since
    November, 2004
  • From: New York, Paris, Hamilton?
Posted by Chillyb1 on Saturday, November 06, 2010 2:38 PM

 Don't give up on AMT just yet. When I got back into the hobby about five years ago I bought several AMT kits that were outstanding: 1966 Riviera, 1953 Studebaker, 1962 Bel Air and others I can't remember. There are some real dogs that I wouldn't take if you were giving them away. Look around here or perform a search because I know there is a thread or two about which AMT kits are great and which ones should go in the Dumpster.

  • Member since
    December, 2005
  • From: Tennessee
Posted by SLUSHER on Saturday, November 06, 2010 11:07 PM

Mrb though  amt kits are not close to revell but many are great kits after building so many amt kits from child hood to now i have got use to thier drawbacks. the 55 trucks all are real tuff on the back window as the 57 chey bel air is also. i have had a few older revell kits with flaws. i think so many kits all have thier drew back some where. i love reading kit reviews just to get that builders experience..i like many amt kits  ...slusher

IT TAKES A LIVING SAVIOR TO SAVE A DYING WORLD....

  • Member since
    March, 2010
  • From: Midwest
Posted by High octane on Saturday, November 06, 2010 11:30 PM

MrB,

   A few years back I built the AMT '55 Bel Air as a gasser using a lot of parts from AMT's "55 Nomad kit and a few scratchbuilt parts also. It came out looking great.I look forward to building another one as back in the 60's there were a lot of '55 Chevy gassers burning up the quarter mile across the country.

High octane

  • Member since
    March, 2007
  • From: Canyon Country, CA
Posted by corvettemike on Sunday, November 07, 2010 1:00 AM
It. Just depends on which ones you get. There was a rash of kits in the mid to late 90s that I feel blew revell away. 60 starliner 57 vette 58 edsel pacer just to name a few. On the other hand yes there are a lot of AMT I wouldn't take for free.

Life is not fair, but life is not fair for everyone....which actually makes it fair.

Http://public.fotki.com/corvettemike

  • Member since
    May, 2008
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, November 07, 2010 8:00 PM

A couple of things here:   For starters, the AMT '55 Chevy Bel Air two-door sedan, while a 1987 issued kit, is in reality based on the tooling for the long-popular AMT '55 Chevy Nomad, so it does carry a lot of 1960's model kit "technology".  If one wants to build a 21st Century state-of-the-art '55 Chevy two door sedan, it can be done, by starting with the excellent Revell '55 Chevy Bel Air 2dr Sedan which was released earlier this year.

 As for that '55 Chevy Cameo, the windshield was apparently designed to be "flush fit" with the surrounding molding, rather than to the inside of the cab as was the industry standard back in 1987 when it was first released.  It's a less than snug fit properly installed, but it sure can be done.  Hint:  '55-'59 Chevy/GMC truck cab winshields all have an overhang above them, about 1.5" out over the top of the glass, which has a series of vents on it's underside, to admit fresh air up inside the roof of the cab.  yeah, the windshield glass is a bit nigglely to install, but with a bit of patience, it does work.

 

Biscuitbuilder1

MrB
  • Member since
    October, 2010
Posted by MrB on Tuesday, November 09, 2010 6:55 PM

Biscuitbuilder1

Thank you for your reply and to the others that have commented.

With regards to the AMT 55 Cameo I had, there is no way the front and rear glass would fit. Both were short by 1/16" on all four sides.

I'm sure by searching the forum I'd find more info related to good and bad kits. But let's see if we can keep this post going, to benefit all our fellow subscribers. Reply by listing both the good and bad kit experiences you've had. It doesn't have to be restricted to AMT,

Thanks in advance for replies.

MrB

  • Member since
    July, 2010
Posted by Drake69 on Tuesday, November 09, 2010 7:16 PM

My problem has not been with the AMT kits. My problem is with the MPC Round 2 kits, specifically those reissues. The worst of the worst was the '69 Dodge Daytona, a kit I finished and will NOT post pics of anywhere because of the problems it has/had.

 It has actually made me avoid those at all costs, and I want to do a 2008/2009 Challenger as well.

Still would like to see a model kit of the '97-'01 Jeep Cherokee... SOMEBODY?!?!   ANYBODY?!?!

  • Member since
    March, 2006
  • From: Spring, Tx
Posted by modelcarjr on Tuesday, November 09, 2010 8:15 PM

MrB, there once was a time when I wouldn't build anything but AMT. In the mid-eighties and early 90s AMT came out with a lot of really nice kits, for their time, 66 Nova, 57 Chevy re-issue, 66 ford Galaxie, Ala Kart, and the 55 Cameo was one of those kits! I have several unbuilt and this is one I built over 15 years ago and it still looks good to me but I didn't spend much time with detailing. No problem with the glass so maybe you just got one with the wrong glass or somehow misformed. Don't give up on those great old AMT kits! Cool

If you cannot have a good time, what kinda time can you have? JR

Next on the bench:  Another 1970 Hemi 'Cuda, 1958 Chevy Impala, 1987 Buick GNX, 1950 Chevy Pick-up, Indy Reynard, 1965 Corvette, probably not in this order.

  • Member since
    September, 2010
  • From: Cleveland, Ohio
Posted by prg5609 on Sunday, November 14, 2010 10:18 AM

I run into the same problem with the cameo and set it aside as you did.

It does seem that certain AMT kits are lacking a lot in quality control. But with that being said I ahve also purchased and built quite a few that presented no problems at all.

Donald R. Gardner

Building models for fun and relaxation

  • Member since
    December, 2009
Posted by WOODSIE on Sunday, November 14, 2010 10:51 AM

I've been building and collecting model's for some forty year's and I've never had any of them that went together perfectly! They have all needed some sanding and trimming to make all the parts fit the way I want them to. AMT kits make up most of my collection there kits are usually simple with less detail than revell and monogram kits seem to be a little out of scale to me. As far as the '55 cameo I built. It had it's moments when I wanted to just smash it but in the end it turned out alright. Sometimes plastic will shrink or warp if the mold cools to fast or to slow. All in all I think the model makers do a good job. I hope they survive the recession and keep bring us something we can work with. Sometimes overcoming the imperfection's can bring a lot of gratification to a project like the '55 cameo.

  • Member since
    November, 2007
  • From: Midwest
Posted by fury3 on Sunday, November 14, 2010 12:20 PM

A few years ago a topic concerning the glass fit issues you have presented was discussed here on this forum. It seems that back in 1991 (when this kit was originally released) some of the kits did indeed have glass that would not fit the body openings at all...not even close. AMT/Ertl corrected that issue after recognizing their errors, but I'm unaware of exactly when that took place. The early kits exhibit exactly what you have described, while the latter kits exhibit the fit that Art (Biscuitbuilder1) presented. I don't believe that they changed the kit number when this modification was done, as the only other 1955 Cameo kits produced/re-issued (kit # 's 31940 & 38354W) were released in 2003. I have the earlier kit (# 6053) and it contains the update.

Since you have desired your topic to continue, thought I'd give my experience and My 2 cents worth.I've been building in this hobby since 1963-1977. Stopped for education/career demands and restarted in the hobby in 2004, when I became disabled. Wow...many products/procedures have improved, but some have not. Having hundreds of unassembled kits and many other built models, I find it is unrealistic to categorize any model car manufacturer. For example, let's discuss "AMT", "AMT/Ertl/ and "AMT/Ertl/RC2", "Round 2". Yes, four companies that offered products that ranged in age from the early 1950's to the present. (There are actually more "variations on a theme" of AMT..I'm sure Art can elaborate on that Wink.) All of these "AMT" companies re-issued kits that had their tooling roots back in the sixties, when the 3 in 1 "factory annuals" were released. That 1966 Ford Galaxie kit fondly mentioned above is one of those..it's simply been reissued over and over again...I'm sure the tooling/molds have been restored many times. Yes, its a 44 year old kit! Many of the old "factory annual" kits have been re-issued over the years, but here's the catch. Some of the kits  were updated, tooling's repaired, while others were not, have had parts removed and bodies "molested" causing them to be modified into a mere fraction of what they once were (one of many examples: kit # 30142, "Modified Stocker 1969 Falcon"). Kit such as this have been so modified that they will never be able to be restored to what they once were. These old annual kits had their roots in accurate tooling with factory influences and blessing (GM, Ford, Chrysler, AMC) because those companies actually considered these kits and curb-sides (where these kits real start originated) as promotional advertising material. They actually contributed to the design in the accuracy of the kits, using design plans from the 1.1 vehicles when new.

Kits that have been newly tooled since the mid 1990's are far better in many ways than those annuals....especially in the design of the interior (separate side panels, seats, etc.) chassis (separate suspension/frame components) but they have not had the blessings or influence of the auto manufacturer's. Today, the model manufacturer's must pay to obtain a license to use simply the rights to make a Ford, GM or Chrysler model car...they don't really influence the design of the kit to the extent they did forty years ago...Today it's all about legal rights and as always... money. For instance, one of my favorite vehicles of all times is the 1968 Plymouth "Mid-Size Five". The 1968 Road Runner was part of this group of vehicles, and was one of the most popular cars in 1968, and one of the most influential cars in muscle car history...right up there with the 64 Pontiac LeMans with the GTO option package. Yet, a model of any 1968 Mid Size Plymouth was never made. I had to wait twenty one years to see my first 1/25th scale 68 Road Runner model kit, produced by "AMT/Ertl". I was thrilled when I bought the kit and hadn't felt such anticipation to open it since I was 12...being a kid all over again Propeller! Having owned a new 1968 Satellite and latter a original 1968 Road Runner, I was thoroughly turned off after opening the kit and seeing the major design flaws throughout it. The rear wheel openings were not even close to being the right shape, the tail lamps were horrible and wouldn't even correspond to the openings in the body, incorrect air cleaner/"Air Grabber", missing deck lid finish panel, incorrect wheels, and many more items that I've covered in topics prior...the kit represents a model/trim level of the Road Runner that Plymouth never built (and I'm not including what "AMT/Ertl/RC2" did to the kit in it's many re-issues....molesting it with an incorrect 1969 hood, and finally a 1969 based body!!!..still with the "rounded" rear wheel openings). This kit was at the start of the new designs from "AMT/Ertl" that many rave about. Many of their other kits (1962 Pontiac, 1960 Ford,etc.) are much better overall. It does proves the point I'm trying to make...the accuracy is lacking, but the details and engineering of the interior platform design, chassis/suspension, inner fenders are all far superior to the original 60''s interior 'tubs", one piece chassis with metal wire axles. (Hey, at least with those, you could usually get all four wheels to make ground contact....if the body or chassis wasn't too warped in the re-issued newer kit). Very seldom did we ever have a problem with the wheels being centered in the body's wheel openings, correct ride heights (some of the re-issues have this problem due to parts deletion during the re-issue process), the fuel tank being molded in the correct position and so on. Another quick example...the AMT/Ertl, RC2, Round 2 1970 Dodge Coronet Super Bee. I've read so many negative complaints about this kit and it's many "fit" issues. Many don't realize that they simply took the old "MPC" annual body and interior (with a few very minor modifications) and added the chassis/powertrain components from the newer 1968 Road Runner/1969 GTX kit mentioned above. If one takes the chassis from the original 1970 MPC Coronet (or one of the horrible MPC 1969 Charger re-issues (yes, your Daytona!) it will fit in that Coronet body without any modifications or fit issues. Because they tried to update an old kit with modern components, this kit has been labeled as "not buildable", not desirable, and so on, and prompting the phrase "I'll never buy an AMT kit again!" (It can be built out of the box with patience and if you know what you are dealing with, as proven by many members.)

I feel each model manufacturer and each of their kits should be judged individually on their own merit(s)  (just as we do individuals) to include that kits age/history (like your experience with the Charger Daytona). The various"AMT" manufacturer names have offered us some wonderful kits over the years, as well as some real "duds", as my example above. This same discussion can be applied to "MPC, Jo-Han, Revell, Monogram" and so on. I can understand your frustration with "AMT" after reading your experiences. Before you open the "dumpster", I would suggest that you use this forum to familiarize yourself about any model kit you may want or consider purchasing. There are many members (myself included) that would be happy to advise you on a particular kit. This forum has a ton of experienced (that doesn't always mean "old" either Smile,Wink, & Grin) knowledgeable members....it's all here for you to utilize. Smile Fury3      

Current Photo Album of : my 1.1 vehicles, some old scale model builds, and interesting 1.1 vehicles   My Photobucket 

  • Member since
    May, 2008
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, November 14, 2010 1:44 PM

Fury3 has hit the nail pretty squarely on the head here.  However, for starters, AMT/Ertl released the '55 Chevy Cameo in late winter 1987, with a lot of fanfare, lots of kudo's from model builders (I know I waited 32 years for a model kit of my all-time favorite pickup truck--having seen my first Cameo in early spring 1955, in the driveway of a buddy's home--his dad was a new car broker at the time).  In 1991, AMT/Ertl introduced a "modified reissue" of this kit, as a 1957 Cameo, and in the process, corrected the one glaring error in the cab exterior, in that the original issue Cameo had incorrect side window openings which slanted upward along their lower edges, but that involved only new side "slide core" mold sections.

I say "slide cores" because that is what are used to create one-piece body or truck cab shells:  Given that model car body shells (pickup and truck cabs also) have many "undercuts" in their lines that preclude making a simple cavity to form the exterior with a "core" mold to make the shell hollow, it takes, generally, 6 different mold sections to create such a shell, 5 of which must move each mold cycle.  The "fixed" core is that which forms all the upper surfaces of the roof, tops of fenders, rear deck (if applicable).  There are sliding sections of the tool which form the front (grille area for example), the rear panel(s), and right and left sides.  Last there is the core mold, which makes the hollow internal surfaces.  Each cycle of the injection mold requires these mold sections to move inward toward each other until they come together tightly at the corners (where you find mold parting lines in the finished part), at which point molten styrene plastic is injected into the mold under extremely high pressure (as much as 100 tons pressure), then chilled water is fed into cooling jackets in the mold base to rapidly cool the melted plastic to a solid form.  When this step has happened, the mold opens, the slides for front, rear and the two sides retract away from the molded body, the core lifts the body shell away from the mold base which formed the upper surfaces you will see, and then "ejector" pins push the completed shell off the core mold.

On problem for decades in injection molding was that the patterns used for tooling had to be created by hand, by the time-honored craft of woodcarving (model kit patterns were, for decades, made from basswood or white pine) in a scale several times larger than the finished model kit would be, most generally for a 1/25 scale model kit, that meant patterns done to 1/10 scale, which got reduced by 3-axis pantographing in the tool cutting process down to the final scale desired.  Even the drawings were done by hand by draftsmen working with T-squares, straight edges, French curves, triangles--any of us who took a "Mechanical Drawing" class in High School can remember those tools.  It was all a matter of artistry, of the human hand interpreting what the human eye could see.  Given that the early pattern makers in the model kit trade likely came from industrial backgrounds where miniaturization with accuracy of scale, line and shape weren't as critical as they are to us modelers, it's absolutely amazing that model kits we came to enjoy were/are as accurately done as they have been and still are.  But yes, mistakes and errors do creep in, that is the "human factor" at work, at both its best and its worst.

With that Chevy pickup,  with the very first ones out of the kit boxes, modelers commented very quickly that the windshield and back glass indeed seemed very loose fitting.  What was not said by AMT, but very evident was, that they decided to make those glass pieces as "flush fit" to the openings, rather than as a "bucket" style part which simply slipped up inside the hollow body shell, which was how all the domestic model kit mfrs had done model car and truck kits from their very beginnings in the 1950's or 1960's.  For whatever reason, AMT/Ertl's kit designers (and I've had the privilege of knowing several of them personally over the years!) didn't consider ease of assembly, so no "lip", ridge or other locating technique was used in order to make those glass pieces a simple, "one way only to do it" fit crack out of the box--and that is their failing, without question.  BUT, countless builders have conquered those two parts on thousands of builds of these two kits over the years, so it is possible to build them successfully--it just takes a bit of cogitation, some thought beforehand (when in doubt, test fit works here).

With model kit companies, "tradition" often dies hard.  Just as with most any human endeavor, "We have always done it this way" becomes the watchword, the operative term whenever any new product subject is considered.  "Thinking outside the box" , a buzzword phrase of the 90's and the 2000's, doesn't happen every day, even in the best, most technologically advanced companies, regardless of their area of business, model kit companies are no exception to this either.  Kit designers tend to do things in their own "time honored fashion" because that's what has always worked for them; often not stepping 'out of the box" until some subject is sent to them for a project which requires some new and novel approach.  That's not uncommon in other areas of product manufacture either.

With the AMT/Ertl '55 Chevy Bel Air 2dr sedan, the above named philosophy is obvious.  AMT had a long running tool, one of so-so sales numbers which were just enough to justify periodic reissues, in the '55 Nomad kit.  It was decided, probably for cost reasons, to utilize as much of that kit's tooling and/or patterns (such as still existed) to create the sedan kit, and it shows in parts and/or parts trees that are identical between the two kits.  So, that kit (incidently also introduced in 1987--23 years AFTER the Nomad was kitted) still shows a lot of 1960's model kit thinking (wire axles, for example).  But just like the Cameo kits referred to above, this kit is also eminently buildable, thousands of modelers have built them, they've won their share of well-deserved awards at contests--BUT, this kit has been certainly superceded by the far more advanced design, far more accurately done kit as released by Revell Monogram early this year, which in itself is a modified reissue of Revell's almost iconic 1955 Chevy Bel Air Convertible first kitted about 15 years ago.  Time marches on, as they say.

The newest kits being designed are being done using modern technologies for sure.  I suspect that the day of totally hand drawn prints, hand-carved larger than production scale tooling patterns is coming to an end, if that hasn't happened already.  While not employed by Moebius, I have volunteered a lot of hours in helping plan product selections (their Hudson and Chrysler 300 subjects came right off a list I gave them in a day-long meeting 2 1/2 years ago--they also had come up with those two subjects on their own as considerations), and in reviewing tooling mockups both in photographs received by email, and by reviewing them in person.  For starters, they mocked up these patterns in styrene, not basswood, and they were mastered 1:1 to the scale of the finished model kit, every part made from scratch is it will be tooled.  It was evident quickly that at least the body shells were the result of laser scans rather than old-fashioned "loft drawings", with a lot of very careful, tedious scratchbuilding evident in the detailing, the interiors and all the greasy parts.  As I write this, first round test shots of the Hudson are in the air from the factory overseas for our review, and more hours will be volunteered by myself and another, better-known modeler whose work and articles have graced the pages of SA numerous times over the past 30 years.  I do expect that the test shots will reflect the sheer artistry we all saw in the mockups back in July.  If I am right, and I bet that I am, these, along with some of the new releases coming from Revell and others, are going to show that the "box" is not only much larger, but that it's 6 sides have a lot of elasticity in them--and who knows where this might all take the model car kits of the future, indeed our hobby as well.

But in the meantime, I urge anyone attempting any of the older kits, to think outside the box themselves, think how they can overcome what they see as shortcomings, "move the goalposts" farther downfield--DEAL???

Biscuitbuilder1

  • Member since
    November, 2007
  • From: Midwest
Posted by fury3 on Sunday, November 14, 2010 3:48 PM

Thank you for the date correction and additional information on the Cameo kit, ArtThumbs Up. My date references were the copyright on the box art, and the Bill Coulter/Bob Shelton "The Directory of Model Car Kits" circa 2007. While this book is very accurate, it is still a "guide". The issue dates are for the most part accurate, but small errors as with any book of this size are inevitable. With your updated release date information....did that original kit you mention have a different kit number than the one I listed? Since a major change was made in the cab, how different did the box are appear (outside of the obvious changes to the cab)? Question Fury3 

Current Photo Album of : my 1.1 vehicles, some old scale model builds, and interesting 1.1 vehicles   My Photobucket 

  • Member since
    May, 2008
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, November 14, 2010 6:14 PM

Gee, I never did pay attention to the SKU number on the kit box, until I spent 6 months on RC2' payroll.  But that anomaly with the side windows was very visible on the box art model of the first issue.

Biscuitbuilder1

  • Member since
    November, 2003
  • From: S F Bay Area
Posted by Chuck Kourouklis on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 12:36 PM

Great stuff as usual, Art; begging your pardon on one thing:

I very distinctly recall that AMT's '55 Cameo and '70 Corvette were released the year I moved to California, and that would be 1991 as Dave correctly noted.  I'm positive about this.  I'm nearly as certain that the '57 came about in 1998. 

The box designs are big clues; the simple gray/white field style of the first-issue '55 Cameo box graphics ran from 1989 thru 1997, and 1998 was the year that the '57 Cameo's handsome and short-lived red field, black border, 1:1-on-the-cover scheme debuted (and thank God Round2 has moved us back to good-looking boxes again!).

In 1987, we hadn't even seen the '66 Nova yet.  I think the Orange Blossom special was all AMT had on the radar screen at that point...

* Over 500,000 Rivets *

Yeah. That one.

http://tiredoldmodelingcliches.blogspot.com

  • Member since
    January, 2009
  • From: Ithaca, MI
Posted by doktor bondo on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 1:39 PM

I think you're right- the copyright years on my first issue Cameo and second-tool '57 kits seem to bear that out, and I seem to remember, as a wee young lad of nine years old, what a hubub the original '55 Cameo kit caused.

There are some who know me as... Chuck Most

http://public.fotki.com/ChuckMost

  • Member since
    January, 2006
  • From: Mornington Peninsula, Victoria, Australia
Posted by zenrat on Wednesday, November 17, 2010 7:20 PM

All the AMT kits i've built that were released around the time of the '55/'57 Cameo have had their issues - Cameo windows, '41 Woody interior, '66 442 bumpers.

But there are no bad kits, just challenges...

It's the 21st Century. Where's my Jet Pack & Flying Car? On the bench - detritus mainly.

Ninjas don't have pockets.

  • Member since
    October, 2008
  • From: Kennesaw, GA
Posted by nick63 on Tuesday, December 26, 2017 11:56 PM

I got back into the hobby in 2000.  After 17 years of frustration, I didn't realize the kits had so many issues, I thought it was me. What a relief. Think I will start some new projects now that I have so many unbuilt just waiting for the task. 

  • Member since
    October, 2008
  • From: Kennesaw, GA
Posted by nick63 on Tuesday, December 26, 2017 11:57 PM

Oops - SignI got back into the hobby in 2000.  After 17 years of frustration, I didn't realize the kits had so many issues, I thought it was me. What a relief. Think I will start some new projects now that I have so many unbuilt just waiting for the task. 

  • Member since
    November, 2004
  • From: UK
Posted by PatrickW on Wednesday, December 27, 2017 3:04 AM

I love AMT especially the old ones that we never got here in the UK!

  • Member since
    April, 2015
  • From: Brookfield, wisconsin
Posted by joe azoo zoo on Friday, January 12, 2018 10:07 AM
What I do is in a pinch , I use clear plastic off of say , strawberries containers , or if you buy a new razor ,etc, the packaging sometimes has clear plastic covers , you can cut them with sissors ,to get the shape you want ... Just what I do in a pinch, I keep rebuilding a 50 studebaker resin kit , and I have to find curve plastic ( clear) from packaging ....Also tried it on a 68 shelby for back glass,,,just don't use super glue on clear ,because it whitens the clear... Mike
  • Member since
    January, 2018
Posted by Oldcarfan27 on Thursday, February 01, 2018 11:02 PM

joe azoo zoo
What I do is in a pinch , I use clear plastic off of say , strawberries containers , or if you buy a new razor ,etc, the packaging sometimes has clear plastic covers , you can cut them with sissors ,to get the shape you want ... Just what I do in a pinch, I keep rebuilding a 50 studebaker resin kit , and I have to find curve plastic ( clear) from packaging ....Also tried it on a 68 shelby for back glass,,,just don't use super glue on clear ,because it whitens the clear... Mike
 

FYI - I learned that if you polish and wax the glass part beforehand, it won't get cloudy. You can also use wax (not the cleaner/wax) or even gel toothpaste to hide the foggy areas if you already have them. 

"I keep trying to complete my junkyard diorama, but everytime I add more clunkers, I get the nagging urge to pull them out and restore them!!!

Romans 3:23-25

John 14:6-7

 

  • Member since
    October, 2008
Posted by oldcarguy on Friday, February 02, 2018 9:19 AM

Hi Mr.B;

 I have to tell you . I have read this thread with interest . Now as to windows on AMT kits . If I can I do not use the Kit windows . I got some Styrene .010 sheet from Hobby Lobby and I still do . I use the originals for a Half - Correct form .Then cut them out and use those .

 Years ago , I used to replace all the glass with the clear that Dad got in his new dress shirts to support the collars in the package . None of AMT's cars had optically clear windows and that is what I was after . 

 Fifty Years later it is still the best answer . Especially if correction of the window opening is needed . I have an old Lincoln Mark that was motorized and had a full interior . Even Then the windows had wrinkles in them . For then It wasn't a cheap toy .I think IMC or AMT or maybe even MPC did the body and interior .

   So , I got in trouble for taking the car apart but , when fixed , my Dad said I had done the right thing . I still have that thing somewhere . The only Mk 11 I have seen since then is the REVELL multi-piece body kit . I have two of the originals still boxed and two or three of the re-issues for changing things ( you know , Like a convertible ? )

gjgeracci

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS

FREE MONTHLY NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our privacy policy