Revell vs. AMT 1962 Corvette comparison?

[bbowser]

Anyone done one?  Which renders the more accurate body / profile?  Thanks in advance for your opinions!

[unclescott58]

From what I heard and seen the Revell is the better of the two. It's made from a modern tool. You'll hear a lot bad things here about AMT's old '62. I still like the kit. It looks fine to me (even the headlamps). It's just such a simple kit with less detail than the Revell kit. I don't mind that simplicity. I have an AMT kit. But, not Revell. The AMT kit is good enough for me.

Now comes the basing of AMT's '62.

 

[Snake45]

Revell, hands down. The AMT kit's headlights are way too small, and they can't be fixed without completely rebuilding the entire front end.

The AMT kit is a great nostalgia build, and a vintage "parts mine," but for any kind of accuracy (or for that matter, detail), it's the Revell kit all the way.

(I'd show you exactly what I mean if Photobucket weren't down AGAIN!)

Edited October 31, 2016 by Snake45

[Ace-Garageguy]

Revell, hands down. The AMT kit's headlights are way too small, and they can't be fixed without completely rebuilding the entire front end.

The AMT kit is a great nostalgia build, and a vintage "parts mine," but for any kind of accuracy (or for that matter, detail), it's the Revell kit all the way.

 

Exactly.

But there's no need to bash the old AMT kit.

It is what it is, an old kit with a blobular chassis and scaling issues, but it still makes a fun build...especially if you can pick one up cheap on the clearance table...but it makes a better race car with the headlights molded in (easiest way to deal with the poorly scaled kit bits).

Edited October 31, 2016 by Ace-Garageguy

[Dave Darby]

Revell, hands down. The AMT kit's headlights are way too small, and they can't be fixed without completely rebuilding the entire front end.

The AMT kit is a great nostalgia build, and a vintage "parts mine," but for any kind of accuracy (or for that matter, detail), it's the Revell kit all the way.

(I'd show you exactly what I mean if Photobucket weren't down AGAIN!)

The AMT kit started out life as the SMP 1961 annual kit (not bad for its time) and was subsequently updated to a 1962 Corvette.  Both of these issues had an opening trunk, and stock and custom headlight options, with separate headlight bezels that were much more proportional. When the 62 Corvette was re-issued in the mid 60s, they closed the trunk, and molded the headlight bezels to the body, these new ones being wildly under-scale. Until the Modelhaus went under, you could get resin repops of the original bezels, file off the ugly molded in ones, and use the nicer resin units. Either way, the Revell kit has it all over the current AMT kit.

[Snake45]

If it were just a matter of the bezels, you could easily sili-clone accurate ones off the Revell '58 or '62 or the MPC '60 and drive on as you suggest. I recently did a nose-to-nose comparison of all these kits and the whole fender tops of the AMT '62 are MUCH narrower than all the others. No way to make just the bezels work. You could graft on the entire fender-tops of one of the other kits, but with the superior Revell '62 kit readily available, there's no reason to go through the pain.

[Snake45]

Okay, Bucket's back up (for the moment), so here's a couple shots showing the flashlight-sized headlights of the AMT '62.

Of course, if the shape doesn't bother you, the AMT kit is a fun and fairly easy build.

[samdiego]

I've built both versions of the Revell kit and the AMT. It's comparing apples to something completely different than an apple. Different eras and tooling philosophies. Love Revell's gasser stuff. I think the two Revell kits could stand up well against some of the best kits ever. I used to yearn for Tamiya quality. Now I think Revell is right  there.  Whatever has changed happened a few years ago. I reviewed a Revell Mustang kit for the magazine, around '09 maybe, I noticed the difference then and mentioned the new style in the review. Now if they could only resolve my customer service issue (why is it taking months to get a window tree for the '64 Chevy pickup?)

 

[Bob Ellis]

Revell, hands down. The AMT kit's headlights are way too small, and they can't be fixed without completely rebuilding the entire front end.

The AMT kit is a great nostalgia build, and a vintage "parts mine," but for any kind of accuracy (or for that matter, detail), it's the Revell kit all the way.

(I'd show you exactly what I mean if Photobucket weren't down AGAIN!)

The headlights are too small now , but AMT ruined the proper sized headlights in 1967. It used to have big bezels like Revell and clear lenses.

[Reeves Racing]

I have only built the AMT version. The headlights are a little small but, not as bad IMO as is being told here

 

[AC Norton]

.......it's easy to sum up this thread....if you demand more detail and want to put considerably more work into a build, then the Revell car would be for you. yet for some of us, who love old kit's and don't micro analyze each and everything down to the very last  bolt, rivet, or the cello on the box.....then the AMT kit is a fun and easy build here, especially as the SOCK IT TO ME gasser version, or even another build of your choice. whatever spin's your crank, I guess, but keep one thing in mind here....50 year old technology some time's  does not satisfy to the standard's that many of today's modeler's demand, but for other's the older stuff is still a joy to own and build. as for the headlight issue, no doubt Revell got that one right compared to the old AMT Vette, however with today's technology they should have, considering they have dropped the ball with many other's........  that's just my 2 cent's.........the Ace......

[stavanzer]

Mitch, That is an Outstanding Build! It that PE in the hood vents? I really like the colours.  Got any more pics of the build? It has the correct Vintage Racer vibe, nailed.

 

Alan

Edited November 2, 2016 by alexis
spelling errors

[unclescott58]

.......it's easy to sum up this thread....if you demand more detail and want to put considerably more work into a build, then the Revell car would be for you. yet for some of us, who love old kit's and don't micro analyze each and everything down to the very last  bolt, rivet, or the cello on the box.....then the AMT kit is a fun and easy build here, especially as the SOCK IT TO ME gasser version, or even another build of your choice. whatever spin's your crank, I guess, but keep one thing in mind here....50 year old technology some time's  does not satisfy to the standard's that many of today's modeler's demand, but for other's the older stuff is still a joy to own and build. as for the headlight issue, no doubt Revell got that one right compared to the old AMT Vette, however with today's technology they should have, considering they have dropped the ball with many other's........  that's just my 2 cent's.........the Ace......

You summed it perfectly, Ace.

 

[bbowser]

Thanks to everyone who responded.  I love the information that can be obtained on the forum.

[Reeves Racing]

Mitch, That is an Outstanding Build! It that PE in the hood vents? I really like the colours.  Got any more pics of the build? It has the correct Vintage Racer vibe, nailed.

 

Alan

Thanks Alan, I used a bunch of left overs from the parts box on this one.

 

[stavanzer]

Thanks for the pics! A great job on that build. I like the P.E. in the hood. Sweet little racer. Was it successful?

[unclescott58]

Despite my fond feelings towards AMT's old '62 Vette, I did break down and buy the newer Revell kit. Yes, it superior to the old AMT kit. And it will look nice sitting next to the AMT '62 when it's done. Still, the old AMT kit, other than the headlights, ain't too bad. And considering the '62 Vette had body colored headlamp rims, that feature on the AMT kit does look as bad to me, as it does to others. I guess I like both AMT's and Revell's '62 Corvettes. For different reasons.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Thing I could never figure out is why AMT felt the need to re-tool the nose, when they had the headlights about the right size earlier on. All they had to do would have been to make holes in the bezels, move 'em to a non-chrome tree, and tool 4 little lenses on the chrome or clear tree (to accommodate the body-colored bezels of the '62). They tooled clear lenses ANYWAY, so tooling two non-chrome bezels would have been a piece of cake...and leave the body alone.

This shot shows the difference between the early AMT nose (on the right) and the later one (on the left). To me, it's horrible. The size of the resulting headlights is so underscale it's laughable.

I HAVE compared the Revell and AMT '62s side by side, and the differences are SO apparent, one of them must be WAY off. This also strikes me as odd, because AMT, even with "old" technology (like measuring tapes and dividers and a little arithmetic on a pad with a pencil) was entirely capable of producing models that were GOOD scale representations of the subject matter. Their ancient '49, '56 and '57 Fords, and the old '49 Merc, for example.

Someday, I'm going to actually MEASURE a 4-eyed Corvette, and see just exactly WHO REALLY GOT IT RIGHT.

The AMT '62 still makes an acceptable race car though...especially if it's supposed to be heavily modified. Thread here...

 

 

Edited September 17, 2017 by Ace-Garageguy

[unclescott58]

Bill, you mention that AMT was good back in the day at producing accurate models, and use the AMT '49 Ford as an example. AMT's '49 Ford represents a 2-door coupe. Ford's 1949 2-door coupes did not have roll down rear quarter windows. The '49 2-door sedans did have roll down quarter windows. But, not the coupes. Yet AMT's '49 coupe has window cranks depicted for the rear seat passengers.

Also looking at the instructions for AMT's original '62 Corvette shows that the kit came with chrome headlanp bezels. This maybe the reason they changed it on the later versions of the kit? There are other differences between the original AMT '62 Corvettes and later releases also.

I'm not so sure that accuracy was all that good back in the old days. I can come up with many more examples on other kits from the time. 

Edited September 17, 2017 by unclescott58

[Ace-Garageguy]

Bill, you mention that AMT was good back in the day at producing accurate models, and use the AMT '49 Ford as an example. AMT's '49 Ford represents a 2-door coupe. Ford's 1949 2-door coupes did not have roll down rear quarter windows. The '49 2-door sedans did have roll down quarter windows. But, not the coupes. Yet AMT's '49 coupe has window cranks depicted for the rear seat passengers.

Also looking at the instructions for AMT's original '62 Corvette shows that the kit came with chrome headland bezels. This maybe the reason they changed it on the later versions of the kit? There are other differences between the original AMT '62 Corvettes and later releases also.

I'm not so sure that accuracy was all that good back in the old days. I can come up with many more examples on other kits from the time. 

I'm not talking about small, easily-rectified things like window handles.

AMT's BODIES LOOKED LIKE THE CARS THEY REPRESENTED...most of the time. They got the LINES AND PROPORTIONS RIGHT. Revell has had a few problems in that area lately. Read the critiques of the Revell '57 Ford LINES AND PROPORTIONS versus the old AMT kit, to see what I mean. There are similar issues on the recent 442 Olds and Torinos too.

On the other hand, AMT's '32 Fords ALL have an incorrect sectioned look, too short (height) at the cowl.

BUT the AMT kits that were derived FROM PROMOS, where they had access to factory drawings, were very good generally...as were Johan kits derived from promos.

I addressed the Corvette chrome bezel / body-color bezel issue above, if you read my comment in full, and explained how it could have been easily rectified.

SOME old kits are very accurate, dimensionally and proportionally. Some aren't so hot. I suppose it depended more on who the particular project personnel were, and whether they had sufficient talent, skill and passion to get it right...or not.

Far as 4-eyed Corvettes go, I think the ancient multi-piece-body version from Revell is one of the best looking, in the line-and-proportion areas.

And I was so disgusted with the itty-bitty headlights on the AMT '62 that I grafted an earlier nose on this build to deal with it.

 

Edited September 17, 2017 by Ace-Garageguy

[Snake45]

 They got the LINES AND PROPORTIONS RIGHT. Revell has had a few problems in that area lately. Read the critiques of the Revell '57 Ford LINES AND PROPORTIONS versus the old AMT kit, to see what I mean. There are similar issues on the recent 442 Olds and Torinos too.

 

And the '67 Camaro. And the '69 Nova. And the '70 Cuda. And the '67 Corvette roadster. And the '69 Mustang. And.....

[Bob Ellis]

AMT changed the headlights to simplify the kit. 

[unclescott58]

And the '67 Camaro. And the '69 Nova. And the '70 Cuda. And the '67 Corvette roadster. And the '69 Mustang. And.....

Snake, this maybe a little off the subject of '62 Corvette models. But, what is wrong with Revell's '67 Corvette roadster? I always thought that it looked pretty good?

[Snake45]

Snake, this maybe a little off the subject of '62 Corvette models. But, what is wrong with Revell's '67 Corvette roadster? I always thought that it looked pretty good?

The tops of the front fenders and the front panel are misshapen and bulbous, sort of "inflated" looking. I built one of these and I had several hours in filing and sanding a more correct shape out of what's provided. Strangely, they seem to have corrected the problem in the '67 Coupe kit, and the '63 snappers don't have it, either. Those all look good.

If I ever want to build another Revell '67 roadster, I'll start with the coupe kit and cut off the top and graft in the deck from a roadster. That would be much less work than what I went through on the one I did.

But hey, if you don't see it, and the roadster body looks good to you, build it and be happy. We only have to please ourselves in this hobby.

[unclescott58]

The tops of the front fenders and the front panel are misshapen and bulbous, sort of "inflated" looking. I built one of these and I had several hours in filing and sanding a more correct shape out of what's provided. Strangely, they seem to have corrected the problem in the '67 Coupe kit, and the '63 snappers don't have it, either. Those all look good.

If I ever want to build another Revell '67 roadster, I'll start with the coupe kit and cut off the top and graft in the deck from a roadster. That would be much less work than what I went through on the one I did.

But hey, if you don't see it, and the roadster body looks good to you, build it and be happy. We only have to please ourselves in this hobby.

Thanks for the info Snake. I never did notice the problem before.