Terrible Box Art

[Junkman]

I'm not talking about box art blunders.
What I mean is the atrocious box art from the dark ages of the hobby,
when you didn't buy a kit just because the box was so ugly.

 

[Daddyfink]

Oh, I think AMT is going to be the runaway winner in this game....

This whole series, ah heck, this whole decade with was nothing but visual misery for AMT

Edited November 27, 2017 by Daddyfink

[Junkman]

Although Ertl/AMT scores pretty high, they weren't the only ones.

 

[Ace-Garageguy]

[mikemodeler]

57 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

Not sure how that is supposed to be a GTO, hopefully the model inside builds up better than what is shown on the box! If it looks like the box art, I would think Ferrari would not be very happy!

[cobraman]

That one is horrible !

[Snake45]

11 minutes ago, mikemodeler said:

Not sure how that is supposed to be a GTO, hopefully the model inside builds up better than what is shown on the box! If it looks like the box art, I would think Ferrari would not be very happy!

It was the old Aurora kit, right?

[MrObsessive]

36 minutes ago, Snake45 said:

It was the old Aurora kit, right?

It sure was, and I built one of these MANY years ago! As I learned in later years, it does not represent an actual GTO in the least!

[Casey]

1 hour ago, Junkman said:

Although Ertl/AMT scores pretty high, they weren't the only ones.

 

I mean, that's actually a paper model, done on heavy card stock, panel lines drawn with an ink pen, right? It's uncomfortable to even look at it.  Imagine what happens after you open the box and look inside. 

[Mike999]

Yep, that Ferrari was the old 1/25 scale Aurora. 

And double-Yep, AMT-ERTL just seemed to give up in the 1990s.  Submitted for your approval, as Rod Serling used to say...look at these 2 boxes for the same kit.  What a difference!  The original art, with the camper out in the woods, just screams "Build me!"  You want to buy it just for the box.  And along with the camper, it had all the drag and custom parts.

So did the second kit shown, but you'd never know it.  Not one word on the box about the camper being inside, or any other parts/options.  Just that flat, uninspired "retouched photo of prototype model," as the box helpfully (and unnecessarily) tells us.  Plus 3 small photos of the engine and interior.  Ugh.

 

 

[mikemodeler]

2 hours ago, Junkman said:

Although Ertl/AMT scores pretty high, they weren't the only ones.

 

That is scary, I think I was drawing better renditions of Corvettes by 5th grade!

[MrObsessive]

Mike, I never knew that about that kit! Just goes to show how they really dropped the ball! Now I may go out and find one just because of that!

Edited November 27, 2017 by MrObsessive

[MrObsessive]

Who could forget this gem??

Pic courtesy eBay.....

There are sooo many things wrong with the car it ain't funny! Those of you who know about the real car and this kit------we could go on for hours! It was so bad that there was even an article written about in SA by Larry Greenberg (?) called "Dog's Day".

To add insult to injury, because this kit was altered so badly, we'll never see the original Bonneville return.

Way to go AMT/ERTL!!

[Mr mopar]

All the New Revell  Car kits art work are Terrible at lease Round 2 is trying

[Junkman]

Never mind the new ones, get a load of this:

 

[sjordan2]

Yes, this is a hideous representation of a 275 GTB. Unfortunately, it's TOTALLY accurate to the mess inside the box.

 

[Draggon]

This gives me zero enthusiasm. Even if it was 1/25 I wouldn't buy it. 

[Richard Bartrop]

3 hours ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

This illustrates perfectly why I prefer the photo boxes even though they aren't as pretty as the painted ones.   At least you see whar you're getting, and in cases like this, what to avoid.

[Daddyfink]

1 hour ago, Junkman said:

Never mind the new ones, get a load of this:

 

That's not too bad. 

 

[sjordan2]

2 hours ago, Richard Bartrop said:

This illustrates perfectly why I prefer the photo boxes even though they aren't as pretty as the painted ones.   At least you see whar you're getting, and in cases like this, what to avoid.

Totally agree.  (Hmm. Seems that quoted replies no longer show the accompanying images)

Edited November 27, 2017 by sjordan2

[Xingu]

25 minutes ago, sjordan2 said:

Totally agree.  (Hmm. Seems that quoted replies no longer show the accompanying images)

The post you quoted had a quoted post in it. You would have needed to quote Bill's post to get the photo.

[Junkman]

3 hours ago, Draggon said:

This gives me zero enthusiasm. Even if it was 1/25 I wouldn't buy it. 

 

Maybe the 1/32 scale one can entice you more?

 

[Daddyfink]

[Richard Bartrop]

1 hour ago, sjordan2 said:

Totally agree.  (Hmm. Seems that quoted replies no longer show the accompanying images)

There's a big difference between bad layout and a photo of a bad model.   I avoided that Monogram Ferrari too because of that photo on the box.  If that photo was of a nicely detail model that actually capture the look of a Ferrari GTO, then Monogram would have made a sale.  I buy models to build them (eventually, I swear!), not to collect boxes,  so box aesthetics are usually not a factor.   If anything, I tend to shy away from fancy painted boxes if I've had a bad experience with that manufacturer, doubly so if there's some disclaimer that the kit may not be exactly as shown.  Lindberg's '53 Ford is a pretty nice kit, but based on past experience, I probably wouldn't have given it a chance if there hadn't been a photo of the model to show me what I was getting into.

[Junkman]

That Spider Stingray is delightfully awful.