Revell 1963 Corvette?

[250 Testa Rossa]

With all of the 1963 Corvette kits that have been released over the years, there really hasn't been a good kit of this car that hasn't been up to par with the real thing. AMT has done a decent one over the years which is still available. Revell did a SnapTite '63 Corvette at one time. Historic Racing Miniatures did a resin transkit for the Revell '67 Corvette which included a proper 327 with the Rochester fuel injection, a couple different sets of knockoff wheels, Z06 drum brakes, and even a proper interior which also included parts for the coveted N03 "Tanker". Is there any possibility that Revell would do a proper 1/25th scale 1963 Corvette split window in the coming years? Just a thought. 

[64Comet404]

You never know, it all depends on what sort of demand there is. However, seeing that the old AMT plug is still selling after dozens of reissues shows it would be a kit with market potential. The Snap-Tite kit is actually quite nice, even though the options they replicate are a bit unusual: not many came with Powerglides from the factory! (IIRC, the 1:1 car Revell used belonged to tbe late Roger Harney, who was a long-time kit designer for Monogram and R/M.)

[bbowser]

34 minutes ago, 64Comet404 said:

You never know, it all depends on what sort of demand there is. However, seeing that the old AMT plug is still selling after dozens of reissues shows it would be a kit with market potential. The Snap-Tite kit is actually quite nice, even though the options they replicate are a bit unusual: not many came with Powerglides from the factory! (IIRC, the 1:1 car Revell used belonged to tbe late Roger Harney, who was a long-time kit designer for Monogram and R/M.)

My dad's '66 was a 327 Powerglide coupe.  Sold long ago to fund his retirement!

[bobss396]

I built an AMT '63 around 1998. The molds are showing their age. I had to re-scribe quite a bit of the door lines.. not fun. It still built up nicely for a very simple kit.

[tim boyd]

15 hours ago, 250 Testa Rossa said:

With all of the 1963 Corvette kits that have been released over the years, there really hasn't been a good kit of this car that hasn't been up to par with the real thing. AMT has done a decent one over the years which is still available. Revell did a SnapTite '63 Corvette at one time. Historic Racing Miniatures did a resin transkit for the Revell '67 Corvette which included a proper 327 with the Rochester fuel injection, a couple different sets of knockoff wheels, Z06 drum brakes, and even a proper interior which also included parts for the coveted N03 "Tanker". Is there any possibility that Revell would do a proper 1/25th scale 1963 Corvette split window in the coming years? Just a thought. 

I think that there is a good deal of merit in this idea.  Revell's Snap Tite can make a pretty sharp curbside (convertible version shown below), but a full detail kit, with all the specs articulated in Maxx's original post, would be a terrific basis for a newly tooled model kit. 

However, as a retired 1/1 scale marketer and one who has been consulted on future kit ideas by the most of the domestic kitmakers at various times in the past, I have to admit that I am sometimes disappointed in what appears to be a mediocre market response to all-new kits of topics previously committed to 1/25 scale and still sold being sold by competitive kitmakers - e.g. the ancient 1963 Corvette kit sold by Round 2 as mentioned in this thread.   So, as a kiltmaker, the discussion becomes "should I commit the effort (funding, headcount, development time, et al) and the future revenue stream to...":

a) a world class 1/24th or 1/25th scale '63 Covette kit, recognizing that the hobby store shelves have other offerings of this subject, and many hardcore modelers like us already have multiples of those old kits in our stash...or

b) an all-new tool of a subject that was once sold as an annual kit but never reissued (e.g. a 1968 or 69 AMC Javelin, for instance), or

c) an all-new topic that has never seen any kind of 1/24th-25th scale styrene assembly kit (1962-64 Ferrari Berlinetta Lusso)

...and for all of the above - ONLY engineered with the investment for a full detail kit including a stand-alone and complete engine and transmission - Asian kit makers, that means you. 

*****

Those are the types of debates any responsible kitmaker is going to have today.  And a decision that I am glad I don't have to make myself. 

Best...TB 

Edited April 7 by tim boyd

[Fat Brian]

FYI, the snap 63 and full detail 67 don't exactly fit together either. The snap kits wheelbase is about 2mm longer than than the 67 so fitting them to8will take some tweaking.

[lordairgtar]

Can the AMT 63 and the Revell 67 be combined in a way? Maybe using the snap one for interior too?

[250 Testa Rossa]

6 hours ago, tim boyd said:

I think that there is a good deal of merit in this idea.  Revell's Snap Tite can make a pretty sharp curbside (convertible version shown below), but a full detail kit, with all the specs articulated in Maxx's original post, would be a terrific basis for a newly tooled model kit. 

However, as a retired 1/1 scale marketer and one who has been consulted on future kit ideas by the most of the domestic kitmakers at various times in the past, I have to admit that I am sometimes disappointed in what appears to be a mediocre market response to all-new kits of topics previously committed to 1/25 scale and still sold being sold by competitive kitmakers - e.g. the ancient 1963 Corvette kit sold by Round 2 as mentioned in this thread.   So, as a kiltmaker, the discussion becomes "should I commit the effort (funding, headcount, development time, et al) and the future revenue stream to...":

a) a world class 1/24th or 1/25th scale '63 Covette kit, recognizing that the hobby store shelves have other offerings of this subject, and many hardcore modelers like us already have multiples of those old kits in our stash...or

b) an all-new tool of a subject that was once sold as an annual kit but never reissued (e.g. a 1968 or 69 AMC Javelin, for instance), or

c) an all-new topic that has never seen any kind of 1/24th-25th scale styrene assembly kit (1962-64 Ferrari Berlinetta Lusso)

...and for all of the above - ONLY engineered with the investment for a full detail kit including a stand-alone and complete engine and transmission - Asian kit makers, that means you. 

*****

Those are the types of debates any responsible kitmaker is going to have today.  And a decision that I am glad I don't have to make myself. 

Best...TB 

Yes, the SnapTite was part of the basis for the Historic Racing Miniatures kit. I think that if Revell did a '63 full detail, it would sell like hotcakes.

[Justin Porter]

A '63 Corvette either based on the bones of the '67 Vettes OR entirely as a fresh tool on the level of the '71 Mustang or the K5 Blazer would probably do reasonably well. I don't know if it would necessarily be a huge success but I could see fairly well. 

While I do understand that fundamentally a C1 Corvette is a whole different beast from a C2 Corvette, the last runs of the '62 and '58 Corvettes - Revell's two most recent new tools for classic Corvettes - may not have generated enough sales for Revell to be convinced that the market is strong enough for yet more new tooling for classic Corvettes.

[58 Impala]

I wish Revell would do a new full detail of the 63. I asked Ed Sexton the same question 15 yrs ago when the IPMS had their convention in Orlando. I think they would sell a bunch of them.

[Phildaupho]

20 hours ago, lordairgtar said:

Can the AMT 63 and the Revell 67 be combined in a way? Maybe using the snap one for interior too?

 

I did not use the snap interior but in my opinion combining the body parts turned out well.

Edited April 8 by Phildaupho

[250 Testa Rossa]

Yes, that was built as the Dave MacDonald car.

[mikos]

7 hours ago, Phildaupho said:

 

I did not use the snap interior but in my opinion combining the body parts turned out well.

Not bad…the top (side windows and windshield) seem to be a little “chopped” compared to the real car.  The Revell ‘63 snap kits, both coupe and convertible, were very well done.  They didn’t have much detail, but Revell nailed the proportions right.  For me, I would take a well proportioned body on a kit that is simplified rather than something with super detail that doesn’t look quite right when built.

[250 Testa Rossa]

Hopefully someone at Revell sees this and decides to move forward. 

[Junkman]

With two to three guaranteed sales, this sure is a viable proposition.

[Ragtop Man]

I remain disappointed that Revell was not fully considering the "interoperability" (as the techs say) between Snap and Detail for many similar/same subjects that were released over the last several years. 

The WOF '57 Bel Air coupe FINALLY nailed the subject after every kit maker swung at it at least a few times; but there is a boatload of Dremel work to adapt it to their excellent '57 Bel Air Convertible.

Ditto the '63 WOF splitter and the '67 detail kits - so close, yet so far. 

And I fall back to Tim's terrific story of a few years ago about adding detail kit parts to the snap together '14 (?) Mustang promo. 

As I have chastised others here and at other boards and forums - we are modelers, not just assemblers. None of the above are beyond the skill of most readers. But dang, think how much easier it would be if tabs lined up and parts swapped like those crazy Trophy kits from 1963?  

I don't think it's just me... but I could be wrong about that.

 

[Luc Janssens]

1 hour ago, Ragtop Man said:

I remain disappointed that Revell was not fully considering the "interoperability" (as the techs say) between Snap and Detail for many similar/same subjects that were released over the last several years. 

The WOF '57 Bel Air coupe FINALLY nailed the subject after every kit maker swung at it at least a few times; but there is a boatload of Dremel work to adapt it to their excellent '57 Bel Air Convertible.

Ditto the '63 WOF splitter and the '67 detail kits - so close, yet so far. 

And I fall back to Tim's terrific story of a few years ago about adding detail kit parts to the snap together '14 (?) Mustang promo. 

As I have chastised others here and at other boards and forums - we are modelers, not just assemblers. None of the above are beyond the skill of most readers. But dang, think how much easier it would be if tabs lined up and parts swapped like those crazy Trophy kits from 1963?  

I don't think it's just me... but I could be wrong about that.

 

Think the first "snapper' from Revell-Monogram which was designed as a coss-over, was the WOF '10 Mustang convertible, maybe more was in the pipeline....

[Ragtop Man]

8 hours ago, Luc Janssens said:

Think the first "snapper' from Revell-Monogram which was designed as a coss-over, was the WOF '10 Mustang convertible, maybe more was in the pipeline....

Is that something we know for sure, or is that speculation? It would be a heck of a smart business play - I can't think of a good reason NOT to. The WOF Chevelle struck me as a pretty good looking replica, but I have also seen (here, Spotlight, others) a fair bit of criticism directed at same for roofline, daylight openings, etc. In a perfect world, the '69 Chevelle would slide under it like silk sheets. 

[Luc Janssens]

5 hours ago, Ragtop Man said:

Is that something we know for sure, or is that speculation? It would be a heck of a smart business play - I can't think of a good reason NOT to. The WOF Chevelle struck me as a pretty good looking replica, but I have also seen (here, Spotlight, others) a fair bit of criticism directed at same for roofline, daylight openings, etc. In a perfect world, the '69 Chevelle would slide under it like silk sheets. 

The info bout the Mustang came from the late Bill Lastovich, when I met him at (I think) the last RCHTA show...the part that maybe there was more of the same in the pipeline is pure speculation on my part.

[Chris V]

17 hours ago, Ragtop Man said:

I remain disappointed that Revell was not fully considering the "interoperability" (as the techs say) between Snap and Detail for many similar/same subjects that were released over the last several years. 

The WOF '57 Bel Air coupe FINALLY nailed the subject after every kit maker swung at it at least a few times; but there is a boatload of Dremel work to adapt it to their excellent '57 Bel Air Convertible.

Ditto the '63 WOF splitter and the '67 detail kits - so close, yet so far. 

And I fall back to Tim's terrific story of a few years ago about adding detail kit parts to the snap together '14 (?) Mustang promo. 

As I have chastised others here and at other boards and forums - we are modelers, not just assemblers. None of the above are beyond the skill of most readers. But dang, think how much easier it would be if tabs lined up and parts swapped like those crazy Trophy kits from 1963?  

I don't think it's just me... but I could be wrong about that.

 

That’s not entirely true. If you look at the RoG 1:16 Porsche 356, the Coupé is an advanced snap kit whereas the Convertible is a highly detailed glue kit albeit based on the same tooling platform. 
 

However I think that the target demographic may be a key factor in why interoperability between snap- and glue kits isn’t more common: In the eyes of the average consumer (and many modelers alike) snap kits are considered “toys” and thus expected/required to have a certain sturdiness. Revell’s 1963 Corvettes is an excellent example as their thick castings may be somewhat prohibitive when it comes to scale accuracy. The amount of alternate tooling inserts required to run the kit as at fully detailed kit with the accuracy of their ‘67 Corvette may be so expensive that it’s hardly worth the investment compared to creating an all-new stand alone (glue) kit.

Having said that, I would welcome an all new fully detailed ‘63 or ‘65 Corvette kit with open arms! 

[tim boyd]

21 hours ago, Ragtop Man said:

 

And I fall back to Tim's terrific story of a few years ago about adding detail kit parts to the snap together '14 (?) Mustang promo. 

 

 

Believe it or not, actually my Mustang GT convertible was a kitbash of the original Revell 2005 Mustang GT full detail kit.   The how-to appeared in Scale Auto around 2008.   It was an exact copy of my 1/1 at the time other than the wheels/tires from the Revell F150 Harley kit.   Revell's curbside Mustang GT convertible came out around 2010 or so...and I never did a project on that kit....jTB

[Ragtop Man]

2 hours ago, tim boyd said:

Believe it or not, actually my Mustang GT convertible was a kitbash of the original Revell 2005 Mustang GT full detail kit.   The how-to appeared in Scale Auto around 2008.   It was an exact copy of my 1/1 at the time other than the wheels/tires from the Revell F150 Harley kit.   Revell's curbside Mustang GT convertible came out around 2010 or so...and I never did a project on that kit....jTB

This is the project I was recalling. Still very cool build. 

 

[mikos]

On 4/12/2025 at 6:57 PM, Ragtop Man said:

Is that something we know for sure, or is that speculation? It would be a heck of a smart business play - I can't think of a good reason NOT to. The WOF Chevelle struck me as a pretty good looking replica, but I have also seen (here, Spotlight, others) a fair bit of criticism directed at same for roofline, daylight openings, etc. In a perfect world, the '69 Chevelle would slide under it like silk sheets. 

Some issues with the top windshield header of the roofline profile on the WOF Chevelle.  It reminds me of a residual diecast side effect with inside mounting interior glass.  Otherwise, it was a very good looking replica of that model.

For some reason, I keep thinking the WOF line of kits from Revell were failed promos after GM cancelled them.  When the promo contract collapsed, they created the WOF line and offered them as simplified easy to build snap kits.  Don’t know if I remember reading that somewhere or not.

 

Edited yesterday at 01:21 AM by mikos

[Mark C.]

Other than being able to share tooling between a snap and full detail kit, are there any other advantages to interoperability?

Where I’m going with this, is that if as mentioned above a snap kit has to be a more robust, thicker casting due to its ‘toy’ market target, then I can see why they would have to be treated as separate products.

However, and this is especially true in today’s digital world, getting the body proportions and details right seem to be the most resource intensive (or at least time consuming) and important part of the process, and with digital technology copying a data file to use over and over is a reality.  So, would it be that much of a stretch to start with the same data file and just create 2 separate kits of the same subject matter?  One snap, one detail.

I can see that there would be greater costs involved in cutting 2 separate body tools, for example, though one might wonder if the logistics of keeping a tool all together might offset that somewhat, but in my mind anyhow, it seems to solve the problem.

Also, it doesn’t seem out of the world of possibilities that Revell could decide to digitally scan a ‘63 WOF Vette body (a la Round 2) and use the data to start a full detail kit of same…

Just food for thought, and recognizing that my lack of knowledge about the inner workings of the industry might make this post seem silly (a risk I’m willing to take…lol).

[Junkman]

There must be intricacies in plastic kit tool engineering the likes of us just don't understand.
Apparently tooling diecast models is much more forgiving, although, going by some of the 1/24 partworks, there also are seemingly irrational things going on, for example a sedan and wagon version of the very same car evidently having different bumper and grille toolings, despite these parts were identical on the real cars. One would wonder why they didn't just reuse this part of the tooling for version 2.
I discussed this with Axel Fischer (of Norev fame) a while back, and he explained to me, assigning a project to a team start to finish is easier than managing the reuse of specific components, especially if the models are manufactured in different facilities, or even different countries.