Amt/Ertl or Revell-Monogram?

[dude]

Which company do you prefer and why?

[drppdyllwrngr]

i have both, cant' say i like one more than the other.

[ckourouklis]

Now see, y'all, what we got here is one of the great philosophical debates of the ages. Stoic or epicure, ontology or deontology, catholic or orthodox, Revell or AMT.

In the context of car modeling, my short answer is Revell. Revell, Revell, Revell. That's just based on what they've done for us lately. Revell is functioning as a financially autonomous unit, and they're playing for keeps, as if their future depends on getting good product out.

AMT, on the other hand, is currently plodding through another nadir in their storied history, as a withered subsidiary of a larger toy company that doesn't appear to respect the equity that brand carries. Though there are encouraging signs of a change in the horizon concerning this, Revell is unequivocally making better widgets right now, and modelers can dispute this only at risk to their own credibility.

What you may see, as this discussion continues, are personal predilections based on AMT's initial impact on plastic car modeling, around 1958. It was AMT that established the standard 1/25 scale that elicits such slavering, irrational devotion among scale bigots, AMT that pioneered tool-sharing among promotional models and kits, AMT that debuted transparent red taillights and vinyl tires, AMT that laid out a basic car model architecture that stood without any serious updates till the mid '80's.

This has much to do with why some modelers take a complaint about AMT as an attack on their own person; God forbid you should dare to point out any discrepancies between content and boxcover among these guys. Because even though Revell has a history of greater detail from the very start, they also have a long-standing reputation of being fussier to build. As a result, AMT's pioneering, builder-friendly status has positioned them as an unassailable sentimental favorite in many builders' eyes.

What's interesting is that many of these AMT apologists will take a pretty high-and-mighty knock at your building skills, as if your criticisms necessarily render you incapable of the overhaul you'll need to perform to get a recent AMT reissue closer to what the box promises you. So holier-than-thou about what an inferior builder you are, when ease of assembly is a great part of what built their loyalty to AMT in the first place.

It's a paradox akin to the evolution of American- and world-standard scales. 1/25 is the more metric-friendly scale, so you'd figure it would make more sense as a global standard. 1/24 is more easily converted with English units, so it would be the more logical American scale. The whole AMT/Revell discussion is just this counterintuitive at times.

My own inclinations as a builder who grew up in the '80's will drive me towards anyone affiliated with Monogram - even a manufacturer of 1/25 Monogram models, which is essentially what Revell has become, much to its good fortune and benefit. Back in my day, 1/25 scale wasn't crap.

But to some, it's everything, and that will explain some responses further down the line, from modelers who can't help themselves despite my anticipation and vivisection of their arguments.

Ah, well. I've meandered enough. I think y'all get my point.

[gbritnell]

Ok, here's my take on the situation. I grew up with AMT in the 60's. For us in our early teens who couldn't afford a car yet , modeling and mimicking the rods that we saw in the car mags was as close as we could come to the real thing. The early AMT stuff was really neat because it was totally new. Yeah, Revell had some kits like the 1956 series of the Ford Sunliner convertible, Mercury hardtop, Chysler and Buick. They had some nice detail but no window glass, two piece fenders etc. Later came the original versions of the gassers with chrome parts that were so brittle they broke trying to get them off of the sprue. I don't think Revell at that time could compare with AMT's kits like the double dragster kit with the rail and Fiat gasser. Through the years I don't know what AMT's manufacturing philosophy was but with it changing hands so many times certainly didn't bode well for the product. I bought Monogram cars during that time also. When you look back at what they were producing they are pretty crude by today's standards but here again they were cars and that's what we were interested in. Jump ahead to the last 15-20 years and the auto modeling hobby took a giant leap with most modeling companies. Tamiya produces some fantastic kits today as well as Revell/Monogram. I think AMT could be competitive if they produced more (new) tooling. They already have some great kits, the 1960 Ford Starliner, 1962 Pontiac Catalina come to mind but there are others as well. They just keep repopping alot of the originals which got surpassed many years back and I think for the people who have modeled for many years just don't want what those kits are delivering. Overall I think that AMT produces some nice kits. The key word being some. It's just that Revell/Monogram has a greater variety with comparable or better detail. By the way, I voted for Revell but still build AMT.
gbritnell

[blackfoot]

I prefer AMT. They have the best variety of versions to build. I dont really mind the lack of undercarriage, cant see that whan its sitting on the shelf anyway. I dont build for contests and shows anyway, I build for me. Also Ive never had a warped body, missing or short shot pieces like Ive had dozens of times from R/M. AMT can keep bringing back the old tooling, Ill buy every non-Ford they produce. Long live AMT!!

[mikrocarz]

Deciding on which of the two companies (AMT or Revell Monogram) would be a hard choice to make. I have roughly the same amount of kits. In terms of building, I tend to prefer the RM kits largely in part to the 1/24th scale muscle cars and stock cars. The muscle cars that were available were cars that I had much interest in, and the kits (although simple) built up nicely and I was generally pleased with the results. Some of my favorites are the Boss 429 and 302, 64 GTO, 70 Trans Am, 69 GTO and all of the Mopar muscle cars.

However, most of my decisions on what kits I buy are based on subject. For this reason,I have purchased many AMT kits. The range of products is so much wider then RM. Although my interests are greatly slanted towards Mopars (I also have several Lindburg, and Jo-Han kits), AMT makes a variety of kits that is extremely broad in subject matter. As a result , cars such as the Edsel, 53 Studebaker, 63 Avanti, 69 Corvair, the 60 Ford and 62 Thunderbird have been kitted.

Detail level between the two companys is a toss up. Revell Monogram kits are generally more detailed in their 1/25th kits, but on the other hand, the detail level in many of the AMT kits is outstanding. One only would have to look at kits like the 71 Duster, 60 Ford, or the 57 Chrysler 300.

In this hobby, people tend to have some strong opinions on products and technics. It is my opinion that a person should buy what they enjoy building and what pleases them. With the exception of a couple of really funky 73 Charger Stock car kits, this has generally worked for me.

[tommy121]

I like both, but Revell-Monogram comes in first, I suppose because thats what I started with in the mid-50's, and the Highway Pioneers before that