Sometimes inspiration comes from strange places. Often these days I’m finding a model I build is inspired by a car I saw online; ever more frequently that’s in a CC feature. Sometimes a story is inspired by a CC article, like the Purple Cars one a few weeks ago.
A while back, our own Tatra 87 made reference to his “Great Book of Cars That Came Out in 1967, available in my mind in every imaginary bookstore on the face of the Earth,”. I smiled at that one. My imagination isn’t as highly structured, nor does it have such widespread distribution channels! There’s my local writing group and local small-town papers for my stories and poems. For my models, there’s Facebook (which I’m using less the more they tinker with it), and – here.
So let’s take a look at 1967. These aren’t cars which first debuted in 1967, as in Tatra’s magnum opus, but just cars you might find in American showrooms that year. American because that’s where most of our readership seems to come from. And because for those of us outside North America, the cars had a wow factor.
It’s one of those uneven years, rather patchy in terms of what’s available. Case in point: of full-size cars I only have the Chevy. No big Ford, no big Plymouth (not since 1967 to my knowledge), and nothing at all from AMC. AMT went on a tooling binge in the nineties, bringing out all sort of interesting muscle cars. This Impala SS is from 1997, when the kit first appeared.
And a second, when they brought out a street machine version…
Ponycars seemed to be where the action was. Power in a stylish compact body. Or economy, or anything in between. I don’t think ponycars had gone Brougham yet, well certainly not the ones I built.
These Mustang GTs are also nineties AMT kits. I used to walk past a blue ’67 on the way to work in the morning, back in the eighties.
I have to throw in a Camaro as well; it was new for 1967. This one’s a 1995 revision of a 1981 tool;
Sadly though there’s no Barracuda – we’ll have to wait till ’69 for that. And the Corvair. Back in the day, there was a Cougar annual kit for ’67, but it doesn’t seem to have ever been reissued. That’s a shame.
However, there are plenty of models of the 1967 intermediates.
This Chevelle is another AMT kit from the nineties. Sorry, I need to take a better photo of it.
As with many kits, AMT brought out a second version, this time as a Pro-Street car. Not a style I often build, but it had a certain appeal.
Then there’s the GTO (groan). It’s a reissue of the 1967 annual kit. But the tooling is pretty much worn out from being run through the machines ever so many times – indistinct lettering, thin and wavy window mouldings, excess plastic (flash) on the edges of parts, and such. For people who just want a model of this era of GTO, Revell’s ’66 is a far superior kit. But if you’re set on having a 1967, this is it I’m afraid.
Lindberg is an old name from way back in the early sixties, that seemed to be dormant through the seventies and eighties. But when they got their mojo back in the late nineties, they brought out some really neat kits like this ’67 442. Then they promptly got swallowed up by AMT.
AMT spun this ’67 Cyclone off from their ’66 Fairlane kit in 1993. A new body and interior details, but the same (excellent) mechanicals. Unfortunately, it seems they rushed the tooling on this one; the lower body side contours differ from one side to the other.
Now, here’s where the Mopar guys get their wish.
Revell brought out this Plymouth GTX in 1994. While generally nicely done, with excellent underhood detail, some parts of the body look a bit awkward.
Given the GTX, a Coronet was natural. It followed in 1997. Once again there were body issues, with the rear looking too droopy according to some. Not having seen the real thing, I hadn’t noticed.
In 2000 Revell got things spectacularly right with this Charger.
I built this vintage Thunderbird kit last year. Old unbuilt kits can be hard to find, and are often stupidly pricey. I don’t just mean normal supply-and-demand type high pricing (I don’t like that, but it’s understandable), more like ‘additional dealer profit’ type extortion. Hundreds of dollars more than reputable dealers are asking, sometimes. I’d bought this when old kits were much more affordable.
And while we’re on T-birds, here’s my Thunderbird sedan we’ve seen before.
And a Corvette to finish things off.
That’s it for 1967. I’ll have something totally different for you next time!
Nice work!
Thank you!
I remember from my model-building days of the early 70s that 1967 model cars were never that common. I don’t recall ever seeing a kit for a 1967 Ford Galaxie, but think I remember one of a 1967 Fury I police sedan.
These are all nicely done!
Thanks JPC. The ’67 Galaxie is hard to find, and quite pricey as a result. I’ve never seen one, but very occasionally I’ll see a built one online.
The Fury you’re thinking of is the Johan ’68. Yeah, I always get ’67 and ’68s mixed up, and I’d forgotten all about it when I wrote this post. 🙂 Not meaning to diss Plymouths…
Beautiful work, Peter. 1967 was a year that had yielded a bumper crop of designs I find really appealing. The Charger you built highlights everything I love about them.
It’s interesting to read about which model manufacturers got certain things right, and other aspects not as right. There can really be variance to where, depending on how invested one is in having the best representation versus general availability, one really has to pay attention to what they’re buying in a kit.
The two-door Thunderbird made me think it looks a bit like a super-sized Cougar.
Joseph, I totally agree about the need to pay attention when buying. You’d think that in these days of CAD and CNC and such things that models would be more accurate, but it doesn’t necessarily seem to work out that way. Some of those sixties kits were incredibly accurate; my hat’s off to the researchers and toolmakers. One sure way to make yourself unpopular online is to point out the faults. I’d rather quietly correct (or at least minimize) the faults, and have people say “How come yours looks different?” – if they even notice.
Case in point: the Cyclone. Out of the box, the roofline looked weird. Comparing it with photos online, it seemed ballooned up too high, but closer anaylsis revealed this was in part because the front and rear windshields did not extend high enough into the roof. That I could (and did) fix. The lower side contours I just hid with dark paint. Unless you were especially familiar with the Cyclone, or had it pointed out to you, it would probably escape notice.
With the US companies, it’s impossible to generalize about who’s the best. They all seem to get it wrong sometimes, and this is all the more obvious when they bring back old kits that weren’t especially good in the first place.
Here’s another Charger.
Some early Easter eggs, thank you Peter! All timeless classics. Very nicely modelled, and displayed. Great work, and thank you for sharing.
Sometimes I wish I was around to appreciate more of these iconic ’60’s designs. Due to the heavy use of road salt here in Central Canada, virtually all of the models you have presented here, were off the road by the early to mid-70’s. Just as my automotive awareness was burgeoning, as a kid. Of your selections, only the first gen Camaro, Firebird, and Thunderbird, remained in significant numbers. And many of those examples, were rough. With noticeable body rust.
The beauty of your models, is every example remains fresh, and new-looking. Decades later. I find photos of your models inspire me. Knowing the talent, and care that went into each example. Such a satisfying hobby, that brings pleasure to the rest of us!
Ha, thanks Daniel! I wasn’t thinking about them as Easter eggs when I submitted this, just my usual colourful models. Glad they bring you pleasure!
Living in an area where it almost never snows (once in the 25 years I’ve lived here, with most melting as soon as it hit the ground!) it’s hard for me to imagine what life must be like up there with snow metres deep. And salt, the necessary evil car-killer. It must have been so demoralizing to see your car pretty much rust out before your eyes, and have that happen to car after car. Oh, we do have rust here, especially in some of the coastal areas or the tropics, but not the voraciously quick car-killing rust you guys suffer. Not usually.
Of the cars you mention as survivors, I think the Camaro and Firebird have always been popular for modification, and thus more likely to have the bodywork fixed if possible. The Thunderbird – is a puzzler; maybe Ford just took more care in designing that unitary body, assembly, and rustproofing?
Your polite and thorough replies to every post, are always so thoughtful Peter! I think most people who experience it, enjoy winter for a period of time. It often has much beauty, to offer. It is the longevity of the snow and cold for four to six months, that wears some people down.
In the case of the Camaro and Firebirds being longer-lived, it may be due to higher production, and sales. Popular for modification as well, as you indicated. Compared to the other examples, they were unquestionably rusters. For some reason, the ever popular ’60’s Mustangs, did not appear to maintain their high presence here, through the 1970’s. They were still largely considered disposable, once they wore out.
Nice colour selection, on that bronze Chevy! I love the richness of your bronze, compared to the typical muted metallic paints, of that era.
Thanks, Daniel. I’m still amazed at seeing my things on the net. I figure that if somebody has taken the time to respond to my story, it’s only polite to acknowledge that, and take discussion a bit further if it seems appropriate.
I have been to the snow, (once? twice?) and don’t doubt for a moment that there is beauty in a northern winter; what I would doubt is my ability to cope with its persistance, though from what you say I would not be alone in that! You might wonder what’s wintry about a snowless Australian winter. Speaking of the countryside where I live in south-western Victoria, generally it’s a bit colder, with daily maxima of perhaps ten degrees Celsius, with a particularly bitter night being minus seven or eight (I can hear the Canadians laughing!). And wetter, usually. Of course the gum trees still have all their leaves, so it’s mostly only fruit trees and the ornamental street trees (where planted) that are leafless.
And I did slightly cheat with that Chevy, using a seventies Chrysler colour if I remember rightly. The shape just seemed to cry out for it, to show off those contours.
Professional, and gentlemanly.
Having not experienced winter, I think you’d enjoy it, for a short time. Then perhaps want to get away from it indefinitely, or permanently. lol I find people here increasingly, seem to dislike it. Even among younger people. I do find winter much more beautiful and exhilarating, in the country. Plus generally, much less usage of salt there.
Very nice call on using the more modern Chrysler colour. I feel many 1960’s designs would have benefited from brighter, more cheerful, and saturated colour palettes.
Peter, bought my first car kits in over 60 years off Goodwill last week. Then your lead picture is a red 67 Mustang.
TOTALLY unplanned, I assure you! I did sneak all of my Mustangs in here, but I thought the red one was the most eye-grabbing of the three.
That ’67 Shelby is a spinoff of the AMT nineties Mustang tool which goes together really well. I haven’t actually built one yet, just had a good look and test-fit. The ’68 is a reissue of the 1968 annual kit which seems to come back about every decade or so. It lacks some of the crisp precision of the ’67 – as you’ll no doubt have found by now. Just need to watch the body to chassis fit on that one, it’s typical of its age and not as positive as the ’67.
Just out of curiosity, Peter, how many hours would you take to make an average model?
I have done a model from scratch in under 15 hours, but it shows. More usually I’d say 20-30 hours, not including the ‘down time’ while paint dries, though usually I’ll use that time to work on something else. Like in this picture…
The Duesenberg probably has about 30 hours on it, and just needs two tiny handles and the hood ornament added. Fiddly. The ’60 DeSoto has five hours up so far but the paint needs more work, the ’65 GP has about 15, and the ’60 Ford also about five.
LOL, body work, body work, and more body work no matter the size.
That is a great pic!
tmb3fan: true, but at least there’s no rust repair!
Another attractive selection as colourful as Easter eggs. Great work as ever, Peter, thanks for brightening up the week!
Thanks Bernard! Glad to have been of service.
Nice work as usual, Peter.
I love that green/teal metallic ‘67 Mustang Fastback. My favorite of this lot.
The light blue Impala in the second shot is another favorite.
And of course I have to give an honorable mention to that ‘08 Shelby that keeps photobombing your pix. Both ‘67 Impalas have that one in the background. Naturally, I’m a little biased towards a RetroStang. 😀 Speaking of inspiration, the ‘67 Mustang’s interior was the inspiration for the interior of my ‘07.
Rick, people often comment on the photobombing cars in the background! I just checked, and I built that one back in 2014. I don’t seem to have decent completed photos of that Shelby that I can find, but here’s a similar one.
1967 was a watershed year for American car styling, and you’ve offered a nice selection here, Peter. My favorites this time are your blue Impala and the Olds 442!
Thanks, 210! Yes, car styling really took off after the ’65 GM cars brought curves back into style. By 1967 colours were really becoming stronger too, and detail stuff which might once have stayed on the drawing board seemed to make it through to production. I kind of exaggerated the colour with that 442 though; if Oldsmobile had offered such a strong purplish-blue, I’m not sure they’d have let you pair it with a bright red interior!
Another fun post. Love these. And I’m with 210. Your 442 is gorgeous; thanks for revealing the engine bay. Exquisite, like the others.
Hmm – could it be the colour? The shape? Could the fact that it’s an Olds have something to do with it? Just kidding – thanks! 🙂