# Pic request: early Aurora monsters vs repops



## frankenstyrene (Oct 5, 2006)

My eye has never been sharp enough to tell a difference between original (early) Aurora monsters - the few I've seen in person - and the several regenerations ('83, '91, Luminators, PL, now Revell...I probably missed some in there). I keep hearing how much the detail has degraded from overuse of the molds, and I don't doubt it one bit. But I'd really like to see up-close examples of it. As just one example, a '61 Frankenstein compared shot-for-shot with, say, the most recent repop. 

It'd make for a fun thread to see what almost 50 years of semi-constant use looks like in the plastic. 

Thanks, to whoever might be able to do this, for considering it.

PS If this idea already been done, I missed it. Let me know and I'll go find it.


----------



## 1bluegtx (Aug 13, 2004)

Also need to note that when they released the luminator series the molds were semi-polished resulting in detail being buffed out slightly,Also the part numbers were all removed from the parts .
I have first issues and the polar lights reissues i will see if i can post some photos,detail still looks good to me.

BRIAN


----------



## Cro-Magnon Man (Jun 11, 2001)

1bluegtx said:


> when they released the luminator series the molds were semi-polished resulting in detail being buffed out slightly,Also the part numbers were all removed from the parts .
> 
> BRIAN


Really? I built the Luminators first of any reissues, so didn't know the difference and never knew that.


----------



## buzzconroy (Jun 28, 2002)

Does have to be monsters? The only Polarlights that I have is a 420, I have a 420 original in box.But thats reverse engineering, doesnt really count, right?

Randy


----------



## frankenstyrene (Oct 5, 2006)

No, doesn't have to be monsters, not at all...could be anything vintage that has been repopped. I just figured there's got to be a lot of original and repopped monsters owned by several guys here. Come to think of it, I have a box with 7 of the original 12 I got a few years ago, but they're paintbombs and nowhere near useful for judging detail. :freak:

Reverse engineered wouldn't count either, I forgot that, thanks for mentioning it.


----------



## 1bluegtx (Aug 13, 2004)

buzzconroy said:


> Does have to be monsters? The only Polarlights that I have is a 420, I have a 420 original in box.But thats reverse engineering, doesnt really count, right?
> 
> Randy


It is interesting though that some of the reverse enginered kits have details and textures different from the original auroras.A good example is the addams family house,the woodgrain on the siding is completely different than the original.

BRIAN


----------



## buzzconroy (Jun 28, 2002)

I can post some first run monster parts, but I have no reissues to compare them with.
Just got an original Aurora Batmobile, very early run, the detail is very crisp, especially on the 2 figures, I heard that the reissue Polarlights Batmobile wasn't crisp, but that makes sense because they bought the second mold, this kit was pounded out , so the mold would be worn.

Randy


----------



## tr7nut (Apr 18, 1999)

*Not an important difference, but clearly noticable.*

The kit that really pointed out texture differences to me was the Dick Tracy Space Coupe. I had parts of an original and bought the reverse engineered kit to have a complete one. The kit is a "smoothie" anyway but the moon base is dramatically different. The original piece is very rutty and cratered with lots of textures to paint and highlight. The re-pop seems to have maybe half or a little better of the same detail. On the monster kits one of the biggest differences is with an original verses a newer Frankenstein base. The holes for the footstones are all wollowed out on the newer base and you have to use a buildup of putty to make them fit and look good. An original base has perfectly cut holes that the footstones fit right in with no putty needed. No pics i know, but hope this helps.


----------



## longbox (Nov 4, 2007)

1bluegtx said:


> It is interesting though that some of the reverse enginered kits have details and textures different from the original auroras.A good example is the addams family house,the woodgrain on the siding is completely different than the original.
> 
> BRIAN


Yup, 

I noticed that with the PL Hunchback's plinth and turntable, a considerable difference in the woodgrain from my original Aurora kit.

LB


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

I have singular build ups of all of the monsters but if its an original I don't have a built reissue. I do have the original and new Hunchback kits, though. The pics are all just existing ones that I have on file.

Original Aurora "glow" Hunchback from the early 70s










The Polar Lights new tool Hunchback










These are original Aurora glow parts on a reissue body.










And a reissue kit. I thought the detail was still pretty good on this one although the molds had a lot of flash and rough areas.










Original English issue of the Blue Knight in its original 70s paint that I built as a kid.



















Reissue of the Red Knight


----------



## frankenstyrene (Oct 5, 2006)

buzzconroy said:


> I can post some first run monster parts, but I have no reissues to compare them with.
> 
> Randy


That'd be fine...all someone would have to do is match whatever pic of an original you post with a repop. Even I could do it, I'll prime-coat my unpainted Luminators with gray paint, just so the differences are visible. 

Thanks for the pics already posted, all...great thread already!


----------



## frankenstyrene (Oct 5, 2006)

Would be interesting to know exactly how many shots/kits each mold has produced in 50 years. Tens of thousands, easily.


----------



## otto (Jan 1, 1970)

Millions on Frankenstein. Low millions though. I bet high 100's of thousands, if not millions on some of the other popular kits.


----------



## 1bluegtx (Aug 13, 2004)

Ok here is a few side by side pictures.Polarlights long box on left,Aurora long box on right.Real hard to get detailed photos because of the color of plastic:
Mummy base:




























Frankenstein base:
















The photo did not pick up all the detail on the polar lights head on the right:









Other than the mold polishing done by monogram i see no loss of detail and the aurora issues actually have more flash.

BRIAN


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

My Revell Mummy has wayyyyyyyyy more flash than Any Aurora issue that I had... Frankenstein has the bad base wear.


----------



## Auroranut (Jan 12, 2008)

longbox said:


> Yup,
> 
> I noticed that with the PL Hunchback's plinth and turntable, a considerable difference in the woodgrain from my original Aurora kit.
> 
> LB


I have both original and GITD Hunchbacks (both Aurora). The first issue has a perfectly flat nameplate but the other has terrible sink marks in it...

Chris.


----------



## TAY666 (Jan 8, 2000)

djnick66 said:


> My Revell Mummy has wayyyyyyyyy more flash than Any Aurora issue that I had... Frankenstein has the bad base wear.


Actually, flash, in and of itself doesn't mean the mold is worn.
Flash, sink marks, and warped parts are basically signs of bad processing.
Or bad quality control.
Most of those issues can be taken care of by adjusting things during production.

Yeah, it could mean the molds are worn, and there was no way to adjust things to get rid of the problem.
Or it could just mean, that Revell didn't care, or didn't want to slow the cycle time down enough to eliminate the issue (hence costing them a bit more to produce the kit)


----------



## frankenstyrene (Oct 5, 2006)

TAY666 said:


> Actually, flash, in and of itself doesn't mean the mold is worn.
> Flash, sink marks, and warped parts are basically signs of bad processing.
> Or bad quality control.
> Most of those issues can be taken care of by adjusting things during production.
> ...


I'm guessing you mean sink marks (I've seen those too) might be from too little plastic or not hot enough, something like that?

From the pics above, I'm really not seeing much difference. For sure, though, I never knew Frankie had so much detail carved on his lips.


----------



## 1bluegtx (Aug 13, 2004)

Worked in an injection mold shop for about 8 years.Sink marks are generally caused by not enough cooling time for the part (the plastic is still molten on the inside of the part)also can cause marks from the ejector pins pushing thru.Not enough shot (plastic) can cause parts to not completely fill.To much pressure can cause a burn on the part and flash.Warped parts can be caused by waiting to many cycles between mold release spray.Flash can usually be taken care of by cleaning the mold (gets a build up of dirt and grease not letting the mold halves seat).

Never molded a model kit but lots of little tikes toys and general motors auto interior parts.

BRIAN


----------



## longbox (Nov 4, 2007)

You want flash? How about this for a flash flood?
UK Aurora GITD from the seventies:


















LB

(edit) Thinking about it though, the Aurora branding on the underside is pretty darn crisp for an already well used tool.


----------



## Mitchellmania (Feb 14, 2002)

I'm just amazed the original molds have held up for so long (and I hope they will for more runs!)


----------



## frankenstyrene (Oct 5, 2006)

longbox said:


> You want flash? How about this for a flash flood?
> UK Aurora GITD from the seventies:
> 
> 
> ...


Is this a non-U.S. issue? Mine was gray. I think. It's been a while.

EDIT: Nevermind...U.K.


----------



## frankenstyrene (Oct 5, 2006)

Mitchellmania said:


> I'm just amazed the original molds have held up for so long (and I hope they will for more runs!)


The answer to this question is well above my paygrade but I'm guessing the answer is "no."

Would it be possible to reproduce the Monster molds (assuming someone wanted to dump the cash into doing so) to exactly match the original detail...that is, to correct any flaws and wear that's developed in a half century of use?

Second dumb question.

If you won the Powerball and, just for fun, approached Revell or whoever, got out your checkbook and pen and said, "Name your price for the 12 molds," how much do you think they'd ask, realistically? My dad always said I should do that if I won the lottery, but I consider lotteries to be a tax on people who can't grasp the concept of astronomically bad odds.


----------



## Mitchellmania (Feb 14, 2002)

I've done both originals and repops, and I'm just as happy with the new ones!


----------



## TAY666 (Jan 8, 2000)

1bluegtx said:


> Never molded a model kit but lots of little tikes toys and general motors auto interior parts.
> 
> BRIAN


Same here.
17 years making Little Tikes, until Newell and Walmart moved almost everything overseas in 2004.


----------



## longbox (Nov 4, 2007)

The recent Revell issues of the Aurora monsters are highly polished, even trying to take decent pictures of them is difficult due to the amount of light reflected from them. However, here is the Revell Frankenstein head for comparison with the original in post 14, I think its a lot softer due to the mould polishing:



















It may look better under a coat of primer of course.

John


----------



## tr7nut (Apr 18, 1999)

*Aurora flash...*

Much as we romanticize the old Auroras, they were the kings of flash, short shots and warped parts. I was a member of the Parent's Magazine Young Model Builder's Club and can't tell you the number of kits i received that were nearly unbuildable due to these issues. Doesn't mean i'm not a HUGE fan, but they were not the best on quality, especially near the end. My love for them started around 72/73, and has lasted to this day. Pretty sad world with Aurora going out of business just two years after "fun cars" died. Thought the sky was going to fall next!


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

djnick66 said:


> My Revell Mummy has wayyyyyyyyy more flash than Any Aurora issue that I had... Frankenstein has the bad base wear.


Your description of the bad base wear sounds just like my original 1960's issue Aurora frankie, though.


----------



## ChrisW (Jan 1, 1970)

The worse case of mold flash on a kit I bought was a glow-in-the-dark Dr. Jekyll as Mr. Hyde. Not only flash, but incomplete mold fill. It's boxed away right now, if I dig it out I'll post some pics...


----------



## deadmanincfan (Mar 11, 2008)

Worst problem I ever had with an Aurora kit was when I finally managed to get my hot little preteen hands on the GITD Dracula...something had happened in the molding process, and the upper half of his left arm was naught but a blob of melted black plastic. If only I had written them about the issue, but I wasn't sure if they'd help out or just shine it on. Fool that I was...


----------



## Desslock (Mar 5, 2011)

Sorry guys, newbie question - what does "flash" mean in this context? Extra bits of plastic?

Not monsters, but there's definitely a quality difference between the Aurora Prehistoric Scenes kits and the 2007 Revell/Monogram reissues (obscured nameplates, etc.). Some better/worse than others, as you'd expect.


----------



## Roy Kirchoff (Jan 1, 1970)

longbox said:


> You want flash? How about this for a flash flood?
> UK Aurora GITD from the seventies:
> 
> 
> ...


Dresslock, the thin bit of plastic sledge below the Mummy name plate is flash. This usually happens when the mold halves don't have a good mating surface at the edges. 

~RK~


----------



## frankenstyrene (Oct 5, 2006)

Back in the '60s, a really imaginative kid would have used that flash for a pool of blood.


----------



## Desslock (Mar 5, 2011)

Roy Kirchoff said:


> Dresslock, the thin bit of plastic sledge below the Mummy name plate is flash. This usually happens when the mold halves don't have a good matting surface at the edges.
> 
> ~RK~


Ah, thanks for highlighting the vivid example.


----------



## otto (Jan 1, 1970)

Desslock said:


> Sorry guys, newbie question - what does "flash" mean in this context? Extra bits of plastic?
> 
> Not monsters, but there's definitely a quality difference between the Aurora Prehistoric Scenes kits and the 2007 Revell/Monogram reissues (obscured nameplates, etc.). Some better/worse than others, as you'd expect.


 They ground the lettering off on most examples, so that cant really be blamed on mold wear. They like mucking about with the tools on occasion, always with sad results.


----------



## TAY666 (Jan 8, 2000)

Desslock said:


> Sorry guys, newbie question - what does "flash" mean in this context? Extra bits of plastic?
> 
> Not monsters, but there's definitely a quality difference between the Aurora Prehistoric Scenes kits and the 2007 Revell/Monogram reissues (obscured nameplates, etc.). Some better/worse than others, as you'd expect.


As far as I can piece together, the nameplates were a big goof.
I think they were trying to add copyright info on the back of the nameplate, but the China tooling company screwed up and filled in the front half of the mold to make it smooth, to do the work.
And of course, no one wanted to pay to have the mistake fixed.
As far as detail on the PS kits goes. It's about the same as the originals.
I've done enough re-scribing on originals and reissues to be very intimate with the detail, or lack there-of. Especially around the part edges.


----------



## Cro-Magnon Man (Jun 11, 2001)

Yes, that's my observation about the Prehistoric Scenes kits - the numerous reissues, even the most recent, look about the same as the originals for definition of detail. People always say that they can see how the molds have deteriorated in the detail of the monster kits, but the PS kits, which have been reissued probably as many times as the monsters, have stood up well.


----------



## otto (Jan 1, 1970)

The PS molds hadnt been so heavily used before monogram got the molds though. And the reissues have been pretty limited in number. So the molds "should" be in great shape. I'm really amazed the the monster molds have held up so well! Very little detail has been lost all things considered.


----------



## TAY666 (Jan 8, 2000)

See, that's just it.
There shouldn't be any detail loss anyway.
Styrene is softer than steel, or even copper-beryllium.
So it should not effect the molds at all.

When I was still in plastics, we had molds that ran literally millions of cycles.
Styrene never caused them any issue. Neither did ABS (which is harder and a bit more caustic)
The only issues those molds ever had was having to have the vents re-done every few years.


----------



## Cro-Magnon Man (Jun 11, 2001)

otto said:


> The PS molds hadnt been so heavily used before monogram got the molds though. And the reissues have been pretty limited in number.


Not to disagree, but we don't really know these figures. The Prehistoric Scenes was the 'best-selling kit line ever' up to that time, breaking all records apparently; I know that some monster kits such as Frankenstein had been produced day and night for a period, but that certainly didn't apply to every monster, and overall it doesn't tell us that the Prehistoric Scenes were produced in much lesser numbers. 

Similarly, the modern reissues: do we know that when the monsters are reissued they are in greater numbers than the Prehistoric Scenes reissues? The most recent reissue of the PS kits, for example, were remaindered all over the world, possibly suggesting that a heck of a lot of them were produced in just that reissue alone. It would be interesting to know Revell's and Monogram's reissuing numbers since 1977.


----------

