Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
Sign in to follow this  
ikar

The cost back then

Recommended Posts

Have you ever wondered why some people complain about how much kits cost these days? Take a look at what they cost back in the 1960s.

Scan%20%20%2025-10%20cat_zps20ralfmx.jpg

Scan%20%20%2025-9%20cat_zpsmcbicsxk.jpg

Scan%20%20%2025-6%20cat_zpsbdjnepih.jpg

Scan%20%20%2025-7%20cat_zpstpml4jxi.jpg

Scan%20%20%2025-8%20cat_zps2a0qgwhr.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prices in some cases have certainly outpaced inflation. Especially that Saturn V model. $6 in 1969 is worth about $40 today, and the last time I saw that kit for sale it was listed at $100.

On the other hand, those $1.50 models in 1969 would sell for about $9 today, and the $1 kits would sell for about $6.50...which is about right. I bought a Monogram P-40 new off the shelf last year for $8.50 (and other second-hand one for $5).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That $11 Phantom Huey back in 1969 is equal to $71.00 today using the CPI inflation calculator. Not too bad considering the detail levels we are getting these days. Now if Revell/Monogram repopped it today with the same molds, one has to wonder the asking price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prices in some cases have certainly outpaced inflation. Especially that Saturn V model. $6 in 1969 is worth about $40 today, and the last time I saw that kit for sale it was listed at $100.

On the other hand, those $1.50 models in 1969 would sell for about $9 today, and the $1 kits would sell for about $6.50...which is about right. I bought a Monogram P-40 new off the shelf last year for $8.50 (and other second-hand one for $5).

Everything has outpaced inflation except take home pay for the most part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When this beauty came out in 1973, it was TEN DOLLARS!!!! They had one in the window of the local hobby shop, and I thought I would NEVER be able to save up TEN DOLLARS to buy one. I raked leaves, shoveled snow, and anything else I could think of.

Screen_Shot_2016_02_08_at_3_49_49_PM.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that a new home in 1967 was about $14,000 and a new car $2,700 those prices seem about right. If the volume sold was similar to what it was in the 60s I bet the prices would be much lower than they are now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back then gas was 32 cents a gallon, minimum wage was about 2.00.

In 1974 I bought a brand new Duster for 1,500.00. You could buy a used car for a couple hundred.

A few years after my Father came back from WWII, he bought our two story house that was built in 1759 plus almost two acres of land for 9,000.00.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thete was a good topic on reddit a couple weeks back dealing with wages vs inflation. The short story is that wages have NOT kept up with inflation over the last half century or so.

If I can find a link I'll post it.

edit, found it:

https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33zjdy/eli5why_is_that_families_in_the_1950s_seemed_to/

Edited by toadwbg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember those years fondly and very well, back then you could go into a $0.05 and $0.10 (Five and Dime), or almost any local Pharmacy and pick up one of the biggies Monogram, Revell and a lot of Aurora, some Lindberg..and if you were into cars AMT pretty much had that genre cornered; at least in my neck of the woods. Every time I hear the Chicago song "Old Days" those memories come rushing back...I really went in the high rent district when I bought the 1/32 Monogram Mustang for a whopping $2.50..some of my pals thought I was crazy (maybe they were right :whistle: ), I'm still doing it only for a lot more

Edited by #1 Greywolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something tells me I paid the unheard of price of $20 for the Monogram B-36 back in the mid to late '80s. As a kid, if I was short the money to by a kit that I wanted, the only thing I could do was wait until the next Easter or Christmas or my next birthday to come around because that's when I got cards with money in them from my aunts and grandparents. Those were the days!

Eric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've stated this before but just to add in one more inflation factor: When the NATS were here in OKC in 2003(?) I asked the Revel factory rep. why the 1/72 P-47 was selling for over $8. After all the dies were paid for long ago and there wasn't more than 50 cents in plastic in the box, why did it cost so much? The answer was that the prices on all the kits in any production run also help to cover the cost of new molds. So that year the P-47 was helping to keep the cost of the BV-222 down to an affordable level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the day I remember walking to school and back home up hill in the driving snow or blistering heat...BOTH WAYS!!! :D

Seriously though I do remember saving any money I made by cutting lawns or shoveling driveways or any odd jobs a kid could get for models and supplies. I was always looking for ways (legal of course :)) to fund my modeling habit. Nothing was cheap for a young hobbyist back then (and probably for veteran modelers as well) and now that I am many decades older...well...nothing is cheap now either :doh:! I am often looking through my old issues of FSM and chuckle at the price kits were advertised for back in the late 1970's or 80's. Good memories despite how hard I worked to pay for some of those $5 and $10 kits. I still have many of them thank goodness.

Memory lane... :rolleyes: ...

Regards,

Don.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<...> in 2003(?) I asked the Revel factory rep. why the 1/72 P-47 was selling for over $8. After all the dies were paid for long ago and there wasn't more than 50 cents in plastic in the box, why did it cost so much? The answer was that the prices on all the kits in any production run also help to cover the cost of new molds. <...>

This. And then there's the fact that the people running the injection moulding machines in 2003 want to to be paid in 2003's money. The guys printing the decals in 2003 also want to be paid in 2003's money (and chances are they got a big chunk out of those 8$). And the people printing the boxes and instructions. And the packers, the shipping agency, the retailers, Revell's janitor and the kid mowing the lawn at Revell's headquarters. None of these guys have any use for 1970's wages.

And although it's been said numerous times, it bears repeating: Revell (or any manufacturer for that matter, really) is not a charity. They're a for-profit company. There's no magic number after which they will hand out kits at production cost. The moulds were paid for even before the first kit was made with them. They're only good for making kits. They're useless for anything else. If you don't intend to make kits with them, all they're worth is the scrap value. They're an investment. If the kit doesn't sell, they've invested in a ridiculously expensive lawn ornament. If the kit is popular enough, it will recoup the investment. If the kit is really popular, it'll make a profit. The more kits they sell, the lower the amount of money invested "per kit" meaning the higher the profit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've stated this before but just to add in one more inflation factor: When the NATS were here in OKC in 2003(?) I asked the Revel factory rep. why the 1/72 P-47 was selling for over $8. After all the dies were paid for long ago and there wasn't more than 50 cents in plastic in the box, why did it cost so much? The answer was that the prices on all the kits in any production run also help to cover the cost of new molds. So that year the P-47 was helping to keep the cost of the BV-222 down to an affordable level.

Revell certainly does that, for example their new Stearman has the same MSRP as the 50+ year old P-40B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That $11 Phantom Huey back in 1969 is equal to $71.00 today using the CPI inflation calculator. Not too bad considering the detail levels we are getting these days. Now if Revell/Monogram repopped it today with the same molds, one has to wonder the asking price.

The 1/24 Huey has been reissued recently. It goes for around $30 or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warning,,,,,,unpopular memory here.

I remember that one of the "six inch wing span prop fighters" was less than an hour's wages. And at the same time, a Phantom from one of the import companies was about 2.5 hours wages. (minimum wage at 18, waiting for boot camp to start in 1975)

Now, one of those same "six inch wing span prop fighters" is less than an hour's wages, and an imported Phantom is about 2 hours wages,,,but, not at minimum wage anymore, though.

True, if you want a 1/72 P-51 that includes resin, etch, vac canopy, white metal parts and includes an aftermarket decal sheet,,,,,then they are above that $20 per hour wage line,,,,,,,,,but, they would have been above an hour's wages back then, too.

Same with specialty paints,,,,,,,while earning $0.65 an hour, they were $0.69 for a 1/2 oz bottle (I-R, etc),,,,,,,,,now they are around $4-5 per 1/2 oz, in a world where many people make $10 an hour. Simple math says they are cheaper today than they were back then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This. And then there's the fact that the people running the injection moulding machines in 2003 want to to be paid in 2003's money. The guys printing the decals in 2003 also want to be paid in 2003's money (and chances are they got a big chunk out of those 8$). And the people printing the boxes and instructions. And the packers, the shipping agency, the retailers, Revell's janitor and the kid mowing the lawn at Revell's headquarters. None of these guys have any use for 1970's wages.

And although it's been said numerous times, it bears repeating: Revell (or any manufacturer for that matter, really) is not a charity. They're a for-profit company. There's no magic number after which they will hand out kits at production cost. The moulds were paid for even before the first kit was made with them. They're only good for making kits. They're useless for anything else. If you don't intend to make kits with them, all they're worth is the scrap value. They're an investment. If the kit doesn't sell, they've invested in a ridiculously expensive lawn ornament. If the kit is popular enough, it will recoup the investment. If the kit is really popular, it'll make a profit. The more kits they sell, the lower the amount of money invested "per kit" meaning the higher the profit.

And to add in another factor on production costs, Jamie @ Round 2 noted one time that in terms of actual production cost the plastic parts were the cheapest to make. The decal sheet was the most expensive, followed by the packaging and then the instructions.

Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...