Why aren't all model kits awesome?

[Casey]

Several prior posts make it clear why car model kits didn't evolve the same way as the military product lines.

But it's nothing new, in the early 2000s I already learned that the casual modeler has the most buying power and it would be suicide to scare them away with "enthusiast" kinda kits.

So the manufacturers motto is, form follows function.

Just look at the most recent American "enthusiast" kits and how they fared- R-M's Pro Modeler series and Accurate Miniatures Grand Sport 'Vettes and McLaren Can Am cars. Granted, there were some fit issues with the Grand Sports, but many of the P-M kits are still in the Revell lineup, though with a bit less inside the box and selling at a slightly lower price.

I'm going on memory here, but I want to say Ed Sexton stated $25-$30 is the most their core customers would spend on a kit in the interview he and Roger Harney of Revell did with the Scale Modelers Radio Hour Show a few months ago. They know their core customers well, know what they will spend, and provide kits which match that price point and an acceptable level of quality.

[sjordan2]

Just look at the most recent American "enthusiast" kits and how they fared- R-M's Pro Modeler series and Accurate Miniatures Grand Sport 'Vettes and McLaren Can Am cars. Granted, there were some fit issues with the Grand Sports, but many of the P-M kits are still in the Revell lineup, though with a bit less inside the box and selling at a slightly lower price.

Ed Sexton flat out admitted (going on memory here) that $25-$30 is the most their core customers would spend on a kit in the interview he and Roger Harney of Revell did with the Scale Modelers Radio Hour Show a few months ago. They know their core customers well, know what they will spend, and provide kits which match that price point and an acceptable level of quality.

I listened to that interview, and the sad part to me was (even though they issued the 1/12 Shelby Mustang not too long ago), they said they had no further interest in large-scale kits. Apparently, neither do their customers. Sigh.

[Luc Janssens]

Just look at the most recent American "enthusiast" kits and how they fared- R-M's Pro Modeler series and Accurate Miniatures Grand Sport 'Vettes and McLaren Can Am cars. Granted, there were some fit issues with the Grand Sports, but many of the P-M kits are still in the Revell lineup, though with a bit less inside the box and selling at a slightly lower price.

I'm going on memory here, but I want to say Ed Sexton stated $25-$30 is the most their core customers would spend on a kit in the interview he and Roger Harney of Revell did with the Scale Modelers Radio Hour Show a few months ago. They know their core customers well, know what they will spend, and provide kits which match that price point and an acceptable level of quality.

The Pro-Modeler car kits weren't that different form a standard all new kit R-M offered, like for instance the '55 Chevy convert and '59 Impala.

They had some extra parts, but in the case of the '69 Charger, I at the time at expected the grilles to be separate from the housing (like the mpc annual) and the choice to display the model with open or closed headlamp doors, same for the Daytona, a front clip without the flip out headlamps, the later kits like the Torino had some great decals though.

Not being available though the big box stores set the price point on these, my guess.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Luc Janssens

[Tom Geiger]

I'm going on memory here, but I want to say Ed Sexton stated $25-$30 is the most their core customers would spend on a kit in the interview he and Roger Harney of Revell did with the Scale Modelers Radio Hour Show a few months ago. They know their core customers well, know what they will spend, and provide kits which match that price point and an acceptable level of quality.

To counter Harry's claim that model companies just do enough detail to get by, I believe Casey's statement is more correct. Revell puts as much detail and quality into a new kit that the target price point will allow. That's the same as when Ford designs a new Focus. They know the price range it needs to be in and design the car to work within it. Simple economics.

I do see Revell being very astute with their new releases. Note that they are producing kits of timeless subjects that people will build over and over. And tools that will lend themselves to future varieties such as their 32 Ford series and the Tri-five Chevys. We know they're already planning follow ups to the '57 Fords. They are making sure their budgets work with today's sales, but cutting new tools that they'll be able to sell for a long time.

[Harry P.]

Revell puts as much detail and quality into a new kit that the target price point will allow.

That's exactly what I've been saying! They know that car modelers won't pay for a $50-75 full-detail, PE-included, military-level car model, so they keep the cost down by making compromises... they do "just enough" because they know a $25 model car will sell, but a $75 model car will not. They know that model car buyers are not as demanding as military kit buyers, so model cars are not made to the same level as military kits. There's no reason for the model car manufacturers to do more than their customer base demands. And as long as mediocre kits continue to sell, mediocre kits is what we'll get.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

I'm not quite seeing the counter to Harry's claim. What he said was perfectly in line with that observation; his only embellishment is a somewhat cynical (and I believe entirely correct) assessment of what car modelers generally find - and indeed dictate - to be an "acceptable level of quality".

[Luc Janssens]

That's exactly what I've been saying! They know that car modelers won't pay for a $50-75 full-detail, PE-included, military-level car model, so they keep the cost down by making compromises... they do "just enough" because they know a $25 model car will sell, but a $75 model car will not. They know that model car buyers are not as demanding as military kit buyers, so model cars are not made to the same level as military kits. There's no reason for the model car manufacturers to do more than their customer base demands. And as long as mediocre kits continue to sell, mediocre kits is what we'll get.

The '50 Olds and '57 Ford are pretty darn good, for the price, so quality can be offered in that price range.

it's the parts count that beefs up the price and frankly more parts doesn't mean a better kit.

A good kit is one that is accurate and logic parts breakdown (meaning it has to be separate or it looks like a toy) to help the novice builder in the build and the detail painting process (like separate chassis, from floor pan, or separate grille insert)

[Harry P.]

The '50 Olds and '57 Ford are pretty darn good, for the price, so quality can be offered in that price range.

it's the parts count that beefs up the price and frankly more parts doesn't mean a better kit.

A good kit is one that is accurate and logic parts breakdown (meaning it has to be separate or it looks like a toy) to help the novice builder in the build and the detail painting process (like separate chassis, from floor pan, or separate grille insert)

The bottom line is this: In order for the manufacturer's kits to meet the price point that they know model car buyers will accept, compromises have to be made. Whether that compromise is less time ($$$) spent on basic tooling issues like fidelity, accuracy, correct forms and contours, or fewer parts (like wipers, door handles and scripts and emblems molded as part of the body), or "one size fits all" generic tires that are not accurate for the kit they are included in, or "curbside" kits with no engines, or "magic floating alternators," or whatever the compromises are... compromises are being made to meet a price point above which most car modelers refuse to buy. And that built in "handicap" of having to make kits cheap ties the manufacturer's hands to an extent. It's something that isn't as much of an issue with military model kits, because most military modelers are willing to pay the price for better kits. Plain and simple.

It's not that the manufacturers can't make better kits... of course they could. But then they couldn't sell them for $25-30, which seems to be roughly the limit as far as what the majority of buyers are willing to spend on any one kit.

In other words, it's the buyers who are dictating the quality level of model car kits, not the manufacturers.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

And what's more, if you take those $20 - $30 "Weekend Edition" 1/72 - 1/48 Eduard aircraft kits kits that cluster all around domestic car kits in rough size, price point, and parts count, you're going to see a level of crispness and precision that simply isn't there in the cars. But let's just put that entirely aside for the moment.

How about getting off the thumb with current mastering techniques (which, btw, Revell seems to be acknowledging publicly they're going to do).

As it happens, the '57 Ford falls on one side of the accuracy equation for me while the '50 Olds lands just on the other. Revell's Ford is the runaway winner far as I'm concerned; what marginal deviations there are, you gotta pore over reference photos practically side by side to catch.

But Revell had to do some damage control on the whole whitewall issue with the Olds, and the Panamerica sedan graphics for a coupe body was a bit of a boondoggle, I don't care how anybody wants to spin it. And then there are all the little proportioning gremlins that creep forth when you compare the body with an ERTL '49 and the 1:1.

Is it a bad kit? Not at all. That 303 is one of the greatest plastic captures of an engine ever, and I was delighted to see Revell bring a fully separate frame back to a new design for the first time in 11 years.

Is it everything it could be, even for the price? That's debatable, but clearly it's enough to satisfy and even delight most car modelers.

Will it stand up to the same kind of scrutiny against the 1:1 that, say, a $29 Eduard FW190 will against its prototype? No, it won't, and there's no satisfaction for me in pointing that out.

[martinfan5]

If all kits were awesome and perfect, what would you guys have to complain about?

[Harry P.]

If all kits were awesome and perfect, what would you guys have to complain about?

The weather?

[sjordan2]

Would accurate blueprints of airplanes, ships and other military subjects be easier to come by for kit manufacturers than for cars?

Edited March 9, 2013 by sjordan2

[martinfan5]

The weather?

Yes, they could complain about that in its place

Would it be incorrect for me to suggest that accurate blueprints of airplanes, ships and other military subjects are easier to come by than for cars?

Good question , I wonder which is easier to get

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Would accurate blueprints of airplanes, ships and other military subjects be easier to come by for kit manufacturers than for cars?

That could very well be, Skip. There are CAD files for current cars, but if kit manufacturers want to do away with the most obvious "tells" that usually come with traditional mastering methods on vintage subjects, they're pretty much getting narrowed down to one recourse.

Fortunately, it's the best one ever devised and it's coming down in price. And better yet, Revell is finally indicating it's not going to wait for an incentive from its consumer base to adopt it.

[sjordan2]

I think one big financial difference between military and car models is licensing costs, which may have something to do with how much bang for the buck you get in a kit. In military, companies like Grumman, Northrop, Bell and Dassault, for example, are contractors to governments whose property belongs to the people, while car companies are brand-sensitive private corporations and protective of their marques.

Well, these are questions that can only be answered with any authority by the powers that be at the model companies.

Edited March 9, 2013 by sjordan2

[Ace-Garageguy]

Rotting horse flog: Level-of-detail and parts count aside, I STILL don't see how economics dictates that a model has excusable dimensional or proportioning in-accuracies. One guy measures a 1:1. Maybe several guys measure a 1:1 to get it done quickly. One guy, their boss, is responsible for checking the work. His boss, I'd assume, is responsible for letting the measurements go ahead to the tool-cutter programmer. If everyone in the chain is doing the job he's PAID for, it doesn't cost a penny more to get it right.

[Harry P.]

Rotting horse flog: Level-of-detail and parts count aside, I STILL don't see how economics dictates that a model has excusable dimensional or proportioning in-accuracies. One guy measures a 1:1. Maybe several guys measure a 1:1 to get it done quickly. One guy, their boss, is responsible for checking the work. His boss, I'd assume, is responsible for letting the measurements go ahead to the tool-cutter programmer. If everyone in the chain is doing the job he's PAID for, it doesn't cost a penny more to get it right.

And there is one of the greatest mysteries of the model car world.

[niteowl7710]

To utilize the Ford Focus metaphor for a second, what the hobby needs is a KIA/Hyundai. Sure those cars were iffy quality basic transportation, but after some time they have started providing a scary (to other manufacturers) level of competition by packing their vehicles full of options you'd pay through the nose for elsewhere and including them as standard equipment.

The current Ford Focus (styling aside) is a lot nicer car today than it was originally because consumers didn't want to pay more, buy they expected more value for their $$$.

Kits are, without saying, better than whittling a block of wood into an Imperial, but there has never been that new company that shakes things up and raises the bar for the industry. Maybe it will be Moebius (though they aren't new-new) Lindberg had been around and now looks dead, Trumpeter might have been onto something with the ALF Eagle, but since then has it's design team wearing beer goggles, Galaxie Limited had been well limited since the original burst of kits, Accurate was perhaps to niche even without the money problems, and the Japanese suffer scale, subject and curbside bigotry.

Edited March 9, 2013 by niteowl7710

[Casey]

Rotting horse flog: Level-of-detail and parts count aside, I STILL don't see how economics dictates that a model has excusable dimensional or proportioning in-accuracies. One guy measures a 1:1. Maybe several guys measure a 1:1 to get it done quickly. One guy, their boss, is responsible for checking the work. His boss, I'd assume, is responsible for letting the measurements go ahead to the tool-cutter programmer. If everyone in the chain is doing the job he's PAID for, it doesn't cost a penny more to get it right.

Bill, you know exactly how this happens. Say in your shop you and a co-worker are told to copy a Deuce grille shell apron, based on a genuine part on a Deuce in your shop. You can't tell me you both will end up with the exact same piece when you're both finished. How exactly, without any high-tech computerized measuring to you measure and recreate the exact shape of the part? You can take measurements for 24 hours straight, and even share measurements with your co-worker, but the two finished parts will never be identical, and it's simply not realistic to think you can measure every single point on a surface as complex as an apron, or harder yet, a crowned roof on a '56 Chrysler 300.

I get your point and I understand the frustration of seeing about gross errors being missed along the way, but scale model masters (at least at Revell, and it appears Moebius, too) are made by humans, then scaled down (one of the circa 2000 issues of SA had an article with images covering this very topic), and yes, pantographs were still being used for this process. I recall Lindberg's '66 Chevelle SS and Revell's '40 Ford coupe were two of the featured models.

Let's say for discussion's sake Revell has the ability and opportunity to 3D scan an original '32 Ford Phaeton in Jay Leno's collection (no idea if he has one, just an example), then your shop is contacted because it also has a gennie '32 Phaeton. Let's say Rad Rides by Troy has a third original '32 Phaeton, which Revell will also 3D scan, so they have three original cars from which they will obtain 3D data. There is NO WAY all three will share the exact same coordinates in the X, Y and Z planes, so which measurements do they use? Car A's LR fender has a 1/4" larger wheel arch radius than Car B's, and Car C's is 1/16" smaller, Car B's cowl's max width is 3/16" wider than Car A's, and Car C's is the same width as Car A's, but has 3/32" less crown, and so on. There HAS to be a human element involved when these models are designed, and that means interpretation on the designer's/model maker's part. No single "perfect" example of a mass produced car exists in the real world, therefore, there can never be a perfect model, especially when the model is viewed and interpreted by many different people, each of whom sees things differently than the next person.

We also have to consider the effect of proportionately decreasing the measurements, such as when a 3/32" drip molding radius is shrunk down 25 times times to .00375". That type of precision isn't possible at 1/25 scale, neither by injection molding nor 3D printing, so again, there's going to be a compromise. They add enough thickness to allow the detail to appear on the 1/25 scale model, but that scale incorrect drip rail trim may make the roof look flatter to someone's eyes since the model's drip rail trim to roof proportion is no longer true to the real car's.

Again, I understand how things should be in an ideal world, and gross errors should not be tolerated, but human involvement can never be eliminated at all points from idea to finished product, so for that reason alone, perfection is not possible.

[charlie8575]

I don't think they should all be awesome. Think about this for a moment- If all kits were awesome and perfect scale reproductions, where would your skill set be? There would be minimal room for improvement beyond cleanup, painting and assembly. Then, once those three skills are mastered you'll find that the kits become boring. Traditionally as a species, the more we improve things the worse our state of minds become. we got computers...which of course spawned computer shorthand...IIRC. Then cell phones gained the ability to text...this spawned the ever more popular texting shorthand. Now ask yourself, how well are our children doing in school these days with oh, say, reading and WRITING.

Not very well are they? No, because text speak LOL is too easy and longhand cursive is quickly becoming a thing of the past. The smarter our phones get the dumber we get. If all kits were perfect, none of us would know anything about bodywork, chassis stretching or the mechanics of engine swapping. Well, some of us might, but my point is if it was easy, it would no longer be fun.

Having briefly returned to teaching this school year, I think a very important point is being made.

Short attention spans not withstanding, the threshold of boredom being reach by a lot of kids and the younger adults is amazing, and it does seem a lot of it is because of high-tech stuff that made things so easy, it's become ho-hum.

I would talk to my students about building models. Or woodworking. Or why I like to do my drafting on pencil-and-paper. Or why I still shoot black-and-white film and develop it myself (and color film and don't develop it myself). It's about skill and mental exercise, and that's something that for a variety of reasons, today's younger people have become complete dis-interested in and many schools and teachers have de-motivated that aspect of humanity. Personally, I think it's tragic. The gratitude I did get, though, was a lot of my kids found model-building interesting. And they liked the ability I had to diagram and draw an idea without "benefit" of a computer. Then they saw that I could use...books(!) and encyclopedias to find information when the computer was not cooperating.

Back to modeling....

I agree with Erik. Every kit is awesome in its own way.

Some just are incredibly well-done, well-executed tributes to man' ingenuity and design capability.

Some are awesome failures that remind us we are still, at heart, human.

Some are awesome for parts. Or building and putting on a shelf.

Some have incredible box-art.

All kits, and much of the world is awesome. If you're willing to look for it.

Charlie Larkin

[Art Anderson]

Would accurate blueprints of airplanes, ships and other military subjects be easier to come by for kit manufacturers than for cars?

Certainly, factory blueprints of say, most US or British WW-II aircraft are available still, as of course are drawings for US Navy ships, but there are a few caveats even with those!

With US aircraft of the Second World War, original drawings may or may not show some very visible shapes and contours exactly as originally drawn up, given that minor changes occurred either between the time the drawings were made and final production--things like wing fillets and wingtips, subtle shapes of tail surfaces, that sort of thing. Given the "hot-house" development of many fighters, for example, a design change to say, a wingtip may never have gotten corrected in original drawings simply because of time for such things, so just a revised drawing of that part might have gotten sent to a tool shop for a new stamping die, and as such never shows in the original approved drawings. When that happened, photographs of the production airplane may well have that new wingtip, even if it's not on the original drawings.

With ships, "factory drawings" are simply far too large to be of much help in many cases. There is a reason those got called "loft drawings", as they were laid out on the floor in the loft (upper floors) of whatever structure containing the engineering and design offices.

Even with cars, problems such as these crop up. On several of my trips to AMT Corporation and subsequently, Lesney-AMT, i saw their draftsmen and pattern makers working off 1:1 3-view drawings thumbtacked to very large easels--easy to make small but nonethless visible mis-interpretations there.

When referencing an older car, NOTHING beats photographic evidence--a real car can require hundreds of photorgraphs to capture not just the look of the car, ut all the subtleties of shapes, even proportions. Even today, with 3D scanning now available (yes, there are even portable 3D scanners available at prices which are pretty reasonable), it's still important to back up the basic scans with key dimensions, just to make certain that measurements, even proportions of the final project are as accurate as possible. It does go without saying, of course, that with any model kit development of a modern car that has been designed with CAD, using those CAD files to create a model is fairly close to priceless.

Art

[Luc Janssens]

Would accurate blueprints of airplanes, ships and other military subjects be easier to come by for kit manufacturers than for cars?

When my dad scratch built his 1/125 scale USS Indianapolis (a WWII vessel) back in the early 80s, he obtained copy's of the actual blueprints from the US embassy, here in Brussels.

So I assume that all which is commissioned by the pentagon or any other military organization, has its blueprints (on micro film) in the vaults and later when decommissioned in the library, of which copy's can be acquired for tooling up a replica.

I also remember a long lost friend in the resin world, who was nuts about old WWII German hardware and he got copy's of blueprints from a official German agency (don't remember the name though, it's been too long) to create masters for his company called Precision Models.

BTW Art, I just remember something from my years in auto manufacturing, when ordering spare parts at the factory store for our personal cars, I could follow the parts detailed assembly on micro film (looks like a drawing of a exploded view of a model kit proposal) could this be helpful in designing the correct shape and detail of parts which are not easy to accessible (unless you're buying a wreck one can dismantle to see it's guts)?

Also here's an interesting tread (thanks all who contributed)

http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=71166

Edited March 9, 2013 by Luc Janssens

[Luc Janssens]

And there is one of the greatest mysteries of the model car world.

One word, communication.

[Luc Janssens]

In other words, it's the buyers who are dictating the quality level of model car kits, not the manufacturers.

That's the way it goes, Harry

Now if the cottage resin industry for automotive modeling grows significantly, so much so that players in the plastic world see that they could get that revenue, then we will see a transformation in how things are done.

The same happened in the military hobby, kits were basic, modellers started to buy update sets....and the manufacturers started to improve their kits....

[Ace-Garageguy]

TO CASEY: Yes, I understand all of that and always have. I should have clarified by adding one more word: GROSS. How are GROSS dimensional in-accuracies and proportions in any way excusable? I mean like 4 scale inches on some of AMT's and Revell's engines.

Case in point: BOTH of these are recently tooled Revell 6.1 Hemi engines. The white one is correct. If I made mistakes of this magnitude, I wouldn't be employed. I'm not talking about subtleties and 1/4 inch mistakes. I'm talking GROSS incompetence.

The transmissions aren't the same either, even though they represent the same trans in the same scale. But you know what? To me, they're close enough. But the engines ?? Give me a break.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Ace-Garageguy