Revell Jaguar

[Dragline]

Even after an explanation as to the "why" a certain scale is preferred over another I am still no closer to understanding it. I prefer building "other" types of models these days and the scale thing is pretty much out the window as far as scale fidelity is concerned. If the figure or item seems the right size for the level of detailing it has that's usually all I need to make a decision about whether I'll buy it or not.

My shelves have 1/25 and 1/25 scale cars parked next to each other with a Warhammer 40K and a 75mm resin figure kit to each side. Then next to those are the odd Tom Daniel or Dave Deal creation. Those who view my model shelves are often taken aback at the diverse collection of things I've built and the randomness of items on display. I have a shelf here that has two 1/12 scale HD motorcycles flanked by the Tom Daniel Roar and Peace chopper and Leap Hog three wheeler with 1/24 and 1/25 scale drag cars to the outside of those. That shelf alone caused quite a stir that some have said that they didn't know models came in such a range of sizes which started a conversation about other things as we left the room.

[Bennyg]

7 hours ago, Matt Bacon said:

At the risk of dragging this thread back on topic, here are the comparison pics I promised. I'm pretty confident about the accuracy of the scale drawings...

Revell

Heller

 

Heller

Revell

 

 

Reve

Revell

Heller

The real deal...

You can draw your own conclusions, but FWIW, these are mine. The Revell A pillars are a tad too short, and the top line of the windscreen goes straight across instead of canting up about 30 degrees to the horizontal, which exacerbates the short windscreen problem. On the other hand, the Revell kit gets right the high point of the side window glass house being in the middle of the door window, not at the A pillar. The Heller kit is better at the bottom of the side glass, which is more or less a straight line, not kinked as on the Revell body (I'm pretty confident in the drawings, which show it as a straight line). The Revell rear window is a better shape than the Heller, but both seem a bit small compared to the real thing. The Heller "glasshouse" is narrower than the Revell, so you can't just swap windscreens, sadly. I think probably the Revell is more accurate side to side, but things are further complicated by the Revell chrome trim for the windscreen being a separate part.

One of my Revells is going to be built as is alongside an OOB Heller build so I can add two really beautiful cars to my shelves. The other I'm going to spend some time figuring out how to "correct." At the moment, my thinking is that if I can figure out how to raise the line of the windscreen top, which will mean modifying the chrome part as well, that will do for the Revell. For the Heller, I'll replace the moulded in wipers, and modify the top curve of the side windows, and that should do it. I'm also going to reconfigure the Heller parts to match the design of the Revell, because I think Revell have the best way to engineer an E-type to avoid seams...

Wish me luck... if I put all that work in, Tamiya is SURE to release a state of the art kit next year...

best,

M.

 

 

Cheers for the comparison. Looks pretty good to me. I’m looking forward to seeing them built.

Ben

[ozmodeler]

Well Ben, I really appreciate the research you've put into this subject. I have the Heller kit and I'm thinking of getting the Revell kit ,but maybe I'll wait till you've finished the mods then  wait for the Tamiya kit.LOL cheers...

 

[Justin Porter]

Fairly incontrovertible. I like that it appears the Revell hits most of the dimension marks but it does seem they missed on the pillar height. The thickness of their windshield frame doesn't help much in that regard either. 

I'm still willing to build the kit since it's obvious that they came up with a kit that's quite nice on the whole. It's a bit like how the Gunze Sangyo 250GTO has a lot of fundamental errors but because it was the best available for so long some stuff was forgiven.

[Greg Myers]

Gerald Windgrove once mentioned "Eye scale", that being not mathematic but what looked good to the observers eye, 

[Greg Myers]

I would venture a guess that most people buying and building model kits seldom see the discrepancy's mentioned here.

[the other Mike S.]

13 minutes ago, Greg Myers said:

Gerald Windgrove once mentioned "Eye scale", that being not mathematic but what looked good to the observers

That's what makes those old Johan promos/kits so highly coveted.  Their "eye scale" was nearly perfect.

[martinfan5]

21 hours ago, iamsuperdan said:

 

 

 

 

I'm just not sure why people think a Euro-based or Asia-based company should change their tooling to meet the supposed preferences of the US market. Likewise, I'm not sure why a US-based company should change their tooling to meet the supposed preferences of rest of the world.

 

 

 

 

This is a mic drop, and no amount whining on model forum is going to change it.

Personally, I welcome both scales into my house and do happily build them,   I have my personal preference but its just that and does not get in the way of building either or enjoying the hobby. 

Edited December 6, 2020 by martinfan5

[Richard Bartrop]

I agree about the windshield, but the rest of it looks pretty right, and it's the body that they other kitmakers seem to have trouble with.

1/24 seems like a sensible choice, since it matches their other Jaguar kits, not to mention all their other sports car kits, not to mention, just about every other sports car kit from everyone else.

The people who buck the most about 1/25 also tend to be the ones who think that foreign cars have cooties, so catering to that particular demand probably wouldn't help sales that much, if at all.

[Matt Bacon]

What "looks right" is what looks like a 5'-6' tall person walking past a 1:1 in the street looks like. Funnily enough, trying to take a picture of an 8" long model with a camera lens often doesn't look the same. And much more so with a smartphone camera or a point and shoot... People taking pictures for car magazine features tend to make them look more dramatic as well...

 

On the other hand, you can take the pics to look like a real person might eyeball them...

The difference between the first three pictures and the second is that the top three are taken with an 18-70mm zoom at the lower end of its range, and the second three are taken with a 50mm fixed focus macro and cropped. Around 40-45mm focal length is what you want on a DSLR lens to give the same kind of impression as a human eye looking a the real thing. Most smartphone lenses are VERY fish-eye, so never assume that the real thing looks like something taken with a smartphone, especially trade show pictures of prototype models. Equally, most point and shoot compact cameras are by default short focal length. Even with a full size DSLR, the focal length you need to get a whole car into the frame from a reasonably close distance is enough to distort the images you capture significantly...

I'd rely on this one for proportions, but not the two above:

best,

M.

 

[the other Mike S.]

2 hours ago, Matt Bacon said:

What "looks right" is what looks like a 5'-6' tall person walking past a 1:1 in the street looks like. Funnily enough, trying to take a picture of an 8" long model with a camera lens often doesn't look the same. And much more so with a smartphone camera or a point and shoot... People taking pictures for car magazine features tend to make them look more dramatic as well...

 

On the other hand, you can take the pics to look like a real person might eyeball them...

The difference between the first three pictures and the second is that the top three are taken with an 18-70mm zoom at the lower end of its range, and the second three are taken with a 50mm fixed focus macro and cropped. Around 40-45mm focal length is what you want on a DSLR lens to give the same kind of impression as a human eye looking a the real thing. Most smartphone lenses are VERY fish-eye, so never assume that the real thing looks like something taken with a smartphone, especially trade show pictures of prototype models. Equally, most point and shoot compact cameras are by default short focal length. Even with a full size DSLR, the focal length you need to get a whole car into the frame from a reasonably close distance is enough to distort the images you capture significantly...

I'd rely on this one for proportions, but not the two above:

best,

M.

 

I guess to permanently solve this conundrum people have on here who are still convinced that it's just an artifact of the camara lens focal length or the angle of the picture, we will have to have someone take an actual measurement of the windscreen height of an XKE coupe and then compare it to the measurement, adjusted for 1/24th scale, to the new tool Revell XKE coupe.  I have a sneaky suspicion that there will be no takers for this endeavor because the results will be the same. The front windscreen height is too short on the new Revell XKE coupe compared to the actual 1:1 scale car.

I know a guy who has an XKE, but it's a convertible and I would have to drive 40+ miles to measure it at his house.  Unfortunately, we are in lockdown so any and all travel is restricted and I don't think it would be a good idea to visit him right now due to the pandemic. However, even so, I think the new Revell XKE coupe would scale out even shorter than the 1:1 scale convertible he has, but I could be wrong.

For the time being, I guess we will have to just muddle though these endless thought exercises on what it could be including talking about different camera lens focal lengths, angle of attack of the image, height of viewer in relation to subject or just total and complete acceptance of Revell's goof up on the front windscreen height.  The sad thing about it all is that this screw up is on a very noticeable part of the car.  At the very least, you would have to extend the front windscreen pillars and then deal with extending the shorter clear glass to be a little taller which is unacceptable on a new tool for 2020 IMHO.  

Edited December 7, 2020 by the other Mike S.

[Matt Bacon]

Given that I just posted a bunch of pictures that pretty clearly demonstrate that the new Revell XKE windscreen is too short, and also the wrong shape, I suspect we are in violent agreement. On the other hand, I recognise that there are positives in the fit and engineering vs the Heller kit (which has its own shape issues) and I’m happy to try and fix both in different ways to get the best model I can out of them...

Absent Tamiya creating a state of the art dimensionally-perfect kit like their 300SL, or Airfix deciding they should create a LIDAR-scanned range of 1/24 British icon kits featuring an E-Type, Mini and Land Rover, we work with what we have..:

best,

M.

Edited December 6, 2020 by Matt Bacon

[GMP440]

On 12/4/2020 at 11:47 PM, Oldcarfan27 said:

Boy this review really went to left field!

Went from being happy that it was coming out soon - to slamming it for being the wrong scale. 

Good grief guys, can we keep this train on the track?

Totally agree.  Already bashing this kit.  Accurate vs non accurate proportions, etc.  Just like a record;  round and round we go.

[the other Mike S.]

5 hours ago, Matt Bacon said:

Given that I just posted a bunch of pictures that pretty clearly demonstrate that the new Revell XKE windscreen is too short, and also the wrong shape, I suspect we are in violent agreement. On the other hand, I recognise that there are positives in the fit and engineering vs the Heller kit (which has its own shape issues) and I’m happy to try and fix both in different ways to get the best model I can out of them...

best,

M.

Violent agreement....thanks.  That made me laugh.

It's not about creating the most accurate model because I don't think even such a thing exists.  You have to consider scale fidelity which is how a model looks in scale compared to the real thing.  Like what was mentioned previously, many models won't look right if reduced exactly in scale to how the real car would look.  The reason for that is due to the different perspective the viewer has when looking at a model car versus the real thing. 

That's where the concept of scale fidelity comes in.  It's the process of getting the important details done right and slightly fudging on others.  With a car like the Jaguar XKE coupe, the windshield height is one of the most critical elements of the car,  If that doesn't look right or close to it, it'll throw the whole balance of the design off.

A few on here seem to be accepting of the goof up Revell made on the new XKE coupe and claim they will just fix these problems after they buy it.  However, I have to ask should we as model car builders have to perform major body modifications on a new tool?  I mean, come on.  This is not some old tool reissued from the primitive days of 1961.  This is a brand new "state of art" tool of a legendary well known classic car.  If people accept this type of sloppy engineering, that will encourage Revell to continue these lazy "good enough" efforts in the future.

I don't know about you, but I hate performing basic body mods on a model to make them look right, especially on a new tool.  I don't mine modifying chassis's, engine compartments, chrome trim, bumpers and grills, and wheels/tires to make a build more accurate, but when it come to major design elements on the body, that should be a done deal..

-mike

Edited December 7, 2020 by the other Mike S.

[RichCostello]

I have an older 1/25 version Jag XKE from Revell/Monogram(flat box) that I bought, along with an Aston Martin, for cheap. I think they might be old Aurora tools redone by Rev/Mono. How do these compare to these newer versions? They look pretty good to me.

[Matt Bacon]

8 hours ago, RichCostello said:

I have an older 1/25 version Jag XKE from Revell/Monogram(flat box) that I bought, along with an Aston Martin, for cheap. I think they might be old Aurora tools redone by Rev/Mono. How do these compare to these newer versions? They look pretty good to me.

The Aurora XKE is pretty ropey... the “face” looks like a frog ? If it’s a convertible, it COULD be the original Revell 1/25 kit, which was designed and tooled in the UK and is quite nice. The Monogram Aston Martin DB4 is better shaped, and probably the best of those kits, which also include a 250 GTO and Maserati 3500GT...

best,

M.

[bobthehobbyguy]

Thanks Matt Bacon for the comparison shots.  To me the differences were unnoticeable until I looked at the comparison pictures and read the text.  I would definitely buy one despite the issue.

Most buying the kit aren't going to even see or care about the issue. Those that care about the difference have to decide to buy and fix or not buy. Its as simple as that.

[Ace-Garageguy]

20 hours ago, Greg Myers said:

I would venture a guess that most people buying and building model kits seldom see the discrepancy's mentioned here.

I would tend to believe you're correct.

I'd also venture a guess that most people here didn't notice the paint mismatch between panels on the blue side-view reference photo posted by Matt.

But when you have spent your entire professional life making things LOOK right as well as function, these discrepancies stick out like big zits on the Mona Lisa.

Which is why I'm continually amazed that the "professionals" tasked with accurately measuring, scaling, and tooling models almost always seem to miss the mark somehow.

Mediocrity is "Job 1" apparently.

[bobthehobbyguy]

We can agree that a majority of the buyers don't care or notice the defects. My first question is there money in the development budget to fix the issue. Is the money spent going to make an significant impact on sales? Every project has a budget which has to be meet to make a product viable. If that budget is exceeded money will be lost. Lower kit volumes mean that there is less money to be spent. It also means we are going to get good enough. We have to decide if that is something we would buy.

[Ace-Garageguy]

53 minutes ago, bobthehobbyguy said:

...My first question is there money in the development budget to fix the issue. Is the money spent going to make an significant impact on sales? Every project has a budget which has to be meet to make a product viable. If that budget is exceeded money will be lost...

This same old refrain every time.

GET IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME.

THEN MORE MONEY ISN'T REQUIRED TO FIX IT.

 

[bobthehobbyguy]

First off the kits that have been done with scanning have come out spot on.

Second not all older kits were 100 percent correct.some were better than others. I seriously doubt that the wooden masters were perfect and a fair amount of wood filler was used to get it right. I see it as a fine tuning to get the product right. There is simply not the budget to afford the fine tuning in the past. Every process has its shortcomings. Its not necessarily that someone is not doing their job.

I'm just saying you have to look at the whole picture. Its not just a case that someone isn't doing their job in all cases.

[1959scudetto]

On 12/4/2020 at 6:49 PM, Mike 1017 said:

Has anyone heard anything about the new Revell Jaguar being released in time for Christmas? After all Christmas is only 21 days away.

Mike

I only wanted to know about the release date of the Jaguar. Not a philosophical debate about the merit's of 1:24 vs 1:25 or minor inaccuracies' .

Luv what you build. Build what you Luv.

Mike

Car-model-kit in Czech Republic has it already for sale - see link: https://www.car-model-kit.com/plastic-modelkit-auto-07668-jaguar-e-type-coupe-1-24

But beware: one of the pics shows the old (ex-Monogram) 1/8 Jag : the one without the rear-view mirrors, the higher windshield and the wipers pointing to the left !

 

 

[1959scudetto]

Initially I came here to learn something new about Revell's new E-type, instead I read hard discussions about 1/24 vs. 1/25 kits - let's take it this way: to each his own!

My American trucks and cars are 1/25, my European sports cars, rally cars and race cars are almost all in 1/24 scale (apart from some 1/20 F 1 and Tamiya's old 1/18 racers).

They will not be presented side by side on the same shelf!

 

Question for the 1/25 US-car scale defenders: how do the old Monogram American 1/24 models fit into this?

[niteowl7710]

33 minutes ago, 1959scudetto said:

Question for the 1/25 US-car scale defenders: how do the old Monogram American 1/24 models fit into this?

Clearly you've been fortunate to miss the various - I'd get one, only too bad it's 1/24 (and/or) it should be redone in 1/25 *DERP* - that occurs around here every time one of those old Monogram kits gets reissued. 

[Richard Bartrop]

Considering that in practice, the actual models can be anything from 1/22 to 1/26, regardless of what it says on the box, people are literally arguing over nothing.