a block of balsa and some plan view drawings

[62rebel]

lately, as a matter of fact for quite a while now, it's been de rigeur to bash the heck out of reissues for lack of scale accuracy, ill fitting parts, and poor quality control....

fun, huh? barrel of laughs.

my Dad built Hawk models as a teen, in the early dark days of this hobby; a roughly shaped block of wood, some metal or plastic detail parts (metal that had to be polished smooth and shellacked to get to shine), and a set of plan view drawings to follow, often very basic and you were expected to turn that into the picture on the box, with no internet for reference, no aftermarket parts to speak of, actual auto paint or whatever HIS dad had around the house... and shaping that block of wood was done with single edge razor blades and sandpaper.

KennB builds from sheet styrene.... he doesn't even HAVE a kit to blame for any out-of-scale or ill-fitting parts, but have you read any harsh words from him?

lighten up on the bashing, please. sure, there's a lot of substandard stuff out there in light of what we've become used to in the last decade, but it represents what the industry had at the time, and if some of that negative energy is redirected toward putting effort into them, they often turn out fairly well.

i've encountered very few kits so bad that NOTHING could be done with them.

[henry57]

I agree 100%,

I built this model A woody completely from wood, every piece of it.

Its not even close to being accurate, but it sure was a lot of fun,

now I just got to finish it.

Edited December 18, 2011 by henry57

[Harry P.]

I don't think that pointing out the flaws in a kit is "bashing." It's more like a heads-up to others who may be thinking about buying that same kit, and letting them know about any particular fit or accuracy issues that kit has. So what if the kit is old tooling? I think potential buyers still would like to know if there are any problems with it before they lay down their $$$. Let's be honest... some kits are real dogs. Wouldn't you want to know that if you were thinking about buying it? Or would you prefer to be "surprised" by a box full of inaccurate or badly fitting parts? If you read about the kit's problems here before you buy it, at least you have some information on which to base your decision to buy it or take a pass.

If we're not allowed to comment on a kit's shortcomings, then what are we? Just cheerleaders for the manufacturers? If all we can say is "way to go, Model Company X," and nothing else, we may as well shut this place down.

I say call 'em as you see 'em, positive and negative. That's what a forum is for.

[Aaronw]

I agree with Harry, there is a place for constructive criticism of kits. I also agree with the OP often these comments go well beyond constructive.

My dad has some old unbuilt Monogram and Strombecker wood kits. For fun I think I'll get some photos the next time I visit so I can do some in box reviews. It is kind of funny instead of parts on sprues, you open the box and are greated with blocks of wood, some misc wood shapes and the instructions are basically a set of blueprints.

[Harry P.]

You can't compare those old "block of wood" kits with a modern plastic kit.

The old wooden kits were all about actually "making" the model, more or less scratchbuilding it with a bit of a head start from the manufacturer.

Today's plastic kits are completely different... they're designed to be able to be assembled without any scratchbuilding or actual "making" of the parts. All you're supposed to do is put it together.

Two completely different modeling philosophies.

[Aaronw]

I can tell you from experience there are some plastic kits that seem to follow that first philosophy.

[Harry P.]

I can tell you from experience there are some plastic kits that seem to follow that first philosophy.

Right! Which brings us back to the topic of whether critiquing a kit is "bashing."

[Art Anderson]

Right! Which brings us back to the topic of whether critiquing a kit is "bashing."

Critiquing any model kit is something all of us do, be it under our breaths, or out loud at club meetings or here online. However, to simply criticize any model kit coming out of tooling cut decades ago because it's "not up to (modern) national standards" is at best lacking in some intelligence, and at worst, disingenuous.

I still remember, a decade or so ago, when AMT/Ertl brought back the AMT 1962 Buick Electra 225 HT kit. Now, they brought it back pretty much exactly as it had been produced as an annual series 3in1 kit IN 1962. Now while older builders were thrilled to see an old friend back (where were YOU in '62?), younger builders, not having experienced what was "state of the art" for 1962, in their efforts to critique the kit, wound up often bashing it to the point of exposing their own ignorance.

Had AMT/Ertl felt there to be some requirement that no such older subjects be produced once again unless tooled to 21st Century model kit standards, more than likely the 1962 Electra 225 tooling would have been left on the shelf, and no money spent on totally new tooling--that's the way of it when reissues of older, less popular subjects are considered for reissue--VERY seldom do the toolmakers revisit an old, former subject in the form of cutting new tool steel--the investment vs return generally won't support such a decision.

It seems to me that anyone reviewing, critiquing if you will, an older model car kit that's been reissued, simply needs to learn a bit about such old kits, and understand fully that things were done decades ago that made perfect sense at the time (be they simplifications for kits meant for young kids, or were there limitations of technology back then which didn't really allow for some of the fine details we have come to expect from today's "state of the art" in kit design and tooling?) Doing that shows that a critic or reviewer has done nis/her homework--and if not, shouldn't such uneducated reviews be given failing grades, or at least an "incomplete". Somehow, I think so.

Art

[62rebel]

it's all in whether the reviewer can remain objective or become subjective in his critique. i don't like to see the phrase "just like the rest of ABC's offerings, this one is abject junk" whenever i read a review. i don't like to spend good money on a kit and be surprised, either; which is why i home in on reviews of reissued kits; to see whether something important has been cut out of the tool, put back in, or whether it's simply a rebox of the LAST issue. we can hack on kits that have simplistic chassis or all-in-one piece suspensions, but put that into the perspective of a beginning modeler who might not have the patience or skill to assemble, say, the rear suspension from AMT's '58 Impala.... not the friendliest design out there, but state of the art around 1962.

it might behoove the kit makers to give the original issue date of their kits, even NEW ones, on the box; and maybe follow recent AMT protocol and print a shadow depiction of the kit contents on the box bottom for those unfamiliar with the kit.

[Aaronw]

it might behoove the kit makers to give the original issue date of their kits, even NEW ones, on the box; and maybe follow recent AMT protocol and print a shadow depiction of the kit contents on the box bottom for those unfamiliar with the kit.

I do think that would be in everyone's best interest. While slipping it in with a bunch of newer kits might get the company one more sale, it is just as likely to be the first kit from that company a person buys and cause them to write off the company for future purchases. Just look at Lindberg for this. If someone buys the 2005 Charger or 1966 Chevelle they will think what a great company. If they start with the old Pyro Auburn or 1948 Lincoln they will probably be the newest member of the Lindberg Sux club.

[Harry P.]

Critiquing any model kit is something all of us do, be it under our breaths, or out loud at club meetings or here online. However, to simply criticize any model kit coming out of tooling cut decades ago because it's "not up to (modern) national standards" is at best lacking in some intelligence, and at worst, disingenuous.

Nobody ever said that old reissues should be judged by the standards of today's kits. That's like criticizing a Model T because it doesn't have fuel injection or a GPS system.

The point is that giving an honest review of a kit's shortcomings is a helpful heads-up to potential purchasers. Whether old or new tool, any inaccuracies and fit problems should be pointed out, so that we can make a more informed buying decision. The more information a potential buyer has about a kit before he plunks down the cash, the better. And a forum like this is the perfect way for us to "spread the word" about kits, old, new, re-issued, whatever.

[Harry P.]

I do think that would be in everyone's best interest. While slipping it in with a bunch of newer kits might get the company one more sale, it is just as likely to be the first kit from that company a person buys and cause them to write off the company for future purchases. Just look at Lindberg for this. If someone buys the 2005 Charger or 1966 Chevelle they will think what a great company. If they start with the old Pyro Auburn or 1948 Lincoln they will probably be the newest member of the Lindberg Sux club.

I agree 100%.

If a person knows (because he read it here) that the Lindberg '48 Lincoln is a horrible kit, and better yet, why it's a horrible kit (because it's simply a re-issue of a horrible kit repackaged and sold under a different name), so much the better! Information is power. And we are in the position to inform each other regarding the various kits out there. No matter what the kit, odds are that someone here has it in their stash and can give us the lowdown on its pluses and minuses. I see nothing but positive coming from sharing that knowledge.

[Art Anderson]

Nobody ever said that old reissues should be judged by the standards of today's kits. That's like criticizing a Model T because it doesn't have fuel injection or a GPS system.

The point is that giving an honest review of a kit's shortcomings is a helpful heads-up to potential purchasers. Whether old or new tool, any inaccuracies and fit problems should be pointed out, so that we can make a more informed buying decision. The more information a potential buyer has about a kit before he plunks down the cash, the better. And a forum like this is the perfect way for us to "spread the word" about kits, old, new, re-issued, whatever.

Harry, but people do just that. As an example, check the "review" if you can call it that, of the reissued Revell Captain Hook tow truck--yeah it's an oversimplified kit, but one that fit the bill quite well in 1977 when it was first issued.

Art

[Harry P.]

Harry, but people do just that. As an example, check the "review" if you can call it that, of the reissued Revell Captain Hook tow truck--yeah it's an oversimplified kit, but one that fit the bill quite well in 1977 when it was first issued.

Art

Yeah, it's a reissue of an old, simplified kit.

And if this member had read that thread before he bought the kit, he wouldn't be so upset now!

http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=51359

[Rob Hall]

Yeah, it's a reissue of an old, simplified kit.

And if this member had read that thread before he bought the kit, he wouldn't be so upset now!

http://www.modelcars...showtopic=51359

Exactly...buyer beware...if you buy a 'new' kit without doing your homework beforehand, it's your fault..especially in the modern era where so much information is online...