Comments in Forum threads on Revell ZL-1 and Revell Snaps threads

[tim boyd]

Over the last few days, I have been accused, several times, of being biased in favor of Revell. Most recently, an accuser said of me “His defending of revell (sic) seemed entirely bought and paid for.” The accusations appeared in the Revell ZL1 and Revell Snap Kit threads. (His ZL-1 statement was subsequently altered by one of the Mods as it originally included a vulgarity in his accusation).

My model work has been seen publicly for 46 years (contest-winning models) and for 36 years (writing about models). I have authored over 450 articles appearing in over 30 magazine titles, including many in Model Cars magazine. I learned many years ago that in this endeavor (building and writing about model cars) you’ve got to have a thick skin. But these accusations are so troubling to me that I will respond this once.

First, it seems to me that this Board is generally critical of the model makers, but (with some posters) particularly so about Revell. Given that I have worked with model companies since 1975, I have the benefit of having seen their side of the model car business. I also know from 35+ years of work at one of the auto companies, that it helps to better understand a situation when you hear both sides of an issue. As a result, on some of the negative review threads, I’ve tried to add my perspective of the how the model companies might view the issue, where I thought it would add the missing viewpoint to an otherwise one-sided discussion. As many of the negative comments are directed at Revell, undoubtedly more of my “here’s a possible other side of the story” posts have about Revell than other model companies.

I have also advocated for discussions here that would make sense to the model makers if they were to read it (which, as I’ve pointed out, does happen from time to time, based on what I’ve been told). Using words like “idiots” to describe Revell’s management, which one poster did, would certainly cause any model company employee to question the discussion thread and discard otherwise relevant/helpful information therein, or to disregard the discussion board entirely. If you want them to read it, you’ve got to keep it factual and non-inflammatory.

Those of you who know me personally know that I am very upbeat about the hobby and try to take a positive view even when the news is sometimes negative. I also factor in the entire 58 year history of the modern 1/25^th scale model kit industry when I review and comment on kits, rather than just focusing on the current era of generally really well done kits (which I date from more or less 1998 to present). Finally, I include my knowledge of the challenges faced by the model companies, and my knowledge of what it takes to run a successful business and some of the trade-offs you have to make to accomplish same. For all these reasons, my comments and reviews on all kits (regardless of manufacturer) undoubtedly read more positively than those by some others. But I call them as I see them, and that includes assembly problems, inaccurate equipment/features on the model, inaccurate body proportions or detailing, and quality issues like flash or plating. If you read my on-line review of the new Revell 1967 Camaro, or my review of the otherwise excellent Revell ’50 Olds Custom in the new issue of other model magazine, you’ll find I mentioned several areas that could have been better.

Like many of you, I don’t always agree with decisions made by the model companies. In most cases, other Board members do a good job of summarizing my views and I don’t see much value in repeating things that have already said well by others. I do, on occasion, however, voice my views directly to the model companies when I think they’re headed in the wrong direction.

In my ZL-1 thread responses, I made two errors. First, I tried but failed to tactfully steer the discussion back to a less emotional/accusatory, more factual debate. Instead, it inflamed the situation further. Second, I had scanned the ZL-1 thread quickly, and I commented on the paint job on my own ZL-1 kit which I had just bought last Wednesday. I failed to make the link that a poster was speaking to a new Revell Challenger kit he saw at the store and snapped a picture of; anyone who looks at his photo in the thread can clearly see the paint on that sample (with a large sag on the door) was unacceptable. So he was entirely right about that particular sample (although I strongly suspect that sample was an unusual exception rather than overall representative of this new Revell product line).

At this point I want to comment a bit further on a different accusation (not specific to me) that appeared not long ago, wherein the poster (I don’t recall who it was) suggested that kit reviewers were paid by the model companies to make positive reviews. I can’t speak to everyone who reviews kits, but in my case, I have NEVER been paid by the kitmakers to give a positive review. Further, in most cases (all cases since the mid 1990’s) I paid my own money for the kits I reviewed, unless I was sent a sample in advance (examples of that that I recall include multiple tests shots for the Monogram Pro-Stocks around 1984, test shots for the original Revell-Monogram 1932 Ford Street Rod Series in 1996, and test shots of the Revell ’32 Ford Tudor circa 2007, plus ‘first off the line’ commercial kits of the Revell ’32 Ford Five Window, ’48 Ford Coupe, Kurtis Edelbrock V8 Midget, and ’70 ‘cuda). In each of those cases, I believe I disclosed the source of the kit, and also in each case, I’ve subsequently bought several more copies of those kits with my own money. As long as we are on the subject, I also pay for the aftermarket parts I get. For instance, I paid Norm for all the parts from his lineup in a recent story about his ’31 Model A Coupe.

Back to me specifically, from the mid 1970’s through today, I have also provided general marketing input and advice to all of the domestic model companies, when asked. I did paid, commissioned work for AMT when I was in college (1975-1978), and have done two projects for two model companies since retiring last year. One project was free, the other was an involved, multi-week project early this year for which I was paid. At that time, I advised the staff of the other model magazine (where I occasionally do kit reviews) of that project, and that if/when it finally comes to market I can’t do the kit review because of my earlier paid work. Should said project reach the market, I do plan to post news of it on my Fotki site, but also disclose my earlier involvement. Since I am now retired, I will continue to do paid work for the model companies in the future if requested, and also plan to take a similar disclosure path should that occur.

I highly value the respect and integrity the model car community has awarded to me over my long modeling career. No model company could EVER pay me money to buy my loyalty – my independence to tell the story the way I see it is way too valuable to me personally and professionally.

To try avoid further controversy, I will no longer comment on posts by this author, nor will I have anything further to say here on this Forum about my role as a reviewer or commenter on model car kits. If any of you have further specific questions, please send me a PM and I will respond as time allows.

Thanks, Tim

[Harry P.]

Tim, thanks for that. I hope your comments will be read by as many members as possible. You have laid out the facts very clearly regarding your position as far as reviewing kits and your relationship with the kit manufacturers in general... information that several forum members would do well to take note of.