Box art and your decision?

[DrGlueblob]

Even though I already have a few '53 AMT Studes, I was so stoked with the Mr Speed release I had to buy one ..It's an old friend, that box.

I have a wall hanging in progress with several old boxes that kits I loved came in, including my first model ever. Just like great old books read over and over, All Hail to the illustrators who helped shape my dreams back through the years.

[chunkypeanutbutter]

But if you can tell the box art model was painted poorly, why would that be a determining factor in not purchasing the kit if otherwise it was something you wanted?

Guess it showed a lack of the company's care for their image. Carelessness.

[tubbs]

But if you can tell the box art model was painted poorly, why would that be a determining factor in not purchasing the kit if otherwise it was something you wanted?

for me, I can pass on a kit with some nasty box art because down the shelf is another kit I would like to have that the box art just looks cooler. so you pass on one to get another because I never go in a store to buy a specific kit. I always have a few in mind and the box art is the deciding factor. at least for me, the box are dictates which one I buy.

[johnbuzzed]

Put two '55 Chevy kits, side by side. As long as one is the original issue Revell kit with the orange and yellow cars on the cover, I'll go for that kit anytime. It might not be the better of the two kits, but that box art just screams, "BUY ME!!!" in my internal language. Or, put two otherwise identical kits side by side- I will go for the box that is more appealing. Honestly, I think most of us here would, even though we think of ourselves as not just your average model car builders. It's natural. Advertising people know this and use it every day. A lot of the foods that we see in ads aren't real, as the artists can make fake food look better than real food, for whatever reasons. The blood in the Psycho shower scene was chocolate syrup- it looked better than actual blood on B&W film.

[sjordan2]

I've never understood why anyone would buy a kit based on the picture on the box. That picture might be a photo of the real car, so completely irrelevant to what's actually in the box... it could be an illustration, so again, completely irrelevant to what is actually in the box. It could be a photo of the "actual model," so that might be a better guide to what you're buying... but who knows how much retouching was done to the photo? Or how much work went into "fixing" problems with the kit?

"Never judge a book by its cover" is a pretty smart motto.

I can't imagine why anyone would think anything else -- except for me. I bought Revell's 1/12 Ferrari 275 GTB online (with box art of a 1:1 car), thinking the kit inside might be like that.

Not anywhere near close to the ridiculous junk inside.

NEVER buy a kit that only has a photo image of the 1:1 car on the boxtop, or only a painting and no images of a finished kit, unless you're familiar with the kit,

Edited January 6, 2015 by sjordan2

[chunkypeanutbutter]

Honestly, I have to trust box art. All the new kits that are tangible and available to me are I'm either my LHS or Hobby Lobby, sealed in plastic. I can't rip it open to see if the contents are accurate, so going by the box art is what I need to do, almost a verification from the producer that the product within is good. That's why the Firebird turned me away.

Edited January 6, 2015 by chunkypeanutbutter

[johnbuzzed]

I can't imagine why anyone would think anything else -- except for me. I bought Revell's 1/12 Ferrari 275 GTB online (with box art of a 1:1 car), thinking the kit inside might be like that.

Not anywhere near close to the ridiculous junk inside.

NEVER buy a kit that only has a photo image of the 1:1 car on the boxtop, or only a painting and no images of a finished kit, unless you're familiar with the kit,

But, we all know how well an airbrush can be wielded to "touch up" a picture, whether the subject is a real car or a finished model. Leave us not forget Photoshop, too.

[sjordan2]

But, we all know how well an airbrush can be wielded to "touch up" a picture, whether the subject is a real car or a finished model. Leave us not forget Photoshop, too.

Well, modelers can use their airbrushes too to make a substandard kit look better.

The thing is, box art shouldn't be misleading as to what's possible with a kit. Monogram is doing a pretty good job with this.

[Harry P.]

I'd have to say that from my view, box top imagery can be a determining factor. At the LHS a few days ago, I passed on a few kits because the box illustrations (kit built up), looked cheesy. The real 1:1 car might look great, but the models depicted on the boxes just looked like cheap imitations. If what's in the box can't be made into a better interpretation of the real thing, I'll save my cash (what little I have of it).

Why let the building ability of someone else determine whether or not you buy the kit? Who's to say that you couldn't do a better job than the guy who built the model for the box cover?

[chunkypeanutbutter]

I think what it is with the box art and determining if I'm going to buy it is that the box model is what the company thinks is an accurate depiction of the kit within. If the model on the outside is built or painted wrong, that makes me belive that the model company thinks "half-assed is good enough." It says to me that maybe they'd think the same about flash issues, parts fitting right, etc.

-2¢ from my account

Edited January 6, 2015 by chunkypeanutbutter

[sjordan2]

This is the original box art for the 1:12 Ferrari 275 GTB by Renwal. IT IS TOTALLY ACCURATE TO WHAT'S IN THE BOX, and anyone who knows the car can tell you what's wrong with it.

This is the much later box art from the Revell re-boxing of the same kit, and anyone who knows the kit can tell you that there is nothing in the box that is anywhere near to the misleading picture.

This is Revell's re-boxing with a 1:1 shot, which bears zero resemblance to what's in the box.

Edited January 6, 2015 by sjordan2

[chunkypeanutbutter]

But it says, "Inside and out, an exact replica of a great automobile!"

I can tell a lot of things are wrong with that car. Terrible. At least they're not defrauding people with a 1:1 picture.

[sjordan2]

But it says, "Inside and out, an exact replica of a great automobile!"

I can tell a lot of things are wrong with that car. Terrible. At least they're not defrauding people with a 1:1 picture.

HUH? Revell DID defraud people with a 1:1 picture. Go back and look at my post. I bought the kit at over $100 based on that fraudulent Revell 1:1 box art.

Edited January 6, 2015 by sjordan2

[Harry P.]

Which is why I said a photo of the real car on the box is completely irrelevant to what is actually in the box. Same with an illustration, it has no relevance to what's in the box. Even a photo of the assembled kit can be misleading.

If the model companies wanted to put out some some "box art" that was actually helpful, they'd put a shot on the box of all the parts trees laid out.

[chunkypeanutbutter]

HUH? Revell DID defraud people with a 1:1 picture. Go back and look at my post. I bought the kit at over $100 based on that fraudulent Revell 1:1 box art.

I was editing it while you posted the repop picture.

[Longbox55]

Round 2 somewhat does that on the bottom of their boxes, Harry. Granted, it's only a black layout of what the trees look like and what is on them, rather than an actual photograph of the trees, but it's a step in the right direction.

One thing I always liked on older MPC box art was the picture on the side of the box of the actual assembled kit showing what the size of it is assembled.

[Snake45]

I bought the R2 issue of the '66 Mustang just for the retro box. I already had five or six copies of that kit in the pile, so the box was the deciding factor.

[Harry P.]

I bought the R2 issue of the '66 Mustang just for the retro box.

Why? Do you collect the boxes?

[AC Norton]

some of the comments on this thread are truly incredible....yea, really. what if a collector , builder, whatever....buys a kit solely based on the box art...its his money,,, its not getting yanked out of your wallet. some folks enjoy more about the hobby than just the actual parts or building of a kit...I am not one of them, however I know many enthusiasts, as I'm certain many of you do, who probably build very little, but enjoy the hobby for many reasons, box art being one of them....end of story....the ace.....

[Snake45]

Why? Do you collect the boxes?

I've always thought the AMT '66 boxes were the finest ever. For whatever reason, I just like them. I've got maybe a half-dozen of the originals, and I like R2's retro tributes to them.

[AC Norton]

AMEN, RICHARD.....the ace....

[Harry P.]

I've always thought the AMT '66 boxes were the finest ever. For whatever reason, I just like them. I've got maybe a half-dozen of the originals, and I like R2's retro tributes to them.

So you literally buy the kit only for the box? Just want to be clear... and if that is indeed the case, please explain why you would pay the money for a model kit just to get the box. Not trying to be a wise guy. Just trying to understand your thinking.

[FordRodnKustom]

When I was a kid, in the 60's, I was indeed motivated by cool box art. I even got roped in by a few Palmers. I appreciate the original art from that time and have accumulated some of my favorites from my youth but today? No, not so much.

[Tom Geiger]

Harry, look at the top shelf. Those are all cool model boxes, and I like to have them on display.

[Harry P.]

Sorry, I don't see things that way. As soon as I finish a model, the box goes in the trash.

I can see saving boxes that you think have cool art... I can even understand collecting boxes (I've seen kit boxes for sale on ebay... not the kit, just the box)... and if that's your thing, more power to ya. But as far as the original question, I would never buy a kit based on the box art.