Cyber hobby

CyberHobby are a division of Dragon. Their kits are just repackaged Dragon, sometimes special limited edition releases (aka the "White Box" kits), sometimes re-releases of classic Dragon kits, maybe with extra figures or some other extras (the "Orange Box" range).

As with any kit, you have to go out and research it a bit. I like Cyber Hobby kits, but they can vary from excellent to absolutly terrible. Like Dragon, their instructions can have some mistakes, it can save a lot of headaches by reading the reviews. 

Thanks guys. It helps me to know that they're repackaged dragon kits. I'm slowly learning who's repackage and who's not. I'm still new at modeling. about a year under the belt but I'm learning with each kit. Again tks guys 

And check out the http://dragonusaonline.com/ website from time to time, they will offer some really nice sales. I recently picked up this Hellcat kit for $6. Haven't built it yet but the reviews look favorable and the detail if fantastic.

On the other hand, I purchased a Sea Venom kit before reading the reviews and it turned out to be a total dud. Approach any Cyber Hobby Venom or Vampire kit with caution. 

You should check out scalemates.com

It does a great flow chart of what kit is new, reboxed, and all that, for every model.

General rule of thumb, when you are looking for a "good" model, the more recent the tooling the better the model. 

Srpuln10

Thanks guys. It helps me to know that they're repackaged dragon kits. I'm slowly learning who's repackage and who's not. I'm still new at modeling. about a year under the belt but I'm learning with each kit. Again tks guys 

Yes, the Cyber Hobby kits are often older Dragon kits with maybe some parts or even figures from another set to make some one off version with new decals.

For instance, the M4A4 Sherman V was primarily an allied tank used by other countries. But the US Army did use a few, so Cyber Hobby reissued a version with new tracks and a US tank crew to make a US tank version.

Likewise, the M4A2 Sherman III was reissued with German markings and some fittings and reissued as a captured "Beute" (booty) panzer.

So you often get an older kit with new decals and sometimes a set of figures for a slightly cheaper price.

http://www.dragon-models.com/d-m-releases.asp?tl=CHC

Bandet

You should check out scalemates.com

It does a great flow chart of what kit is new, reboxed, and all that, for every model.

Just a caution, though-Scalemates' info, like that on any other wiki-type site, is only as good as the person who enters it.  I consider it reliable, but also try to find an additional, confirming source, if I can.

Bandet

General rule of thumb, when you are looking for a "good" model, the more recent the tooling the better the model. 

the Baron

 

An exception would be any of the classic companies, whose molds were first used decades ago.  The examples I think of the most are Revell and Monogram kits, such as Monogram's P-61.  More recent boxings show a lot of flash, and more fit issues, than when the kit was first released.

 

the Baron

 

 

Bandet

You should check out scalemates.com

It does a great flow chart of what kit is new, reboxed, and all that, for every model.

 

 

 

Just a caution, though-Scalemates' info, like that on any other wiki-type site, is only as good as the person who enters it.  I consider it reliable, but also try to find an additional, confirming source, if I can.

 

 

Bandet

General rule of thumb, when you are looking for a "good" model, the more recent the tooling the better the model. 

 

 

 

 

An exception would be any of the classic companies, whose molds were first used decades ago.  The examples I think of the most are Revell and Monogram kits, such as Monogram's P-61.  More recent boxings show a lot of flash, and more fit issues, than when the kit was first released.

 

If the molds were used decades ago, it is not recent tooling. 

I said the more recent the tooling, NOT the more recent the boxing.

the Baron

Just a caution, though-Scalemates' info, like that on any other wiki-type site, is only as good as the person who enters it.  I consider it reliable, but also try to find an additional, confirming source, if I can.

I have corrected misinformation on the site as well. It is what we make it into.