Satisfaction from a HORRENDOUS kit

Not yet, but I am in the process of working up the courage to attack the Glencoe Albatros kit or the FM 1/35th LCI. According to my sources these two are almost tied for the worst kit produced,and I have both,go figure.

Don

Yes, and I'm actually in the process of doing that (again!) with a Hobbycraft Su-27; there's something very satisfying about turning a pile of plastic garbage into a reasonable-looking model.

Most of my crappy models have been old Revell issues, in between when they were making decent kits ('60's & '70's), and the time they bought out Monogram (which was always better than Revell anyway).

ok so the deal is made between my friend and me

I give him:

1 No.11 or chisel blade (depends on my mood hehe)

1 tan acryl paint

1 liquid glue (not the tube kinds but the watery ones in bottles... forgot their name)

1 finepoint artist quality nylon brush (not the ones that smash once they get within 10 feet of any type of liquid but actually good ones)

He gives me:

SR-71

7 bucks

didn't know that...

i have made this point many time on this forum

take a 2nd rate model and using your talent alone make a gem out of it  never mind the tamigawa shake and bake kits

now if you want a disaster to build get the 720th revell arizona it only goes for about 5-6 bucks

Rob - I think the Revell PT109 was a repop of an even earlier PT kit.  I remember building one some time between the 6th and 8th grades ('56 - '58).  At the time, it was considered one of the better kits available.

qmiester wrote:

Rob - I think the Revell PT109 was a repop of an even earlier PT kit.  I remember building one some time between the 6th and 8th grades ('56 - '58).  At the time, it was considered one of the better kits available.

They also did a third PT boat, PT-73, which was released in conjunction with McHale's Navy in 1965. This was not really a US PT boat but was actually a British Vosper MTB. They issued a Vosper MTB because that's what the TV show used to portray a US PT boat.

that's all i ever do.  actually, i always do so much scratch-building on even relatively good kits (tamiya 1:48 t-34 got a scratch-built engine hatch grill among other things), it's gotten to the point that i just look for crappy kits knowing that i'll be using it as a loose guide anyway.  here's the pile of debris kit i'm working on now:

 so far, i started rescribing the panel lines, redid the bottom sections where the ill-fitting bay doors go with thinned styrene and sanding, and plunge-formed a new canopy.  Currently working on the cockpit and making plans to scratch-build the visible portions of the engines.

PICS, PICS we want to see PICS

please

Bud 

Funny, I was going to start a thread on this exact topic.

Today, I build the Italeri Panzer 38(t) which is a really rough beast (I don't know the age but the parts are thick enough to endure a hammer blow, the road wheels are hollow on the back side, and the moulds appear to be worn out judging from the excessive flash). I bought it online for what was almost certainly a few Euro too much money, and built it practically in one sitting. The most complex revivification I did was drill the exhaust.

And here's the moral of the story: I had a great time. The on-vehicle tools look like crap, some of the seams are a bit dodgy, the Notek light looks like its proportions are completely askew, the suspension arms look nothing like a Pz38 suspension, and so on, but I had fun making the kit because it was easy to build, had a low parts count and despite all its flaws, the finished product will look like a Panzer 38 to my eyes.

I guess it's that whole "Eye of the Beholder" thing.

I think Bill aka Bgrig said it best on the Good and Bad Kits thread,

" the kit is only part of the equation, the rest is in your eye and hands."

I think that sums it up pretty well.

To borrow JFK's famous quote; Ask not what your Model can do for you but, what YOU can do for your Model.

Air Master