kit reviews

Hi all, just to give you the picture from the other side of the fence, I actually write reviews for a modeling mag here in Australia.   I do this for free (unless you count the free kits ) and I've got to tell you that I take what I do very seriously.

I'm a die hard modeler like the rest of you and I know that what I write is going to be read by a lot of modelers and some of them may actually rely on me and what I have to say before laying down their hard earned on some new kit.

Given the nature of the mag that I write for my reviews are "in box" and I like most reviewers do their best to point objectively assess a kit and give it strengths and weaknesses given my references and basic modeling knowledge.  Where this whole process can fall over is that as you all know there is a massive difference between an "in box" and a "build" review.  You simply can never spot every potential trap of crappy assembly until you build it yourself.

That's why I personally only ever seriously read "build up" reviews and I also only pay attention to a few select reviewers whose  opinions I trust.

Cheers 

Rob Gronovius wrote:

I recently saw an instance where an online cyber modeling magazine had a review of the Alan/Dragon SU-76, a kit normally found on mentioned on the top 10 list of worst model kits. The review was recent but the kit has been around for years, if not a decade or so. The review gave the kit a highly recommended and sang its praises. Another modeling forum quickly jumped on the issue and the cyber magazine quickly changed its review.

that is amazing, stupid, crazy,and shows that some people can't be trusted

 

Reviews for the most part I find a bit subjective, as no two people have the exact same criteria for what constitutes a good kit. When I read them, I look for tips on how to accurize it (like erronious color charts, parts not needed for a particular version, etc.), errors in the instructions that have been pointed out, issues with the markings (do they break apart as soon as they hit the water?) while at the same time bypassing comments on the fit (unless they're really negative comments directed at major components, because not everyone has the same fit issues with the same kit) and other issues that are based on opinions and not facts. Good quality photos of the sprues and the markings (if you plan on using them) are a plus.

"Complete Opposite"? No, never.

Now, there have been instances where my opinion about specific aspects of a kit were somewhat different than a reviewer's opinion, but there's nothing wrong with that.

I recently saw an instance where an online cyber modeling magazine had a review of the Alan/Dragon SU-76, a kit normally found on mentioned on the top 10 list of worst model kits. The review was recent but the kit has been around for years, if not a decade or so.

The review gave the kit a highly recommended and sang its praises. Another modeling forum quickly jumped on the issue and the cyber magazine quickly changed its review.