What are "acceptable Standards" for you?

Acceptable standards in a kit:

1. It's made of plastic…mostly.
2. All the parts are there.
   
3. The parts  bear a reasonable  geometric relationship to  each other, e.g., they fit, more or less.
4. Other than sprue, there isn't a lot of extra plastic.
5. The subject is one  I'm interested in—and the kit is a reasonable representation of the interest…

Seriously, it depends on the cost of the kit: A $5 kit isn't expected to produce much more than kitbash fodder. A $50 kit had better be a pleasure to build without more than minor surgery and have the maximum level of accurate detail commensurate with the scale.

When it comes to writing, styrene, and combat, I try to follow Musashi's dictum: "Have no preferences."

 

My standards depend on how much I care or know about the subject matter. In other words, it I build an Abrams tank, there are certain standards of detail and accuracy I desire in the kit. Since there are many models of this tank available, I can chose the one that suits my needs the best.

If I build a Tiger tank, I don't care about accuracy as much as I would an Abrams. I would settle for a less accurate model if it was substantially cheaper than the highly accurate kit. I would chose fit and ease of build over the complicated multimedia super kits on the market today. In the end, it would look like a Tiger to me.

I've got a soft spot for moving parts as well. I loved the old Monogram Avenger and even picked one of them up when they were reissued a few years ago.

Recently, I stopped building for myself and decided to build for my 3 year old son. He gets so much joy out of watching me build an Army tank for him. It's given me a reason to dig out those old Tamiya motorized models sitting in a junk box, buying an unbuilt kit of the same model off of eBay and rebuilding the motorized version for him. He loves it.

I also found some snap together models from the movie Speed Racer (both the Mach 5 and Mach 6) at Target for $7 a piece. I built those two kits for him and they are getting some good use. It makes me remember what got me started with model building almost 40 years ago.

Look at the joy on this little face. Any model that lights up his face like that is acceptable to me now.

Triarius wrote:

Acceptable standards in a kit: It's made of plastic…mostly. All the parts are there. The parts  bear a reasonable  geometric relationship to  each other, e.g., they fit, more or less. Other than sprue, there isn't a lot of extra plastic. The subject is one  I'm interested in—and the kit is a reasonable representation of the interest…

This list pretty well sums it up for me, but I'll add

    6.  There are no mis-matched mold lines, sink holes or incomplete moldings.

    7.  The parts count is in relationship to the level of detail- eleventy thousand pieces are nice, but not if most of them are hidden by other stuff....

    8.  I don't need to buy any AM stuff to make the kit look good- any AM should ice the cake.

             

It depends on the kit and subject matter. I do like building those old cheap kits, they are more of a challenge to see what I can make of it. Some of these new multi-media and super kits are just getting to be a pain for me. At my age(and I'm not that old) the ole fingers and eyes aren't what they use to be

As well as those listed above, for me it comes down to subject matter.  I build a lot of helicopters and anime. Somtimes I dont have a lot of choices, so I go with what is available.  If the kit was molded in the fifties *(Revells YH16 for example) I have much different expectations than a current MRC H46 kit.  I KNOW I am going to have to work with the fit at times and to me that is an acceptable standard, and is what makes me more of a model builder and less of an assembler. when I get one of these awesome Bandai Master grade  Gundam kits, my skills are put aside as I begin assembling.  The technology simply has done the hard work for me and all I have to do is cut the parts out, get them corretly assembled and paint (if desired).

I understand that molds DO wear out over time and repops of kits from past years may not have parts that fit as well as they used to. more recent runs of the AH1 from Monogram show that...the greenhouse canopy does not fit the way it used to and I now have to shim those canopies when I get one off of Ebay. In context I don't consider that unacceptable, since when the kit did come out the canopy seemed to fit fine (or I have gone WAYYYY downhill in the last 20 years)

What I do not find acceptable is the use of a instrument panel decal in a 1/48 or larger helicopter kit (revell AG...UGH!!!!). Another thing that I find unacceptable in terms of fit and quality is oval-shaped cylindrical part halvesthat are molded in halves, seemingly justify parts count. this may be Ok in a low-production run kit, but not in someting that is of average "interst" to most builders.

And, finally, my MOST unacceptable item of all comes down to decals. the rest I can fix, but decals always either kill a project for me or keep it on the shelf. You cannot always find replacement markings for kits, especially those in odd (1/100 is a perfect example) scale. I got a BattleRotor AH1G a fwe weeks ago, 1/100 scale.  the markings are SILVEr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!GRRRR!!!!!

 

David

 

Where to start...

I prefer the kit to be reasonably priced: Revell Monogram kits come to mind as the most reasonably priced new releases these days. Looking at their 1/48 F-18E and comparing it to Hasegawa's release and you'll understand my point. Many kits these days are just getting too expensive to contemplate buying.

It should look like its' intended subject. Like stated above, certain kits I may want more detail in, but not stuff that will never be seen. I am no rivet counter, but I do want whatever kit I buy and build to "look" like the real thing without me feeling like I am building the real thing.

Markings- give more than one subject choice, and make them dissimilar. In other words, one his visibilty/colorful choice and one low vis/drab choice. Unless, of course, it is a one of a kind item.

Instruction sheets- Nothing beats the older ones that had all sorts of info on the subject being built. Promodeler's instructions that had photos of the real deal posted throughout were the best. 

And lastly, keep those simple moving part kits available for the new younger modelers. I like starting my kids out with those and moving them up to better more detailed kits as their skills improve. 

 

Rob, that's a wonderful picture! What a handsome guy you have there! And I have to agree with you 100%.

I guess the simplest way for me to answer the question is this: see the look on Rob's sons face? When the little kid in me is grinning like that- I'm happy with the kit. Sounds simplistic, but I'm really just a big kid inside. Accurate, not accurate; cheap or expensive; detailed or not, if it brings out the kid in me- just the pure joy of building a kit for the fun of it- that's acceptable.

It took me a little while to figure that out. I have quite a few kits in the stash, that while I love the subject matter, and they are nice kits, I've not enjoyed building all of them. I realize that the enjoyment I get from building a kit is exactly the same as it was when I wasn't much older than Rob's son. Yeah, I  take a little more time and all, but that picture sums it up for me.

Thanks for posting that my friend. What a wonderful thing to see- the joy of a child!

WHat a great question, tankboy!

I guess for me, I would say that, in Armor, what I find UNacceptable is the kind of tracks that you find in most of Italeri's tank kits; two piece "rubber band" tracks, where you can't really hide the seam. I also cannot accept kits which use correct "box art", but leave off significant details from the kit's contents.

And ditto that for some AMT Auto kits--like the new "Mach I Mustang" where the box art shows side markers molded on the body, but the body is completely devoid of markers! Someone said that the box art is actually a photo of a different era kit which had side markers, but this new molding does not--that is deceitful, plain and simple!

In figures, I would like faces that you can actually make look human; not just some blob of plastic with crudely-defined features!

And in all kits--decals that don't fall apart, and that respond to setting solution! 

 

Great answers!  For JWB and Rob, this is what is going to keep plastic modelling going.  That young mans' look of absolute joy should be inside all of us!  I think that the future of the hobby is in that face. 

Keep it up guys, and thanks for the responses so far.

Doug

He's definitely going to be a model builder. He tries to help me out and constantly keeps asking if the kit is done yet. He handed me the parts to the Mach 5 and Mach 6 as I needed them. He knows the difference between wheels and tires when we build cars.

the doog wrote:

WHat a great question, tankboy! I guess for me, I would say that, in Armor, what I find UNacceptable is the kind of tracks that you find in most of Italeri's tank kits; two piece "rubber band" tracks, where you can't really hide the seam. I also cannot accept kits which use correct "box art", but leave off significant details from the kit's contents. And ditto that for some AMT Auto kits--like the new "Mach I Mustang" where the box art shows side markers molded on the body, but the body is completely devoid of markers! Someone said that the box art is actually a photo of a different era kit which had side markers, but this new molding does not--that is deceitful, plain and simple! In figures, I would like faces that you can actually make look human; not just some blob of plastic with crudely-defined features! And in all kits--decals that don't fall apart, and that respond to setting solution!

Actually, most of Italeri's tank kits use 1 piece vinyl tracks. Their 2 piece vinyl track kits are limited to just a handful of kits, often ones with Zvezda lineage (T-34, JS2) but seen on several of their own kits like the Leo 2 series.

For me it varies with how much I spend on the kit. More if the kit is more expensive, etc.

I suppose, for me, there are no "standards". I'll pay more for a crappy kit of a rare subject than say, a wonderkit of something I have ten of regardless of whatever "standard" the kit is produced to.

For me, I guess it depends on the subject and how passionate I am about it. I'll put a ton of effort into a poorer engineered kit and love every minute of it if it's a subject I'm nuts about before investing even half that time in a flawlessly engineered kit of a less appealing subject.

Rob Gronovius wrote:

Look at the joy on this little face. Any model that lights up his face like that is acceptable to me now.

amen brother!

The picture of Rob's son is worth a thousand words. I don't blame him at all for building for his son.

I like a good challenge and I like to scratch build and fix bad detail on imperfect kits. To me this is the fun of building.

Any kit will fit the bill as long as it's a subject I like.

For Me I expect a kit to have reasonable fit and decent detail.What I don't like are kits that are over-engineered or illogical in their parts break down.For example the ICM TB-3 Zeno was the single most diffucult kit I have ever built bar none!I don't think that the dsigners ever designed a model kit before!the multi=piece fuselage and wing surfaces defied logic and were difficult to align.It seemed that it would be more diffucult to design this kit than for a conventionally designed kit!I finished it but In don't think I would build one of its ilk again.on the flip side,i just built a Hasegawa KI-61 Hien(Tony)which was a walk in the park.No major problems and a few minor ones that were easily delt with.That's why I check model-review websites that really clue you in on what to expect. 

I like models that have decent detail, but aren't so complicated to build that you'd actually have to be an aeronautical engineer to put it together.  Like ailerons or elevatos that have detail, but I don't want to have to glue on a dozen actuator rods

What really gets me is cockpit detail.  The original designer took time to add generic knobs and switches, which is nice.  But why not take a few extra hours and add the correct knobs and switches?  Instead of adding a cluster of switches on one panel, why not look at the refernce material and add switches where they go?  It's just as easy to design one as it another.

Or gun/wheel bay detail.  They take the the time to add ribbing and hoses (on some kits), but why not add them where they actually go?  Instead of a line or two going in the completely wrong place, add the lines where they were run in the real aircraft.

2 prime examples of very well designed kits; the tamiya P-51D and F4U-1D, both in 1/48.  Those kits had excellent detail and go together with very few fit issues.  For anybody looking into getting into modeling, I'd recommend those 2 kits.

-Fred

 

For me it has to be a kit that looks like the subject, but doesn't consist of a million and one parts, abd cost the earth.

The thought of one of Dragon's 1/35 Tiger kits leaves me cold, I'd rather build the Tamiya 1/48 version, because I know I'll finish it.

Older kits are perfectly acceptable, especially if no one else kits them in a given scale, like the Finemolds Yokosuka Judy I'm building at the moment. It's a late 80's kit, with late 80's fit, and therefore a bit of a challenge, without being a chore.

I suppose I like those models which are a pleasure to build, i.e. don't take forever, after all I build so that I too can wear a smile like Ron's son.

Karl