REVELL,S lack of interest

What are the problems you mention with the 1/144 Gepard-class? I built this kit a few months ago and found no problems with it - it matches up very well to photos of the real ships. There are a number of small missing details, which I added from scratch, but everything else looks OK to me. (No major fit/assembly problems, either)

http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/misc/patrol/gepard-144-ep/ep-index.htm

 Hello Epinniger--- The problems I had are noteworthy and numerous . The hull halves didn,t want to line up . (very badly warped ). The rails and mast supports were over a quarter inch off . I saw the pictures that someone suggested and the supports molded  in  the rail that were supposed to support the outboard sides of the mast assembly didn,t even come close to the real thing . The wheelhouse/cabin roof was molded too small and I had to brace it from inside . The missile launch unit locating pins did Not match the holes for them either !!! The exhaust molded in the hull sides was molded to low and were just blobs on the sides !!  The gun housing was flatsided like an earlier version of same . I don,t know what happened ,but, this was the worst kit from REVELL of GERMANY , i,ve also built the tug SMIT HOUSTON and it ran a close second !!. I will wait a long time before I buy another REVELL product ,either GERMAN or domestic !!!     tankerbuilder

tankerbuilder wrote:

LACK OF INTEREST

When ranting at people for poor quality it is advisable to ensure that one's grammar and punctuation is not a train wreck in itself. Otherwise the reader is going to have the same feelings to your posting as your title.

I'll take the liberty of suggesting that, as a courtesy to the other members, every member of the Forum take a few minutes to look at the "FSM Forum Guidelines" thread ( /forums/1163944/ShowPost.aspx#1163944 ).  The references to ALL CAPS and multiple punctuation marks (such as "!!!!" and "????") are particularly worth noting.

That thread does not address the difference between the comma and the apostrophe.  Maybe Tankerbuilder has some reason for using the same punctuation mark for both, but I have no idea what it is - and I must say that I find his posts difficult to read.  I am, however, sensitive to the old adage about people in glass houses throwing rocks.  In looking over my own posts I'm frequently embarrassed to see the awful mistakes of grammar, punctuation, etc. that I've made - and put on the web for all the world to see.  (When I catch them I edit them, but I have no way of knowing how many people have already read them.)

The web is a wonderful thing; it facilitates communication between people who otherwise would never get in touch with each other, and who can offer all sorts of viewpoints and insights on innumerable subjects.  It also has created a new branch of the English language (and, I assume, plenty of other languages), which has its own definitions of decorum and manners.  It's easy, especially for Olde Phogies like me who are relatively new to the computer game, to post discourteous and even insulting language without having any idea that we're doing it.  The FSM management has done us a favor in the aforementioned thread by spelling out, in concise and clearly understandable form, what is and isn't appropriate.

I think that if you look at subjects that get kitted by more than one manufacturer,and in mre than one scale (Bismarck, Hood, Prince of Wales,Yamato, New Jersey, Enterprise, Hornet, Type VII U-boat, Queen Mary 2, Victory, Cutty Sark,)  that it's pretty clear that kit manufacturers do give modellers what most of them seem to want. 

The difficulty is that many people with a deeper interest in ship modelling (like ourselves) forget that werepresent only a small fraction of the total market for model kits, and that, to turn a profit, a new-mould mainstream injection-moulded kit has to sell in tens, if not hundreds, of thousands.

I'd really like a 1/350- or even 1/700 - kit of Ark Royal IV in her final refit, or,indeed, any Royal Navy post-war surface combatant in 1/350, but have been reconciled to the fact that,expensive resin aside, it's not going to happen.

And then Airfix promise a 1/350 Illustrious-maybe there is a God after all!

Cheers,

Chris.

Another thing, if you're interested in good kits, is you might consider helping the companies instead of just ranting at them. For example, I provide Dragon with some assistance in their WWII ship kit line. They are MUCH more open to a project when we can offer them research materials and expertise. 

So if you want a particular ship produced, you might start by trying to get the research done for them, such as good plans (I'm not talking side views here; the ones that Floating Drydock offers, for example, will do for a START) and photos of the details. It may be expensive in both time and materials, but if you offer that to them either for the cost of a couple of kits or even for free they may very well consider it.

jtilley wrote:

I'll take the liberty of suggesting that, as a courtesy to the other members, every member of the Forum take a few minutes to look at the "FSM Forum Guidelines" thread ( /forums/1163944/ShowPost.aspx#1163944 ).  The references to ALL CAPS and multiple punctuation marks (such as "!!!!" and "????") are particularly worth noting. That thread does not address the difference between the comma and the apostrophe.  Maybe Tankerbuilder has some reason for using the same punctuation mark for both, but I have no idea what it is - and I must say that I find his posts difficult to read.  I am, however, sensitive to the old adage about people in glass houses throwing rocks.  In looking over my own posts I'm frequently embarrassed to see the awful mistakes of grammar, punctuation, etc. that I've made - and put on the web for all the world to see.  (When I catch them I edit them, but I have no way of knowing how many people have already read them.)

I've got to agree with you on the punctuation thing, Professor. While we aren't being graded on our English skills, a little brushing up on punctuation rules could be beneficial to some. At least it would help to clarify the meaning of some posts and make them more inviting to read. I don't recall ever being taught to put a space between the last word and a period or comma, and that there is a difference between a comma and an apostrophe. tankerbuilder, we like your posts, but it is a little hard to make sense of them at times.

 

 

Tracy White wrote:

Another thing, if you're interested in good kits, is you might consider helping the companies instead of just ranting at them. For example, I provide Dragon with some assistance in their WWII ship kit line. They are MUCH more open to a project when we can offer them research materials and expertise.  So if you want a particular ship produced, you might start by trying to get the research done for them, such as good plans (I'm not talking side views here; the ones that Floating Drydock offers, for example, will do for a START) and photos of the details. It may be expensive in both time and materials, but if you offer that to them either for the cost of a couple of kits or even for free they may very well consider it.

 

This is a very good post.....some years back, many people(I heard about it and joined in) decided to take stock of what was available for model aircraft and what was missing.  One of the things that was seen over and over again was, with the more recent resurgence of 1/32 scale modern aircraft models, that several key players were missing, like the F-8 Crusader.  The large scale offers massive detailing possibilities, both kit-engineered and aftermarket.  so we wrote letters and sent emails to some of the mfgr's....and while we dont know if Trumpeter used our letters or some other source, we now have several of these available. 

 

Lets not forget that we are their target market, and you dont ever know when a suggestion you make will catch the right person's eye.  Now, if only we could get someone to put out a 1/24 scale A-4 Skyhawk....

Hello-jtilley: Well I didn,t expect to cause a stir with,of all things, My punctuation. I don,t see to well when I am on this thing and I just want to make sure folks know when I,ve stopped. I appreciate being able to be here,and,I wish that everything was always fair sailing.I do have some news you might find interesting. I just received in the mail the following, in order of opening. One-The MAMOLI version of the ALABAMA .Two-The REVELL version of the same ship! Three-The SCIENTIFIC version of ,You guessed it ,THE ALABAMA. And last but not least,The REVELL version of the KEARSARGE! OH,I forgot I also got the TRUMPETER kit of the SARATOGA! How,s that for a haul? Now I don,t have time to complain.I just need to get busy correcting these puppies and get them built.Do you know if anyone besides GOLD MEDAL MODELS does P.E. for the SARA?The nets on the sides of the flight deck gotta go. The little airplanes really tickled me, they,re all clear plastic! and I don,t believe I,ve ever seen (for want of a better word)cuter little biplane models.Near as I could tell they even had little rib details on the wings .I had to use a magnifier to check them out .They look like they could be little bears to build though.I hope this is better.    tankerbuilder

  Hello-TRACY, I just read this thread on letting the companies know what we want, and even helping to see it happen. When I didn,t worry about minor things, like where I punctuated, I constantly wrote them. I even offered a shipyard set of plans for, of all things, a VICTORY SHIP! It,s not out there except in, I believe 1/700. That scale makes for a very compact tabletop navy. It is however to small for my capabilities.I have for a long time wanted a 1/350 or bigger H.M.S. RODNEY,because it,s such an unusual layout compared to other capitol ships of the time.I believe there is ,again, a 1/700 scale model of her .Much of my modeling is peculiar to many. I build a group to show a "logical progression of design". I guess thats why my taste in models is so eclectic. I prefer to have in small groups following that principle, for instance, A FLETCHER in original trim,one as a radar picket and one as a fast transport . The GEARINGS as built,and, as F.R.A.M-1,2,and 3. The reason for these is that each conversion had noticeable differences.Well, I,ve got to feed the dogs and such .Thank you, and will talk to you later.    tankerbuilder

Tracy,

I would love to assist any of the manufacturers as you suggest.  How does one go about getting involved?

Bill Morrison

Hi Tanker,

First, Trumpeter have had a 1/350 Victory ship in their catalogue for five years or so.

Second, White Ensign Models say that they have a 1/700 etched fret for the Saaratoga coming soon. You might like to email them and find out how soon.

Next, an injection-moulded 1/350 Rodney, with a war record which was eventful rather than heroic,  is one of those things that is never going to happen.  ISomeone did do a resin one some years ago. Tamiya did a 1/700 one some 35 years ago, which is not a bad kit, and still in the present catalogue. Airfix did a 1/600 Nelson in the early 1960s, which is a bit basic,but can be converted to a Rodney without too much effort.

As you probably know, the design of Nelson/ Rodney was based on the Royal Navy's G3-class battlecruisers of 1921, cancelled under the Washington Treaty of 1922. In order to get displacement down from some 48 000 tons to under the 35 000 Treaty limit, while retaining the 9*16" main armament,all the main guns were concentrated forward, thus saving on magazine space and side and deck armour. The power plant was also cut from 20 boillers supplying four steam turbines producing 160 000hp for 32 kt. to eight boilers turning two shafts at 45 000hp for 23 kts, at which speed, they had great difficulty keeping up with the rest of the Royal Navy's capital ships.

The French Jean Bart and Dunquerque-class vessels also had all their main armament forward, though this was mostly to save money.

I also believe that, over the years, resin conversion sets have been produced for the Tamiya 1/350 Fletcher to convert it to early configuration, and maybe also as a fast transport.

Cheers,

Chris.

 

 

chris hall wrote:

<<snip>> I also believe that, over the years, resin conversion sets have been produced for the Tamiya 1/350 Fletcher to convert it to early configuration, and maybe also as a fast transport. Cheers, Chris.

Tom Harrison of Tom's Modelworks had a conversion set to convert Tamiya's early round-bridge Fletcher to a mid-to-late war square-bridge Fletcher.  

Tom worked with Trumpeter on several programs.   The Trumpeter Liberty ships have their genesis in Toms resin kit.    The Trumpeter Essex kits have their beginnings in Toms resin kit.  Later Trumpeter provided Tom with early samples of their kits so that Tom could fit his brass and have his product ready early after the kit's release.   

When Trumpeter let Tom know that they had a square-bridge Fletcher in the works, Tom quietly discontinued his product.

Tom's death has been, and continues to be a loss to the hobby.

Jon Warneke of IronShipwrights made a couple of conversion sets to update the Tamiya Fletcher to post-war DDE and FRAM versions.    There was never a demand for these sets as conversions.   He has recently re-worked them and they are now available as complete kits.

The "garage kit" manufacturers are more accepting of solicited plans and project ideas than are the styrene manufacturers.   I have a couple of plans and kit masters in the ISW product line.  The mainline tooling costs are such that a project which does not sell can impact the company's bottom line.   Mainline producers are reluctant to experiment and tend to go with recognized subject.  

 

A couple of points.  First - Trumpeter does not have a Victory ship in its catalog - in any scale.  (I just checked the company website to make sure.  The website, of course, only lists what's currently available, but I'm pretty certain Trumpeter has never offered a Victory ship.)  The firm does have two Liberty ships, the John W. Brown and the Jeremiah O'Brien, in 1/350.  (I suspect the kits are virtually identical.)  There's a big difference between a Liberty and a Victory.

I've got a Trumpeter 1/700 Saratoga in my disgustingly large "to be done" pile; I agree that it's a first-rate kit.  (My few experiences with Trumpeter have generally been pretty good.)  I haven't bought the Gold Medal Models photo-etched detail set, but I've taken a close look at the pictures of it on the GMM website:  ( http://www.goldmm.com/ships/gms700-34.htm ).  To my eye it looks outstanding.  (For the benefit of those interested in sacrificing their eyesight, GMM also offers a fret dedicated entirely to those wonderful little aircraft:  http://www.goldmm.com/ships/gms700-35.htm .)  White Ensign makes superb stuff, and rarely if ever disappoints; I'm sure its Saratoga set will be a fine one.  Whether it will be better than the GMM one remains to be seen.

I've got my eye on the Trumpeter 1/700 North Carolina for the near future.  (Ship modelers in my neck of the woods generally get around to her sooner or later.)  The kit is excellent (generally conceded to be better than the same company's 1/350 offering); my only significant gripe is that four of the 5" gunhouses don't line up right with the superstructure underneath them.  (Not too hard to fix.)  Both White Ensign and Gold Medal offer detail sets - Gold Medal a generic one covering American fast battleships, and White Ensign a fret that's specific to the Washington and North Carolina.  I ordered both of them, and was curious to compare them.  I have to say that both are absolutely first-rate.  The White Ensign set, since it only deals with two ships, does include some parts that GMM doesn't (Oerlikon guns, some radio antennas, some details for the stacks, etc.).  When it comes to the big, conspicuous items, such as the radar screens, catapults, and cranes, it's really a tossup.  One point that might be significant for some purchasers:  GMM's sets are stainless steel, whereas White Ensign's are brass.  Both materials have their advantages.  I expect to use parts from both of sets.  (I have a suspicion that I may need a second chance on some of those radar screens and the catapults.  "Small" is not an adequate description for some of those pieces.)

Incidentally - if anybody other than me is interested in modeling the North Carolina in her 1942 configuration, a cheaper way to get there is to buy the Trumpeter Washington.  It depicts that ship in her as-commissioned configuration (or nearly so).  The North Carolina kit shows her as she looked in about 1944.  The number of differences is substantial.

I've irritated some Forum members more than once with my allegedly cynical attitude toward "wish lists" of kits we'd like to see, but I think Mr. Hall may be overstating the case with his assertion that a 1/350 Rodney (or Nelson) is "never going to happen."  I don't claim any particular insignt into the brains of the people who pick subjects for the manufacturers, but it strikes me that they've chosen some that are more offbeat - and less historically significant - than that.  (Can it reasonably be argued that the Richelieu makes a more logical model subject than either of those two ships?  Trumpeter has a Richelieu in 1/350 - and two, in different configurations, in 1/700.)  Unless I'm much mistaken, the only major WWII British capital ships that aren't currently represented by 1/350 styrene kits from mainstream manufacturers are the Queen Elizabeth class, the "R" class (hmmmm...how would a Royal Oak sell?) the Renown, the Nelson, and the Rodney.  I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for Trumpeter or Tamiya (or Academy, or Revell, or anybody else) to get around to them, but I won't be surprised if we get them.

Yup. Sorry, did mean Linerty ship,not Victory ship Trumpeter do,indeed,do a 1/700 Jean Bart (1950 fit) as well as a Richelieu (1943 fit?). I've got the Jean Bart in the stash, waiting forWEM to do their promised etch for it (though may end up using generic railings, ladders and radar scanners). I'd concur with the Professor's opinion that Trumpeter's stuff,in 1/700 at least,is pretty good. Particulalry keen on their 1/700 aircraft. Whoever thought that one day, you might be able to buy a couple of squadrons worth of 1/700 Supermarine Walrusses (Walri?) for less than the price of a deecent-ish bottle of wine?

Heller, of course, did kits of both the Jean Bart and the Richelieu. Some 12 years ago, I built the Jean Bart (bought on a day trip to Cherbourg) with GMM generic 1/400 warship fittings.It's a very nice kit indeed.

As far as 1/350 British battlehips are concerned, I'd say that Queen Elizabeth and 'R' class ships are more likely prospects than Nelson/Rodney. More individual vessels, longer service lives, more refits,mean that you could get more work out of one set of moulds.  

Cheers,

Chris.

 Chris hall wrote about what he thought was a victory.  Well, he like many ,make this same mistake, That,s alright ,we all do. The thing that drives my want list, is a seemingly innocous lack of interest in most of the parts of this countrys modelers of a maritime history and halcyon days of a strong merchant power. The UNITED STATES has a prodigious amount of coastline. Did you know in some of our coastal cities there is little interest in anything that still floats or floated in AMERICA,S legendary navy or merchant service? Yes, there is a large group of modelers, both R.C. and static that are strong devotees to this subject. Now, in DEFENSE of REVELL,I will state categorically that they have provided me,as a consumer, numerous aircraft and car kits that are in some cases the proverbial"cat,s meow".I just get sore ,probably more than I should,when I see their failures and badly engineered or poorly researched models of ships. See,I know they can do it. I just would like to see them do it sooner.Back in years past,they did the BUCHANAN,the BUCKLEY, and some others .They may NOT have been ,by todays standards the most accurate ,but, they were there for us to buy. I don,t mind correcting for accuracy,but I still enjoy a build for the fun of it too.Those were great years . well, enough for now. ----tankerbuilder

tankerbuilder wrote:

Chris hall wrote about what he thought was a victory.  Well, he like many ,make this same mistake, That,s alright ,we all do. The thing that drives my want list, is a seemingly innocous lack of interest in most of the parts of this countrys modelers of a maritime history and halcyon days of a strong merchant power. The UNITED STATES has a prodigious amount of coastline. Did you know in some of our coastal cities there is little interest in anything that still floats or floated in AMERICA,S legendary navy or merchant service? Yes, there is a large group of modelers, both R.C. and static that are strong devotees to this subject. Now, in DEFENSE of REVELL,I will state categorically that they have provided me,as a consumer, numerous aircraft and car kits that are in some cases the proverbial"cat,s meow".I just get sore ,probably more than I should,when I see their failures and badly engineered or poorly researched models of ships. See,I know they can do it. I just would like to see them do it sooner.Back in years past,they did the BUCHANAN,the BUCKLEY, and some others .They may NOT have been ,by todays standards the most accurate ,but, they were there for us to buy. I don,t mind correcting for accuracy,but I still enjoy a build for the fun of it too.Those were great years . well, enough for now. ----tankerbuilder

 

 

well, while it isnt everything, Revell has announced that this fall they will be releasing models of the USS Tarawa in 1/700, the USS Helena in 1/481, the Robert E. Lee paddlewheel in 1/271.....their current 2009 catalog shows 2 US WWII battleships, two different scales of the USS Constitution, PT-109, a Titanic, the 1/72 Gato sub, WWII submarine USS Lionfish, and a pirate ship.  Sure, it isnt as many as Tamiya or MRC has had in their catalogs, but it sure is more than you have made it sound like it is.  and while I would also like to see more variety, at least they are putting these out there. 

 

Its also a bit confusing, the argument youre presenting.  On one hand, you say you get sore because of the fact that Revell's ships are not accurately done.  And then, not a minute later, youre complaining that you dont mind fixing the accuracy issues, you just wish that the models were there for us to buy.  Contradicting yourself doesnt make for an easy-to-understand point of view, with all respect to you. 

warshipguy wrote:

I would love to assist any of the manufacturers as you suggest.  How does one go about getting involved?

I can't speak for every manufacturer; I tried to help Trumpeter via both their web site contacts and Stevens International, their main distributor, and got nowhere. I help Dragon out and made contact in a round-a-bout way through another person who helped them. I would say in the first part "have" something that they will find of interest and use. I my case, I live near a branch of the National Archives and have built up an extensive knowledge and collection of information on WWII era essex class ships; pretty much  all of Dragon's 700th Essex class ships from CV-16 Lexington on I've had some input on.

The recent 350th (and soon 700th) kits from Dragon benefited from the team working on it having access to plans from the National Archives... but once you start getting in to it, it can get quite spendy. Original plans are on linen and can be 9-12 feet long, with some ships having upward of 30 sheets and reproduction costs at NARA starting about $3.50 a foot. Then you get into the microfische portion of it where details like planking, hawse pipe, anchor diagrams, etc., at about $.50 per sheet, and some ships having many multiple rolls offering multiple thousands of sheets .... this is before you add the time it takes to look through them once some familiarity with the filing system and locations has been gained.  We were lucky to have access to a gentleman who was extremely familiar with the records.

I would say that research and knowledge is what we need most; not in the form of books but actual expertise and access. Not easy to come by, I know. We pretty much already know about the floating drydock plans and books that we need, the trick now is people who can funnel the high-fidelity information. So my recommendation would be to get really good at a particular ship or subject and then persistantly offer your services; not necessarily to just the model companies, but to the model community... word will get out about you.

Some personal observations in response to the criticism of plastic model companies and Revell in particular.

With respect to Revell, I suspect that a lot of the frustration comes from the fact that they have produced some truly great kits in the past.  Modelers have a sense of expectation based on the classic kits: the Constitution, Cutty Sark, Charles Morgan, etc. When all current modelers see are re-releases of old kits and nothing new (certainly nothing that compares to the standards set long ago), the disappointment and frustration are understandable.  Why can't they release new kits that compare favorably with the classics, especially with the advances in CAD-CAM, molding technology, photo-etch products, etc.?

The classic Revell ships are all in the neighborhood of 50 years old.  I think this is very telling.  It indicates to me that for the past 50 years, management at Revell has not been able to make a business case for investing in the research, design, tooling & marketing to produce equivalent new products. Their analysis said that there would be insufficient return on their investment to turn an acceptable profit and sustain the company. 

Why is this?  While the increased cost of manufacturing is certainly one aspect, I think the overwhelming reason is just that there has been a continually shrinking market over this 50 year timeframe.  This has been dicussed many times here.  Despite the manufacturer's best efforts with beginners kits, snap-tite kits, kits that included glue & paint, kits tied into other areas of interest (movies, NASCAR, etc), nothing has been effective in consistently drawing significant numbers of new modelers into the hobby. 

Model manufacturers have to turn a profit to stay in business.  I am confounded by modelers who seem to have a sense of entitlement; that model manufacturers have a "duty" to produce some kit, irregardless of whether or not the manufacturer would have a snowball's chance of making any money on it.

Yes, Revell has been guilty of misrepresentation in the marketing/reboxing of kits as something they are not.  This is certainly an objectionable practice from the purist standpoint, but if helps to keep the company going by selling kits to people who just want to build a model and aren't obssessed with historical accuracy, then I really don't see that as being so terrible.  It's an effort to stay profitable using their available resources, not some kind of evil conspiracy.

Those of us here on this forum certainly represent the "hard-core" element of the hobby: we are the most commited to doing the research, developing the skills & patience required to produce a historically-accurate, well-crafted models.  We are certainly going to be a tough audience when it comes to critiquing model kits.  That's okay, and I believe the manufacturers do listen to such feedback.  

At the same time, I think we need to keep in mind that modeling is a process of compromises.  Our models are representations, not exact duplications of the subject. Limitations of scale, materials, time, & skill (and eyesight as you get older) keep us from producing a perfect duplication of the subject.  We need to keep in mind that manufacturers face similar decisions based on limitations of manufacuring technolgy, materials, cost, etc.  If they attempted to produce a "perfect" kit probably no one would be able to afford it and they would be out of business in short order.

I think the best thing we can do is to continue supporting the hobby by purchasing kits and supplies and to give fair, constructive feedback to the manufacturers.

In the final analysis, it's not Revell's lack of "interest", it's the lack of profit that drives their decision making process.

Just my $0.02

Mark

 

 

   

 

A small weakness in this argument is that several other kit manufacturers- Revell Europe, Trumpeter, Italeri, Academy, Tamiya, Hasegawa, Dragon, Heller, Zvezda, even Airfix- have, over the years, produced a steady stream of genuine new-mould ship and boat kits. Not all of these firms manufacture in low-wage economies. Most appear to prosper at least to the extent that R-M do.

How is it that they  are apparently able to make a business case for new-mould ship kits, often large,complex and expensive to tool up for, where R-M, it seems, cannot? Is it solely down to the domination, in the home market,of car and truck kits in general, and NASCAR in particular?

Cheers,

Chris.

chris hall wrote:

How is it that they  are apparently able to make a business case for new-mould ship kits, often large,complex and expensive to tool up for, where R-M, it seems, cannot?

Revell Gato, 1/72nd scale.

Tracy White wrote:

[snip] Revell Gato, 1/72nd scale.

Indeed. A Revell Europe tooling, not R-M.

 

I don't know how much of the 1/72 Gato-class project originated with Revell Germany (or Revell Europe, as it now seems to be calling itself) and how much with Revell of the U.S.  There may well have been some collaboration there - and as I understand it the actual molds were cut, and the plastic parts produced, in either Korea or China.

I do think it's interesting to note the subtle changes that seem to have been taking place recently in the company (or companies), as demonstrated on their websites.  In addition to the switch from "Revell Germany" to "Revell Europe," the U.S. corporation seems to have dropped the "Monogram" name.  I don't know when it happened, but the web address used to have "Revell-Monogram" in it and no longer does.  Unless I'm much mistaken, the name "Monogram" doesn't appear anywhere on the company home page.

Clicking on "About Us" at the top of the home page does produce a photo of the company headquarters, with a "Revell Monogram" logo prominently displayed out front and a passing reference to the Monogram brand in the accompanying text: http://www.revell.com/news/about-us.html ).  A caption says the photo was taken in 2006.

Putting two and two together, it looks like the Monogram brand name is a thing of the past (and Revell needs to update that web page).  A number of old Monogram kits are still in the company's catalog, but we Olde Phogies apparently need to start thinking of that grand old company name as a thing of the past.  And I imagine the collectors among us will start snapping up the last kits that still have the Revell-Monogram logo on them.

I think the move to the new name 'Revell Europe' is partly because RoG (RE?) no longer se themselves as an essentially German brand,even though much of their output is based on German subjects. They no longer produce any kits or decals in Germany, and have not done so for some time.

The kits in the current RE catalogue are produced in Poland, the Czech Republic, Italy, Russia, China, Korea, Japan and Mexico. The company's official name,however,remains Revell GmbH & Co. KG, which is Germanic enough for me!

Cheers,

Chris.

Tracy,

Thanks for the insight!

Bill Morrison

Working on my Revell gato sub for my 1st model build. I find this a great scale to start off with. Overall, I've had good luck in fitting most parts together. Yes...there's a few spots on hull that need filling and sanding to match up. I'd love to see one of the model companies come out with WWll troop transport ships. AP, APA type ships. One of the overlooked heroes of the war.

Mark from Sarasota's well balanced comments explain very well the rationale for producing any new kit by any manufacturer, not only Revell.  Beancounters have to keep a company in business......Fact!

Would'nt we all like to see our most esoteric subject released.    But we have to be realistic when you consider that a company has to sell many thousands of units to get a return on their investment in design, development, tooling, manufacturing, distribution and marketing costs just to simply stay in business. Common sense should tell any modeller that subjects of very limited appeal would only be produced at a loss by a mainstream kit manufacturer, and could have catastrophic consequences for them if they get it wrong.  Rare stuff is best left to the 'Cottage Industry' side of the hobby where their overheads are very low.

As for Revell's lack of interest, correct me if I am wrong, but have they not released a brand new kit of the Sailing Ship Vasa in 1/150th scale recently, which hopefully will be more correct than the old 70's Airfix kit, that incidentally is very good considering when it was made. Revell have also recently issued  new kits for a 1/24th scale London Routemaster Bus and Heikel 111 in 1/32nd scale, so they can hardly be accused of lack of interest considering the commitment they have made to making these new kits. Manufacturers tread a narrow path much of the time, so their marketing decisions have to be right to survive. Hornby UK the present owners of Airfix have been having a bit of a lean spell I learnt from the media of late, and hopefully they will pull through alright.

Revell is getting accolades over on the aircraft forums, for their new stuff--- nice, detailed kits that are very reasonably priced.

The realiity is that ship models are such a small percentage of the market that it is hard to get the money back on a new mold. 

I, for one,  tire of reading complaints about inaccurate kits from 50 years ago.  What's the point?  For example, the Revell CSS Alabama kit is 50 years old.  It hasn't gotten any better with age, and isn;t going to. 

A copy of the Remembering Revell Kits book fell into my hands a couple of weeks ago.  I found it very interesting to read how the company struggled for years-- that as early as the 1970s, they were already suffering from the drop of popularity of modeling.....

 

 

I have to take issue with the premise of this thread, tankerbuilder.  I find Revell ship kits, especially ROG, can be top notch (depends on kit).  I was thrilled with the SMS Emden, and have won more awards for that kit than any other kit I have built.  I did use a PE set on the kit, but virtually every other ship model I have built also needed PE detail.  I have a modern tug from ROG and it will need PE but other than that I look forward to building it.

Even the US Revell kits are great for the price- a good value, especially the Cutty Sark and Constitution.  I also have friends in contact with some of the suits at Revell, and they do care about what modelers want, but there is a big variation in what modelers want, unfortunately.  We are not a monolithic community with everyone having the same wants and needs, and they have been burned lately by producing some models at the behest of loud modelers and having the kits do poorly on the market.