What Happened to The I-53 Thread?

My guess is that one (or all) of the Lindberg apologists complained and it got yanked...

I think it is just that as kits become more expensive, there is an expected increase in the quality and accuracy of the components. Perhaps also demographics, more expensive kits tend to purchased by adults not children.

I read on SN (and cannot find the post) that the typical ship modeler is an adult male, reasonably well compensated and educated. Sounds like the type of customer who knows and expects a return on the value of his dollar invested.

 

 

Felix C. wrote:

I think it is just that as kits become more expensive, there is an expected increase in the quality and accuracy of the components. Perhaps also demographics, more expensive kits tend to purchased by adults not children. I read on SN (and cannot find the post) that the typical ship modeler is an adult male, reasonably well compensated and educated. Sounds like the type of customer who knows and expects a return on the value of his dollar invested.

...careful there...you could be accused of spreading venom and vitriol...might be reported...

Can someone post the link to that building thread, please. I didn´t add it to my favorites, because I thought I can always found it here...

... factual basis for this stupendous assertion ?

My money is that your continuous and pointless attacks were far more responsible for the removal.  That must make you feel real important.  Too bad you couldn't have expended one-tenth the effort in constructive criticism that you did in spewing venom...but, then, poison is so much easier to sling around.

What your efforts don't impede--and never will, however, is the attempt to make matters right.  See you later, bub.

Randy Stone

Trabi wrote:

Can someone post the link to that building thread, please. I didn´t add it to my favorites, because I thought I can always found it here...

The link should be easy to find by using a few choice search terms:

I used, 'Merriman' 'Lindberg' and 'I-53.'

This isn't meant to be snide, just a learning tip for other searches.  Here is the link:

 http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1109801

 

 

OK Randy....thanks....didn't know if things really got out of hand yesterday.

I've seen threads on other forums get yanked before when a supporting vendor is trashed etc slander, and or the language and tit for tat gets way out of hand.

Just that in my short time here I don't recall a thread getting pulled......at least the ones I have followed in A/C, Armor, and here.

Model on folks.....nothing more here......lol...

I know I am just a rookie here, but I have a feeling that thread was pulled because two particular posters continued to snipe each other long after Mr. Matthew Usher requested they cease and desist, as they now continue to do in this thread!  Don't be surprised if this thread disappears also.  Copy that link before its gone!

Firecaptain wrote:

OK Randy....thanks....didn't know if things really got out of hand yesterday. I've seen threads on other forums get yanked before when a supporting vendor is trashed etc slander, and or the language and tit for tat gets way out of hand. Just that in my short time here I don't recall a thread getting pulled......at least the ones I have followed in A/C, Armor, and here. Model on folks.....nothing more here......lol...

They don't usually get yanked unless the self-imposed posting police get involved, such as Mr. Stone, whose sole contribution to the Forum thus far has been his defending Lindberg's inept business practices concerning the I-53...This kind of thing makes him feel important and more intelligent than the rest of us who don't agree with him...He wants people to believe I am the only person on the face of the earth not happy with the kit, when it is clear that there are legions...

It's hard to believe that a popular post like that one (I think there were around 4,500 views before it was yanked and about 90 posts) could have been pulled. Who complained?

  i never read the original    i think manny could have something

 

 

 

and let me say i hope i am wrong but......

this post could be off into lock up or   go back in time to 1984 when big bro just erased what is deemed as bad

...M-R no, what I directed your way was my sentiment that--having pointed out the flaws of this kit (for which you applauded my 'stones' for having written so [how soon you seem to forget])--I neither needed nor required the services of someone who hasn't the slightest interest in positive or constructive criticism as opposed to making a science out of trashing someone's else's efforts.  This site is populated by modelers who--for better or for worse--enjoy what they do and look forward to honing and improving their craft.  It's just my opinion, but it's my feeling that a modelmaker is entitled to the same respect and assistance even the greenest of modelbuilders may need.  If you are that good...if you are so perfect, then maybe you don't even need to be here because there is a lot of imperfection in the modeling world, including my own.

Further, I never once mentioned that you're the only one "...on the face of the earth not happy with the kit...," --heck, my own comments about the kit put lie to that completely dishonest statement.  Nor do I, as you so freely assert without the slightest factual basis, work for Lindberg or profit from their efforts; that's just another example of you talking too much.  So attempting to alter my disgust with your behavior into some kind of acceptance of Lindberg's kit is a dog that just don't hunt.  Rather, my objection is that you haven't shown the least bit of common decency in this matter and let's just grant that there's nothing which will alter my good taste...or your bad.  It's one thing to get your facts wrong, as you (and Lindberg, for that matter) have here; it's quite another to act as though you actually know what you're talking about.

As I originally wrote in my reply to your antics: you have offered nothing, nada, zilch wrt what is wrong with Lindberg's kit, how it can be corrected or what you may do to help.  All you've done is offer pointless complaint and invective.  On the other hand, I will discuss the kit in more detail once I put together my sourcing and this will be forwarded to Mr. Petit, who happens--by general consensus--to be a pretty nice guy.  Having spoken with him personally--that's called initiative and it easily trumps complaining--I found Mr. Petit quite open to constructive criticism and I intend to show him the respect to which he is due.  I can't understand why that is such a difficult concept for you to fathom. It's long passed time you attempted to measure up to his good manners and this imbroglio could prove the opportunity for you to learn a few manners.  If it salves your feelings, you may apologize to me by PM or by r.stone.eal@juno.com.  I'm open to contrition.

Oh, and by the way, it's my understanding that the kit sells out rather quickly.

Randy Stone

...I can see it yanked, particularly in today's climate but the important thing is that the kit itself is salvageable.  And more than that, it can be modified into several of the other, related, variants of Japanese long range submarines.

My hope is to demonstrate to Mr. Petit, of Lindberg, that stepping up the original research will go a long ways to bringing Lindberg not only back to life--it appears that many of their kits are sold on the basis of nostalgia, natch'--but put it into bigger and better leagues.

I confess I do not understand how the numerous inaccuracies of the kit were incorporated into the mold.  Just by sight I was suspicious of a number of things and fifteen minutes after pulling various sources it began to look pretty dark for Lindberg.  Now, none of this detracts from what Lindberg is attempting to do, it only detracts from what they have done in this specific instance.  So the questions remain these: where and how did the problems arise ? and what can be done to fix them ?

Randy Stone

Mr. Stone, Why do you continue to air your beef with Manstein's Revenge in public? Why don't you just PM him so you don't get another thread yanked? You seem a bit condescending in your tone, what are your credentials? We all know what Manstein's Revenge is capable of in his modeling work, how about you? Are you a yacht broker from Rhode Island? (Don't get the last question?)

Just PM!

Quick question. Where there any issues regarding the Revell 1/72 iteration of their U-boat and Gato? 

I do not know of other 1/72 submarine releases. I had the Amati 1/72 U-47 once and sold it as I thought I could not build it properly.

Are there any images of the I-20 type Lindberg 1/72 submarine?  Can we agree there were no dual I-20 submarines as occurred with the I-53. Does this not mean we can expect an accurate I-20type?

 

 

...M-r conducted his vendetta via PM, a PM would have been the appropriate forum.  But since he did not--and has since attacked me personally since I told him I needed no assistance from him--he has taken the possibility out of the equation.  His modeling skills are not the issue, his manners are.  And I find it a little surprising that you would confuse disgust with such 'manners' with a 'seeming condescending tone.'  Personally, I am surprised the poisonous invective he has directed toward Lindberg is so deep seated and personal; you'd think they took money out of his pocket. 

Felix C. wrote:

Quick question. Where there any issues regarding the Revell 1/72 iteration of their U-boat and Gato?  I do not know of other 1/72 submarine releases. Are there any images of the I-20 type Lindberg 1/72 submarine?  Can we agree there were no dual I-20 submarines as occurred with the I-53. Does this not mean we can expect an accurate I-20type?

 

No, there are no 'dual' I-20 submarines.  I'm not convinced that 'dual' I-53 submarines is the cause of the problem here anyway--there are many more problems than that and the 1927 I-53 had a different stern as well, a stern which is not replicated by Lindberg.  Again, without knowing the precise specifics of how Lindberg's I-53 was researched and designed I can't say how they messed it up, I can only guess.  And I don't want to do that.

My intent is to make the attempt to prevent this from happening to the I-20 (or the GZ, for that matter).

Randy Stone

WOW, there are some SERIOUS fireworks going off in here!  Sorry I missed the original thread - I love a good bar brawl...

 

Randy Stone, please check your PM's...

Randy Stone wrote:

So the questions remain these: where and how did the problems arise ? and what can be done to fix them ?

Randy, I know you get satisfaction from "coming to Lindberg's rescue" by contacting their top management and having a "beer summit" so as to help them pull themselves out of this I-53 mess, but the majority of us don't see it as our job, or desire to help a for profilt company survive by doing their research for them...If you have that kinda time and the resources, good for you---knock yourself out. They should put your name on the box under, "credits"...But like I mentioned before, most modelers expect that this is done up front and paid for in the cost of the kit...most expect a quality kit when they lay out the money. This position is not radical, rude or an "attack" on Lindberg, it is just a simple fact of capitalism...

As far as my not being constructive, I offered up a question that many have, how is Lindberg going to "make things right" with those folks who have bought the defective I-53 if they correct the kit?...there were several constructive answers to that post...

I'm sure it was something I said in my post yesterday where I laid out my reference info that I've been collecting since questioning this behemoth earlier in the year. That, and referring to a new "Ijn I53' thread that appeared on RCG as being typical of Lindberg's "targeted customer".

Fairseas wrote:

I'm sure it was something I said in my post yesterday where I laid out my reference info that I've been collecting since questioning this behemoth earlier in the year. That, and referring to a new "Ijn I53' thread that appeared on RCG as being typical of Lindberg's "targeted customer".

Can you give us a link to the thread, Fairseas? I don't know if I like being a "target".

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1113954

...the reason I chose to look into matters was that you were making all kinds of poisonous remarks about the kit without the least bit of reason or rationale.  Up to that point I hadn't even looked at it.

Now you can deny your lousy attitude all you want, I don't care.  Just don't think you're buffaloing me any.  And you can attempt to shift the argument away by claiming all sorts of things we already know--for instance, that a kit should be up to snuff from the git-go.  But that didn't happen here and I am forced to ask myself why...and if there is something I can do about it. 

Your repeated poor reasoning is demonstrated by this comment, "...I know you get satisfaction from "coming to Lindberg's rescue" by contacting their top management and having a "beer summit"..." wherein you prove that, in fact, you don't know squat.  In no way am I coming to Lindberg's rescue, I am offering them help; any reasonable person would do the same were they so inclined and in the position.  I saved a man's life some years ago; I was reasonble, inclined and in a position to do so.  It's a fact of which I am proud and I didn't do it for headlines--there weren't any--or money--I was paid meager witness fees.  I didn't look for credit though I am 'hurt' by the fact that the poor guy is a quadriplegic; but he thanks me once a year for saving his life all the same.  That's credit enough for a lifetime and it ain't the kind found on the side of a box; I hope I never see such a thing again.  Oh, and I don't like beer, either.  You seem to be so caught up in 'what's in it for me,' it never occurs to you to help someone else.  That's a sad commentary on you, not us.

You've offered nothing constructive; sorry, denying that fact won't change it any.

 

Randy Stone wrote:

...the reason I chose to look into matters was that you were making all kinds of poisonous remarks about the kit without the least bit of reason or rationale.  Up to that point I hadn't even looked at it. Now you can deny your lousy attitude all you want, I don't care.  Just don't think you're buffaloing me any.  And you can attempt to shift the argument away by claiming all sorts of things we already know--for instance, that a kit should be up to snuff from the git-go.  But that didn't happen here and I am forced to ask myself why...and if there is something I can do about it.  Your repeated poor reasoning is demonstrated by this comment, "...I know you get satisfaction from "coming to Lindberg's rescue" by contacting their top management and having a "beer summit"..." wherein you prove that, in fact, you don't know squat.  In no way am I coming to Lindberg's rescue, I am offering them help; any reasonable person would do the same were they so inclined and in the position.  I saved a man's life some years ago; I was reasonble, inclined and in a position to do so.  It's a fact of which I am proud and I didn't do it for headlines--there weren't any--or money--I was paid meager witness fees.  I didn't look for credit though I am 'hurt' by the fact that the poor guy is a quadriplegic; but he thanks me once a year for saving his life all the same.  That's credit enough for a lifetime and it ain't the kind found on the side of a box; I hope I never see such a thing again.  Oh, and I don't like beer, either.  You seem to be so caught up in 'what's in it for me,' it never occurs to you to help someone else.  That's a sad commentary on you, not us. You've offered nothing constructive; sorry, denying that fact won't change it any.

Wow, you've got such a venomous attitude about things now that you have simply lost all control of your reason and emotions...Now the thread is about personal lifesaving experiences...should I "top" your story with my own now?

Although, you claim you "don't want anything" for your altrustic and selfless lifestyle, you seem to get a kick out of broadcasting these acts/things in the Forum w/o any pretense of modesty...If you are so concerned about helping Lindberg get it right, put your money with your mouth is and get to it...we are all waiting...

You are a classic attention seeker, the kind who denies he wants it, but carries on relentlessly about it....you are a troll...you should take credit for that.

Lindberg not only did a disservice to those who invested money in their "model" but also did real damage to the chances of a credible model company in approaching the subject matter in a serious way for years...They even did damage to the historical record by projecting their model as a historical fact when everyone agrees that it is fiction...

Fairseas wrote:

I'm sure it was something I said in my post yesterday where I laid out my reference info that I've been collecting since questioning this behemoth earlier in the year. That, and referring to a new "Ijn I53' thread that appeared on RCG as being typical of Lindberg's "targeted customer".

Yes, I see what you mean, I think, these guys don't seem to be "fine scale modelers" but the model does seem to suit their purposes. They want to play with it in a pond it would seem. I can accept that. But when they are done with it at the end of the day, I wouldn't expect them to display it on the mantle either.

Randy Stone wrote:

Oh, and I don't like beer, either.

Yikes!

Now where did I put that link to the popcorn lady...

Considering Mr. Petit appears to be circling the wagons from what I've seen on the Steel Navy forum, I'd say this pig is done. Time to stick a fork in it & move on to something better to spend my time on.

The latest post over there says it all:

"Mr Petit-Please stop the madness-show us why your kit is correct! Sorry but all the talk in the world now will not stop the postings that are negative abou your released I-53 kit and your other upcomming kits.

Only the facts -as Joe Friday would say.Just because you have spent all that money,doesn't mean that the kit is a fair representaion of the I-53.

You say that you have the proof-lets see it with no delay.I spent my $130.00 for my I-53 kit of yours(now its mine).I want to know if my money has been well spent-or just down a rat hole.

Still waiting to see if you are right.I hope you have the photo's and drawings."

The facts are VERY,VERY,VERY SIMPLE.....the kit is wrong in profile and details, is an expensive kit...and PLEASE don't give me the line "is targeted to the saving pennys kid to buy a kit"..$150 is A LOT of pennys and is VERY probable the "kid" will gladly spend the money in the newest video game in the market than a model kit, I know since none of the kids in my family  are interested in modeling, they look at my work and say "that's cool" and that's it!! I ask them if they want to learn how to build,make,create scale models and their replay is "no thanks, is to dificult and boring"....and I must confess that after seeing several of their video games and the "action/reaction" needed to "survive" one of this things is very dificult to convince them to sit down at a table a cut,clean,glue,prime,paint and enjoy a static model kit.....competition of video games/computers is very high.

This kit is, no matter what other people say now, targeted to the adult modeler in a VERY particular field of naval modeling with the added expectation to atract others to this offering, if the kit was at least accurate in profile would have been an a smash hit, secondary things like deck details and other things could have been reworked by the buyer...hey no kit is perfect, but this kit really "broke the mold" in terms of what the modeler got after waiting with a LOT of expectation for this sub kit and then the replays of "the submarine model is accurate, we used the navy data for it" "it's a late war variation" etc,etc made the problem even more bizarre.

I know making a model in this scale is not cheap or easy and it takes guts to undertake something like this in the times we live  when as stated above the new generation of kids are more interested in "virtual reality" than a 3 dimensional fisical object they build with their hands, and this is why I don't understand why this kit was left to become such a bad representation of the real thing since the principal buyer of this model will be enthusiast scale modelers with the aim of having an accurate representation of a VERY rare WW2 naval subject in a very nice scale.

The company who made the model have the "turn at bat" right now, I think they should concentrate their efforts in making a good model of the I-20, and make sure to get things right on this one, the catch is..do it right and fast, if they do, the path to better reviews and future considerations to their offerings will be meet again with the high expectations/exitement as this kits received when they where first published to the scale modelling world.

PS/excuse my grammar, but english is not my main language.

If I may add to the discussion here. At this month's IPMS chapter meeting this past Friday night this kit made an appearance. One of the members was doing a review for IPMS USA and brought it in, along with a reference book  (I cant recall the title, but it was about Japanese submarines and co authored by Naval expert Norman Polmar). It was left out for the duration of the meeting for all to examine, with said reference book. Compared to the reference material, it had all the gigs that have been listed in the previous thread. The Kaitens were a whole seperate ball of wax that he tackeled (dimensions, number carried, etc.) And then there was the fit of the kit. Less than impressive, to put it nicely. At the price of the kit, after seeing it in person, I cant see anyone who was there who laid eyes upon this kit who will pay money to buy it. I know there are folks out there who will buy it because a)it is the only kit of that that sub in this scale, and b) they may be willing to invest the time and effort to accurize the kit to make it look like the vessel it is supposed to depict.