Disappointing "new" release - I.

The worst I've seen is the old Pyro USS Olympia reboxed as the USS Maine!  The only real difference between the kits is that Pyro included side sponsons for the Maine's offset main armament. The kits were otherwise identical.

I agree with John; Trumpeter is only a minor offender. Revell is far, far worse. I am surprised that John did not mention the Revell HMAV Bounty/Beagle reboxing with minor differences, or the reboxing of the Eagle/Seeadler, or the USS Arizona/Pennsylvania in both 1/485 and 1/720.

Actually, I am quite please with most of Trumpeter's efforts in attempting to differentiate between ships within a class.

Bill

I think it's worth noting that Trumpeter seems to pull these stunts less frequently than many other manufacturers do.  I can't claim to have looked at anywhere near all the company's 1/700 kits, but it should be observed that it sometimes offers two kits with different parts, representing the same vessel at different times in her career.  (The Prince Eugen, Graf Spee, and Hood come to mind immediately.)

Trumpeter also sometimes issues different ships in the same class with different names and different configurations - without telling the modeler just what's going on.  The Trumpeter 1/700 Washington, for instance, represents the ship in her as-built configuration (with .1" anti-aircraft guns, .50 cal. machine guns, and the "notch" in the port bow, among other features), whereas the 1/700 North Carolina represents her in her late war fit (with 40mm. and 20mm. guns, the "notch" removed, the additional bridge level on the tower mast, and a dazzle camouflage scheme.  One of my "bucket lists" projects is a North Carolina in her mid-1942 configuration.  The Washington kit will make a better start for that.) 

Many - but not all - of the parts necessary for either version (the 20mm. and .50 cal. guns, for instance, are in both kits.  My personal preference in cases like this would be for the manufacturer to issue one kit with enough parts for any configuration of any ship in the class.  That would, among other things, make life easier on the local hobby shops (the few that survive) and the modeler wanting to build a particular ship.  (At the moment, that poor schlep has to surf the net, looking for some dealer who has both the "Hood 1941" and the "Hood 1931" in stock.)  Imagine:  "Iowa-class battleship.  Contains parts to build either the Iowa, New Jersey, Wisconsin, or Missouri in 1943, 1945, 1951, or 1990 configuration."  Would those extra parts force the manufacturer to raise the price of the kit significantly?  No.  The plastic in a kit represents a tiny percentage of the cost of producing and selling it.

Quite a few of Trumpeter's fairly recent releases have included dates in their titles.  That strikes me as a positive development - if the necessary parts to make the changes are included.  (I wish the two kits mentioned previously had been labeled "U.S.S. Washington 1942" and "U.S.S. North Carolina 1944."  Those labels would be quite accurate.) 

At the moment my more intense wrath is reserved for Tamiya.  (See "Disappointing 'new' release - II.")  That company has, in the past, repeatedly played the "different names, different dates" trick.  (How many neophyte modelers think the Musashi always had fewer guns than the Yamato?)  But Tamiya sister-ship kits usually seem to contain different parts (though, of course, they may or may not be exactly right).

Hasegawa, Fujimi, Aoshima, Pyro, Monogram, Aurora - they've all engaged in the practice to a greater or lesser degree.  The biggest offender by far over the years, though, has been Revell, which has been indulging in such stunts for almost 60 years (starting with its ancient Missouri and New Jersey kits - one with seaplanes and the other with helicopters).  Revell stepped over the line once - repackaging its Type VII U-boat in a box labeled "U-505."  The gift shop at the Science Museum of Chicago blew the whistle, and Revell withdrew the kit.  (I imagine a Revell "U-505" kit in the original box is quite a collector's item nowadays.)

The only company I can think of that, to my knowledge, has never done it is Airfix.  Long live Airfix.

I guess it's something modelers just have to tolerate.  In the case of the "Warspite 1915" and "Queen Elizabeth 1918," at least the problems are relatively easy to fix.  I'm still thinking about the best way to make two identical 6" armored gun houses, though.

Trumpeter is Trumpeter. They're going to keep pulling this, ummm, stuff until they are called out on it, and even then I doubt they'll care. But at least now we know!

Prof Tilley,

I agree with you about the terrible feeling of having one's hopes dashed when a manufacturer takes the same shortcut that we all took in the sixth grade ("They were sister ships, so I can just build another King George V and call it Duke of York"  Or whatever.)

I really think Trumpeter is one of the worst offenders in that department, possibly causing outrage for the most folks with the New Orleans class cruisers, which apparently are all very different, even though they comprise a single class.  go figure.

I am also looking forward to building the battleships as they appeared at Jutland.  But the ship that interests me most at Jutland is HMS Suothampton, the flagship of Commodore W.E. Goodenough, who provided key information about the location of the High Seas Fleet because he kept his group in contact with them them for a long period of time.  I am just now sizing up the White Ensign HMS Chester for conversion to Southampton, even though I would much rather do a conversion on an injection molded plastic kit than resin.

At any rate, this is the point where some wag always pipes up with "well, if you call yourself a modeler, then you ought to be able to do that".  Bah.

Good luck to you.

Rick

If I started to make a wishlist of plastic World War I ship kits I wouldn't be able to stop.  Let's hope these "two" Trumpeter kits are a taste of things to come.

I personally like 1/700 kits - for a variety of reasons including available space and prices.  I hope it doesn't take long for Trumpeter to scale down its 1/350 Dreadnought.

The good news is that there are some excellent resin WWI kits out there.  The Russian manufacturer Combrig's kits get especially good reviews - and are only slightly more expensive than plastic kits.  (Well...maybe more than slightly, but less than most resin kits.)  I haven't tried one yet, but if my Warspite doesn't cure me of the WWI itch I may tackle the Combrig Queen Mary or Friedrich der Grosse. 

A good glass of Merlot and Landstrom open on the desk. Pages 248-249 have what I consider to be his best effort at a rendering of a beautiful ship. Possibly the viking ships are an equal. But what a fabulous drawing.

A must read of course is "Castles of Steel" by Robert Massie. In the beginning there is a very short, succinct and well explained ...explanation of why WW1 happened.

IMO the British won Jutland, and in decisive fashion. The High Seas Fleet came out, it turned around, it went home and it was never heard from again, until it donated itself to the cause of the spawning grounds for Scottish salmon.

Never mind Hipper versus Beatty. The British battlecruisers that were lost were antiques.

I would like to see Airfix rise to the occasion and sell a Lion.

Seems this is common, unfortunately.  I've wanted to do all the Iowa class battleships.  Bought a couple of Fujimi's, but they were identical.  Seems Tamiya did take into account at least the bridge differences.