Reviews Vs. the kit you get ?

Jeff Herne wrote:

In my opinion, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, then it's a duck. As long as I had fun building it, that's what's important to me. I'm rambling again... Jeff

Hmm, I don't know, there so many sorts of birds out there and I'm really no ornithologist.

Something that no one seems to mention is the skill of the builder/reviewer. What might seem an easy kit for one might not be for another. I remember back in the day when folks were complaining about the early Dragon/DML armor kits, yet, I never experienced any trouble with them. Same with Trumpeter stuff. Other kits that no one complained about, like the Panda Arleigh Burkes, I found to be just plain bad.

In box reviews serve their purpose. Usually, the reviewer is capable of spotting a problem with the accuracy of the kit, while a build-up review provides insight to the design and engineering of the kit, ie., buildability.

Fortunately, there's usually at least two reviews to be found somewhere on the web, especially in ships, you'll find reviews on Steelnavy and Modelwarships. Unless they're done by the same person, you can develop a pretty good picture by reading the two reviews and comparing the differences.

In a recent review I labelled the Hasegawa Mikasa as one of the nicest kits I've ever done, and that wasn't fluff...it was a great kit that I really enjoyed building. I've received a few emails from modelers asking me what I was thinking when I wrote it, because they were fighting with it from start to finish. I never had any problems other than the tiny parts, and that's because of my big fat fingers, not the kit.

No one should ever take reviews of any kind at face value. We each have different pain thresholds when it comes to models, and we each enjoy certain aspects of the process, building, painting, etc, more than others. We also place different priorities on the kit itself. Some prefer an accurate kit at any cost, others want something that's well-engineered in lieu of accuracy. Some (ok, most of us) want both.

I've always held a strong opinion about accuracy versus engineering. Unless it looks wrong, I'm not going to worry too much about the technical accuracy of the kit. My reasoning is simple...

When I finish it, it's going into a glass case with hundreds of other models. so why should I spend money on resin updates when I'll be the only one who knows the difference?

In my opinion, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, then it's a duck. As long as I had fun building it, that's what's important to me.

I'm rambling again...

Jeff

Unfortunately, anything you can buy may not be up to its reviews.  Several years ago, I bought an S-10 pickup and loved it - had nearly 300,000 miles on it when I got rid of it - a friend of mine bought one about 6 weeks after I did - had it about 8 months and got rid of it - spent more time at the dealer's shop than at his house.

You buy a kit and it's a great kit, I might buy the kit and the one I get has all kinds of problems.  And while reviews are often a great help in determining which kit of a particular model, you still have to take them with a grain of sale.  I've bought models based upon someone reccommending it in a review and the kit has been a disaster and in other cases, I've purchased models which a reviewer "cannot reccommend to anyone" and the kit was a pretty good kit (only kit of that particular aircraft on the market).

  And "in box reviews" leave me cold.  All they tell you is what is offered as options and that the engraving is nice. There is one kit manufacturer out there that I will no longer buy kits from.  Thats because I've tried three different kits they have produced (all highly reccommended in "in box reviews) and all three have been nightmares.  They look great in the box, engraving makes them look like little jewels and their photo-etch looks fantastic.  When you go to assemble them, nothing fits right, there are gaps all over the place, the PE is over complicated and brittle and all three had badly warped fuselages.  By the time you get the kit together, you've used 1/2 a large tube/bottle of putty/CA (or both). Which means I've got to rescribe about 60% of the nice engraving that I've managed to fill with the putty/CA. And I don't really need 10 or 12 pieces (and no jig) to build a 3 blade prop w/spinner.  And for the price I would expect something much better - such as someone ensuring every thing has a reasonable fit before they release the kit. 

To mfsob's comments - amen.  I do like the reviews I've read in FSM and on the Steel Navy website, but there's a fair amount of junk elsewhere in print and on the web.

I respect FSM's policy of requiring the reviewer to build the model.  That sort of review is, almost by definition, more useful than any other.  I do think, though, that there's a place for the competent, knowledgeable "in-box review."

In the ship modeling field new products are arriving so thick and fast.  The number of ship modelers is relatively small (compared to the airplane and railroad fraternities).  The number of experienced ones (i.e., those really competent to write reviews) is smaller, and the number of experienced ones who really want to be in the reviewing business is smaller still.  If some magazine or website tried to line up experienced, competent reviewers to build and review every new warship kit, it probably would fail.  I question whether enough people who meet those requirements exist.

Another problem is that ship models take a long time to build.  That's particularly significant in the case of the sailing ship model.  A part-time modeler tackling Heller's H.M.S. Victory needs at least a year to build it - probably more.  Publishers, understandably, aren't keen on reviews of products that are one or two years old.  And it's a safe assumption that the guy reviewing a 1/72-scale P-51 for FSM has built several other 1/72-scale P-51s.  Not so the guy who reviews a sailing ship kit.  A long time ago I spent about three years building a model of H.M.S. Bounty, based on a heavily-modified Revell kit.  I wrote a four-part article about it for a British magazine.  Shortly thereafter, the same  magazine sent me an Airfix Bounty to review.  I started my review by acknowledging that I hadn't built the kit; it would be hard to talk me into building another Bounty in this lifetime.  But I was familiar with the ship - familiar enough to know that the Airfix kit was pretty awful, which is what I said in print.

The decline of the local hobby shop and the rise of the Internet have made it increasingly difficult for modelers to see what they're buying before they put down the cash - the amount of which is often considerable.  I welcome web reviews that contain good pictures of the box contents.  They tell me at least some of what I'd be able to find out for myself if I had a good supplier within driving distance - which I don't.

One of the things I like about the Steel Navy site's reviews is that the reviewers are always up front about whether they've built the kits or not.  "In Box Reviews" are clearly labeled.  By definition they can't be as useful as a thorough account by an experienced modeler who's actually built the kit.  But in my opinion they're extremely valuable nonetheless.

DBFSS385  - good point about reviews. After getting back into the hobby, I discovered the plethora of resources available on the internet, and finally figured out that there are three basic kinds of reviews:

1) I bought it, I built it, and here are the good/bad/ugly things I found when I did so. Those are the only kinds of reviews I even bother to print out for later reference (I know, I know, only dinosaurs print out stuff).

2) I bought it, I took all the sprues out of the box, and took some great/good/totally awful pictures of said sprues. These are only interesting or useful to me if it is an accessory set and I want to be absolutely sure that the one tiny bit I want is included with all the other things I will never ever use.

3) I bought it, I opened the box, and took a picture of the box art before writing a really long article that tells the reader nothing of import. That's what I love/hate about the internet, you're always sifting through it for the pearls amongst the swine, but that's part of the adventure of the whole thing.

With Resin it seems to be the company. Companies like Yankee Model Works are always good to very good with their castings but I am amazed by how clean the resin kits from Combat Sub are. It's almost as though they injection mold their resin kits.  Thank goodness for the companies who do resin subjects otherwise we would never see the subjects they offer us modellers, A little extra work never hurts to get the results we want eh?? As for reviews, I remember the Revell S Boat getting rave reviews , My example was a nightmare to get the bridge and deck to mate up.. Took a lot of cutting and sanding etc, The screws were all wrong and the torpedos were a wrong too, as were the Hull details which were all correctable, it is a good kit of a nice subject but it wasn't the Great kit that many reviewed it as. I wonder how many reviewers really build up their examples. 

 

And don't forget, a lot of these resin kits are made by guys in their garage or someplace similar. My experience to date (limited though it is) has been that if some of the parts are really FUBAR, a quick e-mail or phone call will usually result in some replacement parts arriving in short order.

  I hear ya...sometimes the resin kits come in all grades, from bad to ok. (sometimes even in the same box !)   You just have to decide whether its worth it to fix, send back to the shop and ask for a replacement,  or trade it off to someone who feels like spending hours filling little voids.  Bummer.

 

                  greg

DanCooper wrote:

Normally the review kits are the same as the commercial ones, but of course every modeler can get a box with a lesser sample.  What I meen is that quality control works by examining 1 kit for every x kits. I you buy a kit on a bad day you can get a sample that is not so good.  This of course goes double for resin kits where the chance to get bubbles in the resin is far bigger than the chance to have a flaw in a styrene kit. But bubbles can be fixed with for instance Micro Balloons, CA a combination of both or putty.

Thanks alot

Normally the review kits are the same as the commercial ones, but of course every modeler can get a box with a lesser sample.  What I meen is that quality control works by examining 1 kit for every x kits. I you buy a kit on a bad day you can get a sample that is not so good.  This of course goes double for resin kits where the chance to get bubbles in the resin is far bigger than the chance to have a flaw in a styrene kit.

But bubbles can be fixed with for instance Micro Balloons, CA a combination of both or putty.