Appearance of Revell kit boxes in general

Revell has had a long history of using art on their box tops.   There was a time which they used work done by noted artist John Steele on their kits.  Steele's work, and the original box art is often sought by collectors.   Steele has died and Revell has moved on to other artists.   I have no problem with this and I feel it is a good marketing practice.  

Why do you single out Revell for your hatred when both PitRoad and Trumpeter use artist's representations over photographs of models?  Mike Donegan, who does many of Trumpeter's boxes, has a different style over Steele but it is still distinctive and well done.   PitRoad uses a variety of artists,  mostly Japanese who's names I do not have handy.

Is it that you prefer the Dragon approach of a photo of the subject.   I prefer either to a photo of an ill-fitting, slapped-together model or a CG representation.

I question your selection of the word "detest".   It means a violent hatred.   If you so violently hate the practice then choose to not support the manufacturer(s) who use this marketing by withholding your purchases.

EdGrune wrote:

Revell has had a long history of using art on their box tops.   There was a time which they used work done by noted artist John Steele on their kits.  Steele's work, and the original box art is often sought by collectors.   Steele has died and Revell has moved on to other artists.   I have no problem with this and I feel it is a good marketing practice.   Why do you single out Revell for your hatred when both PitRoad and Trumpeter use artist's representations over photographs of models?  Mike Donegan, who does many of Trumpeter's boxes, has a different style over Steele but it is still distinctive and well done.   PitRoad uses a variety of artists,  mostly Japanese who's names I do not have handy. Is it that you prefer the Dragon approach of a photo of the subject.   I prefer either to a photo of an ill-fitting, slapped-together model or a CG representation. I question your selection of the word "detest".   It means a violent hatred.   If you so violently hate the practice then choose to not support the manufacturer(s) who use this marketing by withholding your purchases.

Sorry for the wording but I thought "detest" is not so bad a word than hate. I wanted to say "I do not like the approach...".

I have never had any other kits than from Revell or Heller and some other brands because up to now I was doing sailing ships.

I have an older Revell kit of the USS Constitution (quick builders kit) and there the assembled ship is prime on the box and not in a small inset.

Regards,
Kater Felix

EdGrune wrote:

I question your selection of the word "detest".   It means a violent hatred.   If you so violently hate the practice then choose to not support the manufacturer(s) who use this marketing by withholding your purchases.

Dear EdGrune,

Please consider the fact that English might not be the native language of this user! The username Katzennahrung (German for cat food) gives it kind of away.

 

bryan01 wrote:

EdGrune wrote: I question your selection of the word "detest".   It means a violent hatred.   If you so violently hate the practice then choose to not support the manufacturer(s) who use this marketing by withholding your purchases. Dear EdGrune, Please consider the fact that English might not be the native language of this user! The username Katzennahrung (German for cat food) gives it kind of away.

Good response, I was thinking the same thing and I too recognized the Cat Food Handle..

I really detest fried liver & Onions..LOL  Unfortunitly unlike much of the world so many of us Americans have a limited knowledge of other languges unless raised in a Bi-Lingual family or schooled in other languges besides English.

I have made  many funny mistakes while trying to talk to my parents in my Dad's native language of Polish by using the wrong words in the wrong places and it almost always just got a smile or a laugh in responce. my Mom's Native tongue was Austrian ( which aided in my figuring out Cat Foods handle) and you could imagine how much fun my Dad had with her trying to learn Polish and English at the same time...She did fine and actually is a much better speller than I as well as a better knowledge of English than I..

Life is good.

BTW I like the Retro Revell box tops, It brings back fond memories of when I was a kid and actually paying the price printed on their "Retro" kit boxes.

 

I have no opinion either way of painting or real model, but I do tend to lean towards the painting.  What I do detest (yes I do understand the meaning and chose to use it) is their flimsy, cheap boxes that offer no protection to the sprues whatsoever.  Especially those boxes that are just one piece and the top flap opens. 

When I opened my HMS Victory, literally an eigth of the pieces were off the sprues....

 

DBFSS385 wrote:

<> I have made  many funny mistakes while trying to talk to my parents in my Dad's native language of Polish by using the wrong words in the wrong places and it almost always just got a smile or a laugh in responce. my Mom's Native tongue was Austrian ( which aided in my figuring out Cat Foods handle) and you could imagine how much fun my Dad had with her trying to learn Polish and English at the same time...She did fine and actually is a much better speller than I as well as a better knowledge of English than I..

Hello: By the way: I am Austrian.

Regards,
Kater Felix

I´m not sure if I had gotten addicted to model kits in the past if they had not featured those terrific box art paintings. I grew up in the 70s and here in Germany we had Revell, Airfix and Heller kits. Most boxarts were painted - I LOVED those dramatic renditions of the subject, John Steele, Roy Cross and Paul Lengellé were my heroes even though I did not know their names back then. The more dramatic and overwhelming the boxart, the more anticipation towards building the kit - I did not really care about photos of the actual model - Revell used them on some of their boxes but I always favoured the painted ones. It was more the "idea" of the ship/plane etc. that made me want the kit.

Then, in the 80s, boxart changed to lackluster photographs of poorly finished models - the whole product was not half the fun anymore. Later on, Revell Germany hired a new painter, H.Koppelmann, who proved the decline of skill, knowledge and artistry: bright colours, wrong perspectives, no sense of foreground/background composition - his HMS Prince of Wales painting is the most hideous boxart I have ever seen - and it is even based  on the old one!  

Thankfully, they have a better artist now, but he still screwed up on the POW... I am pretty glad that most of the makers have returned to more or less artistic paintings for their boxes, even though very few of them are in the same league with the old masters. I like the Donegan paintings for the Trumpeter boxes, but look what they come up with when they hire other guys... horrific!

The only old master who is still around is Yoshiyuki Takani- take a look at his new Bismarck and you know why a great boxart painting is a reason for selling more kits - you can almost feel the salty water, the wind blowing, and that iron moster moving through the waves - this painting is so much more than a photo of some pieces of plastic glued together!

A good model kit is a piece of art but the boxart can be an individual masterpiece in its own right that just complements what is inside instead of being just "descriptive" like a photo of the model - I still love it that way even though most of the paintings lack the quality of those from the 60s and 70s.       

This is an interesting subject, about which various folks have surprisingly strong opinions.

I believe the appearance of kit boxes has been influenced on more than one occasion by laws.  I've read that Airfix came under pressure in the sixties and seventies to reduce the amount of "violence" in its box art.  Several of its paintings got touched up to eliminate such things as flak bursts and burning aircraft.  And nowadays, of course, the painters have to contend with the European laws against the display of the swastika.

I think (I'm not sure about this; it was quite a long time ago) an American federal regulation was in force for some time that required manufacturers to put photos of finished models, rather than paintings of prototypes, on the boxes.  Consumers had been complaining (not entirely without justification, in some cases) that the box art constituted deceptive marketing.  I'm not sure what, if any, rules regarding such things are in effect in the U.S. today, but it seems like every single American kit has at least one "completed model" photo on its box - with or without an accompanying painting.

On at least a few occasions the regs backfired.  Back in the mid- to late seventies an extremely well-known American/European manufacturer (I'm trying to be careful here) started packaging some of its rather mediocre new aircraft kits in boxes that featured color photos of models built from much superior Japanese kits.  Rumor had it that the manufacturer in question got sued, and ordered by a court to cease and desist; in any case, that particular form of deception seems to have stopped.  (I've always wondered whether the offense was entirely deliberate.  At that particular time, that company was being run by people who pretty clearly knew next to nothing about scale models; they may well have genuinely believed that there wasn't any significant difference between their kits and the Japanese ones.)

I've talked with a couple of people who were hired by European manufacturers to build kits for the purpose of having pictures of them turned into box tops.  Those folks reported that the manufacturers' reps told them to built the models rather sloppily, so as to encourage customers to think "I can do better than that."  I certainly have the impression that lots of the models in box top photos were built to such instructions - especially models of sailing ships.  On the other hand, the models in the photos on Japanese kit boxes generally seem to be excellent - and the American and European ones in recent years have gotten better.  And let's not forget those superb dioramas by Shep Paine that used to grace the boxes of Monogram kits, back in the seventies.

My own, personal opinion, for what little it's worth, is that both approaches have something to offer.  The ideal kit box, to my taste, is one that has both a well-executed painting and several photos - large enough for my middle-aged eyes to make them out - of the finished model.

jtilley wrote:

Consumers had been complaining (not entirely without justification, in some cases) that the box art constituted deceptive marketing.

I don't know if any consumers complained about these at the time, but some of the most deceptive (and some of my favorite) model box tops were those early Revell ship kits which displayed paintings of the finished model.   The ones that I can recall as having these were the earliest releases of the (1/192) Constitution, Bounty and (1/96) Cutty Sark.

They all showed models of impeccible finish and detail, either on the workbench, having their final touches applied, or sitting completed on a desktop in the den.  While not unobtainable, results like those portrayed in these paintings would have required parts that were't even included in the kits and skills far beyond what the average modeler of the time (the 1950's) was capable of, especially considering that most of these average modelers were somewhere between the ages of 8 and 15 years old.

Of the three, the Constitution was probably the most "deceptive" given the model's relatively small scale and the fact that, in the painting, it looks for all the world as if the real, nearly fully rigged, ship was lifted from the water, miniaturized and placed on the plastic three legged stand, where a pair of disembodied hands  (your hands, perhaps?...More likely the hands of God, or maybe Donald McNarry!) apply the last finishing touches to the masterpiece.   I can remember as a kid looking at that box top, then looking at the contents, and wondering how in the world you made what was in the box look like what was on the box.

I still love those box tops though, and I don't believe Revell's motives at the time were actually sinister (OK, I'm naive).   Besides, some day I might take out that little Revell Constitution and see just how close I can come to matching what's on that boxtop.

I don't really like nor dislike the use of boxart, as long as it is a good representation of what's in the box, I recall the boxart of the Revell 1/144 F-15 in show livrary (White with Blue and Red striping), but insite the box you only got the decals and colorguide for the every day operational version.

I feel a much stronger dislike however to the use of side-opening boxes, increasing the chance of braking off parts when re-entering the sprues into the box, especially for the somewhat larger kits (like for instance the 1/144 Type XXI sub)

Steve S - I remember that original Constitution box art vividly; there's a copy of it, minus the Revell label and other text, in Dr. Graham's book.  You're right:  it set an impossible standard for the purchaser.  I wonder if the artist had seen the kit before he did the painting.  It sure looks like a painting of the real ship, which just happens to be sitting on a T-shaped stand.

I've never read a serious explanation of what produced the packaging rules for American plastic kits. Come to think of it, I really don't know what those rules are, if they exist at all nowadays.  I do know there was a period (the late seventies, I think) when the words "Modele reduit" started showing up on Revell and Monogram boxes, to comply with a Canadian law that all merchandise sold in Canada had to be labeled in French and English.  I think a lot of the consumer griping had to do with the fact that so many boxtop paintings featured things that weren't in the box.  (Little Jimmy apparently thought that box contained not only the Spitfire, as the printing announced, but also the ME-109 that it was shooting at in the picture.  Thus the fine print on so many boxes:  "Contains parts to build one model.")

I can remember more than one occasion when I thought the paintings made the models look considerably more impressive than they were, with the result that I felt like I'd been ripped off.  That's one reason why I tend to favor the combination approach - a painting on the top of the box, and several photos, reproduced big enough that my middle-aged eyes can decipher them, on the side. 

The other day I was wondering a hobby shop and got roped in by a subject I hadn't thought about seriously in years:  a 1/35 Sherman tank, by Dragon.  The box has a rather garish painting on top and several photos on the sides - and the bottom of the box is covered with small photos of individual pieces, with descriptions of such things as the "slde molding" technique that hollowed out the barrel of the .50 cal. machine gun, the optional turned-aluminum main gun barrel, the photo-etched brass parts, the working springs in the suspension system, etc., etc.  In this case I was not disappointed; the kit is one of the finest and most elaborate I've ever seen.  I'm not sure I have the nerve to start it.

Katzennahrung - I have to tell you that I find your use of English in your posts more than a little embarrassing, because it's so good.  As a product of the American public school system (and a couple of years' worth of college-level French and German many years ago), I'm often downright humiliated by the typical European's language proficiency.  If I tried to communicate in a German-language web forum I'd just make a fool of myself  (if I didn't unknowingly declare war on somebody first).  At the university where I work now I'm in charge of the program in "public history" (that is, history as put to applied use in museums, historic sites, archives, etc.).  I fought a long, uphill battle to make four semesters of foreign language a graduation requirement in the program.  I eventually won that one - and the students still gripe about it.  For some reason, American young people resent being told they ought to learn foreign languages, whereas European young people seem to accept that learning English is an essential part of growing up.

I would agree with Dan Cooper, what gets my goat is when the box art shows a livery which is not in the kit.  Usually not the case, but sometimes... I think one or two Eduard releases have done this.  It's annoying because you can't model what's shown on the cover.  As for the old photographs/picture debate, well, I do like some nice artwork.  Sure, it's a bit of imagination and escapism, but hey, isn't that what we're about?  We build a model, and in our minds eye see the pilot in the cockpit, the crew in the rigging, etc.  However, the artwork needs to be good, as all too often, it's use as a reference when the kit instructions have let us down, again.  Still, seeing what can actually be done, with a photograph, is nice, so, I guess, hats off to Revell and Academy.

  I detest people who don't like box art.

 

    Ok, I am kidding...but I do love those old brightly coloured boxes of yesteryear...remember the old Aurora boxes? Superb. I keep the real oldies-but-goodies on the wall so I can get a grin now and again !

 

                   Greg

I love the Revell box art from the olden days. I painstakingly copied the box art from , I think, a USS Missouri that was a battle scene with airplanes flying around and flak and explosions. That was fifth grade and my tempera paint copy went to the Midland Empire State Fair as the representative for Miles Avenue School. Nowadays I keep the boxes and tack them up as wallpaper in the garage or in my playroom. I do think that the manufacturers could use sturdier boxes and print a sheet of good color pictures of the completed model as well as the sub-assemblies from a variety of angles and include it with the instructions. That would be nice but I won't hold my breath.

I definitely prefer box art to built model photos. Some of the older Revell and Airfix box art is very evocative and inspiring, whilst most examples of photos on box tops I've seen are either very dull and workmanlike (mid-1980s Airfix boxes) or deceptive (i.e the model on the box top is built from a different, better kit to the one in the box, as with some Far Eastern kits). I usually do some research before buying new kits, so it's not essential to see what's in the box. Though information on any different versions or decal options offered by the kit is always handy.

I share DanCooper's dislike of Revell's flimsy end-opening boxes, particularly when combined with all the parts/sprues being packed into a single plastic bag! This is particularly bad with older kits (most of the Revell ship range) which don't have "frame" sprues, and the parts are very prone to breaking off the sprues - with the end-opening boxes, once parts are loose inside the box they invariably fall out and get lost. Usually with kits like this I put any smaller parts and sprues into Ziploc-type bags before storing the kits away.