just a thought

I don't think this is a bad idea, and I think to a limited extent aftermarket sets are available to change the year of the ship now. I think it may be difficult for the manufacturer since depicting the ship at launch would require them to actually research the subject.

Not a bad idea by any means. But I'll take the liberty of offering another suggestion.

One of my biggest pet peeves is with manufacturers who issue kits representing different members a class of warships, distinguishing between the kits by putting different names on them but letting the purchaser figure out what periods in the ships' histories the kits represent. Example: The Tamiya 1/700 Iowa-class battleships. The kit labeled "Iowa" represents that ship as she was built, with the early, open bridge structure. The Missouri kit represents that ship as she looked in 1945, with the big enclosed bridge structure, massive anti-aircraft armament, and catapults with your choice of Kingfishers or Seagulls. The New Jersey kit represents her as she looked in (I think) the Vietnam period - reduced secondary armament, no 20mm or 40mm guns, and a helicopter deck aft.

To my notion it would be more helpful for the manufacturer to issue ONE kit, labeled "Iowa-class battleship. Can be built to represent Iowa, New Jersey, Wisconsin, or Missouri in 1943, 1945, or 1965 configuration." The number of additional sprues that would have to be put in the box would be minimal - my guess is one sprue for each configuration. In addition to other advantages, that sort of kit would make life easier for the hobby shops - especially the smaller ones.

Revell tried that approach once, with its "Battle of Midway Carrier kit." It contained markings for the Enterprise, Yorktown, and Hornet. I have the impression that the kit wasn't much of a success financially; I'd like to think that was because it was a mediocre kit, rather than that something was wrong with the marketing strategy.

The manufacturers really do yank our legs with this sort of thing. In many cases the boxes of allegedly different ship kits in fact contain exactly the same parts. If two kits representing different ships of the same class do appear, the actual differences often amount to practically nothing. (Tamiya makes two 1/700 Fletcher-class destroyers, one square-bridged, one round. How much extra plastic would be necessary to include the parts for both in one box?)

Some of the same thinking applies to aircraft kits. The Hasegawa 1/72 Spitfire IX contains every single part that's in the same company's Spitfire VIII. The only real difference betwen the two kits is on the decal sheets, wherein the difference amounts to slightly more than one square inch. If a customer walks into a hobby shop wanting a Spitfire VIII, and the shop only has the Spitfire IX, the shop loses a sale.

Many factors have conspired to bring about the near-death of the local hobby shop. I don't suggest that this particular marketing policy among the manufacturers is among the biggest of those factors. But it certainly hasn't done any good. And I'd have a much more positive attitude toward the kit manufacturers if they'd just be straight with us.

Back when Tamiya was releasing their Xerox 1/350 kits - basically only 4 real kits with variations so they could sell more per person (that's my opinion, at least) I sent them a long letter explaining that they could sell even more if they would do something along the lines of what DURR suggested - one basic kit for the class, and then crank out affordable conversion kits so you could build as many members of that class as you wanted.  My request of them was to make a 1/350 Kongo-class kit.  Since I was of a mind, at the time, to build kits of all 12 Japanese battleships, I would have bought at least 4 of this kit, and conversion kits to individualize them based on ship and period.  I'd have a 1916 Kongo as commissioned, a Hiei at the time of the Pearl Harbor strike, a Kirishima steaming down the Tokyo Express, and a Haruna late in the war with increased AA.  At least.  Same with the Yorktown-class carriers - I'd want a Yorktown, an Enterprise and a Hornet.  Yould think it would be cheaper and more profitable for them to make one basic kit and then crank out conversion kits to customize them as you'd like.  You wouldn't have to pass on a kit because it isn't the configuration of the ship that you wanted to build.  We know they're willing to spend some extra $$ to make separate boxes to reissue the same kit under a different name - why not go the distance and give the modelers what they want, and make some good money in the process?  It would be the dreaded Win/Win.