Kit review nitpick.

True dat... But I see more "Many Thanks to "Trumdpetragonhasemiyavelle" than the other one... 

At least most reviewers disclose info on how they obtain the kit they review...one guy's tagline is: "Kit courtesy of me and my wallet" or something like that...

Rob Gronovius

In box have their uses, especially when they acknowledge the kit as being a rebox of a previous kit or a rebox with a few extras. Dragon's orange box kits are known to be reboxes, but an in box review would tell you if new DS tracks were added, etc.

So would looking at those CAD diagram things Dragon/Cyber-Hobby throw together...albeit with questionable grammar.

I do think that review formats that have a PRO and CONS section (like the reviews in FSM) are better than those that don't, because it "forces" reviewers to at least try to come uop with some things that could at least be improved upon...although I have seen several put "nothing noted" in the CONS box...

But I'll admit I read as many reviews as I can get my hands on just to see the sprues and some detail pics of certain parts, if nothing else...

In box have their uses, especially when they acknowledge the kit as being a rebox of a previous kit or a rebox with a few extras. Dragon's orange box kits are known to be reboxes, but an in box review would tell you if new DS tracks were added, etc.

DoogsATX

Now if we could just institute a blanket ban on "in-the-box" reviews...

lol,

Yeah, after taking up the hobby again and seeing one of those, I thought it was about as useful as a restaurant review after reading only the menu.

If I may, I think the internet and the increasing self-publication and promotional capabilities of social media (blogs, Twitter, Facebook, forums, etc) might change what's expected of reviews, both from readers and from the manufacturers.

Modeling is a bit behind the curve, but look at cars, for example. When have you ever read a negative review of a car in Motor Trend or Car & Driver or the like? It's the same problem of the manufacturers paying for the advertising that supports the magazine. But over the past 5-7 years, internet sites like Autoblog, Jalopnik and others have largely supplanted them, and they pull far fewer punches. You see the same with electronics on Gizmodo or Engadget or what-have-you.

Quite simply - reviews are becoming democratized. Are there still sugarcoated reviews? Certainly. But I'd venture for every one of those there are at least three more out there that don't pull any punches. Heck, I "review" every kit I build on my blog, and you can bet I touch on the frustrations, the great parts, the questionable engineering choices and the quality of the decals. If I don't like a kit, or part of a kit, I say so. I post pictures of the canopy that doesn't line with the windscreen but is too thick to pose open. I bemoan the stupid seam-lined rubber tires Tamiya includes in their otherwise-masterful 1/32 kits.

I guess my point is - so what if some reviews out there softball it? Others don't. Just be sure to track down more than one perspective.

Now if we could just institute a blanket ban on "in-the-box" reviews...

one little additional thought

concerning the "it looks like a ________ to me"

that is all well and good, and is a personal preference for some modelers, and is a very valid way to build

but

from the manufacturing standpoint,,,,,,the finished kits are supposed to "look like a _______" to everyone that sees them built, not just to the modelers willing to compromise

If I can sit here and get the info to "see the shapes", with my budget,,,,,then some company with an R+D budget could do the same,,,,,,,if they don't,,,,,they deserve any negative reviews they get

I think that ALL reviews ar suspect.Why?think for a minute .I belonged to a model club that had a newsletter .We were supported and got meet quarters free from our local HOBBY SHOP.He started giving kits to members for reviews .The idea didn,t last very long .Mostly because ",hey your last review was so bad about that kit I can,t give them away.' Well you know the rest .I used to do BOX TOP models for two model car companies These weren,t for reviews .They were , many times TEST shots with parts omitted or way more than they would put in the kit .There were no decals either and sometimes no instruction sheets .They hadn,t been done yet and my comments sent back with the built model would help is what I was told .It went okay until we got to their competitive kits of the FIREBIRDS .They wanted the early FIREBIRD FORMULA . That was the one with the offset phony hood scoop . They didn,t even send me a hood to work with .You,ve seen real fine print that says photos are of the actual model. That,s what they used my models for !! It was bad enough that in many instances you would be shown an engine compartment from an older release!Many times I had to do them as curbsides  as NO engine parts would be sent .I finally got fed up with this and didn,t re-new my contract . Best day of my modeling life . I would say reviews should be done showing  the bare plastic(or if no pics) then say the problem and your fix . Companies do want to hear good things ,but they don,t want to be outright damned either ! It,s a thin line to walk .I let my experience after reading a review be my review  , when I start building , watching for the good or questionable points raised . tankerbuilder

As for "any real dogs" out there,,,,,,there have been a few lately, and an even larger group of "puppies" when you factor in kits that were wrong, and still get released from the old molds

People are fond of saying "It looks like a Corsair II to me" to dismiss any criticism of a kit,,,,,but, to anyone that was around the prototype, that kit might look like "Anything except a Corsair II" to them

The Corsair II model caught a lot of flack, and rightly so,,,,,the intake is round on the real thing, not a squashed oval as the kits provided (in all the scales it was released as)

The Puppies are from some of the biggest names in the Industry,,,,they were released "in the old days", and are still sold today from those old molds,,,,,,new boxes and new decals, sometimes, just like the newer versions by the same company

I'll pick out just one Manufacturer, here,,,,,,,,,Hasegawa is so famous for it's "box shaker" kits, but still sells the following 1/72 scale kits

the A-6 Intruder,,,,,it is about 4th down on the 1/72 "quality pecking order",,,,but, it is still the same old molding,,,,even the Revell copy of it is better

the A-4 Skyhawk,,,,,the nose is "only" a scale 4 feet too long (approximately), and the length problem is proportional along the whole length, so you can't just chop off the nose and shorten it

the "too wide" F-8 Crusader (shared with the later Revell "almost copy" kits)

the worst place is in the F-4 Phantom kits,,,,,,they have a wonderful multi version kit ,,,,,a "middle generation" kit, and a very old mold that first started as the F-4B.  The Mid-Gen kit is still being sold, right on the same list as the New-Gen kit,,,,,,,,,,the Old-Gen kit is also still being sold,,,,,it is what you get when you start to do more versions, and buy the British F-4M/K kit,,,,,that kit is the very old thin wing F-4B mold, with a "Spey engine thingy" for the rear,,,,,same old "MER looking lump" for the wings

the problems with the 3 kits,,,,,2 out of the 3 are "wrong" in a large visual area,,,,,,the wing chords and/or wing spans are different,,,,,they just HAVE to be,,,,,since they are different,,,,,,,I will leave it up to someone else to decide which he thinks is the correct one of the three, but, whichever you choose, since the other 2 don't match, they would be "your" wrong ones

Hasegawa's F-86 Sabre,,,,,it is still the same mold as when I was a  boy (I'm almost 55, now)

just to make it a six pack,,,,,Academy's current TBM is still the old Frog mold, and Academy is still selling the F2H-3/4 Banshee, with Airfix F2H-2 landing gear

It might seem as "nit picking",,,,,,but, if you have 3 different toolings of the same aircraft family, and they aren't the same in appearance,,,,,2 out of the 3 are "wrong",,,,,and that is not a "nit" any longer

Edit: oops, I missed a big one,,,,,,WW2 and postwar Corsairs that don't have the longer nose for the later versions,,,,,you have to cut the nose off, insert a plug, and reshape and sand your work

I'm lucky; my wife's a pilot, so any new airplanes are welcome... well, after 30 Corsair's I've reached "don't  you have enough?" Ships and armor, though, get the eye roll.

Tracy White

Reasoned:

I'll bet that's a big club, kind of like being in a Bieber brigade.

Less hair, less screaming women (although I'm sure there are some; mine merely gives me an exasperated groan when I get the latest Dragon offering....)

Don't forget the "Do you really need another model kit!?"

Reasoned

I'll bet that's a big club, kind of like being in a Bieber brigade.

Less hair, less screaming women (although I'm sure there are some; mine merely gives me an exasperated groan when I get the latest Dragon offering....)

Reasoned

Manstein's revenge:

Rob Gronovius:

Mansteins revenge:

So, "yes and no"...I think that reviewers concentrate on two things:

1) Quality of the mouldings, decals, etc...and...

2) Accuracy of the subject matter.

I feel that most of the quality control issues are gone for the most part and what you primarily see now are debates on wether or not the "Hellcat grin" on an F6 is right or the bow shape is the correct angle on the Scharnhorst...

 

I'm a big fan of Dragon.

I'm a BIG Dragon Groupie...

 

...kind of like being in a Bieber brigade.

Manstein's revenge

Rob Gronovius:

Mansteins revenge:

So, "yes and no"...I think that reviewers concentrate on two things:

1) Quality of the mouldings, decals, etc...and...

2) Accuracy of the subject matter.

I feel that most of the quality control issues are gone for the most part and what you primarily see now are debates on wether or not the "Hellcat grin" on an F6 is right or the bow shape is the correct angle on the Scharnhorst...

 

I'm a big fan of Dragon.

I'm a BIG Dragon Groupie...

I'll bet that's a big club, kind of like being in a Bieber brigade.

Rob Gronovius

Mansteins revenge:

So, "yes and no"...I think that reviewers concentrate on two things:

1) Quality of the mouldings, decals, etc...and...

2) Accuracy of the subject matter.

I feel that most of the quality control issues are gone for the most part and what you primarily see now are debates on wether or not the "Hellcat grin" on an F6 is right or the bow shape is the correct angle on the Scharnhorst...

 

I'm a big fan of Dragon.

Rob Gronovius

 

 

Trumpeter also had some proof reading issues regarding one of their modern US wheeled vehicle (I can't remember which offhand). Minor misspellings in various stencil markings "TOE HERE" vs. TOW HERE, etc. Their biggest error was omitting a chunk of the front turret face on the Abrams kits.

How about their big P-47N, with the nose art that reads "2 BIG & 2 HEDVY" instead of "HEAVY"? Oops...

Mansteins revenge

So, "yes and no"...I think that reviewers concentrate on two things:

1) Quality of the mouldings, decals, etc...and...

2) Accuracy of the subject matter.

I feel that most of the quality control issues are gone for the most part and what you primarily see now are debates on wether or not the "Hellcat grin" on an F6 is right or the bow shape is the correct angle on the Scharnhorst...

There will always be quality control issues because the folks that check are only human.

I'm a big fan of Dragon. They produce some outstanding kits. They are also a company with plenty of quality control issues. Their instruction sheet errors are commonplace and usually pointed out on various forums. They also have been known to omit necessary parts from their kits. I purchased several of their 1/72 scale Sherman kits and each and every one was missing a turret periscope which basically left a good sized hole in the turret roof. To their credit, they do offer Dragon Care and replaced the missing piece on each of my kits. I had to submit a scan of the sprues and a proof of purchase (set the receipt on the scanner next to the sprues), but I did not find that unreasonable.

Trumpeter also had some proof reading issues regarding one of their modern US wheeled vehicle (I can't remember which offhand). Minor misspellings in various stencil markings "TOE HERE" vs. TOW HERE, etc. Their biggest error was omitting a chunk of the front turret face on the Abrams kits.

Labeling something as a dog is highly subjective though. If I feel like building an F6, I doubt I'd call it a dog over the profile not looking right to me, but then it's not a subject I'd be picky about. I'd be happy if it fits well and assembles into a nice representation of an F6.

Conversely, when Academy released its M60A1 with D9 dozer blade, I was upset that they just stuck a dozer blade on the front of their current kit and did not include the elaborate hydraulic plumbing and reservoir. There are probably many more modelers who built that kit that just didn't care.

I don't want to start a separate conversation but what really gets under my skin is when someone builds a model for review and at the end, says it's  a "great kit and only took me 23 hours to build"... yet I look at the photos and can see open seams, glue spots, silvered decals and paint spatter from the airbrush. if i was a kit manufacturer OR the magazine, I'd be embarrassed to have those reviews represent the product.

That's all I have to say on the subject... sorry to get off track. Anyway. i do agree that "review" models should be just that, a review of what's in the box. Nothing else. I believe that the should show photos both before AND after it's painted. I agree that i'd like to see the model in bare plastic regardless of what it takes to build it.. (putty or whatever). At the same time some folks honestly believe a good model cannot be built out of the box which is totally false. So, I like to see it painted to get a clear picture of what it could look like. So yeah, Both is my preference.

Just my 2 cents

I guess I should have qualified my "dog" definition.  If a kit is going to require some significant work (due to fit issues etc.) then yeah, I'd like to know about it from an experienced builder before I buy/build it.  It may not stop me from buying it but at least I'm going in with my eyes wide open.  I know I don't/won't build contest quality pieces but it would be nice to know before I consider buying or in many cases opening an already purchased kit, what I'm going up against and what to watch out for.  I do read and research the specific kit I have and look over reviews from other builders.  I will confess when it comes to "accuracy issues" it just doesn't concern me to the extent that it does others.  I will build it OTB (for the most part) so if the fueslage has an 8in too long scale offset or the oil cooler is too this or that, I wouldn't know and frankly don't have the skill to do much about that.

Manstein's revenge

I feel that most of the quality control issues are gone for the most part and what you primarily see now are debates on wether or not the "Hellcat grin" on an F6 is right or the bow shape is the correct angle on the Scharnhorst...

QC can still be an issue depending on what's going on - Decal sheets out of register still sometimes pop up, and Tamiya's new 1/350th Yamato has a seam issue due to mold miss-match that I wish they'd caught and fixed during the production run, but it certainly doesn't put it in dog status.

One thing I've been trying to get back to in my reviews are some of the basic things that manufacturers probably don't hear often. I gave Kudos to Pontos for the "retail friendliness" of their CVL-22 deck (I have troubles getting my local hobby shop to stock things that aren't retail friendly. He chooses Tom's Modelworks photo-etch over Gold Medal Models and White Ensign only because of the clear plastic bag - it sells  better even though it's not as fine) and gigged AFV club for their Gato sub model box packing because the bow of one of mine arrived bent. Rather than just say "the instructions are weak" I try and say how; things like "too busy" or "steps in a bad order" to hopefully both give feedback to the manufacturer as well as to warn the builder what they should expect.

I run into a lot of beginners at the local hobby shop who build models in the exact sequence the instructions show because they don't want to ruin the model and it doesn't occur to them that they CAN and might have a less frustrating build if they do. Talking with them and listening to what they have difficulties with can be a good "reset" for those of us who've got a few kits behind us and take some of the lessons we've learned either for granted or as natural knowledge that everyone has.

Hans von Hammer

Bottom line is what Resoned said... If I'm writing a review, I'm writing it for the beginning and intermediate modler, who may not be able to get what I'm capable of getting out of a kit... By the same token, that modeler who buys a kit based on what I wrote about it isn't gonna be mad at Tamigawa if he can't get it to look like mine... He's gonna be mad at ME...

Being that I feel as I qualify as a beginning / intermediate modeler, I don't blame the model makers or any reviewer if I can't make purse out of a pig's ear.  No offense Hans; but you're not that high up on the food chain.    There are some folks here, you, Rob, Gino, Mike and few others as examples, whose opinions I do look for; but what is said is just that, an opinion.  I still have the final say in how much work gets put into it.

I don't see how someone can blame you if they're not able to produce a show stopper as you did / do.  I don't blame Bobby Flay if I can't cook one of his recipes.    I blame my meager skills.

Rob Gronovius

Manstein's revenge:

I mean, are there really any real dogs being put out there by the major manufacturers these days...I mean, really?

 

Depends on the definition of real dog. If it means a hard to assemble kit, discounting limited run kits Hans mentions, probably not.

If real dog means inaccurate kits with plenty of visible knockout marks, warped parts, etc. then the answer is yes. I know many reviews of Academy's long awaited kits like the M551 Sheridan, M3 Grant and M3 Lee were less than complementary.

Even the M50 Ontos, a highly anticipated kit, was not spared because of accuracy errors. This was highlighted by the fact that there were several actual vehicles undergoing complete restorations in various locations in the US which made inaccuracies easy to identify.

Hobby Boss put out the latest and greates Israeli Merkava IV with all the bells and whistles, but when they designed the kit, they assumed the suspension was a typical modern torsion bar with staggered road wheel arm stations like Abrams, Leopards and other similar MBTs. The Merkava has a different style of suspension and the arms are not offset. If you're a Merkava fan, correcting this would begin by cutting the entire side off of the lower hull, shifting it rearward and reworking side armor plates.

Admittedly, many of these errors are not noticeable to a casual builder who just wanted to build the kit as is, but to fans of modern armor it's a lot of work to correct.

1) Quality of the mouldings, decals, etc...and...

2) Accuracy of the subject matter.

I feel that most of the quality control issues are gone for the most part and what you primarily see now are debates on wether or not the "Hellcat grin" on an F6 is right or the bow shape is the correct angle on the Scharnhorst...

Manstein's revenge

I mean, are there really any real dogs being put out there by the major manufacturers these days...I mean, really?

Depends on the definition of real dog. If it means a hard to assemble kit, discounting limited run kits Hans mentions, probably not.

If real dog means inaccurate kits with plenty of visible knockout marks, warped parts, etc. then the answer is yes. I know many reviews of Academy's long awaited kits like the M551 Sheridan, M3 Grant and M3 Lee were less than complementary.

Even the M50 Ontos, a highly anticipated kit, was not spared because of accuracy errors. This was highlighted by the fact that there were several actual vehicles undergoing complete restorations in various locations in the US which made inaccuracies easy to identify.

Hobby Boss put out the latest and greates Israeli Merkava IV with all the bells and whistles, but when they designed the kit, they assumed the suspension was a typical modern torsion bar with staggered road wheel arm stations like Abrams, Leopards and other similar MBTs. The Merkava has a different style of suspension and the arms are not offset. If you're a Merkava fan, correcting this would begin by cutting the entire side off of the lower hull, shifting it rearward and reworking side armor plates.

Admittedly, many of these errors are not noticeable to a casual builder who just wanted to build the kit as is, but to fans of modern armor it's a lot of work to correct.

Manstein's revenge

I mean, are there really any real dogs being put out there by the major manufacturers these days...I mean, really?

Outside of limited-run kits, I'd say no...  What I've seen over the years is the kit that's being labeled a "dog" is a kit that, fifteen, twenty, even thirty years ago was state-of-the-art, and got rave reviews (I know, because I still have the magazines which featured them) as being "accurate, easy to build and good-fitting, with loads of detail"...   Overall, I think many modelers tend to get lazier as they get more and more kits behind them...  

A "dog" kit now means anything from an overly-thick, one-piece canopy molding to a kit that requires a couple hours of filling and sanding, or even that, instead of having 470 parts (with 370 that are just the track-links), the same kit that's a "dog" has only 102... One hundred are the kit parts, the other two are the left and right tracks. 

Overall, I still like the old kits, even if the newer, state-of-the-art ones are "better"...   But "dogs" are pretty rare... IMHO, the only "dog" I ever built was the afore-mentioned Aurora Black Widow... It had so much wrong with it that it wasn't usable for anything (except as an Army Air Force ID model, to train gunners in aircraft recognition...)

Bottom line is what Resoned said... If I'm writing a review, I'm writing it for the beginning and intermediate modler, who may not be able to get what I'm capable of getting out of a kit... By the same token, that modeler who buys a kit based on what I wrote about it isn't gonna be mad at Tamigawa if he can't get it to look like mine... He's gonna be mad at ME...

Master modelers aren't necessarily good reviewers. They generally have AMS and can't finish things quickly, which is what most people want; a review for that hot new kit just as it comes out so they don't have to agonize.

There are still dogs, but they're fewer and farther in between. Trumpeter had a F4F that was fortunately re-worked before release, but was almost released as a dog, but their Square bridge Fletcher class destroyer (USS The Sullivans) was a big 'ol pile of Ewwwww.

Reasoned

I'm sorry but if I were a "master builder" (which I ain't even close) and wanted a shred of credibility to my name, whether a company sent me a $10.00 or $100.00 kit for free should have NO effect on how I reviewed it (that's a pretty cheap buy off BTW).  There are inexperienced builders like me who will read their "expert" opinion on a kit and expect the (gasp!) truth about it.  If I get suckered by one of these clowns puffing up an expensive dog, I'll remember.

That's when the sample kit gets built into an article versus a straight forward review. Big names are given kits to "review" but often do elaborate build articles on how to make that kit look like a trophy winner. It serves a few purposes. First, the kit is advertised on the web or in print by having a named master builder focus on it. Second, the kit is often built beautifully because that's what a master modeler can do.

If someone subsequently does a straight up review of the kit and pans it, the manufacturer can allude that the reviewer just doesn't have the skills that the esteemed master builder does. Which is the case many times. Basically, if that reviewer was any good, then we would have sent him a kit and he could make it look like a winner.

I mean, are there really any real dogs being put out there by the major manufacturers these days...I mean, really?

I'm sorry but if I were a "master builder" (which I ain't even close) and wanted a shred of credibility to my name, whether a company sent me a $10.00 or $100.00 kit for free should have NO effect on how I reviewed it (that's a pretty cheap buy off BTW).  There are inexperienced builders like me who will read their "expert" opinion on a kit and expect the (gasp!) truth about it.  If I get suckered by one of these clowns puffing up an expensive dog, I'll remember.