Kit review nitpick.

DoogsATX

Hans von Hammer:

Blogging on the internet ain't my style....  It's too "Look at ME!" for me... Besides, nobody would read it... 

 

I'd read it.

You have a very...distinct perspective. Personally I think it'd lend itself well to a dedicated blog.

Lol.. Well, thankee... But it's pretty likely that it'd turn into a "S*** that Pizzes Me OFF Today!" thing... Remember the  "What're You Mad About Today, Eddie Chiles?" radio spots?

Sir HvH,  I would enjoy reading that as well.  I don't know you, but you do have an enteresting take on things.

It'd be like the Joe Bob Briggs of model reviews.

"Multiple bodies. No breasts. Machine gun-fu, filler-fu,  lousy decals and gratuitous PE parts. 7 on the screw-it meter. HVH sez "check it out".

LOL..

Hmmm..

Wait...

You might be onto something there... A "Screw-It meter" is a great idea...  As in, "Screw-it, build the thing"... An inverse rating-scale, based on other reviews...  So if it scores a "10" on the "dog of a kit" scale, then it would be a "Must Build" for me (and the other two guys that think like me)... A SCRIMeter... 

"The  kit is so old and out-of-date, with raised panel lines, overly thick canopy, along with a complete lack of a cockpit and cockamamee "retracting" landing gear, that it scores a solid 8 on the SCRIMeter, so anyone with AMS need not apply...

Also of note, with a price that's low enough for one to able to buy it with the change they find in their couch, there's absolutely no reason not to, especially since its 'nose-art' decal comes in a plain brown wrapper and will probably anger the modeler's mother if she finds it in his room... "

I have to pipe in here . I have been doing a build in progress review of a kit .I stopped for a while because the customer said stop , go back to it in the fall .I didn,t ask why .Anyway I have written a few, I guess what would be build logs that weren,t intended that way . AND although I have explained my computer shortcomings that seems to be more important than what I said about the model . That even includes my writing and diction !! If You got the point ,that,s what I intended . Do not tell me, "Well , no pics, it didn,t happen " I wouldn,t do that to anyone .That,s  (to me anyway ) like saying  "you,re lying " . I will give a straight review , but , yes , I will end it sometimes will say , " I recommend this kit to those who have more model building experience " sometimes I will also say "I recommend this kit to those with a whole lot of experience with this product ! " It is NOT worth the effort to use my years of experience in modeling to endanger my credibility . I also don,t want the manufacturer mad at me either ! When you  review a kit no matter what the agreement , you need to be fair and honest ,  not explicit and self serving . If I was sent a kit from say TRUMPETER (STEPHENS , INTL .) SQUADRON , REVELL etc .They want honest , but , not destructively honest .There is a line you can , but shouldn,t cross ! So that ,even if you get the kit for free ,  In a sense you did get paid ! You got a kit that maybe your budget couldn,t bear to deal with . Think about it and remember , we all have different idea of what a review should , and many times IS NOT what we would wish .            tankerbuilder

I will give a straight review , but , yes , I will end it sometimes will say , " I recommend this kit to those who have more model building experience " sometimes I will also say "I recommend this kit to those with a whole lot of experience with this product ! " It is NOT worth the effort to use my years of experience in modeling to endanger my credibility .

My years of experience allow me to build a kit, no matter how "bad" it is... My credibility comes from telling the truth about it and writing exactly what I think (but keeping it G-rated), and not trying to spin it to a "positive" review, no matter what kinda pig or how over-priced it is, in order to keep on their "good side"...  If I think the kit is too expensive for what you get, and what you have to do to it in order to build it, well, that's gonna get said too... I suppose I could spin it with, "I think it's only worth about half of what they want for it because of the fit-issues and the lack of parts to build the other variant, but the kit is recommended, if only for it's "subject-value", to highly-experienced modelers... "  

That's positive spin, right?

I could write reviews all day long, but what I can't do is buy the new kits all day long... So, I don't.  I'd love to write a review of the Great Wall P-61, but with an MSRP around the 100.00-mark, it ain't gonna happen unless they send me one, and they'd probaly be unhappy with me after that, because I'd nail 'em on the price...  Read:

"All in all, GW has a good kit here but at the same time it still has some issues (especially the lack of parts to allow one to build an A -OR B-model Widow) and with a price of 100.00 for a kit with only one variant of this unique and powerful aircraft vs $18.00, Revell probably won't see a significant drop in sales of their P-61A/B."  

If "Consumer Reports" did models, I'd write for 'em in a heartbeat...   

When you  review a kit no matter what the agreement , you need to be fair and honest ,  not explicit and self serving .

Yet here you say:

You got a kit that maybe your budget couldn,t bear to deal with .

Ain't that "self-serving"? 

Think about it and remember , we all have different idea of what a review should , and many times IS NOT what we would wish .

A kit review, in it's purest sense, is an opinion... It's not supposed to be an advertisement, which sadly, most reviews are anymore... It should be honest , since you're supposed to be writing for the Modeler, not the manufacturer... Probably why no manufacturer has ever contacted me, come to think of it.....

As m' ol' Pappy once said to me, "Son, if ya kiss butt to git somethin', ya gotta kiss butt ta keep it.."...  (Them Sergeant stripes I wore earlier in my career shoulda had velcro on 'em)

 Joe Bob Hammer

Now this is a proper review for  build. Call 'em like you see 'em and let the reader see the bare plastic build.

http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/builds/rm/qb_rm_5527.shtml

stikpusher

Now this is a proper review for  build. Call 'em like you see 'em and let the reader see the bare plastic build.

http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/builds/rm/qb_rm_5527.shtml

 

stikpusher

Now this is a proper review for  build. Call 'em like you see 'em and let the reader see the bare plastic build.

http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/builds/rm/qb_rm_5527.shtml

 

Yes, but if you're the reviewer, you've basically sacrificed the kit in order to do a review. Except for the absence of decals, that's how the old Military Model Preview reviews used to look.

As an author who buys your own review kits, would you want to sacrifice a $20-40 kit to do a review?

As a manufacturer who supplies free review samples, do you want to see your kit built up in bare plastic or assembled and finished by a master modeler?

That's the quandry that killed MMP.

Rob Gronovius

stikpusher:

Now this is a proper review for  build. Call 'em like you see 'em and let the reader see the bare plastic build.

http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/builds/rm/qb_rm_5527.shtml

 

 

Yes, but if you're the reviewer, you've basically sacrificed the kit in order to do a review. Except for the absence of decals, that's how the old Military Model Preview reviews used to look.

As an author who buys your own review kits, would you want to sacrifice a $20-40 kit to do a review?

As a manufacturer who supplies free review samples, do you want to see your kit built up in bare plastic or assembled and finished by a master modeler?

That's the quandry that killed MMP.

Well I know how much stuff I conceal under paint... Sanding, filling, etc... I liked the old MMP magazine and reviews as well. And yes I do see the point of the cost to the author or magazine of a "sacrificial" bare build vs something that is finished with paints, etc. and displayable next to your other builds. A build coming from the budget of the reviewer or magazine/website would certainly be more honest than a free kit in the possibility that the reviewer can be influenced in the hope of getting more such kits in exchange for blowing some sunshine up the kit manufacturers fourth point of contact and ignoring or glossing over any negative issues. We have all seen those. I do like the bare build new release images displayed much better than the CAD Image advertising.

A manufacturer showing off a new kit in plastic at a show is one thing. It's advertisement to sell their wares. I've seen the Tamiya videos online of some of their high end aircraft kits being demonstrated. Beautiful stuff, even in bare plastic.

I'm talking about online reviewers. Most aren't making any money off of reviews they do. They write reviews of kits they buy out of an altruistic sense of wanting to help others in seeing what the kit is.

Reviewers who are given kits by manufacturers probably want to keep receiving kits. If I'm a manufacturer trying to sell my new kit, I want to send it to be reviewed by a known "name" who has a good reputation online as a better than average builder. As a manufacturer, I want to see an artist turn that blank canvas into a masterpiece.

If you give a "warts & all" bare plastic review, chances are you won't be getting any more free samples.

Word on the net at the time MMP went under was that they bit the hand that feeds them. Too many harsh reviews of bare plastic kits turned off the free sample faucet. Hard enough to turn a profit with a magazine consisting of just reviews, let alone review kits you have to purchase yourself. Dang thing looked a lot like an order catalog than a magazine.

One of the draws of most model magazines are not only the eye-catching finished kits on the cover but on the pages inside. I've grabbed many a model magazine because of the cover model, and set most of them down because the insides aren't as thrilling.

Truthfully, any kit I contemplate buying has already been built or reviewed somewhere online. If Constructor's Ka-Mi build didn't look good or had given him problems, no way I'd have spent money on the CH kit myself.

I'm with Hans all the way. I do not build for absolute accuracy but I do want to know how good the kit is to build.

I do rely on what is in the box so I can build a good representation of the subject...cheers.....Kenny

Rob Gronovius

A manufacturer showing off a new kit in plastic at a show is one thing. It's advertisement to sell their wares. I've seen the Tamiya videos online of some of their high end aircraft kits being demonstrated. Beautiful stuff, even in bare plastic.

I'm talking about online reviewers. Most aren't making any money off of reviews they do. They write reviews of kits they buy out of an altruistic sense of wanting to help others in seeing what the kit is.

Reviewers who are given kits by manufacturers probably want to keep receiving kits. If I'm a manufacturer trying to sell my new kit, I want to send it to be reviewed by a known "name" who has a good reputation online as a better than average builder. As a manufacturer, I want to see an artist turn that blank canvas into a masterpiece.

If you give a "warts & all" bare plastic review, chances are you won't be getting any more free samples.

Word on the net at the time MMP went under was that they bit the hand that feeds them. Too many harsh reviews of bare plastic kits turned off the free sample faucet. Hard enough to turn a profit with a magazine consisting of just reviews, let alone review kits you have to purchase yourself. Dang thing looked a lot like an order catalog than a magazine.

One of the draws of most model magazines are not only the eye-catching finished kits on the cover but on the pages inside. I've grabbed many a model magazine because of the cover model, and set most of them down because the insides aren't as thrilling.

Truthfully, any kit I contemplate buying has already been built or reviewed somewhere online. If Constructor's Ka-Mi build didn't look good or had given him problems, no way I'd have spent money on the CH kit myself.

spacepacker

I'm with Hans all the way. I do not build for absolute accuracy but I do want to know how good the kit is to build.

I do rely on what is in the box so I can build a good representation of the subject...cheers.....Kenny

Some kits I'll get obsesed with details on, but for the most part I want something that looks right. Lately I do find myself checking online for reviews, more for a warning on build issues (like expecting q 1/4" gap between the wing & fuselage that I'll have to plug with something, or a useless decal sheet), not "this kit is a piece of crap because that radiator is 3 scale inches too long". It's all information from someone I don't know. Doesn't matter to me whether it's written by someone with a leaning towards one manufacturer or not, I'm still going to filter it & take what I want from it.

DoogsATX

Hans von Hammer:

Blogging on the internet ain't my style....  It's too "Look at ME!" for me... Besides, nobody would read it... 

 

I'd read it.

You have a very...distinct perspective. Personally I think it'd lend itself well to a dedicated blog.

VanceCrozier

 

Some kits I'll get obsesed with details on, but for the most part I want something that looks right. Lately I do find myself checking online for reviews, more for a warning on build issues (like expecting q 1/4" gap between the wing & fuselage that I'll have to plug with something, or a useless decal sheet), not "this kit is a piece of crap because that radiator is 3 scale inches too long". It's all information from someone I don't know. Doesn't matter to me whether it's written by someone with a leaning towards one manufacturer or not, I'm still going to filter it & take what I want from it.

1 - I agree 100%. I hate (and generally skim) reviews that go all "gaston" on a kit. Oh my goodness, the wheels are slightly too skinny! Oh no!  

2 - Things I care about in reviews include detail, kit engineering, how it builds, flashes of brilliance and trouble spots.

3 - Honestly I think the "build the whole thing up unpainted" idea is all kinds of stupid. You can see all the horrors with a fully painted and done-up kit, too, as long as the build is documented along the way.

4 - If we want to talk about showing off the kit...I think the way Tamiya presented their big P-51 at whatever model show that was was fantastic. A few sprues. A few subassemblies put together. A few full, all-out builds.

Rob Gronovius

stikpusher:

Now this is a proper review for  build. Call 'em like you see 'em and let the reader see the bare plastic build.

http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/builds/rm/qb_rm_5527.shtml

 

 

Yes, but if you're the reviewer, you've basically sacrificed the kit in order to do a review. Except for the absence of decals, that's how the old Military Model Preview reviews used to look.

As an author who buys your own review kits, would you want to sacrifice a $20-40 kit to do a review?

That's the quandry that killed MMP.

MMP was the first magazine I ever bought that did what I'd call an "Honest Review"...  Everything else up to that point was indeed what I'd call an "advertisement"...  And since then as well...

"Biting the hand that feeds me" isn't what I'm doing by building a kit that's shown unpainted,  warts & all; rather it's what I'd call building and reviewing for the Modeler... After all, isn't that what's supposed to be the result?

As a manufacturer who supplies free review samples, do you want to see your kit built up in bare plastic or assembled and finished by a master modeler?

Obviously the latter, but then that's not exactly honest either...  Were I running an honest and ethical company, I'd be assuring that whatever reviewers pointed out as flaws would be addressed, and quickly...  Starting with my QC people... Or, I would price the kit accordingly...  It's like all the Monogram-Haters out there... They pi** and moan about raised panel lines, but fail to "get" why the kit costs 12.00... Not to mention that, according to Monogram's Marketing VP, circa 1984, that "We decided early on to put the money saved with raised lines into researching, designing, and then molding other kits, in order to give the modeler a greater variety of good-quality kits at reasonable prices.."

 Anyway, I've seen too many reviews that glossed over the important things like fit, shape, and scale fidelity, in order to spin a review into something positive...  I recall that when KISS first started using Gibson Guitars, they were supplied with them by Gibson for the mention of using them on their album covers... "KISS uses Gibson Guitars because they want the best" is what it read... But Paul Stanley had smashed so many of them on stage at the end of the show that Gibson stoppped doing so because of it, lol, after wich Paul switched to Ibanez...

While many times there are no real issues that bother me other than price, I expect, as I'm sure many others do, that a kit costing 100.00 should practically fall together, rather than have to be beat into submission... But not everyone, especially beginner and intermediate-level modelers,  share that feeling...  While I don't consider myself a "Master Modeler" (a subjective term at best, and one that should be given only by recognized peers and according to some kind of standard), I do consider myself to be a highly-experienced one, and in several different genres, specifically Aircraft, Armor, Structures, and their associated dioramas...  That's why I mentioned that I wished "Conumer Reports" had a modeling section, lol..  That magazine accepts no manufactur's advertising, they buy everything they test, and they write honestly, with no detectable bias on the reviewer's part...

If I'm getting paid to write reviews by the magazine, and they magazine is successful enough to continue to do so, then it's gonna be honest... If need be, I'd be happy to build one, unpainted, warts & all, and also build a second, finished one, if the company sprung for the first kit... That is, IF the kit was what I felt was worth it... (Hey, there's a cue... If you read my review and there's only ONE kit featured in it, with no pauint? Then I wouldn't even HAVE to tell you what I thought of it, right?)

Anyway, I personally want to see the kit before it's painted, at a minimum... I want to see any of the putty, strip styrene, etc... THEN let the finish photos in... But there should be one "nekkid" shot, at least...  And if a reviewer says, "...Overall, a good kit, but way over-priced for it's number of flaws", then he shouldn't be "punished" for it....  Otherwise, the magazine itself is working for the advertiser and not the consumer/modeler... Which is, BTW, fine... But be honest about it...  While I mean no disrepect to FSM and its reviewers, I've yet to read a review of a kit (and I've been buying or subscribing since 1983) that had anything negative written, at least not a reviewer that ever said, "I wouldn't buy this kit if I were you"...

All in all though, I guess it doesn't really matter, since I primarily base my kit-purchases on subject, scale, and price... For instance, if I need a 1/48 P-51D for a diorama that someone has commisioned me for, I buy the Revellogram Pony. Why? It costs 14.00, that's why... And any perceived "wrongs" with the kit are addressed by me at the bench... Now, since it's going to be mounted, permanently, to a base, does it really matter that the gear bays are not "Pilot's Handbook" accurate? 'Course not..  And since the canopy is going to be open, but the person buying the diorama has never set foot in a Mustang Cockpit, does it really

One last thing... Reviewers need to learn what the parts of their models are called... Calling out a problem by writing that "Part C-4 doesn't fit well when inserted into part D-7" is useless... But saying that, "the muzzle-brake doesn't line up with the bore evacuator", or  "The elevon trim-tabs are both a scale six inches too wide at the chord" IS helpful...  I wouldn't think much of a mechanic that knew how to fix part number AA-330989, but didn't know that was what the distributor-cap was called, no matter how easily he could fix whatever was wrong with it, so why should I believe a reviewer that doesn't know a bore evacutator from an idler wheel from an elevator/aileron trim-tab?

But that last part is another rant...

I disagree with a lot of your last post but rather than work with the quotes:

1. Learning what the parts are is helpful BUT so is calling out the part numbers, because not everyone knows what a muzzle brake or bore excavator is.
2. You used "honest and ethical company" and presumed that the magazine (not FSM, just any of them) is looking out for the consumer. This is incorrect. The magazine needs to be law-abiding and profitable. The trick is for it to find a niche it can do that in. Fine scale may have been started by people who cared about modeling, and may be staffed by some people who do, but it is not OWNED by a company that does. That company wants the employees to maximize their profits and has a genuine incentive to do so.

I think it is easy for you to sit back in your retirement and say "bite the hand that feeds." I also think you SHOULD write some reviews; many blogs are as you described, but not all. They are what the writer makes them, and you can steer your own course in how the review is done.

Tracy White

I disagree with a lot of your last post but rather than work with the quotes:

1. Learning what the parts are is helpful BUT so is calling out the part numbers, because not everyone knows what a muzzle brake or bore excavator is.

Fess up Hans, you'd buy a kit based on price alone, whether you read good or bad things about it or read nothing about the kit at all. You often state you avoid the high price kits, nothing wrong with that, but if one of those high priced kits was sitting on a flea market table with a $5 price tag, you'd be on it like white on rice. Nothing wrong with that either, 99% of us would do the same thing if we had the $5 to spare.

In a perfect world, there would be kits clearly marked as beginner (easy to assemble, minimal amount of tiny details, lower price tags, simpler marking/finishing options, inexpensive); intermediate (mid range all around) and expert (high price, multimedia, delicately intricate, elaborate paint schemes, amazingly accurate, recessed panel lines, complex interiors, etc.).

What I'm saying is if I ran a review site and wanted to get sample kits from manufacturers I sure as heck wouldn't tear up their kits in a review. The free samples would dry up quickly unless all the kits you reviewed built up perfectly and looked beautiful in bare plastic, That's what I mean by biting the hand that feeds you.

If I'm the manufacturer's PR guy, I'm feeding my kits to the sites with the expert modelers, maybe guys who have a few magazine articles published and can give the kit an honest review and have the necessary skills and desire to make my POS kit into a show stopper.

I mention desire because I've gotten into online arguments with website contacts who wanted me to review Tiger tank interior items. OK, I know what a Tiger tank is, relatively familiar with the various Ausfs kinda know when zimmerit was used, etc. When they want me to buy a kit so I can review the interior stuff, I'm like, "you're nuts". Why do I want to spend good money on the quality kit the AM is made for on a subject I am mildly interested in. It's hard to review an AM interior without the kit it would go into. Seeing if it fits is a big part of the review, not to mention about all I could say about the interior is that it "looks good, nicely detailed, molded well, and fits inside". I don't know enough about the insides to tell you if it was accurate or inaccurate, another big part of the review. And I didn't have the desire to learn about it nor to build the project even if the kit was given to me.

Now if I was independently wealthy and had an altruistic streak a mile wide and had finished feeding the starving children in my city, I'd probably hire the better modelers from those now well-fed children to assemble and review the various models warts and all. I'd publish reviews like MMP (which I think were extremely valuable and often well written) for all the modeling world to see and make informed decisions for themselves.

Somewhere in between is where we currently exist. Some sites, like PMMS, do fairly comprehensive reviews. I think he gets samples as well as buys some himself. I imagine printed magazines get the majority of their kits as review samples with some items purchased by the magazine themselves.

Fess up Hans, you'd buy a kit based on price alone, whether you read good or bad things about it or read nothing about the kit at all.

No, not entirely true...

No way I'd buy a USS Enterprise kit over say, a P-51D... (Subject matter)

I wouldn't buy a 1/72 P-51D kit over a 1/48-1/32 P-51D kit. (Scale)

 I wouldn't buy a 25.00 P-51D over a 12.00 P-51D (Price)

So if I need say, a P-51D in 1/48th scale, I'm buying the Monogram kit, not the Tamigawa...  (Price, subject, and scale fit the paradigm)...

However, price isn't always the motivating factor... For instance.. The motivating factors in buying the Modelcraft F-82 I built a year or so ago was the subject, then scale, then price (I wasn't happy about the price by any means, but it was the only game in town)... It was about four times the price of the Monogram 1/72 F-82, especially once shipping was factored in, but it was the scale I model aircraft in primarily, which is 1/48th, so the paradigm were met by the Modelcraft kit.  The Monogram Twin Pony only met 2/3rds of the requirement, which was a model of the CAF's P-82 in 1/48 scale... (I've never built the Monogram Twin Mustang, by the way.. Wrong scale, like I said...)

Now, when I wrote the build-log in the Aircraft Forum, I didn't have much good to say about it... It was a kit that I had to beat into submission...  It was a limited-run kit, full of bad-fitting parts, and took lots of sanding and filling to get right... I also had to vacuform the clear parts, and add a number of scratch-built details... It eventually built up nicely though, once the part-fit issues were fixed... Now, had I been reviewing that POS, I would have had to spin it in a positive manner were it a "gimme", but as I bought it m'self, I could say whatever I wanted to...

You often state you avoid the high price kits, nothing wrong with that, but if one of those high priced kits was sitting on a flea market table with a $5 price tag, you'd be on it like white on rice.

Well, sure... That's because it, at five bucks, would no longer be a high-price kit... However, I have made exceptions... Since my price-range for 1/48 single seat, single engine fighters is from 0.01 to 24.99, I bought the Tamiya F-51D over the Monogram version not too long ago. Why? Curiousity...  Once the price fell into my range, that is...  Same reason I got Dragon, Trumpeter, Hasegawa, Tamiya, and Italeri kits here in my stash... Price fell dramatically and/or I got a discount on it... 

But by the same token, I won't be buying Great Wall's P-61any time soon, because, unless it falls into what I'll pay for a 1/48 twin-engine fighter (0.01 to 30.00)... At 100.00 or so, it's far too flawed and too expensive to make me give up buying the Monogram Black Widow @ 18.00..  On the other hand, I'd never (again) buy the 1/48 Aurora Black Widow, not even if it was a dime... (Well, maybe I would, but  only if I could get the collector price for it later... )

What I'm saying is if I ran a review site and wanted to get sample kits from manufacturers I sure as heck wouldn't tear up their kits in a review. The free samples would dry up quickly unless all the kits you reviewed built up perfectly and looked beautiful in bare plastic, That's what I mean by biting the hand that feeds you.

Roger that, and I agree with you... However, that's why I wouldn't write a review for a kit that I didn't purchase, or it was from a manufacturer that advertised in my magazine, hence the "Consumer Reports" reference... I'd prefer to write based on what I find, and not have to write or at least spin it so that the free kits keep coming...  As I said in an earlier post, "If you gotta kiss butt to get something, you gotta kiss butt to keep it."... (That philosophy was probably the biggest reason I retired a MSG instead of 1SG or CSM, too...)

If I'm the manufacturer's PR guy, I'm feeding my kits to the sites with the expert modelers, maybe guys who have a few magazine articles published and can give the kit an honest review and have the necessary skills and desire to make my POS kit into a show stopper.

Again, Roger that... But that's also where I fall outta line... If you want an honest review, you gotta take the bad too... If the kit's a POS, I can still build it into a winner...  But I'm gonna say it's a POS in the review and how much work it was to build into a winner...  I'm not going to put my "model-rep" (such as it is) on the line just to keep getting free stuff...   I suppose I could say something "nice" about the box-art at the end, though... (Unless it's a photo of the built kit, ala Monogram 1974..... Then that's a goner too...)

Overall though, I'm OK with folks writing reviews the way they want to... Just don't expect me to buy it, based soley on what's written about it... Same way with movies.. Critics loved it, I didn't... Critics hated it, I saw it ten times... Critics hated the TV show, I loved it, and if I loved it, it got cancelled... 

And don't expect me to ever write a BS review, because I bought your (figuratively-speaking) kit m'self and built it... 

Now...

Here's what I think of it...

...part of the reason plastic model kit reviews tend to be overly-favorable is simply the notion that many in the hobby have that we should all just be thankful there are companies out there willing to make model kits and sell them to us...you hear that sentiment a lot in many posts throughout this Forum...

You mean, if I didn't have to buy every single Stryker variant in existence, I'd have to find something else to spend my money on??  Like stuff for targetting shooting??

HEATHEN!!!  BLASPHEMER!!!  INFIDEL!!!

Hans von Hammer

If you want an honest review, you gotta take the bad too..

Manufacturers don't want an honest review, or even a review at all. They want sales, and giving out kits is one way of doing it. So it's a necessary evil from their point of view, and they're then going to chose the necessary evil that gets them the best return, beit size of the audience or "quality" of the review from their standpoint.

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.

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

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.

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.

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...