Is Tamiya still king?

Gravitating more towards the weathering side and the creative placement of subjects in a diorama (whether that be armor, figures, or vehicles), and with less emphasis on the authenticity of a subject in a historical context, finds me gravitating to kits that allow a smooth build over anything else. Kits with instructions that are unclear or have downright errors or too many details that distract from the build process are my personal source of frustration. That is why I gravitate to Tamiya. This also implies strongly, that Tamiya is not necessarily the better kit, but just the personal preference based on my reasons for building. By the way, how is everyone doing?

Is Tamiya Still King?

In terms of detail, no.

In terms of fit, yes, in my opinion. 

Other manufacturers may have specific individual kits that fit very well, but Tamiya's consistency in this area is pretty impressive. Combine the near guarantee of great fit with good detailing, and you have a safe bet.

And that is how I look at Tamiya. If I see a model on the shelf that interests me and it's by any other manufacturer, I will look up reviews before purchasing. If it's Tamiya, I figure it's going to be good and just buy it.

modelmaker66

I prefer Dragon, Trumpeter, Meng, Takom, Bronco. Tamya is ok, simplified but over priced for what you get.

 

Such blasphemy!!!

Bish

 

 

Rob Gronovius

The majority of Dragon kits are still hard to build. The newer smart kits are better. Dragon tends to be more complex than they often need to be.

Tamiya released new kits of the Elefant, Nashorn, M10 Wolverine, M40 howitzer, some French and Japanese tanks that are really nice and have the ease of assembly that escapes Dragon.

And I agree, there are other manufacturers with smaller lines (Takom, AFV Club, Fine Molds, Meng, etc.) that offer great kits as well.

 

 

 

 

O yes, they are more complex than they need to be. But then so are ZM aircraft from what i can see, and to a far greater extent than Dragon, and at a far higher relative price. Yet ZM seem to get praised for it and Dragon get slated.

And Tamiya have also been re-boxing a lot of Italeri kits as well. A look at Hannants shows 9 from the last 2 years.

 

Different animals, a complex model kit is one thing (ZM). A model that is complex because of multiple errors in the instruction sheet, a model created by the inclusion of part trees from several kits (often resulting in multiple different parts with the same number two A5, two C7, etc.) is another.

modelmaker66

I prefer Dragon, Trumpeter, Meng, Takom, Bronco. Tamya is ok, simplified but over priced for what you get.

 

I know when Tamiya released an M60A3 (which was their old 1970s M60A1 kit retooled with some new parts) and Esci released a brand new M60A3 at the same time. Everyone, including me, bought the Tamiya kit, which was not a bad kit. However, the Esci M60A3 was a superior kit and probably their best 1/35 scale armor kit and only recently surpassed by the AFVC Club kit nearly 30 years later.

We bought the more expensive Tamiya kit because it was a Tamiya kit.

This is a great question, which I've thought about a lot.  I'm going to condense a lot for the sake of brevity.

A lot of the new manufacturers are great.  Don't forget cars, too; Ebbro and Moebius come to mind.  I find that some can approach Tamiya on at least an individual kit basis, and some outthink Tamiya in some aspects (like new Airfix instruction sheets).  However, some are good at one thing and not another; i.e. Meng and Trumpeter for other than armor.  I do think Tamiya's overall new tool production is the best, and they keep pushing themselves to raise the bar for the industry in everything they do; for examples the Mosquito and the new Honda 1/6 motorcycle. 

In short, they have more competition now than before.  And I think that has produced times for us modelers that we never thought we'd see.  I wish I could live another 200 years so I could build everything I want to build!

I'm with foxhound and modelmaker , more into the modeling side of things

I prefer Dragon, Trumpeter, Meng, Takom, Bronco. Tamya is ok, simplified but over priced for what you get.

tamiya isnt challenging enough for me. i enjoy the building more than painting. Tamiya's kits are more painters kits to me than anything. And they always have the usual Subjects. I enjoy paper panzers. So you can forget that with tamiya. ive found i like takom trumpeter and dragon the best. I did venture off and do a amusing hobby lowe. And i was really impressed with that kit. Ive consider a rye field tiger also. I look at them by subject. Lately tho dragon for the price. Dragononlineusa is deals galore. Picking up 70 dollar kits for 40 bucks  And their daily deals are really good too. And depending on the dragon kit you get. It already has metal barrel and pe and stuff. just dont care much for the link to link tracks. 

Yeah, as others have pointed out, you need to be specific as to modeling subject.  Tamiya's aircraft are top-of-the-line, in my opinion.  Their armor kits have been overtaken for detail by some of the newer makers, though, in terms of sales, I wouldn't be surprised if Tamiya has higher sales numbers.

I'd say that Tamiya's 1/700 ships are average, with relatively simple detail compared to Trumpeter or Dragon.

As for car kits, they've got some excellent kits, some of which don't make it out of the Japanese market all that often.

For figure kits-not figures included in their kits, but kits specifically developed as portrait figures, they're good, but there are better kits available in resin or white metal.

Moff

 

 

Bish

Of course, we each have our own taste. personally, i would rather go for more detail. And now i have gotten over my AM addiction i have realised that many Dragon kits don't really need many modification or upgrades.

 

 

 

 

Honestly, when the rubber hits the road, I'm 50/50 between Dragon and Tamiya. I get just as excited (if not more) over new Dragon releases than new Tamiya releases. 

 

I think part of my love for Tamiya has to do with the fact that the top Spanish School modelers tend to lean towards the Tamiya camp. 

 

I used to get excited over Dragon releases. But with German armour i think there is little that has not been done to get excited about. I usually hiut the reviews before buying a kit, and as often as not, it won't be a Dragon or Tamiya kit but opne of the others. I really take it a kit at a time.

And not being a fan of the Spanish school but rather a fan of realisim i have never been swayed to a certain brand over another.

Bish

Of course, we each have our own taste. personally, i would rather go for more detail. And now i have gotten over my AM addiction i have realised that many Dragon kits don't really need many modification or upgrades.

 

I think part of my love for Tamiya has to do with the fact that the top Spanish School modelers tend to lean towards the Tamiya camp. 

Bish

 

 

Rob Gronovius

The majority of Dragon kits are still hard to build. The newer smart kits are better. Dragon tends to be more complex than they often need to be.

Tamiya released new kits of the Elefant, Nashorn, M10 Wolverine, M40 howitzer, some French and Japanese tanks that are really nice and have the ease of assembly that escapes Dragon.

And I agree, there are other manufacturers with smaller lines (Takom, AFV Club, Fine Molds, Meng, etc.) that offer great kits as well.

 

 

 

 

O yes, they are more complex than they need to be. But then so are ZM aircraft from what i can see, and to a far greater extent than Dragon, and at a far higher relative price. Yet ZM seem to get praised for it and Dragon get slated.

And Tamiya have also been re-boxing a lot of Italeri kits as well. A look at Hannants shows 9 from the last 2 years.

 

I have not seen nor built a ZM kit myself, so I can't vouch for them. But I do have a few Dragons under my belt. And plenty of them unbuilt in my stash. I don't know if it is their approach to engineering and assembly that gets them their rep in comparison, or their assembly instructions, which have a well established reputation  for errors and/or lack of clarity.  I can't compare them to ZM directions, but I can say from personal experience, check part numbers and fit before adding glue. I can't say that I have ever had to do that with Tamiya. 

As far as engineering goes, have a look at the various takes on the M4 tanks HVSS (AKA E8) suspension from the latest kits by Dragon, Tamiya, AFV Club, Tasca/Asuka, and Academy. The multi media and high parts number approach by Dragon really has me wondering why? 

Of course, we each have our own taste. personally, i would rather go for more detail. And now i have gotten over my AM addiction i have realised that many Dragon kits don't really need many modification or upgrades.

Bish

The problem is though Moff, as i alluded to above, the price is matching that of the more detailed kit. So why buy a Tamiya dn then throw loads of AM at it when you can get a Dragon and build it OOB. And some of the Dragon kits i have built in the last few years have been as easy to put together than any Tamiya.

 

In my mind, what draws me to Tamiya upgrading is the modular aspect of it. I really enjoy the idea of being able to pick and choose what parts I'll aftermarket and what brands I'll choose. It becomes more difficult to do that with a Dragon kit that already has dozens of complex parts and way more steps.  

Additionally, I firmly believe that most Tamiya kits are in fact easier to build and modify than your average Dragon kit. Both from my (limited) personal experience and from reading/research, Tamiya kits seem much more streamlined and enjoyable to upgrade. 

Rob Gronovius

The majority of Dragon kits are still hard to build. The newer smart kits are better. Dragon tends to be more complex than they often need to be.

Tamiya released new kits of the Elefant, Nashorn, M10 Wolverine, M40 howitzer, some French and Japanese tanks that are really nice and have the ease of assembly that escapes Dragon.

And I agree, there are other manufacturers with smaller lines (Takom, AFV Club, Fine Molds, Meng, etc.) that offer great kits as well.

 

O yes, they are more complex than they need to be. But then so are ZM aircraft from what i can see, and to a far greater extent than Dragon, and at a far higher relative price. Yet ZM seem to get praised for it and Dragon get slated.

And Tamiya have also been re-boxing a lot of Italeri kits as well. A look at Hannants shows 9 from the last 2 years.

Within the parameters the opening post describes 'king',  Tamiya is still defined by those qualities.

I think other brands can and do come close, and on occasion even surpass the 'king', just not on a consistant basis. 

As mentioned, Tamiya has slowed down on the number of new toolings they release each year.  For those where interest in subject outweighs the loyalty to the Tamiya brand, then the 'king' factor becomes a nonplayer.

regards,

Jack

The majority of Dragon kits are still hard to build. The newer smart kits are better. Dragon tends to be more complex than they often need to be.

Tamiya released new kits of the Elefant, Nashorn, M10 Wolverine, M40 howitzer, some French and Japanese tanks that are really nice and have the ease of assembly that escapes Dragon.

And I agree, there are other manufacturers with smaller lines (Takom, AFV Club, Fine Molds, Meng, etc.) that offer great kits as well.

Rob Gronovius

 

Bish

 

The problem is though Moff, as i alluded to above, the price is matching that of the more detailed kit. So why buy a Tamiya and then throw loads of AM at it when you can get a Dragon and build it OOB. And some of the Dragon kits i have built in the last few years have been as easy to put together than any Tamiya.

 

 

 

I think the reputation Tamiya has as being easier builds coupled with the reputation Dragon has with construction difficulties (poor instructions, multiple sprues from various kits, overly complex assemblies) is why a lot of modelers go for Tamiya when a better, cheaper Dragon kit is sitting next to it. Tamiya kits tend to be relaxing whereas completing a Dragon kit is often a battle.

Having said that, I've built one of their Smart Kits and found it an enjoyable built. Got one of their Panzer Is real cheap and was impressed. It was my first use of magic tracks, and although a little tedious (compared to one piece vinyl) they were not hard to assemble and looked good.

 

Thats what i mean, Dragon are not as difficult to build as they used to be. Sure, their instructions can at times be confuseing and the box is full of spares. But if you want a more detailed kit and don't mind filling your spares box, who you going to go for. And when you look at some of the other companies out there, Tristar/Hobby Boss, Amusing Hobby, Meng and so on, they are producing far more detailed kits.

Tamiya seems to be resting on its larels.

Bish

 

The problem is though Moff, as i alluded to above, the price is matching that of the more detailed kit. So why buy a Tamiya and then throw loads of AM at it when you can get a Dragon and build it OOB. And some of the Dragon kits i have built in the last few years have been as easy to put together than any Tamiya.

I think the reputation Tamiya has as being easier builds coupled with the reputation Dragon has with construction difficulties (poor instructions, multiple sprues from various kits, overly complex assemblies) is why a lot of modelers go for Tamiya when a better, cheaper Dragon kit is sitting next to it. Tamiya kits tend to be relaxing whereas completing a Dragon kit is often a battle.

Having said that, I've built one of their Smart Kits and found it an enjoyable built. Got one of their Panzer Is real cheap and was impressed. It was my first use of magic tracks, and although a little tedious (compared to one piece vinyl) they were not hard to assemble and looked good.

Moff

I think Tamiya, while no longer the acknowledged "king of kits", is still very appealing.

In the armor department, they've started releasing a bunch of retooled or new kits which are beautiful. While not the most insane level of detail (think Bronco or some Dragon kits), they're still superb. Plus, they've continued their tradition of great fit and clean molding.

The trend I've seen in armor modeling is that modelers will purchase Tamiya kits and supplement them with a bunch of aftermarket. Because Tamiya is still a major player, aftermarket abounds. And because their kits are so well engineered and easy to build vanilla, they're a great choice if you're looking to pimp your build. 

 

The problem is though Moff, as i alluded to above, the price is matching that of the more detailed kit. So why buy a Tamiya dn then throw loads of AM at it when you can get a Dragon and build it OOB. And some of the Dragon kits i have built in the last few years have been as easy to put together than any Tamiya.

I think Tamiya, while no longer the acknowledged "king of kits", is still very appealing.

In the armor department, they've started releasing a bunch of retooled or new kits which are beautiful. While not the most insane level of detail (think Bronco or some Dragon kits), they're still superb. Plus, they've continued their tradition of great fit and clean molding.

The trend I've seen in armor modeling is that modelers will purchase Tamiya kits and supplement them with a bunch of aftermarket. Because Tamiya is still a major player, aftermarket abounds. And because their kits are so well engineered and easy to build vanilla, they're a great choice if you're looking to pimp your build. 

I don't think of them as king, but they have some very good kits. While some people have mentioned that Tamiya had constant scale, a lot of their early kits had scale issues because they were designed to hold a standard sized motorized gear box and a couple of C cell batteries. Some of their current kits, like the Abrams, Bradley, M48A3, M113A2 still use lower hulls originally designed to be removed to replace batteries and have the various "motorization holes" to attach the gearbox with screws.

A lot of their current kits are total redesigns that balance accuracy, ease of assembly, details and engineering to make some awesome kits. When they put the effort in, we get the M26 Dragon Wagon. When they half step, we get the M113A2 which was their 1974 M113 kit minus the interior plus a new detail sprue, new equipment sprue and a handful of retooled parts on old sprues along with the old plain faced vinyl tracks designed for motorization.

Bottom line, make sure you do some research before buying any high priced kit. You'll drive an extra 5 or 10 miles to save a nickel on a gallon of gas, but you won't take five minutes to type in the name of the kit in Google to see if it is worth the $50.

Maybe that $40 kit sitting next to the $50 Tamiya kit is a better model kit.

I typically build aircraft.  I will build (or try to build) any kit from any manufacturer.  Grew up on Monogram and still hold those kits in high esteem even though they are far from the best representations of their subjects.  I have kits from just about every manufacturer that I am aware of in my stash, or already completed on my display shelves.  But I always enjoy building the Tamiya kits the most.  They are typically the best engineered kits available and they give me the least amount of trouble while I am working on them, as compared to others.  This is not to say that others are terrible, well, some are but those seem to be few and far between.

A kit does not need to be Tamiya quality for me to consider it worthwhile.  There are kits out there that just need a bit of elbow grease to whip into a good looking model, and as a modeler, I strive to conquer whatever challenges I come across.  

I have built a couple of Tamiya WWII tanks and do not recall any issues with those either. Never built any other genres from Tamiya.

tigerman

As far as armor goes, I find myself gravitating back to Tamiya. I like the lower parts count and the ease of construction. In the end it just depends on the subject and generally the best reviews.

 

I have been going in the opposite direction. I did go over to Dragon for a while, but now i study reviews and go by them, and quite often its one of the other companies. But with Tamiya i still see them as being low detail kits that are now becoming over priced. I look at something like their Jagdtiger from 2008.Its around the same price as the Dragon kit, but i have it in my head it can't be worth that much because its Tamiya. So i just see them as the cheap option i'll go to when there isn't any other.

As far as armor goes, I find myself gravitating back to Tamiya. I like the lower parts count and the ease of construction. In the end it just depends on the subject and generally the best reviews.

I know only two things, Tamiya is definitely not king of decals, and Hasegawa is king of the re-box...

I think Tamiya is still king.  Some of the crown princes may beat him at some subjects.  But overall Tamiya is the standard that others are judged by.

As I only build cars, Tamiya don't have a good spread of genres. They are also expensive, and as I've retired my budget has turned me towards a lot of part built kits and American makes, AMT, Monogram, Revell, Hawk, Aoshima, Fujimi etc. which cover all types or car.

It sometimes is a custom car or a dragster, or a drift car, Japanese custom Liberty Walk etc or a Le Mans sports cars.

I mainly get mine as we have no model shops where I live, from ebay Auction, as 'Buy it Now' also seems to be expensive and very few deals are about (I thought that's what ebay was for, picking up bargains, but not that often now. Everyone wants to make a lot of money) I'm a great fan of Nascar/Touring Cars but none of the manufacturers keep up to date.

I've not bought a Tamiya kit now from a shop or online for possibly 5 years as their range seem to be a bit staid, with new kits few and far between.