What Happened to The I-53 Thread?

stikpusher wrote:

...after seeing it with my own eyes and approaching it with an open mind, in spite of all I had already read online, I would not be willing to pay MSRP, or anywhere near that, for this kit.

Manstein Revenge,

The small kaitens are not perfect in detail BUT MUCH more better in my opinion to work with and make a good scale representation of the real thing with some scrachtbuilding and detailing, some modelers think that the size could be off in this scale but not by much, others thinks they are OK..BUT again with extra work..WOW, this kit DO have problems!! Also the way they are mounted on the deck in the kit is debatable and can be much more improved.

I have found my GAKKEN japanese submarine publication and the only submarines with the "slope bow" profile don't even come close to the shape of the I-53 kit.

I remember there was a Japanese resin kit (very limited edition) of these Kaitens in resin with photoecht detail also a SUPERB 1/150 (if I remember right) scale I-400 submarine, I saw the photos in a Hobby Japan magazine about 6 or 7 years ago....the sub went for $1,250 USD!!!!! the kaitens for $90.

Manny, the Kaitens from the kit are a whole seperate issue. I am not in my area and am only passing on what I was told by more knowledgeable folks on this subject than myself and comparing to reference stuff I saw.  Their outline matches a 2nd generation Kaiten dimensionally and shapewise. But It does not match an first model/generation Kaiten. The moldings are VERY thick for the scale. A properly scaled early Kaiten was brought for comparison- there was none. The kit comes with five later model, but I was told, I-53 was supposed to carry six of the early model variant. The dimensional differences (1.8m later model vs 1m early model) in the diameter.

Here is my personal feeling on the kit- When first announce, I had very high hopes because 1) It was from Lindberg (I realy do want another US based model company to succeed and show it can be done right for less stateside) and I thought it would not be too pricey (more in line with Revell USA's Gato rather than Revell Germany's U-Boat); 2) their marketing had given the impression this was to be a state of the art kit; 3) I really like Japanese warships, and the announcement of a Pearl Harbor type really got me interested-I figured if I could get just one 1/72 sub, THAT would be the one.

But again, after seeing it with my own eyes and approaching it with an open mind, in spite of all I had already read online, I would not be willing to pay MSRP, or anywhere near that, for this kit.

Well this thread went into the toilet fairly quick. If it gets deleted do I lose my post count?

I guess the I-53 is ok for RC folk and perhaps that was the main focus as was mentioned in an earlier post. In that case, no complaint really. Some models make the cross-over from static to RC and the reverse as the 1/72 Revell Corvette and some do not as the 1/125 Blue Devil- or they do but with a great deal of work. I am cheap and do not spend more than $50 for a kit but do see a $100 kit eventually being Ebayed at $50 in a few years if is declared less than acceptable.

Anyway, have test shots of the I-20 been posted? Does it look ok?  

Randy, please cool it. Even if/when one is right, they can be wrong if negative emotions interfere. I am not saying M-R was incorrect either. I do not see why differences of opinion and expression have to degenerate to personal attacks.

 

Randy Stone wrote:

I'd denounce you as a worthless troll but even trolls exhibit something like a decent argument.  Unfortunately, you haven't even managed that; please stop wasting my time.  Move on, admit you ain't gonna change my opinion of your non-abilities and just let it go; you're history fellow.  You haven't anything to commend your bile and we both know it.  So just let it go.  Contact me PM or here: r.stone.eal@juno.com and perhaps I'll grant you some time.  You may wish to melt down the thread to protect your ego but it doesn't change the essential facts: you haven't a clue as to what you're talking about. See ya bub, Randy Stone

Searat12?  Searat??!!  Is that you...?    (I know, I know, this is wrong on so many levels.... but sometimes I can't help myself.... the voices in my head make me do it....)

Plasticbender wrote:

The facts are VERY,VERY,VERY SIMPLE.....the kit is wrong in profile and details, is an expensive kit...and PLEASE don't give me the line "is targeted to the saving pennys kid to buy a kit"..$150 is A LOT of pennys and is VERY probable the "kid" will gladly spend the money in the newest video game in the market than a model kit, I know since none of the kids in my family  are interested in modeling, they look at my work and say "that's cool" and that's it!! I ask them if they want to learn how to build,make,create scale models and their replay is "no thanks, is to dificult and boring"....and I must confess that after seeing several of their video games and the "action/reaction" needed to "survive" one of this things is very dificult to convince them to sit down at a table a cut,clean,glue,prime,paint and enjoy a static model kit.....competition of video games/computers is very high. This kit is, no matter what other people say now, targeted to the adult modeler in a VERY particular field of naval modeling with the added expectation to atract others to this offering, if the kit was at least accurate in profile would have been an a smash hit, secondary things like deck details and other things could have been reworked by the buyer...hey no kit is perfect, but this kit really "broke the mold" in terms of what the modeler got after waiting with a LOT of expectation for this sub kit and then the replays of "the submarine model is accurate, we used the navy data for it" "it's a late war variation" etc,etc made the problem even more bizarre. I know making a model in this scale is not cheap or easy and it takes guts to undertake something like this in the times we live  when as stated above the new generation of kids are more interested in "virtual reality" than a 3 dimensional fisical object they build with their hands, and this is why I don't understand why this kit was left to become such a bad representation of the real thing since the principal buyer of this model will be enthusiast scale modelers with the aim of having an accurate representation of a VERY rare WW2 naval subject in a very nice scale. The company who made the model have the "turn at bat" right now, I think they should concentrate their efforts in making a good model of the I-20, and make sure to get things right on this one, the catch is..do it right and fast, if they do, the path to better reviews and future considerations to their offerings will be meet again with the high expectations/exitement as this kits received when they where first published to the scale modelling world. PS/excuse my grammar, but english is not my main language.

...btw, what's the skinny on the kaitens---are they accurate?

Oo... a might touchy, ye be, OK, ye can have yer rum, but ye ain't gittin' no weevils in yer biskits.

Hangin' from the yard!

The rations I be referrin' to are ye rum rations, ya scurvy galley rat! Now, how do ye like me?

subfixer wrote:

bondoman wrote:  subfixer wrote: Stand by for heavy weather!  All hands, take a brace! Well some idiot never mentioned that September 19 was national "Talk like a pirate day", which riddles me bildges, chaps me apron, swells me rum and genneraalyy lays aver ta' if'nthere be a Turk brig onnna 4ter tha ne's a cannun ba' then it be dun! Making sense finally of this mess.  Look folks, Captain Bondo (and yes thats what I go by, boy), will host a keg of rum on Friday at the secind dog watch, if'n ye'll all just SHUT UP! Otherwise it's off to the gratings, in pairs, cuz I know that's how you all like it.   No schoonerbum, I never pretend to be a sailor, just a rational person.   Rational? We're cutting yer rations right now, ya sot!

Now we're makin' headway!

bondoman wrote:

subfixer wrote: Stand by for heavy weather!  All hands, take a brace! Well some idiot never mentioned that September 19 was national "Talk like a pirate day", which riddles me bildges, chaps me apron, swells me rum and genneraalyy lays aver ta' if'nthere be a Turk brig onnna 4ter tha ne's a cannun ba' then it be dun! Making sense finally of this mess.  Look folks, Captain Bondo (and yes thats what I go by, boy), will host a keg of rum on Friday at the secind dog watch, if'n ye'll all just SHUT UP! Otherwise it's off to the gratings, in pairs, cuz I know that's how you all like it.   No schoonerbum, I never pretend to be a sailor, just a rational person.

Rational? We're cutting yer rations right now, ya sot!

Randy Stone wrote:

The link should be easy to find by using a few choice search terms: I used, 'Merriman' 'Lindberg' and 'I-53.'  Here is the link:  http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1109801

 

Thank you Randy! I didn´t remember the nick of the builder or even in what forum that thread is. I build only static models so rc forums are like Area 51 to me...

subfixer wrote:

Stand by for heavy weather!  All hands, take a brace!

Well some idiot never mentioned that September 19 was national "Talk like a pirate day", which riddles me bildges, chaps me apron, swells me rum and genneraalyy lays aver ta' if'nthere be a Turk brig onnna 4ter tha ne's a cannun ba' then it be dun!

Making sense finally of this mess. 

Look folks, Captain Bondo (and yes thats what I go by, boy), will host a keg of rum on Friday at the secind dog watch, if'n ye'll all just SHUT UP! Otherwise it's off to the gratings, in pairs, cuz I know that's how you all like it.

No schoonerbum, I never pretend to be a sailor, just a rational person.

 

...Halsey's typhoons, there is no reason for the heavy weather.  Some folks need to just take a deep breath and consider the issue maturely.

Randy Stone

Stand by for heavy weather!  All hands, take a brace!

...bondoman (I never liked bondo, anyway) I just can't oblige you.  The facts dictate otherwise. 

I do agree with you that someone or something shouldn't be flamed until there are there are three (very good and sound) reasons why.  That hasn't happened here.

Randy Stone

...and I have a bit more than Polmar and Carpenter to draw on. 

Lindberg blew it here and there's no denying that fact.  But we have to help them see the light and move beyond that essential issue.  Every time I look at advertisements (from Squadron or others) I just cringe but I ain't willing to let these guys just die on the vine.

Randy Stone

Randy, go away for a while, or forever.

Monday morning is a new day.

...cowboy, and white is black, up is down.  You're so tied up with your ego you don't know which way is up now.

You have yet to establish a single one of your assertions; sustained a single one of your claims--I'm in the employ of Lindberg, for instance.  And now you're reduced to making accusations that I'm a troll. Wow, I guess that boob of an argument proves everything; frankly, I didn't expect that baloney.  But what other card can you play ?  I guess the next thing you'll spew is that I am a communist, too.  Gee, I'm offended.  One would think someone--anyone--could manage something like a reasonable discussion, but not you.  Your ego is too deeply involved in the issue.

Now back to the issue: what positive contributions have you made wrt the I-53 ?  You've had a week or two now; surely you can manage something.  Just what have you contributed ?  Come on now, you can manage something intelligible, can't you ?

I'd denounce you as a worthless troll but even trolls exhibit something like a decent argument.  Unfortunately, you haven't even managed that; please stop wasting my time.  Move on, admit you ain't gonna change my opinion of your non-abilities and just let it go; you're history fellow.  You haven't anything to commend your bile and we both know it.  So just let it go.  Contact me PM or here: r.stone.eal@juno.com and perhaps I'll grant you some time. 

You may wish to melt down the thread to protect your ego but it doesn't change the essential facts: you haven't a clue as to what you're talking about.

See ya bub,

Randy Stone

You are all out of control (not you Stik-we parallel posted); Manny first of all because you are a pillar of the community here and have got to suck it up, man. As fast as you get baited you fire back. It looks stupid.

A thread gets poofed out to the ether by the mods, and it gets reinvented. 

I like Ships because it's a haven for sanity, in what is otherwise a very sane website. But to get all this crap flying around is not right. Even a while back JTilley weighed in with a totally uncharacteristic display of emotion.

I really think FSM ought to set up a rule where no vendor or store can be flamed until the poster has three good reasons why. 

 

If I may add to the discussion here. At this month's IPMS chapter meeting this past Friday night this kit made an appearance. One of the members was doing a review for IPMS USA and brought it in, along with a reference book  (I cant recall the title, but it was about Japanese submarines and co authored by Naval expert Norman Polmar). It was left out for the duration of the meeting for all to examine, with said reference book. Compared to the reference material, it had all the gigs that have been listed in the previous thread. The Kaitens were a whole seperate ball of wax that he tackeled (dimensions, number carried, etc.) And then there was the fit of the kit. Less than impressive, to put it nicely. At the price of the kit, after seeing it in person, I cant see anyone who was there who laid eyes upon this kit who will pay money to buy it. I know there are folks out there who will buy it because a)it is the only kit of that that sub in this scale, and b) they may be willing to invest the time and effort to accurize the kit to make it look like the vessel it is supposed to depict.

The facts are VERY,VERY,VERY SIMPLE.....the kit is wrong in profile and details, is an expensive kit...and PLEASE don't give me the line "is targeted to the saving pennys kid to buy a kit"..$150 is A LOT of pennys and is VERY probable the "kid" will gladly spend the money in the newest video game in the market than a model kit, I know since none of the kids in my family  are interested in modeling, they look at my work and say "that's cool" and that's it!! I ask them if they want to learn how to build,make,create scale models and their replay is "no thanks, is to dificult and boring"....and I must confess that after seeing several of their video games and the "action/reaction" needed to "survive" one of this things is very dificult to convince them to sit down at a table a cut,clean,glue,prime,paint and enjoy a static model kit.....competition of video games/computers is very high.

This kit is, no matter what other people say now, targeted to the adult modeler in a VERY particular field of naval modeling with the added expectation to atract others to this offering, if the kit was at least accurate in profile would have been an a smash hit, secondary things like deck details and other things could have been reworked by the buyer...hey no kit is perfect, but this kit really "broke the mold" in terms of what the modeler got after waiting with a LOT of expectation for this sub kit and then the replays of "the submarine model is accurate, we used the navy data for it" "it's a late war variation" etc,etc made the problem even more bizarre.

I know making a model in this scale is not cheap or easy and it takes guts to undertake something like this in the times we live  when as stated above the new generation of kids are more interested in "virtual reality" than a 3 dimensional fisical object they build with their hands, and this is why I don't understand why this kit was left to become such a bad representation of the real thing since the principal buyer of this model will be enthusiast scale modelers with the aim of having an accurate representation of a VERY rare WW2 naval subject in a very nice scale.

The company who made the model have the "turn at bat" right now, I think they should concentrate their efforts in making a good model of the I-20, and make sure to get things right on this one, the catch is..do it right and fast, if they do, the path to better reviews and future considerations to their offerings will be meet again with the high expectations/exitement as this kits received when they where first published to the scale modelling world.

PS/excuse my grammar, but english is not my main language.

Now where did I put that link to the popcorn lady...

Considering Mr. Petit appears to be circling the wagons from what I've seen on the Steel Navy forum, I'd say this pig is done. Time to stick a fork in it & move on to something better to spend my time on.

The latest post over there says it all:

"Mr Petit-Please stop the madness-show us why your kit is correct! Sorry but all the talk in the world now will not stop the postings that are negative abou your released I-53 kit and your other upcomming kits.

Only the facts -as Joe Friday would say.Just because you have spent all that money,doesn't mean that the kit is a fair representaion of the I-53.

You say that you have the proof-lets see it with no delay.I spent my $130.00 for my I-53 kit of yours(now its mine).I want to know if my money has been well spent-or just down a rat hole.

Still waiting to see if you are right.I hope you have the photo's and drawings."

Randy Stone wrote:

Oh, and I don't like beer, either.

Yikes!

Fairseas wrote:

I'm sure it was something I said in my post yesterday where I laid out my reference info that I've been collecting since questioning this behemoth earlier in the year. That, and referring to a new "Ijn I53' thread that appeared on RCG as being typical of Lindberg's "targeted customer".

Yes, I see what you mean, I think, these guys don't seem to be "fine scale modelers" but the model does seem to suit their purposes. They want to play with it in a pond it would seem. I can accept that. But when they are done with it at the end of the day, I wouldn't expect them to display it on the mantle either.

Randy Stone wrote:

...the reason I chose to look into matters was that you were making all kinds of poisonous remarks about the kit without the least bit of reason or rationale.  Up to that point I hadn't even looked at it. Now you can deny your lousy attitude all you want, I don't care.  Just don't think you're buffaloing me any.  And you can attempt to shift the argument away by claiming all sorts of things we already know--for instance, that a kit should be up to snuff from the git-go.  But that didn't happen here and I am forced to ask myself why...and if there is something I can do about it.  Your repeated poor reasoning is demonstrated by this comment, "...I know you get satisfaction from "coming to Lindberg's rescue" by contacting their top management and having a "beer summit"..." wherein you prove that, in fact, you don't know squat.  In no way am I coming to Lindberg's rescue, I am offering them help; any reasonable person would do the same were they so inclined and in the position.  I saved a man's life some years ago; I was reasonble, inclined and in a position to do so.  It's a fact of which I am proud and I didn't do it for headlines--there weren't any--or money--I was paid meager witness fees.  I didn't look for credit though I am 'hurt' by the fact that the poor guy is a quadriplegic; but he thanks me once a year for saving his life all the same.  That's credit enough for a lifetime and it ain't the kind found on the side of a box; I hope I never see such a thing again.  Oh, and I don't like beer, either.  You seem to be so caught up in 'what's in it for me,' it never occurs to you to help someone else.  That's a sad commentary on you, not us. You've offered nothing constructive; sorry, denying that fact won't change it any.

Wow, you've got such a venomous attitude about things now that you have simply lost all control of your reason and emotions...Now the thread is about personal lifesaving experiences...should I "top" your story with my own now?

Although, you claim you "don't want anything" for your altrustic and selfless lifestyle, you seem to get a kick out of broadcasting these acts/things in the Forum w/o any pretense of modesty...If you are so concerned about helping Lindberg get it right, put your money with your mouth is and get to it...we are all waiting...

You are a classic attention seeker, the kind who denies he wants it, but carries on relentlessly about it....you are a troll...you should take credit for that.

Lindberg not only did a disservice to those who invested money in their "model" but also did real damage to the chances of a credible model company in approaching the subject matter in a serious way for years...They even did damage to the historical record by projecting their model as a historical fact when everyone agrees that it is fiction...

...the reason I chose to look into matters was that you were making all kinds of poisonous remarks about the kit without the least bit of reason or rationale.  Up to that point I hadn't even looked at it.

Now you can deny your lousy attitude all you want, I don't care.  Just don't think you're buffaloing me any.  And you can attempt to shift the argument away by claiming all sorts of things we already know--for instance, that a kit should be up to snuff from the git-go.  But that didn't happen here and I am forced to ask myself why...and if there is something I can do about it. 

Your repeated poor reasoning is demonstrated by this comment, "...I know you get satisfaction from "coming to Lindberg's rescue" by contacting their top management and having a "beer summit"..." wherein you prove that, in fact, you don't know squat.  In no way am I coming to Lindberg's rescue, I am offering them help; any reasonable person would do the same were they so inclined and in the position.  I saved a man's life some years ago; I was reasonble, inclined and in a position to do so.  It's a fact of which I am proud and I didn't do it for headlines--there weren't any--or money--I was paid meager witness fees.  I didn't look for credit though I am 'hurt' by the fact that the poor guy is a quadriplegic; but he thanks me once a year for saving his life all the same.  That's credit enough for a lifetime and it ain't the kind found on the side of a box; I hope I never see such a thing again.  Oh, and I don't like beer, either.  You seem to be so caught up in 'what's in it for me,' it never occurs to you to help someone else.  That's a sad commentary on you, not us.

You've offered nothing constructive; sorry, denying that fact won't change it any.

 

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1113954

Fairseas wrote:

I'm sure it was something I said in my post yesterday where I laid out my reference info that I've been collecting since questioning this behemoth earlier in the year. That, and referring to a new "Ijn I53' thread that appeared on RCG as being typical of Lindberg's "targeted customer".

Can you give us a link to the thread, Fairseas? I don't know if I like being a "target".

I'm sure it was something I said in my post yesterday where I laid out my reference info that I've been collecting since questioning this behemoth earlier in the year. That, and referring to a new "Ijn I53' thread that appeared on RCG as being typical of Lindberg's "targeted customer".