I keep seeing these old school 1/72 Matchbox models on E-bay selling for cheap. I assume they’re selling for cheap b/c they’re not good quality? Do they have raised or engraved panel lines? Are they worth their cheap investment, or should I stick with Academy/Hasegawa/Revell/Tamiya?
Joshua
With M’box kits you take the good with the bad.Heavy detail,thick castings,etc can be an issue but on the other hand some of the aircraft they do are the only available kits.Some are quite nice.I’m currently working on their 1/72 Hawker Fury 1 biplane.The only kit of this aircraft I can find in that scale,but luckily it’s one of their very nice kits.
Pot luck I’m afraid,but if their cheap,what have you got to lose!!
if you like original mouldings, they are raised panel lines, the clear parts are very thick, but i enjoy doing them, i go over them and re- engrave the lines, and then get an after market canopy for them, they turn out fine. One thing to just bear in mind with them is they are usually at least 20 years old…
take what you like from this, but it all comes down to personal choice.
best of luck.
Cheers, Alan
Sometimes its relaxing to build an older kit and just do a good simple build , kind of a back to basics .
CFR
I (like many others) grew up with these kits. I think I must have built about half of the cheap line kits they had in the catalogue back then. Like Death [chuckle] said, they offer some aircraft that no other mainstream manufacturer has, like the 1/72 Privateer or Wellesley. There’s many other examples too. Look at Swanny’s build of the Matchbox Do-18 flying boat to see what you can expect in a best-case scenario.
http://www.swannysmodels.com/Do18.html
Usually the thick cockpits are so horrible they can’t be used (fishbowl effect distortion [xx(]). If the general shapes are there (not always…), the detail will need filling/sanding and rescribing. Overall fit isn’t always that bad. The 1/72 Victor can be made into a fine model and has been reboxed by Revell, while the 1/48 F1-J (or thereabouts) Fury is a beast and the molds should be exorcised [V]. Bit of a tombola this way.
Hmm, back in the day when Airfix and Matchbox were “big” (mid-late 70’s), Airfix was known as “The Rivet King” and Matchbox was “The Trench Digger” in reference to the qualities of their respective surface detailing.
Early Matchbox kits had an odd mixture of huge, (deep and wide) “trenches” and restrained raised panel lines. Often times, large areas (such as wings) were totally devoid of any panel line detail, except for control surfaces.
As others have already said, some subjects are simply not available from any other manufacturer.
If you are curious, by all means, check them out. However, if you are looking for “quality” and the subject has been covered by another company, I’d go with “other”.
Aah, memories… in the late 70’s when I was about 10 or 11, those were my favourite models (actually pretty much the only models I could afford with my weekly allowance).
The question wether to choose between Matchbox and Tamigawa is like asking to choose between apples and pears. You really shouldn’t compare them.
If you want to built a model as accurate as possible, go for Tamigawa, if you want to take a walk down on memory lane and discover what we, veterans did, go ahead and try one of those matchbox models.
Ah Matchbox. If you didn’t build them as a kid, you really might not see their charm as an adult. The fit is generally very good for the era they were produced. But there are plenty of flaws. The recessed lines are canyon-like. There is usually no cockpit detail. The clear parts tend to be very thick. Still, so help me, I like them. And, as has been said, for some subjects there are very few altenatives, espcially the inter-war period stuff (especially the flying boats). And where else are you going to get an injection molded 1/32 Sea Venom?
Al
Heehee Revell.
Guess who has many of the “old” Matchbox molds?
I agree, the general shape of the Matchbox kits are correct but the detail just isn’t there.
Don
I’ve got their Victor on my to do list at the moment, and have to admit to being shocked at the quality of the kit when I opened the yellowing midewed box. Yes, as the rest of the posts have suggested, the general shape of the kit is most definitely there. I lashed the major parts together as a test fit, and it look like a victor.
The detail is a write off though - the complex jet intakes are laughably simplistic, consisting of a few vanes cast within the wing halves, and if I’m honest, could NEVER be made into an accurate representation of the originals. Never fear - Flightpath to the rescue with a set of resin replacements that will take your breath away (see my Victor GB thread for details).
The parts are covered in deep sink marks, the wings seem to have tram-lines instead of single or recessed panel-lines, and the transparencies are very thick & resemble the bottom of a beer glass for optical quality. Mercifully on this kit there’s precious few transparent parts!
If this is representative of a Matchbox kit, then approach it with your eyes open, surf the net for updates, review, hints & tips, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, put the hours in necessary to bring it up to standard, and you’ll be rewarded with a satisfying result. Shale & bake these kits are most definitely NOT!
Me? I’m looking forward to the challenge. [:D]
I didn’t mean to take all you guys through memory lane. But I appreciate the responses. I’ll try a Matchbox bird when I find something out of the ordinary I want to build, but for now I think I’ll stick with some of the more “hi tech” models. Thanks again though.
Joshua
Hehehe…
Ok, so we diverged a little, but t’s hard not to reminisce about something that got so many of us on the road to where we are today.
Sure, they were moulded in ghastly colours and offered little in the way of details, but for many of us, they were cheap and cheerful, and a little work with a tube of glue and a paintbrush gave us reasonable miniature replicas of our favourite aircraft.