I’ve built any number of Revell(Monogram) kits over the years. One thing that seems to be missing fromthis thread is that the kits being noted are from molds over 25 years old. The detail won’t be nearly as good as today’s designs,but they were state of the art when they were released. For the most part, they build up reasonably well, are definitely affordable, and with some basic modelling skills, turn into pretty good representations of classic aircraft.
I agree that a bad kit can be satisfying. I just built the AMT Bandit Trans Am and it was the worst thing I have ever glued together, bu the feeling that I had when Iwas done and saw that I turned it into something nice was better than with a perfect kit for sure. Challenges is what this hobby is all about right?
Keyworth said it all, I think. I’ve had my share of bad and poor kits from Revell and for a long while I just did not buy their stuff at all… I think I had to get a Revell kit to re-use some wheels and I was amazed at the quality I found in the box. Clearly, I made a big mistake in ‘boycotting’ Revell for so many years. Nowadays, they rate amongst my favourite manufacturers, because of their quality and their originality too. And their decent prices. However, I’m more careful than I was as a kid and I know that Revell re-boxes and re-releases kits from the stone-age of modeling as well as kits from many other manufacturers, so that I make very few mistakes… So, as far as I’m concerned, it’s ‘GO, go Revell…!’
Revell-Germany is the only way to go-they’re simple with good fit-remind me of the great Revell kits of my youth (before electricity).
I personally love both R-M and R-G, actually!
Yes, the R-M kits have LOTS of pitfalls(no specific paintng instruction, for example), but, I think it is the triumph over adversity that makes the model worthwile.
Anyone can build a Tamiya, and it’ll look good. Only a truly skilled modeler can do that with an R-M kit!
Am I the only one here who’s never thrown a model in frsutration? I don’t know, but, whenever I get mad at it, I just set it down and move on to another model for awhile. Let’s me rethink my attack plan, y’know?
Well ranted, Tench!
Glad to hear you feel better. [:D]
Here’s my take on “difficult” kits: No matter what our skill level or temperament, we’re all going to run into something that will invariably give us some degree of trouble with every kit we build. Although some kits are very close, no kit is perfect in accuracy, fit, ease of build, or comprehensiveness of the instructions. As was mentioned earlier, how we deal with these challenges defines what kind of modelers we are.
Unlike other products we buy, model kits are hard to “regulate,” for lack of a better word. They are "hobby kits, " intended to be assembled by the “hobbyist.” Can we make a complaint to the Better Business Bureau if our P-61’s fuel tank halves are mismatched? What if, out of the box, our P-61 is not entirely accurate? Legally, from a consumer protection standpoint, what responsibilities do kit manufacturers have as far as fit, accuracy, and ease of build go? Can we take a kit manufacturer to court over the words “easy to assemble” if we think it’s a very difficult to assemble kit? A problem with truth in advertising, perhaps? It’s all subjective, so I’d guess not.
The bottom line is that I believe we, as modelers, should accept the challenges presented to us by less-than-perfect kits, and do our best to build them to our own level of individual satisfaction. What more can you ask from a hobby? It’s supposed to incorporate a certain degree of “creativity,” no?
If you’re the type of modeler that absolutely cannot tolerate fit problems, ambiguous instruction sheets, and the need of some kits to be researched independantly a bit, then I suggest you at least do a bit of research before you buy a kit to make sure a kit is suited to your personal “tolerance level.” Do not buy those that are not. However, I cannot agree with denouncing an entire company based on a bad kit or two or three. Heck, even Lindberg has a few good kits. None of which are coming to mind right now…[;)]
To conclude today’s dissertation, it’s interesting to note there are usually two camps in the “good kit/bad kit” debate: modelers who demand a perfect-fitting, OOB masterpiece that requires no fiddling or research whatsover, and those that don’t want a model to “build itself.” That is, they feel they have accomplished much more when they have taken a horribly detailed, horribly fitting and horribly inaccurate kit and turned it into a work of art.
Personally, I choose a subject I want to build, look for the “best” kit available of the version of the subject that I want to build, and then I just deal as best I can with the inevitable problems that are bound to crop up on the journey from vision to realization. If it’s a subject I am passionate about building, then I won’t let any technical problems stop me. I build to the best of my skill level, not the level of the kit.
Although I suspect you say this tongue-in-cheek, J-Hulk, I still would like to remark that I don’t think that is quite the issue.
Before this topic started, I would have thought that once deciding on a subject, most modelers would go out and buy the best kit available (or at least affordable). I guess I am pragmatic rather than artistic, but I personally wouldn’t start with a Monogram P-51 if a Tamiya was available just to show that I could make the Monogram look like the Tamiya when it was done. (I might choose the Monogram for other reasons, though.) If I am going to fiddle with kits, I would rather spend expend my “fiddle factor” by adding more detail into a good kit rather than correcting the errors in a poor kit.
Evidently some people like this sort of struggle. I guess Michelangelo could have started on the Sistine Chapel with dry paint and dirty brushes just to make it more of a challenge… To me it’s not about having a kit that “builds itself”, its about starting with the best raw materials. Carried to the logical conclusion, we would have to conclude that “real” artists don’t start with kits at all - they are scratchbuilders.
In fairness, there are some good R-M, R-G kits out there. I have always liked their 767 kit, for instance. The knock I have for Revell and other manufacturers, is that their instruction sheets, part locations, painting instructions, etc, could be greatly improved with only very modest effort and expense on their part. I mean, if they are going to do the research to engineer a more-or-less accurate model of the 1:1 article, tool the molds, and print an instruction sheet, it can’t be much more expensive to print a good instruction sheet than it is to print a bad one.
Finally, I do sometimes wonder why we do feel such a sense of accomplishment in our hobby. If we all announced that we would never build another model, the world would answer with a thundering yawn. I guess the real accomplishment is gaining our own peace of mind and scratching our artistic itches. Both the “perfect kit” and “artistic challenge” camps accomplish that.
Some of us enjoy the process more than the finished product.
Does anyone like the finished product more than the process? It’s all about doing. I have only a passing intererest in my finished work. (Maybe that says something about the quality of my work…)
I just bought a Revell Zero that fits like a dream the panels lineup on the wing pieces and the fuselage halves. It even stays without glue. When I build it I think it’ll be a favorite.
ChemMan, I see your point, but not everyone can afford to buy that Tamiya or Academy or Accurate Miniatures kit. The R-M and R-G kits fill the niche for those that want to enjoy the hobby without feeling that they have to spend a small fortune to enjoy a build. I have kits from all the major manufacturers in my collection, but I started out with the basic Revell, Monogram, Hawk and Airfix kits. I bought more sophisticated models as my skills improved and budget allowed. As far as being a struggle, some are content to simply build a kit with parts and decals as supplied and give the build their best effort. Each modeller has his/her personal standards and levels of contentment and happiness. And I can’t improve on what the previous poster has stated.
“Even Lindberg has a few good models”-no more glue for you J-Hulk.
[#ditto]What Ed said
Excellent points presented by all.
I suppose what it all boils down to, in any hobby, is whether you’re having fun or not, and that’s entirely up to the individual.
As mentioned before, and as with any product you plan to purchase, it would be wise to do a bit of research beforehand to avoid any post-purchase heartache. Which, of course, can be hard to do sometimes, like when you see that brand-new, beautifully packaged kit of your favorite subject at an outrageously low price at the LHS, and you just have to have it right then and there! Later, you discover it’s a clunker…
As for my “two camps” comment earlier (those who demand perfect kits OOB vs those who prefer a “challenge” from their kits), if you look back at previous “kit maker bashing” threads (there have been anti-Monogram, anti-Airfix, and anti-Lindberg threads), I think you’ll notice that trend in the opinions presented.
I agree with ChemMan: I can’t imagine too many of us would actively seek out a clunker kit just for the challenge! Aside from the cost factor, I’m sure we’d all like to start with the best kit available, and then take it as far as our interests go.
As far as the “good” Lindberg kits, I’m still thinking…hmmm…
Maybe I’m too nice!
I have been building models for some time now, and love a challenge as much as the next guy or gal when it comes to building a kit to perfection, even if it didn’t start that way. I have like others on here, started with Frog, Airfix, and Matchbox, as well as MPC models that left alot to be desired for accuracy and detail. I started building 1/72 scale aircraft and armor, because the larger kits couldn’t stand up to the tons of glue I used to “melt” pieces together. Monogram airplanes were great for me because they were simple to build and looked pretty good when completed ( except for the smudge marks on the canopy ). But as I matured , my modelling skills did too. I believe that was a partially due to much higher quality kits coming from Hasegawa and ESCI. And than I moved on to 1/35 scale armor. I couldnt couldn’t get enough of Tamiya and Italeri kits! But now there is Dragon and Trumpeteer and they are very detailed compared to the Tamiya kits I built years ago.
As I line up my finished kits on the shelf, I notice that it really doesn’t matter how much better the kits have become, or how much I have improved over the years. Because each kit was the best one while I was building it, and I enjoyed the moment of assembling and painting and detailing it during that time. That is why I love this hobby; it is a never ending journey into the next build, and all the fun that goes with it…and I am grateful for all the model kit companies along the way…
Regards, Dan
Don’t knock off all Revell kits. Sure alot are flat out horrible but there are some good ones. I really liked the Shelby Series 1 and the 98 Saleen Mustang. The new Tuner Series are pretty good. They have white, black and silver part trees. Now I try to totally stay way from AMT/ERTL cars. I’ve only found one of theirs that was good, the Plymouth Prowler. I have only recently started building Tamiya kits. Now I’m in love. Extreme detail and fit quality. I’m currently trying to find the Enzo Ferrari that has just been released by Revell. Its said to be a good one.
If you haven’t already try one of the 2 Tamiya Versions of the Enzo Ferrari, a beautiful kit indeed.
[:D]
All makers have their pony,s
Revells 1/72 Fw 190 A8 is on of the finest kits I ever made.
Don,t let one bad kit put u off.
All the best Gotter
I think there is a very big difference between R-M & R-G product.
I haven’t built anything from the former recently, and the that last Monogram kit I built was the 1/48 Hind D, warped fusalage etc.
I have however built 3 R-G kits in the last 6 months, and despite my ham fisted efforts they have all gone together very well. Like Gotterdamerung I built thier 1/72 FW190, it was my first kit in 18 years! Very easy to build, good detail, and half the price of a Tamiya 190 in the same scale.
Encouraged by that I moved onto the He177, a far more complex proposition, but one which I have enjoyed thoroughly, as the level of detail is excellent, especially in 1/72.
In short, don’t discredit Revell’s efforts, they are relatively cheap kits, and the R-G are easy to build and often come with a truly daunting decal sheet, with every single possible stencil.
I’m a satisfied customer!
Karl
Good points all around.
Part of my decision regarding kit selection is subject availability. An example being the panzer 38t. Italeri and Maquette are the only manufacturers of this kit that i know of. (SOL makes a 1/16 version but for the sake of generality…) The Italeri kit is less than optimum and Maquette…well… regardless of the problems associated with these kits and the obvious misuse of industrial manufacturing processes, they are the only game in town so to speak. Unless I want to scratchbuild then it is all a moot point. But if I want to build this vehicle, then I am limited to what is available for a platform. Given this, I now have to draw upon my skills as a modeler to complete an acceptable (my version of acceptable) result of my efforts. From this basic unit, I can create any variant of this vehicle. And am limited only by my capabilities.
We all know that the processes involved pretty much do not allow for mfr’s. to really get into doing minute variant differences. The market just won’t bear it. (Think of how many variants of the B17 there are. The mfg. process to market this many will tie up an inordinate amount of capital as well as the associated costs of marketing kits. The market just doesn’t warrant it) So we are relegated to accepting what is available to us and making duw with what we have. This is the part that really appeals to me. It allows personal freedom to expand on something that I didn’t have to scratchbuild as well as challenge and develop my skills to overcome those challenges presented. It’s what makes us better modelers. And when we see what others, guys like Steve Zaloga, Mig Jimenez, our own Shermanfreak, Dwight and others do with those same kits, we can see there is no reason to be frustrated or that the challenge is within our means to meet. Sure it may not be immediate, but isn’t it our collective goal to get better? To improve our skill level and to give ourselves something to do during our evenings?
Look at the profiles of some of those model builders. Sure some are engineers, but they aren’t using highly technical pieces of equipment, they did not attend industrial fabrication school, they are not injection molding their conversions and in alot of cases they are using the tools they have on hand. X-acto knives, the occasional roto tool, maybe some resin they have cast on their own, files putty some sheet styrene and those most important facet of their endeavors, that far exceed any technical expertise they may have, the willingness and drive to “try” and “do”. (Geez, now I sound like my dad…)[:)]
If you look at some of the models built by prisoners in the 18thc. & early 19thc. on prison ships, you will see some highly sophisticated models even by todays standards, built with a knife, soup bones and scraps of wood. I shutter to think that we who are the children of the industrial age and the progenitors of the technological age reach a stumbling block and shut down because the two halves of 3/4 of an inch of styrene do not line up perfectly.[;)] Don’t get me wrong. I will whine like a bad puppy if I run into some problems and gnash my teeth with the best, but I’ll also set it aside and rethink what I need to do to fix it and look for solutions. Once done, then it becomes less of a hassle the next time I come across similar problems. The other beauty of it is, with more confidence and experience, I can now build what ever I like, so long as I have at least a basic platform to start with. Less than that, and we are talking scratchbuilding which is a different subject.
If all else fails, write the mfr. a letter and don’t purchase their product. Though I imagine with the quality of kits going up companies like Revell will have to keep up to stay competative. The benefit here is to us the consumer.
Mike