Most everyone agrees tamiya and hasegawa are the overall premier model makers
my question is this
do these companies have any Real dogs for kits and if so what are they
Tamiya’s 1/48 A-10
Haven’t built any hasegawas yet, but the early Tamiya kits had the motorization holes and the large gaps for the idler and drive sprockets. I wouldn’t classify them as dogs per say. Recently my son and I finished an M-60 and I did have to use a bit of putty. Other than that, no real lemons that I can remember.
I haven’t come across any so far.
Andy
I have yet to come across a bad Hasegawa or Tamiya kit, (although like someone already said I’m not a big fan of the older kits with the motorization holes in the hull).
What’s your definition of “dog,” DURR? To me, a “dog” of a kit is one that fails to satisfy on all levels, such as accuracy, detail, fit, and final overall impression.
Ancient Tamiya stuff is often inaccurate, but it’s still easy to build, and always has a charm of its own that satisfies me.
The same goes for Hasegawa (but it’s not always quite as easy to build as Tamiya).
I wouldn’t classify any of Tamiya’s or Hasegawa’s kits as “dogs,” even the ancient ones. I view them as interesting looks back at what was considered the state of the art for their times.
As for both companies’ current (say from the late 80’s on up) you’d be hard pressed to find a “dog” by anyone’s definition.
Just my opinion, of course!
I agree with J-Hulk. Even the worst of these two makers is still pretty good. If I had to “vote one off the island,” though, it would definately be the Hasegawa Dauntless family simply for the accuracy issues and lack of hollowed-out dive flaps.
No real dogs, even their 20 year old kits are pretty good. Most of their newer releases rank with the best. Tamiya kits are generally a little easier to build than Hasegawa, but Hasegawa generally has a little better detail. Really can’t go too far wrong with either Co’s kits.
Regards, Rick
well Jhulk your definition reads the same as mine for dog kits
and as i said i always see nothing but good things about those two companies . i was just curious as to if they ever made even a single “dog kit”
Tamiya’s early early 1/35 figure kits had some low and rather soft details and aweful looking boots, but that’s only if i get REALLY anal about it, (when i mess up the shoe laces on GIs trying to trim away the seams). Yet even with those factors, they are still way better than some italeri crap and even those trumpeter figures made in the late 90’s and even nowdays. The fit was still great on those tamiya figures though.
Not that I have alot of experince or anything, but I haven’t come across a bad Tamiya kit and I really enjoyed building two Hasegawa kits one an F4U and an A1 Sky Raider but were sweet kits.
Ron
The only time I consider Tamiya kits “bad” is when they try to release an 20+ year old kit of the same subject as some hot new release. They’re just trying to capitalize on the buzz surrounding the new release.
Hasegawa’s F-14 is a bit over done, I mean, lots of tiny pieces that have some fit problems, but other than that, most of the kits of theirs that I have built have been pretty good! The one thing I don’t like about Tamiya, they seem to chose to use decals for the interior rather than giving you an option for just painting the raised detail. I guess thats where Eduard comes in[:D] I had the A-10 kit, I didn’t think it was a bad kit until I glued it to myself, now I have the RM kit !
In terms of their subject offerings they might be close to being “dogs”. Just how many Mustangs, Spitfires, ME-109s and FW-190s can they saturate the market with? So in terms of their subjects I’d say they’re toeing the line of dogsville. While they go together with very little, if any, filler, some of their kits are still not accurate. I do enjoy them when I want something easy to build. When I want something “exciting” to build I tend to look elsewhere.
Eric