I recently purchased the Eduard 1/48 BF110 and BF109 Royal Class kits. Before I bought them I did a little research on the kits themselves and I’ve come to the conclusion unless you have built the kit you have no basis to review the kit. I could care less what the contents of the box look like. I want to know how the kit goes together. What problems did you encounter, ect, ect.
So please like Mike Ditka says “Just stop it”
Will
I completely agree, mostly. Sometimes I find it difficult to determine what exactly a kit contains as far as weapons just from what an online retailer offers in their description. Also, the pictures can give me an idea of markings. For example, am I going to have huge surface covering decals…especially on Navy jets, or will I be painting these areas. On difficult to mold subjects; like the F-14 it’s nice to get an idea if how intakes and fuselage assembly are approached.
This alone isn’t enough to get me to buy a kit though. Especially if it’s a kit from a manufacturer that I haven’t built before. I’m mostly concerned with fit and if you haven’t built it you don’t know.
Finally, a lot of these reviews border on clinically obsessive. I’ve seen reviews that are basically thesises on how the fuselage is 1mm too long and the intake opening is 2mm too far forward and there is an incorrect panel line on the drop tank. These reviews and their authors are great for a good laugh though.
I write kit reviews and to an extent I definitely sympathize. But it’s a function of time. In the past, oh, six weeks, I’ve reviewed the new Eduard P-38, Xuntong Tu-2T, Hobby Boss P-47, Hobby Boss F8F-1B Bearcat, and Hobby Boss Hellcat Mk.II. Chances I could have built one of these in that time frame? Decent. Chances I could have built all of them? Zilch. And I receive the kits with the express purpose of reviewing them, so “wait nine months until I can get this to the bench” isn’t really an option.
As far as having no basis to review the kit? Disagree wholeheartedly. Most everyone who’s out there reviewing kits is at least a moderately experienced modeler and can draw on past experience to identify traits that could lead to a PITA build. The way a wing is supposed to join to the fuselage, say, or the arrangement of the landing gear. Heck, I slammed the HB P-47 because the entire cowl and engine face are a single piece. Easy to assemble, sure, but talk about a pain in the painting department! I’ve built one of Academy’s P-38s, so going into the Eduard review I knew the trouble spots of the plastic, addressed them, but chiefly focused on the goodies Eduard brought to the table since, let’s face it, that’s why anybody would buy it over the straight-up Academy kit. With the Hellcat, the focus was more…“should you go for this one or for the Eduard Hellcat?”.
When the kit is a total unknown quantity, like the Xuntong Tu-2, I take it further with a test fit of the major airframe components. Honestly something I would like to do with more of the kits I receive to review. It revealed an overall solid fit, a blessedly good clear parts fit, but exposed a few areas that will require careful fitting, putty and perhaps some styrene shims.
Honestly, most new releases - especially from the big manufacturers - are really rather good in terms of fit, and few of the problems that crop up are dealbreakers. And for the most part, the question someone has going into reading a review is “is this kit worth my time?” or “should I buy this kit or that other kit by another manufacturer?”.
All things being equal, a build review is certainly preferable, but if we waited to build reviews of everything, a lot of kits would barely get reviewed at all, and in-boxes can be excellent for answering “is the kit worth my time?”.
What galls me are what I would call “kit descriptions” - the kit contains XXX number of parts, markings for these three aircraft, is spread over five sprues, etc. Don’t care. But the level of detail, precision, the texture and feel of the plastic, the crispness and thinness - or not - of the clear parts, the quality of the decals, the general sense of engineering can tell you a lot about a kit without cutting a single piece of the sprue. For example - another review I did earlier this year was Eduard’s Fw 190A-7. Just looking at the parts and the instructions, and can tell you right off the bat that it’s going to be a fickle build. Sure the fuselage and wings may fit nice, but there’s just so much else going on that it’s definitely an “eyes open” kit.
I almost mentioned you by name Matt on if your going to do a box review at least do it like Doogs does. But I didn’t want this thread to be anything more then my what I find useless in a box review. I agree though I could care less if a kit has flash, or how many parts are in the kit. I just started the Eduard BF109 Royal Class kit today and as I want to contribute and not just bash I will be posting a complete build log on a couple of forums.
Will
How exactly does one get on the list of reviewers who get free kits for the sake of inbox reviews? Nice gig.
I’ve discovered that the best source for kit info is the forums. People tend to be more honest about a kit when they haven’t received one for free for the sake of a review. After all, a bad review might mean no more kits from the source.
Case in point: Look at all the reviews on Cybermodeler.com. Every review (that I’ve looked at) has a “definitely recommended” at the bottom. Seriously? I know I’ve built 1 or 2 kits that they have in their review section that I wouldn’t recommend to anyone.
And yes, sometimes they state in the review the shortfalls of the kit but they are shortfalls that make the kit terrible.
Exactly! But any reviewer is going to try and convince you that they are not biased. I enjoy watching the show Top Gear (the British version, not the miserable American rip off) and they have mentioned incidents where manufacturers refused to give them review cars because of bad reviews in the past.
Everyone’s a critic and no one is a builder—get to work building, MOJ0’s!!!
[dto:]
You too, sir. [whstl]
Well, I can’t speak for others, but in my case I started a blog that’s succeeded beyond anything I imagined, and when a call on another site came up for new members for the review team, my writing was already a known quantity.
Yup, I know what I like and dont like. My building pace is too slow to ever be a reviewer of kits. Unless you want it built and reviewed as one magazine used to do and Cybermodler has started doing- build 'em naked. No paint, no filler, just glue together what is in the box, and then everthing appears how the kit is molded. I know that there are several members on this forum here that like me have built hundreds if not thousands of models over the years. And will recall most builds to one extent or another. That firsthand knowledge is farmore useful than any in box or modify kit A with AM set X, Y, and Z reviews. I understand the “dont bite the hand that feeds you” mentality of the majority of reviews. But it certainly leads to less than objective reviews much of the time.
I’ll be honest - if I’m searching out reviews on a kit and I see Cyber Modeler pop up in the Google results, I keep right on moving. In my opinion their reviews are basically useless save solely for the fact that they have tons of them. Having built and reviewed some of the same kits they give high marks to, yeah, they’re pulling punches left and right.
As far as bias - again speaking solely for myself - I’ve never once felt pressure to go easy on a kit. In fact, when I do put out a negative review, the response I get is overwhelmingly positive and grateful for calling it as I see it. Case in point - Hobby Boss’ pointless 1/48 P-47.
The bias I do bring into every review is my own expectations or hopes - which I try to lay out up front. In the case of that P-47, there are already a zillion 1/48 Jugs, and the only two I consider worth my time are the Tamiya and Revellogram kits. Everything else is a middle ground of “why bother?”. I mean, spend the extra $5 for the Tammy, or save $5 and get the Revell repop. I was hopeful the HB could offer a modern update to the simplicity of the Revell, and it failed, and I said so. With their Hellcat Mk.II, my question going in was - “how does it stack up against Eduard?”. And it looks to come close - and honestly if I had to buy one or the other it’d come down to whether or not I wanted to fold the wings. With that Tu-2T, I will admit I certainly went in more lenient given the blank slate nature of the manufacturer and the totally off the wall subject matter. The Tu-2 looks like a good kit - not a great kit - but far from terrible - and it has some really cool ideas baked into it - but it would’ve been judged far more harshly had it been a P-47 or a Mosquito or something that’s already well represented.
Hopefully I’ll be building some of these soon…but I’ve got my hands full with two major projects that are taking all of my building time at the moment…
I had a look at your P-47 review. Interesting. All I can add is to consider that kit from the persepctive of the young novice modeler, who I suspect that this kit is geared for. What you see as weaknesses are not to the young kid that has fewer parts to attach and easy precision painting is not his top concern. I would have no problem buying this kit (or a Pegasus kit which these seem to be emulating at a bit higher level) for a kid, or even myself for a quick dirty easy build. Not every builder has the same skills, standards, and goals. I see this type of kit as great introductory kits to get new young modelers started with.
stik - had that same point raised soon after the review as published, and I’ll grant it, but I’d still stand by my opinion even for a younger novice - the Revellogram would still be the easier build. With the Hobby Boss, yeah you’ve got the one-piece engine/cowl and the one piece struts/lower gear doors, but the Revellogram has a one-piece engine face that’s a super-simple drop in, a three-piece cockpit (entire tub + stick + instrument panel) and the outer gear doors are a one-piece affair that’s very easy to seat onto the struts.
With another subject, I might well be more lenient, but those R/M Jugs are still very good for what they are, and when my kids get old enough and if they express an interest in modeling, that’d probably be what I’d start them on.
I’m finishing up the Revell AT-6/SNJ Texan today. I was looking for a “simple” build after doing three AM TBM’s, and two Tamiya P-51D’s back to back. I had zero fun building the Texan kit. The way they did the motor and the firewall was beyond me. The wing mating was a nightmare, the interior with the tubing cage sucked. I’ve walked out of my man cave every night this week not happy with this kit. I’ve got have a notion to stick an Estes C model rocket engine in the POS and send it into the neighbors house.
/Rant off.
Will
Oh and I get my kits for review from Sprue Brothers. They only catch is I have to pay for them.
Will
Will - I’m sure I’ll get in trouble with the Monogram Mafia for this, but in my opinion those vintage kits are either hit or miss. I still maintain the P-47 is an absolute pleasure to build. Super-simple, good fit, looks right, etc. But there are some others (I’m looking at you, SBD Dauntless) that just aren’t worth the time.
If you want a truly simple refresher build, might I suggest checking out some of Tamiya’s “two-sprue wonders” from the 90s? The Mustangs are kind of in that range, but I’m specifically thinking their Fw 190s, Bf 109s, the Dewoitine D.520, Spitfire Vb, and so on. Good if not amazing detail, but simple engineering and absolutely staggeringly great fit.
the reviews on cybermodeler look like they were copied from brett green “hyperscale”
aeroscale seems to have some actual nice reviews.
I don’t find the in-box reviews very helpful other than to point out any obvious flaws, flash, etc. In box reviews for manufacturers like Tamiya, I find pointless because you know there won’t be any mold quality issues for the most part, so it’s only in a build review where the rubber meets the tarmac. I’ll still read the in-box reviews to get the “fix”, but that’s about it.
One thing I do like about an in box review is that it tells you what you get in the box. If I am looking for particular markings or ordinance on an aircraft, this can be a deciding factor for me.
One thing that I have noticed is that some reviewers such as Brett Green or Cookie Sewell to name two appear to be syndicated among several websites and have their review of the same kit posted on several sites simultaneously.
Doogs, no problems from this Mafioso on the SBD kit. It is old and there are newer and mostly better kits out there of the same subject. But it does have its simplicity and its own charm of being the only 1/48 SBD that has raised rivits just like the real bird. Unless you want to buy a few sheets of 1/48 scale raised rivit decals that are out there and apply then to an Accurate Miniatures kit. Now upgrading the old Monogram SBD is not for the feinthearted, it can be done. I am doing one and learning about and improving my scratch building techniques along the way.
And I do have several of those beautiful Tamiya “two sprue wonders” in my stash. I have built one so far and will get to the others in time. They all all have their place with me. I have the rest of my life to get them built 
Apologies in advance for any errors in grammar, spelling or punctuation on this post… its done from my phone at work…