Rating Model Companies

[minitnkr]

You guys prolly think I'm nuts for building in my scale, where you often pay top dollar for crap kits. I haven't gone for the "premium kits" in the $40 to $50 range, but I spent $30 for that M4E3E8, and still regret it although it was a very well done kit. When I started they were $.29 to $1.49 each. After fifty some years they've not improved as the larger scales have with the exception of Preiser & ROCO and gone mostly to resin which IMHO runs very hot/cold in quality, at times in the same kit no matter the cost. One would think w/CAD & laser guided water cutters you could whip out quality injection molds at a manageable cost & use about as many plastic beads for a 1/87 tank as a 1/48 scale P47 left upper wing. Rant over. Just returned from the dentist & grumpy.

[Guest]

whip out quality injection molds at a manageable cost & use about as many plastic beads for a 1/87 tank as a 1/48 scale P47 left upper wing

Injection moulds are simply very expensive, even with modern manufacturing techniques. The cost of the plastic is negligible in comparison, that of the mould is all-important in the price of a plastic kit — and therefore what decides whether or not the manufacturer will think it worth investing in one.

[BarryW]

I made the point at the start of the thread that it is subjective and it is impossible to really establish an objective approach.

Always there will be different opinions
as to what constitutes good and bad. That is natural and we all look for different things.

Yes all companies have good and bad kits and, of course, one bad kit does not make all a companies kits bad. Longer standing companies will have plenty of ‘dogs’ on their portfolio hence my rating companies only on new tools within the last 10 years or so.

Price as been mentioned as not being a good arbiter and indeed that is correct and that is reflected in my ratings. Cost must be part of an assessment but, of course, cost and value are very different things.

Consider the high priced Kitty Hawk kits, premium prices for kits that are only enjoyable to those who like a fight. I have to say they are a high price to pay for a plastic fight. An old 1960’s Airfix, Revell or Italeri would give you that fight at a lower cost and much better value.

On the other hand one of my preferred companies, ICM, are cheap as chips, consistent quality at a low price and near Tamiya quality engineering. They were very close to being in my top category.

I have given what I consider to be the good points and bad points of each brand. My good points might be someone else’ bad points, but that’s OK because even so that might be helpful.

What I value most is consistency of a brand’s production. There is a lot of value in just knowing what you are getting when you spend your hard earned dosh on a model produces by company XZY.

If you get a new tool Tamiya, Zoukei Mura, or ICM you know that you are getting quality.

Likewise at the other end of the scale, Kitty Hawk, you get a real plastic fight.
With Special Hobby, you know it will also have issues. Given a choice I would take a Special Hobby over Kitty Hawk any day though I am not a fan of either.

Then there is Revell, cheap yes, if it’s good great, but it could also just be simply awful. It is this inconsistency that is the real problem for me.

There is no absolute right or wrong in this at all. Information is king here and the more information about model brands we can give the more helpful it would be for someone to choose the kits that are right for them whether it is Tamiya or Kitty Hawk.

[Guest]

You guys prolly think I'm nuts for building in my scale, where you often pay top dollar for crap kits. I haven't gone for the "premium kits" in the $40 to $50 range, but I spent $30 for that M4E3E8, and still regret it although it was a very well done kit. When I started they were $.29 to $1.49 each. After fifty some years they've not improved as the larger scales have with the exception of Preiser & ROCO and gone mostly to resin which IMHO runs very hot/cold in quality, at times in the same kit no matter the cost. One would think w/CAD & laser guided water cutters you could whip out quality injection molds at a manageable cost & use about as many plastic beads for a 1/87 tank as a 1/48 scale P47 left upper wing. Rant over. Just returned from the dentist & grumpy.

Well nothing like a chunk of amalgam & a numb jaw to get you going Paul.

Hit the nail on it's jolly old molar. Horses for Courses. Build your own bridges & extract the best.

Laurie

[wasdale32]

Some other factors to consider are:

1- Breadth of subject matter - not just multiple versions of the same subject ( do we need 25 different Spitfires or 8 Tigers from the same manufacturer? )

2 - consistency of production - maintain quality across the range of subjects

3 - continuity of production - don' t withdraw kits after a very short period

4 - rational parts breakdown - more parts doesn't necessarily mean more detail.

[Guest]

Some other factors to consider are:

1- Breadth of subject matter - not just multiple versions of the same subject ( do we need 25 different Spitfires or 8 Tigers from the same manufacturer? )

2 - consistency of production - maintain quality across the range of subjects

3 - continuity of production - don' t withdraw kits after a very short period

4 - rational parts breakdown - more parts doesn't necessarily mean more detail.

1. Mmm if manufacturers produce many variations then it seems to me there is more for us to choose from.
Cannot see the manufacturers producing stuff they are not selling. They are giving alternatives for me I
do not mind that at all as I have choice.

2. Not sure what this means in terms of quality. Design manufacture ?

3. Seems that if manufacturer withdraws a kit then it is not popular & making them money. Commercial
sense. They are there to make money. Go bust does not help us. Reducing investment does us no good at all.

4. Just say that I do like lots of parts. I suppose if you do not like lots of parts then you do
not buy that product. Also some kits are very restrictive on parts. A great deal depends on the scale plus your
own outlook on what you want.

I would have thought more parts does provide more detail providing it is authentic. Agree there are sometimes
silly little bits (sometimes my dustbin) which could be incorporated in the main parts.

One thing is certain Model making Manufacturers are interested in making money which is essential.
They will only produce that which we will buy.

[Guest]

Just had a thought.

If you are thinking of buying a model you can always look through build topics on here & other forums.

Just put in the browser search the model details & build topics from numerous forums will appear.
Great way of getting information especially if you get into difficulties or if instructions are not very good.

Laurie

[David Lovell]

Just had a thought.

If you are thinking of buying a model you can always look through build topics on here & other forums.

Just put in the browser search the model details & build topics from numerous forums will appear.
Great way of getting information especially if you get into difficulties or if instructions are not very good.

Laurie

Bloody well done Laurie, like you've said stick it in your favoured search engine (I don't think we should list search engins )it'll tell you the lot wether there is one ,if there is who manufacturers it ,kit reviews, builds, extras ie etch decals etc, but please remember as I'm sure Laurie has found with his airfield dio if its what you want and thats the only one it shouldn't stop you just because the reviews put it down(look at me ive just admitted to following your dio wingy thingy on the qt) at least your get a tru sense of achievement when you cross the line. Well done again Laurie I think you've truly tucked this one up in bed and kissed it good night. Dave

[prichrd1]

This final calculation will then generate a score giving them a way to compare manufacturers from their own viewpoint

You lost me at Pi x R2 = Sum, Minus The Angle of the Dangle!!! :face-with-head-bandage::tongue-out3::smiling::smiling:

But like most who have commented on here - I build what I fancy be it a wingy thingy or a tracky thingy - price yes that sometimes affects decision,
manufacturer - like has been said above - I use Scalemates as a basic start, then reviews and then make my own "informed" decision.
In 50 years of modelling I have built a lot of kits - some so called high end - and been very disappointed with the outcome, but then have also produced outstanding results. Also built many so called low end - and been amazed at the end result. So to me it is down to each persons own preference.

Back under me rock now !! :upside:

Paul.
:smiling:

[Guest]

Bloody well done Laurie, like you've said stick it in your favoured search engine (I don't think we should list search engins )it'll tell you the lot wether there is one ,if there is who manufacturers it ,kit reviews, builds, extras ie etch decals etc, but please remember as I'm sure Laurie has found with his airfield dio if its what you want and thats the only one it shouldn't stop you just because the reviews put it down(look at me ive just admitted to following your dio wingy thingy on the qt) at least your get a tru sense of achievement when you cross the line. Well done again Laurie I think you've truly tucked this one up in bed and kissed it good night. Dave

Speechless :flushed: David

[Airborne01]

I think there should be a 'social care' element included - don't manufacturers realise some of of us can only use 1/35 scale PE wingnuts with the assistance of a microscope and robotic surgeons hands !

[wasdale32]

1. Mmm if manufacturers produce many variations then it seems to me there is more for us to choose from.
Cannot see the manufacturers producing stuff they are not selling. They are giving alternatives for me I
do not mind that at all as I have choice.

2. Not sure what this means in terms of quality. Design manufacture ?

3. Seems that if manufacturer withdraws a kit then it is not popular & making them money. Commercial
sense. They are there to make money. Go bust does not help us. Reducing investment does us no good at all.

4. Just say that I do like lots of parts. I suppose if you do not like lots of parts then you do
not buy that product. Also some kits are very restrictive on parts. A great deal depends on the scale plus your
own outlook on what you want.

I would have thought more parts does provide more detail providing it is authentic. Agree there are sometimes
silly little bits (sometimes my dustbin) which could be incorporated in the main parts.

One thing is certain Model making Manufacturers are interested in making money which is essential.
They will only produce that which we will buy.

To clarify:

1 - I was commenting on the fact that some manufacturers "leverage" their existing product stream rather than producing a new kit of a subject that they don't already have a variant of. There are a huge number of subjects, aircraft and armour and civilian vehicles, that aren't available but we often see the exact same thing produced with for example different decals. You only have to look at "wish lists" to see what people would buy.

2 - what I meant was that the quality/accuracy/ buildability of kits in a single manufacturer's range can vary enormously. I'm not talking about "old" tool versus "new" tool as even some new tool kits can be poorly thought out.

3 - I don't mean " sunsetting" a kit which doesn't sell or has serious flaws, you are absolutely right that commercial interests come first. But sometimes kits are withdrawn even though demand is still there.

4 - what I was referring to here was the tendency to separate simple components into multiple parts just to increase the parts count without adding any real value. An example is a trumpeter kit I'm working on which has PE bolt heads to be insert in recesses - the final result looks no better than moulding them in the first place and there are other moulded on features that could have been PE. Another example of parts count bloat is where the parts count on the box includes parts not actually used in building the kit (Dragon & AFV Club are major offenders)

One final point - in these ever more environmentally conscious times I think that we should rate manufacturers on the amount of wastage in a kit. Often the sprues weigh far more than the usable parts.

[Guest]

1. Mmm if manufacturers produce many variations then it seems to me there is more for us to choose from.

I think what Mark meant is very minor variations, of which Hasegawa is probably the best example: all they do is print new decals, instructions and box lids, and presto, a new kit! Never mind they already released 172 versions of the F-4 Phantom before, 173 is better still!

Much the same goes for military vehicle kits by some manufacturers: they add something like a different gun barrel to an existing kit to release it as a new version. If they had just included both barrels in one kit, it would make no difference for us (those who want both versions buy two kits anyway) and even be cheaper for them: they save on having to change the mould and print new instructions and boxes.

One thing is certain Model making Manufacturers are interested in making money which is essential.
They will only produce that which we will buy.

Well … they only produce models which they think we will buy. This is why there are almost more kits of Tiger tanks than there were real Tigers produced, and why for decades, we heard things like “British tanks don’t sell!” and similar. Yet when somebody produces a modern kit of, for example, a Centurion or a Churchill, they get rave reviews and sell like hot cakes. Gee, I wouldn’t have predicted that at all …

[Guest]

the more information about model brands we can give the more helpful it would be for someone to choose the kits that are right for them whether it is Tamiya or Kitty Hawk.

That is true, but the problem is — like Tim also noted — that this is inherently subjective, and it requires the reader to know what the standards of the reviewer are in order to choose as you suggest. If informing potential buyers is the goal, then ranking is not a good idea: listing manufacturers in no particular order (alphabetical, for example) and listing the typical traits of their kits without trying to say if they’re good or bad would be much more useful, I think.

From reading your threads, my impression is that you want kits that fit well and are well-detailed; anything that requires more than minor work to correct, and you lose interest or get frustrated with the model. Please note that this isn’t a value judgement, it’s my observation based on which kits you praise and which you throw out. Whereas me, I still want to get a Kitty Hawk OV-10 Bronco for no other reason than because I want to see if it’s as bad as you said it is (I don’t own one chiefly because I wouldn’t have anywhere to put it once it’s built.)

[PaulTRose]

interesting subject..............and very subjective and personal

you mention ICM as being 'almost' a favorite brand......and then place Revell as cheap and cheerful............Revell these days are all about reboxing other peoples offerings....including ICMs..............the Model T ambulance comes instantly to mind, great kit......and id rather pay cheaper Revell prices than ICMs!

someone mentioned Eduard.............to me they are pretty low down the scale.......every time ive tried one of theirs its ended up in the bin!!

i wish i could afford expensive shake and bake kits that are superbly engineered and go together with no drama.......but i cant

i also get a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction when i take some 30 or 40 year old kit, with known problems and make something decent of it.....but then thats what i do for a living.....problem solving and creating countermesures, product improvement and quality assurance

this is one of those model making subjects where it comes down to personal choices and preferences.......what is one persons modelling 'gold' is another persons 'junk'