Rating Model Companies

[BarryW]

We all have our favourite model producers and different experiences of companies.

They all have their good and bad kits and their good and bad points. Some companies are great in one genre and poor in another genre.

So rating companies is a very subjective process, but perhaps we can use our collective experience to help new modellers.

I can only speak about aircraft, specifically in 1/48, 1/32 and 1/24 scale. So will post rating companies based on my experience of these. Perhaps others with a wide experience of other scales and genres can so similar.

I propose that for consistency we do so by applying the following basis:

• Base the rating on newer tools, kits produced within the last 10 years. It would not be fair to rate a company based on a 1970's tooling well before the development of CAD and slide moulding.
• To place manufacturers into a broad heading based on your experience, one of the following.
  • High end manufacturers. Those who you would expect to pay more for and live up to their cost.
  • Mid-to-high end manufacturers Those that just fall short of the very best in some way that is significant.
  • Low end-to-mid manufacturers.
  • Low end manufacturers.
• Then within each, list them in order of preference and explain what you think of them.

===============================================

I will make a start - 1/48, 1/32 and larger scale aircraft.

I am not trying to categorise every single brand in this space, only those I have either built or have examined and seen a significant number of reviews.

High End Manufacturers:

Tamiya:
These I rank right at the top of the tree for the following reasons:

1. High quality engineering and fit unrivalled by anyone. Enhanced by a thoughtful approach to ease of build.
2. Superb detail and clean, well moulded parts needing minimum clean-up.
3. Instructions are well paid out with no ambiguity over part placement and comprehensive painting instructions.
4. Securely and well packaged in a way that minimises damage to parts.
5. High level of accuracy.
6. Good sprue organisation.

The downside of Tamiya:
Painting instructions using Tamiya paint codes and a lot of mixes so it is not always clear what the actual colour is. It needs some research and planning to paint in anything other than Tamiya shades.
The decals, Tamiya's big fail. Thick, take a lot of solution to get them to bed into detail and they are prone to splinter when adjusting position.
Then, of course, they are more expensive than most but, you get a great result out of the box and don't need to spend out on a lot of aftermarket so the outlay is not as high as it seems.

So, even the best model company does not get everything right.

Zoukei Mura:
These are a relatively new company with their early releases within the last 10 years and while not as good as current ones are still very good and ZM learned quickly. These are only other company I would rank as 'high end', so why?

1. Highly detailed with an innovative approach to engineering and design not shared by any other company. It really gives you a feel for how the original aircraft was built.
2. Great fit but with tight tolerances so test fit and you may need to 'ease' fit with a swipe of a sanding stick. Never force parts together.
3. Very high quality packaging keeping parts safe.
4. Interesting subjects, a mix of popular and unusual.
5. Comprehensive, including seatbelt options and paint masks.
6. I have found the decals to be resilient and 'conformable'.
7. The instruction manual is highly detailed and included photos as guidance leaving no ambiguity.
8. Kits are complex but are not complicated to build thanks to the clear instructions.
9. Plastic is of high quality, cleanly moulded and good use of slide moulding (no burring or flash at all in the latest kits, but the older ones do have some of this.)
10. High level of accuracy.
11. Good sprue organisation

Their downsides:
Expensive but, again, no aftermarket is needed for a great result.
The tight tolerances, again easily resolvable by test fitting and a sanding stick.
Some might regard the level of detail as over-engineering but this is their 'calling card' and it provides options for those who want open panels.

High to Mid Range Manufacturers.

Hong Kong Models

1. Great subjects with some of the most innovative engineering making great use of slide moulding techniques.
2. High quality plastic, cleanly moulded and great fit.
3. A nice balance of good detail without being (perhaps) too over-engineered.
4. Well packaged and presented.
5. They listen to criticism and correct (1/32 Lanc to the 1/48 Lanc releases shows this)

The downsides are that they can be a little expensive and there are some shape issues on some kits. But it is shape that keeps them out of the high end group.

ICM

1. High quality plastic, clean moulds, great fit and great engineering with some outstanding subjects.
2. Decent decals
3. Fantastic value for money
4. Good accuracy
5. Ease of build

Downsides, the packaging needs improvement and if not for this the value for money would have propelled these into the High End category.

GWH

1. These listen too feedback and improve
2. High quality plastic and clean moulding.
3. Great subjects
4. Great value

Downsides: Newish manufacturer with a limited range and some inaccuracies in early releases.

Low to Mid Range Manufacturers.

Airfix:

1. They have some excellent engineering and design but no slide moulding.
2. Great subjects and prolific, the original to some people 'all plastic kits are Airfix'
3. Their instructions are good and clear.
4. Good fit and accuracy (now...)
5. Decals are excellent, among the best.
6. They have recently improved their sprue organisation.

Downsides: Their manufacturing standards often lets them down. The soft plastic is poor quality and while easy to work with is prone to shrinkage and warping which is a big problem on large kits. They also just throw parts into a single bag (apart from the transparencies). Their detail just doesn't have the refinement of higher ranked brands.

Trumpeter/HobbyBoss

1. Good fit, decent quality plastic, but parts can be a little 'burred'
2. Big range of subjects.
3. Some engineering can be described as 'genius'

Downsides: Inconsistency between subjects in accuracy, fit and engineering. Poor painting instructions and the worse decals ever produced with a tendency to splinter even in the process of sliding them off their backing, often with poor colour choices.

Hasegawa

1. High quality plastic and great fit
2. Decent accuracy
3. Simple engineering and design

Downsides: They don't seem to be releasing many brand new tool kits these days. Once a leading brand now falling behind.

Zvezda

1. Nice quality plastic, well moulded
2. Interesting subjects.

Downsides: Poor transparencies.

Dragon

1. Great fit
2. Great quality plastic with good engineering
3. Good clean mouldings

Downsides: The worse instructions possible. Limited range of kits. In 1/32 the best bf109E, a great Bf110, a terrible P51....

Academy

1. Some very nice kits, buildable with interesting engineering.
2. decent quality moulds

Nothing I have seen is particularly distinguished enough to set them apart.

Special Hobby

1. Some great subjects
2. Good range of kits

Downsides: Often questionable engineering with all the problems of short run kits. Experience needed and a lot of patience.


Low end manufacturers

Italeri

1. Good subjects
2. Some good kits

Downsides, inconsistent fit and quality.

Revell

1. Cheap
2. Capable of producing a good kit and when they do it is great value

Downsides. Cheap brittle plastic, sink holes, burring, often accuracy issues, built to a price, basic. Cheap but often so cheap they offer terrible value. Poor sprue organisation.

Kitty Hawk

1. Interesting subjects

Downsides: Everything else, just about everything, terrible quality at a premium price.

 

[boatman]

VERY WELL LAID OUT Barry
chris

 

[Deleted member 5496]

Barry you have missed out MAQUETTE.

How could you do that ? Their Dart Herald is a superb piece of engineering no other manufacturery could emulate this model

Laurie

 

[David Lovell]

Why

 

[AlanG]

Personally for your 'top of the range' ones i would add to the expensive bit with "and out of the price range of most normal people"

 

[dave]

Eduard

1) Generally accurate to subject
2) choice of kit as basic or with photo etch
3) good range of certain aircraft (Mig 21, Fw190, etc)
4) good instructions
5) reasonable price

Although the range of aircraft is more limited than some, they have a good range of variants of the ones they do. Assembly is normally straightforward. The Profipacks (with photoetch and extra marking options) are good value if you want photoetch.

 

[dave]

Also worth noting with some manufacturers that recent kits are superb, but older kits may not be to the same standard, thinking of the earlier ICM and Airfix from my experience.

 

[BarryW]

Personally for your 'top of the range' ones i would add to the expensive bit with "and out of the price range of most normal people"

You make a valid point and while I have no constraints on my spending now that was not always the case and I have certainly been through periods when I have been brassic. In fact I once after working 60+ hours a week for a month ended up not just earning nothing at all but owed money!

I often sound harsh on these things but I have seen how people spend money and the poor choices they make, not that that’s particularly relevant to this discussion.

I have often said that I would spend £130 for a Tammy Spit in preference to five cheaper ‘lesser’ kits.

Yes, for some people affording a Tamiya ‘superkit’ is difficult, but it is far from ‘most normal people’. After all just look at the cost of a Premier League season ticket, then add the travelling and beer costs! Modelling is cheap in comparison, even if you build Tamiya and Zoukei Mura.

 

[David Lovell]

Personally for your 'top of the range' ones i would add to the expensive bit with "and out of the price range of most normal people"

I'm with Alan on this the whole thing amounts to plastic snobbery, its called modeling if its something you fancy building and the only kit out there is a asda one that needs a bit of MODELLING to bring it up to scratch you know a good bit of fettleing so be it dont be put off ,on the other hand if you want a bit of this isn't any old plastic this is marks and Spencer shake and bake wallet buster plastic then crack on im pleased for you ,I still think this whole thing is plastic snobbery .

 

[BarryW]

I'm with Alan on this the whole thing amounts to plastic snobbery, its called modeling if its something you fancy building and the only kit out there is a asda one that needs a bit of MODELLING to bring it up to scratch you know a good bit of fettleing so be it dont be put off ,on the other hand if you want a bit of this isn't any old plastic this is marks and Spencer shake and bake wallet buster plastic then crack on im pleased for you ,I still think this whole thing is plastic snobbery .

Plastic snobbery or just an aversion to said fettling, carving and sanding poor quality kits?

 

[Deleted member 5496]

All that I can add is that I build what I want, when I wish & with a kit which suits what I am doing at the moment.

Some kits are not good that is not of a worry. God I have built a few recently.

However as I finish them I am pleased I had a go as it is a challenge & I am up for that every time. You use all the
skills you have & add a number more each time.

If a kit went together perfectly I would not be able to moan grouse & whinge. Disaster darling.

Laurie

 

[Dave Ward]

I'm a confirmed Yorkshire modeller who doesn't enjoy spending money on high priced models ( as some of you may know ). That's part of my enjoyment of model making, I can understand if you are vice versa!!!!
Rating makers on their kits is a non-starter, labelling a maker as poor, due to bad experiences with one model, is no more valid than rating another maker as good due to just one superb model. To give a true rating, you would have had to make every model by that maker! Generalisations are just that - an average.
Rating a particular model ( as you are in the process of doing ) is much more meaningful, rather than a sweeping statement consigning all a makers efforts to the reject pile!
I think it's a bit much to call it snobbery, but the element of 'if it costs more money - it must be better' does creep in - of course, specialising in 1/32 aircraft, as you do, prices will always be higher.
It all comes down to what you get from your approach to the hobby, whether it be the budget end, or the throw all the aftermarket bits at it! - if it satisfies you, then it's filled its' purpose
Dave

 

[Tim Marlow]

This subject may be a minefield for members sensibilities Barry.
The problem as I see it is that that the approach you have given is pretty much subjective, not objective. I’ll try to explain what I mean…..
To be objective you need to generate the various parameters to be compared, and specify the method of scoring each of those parameters.
You then apply all of those criteria evenly to each manufacturer to get a baseline score.
once you have the baseline each member will then need to apply a personal weighting to each criterion. This weighting will depend upon their personal tastes and perceived situation.
This final calculation will then generate a score giving them a way to compare manufacturers from their own viewpoint.

For example, you would obviously weight fit and finish more highly than cost, and Alan may well weight cost higher than fit and finish. Your weighting may be three for the first and two for the second, whereas Alan’s may be two for the first and four for the second. As you can see, this could give different, but equally valued, total scores for each of you.

In my opinion, then, and only then, could each member make an informed decision and gain something useful from this exercise. All you will get otherwise is an increasingly ill tempered free for all based around entrenched opinion!

 

[Deleted member 5496]

Mmmm. New one what is plastic snobbery.

Worried that I may be one who is found building Super Marquette. After all not many do.

Laurie

 

[AlanG]

I did not intend it, nor want it, to become an ill tempered free for all. Which i think it hasn't as of yet. I trust it shall stay this way?!

My opinion was indeed based around cost. I work on a farm and the agriculture industry is renown for being a poor paid job. Therefore my 'free monies' are VERY limited, hence why i've at times, had to sell my models to fund my family and household.

So whilst i do occasionally buy a more expensive kit that i REALLY want (1/32 Ju88 for instance), i do in general stick to the lower priced kits. This normally means the likes of Revell . whilst they are not the best, neither are my skills. So in fact we are a sort of 'perfect match'. But this is just my personal feeling. Each and everyone is different and therefore you'll probably get a different answer each and every time.

 

[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.

 

[Jakko]

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.

 

[Deleted member 5496]

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.