Rating Model Companies

[Deleted member 5496]

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.

 

[Deleted member 5496]

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!!!

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 !!

Paul.

 

[Deleted member 5496]

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 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.

 

[Jakko]

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 …

 

[Jakko]

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'

 

[Dave Ward]

It's interesting, about models falling out of availibility. Most makers subcontract the actual plastic injection part out to specialists. When a model is being produced, the tooling has to be set up, and the injection process calibrated - ie type of polystyrene,temperature, pressure - running test shots - at first there'll be short shots, distortions, but tweaking will eliminate this. This is an on cost, and the production run will have to be large enough to justify this expense, and leave a viable profit. To reduce this, I believe makers like ICM & Revell will share the on cost of the setup, and have a larger production run than would be needed by one company, which will reduce the piece price, the two companies splitting the output between them. The set up being the same cost, whether producing 100, 1,000 or 10,000.
Also, it can depend on the quality of the tooling - dies may be made of a softer quality steel, which is easier to machine, and much cheaper, but have a limited lifespan.
Existing legacy tooling , designed for older injection moulding may need expensive modification to fit on modern machines, so the retail price has to reflect this.
Dave

 

[PaulTRose]

When a model is being produced, the tooling has to be set up, and the injection process calibrated - ie type of polystyrene,temperature, pressure - running test shots - at first there'll be short shots, distortions, but tweaking will eliminate this. This is an on cost, and the production run will have to be large enough to justify this expense, and leave a viable profit.

the expensive bit is the actual tooling........the setting up is quick and cheap

ive helped set up injection moulding machines on a first run for things waaaaaaaaaay bigger and more complicated than a model kit and it will only take a few hours (and most of that is me measuring and inspecting the produced bits)...............any time the tooling is used again all the settings will be saved and it can be a matter of minutes to get it running.......only slight tweeking might be needed to change dwell times or temp or pressure.....and those setting will be saved for the next time to build up an 'average base setting'

 

[Deleted member 5496]

I would imagine the design work must be very expensive.

Getting detail dimensions 3d stuff. Drawing up the major parts.
Setting up the inside detail work. A huge amount of information
building.

Just wonder how they get a lot of the information. Probably OK
on the old stuff as museums will allow info to be taken.
Perhaps out of date military stuff may be obtained from the
manufacturer.

Also variants another info nightmare. Decal design work

From my career in architecture I know how long it takes to put info together.
It is very time consuming.

However cannot, on modern stuff in operation , see it being easy to get info.

Then the design work to turn it into a thing which can then be tooled up.
To design each part to be tooled up. All must be a very fascinating job.

Just love to see them doing it all.

Laurie

 

[BarryW]

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'

I am aware of Revell releasing ICM and others including Dragon and Special Hobby under their own label. In this thread I am really addressing a companies own toolings.

That said I have built the Revell release of the 1/32 bf110C and the earlier Dragon release as well. I was just astonished that two kits that came from the same set of moulds could be so different. The part make-up was the same of course but Revell used their own plastic which is significantly lower quality than the Dragon and it affected the fit due to shrinkage and minor warping. Perhaps Revell also do not apply the same standard of quality control over their processes to keep the price down. Also the parts were not as crisp as in the Dragon release. This was to such an extent that I would not hesitate to pay the extra £30 needed to buy the Dragon release instead of the Revell.

I have not done the same comparison with a Revell repop of an ICM kit, such as the 1/32 I-16, but I would not be surprised if you get the same again. Bear in mind that there is a much lower price difference between ICM and Revell I see no reason to risk Revells plastic.

That is the point with Revell, when they get it right then it does represent a great value kit and I am thinking of their 1/32 Ar-196 here, but only too often their kits are a bit slipshod. Having built the 1/32 Revell Spitfire, I am much happier spending £100 more for the Tamiya and I consider the Tamiya much better value for money.

 

[Dave Ward]

Barry,
I've made several Revell reboxings of ICM models & essentially it's the same bag inside, just in a different box, and with different instructions - the plastic is identical
Dave

 

[Martin64]

Meng, Takom or Ryfield not mentioned.
Martin

 

[David Lovell]

I still can't see the point of this ,do people really build because of the name on the box surely thats coming down to I'd like to build one of them but so and so don't do one so I'll make do with this because I like the manufacturer. I'll be honest I wrote a lot more but scrubbed it I'll ask again why rate model companies it seem to me the way this is going what you ment is rate them from no brainers to leave it well alone it involves some modelling.

 

[BarryW]

I still can't see the point of this ,do people really build because of the name on the box surely thats coming down to I'd like to build one of them but so and so don't do one so I'll make do with this because I like the manufacturer. I'll be honest I wrote a lot more but scrubbed it I'll ask again why rate model companies it seem to me the way this is going what you ment is rate them from no brainers to leave it well alone it involves some modelling.

It’s not what’s in the box, more what they put in the box. There is a world of difference between, for instance, the Revell 1/32 Spitfire and the Tamiya 1/32 Spitfire and I am not just talking about the cost. In this case the £130 Tamiya is much better value than the sub £30 Revell, they are chalk and cheese.

Take the Revell 1/32 new tools as a range and the Tamiya’s. While not all the Revells are ‘dogs’ none of them compare for sheer quality to the Tamiya, even the best Revels are not comparable to the least of the Tamiya’s. Cost is an issue of course and you get what you pay for and that is the point.

Take the sprues out of the boxes from Revell and Tamiya you can always tell which is which.

Most companies will have their ‘dogs’, specially those that have been around a while, if you just take more recent kits, you can see a huge difference between companies. I have to say that it would be unfair to compare a company judging them on a single kit or comparing 1970 tools to 2010’s.

Some people like a kit that fights back, others not. Some are into sado-masochism, many are not!!! We all want something different, even from kits.

 

[David Lovell]

How can it be a dog its a perfectly good sub thirty pound kit you get what you pay for im sure you can get some upgrades for them still bringing it in at under the extortionate amount wanted for a tamiya spitfire im sure its marvelous if that's what you want and very happy im sure it makes you but don't go slagging off what other people obviously not as privileged as you can afford ,some of us have to feed family's and pay mortgages before thinking about the next build its a hobby a pastime a escape from the pressures of life and im proud that I do it most of the time on horrible little kits from the Ukraine costing well under fifteen quid but hey their a right load of dogs stay well clear loads of modeling involved. Sorry all if im out of order but I asked why at the start of this thread stated it was plastic snobbery and its still trying to compare pounds to pence.

 

[Mark1]

I've done a twenty quid 1/32 revell spitfire ,all was a perfect fit no filler involved detailed well enough and I wouldn't know if it was every last nut and bolt accurate, thoroughly enjoyable build! Couldn't see by spending another 110 quid it would give me any more enjoyment to build! Definitely think with some companies you pay for the name to some extent, vw's are more expensive than a skoda but not much better build quality nowadays! The quality of any model can really only be decided by the quality of finish a modeller puts on it!