Rating Model Companies

[JR]

What I look for is the subject, most major manufacturer's shy away from obscure Russian armour so I've ended up with some real cheap and nasty Eastern European kits. Some have proved beyond me, others quite good fun. Normally they are cheap as well.
I've bought really well produced kits, overly large parts counts, but only because the subject is what I want.
To me modelling is about the model, ok if it's a well known make, or has great detail , that's just a bonus.
There are manufacturer's that I like, mainly because they produce the kit I want.
Now I have been modelling this time around for a lot longer I know which manufacturer's have decent distructions, and those that set traps by mentioning part Nos that don't exist.
So for me it's the subject, model and price .

 

[rtfoe]

Same for me John, subject, model and price. I do have quite a few of those 'branded' kits in the stash but they're too nice to build and are left alone...perhaps not challenging or I'm a 'sado'
I have come across some very bad kits that are either unbranded and branded and the outcome with colorful language whilst putting them together is the same...which is a fine finished replica. I would advise anyone wanting to build those kits to take it as they are and make the best of it with at least a level appreciation index indicator so they don't get a heart attack or feel cheated.

Cheers,
Richard

 

[BarryW]

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.

And Mark1


As I said we all want different things from the hobby and that’s fine but to suggest ‘plastic snobbery’ is absurd. This variety is what it’s all about, catering to all wants and needs. Your example of Skoda and VW is correct but I would suggest Skoda and Ferrari are a better example for what I mean. Ultimately both are just for getting you from A to B but few who could afford it would choose a Skoda over a Ferrari.

If you enjoy cheap kits that’s fine but ‘not all cheap kits are equal’. I don’t necessarily equate ‘dog’ to cheap. I rate ICM new tools very highly and they are far from expensive and are far better than Revell equivalents. I refer to their own kits, of course, not white labelled. Indeed there are a couple of Revells I rate highly too, the AR196 in particular.

You may think the Tamiya kit to be extortionate but I promise you,
If you invested in one you would change your mind. I have built both the Revell and Tamiya and there is seriously no competition in any respect. It really is the Ferrari….

I started in dead end jobs earning peanuts, having left school age 15. Even after launching my first business I had periods when I was broke, unable to pay myself anything after working a month of 70 plus hour weeks with a family to feed. Staff get paid before you can even think of paying yourself from whatever is left, if anything. In the end it was worth it and I no longer have to worry about money and that is the goal we all work towards. Hopefully you will get there too and can experience the ‘Ferrari’ of models and see exactly what I mean.

 

[Tim Marlow]

Interesting that in all of this discussion accuracy is rarely mentioned. I spent quite a few years in the scale railway modelling field when I was younger. In that discipline accurate manufacturers general arrangement (GA) drawings were relatively easy to come by. My particular interest was the LSWR in the Edwardian age around 1910. For modelling that period I obtained, and have still got, GAs for everything important, track, line side hardware, wagons, coaches, and locomotives. It was all easily available and mostly collected and published.
With this information I could assess any kit I purchased and modify it if required to ensure accuracy and consistency of standard. I could also scratch build anything not commercially available to the same consistency.
When I decided to move to the military modelling field I was surprised that this sort information was very hard to find. I had to therefore adopt the “if it looks right it is right” ethos. However, to me, accuracy of representation remains is an important aspect of a kit.
For the high end “Uber“ kit accuracy seems to be assumed. However, without quality information to hand to check the kit you may actually find the low end “Dog” is a more accurate representation of the object being modelled!
How can this important aspect of a kit therefore be determined in the context of determining the rating allocated to a model company?
Sure, you can compare the model to photos, but that really only gives you an idea of the spatial relationship of parts. In blunt terms photos do not tell you how big or thick those parts should be, just where they are in relation to others. Some kits have full internal detail. How can this be checked for accuracy, especially in the rarer or one off prototype subjects? All the excellent pattern making and fit and finish from that kit could simply be copying the designers best guess! That detail then becomes nothing more than a marketing tool to increase price and perceived value. We have no accessible field of reference so cannot determine accuracy.
Without pre-determined fields of reference, rating manufacturers in the way this question has been asked is simply an exercise in showcasing your personal viewpoint.
Me, I’m sticking with “if it looks right it is right” these days and will buy from whoever makes a subject I want to build.

 

[Airborne01]

And Mark1


As I said we all want different things from the hobby and that’s fine but to suggest ‘plastic snobbery’ is absurd. This variety is what it’s all about, catering to all wants and needs. Your example of Skoda and VW is correct but I would suggest Skoda and Ferrari are a better example for what I mean. Ultimately both are just for getting you from A to B but few who could afford it would choose a Skoda over a Ferrari.

If you enjoy cheap kits that’s fine but ‘not all cheap kits are equal’. I don’t necessarily equate ‘dog’ to cheap. I rate ICM new tools very highly and they are far from expensive and are far better than Revell equivalents. I refer to their own kits, of course, not white labelled. Indeed there are a couple of Revells I rate highly too, the AR196 in particular.

You may think the Tamiya kit to be extortionate but I promise you,
If you invested in one you would change your mind. I have built both the Revell and Tamiya and there is seriously no competition in any respect. It really is the Ferrari….

I started in dead end jobs earning peanuts, having left school age 15. Even after launching my first business I had periods when I was broke, unable to pay myself anything after working a month of 70 plus hour weeks with a family to feed. Staff get paid before you can even think of paying yourself from whatever is left, if anything. In the end it was worth it and I no longer have to worry about money and that is the goal we all work towards. Hopefully you will get there too and can experience the ‘Ferrari’ of models and see exactly what I mean.

Don't care for Ferrari's - it's impossible to get a bag of cement on the rear seat! Sorry, just thought there's a slight overheating on this thread at times

 

[Tim Marlow]

This variety is what it’s all about, catering to all wants and needs. Your example of Skoda and VW is correct but I would suggest Skoda and Ferrari are a better example for what I mean. Ultimately both are just for getting you from A to B but few who could afford it would choose a Skoda over a Ferrari.

Taking money out of this all together, acquisition depends upon use as well Barry. It’s not just getting from A to B. A Skoda Yeti would suit my wife far more than a Testarossa. She keeps chickens and is a very keen gardener. Try getting a bale of straw into a Ferrari? She might have more fun getting to the garden centre, but wouldn’t be able to bring much back! The Ferrari simply put would be a poor purchase for her. In modelling terms, if you enjoy the actual modelling rather than simply assembling, then a perceived high end kit would be a poor purchase. It would be dull, simply being an exercise in sticking part A to part B many times until you’ve finished. As I said, you cannot rate manufacturers without a valid frame of reference!

 

[Archetype]

The OP is great for new people coming to the hobby that want a bit of insight into the myriad of manufacturers out there.

I do wonder however if it is giving the wrong impression and will have the opposite effect to the intention; it might discourage people from starting.

Modelling, for most, isn’t simply about ending up with a model, it’s in the process of turning a kit into a model and overcoming the challenges that are faced. I wonder what the result might be of a poll asking how important ease of kit assembly is…?

If newcomers read “pay £££’s or don’t bother” then we won’t be drawing many people in.

From your list, I have built one Tamiya, a Hobby Boss, loads of Hasegawa, a few Dragon and a handful of Airfix.
Why do I tend to buy lots of “low end” kits? Because the “top end” don’t offer enough variety. It’s all about subject for me and this might also be a barrier to newcomers that are looking to build particular subjects and are advised not to bother if they can’t find it in Tamiya.

Overall, I’d suggest your intentions are admirable Barry, but the topic is too broad to distill down to a straight forward ratings system.
It’d be far more insightful and a better starting point for newbies to simply post asking for advice, ending up with better engagement and a more detailed and specific set of recommendations from our wonderful community.

 

[Mark1]

And Mark1


As I said we all want different things from the hobby and that’s fine but to suggest ‘plastic snobbery’ is absurd. This variety is what it’s all about, catering to all wants and needs. Your example of Skoda and VW is correct but I would suggest Skoda and Ferrari are a better example for what I mean. Ultimately both are just for getting you from A to B but few who could afford it would choose a Skoda over a Ferrari.

If you enjoy cheap kits that’s fine but ‘not all cheap kits are equal’. I don’t necessarily equate ‘dog’ to cheap. I rate ICM new tools very highly and they are far from expensive and are far better than Revell equivalents. I refer to their own kits, of course, not white labelled. Indeed there are a couple of Revells I rate highly too, the AR196 in particular.

You may think the Tamiya kit to be extortionate but I promise you,
If you invested in one you would change your mind. I have built both the Revell and Tamiya and there is seriously no competition in any respect. It really is the Ferrari….

I started in dead end jobs earning peanuts, having left school age 15. Even after launching my first business I had periods when I was broke, unable to pay myself anything after working a month of 70 plus hour weeks with a family to feed. Staff get paid before you can even think of paying yourself from whatever is left, if anything. In the end it was worth it and I no longer have to worry about money and that is the goal we all work towards. Hopefully you will get there too and can experience the ‘Ferrari’ of models and see exactly what I mean.

A Ferrari is not comparable in the real world, it's just says look how much money I got,no one buys one just to get from a to b !
Buy the most expensive of things because you can afford it is an indulgence, don't get me wrong if you've worked hard and "made it" then fair play mate.

 

[BarryW]

Interesting that in all of this discussion accuracy is rarely mentioned. I spent quite a few years in the scale railway modelling field when I was younger. In that discipline accurate manufacturers general arrangement (GA) drawings were relatively easy to come by. My particular interest was the LSWR in the Edwardian age around 1910. For modelling that period I obtained, and have still got, GAs for everything important, track, line side hardware, wagons, coaches, and locomotives. It was all easily available and mostly collected and published.
With this information I could assess any kit I purchased and modify it if required to ensure accuracy and consistency of standard. I could also scratch build anything not commercially available to the same consistency.
When I decided to move to the military modelling field I was surprised that this sort information was very hard to find. I had to therefore adopt the “if it looks right it is right” ethos. However, to me, accuracy of representation remains is an important aspect of a kit.
For the high end “Uber“ kit accuracy seems to be assumed. However, without quality information to hand to check the kit you may actually find the low end “Dog” is a more accurate representation of the object being modelled!
How can this important aspect of a kit therefore be determined in the context of determining the rating allocated to a model company?
Sure, you can compare the model to photos, but that really only gives you an idea of the spatial relationship of parts. In blunt terms photos do not tell you how big or thick those parts should be, just where they are in relation to others. Some kits have full internal detail. How can this be checked for accuracy, especially in the rarer or one off prototype subjects? All the excellent pattern making and fit and finish from that kit could simply be copying the designers best guess! That detail then becomes nothing more than a marketing tool to increase price and perceived value. We have no accessible field of reference so cannot determine accuracy.
Without pre-determined fields of reference, rating manufacturers in the way this question has been asked is simply an exercise in showcasing your personal viewpoint.
Me, I’m sticking with “if it looks right it is right” these days and will buy from whoever makes a subject I want to build.

I agree with a lot of what you say Tim. I am very much in the ‘if it looks right’ brigade and it is very much why I don’t overly focus on accuracy in my posts. That said, yes I want accuracy and there are many who tear kits apart on minor points of accuracy, not so much on this site but on certain other modelling sites it gets to be rather intense. This is why this site is my favourite model site, more balanced than most.

Again I speak primarily of 1/32 aircraft as that is where my experience mostly is. On these ‘other sites’ of those brands I rate highly, Tamiya, Zoukei Mura and ICM are highly regarded for accuracy. HKM, who I also rate reasonably highly, do get a lot of their kits attacked over accuracy (the Mossie, 1/32 B17 and 1/32
Lanc in particular). Trumpeter and Hobbyboss are probably the most derided over accuracy though among their ranges are some great kits considered to be reasonably accurate. Revell come of pretty badly over accuracy as well of course but even they sometimes hit a subject for six.

As you identify accuracy is a difficult matter when it comes to historical subjects, in particular, and it can become very fraught. I suspect wartime ‘field modifications’ contribute and even factory modifications too that don’t necessarily get picked up in paperwork.

Often it is necessary to build a model based on ‘best available’ information using your own judgement after research. I remember my 112 Squadron Mustang and the questions for which there were no definitive answers from photos. Did the spinner retain the red from the desert scheme? Was the subject a IVa or IV? Was it refitted with a cuffed Hamilton in the field as one photo seems to suggest? Airfix released a Mustang (I think in 1/48) in the same scheme and even with their usually good research in such matters, got it completely wrong when they produced the same aircraft, depicting it with a standard RAF camo pattern rather than the very different ‘Firewall Scheme’. There being photos and documentary evidence of the scheme this aircraft had. I opted in the end for a sky spinner and cuffed props with the Firewall Scheme.

So yes, with historical depictions often it can be down to interpretation and ‘if it looks right’.

 

[BarryW]

Taking money out of this all together, acquisition depends upon use as well Barry. It’s not just getting from A to B. A Skoda Yeti would suit my wife far more than a Testarossa. She keeps chickens and is a very keen gardener. Try getting a bale of straw into a Ferrari? She might have more fun getting to the garden centre, but wouldn’t be able to bring much back! The Ferrari simply put would be a poor purchase for her. In modelling terms, if you enjoy the actual modelling rather than simply assembling, then a perceived high end kit would be a poor purchase. It would be dull, simply being an exercise in sticking part A to part B many times until you’ve finished. As I said, you cannot rate manufacturers without a valid frame of reference!

Agreed, practicality is the issue but if you can afford the Ferrari I suspect you will also be able to afford a cheap second hand van for ‘jobs’.

In a way that is the same as with models…. It is great to build a ‘cheap’ kit sometimes as we cannot live on caviar alone, even if you love that horrible salty stuff.

I do challenge the suggestion that the high end kit is a matter of repeatedly just attaching A to B though and, as such, is not modelling. Far from it. All it does is remove some of the more tedious chores from a build. Some people do enjoy fettling, filling and sanding a kit into submission, others prefer to get on with the build and focus of the painting and weathering. That’s the rich diversity of the hobby.

The frame of reference is information. If you love your fettling stay away from Tamiya, if you hate it, save a little longer and get Tamiya. Better still, try both and get what you can from both, going into a build knowing what will be needed to complete it.

Ultimately information is king.

 

[Deleted member 7917]

Just some random comments on this topic ...

• Cost of a kit does not necessarily corelate to the quality thereof;
• For most manufacturers the quality of their kits varies from poor to excellent (notably Revell and early ICM/Special Hobby to their latest product);
• Some modellers (not me) relish the challenge of producing a really well built model from a lesser quality kit and I'm in awe of some of their efforts;
• There seems to be an increasing trend to produce LE kits combining product from multiple manufacturers (e.g. Eduard/Hasegawa, Eduard/Special Hobby);
• The manufacture of 'add-ons' seems to be skyrocketing.

What a diverse and great hobby we all enjoy ...

 

[JR]

At the end of the day its what we do for fun, show each other what we've managed or as in my case set fire to If I cant .
Why do we do it ? because we like to fiddle about and try to emulate the real thing in miniature that's all .

 

[Tim Marlow]

Ultimately information is king.

That’s the crux of my underlying issue with this thread. It is not generating useful comparative information because there is no constant frame of reference to refer back to. All it’s generating is a perceived impression of a manufacturer depending upon the reviewers mood at the time of the build.

 

[The Smythe Meister]

Blimey,i didn`t realise that modelling could be made so boring scientific!
I just build stuff i like,for FUN.....old or new,this brand or that...... and like to add my own "scratched" bits here and there,
Guess i shouldn`t even post on this type of intellectual modelling thread........ after all.......
.... I like RUBBER BAND TRACKS
Andy

 

[Gern]

.... I like RUBBER BAND TRACKS
Andy

You ever found any that fit properly - without being too loose to stay in place or so tight they bend or break the axle of either the drive or idler wheel? That's what I've always found with 1/72 and 1/76 anyway.

Still gotta say they're preferable to individual links as long as they fit.

 

[rtfoe]

To me a bad fit is like putting a fuselage of one half of a Spitfire to the other half of a ME109. So if the halves are of the same aircraft then a little elbow grease doesn't hurt in a soundproof room. There is always never a 100% perfect fit depending on either the glue oozing out or retracting into the joint while drying...you'll still need to do a quick light sanding or thin sliver of filler. Also the larger the scale the chances of accurate thickness may be achieved but can also reduce the structural toughness of the plastic hence warping and so on. That's plastic modelling, it's either a pastime, self motivator, hair puller, ego builder, achievement driver or just fun.

I like building dioramas so my preference would be less complex kits to get them to the base faster. There are stand alone displays that I would choose a kit with just enough detail that I can still add on to test my skills and give judges a chance to fill points in the category of details section. These are just my personal preferences.

From what I heard, the Revell 1/48 A-10 Warthog is more accurate and a better kit than Tamiya's and still is, although it has raised panel lines...I think both have them. Price wise Revell beats it. Also there's also the pretty good Revell 1/48 Sabredog which Tamiya doesn't so that's hands down too. So not everything is Tamiya although they're up there with consistent good fitting kits.

Let's just say every brand has their share of doodas or Picasso's and their very own business model and plans to fit almost all interested in this hobby so buy whatever appeals to you on the shelf. If you're still not sure just click onto Scalemates.

Cheers,
Richard

 

[BarryW]

….There is always never a 100% perfect fit depending on either the glue oozing out or retracting into the joint while drying...you'll still need to do a quick light sanding or thin sliver of filler. Also the larger the scale the chances of accurate thickness may be achieved but can also reduce the structural toughness of the plastic hence warping and so on. That's plastic modelling, it's either a pastime, self motivator, hair puller, ego builder, achievement driver or just fun.

Hi Richard

Try the Tamiya 1/32 Corsair - you will see that perfect fit does exist. The other WW2 Tamiya 1/32 warbirds come closer to it than any others though their new 1/48s are reputedly up to this standard as well.

Also warping has driven me up the wall with bigger kits, you are right, but I have never had warping or shrinkage in a 1/32 Tamiya. I don’t recall a significant issue with Trumpeter/Hobbyboss or Zoukei Mura either in this respect. It is Revell and Airfix (1/24) who are the main culprits in this respect due to their cheap plastic.

 

[David Lovell]

All I can suggest is if you don't like them leave them alone this isn't the place to slag off the manufacturers YOU don't like just because YOU don't like the plastic or heaven above the parts don't fit perfectly let people make up their own minds.
As Laurie rightly pointed out there's a thing called the Internet stick in what you'd like to build it'll list manufacturers extras photo etch decals etc in box reviews build reviews you name it but its still only at the end of the day that persons opinion but that opinion let's the individual make up their own mind no one is comparing manufacturers they don't need to its a review of that kit and that kit alone.
I said at the beginning WHY I'm still of the same opinion I hope one of the mods puts this pointless thing to bed once and for all.

 

[Jakko]

there's a thing called the Internet stick in what you'd like to build it'll list manufacturers extras photo etch decals etc in box reviews build reviews you name it

Um … this forum is also on the Internet, so Barry’s thread is contributing to what you just said (I think you mean “search engine” where you said “Internet” )

As I said earlier, I think it would be better to try and be objective for reviews of manufacturers: list things that simply are. “Provides many options” is objective, “confusing instructions” is not, for example.

 

[BarryW]

All I can suggest is if you don't like them leave them alone this isn't the place to slag off the manufacturers YOU don't like just because YOU don't like the plastic or heaven above the parts don't fit perfectly let people make up their own minds.
As Laurie rightly pointed out there's a thing called the Internet stick in what you'd like to build it'll list manufacturers extras photo etch decals etc in box reviews build reviews you name it but its still only at the end of the day that persons opinion but that opinion let's the individual make up their own mind no one is comparing manufacturers they don't need to its a review of that kit and that kit alone.
I said at the beginning WHY I'm still of the same opinion I hope one of the mods puts this pointless thing to bed once and for all.

You do seem to be getting somewhat agitated over this.

‘Slagging off’ is certainly not what is happening here.

A honest appraisal of the good and bad is not what a ‘slagging off’ is.

Even Revell have had praise (AR196,
decals, cheap) and at the other end of the scale Tamiya have received criticism (decals, painting instructions). This is not what slagging off looks like.