Jump to content

matchbox kits?


modelfan

Recommended Posts

Love Matchbox kits since I was A kid when they first appeared,here's my recent Siskin.

DSCN0966%20640x480_zpshwi4vozd.jpg

Revells Swordfish re-pop.

SDC14689%20600x450_zpsbn39dinx.jpg

And the bases on their armour kits were a revelation way back.

SDC12852640x480_zpsbaaa3f7d.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm... what about these:

https://www.hannants.co.uk/product/RV4166

https://www.hannants.co.uk/product/AX01006

https://www.hannants.co.uk/product/IT0062

Not to mention the many kits in the HB range, like this:

https://www.hannants.co.uk/product/HB80255

All the above are in the same price range of the corresponding matchbox kits of the past, are simple kits that can be built by modellers of every skill level (and the HB ones are even simpler) and yet are miles ahead in terms of moulding and detail compared to the Matchbox kits.

I should also point to the fact that the kits I've chosen are a selection made over pages and pages of catalogue, there are dozens of others from the same and other companies in the same price range, some are even cheaper. And the prices are from Hannants that is never been the cheapest retailer in the UK so are the among the highest for each product.

Basic, low priced and simple kits ? There's plenty around

The thing with the two Airfix and Revell kits you linked is that they are of a different nature to Matchbox kits. During the seventies the attraction of a Matchbox Hellcat, Corsair, Havoc, P-47 or B-25 over the Airfix equivalent was that the parts fitted together much more neatly, and when the parts didn't fit together neatly lack of raised rivets made sanding the joints down possible without creating another problem.

Modern kits like the Airfix Gnat are in general very good, but for a child let's say they are that little bit more difficult to build and can be more unforgiving to mistakes. Matchbox also had a extraordinary gift of providing the most exciting and interesting decal options.

The reason that in 2016 I still enjoy building Matchbox kits is because they don't force me to do the jobs I hate doing like trying to mate badly fitting parts by filling and clamping them together. Matchbox kits do however allow me to do the jobs I enjoy most like adding my own panel line lines and scratch built / scrap parts. There is also a nostalgia angle, I enjoy rebuilding the collection I had as a youngster, only now I am finally able to actually build those same kits to the standard I was trying to reach at age twelve.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the seventies the attraction of a Matchbox Hellcat, Corsair, Havoc, P-47 or B-25 over the Airfix equivalent was that the parts fitted together much more neatly, and when the parts didn't fit together neatly lack of raised rivets made sanding the joints down possible without creating another problem.

Although I share a love of Matchbox kits, I suspect this will be slightly biased for those of us of a certain age (40-50) because at the time we were avid builders, Matchbox were churning out crisp brand new mouldings with awesome Roy Huxley boxart, whereas the equivalent Airfix mouldings were probably already 10 years + old and showing their age with flash and ill fitting parts. The "new" Airfix kits from the 70s (eg Sea Sprite, Banshee, Jet Provost 5, Whirlwind fighter) I consider vastly superior to some of the old clunkers that were also being sold back then.

And although I agree with Giorgio's point, I found the new Airfix Gnat a beast and my first attempt was tossed in the bin!!

Pat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Airfix Gnat may suffer from the well known quality control issue that make some airfix kit bad fitting, but the Revell Hurricane is IMHO no more complicated than most Matchbox kits. And in case this is considered too difficult to build for a novice modeller, the Hobbyboss kits aren't and fit perfectly the niche left by Matchbox for simple good fitting kits that let modellers dedicate their time to painting or other aspects of modelling.

Now I have nothing against Matchbox, like most modellers of my age I grew up with these myself and still have several unbuilt in my stash because of the unusual subjects that they proposed. At the same time it seems to me that there's a lot of nostalgia in action here and we're bemoaning the loss of something from the past without realising that other things have taken their place just fine. Today there are kits that fit as well if not better than old matchbox kits while costing the same and sometimes less. A 12 year old boy today would do perfectly fine starting with HB or Airfix or Revell kits in the same way as I did with Matchbox ones 35 years ago.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I share a love of Matchbox kits, I suspect this will be slightly biased for those of us of a certain age (40-50) because at the time we were avid builders, Matchbox were churning out crisp brand new mouldings with awesome Roy Huxley boxart, whereas the equivalent Airfix mouldings were probably already 10 years + old and showing their age with flash and ill fitting parts. The "new" Airfix kits from the 70s (eg Sea Sprite, Banshee, Jet Provost 5, Whirlwind fighter) I consider vastly superior to some of the old clunkers that were also being sold back then.

And although I agree with Giorgio's point, I found the new Airfix Gnat a beast and my first attempt was tossed in the bin!!

Pat

Yes I would agree with that. Matchbox was there for a certain generation only, rather like Texan Bars and Outer Spacers were.

Airfix did move away from rivets and on to raised panel lines sometime during the seventies and these newer kits were better in a lot of ways to their predecessors, as should be expected. I am thinking of the Mosquito, P-38 and Mustang as examples of the second generation of Airfix tools.

The thing is I like the old kits from Frog, Matchbox and Airfix. Ok they are much more crude than the stuff being tooled today by Airfix and others, but in their own way their imperfections add realism. It is very difficult for me to put my finger on exactly what I mean by this but for me new kits often look a little too perfect. When a kit is produced these days they are much more dimensionally correct than ever before but in order to achieve this accuracy some of the features that stand out in photographs such as rivets become too small to be noticed on models. The details that stand out most on the real thing do not seem to be apparent on accurate kits, for me this is the good thing about old kits.

Edited by old thumper
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Airfix Gnat may suffer from the well known quality control issue that make some airfix kit bad fitting, but the Revell Hurricane is IMHO no more complicated than most Matchbox kits. And in case this is considered too difficult to build for a novice modeller, the Hobbyboss kits aren't and fit perfectly the niche left by Matchbox for simple good fitting kits that let modellers dedicate their time to painting or other aspects of modelling.

Now I have nothing against Matchbox, like most modellers of my age I grew up with these myself and still have several unbuilt in my stash because of the unusual subjects that they proposed. At the same time it seems to me that there's a lot of nostalgia in action here and we're bemoaning the loss of something from the past without realising that other things have taken their place just fine. Today there are kits that fit as well if not better than old matchbox kits while costing the same and sometimes less. A 12 year old boy today would do perfectly fine starting with HB or Airfix or Revell kits in the same way as I did with Matchbox ones 35 years ago.

Two things about Revell.

Some of the Revell kits found in shops today are pretty old including some from the 1960's, these are much worse than Airfix kits from the same period. Airfix have tooled the P-51D three seperate times while Revell still has it's original kit from about 1962.

The second thing with Revell is that some of it's kits are Matchbox. Oddly Revell discontinued a lot of the old Matchbox range including the Havoc, P-47 and Mustang while continuing with production of it's own kits from the 60's which were much worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two things about Revell.

Some of the Revell kits found in shops today are pretty old including some from the 1960's, these are much worse than Airfix kits from the same period. Airfix have tooled the P-51D three seperate times while Revell still has it's original kit from about 1962.

The second thing with Revell is that some of it's kits are Matchbox. Oddly Revell discontinued a lot of the old Matchbox range including the Havoc, P-47 and Mustang while continuing with production of it's own kits from the 60's which were much worse.

Hard to believe that Revell did that. But they did. This really caused my esteem for the grand old American kit maker to plummet. A shame. Of course, I could always blame the Germans....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm currently building with great pleasure the Matchbox Swordfish here:

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234999297-another-matchbox-swordfish/

and have a Stranraer lined up on the slipway. Both good examples of the quality of their biplane moulds at their best. Oddly though MB seem to have the wrong aircraft markings in the box art and decals for the Taranto version of the Stringbag. As others have noted, their quixotic subjects like the Wellesley, Heyford etc made/make the choice of modelling subjects all the richer, even today. Glad you can still pick them up at reasonable prices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heinkel HE 70/170,AW.Siskin,Wellesley,Fury.I could go on.I have no hesitation buying or building them even though they may have been surpassed by more recent and up to date kits.Also the decals are still very usable after all these years.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will probably find they are Chinese made kits and not actual Matchbox kits. They should be perfectly ok though as they were made under license and are not dodgy copies.

Dunno about that. I found quality of Chinese made Matchbox mouldings to be quite hit and miss. Colour density was often not good, and quite a bit of flash. Not something I remenber from the original Matchbox mouldings. May be mould wear, may be sloppy craftsmanship. They were also kits I never made back in the day, so the moulds may have been bad from the start.

The kits I've purchased from said Chinese website are actual Matchbox kits, not copies or made-for-local-market kits. The quality will be just the same as the ones I built as a kid.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The kits I've purchased from said Chinese website are actual Matchbox kits, not copies or made-for-local-market kits. The quality will be just the same as the ones I built as a kid.

Give us the link

modelldoc

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The kits I've purchased from said Chinese website are actual Matchbox kits, not copies or made-for-local-market kits. The quality will be just the same as the ones I built as a kid.

The molds being the same does not necessarily mean the end product is the same. You can still skimp on raw materials, not know how to run the process, the molds may be worn.

Case in point: Trimaster: the Trimaster mouldings are considerably crisper, less warped, and there is less flash present than (in decreasing order of perceived (by me) quality) the Dragon, Revell, and Italeri incarnations. It *is* important who runs that iron.

Edited by Hotel Papa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The second thing with Revell is that some of it's kits are Matchbox. Oddly Revell discontinued a lot of the old Matchbox range including the Havoc, P-47 and Mustang while continuing with production of it's own kits from the 60's which were much worse.

Objection Myludd, two at least two thirds of that statement - Revell replaced their 1963ish P-47 with a new tool some 20 years ago, and I'm not that sure if they actually continued producing the former after acquisition of the MB tools. Revell's Boston is by far the best of the four old tool A-20 kits (not necessarily the P-70 boxing, though), and is a much better Boston III than MB's G is a G - if that makes sense. Revell also did a new tool Mustang 20 years ago, though admittedly it's a B not a D. The recent reappearance of that incredibly bad old tool D is indeed somewhat surprising, but actually the MB D is only less bad than that Revell dog, but not among MB's good kits (IMHO). They not even managed to get the prop right for their original box art subject...

As for your preceding post, modern kits are not necessarily better shapewise than older ones - I'd say Trumpeter is doing their best most of their days to prove you wrong... :coolio: If a kit (or drawing it is based on) is badly researched, it's no question of age vs. modernity. One example: There was a drawing of the Spit V reengined with a DB605 in Av News some 20 years ago. It portrayed how it may have looked - but not how it did, as a series of large clear photos was published in German mag Luftfahrt International in the mid 70s already, showing how it actually was. So I think we should not decry an older kit (or drawing) simply because of its age, they knew a trick or two 50+ years ago - just look at Frog's series of Jets released in the mid 50s.

The molds being the same does not necessarily mean the end product is the same. You can still skimp on raw materials, not know how to run the process, the molds may be worn.

Case in point: Trimaster: the Trimaster mouldings are considerably crisper, less warped, ant there is less flash present than (in decreasing order of perceived (by me) quality) the Dragon, Revell, and Italeri incarnations. It *is* important who runs that iron.

... but this is a case of mould decay, as far as I'm informed: TriMaster doesn't exist any longer for 20 or so years, and even if they did, their results wouldn't look any better. Apparently Dragon had taken over the moulds from TriMaster some time in the mid 90s and supplied Italeri and Revell afterwards. I do not know if Dragon continues producing them, but if so, I'd speculate their early productions will look much better than more recent ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objection Myludd, two at least two thirds of that statement - Revell replaced their 1963ish P-47 with a new tool some 20 years ago, and I'm not that sure if they actually continued producing the former after acquisition of the MB tools. Revell's Boston is by far the best of the four old tool A-20 kits (not necessarily the P-70 boxing, though), and is a much better Boston III than MB's G is a G - if that makes sense. Revell also did a new tool Mustang 20 years ago, though admittedly it's a B not a D. The recent reappearance of that incredibly bad old tool D is indeed somewhat surprising, but actually the MB D is only less bad than that Revell dog, but not among MB's good kits (IMHO). They not even managed to get the prop right for their original box art subject...

As for your preceding post, modern kits are not necessarily better shapewise than older ones - I'd say Trumpeter is doing their best most of their days to prove you wrong... :coolio: If a kit (or drawing it is based on) is badly researched, it's no question of age vs. modernity. One example: There was a drawing of the Spit V reengined with a DB605 in Av News some 20 years ago. It portrayed how it may have looked - but not how it did, as a series of large clear photos was published in German mag Luftfahrt International in the mid 70s already, showing how it actually was. So I think we should not decry an older kit (or drawing) simply because of its age, they knew a trick or two 50+ years ago - just look at Frog's series of Jets released in the mid 50s.

... but this is a case of mould decay, as far as I'm informed: TriMaster doesn't exist any longer for 20 or so years, and even if they did, their results wouldn't look any better. Apparently Dragon had taken over the moulds from TriMaster some time in the mid 90s and supplied Italeri and Revell afterwards. I do not know if Dragon continues producing them, but if so, I'd speculate their early productions will look much better than more recent ones.

Don't get me wrong I am a huge fan of older kits, most of what I have made in the last twelve months or so has been older Airfix, Matchbox and Revell stuff. Out of these three manufacturers the only one that I have a really bad experience with is Revell, to add to this I am a big Matchbox fan so will always be biased when comparing Matchbox to Revell.

I have not made the Revell Havoc but do have the Matchbox boxing of their P-70 which looks like a bit of a headache with all it's rivets and blemishes and warped parts, but then yes I have seen some very nicely built Revell Havocs.

Perhaps Revell did not replace it's old kits from the sixties with Matchbox kits because this would only have been a short term measure, I don't know.

I would certainly say that the Matchbox P-51D is much better in every respect to the old Revell kit, although of course not as good as the new Airfix tool.

The last picture is off the old old Airfix Fool's Paradise P-51D from about 1960 which I spoilt by correcting it's paint scheme and general appearance. As bad as this old Airfix kit is I still prefer it to Revell's.

IMG_2638.jpg

IMG_2787.jpg

IMG_2792.jpg

Edited by old thumper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have to say, I'd equate the Hobbyboss Quickbuilds as the Matchbox kits of today. Simple enough for a beginner, but accurate enough with a little work for most people unless the subject is your passion.

I submit the following evidence M'lud....

2412B523-8F4B-4114-9500-FF970E7592F5_zps

06E5BBF7-990F-4DAF-8C51-BB43A34448E4_zps

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got a "Matchbox" Walrus that has additional Chinese words printed on the back of the box. The instructions are purely in Chinese. The plastic is ok. It's definately made from the original Matchbox moulds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...