Model kit quality question...

[Dunc2610]

So, being someone who's experience is limited to airfix/revell in the early 90s quality wise, looking around now there are many many more kit brands floating about. My question is where do they sit quality wise? Through research I note Eduard are right up there in both kit and instruction respects and Tamiya seem to be ok too, along with HK models it seems, but what about others like Arms, ICM, Trumpeter, etc? 

 

Sorry if this is in the wrong place, I couldn't see anywhere else it would fit? 

[bentwaters81tfw]

ICM are excellent, Trumpeter are a bit of a curate's egg. Arms I don't know. All depends on subject matter I suppose.

[Dunc2610]

Just now, bentwaters81tfw said:

ICM are excellent, Trumpeter are a bit of a curate's egg. Arms I don't know. All depends on subject matter I suppose.

I'm primarily looking at WW2 aircraft 👍

[bentwaters81tfw]

I'll leave that to the WWII  experts, and there are many on here who will point out the good and the maybe not so good.

[Troy Smith]

1 hour ago, Dunc2610 said:

My question is where do they sit quality wise?

Varies.   Really, it's best just to research a specific kit,  as things get reboxed, or maybe older example from a company.  

 

48 minutes ago, Dunc2610 said:

I'm primarily looking at WW2 aircraft

Which does not greatly narrow your request.  Again, it varies, and also depends on what you want out of a kit?  

Accuracy?  Ease of construction?   Options?    This is important, as the most accurate kit may not be the easiest to build,  or a seemingly cheap kit may then need add ons.

This is one area here Eduard Profipacks score, as they have useful added things like PE for fine details and seat straps, as well as canopy masks.

 

Bear in mind as well that if your prior experience is from 30 odd years ago, be aware modren CAD designed kit often fit VERY precisely,  and what would be fine in an older kit can cause major fit problems if you are unaware that a missed sprue nib or mould line, or even a coat of paint may cause fit issues, like a fuselage closing up properly due bulkhead parts not sitting deeply enough.

 

Any reasonably modern kit has probably been discussed on here,  searching via google and adding in the term Britmodeller will bring up results.

 

Sure, you can just search, but you can find plenty of clueless reviews on kits on YouTube that really don't help, I've seen notably inaccurate kits given glowing reviews, eg some of the classic British subjects botched by Trumpeter,   who usually make good kits, as in they assemble well,  but can vary wildly in actual accuracy.  Also worth reading builds and seeing how they went.

 

Can't find what you want, start a thread in the WW2 section.    Research is the key,   as then you know what to look out for,  but I really suggest dealing with each subject individually,  and considering what criteria are of importance to you. 

 

1 hour ago, Dunc2610 said:

Arms

Do you mean Arma Hobby?   They are making a name for themselves with very well researched and detailed kits, and are improving with each kit.  

 

HTH

[Seahawk]

As Troy says, it's dangerous to generalise.  Even the "best" ranges have some sub-optimal kits, if not complete turkeys.  And all ranges have a mixture of new and old toolings, some positively geriatric.  Here's an illustration of the problem from the 1/72 AFV world.  The Heller range contains 3 1/72 Shermans, 2 M4s and 1 M4A2.  1 M4 and the M4A2 are very recent moulds and are quite excellent: accurate in shape, reasonably priced, lots of spare parts included, etc, etc, - nearly as good as the exquisite Dragon Shermans (which are rarely obtainable and horribly expensive).  The other M4 is the old Airfix mould from the 1960s in a Heller box: it's Sherman-shaped but not really worthy of serious consideration nowadays.  If you bought either of the 2 newer kits, you'd be delighted at what you got for your money, if you bought the other, you might seriously consider giving up modelling 1/72 armour. 

[Mark Harmsworth]

Have a look at the reviews here:

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/forum/450-kits/

 

[Circloy]

On 22/12/2021 at 01:05, Troy Smith said:

I've seen notably inaccurate kits given glowing reviews, ...

 

Maybe we need to review the reviewers as each will have their own field of expertise, experience or, dare I say, bias.

[John Tapsell]

A lot of reviewers rely on manufacturers to supply them with kits. That puts them in a difficult position. If they provide a brutally honest review of a poor kit, certain manufacturers will cease to supply review samples (other manufacturers are 'bigger' than that). Instead, the reviewer has to tread a a careful line between being honest about the kit quality and losing the ability to review that manufacturer's kits.

 

Where reviewers are discussing the kits they've purchased themselves, that's an entirely different ballgame. They have no obligation towards the manufacturer.

[alt-92]

50 minutes ago, John Tapsell said:

If they provide a brutally honest review of a poor kit, certain manufacturers will cease to supply review samples (other manufacturers are 'bigger' than that). Instead, the reviewer has to tread a a careful line between being honest about the kit quality and losing the ability to review that manufacturer's kits.

You have to wonder if that is actually a problem or not