Arma Hobby P51B/C Value For Money?

[FalkeEins]

6 hours ago, fishplanebeer said:

Ps. The exquisite Special Hobby Bf109E-1/3 is a relative bargain at £13.30 (Hannants current price) so excellence can be affordable 

 

 

and a fair bit less than, say, a Tamiya Gustav or a Fine Molds Friedrich. You can still find the Airfix new-tool Emil at around a fiver though.  Perhaps there IS an element of 'we know this one will sell in bucket-loads' so lets tart it up a bit and boost the RRP ( and profits..of course)

[Ed Russell]

9 hours ago, lasermonkey said:

when you see yourself being edged out (in more than one way), it’s an awful lot more depressing, I can assure you.

I take your point and I am not without sympathy - I am sure you are not alone in your situation. With my Scots heritage I am as careful with money as the next man, maybe more so. I only buy what I really, really want and can justify to myself.

As part of a part-time cottage industry manufacturing conglomerate it does irk me when people who ought to know better say "How can you justify $4.50 for that piece of resin when I know the cost of resin and there's only 20c worth of resin in it" or "Airfix can sell that kit for $20 - how can you justify charging $30 for a conversion for it." These people are not stupid but they don't really want to listen to micro-economic arguments explaining the cost of things, they want a platform.

My apologies if it upset you but complaining about the price of kits will not reduce the cost by very much at all.

[FalkeEins]

....didn't we have these sorts of discussions a few years ago when Hasegawa 72nd scale kits reached the 30-50 GBP mark ?  Guess some allowance was made for the fact that they were so far away and their currency was so strong. Now its all much closer to home....(for those of us in this part of the world ...)

[Giorgio N]

Well, this is the first time I've seen mentioned that an "inferior" kit would be better value for money because of the need to fettle parts and so on leading to a longer build time...

Guess that by this standard an old Revell 1960's P-51D would be even better value for money as would require a lot of work to bring to a decent standard and even more if I want to convert it into a P-51B, all the while being available for very little money.

Of course mt latter statement is deliberately absurd and I can't see many people singing the praise of that old kit because it is so bad to lead to many hours at the bench.

Still the concept is something that I can see having some merit... for some at least ! Personally I don't mind the idea of spending more time than required adding details to a bare kit but the idea of spending more time to sort bad fit or other issues due to bad manufacturing quality is something I'm happy to avoid (I've been struggling for enough time on the AZ MiG-17 to be keen on doing something similar anytime soon...).

On the contrary to me the time saved thanks to a good design, engineering and fit of a kit is time I can spend on other aspects, be it adding extra detail (if needed) or painting or preparing a base or just the historical research.. or even just starting a new model.

Is it worth paying extra for a good design, engineering and fit ? Again it's a personal choice. In the past I sometime preferred to go with a cheaper option, today if I can I tend to favour a more expensive but better moulded kit. I'm thinking I'm getting too old to have to fill/sand/prime/fill/sand/prime on any joint, not to mention those kits where parts have to be seriously modified to fit (yes, that AZ MiG again...).

All personal choices of course ! At least with the P-51B some of the cheaper alternatives fare pretty well in terms of fit (is the Academy kit really so much harder to build ? I built one last year and the assembly took very little time and effort...), this is not the case for other subjects unfortunately.

[Graham Boak]

It's a trade-off.  If the cheaper less-accurate kit doesn't take a lot of fettling or you are happy with something having the wrong wheel hubs, no room for an engine under the cowling, a squashed canopy - or whatever it has inferior to the superior kit - then why not?  However if it is a major rework then this is only truly sensible if there's no other alternative.  The key difference, I feel, is whether you have any kind of knowledge or "feel" for the subject - if it looks wrong to me then I just have to do something.

 

It's different if you already have a kit, know you could buy a better one, but go ahead and work on it anyway.  You can of course always buy it and carry on with the older one too.

 

I must admit having a small number of kits, some dating back decades, that fell into the category of "too nice to spoil by making them".  Monogram Bearcat - although knowing that it needs tail surgery helps. Monogram Tigercat - though it turns out that I don't actually care that much for Tigercats.  Eduard Spitfire, perhaps, although I have sought out replacement cannon bulges that weren't in the kit.  Arma Hobby Hurricane IIb - though that's still a bit recent to count.  Somehow modelling doesn't completely appeal unless I can do something to improve it, something to  make it mine  Modelling rather then merely assembling Lego.

[lasermonkey]

2 hours ago, Ed Russell said:

I take your point and I am not without sympathy - I am sure you are not alone in your situation. With my Scots heritage I am as careful with money as the next man, maybe more so. I only buy what I really, really want and can justify to myself.

As part of a part-time cottage industry manufacturing conglomerate it does irk me when people who ought to know better say "How can you justify $4.50 for that piece of resin when I know the cost of resin and there's only 20c worth of resin in it" or "Airfix can sell that kit for $20 - how can you justify charging $30 for a conversion for it." These people are not stupid but they don't really want to listen to micro-economic arguments explaining the cost of things, they want a platform.

My apologies if it upset you but complaining about the price of kits will not reduce the cost by very much at all.

I honestly get that small-scale production, especially resin, costs a lot in time and money to produce. After trying my hand at very basic casting, my appreciation ramped up drastically. I quickly learnt to understand the prices charged, even if they might be out of my league.

 

I doubt that prices will come down again, even assuming that some sense of normality returns. But what I am sure of is that nothing improves by keeping quiet about it.

[FatFlyHalf]

11 hours ago, CarLos said:

The Arma kit good value for money? Absolutely NOT.

 

I've spent 28 euro with mine, and the kit is so good that even I could build it in a weekend. Contrasting with, for example, the Academy one - 8 euro and at least a month of happy modelling time.

So - 14 euro a day for Arma against 27 cents for Academy. Any doubt about the winner?

AH!  By this method of calculation I should be owed a small fortune by Airfix because of my VERY slow build of a Lancaster B III.

But to be fair to you, it is a reasonable approach.  Value for money is what you get out of it as much as what you put in.

In plastic modelling it is  a subjective measurement, not objective as there is no set criteria. 

[Watch some economic-scientist pop-up now with a formula for working out kit-v-kit cost and value criteria].

 

FFH

 

[Tbolt]

13 hours ago, fishplanebeer said:

PS. The exquisite Special Hobby Bf109E-1/3 is a relative bargain at £13.30 (Hannants current price) so excellence can be affordable 

 

 

That's because it's an Eduard kit, so the previous comments apply.

[RidgeRunner]

5 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

an "inferior" kit would be better value for money because of the need to fettle parts and so on leading to a longer build time...

Madness! I appreciate we all have differing reasons for modelling. Those who are focussed on price can pick up a reasonably decent Airfix kit for a few pennies. For a detailed kit (and I havent yet felt an Arma Hobby kit in my hands) you have to pay. Serious modellers, or even semi-serious modellers, will go this route. So, debate your reasoning with yourselves and buy accordingly. In this modern world we are too often quick to miss things on the basis of price without considering value. 

[Graham Boak]

Nor have I seen an Airfix Tempest, but from other kits I have seen I think it probably deserves rather more than a "reasonably decent".  Not as good as Arma Hobby, very likely,, but, probably better than other available Tempests, if it is a Mk.V you want.  One universal problem is that making something a little bit better can't be done for only a small increase in price.  A really nice wine costs considerably more than a perfectly acceptable one, which in turn costs more than something only fit for a mouthwash after brushing your teeth,

 

There is also the problem that markets do influence prices.  In the UK, anything from Airfix will outsell any identical kit from some funny foreign producer.  So imported kits cannot compete at the same price level unless supported elsewhere.  To make money on lower sales they have to charge more and hope for a more sophisticated sub-market - that's us.  If we don't support the better producers then we deserve the sort of poor quality models Airfix was giving us in the 90s and turn of the century.  Thankfully I don't think that any current producer is producing anything quite as poor as (name your own hate here).  But quality didn't rise out of the kindness of accountants' hearts, it rose from the pressure of the specialist market driving a search for technological changes.

 

Yes, we (or at least some of us) can make silk purses from sow's ears.  It even makes for an interesting challenge, now and again.  But should we have to?.

[fishplanebeer]

I genuinely appreciate all the comments and interest shown and it will always be 'each to their own' for a whole variety of different reasons/factors, with no right or wrong as this boils down to individual taste, budget and modelling skill etc.. That said I still think the Arma P51 kits are markedly over priced compared with SH and Eduard, who also offer excellent similar kits, and that this particular kit is being priced purely on the basis of what they think they can get away with.

 

But don't all businesses do this I hear you ask? Well yes they do and I'm sure Arma have done their research and are currently quite happy to sell a lower volume at a higher price as they clearly believe the current price elasticity of this new kit (basically inelastic) is such that this will deliver a higher sales revenue in the short term. This is absolutely correct but once all the 'must havers' or 'early adopters' or 'discerning modellers' have filled their collective boots who then buys the kit going forward?

 

On the other hand Eduard and SH seem to adopt a very different pricing strategy with their new releases as from the outset they seem to price them at a mid-range level to attract as many sales as possible over time with no need to flex prices down after the initial rush of orders. This avoids the issue of then having to discount the kit at a later stage after the initial rush, or even 'amend' it in order to attract more sales. This would only serve to undermine customer confidence and value in their brand as why would you buy the kit when it's released when you know it will be £X cheaper in 3 months time?

 

So my personal conclusion is that Arma's pricing has nothing to do with the relative costs of production but is far more to do with their pricing strategy which seeks to maximise revenue from those chomping at the bit to get the new kit. Then once this market segment has been satisfied they will then offer a 'variant' at a lower price in order to sell to the wider market/audience. Makes perfect sense from a business and PLC (product life cycle) perspective and seems to be exactly what they've done with the Hurricane, so I'll wait a while until their inevitable lower priced 'variants' appear.

 

Regards

Colin.

[fishplanebeer]

Just realised that this post has now been moved to 'chat' which is fair enough but it would have been helpful if I'd been told out of courtesy as I've just spent some time trying to find it again.

 

Regards

Colin.

[JackG]

I would not claim to know Arma's pricing policy, but would be curious to see if their production runs are similar or less to other big brand names.   Their January newsletter stated their first boxing of the P-51 had sold out in a month.   If they are doing smaller runs while the other brand maximize output, then the former may raise prices to balance out costs.   On the other hand, if  a model company is maximizing the output of a mold, then that likely allows them to lower slightly the kit prices?

 

Here is the best price I can find 11.71 Pound sterling, but as already mentioned, Brexit will skew prices for UK residents:

https://exito.site/en_GB/p/ARMA-HOBBY-70039-172-P-51C-Mustang-Mk-III-Model-Kit/62924

 

regards,

Jack

[Tbolt]

7 hours ago, fishplanebeer said:

I genuinely appreciate all the comments and interest shown and it will always be 'each to their own' for a whole variety of different reasons/factors, with no right or wrong as this boils down to individual taste, budget and modelling skill etc.. That said I still think the Arma P51 kits are markedly over priced compared with SH and Eduard, who also offer excellent similar kits, and that this particular kit is being priced purely on the basis of what they think they can get away with.

 

But don't all businesses do this I hear you ask? Well yes they do and I'm sure Arma have done their research and are currently quite happy to sell a lower volume at a higher price as they clearly believe the current price elasticity of this new kit (basically inelastic) is such that this will deliver a higher sales revenue in the short term. This is absolutely correct but once all the 'must havers' or 'early adopters' or 'discerning modellers' have filled their collective boots who then buys the kit going forward?

 

On the other hand Eduard and SH seem to adopt a very different pricing strategy with their new releases as from the outset they seem to price them at a mid-range level to attract as many sales as possible over time with no need to flex prices down after the initial rush of orders. This avoids the issue of then having to discount the kit at a later stage after the initial rush, or even 'amend' it in order to attract more sales. This would only serve to undermine customer confidence and value in their brand as why would you buy the kit when it's released when you know it will be £X cheaper in 3 months time?

 

So my personal conclusion is that Arma's pricing has nothing to do with the relative costs of production but is far more to do with their pricing strategy which seeks to maximise revenue from those chomping at the bit to get the new kit. Then once this market segment has been satisfied they will then offer a 'variant' at a lower price in order to sell to the wider market/audience. Makes perfect sense from a business and PLC (product life cycle) perspective and seems to be exactly what they've done with the Hurricane, so I'll wait a while until their inevitable lower priced 'variants' appear.

 

Regards

Colin.

It's hard to know what their exact pricing policy is but you have to remember Arma is a small company with higher per unit overheads than someone like Eduard and their production runs will not be as big.

 

Also Special Hobby kits are priced slightly higher than Eduard but the molding and detail isn't to as high a standard either, but I believe both Eduard and Special Hobby do their own moulding where as I'm sure Arma have to pay some else to do it.

[Tbolt]

3 hours ago, JackG said:

I would not claim to know Arma's pricing policy, but would be curious to see if their production runs are similar or less to other big brand names.   Their January newsletter stated their first boxing of the P-51 had sold out in a month.   If they are doing smaller runs while the other brand maximize output, then the former may raise prices to balance out costs.   On the other hand, if  a model company is maximizing the output of a mold, then that likely allows them to lower slightly the kit prices?

 

Here is the best price I can find 11.71 Pound sterling, but as already mentioned, Brexit will skew prices for UK residents:

https://exito.site/en_GB/p/ARMA-HOBBY-70039-172-P-51C-Mustang-Mk-III-Model-Kit/62924

 

regards,

Jack

 

In the UK It shows £14.06. Still a good price though.

 

[Giorgio N]

Pricing strategies are something that only the insiders would know, unless the information is stated by the company (and even then I always take these statements with a pinch of salt). We do not know what the costs are for each and every company and even things like production numbers are often unknown to us customers. Companies in different countries are also subject to different fixed costs and different tax regimes and all of these are going to affect the end price of a product.

In any case yes, Eduard and SH are a slightly cheaper than Arma at the moment, at least if we consider the Mustang (the Hurricanes are inline with what SH charge for their P-40s if not cheaper). At the same time I was checking the KP Tempest yesterday and the F.6 costs on AZ's shop the same as the Arma Mustang in Arma's shop, that considering the quality of the two kits was a bit surprising... but then the Mk.V costs less so there must be a reason why the F.6 is particularly expensive. The reality in any case is that today something like a modern kit of a 1/72 single engined WW2 fighter is going to cost somewhere in the £12-15 range, some may cost more and others may cost a bit less.

Fortunately there are still ways to buy the same kits at better prices, be it by finding the shop with the best prices or waiting for a special offer... the basic RAF Arma P-51B box can already be found for around € 14 in Europe, it is sure more expensive than the €9 I paid for the Academy kit last year but it's a price I can accept paying for a modern, well detailed and accurate kit.

That brings to a comment someone made before and which I agree with: not all of us are interested in the most accurate kit ! I realise I'm the same myself depending on the subject: I'll always try to buy the most accurate Spitfire (reason why I have several Eduard kits) but when it comes to say the Bf.109 I care much less and for me the AZ/KP kits are good enough while others will likely go Fine Molds for a kit of the same subject.

Of course the Arma kits do not only have the advantage of accuracy, they are also nice kits to build...

Edited March 24, 2022 by Giorgio N

[lasermonkey]

From what I can find, the SH P-40s are roughly the same price as the cheapest Arma boxings, with the next cheapest boxing (the latest releases) being more expensive. Not that long ago,someone was knocking them out for just over eight quid for the junior boxing. I wish I'd bought more than one now.

 

The only Arma kit I have is the Hurricane, five Is and one IIc. I've built four of the Mk Is and didn't find them that enjoyable, if I'm honest. While it undoubtedly looks much better than any other Hurricane in the scale, I found them unnecessarily fiddly*, especially in the wheel wells and cockpit, with parts that are considerably oversized for their locations and with some mould misalignment or poor moulding on parts such as the gear legs and associated parts. I also found that the windscreen didn't want to fit and required adjustment. All niggles that took away from the enjoyment and certainly made me think twice about buying more kits, especially with the hike in prices.

 

*and I know I'm not alone in that opinion.

[CarLos]

I've got a few P-51 B/C kits in my stash from Academy (2), Monogram (2), KP (2) and Arma (1). My intention is to build them all as racers. All the previous kits are pretty buildable and they are certainly cheaper than the recent Arma one, but this is from a completely different league. The attention to detail, the parts fit, the characteristic (once you know better the subject) "drop" of the leading edge extension are absolute unique to 1/72 B/C Mustangs.

 

Will it put my other kits off? No, I think they still can be built, although (for me) not out of the box. I will use the Arma kit as a model to the others, because it is easier to do that than to compare with plans, photos etc. And, for me, it is valuable and pleasant modelling time.

 

The relationship between a modeller with the various brands is somehow related with supporting a football team. It is in many ways irrational, it had to do with our own modelling story - our memories of building Airfix, Frog or Matchbox kits in our childhood. In other brands - and it is the case of Arma Hobby - we recognise behind them the twin souls that are as passionate as ourselves for the subjects they issue, demonstrated by the time and effort they put in research. Far away from others that simply go for the best looking set of plans without trying to confront them with reality.

 

Unfortunately this is a business and at the end the modeller has a limited budget and must decide where to spend it. In my case I will continue to support Arma because the guys that issued the RWD-1, RWD-2 and the PZL P-8/I certainly are worth supporting.

 

Carlos

[Graham Boak]

Unless Arma have expanded considerable recently (unlikely) then from what they were showing in earlier years they are certainly much smaller than Eduard.  Eduard is a comparative giant in the modern field, if much of its output is not in 1/72 aircraft.  Perhaps even as big as or bigger than Airfix (excluding Hornby) if smaller than Tamiya.   

 

I also work on the principle of "if you've got it, then make it" - someday.  Or sell, of course.  Scrapping is very much the bottom option, usually restricted to kits that have been worked on so far but no further. .  I realise that at 76 yrs old with an oversize stash, I don't need to buy every wonderful new kit.  Benn there done that, count the T-shirts...  if i were younger, I'd have more Arma.  If they made subjects just a little bit more to my taste, I still would.  However, I think that they are too many years away from a Halifax or late Arado 240 or even Harvard Mk.1,

[fishplanebeer]

Arma's pricing strategy as evidenced by their Hurricane range is standard business practice and this is regardless of the actual size of a company or their production capacity as all 'new' or 'sought after' products are often priced more highly when launched as they know those seeking to get one straight away, or the 'early adopters', are always willing to pay a premium. All new Apple i-Phones and Sony Playstations  being good examples of this amongst many others.

 

Once this initial demand is satisfied the price is then reduced, either directly or by adding 'extras' (or in Arma's case stripping down the product to some degree) in order to reach a wider/greater audience and increase sales growth. I know this is basically GCSE Economics theory but it's actually how many companies operate in terms of their pricing strategy and to date Arma seem to be following this particular model. And bear in mind that I suspect the return on investment for the cost of the new molds is based upon a projected level of sales that will be achieved over a much longer period than just the initial 3-6 months when the product is hot news.

 

As you can gather I'm definitely not an 'early adopter' but I am someone who would like to have the new P51 kit based upon its excellent reviews so I'm quite happy to wait for a while, and certainly until after the initial rush has subsided when I believe it will be offered at a lower actual or relative price.

 

Regards

Colin.

 

 

[Giorgio N]

20 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

 

 

I also work on the principle of "if you've got it, then make it" - someday.  Or sell, of course.  Scrapping is very much the bottom option, usually restricted to kits that have been worked on so far but no further. .  I realise that at 76 yrs old with an oversize stash, I don't need to buy every wonderful new kit.  Benn there done that, count the T-shirts...  if i were younger, I'd have more Arma.  If they made subjects just a little bit more to my taste, I still would.  However, I think that they are too many years away from a Halifax or late Arado 240 or even Harvard Mk.1,

 

 

I follow the same principle, reason why I sometime end up building kits that I regret having started from the very first minute 🤣

The problem is what to do with those kits that a guaranteed pain in that part of the body and that at the same time nobody wants to buy. Things like an old tool Airfix Hurricane II for example, kits too poor to really be able to build to a decent standard compared to the current competition but at the same time too common to have anyone interested in buying them even when flogged for something like a tenner for 3 kits (yes, I even tried that in the past). Donating to kids is probably the best option and I may do this. Or maybe I should build one OOB and bring it to model shows together with an Arma Hurricane to show modellers who keep talking about the "good old days" of the hobby how technology has changed since those glorious days... 🤣🤣🤣🤣

But I promise, one day I will build at least one of those Airfix Skyraiders I have in the stash.. at least in the Skyraider case the modern competition is harder to find, gives me a reason to try and build one.

[Graham Boak]

I also have one of those Skyraiders, intended for conversion to RN's AEW Mk.1, which dates back to its original release and has gone through three different conversion part buys and two sets of transfers.  (I have made two others inbetween.)  I chose it to be finished a few years back, when it became the oldest unmade kit in the collection.  It has its Aeroclub fuselage married to the Airfix cowling and may even get its wings glued on soon.  Sadly its wheels appear to have disappeared at some stage.  But the old (1970s) Airfix Hurricane is really good for little except perhaps for its surprisingly fine 40mm cannon.  Perhaps as a paint mule?  When I finish it, the oldest unmade kit in the collection is the Stirling, which I really don't care for.  It is tempting to cut it down to a sensibly-sized fuselage and get rid of that awful undercarriage, but it's a lot of work.

[Cammer625]

Pricing strategy is all relative - Eduard Spitfires (profipack) on Eduard Website are $24.95 USD (obviously n/a as they are still recovering from their big fire).  Arma P-51 on Arma’s website are $29.21.  Not a lot of difference.  So they are really very similar prices (from the manufacturer).  And Eduard kits are rather ‘fiddly’ as well (hate the Spitfire undercarriage bay - nearly as many parts there as in some old kits).  Not sure why some think Eduard is any better value than Arma when the retail prices at the manufacturers website are so similar. And the Eduard Hurricane (ie the reboxed Arma Hurricane) is $29.95 USD on Eduard website.  
is the Arma P-51 worth it? You bet.  Nicest P-51B/C out there.  And not a lot of choice in any scale. Certainly no competition from Eduard or SH (at this stage).

[Graham Boak]

In countries where prices are compared to the nearest ,01% of the local currency, I wouldn't describe over 4 units as being of no difference.  That's well over 10% overall.  What this does emphasise if that different countries have different price comparisons, as well as different people perceiving such differences, well, differently.

 

Would I buy the better model despite a 10% increase over the competition?  Every time, and I suspect that's true of many.  But the original poster was seeing a much greater percentage than that.  Getting to how much a percentage is worth it, is splitting hairs (which we do love doing in these forums.).  The real difference is between modellers who will always buy the cheaper and those who will always buy the better if they can.  The last three words put in to acknowledge that circumstances alter over time.

[Troy Smith]

On 25/03/2022 at 10:23, Giorgio N said:

Things like an old tool Airfix Hurricane II for example, kits too poor to really be able to build to a decent standard compared to the current competition but at the same time too common to have anyone interested in buying them even when flogged for something like a tenner for 3 kits (yes, I even tried that in the past). Donating to kids is probably the best option and I may do this. Or maybe I should build one OOB and bring it to model shows together with an Arma Hurricane to show modellers who keep talking about the "good old days" of the hobby how technology has changed since those glorious days...

 

On 25/03/2022 at 10:51, Graham Boak said:

But the old (1970s) Airfix Hurricane is really good for little except perhaps for its surprisingly fine 40mm cannon.  Perhaps as a paint mule? 

Hmm.  I'd disagree.  it's biggest flaws obvious flaw is the battle ship rivets and the too shallow canopy and like every Hurricane kit in 72nd until Hase and Revell, to thin upper nose, but the basic shapes otherwise are decent. 

The prop blades and wheel are OK, the spinners need work. 

 Importantly the fuselage fabric is OK,  and IMO, this is the make or break on any Hurricane kit, as fixing fabric problems become a very tricky and fiddly job.... 

 

FWIW, OOB it basically a IIA,  which follows on my supposition that it was heavily inspired by the Monogram 1/48th kit, which is also basically a IIA, and has the same weapons fit options. 

 

It's about as much effort to upgrade as the old Heller kit, which has some lovely fabric effect.    Both can be made into decent with a fair amount of work, the nadir of Airfix Hurricane was the 2009 or so  IIC kit, which is so flawed shape wise as to be unfixable without a massive rebuild. 

 

Of course, if you want a well detailed and overall very accurate OOB Hurricane you now just go to Arma Hobby,  as the effort of upgrading ANY of the older 72nd Hurricane kits to that OOB level, as in overall shape accuracy AND detail,   is basically pointless unless you like upgrading old kits.

About the only exceptions would be the Airfix fabric wing, and the AZ Mk.IID/IV/V, until Arma do those as well.

 

RE the original point, apparently the Arma P-51 B/C kit has sold very well.   Perhaps in the future there maybe a cheaper option or there will be enough floating around that the 2nd hand price will drop., though the pre-owned kit market has been seen a large rise in prices, a lot down to the rise in the nice quiet stay at home hobby.... for obvious reasons,  be interesting to see if that trend diminishes with a return to "normality"