Airfix Vulcan

[Bertie McBoatface]

They certainly do, ditto Dragon, it's top quality stuff.

It also costs a lot more, so how do you do that and keep it affordable for the masses?

Good point Jonathan. I'm not really comparing like with like am I? Airfix kits are cheap, low spec mass market toys for kids spending pocket money, while Dragon make top spec toys for grown ups with real incomes. I bet Airfix think they are comparable though, or why bother new-tooling anything even on the cheap? They could just reissue 50 year old, flash ridden, lumpy rubbish forever. Oh, sorry, that's mostly what they do, isn't it?

Here's a quick Hannant's based check on 1:48 Spitfires.

£14 Academy

£16 Airfix

£17 Revell

£19 Tamiya

£25 Italeri

£32 Hasegawa

Yeah, you are right, the better kits are priced out of the market IF a tenner is decisive and it probably is to a kid or to those poor 'masses'.

It doesn't matter to me though. I'm not rich, but I can always put my hand on a tenner for a hobby. It's less than the price of a decent steak. I'm typing on a laptop which cost hundreds, looking at a camera which cost.... But, you get the point. A hobby's a luxury item by definition; Something non-essential we spend time and money on for entertainment. I'm an enthusiast, that's why I'm on this site and why, to me, Airfix are disappointing. I do still buy them though whenever I can get them for next to nothing at a show or an auction. To me £16 for the Airfix kit is wildly overpriced for what I'm getting while £25 for Italeri is very good value.

It's not all bad though as Airfix do satisfy my need to rant and rail at the world and throw kits at the wall. lol. Here's a new slogan - "Airfix, for grumpy, as well as nostalgic old men!"

I wonder, maybe if Airfix were better, they'd sell more worldwide and then be able to benefit from economies of scale to bring the prices down. Another thing that puzzles me is how those eastern manufacturers seem to keep on going somehow with their totally unaffordable top spec products?

It's an interesting, complicated subject and one that raises passions. Always good for a sunday morning debate.

Edited October 2, 2011 by per ardua ad ostentationem

[thx6667]

Good point Jonathan. I'm not really comparing like with like am I? Airfix kits are cheap, low spec mass market toys for kids spending pocket money, while Dragon make top spec toys for grown ups with real incomes. I bet Airfix think they are comparable though, or why bother new-tooling anything even on the cheap? They could just reissue 50 year old, flash ridden, lumpy rubbish forever. Oh, sorry, that's mostly what they do, isn't it?

Yeah that's right dude, that's exactly what they do. I'm sure if they made a more expensive product, thus potentially pricing themselves out of a larger market in order to chase a smaller one, they'd sell more.

BTW £25 for an Italeri Spitfire? You do know that its a reboxing of the inaccurate and poorly moulded Ocidental kit don't you? No developmental costs to recover, just polybagging someone else's product and that's good value?

You put your finger on it though in saying "to me" because everyone engages in this hobby for different reasons.

Edited October 2, 2011 by Jonathan Mock

[venomvixen]

If the Sea Vixen had of been made by someone else imagine what the response would be

Tamiya; OMG its so good but why didnt they release a ..........................?

Hasegawa; nice kit but its soooooooo expensive

Dragon; Expensive doesnt fit Tamiya would have done it better

Trumpeter: Damn dirty commies!

I like Airfix, I know they make abominations but they make some good stuff to.

The old dodgy stuff is great for kids who dont give a rat's about a tenth of we get

our knickers in a twist over.

The money they make from these gets us Sea Vixens and Canberra's.

If you dont like them dont buy them, not that hard really

[Seahawk]

Yes, I'm glad that Airfix is still around too. Unfortunately I'm not pleased that they are still making

their kits as they do. I believe that they manufacture poor, not great kits of classic British subjects.

We buy them in huge numbers and the quality manufacturers concentrate on making beautiful

models of Luftwaffe and American subjects, rather than challenging Airfix. They know that we are

sentimental/nationalistic/skinflint/dumb enough to continue to buy shoddily engineered kits from

our British flagship company. This is a company which, in my opinion, still trades on it's 1970

'heritage'. Just think of the cockpit in the Sea Vixen for example, or the Canberra rudder, or the

Hawk canopy, or that awful 1/72 Concord, or the Spitfire panel lines and so on. Sadly everything

I've built from Airfix in the last decade seems to have been designed and produced by lazy

people living in the past. British manufacturing is just so embarrassing.

I recall that the RAF defined quality as 'fitness for purpose at the minimum possible cost'. Airfix

aficionados seem happy with 'minimum possible cost for something that we can spend ages making

'presentable'. Yes' of course we can make silk purses from these pig's ear kits, and some people claim

that this is the proof of good modelling skills. I disagree with this, believing that if making something

from nothing was the criterion of modeller greatness, we would all scratchbuild. In fact, other

people's really 'make' almost all of the models that we assemble and, accepting that, I prefer

to employ the most skilled and diligent designers, engravers, moulders that I can find. Tamigawa

put the work in to make a good product in the first place so that their customers don't each have

to put the work in to bring them up to 'acceptable', but can instead spend hours making them

exceptional.

I drive a Japanese car too. It came with everything included in the (very reasonable) price. It all

continues to work perfectly. Come on Tamigawa, buy Airfix and run it like a 21st century manufacturer!

There speaks a man who does not own an Airfix 1/72 Hawk 81.

I can pick nits with the best of them. I agree with you in finding nearly all the early Hornby releases disappointing terms of surface detail and/or outline errors, some pretty crass. Yes, I am cross that these releases have probably poisoned the Airfix well for various major British subjects (Canberra, Sea Harrier, Spit IX and XIX, Hurricane II) for the next 30 years or so. But at least there were releases from a moribund brand. More to the point, I have seen steady improvement, almost release from release, eg the Hawk 81 has less obvious panel lines than the Harrier GR.9 and Spitfire I. So, with the proviso that they pay more attention to avoiding egregious outline and detail errors (often things they have got right in earlier versions of the same subject), I am encouraged and excited by what Airfix will do in the future. 80% of Tamiya quality at 50% of Tamiya cost (or 5% of Hasegawa) will do for me: 'fitness for purpose at the minimum possible cost'. Not least because big money does not guarantee perfection. The generally lovely Dragon Meteor F.III needs the elevators and control column correcting, replacement transfers in correct colours and, at least in my experience, the fit of the intake fronts is less than stellar. None of that is a biggie, but it's remedial time and expense that big bucks ought to have bought me out of.

PS Have you actually built an Airfix Sea Vixen? I haven't (wrong scale) but I have peered into the cockpits of some superb builds and concluded that, with black-painted parts in deep shadow, aftermarket replacements would be pretty much a waste of money.

[Harry Lime]

If you dont like them dont buy them, not that hard really

Exactly!

[marty_hopkirk]

The other issue at entry/beginner level is availability. When I started modelling there was only really two options one market advantage Airfix had, one could most of their range easily. Frog was generally a little more expensive - that did not deter me, because - I could save my pocket money. Back then, to me Frog had a more interesting range - but because of their different marketing strategy they were not so easy to buy all of their range. If you can't find it, you can't buy it. I venture this had as much to to do with why Airfix became the market leader back then as price and why they are still perceived as they are by the general public. It seems that Hornby are trying emulate that strategy, albeit in a 21st Century manner - if they do I'm sure they will increase sales. The fit of the kit didn't really come into the equation back then - I dare say it is the same today as when Istarted buying kits. In my case, I just looked at the Airfix catalogue throughout the week knowing with some degree of surety I could buy what I wanted on a Saturday morning and make it in the afternoon.

An interesting flip, when Revell and Hasegawa released their new 72 scale Lancasters close together, isn't the Revell kit considered the better of the two? There is a bit of a price skew between the pair.

The only slight issue I have, I'm of the opinion manufacturers should put something on box to say it is a re-issue. I have some seen some pretty snazzy packaging/box art lately on re-issued kits that does indicate not really indicate what is lurking in the box. I'm not saying there should these should not have good artwork and packaging, just a line on the side of the box saying: "This kit was originally manufactured in 1983", in the case of Vulcan.

Marty..

Edited October 2, 2011 by marty_hopkirk

[Alan P]

If you dont like them dont buy them, not that hard really

Unfortunately that is not the position of a critic. It's not enough to just not buy one, you have to convince everyone else not to buy one either, and make them feel stupid and simple-minded if they do.

[thx6667]

The only slight issue I have, I'm of the opinion manufacturers should put something on box to say it is re-issue. I have some seen some pretty snazzy packaging/box art lately on re-issued kits that does indicate not really indicate what is lurking in the box. I'm not saying there should these should not have good artwork and packaging, just a line on the side of the box saying: "This kit was originally manufactured in 1983", in the case of Vulcan.

That's a good point but I'd wonder whom that would actually benefit? One could argue that the enthusiast end are well served by a network of information these days that if they're really bothered or interested, they can find the answer at the click of a button, whereas for the more wider market, the date and provenance is possibly/probably immaterial.

You could do a "Airfix Classic" range badged as such, but I wonder whether for the wider market that just confuses the issue - an Airfix kit is an Airfix kit whether its 1961 or 2011.

[Bertie McBoatface]

Oops. Seems like my contribution to the debate raised passions a little high. I'm so sorry. It seems that my personal ("to me") opinions have been read as personal attacks by some readers. I didn't imagine for a moment that I had such power to upset people. Please accept my most humble apologies and enjoy the rest of this lovely weekend.

[Alan P]

Oops. Seems like my contribution to the debate raised passions a little high. I'm so sorry. It seems that my personal ("to me") opinions have been read as personal attacks by some readers. I didn't imagine for a moment that I had such power to upset people. Please accept my most humble apologies and enjoy the rest of this lovely weekend.

What a nice chap, enjoy your weekend too.

Although the Japanese car comment made me laugh!

[marty_hopkirk]

That's a good point but I'd wonder whom that would actually benefit? One could argue that the enthusiast end are well served by a network of information these days that if they're really bothered or interested, they can find the answer at the click of a button, whereas for the more wider market, the date and provenance is possibly/probably immaterial.

It's about being responsible. Yes it is likely the 'modeller' will probably know anyway. I was in a model store last week and a lady (clearly not a modeller herself) was asking the owner about how old the contents of a certain kits was and was it the latest version? So it does go on.

You could do a "Airfix Classic" range badged as such, but I wonder whether for the wider market that just confuses the issue - an Airfix kit is an Airfix kit whether its 1961 or 2011.

That would be my preference, it might be a good sales tool as well. Revell have routinely being these types of programmes from the mid-eighties , so there must be something in it for them. Also there is no illusion to what is being bought.

Marty...

Edited October 2, 2011 by marty_hopkirk

[Seahawk]

What a nice chap, enjoy your weekend too.

Ditto. I'm enjoying a personal-attack-free Sunday.

PS Love venomvixen's caricature of enthusiast responses to new kits. "It hurts because it's so true."

[Seahawk]

It's about being responsible. Yes it is likely the 'modeller' will probably know anyway. I was in a model store last week and a lady (clearly not a modeller herself) was asking the owner about how old the contents of a certain kits was and was it the latest version? So it does go on.

Exactly. The 90% of Airfix kit purchasers will not have a slightest idea whether the eye-catching box contains a little beauty like the Hawk 81 or some horror from the 1950/60s (like the Stormovik, Beaufighter, Walrus, Yak-9) that could well put anyone off modelling for life. It sounds as if the lady in the model shop may already have been "had" once.

[Harry Lime]

I don't normally get involved in these sort of things as I tend to get rather emotive and turn into a troll. However, I have to say that having built the Harrier GR9 from Airfix, the Harrier GR7 from Revell/Hasegawa and bought then flogged on ebay the Italeri GR7 I feel educated enough to pass comment. The Airfix offering is, without doubt, the best package in 1/72. Accurate in outline, excellent quality decals, nicely rendered small details, enough stuff to fill ALL the pylons, semi detailed undercarriage bays and a detailed airbrake bay. This all comes in the box for £12.99.

The Revell/Hasegawa one has no undercarriage bays, so they need to be replaced with the Aires resin set (or scratchbuilt if you're feeling fruity!). Same goes for the airbrake bay. You'll also need to replace the exhaust nozzles as they are just awful, then you might need to replace the 65% LERX with an aftermarket 100% one, depending on which airframe you're going to build. All up, you'll need to spend £17.20 (at current Hannants prices) just on the airbrake, bays and nozzles, which is more than the total cost of the airfix kit. And if you want some sort of weapon load (other than AIM-9s) you'll need to raid the spares bin or spend MORE money on further aftermarket stuff. That's after you've shelled out £29.99 on the current FAA 100th Aniversary boxing of the kit in the first place. Hands up who's willing to pay £47.19 for a reasonable 1/72 scale Harrier, potentially more if you need to buy weapons for it. Obviously, canny use of various sources could result in purchase of all of the above for significantly less, but I challenge anyone to do it for the same £12.99 cost of the Airfix kit.

As for the Tamiya second generation Harrier, I'll have to admit that I forget whose kit they re-boxed, but whether it was Esci or Italeri it was to be avoided at all costs! It certainly was not a shining example of the well designed, well thought out, beautifully detailed kits we have come to expect from them.

So does buying tamigawa equate to buying the best? In the case of the Harrier II, it certainly does not seem to be the case.

I'll also go so far as to say that whilst some of us can be guilty of viewing Airfix with nostalgia and will defend them to the hilt as we associate them so strongly with our early model making experiences, so others do the same with tamigawa and the perception of quality. Whilst Airfix are moving in the right direction in terms of quality and accuracy, they still have some pretty dire kits in their range. Likewise, tamigawa aren't always the purveyours of exacting detail and fine engineering people associate with them.

As for cost v benefit of building models, I'm on a budget and can't afford to spend as much on this hobby as I'd like, so I want as much bang for my buck as possible. At the moment Airfix are providing that for me. I can get a reasonable level of detail OOB and get a sound base on which to add a little scratchbuilding. Tamiya will provide the same for some of my other builds (P-47 razorback, upcoming P-51 groupbuild). Essentially, after I've done a little research, whoever I feel is going to give me best value for money gets my money.

Am I sentimental/nationalistic/skinflint/dumb enough to buy Airfix? I remember some Airfix kits were a total let down, even as a kid, once I opened the box. The Aircraft of the Aces Spitfire Mk.9 would be my case in point here. Do I support Airfix because they're British and so am I? No, we all know they mould the kits overseas and my stash contains everything from Japan, Germany, Russia, Australia, Hong Kong, Czech Republic etc. Am I skinflint enough to buy them? I'd have to say yes, I'm guilty as charged there. Finally am I dumb enough? Umm, how many years did I spend at University? Twelfty!

In summary, I will buy Airfix and continue to buy their stuff if it meets my criteria for good VfM. Likewise, I'll do the same with Smer, Tamiya, Hasegawa, Revell and every other model manufacturer if after careful consideration of the facts I feel they deserve my hard earned money!

Mark.

[thx6667]

Exactly. The 90% of Airfix kit purchasers will not have a slightest idea whether the eye-catching box contains a little beauty like the Hawk 81 or some horror from the 1950/60s (like the Stormovik, Beaufighter, Walrus, Yak-9) that could well put anyone off modelling for life.

But isn't this where we came in with this oft-quoted claim that old kits could well "put anyone off modelling for life" when actual practical experience shows that actually they just get on with it, usually because an eight year with an old P-40E or a Skyhawk isn't making a model for the same reasons as an adult enthusiast. And to paraphrase PHaTNesS, more often or not its starts to become a case of "I would never buy this kit and I don't understand why others would either". I can think of several kits right now that have been described in both negative terms by some and positive terms but others right here in this board. Who's right? Both actually, when measured according to their own needs and requirements.

[Bertie McBoatface]

[quote name='Seahawk' date='Oct 2 2011, 11:25 AM' post='865829'}

Have you actually built an Airfix Sea Vixen? I haven't (wrong scale) but I have peered into the cockpits of some superb builds and concluded that, with black-painted parts in deep shadow, aftermarket replacements would be pretty much a waste of money.

This is my Sea Vixen.

The instrument panel, sidewalls etc are very sparsely engraved in an era where some kits now come with the instrument needles engraved, not just vague holes for the dials. I didn't bother taking close up pictures of the inside because it's not a feature of this build. Fortunately, as you point out, it's not easily visible on a fifties aircraft. What really drained the pleasure from the project for me was the engineering of the brand-new and much hyped kit. The flaps, intake, u/c doors just didn't fit very well. I felt that someone hadn't finished their job in the factory so I could enjoy my job in the house. It costs £40 which isn't a pocket money, slap together sort of price in my opinion.

Looking on the bright side, it was a lot easier to assemble than their Buccaneer; two of which I have flung at the wall!

[Harry Lime]

Oops. Seems like my contribution to the debate raised passions a little high. I'm so sorry. It seems that my personal ("to me") opinions have been read as personal attacks by some readers. I didn't imagine for a moment that I had such power to upset people. Please accept my most humble apologies and enjoy the rest of this lovely weekend.

I wouldn't have considered it as personal attack, just one side of a robust debate! And that's one thing I do enjoy so if you're ever in sunny Aberdeen, drop me a PM and we'll continue this debate over a pint or two!

[thx6667]

That would be my preference, it might be a good sales tool as well. Revell have routinely being these types of programmes from the mid-eighties , so there must be something in it for them. Also there is no illusion to what is being bought.

They have although they rather confusingly stuck some Matchbox kits as "Revell classics"!

But tellingly they have also still placed old kits and other companies tooling into their standard range alongside their own excellent new tool stuff which, far from leaving no illusion, actually presents something of a lottery as to the provenance of the actual kit - for example, their 1/72 Me 109E, or having boxed both the Italeri and Hasegawa RAF Harrier IIs, or "guess the Apache" (Italeri? Monogram? Hasegawa?), the list goes on.

I certainly think there's something to be said for stuff being done in an ersatz period packagaing like Revell and Monogram have done - who would not like to wrestle with a blister pack again?

[Bertie McBoatface]

I wouldn't have considered it as personal attack, just one side of a robust debate! And that's one thing I do enjoy so if you're ever in sunny Aberdeen, drop me a PM and we'll continue this debate over a pint or two!

Difficult to be robust on a forum without someone misinterpreting, I suppose. Aberdeen, I haven't been that far north this century! I'd love a beer though. Is it still sunny up there?

[marty_hopkirk]

They have although they rather confusingly stuck some Matchbox kits as "Revell classics"!

But tellingly they have also still placed old kits and other companies tooling into their standard range alongside their own excellent new tool stuff which, far from leaving no illusion, actually presents something of a lottery as to the provenance of the actual kit - for example, their 1/72 Me 109E, or having boxed both the Italeri and Hasegawa RAF Harrier IIs, or "guess the Apache" (Italeri? Monogram? Hasegawa?), the list goes on.

I didn't say that Revell were an exemplar - I merely pointed out that they have re-issued kits in a 'classic' branded range for an extended period. When was History Makers 1, '82/'83? They are only doing this because it makes them money and not doing it for the modelling community. Since then they have had History Makers II, WW1 Aces, Squadron 144, Smithsonian Museum Collection, Premium Import, Chuck Yeager Super Fighters, Special Release Programme and the current Classics releases campaign. I suspect there is money in them there hills!

I'm personally fine with them releasing Matchbox kits in their classics range - the important bit is, one knows what they are is buying. I don't thinkits confusing in the slightest when one is in the know and then it's hardly a point of concern,for those that don't know it's not an issue other than it's old - but, one has the right to know it's the date of provence and it is not spanky new kit as suggested by the packaging.

Marty...

Edited October 2, 2011 by marty_hopkirk

[thx6667]

I didn't say that Revell were an exemplar - I merely pointed out that they have re-issued kits in a 'classic' branded range for an extended period. When was History Makers 1, '82/'83? They are only doing this because it makes them money and not doing it for the modelling community. Since then they have had History Makers II, WW1 Aces, Squadron 144, Smithsonian Museum Collection, Premium Import, Chuck Yeager Super Fighters, Special Release Programme and the current the current Classics releases. I suspect there is money in them there hills!

I'm personally fine with them releasing Matchbox kits in their classics range - the important bit is, one knows what they are buying.

Marty...

To be honest much of what you've listed there is just standard themed marketing rebrands rather than a "classic kit" line for the golden oldies and one could equally point to the Aircraft of the Aces, Haynes Collection, Science Museum, Classic Airliners and other branded stuff that Airfix did over the years. If the point is that Revell partition off older stuff into a separate "Classic range" range, yes and no - yes they've done it with a small portion of kits, no they still put other stuff into the standard range where its take your pick. And in that respect Revell are doing exactly the same as Airfix and vice versa, although with Revell using tooling from such a wide variety of sources (someone will do a list!) there's more room for ambiguity.

I agree I think a branded, "retro" range would be great, a bit like the classic (or proper) Action Man stuff. At least with blister packs you know what you're getting in advance!

Edited October 2, 2011 by Jonathan Mock

[Harry Lime]

Difficult to be robust on a forum without someone misinterpreting, I suppose. Aberdeen, I haven't been that far north this century! I'd love a beer though. Is it still sunny up there?

Yes, that is very true. The amount of meaning we derive from 'non-verbal communication' as opposed to just looking at/listening to what is said is phenomenal! It was sunny until friday, but sadly the weekend has brought a return to good old fashioned scottish weather and the view out of my window is rather dull, wet and overcast.

[Seahawk]

But isn't this where we came in with this oft-quoted claim that old kits could well "put anyone off modelling for life" when actual practical experience shows that actually they just get on with it, usually because an eight year with an old P-40E or a Skyhawk isn't making a model for the same reasons as an adult enthusiast. And to paraphrase PHaTNesS, more often or not its starts to become a case of "I would never buy this kit and I don't understand why others would either". I can think of several kits right now that have been described in both negative terms by some and positive terms but others right here in this board. Who's right? Both actually, when measured according to their own needs and requirements.

I'm not arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to buy, or enjoy building, Airfix Stormoviks, Beaufighters, Skyhawks and P-40Es, just that, in the spirit of the Trades Description Act, it would be responsible to provide some indication, before purchase, of whether the kit is state-of-the-art or ancient fossil.

Which, as you will no doubt point out, raises another practical objection: how and by whom should kits in the twilight zone between those 2 extremes be classified?

[marty_hopkirk]

Revell are doing exactly the same as Airfix and vice versa, although with Revell using tooling from such a wide variety of sources (someone will do a list!) there's more room for ambiguity.

I don't think they are, Revell have had a been promoting a significant number of repoped kits within a number of defined campaigns of over a 20 year period. Yes, it's not been consistent as far as their entire range is concerned. Airfix have issued a handful of individual kits, the the only two that spring to mind are the faux BT-K in a poly bag and the Spitfires in a tin box that leaked out after the demise of Airfix/Humbrol arrangement. Yet they put old kits in spanky new packaging that alludes to something different.

Marty...

Edited October 2, 2011 by marty_hopkirk

[thx6667]

I don't think they are, Revell have had a been promoting a significant number of repoped kits within a number of defined campaigns of over a 20 year period. Yes, it's not been consistent as far as their entire range is concerned. Airfix have issued a handful of individual kits, the the only two that spring to mind are the faux BT-K in a poly bag and the spitfires in the tin box that leaked out after the demise of Airfix/Humbrol arrangement.

Take a look through the Revell range over the last 20 years and the number of non-branded oldies and repops of other people's tooling permeate throughout the standard range far in excess of any kits that are singled out for rebranding. Don't get me wrong, I like what Revell do - I'm still kicking myself I missed out on the 1/32 Mirage a few years back - but its selective and not wholly representative of their entire range. And as I said, some of those Revell rebranding examples you cited were just that, rebrands and themed collections in their own right rather than an attempt to single out old tooling and then specifically market it as such. And I hate to emphasis this point because it will no doubt bring forth silent thoughts of "oh there goes old JM again" but if the contention is that there's less ambiguity over what you get in a Revell box than an Airfix one, I'd have to say its probably the reverse, simply because of how the Revell range is structured in regard to crossover between the Revell and Monogram tooling in their inventory and the amount of other people's product they rebox.

I'm not arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to buy, or enjoy building, Airfix Stormoviks, Beaufighters, Skyhawks and P-40Es, just that, in the spirit of the Trades Description Act, it would be responsible to provide some indication, before purchase, of whether the kit is state-of-the-art or ancient fossil.

Which, as you will no doubt point out, raises another practical objection: how and by whom should kits in the twilight zone between those 2 extremes be classified?

But there I would ask to whom would that benefit? Again I'll come back to this perception that somehow every other person buying a kit is going to be doing it from the perspective of an knowledgeable enthusiast. I suppose someone could try marching into a make and take with a megaphone and announce "the kit you are making is a fossil" and start lecturing the participants that Skyhawks were never painted pink and yellow and informing Trading Standards that the kit isn't really a proper A-4 but a mishmash of variants including the prototype... I'm sure Dave Fleming can give far more insight into how a kit would fall foul of actual Trading Standards law beyond the presumption that because some people would never buy it, no one else should either.

Plus, and its an excellent point you raise there Seahawk (and you're right I will raise it as another practical consideration), where is the cut off point, who gets to determine those kits in the Twilight Zone? If every modeller could agree on a criteria, then the internet would be a much more quiet place but as we know one man's trash is another man's treasure and the demarcation can sometimes be very fine to point of imperception (Kinetic F-16 anyone?).

I think the bottom line in all this - a bit like the airliner thread elsewhere - is that I would suggest that maybe a need has to be demonstrated first. If retailers were having trouble shifting stock because enough people were repeatedly buying something and coming back saying "that was rubbish, put my kid of modelling for life that did, never again" I'm sure they'd be swift in going back to a manufacturer and saying "I'm having problems, is there some system whereby customers can distinguish between whether something is state-of-the-art or ancient fossil?". Manufacturers would notice because certain lines would no longer be reordered. You cannot both have terrible kits that are destroying people's interest in a hobby while still continuing to sell in bucket loads, it conjures up a WWI-style mental image of lines of potential recruits to the hobby being scythed down by old kits, as endless waves come forward to take their place.

There's some good ideas and points in this thread, imagine everyone of them is a like a twist in a Rubiks cube - everything can be made to line up, but there's a pattern and form behind it.