Revell's 1/32 Spitfire II

[Darren Howie]

Interesting discussion.

Through this thread I see the "price" as being a reason to value the kit highly or as an allowance for errors.

One thing to consider is price is a very relative thing.

Some mentioned price should have no place when you are talking about a kit..any kit.

Three days ago in Tokyo.

Revell Spit 5700Â¥

Tamiya Spit 8200Â¥

Revell 109 5800Â¥

Hasegawa 109 2900Â¥

 

Two Hasegawa 109G-6's for the price of one Revell kit..or would you pay 25 bucks more for a Tamiya Mk8 or 9 than a Revell kit.

Price is only relative to what you paid and where you are.

A review of the Airfix 72nd Lanc on HS raved about how good it was as it was oh so much cheaper than the Hasegawa kit.

Only problem is where I buy its 35USD more for the Airfix kit.

Review..pointless.

Basing reviews off price is I think pretty selfish as it assumes everyone will pay the same as what you are paying.

I would rather hear the problems of a kit and whether its easily fixable via hand or resin.

The Spit maybe $23 dollars somewhere but i can guarantee with certainty it isn't going to be that much here in Australia!

Price is a poor excuse for a poorly researched kit and a poor way to base its overall value as not everyone lives near where they are produced.

Good discussion and nice post Jennings.

[KOG7777]

It's pretty simple. When I consider cost vs value, I consider the base retail price in the country of origin. I pay no mind to the price I might pay in the end when considering value. Since inflated prices due to the vagaries of importing have nothing to do with the manufacturer.

 

So when I consider the value of a Tamiya or Hasegawa or Zoukei Mura kit, I look at the japanese street retail price. When I look at a Revell/Germany kit, I look at the european price. And when I look at an Eduard kit, I look at the Czech price. It's all pretty simple and clearcut, I think.

 

If I were to analyze japanese kits based on the prices american hobby shops charge for them, I'd never even consider them. That's why I consider the original japanese price, and buy them from japanese websites that charge me japanese retail prices.

 

I could also order Revell/Germany kits direct from europe if I wanted to. But since the markup in the US isn't that bad, I'm content to buy local.

 

But judging a kit value based on its inflated price including shipping and import taxes and dealer markup just doesn't seem reasonable to me.

 

So I would always judge the Revell/Germany Spitfire Mk IIa value based on its original street price, whether I was buying it in the US, Japan, England, Australia, or the North Pole.

 

And with that in mind, regardless of what I finally wind up paying, the Revell Spitfire Mk IIa seems a good value based on what you get for the price. No it's not perfect. But the cost of fixing the major problems seems minimal and won't inflate the base cost that much.

Edited June 26, 2014 by KOG7777

[LSP_Matt]

Revell Spit 5700Â¥

Tamiya Spit 8200Â¥

Revell 109 5800Â¥

Hasegawa 109 2900Â¥

 

Basing reviews off price is I think pretty selfish as it assumes everyone will pay the same as what you are paying.

I would rather hear the problems of a kit and whether its easily fixable via hand or resin.

The Spit maybe $23 dollars somewhere but i can guarantee with certainty it isn't going to be that much here in Australia!

 

Fair points Darren.

 

I think what's going on though is some banter about the generally held expectations that the quality of a product increases as the retail price increases. The opposite is generally also held...that if you pay a lot less you expect a lot less.

 

There are probably enough examples in the real world where we are constantly let down by highly priced items that have exploited our if I pay more I get more notion. I find that way more annoying. 

 

30+years later I can still remember being incensed when I opened this gigantic Heller Me109E box only to find it was 3/4 empty with a Hasegawa Me109E inside.  My Dad paid way more than he had to and shelf presence had exploited his desire to do something really nice for me.

 

Whilst I think most understand those basic generalisations it creates conflict when we impose/oblige/necessitate/compel others to adopt our perspective.  Moreso, when the price they're talking about isn't even the one you actually pay. 

 

That's why I think you're right...price isn't completely relevant and its up to individuals to decide what works for them...but the manufacturers RRP might have some R&D/resource allocation bearing on what went into the kit.  After all they need to have a ROI. Price seems relevant in that sense as what they can sell it for might have been a large factor into the resources allocated to develop the kit.  If we could only know for sure eh?

 

Oh...those prices...

 

The Tamiya Spit is clearly on sale...a bargin a $85Au (Normally $107-125)

So are the Hasegawa G-6's...nearly 40-50% off normal retail.(Normally $40ish-$60)

 

Cheers Matty

[LSP_K2]

A few years ago, Hasegawa marketed a "Hi Tech" version of the Fw190D-9; I was so utterly disappointed in the scalpers price that I had to pay for that hodgepodge collection of old and new parts, that I sat down and wrote a two page letter to Hasegawa, proclaiming my ire. I never did send the letter, but felt much better for having written it. I'd echo Matt's thoughts here, my expectations are generally higher as the price becomes higher. The reverse is also true.

 

Considering the fact that I already have 100 or so kits that I haven't even gotten to yet, I'm not going to sweat this one too much one way or the other.

[nmayhew]

Guys I am sure Edgar wrote a short summary of the changes in camouflage eg from black / white undersides, black / sky, through to just sky - along with dates and what roundels were typically used...

 

Can anyone direct me to this please?

 

I thought it was here but have just re-read the thread from start to finish and sadly it is not

 

Cheers

 

Nick

[Artful69]

Guys I am sure Edgar wrote a short summary of the changes in camouflage eg from black / white undersides, black / sky, through to just sky - along with dates and what roundels were typically used...

 

Can anyone direct me to this please?

 

I thought it was here but have just re-read the thread from start to finish and sadly it is not

 

Cheers

 

Nick

 

 

That would be this one Nick ...

 

http://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?showtopic=51183

 

Rog

[nmayhew]

cheers Rog, but kind of yes and kind of no...

 

i was looking more for a if it's dated this (either manufacture, or picture, or just date of action...) what undersides were being used...

 

eg Al Deere's Dunkirk crash was I believe black wing, and rest white? whilst later spits of his were all sky...etc etc

 

and if anyone can tell me what they think Bob Doe's AZ-D was, then i'll buy them a pint!

 

[Brad-M]

I have a B/W pic that shows a D code in front of the fuselage roundel on the left side which appears to show the left wing underside as black and the right u/c door a very light colour, which could be white. Can't see the X4036 serial unfortunately.

 

Brad 

[nmayhew]

thanks Brad - yep that is the only pic i can find on the net of Doe's Spitfire - it does seem authentically autographed though, and matches the sig i have on his 'August Victory' print...

 

if the port wing was black with no underside roundel, would that imply white rest of underside then?

would it also mean no serial visible perhaps?

 

indeed, given one in three Spitfires modelled seems to be an incarnation of KL-B / Kiwi, I can find not more than a single pic of any of them in what is a genuine war time setting....apart from the charred wreck shots on Dunkirk beach

 

maybe we should have a Spit photo / subject thread???

Edited June 28, 2014 by nmayhew

[LSP_Ron]

Guys I am sure Edgar wrote a short summary of the changes in camouflage eg from black / white undersides, black / sky, through to just sky - along with dates and what roundels were typically used...

 

Can anyone direct me to this please?

 

I thought it was here but have just re-read the thread from start to finish and sadly it is not

 

Cheers

 

Nick

You are right, it was one of my builds of a Mk1, I can't find it either now?

[Brad-M]

I'm all for that Nick, I've always been fascinated with the Battle for France Spits and Hurricanes.

 

Brad

[spreckair]

Not at all meaning to beat a dead horse, but I just picked up this kit at a show over the weekend--the price was good and my curiosity was piqued.  After examining it, the nose appears to be more of a Mk. IX--it is longer than a Mk. V and the fastener count after the exhausts is 4 rather than 3.  Since I haven't seen anyone else comment on this aspect, I was curious whether anyone else has noticed.  If so, I hope Revell come out with a Mk. IX based on this fuselage--then I would buy a armful!

[Edgar Brooks]

We can only hope they don't issue it as a IX; the IX's cowling (give or take .5") is 6'9.5" (81.5".)

In 1/32 scale this equates to 2.547". The kit cowling's length is 2.274", or .273" less; scaling up by 32, this equates to 8.736", and the IX cowling was 9" longer than that of the Mk I - VI, so perhaps we can allow Revell less than a quarter inch.

As they, almost certainly, looked at the BBMF Mk.II P7350, maybe a check on the number of their fasteners might be in order (I don't have a clear enough photo.).