Question re: Kit reviews and reviews in general

[Artful69]

It was after a couple of rather disastrous initial purchases ... not knowing anything about what I was getting ... that I decided to do my "research" as part of my due diligence in pre-purchase.

I could spend hours flicking through books ... but I deem that a waste of time that I don't really have spare ... So in the age of readily accessible internet publications it makes sense to read up on where others have gone before. I generally classify reviews into 3 categories ... each providing a unique perspective on information on which to make a purchase decision.

 

1. Basic In-Box "Unboxing" Review: A Basic overview of what is contained in the box I get when I pay the money ... Box weight, Sturdiness for transport/shipping, Instructions, Markings/Decals, Detail Clarity, Part numbers, Different Media, Alternative builds etc.

 

2. Advanced In-Box Review: Dry fitting/assembly and parts comparison to ascertain part accuracy and possible correction requirements.

 

3. Full Build Review: Tells me how everything that is in the box goes together . Any pitfalls and workarounds. Any option corrections that are possible and how difficult they are to implement.

 

Rog

 

[RLWP]

1 hour ago, vince14 said:

People actually read reviews?

 

Oh yes - how else do I get an idea of what I'm buying. Box art? 

 

I need to know something about the reviewer to get an idea of how objective a review is. Do they know the subject, do they know about modelling (don't laugh, I'm not sure all Internet reviewers do), do they understand their audience?

 

On that last point, I'd buy a 'flawed' kit if it was a sensible price* and could be fixed in a practical way. I can scribe panels, make parts and buy AM - remodelling the shape of a fuselage is right out. So tell me! Some folk will take a moderate fuselage problem to get a model or a colour scheme, and why not

 

Richard

 

* 'sensible' - a subjective weasel word...

[John1]

A true "review" (IMO), is a comprehensive evaluation of the kit, ideally by someone who knows the real thing and can make accurate judgments on it.   Save the "Here is what's in the box guys" stuff.  That's worthless.  I can find that online from multiple sources, including the manufacturer's websites..   Also save the "Every kit is great" reviews that some websites (I'm talking to you Cybermodeler) seem to have.  We know not every kit is great, I want the review to tell me what is and isn't up to snuff.

 

FWIW, this guy over on Perth Military Modelers site does some of the best reviews in the business.   Granted it's armor not aircraft but this is what I think a true review should be like his.  For example:

 

http://www.perthmilitarymodelling.com/reviews/vehicles/dragon/dr6329.htm

 

All that being said, I acknowledge that doing something like this requires a great deal of time and research.   However, the reviews like the one above are really the only ones that allow me to make an informed decision on whether a kit is worth buying.   

 

Go big or go home, right?

[thierry laurent]

Interesting discussion about a weird question ;-)

 

Why weird? Well, to me, there is no standard or best review format just because there is no standard modeller! Moreover, even John Doe, "the" modeller, may have different needs at different times or about different topics! You rarely ask for the same level of expertise when you're reading something about a topic you know nothing about rather than one of your favorite models!

 

There is only one thing that is relevant for all modellers even if most of us are putting different things behind that concept: "ADDED VALUE"! This should be simple: any type of review should bring information that is not already and/or commonly available. Full stop. This may cover contents overview with pictures, kit lineage and modifications, accuracy aspects, buildability questions and issues, etc. To me, in all cases, this goes back to added value.

 

Accordingly, I've a quite mixed feeling about free samples as typically this generates useless reviews! Indeed, what is the benefit to have three very similar box contents reviews by different people? Personally I think the problem is starting as soon as you become a professional reviewer giving an assessment about a new topic every week. To me, this is more a business-driven product presentation than a "review"! Obviously, noone can become a SME wihout months or years of knowledge development...

 

Alas, most reviews are just showing the contents WITHOUT real added value! However, I do not think the reviewers are fully blamable. That basic information offer is only existing as there is a demand. The problem is also the perpetual request for information about new releases and the pace of such releases. Social media did not help in giving the time to do things deeper. This is not really surprising someone like Terry Ashley was litterally burnt when he tried to cover in detail the largest possible scope of 1/35 releases many years ago. This is already impossible for one magazine team, so for a single man, forget it!

 

Personally, even if this may look odd to many people, I have no problem to have a look at a recent review of a 50 years old kit! This is not really "hype" but as far as this brings a new view with interesting contents, I consider that to be more useful than a third presentation of the same sprues of a brand new kit!

 

However, I'm sure my neighbour has a fully different standpoint ;-)

 

 

[Old Dog]

When I got back into modelling over a dozen years ago and started poking around on the net I found a number of sites doing (mostly) inbox reviews. I found them moderately helpful for a guy who had been away from the hobby for 30 years. The one thing I found frustrating was that for many of the kits I was interested in I couldn't find any reviews at all and that prompted me to start my own site and for a number of years I cranked out inbox reviews of kits for which I couldn't find reviews. After a while I started doing some main stream kits as well but in the past few years sites doing reviews of all types have multiplied and after a while it became pointless to continue.

 

I still do an occasional one if it's something I passionate about or I'm not impressed with other reviews of the kit. I still read reviews (or look sees) of new kits just to get a feel for them and for the most part these days they are not much different than the product reviews on Amazon, some like, some hate so I tend to take them with a grain of salt. The ones I have really grown to dislike are video reviews. Most of these folks seem to like to hear themselves talk and I really don't need to watch them unpacking and opening the kit nor is the blather helpful if the reviewer states right off that he isn't the least bit familiar with the subject he reviewing.

 

I don't think most people realize just how much work and time consuming it is to do a good review. There have been times when I felt I could have built the kit in less time than it took to do a review. Trying to cater to what everyone likes and dislikes isn't really possible and last year while shopping for a new vehicle I found many of the same caveats in car reviews that I have found in the past in kit reviews.

[Kagemusha]

2 hours ago, RLWP said:

I need to know something about the reviewer to get an idea of how objective a review is. Do they know the subject, do they know about modelling (don't laugh, I'm not sure all Internet reviewers do), do they understand their audience?

 

That's quite a pertinent point, but doesn't always, like everything in life, prove infallible - I read a couple of reviews in The Guardian, like and respect both reviewers - it was reviewed twice - both gave it five stars, so I took the plunge and watched it at a cinema in Manchester, I wouldn't give it one star, found it turgid in the extreme, can't believe it's been nominated for various awards, it was a complete waste of money and time, for me.

 

When a kit is announced it's not long before a stream of inane questions are asked; what will it cost, what kind of paper will the instructions be on, box size, type/colour of plastic, with the pilot figure be smiling, will my local Kwiki mart stock it, how will the decals react to chilli oil? - all information which will come out in time, honest. 

 

My motivation for writing reviews is to help the hobby, I think most folk come across them via a google search, and if it helps sales, that's job done. End of. "Yeah but you didn't mention that decal option was flown by Winkle Brown!". Life can be cruel, mine is demanding, time precious.

[John1]

26 minutes ago, Jennings Heilig said:

 

I wouldn't go that far.  Like I said, I'd prefer they call that a "look-see" not an "in-box review".  That's like saying you saw a car in the dealer showroom and you're writing a performance review of it based on having seen it in the showroom.  You can't do that.  They're mutually exclusive.  

But a "look-see" is useful as an initial impression.  A good example is the new Airfix 1/48 Hunter F.4 kit.  I didn't realize Airfix had cheaped out and given you the F.6 wing with the dog tooth leading edge, and a new part for the straight leading edge that then requires you to chop out the dog tooth.  And it doesn't include the correct panels and vents for the early mark Hunters.  Based on that alone, I gave the kit a miss.  So the "look-see" has its place.

 

Good point Jennings. Agreed that they shouldn't be calling these types "reviews" if they are not evaluating the accuracy/quality of the kit. 

 

That being said, in your example above, it would still require someone who knows the subject to flag stuff like that to those of use who aren't fully up to speed on that particular aircraft.  

[Mark P]

And you have to be careful that the tone of the  review doesn't cross into advertising.

 

Mark Proulx

[D Bellis]

50 minutes ago, Jennings Heilig said:

I'd prefer they call that a "look-see" not an "in-box review".

"In box" accurately describes what one might find in the box. If I ever happened across a review labeled "look see", I'd get the impression that it was written by someone totally out of touch with reality and ignore it. Why? Because that term hasn't been in common use for several decades. 

 

D

[John1]

17 minutes ago, Mark P said:

And you have to be careful that the tone of the  review doesn't cross into advertising.

 

Mark Proulx

As touched on above, I find that when the reviewers are provided with the kits free from the manufacturers / distributors, this often (but not always) happens.   Or they could be reviewing a product released by one of the site's advertisers and possibly feel the need not to bite the hand that feeds them.  It's a slippery slope.   A particular modeling website comes to mind that does "reviews" of SAC landing gear on nearly a weekly basis and always finds that these crude copies of kit parts have "excellent detail and casting quality".  I don't thing they've ever found a single issue with any of the hundreds of SAC parts that have looked at.

 

  

[Tnarg]

Ir seems that there is a large difference between a review and a look at what is inside the box, even a set of close up photos of the sprue. I  appreciate the look inside the box, since most kits are sealed in the hobby shop or a total unknown over the mail. If I can see by the photos that the parts were molded without an amazing amount of flash and didn't have the huge trenches that used to pass for panel lines, that is a good thing. I am using the photos and my own understanding to judge the kit. The open box "preview" is better than buying blindly, just because it is a model that I want.

 

The review that I truly want and appreciate takes much more work. The build review is a start. The "Tweak List" with all the faults outlined with proposed fixes is the gold standard. I have to thank the people who work so hard to create those tweak lists that show parts of the kit side by side with photos of the real thing and show how to fix the problems or how well the manufacturer created the product.

 

I may not have the skills to accomplish the changes required for perfecting the kit, but no model is ever perfect. We can only strive for "good enough to go on to the next shiny object". Are my eyes good enough to execute the absolute perfection of a painting of the mid 1800's which rivals the best of photography or am I trying to make an impressionist work that looks OK from a long way away? At least I don't try to emulate Picasso's distortion on purpose (but it can happen with a plastic kit left in the back window of an automobile in the summer) or give up in disgust and result with the most modern travesty of art by just shocking someone. To each their own, but I know what I like.

 

Tnarg

[P-51D Man]

I tend to like to hear about the pros and cons of a kit. An example would be fuselage fitzwell wings fit well, landing gear flimsy and cockpit clear part not correct. Details good seeing what the kit looks like is good but to me it's more important do the pros and cons the good and the bad.

[jenshb]

I'd be inclined to agree with Jennings here.  An "in-box" review is essentially worthless unless the reviewer actually knows his stuff about the subject - e.g. the Airfix Hunter F.4 kit and the differences between the F.6 offered initially.  Saying the kit is nicely engraved and all that...well, I can see what for myself when looking in the box.  Tell me something I don't know.  The AMK F-14 Jennings referred to is another good example.  As a kit it is very nice, but as a replica it is flawed - as discussed somewhere within the 300+ pages on the ARC thread.  I was gobsmacked to see the "review" on Hyperscale not mentioning any disadvantages in the summary, and that made me click the return button, not even bothering to read the rest.  So, yes, the "reviewer" wasted his time on that one as far as I'm concerned.  The AMK kit has good features too, so doesn't deserve to be panned, but mentioning the positive and negative in a review is what a review should be about.  Ideally, the reviewer should be knowledgeable enough about a subject to be able to point out good and bad things on the sprue (e.g. Hunter F.4 vents and panels not being correct), then build it straight from the box to judge shapes and proportions (e.g. AMK F-14).  Preferably using the kit decals as well to see how the product on a whole measures up.  Judging shapes and proportions may be difficult unless one is very familiar with the subject, and I always find it "interesting" when people are comparing a kit to drawings and giving it a clean bill of health when they have no idea whether the drawings are accurate.  Case in point being the Aviation News plans for the B-58...  Most people will accept that models will be a few mms out on span, lenght and height, but when one is talking about being an inch or so out, then it becomes noticeable.  The history of the subject can add something to the review if it is relevant to understanding the kit in question, but a generic "cut and past from Wikipedia" is useless.  If you have internet, you can google if you're interested.  Explaining why some Spitfire XIIs had retractable tailwheels while others had the fixed tailwheel for example.  Or pointing out the development of the Hunter from Sapphire engines to Avons and the differences, or differences between North American and Canadair Sabres.

 

Jens

[jimbo]

My personal gripe is when a “full build review” adds parts that are not contained in the kit. Many times I see “built straight out of the box, except for brand M barrels and brand H seatbelts” or some such, in a review. I’ve seen it a great deal in model railway kit reviews as well. Fine in your personal builds, but misleading in something that should be objective, and indicative of what one gets in the box. 
 

jimbo

[mozart]

9 hours ago, jimbo said:

My personal gripe is when a “full build review” adds parts that are not contained in the kit. Many times I see “built straight out of the box, except for brand M barrels and brand H seatbelts” or some such, in a review. I’ve seen it a great deal in model railway kit reviews as well. Fine in your personal builds, but misleading in something that should be objective, and indicative of what one gets in the box. 
 

jimbo

I hear what you say Jimbo, but in the ICM Gladiator for example there are no seatbelts provided......do I build it then OOB without any, clearly not on to my mind. I think pointing out kit deficiencies and suggesting better alternatives is part of the review. Unless the review title is specifically Out of the Box I believe small variations and additions are valid and informative. I’m not talking major surgery here of course!