Jump to content

Question re: Kit reviews and reviews in general


LSP_K2

Recommended Posts

The AMK Tomcat case is interesting. This demonstrates reviews can have an opposite effect in comparison with what most of us are looking after. Indeed, a reviewer lack of topic knowledge may lead to a wrong assessment. That can be misleading to the potential buyer!

 

Obviously, you can still miss something. I'm still wondering how I did not see the wrongly shaped under nose area of the Trumpeter 109 when I wrote that tweak list! However, there is a difference between not seeing something and not seeing anything! ;-)

 

The comments we had in this thread clearly show we have different kind of goals when we are considering reviews. Accordingly, I think the best approach for a site like LSP is to give different flavours: box contents presentations, contents reviews, WIP or tweak lists. The combination of such heteroegeneous contents is probably the best way to cover the full scope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 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

 

True, but I have encountered two different situations, both where I used aftermarket in a review/feature article:

Italeri's RF-104G, where I needed an AM recce pod to build one of the kit options accurately from the box;

Or the other case, where a couple of times my editor has said "Here's the kit, and some AM to use in it."  In this case, the AM is new and specifically for the kit, so to me that counts as a review of the aftermarket and how it fits the kit it's designed for;  but where possible, I'll comment on how the kit may/would look without said AM as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a good point Mike.  For aftermarket reviews one should at least be dryfiting the item to the kit it is designed for to report on how well it fits and whether the shapes and proportions look right.  I seem to remember a review in Scale Models (anyone remembers that magazine?)  decades ago of the Verlinden photoetched F-15 nozzles.  The reviewer went to great lengths to assemble them - they required a fair bit of work - and then fitted it to the Hasegawa kit for which they were intended.  And they were too long. Knowing the pros and cons gives the readers the information they need to decide for themselves whether they want to buy or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, mozart said:

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! 


 

9 hours ago, MikeC said:

 

True, but I have encountered two different situations, both where I used aftermarket in a review/feature article:

Italeri's RF-104G, where I needed an AM recce pod to build one of the kit options accurately from the box;

Or the other case, where a couple of times my editor has said "Here's the kit, and some AM to use in it."  In this case, the AM is new and specifically for the kit, so to me that counts as a review of the aftermarket and how it fits the kit it's designed for;  but where possible, I'll comment on how the kit may/would look without said AM as well.

 

Fair points, both, thanks Max and Mike. I guess it’s when it’s not clearly stated that I find it frustrating. I am also thinking from a pricing point of view as well, that AM adds to the overall cost which, as I say if not mentioned, I feel can be misleading. Not trying to malign anyone at all here; I’m certainly not qualified in the least to generate a review of any sort. Thanks for the input fellows. 
 

jimbo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate all the input, fellas, it's been interesting, if not altogether predictable. I'm not real sure my own reviews (mostly "what's in the box", look-see types) will change much, but I do now intend to at least add a pros/cons summary at the end, which I've not really done before. Construction/assembly type reviews are really not my thing, never have been, and it's highly unlikely that I'll ever do one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My perspective is a bit different.

I do not fear my review being unliked, or even trashed. I've had similar experience with Lancaster from HK Models review. In the end, I ended up being friends with the guy who was complaining the most. So no harm.

However:

reviews that are being liked or considered "very good" tend to be somehow bringers of false or irrelevant info more often than not. It is simple - in case you've read something that you already knew, the review is worthless to some extent. Exception to that is Perth Military Modeling, but correct me if I am wrong, the guy ended up suffering serious health issues due to overworking himself. His reviews are outstanding though. Best in business if you ask me.

 

What I do is follow the advise of Werner Herzog. He says in more than one way that you should make a movie the way you believe in it and if you do it that way, people /money/ will eventually follow. So I treat reviews like movies. Or songs.Any of you remember Load from Metallica?

To this day, one of their best work ever. And one of their most hated ones.

Reviewing the model is the same - you are pointing out what you saw, how you felt and what you think about it as an aftermath. 

You play your music the way you understand it or feel it. 
I do my reviews based on my feelings of the kits first, then I point out some imperfections or praise kits qualities.

Kits are never perfect, nor ever will be. No product is. However, some are pretty darn close to perfection. 

Is there something wrong saying so? 
My feelings about ZM kits? Brutally good. Unforgiving kits. 

Tamiya 32nd scale? Same thing.

And I can trash talk Revell's Mustang all day long, so what? That is just me. If you don't like it, doesn't mean my review is bad. If logic is strong with you, you will accept to agree to disagree. 

And I know Revell Mustang is good enough. 

 

True, I am annoyed by some reviewers, especially one who shall remain nameless. That guy always, and I mean always finds something to mumble about. "I wish this kit has this", "I wish that wasn't there", "I wish they included..."

Who cares? 

But still, he knows a lot, so I read his reviews.

 

Often, and I do believe many are like me, just not admitting it: read the conclusion, take a quick glimpse at the pictures and that's that.

 

For armor, I trust exactly 3 guys in the whole wide world. I ask them before I get a kit if I have doubts and that's do it for me. 
For planes I trust my instincts and look for aftermarket. If there is plenty, either the kit is very popular, or very wrong or both.

And in the end I hate rivet counting.

I'll give you an example for that. Real life. 

MiG-21MF side by side on the ramp. Different cockpits, some panels differently placed, some equal panels attached with different rivets. Both planes built in different factories. Pretty much the same time.

So, when kit is released, it cannot possibly cover for that. Some reviewers will trash-talk about it. Not me. I will enjoy it if its nice.

Here are few examples that are controversial:

MiG-31 is considered great. In reality is not so great, because it has flaws. Most noticable one is its position parked. The nose is considerably lower than it should be due to wrong struts. But nooo, if you ask reviewers this is the best kit ever.

Eduard MiG-21 - best in any scale? Yeah, but their bis is completely messed up in the nose. The original nose and the kits nose /if upscaled/ show 2.1cm difference. 

And then there are those kits that are completely worthless like MiG-23BN from Trumpeter in 48th scale. In that case I won't even bother to start a review.

Still, show me a review trash talking MiG-31 from AMK or 21bis from Eduard. Even 23BN from Trumpi, which is probably their lowest point in their history.

 

So... I write how I feel about the kit. That cannot be good or bad. It is just a point of view. There are 7 billion others. It is normal to see some that differ.

As Jordan Peterson says - you cannot stand and express your opinion without in some way offend some other guy. There is simply too many out there and someone will find your thoughts for foolish blabber.

Even all the written above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Eagle Driver said:

My perspective is a bit different.

I do not fear my review being unliked, or even trashed. I've had similar experience with Lancaster from HK Models review. In the end, I ended up being friends with the guy who was complaining the most. So no harm.

However:

reviews that are being liked or considered "very good" tend to be somehow bringers of false or irrelevant info more often than not. It is simple - in case you've read something that you already knew, the review is worthless to some extent. Exception to that is Perth Military Modeling, but correct me if I am wrong, the guy ended up suffering serious health issues due to overworking himself. His reviews are outstanding though. Best in business if you ask me.

 

What I do is follow the advise of Werner Herzog. He says in more than one way that you should make a movie the way you believe in it and if you do it that way, people /money/ will eventually follow. So I treat reviews like movies. Or songs.Any of you remember Load from Metallica?

To this day, one of their best work ever. And one of their most hated ones.

Reviewing the model is the same - you are pointing out what you saw, how you felt and what you think about it as an aftermath. 

You play your music the way you understand it or feel it. 
I do my reviews based on my feelings of the kits first, then I point out some imperfections or praise kits qualities.

Kits are never perfect, nor ever will be. No product is. However, some are pretty darn close to perfection. 

Is there something wrong saying so? 
My feelings about ZM kits? Brutally good. Unforgiving kits. 

Tamiya 32nd scale? Same thing.

And I can trash talk Revell's Mustang all day long, so what? That is just me. If you don't like it, doesn't mean my review is bad. If logic is strong with you, you will accept to agree to disagree. 

And I know Revell Mustang is good enough. 

 

True, I am annoyed by some reviewers, especially one who shall remain nameless. That guy always, and I mean always finds something to mumble about. "I wish this kit has this", "I wish that wasn't there", "I wish they included..."

Who cares? 

But still, he knows a lot, so I read his reviews.

 

Often, and I do believe many are like me, just not admitting it: read the conclusion, take a quick glimpse at the pictures and that's that.

 

For armor, I trust exactly 3 guys in the whole wide world. I ask them before I get a kit if I have doubts and that's do it for me. 
For planes I trust my instincts and look for aftermarket. If there is plenty, either the kit is very popular, or very wrong or both.

And in the end I hate rivet counting.

I'll give you an example for that. Real life. 

MiG-21MF side by side on the ramp. Different cockpits, some panels differently placed, some equal panels attached with different rivets. Both planes built in different factories. Pretty much the same time.

So, when kit is released, it cannot possibly cover for that. Some reviewers will trash-talk about it. Not me. I will enjoy it if its nice.

Here are few examples that are controversial:

MiG-31 is considered great. In reality is not so great, because it has flaws. Most noticable one is its position parked. The nose is considerably lower than it should be due to wrong struts. But nooo, if you ask reviewers this is the best kit ever.

Eduard MiG-21 - best in any scale? Yeah, but their bis is completely messed up in the nose. The original nose and the kits nose /if upscaled/ show 2.1cm difference. 

And then there are those kits that are completely worthless like MiG-23BN from Trumpeter in 48th scale. In that case I won't even bother to start a review.

Still, show me a review trash talking MiG-31 from AMK or 21bis from Eduard. Even 23BN from Trumpi, which is probably their lowest point in their history.

 

So... I write how I feel about the kit. That cannot be good or bad. It is just a point of view. There are 7 billion others. It is normal to see some that differ.

As Jordan Peterson says - you cannot stand and express your opinion without in some way offend some other guy. There is simply too many out there and someone will find your thoughts for foolish blabber.

Even all the written above.

 

I'd been wanting a 1/32 Do-335 for a while and was undecided between the B-2 and A-12 versions from HKM and ZM respectively (The regular single seater does noting for me and looks a little whale like). Your video review of the ZM A-12 swung me because you showed pretty much every part of the kit. I then found a few build threads of each to finalise my opinion on which one to go for and finally tracked an A-12 version down (my pet hate being stores that show stock but dont actually have it struck several times on this search, i now it was limited edition and released a few years ago and now thin on the ground but 4 times different stores showed stock but didn't have it) finally found one though located in Spain and it arrives today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, blackbetty said:

i guess one just has to research the kit topic on hand, no single review can focus on every aspect of the model.

so reading everything i can get a hand on does it for me


Yes, and ...no. That was my point with the AMK kit.

Aside from the fact that glue sniffers are blinded by their existence and whoever knows what exactly with their kits, there is still no bad review on their MiG-31 as I mentioned above.

There is not even a word of criticism. So if you don't know what you are looking for specifically, you might never find it as a flaw if that is what you are looking for in a review.

Zoukei-Mura too, especially in my reviews are praised like kits from heaven. They too have flaws, for example plenty of ejection marks, some small issues with the packings, which I choose not to point out, because I was too excited with the rest. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is an hard fact tons of things do not exist in reviews, even when multiple ones have been published for years! This is why, as I wrote, a new review about an old kit can still be interesting. So, there is still hope someone will review the AMK MiG-31 and pinpoint such issues...!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the bench mark for a basic review are the Brett Green kit reviews.  His photos are clear with overall sprue shots and plenty of close ups.  If he has something pertinent to say he does subsection with comments.  He puts in some pluses and minuses.  

 

I also agree with much of what Doog said above.

 

If someone has the expertise to do a more in-depth review that is appreciated.  However it is not required.  In the end reviewers help me decide if I want to build a kit.  However it is not strictly about accuracy.  Do I like the subject, do I like how the kit is done, do I feel like buying one.  It is about 2/3 emotional and 1/3 accuracy in the end.  Quality and engineering of the kit are very important to me.  I do tend to get more excited about a Tamiya kit than most others.  

 

I used to have access to a hobby shop in Champaign Illinois that sold scratch and dent kits.  I loved it because I could go dig through the piles and just open the boxes and look at the plastic.  In that manner I could quickly look at dozens of kits and really see the differences in quality.  Also I found some amazing bargains but I enjoyed just digging for treasures as much as anything and could do my own instant reviews.

 

Now I rely on the net for kit reviews as I like looking at new kits whether I want one or not. So I peruse hobby search every day for their new kit releases to look at the instructions and kit photos.  

 

i look for more detailed reviews on other sites as well.  I look at some reviews also on YouTube.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, thierry laurent said:

 So, there is still hope someone will review the AMK MiG-31 and pinpoint such issues...!

I was thinking of doing one, and a thorough one with a written and YT version. I have info to cover more than an hour of video with corresponding info.

But I will most likely never do it. Why do a shoutout for AMK when they do not deserve it? Even the worst review is a free marketing.

On the other hand I can summarize my experience with AMK as a company - "They are pretentious, complacent a$$hole$, and I most likely will never buy any of their kits ever again". 
That would be my short version of a review on their MiG-31 of which I have two. And I am sorry for giving my money to them.

 

And yes...Best Tomcat ever. My @$$.

 

Edited by Eagle Driver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, cbk57 said:

I think the bench mark for a basic review are the Brett Green kit reviews.  His photos are clear with overall sprue shots and plenty of close ups.  If he has something pertinent to say he does subsection with comments.  He puts in some pluses and minuses.

 

I personally cannot stand BG. Don't know why. I just think he comes across as smug.

 

For reviews i tend to follow what Phil Flory says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have paid for a kit and feel the need to discuss it AFTER you have built it then your review might be worth reading

 

if you have recieved the kit gratis and are reviewing the box contents, its not worth the ‘paper’ its written on

 

if you recieved a kit gratis and build it out of the box, i might read what you have to say but unlikely, theres shocking amounts of bias and bad practice by so called ‘reviewers, 

 

best thing, if you like a kit.. buy it.... build it.... enjoy it, build more, ...l.........dont like it, move on to next kit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...