Model Forum / General / Models / May 2006

Looking at some of the newsgroups and discussion groups elsewhere,
there seems to be a grave misunderstanding on the purpose and concept
of model reviews. To that end, let me present my own philosophy and
criteria.

Bottom line: Should I buy it? Can it build up as what it says it is?
And will I be happy with it? That's what a review should say!

First off, the review should be for the widest group of modelers, not a
narrow few. It should convey what the kit purports to represent, its
breakdown by materials and parts numbers (this reflects complexity;
there is a big difference between a kid's knock-down kit from
Wal-Mart with 15 parts and a full-up Tiger I with over 1,300 parts, and
the prospective buyer should know that going in), probably retail
price, and a photo of at least the box art to show which kit you are
describing.

Sprue shots are nice, but few of us have the time to do a full-up photo
shoot of all of the bits; depending upon your "day job" and amount
of material to review, you may not be able to do even a box-art
"glamour" shot. The review should be oriented at the intermediate
level modeler, one who has a basic understanding of modeling skills and
the use of after-market items like resin, turned barrels, track sets,
etched metal parts, and finishing techniques. But it should not play to
what should be considered advanced modelers, as many seem to think;
many "advanced" modelers usually have little if any knowledge about
more than one or two vehicles, and most of them are usually wrong about
many of the points they claim to have expertise in. (These are the ones
derisively referred to as "experten" on modeling web sites.)

Second, shapes, sizes, basic parts and dimensions are important, but
only up to a point. Most people are not really interested if vehicle X
has only twelve bolts vice thirteen, and they are right-hand thread
vice left-hand, so this is the worst travesty to be foisted off on the
public since Piltdown Man, etc. If you are really that concerned,
that's what research is for (yours, not mine) and if concerned
"Real Modelers" fix things; "Kit Builders" don't. There's
nothing wrong with just building kits, but if that's all you want to
do then don't bother the rest of us with more psychobabble about why
the designers of kit X deserve to be hung, drawn and quartered as the
clean-out openings are slightly oval.

Third, basic accuracy is fine, and what is presented should be correct.
If the model has one particular type of track, it should be in the kit
for that model of the vehicle. If it mounts twin 7.62mm machine guns on
the cupola, ditto. Tools should have straps as they sure don't just
stick on by themselves! Fine details should be, well, fine; but recall
that injection molding plastic has its limits. If the model is a US
vehicle with stars, bumper codes, serial numbers and a name or
stenciling, it should be there within limits (e.g. if you can't see
it on the real vehicle at 35 feet it doesn't matter on a 1/35 scale
model.) But there's no excuse for a half-done job. Suggested colors
should be close, but there is no perfect match as no two people have
the same color vision.

Fourth, the idea that giving most models good marks makes you a shill
shows that the poster or speaker is one of the "experten." While
many of us like myself are now showing high mileage, this is the
"Golden Age" of modeling where nearly all of the major items we had
ever wished for are available and in reasonably good kits. Nearly all
of the kits produced by recognized companies can be built up to
represent the item they claim to be, and even a passerby can tell what
they are with little trouble. Given that, the number of real "duds"
is actually quite few, and people should realize that because the
"experten" do not like it does not mean it's a bad model.

I use four ratings in a review: Highly Recommended, Recommended,
Recommended with Reservations, and Not Recommended.

Highly Recommended: the kit, accessory, tool, or reference does what it
claims to do or builds into what it purports to be. Accuracy is good,
quality is high, and it is worth the cost of the item. If a model, it
needs little or no extra parts to complete it, unless the modeler
wishes to "upgrade" it on his own. If an accessory, it "drop
fits" with little effort. If a reference, it gives good information
(within its scope; photo scrapbooks don't have to have plans to be
useful) and accurate comments.

Recommended: the kit, accessory, tool or reference is not bad but has
some problems that must be addressed. Accuracy is okay but there are
some minor errors which need "surgery" to correct or parts
replaced, mostly from stocks or other kits (e.g. track types on tanks,
decals, placement of parts on the finished model, etc.) Tools are hard
to use or fragile. References have some caption errors or poor quality
photos, but by and large are good.

Recommended with Reservations: the kit, accessory, tool or reference
have some serious problems, but in many cases are the only one of their
kind on the market. A kit may require serious surgery and
scratchbuilding to represent what it claims to be, and is a difficult
and particularly unpleasant model to assemble. Accessories do not fit,
have major mistakes, and are exorbitant. References are recycled,
obsolete, built on mythos or present incorrect plans or photos.

Not Recommended: the kit, accessory, tool or reference is a waste of
time and money for a number of reasons. Kits are wrong, will not
assemble (common among some low-volume resin kits), or in some cases
literally stolen from other manufactures by pantographing the parts in
another kit and "cloning" the molds. Accessories have no value as
they are wrong, do not fit, or simply "pretty up" a bad kit while
fixing none of its vices. Tools are overly expensive, complex, fragile
and do not work. Finally, any reference that steals material from
another author (common in Russia and the former Soviet Union countries)
and simply translates it or presents as a new author's work is a
total waste of money.

Many reviewers do this type of work and it serves the needs of the
many, not the few. Most of the modelers who complain about this are
notoriously absent from either photos of assembled and finished models,
shows, articles written to show how to do a specific vehicle, or their
own reviews. I have one simple statement for them: PUT UP OR SHUT UP!
Either do a review or a built to show what you can do, or accept a
basic kit review for what it is - what is it, what was the prototype,
what does it consist of, how good is it, and what will it cost me?

Note that the last time I made this challenge in a well-known modeling
publication the "experten" took me up on it, and produced his own
model - showing that he was both mediocre on finishing techniques and
unable to fix major problems with a "Recommended with Reservations"
level kit. As the old saying goes, better to keep silent and be thought
a fool than to open your mouth and prove it correct.

When I was president of AMPS, I began to receive kits from various
manufacturers and accessories for review, and I initially sent them out
to such "experten" for reviews as they promised to build and review
them. I think I only got three back, and found I was just providing
free kits to these people. As a result, I changed my views on reviews,
began doing most of them myself, and donated the kits and accessories
to the annual AMPS International Show raffle. Some of the
"experten" were miffed and quit AMPS, but I never felt I was
missing out on great masters of the art.

Frank Desisto and I disagree about some things, but we review kits
totally separately and for the most part come to the same conclusions.
Ditto other reviewers on other websites, so we are more in tune with
center-of-mass modelers than the carping "experten." Call us names
and complain about the reviews, but what have YOU done other than
pontificate on websites, burning up bitspace for little of value? If
you have something of value, please share it - a new technique to
assemble single link tracks, how to fix a turret with a bad shape, what
to do about bad suspension geometry, etc. But don't waste my time -
or Frank's, or Brett's, or Steve Zaloga's, or anyone else who
SHARES useful information with diatribes.

Cookie Sewell
President
AMPS 1992-2004
Member, AMM 1987-1992
Member, IPMS 1966 - Present