Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
ModelsRailroadsRockets
Radio Controlled
Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater Models
ModelGeeks.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Model Forum / General / Models / April 2004



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Memories of Matchbox

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
JJ (UK) - 21 Apr 2004 23:10 GMT
When I started making models at the age of about 8 or 9 (I'm 38 now) I soon
discovered that Airfix models were poorly moulded (or rather the filling if
the moulds wasn't exactly quality controlled). So, in common with my friends
I stuck to Matchbox. The parts were well defined, the instructions were
clear and thanks to the tri-colour system they really didn't need painting!

OK, the last part about the non-requirement of paint was a lie. Anyway,
Matchbox models were widely available and seemed to be still popular when
girls, music and Dungeons And Dragons started to distract me away from model
making.

So, when my interest in modelling picked up again three years ago imagine my
disappointment when I find Matchbox went under taking their wonderful plastc
scale models with them.

So, I'm now trying out Revell models. They seem quite good. Comparable in
style and quality to the Matchbox range and I'm sure I may well try out a
Tamiya model or two (as I seem to remember I occasionally did when I was a
kid).

"Come on, JJ! What's your point?" I hear you cry.

Well, I was wondering where my old favourite Matchbox range sits with
everyone else's affections? Of course when anyone mentions scale models the
first name that springs to mind is Airfix. That's always the cliche anyway
but I always hated them and Matchbox always seemed more popular.

Looking in the shops I'd say the split is 40% Revell, 40% Tamiya, 20%
Airfix.

Does this reflect the relative quality?

Did Matchbox 'deserve' to disappear from our shelves?

Were Airfix as poor as I remember them (in fact should it have been them
that went under instead of Matchbox)?

A vague and rambling post I know, but perhaps it might provoke
discussion...and hopefully galvanise a company in to buying up and
re-releasing the Matchbox range properly (I'm aware someof the old models
have appeared but it's not many!)

Signature

JJ (UK)

Rob Gronovius - 21 Apr 2004 23:26 GMT
Matchbox kits are still kicking around in some parts. I also think that some of
the early Revell of Germany kits are former Matchbox armor kits. I know I have
a jet fighter that is an ex-Matchbox kit minus the stand and the pilot.
Rob Gronovius
Modern US armor at http://www.armorama.com/motorpool
JJ (UK) - 21 Apr 2004 23:57 GMT
> Matchbox kits are still kicking around in some parts. I also think that some of
> the early Revell of Germany kits are former Matchbox armor kits. I know I have
> a jet fighter that is an ex-Matchbox kit minus the stand and the pilot.
> Rob Gronovius
> Modern US armor at http://www.armorama.com/motorpool

The stands! I'd forgotten the stands! They were lovely yet rubbish. A lovely
idea I mean but they just never quite worked did they?

But the dioramas for the tanks WERE great! There was a North African scene I
remember complete with a palm tree...now which model did that go with...?

Signature

JJ (UK)

Rob Gronovius - 22 Apr 2004 11:33 GMT
>But the dioramas for the tanks WERE great! There was a North African scene I
>remember complete with a palm tree...now which model did that go with...?

I agree, I still have a few kicking around and recently built the A-34 Comet
for a UK armor group build.

Some of the ones I have on hand and can recall are the tank transporter,
Monte's caravan, French Char Bis, British Challenger, US Halftrack, Churchill
AVRE, and I believe a German WW2 Desert Recon set.

Got a bunch of the planes like the Harrier, some German plane with floats,
another German plane with a hornet's face, several Spitfires, B-25 Mitchell,
B-17 Flying Fortress, a couple of AH-1G Cobras, CH-47 Chinook, Brewster
Buffalo, A-10 Thunderbolt II, P-38 Lightning, and at least one 1/48 scale kit.
I think this is an FJ Fury.

I do vaguely recall having a dio set with a palm tree, but couldn't tell you
which vehicle it came with.

Rob Gronovius
Modern US armor at http://www.armorama.com/motorpool
JULIAN HALES - 22 Apr 2004 12:01 GMT
> >But the dioramas for the tanks WERE great! There was a North African scene I
> >remember complete with a palm tree...now which model did that go with...?
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> I do vaguely recall having a dio set with a palm tree, but couldn't tell you
> which vehicle it came with.

i forget wgich although i had that too.

I liked the Jadpanther going thru a wall with a hole in, also one with a
railway line but forget which.

I have found a lot quite cheap so gonna get some again, i saw a pic of the
A10, but no cannon in the box art, i know it was a prototype issue

The 32nd Venom is a nice kit, been working on it for a couple of years, even
in that alrge scale several options were given.

> Rob Gronovius
> Modern US armor at http://www.armorama.com/motorpool
Dave Rogers - 22 Apr 2004 12:13 GMT
"JJ \(UK\)" <yeah.right@i.dont.think.so.com> wrote in message news:<c66ulc$j3q$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>...

> But the dioramas for the tanks WERE great! There was a North African scene I
> remember complete with a palm tree...now which model did that go with...?

SdKfz124 Wespe. A typical Matchbox subject, in that it wasn't a Sherman or a
Panther and it probably didn't sell too well. I remember them with affection,
although their choice of subjects was commercially suicidal in the end. You
can still buy them second hand from http://www.kingkit.co.uk depending on what
they have in stock; I'm building a Heinkel 115 I got from them at the moment.

Dave Rogers
p.o. - 22 Apr 2004 17:45 GMT
Not affiliated with the store but isn.t that it?
http://tinyurl.com/2tfsf
GREAT memories (36 yrs old myself)
Pavlos

> > Matchbox kits are still kicking around in some parts. I also think that
> some of
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> But the dioramas for the tanks WERE great! There was a North African scene I
> remember complete with a palm tree...now which model did that go with...?
Maiesm72 - 22 Apr 2004 19:47 GMT
I wish that the remaining manufacturers would do some of the subject aircraft
that Matchbox did.

Think  Siskin, HS.125,  BK-117, P-12, Privateer, Mystere IV, Twin Otter, Do 18,
Do 28, F3D, Seafox, Heyford, Victor, Hawker Fury, Tempest II, He 70, Norseman,
T-2 Buckeye, Provost and Wellseley.

Matchbox did all of these and no one has done them as a 1/72 scale injection
molded kit since then.

The Eastern European kit manufacturers such as MPM are the best bet.

Tom
Bill Banaszak - 23 Apr 2004 04:10 GMT
> I wish that the remaining manufacturers would do some of the subject aircraft
> that Matchbox did.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Tom

Hey Tom,  I've seen the Mystere IV in a Revell AG box.  I would have
picked it up but I already have the 3 I wanted.

Bill Banaszak, MFE
Rob Grinberg - 23 Apr 2004 15:54 GMT
<insert double-take here>

Bill, when I first read your post, I thought you said that you already had
the *31* Super Mysteres you wanted.  "What the .." I thought "Talk about
obsession!".  Then I re-read it, and it made more sense.  Just thought I'd
let you know  :-)

RobG

> > I wish that the remaining manufacturers would do some of the subject aircraft
> > that Matchbox did.
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Bill Banaszak, MFE
Bill Banaszak - 24 Apr 2004 02:51 GMT
31, huh?  Only if I wanted to make up a whole Groupe de Chasse.
Tracking down how each plane appeared in a Groupe at any one time would
be AMS to the extreme.

I have one each for the French, Indian and Israeli forces.

Then again I do have a much larger number of Meteors and Aeroclub
conversion kits. :)

Bill Banaszak, MFE
Maiesm72 - 22 Apr 2004 19:49 GMT
Sorry. I left out the Straenraer, possibly the best of all the Matchbox kits.

The thread about Matchbox armor kits reminded me to add them into the diorama
listings for ESM 72.

Thanks guys.

Tom
e - 22 Apr 2004 00:34 GMT
>Matchbox kits are still kicking around in some parts. I also think that some of
>the early Revell of Germany kits are former Matchbox armor kits. I know I have
>a jet fighter that is an ex-Matchbox kit minus the stand and the pilot.
>Rob Gronovius
>Modern US armor at http://www.armorama.com/motorpool
i found a couple in the vegas hobbytow. a me110 and the
lovely ju188. 6 bucks each and i ran like hell.
Bill Banaszak - 22 Apr 2004 04:58 GMT
> >Matchbox kits are still kicking around in some parts. I also think that some of
> >the early Revell of Germany kits are former Matchbox armor kits. I know I have
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> i found a couple in the vegas hobbytow. a me110 and the
> lovely ju188. 6 bucks each and i ran like hell.

I like that Bf 110.  Airfix's 110 is the one from which you should run!
;)

JJ, I love Matchbox kits.  I have a shelf full of unbuilt ones and many
are duplicates.  I also have a shelf full of Airfix stuff, a shelf full
of Revell and a shelf full of Heller.  There are other shelves full but
they're mixed brands.

Seriously, Matchbox did models that no one else attempted and many Mbox
kits are now available from Revell AG.

Bill Banaszak, MFE
Rob Grinberg - 22 Apr 2004 17:26 GMT
Bill, I'm with you.  Matchbox was the staple of childhood modelling.
Despite their (newly realised!) faults, they went together well, were strong
enough to play with (I always got into my Starfighter - what was an F-104 to
a 10 year old? - to fly to the dinner table) and (most) can be built up
these days into something approaching a scale model.  And they've got some
off-beat subjects in the range.  A 1/32nd Lysander? Why? 'Cause they could,
I guess (I admit to owning one.... and looking).  And their big Tiger Moth
is the only game in town if you want a large model of what must be the most
famous biplane of all time.  And the big Spitfire 22 (IIRC).  And their Graf
Spee (which is a beautiful little kit).  And probably more that I can't
remember right now, coz I'm getting all sentimental...

RobG

> > >Matchbox kits are still kicking around in some parts. I also think that some of
> > >the early Revell of Germany kits are former Matchbox armor kits. I know I have
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Bill Banaszak, MFE
e - 22 Apr 2004 18:39 GMT
>Bill, I'm with you.  Matchbox was the staple of childhood modelling.
>Despite their (newly realised!) faults, they went together well, were strong
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>RobG

that stranraer kit looks really nice. some guts and wires
will make it purty.
the walrus kit is also nice dressed up. i haven't done the
ju188, but aside from the 2" thick canopy, it looks
bashable.
Bill Banaszak - 23 Apr 2004 04:17 GMT
> that stranraer kit looks really nice. some guts and wires
> will make it purty.
> the walrus kit is also nice dressed up. i haven't done the
> ju188, but aside from the 2" thick canopy, it looks
> bashable.

I never got one of Matchbox's Ju 188s.  I picked up a Revell/Italeri kit
for that type.  I read somewhere it was the better of the two AND it was
on the shelf of the local store whilst the Mbox was not.  I probably
should have gotten one anyway.  The Italeri had mark options and I
probably could have used the extra pieces to change or improve the
Matchbox.

Bill Banaszak, MFE
e - 23 Apr 2004 04:46 GMT
>> that stranraer kit looks really nice. some guts and wires
>> will make it purty.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
>Bill Banaszak, MFE

it's a basic maychbox but it looks good. no clunky rivets or
blobbt pieces.
The Old Timer - 23 Apr 2004 12:32 GMT
>I never got one of Matchbox's Ju 188s.  I picked up a Revell/Italeri kit
>for that type.  I read somewhere it was the better of the two AND it was
>on the shelf of the local store whilst the Mbox was not.  I probably
>should have gotten one anyway.  The Italeri had mark options and I
>probably could have used the extra pieces to change or improve the
>Matchbox.

They ~were~ very nice. I had several, all used as jumping off points for
Airmodel vacuum conversions.

-- John
The history of things that didn't happen has never been written.
.          -                                   -                              
     - Henry Kissinger
Royabulgaf - 23 Apr 2004 22:25 GMT
>i haven't done the
>> ju188, but aside from the 2" thick canopy, it looks
>> bashable.

Don't bash it, get some firecrackers and blow it up!  Jeez, kids these days.
Kim M
e - 23 Apr 2004 23:44 GMT
>>i haven't done the
>>> ju188, but aside from the 2" thick canopy, it looks
>>> bashable.
>
>Don't bash it, get some firecrackers and blow it up!  Jeez, kids these days.
>Kim M
shaddup, i can't afford them hi price kits.
besides, cheap kits are good for learning.
Nick Pedley - 22 Apr 2004 21:18 GMT
> Bill, I'm with you.  Matchbox was the staple of childhood modelling.
> Despite their (newly realised!) faults, they went together well, were strong
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> off-beat subjects in the range.  A 1/32nd Lysander? Why? 'Cause they could,
> I guess (I admit to owning one.... and looking).

Mmmm, love that Lysander! Did one years ago with the grand plan for a
full-on Resistance midnight pick-up with German troops about to overrun the
field.. etc etc. Never got round to it all. Still have the box and
instructions but the model crashed last year :-(

Nick
Claus Gustafsen - 23 Apr 2004 17:42 GMT
I loved building their Siptfire 22/24, Dauntless and their Tiger Moth and am
looking forward to doeing their Lysander and Bf/Me 109E, all except the
Spitfire I have in two or more sets.

Signature

Claus Gustafsen
Strandby Denmark
mail me at claus@gustafsen.nu
Se my modeling at www.gustafsen.nu

> Bill, I'm with you.  Matchbox was the staple of childhood modelling.
> Despite their (newly realised!) faults, they went together well, were strong
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> >
> > Bill Banaszak, MFE
Eyeball2002308 - 23 Apr 2004 18:04 GMT
>I loved building their Spitfire 22/24, Dauntless and their Tiger Moth and am
>looking forward to doeing their Lysander and Bf/Me 109E, all except the
>Spitfire I have in two or more sets.

I loved that spitfire,and still have it minus some small pieces that went awol
over the years.But that damn tiger moth! It was my first attempt at building
with liquid glue,all those years ago.Couldn't get that top wing on for
anything.Finally tested it's flight and crashing characteristics as a
monoplane,if you know what I mean...
So I went and got the airfix 1/72 kit instead,and still have it.And working on
another now :)
Les Pickstock - 21 Apr 2004 23:49 GMT
If you look real close JJ you'll find that Matchbox models are still with us
in body if not in spirit.  Some of the Revell kits your'e enjoying are
actually re-boxes of Matchbox.
  For me Matchbox stood out because of some of their subjects.  Of course
they did the Me109 and the Spitfire which are the "meat and potatos" of the
kit seller but they also took risks.  The Stranraer, the Heyford, the Seafox
and such were real leaps of faith.  As with every kit maker the ranges were
like the curates egg (good in parts)  Personally I found some of their early
kits fell short of Airfix's better offerings.  The massive incised panel
lines were, frankly, a turn off compare with some of the delicate
(admittedly) raised Airfix panel line.
   Airfix did produce some dogs  but when they got it right the kit was a
treasure,  The re-tooled Lysander and the Henschal 126  were wonderful to
name a couple.
  I remember both companies offerings with affection, bound up as they were
with my childhood and my relationship with my Father.
As children we accepted the kit as it came and as we got older we looked for
more from them, accuracy and as a starting point to demonstrate our skills.
Now we view them nostagically.
 There's only one thing that puzzles me how did you manage to combine D&D
and girls?
JJ (UK) - 22 Apr 2004 00:04 GMT
> If you look real close JJ you'll find that Matchbox models are still with us
> in body if not in spirit.  Some of the Revell kits your'e enjoying are
> actually re-boxes of Matchbox.

Oh really?! Bet they don't have the extras though (the stands/dioramas
reminded by another post)

>    For me Matchbox stood out because of some of their subjects.  Of course
> they did the Me109 and the Spitfire which are the "meat and potatos" of the
> kit seller but they also took risks.  The Stranraer, the Heyford, the Seafox
> and such were real leaps of faith.

I don't remember any of those. In fact, I must admit I've never even heard
of the planes.

>     Airfix did produce some dogs  but when they got it right the kit was a
> treasure,  The re-tooled Lysander and the Henschal 126  were wonderful to
> name a couple.

Didn't Matchbox do a Lysander too? I definitely made one of them. Funny
looking little planes that, IIRC, could land/take off in a very small space.

>   There's only one thing that puzzles me how did you manage to combine D&D
> and girls?

LOL!

Well, I didn't. I had NO success with girls until I reached my twenty's in
fact! But the interest was still there...

Signature

JJ (UK)

JULIAN HALES - 22 Apr 2004 00:09 GMT
> > If you look real close JJ you'll find that Matchbox models are still with
> us
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Oh really?! Bet they don't have the extras though (the stands/dioramas
> reminded by another post)

yes, 76th scale but with 72nd figures and states 72nd

> >    For me Matchbox stood out because of some of their subjects.  Of course
> > they did the Me109 and the Spitfire which are the "meat and potatos" of
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Didn't Matchbox do a Lysander too? I definitely made one of them. Funny
> looking little planes that, IIRC, could land/take off in a very small space.

yes, got one up stairs, along with Airfix and Frogs Lizzie

> >   There's only one thing that puzzles me how did you manage to combine D&D
> > and girls?
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Well, I didn't. I had NO success with girls until I reached my twenty's in
> fact! But the interest was still there...

Thats sad, very sad.

> --
> JJ (UK)
JJ (UK) - 22 Apr 2004 09:34 GMT
> > >   There's only one thing that puzzles me how did you manage to combine
> D&D
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Thats sad, very sad.

Yes, yes it is. (Git)

Signature

JJ (UK)

Rob Grinberg - 22 Apr 2004 17:17 GMT
Girls? What are girls? Can you get them in plastic?

RobG
Ex D&Der and sad case.

> > > >   There's only one thing that puzzles me how did you manage to combine
> > D&D
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> --
> JJ (UK)
e - 22 Apr 2004 18:37 GMT
>Girls? What are girls? Can you get them in plastic?
>
>RobG
>Ex D&Der and sad case.

plastic, latex, rubber, leather and skin.
skin jobs cost the most.
Bill Banaszak - 23 Apr 2004 04:18 GMT
> >Girls? What are girls? Can you get them in plastic?
> >
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> plastic, latex, rubber, leather and skin.
> skin jobs cost the most.

Very high maintenance!

Bill Banaszak, MFE
Rob Grinberg - 23 Apr 2004 15:56 GMT
So you're saying I'm better off without one?

RobG

> Very high maintenance!
>
> Bill Banaszak, MFE
e - 23 Apr 2004 16:44 GMT
>So you're saying I'm better off without one?
>
>RobG

safer, not better.
Royabulgaf - 23 Apr 2004 22:27 GMT
>So you're saying I'm better off without one?

Cheaper in the long run to lease.  Kim M
Maiesm72 - 24 Apr 2004 02:06 GMT
There were a few duplicates and even triplicates when you take Frog into
account.

For example, Frog did a He 115, as did Matchbox.

Revell bought all of the Axis aircraft kits that were not wanted as part of the
Novo et al purchase.

The Revell kit is the Frog kit.

Tom
e - 24 Apr 2004 02:11 GMT
>There were a few duplicates and even triplicates when you take Frog into
>account.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>Tom
those 115 kits can be built up nicely.
Maiesm72 - 24 Apr 2004 05:13 GMT
>>The Revell kit is the Frog kit.
>>
>>Tom
>those 115 kits can be built up nicely.

Yes, as can the Revell/Frog kit.

Does anybody have a source photo for the area between the cockpit and rear
canopies?

Tom
Mark Schynert - 24 Apr 2004 06:30 GMT
> >>The Revell kit is the Frog kit.
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Tom

I think there was Replique in the last eighteen months that had a lot of
that sort of stuff, though I was never able to get a copy.

Mark Schynert
Maiesm72 - 24 Apr 2004 07:16 GMT
>I think there was Replique in the last eighteen months that had a lot of
>that sort of stuff, though I was never able to get a copy.

Thanks, Mark.

Several Replics in the now seven linear feet of cataloging to be done.

I'll dig them out and put them on the top of one of the piles.

Tom
Rob Grinberg - 24 Apr 2004 06:23 GMT
OOOOOOOHHHH, don't let the lady of your house hear you say that.  I'm not in
favour of leasing, but after becoming single after 13 years of marriage, I
can certainly see the financial sense in leasing.  If marriage is
institutionalised prostitution,  I want a refund.

RobG

> >So you're saying I'm better off without one?
>
> Cheaper in the long run to lease.  Kim M
OSTIAANTIC - 22 Apr 2004 00:17 GMT
JJ-
    As a youngster growing up in the US in the early 60's, Airfix and Frog
kits, to me, were the apex of 1/72 scale a/c models.  Yes, Revell, Aurora and
Monogram were around over here, but for sheer variety and number of kits, as
well as reputation, you couldn't beat Airfix and Frog.   I still enjoy building
these old kits.
      Matchbox kits came along a bit later(mid 70's?) and were geared more
towards younger builders.  They too had there share of pretty good or unique
kits however (F3D, Privateer,Halifax to name a few).
       The new kits today are light years ahead of these oldies, but if you
like building model a/c, each brand, old or new, has it's own charm.

Ron S.

<< When I started making models at the age of about 8 or 9 (I'm 38 now) I soon
discovered that Airfix models were poorly moulded (or rather the filling if
the moulds wasn't exactly quality controlled). So, in common with my friends
I stuck to Matchbox. The parts were well defined, the instructions were
clear and thanks to the tri-colour system they really didn't need painting!

OK, the last part about the non-requirement of paint was a lie. Anyway,
Matchbox models were widely available and seemed to be still popular when
girls, music and Dungeons And Dragons started to distract me away from model
making.

So, when my interest in modelling picked up again three years ago imagine my
disappointment when I find Matchbox went under taking their wonderful plastc
scale models with them.

So, I'm now trying out Revell models. They seem quite good. Comparable in
style and quality to the Matchbox range and I'm sure I may well try out a
Tamiya model or two (as I seem to remember I occasionally did when I was a
kid).

"Come on, JJ! What's your point?" I hear you cry.

Well, I was wondering where my old favourite Matchbox range sits with
everyone else's affections? Of course when anyone mentions scale models the
first name that springs to mind is Airfix. That's always the cliche anyway
but I always hated them and Matchbox always seemed more popular.

Looking in the shops I'd say the split is 40% Revell, 40% Tamiya, 20%
Airfix.

Does this reflect the relative quality?

Did Matchbox 'deserve' to disappear from our shelves?

Were Airfix as poor as I remember them (in fact should it have been them
that went under instead of Matchbox)?

A vague and rambling post I know, but perhaps it might provoke
discussion...and hopefully galvanise a company in to buying up and
re-releasing the Matchbox range properly (I'm aware someof the old models
have appeared but it's not many!)

Signature

JJ (UK) >>

TSR2 - 22 Apr 2004 14:22 GMT
All:
When I started I remember getting on my pushbike and pedalling down the
newsagents to pick up a Matchbox kit - still remember getting that massive
Spitfire kit for christmas one year - a Mark 22 I think - used to love them,
darned cheap too!  I keep a lookout for the re-boxing of those old kits,
Revell put out the Swordfish and Ouragan a short while back.  Good memories
those - Matchbox, Airfix and Otaki were the three I kicked off on - bit
simpler than adding resin and photoetched details too.
Andrew

> JJ-
>      As a youngster growing up in the US in the early 60's, Airfix and Frog
[quoted text clipped - 54 lines]
> --
> JJ (UK) >>
Claus Gustafsen - 22 Apr 2004 14:40 GMT
Well JJ,

   As some others allready have ansvered, Matchbox is still partly with us.
Revell has reissued some of their 1:32 scale planes (in all grey plastic and
with a little more sinkage) and also their 1:72 scale Flower class corvette.
The 1:72 scale planes I don't follow as I mainly build 1:32, but I belive
they are also partly available.
   And as someone said, there is plenty of parts and the general outline
and shape is good and so is the fit, so I meight jump for them still,
especially if they are decent priced, there are some new kit's around that
are pretty good, but are plagued by a "pretty good price too".

Signature

Claus Gustafsen
Strandby Denmark
mail me at claus@gustafsen.nu
Se my modeling at www.gustafsen.nu

> When I started making models at the age of about 8 or 9 (I'm 38 now) I soon
> discovered that Airfix models were poorly moulded (or rather the filling if
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
> re-releasing the Matchbox range properly (I'm aware someof the old models
> have appeared but it's not many!)
JJ (UK) - 23 Apr 2004 21:18 GMT
> Well JJ,
>
>     As some others allready have ansvered, Matchbox is still partly with us.
> Revell has reissued some

Indeed, but how do we know which ones they are?

Signature

JJ (UK)

JULIAN HALES - 23 Apr 2004 21:25 GMT
> > Well JJ,
> >
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> --
> JJ (UK)

(C) date
JJ (UK) - 23 Apr 2004 21:56 GMT
> (C) date

But weren't Revell kits contemporaneous?

Signature

JJ (UK)

Claus Gustafsen - 24 Apr 2004 19:55 GMT
The copyright date or print date of the instructions are useless - I have
several examples of kits with the same plastic and different instructions
and decals, but the do all have the same copyright date (Year) on the
plastic

Signature

Claus Gustafsen
Strandby Denmark
mail me at claus@gustafsen.nu
Se my modeling at www.gustafsen.nu

> > (C) date
>
> But weren't Revell kits contemporaneous?
Les Pickstock - 23 Apr 2004 21:57 GMT
"JJ (UK)" <yeah.right@i.dont.think.so.com> wrote in message
news:c6btml$5bg$1@ngspool-> >   > > Revell has reissued some

> Indeed, but how do we know which ones they are?

Usually they still have "Matchbox" moulded inside.
Bill Banaszak - 24 Apr 2004 02:56 GMT
> "JJ (UK)" <yeah.right@i.dont.think.so.com> wrote in message
> news:c6btml$5bg$1@ngspool-> >   > > Revell has reissued some
> >
> > Indeed, but how do we know which ones they are?
>
> Usually they still have "Matchbox" moulded inside.

But then he'd have to buy the kit to find that out.  I can't think of a
way to tell without 'knowing' ahead of time.

Bill Banaszak, MFE
Maiesm72 - 24 Apr 2004 05:24 GMT
>> Usually they still have "Matchbox" moulded inside.
>
>But then he'd have to buy the kit to find that out.  I can't think of a
>way to tell without 'knowing' ahead of time.

Really very simple.

Get John Burns' PAK 20 and check the Revell listings.Everything with a (Ma)
after the description is originally Matchbox.

For example:
Revell
4142 Curtiss SB2C-1 Helldiver (Ma:G). The  "G" indicates that this is a Revell
Germany release.

Tom
Claus Gustafsen - 24 Apr 2004 19:54 GMT
Only way is to have someone let you open the box - mostly you can tell if
they are Matchbox from looking at the sprues.

Signature

Claus Gustafsen
Strandby Denmark
mail me at claus@gustafsen.nu
Se my modeling at www.gustafsen.nu

> > Well JJ,
> >
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Indeed, but how do we know which ones they are?
Rob van Riel - 22 Apr 2004 15:15 GMT
"JJ \(UK\)" <yeah.right@i.dont.think.so.com> wrote in message news:<c66ri3$ht6$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>...
> When I started making models at the age of about 8 or 9 (I'm 38 now) I soon
> discovered that Airfix models were poorly moulded (or rather the filling if
> the moulds wasn't exactly quality controlled). So, in common with my friends

You're treading dangerous ground here, taking a hack at Airfix...

> Well, I was wondering where my old favourite Matchbox range sits with
> everyone else's affections? Of course when anyone mentions scale models the
> first name that springs to mind is Airfix. That's always the cliche anyway
> but I always hated them and Matchbox always seemed more popular.

Not over here. In small scale, there were Airfix, Matchbox, Revell and
Frog/Novo. The latter two were largely crap (apologies to Frog; I've
been frustrated by way too many disintegration Novo decals, and the
plastic wasn't any worse than the others). Matchbox always seemed
strudier to me, Airfix by and large had a better range.


> Were Airfix as poor as I remember them (in fact should it have been them
> that went under instead of Matchbox)?

No, it just had different defects.


The Matchbox bases are an all time favourite with me. I rarely build
aircraft on bases now, but when I do, I always try to dig up a
Matchbox base for it. (Incidenty, I'm running out of them, so if
anyone knows where to find a bunch...) The diorama bases were lovely.
I beieve the one with the palm tree came with the Wasp tank, and I'm
certain the railroad bit came with the US halftrack (if necessary, I
could verify this by visiting the stash).

Rob
Mike Keown - 23 Apr 2004 01:52 GMT
I've got two Matchbox 1/72  Mk1 Gladiators that
I am saving for something what I dunno, but right
now I just like to pick them up and shake the boxes
(very gently mind you) :-) I agree thought that they
*were* a notch or two above Airfix.
Mike IPMS
Mark Schynert - 23 Apr 2004 06:31 GMT
> I've got two Matchbox 1/72  Mk1 Gladiators that
> I am saving for something what I dunno, but right
> now I just like to pick them up and shake the boxes
> (very gently mind you) :-) I agree thought that they
> *were* a notch or two above Airfix.
> Mike IPMS

Matchbox's is okay, but I think the Heller is a bit better. That said, I
might build both, as I have at least two Gladiator schemes I want to
build.

Mark Schynert
Pauli G - 23 Apr 2004 19:54 GMT
> > I've got two Matchbox 1/72  Mk1 Gladiators that
> > I am saving for something what I dunno, but right
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Mark Schynert

Maybe this should be a new thread, but:  
Does Heller rerelease their old kits like some of the other
manufacturers, or is the only choice to pay a King's ransom on Ebay?
They haven't rereleased their Gladiator for what seems like ages
(early to mid 80s as an Encore kit?)
Bill Banaszak - 24 Apr 2004 03:03 GMT
> Maybe this should be a new thread, but:
> Does Heller rerelease their old kits like some of the other
> manufacturers, or is the only choice to pay a King's ransom on Ebay?
> They haven't rereleased their Gladiator for what seems like ages
> (early to mid 80s as an Encore kit?)

Some of Heller's kits show up in Smer boxings.  I just checked my
Squadron catalogue but the Gladiator isn't listed under either company.
I did find the old Frog Blackburn Shark listed under Smer.

Bill Banaszak, MFE
e - 24 Apr 2004 04:55 GMT
>> Maybe this should be a new thread, but:
>> Does Heller rerelease their old kits like some of the other
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>Bill Banaszak, MFE

who's kit is the 1.48 walrus? i'm using one as practice for
the ca kit.
Bill Banaszak - 24 Apr 2004 02:58 GMT
> > I've got two Matchbox 1/72  Mk1 Gladiators that
> > I am saving for something what I dunno, but right
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Mark Schynert

Only two?  I have at least three in Swedish schemes.
And the Heller kit got the Norwegian scheme.

Bill Banaszak, MFE
Mark Schynert - 24 Apr 2004 06:28 GMT
> > > I've got two Matchbox 1/72  Mk1 Gladiators that
> > > I am saving for something what I dunno, but right
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Bill Banaszak, MFE

Norwegian and a Sea Gladiator will do it for me. The Lithuanian one
might be cool too, but I'll be lucky to build two.

Mark Schynert
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.