Absolutely, it is such a subjective subject and depends on the Subject you model, if Company Y doesn’t make a kit of the subject you model or does it badly but have other gems in their line you are not going to say they are the best.
I agree Spanner. I’ve been building 50 years, plus. Over those years, some manufacturers have come and gone, had good kits, and had some not so good kits. Some are too expensive, yet not that detailed, while others are rather inexpensive, yet have great detail. I haven’t mentioned any one manufacturer by name, and I won’t. In those 50 years, every one who made/makes a kit, have had their black sheep right along their gold standard. Not one manufacturer has escaped this. Do I build for price, detail, simplicity, engineering, or because it’s complicated? What about high or low parts count, brand loyalty, extras, country of origin of the kit subject? Do I worry where the manufacturer is located geographically? Do I build OOB? Dive into a kit that is 30 years old, 40 years old, even 50 years old, or a kit released last week or last month, or last year? Does it need lots of aftermarket or not…etc., etc., etc. YES, and NO, to all the above. I build what I am in the mood for, no matter who makes it…and I try to have a good time each and every build. Cost? Not really, I can afford whatever is out there. However, I do consider inflation vs. greed of a seller. I have at least 45 different brand names in my stash: plastic and resin, 95% in 1/35 scale. As you can tell, I “choose” a kit to what hits my modeling funny bone. Sometimes, the kit chooses me. I also try to use the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) method each and every build as well. It’s a hobby people…treat it that way!
2 Likes
I agree with you that the" best" company does not always make the best kit that you are looking for. That is why you see "Who makes the best… " in the forums. I myself have 15 companies represented in my kit stash. My original question was which companies are doing the best at the moment. Best to me is engineering, accuracy and fit. That list will change and is not fluid. That list will also be subjective. Your “best” may not be based on engineering, accuracy and fit. Armor Buff threw out the idea of tiers and that made since to me. Tier 1 companies would be very competitive with each other with respect to the quality of their kits. Tier 2,3 and 4 the same. As companies improve their product they move up in tiers and as they drop in quality they drop in tiers. This is only based on current work not past.
Best kit would be easier to keep track of as you could make a list of vehicles produced and list the company that produced the best of that kit. The list would up date when a better kit of the vehicle or version was made. I guess you also have an annotation if the best kit of that vehicle is no longer in production with a best currently being produced also listed.
Another best kit challenge is when it takes multiple kits to make a best kit. I basically combined Tamiya’s M60A1 with ERA turret and Esci’s hull to get the best of both. However this has been superseded by Takom’s version.
1 Like
Tweaks & Updates.
Multiple apologies in advance when I offended everyne with what follows. Just calling it with candor as I see it. Others with different criteria very well may have entirely different views and lists based on what’s important to them respectively.
My criteria is #1 Fun Build, #2 Well Engineered #3 Quality Instructions and all else is secondary. Based on my experiences.
Tier 1 Best Armor Model Companies Today
Tamiya - All Hail the Supreme Over King, Best of the Best, Alpha & Omega of Quality Models. Tamiya has held my #1 spot for 40+ years. Tamiya is consistent. 
Tamiya also has room to improve the last two Pz IV kits are very nice but cut some corners.
Meng - serious competition
RFM - serious competition
If a Tier 1 company’s name is on the box of a new release I have high exacting expectations.
Tier 2 - always lacking or disappointing in one way or another but generally excellent. Worth buying and building. Would have to make major improvements to reach Tier 1 status.
Hasegawa
Fujimi
TriStar
Asuka
Amusing Hobby
Dragon
Takom
AFV Club
Mini-Art
If a Tier 2 company’s name is on the box of a new release I have moderate expectations based on past experiences.
Special note Dragon could be Tier 1 with improved instructions sheets and better engineering. So close yet light years away.
Tier 3 - always lacking in multiple ways but generally very good. Probably worth buying and building.
Trumpeter
Border Models
Academy - revised to Tier 3 from Tier 4
ICM
Zvezda
Panda - revised to Tier 4
Hobby Boss
Polar Lights
Bronco
If a Tier 3 company’s name is on the box of a new release I really don’t care as I probably won’t be buying the product after reading the reviews unless highly interesting subject matter.
Tier 4 - kits by these manufacturer’s are generally suitable for filling up a dumpsters and empty landfills with possibly a few exceptions. The companies are basically hopeless write off lost causes not worthy my attention. Same bottom of the barrel pretty much as 30 years ago. At least they are consistently terrible.
Revell
Monogram
ESCI
Airfix
Italeri
Panda - revised to Tier 4
Alan
MiniCraft
If a Tier 4 company’s name is on the box of a new release I don’t care as I won’t be buying the product. The reviews are often pure comedy with a plethora of avoidable goof ups and screw ups that can come only from 2nd rate production, 3rd rate research and moronic bottom of the barrel management.
Most good models with a Tier 4 company name on the box are reboxed and some other companies product in most cases. Probably from a Tier 2 company.
Bizarrely, the Shogun of modeling, Tamiya likes selected Italeri well enough to rebox it and sell with the Tamiya name on the box. I won’t claim to understand Imperial reasoning:)
Long Live The Tennō of Model Companies Tamiya:)
1 Like
I mostly agree with this! What gets me is how tier 4 companies can when they try turn out gems. For example, the Revell Rafale C in 1/48 is supposedly the best in that scale. Comparing it to my Tamiya 1/48 f-16 it’s hard to pick which has better detail.
It’s interesting to me how when tier 4 companies turn it up they can produce good kits. Why not just always preform at that level
1 Like
No reflection on the companies themselves, but my last three builds have been Trumpeter, Academy, and MiniArt and I can’t wait to sink my teeth into a Tamiya next. Rye Field and Takom have been really fun, but since I really enjoy painting the most, Tamiya gets me to that point with the least pain and most pleasure.
2 Likes
Interesting thread.
I think it depends on what you want, as others have said. If you want a Tiger 1, then Dragon are the best I’ve seen. But are Dragon the best OEM? No.
Likewise if you want an Opel Maultier with the rocketlauncher on the back, then Italeri are the one to go to. Are they the best? No of course not.
My view is it depends also on the type of builder you are too. I’m not a big fan of spending weeks on a model doing just the PE, more weeks trying to assemble 600-800 pieces of tracks etc - not my thing. Others love that stuff. So it stands to reason that I may not have a high opinion of OEMs that pander to the kitbasher parts count guys and girls, and that they may not like Tamiya, who are very much “my end” of the market.
So who is the best?
Well, if we divide it up into criteria -
Fit
Clarity of Instructions
Options
Plastic/material
Value
Amount of PE/other goodies, eg: metal barrel, grilles etc.
Parts count
Detail accuracy
Then who scores highest?
Its massively subjective. Tamiya for example score big on Fit and Clarity Of Instructions but tend to fall down a little in the Options and Value stakes, and aren’t as high a parts count as others.
So lets score this out, using each OEM’s latest offerings only as reference, i.e.: models released less than 12 months ago. Older kits would skew the results. Each Criteria has a possible score of 5 from 5, so the maximum score attainable is 40.
So:
TAMIYA
Fit 5
Clarity of Instructions 5
Options 3
Plastic/material 5
Value 3
Amount of PE/other goodies, eg: metal barrel, grilles etc. 4
Parts count 3
Detail accuracy 4
DRAGON
Fit 5
Clarity of Instructions 3
Options 5
Plastic/material 5
Value 2
Amount of PE/other goodies, eg: metal barrel, grilles etc. 5
Parts count 5
Detail accuracy 5
TAKOM
Fit 5
Clarity of Instructions 4
Options 4
Plastic/material 5
Value 4
Amount of PE/other goodies, eg: metal barrel, grilles etc. 4
Parts count 5
Detail accuracy 5
TRUMPETER
Fit 4
Clarity of Instructions 4
Options 4
Plastic/material 4
Value 5
Amount of PE/other goodies, eg: metal barrel, grilles etc. 5
Parts count 5
Detail accuracy 4
RYE FIELD
Fit 4
Clarity of Instructions 3
Options 4
Plastic/material 5
Value 5
Amount of PE/other goodies, eg: metal barrel, grilles etc. 4
Parts count 4
Detail accuracy 4
MENG
Fit 5
Clarity of Instructions 5
Options 3
Plastic/material 4
Value 4
Amount of PE/other goodies, eg: metal barrel, grilles etc. 4
Parts count 5
Detail accuracy 5
ACADEMY
Fit 3
Clarity of Instructions 3
Options 4
Plastic/material 5
Value 5
Amount of PE/other goodies, eg: metal barrel, grilles etc. 3
Parts count 3
Detail accuracy 3
PANDA
Fit 4
Clarity of Instructions 3
Options 3
Plastic/material 4
Value 4
Amount of PE/other goodies, eg: metal barrel, grilles etc. 4
Parts count 5
Detail accuracy 3
TIGER
Fit 4
Clarity of Instructions 3
Options 3
Plastic/material 4
Value 3
Amount of PE/other goodies, eg: metal barrel, grilles etc. 4
Parts count 4
Detail accuracy 4
ITALERI
Fit 2
Clarity of Instructions 4
Options 3
Plastic/material 4
Value 5
Amount of PE/other goodies, eg: metal barrel, grilles etc. 2
Parts count 3
Detail accuracy 3
BORDER
Fit 4
Clarity of Instructions 3
Options 4
Plastic/material 2
Value 4
Amount of PE/other goodies, eg: metal barrel, grilles etc. 5
Parts count 5
Detail accuracy 5
AIRFIX
Fit 4
Clarity of Instructions 3
Options 4
Plastic/material 5
Value 5
Amount of PE/other goodies, eg: metal barrel, grilles etc. 3
Parts count 3
Detail accuracy 3
MINIART
Fit 4
Clarity of Instructions 4
Options 4
Plastic/material 4
Value 5
Amount of PE/other goodies, eg: metal barrel, grilles etc. 3
Parts count 4
Detail accuracy 4
HOBBYBOSS
Fit 4
Clarity of Instructions 4
Options 4
Plastic/material 5
Value 5
Amount of PE/other goodies, eg: metal barrel, grilles etc. 3
Parts count 3
Detail accuracy 3
REVELL
Fit 3
Clarity of Instructions 4
Options 3
Plastic/material 4
Value 5
Amount of PE/other goodies, eg: metal barrel, grilles etc. 3
Parts count 3
Detail accuracy 3
AFV CLUB
Fit 3
Clarity of Instructions 4
Options 4
Plastic/material 4
Value 3
Amount of PE/other goodies, eg: metal barrel, grilles etc. 4
Parts count 5
Detail accuracy 5
CYBER
Fit 4
Clarity of Instructions 3
Options 4
Plastic/material 5
Value 2
Amount of PE/other goodies, eg: metal barrel, grilles etc. 5
Parts count 5
Detail accuracy 5
TASCA/ASUKA
Fit 5
Clarity of Instructions 5
Options 3
Plastic/material 5
Value 2
Amount of PE/other goodies, eg: metal barrel, grilles etc. 3
Parts count 4
Detail accuracy 5
ZVEZDA
Fit 4
Clarity of Instructions 4
Options 4
Plastic/material 5
Value 5
Amount of PE/other goodies, eg: metal barrel, grilles etc. 4
Parts count 4
Detail accuracy 4
DAS WERK
Fit 4
Clarity of Instructions 4
Options 4
Plastic/material 4
Value 5
Amount of PE/other goodies, eg: metal barrel, grilles etc. 4
Parts count 4
Detail accuracy 4
So what were the scores?
1 - Takom (36)
2 - Trumpeter, Meng, Dragon (35)
3 - RFM, Border, Cyberhobby, Asuka (33)
4 - Tamiya, Miniart (32)
5 - Zvezda, Panda (31)
6 - Das Werk, HobbyBoss, Airfix (30)
7 - Academy, Tiger (29)
8 - Revell (28)
9 - Italeri (26)
…so there you have it!
Interesting one there is Trumpeter. They score pretty well across all criteria and look very competitive, but most wouldnt have them up there with Meng and Takom for example (although i would I think, I’m a Trumpeter fan and I really rate their stuff. Amazing value and really cool subject matter, great detail and i enjoy that hard, thick plastic.)
I’d personally rank Italeri higher than Revell and think maybe Zvezda are a little undervalued there as well but that’s how they scored.
7 Likes
Interesting. I disagree with a few of your individual scores but I think for the most part they are right on. All the categories give enough latitude that the winners are impossible to predict until final tabulation and the order of the winners list is not really surprising, having built recent kits from all these manufacturers. I think this rating system is most accurate and timely. A+.
2 Likes
For my personal opinion - I’ve been back in the hobby since September 2020 and churned out a model every three weeks on average since then, having built a lot of Tamiya and Italeri back when I was a kid, circa 1990-92.
I’m not much into huge amounts of PE and silly details that could have just been cast in one piece rather than long winded and unnecessarily fiddly constructions for minor parts. That said, I like to be challenged and pushed a bit and I do like a big build that takes some work. I also like to customise the models I make with aftermarket parts and stowage etc where necessary/appropriate.
Best model I’ve built since coming back was the Meng PZH-2000 with the additional armour. This is just absolutely brilliant, I cant criticize it in any way.
Second best was an Asuka M4A3 76W which was so far ahead of any other Sherman I’ve built I couldnt believe it. Stunning.
Big shout out to the venerable Tamiya M-41 as well. Four hours to build, the definition of a weekend build and as enjoyable now as it was back in 1991 when i built one before. Ive got another in my stash for when my son is old enough to try his hand at building tanks after the obligatory Airfix 1:72 Spitfire etc. That is five or six years away yet but i’m already brimming with pride at the thought.
I think the point i was trying to make by mentioning the M-41 was that it still comes down to enjoyment for me.
I built a Meng Buk recently and it is every bit as good as their PZH2K but i didn’t enjoy it as much. I’ve built two Tigers since coming back to the hobby - an ancient Tamiya mid-prod and a much newer RFM early. The RFM was lightyears better, more accurate and more involving but the Tamiya was much more fun. Conversely I built a Dragon Nashorn and enjoyed it much more than the Tamiya Hummel which is the same apart from the gun.
I’d be interested therefore to run the above scoring for specific models as i think the results might be interesting to see - ie: one for a Sherman (so Asuka, Dragon, Tamiya, RFM etc), a Tiger, an Abrams, a T-55, a T-72 and an M-48 Patton.
Would take someone who has built all of them to actually do it though. I havent so am not qualified to do so.
Re Academy - I’ve just finished their OIF2003 Warrior and thoroughly enjoyed it from beginning to end and if i had any criticisms they would be very minor. I really like Academy’s newer stuff.
Zvezda’s latest are absolutely brilliant (detail, buildability, jigs to add track sag etc) with the notable exception of their obsession (cost cutting…) to cheap mesh for engine grilles. I’ve built their T-90, T-34 and the TOR-M2 and Koalitsiya are in the stash.
I love Meng, yet their separate track links are simply sub par (and can ruin an otherwise brilliant project). Spending on aftermarket metal tracks seems the only path for me…
1 Like
@BringupthePIAT Chris,
Excellent post and fun to read. I like your system and methodology. I too would score somewhat differently in a few areas. Well done 
3 Likes
@BringupthePIAT A valiant effort, Chris! Probably the only approach that could be considered workable. However, despite the appearance of “objectivity” with categories and scores, as you say, it’s still totally subjective.
In the end, each modeler has to complete this exercise for him or herself since the assessment and scoring of each category is totally up to the individual. Each modeler will have his own definition and personal standards for each category (or even an opinion of the validity of including the categories or adding his own). Each modeler will subjectively weigh and assign value depending on his or her own needs and wants. Which is the most important selection criteria for each modeler in every circumstance is simply beyond any sort of enduring and objective analysis.
The best result that can ever be achieved is someone’s personal determination of what is the “best armor kit company” based on his or her own opinions at the moment he or she conducts the assessment.
It’s the difference between judging and measuring. For some things in life, there are simply no rulers, protractors or tape measures that apply.
I’m sure that there are regular board room meetings in the top floors of model kit companies where the answer to this question is hotly debated. (I get this mental image of Mr. Tamaya-san dressed in Samurai armor sitting at the head of the table fingering his sword as some poor kit designer is trying to pitch a Power Point presentation on his latest kit idea… LOL!)
Thankfully, in the interest of modeler choice and preferences there’s no definitive answer, and as long as model companies continue to debate and strive to find one, we, the scale modeling community, benefit!
How do you measure ‘satisfaction’?
I built a small MiniArt kit. The Bantam. Simple. Small. Cheap. But the end result made me happy. And very satisfied. That can’t be measured over all of us because we all have different ‘satisfaction’ meters.
bruce
3 Likes
There are some common beliefs we have. If Lindberg and RFM both announced they were making a M36 B1, I think everyone who has any modeling experience would say hands down that the RFM would be the best kit as of this moment. You may choose to do the Lindberg kit because you want a challenge , just needed a practice kit, or only have a few dollars and the cheaper kit was why they bought the kit. However you would be hard pressed to say the Lindberg was the better kit. Meng and RFM would probably be close enough in quality to be just a personal preference based on decal selection or past build experience. I know that the quality of kits are changing and new manufacturers are popping up. I wanted to know what everyone thought about today’s manufacturers.I know subjectivity would be part of the process and that is OK because the average of the responses would probably fall pretty close the honest answer. To me, Wade provided an eloquent solution with 4 tiers to rate the manufacturers and not the individual kits. Companies could rise and fall based on their current portfolio. That mirrors reality. If 20 people ranked the companies by tiers and you averaged the results, I think reasonable accuracy could be achieved for the current 6 month period.
4 Likes
Sometimes, manufacturers will change, and not always for the better. While Tamiya is pretty consistent over the decades, I don’t remember the last time we saw a mega-kit from them like the Dragon Wagon or FAMO. And while Zvezda and Academy are generally improving quality and choices, Dragon went from being the talk of the town back when their Abrams kits were new to being a mess with their Black Label kits. Personally, I’m a huge fan of RFM and Meng; their subject choices and quality make them a lot of fun to build and they came out of nowhere! And while I wish somebody would pick up the 1/35 helicopters Kitty Hawk used to kit, I can’t say as I’m going to mourn the passing of their corporate partner Panda Models.
Any company is only as good as its next kit…
2 Likes
Which is the best?
Short answer… Forme., No one… You can find pluses and minuses in every single producer.
Sometimes I want a fall together build, other times I want the challange of having to fill, Rebuild, scratch build and basically cus and sware my way through it all.
1 Like