That is interesting
The better course of action is to research the actual plastic inside the box as opposed to being enamored by the drawings on it.
I have no secret insight as to why Border did the box art depicting the kit subject clearly knocked out and “brewing up.” However, from a marketing perspective the box art sure has garnered a lot of discussion for what might otherwise have been just another ho-hum kit release.
“Crazy like a fox?” or an example of “Those inscrutable Chinese”? I wonder… LOL!
Think of those purchases as Ron Volstad appreciation! Most modelers have done the same regardless of if they own up to it or not.
Not a fan of Meng’s interpretation of a Panther road wheels but they had the pretty Panther picture…
…only bought two so far…will probably buy another…it’s just money and we can make more every day!
Artist appreciation
As for the brewed up Sherman, no $$$ to Border from me for that. The subject matter isn’t compelling enough to overcome my dislike of the art work.
If folks like it or are interested, they should buy it assuming the kit checks out as a kit they find acceptable if they want it.
YMMV
I’m going to have to bite my tongue on one of the above statements…
I’ll hold fire until we see the plastic in the - plastic. (As opposed to in the flesh…)
Border screwed the pooch with the M4A1 76W — MAJOR research error – no 76mm M4A1 had small hatches. THis is a big FAIL
I’ll quote one of our most prolific posters. Name withheld to protect the guilty:
It is just a model. Most people won’t care either way if it is totally accurate or not.
Ouch - that’s a boo-boo! And IIRC the canvas mantlet covers only appear right at the end of the war (on M4A3E8s with welded hulls),while the bare clips and hardware appeared a few months earlier…
Regarding box art and knocked out vehicles, the recent 1/16 scale M8 Greyhound by Andy’s and Das Werk Sdkfz.234/2 Puma, basically show opposite sides of an encounter, each one having the kit subject victorious over the other type…
and I do like the impending doom look on the TC in the box art for this kit…
It’s all about context. We aren’t talking about our auntie Mabel going to Hobby Lobby and picking up a Monogram M48A2 Patton Tank for US$16 as a birthday/Christmas gift because they heard we “build model tanks”.
What is the audience of someone who will spend $55-70 on a 1/35 Border models Sherman kit? The kind of person “won’t care either way if it is totally accurate or not.”???
That’s not a tenable argument. Some newbie walking into his neighborhood Hobbytown USA isn’t going to wonder: “Hmmm… shall I buy the Tamiya Panther A kit or the Border models M4A1 76W?”
This is a major error by Border and they’re rightfully being castigated for it online today. This is their FIRST foray into the 1/35 Sherman scene. Given some of the attention to detail in this kit (and the M4A1 75 mid), they clearly intended to give Asuka, Meng and RFM a run for their money.
And I fully welcome it. But with this kit, they’ve stumbled out of the starting gate. I hope the M4A1 75 mid and other Shermans will be top notch. They’ll get my business – but certainly not with the M4A1 76W abomination, as it currently stands.
Unfortunately you don’t seem to recognize that I’m not advocating that point of view. I’m calling out the person who wrote that. I am rarely a student of the School of Close Enough.
So you may direct your well thought out response to the unknowns out there who ascribe to this belief.
Someone invented the quotation marks, ", to clarify situations such as this,
still doesn’t help in some cases but we can always try , it might just work someday …
I chose to use italics instead. Which ericadeane’s post does not reflect. The italicized statement came directly after (and I’ll use quotes this time to avoid any confusion) this statement:
“I’ll quote one of our most prolific posters. Name withheld to protect the guilty:”
Fuel for the fire…
Ben’s comment is hilarious
Maybe Border had a sense of humor with the artwork due to knowing that kit will get “brewed up” repeatedly by the serious aficionados for it’s error(s) and apparent failings.
Ah – I misunderstood.
I figgered as much. No worries.
I can be a simpleton sometimes, but I do not get Rob Harveys comments.
The syntax may be a little off, but I totally what he’s saying… Some of the reviews here have been WAY off base.