Rant about Reviews

General Discussions
41

Having had a hand in quite a few modern offerings since 2007, and having read the reviews of of most of the newer kits, including those excellent build reviews by Pawel Krupowicz, I’d have to say the worst modern kit of this century is the Panda M109A7 Paladin. Of course Vodnik might argue that it was the Dragon Black Label M103A1. Either way, both are dogs.

My build review began on the old Armorama site:

And more recently:

Speaking of “zero sense of proportion,” here’s a graphic representation of area on the kit that were either flat out incorrect, missing detail, or had details located incorrectly.

image
image1060×901 68.1 KB

I actually need to add more to that.

Some review comments from the internet:

*This is an interesting kit, overall a great kit and will build up to an impressive version of the vehicle…I love the decision to include white metal tracks as standard, these are usually pretty high-priced upgrade for an armor kit. They defiantly make this re-release worth it and I hope more companies follow this example…
My thanks to Panda Models and IMPS for giving me the opportunity to review this kit.

Defiantly? :rage:

And another:

This is another superb kit from Panda Hobby. They are the ‘go to’ company for modern military vehicles such as this. One thing for sure, you definitely get your money’s worth with these kits and the resulting model will be a beauty.

No, no one would ever shill to get a free kit. :roll_eyes:

A “First Look.”

This is going to be a relatively easy build though there are lots of details and opportunities to weather this model. There don’t appear to be any surprises and this will be a fun build to add to the scale garrison. :lying_face: Hulls warped on every kit I’ve seen.

My sincere thanks to Panda-Hobby for the review sample.

Interestingly enough, in spite of a not quite perfect Google translation, the best review out there is in Chinese. Although it doesn’t point out the inaccuracies, it shows a very competent build, makes good comments about what to watch out for during the build, and even shows photos of the actual vehicle. :astonished:

At least the Chinese modelers recognize know a bad kit when they see it:

image
image1101×548 39.4 KB

And from our very own Armorama archives:

Highs: Very detailed with crisp moldings and no flash… :thinking: Hmmm… My three kits, and two others purchased by friends in Colorado, ALL have heavy flash in exactly the same spot. I guess we managed to all purchase Friday afternoon kits, you know, like GM cars back in the 70’s - with crushed soda cans dropped inside the door panels.

Bu there’s more:
Verdict: A very good kit.

Our Thanks to Panda Hobby !
This item was provided by them for the purpose of having it reviewed on this [KitMaker Network](http://www.kitmaker.net/) site. :smiling_face_with_three_hearts:

The only other review I found didn’t even bother to post a text, just photos. A shame, you’d think the Fort Hood Area Chapter of AMPS could have nailed it better than anyone. Hell, there are only several dozen of them parked within sight of Highway 190 as you drive by…

4 Likes
42

FWIW i’m currently building Mengs Jagdpanther G1. I find looking at build logs to be as, if not more informative than reviews.

For instance there is an excellent and very informative blog about Mengs offering here:

Whether Mengs kit is the best? depends on what your intent is, the best kit for an OOTB build is probably not the best kit for a detailed build I guess.

43

Worst kit ever?

Clearly you guys have never tried building an Alan kit - especially their ‘Gepard’. Search out build reviews (from those that actually got to the end of the build without binning it like me) and you will find general agreement on how bad it really is. That Panda Paladin and Dragon M103 are gems compared to that one.

1 Like
44

From all of the comments I have seen about Alan kits, I must agree.

1 Like
45

Rob,
I got it, you don’t like the kit and disagree with my review. So be it. Since it is my review you pan though, with a couple incomplete overall comments, I will link to the full review for others to read and make up their own minds.

I did not have access, like you did, to the real vehicle and made my comparisons from what I could glean from the net, of apparently the prototype. I still stand by what I have written.

Overall, the kit is good and builds into a reasonable facsimile of an M109A7. People can see the results and make up their own minds

More here.

I think I gave an honest review and pointed out issues with what comes in the box. Mine did not have a warped hull nor any appreciable flash to deal with. Does it have every little detail correct? No. Some missing, extra, or misplaced bolts and a few missed vents do not make it junk in my opinion though. Other opinions may vary. Is it perfect? No. Can it be built into a very nice representation of an M109A7? I think so. Is there room for improvement and updating? Of course, as there is with every kit.

Your improvement post is a good companion to my initial review in my opinion. It shows the modeler what can be built out of the box (with minor improvements) and what can be done if you want to really go all in and bring it up to the latest standards.

I think we have overall different expectations of a review. I believe the review should look at what is in the box and how buildable it is for the average modeler. If there are glaring inaccuracies, they should be pointed out. This gives an overall impression of how good or bad and how buildable the model is. The level of detail you and Pawel are looking for is in another category, not just a basic review. Both types have their place, but one type should not be the be all end all and I don’t think either should be the only standard.

7 Likes
46

Gino while in this case it was your review I would hope that attacking you was not the intent of the content. I do not slaver or dribble over kits or books sent to me for review and I look for negatives and call them out. I am not an expert in every field of military both past and present, but I have been engaged with models long enough to tell a dog from a gem in most cases. I never always get it right and accept that it will never be the case that I do; I can only do what I am able and my best will never please everyone and so I have to accept I am only human.

4 Likes
47

There would be extremely few reviews if only subject matter experts were allowed to write reviews …

4 Likes
48

Try Scalemates as an aid. They have a lot of the kit instructions on there. Compare/Contrast.

You can foresee any potential construction issues.

49

As has been pointed out earlier, reviews are subjective, not just in the modelers themselves, but also in time. In the case of the Panda M109 Paladin, or the Dragon M103, I do not know what other options may be out there now; but in many cases the kit being bad mouthed was, and sometimes still is, the only option available. Earlier, someone mentioned the Lindberg T-55. Yea, today, with all the options available; it’s pretty bad. When it came out, it was the best, and only, option there was, unless you had an OLD Tamiya kit, which was even worse. Back in the day, I built both the Lindberg T-80 and the ESCI/AMT/ERTL T-72. Today these are considered to be crappy kits, even by me, but at the time they were the best available. And ALL of these kits, when built, looked like pretty good representations of what they were supposed to be.

When I look at a review, I look for ease of built and quality of the molding, along with clear instructions. In this day and age, I think that a badly molded kit, with lots of flash, pin marks, and especially short-shots, are unacceptable. Bad instructions are a pain in the ass, but I can usually live with them. Anything else, I can usually work with, or find a replacement.
Ken

2 Likes
50

@HeavyArty
Well put Gino . When I read a review I always think back to my youth - a time when you mostly had no idea about what was in the box until you paid for it and got it home .
Sometimes disappointing , sometimes just what you expected and sometimes thrilling. Any review with pictures gives the modeler far more knowledge about the content than we had “ back in the day “ , regardless of the reviewer’s skill or lack thereof , prototype knowledge, agenda, etc.
Kudos to you as well for reminding all that we are all diverse in skills , knowledge and expectations.
@CMOT
Darren - I hold your reviews in very high esteem .
Always well written, very complete in both text and photos and candid - amongst others you are noteworthy in humbly stating your level of knowledge of the subject either way . I recall in particular a review of a book with gruesome content that you handled with tact and respect and I applaud you once again - it could not have been easy to write . If a modeler can’t get a good idea of what to expect from a kit after reading one of your write ups then I don’t believe he/she will be able to form an opinion even after building it …
Great thread here with interesting points made all around.
Remember guys ( and gals ) - it’s supposed to be fun.
Cheers - RT

51

All very good points.

I remember Military Modelling Magazine did a review of the the then brand new Tamiya Panzer IV Ausf D in 1978. A glowing review after the model was built. The review took up a whole 1/4 of the one page and the only picture was of the box top. That was what was available back then. By today’s standards the kit is poorly represented, size shape, details, etc…

52

Reviews online, or YouTube builds, are only guides. I built a MiniArt bulldozer and watched a 5 part series on YouTube. Some of it was painful watching. But I learnt a few things. I also dreaded the build because of the YouTube builders issues. Yet when I came to the areas he had issues with I had no problems with the instructions or the logic behind them. Sure I was forewarned but still I had no issues.
Likewise I’ve watched a zillion tutorials on weathering. Some methods worked for me and others didn’t.

We are all in this hobby for our own reasons. Just like the reviewers are. What rocks my boat may not rock their boat.

But every review has something to learn about. Good or bad. Mig Ammo tutorials are great. But hey they don’t review Tamiya paints so should I complain?

bruce

2 Likes
53

I remember many years ago Military Modelling did a review of the (then) new italeri Panther kit. I was super curious at the time because it was a new tool and somewhat inexpensive.

The reviewer promptly threw out the wheels and swapped them for tamiya, which he , of course, just had laying about in his stash. replaced the tracks. Whole bunch of other things. He didn’t say why, except that obviously they weren’t up to his standards. Zero comments on the replaced parts though. It wasn’t a review. It was a slaughter. I wanted to know if bits fit, or if it looked like a panther. Poor kit never had a chance.

The Kit even had zimmerit and some engine detail! In 1993! The review doesn’t mention them. Because he didn’t use them.

Then he did (to add insult to my deflated expectations…) an awful paintjob.

The previous issue had promised a review. That wasn’t it. I still wonder if it was any good for it’s day…

Edit: At least, that’s my recollection. Found a picture of the cover…it does mention the zimmerit.

Screenshot 2021-12-29 202249
Screenshot 2021-12-29 202249733×963 153 KB

1 Like
54

Presuming you are speaking Panther A kit, it was the best kit at the time, way better than the older Tamiya one, but not without its issues.

As per my previous post, what passed as start of the art back then is not what what you would expect now. The Itakeri kit had slight shape issues - turret sits too high, soft detail in places, Too thick and too flat Zimmerit, barrel length too short, road wheels too big and rubber tyre too thin and if you widen it, then the track guide horns don’t fit. The tracks have solid guide horns and the horns are too small, hard to fix sink marks in crucial pieces. No periscopes, poorly replicated jack. Spare track hangers wrong shape, etc, etc. So basically, pretty much what every other kit was like back then.

2 Likes
55

Some reviews begin “I know nothing about this subject, but…” I tend to glaze over at that point.

56

With the internet it is usually possible to find images of the box contents so the reviews which strictly focuses on the quality of the parts (warping, flash, short moulding, air bubbles in resin parts, useless instructions, thick decals, general clunkiness of parts et.c) become less useful.
If I want to know what the parts look like I don’t need to read a review which starts off with “I know nothing about this subject …”

57

I would like to say that when I set out to review something I turn to a large number of books I have and the internet for information on the subject. So knowing nothing in my book means I set out with no preconceived opinions.
My reason for dipping my toes in this pond was that I did not want Gino feeling he was the subject of an attack, but just an example of having done something that a member does not like.

3 Likes
58

Rants, while entertaining, aren’t especially useful in addressing the problem. Rather than shaming people that have done their best to produce a review for the benefit of the rest of us, perhaps a more useful approach is for someone who really knows what they’re doing to produce a “how-to” guide for writing a solid kit review. Just my $0.02…

:beer:

6 Likes
59

The Italeri Panther A is a perfect example of the best kit of “time” being a terrible kit.

Sink marks, poorly engineering, fit issues, low quantity molding and lots of inaccurate detail. Of those glaring issues, I would expect an honest and competent kit reviewer to catch at least three of those issues even without much or really any subject matter expertise.

The catch is kit reviewers can be very cozy with manufacturers in some cases. Likewise, an honest review may pull punchs sometimes not wanting to DOOM & DAMN a fresh new release.

It only took the super fanboi nerds what two weeks to convince Netflix Cowboy BeeBop was a total failure and season 1 should be the last season.

1 Like
60

Yep, and I did when I reviewed it on the old site! But therein lies the issue - I was trying to assess the accuracy and quality of the kit to see if it was worth buying/building. The other article mentioned earlier was more a case of “I have this kit, let’s see what I can do with it.” It’s up to the reader to determine what type of article they are reading and deal with it accordingly. There won’t always be a good accuracy-based review out there, and I can tell you they are difficult to research and write. Some of the “big names” in the reviewing game are doing lots of them, on a wide range of subjects, and cannot be expected to have that much in-depth knowledge of so many subjects. There are some that are in the manufacturer’s corner for sure, but they are few and far between from what I’ve seen - most just don’t have enough subject-knowledge. The problem with websites where the staff write all the reviews is they can feel pressured to churn them out at a rate of knots just to keep up with the flow of new arrivals, and as the old saying goes, “you can have it fast, good, or cheap - pick any two…”

Beware the detailed drawings that are available - I’ve seen too many where the classic “three view” format of top, side, front/rear don’t even agree with each other on the page, let alone agree with a real vehicle! They also tend to recycle each other’s work so may not be as “new” as we’d like. And some of our recent subjects are just too new for there to be much detail available to the public - we cannot ask serving crews to break the Official Secrets Act just to review them for us.

But it can be fun to research and write reviews of kits you already have, and share that knowledge with the community!

2 Likes