Concur. Thank you.
At the risk of wasting more time with this thread, Iāll share a story. Iām in contact with a long time employee of Monogram. Heās been posting some of his stories and insights, and has sent me some things that I can post, when I get the time. One of his best stories is about Monogramās SR-71 Blackbird.
Monogram decided to tool up a new Blackbird. Up to then they only one really available was Revellās from back in the sixties or early seventies. Iāll be posting the full story eventually but now I relate that he actually went and met with Kelly Johnson at Lockheed, and found out Johnsonā did not like the Revell kit. He actually allowed Monogram access to engineering drawings of the SR-71, and let him crawl around and make sketches of the cockpit. Eventually, āexpertsā reviewed the SR-71 and pointed out all kinds of flaws and inaccuracies with it. Years later the same experts heralded Academyās (or is it Minicraft?) 1/144 SR-71 as superior to Monogramās. That amuses the Monogram employee as the president of Academy personally admitted to him that they created their model by scaling down Monograms!
Now, that story is not meant as a backhanded swipe at anybody. Those of you who can detect that a 1/35 scale bolt on a vehicle only has 17 threads when it should actually have 19, and are willing to carve them off and fashioning accurate ones in a machine shop, and correct a half percent slope error of a glacis plate, you guys, and Iām not kidding, inspire me. I really appreciate what you do and I appreciate your intimate knowledge and willingness to do so.
When I do a review, I do it to the best of my ability and with the resources that I have. Sometimes I spend more time researching a subject than I do writing the review. On some subjects I am enough of an expert to know that I am not an expert. Over the last 30 years so much information has been coming out of archives and personal collections that weāre finding out that what we knew to be written in stone is no longer completely accurate. However, I try to write reviews to appeal to everybody - give enough information and images for the experts to point out the kit flaws, while letting mortals see if it looks close enough to the subject that they want one on their shelf. I donāt really care if the simulated fabric on the rudder of a Ford Fliver appears to be 800 count instead of 600 count weave. If the basic shapes are not correct, Iāll call it out, sometimes to the extent that Iāve been asked if Iām not worried about offending the vendor. A lot of the time though, Iām just happy that somebody put in the effort to tool up a given kit. I wonāt live long enough to build anywhere near all the kits that I want to build, so Iām moving away from kits with hundreds of parts to something that is simply well molded and buildable. Like Shep Paine said, thereās only so many mold seams a modeler is willing to sand off of road wheels.
Ultimately, Iāll recount something that Steffen Arndt said in reply to a criticism of a reviewerās review. He asked the complainer if he was volunteering to do the next series of reviews. Then after the person finishes the review the way they think a review should be written, they can think about all the time they did not spend actually building a model.
3 Likes
Personal experience (no, did NOT write a review) from writing a few lines of text about building a Ostwind AA-tank. This was before someone had dug up a little information about the bottom of the turret.
In my CMK Ostwind kit (Tamiya chassis + CMK short run plastic + Italeri gun) there was a solid bottom to the turret, could be correct, could be incorrect. āNobodyā knew for sure at that time.
So there I was, commenting that the turret floor must be wrong since it would be very difficult for the loaders to sit on their seats when the seats were only 4 or 5 inches off the floor. Loading clips with 20 mm shells with your knees jammed up against your chin.
Someone faulted me for assuming something about the construction which was not established knowledge at that time. Jeeez ā¦
A clearly unworkable design ā¦
I raised the seats to a workable position but the loaders would have to be really short to avoid sticking their heads and shoulders above the turret armour.
I mentioned above that Iāve done quite a bit of writing of various documents. The one thing I can tell you right now is that become a chore very quickly. The fun and novelty quickly wears off with deadlines.
I have a few offers on my desk that Iām ignoring simply because I have better things to do.
1 Like
Hear! Hear! Fred!
And notwithstanding the fact that there are those that get paid by someone to write reviews of particular kits, Iād just like to tip my hat to those that are willing to put their time, skills and self-esteem on the line to write reviews for no more compensation than the gratitude (or ingratitude, as the case may be) of their readers. Thanks!
3 Likes
While I imagine that to be meant as a tongue in cheek piece, designed to make a lot of those comments seem silly, Iāve seen nearly every one. There was indeed a poster on the old Armorama who asked how he could get free samples, and why it seemed certain members were always doing reviews. So yeah, those people exist. Many people want free shyte. Those who understand human nature will concede that.
As for shilling, I have to once again point out this gem:
This is another superb kit from Panda Hobby. They are the āgo toā company for modern military vehicles such as this. One thing for sure, you definitely get your moneyās worth with these kits and the resulting model will be a beauty.
There are reasons many of us believe this goes on - because it does. Does everyone do it? Of course not. Does everyone do reviews to get free kits? Again, no. But at least I and a few others recognize a few who never met a free kit they didnāt like. Personally I donāt need any more free kits. Iāve had four major plastic kit producers (and a couple of minor ones) send me more than Iāll ever build in two lifetimes. MENG even once offered to send me one of every modern subject they had, which I politely declined. Even so their T-10M that I helped with, and their French AUF 1 that I had nothing to do with, sit on my shelf along with a few others, as yet unbuilt. And the resin collection Iāve gotten in the past ten or twelve years? Pro Art, Legend, etc. I literally have no room for this stuff and have been giving it away to some folks, often at my cost, just to get rid of it. So no, not an issue for me at least.
Iāll reiterate what I said earlier, you donāt need to know Jack about real tanks. But it certainly doesnāt hurt! If you donāt know it, what a great opportunity to actually learn about it! What you need is the ability to do comparative research, or hell just research period.
And yes, there are lazy sods , and people who donāt know jack about the subject. And they seem to have found a home on YouTube because they canāt be taken seriously anywhere else. Iād point one out but my intent is not to embarrass anyone. Or āAttackā as some would suggest.
In your satire you left out the pedantic reviewer, the one who lets you know he knows way more about the subject than you ever will. One whose name is certainly recognizable never missed an opportunity to point out that he knew Russian. How that helped his reviews, which were hit or miss at best, Iāll never understand.
I did exactly two āofficialā reviews for Armorama. All of the others were not official, they were just build reviews, mainly because I figured, why not? Iām building the damned thing anyway. But to illustrate a point, whether you find it good, bad, or indifferent, here is the latter of those two reviews I did. Had I not actually built the thing more than half of the review would have remained unwritten. And huh - even back then I seem to have not cared much for āin the boxā reviews.
I have a degree in Russian by the way, yet did not feel compelled to indicate that anywhere in the review of a Russian motorcycle.
Iād also point out that while I give a brief history of the bike, itās in my own words, not lifted word for word from Wikipedia, as I have seen shamelessly many times. I donāt even find it that necessary. If you want to find out about a subject, the brief blurb in a kit review aināt the place to do it.
2 Likes
LOL! Actually, only PARTIALLY tongue in cheek. Like you, Iāve seen examples of all of those and moreā¦
If I had any serious point to make, it was mostly implied criticism directed at those who are - as with so many other endeavors in life - so critical of the work done by others while unwilling or incapable of doing that same work themselves. As the old saying goes, āThose that can, do. Those that canāt, criticize.ā
Iāve written my own share of reviews (mostly over on Track-Link), and I salute pretty much anyone whoās willing to take the time and make the effort to share their observations about any kit with other modelers. Do I find some reviews better written or more personally useful? Of course, I do. However, I also recognize that the guy who wrote the review was almost certainly presenting the information that he or she believed was most useful and pertinent (based on the writerās own biases, preferences and needs - not mine).
The common issue with most of these criticisms (not all, but most), is that the folks making the criticisms donāt appreciate that every review is a subjective product of the writer (by definition a reflection of the reviewerās own biases, preferences and limited knowledge) and the subjective consumption of the reader, who interjects his (the criticās) own biases, preferences, limited knowledge, and needs.
The review consumer has to do his own part in order to get the most use out of the review, and that review consumer has to also do his own part with a critical assessment to separate the reviewerās subjective and objective observations. Itās simply a pointless exercise to criticize the subjective aspects of any review, whether the readerās perception of belief is that those subjective observations are based on reviewer errors or any other biases or preferences.
To these readers I say, āTake from the review what you find useful and move on. Be thankful that you got at least some answers. If you thought the entire thing was a waste of your time, well, too bad. Keep looking.ā
Criticisms of objective observations, facts, etc. may be fair game, but those criticisms are useless without the critic-reader providing the correct information. If the reviewer made an error and put out incorrect facts, do the rest of us a favor by putting out the correct info. If youāre not going to do that, your criticism is hollow and without merit (at least to me if I read it).
In short, at least IMO, the most common problem with kit reviews is not with the review or the reviewer, but rather with the readers and critics who refuse to acknowledge and understand the fundamentally subjective nature of reviews.
6 Likes
you know exactly what I mean! This subject has came up more than once and each time you went bananas
glt
The same applies to reviews of movies.
Learn how the reviewer values films, calibrate your own preferences relative to the reviewers.
If you have opposite ideas then go see the movies that the reviewer doesnāt like.
āNice kit let down by the tedious indy-link tracksā ā Yee-Haa!! No pesky rubberbands.
5 Likes
This thread definitely struck a nerve for sure! I mean after all we are only talking about little bits of plastic here. Anywho this is my approach to reviewsā¦seems like common sense to meā¦
I think many of us take ourselves far to serious for only being a āHobbyā
10 Likes
That is part of the hobby.
Most of us have a high level of expectations. We have built a few kits,
We generally know what we are doing
Quality kits are not cheep. The Takom kit I just ordered was $70.
We expect things to be nearly flawless. We do not want to be disappointed with an unknown kit so we look at reviews. That is all we have until we ourselves can see the kit. It is why we grump about reviews.
We (I) am buying more online. There were about 10 items of clothing ordered this holiday season for three different people. The photos of the different color choices was helpful. The description of the cloth quality was helpful. The availability was helpful.
The sizing chart was not so, due to sizing issues, helpful. The failure was not on the seller but on the manufacturer. A large by one company is not the same as a large by another company. I am returning about half of the items . What can be helpful are reviewers who advise and grump so I can avoid disappointment and extra work. When many state that it shrinks when washed or that it fits like a medium then I can order a different size and avoid disappointment. When the reviews donāt live up to our expectations, we grump. We, however donāt all share the same set of criteria in a kit therefor not all reviews will be helpfulā¦
3 Likes
you know the way I figure it, if you are into one certain brand name, and I like another brand name, then maybe one should bite his tongue and shut up about the other one. Iām as guilty as anybody. Yet if a reviewer is doing a complete build of a kit; then I think itās worth my time to follow his build. No kit ever went together perfectly, and that should be expected. Paint is a completely different deal, and just the color issue alone can drive some of us nuts. The build section of LSP is the best Iāve seen, and in some cases the guy rags about a fit issue when itās easy to see the error of his ways. The Track Link armor build logs are very good, easy to follow for the most part. Brit Modeler is the same concept and seems to work well.
gary
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but I see that you are calling me corrupt and dishonest, someone who makes their judgements based on who is paying them. Go hide somwhere, nitwit.
KL
3 Likes
Kurt, please ignore the Garyās silly snipe otherwise I might have to start thinkingā¦
ā¦to keep the dreadful image of Gary doing what was suggested out of mind.
I and probably everyone one else assumes you personally are honest and have high integrity unless you write a glowing review of steaming heap of dog 
like original DML/Dragon #6001 Nashorn kit or Cyber-Hobby 1942 T-34 STZ #6388
Those are the sort of bad kits that got glowing reviews back in the day that makes us mortal modelers wonder if certain reviewers were on the take with the manufacturer or just amazingly clueless idiots. Thatās the sort of review, I detest one that appears to be deliberately misleading.
I donāt recall seeing you ever write anything remotely close to those types of travesty. In fact, Iām 99.99 percent sure youād sound the trumpet 
if a pile like DML/Dragon #6001 Nashorn kit landed on your work bench for review and warn other modelers accordingly.
So please relax, youāre among friendly fellow modelers and being excessively defensive isnāt merited.
2 Likes
Kurt, you may want to do as I did and put Totty on your ignored list. It improved my blood pressureā¦
1 Like
Ha ha! Iāve got Gary Totty on my Ignored List too! His mindless meanderings are infuriating.
2 Likes
I was asked to jump in here. I read most of this. Yupā¦ people like getting free stuff. Go figure.
Of course I still thinking spending 2-5 hours working on a review (for some of them) means itās hardly āfreeā. At least my time is worth money to me. 
Letās keep things civil please. We donāt need the topic directed at individuals past reviews, or activity on the net to discuss the core of the OP. Thanks.
Thanks,
Jim
PS: And people wonder why I stuck to doing video unboxings. I still get comments though from the peanut gallery on YouTube about 10 year old videos and how DARE I make a video about X subject not having any clue about it in advance. I just chuckle.
5 Likes
I think many people just jump over the date the review was written and make a comment based on current standards. Tamiyaās Panther A is the dog we currently kick as being terrible. You need to judge the review on when it was made. The Tamiya Panther was the best on the market when it came out. Those reviews, if you can find one, would say it is a great kit. Some might have mentioned the missing set of road wheels or not. No one would have said a thing about open sponsons or holes in the hull floor. The reviewer would be the talk of the town today. I think you have to take the age of the review into account when looking for useful information about a kit. The manufacturing capabilities and the demand for better kits keeps increasing. The older kits are surpassed in quality and their original reviews become, outdated.
3 Likes
Reading this discussion has confirmed for me why I wouldnāt touch membership of a club, or consider entering any kind of competition, local or otherwise, with a barge pole. Far too many beardy self-abusers with a hugely inflated opinion of themselves and their own personal level of skill for my liking. And donāt get me started on rivet countersā¦ this is supposed to be a hobby for goodness sake, not heart bypass surgery.
It shouldnāt be beyond the whit of man to consider all available reviews when deciding on a particular kit/project and to then make a personal decision on the outcome - but aparently it is, and that should be depressing. It seems to me that the older a person gets, and the more disposable income they have, the worse they are.
I remember the genuine pleasure I got from building my first kits, probably Airfix aircraft, literally a couple of quid with about 10 parts in a bag. It didnāt matter that it was most likely only a passing facsimile of the real thing, to me it was a wonderful thing. A reviewer (did they even have those then?) could have sold it to me as the holy grail, the fact that it wasnāt didnāt matter.
I reckon its about time some people got from up themselves on here, i really do.
14 Likes
Spot on Mate.
2 Likes