Takom announces a new variant of the Weasel, the M29C
This is partial text from the full article (usually with photos) at https://armorama.com/news/takom-m29c-weasel
Takom announces a new variant of the Weasel, the M29C
I remember building the old 1/32 Monogram M29C Weasel. Good memories!
Lurking in the stash:
This may be of interest for those interested in kit history:
I’m really looking forward to this one!
A cautionary tale on this kit, well it’s brother.
Clayton Ockerby took some flak on his build on Missing Lynx, which inspired a challenge to see if it was a problem with the kit or the builder.
I’m not passing judgment on that, but this is not a throw-together build.
That said I want one
Having watched the video, I agree most of the issues seem to be with the builder, not the model. I haven’t built one, but all other Takom kits I have built were fine, with no issues.
The parts in the photos looked as if they had been cleaned up by Mr Butterfingers
And he doesn’t seem to grasp the concept of Extra Thin glue; he dabs it on one part and expects it to still be there 5 seconds later when he places the second part. Then he complains that Takom uses weird plastic that doesn’t stick! Just a crappy builder with a Youtube…
The YT crappy builder didn’t help, but checking the ML thread certainly seems the suspension and track have serious issues in design and fit.
SOme Weasels in action:
Ft. Ord, Ca. 1944
French 1st LER; French Indochina, date unknown.
Same, I like this version better.
I think Clayton started wrong/had some missteps and went sideways from there. Just like any modeler can do. Granted the M-29 looks to make it easy to go wrong. His Takom Hetzer looked pretty good.
Unfortunately, this is a story that we’ve seen over and over with some really excellent kits getting an early and underserved bad rep from modelers writing reviews when those same reviewers simply didn’t have the skills needed.
The Vulcan MIVB light tank kits, the Riich 6 pdr and their Universal Carriers all come to mind. All are kits that demand skill and ability in not just working with small parts, but also being able to do assembly work using tweezers, often under magnification to get the most from them. Sometimes some kits just demand a degree of problem-solving skills by the builders just because, yes, the designer and manufacturer could have done some things better (or perhaps just differently). This doesn’t mean the kit can’t be built, just that the model builder needs to do his part to get it done and done well.
Perhaps in some ways this is a good thing, since these reviews discourage modelers who don’t have the skills, knowledge or ability from attempting to build them. On the other hand, such reviews do little to encourage and reward the kit makers who have made the effort to give the modeling community what it constantly clamors for - more and more detail and accuracy. It’s just that the prototype of some subjects were themselves extraordinarily complex and fiddly designs, and detailed, accurate kits of those same subjects will also be the same - fiddly and complex.
There’s also the community-wide syndrome of modelers complaining that the kit maker should have, in essence, tailored their kit’s design to some average skill level (always the skill level of the critic) just so that he can build a model of some subject that “he’s been waiting years for.” When he attempts to build this or that kit that requires skills and abilities that he, the critic, doesn’t possess, it’s always the kit maker’s fault that the result is less than the builder imagined and hoped for.
You know, sometimes model builders just need to put their “big boy panties” on and take the time and effort that some complex kit demands of them. Other times, they might need to just sit on the sidelines until they have developed the required skills and abilities before they undertake some particular build.
Preach it. A local club member has been building the kit. He is also a ship modeler and that skill set has come in handy I believe. To him it’s not a bad kit or not as bad as Clayton talked about.
You got that right Mike. There are so many modelers on the internet whose egos are bigger than their skill set.
It’s an epidemic,
and not restricted to modelers …
I suspect strongly that the main purpose of the particular review in question was just to be the FIRST with a review of the M29 for reasons of viewership and internet “hits.” His review was about making a review and not about making the kit. He seemed to rush through the build trying to get it done as quickly as possible (in order to be first and ahead of his internet competition?).
My impression is that the reviewer is a much better videographer than he is a model builder. Unfortunately, he wouldn’t admit to this nor to his own culpability in the final results of his build.
Color me “unimpressed” with either his model building skills or his credibility as a reviewer.
In my opinion, when it comes to opinions about anything there is no ‘community’. There are individual evaluations, all made on the subjective basis of the reviewer. Sometimes the views of a reviewer will be relevant to another person. Sometimes they will not. Put another way, a good reviewer is one whose tastes match those of the person reading the review, and no one reviewer will suit the tastes of every possible reader.
There are a lot of different kinds of model builders. Just as it would be silly to expect the opinions of a dedicated aircraft modeler to match those of a dedicated armor modeler, one cannot expect the views of a modeler seeking easy and fast projects to match those of someone seeking extremely high fidelity with the prototype. In many cases, the needs of those two modelers are diametrically opposed.
In my opinion, model designers currently favor modelers seeking high fidelity. This can lead to many disappointing situations for easy and fast type modelers. It is in the best interests of easy and fast modelers to complain. If they do not, model designers will assume everything is fine and not attempt to address their market segment. Likewise, it is in the interests of high fidelity model builders to ask for every higher fidelity. The result of this divergence is competition between different sorts of model builders for model designer development time. There will never be agreement between those factions.
Expressed more simply, one size never fits all and we can always expect differing factions to compete for resources in the form of positive and negative reviews. Find a reviewer who matches your tastes.
Scale Hobbiest finally shows the M29 (not M29C) as ‘Coming Soon’ and I intend to purchase one. The review in question never even slightly reduced my interest. If Angel or Armorbuff or HeavyArty or Petbat issued a warning, I would take that seriously.
Those are some good builders. MissingLink thread has two additional builds from more than competent modelers. I think the main take away is it’s a buildable kit but don’t expect to finish in a weekend. If you are not good with small parts this might not be a kit for you.