Revell's Carbuncle Corsair - is age an excuse for a bad kit?

[@MannsModelMoments]

Is it acceptable for a large company to sell 50+ year old toolings without explicitly saying so? I take a look at the ancient F4U-1A Corsair from Revell, and give my view on this practice - what do you think? I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments below!

[@jaws666]

No its not acceptable..i have no issue with vintage kits but put the age of the tooling on the box

[@MannsModelMoments]

@@jaws666 I agree - it would solve these problems...but I think Revell feel it would harm sales...when in fact I believe if done intelligently it could actually boost profits for them as a company

[@BigAndTall666]

Revell will sell anything, they are "hansa", even airfix is better! 🤔

[@crazylocha2515]

​@@MannsModelMoments I'm not sure how it could boost their profits, might be a good subject for video/podcast on its own. Will give Airfix credit for putting the date on the box, however. Airfix better off a subject for another day, with credit to their current management making improvements. The Revell matter at hand, specifically NOT Revell Germany (or is it GmbH?), Is the same tired old molds that your video shows so much flash on, etc. Seems like they are trying to keep at the approximate prices of competition's 32nd and 48th scale average kits. That doesn't mean the kits are competitive, just the retail price. There's always new outliers, meaning the average shelf filler and been on the market for years with new boxes or decals occasionally. Those are the ones that turned me off Revell as a flat hard no, similar to your mentioned experience. Blind siding customers without the knowledge provided by places like Scalemates and others to check how old and outdated it may be, seems to be a byproduct of the number of times the company has been sold to venture capitalists or others attempting to rescue the brand. Another group trying to squeeze out pennies from the old dies. Not sure when or what the contractuals are, suddenly appears the German,/GmbH version with actual cleaned up molds, real new tooling, and by gosh, some nice new kits. Seems to be a company I'd be willing to spend money on kits from, despite the first part of the name, Revell. Couldn't be more night and day to me here in the States. How much could this be also affecting the unsuspecting customers? I do look at them as separate entities and treat them as such. Interesting questions and hope we all can get better information about which company has which rights/molds etc. Looking forward to catching the new podcast over the next day or so. Cheers ☕🥂 to many more.

[@MannsModelMoments]

@@crazylocha2515 Having been a commercial manager for a looong time, profitability is a simple outcome of managing the equation of cost of sales vs volume and price of the same. There are, of course, many things that go into those pieces, but volume is very much influenced by reputation - something Revell erode with releases like this. Airfix have been steadily rebuilding their reputation with excellent new tools, the Vintage Classics range clarity and good social media presence. If Revell dropped the price on these old toolings by 50% and were clear on their age and origin, I'm sure many would jump at the chance for a range of cheap kits for many purposes, and praise Revell for it. Would cost them little but pride, and have a positive influence on their brand name.

[@paulkearns8838]

In defense of this kit, I built this when Baa Baa Blacksheep was first run on TV and it was affordable and approachable for a 10 yo kid. I enjoyed building it, painting it, and chasing the A6M5 from the same period all around the house! “ Take that Meatball!“ rat a tat a tat

[@crazylocha2515]

I definitely grew up enjoying that show, unfortunately for me it was a mustang as first kit, and I wasn't very skilled at building it all of 9 years old 😜. Still flew it around pretending it was part of the black Silver sheep.

[@MannsModelMoments]

I'm unfamiliar with the show (I'm guessing it was a US one?), and I agree that a 10 year old won't care - but what 10 year old (or their parent) would spend £32.50 on this for that? If it were £15 or even £20 as a starter set, i think it could be ideal for younger modellers (though I'll hold that in reserve until I've built it!)

[@bugler75]

@@MannsModelMoments This show was popular around the world but never shown in the UK or Ireland (I lived in both). Papa Boyington was the Squadron C.O. How do I know this? I emigrated to France 8 years ago and when I display my models at model shows everyone refers to my Corsair as Papa Boyington’s one despite the French Fleet Air Arm in the Algerian War markings! The show, Baa Baa Black Sheep , is regularly re shown here and it’s quite enjoyable, I must say! Early 1970’s vintage. Worth a watch if you can find it online. All the best for the Podcast, just subbed. Ian

[@MannsModelMoments]

Thanks - I took a look on Wiki after the third mention of it (for some reason I thought of it as a kids show when I heard the name!) - seems interesting and he seems quite a character!

[@bugler75]

@@MannsModelMoments No problem 👍🏼

[@derekpierkowski7641]

I built one in 1975. It was cool! Dad flew them in Korea. He was a good Marine and turned me on to modeling. Great Dad!

[@MannsModelMoments]

Love that - I think it's how many of us started in modelling

[@catlady8324]

I can make a cheap kit look pretty much as good on the shelf as a nice one. It just takes almost twice as long, several mods from scratch and a few extra bucks for better decals. I always do three (3) mods; Home made Seatbelts, Ignition Cables & basic Hoses, and Brake Lines/Hoses on the landing gear.

[@MannsModelMoments]

I don't disagree, though with this kit I would say at LEAST three times as long and much more extensive mods - the very visible engine needs essentially replacing, the cockpit will need a lot of work on this kit (pretty much also needs replacing). The wings need work whether you display them deployed or folded. and things like the wing intakes, engine exhausts and surface detail also need redoing in order to bring this up to the same level as a "nice" kit. Unless you have a particular love of this particular kit, I think that's probably more than it's worth.

[@catlady8324]

@@MannsModelMoments Oh yea, I agree too 100%. For 3 times the work, tripple the money in resin & Photo Etched upgrades, and $100 in tools for rivet wheels, scriber, drills, etc…. One could have a model almost as good as a Tamia or Kōtare! 😹

[@johndillon8051]

Spot on. Revell has a long history of this sort of thing. I've learned that a look at Scalemates is essential before considering buying any Revell kit. They show little respect for modelers and I generally avoid the brand.

[@sabrekai8706]

Scalemates has saved me many a buck. Highly recommend it as your go to reference.

[@MannsModelMoments]

Scalemates is fantastic, and free - I'd advise every modeller to join up!

[@leeboyd1128]

Same here. I'd rather pay a little extra for better kit.

[@TheKevintegra19]

Revell kits in America are affordable but not detail desirable, turning their kits into a completed model is always an extra challenge due to issues with the old molds including flash, less detail, and imprecise fitting parts. See also Putty, Sanding, Creativity, and Patience....a great introduction for young modelers but not a great choice for historical accuracy etc.

[@billpandos7962]

Good point John. I wouldn't spend more than 15 pounds to buy this kit.

[@alanmoss3603]

I have been building old Revell 1/32 kits from the 1970's. So far it's the Corsair, ME262, Hurricane, Harrier, ME110, Beaufighter, Typhoon, P47 and FW190D! I bought them for less than £25 each - but you have to approach them with care. Lots of scratch building cockpits putty-filler and a few resin add-ons (mostly exhausts) It's been fun and in the end I got the kits looking good! However I researched the kits and I knew what I was letting myself in for!

[@MannsModelMoments]

Exactly - I'm not trying to educate experienced modellers buying this kit knowing what it is ad what they're getting into, I'm drawing attention to the way this is marketed primarily to the unaware, which I think is poor practice.

[@nheather]

Totally agree. No problem with classic kits still being around but the way in which they are marketed needs to change. Airfix use the ‘Classic’ labelling which is a start but still doesn’t go far enough. The issue for me is the dishonesty, it feels like the manufacturers are trying to dupe customers. They puts these decades-old kits in new packaging to make them look like they are something new. They also charge a high price which again gives the impression that you are buying something comparable with the new kits - there is no need for the price to be high. The majority of the cost of the model is in the design and the tooling, but with old kits like this, those costs have been sunk and were recouped decades ago. The cost of these kits these days is just the plastic and the production run, they really should be able to sell kits like this for £10-£15. Now if they warned customers that these were old kits not up to modern standards but priced them at £15 then these kits would be worthy of a place on the shelves. But the way they are marketed at the moment just feels like profiteering.

[@MannsModelMoments]

Agreed!

[@doczoff5655]

I bought this kit a while back (back when Southampton still had a model shop so make that `a long while back`) because at £7.50 (sale price) it was crazy cheap for the size of the box, but one look at the parts told me I'd bought a lemon. A modelling mate had joined me for the unboxing and after I said how disappointed I was he offered to buy it for the same price... but I gave it to him for free. He thought I'd done him a favour, but I hadn't!! He's a very skilled modeller but that kit tested his patience to the limit... he said it was about the worst kit he'd ever made and he didn't enjoy any part of the build.

[@nheather]

@@doczoff5655 I was born and brought up in Southampton, I remember when it had FOUR model shops - the big one was Beatties (later became Modelsone) on East Street, there was a smaller one round the corner on Queensway, there was a model train shop near the Civic Centre and a RC model shop on Bernard Street. And don’t forget that practically every place that sold toys (toy shops, department stores, newsagents) carried models to varying degrees. Don’t think there is anything now unless you count Warhammer. Even in the small sleepy village that I grew up in there was a bicycle/hardware/toy shop that had decent Airfix stock, a toy shop that carried Airfix and Hasegawa and a newsagent which specialised in Matchbox. Had to go into town if I wanted Revell/Monogram (horrible stuff at that time) or Tamiya (stuff of dreams but beyond my pocket).

[@kymourdarkmyth799]

When I was a kid back in the late '80 and early '90s, I remember Revell having a lack of detail, raised moldings, and extreme amounts of flash. I would rather do Testors kits. I got back into modeling about 4 years ago and it seems like revel kits have not changed. Honestly, I wouldn't pick a revel kit unless it was free or one of you KZbinrs recommend it. (I say one of you KZbinrs because I watch a lot of different KZbinrs such as you, Mos, Gary, SpruesNBrews, etc., so I apologize for the generality). Thank you for being honest and reviewing kits like this one.

[@MannsModelMoments]

No offence taken! Thankfully KZbin is an open platform (at least, at the moment!), so you can gather a broad spectrum of opinion to make choices - I think that's the important thing, that people can make informed choices based on information, not just glossy marketing. I think Revell do themselves a great disservice with offerings such as this, because some of their kits are great, as I said in my review of their 2023 release video.

[@animalyze7120]

There never has been nor ever will be "recessed" mold lines on an aircraft. Brought to scale those Tamiya kits would fall to pieces with gaps that large and would never fly even if they found long enough bolts to keep it all together. Monogram and Revell are closer to real than any of the "Hype" crap out there. However their cockpits leave a lot to be desired but these are Models not Replicas and the 2 terms are very very different.

[@MannsModelMoments]

@@animalyze7120 Well, I completely disagree with you, but you're entitled to your opinion.

[@paulfrantizek102]

The one high point of the Revell line is their habit of reissuing Monogram's old 1970s kits, many of which still hold up well.

[@szlash280z]

@@animalyze7120 very true. The good thing about recessed lines is that they 'usually' don't sand away very easily where the raised lines did. There are significantly more raised panel lines on aircraft than most people would expect. I work on F-15s and panels often have a raised sealant line where skin panels meet. It's not very high but its still there even though it's a supersonic fighter. In scale you still wouldn't usually see the raised sealant lines though. I like the recessed lines until people do extreme highlighting and darkening of panels and the panel lines.

[@JohnDavies-cn3ro]

I built the Spitfire and Hurricane in this 1/32 range - fifty years ago, and then they seemed good models. Unfortunately times have moved on, and things now are more sophisticated. I used to play a marvellous game of 'spot the most travelled tools' with the old Aurora and Merit 1/48th aircraft as they went on their travels around Europe! I don't buy plastic kits any more - they seem very expensive, particularly when I remember the original prices!

[@peterthewless5693]

Your point is completely valid. It’s for people who aren’t aware how much variation there can be inside a model box, particularly those who want to make an accurate scale model but haven’t built up super slick skills. A tidy modern kit can help get all the way there, when another kit can make this goal unachievable to exactly the same person. Even if with the advantage of knowing about quality variation, without confirmation on the box or internet access there is only the option to open the box in the shop. They don’t like that.

[@paulbarnes2752]

All your points are well taken. For the modeler who just wants something that looks like a Corsair and is a reasonably straightforward build, this is probably adequate. That was me back in the 1970's, and I had this kit.

[@stephengardiner9867]

Admittedly, this is an absolutely ancient kit, one of Revell's 1/32nd scale "bigger is better" series. Many of these were true "dogs" with shape and scale problems and ALL were severely lacking in detail or accuracy of that detail considering their size (back then you were supposed to slap that baby together... how many of us kids had Dremels, Badgers, Paasches, compressors etc. lurking in our bedrooms...). The Corsair was one of (if not the best) the better of those kits. Its size and lack of detailing made it a great candidate for correcting and scratch-building (as its dimensions were actually quite good)...if you had the means, resource materials, and stubborn persistence to do so. I saw what the great Shep Paine did with this kit. A masterpiece. He modified everything but the box-art on the original release. I built the kit eons ago and in this day of amazingly detailed kits, there is no excuse for trotting out these fossils without an attempt to update and correct them. Price would be of relatively little concern as the market is no longer teens and pre-teens but old fools like me...with disposable incomes...and a hobby room(!) replete with aforementioned Dremel tools, Badger and Paasche airbrushe, compressors scanners...even 3D printers!...

[@MannsModelMoments]

This is exactly how I'm tackling the kjit at the moment - not wanting to spend much on this, I've 3D printed an R-2800 double wasp and cockpit, and will sand, rescribe and rivet the airframe and see how she looks...

[@tgapete01]

I built this and the Thunderbolt way back in late 70's when I was 11-12. They both got repaints, the Thunderbolt emerging as Tarheel Hal after seeing a side profile in an aviation magazine, the Corsair emerging as an R.N.Z.A.F. example after seeing a few photo's in a book and learning that my A.T.C. squadron commander flew them in the islands during the war. It complemented my 1/32 Matchbox Dauntless of 25 Sqn.

[@waynescott9218]

I remember building this kit back in 1970-71 timeframe when I was a teenager. It looked great hanging from the ceiling in my bedroom and was a fun easy project for a weekend build.

[@MannsModelMoments]

And if it were priced for teenagers to do that I'd be very supportive of the strategy...unfortunately it's not

[@waynescott9218]

@@MannsModelMoments If I remember correctly, I paid $8.00 for most of the 1/32 scale Revell kits, P51B, BF109, Stuka etc.

[@szlash280z]

@@MannsModelMoments the price is 100% the problem I think. that trash isn't worth $30 or pounds or anything. It should cost $15 max and be on sale for 10 most of the time.

[@MannsModelMoments]

And yet many people here defending it....but then you know what they say about a fool and his money....!

[@kaidzaack2520]

Revell even reissued tank kits and there were/are clearly old matchbox molds. As i was born in Germany, I mainly got stuck with matchbox or revell. Airfix was not so available, but I liked them most…45 years ago…😜 Matchbox were the best back then (for me as a kid) as the planes came in two colored molds and there was no urge to paint them. And you could buy them with your pocket money…good vid and thanks for the advice! 💯👍

[@MannsModelMoments]

I loved the old Matchbox multi-coloured kits with the clear windows in the box so you could see the sprues! Reissuing them now I'm shocked to see the prices Revell retail them at, as Matchbox were a very affordable brad, and when they're asking for them now is way of inflationary growth.

[@kaidzaack2520]

@@MannsModelMoments Agree! When i was a kid a kit was around 4,- Deutsche Mark which would be (just conversion, no inflation included!) 2,- € nowadays. Actual prices for a 1/72 plane is around 7,- €. This would be 14,- Deutsche Mark. 350% increase for the same stuff sold ages ago…😳🤷🏻‍♂️

[@modeler308]

It's essentially the original molding from 1969 (horrendous wing hinges included) but it CAN be built into a decent representation for a reasonably skilled builder.

[@MannsModelMoments]

It CAN, but you can also buy a better base kit for less (Tamiya 1/48th is just one example) and do the same...

[@George-pp2hr]

You've said it how it is. I've built three of this kit with the first as my first attempt as I am an amateaur modeller the model was not badly made but not that great either eventually damaged. Second attempt I tried to customise by trying to scratch build a cockpit interior making it very cramped and messy rather than busy also cut the wing flaps to reposition and left unfinished. I have two more but this time I will just build and paint as well as I can straight from the box. I do have the Trumpeter kit as well as the Tamiya Birdcage version and a plethora of 1/48 scale Corsairs of different variants. Thanks for sharing the thoughts for this simple 1970s Corsair. I find it's still ok to build but if you can make it better...to other modellers all the best.👍🇭🇲🦘✌️ Regards from George down under.

[@danielbritton8588]

I have the fondest memories of this kit as a teenager, then again in the 90's. It did the trick for me & it was fun.

[@MannsModelMoments]

I think that's the main reason to buy the kit, which I don't object to - what I do object to is them selling it at a high price and pretending it's new to the detriment of the unwary

[@gregmarles9455]

Interestingly enough the exact scenario you described (out of the hobby for a decade or two and pick up this kit to get back in) happened to me. I bought this kit not realizing it’s age. As soon as I unboxed it it became immediately evident. In all fairness the employee at the store did recommend another Corsair but I assumed they were trying to upsell me. I’m going to build this one and treat it as a lesson learned. I’ll do my homework going forward.

[@Barzyz01]

its 50 years old. I was 10 when it came out. When I was old enough to build, it was my first large scale model. It is a basic kit for a beginning builder. Nothing wrong with the kit in that context.

[@MannsModelMoments]

And how many 10 year old beginners are going to spend £32.50 on something they just started doing?

[@billyriley492]

I absolutely concur with your video. I got back into the hobby about 10 years ago as a 45 year old man and looking to buy my first kits I was looking to keep costs low. I started with a couple of 1:72 kits as those are what I remember building with my dad. They were cheap and brought back memories - but I realised I needed bigger due to eyesight. I was amazed to find that a 1/32 Me-109 from Revell was something like £25. I simply didn't realise that it meant I was going to get a kit that was totally unsuitable for my skills at present. I think they need to be honest and tell people the year the model was last moulded. Generally speaking, the older it is, the worse it is. Even Tamiya who's older kits seldom have flash often have fitting issues or are fiddly. Like you - it's not about "not being a proper modeller"...it's about honesty in what you're being sold. I can pick up an old Revell kit nowadays and work away at it to my leisure knowing what I'm in for...but back then, I needed easy, good fit, no hassle models to get back into the hobby. It took me over a year to build that Revell 109 because I didn't want to scrap it but I didn't want to build it either...I found it draining...so I didn't build another model for a year. I got it finished mind. They need to be honest about what they're selling...making it cheap doesn't cover it. Tell me - plainly on the box - what year it was last moulded. That at least covers the older mouldings being foisted on new modellers. I'm currently building an Me-110 from Revell and it's a dog. I actually bought it about 8 years ago. But I know what I'm doing now. EVERY modeller should know about the Scalemates website...I use this all the time now to see when a kit was last moulded.

[@MannsModelMoments]

Scalemates is a godsend...and it's free! I'd absolutely recommend every modeller joining up

[@harryspeakup8452]

I think you mean what year it was FIRST moulded, surely that is the relevant date

[@MannsModelMoments]

@@harryspeakup8452 I'm referring to the date the tool was created, yes

[@billyriley492]

@@harryspeakup8452 i was thinking "last moulded" took care of a kit that was a new mould. Some kits are moulded in the 70s and show on Scalemates as New Mould. I thought "new mould" meant using a more modern process...not remoulding the original mould. Does "new mould" on Scalemates mean it's the old mould but recently made? Or does it mean it's a recent mould using a brand new mould and techniques?

[@MannsModelMoments]

Generally scalemates refers to "New Tools" - as in a new stainless steel tooling has been created. They also use "New Parts" and then various types of reboxing, sometimes across manufacturers. Deciphering the information on some old kits can be confusing, but then the journey of the tool and impressions from it can too - Some Airfix Tools have been across the world and back, sometimes losing pieces on the way, sometimes being permanently modified...it's a minefield!

[@ZinzanModelling]

Dear Mr Mann, Thank you for your well thought through comments. Regards, Z

[@MannsModelMoments]

So nice of you - but you can call me Alex, no need to be so formal 😀 (It's Dr Mann if you do want to though! 😂)

[@davidrobinson4118]

Yep, they should behave themselves and state on the box when kits are first tooled and released. I actually bought this kit from Hobbycraft too, but I was perfectly aware of what I was buying and at 16 quid, well it's probably worth that, just! I'm about to start Airfix's HMS Victory from the vintage classics line. At least they put the date of tooling on the box, 1965! In a funny way I don't mind flash, I have classic FM or radio 3 on in the background and scrape and whittle away. I find it therapeutic somehow, or am I just weird!

[@MannsModelMoments]

Not at all - I also find cutting sprues up therapeutic! At the end of the day - as I said on the video - it's about informed choice, which this practice obfuscates

[@sabrekai8706]

You make very valid points re the marketing of an ancient kit. I bought the Corsair back in about 1980 or so, and later ordered the Lone Star resin set. Here it is, 40 years later, I'm finally getting round to building it. The basic shape is reasonable, (the engine blows chunks) and the cockpit was the first to hit the bin. The Lone Star resin is fair, needs a lot of clean up, but so far, fits OK. The inserts for the wheel wells require a great deal of sanding in order to get the wing together but adds quite a bit. I'm about half way done, adding detail to the tail wheel well. I have taken the kit engine apart and will attempt to make it look better but the molding on the cylindar banks is rough, and in order to get the fuel pipes to each, you really have to file them down to the point they look even worse. (I said attempt. If it fails or drives me nuts I have a Quick Boost resin P&W 2800, which looks a hell of a lot better). I was debating rescribing everything but replacing the rivets? Not a chance, So I'll leave the detail as is and try not to mess it up too much. Pretty annoying that we are paying a good chunk of money for a kit that has long since paid off the costs of the molds , cranked out a few thousand kits and starting to show the wear. It'll make a good 3 foot model. (viewed from 3 feet +, it should look ok) Note: Revell Germany puts out excellent recently produced kits, and I have yet to get a bad one.

[@MannsModelMoments]

Would love to see your build once you're done.

[@sabrekai8706]

@@MannsModelMoments I'll see what I can do. Gonna be a while yet, working a dozen off the shelf of doom ATM, trying to clear the backlog. Hour here, hour there. Move on.

[@MannsModelMoments]

No hurry!😀

[@ITZTrudeau13]

Bro did my boy skipper like that 😭

[@JMChladek]

It's always going to be a personal judgement call. And you do have valid points. Continue to be yourself and that ultimately is the best approach to take. If you don't like what you see, feel free to express your opinion on these matters. As for the question of new boxings of old kits, that is always going to be a personal judgement call. Modelling is something we can share with others, but ultimately it is a hobby with very few exceptions that we do solo. On the workbench it is just us and the kit. I've done the high end new tool subjects and the old stuff and received enjoyment from both. I've achieved high level of success at contests and built other stuff just for personal satisfaction. At my age I have "been there, done that" and yet I still continue this hobby I started at age 6 about 45 years ago. My answer regarding new kits versus old is to a modeler is it will always be a personal judgement call. Not every project is necessarily going to require the latest and greatest kit. Sometimes I admit to being fearful of building a newer kit as the higher price spent subconsciously can mean a higher chance for money wasted if I mess something up. So sometimes I feel more comfortable beating an old kit into submission and scratchbuilding details on it to make people go "You built THIS from THAT kit?" I know, that can seem counter productive because newer kits from Tamiya indeed fit together so beautifully. It's my personal thing though so I don't necessarily expect others to understand. Now concerning the question of whether or not Revell should make it easier to identify on their kit boxes how old a kit is, yes I do believe they would benefit from that. But, apparently these certain older subjects have enough demand to keep getting reissued. There are very few years that they haven't been produced. That's not unique to Revell though as Tamiya (1/48 FRS-1 Harrier), AMT (1969 "Country Charger" aka "General Lee"), and Airfix (1/144 Space Shuttle and Vostok rocket) have their share of old kits not necessarily marked as vintage that stay in their production queues year in and year out. If they weren't selling, it begs the question why do companies keep offering them? In any event, good presentation.

[@MannsModelMoments]

I think it's a matter of people not returning what they bought - once you've bought a kit, most people will think it's too late - especially with the increase of on-line sales which can make returns difficult or costly if you have to pay postage. I don't think there's any excuse for the deception - intentional or not. You are also right about it being a widespread practice, but again, that doesn't make it right - although I have to say that Airfix Di not currently market old kits without the Vintage Classics label, they've only been doing this for 4-5 years so there are still old kits in newer boxes in retail circulation outside of the Airfix direct channel

[@richardbrace9086]

I made this kit a few years ago, and had no idea just how bad it is, boy was I in for a shock!!!

[@MannsModelMoments]

Yeah, that's the issue for me - if you'd know it was as it is, would you still have bought it for the price you paid? Personally, if I'd have paid more than £30 for this, I'd have seriously considered taking it back to the store.

[@richardbrace9086]

No,I definitely wouldn’t have bought it.

[@johnozechoski3897]

I am a beginner modeler and really enjoying the hobby with being said I think your video is a good idea for people like my self looking for model down the road thanks

[@MannsModelMoments]

Thank you!

[@apachehelicopterah64]

Good review! I would have said the same thing and expected the same from ANY magazine kit review as well. Part of the problem is such an old kit being dusted off and reissued without any refreshing of the molds (not new box art and decals) and sold at quality kit prices is a reason why American manufacturers especially are generally thought of as the worse or most basic kits (even those sold at premium prices). YES! A quality builder can invest $100+ in fleshing out a good result with photo etching and aftermarket parts- but that’s what a quality modeler WILL do with any high quality kit too. This IS supposed to draw young and old alike into the hobby- not sicken them as to being bitter about it. I like seeing Round Too and similar makes taking these subjects and TRULY updating them and making them worth those prices or slightly higher versions. Thanx.

[@MannsModelMoments]

Heller do similar, but have been at least reconditioning the tools and labelling kits with their age. I don't think that's quite as transparent as Airfix with their "Classics" range, but it's better than revell's current practice

[@darrenwhiteside1619]

I'm a fairly experienced modeler who built this kit last year. I took my time to make sure everything fit properly before gluing it all together. No aftermarket was used. I even made sure the fiddly folding wing option worked as advertised. After a painstaking two months I had a pretty decent model of the F4U-1D and one I was happy to include in my "classic" 1/32 scale aircraft collection (that happens to be my thing right now). I paid around $22 US for it new. Many people have had positive comments to say about it but it's definitely no Tamiya and that's ok by me. General shape is acceptable and it definitely looks like a Corsair in outline and scale. But yes I agree the price needs to reflect the basic nature of kit and not at the inflated prices we are seeing these days for the older tool kits like this one.

[@anthonyxuereb792]

My brother bought the Revell F-111 kit when it was released and I remember the complexity of the retracting main undercarriage, a marvellous piece of model engineering in plastic. His first "air spray gun" was a modeller's miniature version of the fly spray hand pump that gave very good results considering (it did splatter) and he loath the use of a paint brush to cover large surfaces. He began his journey with Airfix 1/72 kits and progressively worked up to 1/48 and my favourite Monogram kits.

[@MannsModelMoments]

I take it you mean the 1/48th F-111, and not their 1/72nd F-111 Raven, which is...not great...

[@anthonyxuereb792]

@@MannsModelMoments Correct as it was my brother's preferred scale and it came in both US airforce and navy versions and his interest was drawn to the elegant navy nose. I can't speak about the quality of the kit overall but remember the wings did swing and the whole of the rear elevators pivoted. That was over 50 years ago I dare say.

[@n5syr01]

Purely nostalgia. The original boxing was the first kit my father ever built with me as a boy.

[@MannsModelMoments]

Nostalgia is a great reason to build a kit, but you need to know what your're getting if you're unaware it's that old!

[@n5syr01]

@@MannsModelMoments you are correct, sir. Fortunately,.I realize it's age and can formulate a plan for it. Don't get me wrong, I so would take a Tamiya 1/48 F4U-1, but this just kind of fell into my lap, and for nostalgia sake, I couldn't pass it up

[@WardisKing-kf3jz]

Ibought this model , tried to build it , binned it , have the trumpy kit in the stash ..cheers for sharing:)

[@MannsModelMoments]

Share pictures of the build when it's done!

[@dbol1977]

I remember this kit. I got it at a Kmart in 1991 or 92. I remember it being a dated kit then with the same issues in this video. I also recall that this kit was a pain to fit together. Surprised they still make it in 2023.

[@MannsModelMoments]

People keep getting duped into buying it...so yeah, they keep pumping it out...

[@arthurjordison5392]

I also bought this kit when it was on sale from Hobbycraft and is next on my todo list, but I might wait until you have built yours now!

[@MannsModelMoments]

I bought several kits in the sale, including the Tamiya Stug IV (a 1976 tooling) and their Yamaha Virago XV1000 (from 1986). The two Tamiya kits cost the same as the Revell Corsair, and there is no comparison in terms of quality. Despite the Tamiya Stug being only 6 years younger, and having a very 1970s provision for an electric motor, it is crisp, has zero flash and is a very pleasing build to a pretty great looking model (video on that coming up soon). The Virago looks like something created yesterday, and the value I'll get from the £8.50 I spent on it blows any defensive arguments for Revell's policy out of the water. As for the Corsair, I hope you share your model with the channel when you've finished!

[@lewistaylor1965]

I agree on all your points and to be honest I hadn't thought of it like that about 'Hobbycraft' and selling this kit to beginner modelers or youngsters...I do have this kit but I did my homework on it first so I knew what I was getting into...Also got it very cheap...I do enjoy trying to cut a diamond from a lump of coal (check my Revell 1/32 Beau vid) but I have to say I do disperse building these kits with my 'new mold' kits cos it can be a heartbreaking and labour of love so I give myself a break by building a new mold with a lot less work to do after every one...Happy Modelling!

[@MannsModelMoments]

Agreed!

[@Jpvogel1965]

I built that kit back around ‘77! I was so young then. I thought it was great back then, and so big!

[@PaDDy7389]

I think all manufacturers should feel obligated to state the age of the mold on the box or put the old sets, just like Airfix, in a separate range. But I have to thank Revell though, without their BoB Gift Set from 2010 I probably would never have come across Scalemates. I was so appalled by its contents that I thought the seller swapped the kits and ripped me off, but no, it was Revell who ripped me off.

[@MannsModelMoments]

Again, Scalemates should be every modellers first bookmark on their browser - invaluable!

[@josephsavicki9201]

I built revells 60s Era P40E kit, added resin wheelwells, and resin cockpit, with aftermarket decals. I took a silver medal behind a Hasegawa kit. I'm happy with the results. Some tlc, and real modeling and the older kits turn out great. Don't knock the manufacturers, we are lucky to still be getting kits to build.

[@MannsModelMoments]

Whilst I'm glad for you, that's not the point here and I absolutely will hold manufacturers to task on dishonest business practices

[@nikosibarramante2677]

I bought the same model for 10 chf (around 11 usd) and I'm now fully aware of what I'm getting myself in to :-)

[@40intrepid]

I built this kit back in the 70's. I remember how the landing gear kept collapsing when installed with tube glue.. It was also released as Pappy Boyingtons plane from the Baa Baa black Sheep tv show.

[@Jan-hx9rw]

Also built it in the early 70s. It was about $3.99 at the Post Exchange back then, and a fair price. At the reissue price of around $10 in the mid-80s, not so much.

[@MannsModelMoments]

Yeah, if this kit was $3.99 in 1970 it should cost $30 today, not the $40-$50 it's being retailed at - they're actually charging a relatively higher price for it now than it was when the toolings were brand new and competitive!

[@airlandandseascalemodels.7968]

I built so many as a kid. It's just it's age. Remember its was the only 32 scale available for ages. Before Tamiya did it. So only build it for nostalgia.

[@MannsModelMoments]

I get that, and that's fine - my issue with Revell is that they put a nice new shiny box around a 50+ year old kit and sell it alongside new kits for similar prices - nothing to tell you its and old kit....unless you're savvy enough to use Scalemates, and if you are, you already don't trust Revell.

[@ZeldaTheSwordsman]

I would say yes, or at least an explanation. Technology was more limited when a lot of older-tooling kits were originally made, so molded detail was harder to do finely (especially while keeping them budget-friendly). And if it's a _new_ release of an old kit, there's the chance of mold wear making it actually be *worse* than one from when the kit was new: details that were crisp back in the day becoming soft or even vanishing outright, excess flash because the molds don't fit together as perfectly as they once did...

[@MannsModelMoments]

Which explains the state of the model, but not the decision to not be honest about the age of the tooling, or charge so much for it....

[@gerardtohill9597]

I bought this kit about a year ago for a bargain price. It's exactly what you say it is - basic in the extreme. Painted and weathered - it doesn't look too bad from a distance. The real weak point is where the folding wings join - this is incredibly fragile and I ended up having to superglue the wing ends on.

[@MannsModelMoments]

If you can pick it up cheap it's worth it even if only as a testbed for finish application and weathering etc...but that's the point, it's not marketed in any way as different to anything else in their range

[@Ryker45]

Hi, I enjoyed this video, you told the truth regards it and I totally agree. I purchased this kit quite a while ago and after looking at the plastic I put it on the back burner, but now I think like you, I'm going to build it. Thanks for the Video. PS I dont usually comment on vids as I watch them on TV, just thought id mention this :)

[@MannsModelMoments]

Thanks for taking the time to comment, it's appreciated :-D Show us your build when you're done!

[@peterhughes7099]

I tried to build this kit pre-covid. Oh sweet jesus what a mistake it was. for a 1/32 scale kit there were no locating pins/ tabs, and no internal strengethening spars for the fusilage or wings. The memory i had for this was using lots of Tamiya extra thin ro join the fusilage and wings together. They attached, I left it overnight for the glue to go off, next day I picked up the model, and the two sections came apart due to no locating tabs/ pins. The same issue with trying to attach the engine/ engine cowling the kit just has no spare surfacing to make contact to give a solid join. I soon threw the kit into the bin.

[@MannsModelMoments]

Oooh that's not good...I'm terrible at hording even my failures, however, even if they're just going to be used as test-beds!

[@jetcity18]

Agree totally. My first ever kit in the mid 90s was a 1/72 Revell Spitfire mk2, and I remember how badly it fitted, how wrong the wing thickness was, how the canopy didn’t fit properly. It was quite disheartening. My second kit was the Airfix Blenheim and that seemed so much better, and as a result I stayed away from Revell. I’ve recently returned to modelling after a 15 year absence, and again I’ve avoided going for their offerings based on that experience nearly thirty years ago.

[@MannsModelMoments]

Did you mean the moern tooled 1/48th Airfix Blenheim? If not, you should try it - it's a LOVELY kit

[@jetcity18]

@@MannsModelMoments This would of been 1994 ish. It was the then current 1/72 Blenheim. Knowing what I now know it was probably a really old kit by then, but the whole experience of putting it together was so much more pleasant that the Revell Spitfire, and it looked way better at the end (even with my limited beginners modelling skills)

[@johntreloar8203]

I agree with you 100%, Revell need to pull their socks up and get with the times, I don't think I've ever had a good Revell kit in the 50 odd yrs I've been modelling, and as for the comment about doing something with and older kit, why should you have to spend money to fix an old casting, I'd rather just stay away from them.

[@MannsModelMoments]

True

[@gerryvandyk5551]

I do believe Revell have improved their offerings with their new tool kits. I returned to modelling after a couple of decades with their Mk 9 Spitfire and was reasonably pleased with it, thinking it pretty good value for the price. At the time I couldn't bring myself to spend the price on the Tamiya offering. Since then I've added the Tamiya Corsair, Mustang, Mk 9, and Mosquito to my stash and look forward to tackling them. I'll have to admit though, that Mossie does intimidate me a little. ;^)

[@harryspeakup8452]

Well, as I have said before they really ought to market these ONLY under some kind of 'vintage' label, but I am still glad they reissue old kits periodically, and there is an obvious reason you can buy this for less than a quarter of the price of the 1/32 Tamiya kit. Or at the £16 you paid, close to an eighth of the Tamiya price. Incidentally the Revell kit for sure has a terrible cockpit but at leas it is externally correctly Corsair-shaped, unlike the Trumpeter kit which resembles nothing ever produced by Vought. Would I advise a newbie to buy this kit? obviously not, and mainly for reasons of the complexity of the wing assembly, which is not suitable for a beginner. I would always send them in the direction of one of the simpler 1/48 Tamiya kits and their small Corsair is a perfect beginner kit, one of the easiest things ever, and is hard to screw up. But I would steer newbies away from the Trumpeter kit too.

[@MannsModelMoments]

I agree the Tamiya kit is better for a newcomer, but the Trumpeter kit offers more for an experienced modeller to "have a go at" for little more than the Revell kit - I've seen some beautiful examples of both builds.

[@modelermark172]

I was ten years old when this kit first came out, and at the time it was considered a highly detailed kit that was a fun (if a bit challenging) model to build - but nothing that a Fifth Grader circa. 1970 couldn't handle. About five years later when I joined IPMS, I even saw a few examples built with added scratch built details that looked pretty good. That said, it's nowhere near a state-of-the-art kit of today, and only has nostalgia appeal for those of us, "of a certain age." But Revell should state that it is a classic kit made with vintage tooling. Would I build one again? Maybe . . . if I could find one at a garage sale or eBay originally made in 1970 - 1975 when the tooling was relatively new, and the parts fit would be optimal. But if I wanted an accurate model of the F4U in 1/32nd scale, probably not . . . .

[@MannsModelMoments]

I agree - it's fine to sell this kit today at a suitable price with clear indications of its age - I'm sure many older modellers would buy one or more if it was more economically viable to do so

[@modelermark172]

@@MannsModelMoments I think that classic model kits from the 1950's - 1970's STILL have a place on the hobby shop shelves; both for us "old timers" who want a bit of nostalgia, and newer, younger modelers to the hobby who could build them to gain practical experience before going onto the current, highly detailed (and more expensive) model kits offered today. But to do this, they need to be offered at a VERY reasonable price - especially considering that the old tooling is "bought and paid for." (If nothing else, neither the very old or the very young have that much 'disposable income' to throw around.) On the practical side, the modeling industry should consider making their older, less state-of-the-art models available at an affordable price as an "investment." If a Pensioner can't afford the latest kit, or a Grade Schooler gets a model they want as a birthday present, and realize they CAN'T build it because it's over their skill level, (and subsequently gives up on modeling as a hobby,) then the modeling industry is sealing its own fate.

[@MannsModelMoments]

Absolutely! If this kit was retailed at £15, I'm sure many would pick it up. Price it at £20 with paints, brush and glue and you have a starter set for a child that a grandparent could buy for them and their parent or grandparent could help them with - everyone wins.

[@flycasualmodeler]

Totally agree with your conclusions here. Old kits don't get compared to other old kits unless it's obvious they're old toolings that are sold as such. If it's marketed the way that Airfix Vintage Classics kits are and packaged accordingly I'll judge it as an old kit. If it's boxed like this Revell offering that makes no effort to give anyone notice that it's older than most modelers? It gets judged up against any other modern kit it's competing in the marketplace with.

[@jaws666]

Airfix have been known to do the same thing aswell from time to time....i know of 2 old airfix kits off the top of my head that are available in the current style "red box" leading some to think they are recent or new toolings despite they are not.

[@flycasualmodeler]

@@jaws666 Yeah, the Sea Hawk model is an offender. I do believe most of those old kits in the new red boxes are mostly, but maybe not all, out of the production range these days. The 2020 release of the 1:24 109E made it into a Vintage Classics boxing as an example.

[@jaws666]

@@flycasualmodeler sorry,i meant the Sea Hawk,not Scimitar

[@MannsModelMoments]

As I mentioned to Arthur above, even comparing period kits to the Corsair doesn't really help when looking at things like older Tamiya armour like the Stug IV I got for half the price of the sale Corsair....it loses based on detail, casting and plastic quality as well as cost....

[@MannsModelMoments]

@@flycasualmodeler @jaws To be fair to Airfix, the Seahawk starter set was released 13 years ago, it's not currently marketed by Airfix (though there may be some kits still lying around). Airfix only started their "Vintage Classics" series 4 or 5 years ago (in their 75th anniversary year) - until then they were also guilty of this. I think it was a smart move and one that should be adopted by other older manufacturers like Revell

[@CShivery]

I built this kit when I was 9, and it was a pain back then. I got back into building about 4 years ago, starting with the 1/48 Tamiya kit, which was hundreds of times better in every way.

[@MannsModelMoments]

Thanks for the feedback - I have the Tamiya 1/48th kit too and am looking forwards to building it

[@echohunter4199]

I’ve bought a couple of the Revell larger scale kits and I passed on this one as well, to bring it up to standard would take a lot of after market parts.

[@MannsModelMoments]

Even with after-market, you'd still need a lot of work on the basic fuselage to bring it up to spec

[@echohunter4199]

@@MannsModelMoments absolutely correct, it’s an older mold where specs were not accurate. I suppose it’s great for a kid on a first model but that’s it.

[@MazrixFi]

I first got into model kits a few years ago with 0 prior experience. Bought a Revell 1/72 Spitfire, BF-109 and this 1/32 Corsair kit. For a newbie, the 1/72s were not a particularly fun build experience and I left this sitting in my closet until recently. Since then, I've returned to the hobby mostly via Bandai's Gunpla kits, and opening this thing up again a few weeks ago to compare what I was getting for my money was rather depressing. A handful of non-colormolded rough plastic with questionable detail cost me around 30 euros when I bought it a few years ago. Bandai's HG Gunpla kits are roughly half that price (Not accounting for shipping and customs which do admittedly bring them on par), and are above and beyond more newbie friendly as a vessel for getting people like me into model kit building. I actually thought this Corsair was a far newer kit that it lead on thanks to the markings on the water decal sheet. Sheesh

[@MannsModelMoments]

Thanks for the comment - it's very insightful to get a new(ish) modeller's actual experience - confirming some of my suspicions (sadly). I'm glad you're still with us though and it didn't put you off completely!

[@pietkoster1935]

Remember in the late sixties and early seventies I was young and didn't have the money for really expensive models. So I ended up with Revell 1/32. P-51 (Shangri La) P-47,P-38, Hawker Typhoon and Hurricane, Corsair, Kawinishi Hien, Mitsubishi Raiden and Zero, Sptifire and Mosquito. Also models from ESCI. Fun and not comparable what is on the market today. So are lease of one of those old molds I would not buy unless they are priced the same as then.

[@rogueplastic]

Spot on! I've been saying the same thing. There is no excuse for this shady reboxing tactic from Revell. And I also roll my eyes when people defend these old kits as a trial by fire thing, because its their nostalgia. I grew up on these and I don't want to go back unless I make a conscious decision, or a given vehicle is only available as a vintage kit. For crying out loud! The instruction is just 15 steps long. Show me a new kit in 1/32 scale that is just 15 steps.

[@MannsModelMoments]

Yes, I don't understand people's vitriolic defence of scurrilous business practices and reacting like I'm attacking their childhoods...but you can't please everyone...

[@BuggsOgden]

When you realize that the tooling for this kit was paid off a long time ago, there is no reason, other than perhaps corporate greed, to charge such a high price for it. I built this kit back in the 60's, and it wasn't cheap back then either, but it was all we had in 1/32 scale. It's not even collectable in the new box. I would definitely rather build the Tamiya or Trumpeter kits and pass this one up.

[@MannsModelMoments]

Agreed

[@axesspeaklouderthanwords8077]

I see you posted a picture of my LHS .. Northern Model Centre . Still looks quite the same but expanded now to downstairs and a very good selection/prices.

[@MannsModelMoments]

Yes I visited there when I was staying with my uncle in County Durham - it's a great place!

[@axesspeaklouderthanwords8077]

@@MannsModelMoments Yes he's really turned it into a "one stop shop". I live in Co.Durham near Bishop Auckland and when the wife gets dropped off in Durham to see her friends I always swing round to see what I might need (models/paints etc.) then sneak any purchases back into the house before I pick her up 🤣.

[@MannsModelMoments]

@@axesspeaklouderthanwords8077 Nice! My Aunt and Uncle live in Crook....it's a lovely part of the world up there...but a bit cold! I studied in Sunderland and Newcastle during my student years, and it was like going back a season!

[@axesspeaklouderthanwords8077]

@@MannsModelMoments My wife is from Crook and we now live up the road at Willington ..small world !! Your right about weather as it always seems so windy here and course cold. I used to live in Kuwait and Vancouver so The Northeast took a bit getting used too but alas here for the long haul...for now 😂

[@johnworts2178]

Good honest review of a kit that should be marketed with a little more honesty by Revell. I have a couple of Revell kits in my stash but in no hurry to complete them. Even the black and white colour call outs are frustrating, so I tend to print out a separate colour cross referenced sheet. I would definitely go for the Tamiya or Trumpeter kits if I wanted to build this. I personally think your video is of very high quality and love the pictorial metaphors👍👍

[@MannsModelMoments]

Thank you very much!

[@dennismeyers9576]

Great review. I had this kit in original boxing in my stash for many years. Based on my fond memories of building 1/32 Revell kits in my youth, I’d pull it out to work on it every few years, only to rediscover what a terrible kit this one is and put it away. During the lockdown I decided to finish it no matter what. Spent too many hours and putty to finish it just to make it look OK. People should beware. I’m sure those craft stores, like Hooby Lobby here in the US sell these kits to new modelers or non modelers buying gifts for others. Sad to think this is how a new modeler would be introduced to the hobby. While I appreciate the effort and skill required to turn something like this into a gem, I think life is too short to spend time bringing a poor quality kit up to snuff.

[@MannsModelMoments]

Yeah, I wonder how much repeat business they get? Would be interesting to know (though I doubt it make any stats as it's bound to be a minor part of their revenue stream). I think manufacturers often give these sorts of companies kits that haven't sold well commercially elsewhere as a way of "offloading" them to a new (and unsuspecting) audience. If they were to capture new hobbyists they'd be completely different kits.

[@szlash280z]

@@MannsModelMoments considering how much the model kit aisles have shrunk in every mainstream store, if they even have any, I'd say they don't get many repeat customers at all. Unfortunately the managers of those stores probably can't even order different kits because the corporation dictates what they sell.

[@MannsModelMoments]

I expect that's exactly the case

[@davidharrington1133]

I got a Revell Mosquito kit and I suspect it is of similar vintage. Was not a ton of money though but thanks for the heads up on this stuff.

[@hansulrichsuter1898]

Yes the vintage label used by Airfix is very helpful and evren attracts customer like me, so a similar label and a "Matchbox" label would be a good marketing.

[@MannsModelMoments]

100%!!

[@marksmodellingmadness]

As someone fairly familiar with Revell kits I can only agree with you. Since returning to the hobby about five years ago I have built (or nearly completed) three kits- 1/32 Westland Lynx, 1/72 Catalina and 1/32 F-14 Tomcat. The Lynx and Catalina, being more modern kits from this century are pretty good, particularly the Catalina, tho both suffer from what I call Revellisms, those little annoying things that Revell seem to do so well. The F-14 is from 1981 and it shows. It's pretty bad... But, these kits were cheap, way cheaper than any of the other big names in plastic kits in my experience. And yes, Revell should tell the buyer that this and similar kits are old molds. Airfix do it and it hasn't harmed them at all much, has it? If I see one cheap (or cheaper) I may buy this Corsair for my on-going Rebel Squadron project.

[@MannsModelMoments]

I think that is not to be underestimated - if you bought this for £10 you would expect what you got,, and couldn't really complain....but it's not!

[@karljones9357]

Thank you for the advice. Just the lack of detail for that scales isn’t right for the modeller. I’ve bought some old kits and enjoyed them but I’ve also bought some that a just stash fillers. I look at them and say one day, honestly knowing if my wife ever found out she’d hang me by my short and curly.

[@MannsModelMoments]

Stay safe!!!

[@michaelkeogh8454]

Modern builders should know that a large portion of the Revell portfolio of kits are re-pops in new boxes. Buyer beware when it comes to Revell.

[@MannsModelMoments]

But not all "modern builders" are experience ones, so they still provide a trap for those just coming to our hobby

[@charlesnavarra8574]

There are a lot of us older builders who cannot see, handle, a kit with 200 pieces, and 50 of those in the cockpit, never to be seen. So a kit with 100 pieces, little detail, except for what we include, is acceptable. But for newer builders, looking for more parts, details, it's buyer beware. It should say it's older tooling, new box, and the price should be less, at least it be nice.

[@MannsModelMoments]

@@charlesnavarra8574 Agreed - and if you choose to buy the kit it should be priced reasonably,

[@gokhanersan8561]

If Revell discontinued their bad kits, the whole hobby would benefit from it. Mothers would more likely let their sons and husbands to buy kits-instead of complaining about a stash of unbuilt kits.

[@austinreed7343]

At least Bandai doesn’t bother repackaging their Gunpla and keeps the correct copyright date for the kit on the box.

[@A_Eichler]

I think you are right. Haven't built a model like this for over 25 years (yep hiatus) Once bought a Revell 1:32 F-14 in (I want to say 1993) and it was the same story. REALLY basic detail and an even more basic decal sheet. There's only so much I could do with it without throwing too much money and time at it. As in your video; trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

[@MannsModelMoments]

Yet if the price had been lower and the tooling date made very clear, at least you could have made an informed choice, rather than being blindsided

[@Powerwagon563]

The 1970 box art version is what I recall having. Then I had the Baa Baa Black Sheep version in the early 80's. Yep, same model from the same molds. And about the same amount of flash, maybe a bit more, but the plastic was dark blue. I'm shocked that the molds have held up as well as they have.

[@Raptor3388]

If you want another bad 1:32 Revell kit, try the Me-262 Kanonenvogel. I had it when i was around 11 years old in 1999, so excited to have a 1:32 Me-262…needless to say I never finished it. I found the unfinished kit more or less complete a few years ago and tried to rebuild it and improve it, but I quickly realized not only the green plastic is very brittle, the detail is non existent, but even the dimensions and shape are wrong…basically need to be completely reworked unless you’re ok with a very crude level of details.

[@paulkilich4727]

I agree with you. I tried to build this Corsair in 1970. It was a disappointment then. I threw it in the trash.

[@MannsModelMoments]

I'm glad it didn't deter you from the hobby though!

[@stephicohu]

Your right in the review, 50 years ago this was the cats meow. I blame this on Revell in NOT retooling their old products. As one person stated buyer beware! The price is cheaper than other 1/32 Corsair kits, then you get what you pay for in this matter. Think of it as a 1970’s car, you will get to your destination okay, but it might be rough. The same is true with this Corsair, you will eventually have a Corsair built but at what cost? Frustration and hardship, it is best to pay the big bucks and get a kit you can enjoy. 😊

[@MannsModelMoments]

You certainly "Pays yer money and takes yer choice" that's for sure! Having said that, you can pay less for a slightly smaller but much better model...so, yeah...

[@mid-atlanticrrandairplanes6512]

Revell and Monogram were for a long time known at least to me as a poor person's kit. They were top of the line back in the day. But Revellogram for years needed to go and retool kits they have long been in possession of. However that never occurred and while there were some new kits they were far and few mostly using or reboxing kits from other companies. To me Revellograms downfall in America was the inability to bring a lot of kits up to other companies standards and the modeling community wanting better quality kits and not get into pricing consumers out of the market. Plus things change because it's hard to compete with the digital games and other things like it that replaced building a model with paint and glue. But let's face it when the Tamiya 1/32 scale Corsair came out it blew all the other same size Corsair kits out of the air. It's more expensive and has more parts but in the end it's a better quality kit. You can dress up the old Revell Corsair in 1/32 scale but it won't come close to Tamiya.

[@MannsModelMoments]

Yeah, it's going to be a challenge rather than a "pleasure" build, this one!

[@mid-atlanticrrandairplanes6512]

@@MannsModelMoments Been there done that with that particular kit myself.🤣

[@MrDmoda]

I bought this kit for a wreck diorama.. so after I’d cut the fuselage in half, bent all the propellor blades, broken off the port wing at the hinge, and weathered the thing to within an inch of its life.. a bit of flash and some back-in-day inaccuracies didn’t seem to matter.. 😅 horses for courses people

[@gilleyb1900]

I purchased this model second hand but the 70s version. For a 70s kit its ok, but i didn’t realise that thy were still selling the original mouldings in a modern box. For this day and age its frankly shocking quality.

[@MannsModelMoments]

An all too common practice, unfortunately. Heller are also very guilty of this - thankfully Airfix have changed their ways about 5 years ago - we just need these other companies to follow suit!

[@NOSHER]

Completely agree,such a contrast to the Airfix vintage classics which celebrate the past without attempting to hide the age ofvthe kits .

[@MannsModelMoments]

Agreed

[@TheOnlyPommyman]

Yes, but they still charge new model prices.

[@MannsModelMoments]

@@TheOnlyPommyman To be fair to Airfix, they do charge less for "Vintage Classics" than equivalent kits in their new toolings.. There are some exceptions, I agree, and I'll call them out on that (as I do in episode 2 of our Podcast - Beyond the Box), but at least we can make the informed choice not to buy then

[@kiwiheli]

Except that Airfix still release ancient kits under their normal branding at high prices. In fact, they're one of the worst offenders. I know that Revell, up until recently, was releasing the old Matchbox Canberra and a few years ago, the really old Frog Lightning. To be fair, on the Lightning, they included a note saying that it was an old kit. Heller are re-releasing their old kits in shiney new packaging, too, so this isn't just a Revell thing.

[@paulmurton1019]

I started modelling at Christmas, and bought this in the new year for £16 at Hobbycraft. Haven't built it yet, but good to be aware of the issues beforehand. I also bought the Mayflower from Lidl for £16. The amount of flash is unbelievable, and the instructions are really poor.

[@MannsModelMoments]

I hope you're not put off by the experience - there are so many good kits out there!

[@danielroncaioli6882]

100% correct assessment of the games Revell plays.

[@MannsModelMoments]

Sad but true, unfortunately

[@MisterGsWorkbench]

Could not agree more! Companies like Revell, Italeri, and even Hasegawa have made their recent monies selling kits that are repops of 10-30 year old molds. Italeri seems to thrive on repops of old Esci kits as a matter of fact. And as you mentioned - I'm buying a kit with 2023 money, not 1970 money. I honestly don't care about using my "modeling skill" to improve an old kit - how about using that 2023 money to buy a better kit?

[@MannsModelMoments]

Couldn't have said it better!

[@michaelwayne2995]

The old ESCI 1/72 kits are pretty good but the 1/48s are a mixed bag

[@seantramper]

I ve the problem with my twin otter and my Bf109. One was a matchbox rebranded the other a svezda with bad plastic and fitting

[@allandavis8201]

I appreciate exactly what you’re saying and I don’t disagree, however, for me I don’t model to be a perfectionist or totally accurate, I model purely for my own benefit and relaxation, if I decide I want to make a model more accurate then that is what I would do, if I just wanted to sit and build it to the best of my abilities without trying too hard then that is what I would do, my point is that model making is more or less a one person activity/hobby/passion and as long as the individual gets enjoyment from it then it doesn’t matter if a kit costs £150 or £1.50. As I said I don’t disagree about some, not all, Revell kits being, to use your word, carbuncle’s, but one person’s tat is another person’s treasure. Two questions, why do you find an end opening box “inconvenient?”, and why do you think that all sprue’s should be individually wrapped/bagged?, personally I think that the waste plastic created by individual bags is outrageous, the world is swimming in discarded plastic and modeller’s adding even more plastic waste to the pile is unnecessary, we create enough just by the fact we build plastic model kits, and along with the empty boxes, sprue waste and instructions we add even more to the problem, ok, yeah I know we can recycle some waste but not all, and I for one (maybe the only one) think that as a group we need to make every effort and concession to make as little waste as possible, just my opinion but a valid one nonetheless.

[@MannsModelMoments]

I take your point and I agree, but my main issue is in the "tricking" of new/inexperienced from their money for something that is not up to modern expectations. As for the environmental impact - it's a really good point...in fact, I've been preparing a video on this very topic. To answer your specific questions, end-opening boxes don't allow you to store the components of the kit during construction without minimising the possibility of them getting broken or lost - and few people build a kit start-finish in one sitting and many do not have the space to keep a kit in construction out "on the bench". Top-opening boxes are MUCH better. As for individually bagged sprues - it's about keeping the product in original condition to the customer. I agree that less plastic waste is preferable, but recyclable plastic for both bags and sprues is readily available and used by some manufacturers - Airfix is definitely ahead of the game here.

[@allandavis8201]

@@MannsModelMoments , thanks for your reply, I definitely take your point about the boxing, I didn’t think of it in that way. I didn’t know about the recycling offered by Airfix or any other manufacturers but I will definitely check that out, but I still believe that, at this point in time, the best option is to use one/two bags for the kit is preferable. Going back to my original point I don’t think that Revell deliberately tried to deceive their customers, I don’t think they were being cynical by updating the box art without acknowledging that the kit was the original moulding, I got my kit out from my stash and it doesn’t have the amount of flashing that yours had, ejector pin marks are quite noticeable but I find that most manufacturers have the same issues, as I said I don’t disagree with your assessment of the kit but I do think it was not a deliberate attempt to deceive the customer. I have only come back to modelling since 2014 after a 30+ year hiatus, I was to busy working on the real thing to want to reduce the scale and complexity, in other words working on, in my case aircraft, all day did not lend itself to making models of them. As you mentioned I did come back to modelling with high expectations of the advancements in the whole world of modelling and I was not disappointed, in fact it was quite daunting, the range of possibilities seems endless now, the complexity of some kits is frightening, not to mention the costs that you can pay for your choice of everything involved, luckily for me I have only myself to please and can afford to buy the more advanced kits etc, and I am grateful for that. Thanks again for your reply, I think we must agree to disagree on the “Carbuncle” point, but I think you’re point about boxes is very valid, as is the recycling by manufacturers and I will definitely try to get more information so I can feel a little easier about the issue. 😀👍🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇺🇦

[@MannsModelMoments]

@@allandavis8201 Happy to agree to disagree! I might be cynical but Revell have made active choices in boxing this (and many other) model and pricing it the same as much more modern toolings - I'm working on a video right now to demonstrate exactly that, in fact. These things don't happen by mistake or passively - a group of business people in a room somewhere made the decisions that led to this.

[@tjsogmc]

Even back in the 70's I viewed Revell kits as "dime store" brand. Cheap, easy to build for a kid, and got the job done, but not a "serious" model. I like building them now if I can find one at a jumble sale and then I use it for practicing new techniques and detailing. In defense of Revell, for all their faults, they are still 1000x better than a Lindberg kit.

[@MannsModelMoments]

Revell have built their brand image by their actions, which is sad - they do have the capability for making excellent kits, which makes this shameless profiteering with old crap kits even more frustrating! Lindberg are the boxed equivalent of scratch building in many cases!

[@chrismartin4654]

I built this kit in the mid seventies. Can't imagine it could sand up to today's kits.

[@MannsModelMoments]

No, it doesn't - but then if Revell were honest and sold it cheaper, it wouldn't have to - plenty of people would buy it knowingly for a fair price point.

[@rickhenson660]

I think Revell, especially Revell of Germany, puts a higher skill level on the box, hoping to appeal to more advanced modelers. I've purchased a couple of the car kits that are a skill 4or5, when they would be very suitable for novice builders.

[@MannsModelMoments]

The "skill level" is another interesting discussion point...I'll add it to the list for the podcast!

[@austinreed7343]

@@MannsModelMoments Gunpla works differently; scale, then difficulty. It roughly goes: Entry

[@Fitch93]

Revell Germany's Skill Level rating is based almost solely on the number of pieces a kit has. Which is why you get cars with "higher" skill ratings.

[@rickhenson660]

@@Fitch93 thanks, I always wondered what it was all about.

[@TringmotionCoUk]

@@Fitch93 you beat me to it, that would make every miniart kit a level 53.....🤣🤣

[@Mors_Inimicis]

The only Revell models I have completed are their 1/48 F15E and the 1/32 P51D which build into nice models . I attempted the 1/48 Eurofighter Typhoon not long after returning to the hobby and quickly abandoned it . Even though that was a few years back and I have acquired more experience I still wouldn’t touch another of their Tiffies😅

[@MannsModelMoments]

Sadly their good models are saddled with the bad name revell have developed because of their aged old tools concealed in new boxes. I'll be the first to applaud new tools that build well and are well priced

[@Mors_Inimicis]

@@MannsModelMoments Agreed. I can’t ever see a time when I’ll be buying another Revell kit as they stand. I only built the aforementioned kits because they had mostly positive reviews .

[@MannsModelMoments]

@@Mors_Inimicis Yes - Scalemates and early reviews always guide my non-"bargain basement" buys - even then, it there's internet access, I'll still check out Scalemates before even a purchase from a charity/thrift store!

[@szlash280z]

I bought several of the 1/48 Monogram/Revell WWII bombers from a chain craft store within the last 4 years, knowing they were the old tools. when I opened them they were just so bad. I got them on deep discount but they still weren't worth it to me. I started to just build them without paint and most of the parts didn't fit at all and it was awful. I threw them in the trash.

[@MannsModelMoments]

Yes, age does not improve a tooling!

[@chrispacer4231]

I READ EVERY COMMENT ON THIS EPISODE / REVIEW SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF RIVIT COUNTERS HAD COMMENTED… Building MODELS is supposed to be fun … Sure if you can afford the highly ACCURATE AND EXPENSIVE KITS… Go for it… Been building models since 1970… Yes I am a DINOSAUR, but I appreciate all the old stuff RIVIT COUNTERS ruin it for me. Model on…………. CHRIS from OHIO 🇺🇸

[@MannsModelMoments]

I don't see a lot of rivet counter comments here, just modellers with similar experiences to mine who wish to see better clarity and honesty from Revell (and other manufacturers) when selling these old toolings.

[@chrispacer4231]

@@MannsModelMoments wasn’t trying to be offensive… It’s all good… I joined a IPMS club where I live in OHIO 🇺🇸… THEY WERE CRITICAL ABOUT SO MANY THINGS, I thought it was supposed to be fun talking about models and building them I didn’t enjoy myself at all… When I look to buy a kit, I don’t worry about the kit itself… it’s the kit subject AIRCRAFT, TANK and what I can do to make it look good… I like to make DIORAMAS, even something simple… I’m learning to make water features WE’RE GOOD 👍 . I subscribed, I’ll keep watching and commenting… Model on……….. CHRIS from OHIO 🇺🇸

[@MannsModelMoments]

@@chrispacer4231 No offence taken, I joined a model club when I re-started in modelling and they were such a great group of guys - then I moved and joined a local IPMS group and the difference was...shocking. Gone was the joy of modelling, and in its place a cold attribution of accuracy at all costs...not for me, either!

[@chrispacer4231]

@@MannsModelMoments glad to be a part of MANN’S MODEL MOMENTS I’M NOT A PROFESSIONAL MODEL BUILDER… I just enjoy doing it And I like to learn new techniques and see what other modelers are doing COOL 😎. CHRIS

[@MannsModelMoments]

Glad to have you Chris!

[@e.engelmichael1481]

This 1/32nd Kit has an option like a 1/72nd kit more. I won´t build it again for sure. Thanks for the good Video.

[@CrazyChemistPL]

It is okay to release such old tooled kits today, provided the tooling is good enough so a model can still be built out of it without the need to replicate or kitbash half of its elements. Thing is, the price should be adjusted accordingly or at the very least, the box should clearly state the tooling year. Preferably both. Few years ago I built Hasegawa's first generation F-14 Tomcat in 1:72. Despite the age, the model went together beautifully without the need to use filler alltogether. Of course it had (accurate) raised panel lines, which I highlighted by dragging a hard pencil over them, rather than using a wash and the extensive decal sheet completed the look nicely. I was however aware I'm getting an older kit (the online store I regularly buy from generally has photos every offered kit contents, so you know what you are getting) and it was significantly less expensive than a more contemporary 1:72 Tomcat by Hasegawa.

[@markrollins9053]

I remember in the 1970s building some Frog, Airfix kits with the pilots head molded in to the fuselage halves and feeling pretty cheated at the lack of detail. I did build the Revell Corsair in the late 1970s and thought it was a good kit at the time.

[@MannsModelMoments]

I remember those too....awful, even as a young child!

[@andyb1368]

I mostly agree with your overall kit assessment. I built one in my early teens when it was marketed as Boyington’s Corsair, no doubt trying to capitalize on the popularity of the Baa Baa Black Sheep TV series. At the time, I was reasonably decent, but by no means advanced model builder, and found the kit fairly easy to build. As noted, it lacked a lot detail, but since I displayed mine in flight hanging from my ceiling, the basic cockpit, engine, wheel wells, etc. were not a problem and the finished kit looked good. As for your other opinions regarding Revell, I disagree. Revell sells old tooling kits just as does Tamiya, and I see nothing wrong with either. The Revell Corsair is no doubt inferior to Trumpeter’s, but it seems to be a lot less money as well. When I was growing up, even as a pre-teen, I understood economics well enough to know that the less expensive Lindbergh, Revell, and Hawk models that I could afford were not as good as the Tamiya ones that I could not afford. Tamiya’s Panther A, probably the worst Tamiya kit that I have ever built, is still available today, and for a child such as shown in your video it is not overly obvious that it dates back to the late 1960’s and is not anywhere near as good as modern offerings. However, if one buys a $20 kit, one should expect that it will be no where near the quality of of one costing two or three times as much. For me as a builder, I like having the variety. And for people getting back into the hobby, an older kit without the extreme detail and parts count of newer kits can be a blessing.

[@MannsModelMoments]

But this ISN'T a $20 kit, it's $40-50

[@andyb1368]

@@MannsModelMoments True, but the Trumpeter kit is much more expensive than that. And curiously, a quick internet search led me to a Revell one priced at $16US discounted from $23US. And in this day of the internet information age, I think anyone looking to buy the kit can get an idea of what it is before doing so, even if the lower price compared to Trumpeter kit and Tamiya 1/32 offerings does not clue you in. And if you are someone buying it in a complete knowledge vacuum, it will build into an attractive kit. It did for me back as an early teen in the late 1970s. Again, I do not disagree with your assessment of it being a dated kit compared to modern offerings. I just do not have a problem with Revell continuing to sell it as they do.

[@MannsModelMoments]

@@andyb1368 In that case, I have some excellent time-share properties that you can invest in....

[@andyb1368]

@@MannsModelMoments I am not sure that I entirely follow your point. Making the analogy to Revell’s marketing of their 1/32 Corsair, if you market your timeshares by presenting them in their best light and do not make dishonest claims about them, I certainly would not judge you in an unfavorable light for selling them, and wish you the best of luck. Hopefully both seller and buyer will leave the transaction satisfied. As to me making a purchase, I less room in my life for a timeshare than I do for a 1/32 Corsair, and thus much like me not picking one up for $16, I will not be pursuing your timeshare.

[@MannsModelMoments]

I entirely disagree with the "honest representation" assessment of your piece, but you do you

[@zulerodoeht329]

As an 11 year old kid in 1970, this was the gold standard for me. The P-47 Thunderbolt, were great back then. Back in the day it cost $5.00 US dollars. Which was 2 weeks of lunch money saved up. Revell and Lindberg, and Aurora where the only model kits available where I lived. We are very fortunate to live in this day and age, all of the choices are sometimes mind numbing.

[@MannsModelMoments]

From a quick look, the average US kids lunch in the US us now $3/day - that's $15/week, or $30 for two weeks...meaning you couldn't buy this kit (which is $52 on Amazon), in fact you'd need to save for a month for this. Inflation adjusted from $5 in 1970 this kit SHOULD cost $38 so Revell have increased the price against inflation, whilst lunches are (relatively speaking) cheaper. I think this highlights the issue.

[@zulerodoeht329]

@@MannsModelMoments I hear you, I used to build aircraft and ships, I mainly do armor now. I see the prices on some of the new battleship models and weep. I make a decent wage, but some kit prices are out of my range, $700+.

[@MannsModelMoments]

Yes - I've never spent much more than £100 on a single model, and that is pushing things for myself. The other issue I have with these kits is - where do you put them when they're done?? :-D

[@zulerodoeht329]

@@MannsModelMoments I have run out of room for my completed models. I have 2 display cabinets that are full. With another cabinet that is full of boxed model kits. I will admit that I have (3) 1/16th scale armor kits that cost $150+. As the line goes " so many kits, so little time"

[@zulerodoeht329]

In my opinion, the 1/200 scale Yamato would be a once in a lifetime build. One would almost have to hang up their sprue cutters after that type of epic build.

[@mikemodels928]

Revell has mixed reputation but generaly u can get pretty solid looking model in the end. The most issues i have with their kits is FIT. But all of the kits i built were highly detailed so i think it really depends on what u buy. However i would highly appreciate pointing out the age of the kit, such as Airfix does. If i am buying an old kit the expectations are always lower.

[@DavidJones-wr3sb]

Best place for these old kits are the bin, in my honest opinion, wouldn't waste my money and time on them 😮

[@themapmaker5374]

I think there should at least be somewhere on the box that shows the original first year of release, and this goes for ALL kits. It's not a coincidence that they don't show that year though. It's absolutely a deliberate marketing tactic to fool the unsuspecting with some attractive box art. They put some up-to-date art work on the box, perhaps a different box completely, some different decals, and voila! The actual kit itself could be a 50+ year old relic that is more painful to build than having wisdom teeth pulled. The 1/48 Revell P-40 immediately comes to mind. I built that kit about 10 years ago and my time on it was 90% filling/sanding and 10% everything else. There's a reason why you typically only see that kit on the shelf at Wal-Mart or on Amazon - targeting the unsuspecting. I don't blame it on the store that is selling the kits though. I blame it on the manufacturers that are boxing these kits up and sending them to the stores to be sold.

[@MannsModelMoments]

Yes, agreed!

[@burningphoneix]

The funny thing about the Revell Fokker Triplane from 1956 is that they rereleased it in 2017 as a "LIMITED EDITION"? What's limited about the oldest model still on sale today???

[@MannsModelMoments]

Limited value??

[@The_Modeling_Underdog]

Great review, Alex. So, they've pulled the same trick they did for the Spit V in 72nd years ago. We've already talked about it, iirc. It's just a money grab by Revell. Their part of the deal is over once the retailer buys from them. Hands clean, money pocketed. And people have short memory about brands as well, no matter what they say. For the all-terrain purists out there. It's 2023. Not every model kit has to have blood, sweat and tears poured into it to make it look good. If I'd want to go for an assembly nightmare I'd volunteer at the Tank Museum for maintaining Tiger 131's running gear. Again. It's 2023. Time to cut some slack on people's abilities and their right to call bull when they see it. "Don't call yourself a modeler if you can't turn this maguffin into a shenanigan." Christ Almighty on the Cross... I don't want to. I don't need to. Life is short and Tamiya rules supreme. Edit: Sorry for the vitriol. Insomnia does impair kindness.

[@MannsModelMoments]

I think it's just being honest. It's like Jeff Goldblum's line in Jurassic Park (paraphrasing here) "Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD". Greybeards will be greybeards no matter how much common sense is put in front of them...I'm not producing content for them anyway, so I thank you for your comment, honesty and subscription, and I'll see you on the next!

[@ceyaDIN]

I totally agree with you, I have that model and enjoy make it but even that I totally conscious of all what you said and am very disappointed of Revell. As a modeler since childhood and an industrial designer with more than 10 years of experience specialized in plastic with 3 master's; I could tell that they are a really mediocre and conformist company at least in their model kit area. Actually, I am preparing a letter for his president, I finally discard the intention to work with them so, now I will tell them what I think about them directly. However, it is well to notice that all the market of traditional modeling is behind the current industry due the indulgence of their clients. I frankly depict many of the old school modelers with the typical expressions that you mentioned. They are part of the main problem.

[@SimonWallwork]

Ach, you're right. Revell have got a cheek asking modern money for a 50 year old kit. They should update the tooling, it's an iconic thing, the Corsair and Revell should do it justice. They've had their moneys worth out of this old moulding.

[@MannsModelMoments]

Yeah - I'd love to see them redo these subject like Airfix are doing in 1/24th with their Spitfire and in 1/72nd with the Vulcan etc.

[@allandaniell1439]

I got this kit for $30 Australian second hand. About 23 pounds I think it is. Yes I did a lot of scratch building and had fun and I now have a great looking model. But if I’d had paid $70 dollars abouts in our convict money I would have been very very disappointed with my purchase 🙄

[@MannsModelMoments]

"convict money" made me laugh! Thanks for checking in! 🤣

[@spandecker727]

I built this kit back in the day as well - and I thought it wasn't too bad really (better than the Revell P-51B). But I think cost should also be a consideration. This kit is less than half of the cost compared to the Trumpeter kit, and 1/4 the cost of a equivalent Tamiya.

[@MannsModelMoments]

No, it's not half of the cost of the Trumpeter kit. I can buy the Trumpeter kit for £44, and this for £32.50 - so its 25% less. The thing is, you pay just over £10 more for a VERY different base kit. You'd need to spend at least £10 just on styrene to scratch-build the required detail to even get close. The Tamiya kit is a different thing altogether...but...if you wanted an amazing Corsair to rival the Tamiya, you're going to need to spend a whole lot of work with the kit, and a new canopy is £8, an engine £15, a cockpit £25, Wheels £10 (There's also a set with all these for £54), landing gear £13, landing gear bays £19, gun bay £23, wing fold set £16.....that's potentially £193 on detail pieces and replacing almost everything but the fuselage...which you STILL need to completely sand, fill the sink marks and re-scribe/re-rivet. Cost absolutely should be part of the equation, but I think people are forgetting that its the experience which is important - and part of that is expectation when you buy a kit. If I spend £32,50 on a kit today, I'm not expecting to have to put up with 1970s tooling with thousands of impressions wear for me to fix as a major project, unless I've specifically sought that out -which isn't the market Hobby Craft stores are aiming for - and Revell damn well know that.

[@spandecker727]

@@MannsModelMoments I was looking at retail costs for the kits, BTW I can get the Revell kit here in the US for the equivalent of £24. Regardless, you can hardly expect Revell to put a label on their kit - WARNING 1970 TOOLING!!! Like it or not, they are damn well going to get all the profit they can out of those old molds. Serious modelers like you will reject these old kits, while others may find them completely adequate. Personally, I tend to stay away from the cheapest kits of a given subject, usually works out the best, though admittedly not always.

[@MannsModelMoments]

@@spandecker727 Forgive me, but that's sh*tty business. We expect provence on most of the other items we purchase, why not models? Airfix are going exactly that - making a point of done if their toolings being old - and people are praising them. Revell have a gutter reputation, which has marred them (and no doubt their sales) for decades. That's a product of business decisions like this

[@BobMuir100]

AT LAST AND THANK YOU! The modelling community is far too accepting of what we are given. I keep saying it and get blasted for it! Name any other retail sector that could get away with re boxing a 50 year product and selling it alongside all the other offerings ?! Yet we skip off with hard earned money and buy them up. I am a returnee after 40 years and at times it’s like I am back there! This is not about modelling skills……..yes I can make a poorly fitting part fit but how do I turn a 50 year old kit into a modern kit worth my money? We must demand better. Airfix can take a month to supply a part and we are grateful they did so at all!!! We have money and the manufacturers want it! Don’t let ourselves get robbed whilst smiling at them! The retailers are just as bad; they stock them after all!! Let’s force the places we buy from to listen and feedback to the companies, let’s get value for our money, let’s see if the loyalty so many of us show to these brands is going to be rewarded??? Bob England

[@MannsModelMoments]

Agreed - kits have increased in price against inflation, when tools that produced these old mouldings were amortised decades ago. I would (and do) support companies that are producing high-quality, modern kits for comparable prices (Airfix, Eduard, Trumpeter etc). If you keep funding companies to give you old rope for your new money, they're going to keep doing it...