Revell PT 579/588 Build Review

[@JazzWithJakeInSF]

Once again you've given us the gold standard for KZbin scale modeling videos. Honest, informative, and full of clearly demonstrated techniques, served up with perhaps the driest sense of humor since the Martini. Thank you.

[@bennettrogers7921]

I’d second that!

[@WingWongDingDong]

Paul, you could have simply suffered in silence, but your effort in making this video saves us a lot of trouble and gives meaning to your experience. Thank you and bravo!

[@scale-model-workshop]

Thank you!

[@jcwoodman5285]

That's the Ole Revell Quality that drove me into the arms o Tamiya etc long ago🤗

[@Elios0000]

Revell is known for buying up used molds when the better model makers declare them worn out

[@michaelnaven213]

JC Woodman Tamiya is king of plastic.

[@avidnongetit8710]

I found Tamiya because of this gentleman's videos. I think Tamiya are incredible. But too expensive.

[@warrenchambers4819]

Paul Budzik is a true legend , his builds and "how to's" have improved my modeling skills greatly. The video format he uses really are too of the line which honestly I wish every builder/video maker followed. Thank you Mr Budzik for sharing your knowledge with us mere mortals.

[@avidnongetit8710]

Thank you. I dislike reviews. But you aren't assigning blame. You point out obvious design error. You also help us to fix market errors. I'm going to continue Watching your videos. Hopefully a local store will open when it's Truly Safe...

[@jimmbbo]

LOL! The online reviewer indicated it was a weekend build... just didn't say how many weekends! Another great video!

[@williamsmallshaw5266]

Paul, thanks for the review. The reason for the length difference, the 1963 kit is under scale by a small amount. Despite the challenges I like these new kits. As you point out, there was no way to do a late model ELCO with the old kit. Lots of major surgery. This kit is workable for many variants of the 80 foot ELCO. Have putty, file and sand paper in hand, I will end up with a very nice set of boats from this kit and the PT 109 kit. PT 143 in the yard as we speech. IMHO, at the price point, an excellent improvement over the 1963 kit.

[@scale-model-workshop]

If you look in the lower left corner of the screen, you will see that I put up the scale measurements. As you can see, the old kit is too short, but the new kit is a little long. It's not a big deal to me, I just put it up to compare the two kits. A challenge is one thing, but profuse sink marks and uneven surfaces are just flat poor quality control and third rate production techniques. I'm hoping that if Revell actually cares, they take heed.

[@jrkorman]

Sounds like Revell is still what I came to expect as a kid in the '60s. Thank you Paul for a real review!

[@patharmon9760]

I always love seeing new videos from you, as you have a wealth of knowledge that you share in a way that's easy to follow. The only thing I wish was different about your channel, is that over the years you start a series on building something, get a few episodes in, and then move onto something else and never revisit it.

[@TheModelGuy]

Blows my mind how bad Revell still engineers their kits. They need to look at what Tamiya was doing in the mid 90's so they can get a better idea of how to design a model. Thanks for another no BS review. I'm tired of seeing people claim a kit is great just so they may get another free sample.

[@ODGColornChrome]

Just goes to show one mans treasure is another mans trash. I will definitely rely on your review! Keep up the great work!

[@niksar3732]

Thank you very much Paul for this in depth build review! I got the PT 109 and the PT 579/588. There is not so many or so terrible sink marks/holes etc. Probably the moulds have already worn a lot by the time Revell made yours (I live in Belgium for the time being and I bought the kits as soon as they hit the market in Germany. Never the less the kit is a vast improvement of the original 60s kit and I do not understand why there is so much debate about it! Ok may not be the best of Revell but still with some extra effort and money (on after market goodies ,CMK, Eduard) and you can have a very nice result. Again many thanks for your review you saved us some precious time!

[@scale-model-workshop]

Nik, You don't get sink marks and shrinkage from worrn molds. These are errors in the injection process and should have been picked up in quality control. The frames should never have gone out the door.

[@niksar3732]

@@scale-model-workshop many thanks for your prompt reply! honestly I do not know a lot of things about the molding procedures but I have build a couple of the ancient PT 109 and now I am building Revell's new ones. The difference is tremendous and the potentials very promising! I tackle the short comes with eduards and CMKs detail sets. Just for the record I drive real ships as a day job. (I am a Commander in Hellenic NAVY) Cheers to all the fellow modellers!

[@michaelgautreaux3168]

Can't wait! Regardless of issues, it's 1 of my favorite kits, many thanx 👍🦊

[@arrrgee]

I'm currently building the PT-109 kit, and I have to agree the part breakdown and engineering is odd, it hasn't been made with any consideration to the build process or painting process leading to some frustration. If I had your scratch building skills I may have took a step back before committing to building it past the stage you are currently at. I look forward to seeing how yours progresses!

[@johnberry2877]

On the bright side, if Tamiya ever produces this kit it will be a home run 👍. You just cannot beat 🇯🇵 engineering and attention to detail.

[@williamclarke8835]

Sir, you have the patience of an oyster. Bravo to you.

[@voodoonights1671]

This is the best sort of kit review. I am still going to do it but I'll know what to look out for. I do wonder what some of the reviewers look for when writing good things about kits with very basic things wrong. We can fix them as modellers, but just tell us what's wrong, we can cope! Revell do make me despair at times. LOL @ Privative Hieroglyphics

[@accidentalnaturalist925]

I feel your pain. I am currently fighting my way through a build of Revell's Porsche 356C Cabrio (07043). This is possibly the worst kit I have ever built. Especially sad since this is a new tool /premier kit. Sink, flash, parting lines. Many parts do not fit as molded. There is even a 6mm area near the driver-side headlight where they did not complete the tool polishing and rough grinder marks are present. I contacted Revell when I received the kit and they basically said "we have no better parts at this time, try us in a few months". Four months later, they still had no good parts. They finally shipped a few components but they were no better than the original. I should have known better but I decided to try to make something of it. Probably a bad idea. I advise everyone to avoid Revell unless you really like spending hours correcting their mistakes. For reference, I managed plastic injection projects for many years. As I told the Revell agent "I would have been fired if I ever released tools to production that performed this poorly.

[@Emtbtoday]

Better with the 1.48 scale elco 80 I have both the 1.76 I feel like throwing it out but I love the PT boats and was one of my first builds! I recently built the 1.48 and its stunning detail! Looking to get the 1.35s now!

[@glenchapman3899]

Wow a kit that makes Lindberg ship models look good

[@Georgeolddrones]

Thanks Paul Another excellent video 👍

[@lalouxfrancois]

good honest review... tks a lot for your nice vids, always instructive and interresting stuff :)

[@cesarvieceli2958]

That is a lot of sink marks! Specially for a new kit!

[@StewArt61]

I thought about purchasing this kit. I'm glad i saw your review to avoid this monstrosity... thx

[@puttyanimal3909]

Just discovered your channel via Hyperscale. Nice one! Subscribing now. :)

[@Mike-im5bo]

What the modeling world needs is a 1/72 scale Higgins PT boat to go along with the Elco boat

[@tarasbulba3190]

Right on! My father was on a late war 78' Higgins (Ron 30). Nobody I'm aware of ever made a 1/72 scale Higgins. That Would be a dream come true!!!

[@fabfabby]

Yeah, that's about the casting and fit quality I remember from when I was building Revell kits 25 or so years ago, which is why I've been avoiding them since I got back into modeling 7 or 8 years ago.

[@NazidKimmie]

Awesomely honest review... it looks like a real dog of kit to me...

[@brown-eyedman4040]

My experience with Revell's modern kits is that sink marks are common. If I was building this it would have to be PT73.

[@carlosballesteros4670]

Absolutely crisp!

[@timroth1984]

Thanks for your review.

[@claeswikberg8958]

damn thats some really bad sinkmarks, Revell really dropped the ball there...

[@robbieh1899]

I've only just got back into model building, so, I'm certainly no expert. 45 years ago, however... So, recently I went on a bit of a buying spree, predominantly Revell models because it was what I remember from years ago and having watched a number of build vids, appeared to light years ahead of how I remember things. Needless to say, I'm somewhat disapoointed. The gaps on a 1:45 Level 5 submarine were crazy. I know you may need a bit, but, it was a damned nightmare. I have a couple of 1:35 Level 5 aircraft to attempt, so, here's hoping... I think I might try some other brands of model too.

[@KitKabinet]

Ouch! I still had this kit lingering on my wishlist but hadn't got to buying it just yet (I mainly do planes and the occasional 1/72 boat). This review as a real eyeopener though, and now I'll think twice about getting this one. Any thoughts on their S-boot? Is that one equally flawed?

[@jeffjames4064]

I noticed the thumb of the PT boat and thought cool, I love them and built a few back in the day. They should be better than they used to be. Sigh.... Maybe I'll build the wood model instead. Thanks for the warning.😁

[@scale-model-workshop]

Look at the Merit kit.

[@jeffjames4064]

👍👍

[@PiperStart]

Having just made the Revell Series 3 Land Rover it seems that Revell has a design team with little modeling experience. Although a good kit, there are several sink mark issues in exterior portions, and two assembly phases are in the wrong order. As well as this, the instruction sheet labels right hand drive parts as left hand drive and vice versa. So if you thought you were making LHD it would come out as RHD. I was going to make their PT boat as you have (hence why I am here), but will reconsider now.

[@cdpgbc-mw2kz]

If anyone can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, it will be Paul. It will be interesting to see the transformation.

[@rangerstl07]

I have found that, more often than not, the kit reviews of the last couple years have been useless. I don't think the reviewers even build the kits they "review". For instance the Hobby Boss 1/73 Do-335. Review said nice kit, accurate builds well. Both props had all the blades at negative pitch and one prop blade was completely mirror image of what it should be. Terrible. There is no honesty in kit reviews anymore... except at Scale Model Workshop. Keep up the good work.

[@agp11001]

I honestly have only one major gripe with this excellent video - you chose to believe a Finescale review. Incidentally, I also have a few magic beans to sell, at a special price - just for you.

[@scale-model-workshop]

Spoiler Alert, I knew the review was probably lightweight, but I really wanted a solution to the older kit, and 1/72 makes for a perfect size. At the the end of the next review, I'll be reviewing the review as well so it will all make more sense. The FineScale review is actually made to order.

[@agp11001]

@@scale-model-workshop Can't wait for it. Always looking forward to your videos. All the best, and stay safe in these times. PS: So I guess the bean deal is off the table, too? :-P

[@quantumplastic]

Nice work!

[@michaelnippert945]

My brother had a PT boat I can maybe the 60s then add electric motor and use rubber bands for the pollies but I do remember the one piece haul

[@KEM451]

Thanks, you just saved me $25.

[@ModelAndMake]

Damnn I try not to buy Revell kits anymore because of this kind of stuff. You just never know what you'll find inside the box. Thanks for sharing, I totally would have trusted the positive reviews.

[@bigbob1699]

It would be nice to have the wild choice of weapons that the PT drivers begged borrowed and stole to add the fire power they needed.

[@garygenerous8982]

Damn that sucks. I would love to find a decent and detailed model of a PT since they are probably my favourite naval vessel of WWII. My dream would be to find and own one and live on it with my family (armaments included though that is even less likely) and sail the South Pacific but a decent model would be a nice start.

[@scale-model-workshop]

Look into the Merit kit. It is larger because it is 1/48, but actually a pretty easy build.

[@michaelnaven213]

Always the simple kits become a lot of work.

[@peterpedro7662]

I got a revell vw beetle it was so poor the dashboard was not possible to fit .I bin the thing .

[@orangelion03]

Engineered to a price point apparently. Molding a lot of detail into single parts reduces parts count but can lead to issues as seen here. Revell must use different vendors for their products because the PT boat does not look as if it was made by the same company that produces the excellent 1/32 P-51 that came out a few years ago.

[@BrickworksDK]

I'm currently working on their 1/32 scale ME262, and it's a bloody nightmare. I'm in the process of basically re-sculpting the entire nose sections with putty - the fit of the original parts was so bad that no two sections were aligned.

[@sillyone52062]

I built this model in my pre-paint days. It was destroyed by a Japanese eight inch shell (M-80). No crew members survived.

[@ScoutSniper3124]

Revell's been in the Plastic Model business a LONG time. It's very disappointing to me that whatever "Expertise" they might have acquired over those decades in the business seems to be long ago LOST. Is there any Plastic Model company you like more than the others? Thanks for the video.

[@kylehood1657]

Revell has really gone downhill as of the last few years... possibly due to cost saving and corner cutting under the directions of Hobbico. The late 90s and early 00s gave us some of the nicest kits; 1/48 F-86D, F-84, Rafale, F-15E, 1/72 F-4E/F Phantom, and 1/72 Tornado to name a few. If the new management can get them back to where they were 20 years ago, I believe things will start looking up.

[@The_Modeling_Underdog]

I wonder if the kit is even remotely Revell at all. Their airplane kits are ok. This one looks like injected on a third world sweatshop. And Heck, should I know. I live in such a country. Thanks for the heads up, Paul. Loooking forward for the second video. Stay safe.

[@tarasbulba3190]

Will somebody please make a 1/72 scale 78' late war Higgins?

[@BrickworksDK]

Unfortunately, that sounds much like my recent experience with Revell kits (the Haunebu II and ME262 1/32 scale). Bad instructions, plenty of sink marks, and a horrible fit turns a build that should have been easy into a nightmare.

[@danielbritton8588]

Holy crap that looks like something from the fifties. Or error in plastic temperature & or pressure when injecting. Why the supervisor did not look up with that, "you've got to be kidding me" expression when inspecting the mold castings is beyond me.

[@sjcsjc1378]

I’m building their current and newly tooled 1/32 FW190. This kit gets good reviews everywhere but it has plenty of sink holes, flash, poor joins and even the odd warped part and don’t even get me started on the awful poorly drawn instructions... I’ll be looking elsewhere going forward. Well done on your ‘honest’ review though. ATB

[@pietrosola5249]

Bel modellino

[@bamboosa]

Ray Milland approves this review. Drinks all around? Nope.

[@raymond7880]

Revell was always good at capturing imaginations. The reality was poor quality. It's true as someone said below. It's time Revell dragged itself into the '90s! All 'new moulding' Tamiya AFVs from the nineties are incredible!

[@backpacker3421]

so typical of Revell. They seem to think their primary customer base is 12 year olds wanting to make toys. They "improve" the kit design, only to wind up with a product that is marginally better if any on the old problems, and creates a whole host of new problems. I'd love to sink the money into the Italieri kit, but I really don't have room to display something that large. I'm going to start in the 109 version of this kit some time in the next couple months.... wish me luck. Every Revell kit I've built is an exercise in fixing problems.

[@1BCamden]

you have to wonder why Revell, such an established brand, would put this into production

[@donvanduzen8944]

Test shots , test building , QC in general takes time and that's money. The Revell of old in Venice California did everything in house, from concept and design, to box art and actual injection molding. It was a matter of pride that each step would be done right by each individual and department. Now it's all CAD and send files off to another country(China or India) for production . There is no cohesive vision along the way.and this is the result. That being said, I remember Revell having these issues in some kits, in 1970!

[@StonyRC]

VERY poor moulding and quality control. Such a pity, I thought that Revell was a far higher quality model company! That being said, you've managed to get around so many of the quality and design issues with your skill and experience - very nicely done Sir.

[@donvanduzen8944]

You get what you pay for. Many times Revell and Airfix don't turn out to be good value.

[@michaeltruhett4170]

I hate to say it, but the poor quality of this model is typical Revell. You don’t pay much for Revell kits and it really is the old saying of “You get what you pay for.” With your skills though, this boat will look terrific!

[@bamboosa]

Too bad those Mark 8 torpedoes didn't hit their targets.

[@brucestrachan3368]

I will NEVER buy another Revell kit again. Not worth the time, effort and money. Always a huge disappointment. As always, another great video, thanks for making it.

[@lalouxfrancois]

well that's kind of unfair in my opinion... yes revell is not the best kit producer on the market, but i always fin their kits to be good for the money.

[@brucestrachan3368]

@@lalouxfrancois Each to their own I suppose. I have been a kit modeller for a long time (45+yrs). Revell have been consistently at the bottom end of the kit market and as a kid that was what I could afford, Airfix on the other hand were always an improvement at that time. I have always felt Revell could/should have done it better. I vowed after the massive disappointment of the Revell 1/32 Phantom F4G "Wild Weasel" that was the end, and it is. You are entitled to your opinion as am I. Happy modelling.

[@chinook9785]

Why have so many ship kits so poor fit :(

[@bob_._.]

No man, it's battle damage - panels buckled by high explosive shells.

[@scale-model-workshop]

Wood usually cracks.

[@kploo4906]

It needs skill level supreme to build the kit🤔

[@richw0123]

that is a really bad looking kit, the decision making processes behind it are worrying. It's not as bad as the new Revell 1/32 Superhornet but it is clearly from the same minds. Gone are the days of the quality found in Revells 1/48 F-15e and Rafale

[@WhiskeyTango84]

Revell has mandatory unionized breaks in their kits. Oh, and their instructions too.

[@tomcline5631]

That's just a terrible kit! Those sinks and pin marks are caused by greedy factories and lazy mold set up people! The greed part is they run the plastic to hot,and don't let the machine cycle long enough for the plastic to fully cool enough to solidify internally. Doing this allows them to run more cycles a shift. The lazy mold man part is not checking parts often enough to stop the worst of the ejector pin marks by adjusting hydraulic pressures. I worked at a plastic factory a couple times. The second time I helped the maintenance/mold setup guy a lot.

[@Elios0000]

if you want a good PT try the Italeri 1/35 scale PT-109 should be more up to your expectations. Revell kits are just toy junk. stick with Tamiya, Hasagawa and Italeri

[@scale-model-workshop]

I have it, way to big ... Even the Merit kit is larger than I care to display.

[@dracoQuest]

Oh man are you nicer to these guys and I would have been I can only afford to buy one kit at a time I would be p***** if they wasted my money on that kit they would definitely hear from me and I do plan on getting APT boat Where do I get it from if it's that c***** they're gonna hear from me and I will not be this polite

[@MrCarrabouzo]

for me Revell is not a brand that has good models.Specifically that boat, I had it many years ago I have assembled several models ,and it is not my favorite.

[@selkiemaine]

How many young folks will get excited, buy this kit, get disgusted, and move on to other hobbies?

[@fw1421]

With today’s molding technology there’s no excuse for this poor kit. I grew up building Revel and Monogram kits and they were way better engineered kits than this. I’ll never buy another Revel kit again.

[@Elios0000]

the US makers where never good even then they OK ish back at BEST compare Revell or Monogram to Tamiya or Hasagawa and its not even close

[@rossomachin]

These sinkmarks are terrible! Revell is a second class manufacturer nowadays

[@michaelchristensen6884]

Terrible molds

[@127TROOP]

Damn that kit is bad.....