What Does Revell Do Right, & How Could They Improve? My Thoughts On Revell Plastic Model Kits

[@codyfrench7668]

One thing I've never understood is why Revell is so harshly criticized for releasing old toolings. We live in an age where a 15 second search can tell you exactly what's in the box, and more than that, most other brands do the same thing. Even Tamiya still releases their *TERRIBLE* 1/48 Harrier from the stone age in a shiny new box. The comments of "but you shouldn't have to" mean nothing - it's simply laziness. Like any product in life, and particularly products related to our hobbies, looking into things is always the right choice. That's how you can learn things like the fact that Tamiya Airbrush cleaner is the same thing as their Extra Thin - and save a lot of money accordingly. Airfix has only run the Vintage Classics for a few years - there are of course some positives to be said about them doing so - but it really is silly to see them get so much praise when they often aren't cheap and it hardly saves the customer enough time to blink.

[@ModelMinutes]

I’m not criticising them for releasing old kits, I’m criticising the fact they don’t tell you it is an old kit… the inconsistency in quality is the main problem and it breaks the consumers trust in the brand. It shouldn’t be down to the modeller to have to research kits to make informed decisions before they buy them when the companies can so easily put the information about toolings dates on the boxes

[@codyfrench7668]

@@ModelMinutes "It shouldn't be down to the consumer." There it is. It is *always* down to the consumer, from a tin of yogurt all the way up to a house. Again, Revell receives 95% of the negative comments about this when other brands do it as well, oftentimes just as much and occasionally even more. ZTS, KP, and Smer are great examples of it - some are great toolings from the last decade, some are kits made by someone in their Garage in 1950s Poland.

[@ModelMinutes]

@@codyfrench7668 I don’t have to look up the age of a pot of yoghurt on a separate website just to find out if it’s still in date 😂 To blame the consumer for not having the information provided by the company just allows said company to continue this shady practice

[@codyfrench7668]

@@ModelMinutes Maybe try a relevant analogy next time? You're basically seeking to shame a company for your laziness at this point. You can go on for hours about how "things should be" but that doesn't change how they are and the fact of the matter is if all these companies have done it for decades, it clearly pays the bills and they have no incentive to change.

[@ModelMinutes]

@@codyfrench7668 I’m guessing you are American by your spellings? I get that your culture around consumerism is very different and that is ok. But across the pond it is very much upon the company providing the goods and services to be as transparent with the product they provide with information provided by the company to the consumer so that they can make an informed purchasing decision at the point of sale. I made a poll a while back about whether this information should be presented and sadly it would seem your “blame the modeller” mentality for buying poorly labelled kits is in the vast minority, with the majority of the modelling community agreeing that this information should be provided by the company. Personally, I can only see the points I raised in this video as a positive change, but then, I guess some people like you don’t like change…

[@mikemontgomery2654]

The one time I’ve had to engage Revell customer service, they helped me out very quickly and promptly. They get a big thumbs up from me.

[@johnscarsandstuff]

Another nice, fair, breakdown of a kit manufacturer. Revell is, in my experience, an odd brand that is quite inconsistent in its output. I agree with your points. The side-opening boxes are a very poor way to package kits. Small parts can come off the frames, fall out of the holes in the plastic bags (there are good reasons for the holes being there) and will more easily fall out of a Revell box than one with a separate top and bottom. The paint call-outs are pretty stupid (although I can understand that it's easier to update the paint key on one page of the instructions, rather than updating every panel where there's a colour call-out). Older designed kits don't even seem to get full-colour instructions. All these things taint Revel with an air of cost-cutting that doesn't make you feel good about their products. Before buying a Revel kit, unless I know it's a new tooling, I'll probably have to do some research to decide how badly I want the kit. When A Revel kit is good, it is excellent, when it's bad, it's incredibly infuriating. Good ones include the 1:72 Darth Vader's Tie Fighter, the Space Shuttle (I built the 1:144 Moonraker) and (at least as far as it's gone so far, it's not finished yet) the 1968 VW Beetle. However, I once picked up a Revel Bf109, which felt like it was tooled about the same time the real thing went out of service. There was a reasonable model inside the flash, but the rough moulding and poor, monochrome, instructions made for an infuriating experience at the workbench. There was also the Jaguar XK120 (an old Monogram kit, I think), that was a horror of seam lines, sink marks and inaccuracies. Somewhere in between was the 1958 Chevrolet Corvette; generally nicely detailed, well moulded and with great instructions; but it took a LOT of effort to mate the body with the chassis. In the spirit of constructive criticism, I'd offer the following suggestions to Revel: 1. Change to top-opening boxes. 2. If the frames don't fill the box, consider having a folded card insert, like a rectangular tube, to fill the empty space and stop things rattling around. 3. Print the kit tooling date and the manufacture date on the box clearly. 4. When re-issuing an old kit, update the instructions to colour format. Or, at least, have one full-colour sheet as an overall guide for painting. 5. If you can't/won't print the colour call-outs as text or numbers in each step, print the key on a separate sheet for easy reference.

[@portland-182]

Transparency about the age of the tooling would be the number one thing. Something like 'Airfix Classics' clearly on the front of the box. They could make it a marketing thing, like when they released their anniversary kits some years ago, and released older kits such as the Boeing SSTs, and the early NASA rockets. Consistency. Some of their kits are amazing, some less so. Star Wars is a clear example, where they have some detailed kits like the Mandalorian N1, or Vader's Tie fighter, and then some less good pre-painted tiny 'toys'. Their car kits are generally great, but they seem quite pricey.

[@jaws848]

You should see the "rant" video about Revell that Peter Oxley did on them....well worth a watch if you haven't already seen it

[@ModelMinutes]

ah, thanks for the info - I can't say I'm particularly familiar with Peter's content

[@jaws848]

@@ModelMinutes you should go and watch him....excellent channel....especially if you like the Matchbox kits.....spoiler alert, lol

[@danytalloen]

I do follow Peter's channel and I know he sometimes has a destinctive opinion on certain kits... but I always tend to use more than a grain of salt on channels where people use black gloves and handle older plastic kits as if they were ancient relics...

[@brianartillery]

I was racking my brains to think which was the first Revell kit I ever built - I had made Airfix, Matchbox, and FROG kits prior to this, and I'm pretty damn sure that the first Revell kit i made, was the little 1/72 scale Fokker DR-1 Triplane. I was given a selection of WW1 aircraft as a Christmas present fairly early on. I have to say that the Revell Sopwith Triplane is still one of my all-time favourite model kits. If Revell were more transparent about the age of their mouldings, then I think a great many people would be more tolerant of them. That ex-Matchbox Twin Otter is a beautiful kit, by the way. I've built several.

[@joeleal4138]

I took up this hobby again after an almost 50 hiatus. Having so much fun building WWII planes and tanks but the paint numbers from all these different companies is driving me insane! Oh well better than being at work!!

[@way2sh0rt07grad]

@@joeleal4138It does get crazy with all the colors. Personally, I look at what the color should look like and mix my own, or find something close. Unless you're going to a model competition, there aren't many people who will criticize it.

[@ModelMinutes]

I tend to just do my own thing with paints now - if it looks right then im happy

[@SuperBommer1]

Try hobby color converter app on your phone its helped me with the same problem

[@johnhammond6423]

@@ModelMinutes _'if it looks right then I'm happy'_ Me too. Who is going to notice?

[@burntorange70]

Model masters paint going under is a bit strange. How the best company for model paint goes under is beyond me.

[@Iskelderon]

What I always love about Revell is that quick summary of the measurements you can expect from the finished models. A real time saver once you get to stuff like aircraft carriers and want to order matching wood for a base.

[@ModelMinutes]

I think the overall dimensions of the finished model being present on the boxes are quite common among manufacturers - I can't think of a brand that doesn't do it

[@Iskelderon]

@@ModelMinutes Many bury them on the sides or back, Revel puts the dimensions right where you need them when you decide whether it's worth a closer look.

[@paredding]

@@Iskelderon Yup spot on - within seconds you have the info. In many cases it also shows what VFM you can get as the kits can be a good size. I like Revell, I build for relaxation and pleasure (painting is my bete noir) and dont need kits of 500 parts. If the end result looks like the real think, I am more than happy. If I want a dedicated detailed model eg ship or aircraft, I will invest in something special as a one off.

[@Iskelderon]

@@paredding I know the feeling. When it's something I have a cursory interest in, Revell is just fine. But for stuff like one of my favorite aircraft, I certainly spent the extra money to get a Tamiya kit and aftermarket upgrades.

[@slotty15]

I used to like their space kits in the late 1960s. What I like about them now are their acrylic paints in the square pots. They give much better brush coverage than Tamiya or Humbrol (can you even buy Humbrol paints any more?) . The only down side is that whilst they do a panzer grey they don't do a panzer dark yellow to match. I use their glue too since I don't see Humbrol glue anywhere either.

[@maxbrandt6]

Can you buy Heller paints these days? I've never seen those sold anywhere.

[@ModelMinutes]

Humbrol paints still exist - infact the acrylic range has had a whole revamp in new bottles and formulas (i made a video on them a while back)

[@johnbollig2790]

They could release the old matchbox kits for us matchbox lovers. That alone could help. Two, they need to get back in the US market. Three, they need to improve quality of kits. Actually, Airfix provides a way forward.

[@ModelMinutes]

Yes, if they still have a lot of those Matchbox toolings it would be fun to see them! As long as they don't do what they have done with some of them - pretend that they are newer than they are and release them in unnecessarily expensive boxings

[@jaws848]

@@ModelMinutes exactly

[@BunnyUK]

if they did what Airfix do and sell them clearly marked as vintage, for sensible money, a lot of younger people would get them.. they can’t spend £30 or more on a kit, neither can their parents

[@daniel_lucio]

But they have re-released many Matchbox kits since the 90s, practically all of them in 1/32 and dozens of other scales.

[@rogueplastic]

Do you really want a re-release of the Matchbox kits? As that would only perpetuate their current problem with all the reboxing of old kits. Seems like mutually exclusive with point three. Feels like that would only satisfy the ever shrinking customer base who know what those kits were. I bought the Matchbox 1/72 Stuka from eBay when I got back in to the hobby to relive my memories with it, only to realize that I don't want to build that anymore, when I can buy much better kits. Nonexistent cockpit, almost zero panel lines, inaccuracy all the way... I mean, it was great when I built it as a kid, and I was very proud of my winter camo back then, but I realized that what I really wanted to relive the building of a Stuka rather than the Matchbox kit.

[@kenhanson1819]

Great video, Matt! I tend to agree with all the points you mentioned in your video. Especially putting the copyright information on the outside of the model. It makes absolutely no sense. I will say their customer service is top rate. I had a cracked canopy on my 1/48 Revell Typhoon jet aircraft. They asked me to email a picture of the damaged part, which is reasonable in my opinion. A week later I receive a new clear sprue canopy frame free of charge from Germany to me here in the USA. I wish I could say the same about my experience with Airfix.

[@hueyJoe135]

Another great video Matt. I agree with you reissue those old models when they do new models. Let's hope they reissue some of the old Matchbox models especially the armour. The P-47D is a beautiful little model. Keep up the great work 👍

[@ModelMinutes]

thanks very much!

[@i.setyawan]

My first encounter with Revell kits was back in 1982 or 1983. I bought one of their models, an old Chevy car model, as well as their 1982 catalog. Back then, their boxes featured actual photos of the built and painted model. Unfortunately for Revell, my first experience building model kits was with Tamiya. And at the time there's nothing about Revell that was equal, much less better than, what Tamiya could offer. Even worse for them, at the same time I also bought Tamiya's 1982 catalog! The quality of the built and painted models showcased in the catalog was way better, despite the amount of marketing hyperbole in Revell's catalog. I believe that Revell has improved a lot in the last 40 years. Unfortunately, my limited budget (and the fact that their kits are more difficult to come by in my area) means that I haven't been able to sample their newer offerings. In any case, another excellent video. Keep up the good work!

[@Jakub-Buzalski]

On the customer service side of things with Revell. My friend got a Eurofighter Typhoon for Christmas and the spine was missing. He contacted customer service and they said they sent out a replacement. However, when it arrived there was nothing in the box. He had to email a second time and only then he received the part 4 months after the first email.

[@janwetzlar]

I can say they are outstanding had te canopy of my bf 109 g 10 in 1 72 missing they sendet me a complete model and i only paid shiopping and the replacment part

[@janwetzlar]

and i am not a revell FAn Boy but their good customer service suprised me

[@codyfrench7668]

Still far better than my experience with Airfix customer service. Got a Gladiator with a wrong canopy part and was told that happened to an entire batch of the kit so they would be happy to send a spare - at least, they would if I lived in the UK. I arranged for it to be sent to a friend who was sending me a few books, and unsurprisingly, they sent the exact same incorrect canopy part. When I enquired through the friend again, I was simply told to try again in 6-9 months. Utterly useless.

[@baanibarnes9711]

Enjoyed this breakdown, you raised a lot of points that rang bells with me. If you would like a more consistent and enjoyable kit buying experience I highly recommend Eduard. Every single Eduard kit I have bought is outstanding - great fine quality tooling with subtle engraved panel lines and, usually, a lot of spare parts including canopy options. I recently bought a two aircraft set from Eduard of the 1:72 scale Me109G5/G6. The kit quality is the best I have seen and I have bought and built just about every Messerschmitt kit going from the original Airfix 1:72 scale Me109G-6 (old and pretty terrible!) to Hasegawa and Tamiya's very fine examples (Revell do a very nice 1:32 scale Me 109-6). One amazing thing about these Eduard kits is the price, if you get a 'weekend' kit, the 'basic' no frills type without the photo-etched doodads, this double kit comes out at £24.99, just a pound or so more than the 1:72 scale single Hasegawa Me109G-6 and, as I mentioned, you get a shed-load of extra bits to do the many sub variants of this very interesting and widely used Luftwaffe fighter. I can't recommend their kits enough, they go together very well and build into extremely accurate representations of the real thing, if you haven't already tried one, please give them a go, you won't be disappointed. (If you haven't already, do a review of anything in their range, I would be interested to hear your thoughts)

[@ModelMinutes]

Eduard has been a very impressive brand - at least from my small amount of experience with them

[@neilmcclary]

Good vid . I know you have visited Airfix and maybe part 2 for this vid would be to contact Revell Germany and ask if it is possible to visit them and also awnser a few questions that you have raised in this one . I do belive they do allow visitors i think it would be good content and a bit of adventure for you

[@ModelMinutes]

I have actually had a conversation with someone from Revell - but for the time-being all I know is that they do indeed want to make improvements

[@seppheinzl9378]

12:00 Yes we do need it, cause some colors with a designated letter require you to mix 2 different colors (for example A= 70% of color no. 76 and 30% of color no. 49. Results in a much more readable, less clustered instruction in my opinion.

[@ModelMinutes]

Just show me the ratio on the page at the time 🤷‍♂️

[@Create-n-fix-with-Nick]

Thanks for putting this together. I have a few Revell kits in my stash but I have to say I am always a little reluctant with them because you really don’t know what you are getting. Some revell kits are great, some are nasty. As you pointed out they do stuff that others don’t and that is a plus - Star wars and the Queen Mary 2, for example. I used to have an awesome hobby shop nearby that would open the kits so you could check out the sprues - sadly they went out of business in the 2008 recession. Whilst you can check online, seeing with your own eyes helps. One point on tooling though. The Airfix hawk for example is seemingly designed for starter kits. Makes sense - red arrows and all that. The tool has had stuff added over the years (from memory in the mid 2000’s, 2011 and 2014). How does that get marked up in your proposal? As (say) kit tooling 2002 (making dates up here, or 2014? I think that is one issue about this but deffo in favour of as much on the box as possible. BTW: Would love to see Airfix do a “modern” super detailed Hawk kit 😊 And lastly (I suspect like a lot of people) I tend to use manufacturers websites a fair bit because where I live now the shops are chain shops with limited stock, who often charge more than the manufacturers site!!?!!? So you either buy what they have or buy online. The buying what they have sometimes leads to “surprises”, so I like the suggestion about manufacturing and tooling dates on the box.

[@ModelMinutes]

The Airfix starter set Hawk is a completely different tooling to the "normal" version. The normal one is a 2008 tooling whilst the starter set one is 2020 - as a result they would annotate on the box those dates for the respective version. If they had new parts added at some point in the future, that could be an additional note, but If I know Airfix (and I do) they will have planned future variants and modifications in at the original tooling stage so technically any extra parts added later would actually have been in existence since the original dates, just not added yet

[@benmanning4340]

Peter Oxley has done a brilliant and truthful rant video on Revell kits. Definately worth a watch! I personally do love some Revell kits of the past but they definately are one of the worst model companies right now.

[@ModelMinutes]

Not sure I would consider them one of the worst, just that there are improvements that could be made to help them keep up with the changing times

[@benmanning4340]

​​​​​@@ModelMinutesYes and that is exactly what Revell aren't doing which is why they are gradually falling behind. The likes of ICM are going to flatten them in a minute. Obviously the worst part of Revell is their blatant lying about new kits when they are just ancient kits re-boxed with new colour instructions and new decals. Nowadays Revell is owned by Quantum Capital Partners - they don't seem to care for the customers just the profits. They even produced a kit that says in the instructions "Trim Flash Here"!! Absolutely terrible. Peter's video explains this in detail - recommend you watch it.

[@michaelgrey7854]

@@benmanning4340 I find Peters rants s bit tiresome. He does tend to spread disinformation.

[@benmanning4340]

@@michaelgrey7854 I don't, I enjoy them 😁

[@benmanning4340]

@@michaelgrey7854 It's not disinformation, it's him telling his audience facts about the "less favourable" model companies right now and explaining what they are doing wrong/need to improve upon - namely Eduard and Revell being his least favourites - mine too!

[@micodyerski1621]

Luv the call out to shop at our locally owned hobby shops. Support those that support us! 👍

[@mh53j]

I don't know of one within a hundred miles of where I live. Our local shop closed 14 years ago; the national chain store 60 miles away a few years before that. Anything I want I have to have sent in.

[@onixfieroandscalemodelworks]

I have built quite a few of the auto kiys from revell and for the most part they have been fine builds. I enjoy revell over all. They may not ba at the level of tamiya or bandai in terms of the engineering but they do hold up well.

[@mylesfinn66]

I bought and made the 1:72 tornado when it first came out and thought it was brilliant. Infact the same goes for their 1:48 F15 E. Both models are still on my shelf 😊

[@dave41184]

The stamps on the exterior of the Star Wars kits might be a condition of the license. You'd imagine molded toys would have this too. Revell in the UK are based in near Tring and if I remember rightly I think there is a way to contact them via the Revell website. I'd like to see them taking some more risks when it comes to the kit subjects they cover, but I think they place more emphasis on selling toys these days.

[@ModelMinutes]

I wonder how Bandai (which also holds a Star Wars license) manages to avoid external stamps

[@boblobla1611]

Revell is a bit of a head scratcher. On one hand they can turn out a fairly complex kit like their 1/32 Fw 190 F8 and A8 that are awesome. They just need a set of harnesses and matbe resin wheels if you're not into restoring the tread after sanding. Then there is their 1/32 P51d, a much simpler kit with some nice detail until it's time to install the wind screen, which is about 5mm too narrow.

[@sandtable8091]

It's a fair résumé of Revell. I tent to agree with the comment that nowadays we can be informed as to the contents of the box but it remains a valid point. More box information is good. When it comes to skill levels, extra parts, colour instructions....cost would certainly be a factor. So, can we as modellers manage these pitfalls or are we hoping for a full alignment of best possible practice across the industry? As a wargame player my requirements are different from a professional such as yourself or an interested pensioner or school age child. We've never had so much choice, nice isn't it.😊

[@ModelMinutes]

thanks for sharing your thoughts :)

[@NickAndrewsFaulkner]

A good summary of the brand, back in the early 70s I can't think there was much difference between their quality and that of Airfix. However, since returning to the hobby it is as you highlight very hit & miss. Following your review/build of the TA-152 I found one in our local toy shop and despite it being a Frog reboxing, it's not bad and is an ongoing nostalgia build. Best wishes, Nick

[@ModelMinutes]

Thanks! The Ta152 presented its own challenges lol

[@MrFumblethumbs]

If you intend on building the Twin Otter, you will definitely need to stock up on filler and sanding supplies!! Enjoyed the video!👍👍

[@ModelMinutes]

Thanks for the tips!

[@jefthing]

I made that P47 and it was a nice kit. First Revell kit I had was a Corsair (complete with sliding canopy) although my dad made it! I still have my Revell Dambusting Lancaster, purchased with Green Shield stamps (Weybridge 1975).

[@emmabird9745]

Hi Matt. My memory of Revell is from the 1960s. Then I considered them great, generally better than the contempory Airfix. They had openning cockpits too (obviously not in the WW1 kits!) and very good pilot figures. Their range was better. All the parts fitted and sanding etc was limitted to the glue lines (mind you that last applied to all the manufacturers I had kits from). Obviously they had raised panel detail but they didn't have CNC for the tools back then so recessed would have been an order of magnitude more difficult and expensive. Recently I got one of their BF 109G10 kits and can only say that the quality has completely sunk. On the subject of skill level, I hope no manufacturer would have a committee to asign a skill level on whether the parts fitted and whether it needed filler or not. All kits should fit together properly out of the box and filling should be reserved for the modeller who wants to convert it, rescale the oversize panel lines etc. IE it should be possible to build it into an acceptable model straight out of the box without special skills. Where a model might be expected to need more skill is where there are lots of fiddly small parts, parts are needed to be positioned at special angles (like dihedral or landing gear position) or an extra like the rigging on a biplane. There's nothing overly wrong with a monochrome instruction sheet, especially as the paint schemes could usefully be put on the back of the colourfull box (shows better the options before buying). It would be right to state clearly, on the box, the origins of the tooling and would add very greatly to their credibility. Note though, your own observations are that newer tooling is not necessarily better. In conclusion, I wish they would dig out some of the old stuff so that I could have a SE5 and a DH2 and so on again.

[@burntorange70]

I have quite a few Revell kits on my built shelf and in the stash. I have found it to be pretty easy to be up to date on what’s going on in the modeling world from when I started back in the late 80’s. I find it a million times easier now with the information available on the internet. It’s so easy and simple and takes very little time and effort to check scalemates or KZbin or one of the review sites out there for information. All you have to do is touch the screen on your phone a few times. I do it all the time standing in the hobby store isles.

[@ModelMinutes]

whilst it might be easy, we shouldn't have to. The companies should have that information on the box - if it is easy for us to look it up then it is much easier for them to just add it to the text on the box

[@burntorange70]

Mindless consumerism is one way to go I guess. I like to know what I’m buying before I hand over my money. Buying something because it has good advertising or packaging is a big role of the dice. I’m not sure what they could put on the box that would make me know if I want it over another kit or not. Maybe the Tamiya kit is the best in that scale but so what. I maybe want a different manufacture for a variety of reasons. You dont have to reacher what you are buying. It’s just a good idea if you want to know what you are buying before you hand over money. That goes with anything and not just plastic models.

[@johnparker1696]

Hi Matt I have to agree with you whole heartedly as Revell is a constant thorn in my side The Boxes for large kits in our stashes are just in-adequate structurally and the contents are more than often not even Revell stuff but Frog, ICM, Matchbox, etc etc. The Hurricane in 32nd Scale is much the same as their Spitfire Mk-II in 32nd Scale and I did point this out in my final reveal video that I think Revell could've put an engine and a pilot into the kit and we would've been happy to pay another £5-£10 pound for it.

[@ModelMinutes]

Definitely!

[@jansolo9200]

Great video 👍👍 I absolutely share your opinions about revell

[@ModelMinutes]

Thanks for sharing!

[@m0rce1]

Revell parts service is great. Lost a rudder for my triplane (video on my channel) and just emailed them asking for a new one. Just had to state model number and part number. Got a confirmation email and a letter on the post a couple weeks later. Free of charge.

[@StanislavSkalski]

I would love them to rerelease their Handley Page Halifax. I have the new tool Lancaster from Airfix and Stirling from Italeri. Only one from this trio missing is Halifax, and only one I could find is old Arfix.

[@ModelMinutes]

I think that halifax is the same age as the B17 tooling I built, so should be fairly nice kit if it has similar qualities - hopefully less flash though!

[@LemurKrazy]

You got lucky with the P-47. Most modelling guides list the revell as being the best in 1/72. I went out looking for new tool 1/72 for that reason. Revell also repops matchbox and monogram kits for those looking for those nostalgia hits.

[@ModelMinutes]

Thanks for the info! It was an absolute shock going from such a nice kit to something a lot worse

[@jimjim2953]

I'm in the middle of an extrakit canberra pr9 not many parts at all, so would be a skill 2 via revell or airfix. Damed thing is fighting for nearly every part. Still recommend though.

[@ScaleModelAdventures]

From my experience about model kits, I have to say that some of them worth buying them when they're on discount. One example of them is 1/16 Porsche 928. It could be much better detailed, even the italeri 1/24 kit seems a more detailed one. Furthermore, even though the last version has nice seat decals, you can't really see them when the model is finished, because the "clear" parts are black shaded. This wouldn't be much of a problem if the side doors could open. Moreover, it used to cost about 60€, but for the same amount of money there are also some decent alternatives. Now, regarding the instructions, I find it also tiring turning on the colour combinations page all the time, but it's not really a problem for me; also tamiya has b&w instructions of the kits even nowadays. Also, the 1/12 Mercedes 300sl has though nice detail, but some sell it about sth more than 100€, which I find it way too much for such an old tool. Also, I have seen the special edition of kubelwagen for about 200€ instead of about 90€ for buying the very same kit of italeri, which doesn't have the PE parts

[@Gremlins_Modelling_Mayhem]

Good broad review of Revell, Matt and loving the blooper reel at the end 😅

[@ModelMinutes]

Thanks! I do try and include my screw ups in the videos at the end - if there are any that is! :P

[@maxbrandt6]

Revell AG can be a mixed bag and not everything is made in house, something I've learn a long time ago. Sometime their kits can be great, other times they are lacking but always with nice decals. They do a LOT of re-pops, sometimes it's an old ESCI kit from the 70s or 80s or an ancient Matchbox kit, you're in for some fun there! I agree with Mr. Oxley on the pricing of the older re-popped kits and those annoying side opening boxes. The molds for the old Revell 1/32 F4U Corsair date from 1970 and need to be pitched in a dumpster! Their Harrier dates from around there was well, and the molds have to be completely worn out by now, buyer beware!

[@davidhinkson8856]

My first experience with a brand other than Airfix was Revell also, with their old DC-10 Laker Airways model (1979). I bought that because Airfix didn't have that particular model in its airliner range at that time and I found it compared favorably with the Airfix airliners I had built up to that point. Since then I have mostly built Revell cars and trucks and I have enjoyed the majority of them; they are well detailed to me and relatively easy to build without much drama, and I would say the worst Revell kit I have built was their Ford Escort rally car, but that is an ancient Esci kit so Revell can't be blamed for that. I would say that what they should do in the case of the older models they would have inherited from Esci, Matchbox etc. is to put a note on the box or instructions stating that so you have a better idea of what to expect, and maybe reduce the price on some of those older kits that aren't up to par with the newer offerings.

[@birodude]

Great video, Matt. All points were well made. However, it appears that Revell just don't care about how their profit margin could be better if they would address these issues. 😢

[@ModelMinutes]

Tbh I think they are in the process of implementing some changes, it just takes time

[@dejansvrljuga6891]

I'm still waiting for their 1/72 Junkers Ju 290,hope to see it in near future,and some older reboxes from Matchbox/Supermodel would be very nice in 1/72 like Blohm & Voss BV 138,Dornier Do 18 ,Supermarine Stranraer....

[@MileHighModels]

TL;DR: My opinion may be biased as I am an American and grew up building Revell kits like many of our buddies across the pond grew up building Airfix. I actually like both companies but for different reasons. I think Airfix’s P-51 Mustang tooling is fantastically engineered and builds into a nice plane. That said, I won my first model competition as a junior with Revell’s P-51D and their SBD Dauntless. You make some points I agree with, like the grey on grey paint guides and copyright info printed outside the kit, but others I really disagree with, like advertising Cartograf and taking issue with the paint’s being assigned a letter. So before I get into my main points of criticism: This is not coming from a place of malice AT ALL. Everyone in this hobby has their preferences and favorites and that is part of what makes it great. I may build something and have a blast while another builds that same thing and absolutely hated it. So my points below are certainly opinionated, but come from a place of attempting to drive discussion. Details and criticism: I think the biggest issues/disagreements I have with you is related to the decals, dates of molding and the paint callouts. Decals: I don’t care if the company advertises whether they use Cartograf or an in house brand. Tamiya and Hasegawa use their own prints and, for the most part, they’re fine (if a little thick in Tamiya’s case). Airfix only includes a tiny little icon that looks at home on a smartphone screen to tell the modeler they use Cartograf. Miniart does it best, going all in with their new P-47 having a whole panel on the box side calling attention to Cartograf. Eduard, to my knowledge, did a terrible job of sharing which kits had Cartograf and which didn’t (at least on the box art). Dates of Molding: This is not something exclusive to Revell. Before Airfix introduced the Vintage Classic moniker, I don’t think they shared when the kit’s tooling first came out. I’m not even sure they do even now. I built the Airfix 1/72 Ju-88C after finishing their new tool Me-110, which was a wonderful kit. The Ju-88 was a stinker and dated back to like the 1970s, but I had no way of knowing that because it was not on the box anywhere and Airfix marketed it as a new kit. I ended up donating that kit. And finally: Paint callouts. This is such a weird take for me considering Airfix does it too except they call out Humbrol paints with their own arbitrarily assigned number. What about paint no. 33 screams flat black? What about paint no. 85 tells me it’s going to be “satin black?” And yes, I had to look that up. The brand new B-24 doesn’t even include a list of paints you need to complete it in the instructions! Revell at least prints those on the side or rear of the box AND in the instructions. Plus, Tamiya does this thing with all their kits! If you’re going to go after Revell for this, apply your criticism equally to Airfix, Revell, Tamiya and whomever else uses an arbitrary number or letter to denote paint color. Model companies who reference a range of paints from different companies are far superior in this regard - and for them it makes sense to use an arbitrary symbol (but even then, they typically chose a manufacturer and run with it throughout the instructions). And finally, this is probably the most important point of all: THANK YOU for supporting your local hobby shop! Everyone, imo, should do this. I always try to buy kits and certain paints at my LHS, unless I know I can’t find something there (like PE details or resin add ons).

[@ModelMinutes]

thanks for sharing all those points!

[@MileHighModels]

@@ModelMinutes Of course! Hopefully I don't come off as too critical (see: mean!), those are just the major disagreements that stood out to me. I do appreciate seeing your builds and hearing your perspectives! Airfix have got fantastic kits and don't deserve the overly critical lens a lot of Americans view them through (IMO!).

[@1stSgtSoulStealer]

I'm curious how my 1/32nd Spitfire Mk XIC will build up. Was the first 32nd I bought and I'm a little worried since I know it's a bit older of a black box. Maybe I should do it after the current and upload it? I don't do videos often, but I might have to make an exception.

[@sarumite]

I have had to contact Revel customer service. Had a really positive experience with them.

[@johnburger8762]

I just got back into modeling. Airfix is a rare find here in the US. The hobby shop that was close to work with a good selection closed right before Christmas. Tamiya is my first go-to and I have tried ICM. ICM kits I have to buy off of Amazon and wait 3-5 weeks to ship from Ukraine. Airfix I can purchase from Amazon, but they seem to be the older kits and 1/72 scale mostly. I prefer 1/48 scale.

[@ModelMinutes]

Thanks for sharing

[@andrewgrave]

Hornby's annual report states it has recently increased Airfix distribution in the USA with the full range available at Michael's Craft stores and the Quickbuild range at 1,600 Lowes stores.

[@johnburger8762]

@andrewgrave Thanks, I will check it out.

[@ianmeadows35]

I made the B3 Special Lancaster from Revell alongside the Airfix B2. What I noticed about Revell one was poorer instructions and I hated the shiney black plastic. Found this much harder to locate all the build points.

[@epicforger12345]

I do have nostalgia for revell as it is what I made mostly as a kid but I wouldn’t go back to them now other brands just do it better imo

[@DavidLee-df888]

I have a few comments about Revell. I have a lot of 1/48 Eurofighter Typhoons, because I like the different colour schemes they do, much the same way Hasegawa does. I also have many of the 1/48 Rafales. It does help that Revell also makes the best Euro canard delta planes in 48th. I do hate the old squishy blue pin stripe boxes though, how many of those flattened boxes I got from the postie.... The newer black boxes are a bit better but yes top openers would be best. Paints... I seem to have most ranges BUT Revell, I'm not dealing with mixing x drops if this with y drops of that. Its mostly Vallejo but with some Ammo and Hataka. And finally, about a decade ago I bought one of their 1/48 Ah-1 W super cobra, a reboxed Italeri tool. I then almost immediately lost the decals, so I tried customer services and they sent a new set for free! Didn't even ask for payment for postage. So, like you, Matt, I have mixed opinions about Revell but mostly positive. Rant over.😊

[@neilmcclary]

Thank you for your inquiry, but: sorry, we no longer have a shop on site, no more sales - only the online shop also no more customer traffic possible here in Bünde Well my vision of a trip to Revell Germany in bunde did not last long as this e mail from revell today states . disapointed for sure

[@ModelMinutes]

oh that really is a shame :(

[@billkraemer4710]

As a kid in the US, Revell were the affordable kits and were my gateway into modeling. Tamiya kits were out there, but beyond my budget. Not sure kids have the ability to hone the skills for model building these days.

[@ModelMinutes]

They definitely have the skills. Interest could be the main factor for why they don't want to take up the hobby - especially when their first experience could be a bad kit dressed up in a new box

[@cliffordkeesler3501]

I still can,t afford most Taniya kits, the new one’s for sure.

[@j.4332]

I loved their 1/32 scale range had loads of them.

[@alisteraitken2149]

With the exception of the Corsair, which is the worst kit in the known universe! Well, maybe not the whole universe but it is blooming awful :)

[@j.4332]

@@alisteraitken2149 No i liked the Corsair i had it and thought it was pretty cool.

[@neilmcclary]

Can you belive it my german wife lives In Bad Oeynhausen only a few kilometers from Revell Germany in Bunde . And I am off out there in 5 weeks time Hoping to visit for sure

[@ModelMinutes]

That sounds like a wonderful experience!

[@redbank542]

Came back to model kit building a few years ago. I find that Airfix have a limited range compared to what they used to have with some scales missing. I also had old tooling issues. (This hasn’t stopped me from buying them). I now tend to go with Tamiya. Their kits are far more intricate and the quality is excellent. Just wish Airfix would do other scales like they used to. They seem to be stuck on 1/700 for their ships

[@ModelMinutes]

I don't know the intracacies with their older toolings, but seeing as the company has changed hands a number of times I had heard that some of the toolings were lost, destroyed or otherwise sold on when the business made some of the changes between owners. I don't know how true this is but it could explain why certain models have not reappeared. I believe that Airfix would like to retool many of their older models (if it makes sense to) like they have done with a lot of the 1/72 range, but seeing as they have only really been working on this over the last decade and product development takes time and money, it may be a while before we see a much more varied range that some modellers would like from them

[@neilmcclary]

re release the monogram lable the kits were ahead of there time and provid a great balence between cost and detail just done the 1.48 F84f great kit with great fit. the last 3 kits from revell I have done are the f14 tomcat F8 Crusader and a F 84F from the 90s all in 1,48th .The tomcat and cusader were not bad but fit was not fantastic and you could tell they were old kits . The f84 was amazing compared to the others and was as good as anything so it is very random if you get a good one

[@ModelMinutes]

interesting idea!

[@martijn9568]

I do have a Revell kit that should be a level 2 based on the part count, but is actually a level 3. I believe it was the 1:100 Apollo Command Module.

[@delaunfifield3490]

As an AUTOMOTIVE modeler, I find that Revell & old Monogram kits dominate my 1,000+kit collection. They have caught up to Tamiya in quality over the last 5 years and produce subjects that I am interested in. MENG makes AMAZING auto kits that are 2nd to none, although their price is a bit daunting when compared to Revell. On the bottom of the barrel is AMT which is STILL producing 60's style and quality kits. I do not at all see the appeal. Not that I do not have any, as I do. And they did do a great job on the Razorcest model. But thier auto kits are VERY much lacking the crisp detailing of their contemporaries from other companies......As far as Airfix is concerned, I do not own a single Airfix car kit, (although I do have a few aircraft kits of theirs). My beef with Airfix is that all of their car kits are 1/32nd scale-which is not my preferred scale.....I beg them to upgrade to 1/24th scale for the American market.....

[@ModelMinutes]

thanks for sharing!

[@delaunfifield3490]

@@ModelMinutes You are most welcome buddy!

[@swissdogmodeller]

Hello everyone! Sadly I didn't manage to get to the premier and crazylocha gave me a member so thank you Very much😊

[@ModelMinutes]

Yes, crazy locha was the one who very kindly gave out some memberships 😊

[@petebesch]

What happened to the molds? I'd like to see Revells Consolidated PB4Y-2 Privateer. I know it was colored with bright colors (Matchbox), but Revell made it grey.

[@ModelMinutes]

an interesting question, they may well be stored somewhere

[@jeffpeterson6094]

Great job Matt... listen to him revell

[@ModelMinutes]

I hope they take on board some of these points for improvement

[@karolwesoowski4990]

In general I very much like revell kits, back here in Poland it is still the most prominent manufacturer. But the main issue I have is the decals. I personally always struggle with them, they tend to break (sometimes even on the paper), never stick to the surface and keeps falling off. Dunno if I am doing something wrong, or is that a general case

[@ModelMinutes]

I dont tend to have any problems with them - quite often they are cartograph decals so are really good quality. How long are you soaking them in water? I find that about 10 seconds in warm water, then remove and put the decal sheet on kitchen paper to absorb the excess water is enough. The remaining water on the decal sheet is enough to release the transfers and then I use them at that point

[@Quoththeravenminiatures]

I recently got back into modelling and find Revell to be consistently inconsistent even in the same kit. I recently did the Horton 229 and some bits were fantastic to build whereas others where a total faff. The lack of coloured painting/decal instructions also really annoyed me as many were tiny and really hard to spot on the diagram (ended up using the box art).

[@ModelMinutes]

yes, they could do with improving these aspects

[@jamesmorgan3623]

I suspect Disney dictate that the copyright notice is on the outside on the Star Wars kits.

[@ModelMinutes]

Maybe… but they don’t seem to have the same arrangement with Bandai

[@willwoods6466]

Have you done the Airfix B-17. That is one I have on my wish list. Not sure I would want to take the chance with Revell.

[@ModelMinutes]

I have not done the Airfix B17, I hear that it is a more modern kit so probably has a better quality and less flash, the Revell one was still a pretty good kit though - worth taking a look at my build video on that for more info

[@APlaneGuylol]

My opinion is that Revell is successful because in my local hobby store they are the most numerous brand of models there after expanding the scale model section. by Revell being successful I think most would agree they are not bad just a bit lacking and are solid good kits for the price. just quality varies a lot.

[@ModelMinutes]

I'm not sure we can measure success by how many models are stocked in a particular shop - after all, when Hobbycraft here in the UK stopped stocking Airfix (for various reasons) they started getting other brands in to replace them, Revell being one of these replacements. It may stem from a pre-existing contract with their supplier which dictates how much they buy etc

[@Yves95128]

Hi, I agree with you about your pros and cons on Revell. I love this brand but they have some issues like re-boxing prehistoric kits with the "NEW" label on the box, I think in particular about that Mercedes 300sl Gullwing 1/12, I saw reviews and I recognized that kit, that's originally a Renwall from 1961!!! I have that original kit and it's bad. For this kit, in particular, Revell is border-line dishonest. An other thing that irritates me is that they don't give the color name "dusty mouse gray" instead of gull gray or RLM something, they try to push their paints on customer, and that makes me go the opposite way. One last thing that I want to mention is that when they closed the American branch, Revell US, we lost a lot of American cars kit in the process, some went to Atlantis but not all, I hope the molds are still around. They have great affordable kits, and I don't like (won't) spend $150 for a regular Tamiya kit. Bordermodels is great and affordable, as well as IBG inexpensive and extremely accurate.

[@danielseeh]

I always say that revell and or airfix are the perfect brands to introduce someone to model building.

[@CFster]

@@danielseeh or scare them away from it.

[@johnbollig2790]

@@CFster The new airfix moulds are great, have you tried the P 51D mustang in 1/72 or 1/48 scale ?

[@CFster]

@@johnbollig2790 no, I can’t get past the panel lines.

[@jaws848]

Agrred....just finished the Revell ME-262 IN 1/72 (KIT nmbr 04166) and its horrible....the 1 piece canopy is an awful fit.​@CFster

[@jaws848]

​@johnbollig2790 that new p-51 is piontless when they already still have the 2012 P-51 starter set in the range and its a better kit

[@AlanToon-fy4hg]

I saw a review of their 1/48 DO-335 recently. No where was it mentioned that it was the Monogram kit that was originally released in 1974! It was "state of the art" for 1974, but not 2024...

[@cartersmith3496]

I wanted to mention about RVG customer service. I has a Corsair with a broken canopy so I requested a new one. After waiting for awhile I finally received an email from Revell America. They informed me that they do not send parts outside of the USA. So, now go find and buy a new canopy. Another $20

[@ModelMinutes]

Oh, that is a shame

[@daniel_lucio]

0:24 The video pretty much starts with the biggest mystery about Revell's kit replacement policies. The 1/72 P-51D was my first kit built in the late 70's when I was still a kid, back then labeled as Texas Terror IV. This kit is very bad, but it's still the same mold kept in the Revell line up to the present day when the vast majority of the old molds have already been replaced. I can't understand why.

[@bluesrocker91]

What's your view on Italeri? I'm interested in doing a 1:72 Short Stirling, and as far as I can tell neither Airfix nor Revell currently have one in their lineup, but Italeri has two different kits. I'm tempted, but I've heard a few negative things about the quality of their kits.

[@ModelMinutes]

great suggestion! I need more experience of Italeri before I can make a video like this on them

[@bluesrocker91]

@@ModelMinutes Fair enough... Would be very interesting to see you do a few kits.

[@CLeo-ku3lk]

oh i remeber building the HMS Hood and my brother bulidung the Bismark in mis 90´s

[@mikemontgomery2654]

That Matchbox tooling for the twin otter is old. Same vintage as the Victor kit.

[@martynwilliams3765]

They gave great customer service when I needed a spare part.

[@julianmhall]

Boxes. The problem with side opening boxes is you can't stack them as the ones at the bottom will probably open and/or get crushed. Even if you don't intend to have a stash of kits and only possess one at a time this is an issue. How was the kit stored in the factory? Stacked. How was the kit stored by the courier to the retailer? Stacked. How was the kit stored by the retailer? Stacked. And if you bought it online, how was the kit stored by the courier en route to you? Stacked. ICM IMHO have the best idea.. a glossy outer cover with an inner top opening sturdy box.

[@garyyoung4074]

I thought there was a corporate connection between Revell and Monogram back in the day. I am needing a new B-1B, B-58 and A-6E that were reasonably priced Monogram kits when bought. I wish Revell would do whatever is required to get the molds from the defunked Monogram warehouse. Also, as some regular model viewers might have seen, I REALLY want someone to make a 1/48 kit of the B-47, C-119G or Transall 160. The B-47 would be quite simple as there is little interior detail apart from the bomb bay, wheel wells, and a Tomcat sized cockpit. ICONIC aircraft there should be kits for in 1/48.

[@ModelMinutes]

I don’t know the specifics of the situation, but Revell Germany and Revell USA are slightly different in some way, it feels as though Revell USA has the Monogram brand/moulds

[@petergoody7582]

Packaging packaging, packaging, lots of stuff missing or mainly damaged. The new boxes are inadequate, everything rattling around inside, they are so flimsy they are not fit for purpose. The quality of kits is spotty at best, but there are some beauties. Trend nowadays is to go big. They have the tech to compete with the best, it's about time we saw it.

[@Gibbo263]

Only time I step away from Airfix is when there is a particular vehicle I want to build. Revell paints on the other hand, I find them way better

[@Hacienda_27]

Their U-boats are quality and always will be, their Titanics not too bad either, probably my go to for that, especially as the 1/1200 it was I think my first ever kit as A kid, Revell seem okay with detail but not with fit or flash, the post 2000 tooling as cool

[@ModelMinutes]

The U-boat i have in this video is actually an ICM tooling reboxed by revell

[@Basedweaboo]

Ive always been more into model tanks then planes, but my first kit was a revell 1/48th scale b25 and it was amazing to put together. The next birthday I got a 1/48th scale Bell h13 souix and I hated the damned thing. I then purchased the revell ju87 with no issue. Wildly inconsistent qualities imo

[@irinashidou9524]

They should bring back their starter kits and make new ones. Otherwise, I feel like a topic just gets released Atleast twice a year regardless of different scales

[@MurphZx501]

hi matt, great video! where would you rate tamiya?

[@ModelMinutes]

Good question, I think I need more experience of Tamiya and their kits before I can make a truly informed decision… watch this space

[@MakotoAtava]

@@ModelMinutes If you want to build Tamiya Kits look for the Bf-109 G6 from 2019 and the Spitfire Mk Vb from 2000 in 1/72.

[@jinhenderson3553]

Went into a local shop today and got some kits oddly there was no revell kits

[@ModelMinutes]

Tbh I do have a fairly local model shop that only seems to stock the odd few revell kits, its mostly PM, Airfix and Academy

[@jinhenderson3553]

Thanks for noticing me I'm a 11 year old that has been in the hobby for a couple of years now and still enjoying it your my favourite youtuber by the way 😀😀

[@ModelMinutes]

@@jinhenderson3553 thanks, glad you enjoy the hobby and my videos 😊

[@neilmcclary]

Revell has had many incarnations what with Revell germany ,Revell US and Revell Monogram. and a few others I belive

[@ModelMinutes]

yes, i'm not 100% sure on their current structure tbh

[@petebesch]

I've never had a problem with Revell. Except for one thing. Why haven't they rereleased the Matchbox Consolidated PB4Y-2 Privateer?

[@ModelMinutes]

sometimes moulds get damaged beyond economic repair, or it may just be as simple as it not being something they are considering releasing for the moment

[@hidalgohouse3815]

What bugs me about Revell is they know certain kits sell out fast on release and wait 15 years to do a limited run again. I want my 144 Fletcher!

[@ModelMinutes]

ah, yes, and the fact that they have certain tools but never seem to make a reappearance

[@MakotoAtava]

@@ModelMinutes Like the original Revell Messerschmitt P.1099 in 1/72

[@johnhammond6423]

I am building the 1/32 Revell P51 late model at the moment and its a great kit. But the work to get the cockpit canopy to fit flush with fuselage was a nightmare. It is just plain wrong and you don't realise this until its almost to far into the build to fix it.

[@ModelMinutes]

that is a shame :(

[@WorksOnMyComputer]

I'm in the process of building Revell's 1/32 Bf109-G and while its not a horrible kit, the best description I can give it is it feels like a 1990's Monogram kit. I was breaking out the filler not long into the build process.There is some interesting detail in the kit, but the overal fit of parts just isn't where it should have been and there is some clunky engineering in places. Some of the parts were also short shot, which wasn't something I was expecting from Revell. It certainly isn't where a kit tooled in 2013 should have been and so while I'm pretty sure it will finish up a nice enough model when finished, the whole build has been moments of mild disappointment with one thing or another. The instructions are ok, but man that side opening box is a pain. The bones of a good kit are there, but its like Revell got so far in the development process and went "that will do" and just released it. They should have done better for a kit of this vintage.

[@RidhoPambudi-j8x]

Bro, there is still a Revel Helicopter 1/100 mi24 hind ? Thankyou 🙏

[@ModelMinutes]

According to scalemates the last time it was released was 2016

[@RidhoPambudi-j8x]

@@ModelMinutes is the stock still available? because I want to buy it 🙏

[@ModelMinutes]

I'm sure a shop somewhere has some, but you would have to check all the various places that you normally shop from to see if you can get one

[@datamek]

I asked revell for clear canopy part with i destroyed accidently. Got it for free!

[@whelx28]

I'd like to see full disclosure on tooling age AND origin. These days, collabs between brands are common, from food to fashion. It would be more honest - and not at all shameful - to see Revell's logo next to the one from Italeri / ICM / Hasegawa / Zvezda / Fujimi / (and many more !) on their boxes. I've seen too many people online having a bad opinion of Revell because of the one old kit they've built, and thinking all of Revell's production is the same. I also have the impression that the current team(s) at Revell (I don't know if there's still an american Revell team or if everything is done in Germany) is aiming too much for the lower-end (4D puzzles, RC toys, snap kits) and higher-end (expensive kits with photo-etched parts) of the hobby, to the expense of the middle ground.

[@glencwilson]

A 'few' issues with Revell. First, marketing very old kits as though they are new. Their large Harrier 50th anniversary edition - I didn't realise it was the age of the kit!! Same as some of their ship kits that are often from the 1950 but boxed like a new kit. Tamiya usually has tooling date and Airfix have their classics. They tend to mislead about the age of the kit. Second, the boxes - a few I got recently were 70% air and had to hunt in the box for the kit. Flimsy end opening boxes - how quaint. Third - Star Wars kits, expensive yet not that detailed and those absolutely stupid copyrights. Fourth - how can a company produce the 1/32 Hornet that is absolutely awful. So many more points.

[@ModelMinutes]

Thanks for sharing! Hopefully Revell take thses points onboard and can make some positive change

[@julianmhall]

Ref skill level. I agree that using one metric, especially part count, is a bad idea. There should IMHO be an industry standard, so that a kit from different manufacturers will have the same skill level. For example: Number of /small/ parts requiring dexterity and careful handling. Any PE Decal quality - the poorer the higher the skill needed Model accuracy - do you need to modify it to make it look right? Extra tools.. do you need mini drills for example? Painting complexity.. is it all over one colour or a fiendishly complex camouflage? Score all of those out of 5, average them, round it - so a 4.5 is a 5 not a 4 - then print /that/ skill level on the box. I think if every manufacturer did that answering the same questions there is a good chance they'd have the same answer and print the same skill level on the box. IMHO the only reason to inflate a kit's skill level is to justify the price and make the consumer think they are getting more than they are. I've just looked on Revell's website and on the front page they have several Star Wars kits, all Level 3 with parts counts ranging from 35 up to 102. The single Level 5 kit has 143 parts. The James Bond sets range from 66 to 122 parts but the 122 is a Level 2 and the 66 part kit is a 4 Maybe Revell /have/ listened on this issue because their skill level doesn't on that basis appear to be parts count /alone/ - although I'm damned if I know what it actually /is/ based on.

[@soppdrake]

I have their 1/144 Corvette Snowberry in the stash. Over 500 pieces. Came in a cardboard satchel - I don't think you can call it a box with such wobbly sides.

[@ModelMinutes]

that's a shame

[@horrido666]

I find Revell hot and cold, mostly hot. Their 1/144 Fletchers are fantastic. I think they are leagues in front of Airfix, but not nearly as good as Tamiya.

[@jaws848]

While i have not built them but do have 4 of them in the stash their 1/72 Tornado kits are regarded as the best Tornado kits currently available

[@ModelMinutes]

I have the Revell 1/144 tornado and it certainly blows the Academy version out of the water

[@jaws848]

@@ModelMinutes i really should get a start on them...2 of them have N.A.T.O. "Tiger meet" schemes

[@ModelMinutes]

@@jaws848 very cool! They are definitely some of the most attractive schemes

[@jaws848]

@@ModelMinutes absloutley...really draw you in when you see them....1 of them is the German "Black Panther" scheme.....have a look at it if you are not familiar with it.

[@jaws848]

@@ModelMinutes they sure are...have you seen the German "black panther" kit?

[@mh53j]

They can ALL do better. I can slag just about every manufacturer out there, even Tamiya. If there is something i want to build, I will get it from whoever makes it. If it's an old kit (I've been at this almost 60 years so I'm kinda familiar with what is out there and how long it's been there), so be it. If i want a 1/72 Twin Otter or Noordyn Norseman, i know the old Matchbox or Revell re-release is all there is. At least I can get one and dress it up as much or little as I want. Putting mold release dates is a good idea and if it is from another manufacturer. I know Tamiya does this when they rebox Italeri and ICM kits/figures.

[@ModelMinutes]

There are definitely areas that companies can all improve on

[@daniel-m]

Revell is a reputable brand and there is no doubt about it. That said, I noticed, however, that they marketed their molds from the 70s with new boxes and that the real new products came from molds of different brands on which they ultimately only put their stamp. I'm sorry, but I'm turning more and more to brands like ICM, Hobby Boss, Tamiya or Trumpeter.

[@markhill4526]

Revell as has been mentioned on other chanels need to make clear which of their kits are from really old tools like airfix do.

[@gwheregwhizz]

I don't think they understand their customers. Airfix clearly listened to feedback hence old toolings boxed as Vintage Classic, starter sets that are designed for starters, the best instructions and decals, they even finally put acrylic in droppers, not to mention, recent releases are great and feel like they were designed by lifelong modellers. Revell seem like Airfix were around 2006, plodding on like it's the 70s. A lot of their problems seem down to many changes in ownership so lack consistency. Some nice kits though and reasonably priced.