Interesting Editorial at MM

Maverick · December 21, 2006, 11:53:46 AM

Hi All,

Check out Tom Cleaver's editorial at Modelling Madness entitled 'Nitpickers'...

Nuff Said

http://www.modelingmadness.com/nitpickers.htm

Svaz · December 21, 2006, 12:10:41 PM

Got bored reading it second paragraph in - anyone have CliffsNotes?

BlackOps · December 21, 2006, 12:48:09 PM

I do not know the gentleman to whom the post belongs, or any of the names dropped along the way, but it sure seemed like the long way around to make a point.

I don't understand why we can't all enjoy the hobby, rather than dictating how the hobby is to be enjoyed

I personally believe in BurgerKing's philosophy (Have it your way)

Maverick · December 21, 2006, 01:24:16 PM

Hey Black,

Cleaver is quite an accomplished modeller to be sure, I've seen a bit of his work. But as you say it's to be enjoyed and at the end of the day it's a 'Hobby' for most of us.

Regards,

Mav

Sisko · December 21, 2006, 02:24:07 PM

Blah Blah Blah look at me look at me.

Some one's a bit bitter.

cthulhu77 · December 21, 2006, 03:06:42 PM

Well, TC can be long winded, there is no doubt. But, in this instance, I think he was in the right of things... that kit is a POS. I really didn't care for DML's response, it shows me a company that could give a rat's donkey about the consumer. After having to deal with them last year over an issue, which was NOT resolved to my satisfaction as a client, and then reading this diatribe on their site, I doubt I will ever spend any cash on their stuff again.

Greg

BlackOps · December 21, 2006, 03:43:27 PM

Greg, you think DML/Dragon is bad with customer service? You should try dealing with them reguarding their 12" action figures. You are correct that DML doesn't care about their customers, they are one of the most insecure companies I have ever seen, everytime a competitor announces a new product they rush to release one first :dum:

Like I said in my original post I don't know the gentleman involved, just seemed like he took the long way around...We've all had our good rants here and there so I usually reserve judgement until I've seen a repeat performance or two

Sisko · December 21, 2006, 03:55:48 PM

Hey Greg what kit was he referring to?

If Tom had explained what the issue was between him and Dragon from the get go, maybe my initial reaction to the article might have been different.

I had a look around the dragon website.

Holy cow talk about blowing one's own trumpet Humility is not one of their strong suits. If you talk so much about how good you are at doing something you leave yourself wide open for criticism.

Brian da Basher · December 21, 2006, 06:54:40 PM

I read the entire editorial and still have no idea what the kit involved was that caused the DML note on their site and Mr Cleaver's editorial.

I've seen many a review where I thought the reviewer was nit-picking the kit to death, but being a whiffer, complete accuracy isn't important to me. When a kit maker completely misses or there are serious production flaws, I want to know about it. But if the subsonic transducer is .002 scale cm too small I could care less.

Brian da Basher

cthulhu77 · December 21, 2006, 07:02:27 PM

Here is the preview that started it all:
http://modelingmadness.com/reviews/allies/...ws/tmc3251p.htm

What I did not care for was DML's instant run for the hills with a "you are just whining" sort of attitude, rather than, "hey, maybe we made a mistake, let's fix it." In my review of one of their sub kits last year, I made mention of the fact that my issue kit was delivered sans decals (I know, not much on a sub, but when you are sent a kit to review, you expect it to be complete) and they wanted to charge me for the replacement. Boy howdy...you'd think I just took a piss on their honourable grandfather's grave! Lack of customer service is too polite a phrase.
TC gave a fair and balanced preview of a kit that cost some bucks, and was dragged over the coals for it. Now, I might occasionally disagree with him on points, as he often does with me, but I sure as hell respect him as a no-nonsense model builder, and he shoots straight from the hip. I like that sort of honesty.

cthulhu77 · December 21, 2006, 07:11:33 PM

As a sample, here is my take on the Dragon Ohio:

http://modelingmadness.com/reviews/misc/sh...s/ewaldohio.htm

Note the comments. I received hell in email form for this one...

Brian da Basher · December 21, 2006, 07:29:23 PM

I'd say both of your reviews were very fair, Greg. The issues raised were hardly nit-picking. Thanks for shedding some light on all of this.

BTW, that sub looks goregous!

Brian da Basher

jcf · December 21, 2006, 10:15:05 PM

Actually Tom's review of Dragon's new 1/32nd P-51...which does look pretty dire, did not start all of this. Evidently some time back the Perth Military Modeling Site made critical comments about some Dragon armour releases in kit reviews...gee, criticisms in a critical review-what a shock, Dragon's response was to create their 'modelling' site and to attack Terry Ashley.
Terry Ashley's Editor Blog
Now they have apparently also gone after Tom.

Dragon are being extremely childish.

Cheers, Jon

Maverick · December 21, 2006, 10:47:42 PM

I just had a quick squiz at the review in question.

Now I would be the last person to bag out Dragon in any way, shape or form. I love their 35th armour & figures even if their individual links are tedious.

But the 'stang is something that you just can't screw up if you are dedicated to a good kit (i'm not talking rivet counter here, i'm talking nice). Having looked at the parts in question, yikes!!!!!!! The thing looks like something Junkers would have been producing in the 20s.

TC isn't the only one to bag out this kit and after wandering over to Dragon's modeller's forum I was left with a sour feeling in my mouth. Then to find out the bagged out Terry Ashley at PMMS, well c'mon, Dragon have been tooting their own horn long and loud about their armour, so if somebody decides to pull their stuff apart, so be it.. they started the ball rolling with their advertising diatribe.

I think Tom is quite right in his editorial, but BlackOps hit the nail on the head. I didn't even know it was about the P-51 until the link appeared here. Obviously he's jacked off badly regarding the kit and the flak he's received as a result, but a little bit of explanation would have gone a long way in the editorial.

Maverick

cthulhu77 · December 22, 2006, 05:37:02 AM

Oh yeah, Terry, TC, and myself have all been slammed by DML for daring to offend their "uberkits", as have countless other modelers. Their publicity staff sucks bigtime, as I stated before, the amount of rude mail that I received was astounding, at one point wanting a retraction. Yeah, right. 40 bucks for a sub kit? Who are you kidding? Especially since it jumped twenty dollars from the time I got the bloody thing until the time I built it (maybe a month?).
I think someone should make a puppet from Team America to represent the staff at DML. Then I can glare at it.