Interesting Editorial at MM

[Madoc]

Folks,

I read Tom Cleaver's editorial as well.  I thought he made some excellent points and I thought his perspective on things is what made the difference.

He didn't come across as some JMN carping about some truly esoteric and arcane bit of detailing which a manufacturer got wrong.  His criticism was not denigrating someone's best model making efforts simply because they weren't up to "museum quality" standards.  Nor was he slamming a manufacturer for utterly failing to be 100% accurate about some detail so minor that only one in ten thousand modelers would even realize it was wrong to begin with.

Instead, he was pointing out some very valid things.  I also appreciate the demand and drive for accuracy in these kits.  That Dragon 1/32nd scale Mustang currently goes for almost $50USD.  At that price and that scale such mistakes in the kits manufacture are both glaring and unacceptable.  I know I'd be mightly P.O.d if I'd just plunked down that much cash for a model from a major manufacturer and gotten such poor quality product in return.

Folks, why do you think we currently enjoy such high quality and highly accurate kits as we do these days?  It was through the efforts of plenty of modelers before us who demanded better quality products from the various kit manufacturers.  I really like the old Monogram 1/72nd Bearcat kit.  At the time it came out, it was as accurate as you could get.  Today, the Sword kit leaves it far in the dust and I'm thankful for that.  Look at the difference between the old Frog Gannet and the new Trumpeter release.  Or look at the PM Sea Fury compared to the Special Hobby one.

I know that as "Whiffers" we face a far more limited selection in kits (Luft '46, RAF '46, whatever obscure resin kits we can find, etc.,.) so accuracy and quality are different concerns for us.  I know that since we're going to be modifying some kit into something else, we're not as concerned about the original kit's accuracy or quality so much as how workable the thing is.  Then again, some kits are of such poor quality as to be almost entirely unworkable.  Look at the various TSR.2's out there in vac form.  Those were all we had to render that plane with before the popular demand for accuracy and quality convinced Airfix to make such a what if kit of that subject.

In this, I think Mr. Cleaver is spot on.  Yes, nitpicking can be taken too far.  Yes, this is a hobby which is supposed to be, by definition, an enjoyable pastime.  No, I'm not going to go off on a rant if I find my A+V resin kit of some Luft 46 paper project is three milimeters off in length and two in span.  But I'm not going to part with my hard earned cash for a kit from a manufacturer who can't even be bothered to get the basics right.  Especially for such a mainstream subject as a P-51.

Madoc

[BlackOps]

One thing I disliked about his rant was the throw it in the trash bit. Heck I know a dozen guys who would kill for the kit even if it wasn't his cup of tea. I think it's those kinds of comments that take any credibility out of his rant how ever right or wrong he is.

It reminds me of people who start swearing when trying to make a point, it dilutes your credibility.  

Don't get me wrong I'm far from a saint, but if you want to make a point you need to choose your words carefully, something else I'm not real great at...DOH!

On the other hand DML/Dragon is by far one of the flakiest bunches if you ever have to deal with them.

[Dork the kit slayer]

Got bored reading it second paragraph in -

me too, I did read it all and cant say I was impressed either way. A long winded justification obout an argument I wouldnt have seen had attention not been drawn to it. Im sure he has a point I just didnt like the presentation and so found it a bit of a yawn.

No offense to the guy.
 

[Jennings]

I know Tom Cleaver personally, and have seen his (prodigious) model collection.  He is truly an artist, and a master modeler.  He's also a historian and a true enthusiast.  He is *not* someone whose aim or intent is to stir up things in the hobby for the sake of stirring them up.  He *is* (as am I) a nitpicker, a stickler for accuracy.  If we're buidling 'scale models' then to my way of thinking, fidelity to the original (not necessarily talking about whiffing here...) is the number one criterion.  

Dragon has acted utterly and completely unprofessionally and childishly over their precious P-51 kit.  The kit is a piece of garbage, and they deserve everything they get for it.  I certainly won't be buying one, that's for sure.  Nor will I ever buy another of their products in the future, given the way they've acted over this.  I vote with  my wallet, and I vote for someone else from now on.

J

[Eddie M.]

I understand the Gentleman is well respected but, like Black Ops said, the part about throwing in trash kinda made me cringe. That's what probably made Dragon so defensive. He could have said he was donating it to the Lighthouse for the Blind to finish or something clever like that.    Either way, for a company to try and shoot him down was a dreadful mistake. I think they'll find that modelers will take Mr. Cleavers side and not the company.
    Eddie  

[monkeyhanger]

I am involved in several hobbies and I find this sort of attitude quite common. There are some people (like me) in the hobby to enjoy it. There are others who want fame and fortune from it. Ignore them. They do it for their own reasons, very different to mine. Its easy to get unpleasant about this sort of thing, my attitude is: don't do it.

I usually don't contribute to this sort of thing but I felt I had to to say that it is not uncommon in any hobby.

p.s. I had a great time build ing two Airfix Gladiators earlier this year.

[Alvis 3.1]

Dragon is certainly an odd company at times. They went great guns into aircraft, then dropped out of it for several years, concentrating on armour kits galore...then returned to aircraft again. Some kits are total monsters to build, and any detail there is wiped out by the amounts of filler used. They have had a good reputation in the armour department.

Customer service IS important, and with Trumpeter breathing down the necks of some of the established companies necks, I find it odd Dragon is apparently so difficult to deal with. Then again, I really wonder about connections between Trumpeter and Dragon, as both are based very close geographically. I think they believe they have a good chunk of the market and customer loyalty, and they can produce whatever they feel and we will buy it regardless. Ah, the face of faceless multinationalism!

As somebody who has tussled with Mr Cleaver in past, I honestly wasn't fully impartial when I read his review, but to be honest, it was quite impartial. His usage of colourful expressions may be, um, excessive slightly, but his salient point was there...the kits sukketh!


Alvis 3.1

[Jennings]

the part about throwing in trash kinda made me cringe. That's what probably made Dragon so defensive.

I'm sure it made a lot of people cringe.  But there are a couple of points here.  First, Tom is an American through and through.  As I'm sure most of you know, Americans can be quite, um.... direct... at times.  Even our so-called "president" has stated "I don't do nuance" in the past (gross understatement however, is one of his strengths apparently).  This trait of directness is not shared, nor even understood by many other cultures, especially Asian cultures.  Just because someone is direct and to the point doesn't always mean they're trying to be vicious or hurtful.  It's just his way of speaking (in person as well as in writing, btw).  

Secondly (here I go being an American), there is NO excuse *WHATSOEVER* for *ANY* company anywhere in the world in *ANY* business to react like this.  Ever.  Period.  As I saw someone else post on HS, and it's a good analogy, what if the likes of Ford or Microsoft were to pull this kind of stunt because someone criticised one of their precious pet products?  They would look exactly like the idiots they were.  Even if the product is perfect (which no product ever has been nor ever will be), and even if the criticism was totally unjustified, there is no reason for a company to react to this kind of thing.  Now, if 25,000,000 people start saying your product is garbage, and they all start not buying it, then maybe it's time to take a look at your product and think about a re-do.  But just because a few dozen (at most) people on a couple of web sites are trashing your product is NO excuse to start acting like a schoolboy who has had sand thrown in his face by the 6th grade bully.

Could Tom have worded things differently?  Sure.  But in the end, is he (at least in my opinion) completely within his rights and, in fact, is he *in* the right on this?  Absolutely.  And for Dragon to have made such a (as we say in America) federal case out of it is ridiculous in the extreme.  It's things like this that turn me off a company as quick as anything.  It's completely analagous (on a much smaller scale) to the way Exxon behaved after the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989.  I haven't purchased a single drop of petroleum from Exxon since that episode.  Have they been hurt by that?  Probably not (as their record profits show).  But I can be satisfied that I'm no longer supporting the kind of corporate behavior that they displayed.  Ditto Dragon.  I won't buy another one of their kits until they show some maturity - and more importantly, until they put out a product that's worthy of my hard-earned money.  Their P-51 isn't.

Just my little old opinion..

J

[Eddie M.]

Jennings,
  I dig what your saying. Having lived in Japan, it was very hard to get any Japanese to tell you what was really on their mind. Must be polite and save face, don't ya know . Maybe it was calculated on Mr Cleaver's part to say it the way he did. Having learned a lesson or two for being too direct, I might have been polite and ignored. He definately got their attention and with the reactions all around, Dragon would be ignorant to not pay attention to what's being said. The power of the internet, good or bad has changed the way business is done.
   Eddie    

[cthulhu77]

DML has a really lousy customer outreach program, that is for sure.

  I must eat some crow on this one, as early on, I posted that I thought Tom should have at least built the kit, instead of pitching into the trash.

  Until yesterday.

  After over forty hours of work on a relatively simple project, I took a hard look at the model, and decided that it would never, ever, measure up to my standards...it died a valiant death, impacting into my studio wall and scattering hundreds of styrene bits all over.  Was it a waste of time? Perhaps...though there were some lessons learned, and some new techniques discovered.
 But, all in all, I can now completely understand TC's circular-filing the P-51...you just don't want that piece of garbage being associated with you in any way, shape, or form.  To that end, I must apologize to him for speaking when I really didn't know what the hell I was talking about. Lesson learned.

                 Greg Ewald

[ysi_maniac]

The best destiny of a bad model is not garbage bin but    BEING WHIFFED  B)  B)  

[Eddie M.]

And the debate continues........
http://cs.finescale.com/forums/1/722608/Sh...ost.aspx#722608

[John Howling Mouse]

I'm glad for the uploaded pics that clearly show the prop blades as NOT being "flat," contrary to Tom Cleaver's description of them in his own review.  I'm going to look for other pics of the real thing and judge for myself.  Am hoping this will be a kit worth buying.

If I could just find one at any of my LHS's!

This review has pics of the actual kit:

http://www.largescaleplanes.com/reviews/Ki...gon/p51/p51.htm

[Daryl J.]

Given the elementary tooling (see the Airfix Spitfire Mk.IX as another example, or Revell's F/A-18E or F) quality of the kit, coupled with it's immense populartiy of subject, and multiplied with the electron-killing world of cyberspace we live in today, I just had to get a couple.

To Whiff them.

The aircraft will be named "Buzzard Bait"
So, a question:  

Silver lacquer wings and oxidized aluminium fuselage with a yellow nose (a la Detroit Miss) ---or---

Overall faded OD green/Neutral Grey?


Daryl J.

[cthulhu77]

I guess that for under forty bucks, it isn't horrible...but, it is still almost 40 bucks, and it is really poorly made.