The worst box art

[philp]

OK, know a lot of people have made fun of the Airfix Buccaneer box art with the Zero going down in flames but what else is out there where the artist just didn't get it right.

In the LHS today and saw the 32nd scale Kinetic F-86.


While the Sabre doesn't look too bad, what is up with the Mig in the background?

So, what else is out there.

[rickshaw]

Nose is MiG15, wings look like F-86 and tail looks like a mix of the two.   

[Alvis 3.14159]

There's the Testors F/A-18 boxart, using a photo of a completed model, which is missing one of the nose gears.

Dragon on their MiG-15 boxart had a B-36 in the background, which appeared to be the lesser known five-engined variant. There was a definite omission of the number 4 engine prop on the far  wing, it should have been visible.

Any one of a variety of ex-Soviet Union ex-Frog kits with the pencil crayon-like doodlings.

Hasegawa RCAF Sabre with CAF roundels, and the bizarre Saskatchewan-like ground below the Typhoon from them as well. Maybe there was a Nazi incursion into Saskatchewan in WWII we have never been told about?


Alvis Pi

[Maverick]

That Kinetic box art looks wrong all over.  Even the F-86 looks a bit skewy.

Wasn't there there an odd box art for the Revell Graf Zepplin aircraft carrier too?  I seem to recall some discussion about it on here a while ago.

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

Speaking of box art, who else thinks the idea of putting a built model as the box art is, well just not right?  I personally prefer the Airfix ones by Roy Cross.

[Litvyak]

I've often wondered why they don't more often just use photos of the real thing as box-top art...

[philp]

Here is the Mig box art Alvis mentioned.

[Maverick]

Whilst quite plain when using the model as box art, at least you have a genuine idea of what the finished product should look like.  I've seen the odd box art where the end result is something quite different.

As for photos, Hasegawa does it quite a bit, although I can't say I'm a huge fan.

Regards,

Mav

[puddingwrestler]

Ah. but the photo can get it wrong! The old MPC (or maybe AMT) X-Wing fighter had details very badly airbrushed onto the darker shadow areas of the underside.

[James]

OK, know a lot of people have made fun of the Airfix Buccaneer box art with the Zero going down in flames....

I've never noticed that. It dates from before my time, but I can't believe I missed it.

[ChrisF]

I think the reason for not using actual builds is more likely down to time constraints, Regular readers of model mags will attest to reading about "test kits" being built without instructions or decals because the full retail kit isnt finished yet... Might explain that missing nose gear alvis

[upnorth]

I think that the finished model as the box art is pretty questionable practice.

I remember when Revell and Airfix were doing that back in the 80s. It just left me cold as the models were obviously slapped together in most cases.

Hobbycraft Canada's box art was quite dire stuff through the 80s:

[Maverick]

Hobbycraft's box-art certainly matched the quality of the models they produced quite often.

Nice box art is obviously a good thing, whether it be a photo, artwork or the model itself, but it's the building of the kit that is the real test, surely?

Regards,

Mav

[NARSES2]

Understand your sentiments Mav but Box art sells kits, pictures of finished models don't. Simple as that. Personally I'm a sucker for good box art.

I'm just glad Airfix have gone back to the old style stuff. You even get "enemy planes" in flames in them again now after years of that being politicaly incorrect 

[pyro-manic]

Wasn't there a legal reason for the photos of the model as box art for a while? I'm sure I read that somewhere. Trades descriptions or something, i.e. the box had to show what was inside.