Is this the WORST Revell Kit? Focke Wulf Ta 152 H Model Kit in 1/72 Scale - Unboxing Review
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 09. 2024
- The Revell Focke Wulf Ta152 H has been a staple of their 1/72 scale plastic model kit range for many years. But sadly I can't really think of a good reason why.... So join me in this video as I take a look inside the box of this model kit to see if it really is one of the worst plastic model kits in the Revell range!
Please consider pledging your support to help keep the channel growing from strength to strength. Find out what's in-store and how to unlock additional perks here: / modelminutes
Join the channel to get access to perks:
/ @modelminutes
You can make one-time donations to support the channel via paypal here:
www.paypal.com...
If you like what I do, why not buy me a coffee over at ko-fi.com/model...
Come join the live conversation over at Discord, chat to other modellers in real time! / discord
If you want to buy any of the kits i've built or recommend - take a look here (it helps support the channel):
www.amazon.co....
Subscribe with notifications on to help support the channel!
/ modelminutes
I have a second channel where I like to upload other videos - take a look:
/ @mattssecondchannel
Let's get social!
/ modelminutes
/ modelminutes
/ modelminutes
This video is intended for adult scale model enthusiasts.
Model Minutes holds no responsibility for any accidents, damage or injury that could occur as a result of attempting to replicate any steps depicted in this video. This video is intended for entertainment only.
All information in this video is believed to be correct at the time of editing. Model Minutes holds no responsibility for errors or changes.
Unless specifically indicated, all products have been independently purchased.
Music used from Epidemic Sound:
Remembrance - Purple Drive www.epidemicso...
#Revell #TA152 #modelkit
Anyone selling what is a re-issue of a 1968 FROG kit without a warning of its antiquity deserves to be called out.
100%
It’s been out for years boxed by Revell. I built it in 1997 when I was a kid. It’s not a big deal unless you make it.
Or just look up scalemates.
True it came out in 1968 never had a new tooling , this set just has newer decals as stated ,which are pretty decent
@@BAGHEAD1995
Bandai has a better idea: print the mold date on the box. Every release does give the mold date. Even they’ve had some missteps like the Tristan, though.
Scalemates is an essential companion for some model makers' ranges
100%
With Revell you just know there is a big chance they "borrowed" the kit from another manufacturer.
Thank goodness for Scalemates! I no longer buy kits on the spur of the moment but always check on the database prior to purchase. I don’t have enough time these days to mess around with dodgy kits, and I want enjoyable builds that do not require too much fettling.
Very true!
I like the idea of companies using old molds and still producing old kits. However, they should be marked and priced accordingly. Airfix’s vintage classics range for an example is a great marketing strategy with the original art work. Airfix did release that bf 109-g with the swiss markings as a new kit while it was an old and simple mold.
The airfix Bf109G in Swiss markings was a Hornby era tool which is why it was in a red box, anything pre-Hornby would now be considered a vintage classic. I think it was tooled back in 2010 so was one of the very early Hornby era toolings that Airfix made and true, it is not up to their current level of details etc I can see why they would keep it in the red box normal range
That is the CHEAPEST kit on Revell's catalogue... So, you've been warned...
Revell old tool Mustang was the worst ever.
The Frog/Revell Ta 152 kit is old and basic, and although there are other kits available they're not so easy to find.
However, this kit is cheap and the decals are good, so you could improve this kit by buying the Eduard Fw 190 A - 8 kit
That has lots of alternative/spare parts which you could use to improve & detail the Revell kit
The basic shape is fine.
The kit could use a new cowling, propeller, and air intake scoop for the front.
A resin cockpit tub, and a vacuform canopy.
A new undercarriage with wheels would help.
There are/were three resin detail sets by Kora? for this kit. The Eduard kit would be less expensive; but not as complete an alternative.
I saw a website where the modeler sanded off all panel lines and drew them in in pencil. Looked absolutely outstanding with that and his extra detailing.
thanks for the info!
@@davidtorre7370 you need to change your comments from you need a new cowling ect to I need a new cowling ect. Cos I definitely didn't when I built it. Comment fixed you're welcome.
@@woodchild2093 I hope you enjoyed building the kit as it was. It does look okay on the latest box.
I only wanted to give info to other people who want to super detail it.
For example, the kits propeller blades are in the wrong direction. If that doesn't bother you; that is fine.
It`s an old kit but considering the price of arround 5,-€ it`s really good for a quick and fun build.
I`ve built this kit a year ago and if you put in some work for painting it comes out quite nice. It is what it is and therefore I´m personally happy with it :-)
I used this one as a mottling practice model
Who makes the Revell decals? It tells you, more or less, right there on the sheet itself.
Look at the code in the bottom left corner. The first part is the kit which the decals belong to. The second part has a suffix, if it says Z then a company called Zanchetti made it. If it says C like it does here then Cartograf made it. I found this out some time ago.
Thanks so much for that! Now I know 😊
I was given a Revell 1/72 Cosair for Christmas 2 years ago. It was missing a part. Half the engine cowl. So I emailed Revell. They sent another kit. It too was missing the same part. I emailed them again. They sent another. Same problem. I emailed them again. They sent 10 of the same kit and all 10 were missing the same piece. I haven't bought another Revell kit
that's insane!
Even though Revell does not warn potential buyers about the age of the kit design, I don't think it's Revell's worst model either. I built a couple of these babes in the 80s, when I was a kid (lost in the sands of ages since long), and I bought a fresh one in 2015, just for the gusto of revisiting old times. It's quite a crude model, but just right for a young child to become initiated in this hobby. And for the more experienced model builders, it can perfectly save as a way of trying out new techniques or as a challenge to turn such a basic model into a worthy contestant in a competition.
thanks for sharing!
As it is old kit Revell should do something like airfix vintage line. And Mat prop blade are molded revers compared this prop with some photos before gluing it.
I spotted the prop issue whilst I was building it, don’t worry I glued it the correct way round and will mention that in the video
I doubt this is worse than their reboxing of Frog's 1/72 Shackleton Mk.3 :)Of course that did come with a warning note that due to the age of the molds, quality wasn't quite up to Revell's standards....
sadly i didn't notice any such warning with this one
I've been building model kits since 1967. The frog kits are great as the provided unusual subjects that are not available from other sources. The kits are basic and not overly complicated. You can build them quickly and the decals provided are useable. I think the quality of the model is acceptable. I think the problem is, we have become spoiled by the current quality expectations are in conflict with the quality of nostalgic kits like this.
If you are a modeler with capability, it should not be an issue.
The issue i have is that Revell is marketing this as "new" in the range when it is far from "new"
@@ModelMinutes Agreed. Although this kit could be OK for the novice modeller and especially, young children, it seems misleading to disguise the kit in newer packaging. If I were 8 years old again, this model would be great fun for target practice with my Air Rifle, burning, or to "hang" from the ceiling. Revell were always the poorer cousin when it came to model kits in the 1960s, Revell has made many improvements and advancements since their move to Germany. I have few fond, nostalgic memories of Revell USA. Thank you for highlighting this underhand practice.
You’re bang on with what you said Matt. I’d still get one to hang over the pond but I think that’s about all I’d get one for.
fair enough!
Built this kit two years ago, not long after I got back into modelling. It was fine to practice airbrushing and putting decals on. It is pretty barebones, but I still have it on display because I managed to make it look presentable. Plus I love the late WWII Kurt Tank planes.
thanks for the info!
ALWAYS a great review….
I read the comments,
MODELERS know their models…
Been building REVELL since 1970… I always enjoyed their kits… some of REVELLS NEW tooling are pretty good…
I still like building the old stuff
Have quite a few REVELL and MONOGRAM kits in my stash
THANKS FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER….
CHRIS from OHIO 🇺🇸
Yeah, their me262 in 1/72 scale looks pretty good, it is just a shame that there is no way to tell good from bad
I built this kit twice, first as a Frog kit back in the mid 1970s. The again a few years later, "Adapting" parts from the Hasegawa Fw-190D-9 kit in 1/72 to make it at least marginally accurate. (Spinner and Radiator housing, Undercarriage legs/wheels and canopy/cockpit. It took a bit of effort but the end result (Except for the radiator front) was at least acceptable enough for silver in my IMPS competition in 1982. The Fw-190D-9 kit parts in 1/72 to make it at least marginally accurate were the Spinner and Radiator housing, Undercarriage legs/wheels, exhausts and wheelbays, and canopy/cockpit. It took a bit of effort but the end result was worth it. Then, just before I left 1/72 for 1/48 in the late 80s/early 90s, Dragon released a "Proper" Ta-152H kit in 1/72. AND 1/48 (after Trimaster bit the dust.) And YES, the old Frog release had a stand.
thanks for the info!
Sat here this Saturday afternoon building this kit what fun . Simple build . Another beer 🍻 needed . Time to paint . 👍
nice! Hope you enjoyed :D
If I read Scalemates correctly, this is a 2013 reboxing of the 1968 Frog kit. I have never owned the Revell version but I had the Frog kit many years ago. I sem to remember it was a frustrating kit. I was in my teens so I would not have noticed any historical errors, only how it went together.
yeah, it is one of the oldest kits in their range
You should look up the Revell P51D 04148. It's still being sold for some unfathomable reason. Horror show of a kit. Millions of overscale rivets, anyone?
EDIT: nevermind, I see you already did.
Review of that kit already on my channel 👍🏻
@@ModelMinutes I was typing while watching and then heard you comment on it at the end. Will go watch that now, thanks!
I used the decals and shelved the rest unbuilt. To build a 152 H I hunted down the Aoshima kit. The only problem I had using the decals was that the tail band was a bit short on the underside of the fuselage, not too much trouble colour matching with paint. For Luftwaffe colours my go to range is Mr Hobby acrylics, accurate and have a wide range.
When i built this one, the tail band didn't quite fit either so again a little paint rescued it
Swastikas?
@@ekspatriat not included, Squadron do a sheet of them in all sizes for all scales. Aoshima has them included on the decal sheet being from Japan and older kit.
Curious range of reviews online (Amazon). Ranging from 'clear instructions' and 'perfect for a beginner' [since when would an alleged 3 be a beginner kit??*] to '... one to avoid...' As with all Amazon reviews you have to read between the lines. Some are experienced modellers as they say this looks like an older Frog or Matchbox moulding, and one at least bought as a gift so has no idea if the actual kit is any good.
Personally I prefer CZcams reviews like this especially as reviewers like Matt and Gary - from Gary's Stuff - always give an honest no holds barred review.
Oh and as for the instructions, wait for Matt to do a build video and follow what he does instead :)
As for the display stand, if it is a rebadged Frog kit, the original probably did have a stand. Thingiverse has an STL file for a 3D printed stand, in fact more than one, but they seem heavily customised for particular models.
* Yep I agree, as usual Revell's skill level system is pants.
thanks! Yes, some amazon reviews are really unhelpful lol
@@ModelMinutes I think unhelpful is very kind *lol* I recall one router some reviews whined was useless as they had plugged it in and couldn't get online with it. However the instructions /clearly/ stated to make sure it was fully operational /before/ the computer was turned on. So it was 'user error', or what we in IT Support referred to as PEBCAK. Problem Exists Between Chair And Keyboard. Also a 'One Dee Ten Tee' error (ID10T) :)
Revell's range of WWII fighters is a mix of proper modern sprues and some serious retro stuff. I can remenber Me262 and Ju88 are of similar age. Without scalemates or online shop that includes unboxing fotos you're so lost! If you'll go to your local shop you may end up wasting a lot of time, annoying other customers and owner ;-)
yeah this is a problem
Built one for a Christmas challenge, to be fair it builds into a decent looking model if you correct the one or two flaws. And as it’s cheap, I’ve not much to complain about
being cheap is not my complaint
Not sure about anyone else, but my vote for worst Revell kit goes to the 1/32 AH-64 Apache from about 30 years ago. Every piece was warped or misaligned. EVERY piece.
can't say i have seen that one
I built it back in 2018. Not much to say other than a big gap between the wings and fuselage. If you ever build it, paint the RVD band, the decal included for the band doesn't fit the fuselage.
I did notice the decal band didn't fit - i used some paint to fill in the gap
Is this the worst Revell kit? Yes and no. It depends on you. You can get something good out of this kit. However, the wheels are really the worst thing about this kit. The best part is the decal sheet - very detailed. Very informative video. Thanks for that.
thanks for watching
I usually first do when i open Revell kit box is to take instructions and mark every color with number on color name instead of using that letter system Revell uses. Also i wonder can you use other Revells Fw-190 interior and clear parts to modify that kit ?
hmmm, it could be possible
I am mid-way through this kit at the moment. I hadn't checked Scalemates but I could tell straight away it was a re-box of a very old kit. For example, don't know if you noticed, but the prop is so thin it looks like flash! I have no problem with older kits, as long as they are boxed as such, like with the Airfix Vintage Classics range.
The prop also has the mounting hole on the wrong side, if you use it like that then the blades will be backwards 🫠
Those molded on exhaust stacks make me want to cry.
Would make a good practice kit though.
definitely!
This box is waiting for me on my shelf as a ultimate modeling challenge for the future :)
good luck!
I've got two of the buggers waiting for me!
@@andrewoconnor5108 Good thinking, you never know if you can make it first time with challenge this immense :)
The old FROG kit, it's simple to build and results in a good looking aircraft. There are quite extreme wing/fuselage gaps but the rest goes together OK As a junior builder, it was OK - a reasonable model resulted!
I re-visited the Revell boxing in the 2010s and was pleased with the result. Good markings and comprehensive colour scheme details etc. And I still see it for £5 in local toyshops.
An old more kit representing a Ta152H, but hardly a scale replica!
Exactly
FROG= flies right on and crashes to the ground!
lol defo!
Swear jar in place for the build? (Proceeds to Model's 4 Heroes)
haha maybe! (although it is already built - i don't remember swearing that much but it wasn't particularly amazing to put together)
@Model Minutes I remember swearing and sweating with ZTS Plastyk models (mig17, caudron, pzl37) but at the end of the day I was so happy that I built them because I could defeat all the flaws of the models and they really improve the skills of anyone with hundreds of hours of patience.
Totally agree with your assessment.
Thanks!
I haven't build the TA-152, but my worst Revell experience was two Ju88 back in the 80s. Yes, I bought two for a good price, but nothing fit. Last week I did the Fiat Cr 42 from Revell, and it was perfect in all senses. Revell seems to have some "Monday issues". You just have to be lucky.
Thanks for sharing
I recall this FROG kit, and back then this was an unusual, even exotic model. Like buying a French WWII fighter.
It's only because the Ta-152 is well known that it gets a re-release.
FROG kits like British jets get released ( by Misterkit most recently ), but things like the Italian and French fighters never seem to get a re-release.
It's cheap, easily updated or improved, especially if cross-kitted, and that's what I learned to do back then, and it's still what I enjoy doing.
I would never dream of telling someone to not make a kit. My best wishes. ;-)
I have built this one, there were some issues lol
Gosh, that makes me feel old!! I remember the frog kits in my local paper shop.
Sadly kits don't seem to be so accessible these days
It's amazing how when I was a kid in the early 1970's, this Frog kit was a good one, the only game in town if you wanted a 1/72nd TA152 apart from a Contrail (I think) vac form version and it fell together using the instructions (that Revell are still using) and the back of box full colour paint schemes. Mind you, Revell are very good at NOT telling customers that the kit is now very old and not up to current standards (all though a lot of fun to build still), they do it for their absolutely awful misshapen 1/72 P-51D Mustang from 1963 that just keeps on being re-released. 15 times (?) now. Revell really should take a leaf out of the Airfix book and clearly lable the old kits "Classics" and let the modelling public decide if they want to have a go at a vintage kit.
I agree, it is not hard to put a tooling date on the box lol
Like... you can do good by this kit. But man is Revell not making it easy on you, all in the name of getting a quick buck. This amounts to deceptive marketing at best, which is never ok under any circumstance. Don't get me wrong, I get wanting to get a good challenge out of a kit, and this one is a good selection if you are looking for that. But let's be honest here, that is in no way the majority, and it discourages new modelers wanting to get into the hobby.
All in all, I honestly think you've been doing the hobby a great service by calling companies out on this. It used to just be Airfix that wised up to it, and now we are seeing other companies like Heller do so as well. It's not to say they should get rid of these kits, or that they shouldn't be on the market. We just want our manufacturers to be *honest* with us about what they are trying to sell us. We expect that from any other company, why wouldn't we expect it from plastic model companies?
Yes i agree! Even Beacon Models which just made their first kit has put tooling and scheme dates on the box so you know the age
Details/panel lines are raised, should i try to oil wash it like on models with recessed details? Grabbed this and the BF109 G10
You can use a wash but it won't work in quite the same way, some shading might be a better option
Just subscribed, excellent format. Now I know why you have 36K subscribers!
Thanks for the sub!
About the slot you're right, it was for the stand, this kit was (in)famous for the wrong dimensions, as I read in a recension in late '80s, it's a real shame that Revell sells such an old kit, at least they could've tried to improve it.
yeah, they just like to rebox this one and squeeze money out of us
I agree, this is a predatory marketing strategy and should be unacceptable.
100%
Agree entirely with the practice of re-boxing an old tooling. It was why I permanently lost all interest in Airfix. As a young boy in the 1990s, my first kits were the Airfix WWII 1:72 ones. But year in year out they did nothing new with them in terms of variants and decals, so I moved on to other manufacturers which were. Then in the 2010s they repackaged the same old kits in red boxes, along with new kits in the same red box scheme. I mistakenly brought a few thinking they were part of a new retooling or even a new range. I was disappointed to find they were the same kit, decals etc. I was even more disappointed to find out that the kits I brought in the 1990s were themselves re-releases of kits from the 1970s and 1980s. When I brought it up my friends defended Airfix up to the hilt, due to nostalgia and brand loyalty. But I felt my trust had been abused. So now my stash has something from every other injection moulded company except Airfix.
Airfix have changed their policy so you should never experience that again. Any tooling pre-2006 (so before Hornby bought them) will only ever be released as a “vintage classic” kit with full transparency of the tooling age. Kits tooled after 2006 will be the normal red box range
@@ModelMinutes Thank you for the info sir. Subscribed!
@@neilsanghvi5229 thanks!
This is what Scalemates is for. It's a basic kit, but it goes together ok and when finished looks like a TA152H. It is really cheap though. Good for a beginner. Are there any better, more modern kits of the TA152H available?
Try the TA152 Dragon kit.
scalemates is such a good site
Hobbyboss do a nice TA152 in 1/48 scale so a little easier to work with perhaps?
Agreed on this kit I had a lot of trouble with it and compared to the airfix version even the old one it didnt have a scratch on it
thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Revell is the king of reboxed kits. Always check the history of the kit on Scalemates. Vintage kits are worth building, but no one likes to be duped thinking they got a newer kit.
I like it because it has a pilot figure. Planes look better populated. Hahahahahaha!!!!
Bill
Yeah, i try and look up the history of kits before I buy them these days
dude the color system actually makes sense. as you see, some letters consists of a mixture of different colors. Because the "real" color is just not available. So it would be very confusing if every part would have the mixture ratio. is this your first rewell model? They always do it this way.
Maybe some models arent perfect, but you do not need to find an issue just because you didnt got it right.
The only reason revell have to mix so many paints is because they don't want modellers to figure out that there are other brands that already have an exact match. This is why it is quite common to have paint mixes in the revell instructions using up to 3 of their own brand paints to get something simple that a multitude of other companies already cover.
Add into this the fact that they have already re-lettered the paint (rather than just annotating the paint number in the instructions) leads it into a much more convoluted and confusing system of colour call-outs. Let's not forget that being printed in black and white makes it almost impossible to determine which of the hatchings are really referring to the letters anyway...
It might make sense, and be understandable, it just isn't the easiest system to use when other companies have been using better ones for years
And no, this is not my first revell model, over the 20 years (or so) that I have been building them, the painting instructions are consistently a pain. Just because you are happy with the bad system revell uses, & i'm not, doesn't mean I'm necessarily wrong or didn't understand lol
I bought this just after it had been re-issued, and while it isn't exactly the best kit I've ever built, it stands head-and-shoulders above the Dragon kit I'd paid 10x as much for.
Not only was the flash-ridden Dragon kit, dogged by the same issues in the instructions you pointed out here (pretty standard for the time) the fuselage wouldn't go together if you fitted the engine, the cockpit wouldn't fit if the engine-mounted cannon was installed, the wings wouldn't go together if you installed the guns (let alone the spars)and the whole thing was a mess.
I used some of the Dragon parts (cockpit/spinner) to improve this kit, but it was just good to build something that resembled the subject.
While we really need more (and better) kits on this subject, the sad fact is that in the 1990s, this was the best Ta 152 kit on the market.
thanks for sharing!
I baught this Kit for 1€ and built it over 2 evenings. was fun...
that is a good price!
I noticed that toy and other shops selling only a reduced offer of model kits are often selling Revell kits and nothing else. A shelf filled with blue boxes.
yeah, probably because they are cheap to buy in wholesale
I built this kit three years ago. In the end it turned out good and I had fun painting it
awesome!
l've built it too. A straight forward build, clean and simple and it suited my what-ifffing purposes. An enjoyable build.
Thank you. Excellent and revealing video. Great filming, commentary and presentation.
Glad you enjoyed it!
This kid isn’t terrible, but is not up to modern standards, and should not be advertised as part of the modern range
I agree with your assessment of the painting instructions. Luckily some of the newer boxings of Revell kits come with full colour instructions which are very good - I think recent Revell instructions are some of the best.
The recent instructions are really good but still suffer from that odd paint labelling system
Do you feel better now?? You are right they should put the tooling date on the box.
100%
i had the Frog almost at the time it was released, and i was about 10 to 14 years old...and i loved it ! i got another a couple of years ago and it´s still awaiting on assembly line...pure nostalgia. I now want to try a new or more recent tool, preferably 1/48 or 1/32
nice!
@@ModelMinutes this week i got the Zoukey Mura H-0 @1/32, hope to assemble it next year
It’s not even close to been Revells worst kit. That goes to their 72th P51b which is unbuildable. The Ta152 goes together well
They had an Arado 234 back in the day with a separately moulded cockpit which didn't fit the rest of the kit: it wasn't that it was a bad fit, it was like it had come from another model entirely.
I've not seen the P51b, built the D version though and that was real bad
Yeah, it's an old and crude kit with crude instructions, but hear me out: it can't be the *worst* from Revell because there is such a thing as the 1:72 P-51 "Cookie" kit which doesn't even really look like a P-51. It looks like someone had one minute to look at a P-51 with no means of taking pictures of it and then was locked in a white room and tasked with creating a model from memory. Great video though... I agree Revell should be more straightfoorward about reboxing vintage kits. I'd probably buy lots of them just for the nostalgia if they did.
lol yeah, i've done an unboxing on that one too :)
The one time I failed to check Scalemates and I got bitten by Revell! Really disappointed with Revell as it seems a bit devious on their part. I do agree the transfers are the best part of this kit. I may just build it, spray it silver or gold and use it as a Christmas tree ornament. I'll use the transfers on the Dragon kit!
yes, i think it is a bit misleading
The kit costs 8 euros here and it's a perfect price for a quick fun build.
You do pay for what you get and can't go wrong with it.
Can't say the same for the Airfix "vintage" series, it's old molds just like this one but the fact that it says so on the box doesn't excuse their overpricing, you get much less kit in thye box from those and they are more expensive here as well.
You’re not exactly paying for what you get though, some of the newer tool kits from Airfix are at a similar price point as this kit… so dressing up an ancient tooling in a new box is a misleading practice. The vintage classics might be slightly more expensive (by only a few £) but at least they are transparent with their information
@@ModelMinutes I'm sorry, the tag "vintage" does not justify overpricing.
And it's something only Airfix does, the rest of the manufacturers use new art but price the kit accordingly, it's not a Revell thing.
At ther end of the day that is the only thing that matters, that what you pay for is what you get.
Back in the day they also made simpler and cheaper kits as well as better quality ones, the term "vintage" could mean anything, still the buyer expects the price to be justified.
Yes, a vintage kit could cost 20 pounds if it is one of the better quality kits of the day, with high part count etc.
This information is not communicated on the box, what year is the tooling?
It could be 70s, it could be 90s.
I keep hearing this excuse that by announcing it's a vintage kit you can't fault the price.
I totally disagree and will not expand further, people can draw their own conclusions.
@@christosswc lol, I don't think airfix are using the term "Vintage" to justify the higher prices - having spoken to them about the pricing of the kits in the range it comes down to various factors (including upgrading the instructions, printing cartograph decals, shipping, manufacture costs etc -and then still needing to make a profit) which all affects it. The vintage range are priced similarly to other models of similar vintages from other companies though...
Sometimes, vintage kits in the airfix range need to have new parts tooled which pushes the prices up again...
You don't have to change your mind and you are welcome to your opinion
Really annoys me when manufacturers sell really old kits presented in modern packaging without any indication of their age. I’m fairly clued up so I always check on Scalemates before any purchase. But what disappoints me is that the novice, especially parents buying for children, getting their first kit and they pick up something like this. These are the people that we need to encourage to get into the hobby, to keep the hobby alive, and starting off with something like this can be a real turn off, the end to their interest.
I often see advice for people new to the hobby to start off with something simple - here I agree and disagree at the same time. I agree with the suggestion of a simple kit but I would caveat that with a ‘simple, modern’ kit. In fact you can have two Spitfires from the same company, one is a classic dating back to the 1970s and one is much newer from the 2010s. The older one is probably a little cheaper which can attract people new to the hobby (false economy in my opinion). The older one will have less parts so fits with the ‘simpler kit suggestion’. But the older kit will likely suffer from poor fit, excessive flash, excessive mould lines and misaligned parts - it will be harder to build, and possibly beyond the skills of someone new to the hobby to get a good end result. Ironically, the newer, more complex kit will be easier to build, more satisfying and more likely to encourage the novice to buy another kit.
yeah, sometimes it is better to get a simple kit which if of good quality rather than a cheap kit which is bad, it can be more of a problem and be a bad first introduction
This is why you always need to do research before buying kits. Companies love doing this, and I don't blame them fully as new toolings cost an arm and a leg. That being said, it isn't that terribly hard just building an old kit with modern techniques. Even simpler things like rescribing and riveting the details adds so much. And I also have to add, you never seem to give Airfix flak for doing this when they do/did it a ton. Kits like the SBD, Kingfisher, B-24, Duck, Airacobra, Mosquito (fighter variant) Halifax, Ki-46, I could on and on. Almost as if you are being paid by Airfix....
I agree with you 100%. Revell has some ancient stinkers, but when you look at Airfix, well, I'm still leery of buying anything Airfix after the multitude of gloriously blazing plastic turds they've pawned off on us over the decades. Don't even get me started on Heller; Heller is French for "Can't be built".
sadly the chance to research a kit isn't always possible - especially if it is a spur of the moment
And no, I am not being paid by Airfix (that would be disclosed at the beginning of the video if I was) and they have learned a lesson regarding boxing old kits in new boxes (check out my Seahawk video) and I spoke to their head of brand about it and they will only box Hornby era kits (2006 onwards) in normal red boxes with everything pre-Hornby being a vintage classic.
So the difference here is that Airfix have stopped this practice but others still do continue to be dishonest with their products
Edit: TLDR Airfix don't get the same flak because they don't do this anymore
The worst Revell re-issue is their 1/72 P-51 D.
I have that one as well, it is indeed a terrible model
Had me fooled here I thought it was something new, thank you for the save 👍🏽
No problem 👍
Lol, 30 parts + canopy = 31 parts hence Difficulty Level 3 ;) Similary like airfix, revell is selling display stands independently, unfortunately like in airfix they are in a pack of three, one for each scale for some reason.
thanks for sharing!
So alot clean up prep work before assembly. i look at reference pictures before i start on a model or look at the blue prints online helps alot to establish what it actually looks like and go from there as sometimes some of the finer details are not there
online research is so helpful :D
Well I remember to have build that one around 1982 as a child, so no wonder it isn´t up to date anymore.
i'm not even sure it was a good kit back then either
It’s a £5 kit, not really sure what you were expecting, it’s never going to be a high quality kit at that price. Moaning about the age of the tooling, black and white instructions just sounds petty, this is the kind of kit I’d have bought as a kid. I wasn’t bothered about intricate detail back then, it was just for fun. I think sometimes modellers can take themselves way too seriously.
as mentioned in the video, from other companies you can get similarly priced models which are more recent toolings and are miles better across the board. I treat my review models as the age they are when I receive them - and as Revell are marketing this as "new" i will therefore compare it against other similarly "new" kits. For a recently tooled kit it would need recessed panel lines with a reasonable level of detail, easy to read colour instructions and high quality decals as that is what we have considered the "baseline" for modern quality standards. The only area this kit meets any of those criteria is in the decals.
If revell had marketed this as a "vintage" or "classic" kit in some way with clearly marked tooling dates then my review would be more lenient. The aim of this is to highlight predatory sales practices by these companies who sneak ancient kits onto the shelves in new boxes to fool unsuspecting modelllers into parting with their money.
It is misleading and without highlighting it like this in these videos I don't think the companies will change their practices without public pressure.
The Revell reboxing of the Lindberg FW 190 D was quite abysmal, too.
kinda want to get one to see it now lol
In my opinion the worst Revell kit was the P-51D Mustang ref. no. H-619 issued in 1963. I built it in 1975, I still have it, but is really terribile. Some flaws: the windscreen shape is wrong, the undercarriage panels are ridicolous, but there are many others. Also the painting scheme with the red fuselage (the real color was green or olive drab) is at least odd...
Yeah, that’s really bad, I also have a video on that one 😂
It is not only a questionable policy of not telling, when the kit was molded. It is also not OK not telling the origin of the tooling. Revell are well known for reusing other maker's moulds, some of high qualitiy (Dragon, Hasegawa, Eduard, IMAI, ...), some of lesser quality (ESCI, Matchbox, Frog, Fujimi, Protar, ...). Quite often I would consider to buy a kit wrapped in those horrible Revell "boxvelopes", if only I knew it was actually not really made by Revell.
This Focke Wulf kit is by no means the worst kit sold in a Revell box. Did anyone consider buying original Revell motorbikes? (Not Harley Davidson kits originally tooled by IMAI, those are actually good.) Yes, those were tooled in the late 60's or early 70's. But so were Tamiya's big scale F1-kits or Hasegawa's 1:10's scale motorbike kits, and those are way better. Revell should either consider giving their own old moulds a workover (as Italeri does with some of their older moulds) or sell them cheaply as the crap they are. Allocating item numbers to their kits of no apparent logic doesn't help in identifying kits of older origins either.
thanks for sharing your thoughts
Oh, just as I remember it, Pilot like a mummy, stick for a seat, fit is terrible, crude and frustrating ! Thank God I sold it off when I went to vehicles !
lol yeah, it's a very crude model
Your assessment seems Faerie Nuff. Revell holds few fond, nostalgic memories for me. I built several of their 1/72 Fighter Aircraft Kits in the mid 1970s as a last resort, when better brands were not available. I recall Revell's "Spitfire" as being a terrible build and a bizarre facsimile of this classic fighter. I understand that Revell have come a long way since those days, but the fact that they disguise old mouldings in new packaging leaves me cold.
yeah, it is a shame because they have so many good kits but mix them in with bad ones
I am just finishig tvis kit. At the assembly stage I ended not happy. But the paint stage sace the model, giving an basic an elegant Fw Ta152.
Wasn't the Ta 152 like the long nose version of the fw 190? If so, I prefer the normal fw 190 over the long nosed one.
yes, it was an upgraded FW190 in many respects
I have wanted this kit for a while because it looks cool and it's reasonably priced down in Australia
I hope you enjoy it despite the issues it has
In my opinion the kit is ok for 1968 and beginners. For a good result however, you have to take your time and enough putty. Details are allright but parts are a nightmare. The thing that annoys me the most is that revell doesn't include swastikas, not even parted out ones. It really takes the joy out of the build to have a model that feels incomplete but that is a common revell problem. I stay away in general from Revell for that and the reissue problem but some models are only available from them like the mistels and some other rare ones. In this case i decide if its worth it to complete the collection!
many companies don't include specific decals due to the legality in certain countries
@@ModelMinutes Even cut ones like in Eduard and some tamiya kits?
lf it,s simple to build , parts fit well and when completed gives a decent replication of the original that's fine with me . Personally l prefer the old kits as today modellers have become fixated on accuracy and detail , complicted assembly (6 parts where 1 will do ), photo esch and after market accessorises . Being an old man and stuck in a modelling timewarp these old kits have a charm that reminds me of my youth and are enjoyable to assemble . Don,t get me wrong , modern kits are fine in most cases although Trumpeter kits drive me to distraction .
My mistake . l love Trumpeter kits , it's Dragon kits that drive me to distraction .
thanks for sharing
...No argues here, mate... But you r talking about one of the cheapest models on market...
If it was Tamiya, it will cost 4 times more spencive...
i think that if it were tamiya it would also be better quality. Just because the model is cheap though doesn't mean it has to be this bad
Just wanted to get it 🤣 revell has some pretty nice kits. I recently got T-55 and it fits like a glove, though it has a crazy amount of parts comparing to some other tank models .
Yeah, they have some lovely models, but it is difficult to tell them apart from the bad ones
The fact that Revell decided to take an old kit and put it into new and beautiful looking boxes disappoints me. Couldn’t they just make an up to date version of the plane because that would definitely be a much better choice than literally putting old kits into new boxes and advertising them to be “new kits”
i think it is just cheaper for them to do this
Lack of transparency regarding the product's tooling has been something that has bothered me a few times from around the mid 2010s. I'm less offended by this particular range of Revell aircraft because I'm aware the blue pinstripe boxed products have been sold for at least 10 years. And to Revell's credit they offered copies of their instructions online which I would always view to determine if I wanted to proceed with a purchase. I couldn't say the same with a brand like Airfix.
That said. Revell have a fancier looking box branding now and any re-release of these old-timers must clearly state the age of the kit at the very least. They should not display a red banner on the front of the box nestling the word "NEW" written in big yellow letters, like they did with their second rebox of the Matchbox Chaffee; a nice kit doesn't change the fact that passing it off as "New" is dishonest. Airfix certainly made the right move when they designed their Vintage range branding and should be an example to be followed.
excellent points!
I saw this kit at my local hobby shop for $6.99. I thought "woah! An unusual subject for so cheap!" without consulting Scalemates like I usually do. What a treat I ended up building 💀 turned out OK but that raised detail was horrible and the panel lines didn't even make any sense compared to the painting diagram!
yeah i noticed that, the drawings are more detailed than the model so the details don't match up
IBG recently released astonishing fw190 set. For all 190 fans: buy IBG is worth of every penny.
thanks for the info!
It's not the experienced modellers I would be worried about. There are people who would seek out these kits, but the newcomers. It's the newcomer, who doesn't know that scalemates exists, the ones who don't know Revell's shady tactics. That's what I am more concerned about. Even Airfix's beginner line beats this ten feet under the ground.
They come in, buy this heap of stinking garbage because it's cheap and leave the hobby immediately.
yeah it is a shame
The video asks a question-"Is this the WORST Revell Kit?"-but doesn't actually answer it. It may be bad and outdated, but so am I, what of it?
Since we're being picky though, there are two each of parts 8, 11, 25, and 30, as well as unnumbered canopy = 35 parts in total.
And I think Revell use colour codes because on occasion you have to use a mix of their paints; in this case, B, E, and I. I do agree that other manufacturers do this better, but they're not pimping their own paint range.
Sometimes i will ask a question to generate discussion and allow viewers to draw their own conclusion as to whether it is the worst kit in the Revell range. I present my arguments for why I think it is the worst but there are people who could argue the P51 is worse, or another kit for example
I know this one and as a 10 year old I had my fun with it. But to me it´s not the worst Revell kit.
I recently built a Revell BF 109-G 1/48. No pilot included, a copyright marking molded onto a horizontal stabilizer...it´s from 1979 and looks quite good for its age. But especially the copyright marking on a large, visible surface makes it the worst Revell kit I´ve ever built.
A long "defense" for bad Revell kits:
When you start scale modelling in Germany, there´s basically just Revell. Nowadays, of course, there´s the internet and you could order Airfix, Tamiya etc. But when I started in the early 2000s, your local toy store had Revell, sometimes even your super market had Revell. And only Revell (besides Faller,Vollmer etc who make buildings and stuff for model railways)! So I bought Revell and was happy with it. Other brands were available in dedicated hobby shops, but the next one of those was quite a distance away. So I bought Revell, I got gifted Revell and I built dozens of 1/72 tanks and planes. All WWII. I also painted around 200 of Revell´s 1/72 figures (and now I can´t even get a squad of Space Marines for my Warhammer painted xD). At the age of 15/16 I stopped buying these kits and got more into the railways, then during university I started with tabletop wargames. Recently I rediscovered my love for "classic" scale modelling and naturally I went back to what I knew: Revell. But I wanted a larger scale, so I went from 1/72 to 1/48. After watching some videos on CZcams (like from this channel called "Model Minutes", awesome content, you should really check it out), I had the impression that, although it´s the easiest brand to get, Revell might not be the best brand. So I bought said BF 109 from Revell and a ME 262 from Tamiya. Twice the price, so I really expected twice the quality. And oh boy did Tamiya deliver... three times the parts, better plastic, far better details, a pilot, a full metal part to keep the nose down (Revell just says "put weight there" in the instructions if necessary), decals and painting instructions for four different pilots (although the schematics are printed black&white and the repackaged Revell BF 109´s instructions were in color). From now on I will probably try more different companies but Tamiya set a high bar for now.
Now here´s the "defense"... If I had never bought the Tamiya kit, I would have never realized how inferior the Revell kit(s) actually are. I had great times with my 1/72 armies and even with my BF 109 (except for the copyright marking). Only compared to the ME 262 I built right after, it sucked. If I would want to introduce someone to the scale modelling hobby, I´d still buy a Revell 1/72 kit. They´re cheap and their old toolings, low details and overall simplicity really helps. Especially for children, Revell is awesome. For the money I spent on my Revell armies, I would have gotten maybe a third of that stuff from Airfix etc. These "bad" kits do have their place in the scale modelling world and in my heart. They´re the perfect mix of model and toy and Revell is the only company I know that provides this mix for a price that´s very much affordable even for children and that doesn´t make you cry, when your sons JU 87 doesn´t stop diving during its dive bomb run... it´s only 12 bucks after all.
thanks for sharing! Some interesting thoughts
I built many Revell kits before getting a Tamiya kit. I hesitated before buying a Tamiya 48 scale Tomcat for 100 bucks/euros but I wanted to see and build one for myself to actually know what Tamiya is like. I didn't regret it.
Die Revell H-33 bzw. die heutige Revell 03958, auch heute noch ein schönes 1/48 Modell einer Bf-109 G10, wenn man etwas Zeit und Arbeit rein investiert und die Propellerhaube austauscht kriegt man ein gutes Endprodukt raus (und mit entsprechenden Werkzeug auch die Copyright Markierung)
Unfortunately, Revell is notorious with reprising, instead of updating, older kit subjects over the years. If you’ve built an original version of a kit then, many years later, you built what you thought was an update of it but find, instead, that you just built the same one, just with updated color scheme and markings.
yeah, it is a shame
Matt I need help when I do my models I use oil stain wash but when I put it on it makes the model stain do you know how to make it like a liquid like thinner then water?? Also I’m gonna do a hurricane but I want to add the weathering I need help so I don’t ruin it
white spirit can be used to thin down oil based washes - modelling weekly did a good video on it
@@ModelMinutes thanks I’ll check it out
Thanks for the warning, even though it's very cheap I'll save my money.
glad i could help :D
The kit is a Repop of the Old FROG kit but with better Decals
yup
Harsh, but fair. Revell do seem to resting on their Laurels a tad now.
thanks for your thoughts!
I'm fairly new to the hobby, but even now at this stage on my modelling journey, I know that the cheaper the kit the less will be the detail ( this one I just bought for £6.49 including delivery). Not in my wildest dreams would I expect this kit to be top of the tree. As you say, you already expected the black and white instructions, the misleading mould dates etc why complain when you get what you expect? It's a genuine question because I find this kit very good value for money. I will enjoy the challenges it presents, I am already thinking of scratch building the cockpit for instance.
that's not always the case - there are some really detailed kits out there for fairly low prices - some of the eduard kits are good examples of that
For a country that espouses the virtue of voorsprung durch techik I don't understand why Revell produces such sub standard products.....💩
probably maximum profit for minimum expense
Their 1/72 T6 G Texan is pretty awful aswell....that nearly put me off revell for good.
that sucks
@@ModelMinutes yep..lets just say i "tested" its flying capabilities before putting it in the bin....where it belongs...on the flip side i built 1 of their BF 109 kits after it and complete opposite...quality of plastic was excellent as was the fit of the parts....despite being both made by Revell they were like night and day.
@@ModelMinutes did you see the comment i lefft on your Mr Kit "is this the worst model" video Mat?
@@jaws666 probably, I do get a lot of comments though
@@ModelMinutes what i said was i bought one if their SU-7 "Fishpot" kits and even though it wasnt a double boxing there was enough parts in it to make a 95 % complete second kit....packaging dept weren't paying attention to what they were doing that day.🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
The Revell kit is ok considering it's essentially a re-issue from fifty year old Frog moulds. Makes up into a very good model with a bit of effort. I've made up a couple over the years detailed with FW190D bits from my spares box.
As long as people are “happy” with old moulds being sold in main ranges and not advertised as old kits, companies will continue to do it
Revell's 1963 P51D Mustang makes this look state of the art.
lol that is true
That's what I just posted. Haha!
one of my first kits i build, back in the 90's. I paid 6,95 DM for it :-D
nice!
Well I dunno if it's the worse but it really basic...............Can be made to look good with some time and effort.
It’s definitely in the top 3 lol
This is a very basic model and has some things outright wrong - the propeller for example - but at least the overall shape seems reasonably correct on this model. So believe it or not, it's not the worst Revell kit.
I would say that questionable honour belongs to the P-51D "Cookie" (Revell 04148) which has a detail level similar to this but is also hideously misshapen.
yeah that p51 is pretty bad