I have been modeling for 65+ years. So, I may be able to provide a little insight. Those toolings from the 1950's and 60's are not meant to be historically accurate. They were intended as toys for little boys of that era. As long as it looked reasonably correct, that was all that was necessary; to keep a boy occupied. It wasn't until the 70's that companies started to make an attempt at the historical part of it. A lot of companies from that era have bit the dust. Aurora, the original Revell, etc. That's one part of modeling I don't miss.
There was a definite element of imagination filling in the gaps, so it wasn't so much of a problem at the time. The problem that arises these days however are those same kits being sold be companies that don't indicate the age of the toolings. Especially when they are alongside newer, more accurate toolings in their range. This results in a very inconsistent brand identity and can ruin a modeller's experience with that kit and company
@@ModelMinutes Particularly in the case of a company selling the molds to a different company, who issues the kits with a complete rebox (as opposed to the Airfix Classics kits, where you know in advance you're just getting a kit produced from old molds), they don't tell you how old the molds are because the ready availability of information on the Net can inform people not only of whether a kit is new tooling, but go over the details (or lack of them) in reviews and build logs; in order to try to recover what they spent on acquiring the molds -- which may not have been well-treated by the original owners -- doing their best to conceal their age directly helps their bottom line.
What I hate the most about that Revell Mustang or all of Mistercraft is that they have the potential to turn people away from the hobby, since they'll think this is the standard they should expect from model kits.
Yes, this is 100% true. It is a conversation i have had with the head of brand with Airfix in the past - who understand that a positive experience is likely to encourage repeat modelling and create a lifelong modeller
Well, Mistercraft is very cheap so quality reflects price. Smer is better in this regard tho, at least decals are decent. Revell on the other hand. Gosh that Mustang looked terrible even for 1960s kit.
I've argued this for many years. For example, father and son have just watched Goldfinger and love the car. They see the ancient Airfix Aston Martin and build it together. They aren't expecting ejection seats or revolving number plates, but nothing fits, nothing sits right, they end up with an awful build. Are they likely to build another kit? It's unlikely. On the other hand, they've watched Battle of Britain and see a Tamiya 1/48 Spitfire. Boy what a beautiful build! What's going to encourage them to get in to the hobby?
@@MisterHampshire The price of Tamiya kits steers most folks clear. What I hate most about rivet counters is that they can't distinguish between a model and a replica and think they are interchangeable. Wrong.
The Airfix "vintage classics" Tiger is a model of the partially derelict vehicle that was (at the time the kit was designed) kept at Aberdeen Proving Ground. This is why details like the exhaust covers, tools and "rucksack" are missing.
@akula9713 the ethics of companies' marketing kits with sprue castings dating from a human lifetime back messes with my head. If it's "okay" to do this, I don't think it shouldn't be published if they're poor kits. Younger modellers could be unaware. I do note Airfix now label Vintage Classic on the box.
@@85inexact sometimes with an older tooled kit, the challenge is to make a silk purse out of a pigs ear. Some older kits I enjoy, others are sources of frustration. It’s a great hobby that keeps me away from the pub and loose women.😂
10:20 fun fact: very early Tigers didn't have the rear turret storage bin. It was thought during the design stage that the Tiger had enough storage space inside. However in practice, crews disagreed and would "repurpose" the bin from a Panzer III. It was 4 months after the Tiger began operational duty (August 1942) that it received it's own official turret storage bin (January 1943).
The newer Heller releases with the (very) yellow boxes now include the year when the tooling was originally made, and when it was last overhauled. They've issued the F-86 in their own box and decals (with the same schemes offered when it first came out), and theoretically should be a lot less prone to disintegration.
Yes, I think having a go at that re-release might be worth a visit to see if it is a better version. That being said however, I haven't experienced any proper heller boxings in recent years so I would be keen to try some of their newer toolings
Dora Wings is a short run manufacturer, so the kits are not easy like mainstream kits. Often instructions are full of mistakes. The trailing edges are intentionally designed so that it's thin, but then there's a seam in the middle which has to be filled.
yeah I noticed these issues. I had seen the Vanguard which is a more recent kit and it looked lovely, so thought I would give this one a try but it doesn't seem to be quite the same in quality
The Dora Wings 'Jeep' is one I have in my pending pile, and I am looking forward to putting this interesting design together. Your comments on the buildability are to be expected - in my experience, Dora Wings produce some very interesting models that no-one else will ever touch so hats off to them for that. They are therefore, not a mass producer of kits but provide limited run subjects as they are not going to be competing with the bigger brands that do all the obvious stuff (F 35B anyone?). That means that their production methods will probably be somewhat limited so a bit of experience will definitely help. I have built both versions of the Curtiss-Wright CW-21 fighter, both were pretty straight forward to build with nice detail. They did feature the lack of locating pins/holes and a lack of clarity in the instructions, both points I am sure they could improve on maybe with feedback from the modelling community? That said, nothing a decent kit-builder couldn't cope with, I suggest a little on-line research on your chosen aircraft will help too. Thanks for covering this one.
I'm so thankful for the past history of the kit feature on Scalemates. Great tool for us modelers! Nice video, thanks for warning me about that Tiger 1 kit. Looking to build one soon.
@@asdf9890 have a look at Tamiya, they have 3 main tiger 1 models: Early, middle and late war production models, and have a really diverse decal set and design process. I have built them before, and they look amazing when done. They are in 1:35 scale however, and the mid production tiger has some issues with the tracks, as they are in individual pieces and are very time consuming. Other than that they look great!! And are super simple to build!!!
I enjoyed working with the Bristol F2B model shown in 7:26 back in 1970's. I was a kid and I don't remember it was a bad kit. Probably I didn't know anything better.
Excellent video. I’ll now watch your “best of” video. Oh I’m currently building a 2 foot Nostromo. Though it’s been on hold for the last 6 weeks due to me injuring my hands and having 2 operations to try and fix them. Ps. Don’t take your thumbs for granted. I’ve for the time being lost the use of one of them and I now realise how vital it is! 😳🙄😩
I bought the Fiat, non complete moulding, airfix did send out replacement parts but terrible. I like making the older kits due to simplicity and nostalgia tho.
OMG - The Airfix Fairy Rotodyne! I did the redo on the instruction sheet for AIrfix where we have to clean up/replace the original instructions to update them a bit for the modern market. Not sure we should have bothered as it is definitely showing it's age, poor mould quality, dodgy fit, horrible transparencies, you name it (the Bristol Belvedere is definitely in this bracket too). These re-issues are okay for a nostalgic travel back in time but I for one am much happier buliding the likes of Eduard's superb toolings, they are a breath of fresh air! I know that's comparing flintlocks to AR 15 assault rifles but I take the less stressful route these days.
@@ModelMinutes There are many issues with it. As well as it's age, the tooling is for the prototype, not the service version. This means a lot of work to get it up to snuff, it's a pretty poor representation of the prototype too! Hard to know what to do about this subject, no one else makes a kit of this chopper and they're not likely too either.
The airfix WWI set gave me so much trouble and a few of the pieces came bent it was the first kit I have binned. The second being the revell tugboat I bought before learning of scalemates. Horrid kit nearly turned me away especially when I learned it was a 50s tooling with no indication on the box. Partly my fault but I think it should be taken off market.
A poor kit I built a few years back was a 1.72nd Revell Texan. It was worth buying for the decal sheet however which was so big it was wrapped around the kit in the box! Useful for Academy products whose decals were so thick they wouldn't follow curved surfaces...
Recently, for Christmas, I got both the Revell 1:87 scale Union Pacific Bog Boy and the Revell 1:72 scale Mig-29S Fulcrum. I built the Big Boy, and it's a really amazing kit (even though it dates back to 2003). I haven't built the Mig-29 yet, but I do know it's a bit more complex than the Big Boy. However, I do not intend to build my Mig-29 fully due to the fact that I want it to look like the fictional, sentient Mig-29 known as Big Jet (who has a simple design). Hopefully, the build will go well.
Hello! I confirm for Dora Wings. I assembled the 1/72 Westland Lysander from the same brand and it was a nightmare. This manufacturer should review his conception of modeling.
A friend of mine likes building vintage "Turd" models, but he enjoys building them well. His Airfix 1/76 Tiger 1 project prompted a mold and resin castings of new exhaust covers, rear fenders and turret bin to fit his model. I made him 4 sets of castings, just to see him build his Tiger I well. Dave's results are not so very different from your own.
I admit. I do gravitate towards the Airfix Vintage Classic range. Yes, it's true that the tooling has seen better days and the build takes a bit more effort, but isn't that the point? If I wanted a kit that would (in a manner of speaking) build itself. I'd buy Tamiya. The Airfix Tiger I took a Fujimi kit to bring it up to snuff. The Bristol/Fokker kit was a little disappointing , as it didn't include the original A stand. I ended up buying a scrap Dogfight Double kit, just to get the stand. My Fiat G50 went together rather well. I enjoyed that build.
It's been awhile since I've put a model together and the companies of the models are a little fuzzy in my memory but the Testor's 1/72 scale Starfighter was pretty poor-lacking many details. My g-friend picked me up two Airfix British Electric Lightnings when she was in England and EACH had important parts missing (such as the canopy). To Airfix's credit, they did mail me replacement parts but I should not have had to go through such bother in the first place. I think it was a Havoc or some other light or medium bomber but some of that kit required that an important part "hang in space" rather than providing a useful anchoring point. I didn't know WHAT to do with that and I think the model was relegated to the trash can. Have had several models with decals that disintegrated.
Some kits just fight you every step of the way whether they be good or bad kits it’s an experience I had with Arma hobbies Mark I Hurricane kit in 1/72. I’ll admit some of the trouble was my own fault . Like spilling a bottle of extra thin over the decals and watched in horror as the liquid advanced so the every colour the liquid hit then dropped the model breaking off the under carriage legs . The only part I can blame the kit for is that the assemble of the cockpit could be clearer in the instructions. As I built mine slightly incorrect and it wouldn’t fit in the fuselage halves but in all a good kit even though I created some of the issues with the kit. Not every kit you build will go together like you expect even those of good quality can have issues maybe you unwittingly create them or have accidents happen or just stuff up the paint work or decals which anyone can do even those of us with experience of 100 plus models.
Some early and very late versions of the Tiger 1 did not have the storage bins at the rear of the turret. Looking at the running gear, the model is of a late war Tiger with all-steel road wheels. So the lack of storage bins is prooably okay as long as the paint scheme matches such a vehicle. I made this kit back in the sixties, and to be honest I hated it. But it was all there was until the 1/87 Riko Minitanls version came along.
I’m thankful that airfix puts the vintage classics on the model so I know to avoid them. I just bought an HMS Campbeltown from 1964 because it was $16. I’m now interested as to what the best vintage classics model kit is
It’s not surprising that, with the exception of Dora Wings kit, (which, as someone already mentioned, is a limited run kit and most definitely intended for modellers with a good few kits under their proverbial belts) all the kits mentioned were tooled prior to the early ’70’s when the quality of mole capable from the tooling was limited. As you noted, Airfix are to be commended for being quite outright in stating that these kits are not new toolings so you know exactly what you’re getting. Mister kraft kits you’re generally lucky if what you get in the box bears ANY resemblance to what’s on the box and are all very old toolings and their decals are all rubbish. The problem with old toolings, aside from the wear & tear done to them over the years is that they weren’t necessarily even remotely accurate to begin with and their packaging often results in broken pieces. You may also find you have more success with using different glues- for example, trying to fix the prop on the rotodyne with super glue/CA rather than liquid cement and Tamiya extra thin works best when the opposing surfaces are held together rather than applied as more traditional glues to one or both surfaces and then pressed together. Also, when using more traditional plastic cement, limiting the amount of glue you place on a surface prevents excess glue from being squeezed out from the joints and potentially damaging the surfaces. Lastly if you’re going to use lead shot as “weight” don’t use super glue/CA to hold/bond it as it reacts with the metal (I’ve heard of similar reactions with steel ball bearings but can’t confirm)
I’m using liquid gravity as my ballast, a product specially designed (supposedly) for this purpose and I haven’t as yet, noticed any reactions with the glue
depends on what you mean by "normal". If you take a look at any of my build videos you will see the kinds of products I use, ranging from hand painting acrylic and enamel paints, using spray cans and also airbrushing acrylics and lacquers
you need to check that the spray paint is safe for plastic. Even if you go to the shops there will be different kinds. No good getting "any" spray can if it isn't plastic-safe and only suitable for metal etc. Wouldn't want it to melt your kit. Just read the label on the can and make sure it is suitable for plastic
Hmmm. I haven't built a kit since the early 1970s. At that time, I built a few A/C kits, 1/32nd scale. for my young son to play with. I also gave him my old built kits from the 1950s that I built as a young boy. I noticed the usual size of this video was 1/72nd scale. Are the 1/32 or 1/48 models no longer produced or too expensive? The point is, as you said, "Did I enjoy doing it?"
Interesting points..... Personally I love the 'Vintage Classics' from Airfix, as they generally are simple, uncomplicated builds and normally without parts so tiny that they snap on the sprue when removed, in order to be 'to scale', something that many more modern kits suffer from these days. If you really want to build an 'interesting' kit, I recommend the Marivox 1/72 SAAB 105 kit, one of few kits I have ever binned... although I did buy a couple more, which I have since completed, and I have two more kits to build, mainly because the kit give you the option of 4 different versions, including a photo recon / light attack aircraft. Unfortunately the decals falls into the same category as the MisterKit decals, ie, they split and disintegrate far too easily.. :(
@@ModelMinutes Yes, it has a bit of a (bad) reputation. The Marivox 1/72 kit of the Saab B17 however is a good kit, so if you feel like doing something a bit different to the norm, get yourself one of those.. The kit gives you the options of three different engines, floats, skis or wheels and decals for Finnish, Austrian, Ethiopian, Danish and Swedish aircraft, including target tugs.. :) Ps: The Danes never used theirs in active service, but a B17 in Danish markings can be seen at the Danish Museum of Technology in Elsinore, Denmark.
Back when I (re-)started my modeling hobby, in 2012 I believe, I was also "tricked' into purchasing that Revell 04148 kit.... When I opened the box I was absolutely shocked to see how bad it was. I immediately contacted the company that sold it to me (as part of a larger order) and sent them some pictures. They were shocked as well and said they had no idea it was such a bad kit. They returned my money, with an apology, and told me to please not send it back to them, but instead just bin it, or ritually burn it, whatever pleased me most 🤣 hahaha! That was funny! 🤣 They also immediately removed it from their inventory. Some resellers are NOT jerks out to con you 👍 Shame on Revell, though! They keep doing this over and over again, with a LOT of their kits. They have moved waaaaaay down on my list of preferred manufacturers, and I will only purchase a Revell kit if absolutely NO other manufacturer produces that specific model I am looking for. In general, after having had a few of those experiences, I have become VERY careful when ordering kits and will do extensive research before purchasing anything!
I've got experience with Mister Craft ...It's 72nd UH-1 Iroquois kit....Well,the box art quite stunning and instructions pages was printed in nice 3D CAD but the kit was totally "Mister Craps".I've can't believe the mold just goes back from 40yrs ago.
If you want to try another really bad kit from mistercraft, do the bm-8-24. The plastic is really cheap, the instructions are for a different katjusha kit. The only actual instructions from mistercraft are the ones for the different top, and the suck. There is a lot of problems with the tracks also. It's 8 pounds in my country so the quality is expected.
I agree with model companies putting the date of the tooling on the box, its the same way with car models, except alot of us older car modelers kinda expect it, and its not so bad being a car model, but the newer modelers who do not have the knowledge of the old kits get turned off from the hobby by buying these kits and expecting something more
I think the worst I ever made was a 1/72 Tu-2 from some Eastern Bloc country, maybe Czechoslovakia. The plastic was weird and the details were very crude. It took a lot of work to make it presentable. Strangely enough, the decals went on well. The second worst would have been a Novo Gannet. Both of these were more accurate in shape than the Airfix Defiant or Bf 109G-6, but that was about all they had to recommend them.
Are you referring to the old Airfix Defiant? Because that was the wrong shape - there is a new tool of that kit now though and it is much more accurate
The worst kit I built last year was the Bronco Valentine mk. XI. On the one hand, it's overcomplicated mess. And while the details look good (I can't judge how historically accurate the kit is), some parts were literally twisted. And in my experience, the Bronco decals are terrible. This isn't the first Bronco kit I've built and they've all had the same quality of decals.
I have a 1/144 F-15 Eagle that I botched horrendously because it was my first plastic model. I'd like to turn it into debris for a diorama, better than just throwing it away.
Matt you need to get the Revell 1/32 F4U-1A Corsair. I bought this as it was a cheap deal for a 1/32 kit but after watching a few UA-cam videos of it, the kit looks like i should never have bought it 😂
I’m sorry but the firefly having a Hull MG is not a ‘small inaccuracy’ Also, Ik you mostly do Airfix kits but if ‘Amount of schemes’ was a factor, Airfix do NOT belong on this list whatsoever.
The whole nose of that Mustang looks completely off. It's a bit unfair including a few Airfix Vintage Classics in your list. You know they are going to be flashy, poorly fitting and low detail before you buy them. At least you get new Cartograf decals with them. I've been building a number of 1970's Airfix kits from my father's stash over the last couple of years, and they have not been easy to build, but they have all turned into decent models. Sure, they needed a ton of putty, but considering how old they are, they still come out looking nice. A modeller with your experence should be up to the challenge.
I think it is fair to include airfix vintage kits. Just because you are told the tooling age of the kit isn't a free pass for the model. If it is objectively a bad experience, which the ones in this list were, then I think it is fair to include them. Did you watch the other video where I look at my best builds of the year, a vintage kit made it onto that list this year . . .
Agree the Revell Mustang is awful and, like the Airfix Tiger, doesn't offer anything I can discern - I am not a rivet counter type of modeler but neither of these really look much like the real thing, they have fit issues and there are any number of kits in the scale that are better visually and less horrible to make. Oddly, I didn't find the Fiat G50 a problematic kit and, unlike the other two I mentioned, it looks like the real deal and there are not many alternatives in the scale. Also, you get the brilliant Roy Cross artwork on the box. I also have to give a shout out to Airfix who replaced a missing wing section without any real fuss and posted it to me in Oz by express international at no charge. There are a lot of issues with old Airfix kits and I think any list of difficult experiences in a given year would feature some of their kits, but if you get the original great box art you are breaking even and if they are also a subject that is basically otherwise unavailable then I guess they are a bit like some of those short run kits (especially from the 1990's and early 2000's) that really helped you learn mindfulness and rage control. I had a very unpleasant experience with the Airfix Savoia Marchetti 79 - the fuselage was warped, which I don't think can be put down to the manufacturer. The Italeri version was a breeze to make by comparison. My personal contender for biggest pain in the arts this year was probably the UM range of Panzer III and IV kits in 1/72 scale. They do build up pretty well once you grind out a few sets of your teeth getting their strange decisions on fitting return rollers sorted and also the often horrible fit of the idler sprockets with the link and length tracks worked out. I found things improved a bit of you built a run of them, as you got quite good at getting a feel for them and you became quite adept at handling the real bastardry of the running gear. At times I felt like I was trying to play a fretless guitar with my rudimentary playing skills. In the end, I mostly feel grateful that someone has put out a kit of something I want to build. When I think back to my original days in the 1970's building in 1/72, the range available now is extraordinary, the overall quality of kits is really high and even the real swine still usually turn out looking relatively like the real thing (if you squint a bit, drink heavily beforehand and turn the lights right down). Thanks for your videos - I have enjoyed them over the year. All the best for 2025.
I remember building that Revell Mustang in 1995, and even as a ten year old Iremember thinking that was the worst shaped model I'd ever seen. It almost reminds me more of the Piper Enforcer turboprop mustang from the 60's! 😂 It is crazy that revell still sell that abortion.
Shouldn't you have had "Dishonourable" Mentions as this is a worst kit list?! The worst kit I have is the 1:600 Airfix HMS Ark Royal. the reason is that apart from serious flash on many of the really tiny parts, is the aircraft, which have seriously large positive ejector pin marks on the undersides, which also have flash. they are so difficult to remove as they are so close to the intentional pins that represent the undercarriage
I only say it that way because I’d only ever seen it written as a child, it wasn’t until I was older that people told me there are other ways. But, I do what I want and it doesn’t bother me if people say it other ways
worst model that i have come across this year was an Airfix M36 in 1/35 , not a bad kit but doesn't stand up to the incredibly high quality average of the kits i buy 😅
The recent Airfix 1/48 Hurricane is a really horrible kit. It's the sort of model that should be a walk in the park to make, and ideal for a new modeller. However, the fit and alignment of some parts might put some younger modellers off the hobby forever, as some serious surgery is needed in places.
Really? I made an earlier boxing of it probably - about a couple of years ago or so - and it went together absolutely fine! You must have got a warped/defective molding; mine was almost of a Tamiya 'shake 'n bake' standard!
@stevesstuff1450 - I'm not the only one - the wing spar simply does not fit. And there are various fit misalignments on it. It might be part of a shonky batch, but I won't be getting another.
Well, the AT-9 was a terrible airplane, so why should the kit be any better? But don't take my word for it. My Dad's old business partner, John C., once gave an indirect assessment of the plane. He was learning to fly the venerable B-25 during WWII and had just completed his ground training when the class instructor told the students to pair up with a check-ride pilot. John looked around the pool of instructors and realized all of them were his age or younger except for one older man who had to be at least 35. That's the guy he picked, but when they reached their bird and climbed into the cockpit, he noticed the captain didn't say anything, so John asked him what to do first. He replied, "I don't know; I've never flown a B-25 before". This really confused John because the instructors were supposed to be experienced B-25 pilots. When questioned about this, the captain said, "I lied about it because I was training student pilots in the AT-9 and had to get out of those damned crates before one of them killed me." In the end John and the Captain decided to check each other out in the plane by first reviewing the manual and checklist. Once they got it started, they took off and flew patterns until each man felt competent in it.
I have built the Airfix Tiger in the 80s, when I was a teen. Well, I was very disappointed... Didn't enjoy to work on it. Same thing for the Airfix 1/72 Sherman.
Mistercraft is a badge of shame. However, if one is skilled enough to fiddle with their decals there are some nice offerings to be had and used on better plastic kits with less than interesting markings included.
@@ModelMinutes I have not tried that. Only Bf 109F, IL 2, FW 190D, FW 190A - all very bad plastic. Made good use of some decals on the cheap, though. I remember the 109F kit costing me less than some cheap aftermarket decals.
@garethjones9371 Fly models released the G50 a few years back. Injection kit but with some resin. Probably little more to pay than Airfix, but it's better quality.
I have never built the Revell P 51D Mustang and having seen your quick break-down I'm glad I haven't! It looks like a poorly conceived toy. I am not a stickler for pedantic accuracy but, even on your video I could see massive issues with the line and detail on this 'kit'. They really should not be putting this rubbish out, bin the tool or melt it down to make something more useful like paper clips. As you said, Revell at the very least should make it clear as Airfix do that this is an old (ancient!) tool and therefore will not be up to modern standards. Imagine a new potential modeller getting one of these? It would probably put them off plastic modelling for life!
The problem is that it sits in similar boxings to much more recently tooled kits. To the casual modeller buying the model in the shop, it is a bit of a lucky dip whether you are getting a 2010 tooling which is pretty decent, or something like this that might put you off the hobby
@@ModelMinutes That's the main issue isn't it? Revell and all manufacturers should be open and honest and put a clear indication of the tooling date on all kits.
of course, if you choose all sub-brands known for making inaccurate and coarse models, you certainly can't draw up a ‘best of...’ list. try building something made by brands that pay more attention to mould quality, materials and historical fidelity of the models and you will have a better modelling experience.
Mistercraft is the kind of manufacturer that will sell a Messerschmitt kit and it will come with the tooling for a spitfire. I loved this video by the way.
I bought a Mistercraft Mustang kit a few years ago because it included Swiss (if memory serves me right) markings. The two halves of the fuselage literally seemed to be different scales! I gave up on it pdq.
Enjoyed the video and how you made the best of such poor models. If anyone found a Tiger in such good condition, anywhere, it would be bought and re-built! People drag tanks out of Russian marshes as there's a lot of museums who would love a running Tiger.
Agreed, that Mustang is a terrible kit. I built it a few months back with my Godson. Firstly I'm glad I didn't waste any paint on it and secondly I hope it hasn't put him off building kits in the future
it can be a bit hard, some kits I simply don't enjoy but might be technically fine to build. Whilst some more challenging kits could be more fun, it is about finding that balance
I STARTED ABOUT A YEAR AGO AND SO FAR HAVE BUILT ABOUT 15 MODELS .MISTAKES HAVE BEEN MADE .AS A NOVICE I DONT LIKE THE REVELL KITS AT ALL .I STICK TO AIRFIX OR ACADEMY .
I have actually spoken to a rep from Revell, they are looking at taking on board some of these concerns. Granted, it will take time to effect their entire range but I hope we start to see change soon
Vintage Classics are aimed at buyers like me, older modellers who want to relive the fun of their youth. We know what we’re getting. Modellers who judge them by today’s standards should go elsewhere.
in some respects that is true, and whilst Airfix is very transparent with the tooling age and information, I have experienced some of their vintage classic kits to be better than others. For example, the F-80 was a great build for its age and I seriously considered mentioning it in the "best of 2024" video. It would be entirely possible to rank the vintage classic kits from best to worst if anyone wanted to
If i remember correctly I have build videos on these Airfix Vintage Classic kits: Fiat G.50 Rotodtyne F-80 Shooting Star Tiger 1 Fokker Dr.1 (the Bristol F.2B is built just needs editing) Brewster Buffalo Bristol Bloodhound Sdk.Kfz.234 Armoured Car Hawker Demon Churchill Mk.VII And whilst not technically a vintage classic at the time of building, if they were ever brought back into the range they definitely would be: AW Sea Hawk Westland Lysander Sherman M4A2 Cutty Sark SBD Dauntless Angel Interceptor HMS Victory There may be a couple I have missed, but I have definitely dabbled with vintage toolings. Some are naturally offical "Vintage Classic" kits released in the last few years, but i have also picked up a few here and there that are genuinely a vintage production Edit, i would need to build some more before I could consider ranking them from best to worst
Are you sure you make 2 kits a month? If you post every saterday, dosent that mean that you make 3-4 models a month? Just wondering. Happy New Year from the U S
@ModelMinutes , oh okay. I'm kinda slow. But I still LOVE your videos and use them as references. I just finished working an an F4F-4 Wildcat Airfix and now I'm doing a vintage kit, a Churchill VII and used your old video as reference. I wanted to enhance my painting skills, as I always airbrush, so I decided to paint it. It looks good so far, I'm trying to build a diorama with it to.Thanks for replying.
I've had a few comments about this now, and i think i know what is happening. All my videos are recorded in English by myself. I have never used an ai translator to dub videos into other languages (hence why I am also writing this in English). As of December 2024 youtube has introduced an automatic dubbing feature, which I didn't even realise has been turned on. This is what you are probably experiencing - it is nothing to do with me, it is a UA-cam feature. I will look at turning it off
Dora wings kits are stillkind of short run feeĺing to me. Great prototypes but demands a building skills like scrath building of joints. And their masks are better to use as drafts and cut them new....
I only have one smer kit in the stash at the moment, a Spitfire Vb, but it didn't look terrible. Not great, but still not worse than some other other kits I have seen or built
I have moved away from Airfix and Revelle. Tend to use Tamiya kits now. The level of detail is very good. I use a mix of Humbrol, Vallejo, Tamiya and SMS paints too. Had issues with Airfix ship kits where the tooling is way too old
Unfair to include any of those Airfix products. At least Airfix are honest and do not attempt to hide the fact you are buying models moulded from tools made in the 50’s and 60’s…..
I disagree. If we start giving companies a "free pass" simply because they let us know that a model kit is old, they will never strive to improve and release new toolings. Instead they will just keep selling the old toolings because we have accepted that reality. I have no problem with companies being open and honest with their toolings, and using vintage kits to help fund the R&D for new ones, but I think reminding the companies that simple reboxing old kits is not something that the majority of the modelling community is content with. Plus, some vintage kits are still worse than others (and there was even a vintage kit that made its way onto my "best of 2024" list this year)
Fokker Doctor Uno? (min 7.25). Respetuosamente, sus videos serian mejores si dejara de usar traductores de software y simplemente los hiciera en el idioma original y subtitulados, en caso de querer llegar a distintas audiencias. Por si acaso..Dr 1 significa Dreidekker 1 ( triplano modelo 1).
oh i think i know what is happening. All my videos are recorded in English by myself. I have never used an ai translator to dub videos into other languages (hence why I am also writing this in English). As of December 2024 youtube has introduced an automatic dubbing feature, which I didn't even realise has been turned on. This is what you are probably experiencing - it is nothing to do with me, it is a UA-cam feature. I will look at turning it off
I buy new tool kits too. It's not exactly gonna be surprise that old models would be bad . . . Plus, as i mentioned in an earlier comment, nothing in this video is technically older than about 15 years since they were manufactured. Some of the re-releases are as new as 2023 so companies still think it is fine to sell these old kits and are still manufacturing them in the modern day
I've had a few comments about this now, and i think i know what is happening. All my videos are recorded in English by myself. I have never used an ai translator to dub videos into other languages (hence why I am also writing this in English). As of December 2024 youtube has introduced an automatic dubbing feature, which I didn't even realise has been turned on. This is what you are probably experiencing - it is nothing to do with me, it is a UA-cam feature. I will look at turning it off
I have been modeling for 65+ years. So, I may be able to provide a little insight. Those toolings from the 1950's and 60's are not meant to be historically accurate. They were intended as toys for little boys of that era. As long as it looked reasonably correct, that was all that was necessary; to keep a boy occupied. It wasn't until the 70's that companies started to make an attempt at the historical part of it. A lot of companies from that era have bit the dust. Aurora, the original Revell, etc. That's one part of modeling I don't miss.
There was a definite element of imagination filling in the gaps, so it wasn't so much of a problem at the time. The problem that arises these days however are those same kits being sold be companies that don't indicate the age of the toolings. Especially when they are alongside newer, more accurate toolings in their range. This results in a very inconsistent brand identity and can ruin a modeller's experience with that kit and company
@@ModelMinutes And we all understand that the company in question is Revell :)
@@ModelMinutes Particularly in the case of a company selling the molds to a different company, who issues the kits with a complete rebox (as opposed to the Airfix Classics kits, where you know in advance you're just getting a kit produced from old molds), they don't tell you how old the molds are because the ready availability of information on the Net can inform people not only of whether a kit is new tooling, but go over the details (or lack of them) in reviews and build logs; in order to try to recover what they spent on acquiring the molds -- which may not have been well-treated by the original owners -- doing their best to conceal their age directly helps their bottom line.
Became an honorary member less than 24 hours ago and i have my name in the credits, man you work fast 😁
Sometimes I work fast, other times not so much lol
What I hate the most about that Revell Mustang or all of Mistercraft is that they have the potential to turn people away from the hobby, since they'll think this is the standard they should expect from model kits.
Yes, this is 100% true. It is a conversation i have had with the head of brand with Airfix in the past - who understand that a positive experience is likely to encourage repeat modelling and create a lifelong modeller
Well, Mistercraft is very cheap so quality reflects price. Smer is better in this regard tho, at least decals are decent. Revell on the other hand. Gosh that Mustang looked terrible even for 1960s kit.
@@davidkopecky6687 I agree, the proportions are so weird ! How long is that nose?
I've argued this for many years. For example, father and son have just watched Goldfinger and love the car. They see the ancient Airfix Aston Martin and build it together. They aren't expecting ejection seats or revolving number plates, but nothing fits, nothing sits right, they end up with an awful build. Are they likely to build another kit? It's unlikely. On the other hand, they've watched Battle of Britain and see a Tamiya 1/48 Spitfire. Boy what a beautiful build! What's going to encourage them to get in to the hobby?
@@MisterHampshire The price of Tamiya kits steers most folks clear. What I hate most about rivet counters is that they can't distinguish between a model and a replica and think they are interchangeable. Wrong.
"Did I have fun, and enjoy building the model?"
THAT, is the point. Well done!!!
Thanks!
The Airfix "vintage classics" Tiger is a model of the partially derelict vehicle that was (at the time the kit was designed) kept at Aberdeen Proving Ground. This is why details like the exhaust covers, tools and "rucksack" are missing.
I’d heard this story before, but others have questioned how true it might be
A bit unfair to add the Airfix vintage range, as your know what you’re getting. An old tool with all that goes with it.
Just because someone tells you that the kit is bad, doesn't mean you then ignore that the kit is bad . . .
Everything is vintage but the price...when "classic" means inaccurate and flash-ridden...Old airfix fanboys never cease to amaze...
@akula9713 the ethics of companies' marketing kits with sprue castings dating from a human lifetime back messes with my head. If it's "okay" to do this, I don't think it shouldn't be published if they're poor kits. Younger modellers could be unaware. I do note Airfix now label Vintage Classic on the box.
@@85inexact sometimes with an older tooled kit, the challenge is to make a silk purse out of a pigs ear. Some older kits I enjoy, others are sources of frustration. It’s a great hobby that keeps me away from the pub and loose women.😂
At least Airfix tells you on the box it's old. Revell does not for instance.
10:20 fun fact: very early Tigers didn't have the rear turret storage bin. It was thought during the design stage that the Tiger had enough storage space inside. However in practice, crews disagreed and would "repurpose" the bin from a Panzer III. It was 4 months after the Tiger began operational duty (August 1942) that it received it's own official turret storage bin (January 1943).
Christ-stop with the fun facts.
@@tonyromano6220 I bet you're fun at parties 😅😅😅
Fun fact: the turret storage box (gepäckkasten) was named the Rommelkasten (Rommel Box) 😉
Thank you for pointing that out.
@@xRepoUKx Rommel also happens to translate to "junk"
The newer Heller releases with the (very) yellow boxes now include the year when the tooling was originally made, and when it was last overhauled. They've issued the F-86 in their own box and decals (with the same schemes offered when it first came out), and theoretically should be a lot less prone to disintegration.
Yes, I think having a go at that re-release might be worth a visit to see if it is a better version. That being said however, I haven't experienced any proper heller boxings in recent years so I would be keen to try some of their newer toolings
Dora Wings is a short run manufacturer, so the kits are not easy like mainstream kits. Often instructions are full of mistakes. The trailing edges are intentionally designed so that it's thin, but then there's a seam in the middle which has to be filled.
yeah I noticed these issues. I had seen the Vanguard which is a more recent kit and it looked lovely, so thought I would give this one a try but it doesn't seem to be quite the same in quality
The Dora Wings 'Jeep' is one I have in my pending pile, and I am looking forward to putting this interesting design together. Your comments on the buildability are to be expected - in my experience, Dora Wings produce some very interesting models that no-one else will ever touch so hats off to them for that. They are therefore, not a mass producer of kits but provide limited run subjects as they are not going to be competing with the bigger brands that do all the obvious stuff (F 35B anyone?). That means that their production methods will probably be somewhat limited so a bit of experience will definitely help. I have built both versions of the Curtiss-Wright CW-21 fighter, both were pretty straight forward to build with nice detail. They did feature the lack of locating pins/holes and a lack of clarity in the instructions, both points I am sure they could improve on maybe with feedback from the modelling community? That said, nothing a decent kit-builder couldn't cope with, I suggest a little on-line research on your chosen aircraft will help too. Thanks for covering this one.
Yeah, when i am building models I tend to research them online to try and inform my build
I'm so thankful for the past history of the kit feature on Scalemates. Great tool for us modelers! Nice video, thanks for warning me about that Tiger 1 kit. Looking to build one soon.
@@asdf9890 have a look at Tamiya, they have 3 main tiger 1 models: Early, middle and late war production models, and have a really diverse decal set and design process. I have built them before, and they look amazing when done. They are in 1:35 scale however, and the mid production tiger has some issues with the tracks, as they are in individual pieces and are very time consuming. Other than that they look great!! And are super simple to build!!!
Hi Matt. Happy New Year. I wonder if you meant "dis-honourable" mentions!
Keep up the good work.
Oh definitely!
I enjoyed working with the Bristol F2B model shown in 7:26 back in 1970's. I was a kid and I don't remember it was a bad kit. Probably I didn't know anything better.
Excellent video. I’ll now watch your “best of” video. Oh I’m currently building a 2 foot Nostromo. Though it’s been on hold for the last 6 weeks due to me injuring my hands and having 2 operations to try and fix them. Ps. Don’t take your thumbs for granted. I’ve for the time being lost the use of one of them and I now realise how vital it is! 😳🙄😩
sorry to hear that, I wish you a speedy recovery!
@ Apreciated! 👍
I bought the Fiat, non complete moulding, airfix did send out replacement parts but terrible. I like making the older kits due to simplicity and nostalgia tho.
OMG - The Airfix Fairy Rotodyne! I did the redo on the instruction sheet for AIrfix where we have to clean up/replace the original instructions to update them a bit for the modern market. Not sure we should have bothered as it is definitely showing it's age, poor mould quality, dodgy fit, horrible transparencies, you name it (the Bristol Belvedere is definitely in this bracket too). These re-issues are okay for a nostalgic travel back in time but I for one am much happier buliding the likes of Eduard's superb toolings, they are a breath of fresh air! I know that's comparing flintlocks to AR 15 assault rifles but I take the less stressful route these days.
I've got the Belvedere in the stash, it is not looking like a kit I want to actually build . . .
@@ModelMinutes There are many issues with it. As well as it's age, the tooling is for the prototype, not the service version. This means a lot of work to get it up to snuff, it's a pretty poor representation of the prototype too! Hard to know what to do about this subject, no one else makes a kit of this chopper and they're not likely too either.
The airfix WWI set gave me so much trouble and a few of the pieces came bent it was the first kit I have binned. The second being the revell tugboat I bought before learning of scalemates. Horrid kit nearly turned me away especially when I learned it was a 50s tooling with no indication on the box. Partly my fault but I think it should be taken off market.
Thanks for sharing your experiences!
A poor kit I built a few years back was a 1.72nd Revell Texan. It was worth buying for the decal sheet however which was so big it was wrapped around the kit in the box! Useful for Academy products whose decals were so thick they wouldn't follow curved surfaces...
Recently, for Christmas, I got both the Revell 1:87 scale Union Pacific Bog Boy and the Revell 1:72 scale Mig-29S Fulcrum. I built the Big Boy, and it's a really amazing kit (even though it dates back to 2003). I haven't built the Mig-29 yet, but I do know it's a bit more complex than the Big Boy. However, I do not intend to build my Mig-29 fully due to the fact that I want it to look like the fictional, sentient Mig-29 known as Big Jet (who has a simple design). Hopefully, the build will go well.
I think i have the big boy in the stash, will be fun to take a look at when I get the chance
Hello! I confirm for Dora Wings. I assembled the 1/72 Westland Lysander from the same brand and it was a nightmare. This manufacturer should review his conception of modeling.
that is a shame!
Happy modeling year 2025 and safe gluing.
you too!
A friend of mine likes building vintage "Turd" models, but he enjoys building them well. His Airfix 1/76 Tiger 1 project prompted a mold and resin castings of new exhaust covers, rear fenders and turret bin to fit his model. I made him 4 sets of castings, just to see him build his Tiger I well. Dave's results are not so very different from your own.
I admit. I do gravitate towards the Airfix Vintage Classic range. Yes, it's true that the tooling has seen better days and the build takes a bit more effort, but isn't that the point? If I wanted a kit that would (in a manner of speaking) build itself. I'd buy Tamiya.
The Airfix Tiger I took a Fujimi kit to bring it up to snuff. The Bristol/Fokker kit was a little disappointing , as it didn't include the original A stand. I ended up buying a scrap Dogfight Double kit, just to get the stand. My Fiat G50 went together rather well. I enjoyed that build.
It's been awhile since I've put a model together and the companies of the models are a little fuzzy in my memory but the Testor's 1/72 scale Starfighter was pretty poor-lacking many details. My g-friend picked me up two Airfix British Electric Lightnings when she was in England and EACH had important parts missing (such as the canopy). To Airfix's credit, they did mail me replacement parts but I should not have had to go through such bother in the first place.
I think it was a Havoc or some other light or medium bomber but some of that kit required that an important part "hang in space" rather than providing a useful anchoring point. I didn't know WHAT to do with that and I think the model was relegated to the trash can. Have had several models with decals that disintegrated.
Thanks for sharing your experiences. Whilst I have many good experiences with models there are always times when something goes a bit wrong
Some kits just fight you every step of the way whether they be good or bad kits it’s an experience I had with Arma hobbies Mark I Hurricane kit in 1/72. I’ll admit some of the trouble was my own fault . Like spilling a bottle of extra thin over the decals and watched in horror as the liquid advanced so the every colour the liquid hit then dropped the model breaking off the under carriage legs . The only part I can blame the kit for is that the assemble of the cockpit could be clearer in the instructions. As I built mine slightly incorrect and it wouldn’t fit in the fuselage halves but in all a good kit even though I created some of the issues with the kit. Not every kit you build will go together like you expect even those of good quality can have issues maybe you unwittingly create them or have accidents happen or just stuff up the paint work or decals which anyone can do even those of us with experience of 100 plus models.
Kits don’t come much better for detail or fit than Arma hobbies
Some early and very late versions of the Tiger 1 did not have the storage bins at the rear of the turret. Looking at the running gear, the model is of a late war Tiger with all-steel road wheels. So the lack of storage bins is prooably okay as long as the paint scheme matches such a vehicle.
I made this kit back in the sixties, and to be honest I hated it. But it was all there was until the 1/87 Riko Minitanls version came along.
10:07 you put the cupola hatch going the wrong way; the swivel mount should be closer to the edge of the turret than going towards the middle
Interesting, I’m pretty sure I followed the instructions but it is possible I do things wrong occasionally
Hey Matt could you please do a review of the tankom M60 Rise please and happy late new year
Thanks for the suggestion
I’m thankful that airfix puts the vintage classics on the model so I know to avoid them. I just bought an HMS Campbeltown from 1964 because it was $16. I’m now interested as to what the best vintage classics model kit is
I found the F-80 Shooting Star to be a pretty decent kit despite its age
Well, if they were rough kits, you did very well with them.
thanks very much!
It’s not surprising that, with the exception of Dora Wings kit, (which, as someone already mentioned, is a limited run kit and most definitely intended for modellers with a good few kits under their proverbial belts) all the kits mentioned were tooled prior to the early ’70’s when the quality of mole capable from the tooling was limited. As you noted, Airfix are to be commended for being quite outright in stating that these kits are not new toolings so you know exactly what you’re getting. Mister kraft kits you’re generally lucky if what you get in the box bears ANY resemblance to what’s on the box and are all very old toolings and their decals are all rubbish. The problem with old toolings, aside from the wear & tear done to them over the years is that they weren’t necessarily even remotely accurate to begin with and their packaging often results in broken pieces.
You may also find you have more success with using different glues- for example, trying to fix the prop on the rotodyne with super glue/CA rather than liquid cement and Tamiya extra thin works best when the opposing surfaces are held together rather than applied as more traditional glues to one or both surfaces and then pressed together. Also, when using more traditional plastic cement, limiting the amount of glue you place on a surface prevents excess glue from being squeezed out from the joints and potentially damaging the surfaces.
Lastly if you’re going to use lead shot as “weight” don’t use super glue/CA to hold/bond it as it reacts with the metal (I’ve heard of similar reactions with steel ball bearings but can’t confirm)
I’m using liquid gravity as my ballast, a product specially designed (supposedly) for this purpose and I haven’t as yet, noticed any reactions with the glue
@@ModelMinutes Apologies! Yes it was specifically designed for adding as ballast (I think they were modellers themselves IIRC)
To paint modles do you just use normal spray cans?
depends on what you mean by "normal". If you take a look at any of my build videos you will see the kinds of products I use, ranging from hand painting acrylic and enamel paints, using spray cans and also airbrushing acrylics and lacquers
@ModelMinutes I mean can I just go to the shops, get any spray can, use it on the modle ,and will it work?
you need to check that the spray paint is safe for plastic. Even if you go to the shops there will be different kinds. No good getting "any" spray can if it isn't plastic-safe and only suitable for metal etc. Wouldn't want it to melt your kit.
Just read the label on the can and make sure it is suitable for plastic
@ModelMinutes ok thankyou so much:)
Hmmm. I haven't built a kit since the early 1970s. At that time, I built a few A/C kits, 1/32nd scale. for my young son to play with. I also gave him my old built kits from the 1950s that I built as a young boy. I noticed the usual size of this video was 1/72nd scale. Are the 1/32 or 1/48 models no longer produced or too expensive? The point is, as you said, "Did I enjoy doing it?"
Aircraft models are still available in 1/32 and 1/48, they aren't particularly expensive either
Interesting points..... Personally I love the 'Vintage Classics' from Airfix, as they generally are simple, uncomplicated builds and normally without parts so tiny that they snap on the sprue when removed, in order to be 'to scale', something that many more modern kits suffer from these days. If you really want to build an 'interesting' kit, I recommend the Marivox 1/72 SAAB 105 kit, one of few kits I have ever binned... although I did buy a couple more, which I have since completed, and I have two more kits to build, mainly because the kit give you the option of 4 different versions, including a photo recon / light attack aircraft. Unfortunately the decals falls into the same category as the MisterKit decals, ie, they split and disintegrate far too easily.. :(
thanks for sharing! I think someone else mentione dthe Saab to me and how bad it was lol
@@ModelMinutes Yes, it has a bit of a (bad) reputation. The Marivox 1/72 kit of the Saab B17 however is a good kit, so if you feel like doing something a bit different to the norm, get yourself one of those.. The kit gives you the options of three different engines, floats, skis or wheels and decals for Finnish, Austrian, Ethiopian, Danish and Swedish aircraft, including target tugs.. :) Ps: The Danes never used theirs in active service, but a B17 in Danish markings can be seen at the Danish Museum of Technology in Elsinore, Denmark.
Back when I (re-)started my modeling hobby, in 2012 I believe, I was also "tricked' into purchasing that Revell 04148 kit.... When I opened the box I was absolutely shocked to see how bad it was.
I immediately contacted the company that sold it to me (as part of a larger order) and sent them some pictures. They were shocked as well and said they had no idea it was such a bad kit. They returned my money, with an apology, and told me to please not send it back to them, but instead just bin it, or ritually burn it, whatever pleased me most 🤣 hahaha! That was funny! 🤣
They also immediately removed it from their inventory. Some resellers are NOT jerks out to con you 👍
Shame on Revell, though! They keep doing this over and over again, with a LOT of their kits. They have moved waaaaaay down on my list of preferred manufacturers, and I will only purchase a Revell kit if absolutely NO other manufacturer produces that specific model I am looking for.
In general, after having had a few of those experiences, I have become VERY careful when ordering kits and will do extensive research before purchasing anything!
I've got experience with Mister Craft ...It's 72nd UH-1 Iroquois kit....Well,the box art quite stunning and instructions pages was printed in nice 3D CAD but the kit was totally "Mister Craps".I've can't believe the mold just goes back from 40yrs ago.
Given the many snags encountered, i think you managed to save all of them very effectively.
Thanks very much!
If you want to try another really bad kit from mistercraft, do the bm-8-24. The plastic is really cheap, the instructions are for a different katjusha kit. The only actual instructions from mistercraft are the ones for the different top, and the suck. There is a lot of problems with the tracks also. It's 8 pounds in my country so the quality is expected.
thanks for the suggestion but I might try and build some better kits in 2025
I agree with model companies putting the date of the tooling on the box, its the same way with car models, except alot of us older car modelers kinda expect it, and its not so bad being a car model, but the newer modelers who do not have the knowledge of the old kits get turned off from the hobby by buying these kits and expecting something more
I think the worst I ever made was a 1/72 Tu-2 from some Eastern Bloc country, maybe Czechoslovakia. The plastic was weird and the details were very crude. It took a lot of work to make it presentable. Strangely enough, the decals went on well. The second worst would have been a Novo Gannet. Both of these were more accurate in shape than the Airfix Defiant or Bf 109G-6, but that was about all they had to recommend them.
Are you referring to the old Airfix Defiant? Because that was the wrong shape - there is a new tool of that kit now though and it is much more accurate
@@ModelMinutes Yes, the old one. From memory, I stuck a resin nose on it.
The worst kit I built last year was the Bronco Valentine mk. XI. On the one hand, it's overcomplicated mess. And while the details look good (I can't judge how historically accurate the kit is), some parts were literally twisted. And in my experience, the Bronco decals are terrible. This isn't the first Bronco kit I've built and they've all had the same quality of decals.
I think its very clever to incorporate troublesome kits into dioramas as relics or derelict where possible.
I have a 1/144 F-15 Eagle that I botched horrendously because it was my first plastic model. I'd like to turn it into debris for a diorama, better than just throwing it away.
Oddly, I loved the Rotodyne, yes it was a bit pants as a moulding, but it was so different to usual Airfix subject matter maybe I ignored the faults.
It was an interesting subject, but perhaps due for a retool
Same with the Belvedere; a unique subject but the kit needs to be updated.
Matt you need to get the Revell 1/32 F4U-1A Corsair.
I bought this as it was a cheap deal for a 1/32 kit but after watching a few UA-cam videos of it, the kit looks like i should never have bought it 😂
@@spacecowboy107 - Yup. That's notoriously bad.
Oh no, I'm not sure i am up to that kind of a challenge lol
I had it back in the mid 70s; the folding wings were horrible; nothing really fit well.
that mustang looking like they stretched it through a Taffy machine
I’m sorry but the firefly having a Hull MG is not a ‘small inaccuracy’
Also, Ik you mostly do Airfix kits but if ‘Amount of schemes’ was a factor, Airfix do NOT belong on this list whatsoever.
I have to balance the various elements, take the F86 having 11 schemes, but with decals that basically don’t work
The whole nose of that Mustang looks completely off. It's a bit unfair including a few Airfix Vintage Classics in your list. You know they are going to be flashy, poorly fitting and low detail before you buy them. At least you get new Cartograf decals with them. I've been building a number of 1970's Airfix kits from my father's stash over the last couple of years, and they have not been easy to build, but they have all turned into decent models. Sure, they needed a ton of putty, but considering how old they are, they still come out looking nice. A modeller with your experence should be up to the challenge.
I think it is fair to include airfix vintage kits. Just because you are told the tooling age of the kit isn't a free pass for the model. If it is objectively a bad experience, which the ones in this list were, then I think it is fair to include them.
Did you watch the other video where I look at my best builds of the year, a vintage kit made it onto that list this year . . .
The nose looks too long
revell kits are for Aunties to give their Nephew as Christmas/Birthday presents. Shudder at the thought of having one
😂
The 3 item is key! If it does not say “Tamiya” on the box have fun! (Humor to a point)
You should build the atlantis b-29 in 1:120, worst kit i have ever built
thanks for the suggestion, not sure I fancy trying any bad kits for a while though lol
Agree the Revell Mustang is awful and, like the Airfix Tiger, doesn't offer anything I can discern - I am not a rivet counter type of modeler but neither of these really look much like the real thing, they have fit issues and there are any number of kits in the scale that are better visually and less horrible to make. Oddly, I didn't find the Fiat G50 a problematic kit and, unlike the other two I mentioned, it looks like the real deal and there are not many alternatives in the scale. Also, you get the brilliant Roy Cross artwork on the box.
I also have to give a shout out to Airfix who replaced a missing wing section without any real fuss and posted it to me in Oz by express international at no charge.
There are a lot of issues with old Airfix kits and I think any list of difficult experiences in a given year would feature some of their kits, but if you get the original great box art you are breaking even and if they are also a subject that is basically otherwise unavailable then I guess they are a bit like some of those short run kits (especially from the 1990's and early 2000's) that really helped you learn mindfulness and rage control.
I had a very unpleasant experience with the Airfix Savoia Marchetti 79 - the fuselage was warped, which I don't think can be put down to the manufacturer. The Italeri version was a breeze to make by comparison.
My personal contender for biggest pain in the arts this year was probably the UM range of Panzer III and IV kits in 1/72 scale. They do build up pretty well once you grind out a few sets of your teeth getting their strange decisions on fitting return rollers sorted and also the often horrible fit of the idler sprockets with the link and length tracks worked out. I found things improved a bit of you built a run of them, as you got quite good at getting a feel for them and you became quite adept at handling the real bastardry of the running gear. At times I felt like I was trying to play a fretless guitar with my rudimentary playing skills.
In the end, I mostly feel grateful that someone has put out a kit of something I want to build. When I think back to my original days in the 1970's building in 1/72, the range available now is extraordinary, the overall quality of kits is really high and even the real swine still usually turn out looking relatively like the real thing (if you squint a bit, drink heavily beforehand and turn the lights right down).
Thanks for your videos - I have enjoyed them over the year. All the best for 2025.
thanks for sharing your thoughts and experiences :)
I remember building that Revell Mustang in 1995, and even as a ten year old Iremember thinking that was the worst shaped model I'd ever seen. It almost reminds me more of the Piper Enforcer turboprop mustang from the 60's! 😂
It is crazy that revell still sell that abortion.
try to make the greek/polish kinetic 1/72 f16 bllock 52+ and you will understand what disappointment is...
lol i'm not sure I will take that challenge up given your description
Shouldn't you have had "Dishonourable" Mentions as this is a worst kit list?! The worst kit I have is the 1:600 Airfix HMS Ark Royal. the reason is that apart from serious flash on many of the really tiny parts, is the aircraft, which have seriously large positive ejector pin marks on the undersides, which also have flash. they are so difficult to remove as they are so close to the intentional pins that represent the undercarriage
yes, i missed an opportunity there lol
I'm also VERY glad at how you pronounced "decals".
Every model that i have built, being American?
I say it the same way.
I only say it that way because I’d only ever seen it written as a child, it wasn’t until I was older that people told me there are other ways.
But, I do what I want and it doesn’t bother me if people say it other ways
I got the Airfix jungle house in 1/32 scale this year, it’s such an awful build I was thinking of adding Dom Littlewood turning up in the diorama
worst model that i have come across this year was an Airfix M36 in 1/35 , not a bad kit but doesn't stand up to the incredibly high quality average of the kits i buy 😅
I think that might actually be an Academy rebox
It is indeed an older Academy kit.
The recent Airfix 1/48 Hurricane is a really horrible kit. It's the sort of model that should be a walk in the park to make, and ideal for a new modeller. However, the fit and alignment of some parts might put some younger modellers off the hobby forever, as some serious surgery is needed in places.
Really? I made an earlier boxing of it probably - about a couple of years ago or so - and it went together absolutely fine!
You must have got a warped/defective molding; mine was almost of a Tamiya 'shake 'n bake' standard!
@stevesstuff1450 - I'm not the only one - the wing spar simply does not fit. And there are various fit misalignments on it. It might be part of a shonky batch, but I won't be getting another.
I've not experienced that one but will have to keep an eye out if I ever get one
@@stevesstuff1450one of the best fitting kits i have ever built!Airfix kits now have fine tolerances and you have to test fit before using glue
Well, the AT-9 was a terrible airplane, so why should the kit be any better? But don't take my word for it. My Dad's old business partner, John C., once gave an indirect assessment of the plane. He was learning to fly the venerable B-25 during WWII and had just completed his ground training when the class instructor told the students to pair up with a check-ride pilot. John looked around the pool of instructors and realized all of them were his age or younger except for one older man who had to be at least 35. That's the guy he picked, but when they reached their bird and climbed into the cockpit, he noticed the captain didn't say anything, so John asked him what to do first. He replied, "I don't know; I've never flown a B-25 before". This really confused John because the instructors were supposed to be experienced B-25 pilots. When questioned about this, the captain said, "I lied about it because I was training student pilots in the AT-9 and had to get out of those damned crates before one of them killed me." In the end John and the Captain decided to check each other out in the plane by first reviewing the manual and checklist. Once they got it started, they took off and flew patterns until each man felt competent in it.
thanks for sharing that interesting story
I have built the Airfix Tiger in the 80s, when I was a teen. Well, I was very disappointed... Didn't enjoy to work on it. Same thing for the Airfix 1/72 Sherman.
It's a good thing they have replaced with new toolings
Listing dates of the tooling in all kits should be mandatory.
100%
Too bad for the C-W AT-9, Rotodyne and Pogo. Cool planes that are different than what we always see.
yes, i do like unusual subjects but it would seem these kits put up a fight
Mistercraft is a badge of shame. However, if one is skilled enough to fiddle with their decals there are some nice offerings to be had and used on better plastic kits with less than interesting markings included.
I found their Fulmar a few years back to be a pretty good build
@@ModelMinutes I have not tried that. Only Bf 109F, IL 2, FW 190D, FW 190A - all very bad plastic. Made good use of some decals on the cheap, though. I remember the 109F kit costing me less than some cheap aftermarket decals.
Scalemates is handy for checking out the history of a kit’s content.
Yup, I use it all the time
Im surprised that mistercraft is still operational
I guess they sell enough to justify being in business
I bought few of them so I can have something to practice on. Its really cheap and I dont have to worry about messing them up.
I have some empathy with you about the Fiat G50 but where else will you find a good alternative in this scale at a reasonable price... ??
I think there is another version from clear prop or a brand like that
@garethjones9371 Fly models released the G50 a few years back.
Injection kit but with some resin. Probably little more to pay than Airfix, but it's better quality.
2025, I’m trying out the hobby with a 1/48 B-25 Mitchell.
Good luck
I have never built the Revell P 51D Mustang and having seen your quick break-down I'm glad I haven't! It looks like a poorly conceived toy. I am not a stickler for pedantic accuracy but, even on your video I could see massive issues with the line and detail on this 'kit'. They really should not be putting this rubbish out, bin the tool or melt it down to make something more useful like paper clips. As you said, Revell at the very least should make it clear as Airfix do that this is an old (ancient!) tool and therefore will not be up to modern standards. Imagine a new potential modeller getting one of these? It would probably put them off plastic modelling for life!
The problem is that it sits in similar boxings to much more recently tooled kits. To the casual modeller buying the model in the shop, it is a bit of a lucky dip whether you are getting a 2010 tooling which is pretty decent, or something like this that might put you off the hobby
@@ModelMinutes That's the main issue isn't it? Revell and all manufacturers should be open and honest and put a clear indication of the tooling date on all kits.
of course, if you choose all sub-brands known for making inaccurate and coarse models, you certainly can't draw up a ‘best of...’ list. try building something made by brands that pay more attention to mould quality, materials and historical fidelity of the models and you will have a better modelling experience.
"Best of" list: ua-cam.com/video/W54YhUFK0xk/v-deo.html
Having built a Dora Wings Lysander in 72nd, I hated that build, so must be a Dora thing
I've got the vanguard to try and it looked pretty good, i hope that it is a much better build
@ModelMinutes let's hope so, will keep an eye out for that video
Mistercraft is the kind of manufacturer that will sell a Messerschmitt kit and it will come with the tooling for a spitfire. I loved this video by the way.
Lol I haven't experienced that yet, but who knows
I bought a Mistercraft Mustang kit a few years ago because it included Swiss (if memory serves me right) markings. The two halves of the fuselage literally seemed to be different scales! I gave up on it pdq.
@ had the same experience with a revell Heinkel he 170 where the wings pretty much wouldn’t fit.
Enjoyed the video and how you made the best of such poor models.
If anyone found a Tiger in such good condition, anywhere, it would be bought and re-built! People drag tanks out of Russian marshes as there's a lot of museums who would love a running Tiger.
Perhaps the visitors to the site of the tank are arranging its recovery ☺️
Agreed, that Mustang is a terrible kit. I built it a few
months back with my Godson. Firstly I'm glad I didn't waste any paint on it and secondly I hope it hasn't put him off building kits in the future
It must be difficult to figure out what the worst ones are
it can be a bit hard, some kits I simply don't enjoy but might be technically fine to build. Whilst some more challenging kits could be more fun, it is about finding that balance
I also built the mustang and thought that it's the worst model I own
I STARTED ABOUT A YEAR AGO AND SO FAR HAVE BUILT ABOUT 15 MODELS .MISTAKES HAVE BEEN MADE .AS A NOVICE I DONT LIKE THE REVELL KITS AT ALL .I STICK TO AIRFIX OR ACADEMY .
Keep going and you will get a little better with each build :D
Built the p51 ages ago, and is top of the list for my worst kits. Great it’s in here too
The 2d one is a “craftsman” kit.😂😂😂
lol
Revell more transparent with their kit toolings or anything for that matter? You'd have better luck walking on water.
I have actually spoken to a rep from Revell, they are looking at taking on board some of these concerns. Granted, it will take time to effect their entire range but I hope we start to see change soon
I won't waste my time with questionable or old kits. If I'm gonna build an airplane it's gonna be made by Eduard.
Vintage Classics are aimed at buyers like me, older modellers who want to relive the fun of their youth. We know what we’re getting. Modellers who judge them by today’s standards should go elsewhere.
in some respects that is true, and whilst Airfix is very transparent with the tooling age and information, I have experienced some of their vintage classic kits to be better than others. For example, the F-80 was a great build for its age and I seriously considered mentioning it in the "best of 2024" video. It would be entirely possible to rank the vintage classic kits from best to worst if anyone wanted to
@ Thanks. And there’s a challenge for you; you’ve already done 3 of the Vintage Classics . . . .
If i remember correctly I have build videos on these Airfix Vintage Classic kits:
Fiat G.50
Rotodtyne
F-80 Shooting Star
Tiger 1
Fokker Dr.1 (the Bristol F.2B is built just needs editing)
Brewster Buffalo
Bristol Bloodhound
Sdk.Kfz.234 Armoured Car
Hawker Demon
Churchill Mk.VII
And whilst not technically a vintage classic at the time of building, if they were ever brought back into the range they definitely would be:
AW Sea Hawk
Westland Lysander
Sherman M4A2
Cutty Sark
SBD Dauntless
Angel Interceptor
HMS Victory
There may be a couple I have missed, but I have definitely dabbled with vintage toolings. Some are naturally offical "Vintage Classic" kits released in the last few years, but i have also picked up a few here and there that are genuinely a vintage production
Edit, i would need to build some more before I could consider ranking them from best to worst
@ Thanks. That’s quite a list. All the best.
Are you sure you make 2 kits a month? If you post every saterday, dosent that mean that you make 3-4 models a month? Just wondering. Happy New Year from the U S
I post every saturday, but not all my videos are builds. I also do unboxings, tips, discussion and visits
@ModelMinutes , oh okay. I'm kinda slow. But I still LOVE your videos and use them as references. I just finished working an an F4F-4 Wildcat Airfix and now I'm doing a vintage kit, a Churchill VII and used your old video as reference. I wanted to enhance my painting skills, as I always airbrush, so I decided to paint it. It looks good so far, I'm trying to build a diorama with it to.Thanks for replying.
Das schlimmste an allen Modellen war die Vertonung per Ki.
lol that’s hilarious, I’ve never had my voiceover mistaken for ai before 😂
I've had a few comments about this now, and i think i know what is happening. All my videos are recorded in English by myself. I have never used an ai translator to dub videos into other languages (hence why I am also writing this in English).
As of December 2024 youtube has introduced an automatic dubbing feature, which I didn't even realise has been turned on. This is what you are probably experiencing - it is nothing to do with me, it is a UA-cam feature. I will look at turning it off
Dora wings kits are stillkind of short run feeĺing to me. Great prototypes but demands a building skills like scrath building of joints. And their masks are better to use as drafts and cut them new....
I have their vanguard in the stash and that looks beautiful
Great video Matt. It’s always annoying when you get a bad kit
You got that right!
Build old směr and they'll take all the places
I only have one smer kit in the stash at the moment, a Spitfire Vb, but it didn't look terrible. Not great, but still not worse than some other other kits I have seen or built
@ModelMinutes I built this one and it's buildable but like the d520 is straight nightmare
Shouldn’t they be ”dishonourable” mentions :)
100%
I have moved away from Airfix and Revelle. Tend to use Tamiya kits now. The level of detail is very good. I use a mix of Humbrol, Vallejo, Tamiya and SMS paints too. Had issues with Airfix ship kits where the tooling is way too old
Unfair to include any of those Airfix products. At least Airfix are honest and do not attempt to hide the fact you are buying models moulded from tools made in the 50’s and 60’s…..
I disagree. If we start giving companies a "free pass" simply because they let us know that a model kit is old, they will never strive to improve and release new toolings. Instead they will just keep selling the old toolings because we have accepted that reality.
I have no problem with companies being open and honest with their toolings, and using vintage kits to help fund the R&D for new ones, but I think reminding the companies that simple reboxing old kits is not something that the majority of the modelling community is content with.
Plus, some vintage kits are still worse than others (and there was even a vintage kit that made its way onto my "best of 2024" list this year)
Hell yeah
:D
Thank you for telling us!?!?!!!!!
90% these models are vintage, so what do You expect?
i expect them to be in this list lol
Ah, the Revell 1/72 P-51D Mustang. It "looks" like a P-51D Mustang.
If you squint.
And look at it from an angle. 😆
whilst being in a dark room :P
Cant say I got anything from this video other than old kits are up to modern standards. Bit of a Captain Obvious
Not sure what you were looking for, after all it clearly states that this is a reflection on the worst kits I experienced in 2024
Fokker Doctor Uno? (min 7.25). Respetuosamente, sus videos serian mejores si dejara de usar traductores de software y simplemente los hiciera en el idioma original y subtitulados, en caso de querer llegar a distintas audiencias. Por si acaso..Dr 1 significa Dreidekker 1 ( triplano modelo 1).
oh i think i know what is happening. All my videos are recorded in English by myself. I have never used an ai translator to dub videos into other languages (hence why I am also writing this in English).
As of December 2024 youtube has introduced an automatic dubbing feature, which I didn't even realise has been turned on. This is what you are probably experiencing - it is nothing to do with me, it is a UA-cam feature. I will look at turning it off
He keeps buying the old tooling kits he doesn't like just so he can keep complaining about them
I buy new tool kits too. It's not exactly gonna be surprise that old models would be bad . . .
Plus, as i mentioned in an earlier comment, nothing in this video is technically older than about 15 years since they were manufactured. Some of the re-releases are as new as 2023 so companies still think it is fine to sell these old kits and are still manufacturing them in the modern day
MENG, RFM......lot of best China brand.
thanks for the info
Wechselnde Sprachgeschwindigkeit, absurde Betonungen, maschinelle Gleichförmigkeit im Ton ... AI-generated ? Seltsames video ...
Are you a bot?
Edit: I had a few comments in other languages about AI so thought they were AI generated
I've had a few comments about this now, and i think i know what is happening. All my videos are recorded in English by myself. I have never used an ai translator to dub videos into other languages (hence why I am also writing this in English).
As of December 2024 youtube has introduced an automatic dubbing feature, which I didn't even realise has been turned on. This is what you are probably experiencing - it is nothing to do with me, it is a UA-cam feature. I will look at turning it off
All you needed to say was Revell
Not all revell kits are bad
@ModelMinutes not as bad as Frog
Revell has released Italeri, ICM, Hasegawa...their 1/35 "Wolf" is a pretty good kit; so are some of their 1/72 armor
boa dobragem
thanks . . .?
Does the quality matter you sad boys are only making toys.
some toys are still better than others