Posted by Matty on November 14, 2012, 21:04:14 Message modified by board administrator November 15, 2012, 23:31:46
--Originally Posted 11/14/12--
Click on Image for FULL RES Lindberg art for Yorktown CV-5 (left) and CV-6 (right) was used on some boxings of their (very different) Essex-class mold, itself having substantial innacuracies for its class.
Recently, a SteelNavy thread broke out on the topic of "The Worst Ship Kit Ever". This is a theme inherently central to much of my modelling - not simply because I'm cheap (I am, but this is not that story ), nor solely because correcting such a kit presents a technical challenge, and opportunity to show off; no, it is in large part also because, fixing an ancient/classic kit is like putting-to-rights a long-suffered injustice - evocative of taking a time-machine back, magically to fix one's own past - those old models being so integrally connected with memories from youth.
Imagine, for example, if you could go back and restore President Kennedy's head - saving his life - going on to expose the perpetrators, and thereby fend off the Vietnam War; witness the CIA shattered into a thousand pieces, scattered to the wind (as Kennedy said, verbatim, that he wanted to do) - and avoid so much of the subsequent bullsh**, world-wide - so that by today, we'd probably all be rich, with space-liner service to the moon (not to mention free health care), at the helm of our sailboats smoking cigars and getting drunk on the way to vacation in Cuba - where everyone would love Americans.
Click on Image to Enlarge
In any case, the question of the worst all-time (plastic) ship kit remains of great interest - so below I rank the SteelNavy responses (so far) - of course taking into consideration all multiple "votes", but aware that this is not a democratic but a scientific analysis of the scribings of the Humanoids - from which we will draw our own conclusions about what actually constitutes reality. The reality of the absolute Worst Ship Kit Ever - which appears to be:
1) The Dragon "Type 21", receiving the second-"highest" recorded score of 4 nominations - one stating it was the "wrong class ship" entirely, but none actually saying WHAT "Type 21". I presume it purports to depict an RN Type 21 frigate (and not Type 21 U-boat, as getting wrong so unique a class of sub would be just beyond imagining - though this would put it even more firmly at #1). Meanwhile, although I haven't seen this kit - for a presumably modern-vintage mold such as this to get an entire class of FFG wrong would really, truly, unforgiveably Suck Donkeys. For which its modernity would zero-out any mitigating potential for "childhood resurrection, through correction" - leaving it with absolutely no redeeming characteristic(s) whatsoever.
(Yeah: "Remember the Maine" - because this model sure as hell isn't going to remind you of her!)
2) The ancient Pyro MAINE, above, and Pyro OLYMPIA, between them got the absolute maximum observed score of 6 votes - three noting the (battleship) Maine was an offensively-innacurate re-boxing of the (cruiser) Olympia - and the other three finding the Olympia mold to be, in its own right crude and innacurate, to the point of giving offense! Although I've never seen the actual mold, it certainly does sound among the worst ship kits ever - however it can only score 2nd place, as its age and "classic" status again hold forth (at least) the potential for "emotional redemption", if successfully fixed up.
3) The Lindberg HOOD got (at least) 3 thumbs-down, and here we can personally testify: Don Murphy spent what looked like the middle third of his adult life to make a real pearl of this profoundly porcine plastic - in the process revealing to one and all just how lousy it was, OOB. GREAT Job, Donny - right there already, you've helped a multitude to cut their adult psychiatric bills!
4-7) The Dragon PENNSYLVANIA, Lindberg IJN I-CLASS SUBS, Trumpeter HORNET ("CV-5 classs") and TUSCALOOSA all got 2 nominations each, and are all modern releases - just unforgiveable that they should be blatantly innacurate (including on the Lindbergs and Trumpeter Hornet, the hulls themselves, I know) or otherwise offensive. And again, because they're so new they're not worth a sh** to bring back "from the dead" - particularly the first three, for whom classic-kit alternatives already exist - in fact, the Revell and Monogram CV-5- and I-class hulls, respectively - even from way Back in The Day - remain among the best ever molded.
Click on Image to Enlarge
So there's just no reason whatever to put any effort into one of the new dogs, when it could instead go to redeeming a classic, such as this.
8) The Lindberg NAUTILUS also got 2 votes (one of them from me) - as it is indeed a dog of High Order. But again, as an old dog, one that can potentially be made "to hunt" once more - athough, that said (and the reason I voted it Worst Ever, is that) even after years of pontification, I have yet to discover how, exactly, this can be done!
Click on Image to Enlarge
9-10) The Aurora BISMARCK (top) and Revell NEW JERSEY (bottom, left - aka Revell MISSOURI/IOWA-class, right) - each likewise got 2 thumbs-down, as (among other flaws) their hulls really are significantly off/deficient. However these cannot be condemned to score as high as the others, above, because these now are classics and definitely could be bashed - not only decently back into their intended subjects, exactly as I did for NJ - but also into other coveted subjects, I have determined, including a Colorado- or California-class BB from Bismarck, and from NJ an Alaska-class CB or even Lexington CV-2 class carrier! Thus making emminently possible, from either kit, the latter-day Absolution for Sins of Old.
11-17) Nominated once-each were: Dragon LONG-HULLED ESSEX-CLASS Dragon USN CVL Tamiya YORKTOWN Trumpeter 1:700 CV-5 CLASS Trumpeter 1:350 NORTH CAROLINA Trumpeter QUINCY and Trumpeter VINCENNES All these are relatively, if not extremely modern releases - the judgment upon them accordingly less forgiving - and as always, additionally burdened with a lack of redeeming potential for "Retroactive-Reconstruction Therapy". Particularly again regarding the Yorktowns as well as North Carolina, for whom the classic Revell versions (again, particularly the former) already provide some of the finest hulls you could ask for - thus making far better candidates upon which to lavish the effort required.
Click on Image for FULL RES
18-34) Accordingly, older kits each tagged once included: 1970s Aoshima VICTORIOUS, 1970s Aoshima "DDs", 1970s Aoshima "maybe a US BB", Aurora KING GEORGE V, above, Aurora SEAWOLF, seen earlier above, Aurora YAMATO, Doyusha 1:250 YAMATO-class, Hasegawa 1:450 MISSOURI, Hasegawa 1:450 VANGUARD, Lindberg "ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOR", Lindberg "BLUE DEVIL" FLETCHER-class DD, Lindberg 1:900 MISSOURI, Pyro ESSEX, Pyro NORTH CAROLINA, Revell 1:720 SPLIT-HULL SERIES (except Enterprise CVAN-65 and Missouri), Revell CSS ALABAMA and Revell NAUTILUS, also seen earlier above. Most of these molds I have actually seen - many an innacurate (or missing lower) hull, and more, among them - and indeed I can believe they all stink. In particular the 720-to-700-scale ones are largely all the same story: crude, clunky (especially the weapons) often lacking hull-bottoms - these and their ilk were the primary reason I consistently rejected building in 700-scale. But - for the entire group - again, these are old/classics, offering as such the potential for great satisfaction if bashed/accurized into something(s) appealing. Precisely as intended, for example, in my S-boat conversion of the Revell Nautilus.
35-36) The Glencoe OREGON and Revell "FLAT-BOTTOM BOATS" - the latter including CA, CL and CAG CRUISERS (far left), an ATTACK TRANSPORT (left-center), C-3 FREIGHTER (center-right), SEAPLANE TENDER (far right) and FLEET OILER (not shown), as well as the FLETCHER-class DD and IOWA-class BB already seen, above - also each received a thumbs-down, largely undeservedly in my estimation. Because there is really nothing horribly offensive about any of these - the worst being molded-on AA guns and the flat bottoms on the Revells. These are certainly shortcomings but not offensively innacurate - the correction of which is straightforward. While on all of them many smaller parts, particularly lighter-caliber guns (even when not molded-in), can be quite bad, these are details - the easiest of all to upgrade/replace - and not (primarily) the stuff of overall judgement on a kit. Besides, the landing craft on the Revell Montrose and the Martin Mariner on the Revell Pine Island - for just a few among many examples - are actually quite decent. In addition, the majority if not all of these are readily bash-able into other subjects - for example, the Revell Tanker into a Sangamon-class CVE, Hawaiian Pilot into a Liberty Ship or Pine Island into a sub tender. These kits are simply not all that bad - especially when you factor in the Magic of Resurrection of The Ancients!
37-38) Finally, the Revell BATTLE-OF-MIDWAY CARRIER (invoked as "Hornet CV-8" and "Enterprise CV-5") and Trumpeter 1:350 FLETCHER (invoked as "The Sullivans"), received the undeserved-est cuts of all - including two indictments against the former, and one against the latter. Taking the Trumpeter Fletcher first, I know you can look at that kit and think "Jeez, that quad 1.1-inch and most of these other little parts are just shite..." - I know, as I was just thinking that myself, recently. But its hull and superstructure are undeniably gorgeous, and - for the first time in the History of Plastic Fletchers - apparently accurate. Which - for the third time - I'll also reaffirm is the case (only more so) for the Revell Yorktown-class CVs. Again, just about everything else is simply detailing. Of course the Trumpy Fletcher, on account of its modernity, cannot compete with the noble option to invest (a helluva lot) more work to bring back the truly antique (and slightly larger-scale) Revell Fletcher, seen earlier above, from the Pages of History. Thus, the Trumpeter kit must score "higher" - less favorably - than the ancient Revell carrier, as well. However this is all really irrelevant, as neither of these - like the Glencoe Oregon and Revell Flat-Bottom Boats, above - should even be on a list of "Worst Ship Kits Ever"; they're all actually pretty DECENT kits.
Which is why my spare room is piled high with 'em - and all the others like 'em - on all four walls, to the ceiling.
Excellent summary, espec the Revell flat bottoms. If you ignore the odd beneath the waterline configs those kits are not too bad, espec considering their vintage. You almost mirrored my thoughts exactly, espec the reason for avoiding 1/700 -1/720 for so long. This is why the box scale is still my preferred scale of choice.
When I submitted my nomination to the SN thread I forgot to mention the Lindberg Essex being passed off as a CV 5 class. The Lindberg Essex is not too bad in itself. It has its shortcomings but with some work can be made into a presentable model; however passing it off as an Enterprise or Yorktown is just a thinly veiled marketing gimmick.
I was the guy that submitted the 1/350 Trumpeter Sullivans. I do have the kit in the stash and as you stated the bits are garbage; however the hull and basic structure can be saved. I am going to attempt to convert the kit into an Alan Sumner class DD. I am already accumulating replacement bits and a set of plans. Now all I gotta do is find some time.
Thanks for the summary; nice compilation.
Scott S
D'oah - now I've Offended some of My Friends! (LOL)
Seriously though, Thank You for the compliments, Scott - glad you got something out of that!
And of course no offense (ever) intended by my opinion of the Trumpeter Fletcher. I completely concur, your thought to use one to get a nice Sumner (or Gearing) - seeing as how you have to do so much work/replacement topside, anyway - is an excellent idea! And (as always) we'd love to see it (anytime), here on ModelFleet!
I have long known a whole bunch of guys out there - presumably much like yourself - must have concluded much the same as I did; that's why almost the entire inventory of parts I ever decided to mass-produce - just about every last Matt Stein Models casting - has been nearly if not completely sold-out, for some months now. So, somebody out there must be rejuvenating the old classics! (And again, any of you guys wanting to send in pics of them, finished/upgraded, can have a shot at "immortality", with your pic(s) posted on the Matty's Models' website - when next I can get around to editing it.)
Thanks again, Scott - I really appreciate your feedback - and don't be a stranger here, buddy!
I was from my start, primarily an armor modeller. And the reason was because the armor world moves with lightning speed. If a new tank is released, there will be a kit of it next month. Ships? Forget it. I didn't see the first Tomcat on a carrier model until 1986! And then, how people were still finding Phantoms and Skyhawks in their carrier kits as late as 1994?! Really?! Yes. Really.
So I got used to scratchbuilding at an early age. I had no choice. So taking on the Lindberg Hood was really not a difficult choice to make. Nor was it that difficult. That's why I enjoy doing it now. I understand where a lot of the complainers are coming from. In the year 2012 we shouldn't have incorrect hulls or turrets on models. But if it's the only game in town, you kinda got no choice.
And it's really about criminal that anyone(s) in this modern day could release something like a Quincy; or Vincennes; or (CVL) Princeton - something you've never had available in styrene, for 50 years now - with some major flaw(s) in it!
I might beat them to the punch on a next (logical) subject - an Omaha-class CL - by bashing one (down to 1:500) on the hull of the Mirage 400-scale 4-stacker DD! I mean, what the heck: if you're going to have to do some major correction(s) to a brand-new kit, anyway - after paying $100 more for the privelege, mind you - then might as well get started now converting from an existing kit, for relative peanuts. And I suppose you could do exactly the same in 350-scale, on the (very nice) hull of the classic Revell 1:240 flush-decker (which tragically has that incorrect deck-planking, just begging for some New Lease on Life).
One day soon I better do a photo-demo of this kitbash idea, too (before I forget)!
), nor solely because correcting such a kit presents a technical challenge, and opportunity to show off; no, it is in large part also because, fixing an ancient/classic kit is like putting-to-rights a long-suffered injustice - evocative of taking a time-machine back, magically to fix one's own past - those old models being so integrally connected with memories from youth. 
