Starfix

[BWP]

No Starfix here. I don't think I've ever seen one.

A "build something crappy" GB is an intriguing idea. Having already suffered through the Revell 1/40 T-34, I'm not sure if I've got anything that really qualifies. Oh wait ... I do have the Zvezda 1/35 T-60 tucked away ... it's acquired the reputation of being one of the worst 1/35 kits ever made.

[SJPONeill]

The 'build something crappy' GB... definitions of crappy please...? would it be one or more of the following"

Plastic like marble
Really bad parts fit e.g. like MJ's Husky build where one fuselage half was noticeable shorter than the other
Being little or no resemblance to the actual item

I'm conscious in writing even those three criteria that I am well on my way to describing some of the classic kits from Lindberg etc which are not actually that crappy just from another time...ditto for those brave Airfix jet pilots that only had a plank to sit on (noting that 'planking' is apparently quite popular these days)...

[kruaxi]

I built a Starfix Bf 109 when i was young... seems all but a Bf 109, to be honest...
Can be funny a Starfix GB, expecially using these incredible decals of their: seem hand made by a drunken duck !
Not so difficult have one in the Bay

[Dirkpitt289]

...seem hand made by a drunken duck !

That was funny in any language

[BWP]

The 'build something crappy' GB... definitions of crappy please...? would it be one or more of the following"

Plastic like marble
Really bad parts fit e.g. like MJ's Husky build where one fuselage half was noticeable shorter than the other
Being little or no resemblance to the actual item

OK I think that leads to two different types of crappy kit:

(i) The kit is hard to build (parts don't fit well, poorly moulded, requires three hands to assemble, plastic resists glue, etc.).

A type (i) crappy kit might once have been decent, but those days are long behind it (e.g., recent Eastern European issues of ancient Frog kits).

(ii) The kit is not a very good representation of its subject ("it claims to be a Spitfire, but it has two engines, and one of them's a jet ...?").

A type (ii) crappy kit might actually be extremely easy -- perhaps even an absolute joy -- to build.

The crappiest of crappy kits would be both (i) and (ii)!

[migdriver]

what would you be trying to achieve?[dont get me wrong im all for this ater all it sounds fun].would it be an attempt to bring it up to modern standards,or build it in all its crappiness glory,would wiffery be alloud so it could fit in somewhere in a collection?[reject sqn?]

[MerlinJones]

One of my interests would be to see just how bad the kit actually was and could anything good come of it.

Many times, we hear certain kits and kit companies ridiculed. Some even scoff at Airfix!
However, how many of those scoffers have actually had said kit in their hands?
And even if it was a duff kit, could a modeller, without Advanced Modellers Syndrome, do something with it and still have modelling fun?

I remember building Starfix and being less than impressed. Perhaps now, with a few more tricks up my sleeve...

Regards,
Bruce

[Martin R]

One of my interests would be to see just how bad the kit actually was and could anything good come of it.

Many times, we hear certain kits and kit companies ridiculed. Some even scoff at Airfix!
However, how many of those scoffers have actually had said kit in their hands?
And even if it was a duff kit, could a modeller, without Advanced Modellers Syndrome, do something with it and still have modelling fun?

I remember building Starfix and being less than impressed. Perhaps now, with a few more tricks up my sleeve...

Regards,
Bruce

Bruce,

I'm sure you could make a nice job of it but, while I may admire you, I wouldn't like to emulate you. I have a large stash of kits vying for my attention: up to date ones, old ones, detailed ones, crude ones, but the common denominator is that they all pay a passing resemblance to the real thing (to my eye at least). The Starfix kits I have seen that are of subjects I may otherwise build (Spitfire, Me109, P-51) just don't look right to my eye - hence I have never been tempted to buy one.

One thing I will say in defence of Starfix, though: you can at least tell what you're getting from the photo art on the box. Other companies may tart up ancient moulds with snazzy new artwork and packaging, but as long as Starfix continue to put photos of their kits on the box, at least you can make an informed choice as to whether you want one!

I will be happy to watch this GB from the sidelines!

regards,

Martin

[BWP]

what would you be trying to achieve?

I'm with MJ -- my goal would be to turn it into something you wouldn't be ashamed to display. Which, generally speaking, is always my goal when building a model -- it's just that a good base kit makes it an easier goal to achieve.

I can forgive various minor inaccuracies on a kit, even if I can't correct them. It's when they are (a) impossible to not notice and (b) impossible to correct that I give up (as I did with the Revell 1/40 T-34). If I wanted to scratch-build a kit, I would ....

[I've seen a lot of people complain about the ESCI (now Italeri) /172 Harrier II kits (GR.5, GR.7 etc.). "The shape is all wrong!" is the usual cry. Well, I haven't yet built one myself but honestly, I just don't see the need to "run away!!". The outlines look OK to me, even if they're wrong in particular details (which I'm sure they are; I'm not the expert). I guess if you only want to build one kit of a particular subject, then you probably do want to avoid certain kits.]

Unless a kit is just completely hopeless, I think there's always value in building it. You get to develop your skills, if nothing else ....