I have been reading some reviews lately and I have noticed what is one person's thrash is another's treasure. So what makes a kit a dog? I have built kits starting in the 60's so I feel qualified to have a say but I am biased by the poor kits (by today's standard) of long ago. So I feel there are many good kits out there. I think any well fitting kit that is accurate in scale and has reasonably crisp details are good kits. I don't think there is an experation date to a good kit. I can't imagine Meng's t90 or Dragons M1A1 will ever be a dog. Even if you get to the point that on future kits that every bolt head is perfectly to scale, the Meng and Dragon kits will be great kits. We are reaching the limits on quality kits (if the companies put the effort into the kit design). Maybe the limiting factor will be the acceptable cost of the kit.

Personally, I have a "three strike" rule.

If the molding looks like it was done with a candle in the hull of a ship, by a blind man with one arm, I give it a strike. Kits I can think of as qualifying for this: Heller 1/72 P-51, and Gen 1 Tamiya figs.

If the fit was engineered by a chimp with an aptitude for subtraction and it required a sheaf of sandpaper and a tub of putty, I give a strike. I can look at any Smer 1/72 plane kit and find this, and also on most 70s/80s Airfix kits.

If I get a third of the way into the kit, and don't see any hope of it ever getting into the paint booth, or am so frustrated with it that I no longer am enjoying it--I give it a strike. This is largely a ME thing, though, and seldom the kit. As I look at my "shelf of despair" (where such kits end up--sadly in their box probably sentenced to being bought by somebody picking through my Estate sale after long after I'm dead), I have Tamiya 1/48 Bf-109, a couple of Eduard biplanes, and an Academy tank. All of them fine kits, but I gave them a strike because I failed them (my game, my rules!)

If I was to give a kit all 3 strikes, I'd classify it as a "dog". But--I haven't ever bought one. I guess I just do a little work before I buy a kit to make sure that it won't disappoint me right off the bat (e.g. raised panel lines, two-piece barrel, etc). Sometimes I get lucky, others not so much. I think that's the excitement of the hobby--getting that kit and making the best you can out of it and having fun while doing it. That's why we do this, right?

Cheers!

I consider a kit a dog if I can see no way to make it look like a decent representation of the subject.

I can live with anything but poor mouldings. Poor fit can be found anywhere. Many ways to work around it. But if the molded details require to much replacement or scratch building, I don't see the point.

Gaz

Not sure that cost would be a determining factor, cause if "I REALLY WANT to build this kit," I'll probably pay extra for it. So for me, I'd be inclined to agree with GazzaS as to poorly molded kits. However, even those have their uses. Over the years, I've used kits which were never gonna turn out to be decent replicas of the real thing, as wrecks due to combat, accidents, etc. Nowadays though, there's plenty of ways to obtain info on kits before you buy so ending up with a dog shouldn't happen.

Yep...same same

Exactly. Even if a manufacturer decided to put out a bad kit, most people read reviews and could easily avoid it.

The "reasonable representation of the subject" standard is one I would agree with 100%. If a Sherman kit isn't capable of looking like a Sherman, it's a dog. In that sense, I don't think I've ever built a kit that bad. Sure the old Tamiya Panther A from back when my dad was in grade school has its (many, many, many) faults and annoyances, but it looks like a Panther in the end.

That was probably the worst kit I've ever built. I have nightmare sometimes about that gun barrel

I would say if the kit is a real misrepresentation of the real thing like Dragon's black plague line. Another is if the parts are thick, poorly fitting and sloppily moulded parts like Maquette and RPM , and old ESCI, Italeri and Heller figures. etc. Some kits are described as dogs and I've had fun with them such as older 1970s kits.

Any one of us that started building in the 70's or before are used to poor fit and bad details. What makes a kit a dog for me is, does the PITA factor over ride the interest I have in the model. If the model becomes a pain in the ..., and no longer interests me, it becomes a dog. I have built some very poor models over the years that kept my interest, while some better ones ended up as dogs.

My rules are simple, only one of them trumps the others:

1) extremely poor fit
2) extremely soft details
3) poorly molded wheels/tires/tracks
4) extremely poor accuracy that can't be corrected with any kind of detailing or modeling skill- including AM accessories, scratchbuilding with styrene or brass. This is the one that trumps all the others for me.

But having said that, I've only run across one model kit since 1959 that I couldn't do something with to make presentable-- and that was a ship kit. To be exact, the Lindbergh USS Yorktown Essex Class carrier, which went to the "deep six" of "file 13" after several attempts to get something out of it. I say I've only run across this one kit that I couldn't build To make presentable, but there are many that I've bypassed because of the 4 rules above. Among them a lot of early East European armor kits, some of the very first Trumpeter kits, any Starfix kit (loose copies of old Aurora stuff), Blue Tank kits, and a few early Hawk, iTC and Model IMAX kits. These kits remain on the shelves unsoiled by my gluey fingers
VR, Russ

I have built and finished some dogs;
Fonderies Minitures 1/48th Horsa faults too many to mention, but I like a challenge, just not every time.

I have also managed to not finish better kits...

What makes a kit a dog are uncorrectable faults, oval wheels, warped resin hulls, pitted surface like the moon, etc...
where the faults outweigh the efforts required to finish something somewhat resembling the inteded model...

It says "Black Label" on the box.

Very good question Greg.

My thoughts on the matter, in order of importance:

1. Poor Fit of parts. Obviously, if there's a couple here and there, no worries. But when nothing is going together, then we have a problem.

2. Poor moldings. This can range from a minor issue like excess flash to severe trouble like mold shift.

3. Sub-standard materials. Brittle plastic and decals that dissolve in water.

4. Soft details. Like a generally square blob representing a jack block.

5. Inaccuracy of the model vs. the real subject.

Special Mention: Crappy Instructions.

Now, combine all the problems of a kit above and the severity of those problems and that will determine a "Dog" of a kit to me.

Are HobbyBoss CCKW dog's due to their cabs?

?

Sorry. I couldn't help myself.

Man, Russ, you've experienced some real stinkers! I'd add of of the Nichimo armor kits, too. Their Stuka Sd.Kfz. 251 was one of the first models I actually just threw away.

Well, I've been building models since '59, so I've had lots of opportunities. After I retired from the Army I worked a few years for a LHS, so I got to see lots of crap plastic go through those doors too. And as I mentioned, I stayed away from most of the "dogs" out there by looking inside the box first-- except for my very early years, when if a kit was a "dog" it really didn't matter because it was going to be blown to smithereens or sunk in a pond anyway. But I think what Greg is saying is kits that are "dogs" to some may be fun for others. I have several kits on my shelf now that many of you would pass on for all the reasons above, but I find them challenging and yes "fun" to bend the plastic to my desires. I do have to say I have a sizable stock of Tamiya, WnW, Hasegawa, Eduard, and other kits that are considered top of the line stuff if I ever tire of some of the real "dogs" on my shelf. By the way-- spell check got one of my "dog manufacturers wrong-- it's Model IMEX, not IMAX. And I could add some "Entex" kits to the list since I'm talking about the Ex's. There are others-- most of you guys have mentioned a few-- I'd like to add Battle Ax and Fondarie Miniatures too-- but in fact a few of thier kits aren't that bad.
VR, Russ

P.S. -- I've wondered about this-- I see more "real dog" aircraft kits made into "real gems" by modelers than I've ever seen "real dog" Armor or Ship kits. I'm not sure why that is-- perhaps it's easier to mold putty and reshape fuselages than it is to reshape armor plate, roadwheels, bulkheads, hulls and turrets. There s a fair "nostalgia" market out there though for folks who want to build "real dogs" from thier youth-- I was tempted by the recent release of the Monogram half track-- until I realized it's a model of a mythical vehicle more than a real vehicle-- it's one of those I'd consider a "real dog" not because of fit, plastic or detail, but it's like that Lindberg Essex carrieri tried to build--there's not much you can do for it to really make it a more accurate model. Whereas the Starfix kits I mentioned earlier are all "dogs" because of the problems mentioned By others above -- in fit, details, accuracy (heaven forbid) and nothing you do will result in a decent scale model we've come to desire from them.. I think this is what really separates the Craftsman hobbyist from the casual Modeler and from the guy who just wants a toy from his childhood.
VR, Russ

I would consider something you regret purchasing, or so bad in the box that you believe it not worth your time, to be a dog kit. Something with poor detail, like the Dragon's IJA peleliu set is what I consider a dog. The kind of thing that would make it seem the manufacturer didn't care what was in the box. The Italeri M113 I recently reviewed would be in that class.

I have built several kits that would not fit at all for me, but I keep seeing great builds online. Accurate Miniatures are like that for me. Not dogs, but not a kit for me. Is there a hammer kit discussion? Or would that be more of a support group?

If it says Mach2 on the box...a well known French acronym for 'Kits more easily and cleanly craved from frozen dog turds'

or if you translate Zvezda (old helicopter kits, Mi-8 family esp.) from Russian acronym into "Life is too short to build crap models"

Poor fit can worked on, soft/missing detail can be added/revised but poor outline or shape accuracy which requires major surgery to correct is a definite no-no as far as I'm concerned (which is why i've never built a Trumpeter T-62 for instance, the back end is well screwed up and I just cant face the surgery it would need).

A dog of a kit. Hmmm…Tauro’s A7V comes to mind. It’s the only kit I’ve ever given up on. Way out-of-scale thickness in some spots, brittle tracks, wonky fit, etc. And I REALLY wanted to build the model! It got shelved for some months a couple of times, and I went back to it with a “fresh perspective” only to give it up again a few days later. And I STILL would like to have it back—it might satisfy some perverse need to complete such a frustrating project in spite of its many flaws (or maybe in spite of MY many flaws!).
Having said that, I look at a dog as a challenge in many respects. As has been mentioned in previous posts, a model built decades ago can carry a sense of nostalgia with it and prompt me to build it again—yes, the exact same kit. I’m building a Lindberg Gee Bee Racer right now, and the challenge has been to make it better than the kit would otherwise be if built straight OOB, such as I did 40 years ago. Laughably, the box cover refers to the model’s “detailed cockpit”, which is comprised of a grand total of 4 pieces(!). The pilot looks like some strange Easter Island-headed blob of plastic that I strongly suspect is far too small for the scale; the wheels aren’t even rounded on the edges; detail is nowhere to be found. I’d like to think of it as a blank slate ready for me to do with as I please. And that’s what I’m doing.
I’m also working occasionally on a Heller Amiot 143 bomber—also a dog in some respects. The kit has no interior detail. Zero. Mine will. It is otherwise sorely lacking in detail overall. I also built this kit 40 years ago before I owned an airbrush and hadn’t developed a reasonable skill set or purchased necessary (or even basic) tools. This will not be the hand-brushed, gloss-painted, tube-cemented, under-detailed thing that I called a finished product at 16 years old.
A little internet research and scratch building can take a basic kit a long way. It depends upon the builder and how far he/she is willing and/or able to go. Would I opt for the Tauro A7V over the Meng that I’m building now? No, but I still wonder if I could make a go of it.