Quoted Text
Jason makes many good points. Whats the rush - people still buy magazines for their reviews and articles and those are really delayed compared to the internet postings.
To summarize a few points made so far:
1. Shots of sprues and description of items in box - manufacturer could provide this (probably already does on their website). What is the diffrence between sprue shots and CAD renderings DML provides in their announcemnts?
2. Build vs. in box reviews - Do a build review first and it will get 10K hits. First out always gets more hits.
3. I appreciate all the effort and time that goes into an initial in box review. However, put that time and effort into a build review - no AM, no paint. It might take a little longer but you will have a good review out, not a brochure. The shiping times from vendor to armorama to reviewer - still has to happen regardless if its in box review or build review.
4. Knowledgeable reviewers - they are out there. Most in box reviews do NOT go into details of measurement comparisons like Mike did in the Pzr III review. Honestly, I could forgo the accuracy research on many subjects - like the dickermax (who knows how accurate it is anyway). The subject experts will ALWAYS chime in on accuracy shortcomings (see any thread regarding a new sherman release). A build review is going to address ease of build, problems with instructions, fit prblems, options, versions, etc.
However, with some subjects like the M1A2 SEP there are LOTS of experts on this site regarding the M1A2 and the fact that other mfrs have versions of the M1A2, a detailed build review with good research and comparisons to the already released kits would be expected.
I would gladly wait another 2-3 weeks to get a build review over an in box review. I still buy MMiR form the LHS and read their reviews and articles even though the kit has already been released for some time (the mag is quarterly published).
I just dont see the need to rush a review out and do the in box look to beat the ship date to retail (the 2-3 week period you mention). Just publish the CAD renderings and brochure info till the actual build review is done.
Hi Mike ... just some of my thoughts on your post ..... as I see the quicker "in the box" review as preferable.
I don’t know anybody who buys magazines, specifically for reviews any longer ... that boat has sailed quite some time ago. In fact the sales of magazines has reduced drastically over the last 10 years. Seen some figures somewhere about a year ago, all the big magazines have been hit hard by the advance of the Internet.
1. Could the manufacturer be trusted to focus in on soft details, ejection marks, heavy flash or other blemishes like in an independent site/magazine would? CAD renderings are the perfect ideal.. Sprues show the reality of the finished product.
2. While the build review is being done, another site posts the "in box " review, and Armorama loses out on a high number of hits .. which in turn affects the economics of sponsorship,etc.
3/4. "forgo the accuracy research on many subjects" and build straight out of the box, no aftermarket, no paint. What happens if there is an apparent mistake on some of the detail parts, or missing details .... build it wrong anyway?? This is where your suggestion falls down big time in my books. Would it not be better to add that AM part, or scratch the proper detail?
In the modern world of competitors releasing pretty much the same subjects, it’s the details and what’s in the box that sells, IMO.
Personally I love complete builds, don’t get me wrong, but they wont influence whether I buy a kit or not. My mind has already been made up by what I’ve seen, and can rely on a nucleus of really good reviewers. I can understand you want to see full build reviews … who doesn’t? … but why at the expense of the “in the box” reviews.
Ease of build, problems with instructions and fit problems, IMO, are general modelling issues that most can cope with. I have seen cases where a certain modeller had serious problems with a kit and another sailed though it, or vice versa. So it’s possible that the build review doesn’t cover for every builder’s ability either.
Options and versions are common “in the box” review material as well.
.
), and the weekend, when my wife is at home during the day. So that means that on some days I don't get a change to do any modelling at all, or very little at the least. factor in the taking of pictures, and up-loading them on site, and you can see that a full build review can take quite some time to get 'on-line'. 
