Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
Piece of junk!!
Tapper
Joined: July 26, 2003
KitMaker: 664 posts
Armorama: 484 posts
Posted: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 08:23 AM UTC
I currently have two models on the go. The first one is my Dragon T-34/85. This model is a dream to build and I am having a great time. On the opposite end of the "Happy Scale" is my Italeri M109. What a piece of crap! Nothing fits the way it should, crappy molding and detail and instructions that make my face twist and contort the way my dog's does when I whistle too loud!! I cant recall every having spent so much time fixing errors, filling and sanding gaps and holes on another model than I have with this.
WeWillHold
Joined: April 17, 2002
KitMaker: 2,314 posts
Armorama: 1,905 posts
Posted: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 08:59 AM UTC
Tapper:
I hear you on Dragon's T34-85. I'm building it as we speak, and the thing literally falls together. A beautiful kit!
Good luck on your 109
Steve
I hear you on Dragon's T34-85. I'm building it as we speak, and the thing literally falls together. A beautiful kit!
Good luck on your 109
Steve
tazz
Joined: July 21, 2002
KitMaker: 1,462 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 09:23 AM UTC
yes the instructions on Italeri kits are bad.
i have an Italeri elapnat to build i hope it goes together nice,
cause the kit looks good.
but that what i said about my acmedy paner vi that was junk also
i have an Italeri elapnat to build i hope it goes together nice,
cause the kit looks good.
but that what i said about my acmedy paner vi that was junk also
Tapper
Joined: July 26, 2003
KitMaker: 664 posts
Armorama: 484 posts
Posted: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 10:24 AM UTC
WEWILLHOLD: Isnt it though? I'm deliberately taking my time on it because I am having so much fun!!
TAZZ: Thats a bummer when a model comes along and almost makes you wonder why you got into models in the first place. I know what you mean!
By the way, doesn anybody know if I can expect this sort of hell from all Italeri products? I'm not sure if I've ever built one before this and I would like to know if this is the sort of junk I can expect from them.
TAZZ: Thats a bummer when a model comes along and almost makes you wonder why you got into models in the first place. I know what you mean!
By the way, doesn anybody know if I can expect this sort of hell from all Italeri products? I'm not sure if I've ever built one before this and I would like to know if this is the sort of junk I can expect from them.
HeavyArty
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 10:37 AM UTC
Tapper,
Sorry, I disagree on the Italeri M109, Yes it is an old kit, but with some work, it can become a gem. I have built many Italeri M109's and a great many other Italeri kits. I find them to be more delicate and sometimes more crisply molded than other kits. Also, Italeri makes some of the more obscure kits out there. If you take your time and work with them, they can turn out great. I also believe that there are no really bad kits out there, just some take more work than others to make them masterpieces. You can see some of my M109s and other Italeri kits in my showcase.
Sorry, I disagree on the Italeri M109, Yes it is an old kit, but with some work, it can become a gem. I have built many Italeri M109's and a great many other Italeri kits. I find them to be more delicate and sometimes more crisply molded than other kits. Also, Italeri makes some of the more obscure kits out there. If you take your time and work with them, they can turn out great. I also believe that there are no really bad kits out there, just some take more work than others to make them masterpieces. You can see some of my M109s and other Italeri kits in my showcase.
kkeefe
Joined: May 12, 2002
KitMaker: 1,416 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 11:03 AM UTC
I agree with Gino. I have built the Italeri M108 as well as their M109A2(?). Yes, there might be some problems along the way, but nothing that can't be overcome with a little bit of work. I actually quite enjoy building Italeri kits!
Hey... if it looks good, DO IT!
Hey... if it looks good, DO IT!
Ronald_Kok
Joined: September 27, 2002
KitMaker: 484 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 11:13 AM UTC
I doint think that you can compare Italeri with Dragon.
First the Italeri is a old kit the Dragon new
And the price is also at the same level as the kits
First the Italeri is a old kit the Dragon new
And the price is also at the same level as the kits
TankCarl
Joined: May 10, 2002
KitMaker: 3,581 posts
Armorama: 2,782 posts
Posted: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 11:20 AM UTC
I have built many of the Italeri 109's.They teach you to use your modeling skills.
Everyone should have one to remind us of how the world really is.Not all is New mold Tamiya or uberdetailed Trumpeteer!
(++) (++) 49 (++) (++)
Everyone should have one to remind us of how the world really is.Not all is New mold Tamiya or uberdetailed Trumpeteer!
(++) (++) 49 (++) (++)
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 11:33 AM UTC
The Testors instructions for the Italeri M109 series are better.
jrnelson
Joined: May 23, 2002
KitMaker: 719 posts
Armorama: 566 posts
Posted: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 11:40 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I also believe that there are no really bad kits out there, just some take more work than others to make them masterpieces.
hehe... you obviously havn't built the Bison II by Alan :-) That is a "bad" kit. I have no experience with Italeri stuff, so you are probably right on that one, but the Bison II is beyond hope for "masterpiece" status I'm afraid. I just finished building that sucker, and whooo whee was it a dinger. If you are curious, you can have a look at said perpetrator in the Bison folder in my gallery.
Later-
Jeff
nfafan
Joined: August 01, 2003
KitMaker: 335 posts
Armorama: 315 posts
Posted: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 12:10 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Tapper,
If you take your time and work with them, they can turn out great. I also believe that there are no really bad kits out there, just some take more work than others to make them masterpieces.
Agree, some kits just take more work than others, but with enough time and TLC, you can at least end up with a representative example.
Italeri always has enough fiddly bits to stretch out the build, and while that challenges your patience, it also challenges your skills.
Tony_Frey
Joined: May 03, 2003
KitMaker: 272 posts
Armorama: 142 posts
Posted: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 12:16 PM UTC
I've built a few Italeri kits over the years, some have been more challenging than others, but nothing that a little patience couldn't overcome. I still say the Zvezda T-60 is the worst abomination in styrene I've ever encountered! 
I do have the Dragon T34 waiting to be built, it does look awful nice.
I do have the Dragon T34 waiting to be built, it does look awful nice.
AJLaFleche
Joined: May 05, 2002
KitMaker: 8,074 posts
Armorama: 3,293 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 01:42 AM UTC
Italeri was miles ahead of Tamiya 20 years ago at half the price. Italeri would have separate detail parts that Tamiya molded on as part of the hull. You built a Tamiya and you had a nice motorized toy, you built an Italeri and you had a display piece. Many o fthose kits have stood the test of time, e.g., the M4A1 and Hetzer/PzKfw-38(t) series, many of whose parts were essentially copied by Dragon/DML.
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 02:29 AM UTC
Don't forget Italeri's M47 Patton and Leopard 1 kits. Tamiya only recently put out a decent Leo kit (2A5). Italeri's Leopard 1A4 is superior to either of Tamiya's original Leopards.
While Tamiya gives us the umpteenth PanzerKampfwagon Ausf., Italeri produces the DUKW, AMTRACs and LAVs. Maybe they just like to make things that can float?
While Tamiya gives us the umpteenth PanzerKampfwagon Ausf., Italeri produces the DUKW, AMTRACs and LAVs. Maybe they just like to make things that can float?
jimbrae
Joined: April 23, 2003
KitMaker: 12,927 posts
Armorama: 9,486 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 03:13 AM UTC
I have always had a soft spot for Italeri (apart from their figures). As Sabot says, this is a company which will do subjects no other company will touch. As Tamiya and the rest are busy doing the most obscure version of the Tiger, Italeri have an extensive catalog attractive subjects..... O.K. some of the moulds are a little long in the tooth but they offer something most manufacturers don't- the basic vehicle to improve and kit-bash into a good representation. No they don't have the quality of mouldings as AFV club, Accurate Miniatures or even Academy but they do have a range of vehicles which few others could dream about.... Jim
JimF
Joined: July 05, 2002
KitMaker: 717 posts
Armorama: 621 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 05:21 AM UTC
I must say I agree with much of what was said about the Italeri kits above; good detail on the whole; lots of fiddley bits in some cases, but with patience and skill, a good representation can be produced. I like the range of subjects Italeri has tackled, and have a goodly number in my stash, picked up on sale at Great Models, etc., for half price in many cases. Price is good, quality is fair to good, bring on more Italeri!
About the Alan Bison II; I have one of those lurking in my stash, but also waiting in the box is copy of an article by Christofer Tew that is essentially a detailed fix list... talk about a test of skill... when I develop some, I'll give it a shot. In the meantime, I'll keep shaking the Tamiya and Dragon boxes and rolling out good-looking kits
About the Alan Bison II; I have one of those lurking in my stash, but also waiting in the box is copy of an article by Christofer Tew that is essentially a detailed fix list... talk about a test of skill... when I develop some, I'll give it a shot. In the meantime, I'll keep shaking the Tamiya and Dragon boxes and rolling out good-looking kits
Tapper
Joined: July 26, 2003
KitMaker: 664 posts
Armorama: 484 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 06:19 AM UTC
Good detail or not, my point was that they also leave a lot to be desired. I fail to see how parts that dont fit unless you CONSTANTLY physically alter them, fill them, sand them,etc, can be fun. Maybe I just got a bum kit but I consider it poor workmanship. Luckily I put a LOT of time and effort into it and its near as good as it can get but I sure didnt enjoy it.
AaronW
Joined: August 03, 2003
KitMaker: 197 posts
Armorama: 97 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 08:07 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Good detail or not, my point was that they also leave a lot to be desired. I fail to see how parts that dont fit unless you CONSTANTLY physically alter them, fill them, sand them,etc, can be fun. Maybe I just got a bum kit but I consider it poor workmanship. Luckily I put a LOT of time and effort into it and its near as good as it can get but I sure didnt enjoy it.
I think that is just one of the factors in modelling, not everybody likes the same bits. Personally I agree with you it doesn't sound like fun but if you get a nice finished product at least you feel like you earned it. Some people love to do the individual link tracks while I think that defines model hell but I am considering it for my M13/40 since the tracks it came with are terrible.
KiwiDave
Joined: January 14, 2003
KitMaker: 248 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 12:41 PM UTC
I have to go 'cross gender' to comment. People rave about Tamiya - my experience is all bad. The two AFv's I have built were crap, but the response from many members was that these were old kits.
My Tamiya Meteor is crap - and it was released in 1999 I believe. Poor parts fit, vague parts location (wing/wing roots to fuselage is as Mickey Mouse as you could get), poor detailing and major innaccuracies.
My Italeri experience is limited to half a dozen European sports/racing cars. All were exquisite kits. Accurate, heaps of details, good fit and all produced before 1990. Along with Protar the best plastic I have experienced.
I have no problem with doing major work during the construction of a kit, in fact its half the fun. I do object to paying top dollar to manufacturers who are using a reputation based on one or two kits to slip in poor quality kits at the same price.
Regards Dave
My Tamiya Meteor is crap - and it was released in 1999 I believe. Poor parts fit, vague parts location (wing/wing roots to fuselage is as Mickey Mouse as you could get), poor detailing and major innaccuracies.
My Italeri experience is limited to half a dozen European sports/racing cars. All were exquisite kits. Accurate, heaps of details, good fit and all produced before 1990. Along with Protar the best plastic I have experienced.
I have no problem with doing major work during the construction of a kit, in fact its half the fun. I do object to paying top dollar to manufacturers who are using a reputation based on one or two kits to slip in poor quality kits at the same price.
Regards Dave
sgtreef
Joined: March 01, 2002
KitMaker: 6,043 posts
Armorama: 4,347 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 11:08 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Tapper,
Sorry, I disagree on the Italeri M109, Yes it is an old kit, but with some work, it can become a gem. I have built many Italeri M109's and a great many other Italeri kits. I find them to be more delicate and sometimes more crisply molded than other kits. Also, Italeri makes some of the more obscure kits out there. If you take your time and work with them, they can turn out great. I also believe that there are no really bad kits out there, just some take more work than others to make them masterpieces. You can see some of my M109s and other Italeri kits in my showcase.
Goosh Gino you are one heavy builder that is a lot of kits.
Nice work on all of them.
So any hints to pass along on the M-107 or M-109 as I have both but not built either one I heard there was a resin update set for the M-107 anything about a Barrel replacement set ? (:-)
Jacques
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 03:00 AM UTC
Hey Gino, nice to see so many kits actually BUILT. At least I am trying to get all mine built.
And Tapper, the main problem may be that if you start out with new Tamiya kits and then move onto other manufacturer's kits, they will seem fairly crappy. The Italeri M109 is a good kit. it has a couple of problems, but they are (as far as I know) not fit problems. I have built several, I had no more than expected fit troubles. And for a kit that has been around since the 70's AND has had it's molds used constantly, I would say it has held up very well as a model. Having built a wide range of manufacturer's kits, I would say that is a good comment.
worst kit was by far the AER GAZ-67 (the armoured jeep) that thing SUCKED! AEF Designs 2S1 122mm SPG is a close second...yeesh
And Tapper, the main problem may be that if you start out with new Tamiya kits and then move onto other manufacturer's kits, they will seem fairly crappy. The Italeri M109 is a good kit. it has a couple of problems, but they are (as far as I know) not fit problems. I have built several, I had no more than expected fit troubles. And for a kit that has been around since the 70's AND has had it's molds used constantly, I would say it has held up very well as a model. Having built a wide range of manufacturer's kits, I would say that is a good comment.
worst kit was by far the AER GAZ-67 (the armoured jeep) that thing SUCKED! AEF Designs 2S1 122mm SPG is a close second...yeesh
HeavyArty
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 05:23 AM UTC
SGT Reef and Jacques,
Thanks for the comments. That is only a fraction of what I actually have built, I have a room full, been at it seriously for about 15 years. And i still have a stack of unbuilt ones waiting. As for the M107, it is a great kit, mine is actually the M110A1, built straight from the box with a few scratch built additions. No problems with the build, don't know about a resin barrel replacement, mine went together fine with a little sanding. For the M109, the only real change that needs to be done for an A2/3 vehicle is to remove the lugs on the front hull between the final drive. Also, on the top of the hull in front of the turret there is a half-moon shaped raised duct that needs to have the raised flange at the ends cut off to reduce the height also leave off the little boxes that the instructions show being placed at the ends of the ducts. They were both used to mount a failed water flotation system on early vehicles. Other than these mods, the kit represents these vehicles well. Don't build the A4 varient though, it was never used by the US or any other nation that I know of. If you have the Paladin, it is a great kit too. You still need to remove the above mentioned items, they were left on the lower hull.
Thanks for the comments. That is only a fraction of what I actually have built, I have a room full, been at it seriously for about 15 years. And i still have a stack of unbuilt ones waiting. As for the M107, it is a great kit, mine is actually the M110A1, built straight from the box with a few scratch built additions. No problems with the build, don't know about a resin barrel replacement, mine went together fine with a little sanding. For the M109, the only real change that needs to be done for an A2/3 vehicle is to remove the lugs on the front hull between the final drive. Also, on the top of the hull in front of the turret there is a half-moon shaped raised duct that needs to have the raised flange at the ends cut off to reduce the height also leave off the little boxes that the instructions show being placed at the ends of the ducts. They were both used to mount a failed water flotation system on early vehicles. Other than these mods, the kit represents these vehicles well. Don't build the A4 varient though, it was never used by the US or any other nation that I know of. If you have the Paladin, it is a great kit too. You still need to remove the above mentioned items, they were left on the lower hull.
wilson
Joined: November 06, 2003
KitMaker: 129 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 10:07 AM UTC
I like the Italeri kits. They are good value for money and I think they go together pretty good.
I agree that they are not to the standard of Tamiya, but then they are mainly different and unusual subjects and over here (England) perhaps a third of the price of the Tamiya and Dragon kits.
It makes a nice change and a bit more of a challenge to build one :-)
I agree that they are not to the standard of Tamiya, but then they are mainly different and unusual subjects and over here (England) perhaps a third of the price of the Tamiya and Dragon kits.
It makes a nice change and a bit more of a challenge to build one :-)
mikeli125
Joined: December 24, 2002
KitMaker: 2,595 posts
Armorama: 1,209 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 10:39 AM UTC
I agree with both sides of the coin about italeri yes they do some great kits and dont cost a lot of cash which is good if your starting out or using them for painting practice but I find it annoying that when I open the box parts are loose and some times the instructions are a bit poo-pooe, I agree that 20 ish years ago they were miles ahead of tamiya before my time mind you 
but like tamiya they have rested on their laurals and just re-released old kits nothing wrong with that but when parts have exessive flash and bad fit due to the age of the moulds it puts alot of people off and might even put some one off the hobby for good if it's the 1st kit they buy to se if they like doing them and by just bundling new sprues with older ones are no doubt putting people off buying certain kits I think they should look at what other manufactors are doing like tamiya and dragon and re-tool some of their kits and maybe look as to were they place their sink-holes if others cant do it why not italeri
but like tamiya they have rested on their laurals and just re-released old kits nothing wrong with that but when parts have exessive flash and bad fit due to the age of the moulds it puts alot of people off and might even put some one off the hobby for good if it's the 1st kit they buy to se if they like doing them and by just bundling new sprues with older ones are no doubt putting people off buying certain kits I think they should look at what other manufactors are doing like tamiya and dragon and re-tool some of their kits and maybe look as to were they place their sink-holes if others cant do it why not italeri
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.