_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
REVIEW
Dragon T28
bill_c
Staff MemberCampaigns Administrator
MODEL SHIPWRIGHTS
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: January 09, 2008
KitMaker: 10,553 posts
Armorama: 8,109 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 - 10:54 AM UTC
Matt Flegal reviews Dragon's monster T28 tank in a build review.



Link to Item

If you have comments or questions please post them here.

Thanks!
JPTRR
Staff MemberManaging Editor
RAILROAD MODELING
#051
Visit this Community
Tennessee, United States
Joined: December 21, 2002
KitMaker: 7,772 posts
Armorama: 2,447 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 - 11:00 AM UTC
Matt, well done. I an interested in this model and your comprehensive review has given me the information I need to decide whether I want it.
Tojo72
Visit this Community
North Carolina, United States
Joined: June 06, 2006
KitMaker: 4,691 posts
Armorama: 3,509 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 - 12:18 PM UTC
Excellent review Bill,thanks for your efforts
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 - 12:41 PM UTC
The summary says that the kit has fine details as a "pro" and simplified details as a "con" . . . Wouldn't that mean they cancel each other out? Really though, the review should weigh them against each other and give a summary value for the kit as a whole. Otherwise most reviews would have identical pros and cons, with positive or negative adjectives added as appropriate. (Nearly every kit has both good and poor aspects in a single area like detailing, assembly, instructions, engineering, markings, and so on.)

KL
bill_c
Staff MemberCampaigns Administrator
MODEL SHIPWRIGHTS
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: January 09, 2008
KitMaker: 10,553 posts
Armorama: 8,109 posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 03:11 AM UTC
Thanks, Anthony, but all the praise should go to Matt.

Quoted Text

The summary says that the kit has fine details as a "pro" and simplified details as a "con" . . . Wouldn't that mean they cancel each other out?

Not necessarily. You can have fine detailing on some parts and grossly over-simplified ones on others. Just look at many Tamiya kits: great molding, but whole areas as just globs of styrene instead of to-scale details.

Matt wrote one of the more-literate reviews I've edited, with humor, sharp observation and punchy prose. If you would like to take your hand at reviewing and provide the kind of system you mention, I'm happy to work with you as an editor.
ninjrk
Visit this Community
Alabama, United States
Joined: January 26, 2006
KitMaker: 1,381 posts
Armorama: 1,347 posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 06:11 AM UTC

Quoted Text

The summary says that the kit has fine details as a "pro" and simplified details as a "con" . . . Wouldn't that mean they cancel each other out? Really though, the review should weigh them against each other and give a summary value for the kit as a whole. Otherwise most reviews would have identical pros and cons, with positive or negative adjectives added as appropriate. (Nearly every kit has both good and poor aspects in a single area like detailing, assembly, instructions, engineering, markings, and so on.)

KL


That's a fair point and why I tried to summarize in the numerical value for the review. To me, it illustrates what an odd kit this was. Casting textures are really well done and the weld detail is just excellent. Then 2 cm away there is a very crude piece that almost seems to have dome from a different team of artists. Having really well done welds right next to simplified tools or flatly incorrect pieces is just weird.

To be fair, if you didn't compare it to walkaround photos it would probably seem a pretty good, if complicated kit. It's only when you compare details that its faults come to light.

Matt
Biggles2
Visit this Community
Quebec, Canada
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 11:31 AM UTC
Dragon could have done a much better job on the cranes/winches. I had to do a Google search to see what they really look like. Some scratching is required to make the missing parts, and the small wheel at the top of the winch is flat and looks like a roller when it should actually be grooved as a pulley.
coprolite2
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: July 02, 2008
KitMaker: 9 posts
Armorama: 6 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 17, 2013 - 04:02 AM UTC
Dragon puts out a model of a tank that wasn't used ? Someone please tell Dragon to give us a accurate M551 Sheridan! The Sheridan saw action in 'Nam, Germany during the Cold War, Panama and the Gulf War!
 _GOTOTOP